Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 7184496" data-attributes="member: 7006">I do not remember having read or seen anything from the D&D rules about the concerns you posted about, Capn.  Which leads me to believe the intention behind the rules were meant to be straightforward-- if you have the right class that can counter some game effect, then you do.  So a class that can cast Remove Curse can remove all curses, a class with Lesser Restoration can remove blindness, deafness, paralyzation and poison, a paladin can remove diseases or cure poisons etc., all of them at relatively low-level.My guess is that they wanted these things to be speed-bumps rather than killer effects in the typical default game, in an effort to combat the Save-Or-Die types of issues that the previous games put forth.  That way individual DMs could then make things harder for players if they so chose, by limiting or removing these spells and features or making more powerful effects immune to these lower level spells and effects.Just like in the case of encounter building, WotC erred on the side of less deadly so that completely new players could learn how these effects and fights affected their game without it resulting in slaughters left and right... and then could choose to make things harder as they went along if they felt they and their groups could handle it.  Rather than the opposite of throwing every player-- new and experienced-- into the raging inferno of death and destruction and let them sink or swim because that's how the game traditionally played.Whether that was the right or wrong approach is the siren's call of many ENWorld poster.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification