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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9176895" data-attributes="member: 6790260">You're still good at it. You have the proficiencies. You never lose them. You're just not taking advantage of them.This is literally 100% identical to saying that a 4e Fighter still has a mark and a punishment, they can just choose not to use it. What is the difference? Why is a feature in one thing a shackle, and a feature in another merely a perk?Why not instead have everyone be reasonably competent at the things the game expects everyone to participate in--the things D&D has called "pillars"--and then make each exceptional at some particular thing? Because the key flaw with your proposal is that if there are (say) 4 distinct things people can be good at, you're sitting there bored 3/4 of the time. That...doesn't seem like a good or effective way to get everyone active and enjoying the process of play. It, in fact, seems like a great way to make people mostly bored.If you're good in one area and mostly pointless in everything else, the natural incentive is to make the thing you're good at relevant as much as possible, so you can be active and participatory as often as possible, not window-dressing. Why not instead make incentives where players are eager to participate at all times? Why not make incentives such that, instead of getting the most enjoyment by making your niche the most important one, you rather get the most bang for your buck by building the team's contribution, collectively? Someone will often be the point man, the lynchpin, the three-point-shooter, the goal kicker, whatever metaphor you like, but a three-point-shooter without a team to support them always loses. They can't win the match all by themselves; they can't even succeed at their shots all by themselves, even though they are the direct cause.Being a spectator 3/4 of the time isn't exactly my notion of a good gaming experience. Especially in a game allegedly about cooperation and teamwork.The problem is that "effective spells" negates all three of those things, and "most other physically-strenuous activity" is essentially a non-entity in D&D rules in the absence of any formal structure beyond "make some skill checks I guess." Shield addresses the first; fireball addresses the second; and at least seven ultra-traditional spells, which in 5e can be cast as rituals (or are cantrips), address the third, e.g.:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">prestidigitation ("daily care and feeding" type tasks)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">alarm (no need to keep watch)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">find familiar (scouting, surveying, communicating)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Tenser's floating disk (hauling and carry weight)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">unseen servant (chores of all descriptions; being Strength 2 just means they might take longer)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Leomund's tiny hut (shelter, protection from the elements)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">phantom steed (overland travel of all sorts)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">water breathing (water as any meaningful form of terrain obstacle)</li> </ul>None of which require a spell slot to be cast, and most of them can be easily slotted into any Wizard's automatic spells without issue. Don't bother suggesting that Wizards lose their ability to choose what spells they get--it's simply a non-starter, even for me, and you know I'm not keen on things that increase caster power.</blockquote>

Verification