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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 6408228" data-attributes="member: 7635">Funny you should mention that.I was working on my own Ravenloft Placeholder rules, which took into account the restrictions of editions past. In doing so, I noticed a trend in Ravenloft rules: as the editions got higher, they somehow felt obligated to pile on more-and-more restrictions to each class when they reprinted the rules. If one goes back to the original box sets (either the black or red), there were few direct nerfs and most were situational (IE: most immunities fail vs a dark lord or domain ability). Paladin's lost disease immunity, clerics and paladin's turned at -2 levels, bards halved their "know stuff" percentile, and animal companions couldn't challenge a lord, but that was it. Spells were nerfed (or in some evil cases, buffed) but you could avoid that by not casting those spells. Both the priest and wizard spell list were full of non-affected spells. Even then, most fell into a few hard rules (no easy escapes from RL, no plot-ruining divinations, no summons, and weakened anti-undead spells). Thing is, come about Domains of Dread, the tone changed. The idea was that PCs needed more "gimping" to make the game feel deadlier. Whereas before only a few classes got some abilities restricted, ALL classes got whacked with the nerfstick. In some cases, a simple swap was made (fighters lost their followers, but gained a weak ability to inspire others), or the classic nerf was strengthened (clerics and turn undead) and in some cases (bard, druid, paladin) the class was simply banned for natives. Unfortunately, Arhaus dialed this up to 11 with the d20 Ravenloft: classes got restrictions so heinous as to render them unplayable (barbarians making power checks whenever they rage: what's the point of being one?) and the game took less of the "stranger in a strange land" vibe of earlier boxes and reduced it to a mechanical bull-ride: last as long as you can. That said, even if the DM here was a fan of the 3.5 Ravenloft Player's Handbook (also known as the "Make a Power Check every level" edition) gimping a bunch of classes with the short-rest restriction is just... inelegant. There is no thematic reason, and Ravenloft never restricted rest before (well, one could draw that out of the psionic PSP rules, I guess). Sounds more like a "I don't like this new rule, therefore I'm going to do all I can to make it unusable".The math still doesn't add up to two serviceable rests. RL days are 24 hours. 0:00 (Midnight) to 8:00: Long rest (8 hrs)8:01 to 10:00: three hours of adventure10:01 to 12:00 short rest12:01 to 19:00 eight hours of adventure (no rests)19:01 to 20:00 short rest20:01 to 23:59 three hours of adventure0:00 new day, time for bed.  This assumes a short rest two hours after the long rest and two hours before; if you use your short rest five hours after your long rest, you cannot short rest before you can use your long rest. Therefore, while you could (in theory) fit in two short rests if you use your first within the first four hours of the day, and only if you want your second rest before bed. Ironically, that would make his character STRONGER than the wizard or cleric; 1 spell slot refreshed daily vs. 2 for a whole week (or more)? Ravenloft still requires some house-ruling, but this is a ham-handed way to keeping PCs meek.</blockquote>

Verification