Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MwaO" data-source="post: 8870566" data-attributes="member: 12749">Yup, all this. I think in general, Jeremy Crawford(or someone who works for Crawford) sets out design guidelines, and then R&amp;D kind of follows them? Part of the problem of fuzziness in game design is sometimes no one is clear what one hand is doing — as an example, 5e's typical campaign hands out 1 good permanent magic item per 4 levels, 1 good consumable per level. You likely end up with the equivalent of a +3 weapon if that's something important to you.You just don't have assurances of specifically a +3 weapon. Which ends up with a lot of mess — Adventurer's League has strong incentives to hand out double the magic items of a typical 5e campaign as an example.I redid the spellcaster NPCs in 5e in 2016 to be more 4e style design — all spells and effects on a single page, hp more monster style,&nbsp; and put them on dmsguild. Worked out well, made over $100 from them so far.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MwaO, post: 8870566, member: 12749"] Yup, all this. I think in general, Jeremy Crawford(or someone who works for Crawford) sets out design guidelines, and then R&D kind of follows them? Part of the problem of fuzziness in game design is sometimes no one is clear what one hand is doing — as an example, 5e's typical campaign hands out 1 good permanent magic item per 4 levels, 1 good consumable per level. You likely end up with the equivalent of a +3 weapon if that's something important to you.You just don't have assurances of specifically a +3 weapon. Which ends up with a lot of mess — Adventurer's League has strong incentives to hand out double the magic items of a typical 5e campaign as an example. I redid the spellcaster NPCs in 5e in 2016 to be more 4e style design — all spells and effects on a single page, hp more monster style, and put them on dmsguild. Worked out well, made over $100 from them so far. [/QUOTE]

Verification