Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5974811" data-attributes="member: 54877">Or if you use something like I discussed in the last post, then stack the difficulty numbers on the sustains.&nbsp; The more spells you have going, the more likely you are to lose them when you need them most.&nbsp;I like mechanics like this rather than hard limits, because even though there are still mathematical points at which hard limits occur, no one wants to get near them.&nbsp; It leaves you in this fuzzy area where each player has a real decision to make.&nbsp; Do you want 2 reliable buffs, 3 somewhat less reliable buffs, or 4+ buffs where you pretty much know that you'll lose a couple as soon as something goes awry? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5974811, member: 54877"] Or if you use something like I discussed in the last post, then stack the difficulty numbers on the sustains. The more spells you have going, the more likely you are to lose them when you need them most. I like mechanics like this rather than hard limits, because even though there are still mathematical points at which hard limits occur, no one wants to get near them. It leaves you in this fuzzy area where each player has a real decision to make. Do you want 2 reliable buffs, 3 somewhat less reliable buffs, or 4+ buffs where you pretty much know that you'll lose a couple as soon as something goes awry? :D [/QUOTE]

Verification