Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 9735862" data-attributes="member: 6779196">Correct.Well, yes, but actually no. Because if the game math was adjusted to account for preserving being weaker than baseline 5e magic, then preserving wouldn’t be a real sacrifice. It would just be a generally lower-power game. I’m sure this is an unpopular take, but I think preserving should hurt. It should be a genuine handicap, and it should feel pretty much thankless to willingly place that handicap on yourself - actively making life in a harsh world even harsher, when you have the ability not to right there at your fingertips at all times. All you have to do is let a few plants die. They were probably going to die anyway, what’s the big deal? You know not enough people are going to make this same sacrifice to make a large-scale difference so all you’re really doing by holding back is virtue-signaling.That’s the way power actually corrupts. Not by offering you your hearts desire if you sacrifice an innocent baby, but by making you feel reliant on it, and like choosing not to rely on it is a fruitless symbolic gesture that just makes your life worse for no benefit.Right, which is why I recognize there’s no world in which WotC goes this route. It wouldn’t make for very enjoyable gameplay. It’s not supposed to. Sticking to preserving being a terrible experience would, in my preferred approach, be a feature, not a bug.</blockquote>