Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 9207206" data-attributes="member: 6779196">I don’t. I said capping out at 4 spell slots at 17th level. Implying that there is growth leading up to that cap. Which there is.If 4 spell slots between short rests is reasonable, I figured it went without saying that 3 spell slots between short rests was also reasonable (which it is). Especially since the increase in number of spell coincides with 5e’s power tiers. You get 2 spell slots per short rests at tiers 1 and 2, 3 at tier 3, and 4 at tier 4. Pretty tame, honestly.Almost like a big jump in PC power at levels 5, 11, and 17 is by design. Oh, right, because it is.Mostly because resource attrition is the primary model of challenge in D&amp;D. Also for flavor. Could you redesign the monk to work fully at-will? Probably. But it might not feel like a D&amp;D monk. Certainly I think you’d run into significant backwards compatibility issues.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 9207206, member: 6779196"] I don’t. I said [I]capping out at[/I] 4 spell slots at 17th level. Implying that there is growth leading up to that cap. Which there is. If 4 spell slots between short rests is reasonable, I figured it went without saying that 3 spell slots between short rests was also reasonable (which it is). Especially since the increase in number of spell coincides with 5e’s power tiers. You get 2 spell slots per short rests at tiers 1 and 2, 3 at tier 3, and 4 at tier 4. Pretty tame, honestly. Almost like a big jump in PC power at levels 5, 11, and 17 is by design. Oh, right, because it is. Mostly because resource attrition is the primary model of challenge in D&D. Also for flavor. Could you redesign the monk to work fully at-will? Probably. But it might not feel like a D&D monk. Certainly I think you’d run into significant backwards compatibility issues. [/QUOTE]

Verification