Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 8232420" data-attributes="member: 93670">It's not hate but it's easy.&nbsp; Most of the rules to support a need for functions like that are not included in 5e &amp; frankly the percentage of campaigns that reach 15th level to cast this spell is so small (<a href="https://411mania.com/games/dd-campaign-stop-stats-level-ten-dd-beyond/" target="_blank">Low Single digits</a> &amp; even that is likely inflated by one shots) that you have a spell that functionally has no real use aside from supporting subsystems wotc never wrote &amp; the spell is placed at a level that ensures it's unlikely to be something even available in the vast majority of campaigns.&nbsp; A flufff spell that requires the GM to build rules to give it a use that is placed dramatically beyond the reach of most players &amp; campaigns is a cruddy one no matter how cool it could be in the tiny fraction of games that reach it if the gm creates rules that make it useful failure to consider use cases for a spell does not get a pass.The 5e developers inherited a game swimming in magic items &amp; in some areas made serious efforts to change that without even telling&nbsp; the people writing other parts of the system.&nbsp; 5e is a game&nbsp; where magic&nbsp; weapons are fairly common &amp; any spells that fail to account for that are problematic.&nbsp; Multiple books support their commonality as dmg213 uncommon weapon xge126 &amp;dmg 135 list as 1d6x100gp &amp; 101-501gp in cost. There is also this line on xge 146 &quot;Having no magic makes it extremely difﬁcult for a party to overcome monsters that have resistances or immunity to nonmagical damage. In such a game, you’ll want to be generous with magic weapons or else avoid using such monsters.&quot;&nbsp; The spell is designed for some game other than the one wotc built &amp; sells as d&amp;d 5e no matter how many times someone says &quot;optional&quot; &amp; is not worth licking the shoes of most spells that are merely bad.&nbsp; If that 100-600gp +1 magic weapon being very difficult to obtain despite all of that is the game wotc designed wizards with spell scribe costs &amp; every caster with spell component costs deserve several pounds of flesh from some of the people at wotc.&nbsp; [USER=7027043]@Democratus[/USER] that's great that you managed to do that &amp; enjoy it, but as both the dmg &amp; repeatedly in xge show.....With regards to your mention of experience... <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/the-mathematics-of-d-d%E2%80%93damage-and-hp.678782/post-8227389" target="_blank">this post</a> should help&nbsp; see the problem with overused energy/magic resist &amp; immune+legendary resist t that is always relevant alongside nonmagical Bludgeon/piercing/slashing that is quickly rendered meaningless.&nbsp; The system math already assumes that the resistance to&nbsp; nonmagical b/p/s will frequently be a factor to bridge the gap in badly inverted LFQW damage output. Having nondamage spells cast by the linear mage going an extra step trying to resist LFQW even after inverting it is just gross overkill.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tetrasodium, post: 8232420, member: 93670"] It's not hate but it's easy. Most of the rules to support a need for functions like that are not included in 5e & frankly the percentage of campaigns that reach 15th level to cast this spell is so small[I] ([URL='https://411mania.com/games/dd-campaign-stop-stats-level-ten-dd-beyond/']Low Single digits[/URL] & even that is likely inflated by one shots) [/I]that you have a spell that functionally has no real use aside from supporting subsystems wotc never wrote & the spell is placed at a level that ensures it's unlikely to be something even available in the vast majority of campaigns. A flufff spell that requires the GM to build rules to give it a use that is placed dramatically beyond the reach of most players & campaigns is a cruddy one no matter how cool it[I] could[/I] be in the tiny fraction of games that reach it if the gm creates rules that make it useful failure to consider use cases for a spell does not get a pass. The 5e developers inherited a game swimming in magic items & in some areas made serious efforts to change that without even telling the people writing other parts of the system. 5e[I][U][B] is[/B][/U][/I] a game where magic weapons are fairly common & any spells that fail to account for that are problematic. Multiple books support their commonality as dmg213 uncommon weapon xge126 &dmg 135 list as 1d6x100gp & 101-501gp in cost. There is also this line on xge 146 "Having no magic makes it extremely difﬁcult for a party to overcome monsters that have resistances or immunity to nonmagical damage. In such a game, [B]you’ll want to be generous with magic weapons or else avoid using such monsters.[/B]" The spell is designed for some game other than the one wotc built & sells as d&d 5e no matter how many times someone says "optional" & is not worth licking the shoes of most spells that are merely bad. If that 100-600gp +1 magic weapon being very difficult to obtain despite all of that is the game wotc designed wizards with spell scribe costs & every caster with spell component costs deserve several pounds of flesh from some of the people at wotc. [USER=7027043]@Democratus[/USER] that's great that you managed to do that & enjoy it, but as both the dmg & repeatedly in xge show..... With regards to your mention of experience... [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/the-mathematics-of-d-d%E2%80%93damage-and-hp.678782/post-8227389']this post[/URL] should help see the problem with overused energy/magic resist & immune+legendary resist t that is always relevant alongside nonmagical Bludgeon/piercing/slashing that is quickly rendered meaningless. The system math [I]already[/I] assumes that the resistance to nonmagical b/p/s will frequently be a factor to bridge the gap in badly inverted LFQW damage output. Having nondamage spells cast by the linear mage going an extra step trying to resist LFQW even after inverting it is just gross overkill. [/QUOTE]

Verification