Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Blackbrrd" data-source="post: 7652666" data-attributes="member: 63962">I love the concept, but I think there are some big issues.Let's say you have a Tiefling Wizard with Flaming Sphere. It does 1d4+5(int)+2(2xfeat)+1(magic) = 10.5 automatic damage each round the sphere starts adjacent to the Dragon. It costs the Wizard a minor action to maintain and a move action to move. He can use magic missile in addition for 7 auto-damage. A typical twin-strike crossbow wielding ranger has 2x attacks with +5(dex)+3(weapon)+1magic+1feat=55% chance of hitting for 1d10+2 and a +70% chance of 1d8 quarry damage for a total of ~14damage a round. Total damage: 10.5+7+14= 31.5. These two characters alone do enough damage to take the dragon out in 6-7 rounds, so a full party should do it in 3-4 rounds.I am a bit unsure of the rules though. The first rule seems to just make melee characters more or less useless, while the second rule seems to be basically making you unable to attack for a long period. I think the second rule should be worse for ranged characters and less daunting for melee to balance it out and stopping the encounter from being a continual: "I roll a skill check / I am blind" encounter.Let's take the wizard from my first post, he would not move and try to overcome rule #2 any round he is blinded. Not too terrible. The same goes for the Ranger. A Fighter would probably be sliding to his death trying to follow the dragon, being blinded. Quite possibly starting rounds both prone and blinded.Maybe have the second rule just affect characters that haven't moved. It would balance it out between melee/ranged at least. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification