Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 7934407" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Okay, if you don't use DDB, why did you bring up the lack of DDB supporting a optional rule as any sort of proof? As far as I know, until just recently, DDB didn't support Unearthed Arcana classes either, did that mean WoTC didn't want us using them for playtesting? I would think that conclusion is a bit absurd, so why claim that a lack on DDB is evidence that WoTC doesn't want you using optional rules they wrote. Especially since a different company is in charge of that website and coding it to allow the content it uses?Okay, again, that doesn't seem to address the point. You said that the rule was pointless to implement. Now you are defending that with a specific party make-up. What about a party with a Barbarian, a Fighter, A Rogue, and a Wizard. Is it pointless to implement for that party? No, by your own admission in this quote, it will make a big impact on that party. And, I argue that it makes a big impact on ABC there as well. Those are resources they might not have otherwise spent if they are using spell slots to heal instead of buff, debuff, or harm. And, if they were running Ravenloft by the book, I think starting at level 5 means they were starting at higher level than the adventure was designed for, since I think the Death House is meant to buff up people who come in at level 1, but only up to level 3. So, if your point is that a team of magical healers didn't need to use non-magical healing... yes, that is exactly what I suspect would happen. But, since they are spending more resources than they might otherwise spend, that should have an impact. Additionally, if the party is finishing every adventuring day with over half their spell slots unused... then they aren't being challenged enough anyway and removing recovery options isn't going to change that.</blockquote>

Verification