Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 8806658" data-attributes="member: 93670">I think you are overlooking how &amp; why paladin came up.&nbsp; Paladin with shield wasn't brought up earlier in <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/is-shield-to-strong-of-a-spell-should-and-how-would-it-be-changed-for-oned-d.692550/post-8806438" target="_blank">#61</a> because it was an edge case of extreme CharOp where shield becomes a problem, just one example of a cherry on top of the problem exhibited in the many problems reaction shield causes.&nbsp;&nbsp; It seems like you are just tossing out 5e's favorite &quot;let the GM handle it&quot; universal solution in the quoted&nbsp; post.&nbsp;&nbsp; If that's the case then how do you justify expecting the problematic 5e changes to a previously utterly mundane spell taking precedence over 5.5/6e fixing it to the point that a GM should be expected to trial by fire each of the ways it becomes unreasonable &quot;over many campaigns&quot; &amp; then reactively using the bully pulpit of being the GM to rework PC builds or perhaps not make that same build the next campaign.&nbsp; A spell that is so badly designed in the current 2014 rules needing to rely on &quot;You are the gm, you fix it&quot; type workarounds shines a spotlight with see it from space intensity on a problem that 5.5/6e needs to fix with a rebuild or reversion of the spell.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tetrasodium, post: 8806658, member: 93670"] I think you are overlooking how & why paladin came up. Paladin with shield wasn't brought up earlier in [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/is-shield-to-strong-of-a-spell-should-and-how-would-it-be-changed-for-oned-d.692550/post-8806438']#61[/URL] because it was an edge case of extreme CharOp where shield becomes a problem, just one example of a cherry on top of the problem exhibited in the many problems reaction shield causes. It seems like you are just tossing out 5e's favorite "let the GM handle it" universal solution in the quoted post. If that's the case then how do you justify expecting the problematic 5e changes to a previously utterly mundane spell taking precedence over 5.5/6e fixing it to the point that a GM should be expected to trial by fire each of the ways it becomes unreasonable "over [I][B][U]many[/U][/B][/I] campaigns" & then reactively using the bully pulpit of being the GM to rework PC builds or perhaps not make that same build the next campaign. A spell that is so badly designed in the current 2014 rules needing to rely on "You are the gm, you fix it" type workarounds shines a spotlight with see it from space intensity on a problem that 5.5/6e needs to fix with a rebuild or reversion of the spell. [/QUOTE]

Verification