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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AaronOfBarbaria" data-source="post: 6716898" data-attributes="member: 6701872">Making all classes care about more than just one or just a few ability scores is a good thing. It can lead to people dropping the, in my opinion unnecessary, drive for maxed out scores because it makes a 20 here and an 8 there less appealing than a 14 or 16 in both. And it happens to create a situation in which each character of the same race/class combination has more means of differentiation that is actually meaningful to the game, rather than just to the player.Some spells.There are many reasons why concentration as 5th edition uses it has been included in the game. They aren't issues of balance.What they are is, to list the major things: a way to reduce the compounding of spell effects, which is good to do because spell effects are one of the less precisely measured influences upon the function of the game and when compounded without meaningful limitation can result in one character of X level seeming more powerful than another character of X level to such a degree as to make level not at all valid as a means of estimating approximate power, for any given meaning of power, of the character. That's the main feature of the limit that you can only concentrate on 1 spell at a time, and casting a concentration spell ending concentration on the other spell you were concentrating on.It also serves as a way to enable characters ability to strip away the buff spells in use by their enemies, without reserving that ability for only those characters of the correct class, with the correct choice of spell, and with the correct preparation and spell slot. That is a good thing for the game because, quite simply, it is "cool" to be able to turn off the enemy's irritating spells.I agree that expectations matter.No, it isn't. Expecting something to work one way when it can be read to work another is not reasonable.The only means by which to paint this unreasonable expectation as being reasonable is to say "But in this other book it says," and that is why I stated that how things work in previous editions doesn't matter, because it doesn't. If you want something to work how it works in a prior edition, playing that edition is reasonable, as was sharing your opinion during the playtesting period and surveys. Expecting it now that the choice was made to go another direction is unreasonable.I'm just going to cut this whole line of discussion right here because what "feels like D&D" cannot be objectively discussed due to the inherent subjective nature of feeling.Clarifying that it isn't how it used to be isn't meaningful to discussing if how it works now being good enough now or not.Some of us are. Others are actually talking about how they expected that a new edition wouldn't actually change things, which kind of looks like talking about how 5e actually works on the surface, but deeper down is a completely different topic.And all of that has basically resulted in this: people that expect what 5e expects them to expect and use stoneskin in a way that matches those expectations seem satisfied with it, and people that expect something else and use stoneskin in some other way that doesn't match what 5e expects of the spell seem to find it lacking. Some might say the question then is which should change, the spell that isn't meeting this expectations from some other source or the expectations that don't match the game they are expectations of?I say the expectations should change to match the game. Or, to say that more accurately, I think everyone should be playing the version(s) of D&D that matches their expectations of D&D.</blockquote>

Verification