Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 5909416" data-attributes="member: 5143">It IS too dangerous.&nbsp; Mathematically, this is horrible.I know that in 1e and 2e the math was so all over the place that most people paid very little attention to it....and most of the monsters were so easy to defeat that losing a spell wasn't even a big deal.&nbsp; Unfortunately, when most enemies have 14 hitpoints and your fighter does that with one swing of his sword, the rest of the party isn't really needed to defeat that monster.However, in both 3e and 4e when the math was a little closer(moreso in 4e, but 3e had the issue more the harder the monsters were) it was a big deal.&nbsp; Often each party member was expected to output X damage during each of their turns on average.&nbsp; So, if a monster had 200 hp, let's say you wanted to defeat it in 3 rounds(because in 4 rounds it could do enough damage to kill someone).&nbsp; That means that each party member in a group of 5 was expected to do an average of 13.3 points of damage per round.Maybe that meant you missed 2 of the rounds and hit for 40 damage in the third round...maybe that meant you did almost nothing for 2 rounds and cast a spell that did 40 damage in the 3rd round.However, it was my experience that if a DM noticed that you could wait around for 2 rounds doing nothing and cast a spell in the 3rd round and win....then enemies got stronger to compensate.&nbsp; After all, there was no risk to your life at all if you could just sit there for 2 rounds not doing anything.So, if you could do 40 damage per round with a spell, you'd fight enemies that required that each party member do 120 damage in 3 rounds to defeat it.So, a single round where you were not able to cast a spell could be the difference between life and death for at least one party member.As far as the suggested solution...it seems alright to me.&nbsp; You get a disadvantage for being hit(you can't cast your big spell) but your turn isn't completely ruined(you still get to use your less powerful at-will spell instead.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Majoru Oakheart, post: 5909416, member: 5143"] It IS too dangerous. Mathematically, this is horrible. I know that in 1e and 2e the math was so all over the place that most people paid very little attention to it....and most of the monsters were so easy to defeat that losing a spell wasn't even a big deal. Unfortunately, when most enemies have 14 hitpoints and your fighter does that with one swing of his sword, the rest of the party isn't really needed to defeat that monster. However, in both 3e and 4e when the math was a little closer(moreso in 4e, but 3e had the issue more the harder the monsters were) it was a big deal. Often each party member was expected to output X damage during each of their turns on average. So, if a monster had 200 hp, let's say you wanted to defeat it in 3 rounds(because in 4 rounds it could do enough damage to kill someone). That means that each party member in a group of 5 was expected to do an average of 13.3 points of damage per round. Maybe that meant you missed 2 of the rounds and hit for 40 damage in the third round...maybe that meant you did almost nothing for 2 rounds and cast a spell that did 40 damage in the 3rd round. However, it was my experience that if a DM noticed that you could wait around for 2 rounds doing nothing and cast a spell in the 3rd round and win....then enemies got stronger to compensate. After all, there was no risk to your life at all if you could just sit there for 2 rounds not doing anything. So, if you could do 40 damage per round with a spell, you'd fight enemies that required that each party member do 120 damage in 3 rounds to defeat it. So, a single round where you were not able to cast a spell could be the difference between life and death for at least one party member. As far as the suggested solution...it seems alright to me. You get a disadvantage for being hit(you can't cast your big spell) but your turn isn't completely ruined(you still get to use your less powerful at-will spell instead. [/QUOTE]

Verification