Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 8518882" data-attributes="member: 6987520">Spamming something is not most encounters, it is every round. You said spamming fireball, so I went with that.  <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤷‍♂️" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f937-2642.png" title="Man shrugging    :man_shrugging:" data-shortname=":man_shrugging:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" />Ok, your tone is becoming too condescending at this point for my tastes. We HAVE thought it through, and in fact have been playing this way for months. To suggest otherwise is offensive. So, it works, it solves the issue we had, and we're happy with it--thus I don't feel I need to continue to justify it to someone who hasn't actually done it.I'll do you the courtesy of answering some of your final questions:We are currently working on this, which I wrote explicitly in the quote you cited: FWIW, we are trying to fix this as well so martials have a more exciting and engaging game than just whack-whack-whack. We are adding and revising attack options so players might actually want to do them instead of just attacking all the time. Once we have something I feel is solid, I'm sure I'll be posting it for others to consider.No, we don't. You seem to think the use of magic often makes it mundane, while I say the use of cantrips and spamming them, makes it mundane. Leveled spells are casted for a purpose with thought because when you can't cast them all the time. That makes a difference in the game. If you don't understand that, I'm sorry but I can't help you. We simply have different views, which of course is fine.I never had heard of any D&D game where people entirely removed spellcasters (perhaps one class, like no clerics or no wizards, but not all spellcasters), while I have certainly heard of and seen posts on this forum of people who either have removed attack cantrips (and don't miss them, BTW) or are considering it. Honestly, I don't think I have ever heard of someone who contemplated removing them and actually decided to bring them back without a house-rule of some sort to curtail them. I mean, this is basically the point of the thread and the views in question by the OP after all.Finally...Our 5E mod makes hitting in combat more difficult and making saving throws a bit easier. Now, to compensate, we also have no CON bonus to HP, for PCs or creatures to remove much of the HP bloat. In short, you "succeed" less often, but when you do it "counts for more". Most people feel 5E's attacks hit about 60-65% of the time, which we don't like because like spamming cantrips, it is boring as well. I've posted in other threads about this a number of times. We want success to be exciting and special, not commonplace and boring. A side effect of this is battles gain about 1-2 rounds typically over RAW. It does not, however, make battles take any longer because you have less instances of rolling damage and calculating HP loss; just in case you were wondering.Thank you for the conversation, but at this point I am finished with it. Have a nice night and happy gaming! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification