Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 7952208" data-attributes="member: 6987520">In my mind, whether in combat or out of combat, the encounter is like a story-beat and the DM is the author. So, when the DM says it is over, it is.Yeah, I've considered the other ramifications. Personally, how many spells were nerfed compared to AD&D, I am happy with spells being more powerful. Here are two prime examples:A sleep spell: in AD&D you would get 4-16 orcs (average 10), in 5E you get 1, max 2 if you are lucky. With the proposed change, at least sleep would get 3 orcs typically, and could get 5 if you are lucky. Not as good as AD&D, but better IMO.A fireball spell: in AD&D was only 6d6 (21), but would kill every orc it hit; in 5E, half will save and still be alive (albeit with only 1 hp on average). But the spell is hardly as effective as it was. With the change, it will be much more effective, but if a bad roll happens and orcs save, they can still survive.Although characters can do a lot of damage, it takes a pretty optimized build, which I try to discourage as a DM. We have a fighter/rogue (assassin) who is brutal in combat, and my sorlock in the CoS game is powerful as well (even without a ton of min/maxing).The goal is to speed up combat. By keeping PC HP lower, but monster damage the same, it increases the risk of battle (something sorely missing in 5E IMO, unless you have hordes, etc.). By lowering monster HP, combat takes half as long (theoretically, a bit more than half in practice).Now, I plan to return to casting times, spell interruption, etc. to balance it out. We have play-tested it and it works well so far.</blockquote>

Verification