Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rodrigo Istalindir" data-source="post: 2971080" data-attributes="member: 2810">I like mods, but as in all things, moderation is key.  The situation Mike described is a perfect example of when to use circumstance modifiers.  In this case, it makes the fight different and more cinematic, and since it's universal, it doesn't take that much extra effort to work with.  And honestly, even cluing the players in (since they can't really do anything about it) doesn't hurt the technique in this case.  I do think, however, that the abundance of modifiers has gotten out of hand.  I've said before (and I'll repeat myself till someone acknowledges the brilliance of my observation <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=":)" /> ) that one of the best things they did design-wise in 3.x was the concept of named bonuses.  Unfortunately, one of the dumbest things they've done is let the number of different named bonuses grow out of hand.Had they kept it simple (say, armor, arcane, divine, circumstance) and left it alone, not only would the game be less complex without sacrificing player choice, it would also have gone a long way to reducing item dependence.One of the problems with buff spells is that as the players level, it becomes more incumbent on the DM to keep the pressure on and the pace of encounters up.   The "20% of resources" guideline is all well and good, but if your players are constantly buffed to the max every fight, it means they aren't afraid of another fight coming down the hall.</blockquote>

Verification