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="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 9800546" data-attributes="member: 93670">The entirety of your post straight up ignores the additional problem caused here by your own hypothetical "if" that  you mentioned where spells need to be designed targeting all six saves under a six save system.  That means either creating a bunch more spells allowing players a wider selection to pluck top tier spells and only top tier spells from --OR-- it results in a bunch of worthless spells targeting other saves that obviously go unprepared and the whole "if" collapses immediately into pixie dust.  Going beyond that I'm not going to rehash from square one the discussion over how ivory tower monsters like the example dragon hill giant chain from et. al use those three saves combined with sr the spells that actually existed gm tools detailed st the time and positive pressure for players to choose different spells.  We covered that earlier Uhh... No.... What system of d20 extreme conversion are you talking about?   You don't seem to be talking about any edition of d&d anymore.  Spellcasters can only prepare spells that actually exist, what you are describing wasn't actually a problem.  Instead it's an example of why random 3pp solatvooks players bring to the table got reviewed with a heavy dose of skepticality before anything from it was given gm blessing.  I made a post earlier showing a bunch of control &save or suck/lose spells along with their SR yes/no status and the save they targeted.This ignores the fact that monsters tend to have multiple useless because 6 saves is too many.  The spell doesn't need to target the most useless of a monster's weak save it it has multiple useless saves</blockquote>

Verification