Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6040150" data-attributes="member: 1465">Nothing personal against you <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> but I take this post of you, in particular your first spontaneous rant against moving back to less-than-at-will cantrips, as a sign that we're all spoiled by editions power creep.Before 3e there was no such thing as cantrips AFAIK. Some classes gave you ONE spell per day, still most D&D players thought that it was an amazing game. 3e gave us a bunch of cantrips because we complained that one spell per day was too little, we "needed" more. Now we saw a version of 5e that gave us unlimited cantrips, and anything less is "a waste of time"?Notice that all the rest of your suggestions are about adding more and more to everybody. It's understandable, because we're all living in a world where they try to teach everybody that the more stuff you have on the plate, the happier you are, but let's keep in mind that in a level-based game what really matters is the relative power (aka "balance") between different player characters, and the balance between them and the challenges they're going to face.Thus it might feel like the game is "better" if you throw more stuff at everyone, but truth is that it isn't, because you then have to balance that with increasing the challenges. It doesn't get better, it gets more complicated, which of course equals better to some players, but it WILL get more complicated anyway as level increases. No real "need" to inflate the starting point.</blockquote>

Verification