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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7178453" data-attributes="member: 996">They failed because they were a baroque collection of contavailing mechanisms, not because some of them weren't genuinely limiting... <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=";)" /> They were very limiting, but then spells were very powerful, it was too extreme a scheme.  3e greatly reduced the limitations, modestly reduced the power of some spells  (made others more powerful, and made SoD spells more powerful by making saves suck and DCs scale).  The result was overwhelming.  4e didn't put back those traditional limitations, but neatly balanced things, by bringing spells and maneuvers into line.  5e put spells back in a superior position, but still didn't put back the old limitations.Where the classic game tried for balance and failed, 5e aimed for the feel of that imbalance and succeded.    No to both, it's wildly complicated to actually use in design, and fails without level limits to reign in MCing.. It would be simpler to cut them.But, making them actually consume a resource on a scale that matters, while more bookkeeping, might be more interesting, and retain a feeling of player agency... Yes, certainly,  including hps lost to wandering damage encounters that interrupt it, for instance.</blockquote>

Verification