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="WhosAChaoticGoodBoy" data-source="post: 7072895" data-attributes="member: 6874314">Right on, I'll make it clearer. The intent is to define one casting of the spell as a single "enchantment check", which consists of three or more individual checks (basically borrowing the language/structure from the 'Death Saving Throw' section). I'll think about how to better distinguish the individual checks of the enchantment check and their relationship to the spell's components. Rarity by spell level is a cool thought, thanks. 6th level spells like Contingency and Stone to Flesh heavily influenced my decision to fit this spell within that power bracket (although the PHB or DMG has a clause somewhere admitting that the balance between spell levels isn't scientific as much as it is aesthetic).Currently I'm considering scrolls as enchanting a mundane roll of parchment. As far as trinkets (I'm assuming you mean things like jewelry or other ad-hoc shinies) basically I'm letting them enchant whatever they want with whatever they want, as long as they have the item and can find the rarity of the effect. The intent on relying so heavily on Rarity is that it makes the effect more likely to be defined in the DMG or any other official publication. I do have some concerns that I didn't write in any constraints regarding enchantment effect and the object they wish to enchant. At the same time, I didn't want to reject outright someone's attempt to, for example, have a helmet of magic missile if that's what they really want to do. My group is aware this home brew will be a learning experience for all of us, so they're prepared if I have to nerf on the fly. Meanwhile, attempting alchemy takes one hour ("You can spend one hour of your downtime using alchemist’s supplies or an herbalism kit to turn raw materials into potions"). Yeah, this is something I struggled with. While I like the thematic value of not simply requiring a floating gp value of gems, I ultimately don't want players to a) simply turn money into enchantments, and b) slow the game down by asking whether every item they find is advantageous to a specific enchantment. I admit this might be a circumstantial thing, though; one of the players in my group can get obsessive, and I anticipate it's going to be more fun for everybody if we don't spend too much time discussing why some items provide advantages and some don't. All that being said, I do like the idea of providing (dis)advantage to rolls depending on circumstance and the nature of the ingredients they're using, but I can't think of any circumstances general enough to put into the text itself.</blockquote>

Verification