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="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5749457" data-attributes="member: 2067">I am loving rule-of-three. It is sometimes more provocative and interesting than Legends & Lore!It's worth looking at what the original article says:Goal 1: There's some terminology re-jiggering implicit, there. "Spells" being defined as combat effects, forex. But relocating them out of the main list of wizard attacks is a good idea, giving them room to breathe and making sure that a wizard has enough attacks to be viable in combat, without accidentally choosing a list of spells that ends up hosing a player who didn't expect a fight. I'm pretty supportive of this goal.Goal 2: I agree with the goal. It's a good idea to free up the game so that many different characters can achieve these effects. It shouldn't just be up to the cleric to raise dead. Goal 3: I agree with the coal. Complex embedded rules can frustrate folks and grind the game to a halt. A villain with a back-up copy of himself doesn't need to use clone, though that ability certainly could be one of the ways such a thing is accomplished. Goal 4: Like with Goal 1, I think this is a worthy goal, for pretty much the same reason.Goal 5: Well, this seems more like a prerequisite than a goal, but whatever. Missed the mark, though it should happen.I think there's an issue with rituals being (a) not often very useful, and (b) too expensive to be that useless. Apparently, some groups use and abuse them into the ground, but I've not seen a ritual used yet in play that does anything that we couldn't have done without it (usually cheaper and with the entire party doing it). The deeper issue with that is how gold is used and spent in the game, though.</blockquote>

Verification