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="Celtavian" data-source="post: 941254" data-attributes="member: 5834">ReBryon,Here is where you and I are miscommunicating because I am operating off a different notion. Here is where I am coming from:1. Andy Collins implied in another thread on his message board that Disintegrate is a gradual change as in he would like to see all spells that are save or die reduced to hit point damage. I don't like this, and I think you are supporting this idea which basically means turning every spell into evocation spells similar to energy damage spells. IMO, it ruins the flavor of a spell if they are all reduced to direct damage type spells with different saves.2. I don't mind the change to Disintegrate for the following reasons. a. It will still be a very good spell for destroying materials which I think was its intended use from the beginning.b. There is no warding spell against it, and I think that is wrong considering how easy it is to hit with the spell.c. 40d6 damage is still a substantial amount of damage. (I am concerned on the scaling of the spell say if it does 10d6 at level 11, I will be very unhappy.)d. I can explain it in game. Disintegrate was made for destroying non-living matter which it does very well, but it will not destroy living matter quite as efficiently, thus a greater chance for a living thing to survive. Easy enough.3. I feel different mechanics reflect a different flavor for a spell. For example, direct damage energy spells do hit point damage. They are basically big blasts of energy that can kill alot of people. Negative energy attacks generally drain levels. They are basically life-draining attacks that slowly kill a single person as an enemy creature or spellcaster siphons your soul. Finally, death spells kill you. They are spells meant to snuff the life of a single target that even if resisted will still do substantial damage due to the great strain of death magic on a body and life force.For me, reducing all mechanics to hit point damage ruins the flavor of certain spells. Mechanics should serve to create a unique flavor as well as be applicable. 4. I don't see the use of debating the issue after the spell is changed. At that point in time, it is too late.I thought I already did answer this question? What is the Fort save of a level 20 fighter? Is it not good enough to resist a level 6 spell cast by a level 11 caster? What if the spell is Heightened to level 9 or above, should he still be able to resist it? I don't think he should, how about you? Should a level 25 caster be able to kill a level 20 fighter with a level 6 spell? I think he should be able to kill a level 20 fighter with a level 6 spell.Did I just miss something here? Since when does the level of the spell have anything to do with the level of the enemy. As a caster, I want even my first level spells to remain useful when I am level 25. Why? I only get about 20 level 7 or greater spells, and only about 5 level 9 spells. If you make all my lower level spells useless, then I am stuck with 5 to 20 spells to deal with my enemy or ENEMIES.Does the sword of a melee become useless agaisnt a level 25 caster or monster? then why should my lower level spells become ineffectual against a level 20 fighter when I am level 25? Should I only be able to affect said fighter or creature with my 5 level 9 spells, or my 10 level 8 or 9 spells? Let me know. I am a level 25 wizard, but only 10 of my spells do anything. Forget the other levels, a level 25 fighter shouldn't have to fear a level 6 spell, only level 7 or above? Is that it Bryon?Do you even really play epic games? A level 11 wizard is not even going to have a somewhat decent chance of penetrating the SR of powerful dragons or epic monsters. You say my giant analogy is bad, this is an even worse analogy.</blockquote>

Verification