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="jgsugden" data-source="post: 1271534" data-attributes="member: 2629">You don't need a written rule for everything. Common sense should not be ignored. This is just common sense.What backs up my claim that they didn't want wizards to have access to a 3.0 haste effect and that the choker's ability was nto intended to be used by wizards? Simple deduction.Think about it. They removed the 3.0 haste mechanic (from everything but one monster) in 3.5. They could have reintroduced it at a different spell level if they thought it belonged in the game. They could have tried to tweak it to make it work within balance. Instead, they abandoned it in the PHB.This was probably *the* most popular spell for arcane casters in 3.0. Almost every wizard of 5th level or higher had it in their spellbook. Virtually every sorcerer took it as their first or second spell. If there was any way to keep it in the game and maintain balance, they'd have looked for it to prevent the backlash that they faced. Instead, they cut the spell. They went into the game and ripped out something that was a cornerstone of arcane spellcasting.Unfortunately, they left one creature in the game that kept the same mechanic. Did they do so because they wanted spellcasters to have access to the game mechanic that was too broken to include as a spell? I sincerely doubt it. Why did it remain in the choker's tentacles? Probably because there was a significant lack of communication between the people working on the various books. That is evident by all the rule conflicts between different books, especially the PHB and the DMG. Had there been better communication, I bet the choker would now use the 3.5 haste mechanic. Heck, they may have even looked at it and said, "Hey, why don't we just leave it for the choker? It isn't like it can cast spells or get a lot of attacks ..." Maybe they did leave it in intentionally, but it was clearly not intended to be an ability in the hands of PCs.Do I have a direct quote supporting this belief? No. Do I need one? No. Common sense has my back on this issue. If they wanted to leave this game mechanic in the hands of PCs, they would not have taken it away.</blockquote>

Verification