Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 6336147" data-attributes="member: 18">What?!It's a very reasonable objection to something that was a real and serious problem in 2E and 3E. &quot;Hilarious&quot; strikes me as a totally bizarre reaction. It's a much bigger issue, in PRACTICAL, REAL GAMEPLAY terms than, say, whether Paladins are LG-only.For all the people saying it's &quot;okay&quot; - there's absolutely no excuse for not including very short write-ups of spells where possible. None. Sure, some complex spells can't have them, but many spells could, and they absolutely should. To not have that is lazy and retrograde. I'm particularly concerned when people who write 3PP stuff think this is fine. Range, area, damage, what save (and what saving does), V/S/M and whether it's concentration should all be on there for combat spells.MM spellcasters better have default &quot;spells known&quot; lists, too.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 6336147, member: 18"] What?! It's a very reasonable objection to something that was a real and serious problem in 2E and 3E. "Hilarious" strikes me as a totally bizarre reaction. It's a much bigger issue, in PRACTICAL, REAL GAMEPLAY terms than, say, whether Paladins are LG-only. For all the people saying it's "okay" - there's absolutely no excuse for not including very short write-ups of spells[I] where possible[/I]. None. Sure, some complex spells can't have them, but many spells could, and they absolutely should. To not have that is lazy and retrograde. I'm particularly concerned when people who write 3PP stuff think this is fine. Range, area, damage, what save (and what saving does), V/S/M and whether it's concentration should all be on there for combat spells. MM spellcasters better have default "spells known" lists, too. [/QUOTE]

Verification