Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6586295" data-attributes="member: 996">The idea is that everyone stays engaged with the game and derives more enjoyment than they would if the attention shifted to one player who had the right skills and was the only one playing for a while.&nbsp; It is, indeed, an old idea going back to storytelling and indie games, and an alternative to spotlight-style balance (and extreme examples thereof like Netrunners in cyberpunk games), that was used in 4e (Skill Challenges, though, not just untrained skills, were how it was implemented out of combat) and has not really been retained in 5e, which mostly goes for the more classic-D&amp;D spotlight balance model, in which you participate when your character's specialty comes up, and let others have their fun in turn.&nbsp; 5e, though, did keep group skill checks and a gap between skilled &amp; unskilled that was narrower than 3e's 23+ (and obviously, narrower than classic have-it/don't-have-it special abilities), in keeping with the Bounded Accuracy design goal.&nbsp; So you can have the DM call for, say, stealth checks from everyone, without the result being virtually guaranteed failure because there's at least one guy in heavy armor.&nbsp; But when it comes to a skill your party Rogue are Bard decided to take expertise in....&nbsp;(Summary: you decided not to try because you saw better ways of using your spell slots.)&nbsp; That does seem to obviate the details of the mechanic.&nbsp; A simple blanket immunity might be less cumbersome and have the same net effect.&nbsp; &nbsp;Well, yeah, 'faster combats' and all.&nbsp; Faster combats, less time for strategies to pan out, need fewer slots because there's fewer rounds to cast them in.&nbsp; None of that seems out of line for 5e's goals, though.&nbsp;I don't have to wonder:&nbsp; you did a cost/benefit and decided it was not a worthwhile use of spell slots.&nbsp; Not that you couldn't do it, just that it clearly wasn't worth it.&nbsp; If anything, that's indicative of a 'trap option,' albeit not in the usual sense - a 'gotchya' monster ability, then.&nbsp; A chance for players to take an obvious path to a solution, find it doesn't work (or works but is too wasteful of resources), and learn 'smarter play' from the experience.&nbsp;&nbsp; Not an entirely inappropriate design element for the more traditional direction 5e took.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6586295, member: 996"] The idea is that everyone stays engaged with the game and derives more enjoyment than they would if the attention shifted to one player who had the right skills and was the only one playing for a while. It is, indeed, an old idea going back to storytelling and indie games, and an alternative to spotlight-style balance (and extreme examples thereof like Netrunners in cyberpunk games), that was used in 4e (Skill Challenges, though, not just untrained skills, were how it was implemented out of combat) and has not really been retained in 5e, which mostly goes for the more classic-D&D spotlight balance model, in which you participate when your character's specialty comes up, and let others have their fun in turn. 5e, though, did keep group skill checks and a gap between skilled & unskilled that was narrower than 3e's 23+ (and obviously, narrower than classic have-it/don't-have-it special abilities), in keeping with the Bounded Accuracy design goal. So you can have the DM call for, say, stealth checks from everyone, without the result being virtually guaranteed failure because there's at least one guy in heavy armor. But when it comes to a skill your party Rogue are Bard decided to take expertise in.... (Summary: you decided not to try because you saw better ways of using your spell slots.) That does seem to obviate the details of the mechanic. A simple blanket immunity might be less cumbersome and have the same net effect. Well, yeah, 'faster combats' and all. Faster combats, less time for strategies to pan out, need fewer slots because there's fewer rounds to cast them in. None of that seems out of line for 5e's goals, though. I don't have to wonder: you did a cost/benefit and decided it was not a worthwhile use of spell slots. Not that you couldn't do it, just that it clearly wasn't worth it. If anything, that's indicative of a 'trap option,' albeit not in the usual sense - a 'gotchya' monster ability, then. A chance for players to take an obvious path to a solution, find it doesn't work (or works but is too wasteful of resources), and learn 'smarter play' from the experience. Not an entirely inappropriate design element for the more traditional direction 5e took. [/QUOTE]

Verification