Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="l0lzero" data-source="post: 6994653" data-attributes="member: 6855137">[MENTION=57112]Gradine[/MENTION] - like I said, if you have a different definitions ^_-I get what you're saying, but that's kind of why I gave what I think fits the definition for broken, and then invited others to offer their own. I don't think my definition is perfect, specific, or anything, just what I took away from how people used the term in general.As to lucky, that's why I was thinking 1/short rest, to limit its effects within a single encounter, and since there isn't a lot of examples for timings of "X/encounter" I figured I'd just use short rest instead (there is the unique battlemaster "when you roll initiative" mechanic, but I struggle to recall another example similar). With the short rest model though, it'd fare better in games where rests are sparse; one of the first debates I got into on this forum was over rests, and quite a few people are using 1-day short 1-week long, so lucky takes a severe beating in efficacy in those games (since it's actually 3/long rest not day like I said before), whereas if it were 1/short rest, you could be lucky once a day at a minimum in those campaigns skewed towards longer rests. My "fix" makes it a little (read "a lot") more useful in short rest heavy games, but you still aren't going to end up with someone completely "wrecking" an encounter (unless they go lucky diviner of course, and I might be remembering a homebrew but I thought there was another fate manipulation option for one of the classes, warlock maybe? Also, by wrecking I mean super dis/advantage, my hyperbole is strong lol).As to the individual spells, that's why I wanted the whole community involved, so that we can all come together and pool our collective knowledge to suss out what, in fact, might actually be broken (or rather, functioning in a disruptive fashion). I mean, one could argue that meteor swarm is broken, but I think we all understand that that's not really what the intent is, it's more like "does the wording of this effect/spell/ability make something inordinately strong/weak?"UAs are a whole other mess, but if the devs are looking over message boards (I'm just saying, Mearls follows Morrus on twitter IIRC, might be Crawford, could be both, he could very well check the forums to see what the more devoted members of the community think and feel about things to help supplement playtesting data), then it could be useful for them to see what we generally see as, at the very least, problematic (powerful, weak, strange mechanic in need of simplification, etc., hence the vague definition of "broken").Also, this could easily apply to monsters as well. Are there any monsters that have been listed as too high or too low of a CR? Is the CR system itself actually accurate? I, personally, argue that it is, given that you don't play with feats or MC, but others might disagree. I'd just like to see what people's thoughts are and I was trying to create a non-judgemental thread that encouraged people espousing their opinions, rather than trying to prove things objectively (since none of us can even agree on what evidence is even applicable since some people say white-room doesn't count, others think it's key, and some just worry about the concept in general).I appreciate your input, and if you happen to think of, or come across anything you think needs some work, don't hesitate to post it ^_^</blockquote>

Verification