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="billd91" data-source="post: 1401869" data-attributes="member: 3400">Unfortunately, this logic also says that if you do not have a party with these skills invested, you're significantly handicapped. Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of having reasonably balanced parties, but sometimes that doesn't happen. How many of us remember playing tense games in which a wizard had to do some scouting in a pinch, used invisibility to hide in a room, and then sweated it out while the opposing general went over battle plans in a small room where just about anybody could trip over the wizard at any time? I just don't know what's going on with some of the design decisions. The nerfing of the buff spells (which I partly agree with) and invisibility seem designed to push toward making magic items for the same effect. But it's kind of conflicted. It's like they want to present us with more flexibility and choices by allowing anyone invest points in any skill but push us in the direction of having to take Forge Ring or search out a Ring of Invisibility to achieve something that was relatively easily done in previous editions for a lot less cost.I'm a little more along the lines of "If it isn't clearly broken, don't 'fix' it." Buff spells having a variable bonus AND a long duration was clearly broken. But fixing the variable bonus (and thus preventing Maximize and Empower from working) fixes the spells nicely. I can also see reducing the duration to 10 min/level or 1 flat hour. That way, the Eagle's Splendor might actually last the whole audience with the Duke rather than peter out after your opening statement. Too many of the 3.5 revisions seem geared toward pure combat balancing or for encouraging more use of magic item creation. Sometimes I think that the tools some of the designers at WotC use for these things are a bit too much like large hammers. Big, unwieldy, and not very subtle.</blockquote>

Verification