Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6648101" data-attributes="member: 82106">Sure, I think either one of them is reasonably clear, but I do feel like I have a firmer basis with the 4e version. Damage expressions are particularly well stereotyped in 4e, so even without reference to a particular power to compare with I can think "OK, a low level encounter effect is worthwhile at about a 60% hit rate, 2d6+INT damage, and a small tactically-useful effect" Now, your proposal is a bit lighter on the damage, but the effect is a bit stronger (a zone) than most encounter spells, so I'd figure it was a good trade off, and I can make that judgment pretty close to instantaneously. I can also discount a bit because I've still got my actual encounter slot (assuming that I set the fire with an at-will or somesuch). Now, on the 5e front. Assuming I'm not using a spell slot (IE I use Fire Bolt) the question is a bit trickier, because I am keeping a spell slot, but we need to know which level slot. That asks us to question what level the effect is, and here I can only guess at what the DM will decide. If he considers it to be much like a level 3 spell slot, then boo-ya! If he decides its pretty much just a cantrip plus a bit of a zone effect, I might well just throw a spell. Its a bit murkier, so I will want to negotiate a little bit. Once that question is answered, then the damage expression part is probably about equivalently well specified as in 4e, but its relation to other effects is a lot less clear. I think 3d10 or 4d10 are OK, but with only about 33% of the targets taking full effect at best this is going to be a marginal call. I might do it for tactical or narrative reasons anyway, but I'm on the fence.I think 5e is about 90% of the way there, but it seems reluctant to take that last 10%, and the whole nature of the game makes these questions a bit less clear cut. As I said in my two previous posts, I'd have liked to see 5e take 4e's page 42 and improve on it, something that is quite clearly possible, especially if you have an overall clearer vision of what the game is aiming to accomplish. This last point is a big one, and is a problem with D&D these days in general. For instance my own 4e hack is aimed at amplifying the 'heroic action' aspect of the game. It has a clear goal there. So when I deal with these questions I have a very clear goal that I evaluate the results against. I get that the 5e (and even 4e to a lesser extent) designers have a legacy and some sort of 'big tent' theory that they are burdened with, but it really shows sometimes. I won't claim I can design a better game, I am just purely hacking together elements of existing games and molding it to suite my purposes, which doesn't require a lot of clarity, but it has sure reinforced in my mind the centrality of vision in the design process. Modern D&D serves too many masters.</blockquote>

Verification