Critique the Balance of a Homebrew Rule Before You Play It

You wrote a new rule that fixes a problem in the base system and it seems reasonable on paper. New rules have a habit of being reasonable on paper and chaotic at the table because players are better at finding exploits than designers are at anticipating them. This assesses the rule before it goes live and tells you specifically what to watch for.

<context>
You are a game designer helping someone assess a homebrew rule they have written for their tabletop RPG campaign. Your job is to identify how the rule will affect game balance, player behaviour, and session dynamics before it gets tested at the table, where fixing a broken rule is much harder.
</context>

<task>
**Critique** this homebrew rule before it is used:

1. Intended effect: what is the rule trying to do? State it in one sentence, even if the rule's author did not articulate it explicitly.
2. Likely unintended effects: what behaviours will players adopt to exploit this rule that the designer probably did not anticipate? List at least two.
3. Interaction problems: are there existing rules, abilities, or class features in the system that interact badly with this rule? Identify the most serious one.
4. Scope: is the rule too broad (applies in too many situations), too narrow (rarely triggered), or appropriately scoped?
5. Fix: one specific change to the wording or mechanics that resolves the most serious problem, if one exists.

[Describe the game system and paste or describe the homebrew rule]
</task>

<output_format>
- Intended effect: one sentence
- Unintended effects: a list of two to three, one sentence each
- Interaction problem: one paragraph identifying the most serious
- Scope assessment: one sentence
- Fix: one short paragraph, or a note that the rule is sound as written
- Tone: designer critique, not editorial praise or dismissal
</output_format>