Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eriktheguy" data-source="post: 4815521" data-attributes="member: 83662">To expand on Elric's point, reducing monster HP does not make bonus damage feats seem less useful, while a static damage bonus would.Furthermore, lowering enemy HP makes controllers more effective in the same what that this suggestion does, allowing casters to deal out large amounts of damage to enemies that are now more susceptible to your attack.Reducing enemy HP and experience theoretically makes strikers a bit less valuable, since more enemies are bound to be on the battlefield (and IMO strikers are a bit ahead of the other classes).Reduced HP and EXP per monster is my favorite system because it makes combat larger (more enemies to favor controllers) more dangerous (more enemies means allies take more damage and makes leaders more necessary) and more chaotic (defenders have a lot more defending to do).The main reason that I do not like the static damage bonus is that the game's balance seems to be severely affected by it, while a modification to monster HP/EXP does not affect balance as much.The second reason that I prefer monster HP/EXP modification over a static damage bonus is that the bookkeeping is entirely in the hands of the DM. The DM tends to be a more experienced player. Also if the DM ever needs to tweak or remove this house rule, the players will not know, and therefore will not be upset that you are 'taking away their damage bonus' because it didn't work out as you wanted.</blockquote>

Verification