Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 9398104" data-attributes="member: 93670">Could they have designed these things while advocating for &amp; considering the GM along the way?... Sure... except zero of the nine UAs demonstrated such a thing &amp; the last decade hasn't exactly been a glowing endorsement of the idea that &quot;what about the GM&quot; was a significant design concern.No we know that problematic PC abilities can not be solved with monster design.&nbsp; The last decade has nicely demonstrated that particular fact.&nbsp; The GM has been free to solve problems like AREB yoyo healing &amp; so on with endless force immune helmed horrors &amp; antimagic spewing beholders, but they can't without killing their campaign because adversarial monster design used to shut down players leads to an adversarial game if used for more than the rare noteworthy encounter.&nbsp; Likewise regular waves of quicklings moving 100ft making 3 attacks with +8 to hit plus evasion &amp; more per round on each could solve a lot of other problems instantly... freeing up time spent preparing to gm for the next session while looking for a new group of players being one of the obvious results.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; That's not even something new with 5e.The GM is 100% impacted by the rules present in the PHB for players and the PC options available alongside those rules.&nbsp; Pretending they can be severed and handled in different books written with exclusive focus crashes into that impact.&nbsp; There is the very significant problem related to the fact that the DMG/MM should not be used as an errata dump for fixing the PHB via some kind of day zero DLC available months later just because the PHB was&nbsp; <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3j9muCo4o0" target="_blank">too much &quot;could we&quot; &amp; not enough &quot;should we&quot;</a>.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tetrasodium, post: 9398104, member: 93670"] Could they have designed these things while advocating for & considering the GM along the way?... Sure... except [I]zero[/I] of the nine UAs demonstrated such a thing & the last decade hasn't exactly been a glowing endorsement of the idea that "what about the GM" was a significant design concern. No we know that problematic PC abilities can not be solved with monster design. The last decade has nicely demonstrated that particular fact. The GM has been free to solve problems like AREB yoyo healing & so on with endless force immune helmed horrors & antimagic spewing beholders, but they can't without killing their campaign because adversarial monster design used to shut down players leads to an adversarial game if used for more than the rare noteworthy encounter. Likewise regular waves of quicklings moving 100ft making 3 attacks with +8 to hit plus evasion & more per round on each could solve a lot of other problems instantly... freeing up time spent preparing to gm for the next session while looking for a new group of players being one of the obvious results. That's not even something new with 5e. The GM is 100% impacted by the rules present in the PHB for players and the PC options available alongside those rules. Pretending they can be severed and handled in different books written with exclusive focus crashes into that impact. There is the very significant problem related to the fact that the DMG/MM should not be used as an errata dump for fixing the PHB via some kind of day zero DLC available months later just because the PHB was [URL='https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3j9muCo4o0']too much "could we" & not enough "should we"[/URL]. [/QUOTE]

Verification