Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kobold Stew" data-source="post: 6322947" data-attributes="member: 23484"><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Given the highly trained worriers in this thread, it seems appropriate.I feel that you often find yourself in these kind of conversations, RE. It seems to happen disproportionately often. I've stated upthread that I expect that there are problems with the ability. So I agree with your conclusion, at least in part. Your argumentation, though, really works against you. You claimso let's consider your factors indicating bad design.1 Almost. It makes hobgoblins in certain situations "virtually equivalent" to an ogre. However, since each hobgoblin has a lower CR than any given ogre, that's to be expected, isn't it? Or perhaps you mean it makes a single hobgoblin "virtually equivalent" to a single ogre? That's not true either, since the power you are concerned with can't then activate. So I suspect you mean tat it makes multiple hobgoblins "virtually equivalent" to multiple ogres. That might be the case; I don't know, but the imprecision of your argument considerably weakens your case. 2 I am challenged by your assertion that non-sentient things can be an ally. Where does this definition of ally come from? I can't find it in the play test docs, and it would seem odd that any non-sentient object could serve this function. If it could, then I agree that it would be broken.Personally, I wouldn't reckon sentience alone qualified one as an ally -- my character can wield a sentient sword, but it's not an ally, is it? Any player arguing such would certainly be roundly mocked at my table. Perhaps the rules will clarify, perhaps it'll be up to the DM. Either way, drawing conclusions like this from an excerpt seems rash.3 Here is, potentially, an argument that is solid, and it is one to which I am sympathetic. It is the only one of your six, and given that your rationale for it is, shall we say, under argued ("seems kind of bonkers"), you have to understand not everyone will agree with us.4 The name, if inapplicable, is not evidence of bad design.5 Personal belief about other players' ability to grasp mechanics (when clearly the evidence in the thread demonstrates that some people can grasp the mechanics) is not evidence of bad design.6 Subjective opinion ("imo") is not evidence of bad design.You have an argument here, but you're not making it.</blockquote>

Verification