Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Harzel" data-source="post: 7480586" data-attributes="member: 6857506">However, in some cases, doing so does not seem to meet with your approval.Ok.What group of DMs are you observing?  Those feats definitely have some outspoken detractors.You seem somehow to have reached the conclusion that there are DMs who would ban Healing Spirit, but not the other things you have mentioned.  First, I don't see any basis for that conclusion.  Second, it's not as if there is an objective, one-dimensional scale of power on which you can place each character ability.  It is quite possible that resource recovery might affect a particular game much differently than offensive capabilities.By extension, why ban anything?  How is the fact that we are discussing one spell an argument against banning it?  How many spells does one have to ban simultaneously in order for it to be ok?So is there any amount of healing that you would consider OP? 20d6? 40d6? 100d6?  Also, if 10d6 healing is not overpowered, what is the justification for the next encounter becoming more difficult? Putting aside Healing Spirit for a moment, does this mean that, for instance, if one party member has made the choice to be a Life Cleric, the DM should then secretly undo (the effects of) that choice by revving up the damage potential of each encounter a bit to compensate for the extra healing?While I have quibbled a bit with the other parts of your post, this is a whole higher level of "Wait, what?"1) You purport to be able to predict, on the basis of a DM's opinion about one spell, not only significant attributes of their play style largely unrelated to the original topic, but also a frequent aspect of their play outcomes, which is not only unrelated to the original topic, but also erroneously (IMO) attributed by you to the identified play style.2) You seem to be simply using the opportunity to take a (pretty much off-topic) swipe at a play style that is other than your own. First off, you have constructed a bit of a strawman - no one, AFAIK, has everything written down in advance.  That aside, your ire seems particularly drawn by those who determine monster HP (and presumably similar attributes) in advance and then won't change them during play.  We all exist, I think, on a continuum between having 'everything' determined in advance and total improv.  And perhaps on another axis between designing with the party and it's current circumstances always the primary consideration, and a world that the party must engage totally on its (the world's) own terms.  It is possible to run both good games and bad games at most of the points in that space.You appear to prefer making significant adjustments on the fly and in particular will do so to adjust to the party's circumstances.  That's fine; I'm sure you can run great games that way.  But I think it is unreasonable to heap opprobrium on those who prefer a more "Here's the world, let the chips fall where they may" style of play.  It definitely requires some different techniques (not better, just different) than a more PC-focused approach, but it is absolutely just as possible to run a good game that way.Which, for some, is just a legitimate part of the challenge for the party.Which, for some, is a significant change.  Just inserting the word 'only' in an otherwise objective statement is not a convincing argument that it is insignificant.No doubt.</blockquote>

Verification