Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6592076" data-attributes="member: 996">That's something I never thought I'd hear you say. <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&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Seriously, though, if weapon-users stack up adequately only when one of two arguably-broken feats are in play, what happens when the DM doesn't use the optional feat rules, at all?&nbsp; If balance is a concern (that is, if the DM chooses to make it a concern, and chooses to address it with rule changes instead of using GM force to arbitrarily impose balance through situations), shouldn't classes be balanced with eachother, without feats, and then feats balanced with eachother, so they can be used, or not?And if balance isn't a concern, then letting a GWF or Archer take a feat and do even more damage, is just a way of mechanically differentiating them, and giving all other weapon mixes a similar feat would just make them 'samey.'I have heard folks go on about that spell's potential, yes.&nbsp; Not as much as Simulacrum, but enough.&nbsp;Well, they need a whole lot more than that, even to feel 'interesting,' let alone /actually/ contribute fully rather than just feeling like it because they overkilled a monster by 60 hps instead of 12 - but that's a whole 'nuther topic, and a much more intractable problem.&nbsp;Heh.&nbsp; Reminds me of a one-square comic in the old DMG, with a wizard comforting a fighter &quot;Don't feel bad, lots of fighters have swords that are smarter than they are...&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6592076, member: 996"] That's something I never thought I'd hear you say. ;) Seriously, though, if weapon-users stack up adequately only when one of two arguably-broken feats are in play, what happens when the DM doesn't use the optional feat rules, at all? If balance is a concern (that is, if the DM chooses to make it a concern, and chooses to address it with rule changes instead of using GM force to arbitrarily impose balance through situations), shouldn't classes be balanced with eachother, without feats, and then feats balanced with eachother, so they can be used, or not? And if balance isn't a concern, then letting a GWF or Archer take a feat and do even more damage, is just a way of mechanically differentiating them, and giving all other weapon mixes a similar feat would just make them 'samey.' I have heard folks go on about that spell's potential, yes. Not as much as Simulacrum, but enough. Well, they need a whole lot more than that, even to feel 'interesting,' let alone /actually/ contribute fully rather than just feeling like it because they overkilled a monster by 60 hps instead of 12 - but that's a whole 'nuther topic, and a much more intractable problem. Heh. Reminds me of a one-square comic in the old DMG, with a wizard comforting a fighter "Don't feel bad, lots of fighters have swords that are smarter than they are..." [/QUOTE]

Verification