Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 9480642" data-attributes="member: 7006">Not in general necessarily, but my comment was referencing back to the various things in the OP that got shot down during the playtests.For example... those people that liked wildshape templates did so in many ways because of balance reasons across shapes and PC power level-- their calculations worked out such that having set numbers at set levels was more "balanced" in their opinion than using animal statblocks.  Those that didn't like the templates probably involved a lot of people for whom that supposed numeric balance of templated creatures was not as important compared to the various mechanical options one would get from having different animals at their fingertips.  But even within those people, some would be very concerned that the animal statblocks that would be made available for wildshaping would be very balanced with each other while others would be less concerned because of the difficulty of trying to equate an animal's "special abilities" to numeric equivalents.  And of course there would be entirely other players altogether for whom the way they ran combats in their own games... the numbers would never be on such a razor's edge between balanced and unbalanced that worrying about getting the numbers in "just the right combinations" was never even a consideration as to the viability of templates.All of these groups of people felt that their opinion of what truly mattered for wildshaping was in the right.  Even though everyone's feelings of what was "balanced" was different.  And as a result, it would be impossible for WotC to create a single system that could cover ALL those bases and make everyone happy.  Which is why it would almost always come down to popularity... go in the direction that had the most positive or least negative response.</blockquote>

Verification