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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 7392239" data-attributes="member: 20564">[MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION], if I was designing the game, I wouldn't use a lot of mechanics even for the existing fluff.  Why can a barbarian rage a certain amount of times per day, regardless if they are one right after each other or all spread out?These mechanics start with doing imperfect jobs of modelling the narrative already.  But what they have going for them is that they are tested against all of the other rules and balanced.So, Assumption #1 is that using existing rules means a lot less work in generating and balancing rules.  So, if we are introducing new fluff, and it's a reasonable match for the existing rules, regardless if there might be a slightly better rule out there somewhere that would need to be designed, tested, and balanced against other options, then Assumption #1 say use the pre-tested rules that were playtested and are used at a scope out of the reach of any individual table.In other words:A) Trying to hold new fluff to a higher threshold than existing fluff is a non-started.  There is a level of abstraction and a level of its-a-game for existing rules/narrative pairing, and the bar for that is at a moderate height, not a "best of our ability, if it's possible to tweak it we must block until then".B) Playtested rules that have been balanced against other options beat having to develop new rules hands down.As for your second part, just opened up my MM to the NPCs section and there is Druid.  Great find, it's got the exact name.  There is no chance for player confusion - this is absolutely a druid.  Oh wait, it's 4th level by spells known, but it doesn't have wildshape.  Please lay down the idea that the PHB is an exclusive description that can not have anything in it widened by the other official books.  It is demonstrably not true.</blockquote>

Verification