Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CleverNickName" data-source="post: 5927988" data-attributes="member: 50987">Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you.&nbsp; See, I have always tested the balance of game features by using them on both sides of the battle...from things like new weapons and new spells back in BECM, to new feats and prestige classes in 3.5E.It doesn't &quot;prove&quot; anything.&nbsp; But it helps me get a feel for the balance of a particular mechanic, and possibly find ways to improve it.At-will ranged attacks usually aren't a big deal for monsters (kobolds don't really need to keep track of their ammo, since they are each packing about 20 arrows, and the battle will probably not last longer than 20 rounds.)&nbsp; So the at-will radiant lance (for example) doesn't really break the game, since it is essentially what the monsters are using anyway.&nbsp; But if those kobolds still dealt damage to the wizard regardless of whether or not their arrows hit, the balance gets upset rather quickly: the cleric dies in round 1, no matter what.I know that some monsters have unique abilities (the medusa's gaze, or the ooze's acid), and that is fine...racial abilities are not what I'm talking about here.&nbsp; I'm talking about the stuff that is taught and learned.&nbsp; An ooze doesn't &quot;learn&quot; how to secrete acid; it just does...like darkvision for dwarves.&nbsp; Since not all dwarves know how to use the Reaper feat, it is safe to assume that it is something that must be learned...so why wouldn't every warrior learn it, regardless of race or class?I understand that some people want to force a distinction between &quot;stuff the players can do&quot; and &quot;stuff the monsters can do.&quot;&nbsp; And that's fine; different strokes and all that.&nbsp; It's just not how I like to play the game.&nbsp; I think it's too easy to abuse, and more difficult to balance.&nbsp; I prefer to keep all options on the table, instead of arbitrarily dividing them up.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CleverNickName, post: 5927988, member: 50987"] Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. See, I have always tested the balance of game features by using them on both sides of the battle...from things like new weapons and new spells back in BECM, to new feats and prestige classes in 3.5E. It doesn't "prove" anything. But it helps me get a feel for the balance of a particular mechanic, and possibly find ways to improve it. At-will ranged attacks usually aren't a big deal for monsters (kobolds don't really need to keep track of their ammo, since they are each packing about 20 arrows, and the battle will probably not last longer than 20 rounds.) So the at-will [I]radiant lance[/I] (for example) doesn't really break the game, since it is essentially what the monsters are using anyway. But if those kobolds still dealt damage to the wizard regardless of whether or not their arrows hit, the balance gets upset rather quickly: the cleric dies in round 1, no matter what. I know that some monsters have unique abilities (the medusa's gaze, or the ooze's acid), and that is fine...racial abilities are not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about the stuff that is taught and learned. An ooze doesn't "learn" how to secrete acid; it just does...like darkvision for dwarves. Since not all dwarves know how to use the Reaper feat, it is safe to assume that it is something that must be learned...so why wouldn't every warrior learn it, regardless of race or class? I understand that some people want to force a distinction between "stuff the players can do" and "stuff the monsters can do." And that's fine; different strokes and all that. It's just not how I like to play the game. I think it's too easy to abuse, and more difficult to balance. I prefer to keep all options on the table, instead of arbitrarily dividing them up. [/QUOTE]

Verification