Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 8099443" data-attributes="member: 58197">As far as game balance goes, you are not wrong. My problem is not from a game balance standpoint but from the standpoint of having the rules make intuitive sense.I strongly believe D&amp;D works best when the rules build on the intuitive expectations of DM and players. Note that this does not mean &quot;realism.&quot; Hit points are grossly unrealistic. But they make intuitive sense: You get hit, you take damage, too much damage and you die. You may have some head-scratchy, Fridge Logic moments when you sit down and think about hit points, but at the table in the moment, they mostly work the way people expect them to.With invisibility, the intuitive expectation is that if I turn invisible, people don't know where I am unless they are very alert or I do something that reveals my location. Previous editions had rules that followed this intuition, but also made invisibility available very cheap at very low level, which made it notoriously overpowered. 5E's solution was to keep invisibility cheap and low-level, but violate the intuition in order to bring it into balance. I would much rather see invisibility remain powerful and balance it by pushing it back to higher levels and greater cost.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dausuul, post: 8099443, member: 58197"] As far as game balance goes, you are not wrong. My problem is not from a game balance standpoint but from the standpoint of having the rules make intuitive sense. I strongly believe D&D works best when the rules build on the intuitive expectations of DM and players. Note that this does [I]not[/I] mean "realism." Hit points are grossly unrealistic. But they make intuitive sense: You get hit, you take damage, too much damage and you die. You may have some head-scratchy, Fridge Logic moments when you sit down and think about hit points, but at the table in the moment, they mostly work the way people expect them to. With invisibility, the intuitive expectation is that if I turn invisible, people don't know where I am unless they are very alert or I do something that reveals my location. Previous editions had rules that followed this intuition, but also made invisibility available very cheap at very low level, which made it notoriously overpowered. 5E's solution was to keep invisibility cheap and low-level, but violate the intuition in order to bring it into balance. I would much rather see invisibility remain powerful and balance it by pushing it back to higher levels and greater cost. [/QUOTE]

Verification