Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 8594741" data-attributes="member: 6877472">I don't like it unless it is absolutely necessary.  I'm ok with Rule 0 discussions, as this sounds like it was.  I'm ok with the group sitting down and saying "yeah, Twilight Cleric is just easy mode D&D".But sometimes DM's have knee-jerk reactions to things that aren't actually broken at all, and it feels like there is a larger, underlying problem, so I'd really be happier with a detailed analysis and explanation for why they feel an ability has to be changed.Case in point, in a Pathfinder game, I played, of all things a Rogue.  I realized I wasn't going to always get Sneak Attack, so I made a Strength-based Rogue and juggled Archetypes so I could start with a Glaive.This worked well for a few sessions.  Then we got into a fight with a single, powerful opponent, and I got flanking for the whole fight.  Suddenly my extra 2d6 damage per turn made him frustrated and angry, and he declared that "Rogues are OP!".If you're familiar with discussions about 3.x Rogues, you can understand why I started laughing and actually couldn't stop for a few minutes (not the most mature response, and it just made him angrier) and he started in on a tirade to "nerf" Sneak Attack.I actually had to point him at forum threads dissecting the ability into it's component strengths and weaknesses until he relented!</blockquote>