Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Greg K" data-source="post: 4332632" data-attributes="member: 5038">I only hate balance when it runs amok and  results in wtf moments that requrire turning a blind eye or hand waving to  explain.   3e may have had some of these moment, but 4e has gone too far in this direction with per encounter/daily abilities, healing potions and healing surges, daily magic items, bugbear stranglers when PC have no such exploit, +1/2 level to ability checks, etc.With regards to spellcasting, spellcasters needed to be toned down. However, balance and verisimilitude don't need to exclusive. EN Publishing showed it was possible to accomplish this while retaining flexability and simulation/verisimilitude.Similarly, Book of Iron Might made martial combat interesting without declaring abilities only useable per encounter or daily.  It simply relied on deciding if the risk of attempting  a specific maneuver was worth the payoff.   And, imo, Mearl's providing a system for building maneuvers is another demonstration of better design as it provides the DM with tools and examples of maneuver building rather than giving a monster a maneuver any person can attempt and then requring DMs to either wait for a future supplement or blindly recreate the maneuver for a pc.</blockquote>