Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 7290192" data-attributes="member: 15700">Um no. What you said was that the designers should have taken into account the optional rules like feats when designing monsters. And they did. With the DMs own optional rules about how to modify monsters. So what you were asking for very much already exists. They took into account optional rules by players with optional rules for DMs.&nbsp;&nbsp; Wanting unaltered monsters already for an optional player rule is a double set of standards, and I think is disengenous. If you want optional player rules, then use optional DM rules that directly address your complaints. What you want is entitlement. “I play with these optional rules, but I want the default monster design to cater to how I play with said optional rules.”Edit*&nbsp; So as not to misquote you, this was your actual quote:&quot;Those options are in the corebook. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that the designers took basic core book options into account&quot;And what hawkeyefan and myself pointed out (even provided page #s), is that the thing you're asking for already exists, and they did take into account those options by creating a whole chapter in the DMG for the DM to bolster monsters as needed.&nbsp; If you're suggesting that the monsters be designed by default assuming players use optional rules, then I would posit that would be bad game design, because then you have the opposite problem: monsters being overpowered for tables who don't play with feats or other optional rules.&nbsp; What they did was like for like.&nbsp; Optional DM rules to be used when players use optional player rules.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sacrosanct, post: 7290192, member: 15700"] Um no. What you said was that the designers should have taken into account the optional rules like feats when designing monsters. And they did. With the DMs own optional rules about how to modify monsters. So what you were asking for very much already exists. They took into account optional rules by players with optional rules for DMs. Wanting unaltered monsters already for an optional player rule is a double set of standards, and I think is disengenous. If you want optional player rules, then use optional DM rules that directly address your complaints. What you want is entitlement. “I play with these optional rules, but I want the default monster design to cater to how I play with said optional rules.” Edit* So as not to misquote you, this was your actual quote: "Those options are in the corebook. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that the designers took basic core book options into account" And what hawkeyefan and myself pointed out (even provided page #s), is that the thing you're asking for already exists, and they did take into account those options by creating a whole chapter in the DMG for the DM to bolster monsters as needed. If you're suggesting that the monsters be designed [I]by default[/I] assuming players use [I]optional [/I]rules, then I would posit that would be bad game design, because then you have the opposite problem: monsters being overpowered for tables who don't play with feats or other optional rules. What they did was like for like. Optional DM rules to be used when players use optional player rules. [/QUOTE]

Verification