Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 4625378" data-attributes="member: 12731">The reason (if anyone's still interested <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />) why I say surprise in 4E is nerfed is because while being allowed a full round's worth of actions could be said to be more dangerous, in practice it is less so than in 3E, for instance.Everybody has lots more hit points (and there are few save-or-die effects). Basically, what harm would it be to allow a full round's worth of actions? And what balancing reasons lie behind the decision to deprive melee PCs of power-powered attacks, while allowing this significant advantage to ranged PCs (especially spellcasters, who have an easier time than archers persuading their DMs they walk around town staff or rod in hand)?How would the game's balance collapse if not only spellcasters could fire off their Daily during the surprise round, but melee PCs too...? And why are Rangers and Warlocks deprived of bonus damage, when a dagger-throwing quckdrawing Rogue isn't?!?(You really don't need to reply. As this isn't the house rule forum, my questions are mostly rhetorical...)</blockquote>