Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 6836926" data-attributes="member: 5834">I don't disagree with your assertion. But there are certain abilities in the game that are mechanically great no matter how you analyze it. For example, bless is an amazing spell. Sure, you won't need it in every situation, but it is extremely useful in a great many situations. It's a huge boost, even more so at the level you obtain it. A 1d4 on every attack and save for up to three people is immensely powerful in a game with Bounded Accuracy. I sometimes scratch my head at the designers when such a spell is available at such low level. My party builds around this spell for combat. It is a highly effective option in probably 80%+ of encounters. The other 20% is unnecessary because they are so easy that they require the use of no spell slots. Spells that good seem out of whack to me at times given the comparable power level of other spells. I'm also shocked when groups don't use bless. It's like purposely hamstringing yourself. Hard to understand. So far I haven't run a single party that did not use bless. I guess I don't see this as outside the game assumptions given how easy it is to acquire the bless spell. It's very easy for any group to build tactically around bless. It's difficult for DMs to counter it very often given unequal resource allocation necessary to do so. That is not to say it can't be done, but it can't be done very often or you're going out of your way as the DM to eliminate your player's toys. That will make them feel like you're going out of your way to screw them, which is never good situation.Min-max players lock on to these optimal options very quickly. They start to build around them. It's trouble for the system, even though the system allows it by the rules. This idea you have of "goals of the game", well, such goals are very often individually based. If you try to tell someone not to do something because they're interfering with other people's fun, you're imposing your view of the game on them. That means a compromise must be reached or one of the parties must depart. When I'm in these situations, I see the game system as at fault for allowing the overpowered option, not the player for intelligently making a choice to choose that option. I imagine that is where our opinions may differ on game system criticism.</blockquote>

Verification