CRKrueger
Eläytyminatör
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2017
- Messages
- 9,102
- Reaction score
- 20,622
Rob’s strength is his weakness here, and this is why I think this is a pretty useful tangent to Tenbones OP. Rob is all about the setting balance, he’s approaching things from that view. I don’t know how much time he’s spent reading The Gaming Den, Giant in the Playground, or other sites where everything is MathHammered to death and mechanics completely divorced from setting is the default assumption, but those sites are full of strategies someone trained in previous versions of D&D would never even think of in a million years. It’s true that quite a lot of them require complicity from the GM that allows them, but, coming from the same viewpoint, why wouldn’t they?You really didn't get into the 3rd we magic stuff. Targeting hit points is the least efficient way for a wizard to deal with an enemy. Especially one that is very likely to have low Will saves.
3rd ed hadn't been out long at all when the blaster wizard had been repeatedly demonstrated to be the least effective approach to magic.
But if you insist on using a bad example to prove a weak point, that is your choice.
One thing is for sure though, the “Yes I could” “No you couldn’t” examples are never fruitful, because everyone assumes a setup where they have counters and the other side doesn’t.
Using NWN as an example though is very, very weak. It has a tiny fraction of available spells and magic items, not to mention lacking the flexibility of action of even the worst GMed game on the planet.