|2 people marked this as a favorite.|
Matthew Morris wrote:This kind of thought leads to making an organized play system unable to function for new players. As 'best case scenarios' will kill non 'best case characters'
Let me rephrase.
Ignore PFS for the moment, and ignore encounters.
Balancing should (and usually is with design) done with best case scenarios.
If you design all your creatures with to hit and then someone can compile together things to be "only hit on a 20" for all encounters. Something needs to be changed in design. Either the to hit raised (which hurts non optimal builds) or the thing tipping it over the top needs reduced.
This is the worst argument. I'm sorry but logically your statement equates to "Everything should be designed so that even when you make choices, you don't."
If someone puts all their eggs in the AC basket they should be hard to hit that's fine that's what meaningful design allows, if someone puts all their eggs into grappling they should do it well, if someone puts all their eggs into stealth they should be impossible to detect, etc. etc. etc.
If somebody is trying very hard to be good at something let them be good at it that's the f%*@ing point of what they want. If you fail to provide that, that isn't good design it's 5e.