Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jefe Bergenstein" data-source="post: 9029550" data-attributes="member: 31506"><p>He and the other designers, intentionally made certain options under/overpowered. Some were blatantly crappy, others deceptively bad trap options. The concept was &quot;system mastery&quot;, where you'd learn to avoid the noob traps and pick the overpowered options as a reward for being a good little nerd and doing your homework (or just reading tier lists online). Cook later expressed that this was a bad idea (ya think?). For all the yowling about later unbalanced splats like the Book of 9 Swords (cute that people thought THAT was the problem), CODzilla was unleashed in the Player's Handbook. Hell, making the full attack a full round action meant that high level fighter types were jank without pounce. Then you had anti-synergy classes like the monk who had lots of attacks and mobility as a schtick in a system where you couldn't move and multi attack, so once again, great design there boys.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="Jefe Bergenstein, post: 9029550, member: 31506"] He and the other designers, intentionally made certain options under/overpowered. Some were blatantly crappy, others deceptively bad trap options. The concept was "system mastery", where you'd learn to avoid the noob traps and pick the overpowered options as a reward for being a good little nerd and doing your homework (or just reading tier lists online). Cook later expressed that this was a bad idea (ya think?). For all the yowling about later unbalanced splats like the Book of 9 Swords (cute that people thought THAT was the problem), CODzilla was unleashed in the Player's Handbook. Hell, making the full attack a full round action meant that high level fighter types were jank without pounce. Then you had anti-synergy classes like the monk who had lots of attacks and mobility as a schtick in a system where you couldn't move and multi attack, so once again, great design there boys. [/QUOTE]

Verification