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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sylrae" data-source="post: 4358560" data-attributes="member: 48520">I'm not saying chuck teamwork altogether, a big pvpfest would get boring. what I'm saying is that there will be occasions where they may break off, or not have teamwork. they may even join opposite sides. limiting the players options may make it easier to disregard whethr or not the game has really powerful classes, but if I wanted a game with linear paths that the players have to follow I'd be playing a videogame, not a roleplaying game. Also, what about if they are fighting npc characters instead of monsters? say theyre fighting a bunch of clerics to some evil god. thats alot harder than if they were fighting the same number of bards. I understand that it sacrifices focus for versatility, however, the purpose of this topic was to say that I don't think they sacrifice enough focus for their versatility. As for no faerunian magic, games that are 100% core don't have enough options to keep me or my players interested. and though I invest alot of time in the games I run, I dont think I would have time to go through all the books and weigh the possible uses of every mechanic/spell in advance. I'd like to, but its just too much. and core has too much vanilla and not enough versatility. There are just not nearly enough options in any area. So I try to work from the assumption that the spells that are published in the FR books are close to as balanced as the core ones, and that its the other class stuff thats either over or underpowered. like, the number of spells, or the total level of spells could be imbalanced, but aside from specific spells that have been proven to be broken, I try to think the spells are not broken. The FR spells see limited use usually anyways, mostly its the feats/races that see use from the fr books. And I can't see running FR games and saying no FR products. that would just be too bizarre, and the players would get bored too quickly. About half the games run in our groups are FR.well, FR is published, so it doesn't really count as homebrew. most of the issues I have are things I have NOT homebrewed <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" />And for whoever mentioned once again to switch to 4e, before I switch to 4e, I'd need more options, and I'd have to load up on 3rd party books probably to get the kinds of options I would be looking for. the whole idea of well defined roles such as striker, controller etc that you cant deviate from bother me. I understand they simplified the game to make it easier for beginners and to be easier to balance, but they just dropped too many options. I like the rogue who doesnt pick locks, for example, and took acrobatics instead. or the idea of being half way between 2 classes.in 4e I'd probably make so many house rules (new classes, or a new multiclassing system) before running my first campaign that I would break everything by accident. 4e is a fun board game to play for an afternoon, once. but I dont see it as a game I could play weekly as a continuous thing. I'd be more likely to as another person sais they would suggest for this, to switch to another system.as for switching to another system for the game I'm running, there are not beter systems for it. for the playstyle, a white wolf game might be best suited, but white wolf doesnt have all the setting and creature and magic things I would be looking for in a fantasy campaign.and while the cleric may not be able to put out as much AOE damage as a blaster mage, I'd have to say most mages I've seen people play are not blasters. the blasting is like their secondary or tertiary goal, so they usually have a much smaller number of them.</blockquote>

Verification