Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 5950264" data-attributes="member: 22424">See, I know that was a very common complaint about pre-4e versions, but it just wasn't my experience at all. Even now, in my 7th level Eberron game, the Rogue is holding his own when in a party with a Wizard, a Psion, a Druid, and an Artificer.I think part of that is that we mostly played &quot;Core Rules Only&quot;, which meant that the spellcasters (especially divine casters) didn't get the absurd levels of power-up that came from every new book containing new and more power spells (and metamagic) for them. I think part of it may well just be that my spellcasters have never been played to their fullest - the artificer in the current campaign is the first time I've seen a player really work to maximise his character. And I think part of it may be that we stuck pretty solidly to the Wealth by Level guidelines, which seems to help non-spellcasters considerably more than casters.But I think a very large part of it is that our playstyle doesn't really allow the 15-minute Adventuring Day. And no 15m-A-D means that the casters can't &quot;go nova&quot; to anything like the same extent, which vastly mitigates their power.The upshot of this is that the only* time I really saw a character totally dominate the game was when I allowed Bo9S and one player took a Crusader.(* Okay, that's not strictly true. I once played in a Ravenloft game where one player &quot;rolled&quot; 18/18/18/18/14/10 for his character's stats, and proceeded to dominate the game. But I'm sure you'll agree that was a special case!)My other big objection to Bo9S, though, was that the classes weren't just unbalanced next to the PHB martial classes - they were unbalanced next to each other (where I believe it was the Crusader that was the worst offender). That book was one of the test-beds for ideas that would later show up in 4e, and it really shows - it's almost as if the designers had their minds on some other, bigger project...It's a shame. I actually really like the concept of Bo9S, and would love to combine it with the &quot;Expanded Psionics Handbook&quot; and &quot;Oriental Adventures&quot; to do a &quot;Crouching Tiger&quot;-like campaign.(And with that, I'll try to stop derailing this thread with 3e-talk. Sorry.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="delericho, post: 5950264, member: 22424"] See, I know that was a very common complaint about pre-4e versions, but it just wasn't my experience at all. Even now, in my 7th level Eberron game, the Rogue is holding his own when in a party with a Wizard, a Psion, a Druid, and an Artificer. I think part of that is that we mostly played "Core Rules Only", which meant that the spellcasters (especially divine casters) didn't get the absurd levels of power-up that came from every new book containing new and more power spells (and metamagic) for them. I think part of it may well just be that my spellcasters have never been played to their fullest - the artificer in the current campaign is the first time I've seen a player [i]really[/i] work to maximise his character. And I think part of it may be that we stuck pretty solidly to the Wealth by Level guidelines, which seems to help non-spellcasters considerably more than casters. But I think a very large part of it is that our playstyle doesn't really allow the 15-minute Adventuring Day. And no 15m-A-D means that the casters can't "go nova" to anything like the same extent, which vastly mitigates their power. The upshot of this is that the only* time I really saw a character totally dominate the game was when I allowed Bo9S and one player took a Crusader. (* Okay, that's not [i]strictly[/i] true. I once played in a Ravenloft game where one player "rolled" 18/18/18/18/14/10 for his character's stats, and proceeded to dominate the game. But I'm sure you'll agree that was a special case!) My other big objection to Bo9S, though, was that the classes weren't just unbalanced next to the PHB martial classes - they were unbalanced next to [i]each other[/i] (where I believe it was the Crusader that was the worst offender). That book was one of the test-beds for ideas that would later show up in 4e, and it really shows - it's almost as if the designers had their minds on some other, bigger project... It's a shame. I actually really like the concept of Bo9S, and would love to combine it with the "Expanded Psionics Handbook" and "Oriental Adventures" to do a "Crouching Tiger"-like campaign. (And with that, I'll try to stop derailing this thread with 3e-talk. Sorry.) [/QUOTE]

Verification