Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3270539" data-attributes="member: 18280">What is, and what is not, trivial is very much determined by campaign play.&nbsp; For example, in an &quot;as is&quot; world, the statement &quot;His melee attacks with them would be so much wasted effort against appropriate level foes&quot; is meaningless.&nbsp; In many games, the ability to strap on armor might be more important than the ASF chance.....indeed, you might be able to also dip into a prestige class to mitigate this.I agree.&nbsp; And, if you assume that you'll be having four encounters per day, and that those encounters will be balanced in a particular way, you might be correct.&nbsp; If you assume that you are automatically going to survive until 20th level, or that any character lost is going to be replaced with a like level character, you may be correct.&nbsp; If you assume that you are going to have particular types of encounters, and that you can therefore optimize for those types of encounters (i.e., that being a specialist is always better than being a generalist) you may be correct.This is similar, in fact, to the cavalier argument re: 1e.&nbsp; The cavalier has a few things going for it, but deep in the dungeons below Castle Greyhawk some of his advantages might be lethal to him.It seems, in fact, to me that this discussion highlights that the campaign assumptions that 1e works best for and the campaign assumptions 3e works best for are very, very different.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 3270539, member: 18280"] What is, and what is not, trivial is very much determined by campaign play. For example, in an "as is" world, the statement "His melee attacks with them would be so much wasted effort against appropriate level foes" is meaningless. In many games, the ability to strap on armor might be more important than the ASF chance.....indeed, you might be able to also dip into a prestige class to mitigate this. I agree. And, if you assume that you'll be having four encounters per day, and that those encounters will be balanced in a particular way, you might be correct. If you assume that you are automatically going to survive until 20th level, or that any character lost is going to be replaced with a like level character, you may be correct. If you assume that you are going to have particular types of encounters, and that you can therefore optimize for those types of encounters (i.e., that being a specialist is always better than being a generalist) you may be correct. This is similar, in fact, to the cavalier argument re: 1e. The cavalier has a few things going for it, but deep in the dungeons below Castle Greyhawk some of his advantages might be lethal to him. It seems, in fact, to me that this discussion highlights that the campaign assumptions that 1e works best for and the campaign assumptions 3e works best for are very, very different. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification