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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bendris Noulg" data-source="post: 1420965" data-attributes="member: 6398">Actually, what was claimed is that 3E was supposed to allow all forms of gaming: Immersive, Min/Max, Power Game, etc. Problem is, CR is set up to remain challenging to the Min/Maxers and Power Gamers. This, of course, means that if you don't Min/Max or Power Game, you end up being below CR, which gets a bunch of upstarts whining about your character being ineffective when, in reality, it's really the game making some choices appear to be bad when they aren't. The archtypes, yes.  However, in litarature and movies, no one is exactly an archtype; They usually have other abilities and features that, while not uber-potent, add depth to them.  And I think that's what people want when they take a Feat or a few Ranks in something "sub-par" (if such a mythical thing truly exists): They want that other part reflected in their mechanics alongside the archtype qualities that make them effective adventurers. This is one of the reasons I allow extended training for extra Skill Points. Strangely enough, neither is being powerful. The question is, how powerful must the character be? Personally, I've played studious types that could barely take care of themselves, and I've played one-man killing machines (my current Oathbound character leads an army, and he and his Grey Elf Shaman/Witch Cohort Lover both have items from BoED and BoVD that make them... Interestingly potent.). However, when I encounter players that insist that every character must be uberfied or they're a waste of paper, I can't help but pity the individual for their lack of vision and inabilities as a role-player. I couldn't imagine playing the game with such a limited view of what's good and what isn't.</blockquote>

Verification