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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="(Psi)SeveredHead" data-source="post: 6015933" data-attributes="member: 1165">Each piece builds upon the other, so modifying one thing can have unintended consequences.I recall trying to build a swashbuckler class, giving flat AC bonuses (a fraction of the PC's level) as they gained levels. It was to make up for the PC's lighter armor and lack of shield. At the higher levels however, they ended up getting ACs skyrocketing, kind of like a monk but not quite as badly.I've seen numerous attempts at low-item gaming fail (due to magic items being very strong - and needed - for AC and saving throws but being much less important for offense).And let's talk about monsters... using nothing but core rules, I once drew up an unstoppable dire bear/frost giant barbarian. Actually, it wasn't unstoppable. It was a pretty balanced opponent (eg in terms of AC, hit points, saving throws, attack bonus, damage...), and the PCs killed it after a fierce battle, but its grapple check was so high you literally needed a natural 20 to escape. (The PC barbarian wasn't happy about being grappled like this.)Any rules change, especially a big ones (like low item gaming or a new class) impinge on so many factors you can easily lose track of them or make a mistake.I think coming up with something like a single feat is easy for 3e though. A single feat isn't likely to affect too many subsystems. (There's always exceptions to that rule though. Persistent Spell, Vow of Poverty, etc...)</blockquote>

Verification