Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 7340082" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya!I think @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=97077" target="_blank">iserith</a> nailed it. Our game (I'm DM) doesn't use Feats or MC...so there's that. But iserith said in his game that the Ranger (Beast Master) works just fine. Same thing in my game. In fact, I think of every single ranger ever played by any player over the 3.5 years of playing, only ONE person took the 'other' Ranger archtype (Archer/Hunter or something?...I can't even remember what it's called it's so rarely used). My games involve a lot of 'wandering around and exploration' as well. Additionally, my players will tend to fall towards the &quot;Well, what would my PC do in this situation?&quot; more than &quot;Well, what tactical move will give my PC the best bonus?&quot;. This counts for all aspects of the PC...so combat, exploration, role-playing, decision making, etc.Anyway, the individual Players and DM are really the ones who define if something in an RPG is &quot;overpowered&quot; or &quot;optimal&quot; nine times out of ten. At least IME at any rate.(PS: The reason we don't use Feats is simply because we found that there were 'expected choices'? I guess? Based on a very rough PC idea; the 'Big Tough Warrior' would be half-orc, barbarian, GWM'. If you tried to make a BTW be a halfling, fighter, with no Feat...you were *automatically* NOT a 'BTW' simply because the choice to take the other things was there. In short, Feats made PC's faaaar more 'Same-ey' then without them. And MC? It just doesn't feel right at all to us. Maybe if we used 'many/all options from available books' we would see a more 'optimal choice' thing going on. So...uh...yeah. Drop feats, MC, and only use PHB. Problem solved!&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp; [note smiley] ).^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pming, post: 7340082, member: 45197"] Hiya! I think @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=97077"]iserith[/URL][/U][/B][/I] nailed it. Our game (I'm DM) doesn't use Feats or MC...so there's that. But iserith said in his game that the Ranger (Beast Master) works just fine. Same thing in my game. In fact, I think of every single ranger ever played by any player over the 3.5 years of playing, only ONE person took the 'other' Ranger archtype (Archer/Hunter or something?...I can't even remember what it's called it's so rarely used). My games involve a lot of 'wandering around and exploration' as well. Additionally, my players will tend to fall towards the "Well, what [I]would[/I] my PC do in this situation?" more than "Well, what [I]tactical move[/I] will give my PC the best bonus?". This counts for all aspects of the PC...so combat, exploration, role-playing, decision making, etc. Anyway, the individual Players and DM are really the ones who define if something in an RPG is "overpowered" or "optimal" nine times out of ten. At least IME at any rate. [I] (PS: The reason we don't use Feats is simply because we found that there were 'expected choices'? I guess? Based on a very rough PC idea; the 'Big Tough Warrior' would be half-orc, barbarian, GWM'. If you tried to make a BTW be a halfling, fighter, with no Feat...you were *automatically* NOT a 'BTW' simply because the choice to take the other things was there. In short, Feats made PC's faaaar more 'Same-ey' then without them. And MC? It just doesn't feel right at all to us. Maybe if we used 'many/all options from available books' we would see a more 'optimal choice' thing going on. So...uh...yeah. Drop feats, MC, and only use PHB. Problem solved! ;) [note smiley] ).[/I] ^_^ Paul L. Ming [/QUOTE]

Verification