Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dozen" data-source="post: 6155779" data-attributes="member: 6698275">^^Good heavens, no. I'd never dare suggest core classes are boring! I meant the lack of material is restrictive of artistic tastes. More books equal more options, more options equal more style. Dangerous with full casters, binders and psions abound, admittably - not as such with less powerful classes, all of which can adopt to a miriad of roles. Annnd that's just silly. I mean, it's completely true, sure, but doesn't address the real issue. My woes go out to the imbalance between classes. I'm not degrading the boon of a hearty Fighter who fights alongside my Wizard through whatever shenanigans we or the DM can think of. He, on the contrary, may feel uncomfortable being a one-hit pony while I defy conventional physics as a Standard Action. Damn, I'm three mid-level spellslots and a single multiclass dip(I begrudgingly admit banning this option to achieve balance was a good idea, even if I don't like it myself) away from taking his place entirely for a whole encounter. Book limits will never change that. In fact, the opposite happens, as you banned material intended for Fighters along with material intended for Wizards, and let's be frank, out of those two the Fighters draw the short straw. There are other, more 'beefy' melee classes out there who don't need to optimize the Nine Hells out of themselves to avoid the sense of inadequacy. On the flipside, there are just as many weak magic users to go hand-in-hand with Fighters and their buds. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's only beneficial to consider inherent power factors when attempting to run a balanced campaign. Me on the other hand? I prefer to watch and smile as my players tear the multiverse into confetti. I can see the appeal to both playstyles, however.Why shouldn't you when you can choose both without losing anything, though? I wouldn't waste the extra mile you can go to stylize your PCs for the world. I came up an illusionist build who, while comparably a bad Wizard, can fill in for the Barbarian, and, to an extent, the Cleric, and better at being a Rogue than an actual Rogue, just for fun. It's not gamebreaking, none such is possible without at least a couple of books, and I formed the build based on the character concept(A once selfish, sneaky, somewhat insane mage who aquired divine powers through a quest to save his soul, to grossly simplify it), not the other way around.Realize, a campaign will never be broken unless a player wants to break it. Surely your table has no such intentions, since otherwise you wouldn't play together. Why limit their options?</blockquote>

Verification