Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 8830926" data-attributes="member: 93670">The problem is rarely something like fighter12/wizard 1.&nbsp; It's things like 5e hexadin sorlock or <a href="https://youtu.be/TTBpVGeJLzI?t=193" target="_blank">3.5 lion totem bull rush great cleave monkey grip etc</a> fighter at the same table with a completely overshadowed &quot;this looks fun&quot;I didn't reven recall that being a thing until you mentioned it so think we probably got rid of it too. In doing so we had the ability to say &quot;we don't use that but&nbsp; we require x y &amp; z so lets start talking about your character&quot; or &quot;Yea.... Alice you are kind of completely overshadowing Bob &amp; Dave combined, lets talk about your PC&quot;. There were always rules in 2e &amp; 3.x that the GM said to ignore or chose to modify/restrict.&nbsp; 3.x did have requirements on PrCs like the ability to cast certain things skill x Y or better feat Z &amp; so forth... It was common for a gm to talk with &amp; work with a player to modify or even remove a specific requirement&nbsp; on a PrC yes, but I don't think I've ever heard of or imagined the chaos of people just blanket removing all PrC or feat prerequisites. 3.x had prerequires on stuff, 2e is the one that had the exp rejiggering by virtue of half exp for both sides of a dual class &amp; classes with very different exp charts.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tetrasodium, post: 8830926, member: 93670"] The problem is rarely something like fighter12/wizard 1. It's things like 5e hexadin sorlock or [URL='https://youtu.be/TTBpVGeJLzI?t=193']3.5 lion totem bull rush great cleave monkey grip etc[/URL] fighter at the same table with a completely overshadowed "this looks fun" I didn't reven recall that being a thing until you mentioned it so think we probably got rid of it too. In doing so we had the ability to say "[I]we don't use that but we require x y & z so lets start talking about your character[/I]" or "[I]Yea.... Alice you are kind of completely overshadowing Bob & Dave combined, lets talk about your PC[/I]". There were always rules in 2e & 3.x that the GM said to ignore or chose to modify/restrict. 3.x [I]did[/I] have requirements on PrCs like the ability to cast certain things skill x Y or better feat Z & so forth... It was common for a gm to talk with & work with a player to modify or even remove a specific requirement on a PrC yes, but I don't think I've ever heard of or imagined the chaos of people just blanket removing all PrC or feat prerequisites. [B] 3.x had prerequires on stuff, 2e is the one that had the exp rejiggering[/B] by virtue of half exp for both sides of a dual class & classes with very different exp charts. [/QUOTE]

Verification