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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 3220025" data-attributes="member: 22424">Other than that PrCs with "+1 Caster Level" at every level are almost guaranteed to be overpowered, I don't see the problem here. Oh, and they need to look at a couple of the classes where making a dip of a level or two is a little too nice.I think perhaps Prestige Classes should be renamed, though. Oh, and I hate with a passion the attitude (prevalent in my group, but perhaps not generally) that you _have_ to take a PrC to remain competitive.Other than that the "Sudden X" feats should probably require "X" as a pre-requisite, I don't see too much of a problem here. In each case, there is a cost for the supposedly "free" metamagic.I agree this is a problem, but I'll submit that it is also inevitable. More books means more options, which means more chance of a 'killer combination' being found.In my opinion, the only solution to this is for the DM and the players to use the rules responsibly. If a killer combo is found, they each need to agree to just not use it, for the good of the game. Any other solution either won't get to the root of the problem, or will be overly restrictive.It doesn't. Adding lots of feats to the game can't solve this problem, since it's an issue with one core weapon choice, one core low-level feat, and one core magic item. Individually, they're all fine, but put together...The actual solution is to probably reduce the two-weapon fighting penalties, make the animated shield significantly more expensive (or just remove it), and make shields in general more beneficial.No, I lean the other way. Balancing per day leads to a buff-fight-rest paradigm where the spellcasters exhaust all their spells in the first encounter of the day, then insist the group rest while they recover. And there are only so many times the DM can have them be attacked while resting, assign a time limit, or impose the other dodges that are commonly used.Given the choice, I'll take a game balanced per encounter over one balanced per day, thanks. (And publishing two versions is a non-starter; WotC would be mad to compete with themselves like that.)In general, I agree with your assessment of the problem. However, reducing the duration to a number of rounds just reinforces the buff-fight-rest paradigm. And these spells are not so powerful relative to other spells of their level as to justify costly materials or XP components.What's probably needed is to reduce the number of spell slots available to the Cleric (and similar classes), and increase the need for those situational spells in encounter design, so that a group who blow all their Clerical spell resources on buffs suddenly find all their enounters much harder due to the lack of healings, divinations, battlefield control, or whatever else the Cleric could bring to the table instead.If players are taking too long, it is incumbent on the DM to tell them to get a move on. The Fighter really should have a cheat-sheet showing all his options. Or, he should just use these feats in increments of 5, and stop insisting on recalcuating every round to sqeeze out every possible +1 modifier from the system.In short: no thanks. I like having the options.D&D isn't real life, and where life doesn't have to be fair, a game should be.In the last campaign I played featuring randomly rolled ability scores, one player rolled the equivalent of a 64-point buy, while another rolled a 20-point buy. Now, at high level, that disparity might not have been too bad, but starting at 1st level, this was the equivalent of three or so 'free' levels to the lucky player's character, and it meant that the unlucky player had no fun for the duration of that (mercifully short) campaign.So, no, I'm of the opinion that dice rolls have no place in character creation and management. I'll have point-buy, fixed starting funds by class, and fixed hit points per level, thanks.Fortunately, this is one area where the game really can cater to both sides.I don't see rerolls as a signficant problem, but whatever.In exactly the same way that Sauron poured all his rage and malice into the forging of the One Ring.I really dislike the 'rare components' solution. It serves to make the crafting of items too rare, where this aspect of the game is something that 3e vastly improved IMO. If you must get rid of the XP cost, either reduce the price break on crafted items to no more than 10% (instead of the current 50%), or use the craft point rules (which I believe are in Unearthed Arcana, and the Artificer uses a similar system.)</blockquote>

Verification