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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6930516" data-attributes="member: 996">Heh.  To be clear, my personal preference /is/ for the slow pace of releases (I've felt that way since around '95 when I gave up on 2e because it was bloating so horribly), I'd just like to see the players options rounded out.  Right now they're too skewed towards 2e-emulating support and way, way too skewed towards PC caster options.  It wouldn't take much: <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A a pair of non-caster classes, one of them the Warlord, obviously (the could be something like the Warblade perhaps) - or even just the Warlord re-imagined as more than just a 'leader' with a lot of archetypes and many more new non-supernatural Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian, Ranger (and maybe even Monk) archetypes.  Some sort of Bo9S supplement, for instance, or, to keep to the SCAG model, a lower-magic setting supplement.  That would go further towards enabling 4e-supported styles than a mere tactical module.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A solid, flexible (both magic & not-magic takes entirely workable, old-school sci-fi/Freudian weirdness an option) take on Psionics - more than just the Mystics and assumptions of a Far-Realms link, but basically in the pipeline as we speak.  </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A module for magic-items/wealth-by-level assumptions, the Artificer class (and Alchemists and other high-magic/magic-as-technology/pervasive-magic goodies), and more granular player options like PrCs - an obvious place for it would be an Eberron supplement - and that'd make 3e, player-empowering styles more practical.</li> </ul>Three books spread over 3 years, and there'd be little left to complain about beyond missing little niche things like specific PrCs or obscure non-PH classes.I'd prefer both:  the game rounded out /and/ players being more accepting of homebrewing (because that's really the stumbling block, most DMs are OK with wielding the banhammer, adopting non-core things /they/ like, or making up their own stuff - it's when players, particularly those accustomed to the 3e style of player 'entitlement' - dig in their heels at deviating from the RAW that there are problems).  There's nothing about them that's innately exclusive.  Indeed, more opt-in options puts the option of homebrewing more solidly in the DM's court by creating the expectation that different things will be available at different tables.I've done it a lot over the years, and, when I'm inspired, I can bang out something halfway decent in a matter of hours.  When I'm inspired.  What I'm inspired to make is not always what my players need, though.  The rules are a place to start, but right now that place is way over on the side of everyone playing a caster in a high-magic world where you have 6-8 encounters every day, and it's along uphill walk in the snow to anyplace else.</blockquote>

Verification