Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 6949503" data-attributes="member: 12731">I consider myself a power gamer, and let me tell you I shared your worries.At first. Practical play has shown that most cases brought up as arguments against advantage are indeed corner cases, that simply seldom have any impact on the game.That is why I reserve my concern for the future, since I feel they would push their luck if all they did was to create ever-more sources of advantage. While I can't agree the advantage system is overworked (not to the point where the disadvantages of having it overshadows the brilliant simplicity), I am not denying the risk of it doing so in the future. The more advantage you add, the more strained the system will be. That is why I caution the designers: don't add much more advantage without also coming up with a solution that takes the pressure off!I would be okay with a "double advantage" rule emaining a variant for those of us that need it. You might need it already. I might need it when the Big Book of crunch drops. Others might never need it.What worries me is how UA subclass after UA subclass grants advantage with no indication the design team can even see the pressure rising... Even a very simple or clumsy attempt at fixing the issue (such as a crude UA article) would ease my mind, since it would tell me MMearls & Co are at least aware of the issue...</blockquote>