Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="RFisher" data-source="post: 4619537" data-attributes="member: 3608">That’s one of the easiest to fix. Don’t do it. Either stop at the highest level that still “works” and play for in game rewards like a classic Traveller campaign or just retire the PCs and start a new campaign.They said early on “all feats aren’t equal”. This is really an insoluble problem. Two different things aren’t going to be worth the same with different DM or different groups. Besides, the differences are usually along multiple axes. Trying to quantify how much better X is than Y just doesn’t work. Lots of games have tried fine-grain pricing and they still can’t get it right.IMHO, 3e was exactly right to keep it coarse-grained and not worry about it so much.I’m at a loss for how this is really a major problem, because I haven’t seen it. Just because another feat might have been better in some way doesn’t mean that the one you have isn’t good in the way that it was good when you choose it.IMHO, 3e multiclassing was originally setup to be a suboptimal choice. Which is fine.Perhaps with the right combination of stuff from splatbooks you could built something “too good”, but I haven’t seen it. The single-class, core-only PCs in my group have held there own and were sometimes the ones accused of powergaming.But even if someone does come up with a incredibly good build, that’s good for you. The PCs are all on the same team! (typically) The disparity never gets to Angel Summoner and BMX Boy levels. And even if it did, in the game (rather than the skit) Angel Summoner still has a limited number of things he can do in one round when there are pressures that require more. And such.Well, at a basic level, I fully agree with this. One reason I prefer B/X D&D to 3e is that everyone at the table can “master” the B/X rules and quickly.But my experience with 3e was different.For the end of a friend’s campaign, I was invited to play the role of a very powerful NPC against another player playing another very powerful NPC. There is no doubt that his mastery of 3.5 and my lack of mastery was a deciding factor. I don’t know that I would’ve come out on top otherwise, but I know that I simply couldn’t compete because he knew the system better than I did.But that was a very intentional and unusual player-vs-player situation. In every other campaign, I’m not playing against another player. Therefore, my level of system mastery hasn’t really been an issue.Now, if you’ve got overly adversarial attitudes between the the DM and players—or even worse between the players themselves—I could see this being a problem. But I think you’ve still got problems no matter what system you’re playing. The complexity of 3e is just emphasizing them.In most groups, a participant with a higher level of mastery over the system actually helps everyone else so that level of mastery isn’t an issue.</blockquote>

Verification