Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="rowport" data-source="post: 3402594" data-attributes="member: 9729">Fair enough-- I think YMMV quite a bit depending on your particular game group.I think this is a fair point.&nbsp; I would posit that most players who own lots of sourcebooks are more likely to know how to leverage the advantage of flexibility in options offered by having access to them, but I could certainly see how that is not always the case.&nbsp; Your example below of a Swashbuckler/Beguiler is a good one; it has lots of cool flavor (really!) but is not a powerhouse build by any measure.&nbsp; I guess I would still think that having the extra options has a value, even if you choose to favor flavor rather than mechanical benefits.&nbsp; You could still argue that your Swashbuckler/Beguiler is &quot;cooler&quot; than a vanilla Fighter, so there may be a value in that even if the other character is more powerful.You lost me on this part.&nbsp; If somebody really wanted a Catfolk Scout/Swordsage, what would stop him from buying those books and doing so?&nbsp; I would think the core-only 'power-up' is just to compensate for those folks who could not or would not spend the money to buy the other books.&nbsp; Did I misunderstand your point?Speaking only for myself, my point here is not to say that any solution is better than any other (or even that there is a problem to solve-- to all those posters who said that they would choose to play core-only while others using splatbooks- great!).&nbsp; I am only suggesting that there is not a &quot;wrong&quot; answer.&nbsp; It will vary from group-to-group, based on lots of factors.&nbsp; Some may lend books.&nbsp; Some may use net builds.&nbsp; Some may use pirated pdfs (grr.).&nbsp; Some may not care about &quot;power&quot;, and volunteer to play a PHB Fighter while others use optimized builds with splatbooks.&nbsp; It's all good (well, except the piracy bit-- that is not so good).&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="rowport, post: 3402594, member: 9729"] Fair enough-- I think YMMV quite a bit depending on your particular game group. I think this is a fair point. I would posit that most players who own lots of sourcebooks are more likely to know how to leverage the advantage of flexibility in options offered by having access to them, but I could certainly see how that is not always the case. Your example below of a Swashbuckler/Beguiler is a good one; it has lots of cool flavor (really!) but is not a powerhouse build by any measure. I guess I would still think that having the extra options has a value, even if you choose to favor flavor rather than mechanical benefits. You could still argue that your Swashbuckler/Beguiler is "cooler" than a vanilla Fighter, so there may be a value in that even if the other character is more powerful. You lost me on this part. If somebody really wanted a Catfolk Scout/Swordsage, what would stop him from buying those books and doing so? I would think the core-only 'power-up' is just to compensate for those folks who could not or would not spend the money to buy the other books. Did I misunderstand your point? Speaking only for myself, my point here is not to say that any solution is better than any other (or even that there is a problem to solve-- to all those posters who said that they would choose to play core-only while others using splatbooks- great!). I am only suggesting that there is not a "wrong" answer. It will vary from group-to-group, based on lots of factors. Some may lend books. Some may use net builds. Some may use pirated pdfs (grr.). Some may not care about "power", and volunteer to play a PHB Fighter while others use optimized builds with splatbooks. It's all good (well, except the piracy bit-- that is not so good). :D [/QUOTE]

Verification