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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Edena_of_Neith" data-source="post: 4731040" data-attributes="member: 2020">I have Crystalkeep here, and I see ... 110 pages of feats.  Over 2,000 feats.  So, what am I seeing?  A candystore.  Herein are endless shelves of candy and ice cream, for the players - my friends - to gorge themselves with.  I thus create rules to allow them to eat away.  Normal advancement?  11 feats + 3 feats per character level.  Gestalt single class (2 classes, counting as 1 character level) ?  22 feats + 6 feats per character level.  Gestalt triple class (3 classes, counting as 1 character level, ala a 1E or 2E triple multiclassed character) ?  33 feats + 9 feats per character level.  Likewise, quadruple the skill points.  Fighters, wizards, and others of like ilk receive 8 points per level, the rogue receives 32 points per level.  Gestalt characters receive the combined skill points of all classes they have, each character level (if a fighter/wizard, they would receive 8 + 8.  If a fighter/rogue, 8 + 32.  If starting off, x4.)  Why not?  Why not simply open the candy store completely to the players?  Let them have a free for all in the store?  Let them eat to their heart's content?  Even with this many feats, and this many skill points, they still won't have anywhere near all the feats, or all the skills (the candy store is simply too big, too vast, for it to be possible, even at 20th level, even after 20 levels of eating the candy!)  The candy was put there by the creators of 3rd edition for player consumption.  Why not allow them to eat?  The players are one's friends, and as DM one's purpose is to give them a good time (in the game.)  Fun is the word.  I think giving them the candy is an appropriate way to help with the fun.  I and the players would discuss certain feats before the game, such as Spellfire, or Irresistible Spell.  These could affect the fun of the game.  But if the players desire these feats, who am I to deny them?  These feats will definitely alter the game, and the players should be aware of that, but the players should have the last word in this, for they want the fun.  REMEMBER that whatever the Player Characters have, the Monsters also have.  So if a PC wizard has Irresistible Spell and Material Sacrifice and/or Divine Metamagic (the original version), a Monster may well have these feats too.  So the Autokill Spells work both ways!  If a PC has Spellfire, an opponent might have it.  If a PC can Polymorph Self (the older spell version) into a being with multiple arms and hands, and attack with each and every one of them proficiently (gaining 15 attacks!) then there are undoubtedly Monsters out there who can also do this.  In short, the Monsters are also dining in the candy shop.  And the Monsters - and NPCs - are taking some of the very best of the ice cream for themselves.  It is going to be a nasty ride for the PCs, with all these skills and feats floating around out there!  But why not?  Why not allow the players full access to the candy store?  Give them the skill points and the feats, and let them have fun engrossing themselves with the full potential of the rules?  The rules are there to be used, and I say:  let the players play away!  I think that this is the approach, *the* approach, to a great game.  Fun is the Word.  Choice is for Fun.  And these are my friends.  I, as DM, am there for the purpose of entertaining them, and vicariously feeling their enjoyment.  If you believe my approach is incorrect (I am certain that most of you believe my approach is incorrect) then why is my approach incorrect?  Where am I going wrong?  What is needed to make it right?  For all I seek here, is to grant my players a good time.  If my approach is failing, if choice is a failure, then what actually works?  Most of you are competent, experienced, and long-time DMs.  You know what has worked and what has not worked, in your games and campaigns.  Some of your are Game Designers, and that speaks for itself (to your immense credit and honor, obviously!)  If my approach is incorrect, explain why.  And explain what does work, what has worked, what will work, in your opinion.  Would you?  Edena_of_Neith</blockquote>

Verification