Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Vyvyan Basterd" data-source="post: 5065115" data-attributes="member: 4892">I sustain that it is. All other versions of D&D, and for that matter all other RPGs I have played, were able to add options without causing the difficulty I encountered in 3E.System Mastery =/= Skill Level. You could be the biggest tome scouring min/maxxing power gamer in the world and still have terrible tactical skills on the table or poor roleplaying aptitude. OD&D, BD&D, 1E AD&D and 4E D&D all kept the gap in power level of the characters close enough to make DMing not seem like a chore to me. I thought 3E was very innovative at first and the core game worked well, but it did not stand up to the added options in play.I'm not confused, but you seem to be confused by my very premise. I WANT TO BE ABLE TO ADD OPTIONS TO MY GAME WITHOUT CREATING A POWER GAP TOO LARGE TO ACCOMODATE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF SYSTEM MASTERY. I never said these options were mandatory, nor did I state that I thought banning permission was a bad idea if that's what you want from the game.4E goes back to an older paradigm regarding multiclassing. It does not allow one to cherry pick the best pieces of hundreds of different prestige classes to create something larger than the whole of its pieces.They are all fine if they suit your needs, I never would say anything different. Can you tell me honestly that any of the "problematic options" you refer to above didn't have the issue behind the ban stem from the possibility for a player to cherry pick that ability? Or do you dismiss the 3.5 design team's observations that there was a problem with players cherry picking abilities that were front-loaded into even core classes? I don't throw the fact word around lightly, I can back it up.</blockquote>

Verification