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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Traycor" data-source="post: 3922781" data-attributes="member: 54613">I can understand the dislike for this one… but forbidden? Hardly. There is nothing stopping you from cutting back on hp or abilities or such the way there were lvl 0 optional rules for 3E in the DMG. It will just no longer be the default assumption that you are an apprentice. You are no longer forced to have apprentice levels skills or skip part of your game to jump to higher lvls.I absolutely hate starting games above lvl 1. I want to build the character up myself. Now I can do that without starting out an apprentice every time. (along with a group of other apprentices, which was always a stretch story-wise. Now parties can make more sense together.)Perhaps you misunderstand what I mean. Without healing, the game grinds to a halt. Without skills the game just gets harder. Or without martial prowess you must be more tactical or run away more. But without healing it usually means the party must rest or go back to town, but either way the game can get boring quickly.I also dislike the extreme power creep that high lvl healing causes in play. Mass Heal meant that at epic lvls monsters have to do 100’s of points of damage in a single round to keep things interesting since the whole party can be healed in one action.With lots of minor healing such a second wind, we can now play our games and have fun with or without a cleric.I guess this is a matter of opinion, but I disagree. Sorcerers and wizards were almost exactly the same besides the use of a spellbook. The rest was meta game stuff, spells per day, and amount of spells. Rangers were little different from a multiclass fighter/druid. 3.5 fixed this some with skills, but it was now like a rogue/druid. Barbarians weren’t much different from Fighters. They had more skills, but Int was a barbarian dump stat so the end result wasn’t much different. Rage boosted stats and meant the barbarian was mad in combat, but feats boost the fighter’s abilities and many fighters RP angry in combat, so it wasn’t that distinct to me.I’m talking classes that are truly distinct regardless of how well the players RP.Hehe, <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    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> me too. But in real life it’s not always possible. Therefore, their choices were to include it half-baked or to delay it. I’m glad they stood up for a better class and chose to delay.Hmm… not sure I get your point here. IMO lvls 20-30 were broken in 3E. The game became a nightmare to run. From what they are telling us, lvls 20-30 should be better now. And since the numbers are built in core, and the monsters are built in core, I’m inclined to think they are right.</blockquote>

Verification