Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Engilbrand" data-source="post: 3414878" data-attributes="member: 44184">I think that a lot of &quot;fixes&quot; that posters make to classes and prestige classes are just like when politicians &quot;fix&quot; things. They aren't really being fixed. They're being changed.Politician: &quot;I want to fix the education system by having more standardized tests so that we can improve accountability.&quot; That's a &quot;fix&quot;. It doesn't actually do anything positive (and is probably doing more harm). It's just &quot;different&quot;, and a lot of people are under the mistaken impression that &quot;different&quot; must automatically mean better. It doesn't.Poster: &quot;I fixed the Radiant Servant of Pelor by....&quot; or &quot;Here's my new and improved Swashbuckler. I fixed it by...&quot; Those are &quot;fixes&quot;. Note the quotations. It doesn't actually fix anything. It's a change, to be sure. A question, though. What if, in my game, the Radiant Servant of Pelor fits perfectly? What if the Planar Sheppard doesn't have a negative impact? What if- and I know this is crazy- I actually allowed something in play to see what I thought? Instead of just reading it and looking for all of the game breaking elements, I remembered that this is a game and I trust my players not to end a game by purposely doing something ridiculous? It seems like this doesn't happen in many games that I read about. People just &quot;fix&quot; something, or they allow it in play and the player or events unbalance things. I don't think that anything currently in a book from WoTC is actually broken unless you or your players purposely do something retarded to it.Now, does this mean that I have never posted alternates? Of course not! I've posted alternate classes and alternate features before. I even called one thing a Fighter &quot;fix&quot;. My first line was about how I didn't think that the Fighter was worthless. I gave it some scaling abilities a la Tome of Battle and Magic of Incarnum and called it a day. It was something that I aknowledged could be fleshed out and had the possibility to add some variety to the Fighter. BUT, I did not say that I fixed it. Notice the lack of quotations.Are there some things that I wouldn't want in a game? Sure. There was a player who was thinking about playing a Frenzied Berserker. We talked him out of it. I like the class and have thought about playing one before. For a campaign, though? Not without some specific things planned out first. Is it broken? No. But it has a better possibility of killing party members than a misplaced Fireball or Wail of the Banshee does. If people stopped looking to break classes and prestige classes and instead started to look at them in terms of fun, there should be a lot fewer threads about how &quot;broken&quot; something is.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Engilbrand, post: 3414878, member: 44184"] I think that a lot of "fixes" that posters make to classes and prestige classes are just like when politicians "fix" things. They aren't really being fixed. They're being changed. Politician: "I want to fix the education system by having more standardized tests so that we can improve accountability." That's a "fix". It doesn't actually do anything positive (and is probably doing more harm). It's just "different", and a lot of people are under the mistaken impression that "different" must automatically mean better. It doesn't. Poster: "I fixed the Radiant Servant of Pelor by...." or "Here's my new and improved Swashbuckler. I fixed it by..." Those are "fixes". Note the quotations. It doesn't actually fix anything. It's a change, to be sure. A question, though. What if, in my game, the Radiant Servant of Pelor fits perfectly? What if the Planar Sheppard doesn't have a negative impact? What if- and I know this is crazy- I actually allowed something in play to see what I thought? Instead of just reading it and looking for all of the game breaking elements, I remembered that this is a game and I trust my players not to end a game by purposely doing something ridiculous? It seems like this doesn't happen in many games that I read about. People just "fix" something, or they allow it in play and the player or events unbalance things. I don't think that anything currently in a book from WoTC is actually broken unless you or your players purposely do something retarded to it. Now, does this mean that I have never posted alternates? Of course not! I've posted alternate classes and alternate features before. I even called one thing a Fighter "fix". My first line was about how I didn't think that the Fighter was worthless. I gave it some scaling abilities a la Tome of Battle and Magic of Incarnum and called it a day. It was something that I aknowledged could be fleshed out and had the possibility to add some variety to the Fighter. BUT, I did not say that I fixed it. Notice the lack of quotations. Are there some things that I wouldn't want in a game? Sure. There was a player who was thinking about playing a Frenzied Berserker. We talked him out of it. I like the class and have thought about playing one before. For a campaign, though? Not without some specific things planned out first. Is it broken? No. But it has a better possibility of killing party members than a misplaced Fireball or Wail of the Banshee does. If people stopped looking to break classes and prestige classes and instead started to look at them in terms of fun, there should be a lot fewer threads about how "broken" something is. [/QUOTE]

Verification