Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 9235119" data-attributes="member: 19675">You have to have someone who is both willing to dominate the game AND being allowed to do so.In earlier editions, spell acquisition had a slightly randomized factor to it.  You might WANT Spell X when you level up, but there were no guarantees you’d get it.  That tended to affect any PC’s accumulation of more powerful spells.  In a campaign that started in AD&D and got translated into 2nd then 3Ed, and finally 3.5Ed, there was very little overlap in the higher end of the major casters’ spellbooks.3.X removed that guardrail.But nearly everyone I’ve played D&D with started with those edition-based guardrails, and either consciously limited themselves, didn’t realize they were limiting themselves, or the DM imposed those mechanics from older editions into 3.5.Add in a group of players who- almost as a rule- only cast spells when necessary as opposed to going nova wherever, whenever, and you just don’t see casters simply dominating the game.I would say it depends on your definition of effective.  As for whether it requires a bit more thought than designing a spellcaster?  I honestly can’t say.  I put a LOT of thought into almost all of my 3.X PCs.  How much depended on how inspired I was by all the factors contributing to creating PCs for a given campaign.</blockquote>