Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Empirate" data-source="post: 6102540" data-attributes="member: 78958">Sure enough. I can totally understand not liking the later 3.5 books. Even to me, they don't &quot;feel like D&amp;D&quot; as much. But they add so much to the game, especially in terms of new and (back then) exciting mechanics: vestige binding, invocations, spontaneous fixed-list casters (Beguiler etc.), reserve and devotion feats, skill tricks, maneuvers... It's much easier to fill one and the same party role using a lot of different approaches.Now one could say that this is not needed, that it dilutes party roles or classic class concepts or whatever, that it introduces power creep when compared to straight Core, etc. Most of these claims can even be argued quite convincingly. However, to me, the later 3.5 books made the game much bigger, much more versatile, and consequently much more interesting. Plus they provided much-needed support for some until then often neglected party roles and classes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Empirate, post: 6102540, member: 78958"] Sure enough. I can totally understand not liking the later 3.5 books. Even to me, they don't "feel like D&D" as much. But they add so much to the game, especially in terms of new and (back then) exciting mechanics: vestige binding, invocations, spontaneous fixed-list casters (Beguiler etc.), reserve and devotion feats, skill tricks, maneuvers... It's much easier to fill one and the same party role using a lot of different approaches. Now one could say that this is not needed, that it dilutes party roles or classic class concepts or whatever, that it introduces power creep when compared to straight Core, etc. Most of these claims can even be argued quite convincingly. However, to me, the later 3.5 books made the game much bigger, much more versatile, and consequently much more interesting. Plus they provided much-needed support for some until then often neglected party roles and classes. [/QUOTE]

Verification