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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jasamcarl" data-source="post: 163222" data-attributes="member: 1251">Why do i try?I always love that attitude the associates some type of bohemian eliticism with only playing with core rules. As if to say that the type of extreme variation that can only come about with any rules fidelity from some expansion material must be the mark of the 'powergamer' or the even more laughable 'munchkin.' The stigma attached to these terms of course get inflammatory posters noticed and serves to place those of different views on the defensive, as if they are the ones that have to prove balance or lack thereof. And to those that who would claim that most(if not all) prc concepts could be accomplished with feat chains, i will say you obviously have a vague understanding at best as to the underlying game theory of D&D. Yes, feats are more flexible, but like the looser skill system to which they owe their heritage, that comes at the expense of balance for feats, and even worse feat chains, tend to compliment each other without associated costs in 'fixed' attributes such as BaB, AC, HP, etc. That is why dnd still has classes and why prcs are a good idea. You couldn't get the type of variation or specialization you have in prcs with feats without leaving room for extreme balance problems, for those abilites would not be tied to poor feat prereqs, lower hit die, etc. Even the so-called 'bland' prcs in S&S have a place because, though you could carve out a similar niche with feats, you could not do so to the degree you can with prcs....</blockquote>

Verification