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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="green slime" data-source="post: 4807179" data-attributes="member: 1325">Wierd, but I'll try to humour you.Um, IMO, there is. We have the expected wealth by level guidelines, the ability for players to create their own magical items, and PCs are expected to purchase magical items. What exactly where you expecting?!? It is all going to vary according to player & DM tastes anyway!Is this a huge problem? Makes it impossible to run a game at all? Or is it merely a minor inconvenience? Coming from 1e / 2e, I think the 3.x system is "more than adequate". Any more detailed/involved, and its going to get bogged down.Um... I disagree. Spell thief is not a base class that is available in the core three, and there are books covering the evil & cg paladin, for those who feel that is a shortcoming of the core 3. Personally, I agree with Gygax original comments regarding the inclusion of paladin and the lack of a blackguard back in the day of 1e.You don't need WotC's approval to create and include a character concept base class for your game, if that is what you wish for.Hippy tree-hugger? Not aware of that base character class. Nor the street punk pickpockets class. Either of those two concepts could be barbarian class characters. *Shrug* Your perfectly free to change this in your games. Any game will have similar seemingly arbitrary restrictions somewhere. Speed boosts exist in multiple forms: feats, magical items, and spells. Then there is a ring od Evasion. I'm not seeing this as a hindrance to my ability to immerse into the game, and have fun.You want to roll for starting level?!??! there really isn't that much difference between medium and short. Given that everything is modulised in 5' increments, would you have small characters have no reach?Elephants walk pretty quietly. ? I'm not understanding your problems here.I agree with your reservations surrounding the multiclass restrictions: the designers themselves suggested they had only been included as a kind of last minute salute to certain phalanx of conservative types. I do agree with the alignment restrictions. I'd have no problem altering those if I felt it was called for in a campaign, but I have yet to have a campaign where I thought chaotic monks or lawful barbarians were appropriate.I disagree in part. There are some redundant choices, I agree. But on the whole, you get to choose: same damage die, different critical threat (18-20, 19-20, 20), different critical multiplier (x2, x3, x4).larger damage die, exotic weaponsmaller damage die, simple weaponWhich all affect the flavour and reflect the temperament and desires of the player: Do I want to do more damage on a critical less often, or crit more often, and do slightly less damage?That is a problem? Turn Undead is clunky, and should definitely be rethought to a degree. I think you are placing the horse before the cart in this case. Would you prefer characters to have less hp?Really? Perhaps. Maybe that is why it wasn't so common in the real world.There is some inconsistency here. I don't let it bother me too much, except when the introduced new spells that broke the mold.Required?!? Don't know about that. I don't see any scenario in which a DM decides a character must die, that Power Attack will prevent that character death. So, the obverse is also true: We play with a DM. The DM moderates the game. Players are challenged. Fun ensues. Power attack or no. You can't claim that there is a high level monster that the DM must include, that can only be handled by Power Attack!</blockquote>

Verification