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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ridley's Cohort" data-source="post: 6033390" data-attributes="member: 545">No, it really is not a problem with power return on investment.  If the potential power gain is large the investment becomes mandatory, regardless of whether the price paid in personal resources is high or low.  It so happens that in 3e the price is commensurately high (many feats stacked together), but that just means that it is mandatory for Fighters, and thus Fighters themselves are tone down in power because the designers must assume they are specialists.  Ta da!  Every Fighter who does not want to suck must be that one trick pony -- no exceptions.If the price were low, then it is just a different kind of balance headache, not necessarily worse or better.  (If, say, the Paladin can go this route, too, maybe it is not a balance problem at all.)As a practical matter, it is the stacks that are the problem.  It is kind of neat to have Weapon Focus (+1 to hit) OR Improved Critical OR Quickdraw as a fun shtick for my Young Robin Hood PC as he climbs his way up to greatness.  One or even two bonuses are fine.  Bigger stacks are inevitably mandatory.Now, that might be okay for one particular PC you have in mind.  But it converts the Fighter class into a One Trick Pony for everyone always.  Keep in mind that "hitting people with metal pointy things" is already is very narrow scope, within the greater context of D&D (so much so that some would argue it is a major design problem).  Is building a Core class for "hitting people with one and only one kind of pointy thing" such a great design idea?As I said, specialization as seen in 1e/2e/3e seems pretty logical.  It just does not work out so well in practice.</blockquote>

Verification