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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MostlyDm" data-source="post: 6854563" data-attributes="member: 6788973">And many of them are strictly in every way better than the base classes they are ostensibly kits of. Even base classes that are already superb, like the "2nd best at every single thing in the game, except the stuff I'm best at" 2e cleric. Kits weren't even being balanced by the ostensible traditional mechanic of "strictly better classes take more XP to level."That's terrible design, in my opinion. But you're right you didn't have to use them, any more than you "had" to use various supplements for 3.X, 4e, etc. Why?They all seem fundamentally similar to me, same as new archetypes in 5e. I don't hate the existence of options on principle. But I will be careful about including them due to the times they lead to power creep (read: always, inevitably, forever and ever, in every system.)Oh, you misunderstood me. It was harder for them to run amok in 2e than 3e. 3.X is definitely the worst at this... that was my point: I don't mind overpowered player options so much, even with the edition that was the absolute worst at it, because I am generally comfortable modifying the system. 4e being the system I was the least comfortable modding, but I still did it plenty. I wasn't willing to play by their "6 hours of rest and no matter what your injury was you're back at 100%" for example, so I hacked in a very simple injury system that did not substantially disrupt the design assumption that does, in fact, assume everyone is always at 100% functionality at the start of a day. (Injuries = delayed recovery of X number of surges worked pretty well.)</blockquote>

Verification