Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6854847" data-attributes="member: 996">It wasn't the main thrust of the article, which was about the presentation of the game, but it was one of the other two M:tG design 'lessons' used in 3e, and was stated as a fact, just to preface and illustrate that 3e took some ideas from M:tG. There's not a lot of room for equivocation there.  Everyone was well aware that 3e was the delight of powergamers everywhere, Cook just stepped forward and said "yeah, we meant to do that," casually, just to lead into another point he maybe thought was less obvious...Honestly, I thought that was what you were getting at in saying that the 'point' of PrCs was powergaming.  The only difference being that I'm not aware of a 2e developer being on record the way Cook is.They're entirely about what you do with them.  If you pick Frigid-Climate Anagokok because being an eskimo wizard sounds cool to you, RP wise, Kit's are 100% about RP.  If you choose Mystic so you can abuse astral projection, kits are 100% about powergaming.  If you choose something as broken as 2e bladesinger, but say it's just because a singing elf sounds cool to you, well...Same with L&L specialty priests (as opposed to those in the CPH, they were fine).  There were some broken player choices in 2e, people caught on.But, in the latter case, the man in charge came right out and said that some choices were just intentionally better than others.</blockquote>