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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ThoughtBubble" data-source="post: 3088958" data-attributes="member: 9723">D&D is kind of weird about it's options. The way I describe it is that, when asked "Can I do X?", D&D says "No, unless you do..." A good example is feat selection. The typical way to get a good feat is to have a stat of at least X, and take two other feats (which may also have stat requirements). This is shown perfectly in 3.0's dual wield feats. To be effective at it at level one required 2 feats, meaning that you needed to be a fighter, a ranger, or human and already proficient in the weapon you want to use. Also, watch that dex. Archers are a similar sort of deal. Yes, I could use my level 1 feat to get precise shot, my level 3 feat to get point blank shot, and my level 6 feat to pick up longbow proficiency.  Prestige Classes only add to this.  Yeah, you're very right that the feat and skill systems do a great job of making sure that the character is quite a bit more than just stats. And that's a lot of why I got back into gaming with 3.0.But in the end, D&D is a game that makes you jump through hoops to get to the candy. That makes the game less accessable, and with fairly limited resources (say 7 feats over the entire course of a character's career -- potentially years of playing), that makes some of these hoops incredibly expensive. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but the design of 3.x rewards planning ahead and taking efficient paths while punishing non-proficiency and non-specialization. It's not having options that encourages the powergame mindset, it's having restricted options with high rewards for efficient use of limited resources.</blockquote>

Verification