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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 4523127" data-attributes="member: 22424">I'm ambivalent. The XPH represents the first D&D psionics system I consider well-balanced, and it fits a particular style of game (it fits an Oriental Adventures campaign very well, for example). However, i probably doesn't fit the majority of campaigns, for style reasons.Love the idea, but the execution is massively overpowered. In fact, I'm not at all a fan of the blatant power-creep that is found in a lot of the 3.5e books of the last two years of that run (some elements of PHB2 also have that problem).No.Can be. I've never personally had a problem with it, but if my players were better min-maxers then I probably would have.Mostly RAW. House rules mostly consist of "this book is allowed; that one is not."On balance, casually.I have one player who is definately a casual gamer, one who builds mechanically solid but non-optimal characters, and one with a knack of finding the 'easy' optimisations and using those exclusively. However, he isn't truly dedicated to his art, so hasn't ever produced a Pun-Pun or similar.Anyway, I have truly woeful luck with dice, so they don't actually need to optimise.As an option, yes. As the default, no. Personally, I like it, but not to the exclusion of everything else.Currently 3e. We're yet to try 4e, although that is scheduled for our next game. I'm determined to give it a fair shot, but I must admit I have grave doubts about the game. My players seem to be rather less keen on the system even than I am.Regardless, we won't be abandoning 3e entirely for 4e - at the very least I still want to run the "Curse of the Crimson Throne" AP. It's also likely we'll be picking up the Pathfinder RPG as an additional option, purely so we can run the newer APs without worrying about conversion.</blockquote>

Verification