Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Nail" data-source="post: 2675126" data-attributes="member: 224">Right.&nbsp; If a spell is overpowered in your &quot;personal design philosophy&quot;........that must prove something, right?Let's nail this down a bit with some history.&nbsp; Remember when 3.0e first came out?&nbsp; One of big &quot;overpowered&quot; classes people pointed at was....the Sorcerer.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp;&nbsp; 'Mostly because no one had really played it much, and had no experience with the class and its (severe) limitations.Since then, most of us have learned how wrong that &quot;read-through impression&quot; was.&nbsp; It turns out &quot;play-testing&quot; really is the acid test for new rules.&nbsp; (Although the initial reaction to the Warlock class showed some people never learn.....)&nbsp; Even the best designers know they'd be foolish to judge a mechanic based only on its description on paper.&nbsp;&nbsp; ....And they also know that a rule that is a problem with some groups won't be a problem with others.Designing your own rules can be fun....but don't mistake your design principles for well-tested mechanics.&nbsp; I can tell that line is a little blurry for you.First, we're discussing whether or not a cleric is balanced as is.&nbsp; Asserting it isn't just to prove another point is misleading, at best.Second, it's debatable which of the add-on feats are truely broken.&nbsp; You and I might agree Persistant Spell feat is broken.&nbsp; Others, however, are not generally agreed upon.&nbsp; Domain Spontaneity, for example, has worked out well in our games, as well as others.Third, &quot;if you keep seeing materials again and again&quot; makes me think the designers are trying to compensate for an otherwise weak class.&nbsp; What logic leads you to think the opposite?I agree that they should be held to the same standards, which includes significant play-testing.&nbsp; And they don't do that, for obvious reasons......and with obvious results.&nbsp; Thank g_d the complete books aren't as bad as the 3.0e series, like Sword and Fist.&nbsp; (shudder....)Nonetheless, the fact that add-on material is broken does NOT mean the core material is broken.&nbsp; In fact, it's irrelevant.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Nail, post: 2675126, member: 224"] Right. If a spell is overpowered in your "personal design philosophy"........that [i]must[/i] prove [u]something[/u], right? Let's nail this down a bit with some history. Remember when 3.0e first came out? One of big "overpowered" classes people pointed at was....the Sorcerer. Why? 'Mostly because no one had really played it much, and had no experience with the class and its (severe) limitations. Since then, most of us have learned how wrong that "read-through impression" was. It turns out "play-testing" really [i]is[/i] the acid test for new rules. (Although the initial reaction to the Warlock class showed some people never learn.....) Even the best designers know they'd be foolish to judge a mechanic based only on its description on paper. ....And they also know that a rule that is a problem with some groups won't be a problem with others. Designing your own rules can be fun....but don't mistake your design principles for well-tested mechanics. I can tell that line is a little blurry for you. First, we're discussing whether or not a cleric is balanced as is. Asserting it isn't just to prove another point is misleading, at best. Second, it's debatable which of the add-on feats are truely broken. You and I might agree Persistant Spell feat is broken. Others, however, are not generally agreed upon. Domain Spontaneity, for example, has worked out well in our games, as well as others. Third, "if you keep seeing materials again and again" makes [i]me[/i] think the designers are trying to compensate for an otherwise weak class. What logic leads you to think the opposite? I agree that they should be held to the same standards, which includes [u]significant[/u] play-testing. And they don't do that, for obvious reasons......and with obvious results. Thank g_d the complete books aren't as bad as the 3.0e series, like Sword and Fist. (shudder....) Nonetheless, the fact that add-on material is broken does NOT mean the core material is broken. In fact, it's irrelevant. [/QUOTE]

Verification