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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 3994945" data-attributes="member: 172">Again, I return you to the question "what are you trying to accomplish?"If you are trying to weaken them and make them mundane.Or you could go the Iron Heroes route and try to keep the same power baseline (which is well above "common rabble").In either case, pretending that in 2e you could simply strip away weapons and not have an effect on balance is illusory, because there was no such plainly published standard of balance. It's all on the GM feeling out what the right level of power is to face the PCs. Is a +1 sword too good for a 1st level character? Is it good enough for a 10th level?In 3e, there is a standard. In this case, you would be willfully deciding to undershoot that standard, and the wise DM knows to compensate.That's all quite peripheral to the real point I was getting at: the real reason that there would be a problem removing skills from the games is that it makes up a big portion of the capability of many of the classes, and has been since the thief came into being.That being said, fundamental baseline consistency has always been a boon in my book, and disparate systems to do essentially the same thing a scourge, inviting inconsistency and confusion. (If I had a nickel for every time one of my 2e players said "do I roll high or low for this?", I've have a few free meals at least.) If you choosing C&C or the like over 3e is the cost of having such consistency, so be it. I feel 3e is a much better game for it.I don't have an unlimited amount of time, either. What works for me is:1) Don't throw the doors wide open. Only as a default allow books which contribute to the game experience I want, and only allow additions beyond that on a case-by-case basis.2) Take charge of my game. Let players know up front that unforseen imbalances will be smacked down. 3e is in NO way unique here; I've been doing this since 1e.Are you honestly suggesting to me that if you take armor out of C&C or OD&D, the fighter/fighting man isn't devalued as a class?You have to do balancing work there, too.I don't remember suggesting that they did.What I am suggesting is that tweaking a game often didn't go so well even in the good old days, and even back then, the designers knew it full well.I get now after having read your response to jdrakeh that by "touching", you mean "remove entirely". Which I would agree would be a more significant undertaking, but I don't consider it an indictment to a game that choosing to remove a major consistent underpinning of a game requires some work.</blockquote>

Verification