Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Reynard" data-source="post: 3999961" data-attributes="member: 467">The problem with this is that you are simply wrong.  An explicit design goal of 3E was to integrate all the disparate subsystems of 1/2E under a central mechanic, and they succeeded admirably in doing so.  But by doing so, they forced the rules-madifying DM, assuming he cared about "balance", to examine more than the single portion of the system he was changing -- the DM also had to look for cascading effects throughout the system.Let's go back to the thief abilities and skills example.  In 1E and 2E, thief abilities (and similar abilities for rangers, etc.) were class abilities totally disconnected from any larger "skill system".  Therefore, adding or removing a broader skill system, whether secondary skills or NWPs or porting in the Palladium skills or any of the other things many of us did, had exactly zero impact on the thief and his class specific skill abilities.  In 3E, the two were conjoined in such a way that manipulating the skill system even a little -- say, boosting the fighter's skill points and class skill list -- means examining the rogue to make sure that skill-based class isn't getting shafted by the changes. Moreover, it means looking at feats and PrCs to make sure that too many skill point/choice changes don't imabalance the prerequisities in place for those things.You really don't have  a place from which to argue.  None of the above is opinion; it is all simply true.</blockquote>

Verification