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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="takyris" data-source="post: 1929080" data-attributes="member: 5171">I think the biggest difference between the two is that in D&D 3.5, classes are still archetypes and strongly influence personality of character in the average game.  (Not in all games, no. But in the average game, yes.)  In D&D 3.5, people introduce themselves using their character class, or a close synonym of their character class, or (in the experienced group trying to reach rules transparency) using every possible descriptor except the character class.In d20 Modern, the base classes won't do that for you.  That's both good and bad -- or really, can be good or bad depending on your group.  While 3.5 (and 3.0 before it) does a great job of making it possible for two 8th level fighters to be different, or for two 12th level wizards to be different, d20 Modern (in my opinion) makes these differences even larger, so that you can have a group comprised entirely of Fast/Dedicated characters who are described and roleplayed completely differently, and who have utterly different roles in the party.  With occupations, these differences grow even larger.In my campaign, that's almost always a good thing.  People have the freedom to make a unique character concept that they can roleplay well, and then can go about making that character to meet their needs.  But a) it's, generally speaking, a lot more work, especially for the GM, until you build a good collection of NPCs that work in your campaign (ie, the typical guard, the typical criminal, the typical computer guy, etc), anb b) if your group is into roleplaying because they like archetypes, this game is going to irk them to no end.  Liking archetypes doesn't make you less of a roleplayer or less experienced or less anything -- most great fantasy novels are built on archetype characters, and that's one of the reasons I like 'em.But it has a definite flavor.  Two characters can identify themselves as (for example) Knights of St. Pelor, Mission Street Chapter, and one of them can be a Strong/Tough, and the other can be Fast/Dedicated, and they can be serving under the command of their Smart/Charismatic leader.That helps at all?  Like I said: both games are good.  Both games also have things that irk people, things people think are unbalanced, or things people think are stupid.  But it really depends on your group and what's right for it.</blockquote>

Verification