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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jasin" data-source="post: 6361757" data-attributes="member: 7531">Fair enough.I don't know, why is it a problem that a 3E/Pathfinder character specialized for tripping can trip opponents and other characters can't? I thought you disliked being a huge gap between the specialized and the non-specialized, and that gap is the largest when one side is "you can't even try".Again, I think you really need to define what you mean by "skill" and "feat" to make this line of discussion worthwhile? These are just labels 3E used for game elements that appear in more or less similar form in almost any game and any edition of D&D. I'd like to understand what about the design bothers you, and you seem to be latching on to the labels. From this specific example it seems maybe it's the selecability? I.e. bend bars is an intrinsic part of the 2E fighter class and therefore OK, while 3E skills are something any given character might or might not have?I think I see what you mean, but I don't think that's necessarily true. Some rules expand the choices already limited by previous rules.You seem to be saying that (for example) Spring Attack limits your choices by being the exception that proves the existence of the rule: if you have Spring Attack, you can move-attack-move, otherwise you can't; whereas without the existence of Spring Attack, anyone could move-attack-move. But that's not really true, is it? All other things equal, without Spring Attack, you still couldn't move-attack-move in 3E, because it's already explicitly disallowed by the general combat movement rules.Weapon specialization rules in 2E introduce the option for fighters to specialize and gain bonuses and an increased number of attacks. It seems to me this strictly expands the space of available options; I don't think you'll argue that, without weapon specialization rules, all characters would be allowed to make an increased number of attacks.Again, you seem to be latching on to labels from the game you dislike, rather than explaining what actual mechanisms you dislike and why. It's not like in 2E or 5E you don't fiddle with "or whatever" that give you bonuses, those games just don't call those things skills and feats (assuming you opt not to use the "optional" 5E feats).Again, it seems to me that the issue is selectability/customization, perhaps? You want to choose between fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue, and know mostly what each of those can and can't do, rather than choosing from many many independent axes: fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue; skilled in Stealth, not skilled in Stealth; skilled in Diplomacy, not skilled in Diplomacy; has Spring Attack, doesn't have Spring Attack; &c. &c. Is this fair?</blockquote>

Verification