Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="RFisher" data-source="post: 3267818" data-attributes="member: 3608">Heh! But that's exactly the sort of thing that tends to annoy me when I'm playing 3e. I'd rather they just handed me the four or five variantions of fighter rather than making me "discover" them by digging through the prerequisites of fighter feat-trees. Adding more feats is complicating the system to me. (^_^)(Or that they would've gone closer to the state-of-the-art in character building systems. The 3e UA generic classes seem real close to what I was kind-of wishing they had done when I first read the 3e PHB.)Although, I see your point, & I think I agree with it.If you aren't willing to accept the game's premises, then you aren't going to enjoy it no matter what the game is. Not even 3e is premised on you being able to create any character you've ever found in a book.Well, stepping away from the tracking issue for a moment--because it may be a bit more of a gray area...There generally isn't really a need for secondary skills to have rules behind them. If a bowyer PC wanted to make a bow, it just happens. There's no need for a roll. There's no need for rules. Being a bowyer means you can make bows.Likewise, when travelling through the wilderness, a party with a hunter PC means less rations have to be used per day. How much? Who cares? Let's just get the nitpicky resource management out of the way & get back to the adventure.</blockquote>