Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Akrasia" data-source="post: 2318146" data-attributes="member: 23012">Sure you can.&nbsp; I can't think of anything easier to tweak.&nbsp; The difference is that in C&amp;C you don't have to have everything codified in terms of feats.You seem to be making two different points here: (a) that feats are necessary to keep nonspellcasters 'balanced' in terms of power with spellcasters; and (b) feats are necessary to give nonspellcasters enough 'tactical options' to make them as interesting as spellcasters.I don't necessarily deny (b), but I disagree with (a) for two reasons.&nbsp; First, spellcasters in 3e also get feats that make them more powerful; and second, the real culprit in spellcasting power in both C&amp;C and 3e is the magic system itself.&nbsp;I don't think it is easy at all -- fiddling with a complex, inderdependent system like 3e is always going to be tricky.&nbsp; Simplifying one aspect will almost always have unintended consequences for other parts of the game.Fortunately, the tedious task of 'simplifying' 3e has, for the most part, already been done by Green Ronin:<a href="http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=135404" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=135404</a>I am not sure what your overall point here is, but wizards 'lose' quite a few things in C&amp;C (relative to their 3e counterparts): they lose their extra feats, and they have the most demanding experience point charts of any class.&nbsp; Many wizard spells are also much riskier in C&amp;C as well (see haste).Then your opinion runs contrary to the actual experience of many C&amp;C CKs (including my own), who have found it much easier to introduce house rules, variants, etc., into C&amp;C than 3e.&nbsp; Maybe you mean something else by 'plug and play'?&nbsp;Well, no, I certainly did not mean anything elitist.&nbsp; Both are equally legitimate approaches to RPGs.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Akrasia, post: 2318146, member: 23012"] Sure you can. I can't think of anything easier to tweak. The difference is that in C&C you don't have to have everything codified in terms of feats. You seem to be making two different points here: (a) that feats are necessary to keep nonspellcasters 'balanced' in terms of power with spellcasters; and (b) feats are necessary to give nonspellcasters enough 'tactical options' to make them as interesting as spellcasters. I don't necessarily deny (b), but I disagree with (a) for two reasons. First, spellcasters in 3e [I]also[/I] get feats that make them more powerful; and second, the real culprit in spellcasting power in both C&C and 3e is the magic system itself. I don't think it is easy at all -- fiddling with a complex, inderdependent system like 3e is always going to be tricky. Simplifying one aspect will almost always have unintended consequences for other parts of the game. Fortunately, the tedious task of 'simplifying' 3e has, for the most part, already been done by Green Ronin: [url]http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=135404[/url] I am not sure what your overall point here is, but wizards 'lose' quite a few things in C&C (relative to their 3e counterparts): they lose their extra feats, and they have the most demanding experience point charts of any class. Many wizard spells are also much riskier in C&C as well (see haste). Then your opinion runs contrary to [I]the actual experience [/I] of many C&C CKs (including my own), who have found it [I]much easier [/I] to introduce house rules, variants, etc., into C&C than 3e. Maybe you mean something else by 'plug and play'? Well, no, I certainly did not mean anything elitist. Both are equally legitimate approaches to RPGs. [/QUOTE]

Verification