Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Agamemnon" data-source="post: 1685162" data-attributes="member: 2567">I'm going to have to agree with the previous people. This is an overhaul far beyond any I'd feel comfortable with, myself, and changes several things back into their 2e versions, which I cannot agree with. I'll say this much, though: your house rules seem to enforce pre-existing stereotypes, instead of encouraging new ideas.A human wizard cannot, by your rules, decide he wants to train as a soldier instead. A fighter cannot join a paladin order late in his career. Also, you've seemed to want to assure that fighters fight better than anyone else, that wizards are weak in melee combat and that barbarians are all lightly-armored guys with massive tubfuls of hit points (twice Con bonus and twice Dex bonus?).There are positive ways to reinforce certain behaviors and negative ways to do the same. A negative way is to make sure that the alternative sucks, such as allowing a wizard only 9d4+11 hit points at 20th level, meaning all wizards in the game are frail guys who have to hide behind the big slabs of beef that are barbarians. This, on the long run, leads to a game where all characters of a given class are alike.See where I'm getting with this?</blockquote>