Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aus_Snow" data-source="post: 4728116" data-attributes="member: 29112">I am not much of a 'Gamist' DM or player, and it seems that's where we are at odds. Gamist-wise, what you are saying (including a lot of what I haven't directly quoted) makes perfect sense. Don't get me wrong, I do understand what you've been saying, and the context in which it does make sense. That context, however, is not one I'm interested in, whatsoever.To me, rules have to make sense in terms of characters, and in terms of the world(s) they are in, or might be in at any stage. They don't need to make the kind of sense that demands a change of 'class' just in order for a PC to have skills that, according to other fundamental kinds of logic / common sense, they would certainly be able to have, arbitrary (or stupid 'balance-oriented', while not even helping with actual balance much at all) class restrictions be damned.Someone who fights, and what's more travels the world(s), being ready for whatever fights might come (yes, this is a Fighter I'm talking about here) can't see what might be in front of them and ready to kill them as well as members of other classes. . . WHY? Oh yes, 'game balance'! *snort* They can't even hear as well as Barbarians. Classic. I mean, puh-lease. By any standards other than the most committed 'gamism', it falls apart in place after place. And even by that standard, it falls apart as well, which, all things considered, is quite amusing.One can most definitely play a *fully* class-based game, without using class skills. In fact, it harks back to the very earliest D&D, in that way. Also, with those house rules in place, others were alongside, that actually minimalised laissez-faire multiclassing, a thing I'm not exactly enamoured of. Your earlier reference to casually taking a level of some convenient class to gain another class skill? Yuk.Well then, it's a good thing I wasn't (and am not, and never will be) aiming to impress you. I could not care less, on that count. Furthermore, I am not the one 'complaining'.Anyhow, as it happens, my rewrite of 3e was pretty darn extensive (so, not limited to what I have mentioned here and now). To the extent that our opinions of what might need to be addressed - for the system to make more real sense - actually coincide in the first place, you might even have liked some of the changes.Either way, I still haven't seen one good argument against scrapping the class skills system as it stands, at this stage.</blockquote>

Verification