Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="maddman75" data-source="post: 1957587" data-attributes="member: 2673">I like menu driven.&nbsp; I think 3e is at its best when it has menu-driven classes, allowing you do make variations on various themes.&nbsp; The base classes are good at that in d20.&nbsp; The fighter gets to choose feats.&nbsp; Clerics choose thier domains.&nbsp; Wizards choose their specialty.&nbsp; Rogues, who rely on skills for much of their oomph, are menu-driven that way.&nbsp; Easy to build an acrobat, thief, spy, or diplomat out of the rogue class.The other classes don't do nearly as well.&nbsp; Barbarians, paladins, rangers, druids, monks, and bards are sort of pidgeon-holed.&nbsp; But you regain that with the multiclassing rules.&nbsp; If you want a ranger who is a scout, take levels of rogue.&nbsp; If he's more of a fighting wilderness man, barbarian or fighter will help him out.&nbsp; Its one reason I removed all multiclassing restrictions.&nbsp; In my opinion, all it does is eliminate interesting character combinations.&nbsp; Getting rid of the MC penalty was my first house rule, when I saw that our group's elf ranger/druid was going to apply the penalty.&nbsp; The character wasn't munchy at all, he was going for an archetypical elf.Overall, archetypes will remain as D&amp;D is the gateway of RPGs, and archetypes are much easier for new players.&nbsp; To me, its easier to use a menu-driven system to construct the character I want than to try to hammer a collection of classes into my vision.&nbsp; But for a new player, they have no idea what they want or how to use a system.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="maddman75, post: 1957587, member: 2673"] I like menu driven. I think 3e is at its best when it has menu-driven classes, allowing you do make variations on various themes. The base classes are good at that in d20. The fighter gets to choose feats. Clerics choose thier domains. Wizards choose their specialty. Rogues, who rely on skills for much of their oomph, are menu-driven that way. Easy to build an acrobat, thief, spy, or diplomat out of the rogue class. The other classes don't do nearly as well. Barbarians, paladins, rangers, druids, monks, and bards are sort of pidgeon-holed. But you regain that with the multiclassing rules. If you want a ranger who is a scout, take levels of rogue. If he's more of a fighting wilderness man, barbarian or fighter will help him out. Its one reason I removed all multiclassing restrictions. In my opinion, all it does is eliminate interesting character combinations. Getting rid of the MC penalty was my first house rule, when I saw that our group's elf ranger/druid was going to apply the penalty. The character wasn't munchy at all, he was going for an archetypical elf. Overall, archetypes will remain as D&D is the gateway of RPGs, and archetypes are much easier for new players. To me, its easier to use a menu-driven system to construct the character I want than to try to hammer a collection of classes into my vision. But for a new player, they have no idea what they want or how to use a system. [/QUOTE]

Verification