Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 8932145" data-attributes="member: 6877472">If that's directed to me, no.&nbsp; I prefer class-based systems to free form spending points, simply because it's too easy in a points-based system to overspecialize or spread yourself too thin to the point of uselessness.&nbsp; Games like D&amp;D generally make sure you have a baseline of competence.I will admit I like having more options to play with on top of that than 5e supports though.When I talk about points, I really mean investment.&nbsp; If you break the game into 6 areas of &quot;things I can do&quot;, like &quot;be good at strong stuff like melee combat and climbing&quot;, &quot;be good at agility stuff&quot;, etc., etc., if a player wants to invest in one of these areas, then that's what they're good at.As to whether or not a given species should be better/worse at things is a complicated discussion.&nbsp; On the one hand, yes, I admit Goliaths should be stronger on average than most other species.&nbsp; But on the other hand, I never cared for things like Orcs, who despite having warlocks and priests as important characters in their society, were really only good for being brutes who physically pounded people flat.In my mind, any given species has every right to be as good a warrior, wizard, priest, rogue, or whatever as any other, but do it in way that plays to their culture and advantages.&nbsp; On the gripping hand, however, 5e doesn't give us many ways to do that, so if someone really wants to be a fairy barbarian or a bugbear wizard, I err on the side of what is fun for the players as opposed to strictly enforcing &quot;bugbears are worse wizards than gnomes, but better fighters than kobolds&quot;.&nbsp; To my mind, being a misfit is a good reason to be an adventurer in the first place, and makes a character more interesting than choosing a species because &quot;it has the best numbers for what I want to do&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="James Gasik, post: 8932145, member: 6877472"] If that's directed to me, no. I prefer class-based systems to free form spending points, simply because it's too easy in a points-based system to overspecialize or spread yourself too thin to the point of uselessness. Games like D&D generally make sure you have a baseline of competence. I will admit I like having more options to play with on top of that than 5e supports though. When I talk about points, I really mean investment. If you break the game into 6 areas of "things I can do", like "be good at strong stuff like melee combat and climbing", "be good at agility stuff", etc., etc., if a player wants to invest in one of these areas, then that's what they're good at. As to whether or not a given species should be better/worse at things is a complicated discussion. On the one hand, yes, I admit Goliaths should be stronger on average than most other species. But on the other hand, I never cared for things like Orcs, who despite having warlocks and priests as important characters in their society, were really only good for being brutes who physically pounded people flat. In my mind, any given species has every right to be as good a warrior, wizard, priest, rogue, or whatever as any other, but do it in way that plays to their culture and advantages. On the gripping hand, however, 5e doesn't give us many ways to do that, so if someone really wants to be a fairy barbarian or a bugbear wizard, I err on the side of what is fun for the players as opposed to strictly enforcing "bugbears are worse wizards than gnomes, but better fighters than kobolds". To my mind, being a misfit is a good reason to be an adventurer in the first place, and makes a character more interesting than choosing a species because "it has the best numbers for what I want to do". [/QUOTE]

Verification