Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Edena_of_Neith" data-source="post: 4736278" data-attributes="member: 2020">(speaks in a quiet, congenial tone)  Hey there, Don.  I would reply to some of your comments.  Thus, a fighter of 20th level would have 24 feats (10 for levels, 10 for fighter feats, and 4 for bonus feats.)  Other classes would have 14 feats (10 for levels, and 4 for bonus feats.)  With my approach, a 20th level character would have 68 feats (11 starting, and 57 for levels.)    Of course, in 3E fighter begins with 5 free feats - the 3 armor feats, 2 weapons feats, and the shield feat, already.  Add in the standard starting feat, plus the starting feat if he's human, and a fighter begins the game with 7 feats!  (5 pre-chosen for him.)  I merely grant that (plus 4 more, for a total of 11) to all the other classes, and the fighter gets a bonus over and above what he already had (but then again, the fighter has a hard road to toe.)  Gestalt?  That's high powered.  It's the 'best of' two classes.  I merely double the feats to allow the player to select feats for two classes (after all, he *does* have two classes, and should be capable in both of them.)  I approve of the increased number of feats in Pathfinder that you describe.  Cheers!  I just wish they'd hand out even more feats than that (such as, the 1 feat per level, in the Book of Experimental Might I.)    I don't know what to think of this concept.  I am accustomed to feat paths (such as Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack) and it seems like all the previous feats had some use (admittedly, though, if you can drop Dodge and swap it for Whirlwind Attack, despite the fact you needed Dodge for that feat path, THAT'S going to be useful!  LOL.)    (solemnly)    I appreciate that many of the older concepts are considered Broken by most people today.  However, I do not consider most of the older concepts to be Broken (such as the fighter concept I described in the OP.)  I consider them to be viable concepts that could be brought forward into Pathfinder or 3rd Edition.  It is *anyone's* right to believe that any concept in the older (or any) edition of the D&D game is broken.  Everyone is entitled to their opinions.  I just happen to feel that these older concepts are worthwhile, and some would be a lot of fun if extrapolated forward.  For example, in 1E magical armor was weightless and encumberless.  I'd bring that concept forward in a heartbeat.  But then again, I'd bring forward the concept of Item Destruction from 1E, so that magical armor would be subject to destruction from attacks.  Just my take on things.  In this sense, I am doing a 'comparison' of the older material to the new.  I guess it could be called a comparison.  (considers that)    Well, ok:  If a player took the quadrupled points (especially since I would keep the starting 4x bonus - only I would make it any stat, not just Intelligence, assuming it was your character's Class Prime Requisite Skill) then he could probably 'max out' on his Class Skills (especially if he had relatively few Class Skills.)  Or, he could take other skills.  A wizard, in 3E, for example, could spend 2 points per skill rank to take skills in Ride, Swim, and Climb.  This might be useful, since the party fighters are not going to always be there to help the wizard.  Swimming across a frigid, rapidly flowing underground river is a high DC check!  (if the wizard is having to carry a wounded fighter, it's going to be a lot higher yet.)  Profession allows a character to have a hobby (5 ranks in flutist, for example) or an actual semi-profession aside from his adventuring career (10 ranks in flutist, or for a more true professional, 15 ranks.)  But how about blacksmithing, for a rider who wants new horseshoes for his mount?  Cobbling, for any adventurer on the road?  Tailoring, same thing.  Fletcher, for the archer.  Just about any profession, for the rogue.  A lot of ranks in music and storytelling, for the bard (as well as perform.)  Something appropriate for the cleric and druid.  And so on?  And there are a ton of knowledge skills.  No end to knowledge skills.  Local.  National.  Regional.  Continental.  World.  Wildspace.  Other worlds.  Flora.  Fauna.  Monsters/magical creatures.  Undead.  Outsiders.  The Planes.  History.  Ancient History.  Languages.  You could drop a hundred points into the knowledge skills and never find them!  Craft.  But craft what?  Woodworking?  Metalworking?  Bookbinding (something every wizard should have.)  Papermaking?  (Also something every wizard should have.)  Leatherworking?  You know, a character who is going to build something needs a lot of different skills.  If he has access to a town/city and thus a whole field of artisans and craftsmen, that's great.  But what if he's stuck out hundreds of miles in the Dreaded Wilderness, and needs something?  And all this, above and beyond the 45 skills in the 3E Player's Handbook alone (if you add in all the skills from other books, it's a lot more skills than that, many times that number of skills, not counting anything I've said above.)    If you consider this, you'll see that yeah, you can max out on a few 'class' skills, and you'll be really good at those few things (although at low level, you still won't be very good at them, due to the limit of 3 ranks over your level rule.)  But you won't be very good at anything else, and adventuring can require a Jack Of All Trades level of competence (and if the party rogue is dead or injured, so much for obtaining her help in doing all that for you!)    No.  It is *NOT* an April Fool's Joke.  And yes, the monsters would obtain 4x the feats and skills.  It is only fair.  It balances out the greater power of the characters.  Greater choice means a more dangerous campaign world.  But that's always been true, in any game.    The point I was making is that, greater choice *could* mean greater fun.    The best character?  What is the best character?  Is the best fighter the guy who can make all those attacks I described in the OP?  Or is the best fighter someone who is a great archer?  A great horseman?  A great gladiator?  A cunning and skilled scout?  A devout paladin armed with supernatural powers?    The point of more feats is not to make a more powerful character, but a more *complete* character, a more *fleshed out* character, and to grant more flexibility in creating such vividly described characters.  The *best* character is - in my opinion - a matter of subjective thinking.  Every player is going to have a different opinion on this.  Boring?    In my experience, the game is only as good as the DM, and this falls under the category of the Human Equation, or People Theory as I put it in the OP.  Just my opinion, but I think that if the players try to make it a good game, and the DM tries, it will be a good game.  The point of more feats and skills was simply to expedite - to use the game mechanics to aid - them in having a good game.  A power game?  Some enjoy that.  Many don't.  A game where everything is a pushover?  I am guessing that would be a bore to the players.  Monty-Haul?  Again, I believe that would bore everyone.    There is no reason that more feats and skills *have* to lead to a Monty Haul game, in my opinion.  Players get to choose what they want for their characters, right?  They can choose the Monty Haul approach ... or choose a different route.  This is up to them.  If Monty Haul games are a crashing bore, and apparently they are to most people - they are to *me* - then why would the players want to go in that direction with the extra feats and skills?  What's the point?  It is counterproductive.I know a guy who lives near me and has , essentially, sent so many gamers my way.  He thinks a lot like u, in that the fun of the game is in super characters, and runs games where he has all his players play gesalt characters starting at epic level.  Unfortunately, as noted on this bored, without a sklled DM, the game is broken at mid epic level and thus his players have no real fun rolling 16 dice a turn.    I don't know what would work with Pathfinder.  I can only guess, especially since I do not know Pathfinder hardly at all.  I do feel, however, that the lack of feats and skills (as per the core rules) in 3rd Edition D&D hurt that game.  That's my opinion only.  I believe that 3E would have been better served, been more entertaining, if the core rules had handed out far more feats and skills.  Thus, I advocate this for Pathfinder, since it seems to be a game in which concepts like feats and skills work in a way similar to that of 3rd Edition.  So here I am, advocating quadrupled skill points (and 4x starting, based on the Prime Attribute and not just Intelligence), and 11 feats starting (compare to the 3E fighter's 7 starting feats, pre-chosen and granted) + 3 feats per level, for all classes.  I'm not saying they're going to do that.  In fact, I'm sure they aren't going to do that.  I'm not even sure that it *would* be better if they did that, myself.  I merely think it *might* make for a better game, if it were tried.  If the fighter at 20th level, in the Pathfinder RAW, has 24 feats (more than 1 per level), plus he can 'swap out' lesser feats for greater feats, then it seems that for the fighter in Pathfinder, at least, a situation exists where he has something approaching the kind of flexibility and choice I am advocating.  Does this work out?  Has it worked out?  I don't know.  I've never talked with anyone who plays Pathfinder who has used the Book of Experimental Might II.  So, I'd have to ask if anyone out there has ever tried these rules, and how they worked out for them?</blockquote>

Verification