Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 9253124" data-attributes="member: 87792">If making competent characters causes detriment to the group this is a system problem. The other thing is competence threshold.I'm not aware which system does this. If it's meant to be a dig at 4e that system is more granular than most and makes different elements behave differently and have different riders and normally templates rather than just doing hp damage in a shape.So they can play 4e or 5e. Or any of a number of other systems that are D&D adjacent.Which is no reason not to get near enough.And there is a problem with a system eo broken as to allow Pun-Pun. And especially one where the breaks are myriad.This is again 100% a problem with 3.X turning people into bad players. And as mentioned the problem here is that simulacrum -wish is a combo accessible in character. The player's problem is that they are playing a character used to risking their life and who is supposed to be smart. But somehow they are supposed to not take the pro-social action of, at cost only to themselves, of gaining enough power to protect their friends.Your choice of game is entirely the thing creating your illustrations. In AD&D 2e there was an epidemic of rogues stealing from the party because the game told them that was how you gained XP. Take away the toxic rules encouraging that and the problem almost goes away. Pre 4e Paladins were known as inflexible jerks because the rules punished them ridiculously for a single slip. Take the rules encouraging toxicity away and the problem goes away.In 3.X there were toxic rules that lead to everything you talk about.And which is the result of a bad system that encourages this.And when it is obvious that it is what the system encourages I would know where the real blame was - and dump 3.x.Or at the very least mix it up so the toxicity doesn't bed in. There is no perfect skill system.</blockquote>

Verification