Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thorvald Kviksverd" data-source="post: 430560" data-attributes="member: 1495">A bit harsh, and--I think--inaccurate.&nbsp; He only said that he's seen a number of 3e fans complain about them--and, from what I've seen, I would tend to agree.&nbsp; However, I don't think either of us would claim that all, or even most, are bothered by them.As I mentioned above, Geoffrey didn't make the claim that everyone is complaining about these things.The above isn't meant to be snooty or anything, I'm just trying to head off a possible misunderstanding <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Anyway, on to the topic of the thread...1:&nbsp; Character Classes-- I don't know that this wouldn't be the next logical step (though not necessarily the best one) in the progression from fixed class/es, to mix-and-match classes, to no classes.2:&nbsp; AoO-- While they may or may not be complicated, there has been enough debate and confusion regarding them that I can easily see them being discarded or replaced by some other mechanic.3:&nbsp; Unified spell list-- This is similar to what was done with Magic-User/Illusionist and Cleric/Druid spells from AD&amp;D to 2e--so there is certainly precedent for such a thing.4:&nbsp; Alignment--&nbsp; While I don't think D&amp;D will ever entirely lose alignment as a feature of the game, it could certainly return to a simpler 3 alignment spectrum; or, perhaps, character conduct would only be a concern for certain classes--Priests, Holy Warriors, etc...Whether or not any of these things will come to pass, I have no idea.&nbsp; However, I do know that the loss of character classes, alignments, or unique spell lists would move the game in a direction even further afield from what I consider D&amp;D to be.(EDIT: To reflect the fact that I wouldn't have a problem with AoOs going the way of the dodo--originally forgot they were one of the mechanics in question.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thorvald Kviksverd, post: 430560, member: 1495"] A bit harsh, and--I think--inaccurate. He only said that he's seen a [i]number[/i] of 3e fans complain about them--and, from what I've seen, I would tend to agree. However, I don't think either of us would claim that all, or even most, are bothered by them. As I mentioned above, [b]Geoffrey[/b] didn't make the claim that everyone is complaining about these things. The above isn't meant to be snooty or anything, I'm just trying to head off a possible misunderstanding :) Anyway, on to the topic of the thread... 1: Character Classes-- I don't know that this wouldn't be the next logical step (though not necessarily the best one) in the progression from fixed class/es, to mix-and-match classes, to no classes. 2: AoO-- While they may or may not be complicated, there has been enough debate and confusion regarding them that I can easily see them being discarded or replaced by some other mechanic. 3: Unified spell list-- This is similar to what was done with Magic-User/Illusionist and Cleric/Druid spells from AD&D to 2e--so there is certainly precedent for such a thing. 4: Alignment-- While I don't think D&D will ever entirely lose alignment as a feature of the game, it could certainly return to a simpler 3 alignment spectrum; or, perhaps, character conduct would only be a concern for certain classes--Priests, Holy Warriors, etc... Whether or not any of these things will come to pass, I have no idea. However, I do know that the loss of character classes, alignments, or unique spell lists would move the game in a direction even further afield from what I consider D&D to be. (EDIT: To reflect the fact that I wouldn't have a problem with AoOs going the way of the dodo--originally forgot they were one of the mechanics in question.) [/QUOTE]

Verification