Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hollywood" data-source="post: 507439" data-attributes="member: 7408">Once again, creating house rules to "fix" the game system.I like the idea of "Prestige" somethings.  Classes would work ok, even with one basic class.  However, I think having advanced Talent Trees that could be picked up would be a good way to go and that way you essentially need only one class, maybe an advanced class too.I'm sorry Mistwell, but the rules are not that divergent from D&D that it requires playing the game to see flaws in the rules or to determine that the rulesset isn't enough to make you want to play the game.   Being fairly generic with no real specific campaign, it makes it even more important that the mechanics of the game work for you.  Game such as DUD,  Spycraft or Mutants and Masterminds have a specific theme and overall setting that you can overlook rules problems because you like the game settings.I have generally the same problem with GURPs.  But on the otherhand, there is CLassic BattleTech and I've always loved it and its general theme/setting.. so while I'm not keen on all the rules, I play because I like it.    However, won't play any of the d20 mecha stuff simple because its d20 and I believe its a bad system to be used anywhere outside of D&D [and heck, sometimes even within D&D... :/].Go the OGL route like M&M, Spycraft and Everquest did and you can produce a decent game and mechanics that has enough fimiliarity to d20 that most people can "get it" in a fairly short time.Yes, thats the point.  Because they are a mixture, there does NOT need to be the assortment of basic classes that don't make a lot of sense.  There could have simply been one basic class and then some advanced classes.  Wouldn't have been that hard, would have saved paper, and would be more streamlined.   Then you wouldn't have problems with class skills in odd classes, you wouldn't have whacked out skill point differences, etc.No, reviews are opinions not facts. <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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  Just like a messageboard! <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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Well, the class names are rather lame.  They at least could have come up with more creative names to represent the archetypes they were aiming for.  However, since the classes are so simplistic the names do suit them and being what they are, its one reason I won't buy the game.  Not to mention, generally the same reason I don't buy most other d20 material... OGL'd material based off the SRD at least gets considered.</blockquote>

Verification