Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 1630820" data-attributes="member: 2013">Well, I'm the author of the product in question, and having worked with the system detailed therein, here's my answer:It's both a Good Thing and a Bad Thing.It's a Good Thing because it allows a player to execute exactly the concept he has for his character - without having to track all the stuff he &quot;doesn't want&quot; as well (the stuff that &quot;happens to come with&quot; the class levels he chooses).&nbsp; It's a Good Thing because it allows for the creation of things that don't fit neatly into the classic &quot;class/level&quot; system of D&amp;D (everyone knows about the problems of the necromancer as a wizard being less effective than a cleric).&nbsp; At the end of the day, it means literally any combination can be pieced together, so it adds flexibility.&nbsp; It also adds a beautiful touch of the unknown - just because you're 5th level and you just saw the BBEG rage like a barbarian, you might also have to worry about him sneak attacking you and channelling negative energy and throwing &quot;inflict wounds&quot; spells at you before dropping a fireball.&nbsp; There's no longer the ability to say, &quot;he's got to be a 6th-8th level cleric so he'll have this mix of abilities.&quot;It's a Bad Thing because it allows a player to execute exactly the concept he has for his character - without having to track all the stuff he &quot;doesn't want.&quot;&nbsp; If multiclassing into ranger for 1 level under the 3e rules just to pick up &quot;virtual Two-Weapon Fighting&quot; appalled you, or if your players are the types that try to squeeze every last ounce of combat utility out of synergistic combinations, it's a nightmare, because a system like this is by its very nature easier to abuse - you can throw everything into optimizing a &quot;min/max&quot; character.In short - the systems strengths are at the same time its weaknesses.&nbsp; It makes things much more unpredictable (good for GMs) and more exploitable by ingenious players (bad for GMs).&nbsp; I tried to emphasize this in the introduction and provided suggestions for variants along the way that (hopefully) can help keep abuse in check.&nbsp; For GMs that trust their players, or for groups where min/maxing is not an issue, this might be a godsend.&nbsp; For groups where the GM and the players have an &quot;adversarial&quot; relationship - this is the book from hell. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp; Either way, it probably requires more GM/player interaction with character generation/advancement and certainly requires a bit more bookkeeping on behalf of the characters when it comes time to do character advancement.It's not for everyone, but I always liked the idea of giving the sorcerer the option to expand his selection of &quot;known spells&quot; or figuring out a way to accurately represent a talented savant with incredible expertise in a single field.&nbsp; This does that... but it IS quite vulnerable to a min-maxer.&nbsp; So I suppose everyone's mileage of &quot;Good/Bad Thing&quot; will vary based upon your individual tastes and your group's playing style.--The Sigil</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Sigil, post: 1630820, member: 2013"] Well, I'm the author of the product in question, and having worked with the system detailed therein, here's my answer: It's both a Good Thing and a Bad Thing. It's a Good Thing because it allows a player to execute exactly the concept he has for his character - without having to track all the stuff he "doesn't want" as well (the stuff that "happens to come with" the class levels he chooses). It's a Good Thing because it allows for the creation of things that don't fit neatly into the classic "class/level" system of D&D (everyone knows about the problems of the necromancer as a wizard being less effective than a cleric). At the end of the day, it means literally any combination can be pieced together, so it adds flexibility. It also adds a beautiful touch of the unknown - just because you're 5th level and you just saw the BBEG rage like a barbarian, you might also have to worry about him sneak attacking you and channelling negative energy and throwing "inflict wounds" spells at you before dropping a fireball. There's no longer the ability to say, "he's got to be a 6th-8th level cleric so he'll have this mix of abilities." It's a Bad Thing because it allows a player to execute exactly the concept he has for his character - without having to track all the stuff he "doesn't want." If multiclassing into ranger for 1 level under the 3e rules just to pick up "virtual Two-Weapon Fighting" appalled you, or if your players are the types that try to squeeze every last ounce of combat utility out of synergistic combinations, it's a nightmare, because a system like this is by its very nature easier to abuse - you can throw everything into optimizing a "min/max" character. In short - the systems strengths are at the same time its weaknesses. It makes things much more unpredictable (good for GMs) and more exploitable by ingenious players (bad for GMs). I tried to emphasize this in the introduction and provided suggestions for variants along the way that (hopefully) can help keep abuse in check. For GMs that trust their players, or for groups where min/maxing is not an issue, this might be a godsend. For groups where the GM and the players have an "adversarial" relationship - this is the book from hell. ;) Either way, it probably requires more GM/player interaction with character generation/advancement and certainly requires a bit more bookkeeping on behalf of the characters when it comes time to do character advancement. It's not for everyone, but I always liked the idea of giving the sorcerer the option to expand his selection of "known spells" or figuring out a way to accurately represent a talented savant with incredible expertise in a single field. This does that... but it IS quite vulnerable to a min-maxer. So I suppose everyone's mileage of "Good/Bad Thing" will vary based upon your individual tastes and your group's playing style. --The Sigil [/QUOTE]

Verification