Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 9228698" data-attributes="member: 7026617">In theory.&nbsp; In practice, nothing suggests to me that in class systems you just end up with a lot of exception based design that doesn't reveal its problems until much later, and the more things you have to do to cover desired concepts, the more that will be true.&nbsp; With a build system you can do more of it from the start.&nbsp; Can some interlocking pieces end up working badly together, or the individual piece not work as well as it could?&nbsp; Sure.&nbsp; But I'm not sold that isn't true with bits of class design, too, and the price of avoiding it is usually stupidly rigid classes that end up covering only a very limited subset of apparently viable concepts.&nbsp; That's a cure far worse than the disease.And (remembering I'm as fond of PF2e as any game in the D&amp;D-sphere) it means you have an ongoing stream of new classes to cover the ground, providing a bunch of new opportunities to have broken (either in being too good or too bad) bits within each class.&nbsp; Again, doesn't seem a net improvement to me.But you kind of don't.&nbsp; You can simply have a capping system and then not care how people get there.&nbsp; Its not that hard (some people don't like it, but like the people who are unhappy you can't just bake a cake playing PF2e like you could in PF1e or D&amp;D3e, I have trouble having too much sympathy there).That's partly because GURPS has always had a tendency to overvalue&nbsp; things that are very valuable in selective situations, rather than just saying &quot;If you campaign is going to be 90% over mountains or water, adjust these costs&quot;.&nbsp; Its one of two failure states you can see in games in general here once they get all outside of ones with a very narrow use-plan (the other being not addressing that when something is relatively cheap but will be similarly valuable in certain campaigns).&nbsp; That doesn't become less of a problem when you've baked that into a class or made it a spell.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thomas Shey, post: 9228698, member: 7026617"] In theory. In practice, nothing suggests to me that in class systems you just end up with a lot of exception based design that doesn't reveal its problems until much later, and the more things you have to do to cover desired concepts, the more that will be true. With a build system you can do more of it from the start. Can some interlocking pieces end up working badly together, or the individual piece not work as well as it could? Sure. But I'm not sold that isn't true with bits of class design, too, and the price of avoiding it is usually stupidly rigid classes that end up covering only a very limited subset of apparently viable concepts. That's a cure far worse than the disease. And (remembering I'm as fond of PF2e as any game in the D&D-sphere) it means you have an ongoing stream of new classes to cover the ground, providing a bunch of new opportunities to have broken (either in being too good or too bad) bits within each class. Again, doesn't seem a net improvement to me. But you kind of don't. You can simply have a capping system and then not care how people get there. Its not that hard (some people don't like it, but like the people who are unhappy you can't just bake a cake playing PF2e like you could in PF1e or D&D3e, I have trouble having too much sympathy there). That's partly because GURPS has always had a tendency to overvalue things that are very valuable in selective situations, rather than just saying "If you campaign is going to be 90% over mountains or water, adjust these costs". Its one of two failure states you can see in games in general here once they get all outside of ones with a very narrow use-plan (the other being not addressing that when something is relatively cheap but will be similarly valuable in certain campaigns). That doesn't become less of a problem when you've baked that into a class or made it a spell. [/QUOTE]

Verification