Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahrimon" data-source="post: 6737320" data-attributes="member: 12630">I've looked at my post and I can't find where I said that the system can't be wrong.  Can you please point it out to me or were you just making things up to counter my argument?  Isn't there a name for an argument like that?What I said was that if a concept requires more skills than is allowed then the problem is the concept, not that the system only allows X number of skills.  If I wanted my character to be a 1st level character with all of the abilities of a 1st level fighter and a 1st level wizard the game does not support that by default.  The problem is with the character concept.Now, if a character concept relies on something that is not achievable by normal means then the system supports the DM making alterations.  But complaining that the system is broken because the character concept lies outside the expected norm is silly IMO.I could care less if you or anyone wants to change how the system works, I'm just pointing out that I have seen a lot of posters over the years that believe that if it's not on your sheet then you can't do it.  That was the point of my post, but I'll freely admit I tend to ramble sometimes.  Don't put so much stock in a little check box and proficiency bonus.  Not having them does not mean that you can't do it.</blockquote>