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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6178069" data-attributes="member: 6681948">Apologies in advance if I screw up any quote tags…of course I can’t xp VB either.  cussgrumblecuss  clearly the rule on recent xp is flawed - stupid arbitrary website  <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=":)" />  Class systems make change of mechanics difficult.  They do not prevent the Dwarf who started off detesting elves from developing a respect for the Elf in the party, or even the race as a whole, over the course of the campaign as a consequence of his experiences with Elves.  No, not even if he’s a Ranger whose first Favoured Enemy was elves. Neither does that Dilettante Artist turning his social skills to raising a peasant army to overthrow the King and turn the nation into a democracy after campaign events persuade him of the injustice of the current system, even when he started as an aristocrat who supported that system, nor the Barbarian becoming sickened by killing and giving up his dreams of being a warlord in favour of seeking a peaceful existence. “Broken”, ironically, is the term the gaming community adopts to describe “overpowered as compared to the other choices”.  It is your opinion that the player does not wish to play a 3 foot tall warrior who is, like many smaller characters in fiction, as or more competent in combat, in his own style, as any larger warrior.   Deviating from Fantasy for a moment, does Wolverine’s player mean, when he notes he’s short, that he wants to suck at combat, or that he wants to defy that expectation?   To VB’s comments (and I snipped his excellent points on why he values character balance), I note that, on all of these issues, there seem to be a lot of posters who don’t agree that balance is not worth pursuing, much less that its pursuit would actually be detrimental.  I think those who want balance outnumber those who oppose it (but I am biased to believe so, and I did not do any kind of a count).  While I don’t find a message board the perfect random sample, I think it’s far superior to “me and the 3 guys I’ve gamed with for many years”, or even “all the gamers at my local game store”.  And I see VB caught that as well…  I’ll try to refrain from noting that group seems to have fallen from, what, eight or ten players (when Ahnehnois saw the occasional Bard) to three.  Oops…guess I didn’t try hard enough… J You mean like how the cube/square law means giants can’t exist, the aerodynamics of a giant wasp or the fact that many “two handed weapons” were largely designed for mounted use (using the horse’s speed, not one’s own arms, to deliver momentum) or for use in large formations, and generally suck for one man combat use?  I find most gamers who complain about such issues are very selective in which real world physics issues bug them. By the way, isn’t your classification of Bards a stereotype?  I’d say “yes”.  All other things being equal, all other things tend not to be equal.  This may speed play or slow it down, as the GM agonizes over an appropriate DC, and/or is challenged by the other players on his choice.  After all, we want to apply real world standards, right?  Really, that knowledge should be much more/less common than your arbitrary DC indicates.  Or, again, slower as we debate which skill(s) ought, or ought not, to be applicable in the given situation and, again, whether the GM’s statement of what happens matches with real world physics, genre conventions, past rulings, etc. etc. etc. rather than just using the very specific rule as it is written and not arguing about it.</blockquote>

Verification