Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="amethal" data-source="post: 8111552" data-attributes="member: 22784">I'm still not sure I understand the argument of this thread.3.x skill points, with different rules for first level, different rules for class skills and cross-class skills, and fiddly synergy bonuses, are very much not what I would consider aesthetically pleasing. Something like the AGE system or 5th Edition, where everything is an ability check, but if you have a specific focus you get a bonus on rolls where it applies (either a fixed bonus like AGE or a bonus that increases by level as per D&D), is much more aesthetically pleasing to me but a lot less flexible than skill points.What came to mind when I read the OP was 4th edition's idea of having classes with roles and power sources. I'd find it aesthetically pleasing if there was a class for each combination, and it can lead to some interesting questions - e.g. what would a martial controller look like? But I'd also like a class to stand on its own merits - if the only reason for designing a class is "we needed a primal defender to complete the set" then I'd rather they didn't bother.Aesthetically pleasing is also in the eye of the beholder. Some people apparently find descending AC superior on aesthetic grounds, whilst I very much don't.</blockquote>