Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5503389" data-attributes="member: 87792">I'm pretty sure with a good DM you could have a fun game with FATAL.&nbsp; (Step 1: remove the setting.&nbsp; Step 2: remove most of the rules).&nbsp;3e was where wizards were let off the leash.&nbsp;&nbsp;There's how to play and how to design games.&nbsp; You can play a very fun game with RIFTS.&nbsp; That doesn't make the design not suck.&nbsp;&nbsp;Are you playing 2e or 3e here.&nbsp; Because it's very different.&nbsp;&nbsp;This.&nbsp;&nbsp;And this.&nbsp; In 1e and 2e the fighter gets a castle and followers as a class feature.&nbsp; The fighter's career path starts at veteran and ends at noble or warlord with political power and troops.&nbsp; Which is very different from 3e's progression from man with armour and a sharpened bit of metal to man with magical armour and a magical sharpened bit of metal.&nbsp; In 3e there is no reason a fighter should be a better leader than a wizard, and every reason he should be worse at commanding troops than a bard.&nbsp; And why should the army go to the fighter?&nbsp; The wizard's smarter and the bard and sorceror are more charismatic.&nbsp; The cleric provides more support for his troops.&nbsp; Why the fighter?&nbsp;If you are tacitly keeping the arbitrary class features from 2e then yes I see why the fighter stays relevant.&nbsp; That's because you have an unwritten houserule in there that keeps him relevant in 3.X.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5503389, member: 87792"] I'm pretty sure with a good DM you could have a fun game with FATAL. (Step 1: remove the setting. Step 2: remove most of the rules). 3e was where wizards were let off the leash. There's how to play and how to design games. You can play a very fun game with RIFTS. That doesn't make the design not suck. Are you playing 2e or 3e here. Because it's very different. This. And this. In 1e and 2e the fighter gets a castle and followers as a [I]class feature[/I]. The fighter's career path starts at veteran and ends at noble or warlord with political power and troops. Which is very different from 3e's progression from man with armour and a sharpened bit of metal to man with [I]magical[/I] armour and a [I]magical[/I] sharpened bit of metal. In 3e there is no reason a fighter should be a better leader than a wizard, and every reason he should be worse at commanding troops than a bard. And why should the army go to the fighter? The wizard's smarter and the bard and sorceror are more charismatic. The cleric provides more support for his troops. Why the fighter? If you are tacitly keeping the arbitrary class features from 2e then yes I see why the fighter stays relevant. That's because you have an unwritten houserule in there that keeps him relevant in 3.X. [/QUOTE]

Verification