Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="bolie" data-source="post: 1980274" data-attributes="member: 8312">ClassesSo why have Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Knight (four combat classes), and only Wizards for Arcane spell casting?&nbsp; There are only two divine casters (Druid and Cleric) and only one stealthy class (Rogue).Since prime stats don't matter for AC and hit point bonuses, the tank v. swashbuckler issue isn't really solved by primes.&nbsp; Your Con and Dex will affect your AC and Hit Points the same regardless of whether they are primes or not.&nbsp; By giving up armor, a fighter is giving up AC, period.&nbsp; The primes let you add some of what skills do, but not in nearly as much depth.Saying that a house rule lets you do x or y isn't really addressing the problem.&nbsp; You can house rule 3e, too.&nbsp; The issue of &quot;breaking&quot; the system is only relevant to game designers and authors.&nbsp; A given group of players with a DM can do whatever they want and a DM can disallow obvious abuse on the spot.&nbsp; A reasonable player will understand.&nbsp; Unreasonable players are unreasonable regardless of the system you are using.The main advantage of C&amp;C is that it has fewer rules to remember so the game can go more quickly.&nbsp; 3e does have more rules and more options.&nbsp; This is by design.&nbsp; Therefore, you can have more varied characters and monsters in 3e.&nbsp; Which you prefer is up to you.Overall, I prefer 3e style play to C&amp;C style.&nbsp; This is not an inherent problem with C&amp;C, though, it's just my opinion.Seperate from play-stile preferences, I do have some complaints about C&amp;C.&nbsp; The major one is the lack of monster stats.&nbsp; I also have some things I really like about C&amp;C, like the way saving throws and turning undead are handled.Bolie IV</blockquote>

[QUOTE="bolie, post: 1980274, member: 8312"] [b]Classes[/b] So why have Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Knight (four combat classes), and only Wizards for Arcane spell casting? There are only two divine casters (Druid and Cleric) and only one stealthy class (Rogue). Since prime stats don't matter for AC and hit point bonuses, the tank v. swashbuckler issue isn't really solved by primes. Your Con and Dex will affect your AC and Hit Points the same regardless of whether they are primes or not. By giving up armor, a fighter is giving up AC, period. The primes let you add some of what skills do, but not in nearly as much depth. Saying that a house rule lets you do x or y isn't really addressing the problem. You can house rule 3e, too. The issue of "breaking" the system is only relevant to game designers and authors. A given group of players with a DM can do whatever they want and a DM can disallow obvious abuse on the spot. A reasonable player will understand. Unreasonable players are unreasonable regardless of the system you are using. The main advantage of C&C is that it has fewer rules to remember so the game can go more quickly. 3e does have more rules and more options. This is by design. Therefore, you can have more varied characters and monsters in 3e. Which you prefer is up to you. Overall, I prefer 3e style play to C&C style. This is not an inherent problem with C&C, though, it's just my opinion. Seperate from play-stile preferences, I do have some complaints about C&C. The major one is the lack of monster stats. I also have some things I really like about C&C, like the way saving throws and turning undead are handled. Bolie IV [/QUOTE]

Verification