Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6030492" data-attributes="member: 6668292">Oh, almost certainly an outlier. But, I want to make this clear: I'm not trying to reconstitute D&amp;D around this. I'd like to see &quot;talents&quot; (non-combat feats) and feat (combat-only) be gained at the same rate. You could make them interchangeable, get all &quot;talents&quot; and no feats, or the like. It'd be a simple, intuitive switch, and it wouldn't be &quot;reconstituting D&amp;D&quot; or the like.(Also, I hope you don't mind me jumping in. I was looking forward to this reply, and once again, thanks for approaching this civilly and productively. I appreciate it.)First, the bard you described sounds very similar to a bard one of my players has played in my system (though he was an oral storyteller and not a writer). The group had a lot of fun with him.Secondly, no, that doesn't sound too appealing. Maybe if it was some sort of &quot;to make up for your absence&quot; and it didn't have to come from my character, I could go for it. I'd probably want to control those actions on an initiative that wasn't mine, though, so it'd be easier to re-immerse when my turn to act came around. The tactical nature of what you described would probably interest me, I just wouldn't want it tied to my character (since it shows combat proficiency to at least some degree).I want to reiterate, once again, that I get this viewpoint. I do. And, once again, I support 3/3/3 as a default. Design to it, even. I'm okay with that. I support it, even. And, again, I get your personal reservations.I just haven't seen a convincing argument to stop the campaign optional opt-out if it has clear guidelines and mechanical support. That's what I'm not hearing, yet. I get all the arguments for not using it at the table. Manbearcat, can you try to tell me why there shouldn't be an optional opt-out? As always, play what you like <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="JamesonCourage, post: 6030492, member: 6668292"] Oh, almost certainly an outlier. But, I want to make this clear: I'm not trying to reconstitute D&D around this. I'd like to see "talents" (non-combat feats) and feat (combat-only) be gained at the same rate. You could make them interchangeable, get all "talents" and no feats, or the like. It'd be a simple, intuitive switch, and it wouldn't be "reconstituting D&D" or the like. (Also, I hope you don't mind me jumping in. I was looking forward to this reply, and once again, thanks for approaching this civilly and productively. I appreciate it.) First, the bard you described sounds very similar to a bard one of my players has played in my system (though he was an oral storyteller and not a writer). The group had a lot of fun with him. Secondly, no, that doesn't sound too appealing. Maybe if it was some sort of "to make up for your absence" and it didn't have to come from my character, I could go for it. I'd probably want to control those actions on an initiative that wasn't mine, though, so it'd be easier to re-immerse when my turn to act came around. The tactical nature of what you described would probably interest me, I just wouldn't want it tied to my character (since it shows combat proficiency to at least some degree). I want to reiterate, once again, that I get this viewpoint. I do. And, once again, I support 3/3/3 as a default. Design to it, even. I'm okay with that. I support it, even. And, again, I get your personal reservations. I just haven't seen a convincing argument to stop the campaign optional opt-out if it has clear guidelines and mechanical support. That's what I'm not hearing, yet. I get all the arguments for not using it at the table. Manbearcat, can you try to tell me why there shouldn't be an optional opt-out? As always, play what you like :) [/QUOTE]

Verification