Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="rounser" data-source="post: 4826036" data-attributes="member: 1106">I agree to an extent.&nbsp; The thief in particular seems a problem area that encapsulates the problems you're referring to.&nbsp; Why give it 1d4 HP, still, when it's clearly so very underpowered?&nbsp; (BFRPG's answer: Tradition, maybe compatibility...IMO a poor answer at best.&nbsp; Even the designer house rules it up to 1d6 or 1d8).&nbsp; Are the thief abilities all DM fiat in their applicability, because the guidelines are still sketchy?&nbsp; Why not bust every chest open with an axe, and 11 foot pole every corner of the dungeon?&nbsp; Why even have the thief class at all?I think the answer to your question is a bit of a Catch 22, in that the kind of person who ditches the bad and holds onto the good (all based on their opinion) gives you a 3E.&nbsp; The person who doesn't see much good to hold onto at all and tries to give the whole thing an overhaul gives you a 4E.&nbsp; The nearest thing we have to what you're referring to is C&amp;C, and that retains a large amount of warts in itself.&nbsp; (I think it's made a bit of an arbitrary labyrinthine mess of the classes like the AD&amp;Ds did, for instance.)The temptation to codify everything and restrict the scope of the game (whilst thinking you're doing your players a favour) is seemingly too great.&nbsp; I even did it in this post, challenging the worth of DM fiat with regard to judging thief abilities.&nbsp; Say what you like about older editions, but the fast and loose &quot;anything goes&quot; magic items, spells and adventure design would probably not survive a proper tightening of the rules.&nbsp; 3E and 4E seem proof of that, even with page 42.Sticking to cloning the bad stuff too also lends a legitimacy to these games (&quot;it's just like white box OD&amp;D!&quot; or &quot;it's AD&amp;D in all but name!&quot;) that the designers appear to think they could not otherwise call upon by straying too far from traditional models.&nbsp; Understandably, even 4E proponents seem to crave the legitimacy of such comparisons (although I'm uncertain whether anyone will admit upfront to it).Perhaps you could show us how it's done? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="rounser, post: 4826036, member: 1106"] I agree to an extent. The thief in particular seems a problem area that encapsulates the problems you're referring to. Why give it 1d4 HP, still, when it's clearly so very underpowered? (BFRPG's answer: Tradition, maybe compatibility...IMO a poor answer at best. Even the designer house rules it up to 1d6 or 1d8). Are the thief abilities all DM fiat in their applicability, because the guidelines are still sketchy? Why not bust every chest open with an axe, and 11 foot pole every corner of the dungeon? Why even have the thief class at all? I think the answer to your question is a bit of a Catch 22, in that the kind of person who ditches the bad and holds onto the good (all based on their opinion) gives you a 3E. The person who doesn't see much good to hold onto at all and tries to give the whole thing an overhaul gives you a 4E. The nearest thing we have to what you're referring to is C&C, and that retains a large amount of warts in itself. (I think it's made a bit of an arbitrary labyrinthine mess of the classes like the AD&Ds did, for instance.) The temptation to codify everything and restrict the scope of the game (whilst thinking you're doing your players a favour) is seemingly too great. I even did it in this post, challenging the worth of DM fiat with regard to judging thief abilities. Say what you like about older editions, but the fast and loose "anything goes" magic items, spells and adventure design would probably not survive a proper tightening of the rules. 3E and 4E seem proof of that, even with page 42. Sticking to cloning the bad stuff too also lends a legitimacy to these games ("it's just like white box OD&D!" or "it's AD&D in all but name!") that the designers appear to think they could not otherwise call upon by straying too far from traditional models. Understandably, even 4E proponents seem to crave the legitimacy of such comparisons (although I'm uncertain whether anyone will admit upfront to it). Perhaps you could show us how it's done? ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification