Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Incenjucar" data-source="post: 1857525" data-attributes="member: 6182">I understood you perfectly.&nbsp; The trick is, the 2e CCC rules were dealing with the way that the core classes were.&nbsp; 2e had some serious issues.&nbsp; Fighters vs. Rangers and Paladins, for instance.&nbsp; The CCC was screwy because it was trying to work balance in to an already-screwy system, while trying to avoid some massive potential abuse of the rest of the rule set.Basically, they had to try to MacGuyver it.As such, its not the system itself that was the bad idea, its that its the result of another bad system.&nbsp; The -attempt- wasn't that bad, considering it was rudimentary point buy used for a class-based system with varient XP by class, and the weirdness between classes.It would be complaining about how bad the pie made out of beef jerky came out.&nbsp; They had to use -beef jerky- is the problem, not the pie-making attempt.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Incenjucar, post: 1857525, member: 6182"] I understood you perfectly. The trick is, the 2e CCC rules were dealing with the way that the core classes were. 2e had some serious issues. Fighters vs. Rangers and Paladins, for instance. The CCC was screwy because it was trying to work balance in to an already-screwy system, while trying to avoid some massive potential abuse of the rest of the rule set. Basically, they had to try to MacGuyver it. As such, its not the system itself that was the bad idea, its that its the result of another bad system. The -attempt- wasn't that bad, considering it was rudimentary point buy used for a class-based system with varient XP by class, and the weirdness between classes. It would be complaining about how bad the pie made out of beef jerky came out. They had to use -beef jerky- is the problem, not the pie-making attempt. [/QUOTE]

Verification