Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6271670" data-attributes="member: 42582">Just awesome. Though if you cut through too many Gordian knots the curtain is going to fall and we're going to be embarrassed by all that visible machinery!Anyway, here is a <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?324018-Wizard-PC-dies-returns-as-Invoker" target="_blank">link</a> to an old thread where I explained the rebuilding scenario and mechanical process for a PC in my game (human wizard MC invoker became deva invoker MC wizard). In other words, I fully support your proposal, including that it be written into the rules.Why? In real life I can learn a new field of study by studying it without getting more puissant overall - I practice one thing and my skill/knowledge in another area fades. (Eg my knowledge of theoretical sociology is much better now than it was 10 years ago, but my memory of Claremont X-Men has faded, as I have swapped one field of research for another).A rebuild captures this as well or better than 3E-style multi-classing, which is purely additive rather than substitutive.Not all of us think of game mechanics as combat mechanics: that's a narrowness of vision that you are projecting onto others.The reason my players want characters that are mechanically effective relative to one another, and relative to the mechanical characteristics of the ingame situations that their PCs will confront, is so that they can drive the game rather than be led by the GM. Mechanically impotent PCs who are led by the GM might be a virtue in a game like CoC, but I don't think it's any sort of general virtue in RPGing. In my experience it breeds railroading GMs and passive players. And this has nothing to do with combat as a site of conflict resolution.</blockquote>

Verification