Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 7946173" data-attributes="member: 8461">My <a href="https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/51255/Eclipse-The-Codex-Persona-Shareware?term=eclipse+the+co" target="_blank">favorite 3E/PF1-compatible product</a> is a modular point-buy character-generation system, one that has standardized (but still flexible) metrics for altering the list of options available. It's rather complicated, but I absolutely love it; I can do <a href="https://alzrius.wordpress.com/2020/03/18/when-you-ness-with-the-best/" target="_blank">so much more</a> with it than I can with character classes.The major issues incumbent in using it are the necessary changes in mindset. 3E plays heavily on the idea that &quot;the rules create balance&quot; which a lot of people (apparently without fully realizing it) came to the conclusion that whatever characters they created, via cherry-picking across an array of sourcebooks (and often Dragon issues and WotC website articles, to say nothing of third-party books), was acceptable to bring into play. After all, if the rules were responsible for creating balance, then the players didn't need to take responsibility for making their characters fit into the game. It's where a lot of the &quot;primacy of RAW&quot; attitude came from, along with the optimization mindset. (You could <a href="https://alzrius.wordpress.com/2016/02/14/charop-ing-an-add-2e-character/" target="_blank">optimize an AD&amp;D character</a>, but it wasn't really the same.)Using a point-buy system, which acknowledges that &quot;balance&quot; is mostly (not completely, but in large part) happens at the table during game-play, means that responsibility is pushed back onto the player. It's not just an issue of &quot;don't be a jerk,&quot; but rather that your character needs to fit with the group, the world, the campaign, etc. It also requires some GM adjudication, rather than thinking that PC options are somehow exempt from oversight. Making a &quot;broken&quot; character is possible (the same way it is in 3E/PF), but the goal isn't really to prevent that; it's to give you the tools you need to make the character you want. If you take those tools and use them to smash the game, well...that possibility was always there. At least these rules don't limit what you can do in a vain attempt to prevent that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Alzrius, post: 7946173, member: 8461"] My [url=https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/51255/Eclipse-The-Codex-Persona-Shareware?term=eclipse+the+co]favorite 3E/PF1-compatible product[/url] is a modular point-buy character-generation system, one that has standardized (but still flexible) metrics for altering the list of options available. It's rather complicated, but I absolutely love it; I can do [url=https://alzrius.wordpress.com/2020/03/18/when-you-ness-with-the-best/]so much more[/url] with it than I can with character classes. The major issues incumbent in using it are the necessary changes in mindset. 3E plays heavily on the idea that "the rules create balance" which a lot of people (apparently without fully realizing it) came to the conclusion that whatever characters they created, via cherry-picking across an array of sourcebooks (and often Dragon issues and WotC website articles, to say nothing of third-party books), was acceptable to bring into play. After all, if the rules were responsible for creating balance, then the players didn't need to take responsibility for making their characters fit into the game. It's where a lot of the "primacy of RAW" attitude came from, along with the optimization mindset. (You could [url=https://alzrius.wordpress.com/2016/02/14/charop-ing-an-add-2e-character/]optimize an AD&D character[/url], but it wasn't really the same.) Using a point-buy system, which acknowledges that "balance" is mostly (not completely, but in large part) happens at the table during game-play, means that responsibility is pushed back onto the player. It's not just an issue of "don't be a jerk," but rather that your character needs to fit with the group, the world, the campaign, etc. It also requires some GM adjudication, rather than thinking that PC options are somehow exempt from oversight. Making a "broken" character is possible (the same way it is in 3E/PF), but the goal isn't really to prevent that; it's to give you the tools you need to make the character you want. If you take those tools and use them to smash the game, well...that possibility was always there. At least these rules don't limit what you can do in a vain attempt to prevent that. [/QUOTE]

Verification