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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thanee" data-source="post: 1952807" data-attributes="member: 478">Right. These are other examples of the same thing, and that's the core of the "problem" (well, problem is certainly a bit much said there, but it's why I don't/wouldn't like it), that these abilities are bound to single classes instead of just being seperated from them to allow more freedom in character creation.Yep. Especially the part in parantheses, which these classes emphasize instead of alleviate.You are reducing what I said a bit too far there... but yes, basically a good (base) attack bonus is a necessity for an effective fighter. It's about the most important mechanical stat for them. Hitting things is quite important, if you want to defeat them (in melee combat). <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />Why not? With "Weapon Finesse" (I'm sure there is something similar) and a high BAB, I'll have the same attack bonus. Damage is probably a bit lower, but that's part of the concept, as it is more finesse than brute force.The "traditional big, brawny guy", I'd only give a moderate BAB (less skilled) and high Strength (more muscled) in comparison, so attack bonus would actually be lower, but damage higher. I guess this archetype would work well with a Strong/Tough (more tough than strong) combination, the swashbuckler archetype does not work well, however.In 3rd edition D&D I can play such a character. And it would be highly effective, too.(...and please, do not respond with "Then play D&D!" now... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />)The "problem" of D&D is, that it needs dozens of classes to achieve this, not just a couple.In a generic system, the number of classes is reduced and the number of "concepts per class" increased, if you take a look at the above linked idea, it goes even further (not just the half way) and reduces classes to a single one and thereby further increases the number of potential concepts. That's what I'd call generic, or what I'd like to see in a generic system.I think my basic claim is, that I don't see the class system as being generic. More like quasi-generic, so to say.ByeThanee</blockquote>

Verification