Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="moriarty777" data-source="post: 3925192" data-attributes="member: 53177">I've abstained from replying for a few days since I was trying to think long and hard how to approach my reply.  Nothing bad though... just a longer post.First off, I love my RPGs ... I've tried a great many of them over the years and I got my start in the very late 80's with AD&D (2nd Edition was just coming out) and was exposed to the Mentzer D&D Boxes and 1st Edition AD&D all pretty much at the same time.  Collectively, it was all Dungeons & Dragons to me.  I've also had fun with games and systems by FASA, ICE, Paladium, Chaosim, GDW, and WEG.  Loved them all for various reasons but nothing could replace my love for the stuff that TSR had put out in the past.In the mid to late 90's thought, RPGs and I parted company for many reasons.  WOTC's new version of Dungeons & Dragons brought me back to the gaming table.  There were a couple of things that irritated me a bit and I quickly saw a couple of balance issues with the game but that didn't deter me.  I eventually switched to 3.5 once it made sense for me to do so (I sold my 3.0 core set for $60 and bought the 3.5 gift set for around $90).  The more I played 3.5, the more I got dissatisfied with certain aspects of the game.These are some of my biggest 'gripes' about the game:- Despite equal experience point tables, there exists balance issues, or at the very least, design problems, with some of the core classes when they are measured against others.  Some of these issues only begin to arise and be more painfully obvious after classes reach certain levels.- The Skill system, though better thought out than the old weapon/non-weapon proficiency system needs to be better streamlined.  I'm happy to say that it seems like they are going this route after a fashion (certain skills lumped into one like Perception instead of Spot and Search).  The other problem (as is) that I have with the skill system is its ranks and synergies and the like... a streamlined mechanic would be also very nice to see.  I just feel that a slightly simpler approach to deal with certain aspects of the Skill system may not be a bad thing.- Tactical options and aspects of combat I found to be cumbersome.  I believe True20 resolved some of these issues by addressing aspect of Attacks of Opportunity.  Other things like Grapple is a pain.  More options is not an answer if the base needs to be tweaked, fixed, or perfected.- The Feat system needs a bit of an overhaul but part of that was brought on by an endless supply of Options Books.  Some of it also deals with the game on a tactical nature and others... well... let's just say that not all Feats are created equal.A lot of these issues I've mentioned potentially creates more 'min-maxing' that previous editions of the game.  This in itself is a problem for me and others but not a fault of the system.  However, if certain balance issues were checked, min-maxing wouldn't be as much of an issue either.Now these are pretty much opinions and some of these may be shared by others.  It was some of these issues that led me to C&C which I'm happily running and playing.  The issues for my in 3.5 are really not there in C&C.  This is not because it got fixed -- simply because some of the issues are not applicable.However, I still hold on to my 3.5 ... and I have some hopes to fix aspects of it myself and the problems I have noticed that affect my game or how I play the game.  In that vein, I've seen and liked certain aspects of the E6 Rules (or should I say guidelines) as one example.  Other d20 friendly games like C&C has given me a couple of ideas to address a few things.  True20 is a different matter, and I've recently gotten the book for it but still have to go through it in depth.  In all honesty, from what I've seen, I might have switched to True20 completely had I seen it earlier.  However in the end, C&C was more reminiscent of the game I started out with with some of the features that d20 brought to the game in 3rd Edition.I like C&C ... I like it a lot.  I have no hate for 3.x and I won't go around bashing it either.  C&C at this time seems to be a better fit for what I'm looking for and this should be the criteria that gamers in general should be looking at -- "What is the best fit for me?"  And if you're truly having a problem with finding that match, take the closest thing and adapt to it as necessary (which is why I'm a bit curious about 4th Ed).M</blockquote>

Verification