Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6044621" data-attributes="member: 22779">What is unreasonable though?&nbsp; Unreasonable to whom?&nbsp; Well, considering the name on the box, I think that any purported D&amp;D system that does not strongly handle dungeon crawl play is not really D&amp;D anymore.This is completely opposite to my experience.&nbsp; If I want to go classless, I play a different system.&nbsp; I reject your notion of &quot;advanced&quot; players entirely.&nbsp; Sorry, but, &quot;routinely ignore the rules and just build their own classes&quot; is something I've never seen done at any table I've played at.Most tables call routinely ignoring rules cheating.How is it less work to have to go through an entire character write up for a 4th level glass blower than what Mallus did?&nbsp; That you can ignore the rules is not a very good argument for keeping those rules.&nbsp; There is nothing inconsistent in allowing DM's to design NPC's outside of the class framework.&nbsp; There's an entire book of monsters that doesn't follow the class framework after all.&nbsp; Are you saying the Monster Manual is inconsistent?&nbsp; Why is a tailor different from, say, a wild boar?&nbsp; After all, that wild boar has abilities that PC's can never gain (ferocity) and the stats of the creature are entirely ad hoc.&nbsp; So, what's the difference?&nbsp; Why is it acceptable for the vast majority of NPC's to be ad hoc developed, but not all of them?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6044621, member: 22779"] What is unreasonable though? Unreasonable to whom? Well, considering the name on the box, I think that any purported D&D system that does not strongly handle dungeon crawl play is not really D&D anymore. This is completely opposite to my experience. If I want to go classless, I play a different system. I reject your notion of "advanced" players entirely. Sorry, but, "routinely ignore the rules and just build their own classes" is something I've never seen done at any table I've played at. Most tables call routinely ignoring rules cheating. How is it less work to have to go through an entire character write up for a 4th level glass blower than what Mallus did? That you can ignore the rules is not a very good argument for keeping those rules. There is nothing inconsistent in allowing DM's to design NPC's outside of the class framework. There's an entire book of monsters that doesn't follow the class framework after all. Are you saying the Monster Manual is inconsistent? Why is a tailor different from, say, a wild boar? After all, that wild boar has abilities that PC's can never gain (ferocity) and the stats of the creature are entirely ad hoc. So, what's the difference? Why is it acceptable for the vast majority of NPC's to be ad hoc developed, but not all of them? [/QUOTE]

Verification