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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 6077900" data-attributes="member: 22424">We played 2nd Edition like that, and my experience is that it's a lot more fun in principle than in practice. Granted, we never saw a race get blocked off by bad rolls, but we did see a character miss out on a preferred class by one point. We played on, but I can't claim the campaign was more fun as a result.YMMV, of course.Well, it does depend on how stringent those requirements are, of course.But bear in mind that it's seldom actually enough to meet the bare minimums to play a race/class combination (unless it's a 2nd Ed Ranger, of course <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> ) - the character also has to be playable. So if you have to use all your 'good' rolls to qualify for your preferred race, that may leave you with the bare minimum Int 9 for your Wizard class. And while that is a playable character, it's likely you would have more fun if the rules gave you a bit of freedom.A good system really shouldn't need that sort of stretching to make it work. If the game is going to impose minimum requirements for particular race/class combinations, then it has to be accepted that some players simply won't roll well enough to play those combinations. If that isn't acceptable (or even if it just isn't desirable), the game should do something else.(One last thing: such requirements could of course be an optional rule in the game. I of course have no objections to that - just please not as the assumed default.)</blockquote>

Verification