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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 5036704" data-attributes="member: 19675">Well, personally, I'm in multiple D&D groups, including one that has been running a 1Ed/2Ed hybrid since about 1985 or so, and one of the few mods we made was to raise the limits (not actually remove them).  So for us at least, its not an outgrowth of the 3Ed design mentality.And since we're playing a game in which the party has reached the limits of the charts, we see every time how this warps the game.  After a certain point, the Human Wizard simply has no equal besides those of his own race.For us, the level limits for non-humans fly in the face of the internal logic of the game.  Why is a human wizard able to advance infinitely, while an Elf- intimately tied to magic (able to cast spells in armor, no less!) and with a lifespan orders of magnitude greater- has an 11th level cap?  Why shouldn't a Dwarven warrior with a lifespan, again, many times that of a human, be able to improve his mastery of the craft of war beyond 9th...one level fewer than their mortal foes bastard offspring, the short-lived Half-Orcs?  Gnomes, the only race besides humans able to be illusionists are limited to 7th level in it.The reasons are for game mechanical reasons, not anything that meshes well with the game's fluff.All I can say is that I saw it time and time again.Again, your experience obviously varies greatly from mine.  I've played the game since '77, and as an Army Brat, I got to move around a lot, meaning I was frequently in search of a new game.  Even after my family settled down in one city, I still had to find new games when I attended college, law school, and an MBA program.Every time I wound up trying to teach new players D&D, I hit that stumbling block of PC level vs Spell/power level.  Eventually, those who liked D&D generally adapted.  Others never kept it straight.Well, I wasn't intending to expand the skill system by much, just enough to cover things that, like the various thief skills, don't lend themselves to role-play. Speak for yourself.And just to be clear: Psionics would remain an optional rule.  I would just have the mechanics work well with the other systems within the game, in order to reduce the complexity of teaching the additional system, in case the Psi rules were used.My proposal remains class-centric.  There are only 3 classes.The silos (or whatever they would be called) let you customize a bit, and avoid the later introduction of entirely new classes- Barbarian, Cavalier, etc.- with entirely new XP charts and so forth.  Instead, all you need is a new path.Instead of F5, P5, B5, R5, C5, you just have F(P)5, F(B)5, F(R)5, and F(C)5.The only sacred cow that gets slaughtered is the armored, full-casting cleric.The reason I do that is because the RW warrior-priest- at least, the Western version- was generally a warrior who had taken holy vows, usually long after  years of training as a warrior, and not an actual priest or monk in the traditional sense.  And the reason the vows were taken was typically tied to participation in the Crusades.Which more closely resembles the Paladin than the D&D Cleric.The rest of it?  I'll just say that Priests of Specific Mythoi was one of the things I thought 2Ed really got right, and I disliked that the Druid wasn't simply redone as one such.</blockquote>

Verification