Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 5798761" data-attributes="member: 17106">I liked a lot of what I saw in this transcript. The basic flexibility of the skills and the six saves I think are both doable and new.Reserve feats in 3e worked great. They were nice, but hardly mandatory. I hate feat taxes, but you seem to be assuming that an at-will ability is necessary to play an effective character. I hope that isn't the case.I kind of agree with these points. Throughout D&amp;D, there has always been a bizarre cognitive dissonance associated with rolling ability scores; you preach balance balance balance and then someone rolls (or &quot;rolls&quot;) great ability arrays. Rolling can be fun; I do it for my non-D&amp;D games sometimes, but it is hard to see balance coming out of it.I'm also strongly in favor of the feat every level approach. It's easy to remember, and it lets you advance a character without giving him a 5% increase in chance to hit or a new set of spells every level.This one I disagree with. I want race to really matter. I don't want my halfling fighters to be anywhere near as strong as my human fighters (let alone my half-orcs). What's more important is that each class isn't totally dependent on one ability score. If there's advantages to playing a strong bard, then a half-orc can be an effective one. If combat allows Dex to be important, a halfling fighter can be effective. Similarly, the big casters need more MAD so mental stat mods aren't such a big deal.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ahnehnois, post: 5798761, member: 17106"] I liked a lot of what I saw in this transcript. The basic flexibility of the skills and the six saves I think are both doable and new. Reserve feats in 3e worked great. They were nice, but hardly mandatory. I hate feat taxes, but you seem to be assuming that an at-will ability is necessary to play an effective character. I hope that isn't the case. I kind of agree with these points. Throughout D&D, there has always been a bizarre cognitive dissonance associated with rolling ability scores; you preach balance balance balance and then someone rolls (or "rolls") great ability arrays. Rolling can be fun; I do it for my non-D&D games sometimes, but it is hard to see balance coming out of it. I'm also strongly in favor of the feat every level approach. It's easy to remember, and it lets you advance a character without giving him a 5% increase in chance to hit or a new set of spells every level. This one I disagree with. I want race to really matter. I don't want my halfling fighters to be anywhere near as strong as my human fighters (let alone my half-orcs). What's more important is that each class isn't totally dependent on one ability score. If there's advantages to playing a strong bard, then a half-orc can be an effective one. If combat allows Dex to be important, a halfling fighter can be effective. Similarly, the big casters need more MAD so mental stat mods aren't such a big deal. [/QUOTE]

Verification