Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 60685" data-attributes="member: 2067">DM InnovationThis could be a draw....but I thought that was what Rule 0 was for.The idea of a paladin who doesn't cast spells is a fine one...an exception to the rule. Why couldn't a DM and Player agree on some sort of exchange so that they are compensated for the loss and play like that?If someone wants a spider-man-like class that none of the ones right now imitate, couldn't they make one?I'm pretty sure there's a sidebar in the DMG that deals with just this sort of thing...though it doesn't give guidelines.Despite how my original post sounded, I really do want to be persuaded that a class-less system is different enough for good reasons. I don't want to be convinced that a class-less system is the *best*, I just want to know the appeal of it so I can say &quot;Okay, d20 doesn't offer that, I can see why you'd play it a different way.&quot;...but I haven't, and that worries me. <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Here, I can more or less see it...for realism. Okay, right, D&amp;D, and any class-based system doesn't offer a whole lot of realism. Valid point that I disagree with, but valid. <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />But realism can't be it all, right? I mean, certainly you can play an unrealistic class-less game, with all the unrealistic trappings of high fantasy and such? In the same way you can make D&amp;D more realistic?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 60685, member: 2067"] [b]DM Innovation[/b] This could be a draw....but I thought that was what Rule 0 was for. The idea of a paladin who doesn't cast spells is a fine one...an exception to the rule. Why couldn't a DM and Player agree on some sort of exchange so that they are compensated for the loss and play like that? If someone wants a spider-man-like class that none of the ones right now imitate, couldn't they make one? I'm pretty sure there's a sidebar in the DMG that deals with just this sort of thing...though it doesn't give guidelines. Despite how my original post sounded, I really do want to be persuaded that a class-less system is different enough for good reasons. I don't want to be convinced that a class-less system is the *best*, I just want to know the appeal of it so I can say "Okay, d20 doesn't offer that, I can see why you'd play it a different way." ...but I haven't, and that worries me. :) Here, I can more or less see it...for realism. Okay, right, D&D, and any class-based system doesn't offer a whole lot of realism. Valid point that I disagree with, but valid. :) But realism can't be it all, right? I mean, certainly you can play an unrealistic class-less game, with all the unrealistic trappings of high fantasy and such? In the same way you can make D&D more realistic? [/QUOTE]

Verification