Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BluSponge" data-source="post: 60708" data-attributes="member: 916">::sigh::If the extent of your exposure to &quot;classless&quot; systems is GURPS, you're missing out.&nbsp; For swords and sorcery genre rpgs, nothing is wrong with archetypes.&nbsp; But many times these force incrimental changes on skills and abilities that are not the focus of the character.&nbsp; Skill-based games allow more accurate rewards and customization in this regard.&nbsp; People rave about all the &quot;options&quot; d20 provides, but look at the classes available in some of the other, non-DnD, d20 games.&nbsp; Classes just don't seem to fit many genres, where the span of skills and expertise is much more broad.Of course, if you're happy with them, stick with classes.&nbsp; But don't believe they don't limit the spectrum of character types available.&nbsp; If they didn't, why would 3e have incorporated such radical changes to the multiclassing rules (a band-aid that doesn't fit the archetypal concept AT ALL).&nbsp; Why the proliferation of feats?&nbsp; Why did 1st ed, have so many unofficial classes?&nbsp; Why did 2nd ed resort to kits as a back door route to break the rules in regards to classes?&nbsp; None of these stop-gap measures are necessary with skill based systems.&nbsp; And I think, all things considered, its much easier to balance a skill than an entire class.Tom</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BluSponge, post: 60708, member: 916"] [b]::sigh::[/b] If the extent of your exposure to "classless" systems is GURPS, you're missing out. For swords and sorcery genre rpgs, nothing is wrong with archetypes. But many times these force incrimental changes on skills and abilities that are not the focus of the character. Skill-based games allow more accurate rewards and customization in this regard. People rave about all the "options" d20 provides, but look at the classes available in some of the other, non-DnD, d20 games. Classes just don't seem to fit many genres, where the span of skills and expertise is much more broad. Of course, if you're happy with them, stick with classes. But don't believe they don't limit the spectrum of character types available. If they didn't, why would 3e have incorporated such radical changes to the multiclassing rules (a band-aid that doesn't fit the archetypal concept AT ALL). Why the proliferation of feats? Why did 1st ed, have so many unofficial classes? Why did 2nd ed resort to kits as a back door route to break the rules in regards to classes? None of these stop-gap measures are necessary with skill based systems. And I think, all things considered, its much easier to balance a skill than an entire class. Tom [/QUOTE]

Verification