Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 61123" data-attributes="member: 172">And just how "little" do I make it out do be? I do not beleive I have misrepresented the game at any point.But since to use skills successfully, you have to have some levels in the skills, it is, on an order, class related.I beg to differ, on two counts.First off, I disagree that you cannot compensate. You can and you should. And the system certainly CAN help reinforce logical character design.Second, I intensely dislike dismissing the problem of illogical character design as being a mere symptom of one's players being part of a nebulous category of people dubbed "system abusers." My experience is that almost any player, when given a budget to work with and confronted with the fact that his character's success may well depend on their characters capabilities in the game, can make some irrational character design choices. (Though I admit I brought that on myself by mentioning "min/maxers"; I now submit to you that while they are the paramount problem, they aren't the only problem. I did only use that term to refer to someone who would make the referred to CoC character. A more typical player would make less egregious errors by simple over-justification.)Feh. The discussion came up primarily because different people have different ideas of points of balance and what sorcerer and/or bard should be in their respective game. A have seen these types of discussion regarding numerous different games, class based or no regarding the effects of new skills or advantages or alterations thereof; this is NOT significant.A concept that is stated in meta-game terms (i.e., "with access to arcane spells"). You would never see those terms in a novel, for example. Now if the concept was "a character naturally gifted by his deity to cast fire magic", that's not metagame and sorcerer is a shoo-in. The example only flies in the face of the system because you engineered it to do so by invoking metagame terms specifically because you knew the system wouldn't accomodate it based on the fact that you, as a player vice a character in the mileu, clearly see the arcane versus divine dichotomy. That is a cracked example.And again, I don't agree that it takes some special sort of rules rapist to make an illogical character.It's not off topic at all, and is in fact central to the discussion. Easily making self-consistent characters without requiring GM intervention is one of the central strengths of classes/archetypes, and you do ill to ignore that.And of course, I beg to differ. People rail against classes failing to recognize the whole time that they are right under their nose. It's a false dichotomy, and by pegging D&D as one of a few class based systems, I think it is YOU who are over-simplifying.</blockquote>

Verification