Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 61723" data-attributes="member: 2205">That is certainly true of D&amp;D3 vs any other edition of D&amp;D.&nbsp; However, I don't think anyone on this thread falls into the &quot;I don't realize how flexible it is&quot; trap.&nbsp; Most of us appear to have played a variety of systems for a number of years.&nbsp; I, at least, have.&nbsp; I'm not a big fan of classes, and I never will be.&nbsp; I dislike being told what a wizard must be like.&nbsp; Why can't I have a wizard who dabbles in something else without multiclassing?&nbsp; Or a wizard who doesn't have to spend double his skill points to have come from a noble family and know how to ride a horse well?&nbsp; Or how about a ranger that specializes in guerilla tactics (sneak attack ability?)&nbsp; Sure, this can be somewhat replicated by multi-classing, but you also end up with a bunch of baggage that means nothing to your character concept.But see, that's really silly.&nbsp; If your professor is a physics professor?&nbsp; He still has to know anatomy, because by golly, the sneak attack mechanic is in there!&nbsp; What if he's a perfect, good old fashioned thief, and literally everything about the rogue class (except the sneak attack, because he's a thief, not a sneak attacker) is what you want?&nbsp; Well, too bad, you have to take sneak attack anyway, instead of having access to an extra feat, or whatever that might make more sense.You said earlier that you weren't coming into this biased,&nbsp; but I really can't see that you've had an open mind about class-less systems.&nbsp; Really, it seems like your making a specific comparison between GURPS and D&amp;D.&nbsp; GURPS has its own problems, unrelated to being classless.&nbsp; I think the real comparison that is meaningful here is D&amp;D as currently constituted, and D&amp;D as it could be without classes, or with much more flexible classes then it currently has.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Desdichado, post: 61723, member: 2205"] [i][/i] That is certainly true of D&D3 vs any other edition of D&D. However, I don't think anyone on this thread falls into the "I don't realize how flexible it is" trap. Most of us appear to have played a variety of systems for a number of years. I, at least, have. I'm not a big fan of classes, and I never will be. I dislike being told what a wizard [i]must[/i] be like. Why can't I have a wizard who dabbles in something else without multiclassing? Or a wizard who doesn't have to spend double his skill points to have come from a noble family and know how to ride a horse well? Or how about a ranger that specializes in guerilla tactics (sneak attack ability?) Sure, this can be somewhat replicated by multi-classing, but you also end up with a bunch of baggage that means nothing to your character concept. [i][/i] But see, that's really silly. If your professor is a physics professor? He still has to know anatomy, because by golly, the sneak attack mechanic is in there! What if he's a perfect, good old fashioned thief, and literally everything about the rogue class (except the sneak attack, because he's a [i]thief[/i], not a sneak attacker) is what you want? Well, too bad, you have to take sneak attack anyway, instead of having access to an extra feat, or whatever that might make more sense. You said earlier that you weren't coming into this biased, but I really can't see that you've had an open mind about class-less systems. Really, it seems like your making a specific comparison between GURPS and D&D. GURPS has its own problems, unrelated to being classless. I think the real comparison that is meaningful here is D&D as currently constituted, and D&D as it could be without classes, or with much more flexible classes then it currently has. [/QUOTE]

Verification