Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 64597" data-attributes="member: 172">Okay EVERYONE, if you wish to refute my position, then don't do the incorrect rephrasing and strawman construction that first Joshua and (now) Mortaneus are doing.Now, Mortaneus, that is not my position, except #3, which is more of a solution to a problem than an inherent value.First off #1. I have said character logic is more imprortant than balance. That said, I think your analysis is cracked. It's not just because I think your argument about lack of balance in D&D is flawed (and it pretty much is. Missile more powerful than melee? Well maybe if it weren't for AoO and the encounter environment in D&D, BID.) More to the point, because there is no comparison there. Skill based sysetms are just as bad or worse.As I have said before, balance is an inexact and highly situation dependant topic, but it doesn't mean that you shouldn't strive for it.I disagree. It "seems"? You have shown nothing. This is all just gut feel, and guess what: my experience shows the contrary. My characters party is in the teens, and I have seen no glaring balance problems. Can the wizard cast knock as much as the thief can pick locks? No, I don't think so. Would I send a party of two wizards and two clerics into an adventure designed for a nominally "balanced" party? No. They would be toast. Likewise, find traps will not compensate for a theif finding traps. Niche protection is there (like it or no... I could really live without it, but players seem to like it).This wasn't my point, which should show how much you are paying attention to what I am saying; inasmuch as I did comment on it, I stated that it was a symptom of the D&D standard party, and not the class system itself.If that is all D&D is to you, why the hell are you on this list? Unless you LIKE hack-n-slash. But I'll guarantee you that every game I run has intrigue in it.But yes, that assumption is based around the standard D&Dish party layout.At any rate, I consider this all quite tangential.Gee, are you going to build your argument on entirely personal characterizations?Sorry if you don't like it and feel like you are being crammed, but the simlpe fact is that it is the right thing to do. IMNSHO. The skill sets assigned to classes are consistent and logical; in skill based games it is "anything goes."Of course I am guessing you are one of those players who, when the system limits you from giving your fighter the full-on abilities of a thief, you are being "crammed". Sorry, if forcing you to play a character with a logical set of skills cramps your style, you are not going to be happy in my game.Come back when you have a valid argument vice rabid attacks.Ah, yet more sniping, with no logic.Sorry, my players seem to think I am a great GM and I am very secure in my abilities. My proficiecny as a GM has taught me that you acheive the same thing with classes as handholding but with much more effort. I'd rather spend my time doing other tasks that micromanaging character creation thankyouverymuch.Again not my point. I care about encouraging concepts that fit in my world, which is not the same as general D&D despite your protestations to the contrary. But genre itself is not my point.So, of 4 points against me, you have one that is even close to a claim that I have made... and your refutation of that point consistend entirely of of emotive snipes vice any meaningful argument.Well done.</blockquote>

Verification