Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenjib" data-source="post: 64725" data-attributes="member: 530">Hi all (I'm honestly not directing this at anyone in particular),Before a spiral of slander forms, I just want to say that I believe that the best way to respond to a perceived insult is most definitely not to respond with an even worse insult.  It's best to just ignore it and stick to the meat of the argument.  Moral highground and all.  Trust 3rd party readers to identify who is "blowing steam" and who is providing solid arguments.  In the end a level headed, concise, and well informed, argument is far more powerful than any kind of insult could ever be.  Insults and exhortations are meaningless filler that detract from the quality of an argument by distracting readers from the main points.  They also inhibit an atmosphere of free, open, and often bring productive discussion and interesting debate to quick and premature close.Thanks!I can see why you, yourself, don't like changing ability groupings willy-nilly.  I'm suggesting, however, that while the proposed system is fundamentally classless and allows this, that it also provides a mechanism to apply more strict classing if he so chooses.  In fact, the default method of play should be the classed extension, since it's quicker, simpler, and easier for new players to learn.  Let me try to clarify with an example of one way in which they could have organized the books:1.  Players Handbook:  This does not seem much different from the 3e player's handbook.  It has classes and character advancement rules very similar to 3e.  The differences in the new system are completely hidden from this book.2.  Dungeon Masters Guide:  Pretty much the same.3.  Monster Manual:  Pretty much the same.4.  Advanced Players Handbook (or call it something else if you want to keep it more in the DM's domain):  This book reveals the underlying point based system (or another, more elegant system if one can be invented) that was used to build the classes in book 1.  The mechanic for building classes does not require any arbitrary eye-balling to create a new class.  It has clear and concise rules and all of the classes in book 1 were built with these rules and follow them 100%.  They provide incentives for characters to adopt groups of similar abilities, rather than grabbing odd, random, and unrelated traits.  Players and/or DMs can now choose to use these rules how they like.  In addition, the book describes how you can use this system to build a freeform character level by level instead of using a predefined class path.  It also includes variant rules for awarding character points gradually by experience gained instead of by level, so that the game can be played without level-ups.  Maybe you could even have a variant rule for levelless classed play so that you can retain strong archetypes but have gradual advancement.Now we get a choice.  D&D can be played either classed or classless, as well as levelled and levelless, but either way it uses the exact same rules.  In fact, characters built with and without classes can now be seamlessly integrated into the same campaign since there is no difference in the rules underlying how the characters were made.  Essentially there are at least three ways to use the rules now regarding classed/classless (let's ignore the level/levelless choice for this example):1.  Ignore book 4 and play D&D pretty close to how it is now.  This is how "core rules" purists and those who want to put extra work into the game, among others, would play it.2.  Use book 4 only for the DM to build new custom classes.  This is how rules tinkerers, world builders, and people who, like you, want to maintain DM control and character concept consistency (please feel free to correct me if I'm misrepresenting you here - I'm trying my best <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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> ) would play it.3.  Use book 4 to allow characters to play customized classless characters.  This is how fans of an organic classless system, and those who like to leave ultimate power in the players' hands and adapt to their choices, would play it.You can still play the way you want but those people who want a classless system can play that way too.  What do you lose here?  I can't see why anyone would be opposed to this format since it lets people play either way and neither one is endorsed over the other.  Is #2 pretty much what you want?  If not, how could I revise the concept to fit your needs?  As long as the rules allow and encourage you to play your way, it shouldn't hurt you that it also allows and encourages other people to play a different way.  What do you think, taking this clarification into account?Book 4 could possibly be made with the current implementation of D&D, but I'm not sure that the classes as they are now can be retrofitted in a fashion that does not compromise the quality of the classless system.  I think it would be better to redesign the player's handbook after the building system was devised.  I would love to be proven wrong and see a nice system for this put out by WotC.  I don't see it happening though (at least not with the quality and consistency that I would like to see).</blockquote>

Verification