Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ace" data-source="post: 67970" data-attributes="member: 944">I couldn't agree with you more on this point Psion. However I must agree with the posters who feel that the DND character generation system can be a bit limiting.I have played GURPS steadily since well  Man to man was brand new and I have found it has the most sensible and realisitic system for designing real (or seemingly real) people I have ever seen. 3e is more limited. There simply are some character types you can't easily make. I have never had that problem in GURPS if i tweak the point totals as needed. GURPS has a pair of books called Whos Who with stats for real people in them Catherine the GreatSir Richard BurtonLief EriksonEienstien and so on.That is impossible in 2e or earlier editions and tough in 3e. Well to get Teslas 20 skill in wierd science we needed to make him tenth level expert. He has a BaB of 7/2 and 50 hit points, roughly the combat ability of a vetern special forces trooper. This is highly illogical.It is fairly easy to make anyone in GURPS Be that as it may, DND is easier to make characters for (a whole party in about twenty minutes) and easier to balance. Both are fun. Ultimately thats what really matters. From what I have read in your posts DND simulates the kind of reality you want in you games much better than GURPS does, thats perfectly ok but is not true for everyone.One more point, realistic skill sets. DND does not provide an adequate skill set for each class.I really can't see why it would be difficult for a Fighter to learn hide or knowledge nobility or a bunch of other skills not on his list if he comes from an appropriate background.Is it necessary for a fighter from a farm to pay double for spot, listen and profession farmer?If he grew up on a farm was exposed to these skills, heck he may have been exposed to move silent and hide and wilderness lore hunting (or poaching!) with his father.What if he is training with the party rogue? Why should he have to pay double or take rogue levels just to learn to open locks.You leanr what you are taught. Just because I went to computer school (or in a DND setting/ studied wizardy) doesn't mean I can't learn just as well to be be a good climber or jumper. I may not have great stats (no bonus) so it will take a little longer but what i am usually doing doesn't have that great a bearing.IMO  a better system would have a flexible method of allocating class skills.Sure you are getting to be a better fighter this level but no you can't improve  swim or climb during the desert trek.Instead for this level wilderness lore and Knowledge/Nomads are class skills for you. This simulates real learning a tad better.As for illogical skills sets I say PAH to that.You wouldn't believe how many swordman, martial artist,  artist, musician, sorcerer, historian, religious scholar, actor etc people  I know IRL.While I won't vouch for the sorcerey these guys are good at what they do. And know they are not all triple or quadriple class high level types in DND terms or paying double.People with freedom can be very versitile.I agree that a serf in in realistic setting may have a limited skill set (Profession, Craft and a few others) but adventurer types and people in a high fantasy setting may have a broader range of skills than you would expect. Heck even the peasant will have more skills than are listed (knowledge: home area, knowledge: local law and custom, spot ,search and listen knowledge: folk tales etc etc etc)Even intimidate or Bluff (for haggling at market, avoiding the tax nman and not getting hanged for poaching) could be easily justified in a reasonable peasant. .The skill limits do serve a game purpose but IMO they ren't realistic in the least.YMMV of course</blockquote>

Verification