Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Synicism" data-source="post: 427788" data-attributes="member: 489">You're right. It is a taste thing. Personally, I don't see the difference in time taken between me making an an attack roll vs. an AC and, if successful, rolling damage (two rolls of the dice), and me making an attack roll, and then having my target make a defense roll to see if he evaded somehow (same two rolls of the dice). I prefer the mental imagery the second way better. Others might not.You do have a good point - it's possible to make the one-shot-one-kill highly likely with the right prestige classes.This begs the following question. Does the proliferation of prestige classes designed to alter the system to produce certain effects that might otherwise be impossible (like the Iaijutsu Master) not seem like the plugging of a leaky dam?Would it not have been easier to design a system that could handle these sorts of things in one book?Granted the d20 approach does allow for a LOT of books, and that's good for publishers and chiropractors who treat gamers' back problems caused by lugging that much paper around. But what about everyone else?Getting back to Shane Hensley's point again, this is what the OGL was designed for. To let people make up their own stuff. I like a lot of the d20 system. It's quick, it's tight, and it's easy to figure out. I don't like certain aspects of "stock" d20, like hit points, classes, and levels. The OGL allows me to fix it for my own purposes.That is great!What is not great is the criticism that tends to get heaped on such things."It's incompatible with d20.""It doesn't work for my D&D game."Wonderful. We have a d20 STL for those things. We have an OGL for people who want to make something suited to their product. Maybe dual-statting is an option - stock d20 on one side, and the OGL system on the other. But the OGL provides the tools. And the industry is (finally) starting to use them.</blockquote>

Verification