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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Primitive Screwhead" data-source="post: 6054209" data-attributes="member: 20805">I like the symmetry and would prefer a game that has more of it than less. I have run 2E with skills and powers, templates, etc... less symmetry = higher learning curve and need for 'system mastery'Taking it a step farther and looking at the 'big four':Fighters are masters of weapon combat through expertise dice and maneuversMages are masters of the arcane arts through spells and specializationClerics are masters of the divine arts through prayers and domainsRogues are masters of the mundane through expertise dice and skill tricks/schemesAll other classes/subclasses/ets are different mixes of these four.. and of course you can add other 'master classes' for other power sources like psionics, pacts, ki, etc. as long as the focus of the class is significantly different than those that already existExpertise dice give the player options and flavor. A 2e fighter, even with S&P, looked and acted pretty much like any other 2e fighter.If this symmetry is codified within the rules, then future expansions can be better designed within the limitation of 'no new class will be better than a master class at that master classes focus' Lower system mastery and built in levers for managing PC complexity. The rules could have a 'basic fighter' template for the first 10 levels that could be played right out of the book, and GMs could allow various stages of customization: Change race, add additional maneuvers, add background, change feats, change, change tier.. etcTheoretically this is how WoTC could deliver a rule set that allows for each player at the table to play a character that is as complex as they feel like. My 12 year old can play a 'basic' templated character while I play a fully customized variation.</blockquote>

Verification