Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 3726792" data-attributes="member: 42582">But exactly the same logic applies to combat training. Why is a 10th level Wizard as good with a longsword as a 1st level Fighter (+5 BAB -4 non-proficiency = +1)?Either you posit that high-level characters are heroic in all respects (as per Saga or some variant thereof) or else that everything, including combat skill, is paid for with training points (as is the case in RM, and is approximately the case in RQ).I don't think that that would necessarily solve the problem. The structure of D&D play, with its emphasis on level-appropriate challenges, means that it would almost always be more efficient to spend those extra points maxing out another one or two skills rather than building up a modicum of expertise in a wide range of skills. So the problem of 20th level Wizards drowning in shallow ponds would not go away.Within the D&D adventuring paradigm, I think some variant of Saga makes sense. In another paradigm (like RM or RQ) gritty points-allocation works. I think the current mix that is D&D 3.5 doesn't work so well.</blockquote>