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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 3451945" data-attributes="member: 20564">Inconsistant design goalsLook, the first one was about allowing more customization.  About people of the same class not having the exact same abilities.  One design consideration is player flexibility and that always comes at the cost of more time for character & NPC creation.The second one was about making every one of the same class have the exact same skills.  The design consideration is to make it quick, and it comes at a HUGE cost of making characters of the same class cookie cutters of each other.  And if I multiclass, do I suddenly get to be as good at all the skills as someone who took just that class?  That's crazy.They're undercutting themselves and no one will benefit.  PCs with the same class will have the same skills - a scoundrel can always do X, Y, and Z, just about as good as another scoundrel.  Makes them more generic.  That's unforgivable in my book, who the characters are is very important.Really, I don't care to save 10 minutes every few months while leveling up a character vs. losing all that ability to make it MY CHARACTER.Speaking as a DM, when creating high level characters unless they are a major villain I just worry about their main skills - in other words do a short cut much like they have.  But as a aid to turning out fodder, not trying to impose it on the players.I like some of the ideas - the condition track could be quite fun, though I would hate to track it for 20 goblins when DMing.  I like the reduction of core classes, and I'd give talent trees a try to make up the flexibility for it.  But the skill replacement, both reducing to fewer generic skills and also taking away ranks, would feel my ire.Regards,=Blue(23)</blockquote>

Verification