Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GreatLemur" data-source="post: 3177907" data-attributes="member: 28553">I cannot disagree with that.&nbsp; It's pretty much a given that greater flexibility means greater exploitability.&nbsp; I'm admittedly not really thinking about what would be best for the game as a whole, as what I'd prefer due to my personal style of play.&nbsp; I've never been the kind of guy who can scheme my way to a +10 BAB at fourth level; I'm just a guy who'd like to be able to build a priest who doesn't heal and turn undead, or an effective unarmed, non-mystical warrior . . . without having to make up a whole new class.I completely understand and agree with that.&nbsp; Again, I admit to not worrying about what Drizzt-clone-player-#6572 needs in a game.&nbsp; I'm being blatantly self-centered, here.So are you thinking about D&amp;D as a game that comes along with a setting?&nbsp; I've been thinking more of the d20 system itself, with the assumption that it should be adaptable to various, wildly-different worlds.&nbsp; I'd just find it a lot easier to set up my homebrew setting the way I want if I could say &quot;You can use feats from these lists, except for these ones here, and if you wanna play a so-and-so, you have to take this feat, and if you're using feats from this tree, that means that you're drawing on the such-and-such power, which has these implications in the setting...&quot; and so on, instead of customizing the everloving crap out of existing classes so that they fit my concept, and forcing my players to think about Clerics, Barbarians, Rangers, Wizards, etc. in completely new ways.&nbsp; &quot;The Shapeshifter class is mostly the Druid, except and they've got these change to their wildshape ability, and they don't really have any connection to nature, and no animal companion, and here's their new spell list, and their new class skills...&quot;But, again, I admit that other folks probably don't feel compelled to screw around with the game quite as much as I do.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GreatLemur, post: 3177907, member: 28553"] I cannot disagree with that. It's pretty much a given that greater flexibility means greater exploitability. I'm admittedly not really thinking about what would be best for the game as a whole, as what I'd prefer due to my personal style of play. I've never been the kind of guy who can scheme my way to a +10 BAB at fourth level; I'm just a guy who'd like to be able to build a priest who doesn't heal and turn undead, or an effective unarmed, non-mystical warrior . . . without having to make up a whole new class. I completely understand and agree with that. Again, I admit to not worrying about what Drizzt-clone-player-#6572 needs in a game. I'm being blatantly self-centered, here. So are you thinking about D&D as a game that comes along with a setting? I've been thinking more of the d20 system itself, with the assumption that it should be adaptable to various, wildly-different worlds. I'd just find it a lot easier to set up my homebrew setting the way I want if I could say "You can use feats from these lists, except for these ones here, and if you wanna play a so-and-so, you have to take this feat, and if you're using feats from this tree, that means that you're drawing on the such-and-such power, which has these implications in the setting..." and so on, instead of customizing the everloving crap out of existing classes so that they fit my concept, and forcing my players to think about Clerics, Barbarians, Rangers, Wizards, etc. in completely new ways. "The Shapeshifter class is mostly the Druid, except and they've got these change to their wildshape ability, and they don't really have any connection to nature, and no animal companion, and here's their new spell list, and their new class skills..." But, again, I admit that other folks probably don't feel compelled to screw around with the game quite as much as I do. [/QUOTE]

Verification