NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 8634171" data-attributes="member: 5142">"It's possible, but..." is a pretty good summation of the problems at the heart in this discussion. As has been discussed elsewhere, one of the greatest pieces of salesmanship by TSR and WotC has been convincing gamers that D&D is an omni-system that can be hacked to do anything rather than a game with its own set of play principles, focus, assumptions, including strengths and weaknesses. This often makes it difficult for people to see how "it's possible, but..." equally applies to D&D as it does to other games, sometimes with some degree of hypocritical special pleading: e.g., "D&D can be hacked to do anything, but [non-D&D system X]* is only a bespoke indie game." * Nevermind all the various hacks of [non-D&D system X].The global vision seems to be oriented around character-building customization (e.g,. Heroes/Champions) - i.e., player character as MtG deck building - but IMHO 3e didn't go far enough. It may as well have been a point system. Hacks like True 20, M&M, Grim Tales, Modern Age, etc. seemed to distill the build-your-own-character aspects of 3e better than 3e D&D, but they were still crippled by the math of 3e's dysfunctional multiclassing.Aside: If 4e is locked (mostly) behind the GSL, I'm now wondering how a revised 4e would look if it was hacked onto or around the 5e chassis but with 4e design principles and mechanics... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f914.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":unsure:" title="Unsure    :unsure:"  data-smilie="24"data-shortname=":unsure:" /></blockquote>

Verification