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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5463542" data-attributes="member: 87792">And from my player side, I find that 3e is full of spurious character flexibility.  For instance you can choose to level up in any class you like - but if you're a spellcaster it's always going to be better to level up as a caster than to diversify.  And likewise skills - I've seldom seen a character not max them out. Yes, there's more total flexibility in 3e.  But I like playing a monk who's a viable member of the party and a mobile kung fu master.  Not a monk who's barely viable.  My bravura warlord simply wouldn't work in 3e - the whole concept doesn't work.  Pre-essentials, 4e had 25 classes with an average of about three fundamental archetypes per class (the fighter had six IIRC).  We're on seventy five archetypes or so before we've started customising. Oh, nonsense.  I can come up with a "Follow ad hoc plan" number.  Which means according to your rule that any ad hoc plan doesn't count.  And I can assure you that use of skills in skill challenges, at least when I run them, is based on what the PC says they are doing and how they are responding to the situation. And, for the record, you've just blasted Dogs in the Vineyard for not having player input.  Because the mechanical resolution is just about picking dice.  Many DMs ran great games.  Many DMs also ran appaling games.  And structures like skill challenges as DM side tools in no way get in the way of running great games; the DM simply doesn't use them if he/she doesn't want to.  On the other hand for an inexperienced DM they are useful for pacing, for setting the difficulty of the challenge and for setting the experience reward. No ruleset can make a DM great.  A great DM finds their way almost above the ruleset.  But a ruleset can make the difference at the bottom of the structure.</blockquote>

Verification