Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 5772523" data-attributes="member: 29398">Up to here is all yummy goodness.&nbsp; Fine call on the humour in 1e.I'd like to see more focus on single-classing: a Fighter is a Fighter and leaves all the sneakery to the Thieves, who in turn leave that risky magic stuff to the Mages, etc.&nbsp; In 3e it was way too easy to build a character who could, in theory, do it all - and thus didn't really need the rest of the party.As a very nice side effect, this forces the party to depend on each other as each can do things the others simply cannot.Secondary consideration: characters should be simple enough to play (and roll up) that playing more than one at a time becomes a viable option again.Huh?&nbsp; Wha?You contradict yourself here - in your 1e summary you say how great the alignment system was yet here you advocate its removal.&nbsp; Can't really have both, you know. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Also, each character doesn't really have to be competent in every combat as long as each is competent in most and can shine in a few.&nbsp; This becomes even less important if one takes your 2e summary re how experience can be earned and applies it to the game.Lan-&quot;yummy goodness for the win&quot;-efan</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 5772523, member: 29398"] Up to here is all yummy goodness. Fine call on the humour in 1e. I'd like to see more focus on single-classing: a Fighter is a Fighter and leaves all the sneakery to the Thieves, who in turn leave that risky magic stuff to the Mages, etc. In 3e it was way too easy to build a character who could, in theory, do it all - and thus didn't really need the rest of the party. As a very nice side effect, this forces the party to depend on each other as each can do things the others simply cannot. Secondary consideration: characters should be simple enough to play (and roll up) that playing more than one at a time becomes a viable option again. Huh? Wha? You contradict yourself here - in your 1e summary you say how great the alignment system was yet here you advocate its removal. Can't really have both, you know. :) Also, each character doesn't really have to be competent in every combat as long as each is competent in most and can shine in a few. This becomes even less important if one takes your 2e summary re how experience can be earned and applies it to the game. Lan-"yummy goodness for the win"-efan [/QUOTE]

Verification