Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Greg K" data-source="post: 3970299" data-attributes="member: 5038">Which is cool. I  prefer classes that are more customizable and not relying on multiclassing to meet many concepts which should be available at the start. I think WOTC introduced the start of a good idea with the 3 generic classes in UA, but True20 got it right between their treatment of the three classes and the introduction of hybrid classes in the Companion (which I felt was a glaring omission  from the UA version and the the True20 core rules).Well, the shaman and witch are two fantasy archetypes that I don't think the 3.x current classes handle well nor do WOTC's class in the DMG or Spirit Shaman. Superior Unarmed strike is cool (one of the very few things I liked about B09S), but I love Blood and Fists for martial arts and want an easier time incorporating it into DND!I didn't mind GURPS (except for magic and superpowers).  As for B09S, I can't stand the book. I like the goal, but I dislike the mechanics, the schools and having to rewrite a of fluff.  I am  a big proponent of Book of Iron Might's treatment of maneuvers and mechanics and how it provides mechanics for building your own maneuvers.I love the True20 save. I think it was one of the best innovations for d20.Based on Bo9s and Star Wars: SE,  I am not a fan of per encounter at all, but to each their own.</blockquote>