Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="reanjr" data-source="post: 1978528" data-attributes="member: 20740">While it is certainly better than any previous edition, there's a lot more that could be done.  There are still quite a few niche archetypes that can not be filled.  The swashbuckling class is still not possible with core rules.  And even with accessories, you are forced to be a dashing, charismatic, smartass if you want to fight good without armor.Most of the problem is not that there is no combination to give you the things your character should have for a particular concept, but that in the process of getting these things, you attain abilities that make no sense for your character.Why should the swashbuckler receive proficiency in Full Plate?  Why is the apothecary able to cast spells?  Why does my diplomat have cleric spells/sneak attack/bardic music?  Why is it that my skills in wrestling coincide directly with my skills with a bow?  Why can't I combine my knowledge of spellcasting (wizard) with my innate talent (sorcerer), since they are cast in much the same way (scroll are the same)?  Why is it that my devout follower of Hektar, God of Peace and Healing, knows how to use Full Plate and kicks tail in a fight?  Not to mention, why is Hektar granting me miracles that make me a killing machine?  Why does my centaur have a special mount?If I wanted to spend some time, I could fill almost an entire notebook of these contradictions.  The package deal makes no sense for MOST character concepts.  Just try to recreate the abilities and shortcomings of any character from Lord of the Rings or almost any other non-TSR/WotC fantasy.  It usually can't be done.But that seems to be more of a myth than anything.  Just check the message boards here for how some low CR creature did a TPK, or some party mopped the floor with a high CR creature.  The power level comparisons just don't work and, in my opinion, get way too stressed by the system.  If they spent a couple of pages explaining to the DM how to assign ad hoc XP, rather than trying to explain the overly-complicated Level/CR/EL/XP system, the DM would be able to easily adjudicate what kinds of rewards to give their players.  The CRs don't really work very well, anyway.  I would much rather see creatures organized by something more useful, like "Creatures that will be annihilated by a grappler" or "Creatures that an enchanter will immediately make his slave" or "Don't even bother with combat if there's a cleric."  Those would actually be useful.  CR is not.  And if CR isn't useful, then what use is knowing what level the PCs are?I think they are thought about and created by more experienced tinkerers, but I've seen plenty of roleplayers who started with non-level-based systems or quickly grew to know and love them.  The reason crpgs use levels is because you are generally handling multiple characters, where the tedium of progressing the characters would take up most of the game.  Even those crpgs that only have a single character would be slowed significantly by choosing a slew of improvements from a menu after a battle.  D&D and other RPGs, though, are a much slower paced experience where you grow to "know" your character a lot better.  They are not the tool of the game designers to promote a cinematic tale (depending on the DM).  They are your creation, but history to likes/dislikes, quirks, speech patterns - everything.  In developing this character level/class - based systems are often the only thing standing between your character's mechanical representation and the ideal you have in your head.  (that and the pesky DM who won't allow you to have inherited the sword that eats worlds)</blockquote>

Verification