Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Saeviomagy" data-source="post: 1975823" data-attributes="member: 5890">I think THIS is the fallacy. This wasn't something started by 3ed. It's not a new concept to roleplaying games. It was always there. Ever since the beginnings of RPGs, there have been players who've said &quot;X character class is great, Y is useless&quot;. 1st ed D&amp;D had &quot;because demi-humans get lots of advantages, they're limited in level&quot;. It was a bad way to balance them, but nonetheless it was an attempt. The idea was there.At a guess when you were playing, you looked at what the mechanics behind classes were, then chose a class. At a guess, you never had anyone play a rogue scholar or vagabond. At a guess noone played mutant animals in heroes unlimited. At a guess, the guy with all 15's thought his character sucked, because it did.If you avoid the holes in a rule system, it's playable. They're still holes in the system though, a system you paid good money for.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Saeviomagy, post: 1975823, member: 5890"] I think THIS is the fallacy. This wasn't something started by 3ed. It's not a new concept to roleplaying games. It was always there. Ever since the beginnings of RPGs, there have been players who've said "X character class is great, Y is useless". 1st ed D&D had "because demi-humans get lots of advantages, they're limited in level". It was a bad way to balance them, but nonetheless it was an attempt. The idea was there. At a guess when you were playing, you looked at what the mechanics behind classes were, then chose a class. At a guess, you never had anyone play a rogue scholar or vagabond. At a guess noone played mutant animals in heroes unlimited. At a guess, the guy with all 15's thought his character sucked, because it did. If you avoid the holes in a rule system, it's playable. They're still holes in the system though, a system you paid good money for. [/QUOTE]

Verification