Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ProfessorCirno" data-source="post: 5413679" data-attributes="member: 65637">This doesn't make sense.What mechanics are needed to set a pirate apart from a knight.&nbsp; Before 3e, there weren't any - a pirate and a knight had differences only in AC, HP, and THAC0/Hit/whatever the system used.&nbsp; Instead, there mere label of &quot;pirate&quot; was enough.Then in 3e, there was only barebones difference.&nbsp; The pirate had sneak attack and...what?&nbsp; Skill points in profession that never saw use in actual gameplay?&nbsp; Mechanics that served no purpose at all?&nbsp; It was still functionally the same as 2e - the differences were in it's AC, HP, it's stats, and attack bonus.&nbsp; That one had &quot;Profession (Never will be used)&quot; and the other had &quot;Knowledge (Will never be rolled)&quot; made no fundamental difference.Now in 4e you can have a pirate actively use powers to set himself up as being distinct and pirate-y, and you're upset he's not enough of a pirate?&nbsp; He's more of a pirate then he's ever been before!Mechanics where they are needed.This whole discussion is the most hilarious thing in the world if you were around for the 3e transition.&nbsp; &quot;Too many rules!&quot; they cried!&nbsp; &quot;When you try to codify roleplaying you turn it into a video game!&quot;&nbsp; Now it seems if you don't codify roleplaying enough, you turn it into a video game.&nbsp; They actively go back to a few old school styles of gaming, and they're attacked for not being old school enough!Look.&nbsp; I enjoy 3e!&nbsp; I think it's a fun game - hell, way more fun then 2e!&nbsp; But 3.x is not old school.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ProfessorCirno, post: 5413679, member: 65637"] This doesn't make sense. What [B]mechanics[/B] are needed to set a pirate apart from a knight. Before 3e, there weren't any - a pirate and a knight had differences only in AC, HP, and THAC0/Hit/whatever the system used. Instead, there mere label of "pirate" was enough. Then in 3e, there was only barebones difference. The pirate had sneak attack and...what? Skill points in profession that never saw use in actual gameplay? Mechanics that served no purpose at all? It was still functionally the same as 2e - the differences were in it's AC, HP, it's stats, and attack bonus. That one had "Profession (Never will be used)" and the other had "Knowledge (Will never be rolled)" made no fundamental difference. Now in 4e you can have a pirate actively use powers to set himself up as being distinct and pirate-y, and you're upset he's not enough of a pirate? He's more of a pirate then he's ever been before! Mechanics [B]where they are needed[/B]. This whole discussion is the most hilarious thing in the world if you were around for the 3e transition. "Too many rules!" they cried! "When you try to codify roleplaying you turn it into a video game!" Now it seems if you don't codify roleplaying enough, you turn it into a video game. They actively go back to a few old school styles of gaming, and they're attacked for not being old school enough! Look. I enjoy 3e! I think it's a fun game - hell, way more fun then 2e! [B]But 3.x is not old school[/B]. [/QUOTE]

Verification