Jediphile

:"> My bad - I'll go shut up in the corner now... :ph34r:

Note: The following comes with apologies to "thepixiesrock" for reasons that will be entirely too obvious Nihilus: "Mmmhgggr hmmmlllrgg!" Exile: "Gee, what an incredibly unfunny threat..." Again, sorry

Sorry.. I got carried away <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually, I think that's my line :D I *really* got carried away on the whole class-vs-skill argument, which is actually secondary to experience levels to me. I don't like classes, but I find that experience levels are worse, since they are truly what distance characters from the common folk and therefore from retaining any sort of believability that serves to suspend your disbelief. You mean this ? Yes, I know, but I do have a problem with that argument in that it's a role-playing solution to a rules-created problem. Of course you can introduce elements of bounty hunters and similar to haunt the PCs if they don't "behave" according to what they should - any good GM can do so without much trouble. But that's not the problem - the problem is that the PCs are powerful enough to destroy a village, and even if you introduce assassins to make them behave again, the villagers will still be just as dead. Besides, you can only place convenient opposition in the PCs' path for so long before you lose credibility in the eyes of your players. Besides, players hate being hit over the head with the GM's stick - they usually play to escape that sort of thing in their real lives in the first place. I once handled it differently in my campaign. The PCs had been involved in a brawl, which led to a trial, where all the PCs were fined and thrown in jail for a few days. Since the barkeep had testified against them, they were angry and wanted revenge, so they researched the barkeep's background, checking to see if he was connected to important families or influential people and so. When they found he was not, they visited his tavern dressed up in hoods, so that he wouldn't recognize them, and the mage extended his hand to shake the barkeep's, then cast Shocking Grasp when he took it, which instantly killed the poor guy. Now, how do you handle a situation like that? It's not as if what the PCs did was implausible, and to suggest that the barkeep would remember the two of them that entered the keep at that point from a single brawl (barkeeps probably have these all the time in AD&D...) is pretty unbelievable. So to stop them I would have had to enforce some pretty fierce rule-bending and rail-roading, which is something I really hate. Besides, the barkeep was really just a generic NPC... Instead I let the barkeep be dead, and the PCs then decided to leave town for a few days. They came back a few days later, badly in need of some healing (they had no cleric in the party) after some random monster encounters. When they went to the church, however, they were taken aside by a cleric, due to some commotion at the center of church. Inquisitive and opportunistic as PCs are, they naturally asked if there was a problem and if they could help, to which the cleric told that one of the younger members of the order was pretty upset because his uncle had recently died under mysterious circumstances and that foul play was suspected. Naturally this uncle was the barkeep... The surprise of the players and the look on their faces when the cleric asked them if they could look into this and find out what happened was quite satisfying and worth letting them kill a generic barkeep for... It also helped the point come across very nicely without lots of hunting and rail-roading on my part That ended any killing spree I ever had in my campaigns, but I honestly don't know what I would do if it happened again - to let the PCs be hunted down within a day or two of killing a village is straining credibility very far. Aafter all, who is left to identify them, and how would experienced bounty hunters/assassins find them so quick? Besides, why would the local baron/king/whatever care about the dead villagers of some forgotten spot in the middle of nowhere? You can set up bounter hunters and so, but it takes time before it works right, and it's actually far more effective if the PCs are being hunted down for being total good guys than for being villains - trust me, I know whereof I speak :D "

This thread seems to have been only about skill-based vs. class-based recently, but my original disgust with d20 wasn't only about the inflexibility of predetermined and rigid classes, though I don't like those much either, as I have described rather a lot already. d20 Cthulhu doesn't have classes, for example, but it does have experience levels. I don't like experience levels, because like classes, they don't make much sense, and in fact they're more problematic. I have no problem with characters progression through the game and improving their abilities - they should do that in any case - but there is a difference between building ability and then suddenly having a load of feats, skill points and what have we tossed in your face once you've gotten some predetermined number of points. I always think of Marcus' rather apt and sarcastic comment about leveling-up in Fallout 2: "Wow! I feel as if I've passed some arbitrary experience value and gained more power!" " In 5th edition Cthulhu you had to build your skills, and actually could only improve skills that you had used successfully during a session. You rolled against your skill and actually to fail that roll for it to improve, thereby making it harder to improve as you got better at it. That's a very simple and nice way of improving skills, and it also makes sense that your bad skills improve faster than your good ones, assuming you managed to successfully use a bad skill. Other games let the GM assign points based on your role-playing that you then distribute to buy Skills or Traits or whatever, which I also find to be a good approach. I mean, why does my 3e wizard's to-hit probability improve when he only ever casts spells and never ever uses a weapon?!? Or where did my 3e paladin suddenly learn magic from, when all he ever does is pummel the critters over the head with his sword? There is no sense of achievement in gaining these improvements, since you never actively worked toward them - you just have them thrown at you at arbitrary and convenient moments wheter you like it or not. There's also the high-level superhero vs. common man problem. I know D&D is about heroic characters, but it's really silly that your group of four 15-th level characters can basically tear apart an orcish army of several thousands without much trouble, let alone the local villages you chance across in your travels... Try reading som "Knights of the Dinner Table" comic books for some extreme examples of how silly that can get. It's just silly to have rules that allow you to fireball a village into oblivion in a few seconds without trouble, and the high-level play also ruins the role-playing experience, since why would your 18th-level paladin fear those shady-loooking characters sneaking sneaking around in that dark alley - there is no chance at all that they can harm him in any way, and players are fully justified by the rules if they show no concern at all about this...

That's a good point, but I think EnderWiggin was talking about skill-based vs. class-based on principle and not in relation to existing material in AD&D or whatever. I certainly was. Then again, the OD&D gaz aren't exactly compatible with AD&D either... But yes, Planescape is a nightmare to convert, since it's so AD&D class/magic specific on many levels (and alignment-specific more so), while Mystara would actually be easier to convert to something else since the OD&D/AD&D split already creates lots of troubles that must be sorted out anyway. Yeah... I mean, with PO rules your wizard specialist can take weapon specialization... " Why would you take weapon specialization if you've chosen to play an illusionist?!? Doesn't make much sense, and nobody would do it, since the cost means severe restrictions on available spell ability and similar that you then don't have enough points to get. Still, I do like the option, even if it's completely redundant... But as we've agreed before, Player Option rules means at least six rulebooks plus your own house rules, and that's pretty rules-heavy even when compared to something like GURPS or similar...

And that's probably my problem - the leash is there and I know it! I can't get my mind around that no matter what, and I cannot dismiss it as unimportant, since there really doesn't seem to be any genuine need for a leash in the first place...

The Atris/Kreia thing has been discussed before, and it seems that when Kreia leaves you on Dantooine after meeting the council, then one of them is to become Darth Traya, while the other should presumably have joined your party. There has been speculation that Atris would be Darth Traya if you're light side, but that's all conjecture, I think.

Yeah, but I guess Lancer just doesn't feel that the classes restrict him or his game, whereas I see classes like a box or a leash - as long as you're fine within the box you're assigned to, you really won't have a problem, but the walls are there, and you'll feel them immediately if you push against them. Or it's the leash - you're completely free within the space the leash allows you, but try to go further than that and you'll be reined in (or else choke, which is what I do...). The game might still work with those restrictions, but even if I can live with them, I still want them gone on principle. No leash for my imagination and no box for my character to fit into!

Hehe - "Qui tacet consentire videtur"... Sorry, couldn't resist

Well, I originally played (LS) as Sentinel/Weapon Master, but I just played through the DS side as Sentinel/Sith Lord, and I must say the latter gave far more enjoyment rules-wise, since I had massive access to force powers at my disposal with not very noticeable differences in lightsaber usage (still dual weapon)... If I play again as LS, which I intend once the Restoration Project is done or near to, I'll be sure to play as Sentinel/Jedi Master. I prefer the Sentinel in KotOR2 because skills really are rather important - there are lots and lots of areas in the game, where you can use your skills to great benefit, unlike KotOR1, where those areas were relatively few, and even then only some skills were relevant (notably Persuasion for dialogue options and Repair to upgrade HK-47). So while I'd choose scout/guardian in KotOR1 every time, in KotOR2 it will be Sentinel/Jedi Master or Sentinel/Sith Lord. I put my stats like this: Str 12, Dex 10, Con 14, Int 14, Wis 14, Cha 14. Raising stats above 14 (but not to 14 itself) costs two 'points' instead of one, so I don't do that, since it costs too many potential bonuses on other stats. You'll want high Wis and Cha for your force powers (and persuasion), high Int for extra skill points and dialogue options (I use my two first attribute boosts at levels 4 and 8 to raise my Int to 16). In KotOR2 you'll also want good Con so you can use implants (once my Int is 16, I build Con with boosts until it's 18). Dex had higher priority in KotOR1 because it affected both AC and lightsaber attacks, but in KotOR2 attacks are not subject to Dex (unless you have Finesse, which I don't want to buy), so I place more priority on Str. For Sentinels I believe it's Demolitions and Repair that are cross-class skills, and since I want Demolitions to retrieve mines on Peragus, I always take that as a class skill with a feat during character creation (Repair when I get a new feat). For skills I place priority on Persuasion - always Persuasion (since only the PC can take it...)! Next are Repair and Computer Use (to upgrade T3 and HK-47), but Demolitions (for mines) and Security (for locks) are also important. Don't stop building Demolitions until it's above 20 ranks, though, because there are lots and lots of powerful mines you can retrive (and even get xp for it) once you go after Goto on Nar Shaddaa. If there is one skill I don't build much, it's usually Treat Injury, since you just don't need it once you have any of the Healing powers (or else you can just wait around to heal...), so it's mostly useful when creating stuff on the workbench...

Vin Diesel as Malak?

Fair enough... Anyways: Evil Atton: "Look, I didn't want to say anything, but you've forced my hand. That power is corrupting you. You're starting to get creases..." Evil Exile: "Oh yeah, maybe you should take a look at yourself" [Holds up a mirror to Atton's face] Evil Atton: "OH GOD!! MOMMY!!" [Runs away crying] Evil Exile [to other companions]: "What? I'm supposed to be evil, right?"

Geez, if you hate the thread that much, then why do you even bother reading? Quoting yourself over and over will not make me stop posting, if I find it amusing, and it doesn't seem like it'll stop anyone else either... On that note: Visas: "My life for yours..." Exile: "Okay, stop it now - it's getting old!"

Very extensive. I do believe including all the relevant material from the compendii in the core books was one motivation behind the 4th edition (in fact, they say so in the introduction...). To give you an estimate, the first book, "Characters", is 330+ pages long and is almost exclusively about character creation with Advantages from p.32-118, Disadvantages p.119-166, and Skills p.167-232. So the compendii should be completely obsolete if you get the "Characters" book.

Can't say I agree there. Aliens was war, yes, but Alien was really too scary by half - even before they reached the planet. The claustrophobic feel of being trapped on the Nostromo with the alien being able to hide *anywhere* still sends shivers down my spine. Aliens instead just went crazy throwing aliens left and right. Still good, but not as toxic as the orginal. Would agree there, though...

Sorry, but isn't that a very hypothetical question? The chances of Obsidian or whoever gets to develop K3 using any of our ideas seem exceedingly remote to me to say the least...

Arnold Schwarzenegger as HK-47? :D

I'm no expert on 3rd edition GURPS, but it seems to me like they wanted to avoid alienating the existing fanbase at all costs, so most of the old material should still be valid. The Compendii might be outdated, though. Check the FAQ and make sure to check the Ludography also.

LA Developer:What?!I can't understand you! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Nihilus: "Mhhhhhllggg hrrrrggghrrlllmmm!!" [Translation: "I said the microphone doesn't work!"] LA Developer: "What?"

Well, I still post because I remain hopeful that the discussion might lead to some sort of constructive conclusion at some point or at least give us insight into topic. Since Lancer is still posting, I'm assuming he sees it the same way. No, I haven't budged and neither has Lancer, but we might. I always try to go into a discussion with my eye on the possibility that I might be wrong, though someone will have to tell me why before I accept it. And granted, I don't change my mind easily. But I do try to keep an open mind (though I may not always succeed...). Haven't heard many arguments yet to sway me, though, but that might still happen.

CoC has fans due to its ways of presenting horror, not because of the system itself. The skill system is fine, and the sanity rules are excellent, but the rest is, well, a bit lacking, as you say... " Yes, it does. I wrote all my house rules down and then created a Yahoo!Group where it was available to the players whenever. The problem is, however, that once you're spread out over at least six rulebooks (PHB, DMG, Skills&Powers, Combat&Tactics, Spells&Magic, High Level Campaigns...) as well as my 40+ pages of tightly written house rules, the players just give up and stop reading through it all I use it extensively, but then most of my favorite characters are wizards... :"> No, they're demi-humans, so like elves they would tend toward the fighter/class multi-class. Though I do believe there were rules on TSR's site that said they could be cleric/mages, which is relevant. Never came up, though, since the PCs all hate them after they kicked the elves out of Alfheim. I give characters the choice of classes, though. So while OD&D elves were always fighter/mages by AD&D terminology, I don't see why they can't be whatever they want to. I've had elven thieves and bards in my campaign...

Agreed. The NWP system they introduced to replace it in Skills & Powers is infinitely much better - I switched on the spot and never looked back.

Still not sure what I'd choose. GURPS Fantasy is an option since I was curious about 4th edition GURPS and bought the core books. I'm not going to bother converting all the spells of those nations, though. I rarely have players with characters from those nations (though my own favorite D&D PC was...). And even if it did become relevant, I'll simply just introduce specific skills to replace the spells on a general basis, sort of like Ars Magica, which has an excellent magic system. Actually never played much GURPS, so it's not a particularly apt argument. There might have been alternatives back then, but I began playing D&D back in 86, and we were few, so I had to go with whatever the other players were into. By the time I joined, they had already invested a lot in OD&D (which became the Mystara campaign), so whatever I did as a GM had to support that. Since I didn't like the OD&D principle of "rewrite all the skills and introduce X new classes with each supplement"-approach, we found 2e to be a reasonable compromise. I didn't know any better at the time, but even if I had, I wouldn't have had much choice. Because I find that skill-based system will allow me options that class-based will not. I did give a few examples, but fine. The ranger in my campaign is really annoyed that he cannot develop as a master archer, because the rules won't allow him to attain weapon high mastery with his bow. I tweaked the rules to allow it, but I can bend the rules only so far before game balance goes out the window, so he had to pay five times the cost that single-classed fighters pay for the same priviledge, and he had to be level 15 instead of 9 to do it. Isn't it rather odd that rangers aren't allowed to be master archers in 2e even with Player Option rules? Also, why don't rangers have spells that aid their weapons? A bow would be a fairly common weapon for an ranger, yet Flame Arrow and similar are all wizard spells, and since you cannot do the ranger/mage combo in 2e, the option to combine is not available to the ranger at all. 3e has an Arcane Archer prestige class that does this, but I don't like that since it just tries to fix a broken class structure by introducing yet more classes. Similarly in d20 Star Wars. Luke and Anakin were both natural pilots (and not just because of the force - lots of jedi aren't good pilots, Obi-Wan for one), yet you can't be one in d20 Star Wars. Nope, to be good pilot you need to develop the pilot skill and then take the Starship Ace (or even Jedi Ace) prestige classes... That's rigid and contrary to good character development. Was Han Solo a Starship Ace? He might have been, but it doesn't fit his archetype of scoundrel very well if he was... Besides, you need to have 9 pilot ranks and +6 base attack, meaning at least six levels, and I doubt the common rebel or imperial pilot can qualify for that. Silly... Why can't I keep developing my soldier with focus on piloting skills and get the same bonus? Also, why can't wizards do healing spells in AD&D? Never understood that, and I tweaked the rules and introduced healing spells for wizards, only they are so limited and comes with a disadvantage that means no wizard has ever pursued it in my campaign (except for a few of my own NPCs, of course).

What's wrong with CoC? It's a pretty good game, as far as I can tell, and I still intend to play it (5th edition, I mean), if I can find the players for it. There really are only two areas where it's really lacking. One is the completely absense of a traits/flaws system, and the other is the very simplistic damage/injury rules, which is admittedly about as bad as D&D. The Keeper in the campaign I played it tweaked the latter, though, and replaced it with a combat system he stole from another game. Not sure which, but I think it might have been Twilight 2000. I'd agree with you that the Player Option rules help, but once you go there you have the same problem that's been bogging GURPS for years - tons of rulebooks spread out all over Hell... I hate that when I to look something up, I must first look in the PHB/DMG, then check to see if there is a revision in one of the Player Option books, then check to see if I made revisions in my own house rules. That middle part shouldn't be there at all. It's especially bad with wizards and priests, since they were revised first in Skills & Powers and then again in Spells & Magic.. As for the Planewalker's Handbook, yes, I have that, but I doubt many other AD&D players do (or else Planescape might have lived...), so it would not be considered core AD&D rules by most playser, I guess... I tweaked them and introduced a few hard rules to stop the exploitation, which promptly meant that nobody plays them in my campaign. Still, they are possible. And as much trouble as they may cause, they are still there right in the 2e rules. I take your dismissal of them as an indication that you also find dual-classes flawed, but then that just underscores my point of why they let them stay there as is, when they were so obviously flawed? That doesn't exactly inspire much confidence in the game design...

Hmm, Ashton Kutcher as Revan...? :D [ducks for cover!]