Sunday, August 4, 2013

You know what?

I'm not really old school.

I just have a limited tolerance for complexity, especially in making characters.


ProfessorOats said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ProfessorOats said...

I actually don't mind a little complexity, as you could probably tell from my love for the Saves with Different Abilities variant. In my aborted Kalamar campaign, I was gonna have hobgoblins or half-orcs consult the Monster PC Intelligence charts instead of applying a standard -2 penalty, and I love rolling up unique stats for my familiars or animal companions instead of pulling them straight from the MM. The former example is pretty straightforward and doesn't add any appreciable time to chargen, and the latter is a purely optional thing I'd never force on my players (though I might do the work for them since it's so much fun!)

Feats and skill points, on the other hand, add way too many options, especially for new players. I actually don't mind them in and of themselves, but they should be reserved for advancement rather than something you deal with right off the bat. It's hard enough choosing one's equipment!

Anonymous said...

So, if you're not Old School, you're Elementary School?

(I believe at this point I'm encouraged to add an emoticon to indicate tone)


Rachel Ghoul said...

Oats: that sounds about right to me too re: the feats.

SAROE: I laughed, so you get to live. This time.

ProfessorOats said...

Feats should also represent special training, resulting in interesting exceptions to the rules. I can't stand feats that grant generic bonuses or additional starting gold. Ugh, and the way 3.5 ruined Skill Focus and completely missed the point of Alertness...

Is it possible to be a 3E grognard? :p