Quote from: Claudius;614156Does it make any sense?

Very much so. Your thoughts mirror my own.

If I didn't already have a half dozen versions of D&D, I'd be very interested in picking up a copy of this.

Quote from: jibbajibba;613765AD&D class abilities are just feats you can't customise and the downside is that some classes like Paladins and Druids get loads where as others like fighters get very few.  

Woah! Great thought! So wouldn't it be cool to just drop the feat selection bit and let fighters get Cleave and similar stuff as class abilities? Maybe make a couple sub-classes just like the ranger and paladin, except they are pure fighter sub-classes. One goes the straight melee route while one goes the ranged route. They keep fighter stuff like weapon spec, but also get "feats" as class abilities instead of having to choose. I have come to dislike the feat structure for the same reason as Pundit.... too much charop. I could, however, get behind new classes built using feats as class abilities.

Quote from: Claudius;614156Thank you, I get it now, and I agree, partially, with you.

One thing I like about the OSR is the return to simpleness. When you're an adult, your life is too complex, having a game where you can create a character in 20 minutes and start playing, is a bless.

On the other hand, sometimes simple is too simple for me. See, I love skills, I love feats, I love advantages, I love disadvantages, what I dislike, is long lists of them. They overwhelm me. My problem with a lot of OSR games, is that there is no middle term. You think a long list of feats is a problem? No feats then!! Tired of having to spend skill points every level? Let's get rid of skills altogether!

This is why I'm getting more and more intrigued about Blood & Treasure. It looks like it's simple like the other OSR games, but you can have feats and skills if you want them, just not too many. It's like the difference between GURPS and Capitán Alatriste.

Like you, I dislike very open character options, but I don't think the solution is to remove those options, just restrict them.

Does it make any sense?

I agree, the point then is you don't say "here's a list of 50 feats, pick one".

That's the crappiest way to go about things.

Instead, you can say "when you level, you can now choose from one of these three abilities".

In my Arrows of Indra game, I have huge lists of skills, and special powers, and spells.  Aside from providing the option that all of these be randomly rolled, what I also have is a framework where players can choose them, but in a restricted fashion. For example, with Class skills, assuming the GM is allowing non-random selection, you initially get six "skills" (which can also be special abilities, or spells) to choose from; as you go along choosing the skills, that later unlocks the option to access other "advanced" skills.  Instead of just giving you all of them at once, you end up making short fast choices from a limited selection that changes over time.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;614561I agree, the point then is you don't say "here's a list of 50 feats, pick one".

That's the crappiest way to go about things.

Instead, you can say "when you level, you can now choose from one of these three abilities".

In my Arrows of Indra game, I have huge lists of skills, and special powers, and spells.  Aside from providing the option that all of these be randomly rolled, what I also have is a framework where players can choose them, but in a restricted fashion. For example, with Class skills, assuming the GM is allowing non-random selection, you initially get six "skills" (which can also be special abilities, or spells) to choose from; as you go along choosing the skills, that later unlocks the option to access other "advanced" skills.  Instead of just giving you all of them at once, you end up making short fast choices from a limited selection that changes over time.

RPGPundit

Another system I've always liked is the one SPI's Dragonquest used, where each "skill" was a profession, like "hunter", and when the character learned the "skill" they got access to the whole package of skills that the "hunter" would know and use, and would gain both depth and breadth as they got better with the "skill". Always made more sense to me since in my experience folks usually learn how to do things in a more context-dependent, holistic fashion than just one isolated skill at a time. In this context, your skill "tree" approach also makes more sense to me than just cherry-picking "just cuz"

Quote from: Sigmund;614201Woah! Great thought! So wouldn't it be cool to just drop the feat selection bit and let fighters get Cleave and similar stuff as class abilities? Maybe make a couple sub-classes just like the ranger and paladin, except they are pure fighter sub-classes. One goes the straight melee route while one goes the ranged route. They keep fighter stuff like weapon spec, but also get "feats" as class abilities instead of having to choose. I have come to dislike the feat structure for the same reason as Pundit.... too much charop. I could, however, get behind new classes built using feats as class abilities.

What you describe is very close to C&C.

Quote from: Technomancer;614590What you describe is very close to C&C.

Might hafta finally check it out.