Argh.

[pyrephox]

Look people. D&D 3.5 is crunchy. It has classes, it has levels, it uses abstract hit points rather than the ever-so-popular 'damage track'. There is a fair amount you can critique it on. But please stop making things up to complain about when they're not accurate.

I can't make a stealthy, lightly-armored fighter!

Yeah you can. Pretty damned easy, and without using anything not found on the SRD online. Will your lightly-armored fighter be /as/ stealthy as a stealth-oriented rogue? No. But on the other hand, your stealthy rogue cannot switch out his leather armor for chain mail and shield and proceed to kick ass in the daylight, either.

Just about any character concept for a high-fantasy type character can be made in D&D 3.5, as long as you take into account that 1st level characters are not going to be terribly experienced and invicible. If you want to make a disgraced general as a character? Lobby your GM to start the game at 7th or 8th level instead.

And stop complaining about the damned alignment system already. Thank you.

Comments

[fadethecat.livejournal.com]

*pats* D&D does certain things very well, and I do not hold that against it. Doesn't always do what I want seamlessly, but then, a GM running a D&D game probably doesn't want the same sort of character they'd want in a GURPS game anyway. I consider system choice one more bit of commentary on what sorts of characters a GM wants in the game, same as starting points/level and the like.

(Besides, I think the alignment system is fairly keen. Doesn't fit into every setting, but it's a nice way of doing opposing viewpoints without skewing everything into a singular good-to-evil progression.)

[pyrephox.livejournal.com]

It's not seamless, that's true. If I were to make a major change in the system, I'd likely give more 'play' in class skills, to allow better reflection of character backgrounds. But for the most part, D&D does high fantasy very, very well.

I like alignments, too. :D