Do you like XP costs for magic item creation?

[Aus_Snow]

Life-force. . . yes and no. Whatever.

Power? Oh, yeah. Now you're talkin'. Use some of your own power to imbue items with enchantment? Uh huh, that's the one (like it or no.)

That's the gist I've been goin' on, for some years. And hey, if this thread 'proves' anything (beyond kinda refuting my semi-serious self-indulgent wonderings, in the OP) it's that there are a number of quite valid perspectives on this. Wow. Who'da thought?

I like that multiplicity. It's great.

 

[justanobody]

I like that multiplicity. It's great.

Michael Keaton was pretty funny in that movie, I agree.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Michael Keaton was pretty funny in that movie, I agree.

?

Never heard of that one, sorry.

 

[Delta]

Do you die when you hit 0 XP? No? Then XP does not represent life force very well does it.

You do die when you hit negative levels/XP (1E-3E; i.e. "below 1st level").

 

[justanobody]

?

Never heard of that one, sorry.

Multiplicity (film - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

He clones himself by accident or on purpose to help his marriage and to have more time with his kid and such.

You do die when you hit negative levels/XP (1E-3E; i.e. "below 1st level").

0 is not a negative number, and I don't use ANY optional rules. 0 HP = death in all games.

What do I do with 4th you ask? Have a higher risk of death than everyone else.

XP can never go below 0 not matter what silliness the rules say. But levels can reach 0 which is what causes the death due to level drain as a PC can never go back to being a non-leveled character and losing level 1 means you died. No XP loss needed for that.

 

[Delta]

0 is not a negative number, and I don't use ANY optional rules. 0 HP = death in all games.

I can see you're not a good person to get in a discussion with. (a) I never said zero was a negative number. (b) Negative hit points are non-optional in 1E, 3E. Etc.

 

[delericho]

It is not my fault the game has always been flawed.

No, but if you choose to interpret the rules one way, and the rules are intended to be interpreted another, then that is your issue.

Whether or not that is the case here is debatable, of course.

Do you die when you hit 0 XP?

No?

A character dies when he has more negative levels than positive. Or, in pre-3e editions, when he reaches 0-level and is then energy drained again.

Which isn't 0, I'll grant you, but then characters don't die at 0 hit points, either.

0 is not a negative number, and I don't use ANY optional rules. 0 HP = death in all games.

I thought you didn't use any optional rules? In the 3e RAW, characters die at -10 hit points.

 

[justanobody]

Sorry, I don't play RAW v RAI, I play AD&D and 4th edition for all intents and purpose as needed to know about me for this forum. You may be looking for the WotC forums if you wish to play RAW v RAI, or another poster on this one.

 

[Treebore]

Sorry, I don't play RAW v RAI, I play AD&D and 4th edition for all intents and purpose as needed to know about me for this forum. You may be looking for the WotC forums if you wish to play RAW v RAI, or another poster on this one.

To have a useful debate/argument t helps if your debating/arguing over the same thing. If everyone else is talking RAW and your talking house rules then you may as well be talking a foreign language no one else understands.

I agree about XP's. Isee a much stronger connection to HP and CON than I do XP's. XP's are a reflection of what you have experienced, learned, and even obtained if you give XP for gold and magic items.

The only reason XP has any connection to strength is because some game designer, or designers, successfully argued to put such a connection into the rules. Was it a good choice? It is for people who see things that way. I don't see it that way. I see a much stronger and direct connection to HP and CON. So that works for me. So I house rule in CON costs instead of XP costs.

 

[justanobody]

To have a useful debate/argument t helps if your debating/arguing over the same thing. If everyone else is talking RAW and your talking house rules then you may as well be talking a foreign language no one else understands.

I agree about XP's. Isee a much stronger connection to HP and CON than I do XP's. XP's are a reflection of what you have experienced, learned, and even obtained if you give XP for gold and magic items.

The only reason XP has any connection to strength is because some game designer, or designers, successfully argued to put such a connection into the rules. Was it a good choice? It is for people who see things that way. I don't see it that way. I see a much stronger and direct connection to HP and CON. So that works for me. So I house rule in CON costs instead of XP costs.

Just too many of these silly arguments lately, that I am removing myself from many of the silliness to get back to the point of many threads.

I am curious about your opinion to my idea to fix it for 4th and 3rd upthread a ways in regards to losing spell use to show this loss of "power".

As well anyone else and how best some of the people here think it should be refined.

Was it really good enough to work considering I don't really like 3rd enough to know/care about the edition?

I agree a designer made a bad choice, and one of many I have tried to get away from to make things make more sense, as I am one of those that thinks common sense and logic SHOULD be in the game and removing them removes me form the game.

XP as a currency just doesn't float well with me.