Search results

I looked it over some more last night. I actually do like the system. It solves a lot of, well, not *problems* per se, but messiness. It definitely inspired me to drop Wizards/Sorcs altogether, and run with the "prepare" & "slots" idea in AU. (But, is there any way in AU for 1st and 2nd level...

You lost me. Do non-zero level spells cost mana to cast, then? Are there 1/2 and full level spellcasters? Do classes go away? Here we agree. At least, I think they should have the *option* of not casting. I didn't catch this when DrSpunj first posted. SSquirrel, I agree with you that caster...

That's fine, and I may, too. I admit I don't fully understand it yet, and have never seen any AU ideas in play. I just didn't see, having skimmed the book, how AU gave a way to use half and full magic. I'm going to have to read further, to understand the terms you used in your post... I'll look...

Okay, so . . . I saw a lot of neat ideas in AU, but I didn't see a whole lot in AU which dealt with 1/2 vs. whole casters. There are a lot of directions one could go with 1/2 vs. whole. Using the low point-cost a la carte scheme (described earlier with 15 points at 1st level, 9 points each...

As far as figuring out a system for Divine characters and their abilities / cost savings, I think buying magic, 1/2 magic, or feats with disadvantages is just fine. That is, if you save any points in buying an ability (say, paying 3 instead of 4 for a feat), or if you gain any advantage without...

I liked your altered breakdown of Martial Weapon groups, DrSpunj. That's fine. And you'll notice that the rule I mentioned doesn't use "cross-class" skills in any sense but name (which could be replaced by something like "proficient" vs. "not yet proficient"). The upshot is simply: cheap skills...

... one thing which we've pretty much ignored is this. Under normal rules, with classes, part of the reason Rogues are considered balanced, is because they get a lot of skill proficiencies (in-class skills). Other classes, except for Bards, don't. If, as we're doing now, you treat pretty much...

... one thing which we've pretty much ignored is this. Under normal rules, with classes, part of the reason Rogues are considered balanced, is because they get a lot of skill proficiencies (in-class skills). Other classes, except for Bards, don't. If, as we're doing now, you treat pretty much...

Short answer: no. Or rather, not for any reason important enough to keep the system more (rather than less) complicated. All you gain are two things: 1 - An echo of the classes (in the form of grouped ability-chains), so that it's easier to lump abilities together (prereq-wise) which normally...

Long time lurker, here. I used to game with DrSpunj. Gina, your story-telling is masterful. Honestly, great job. Nail, your campaign is one of the best thought-out and unfolded I've ever seen. Makes for deeply engrossing reading. It's a cut well above the norm.

I completely agree. And while I also completely agree that an amazing amount of skill and finesse can be used in wielding daggers and quarterstaffs in the real world, I have no trouble with putting them in the "Basic" category along with clubs, or even slings (now *those* require more skill than...

Yes, up front, Fighters & Rogues *are* less powerful than Rangers. Eventually though, I believe they even out. (I took a look at the new one ... you're right, The new Ranger's better.) Rogues, though, will always be less or more powerful than other classes depending on how skill vs. combat...

Rangers? Blech. I admit I don't have a great grasp of the new vs. old Rangers, except that the old core Rangers are terribly front-loaded, and I wouldn't expect them to work in any point-system which approaches linear or level-for-level balanced. In fact, I'd be very worried if I had a system...

No, I was thinking that was the feat all PCs get at first level. No limitations as a feat (it can be either fighter or non-fighter), but it is a feat, and not a class ability. Looking at my scribbles, I notice I said at 1st level, "4 points gains you an ability in an ability chain." I think I...

Okay. Everyone knows that characters get a whole lot more benefit at first level (your hit points are maxed out, you get four times as many skill points, better saves, etc.), than at any level which follows. So, in order to create an a la carte point system, one either has to give a lot more...

I'll work on it today at lunch, and post or email a chunk of it tomorrow, or possibly today. Like I said, though, there will be a huge gaping hole in it, with regards to every type of spellcasting out there, as I don't yet have AU. EDIT: Well, they're both level-based in core classes. I won't...

The biggest bang for your buck, far and away, is when you get Rage in the first place. I don't see a problem with Rage 3x/day right from the start, either. That is, it's not unbalancing at first level like having 3d6 of Sneak Attack, or Wild Shape:Large. Allowing a person to take Rage 3x at 1st...

Well, I really like the idea of making a prerequisite into an official feat. I can't say I'm thrilled about making a feat cost five, and then giving a five point bonus for taking the feat -- that doesn't seem very straightforward. But anyway, I've realized some stuff. (Others may have already...

For "Spontaneous Casting" and "Divine Armored Casting", what does Cost: Restriction mean? I'm guessing it means that, working with your GM, you get this bonus feat/ability, but the price you pay is in-play -- how you have to play the character -- rather than out-of-play points? Anyway, neat...

For themed feat sets, I figure you're paying base cost for the first feat in a series. If the player puts enough thought into hir character to come up with a theme (woodland, cavalry, whatever) and explains what feats are in line in the coming levels, then later related feats only cost expansion...