Search results

I'm kind of weak at the doing the separation. I'm not exactly a fan of the inherent lethality of D&D combat, I prefer systems that allow for an unrealistic amount of non-lethality because I can accept using that. I also philosophically consider lethal combat a ludicrous way of going about life...

No fruit from this direction: so long as you know how the systems work I don't care which you like more.

So you're automatically given your saves in proportion to your attack? Does that mean there are separate attack values for different save types?

Hmmm, I'll definitely have to consider it next time I can afford.

A question on BASH: How does it do skills? Is it mostly for characters with awesome stuff, or could it do completely unpowered characters (by that I mean characters that only use skills and normal equipment, no super-gadgets)?

Of course good luck selling that. The fanbase has already spoken on the official game boards. (Though personally I'd be all over it.)

How else would you put a cost to them? If a feat has ranks it's actually a power in disguise. You can make your own ranked feats that way, or take away ranked feats and just have people buy powers.

I think they were trying to move away from so many things being linked. PL makes it so I know there's a maximum level of power so I don't have to watch out for it and can gauge it better. What's to stop someone from pouring those points into one simple power dialed up to max? To put it in M&M...

I would rather have none. The simple monoculture too often ends up as an excuse for something, often "humans are better than everyone else because they are so diverse". That's exactly the wrong sort of thing I want to be seeing when thinking about differing cultures. I think the problem stems...

In some cases taste may just be based on what you believe you can get away with. I use M&M because I know people are likely enough to have it that if I recruit for a game somewhere I'll get players. Seeing the systems with less rules (like BASH) I'd rather use them, except I'd rather have a...

This is an intriguing statement to one who has never experienced 1st edition and who has mostly heard about it a few times on people liked the change and has read the conversion document and thinks the changes made for better balance. Care to elaborate?

Evolution doesn't move in definable steps. It's doesn't always move "forward". It doesn't always move in one direction. And sometimes it doesn't really need to move. So semantics out of the way here are the steps I'd like to see (they don't need to be taken all together, they don't need to...

Or they have, and have just decided they like things the other way and are willing to ignore realism in favor of their preferred fun. Which is something that should always be considered when evaluating any breach of historical accuracy.

I actually found that the Fantasy Gun Control entry on TV Tropes summarizes both sides of the issue quite well. Also provides a boatload of examples for either side, including some really good ones.

Even easier: don't assign cultures based on race. Even if you decide a race's pychology is different from humans' why does that mean they can't have variety and/or share a culture with another race? Create cultures and races independently and then assign the most common racial members to a...

I say do it and see what happens.

I might add the point that it may just feel better to be sure and design your own race rather than go with an already-existing one that's just slightly off. At least in the design process it might be a good idea to design the race part-way so that you know what you want before choosing an...

Well one could always roll initiative as usual and then just not bother with it until a decision of timing came up. But yours is more dynamic. :)

The OP did say he/she/it/they want to remove the need for miniatures, and this method, while it works to remove the clunkiness of remembering when to apply them, doesn't remove the need to know position, and in fact adds the need to know facing or at least think about it. My advice would be to...

The design decision regarding iterative attacks was, I think, that they were worried it would get out of hand: there would be more than one or two dice rolled per attack, and extra attacks would probably dominate since they give an extra chance to try and an extra chance to damage. There are...