Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Upper_Krust" data-source="post: 2407168" data-attributes="member: 326">Hey Zoatebix mate! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Okay...but only for a minute. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />This might seem like a mistake, but it was actually a design decision, whether this was correct or not remains to be seen. Basically I was trying to represent the difference between a natural increase and a supernatural increase, so +2 would be okay for a natural increase, but +1 is better for a supernatural increase.eg. the maximum natural strength for a human is 23. Anything up to 23 (for a human) would be a natural increase, anything after that is supernatural.Anyone who remembers the original CR/EL stuff will know that I initially championed the idea of a feat giving a +2 increase. But my spider-sense is telling me +2 for a feat is a bad idea.eg. Improved Toughness would become markedly inferior to Great Constitution.eg. Epic Prowess would become notably inferior to Great Strength.It creates far too many waves.The work is not going to be open content from the 'get go'. But thats definately something I'll consider over the next few months based on feedback from people.I appreciate the help mate.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Upper_Krust, post: 2407168, member: 326"] Hey Zoatebix mate! :) Okay...but only for a minute. :p This might seem like a mistake, but it was actually a design decision, whether this was correct or not remains to be seen. Basically I was trying to represent the difference between a natural increase and a supernatural increase, so +2 would be okay for a natural increase, but +1 is better for a supernatural increase. eg. the maximum natural strength for a human is 23. Anything up to 23 (for a human) would be a natural increase, anything after that is supernatural. Anyone who remembers the original CR/EL stuff will know that I initially championed the idea of a feat giving a +2 increase. But my spider-sense is telling me +2 for a feat is a bad idea. eg. Improved Toughness would become markedly inferior to Great Constitution. eg. Epic Prowess would become notably inferior to Great Strength. It creates far too many waves. The work is not going to be open content from the 'get go'. But thats definately something I'll consider over the next few months based on feedback from people. I appreciate the help mate. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification