Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gradine" data-source="post: 8062422" data-attributes="member: 57112">You can make a game crunchier while making it less complex. You don't need a full list of &quot;species, culture, background, class&quot;. First, culture is problematic because, if I'm not mistaken, this product isn't intended to be associated with any given setting. It could barely even theoretically wink wink nudge that it follows the same FR default as 5e, given the licensing. I would avoid it altogether, personally.Second, background can be folded into class. Low-level class options can give a range of abilities and skills across the three pillars that help flesh out who the character is, who they were before, and where they came from. Having a few choices that class agnostic (or mostly class agnostic) can contribute to the idea that any character could theoretically come from any background, but you also don't need to make options available like a barbarian librarian (as fun as it is to say out loud).Species (PF already took Ancestry, which is probably the best term to use here; something like Lineage, Heritage, and Origin might also work) are where you can place the physical attributes of the given race. We can quibble over realism but this can and should include the &quot;mental&quot; ability scores as well; I think it's okay to say that gnomes have superior long-term memory (+Int) or that Dragonborn and Tieflings have inherited their draconic/infernal ancestors' inherent force of personality (+Cha).On the other hand, I would avoid racial abilities that more clearly cultural in nature; weapon &amp; armor proficiencies and most (but not all) skill bonuses being the biggest offenders. You can afford to have wiggle-room about this; something like a dwarf's Stonecunning could certainly be an inherent dwarfish instinct, even in a city dwarf raised miles away from the nearest mountains. But don't be coy about it. If it's an ability tied one's Ancestry, then it is an inherent and immutable of being a &lt;race&gt;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gradine, post: 8062422, member: 57112"] You can make a game crunchier while making it less [I]complex.[/I] You don't need a full list of "species, culture, background, class". First, culture is problematic because, if I'm not mistaken, this product isn't intended to be associated with any given setting. It could barely even theoretically wink wink nudge that it follows the same FR default as 5e, given the licensing. I would avoid it altogether, personally. Second, background can be folded into class. Low-level class options can give a range of abilities and skills across the three pillars that help flesh out who the character is, who they were before, and where they came from. Having a few choices that class agnostic (or mostly class agnostic) can contribute to the idea that any character could theoretically come from any background, but you also don't need to make options available like a barbarian librarian (as fun as it is to say out loud). Species (PF already took Ancestry, which is probably the best term to use here; something like Lineage, Heritage, and Origin might also work) are where you can place the physical attributes of the given race. We can quibble over realism but this can and should include the "mental" ability scores as well; I think it's okay to say that gnomes have superior long-term memory (+Int) or that Dragonborn and Tieflings have inherited their draconic/infernal ancestors' inherent force of personality (+Cha). On the other hand, I would avoid racial abilities that more clearly cultural in nature; weapon & armor proficiencies and most (but not all) skill bonuses being the biggest offenders. You can afford to have wiggle-room about this; something like a dwarf's Stonecunning could certainly be an inherent dwarfish instinct, even in a city dwarf raised miles away from the nearest mountains. But don't be coy about it. If it's an ability tied one's Ancestry, then it is an inherent and immutable of being a <race>. [/QUOTE]

Verification