Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scurvy_Platypus" data-source="post: 4577146" data-attributes="member: 43283">I haven't picked this up yet, although it's something I'm quite interested in.Well, I don't know if it'll quite work for you, but I'd suggest taking a look at the work that Upper_Krust did for working out CR challenges. Post #42 here:<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-3rd-edition-rules/132991-thoughts-challenge-rating-system-3.html" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-3rd-edition-rules/132991-thoughts-challenge-rating-system-3.html</a>My gut instinct? There's going to be inconsistencies. It's kind of like going, "Well an orange is kinda like a tennis ball and a tennis ball is kinda like a basketball, but smaller. So that means a basketball is kinda like an orange..."What I mean by such a...questionable... comparison is that in the process of figuring out some sort of numbers for something, there's going to be a bit of fuzziness. It'll start out being "yeah, ok...I can see the reason for that..." to begin with. But at some point, someone is going to pop up and go, "Hey, wait a minute! You're basically saying that A is worth the same number of points as B, but as you can see from the following example, B is completely out of whack because..."So what'll happen (I think) is that whatever system is developed will be useable. But people are going to immediately start poking at it to see where it falls apart and it _will_ fall apart in some fashion. Something that's already "official" will be more expensive or conflict, or _something_ along those lines. Because it seems pretty clear that there's a degree of "feel" to how things were designed in 3.x; meaning that it didn't play or feel right for whatever reason, and therefore was modified to better fit with the design goal.Nice for playability, but it makes attempts to present some sort of coherent or unified system rather... irksome... at times.  <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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I've got no idea if it'll be of any use to you, but Guardians of Order did try to do something sort of like this with BESMd20. It relies on "Character Points" though and while they do offer up a "conversion" of X CP = Y XP, it's a pretty "coarse" conversion. BESMd20 explicitly (and implicitly) has a degree of "softness" (player and or GM interpretation) in terms of how "valuable" something is; this doesn't set well with a large chunk of the gamer population.Especially when looking at something like point costs for things.Still, the Anime SRD might be worth looking at as well. I think UK's CR sheet is going to be better in terms of reflecting actual "value", but even there you're going to have to make some assumptions.I happen to have a version of the book and to be honest I was unimpressed by it.As I recall, they don't use XP. Instead they have a sort of "point system" that's kind of coarse. I remember thinking at the time that it had some resemblances to the BESMd20 approach.Taking UK's system and chopping up his CRs (and fractional CRs) into some sort of a basic XP cost is probably going to be "easiest". If you go the easy route, you just say that each X bit of CR is worth Y XP and do some straight up basic calculations.After that, you tweak the cost: either to bring the new XP cost into alignment with other already existing bits of the system (for internal consistency/compatability with the Complete Control system) or based on some other criteria like "it just doesn't feel right".Doing this though, I can almost guarantee that you'll have some sort of "what's wrong?!?!? It's not adding up right!!!" sort of thing happen at some point. In theory monsters are built to use the same rules as PC, but in the process of messing around with this sort of thing (say as an alternative to LA), you're going to probably bump up against a point cost that varies depending on how you build the character.Plus, I seem to recall that not all the races are really "worth" the same. Warforge and dwarves for example.I'm not raining on the idea. On the contrary, I've thought about doing this myself. I'm just pointing out that if you happen to have the impulse for everything to match up and add up neatly for _everything_, you're going to drive yourself batty. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification