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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="M.L. Martin" data-source="post: 3731654" data-attributes="member: 4086">I have a great deal of fondness for three of those systems in theory (haven't played any of them, and don't own any GURPS material), and yet there's a key difference.   In the point-based systems, character creation is modular--it doesn't follow level structures like D&D does.  In addition, GMs are encouraged to both keep a close eye on PC designs to avoid disruptive or imbalancing abilities, and not to sweat point accounting for NPCs.  Therefore, NPCs can have abilities that are cost-prohibitive for PCs, or just not allowed by the GM's campaign parameters.  They can also be built with an eye towards encounter utility more easily, without being 'forced' to spend points on things that aren't relevant to their role in the game.  (In 3E monster design, the use of what is essentially a class/level system requires that you may have to include extraneous elements, and getting one or two elements that depend on level up to the 'appropriate' range may require the increase of others that are irrelevant or counter-intuitive for the creature.)   That philosophy sounds close to what 4E monster design is heading for:  Worry about making the monster a good monster, don't sweat balancing it as a PC option (or, even worse, a polymorph option).  Some monsters will be viable for both, some won't.  If you disagree, get back to me when you figure out how to make a PC-appropriate mind flayer.   <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