Converting Al-Qadim creatures

[freyar]

Probably. So, it works like advancement. That should be ok.

Duration of rank days works. What do you think about the penalty? -1 Con per 2 ranks?

 

[Cleon]

Probably. So, it works like advancement. That should be ok.

Duration of rank days works. What do you think about the penalty? -1 Con per 2 ranks?

I'm leaning towards a flat -2 Con regardless of the ranks.

 

[freyar]

I'd think the penalty should slowly get worse, though I guess the hp penalty of a Con penalty would since you'd usually go up in HD with higher ranks. Hmmm. I'm a little ambivalent. See if you can convince me.

 

[Cleon]

I'd think the penalty should slowly get worse, though I guess the hp penalty of a Con penalty would since you'd usually go up in HD with higher ranks. Hmmm. I'm a little ambivalent. See if you can convince me.

Look into my eyes ... you are feeling sleepy ... Cleon is right about this, like he is right about everything ...

Do you feel convinced yet?

Basically, if we have it gradually get worse there's a good chance the penalty will either not amount to anything (e.g. -1 when it has Con 13), or it makes no difference with the previous rank (e.g. if it has Con 14 a -2 and a -3 Con penalty are effectively the same as far as its Con bonus goes). So, we need to have the Con penalty (or penalties) be an even number to prevent "mini-maxing" as is the standard 3E approach.

I suppose we could go -2 Con for ranks 1 to X, -4 Con for ranks X+1 to 10. (-2 for 1-7 ranks and -4 for 8-10 ranks?)

 

[freyar]

Yeah, I know about the even ranks business, just wanted it to feel a little smoother. But if you like -2 for 1-7 ranks and -4 for 8-10 ranks, that's ok. Heck, could even do -0 for 1-2 or 3 ranks if you like.

 

[Cleon]

Yeah, I know about the even ranks business, just wanted it to feel a little smoother. But if you like -2 for 1-7 ranks and -4 for 8-10 ranks, that's ok. Heck, could even do -0 for 1-2 or 3 ranks if you like.

Yes, I was initially in favor of a smoother progression too, but went off the idea.

I suppose we could go for a -0/-2/-4 Con penalty for 1-3/4-7/8-10 ranks, but don't much like the idea of giving them a "free" benefit for the first three ranks.

 

[freyar]

Why not just forget matching to 1 per two ranks and just go with -2 for 1 to 5 ranks, -4 for 6 to 10?

 

[Cleon]

Why not just forget matching to 1 per two ranks and just go with -2 for 1 to 5 ranks, -4 for 6 to 10?

Well, it just seemed better to have the cost increase match up with 4th level spells rather than 3rd, hence rank 8 (since that's the CL a sorcerer gets 4th level spells at).

We could split the difference and go for 1-6 / 7-10 level if you like - the "Wizard option", if you will.

 

[freyar]

Sure, works for me. Let's just knock these out.

 

[Cleon]

Sure, works for me. Let's just knock these out.

Seems we're agreed, then.