Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Verequus" data-source="post: 1849048" data-attributes="member: 9135">Actually, I consider Nellisir's system as a further deconstruction of Tonguez's system - using Nellisir's one, the main types could become "subtypes" for some general alterations. It is one step further "behind the scenes".Certainly possible, "Dragon" could even give always d12s - but that could be unbalancing. Upper_Krust's Immortals' Handbook has a nifty CR-system (which is included in Grim Tales, too), but unfortunately there are only some older PDF versions of this system available, because U_K's book isn't out yet. If we could use the latest version, then the monsters can be made more balanced - as it stands, a 20+ hit-dice creature is regarding its CR 3 levels behind compared to the average 20th-level PC, because a racial hit die hasn't so much oomph as a level in a class...Your use of Giant and Midget, Bones, Decaying Flesh and Preserved Body shows, that some things are better of as a subtype (Giant) or are templates, which don't have a real effect on gameplay. Consider a skeletal vampire, a vampire, which stripped off his own flesh - why should the basic stats change?I don't feel, that your idea has a real merit. :\ Next to the feeeling, that I've entered some kind of period system, you've demonstrated a real big problem. You have splitted the core type definition over the place to give every layer a meaning, but for Constructs you can't do that. Either you leave it by the core definition, or you create for the DM not only more homework, but also erode some standards and thus you defy some assumptions, which have been piled up in the last few years...Either way, your idea is neither fish nor flesh - and I don't see, how to overcome the obstacles.I agree - a true matrix solution is both good enough approximated and too complex for the average needs.What is your goal with this? Redoing the element subtypes for creatures? Or for spells? Or for both?For creature subtypes it doesn't seem suited. So the first and the last option drop out. I still don't see, why are you trying to map the elements to the other types. Element(+/0/-) + x = y? And the results of equations are awkward - I have real difficulties to understand the last four without Darkness and Death (with should remain both distinctive). Even if I wouldn't already use another magic system, I would be reluctant to consider such a change in my game. I really don't see the benefits.I am still in favor of Tonguez's system - it is nearer of my envisioned "perfection" than yours. Your proposal lacks subtypes (AD&D didn't have them, so taking something from it requires conversion/substituting of things, which are otherwise unnecessary - what are the saves, for example), is too similar to Tonguez (-> can be changed to his propasal) and Tonguez has put a bit more logic in the dividing of types (well, the types are from an older edition - types didn't really matter as much as now).</blockquote>

Verification