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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 6618530" data-attributes="member: 6775031">That was definitely something we noticed, between 3E and 4E.One of the biggest changes between editions was how point cost for stats and skills moved from exponential growth to linear growth - a 3E character paid 5 points for +1, then 10 points for +2, and 20 points for +3 (IIRC); while a 4E character paid 10 points for each of ranks +1 through +3. I want to say that 3E used points to judge rarity, where 4E used points to judge power.The upshot was that the best wizard in a 3E fantasy was going to be a goblin, because goblins had a racial bonus to IQ that thye purchased at the discounted rate (paying 5 points for the +1 from race, then 5 more points to have one above the racial average). Meanwhile, a 4E wizard was equally competent regardless of race, since a -3 racial handicap could be offset exactly by the points required to be +3 above racial average. There was no way to "game the system" by purchasing the same abilities in different ways at a cheaper price.For me, I think I saw this as an acceptable concession for gameplay. You didn't have to worry about picking the one correct race for your buils, because you could just pick anything and it would be just as good.Which is weird, because I'm hugely in favor of the 3.x-era rules where Elves just have better Dex and Halflings have terrible Strength, even though it means you do need to pick the right race for your class. Maybe it's because D&D is a class-based system, and there were always two or three different optimal races for each class? Or maybe it's as simple as the fact that GURPS is otherwise hugely Simulationist, so I need that Gamist inclusion for balance, where D&D is already kind of Game-y so I need to hold onto what Simulationism there is remaining.</blockquote>

Verification