Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 4792814" data-attributes="member: 80487">I have what seem some unusual preferences.Once upon a time in the 1980s, I was theoretically anti-matrix and big on formulas. In practice, though, I found that working visually and not having to do arithmetic with each roll was more convenient for me. The 1E rules for pummeling, grappling and overbearing -- with their long lists of factors to add and subtract -- perhaps epitomize the kind of approach I tend to find cumbersome. It can depend on circumstances, though.However one arrives at them, if there are some chances used repeatedly then it may be &quot;a stitch in time&quot; to jot down a matrix of them before the action is played out. To Hit vs. Foe #1: A, B = 15+; C, D = 13+.Rather than add BAB to the roll, I would find it more elegant to add it to a base &quot;number or less&quot; figure calculated once. Eventually, that may exceed 20 and call for an add to the roll, but up to that point you're free of the business. So, if you've got a base of 13 or less against a difficulty of 5, then a roll of 6-13 is a success.Spell memorization, complete with the 1E time requirements, is something I appreciate as part of the challenge and &quot;flavor&quot; of playing a magician. It's also part of how their power is &quot;balanced&quot; against that of other types. Something like the 3E sorcerer might &quot;feel right&quot; to me for clerics.If were to undertake a radical overhaul of clerics, though, I might go instead for a probabilistic system. Sometimes, the answer to a prayer is, &quot;No.&quot; The combination of flexibility (perhaps not so strictly limiting potential effects by character level) with uncertainty as to how often one can produce miracles could be very interesting.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ariosto, post: 4792814, member: 80487"] I have what seem some unusual preferences. Once upon a time in the 1980s, I was theoretically anti-matrix and big on formulas. In practice, though, I found that working visually and not having to do arithmetic with each roll was more convenient for me. The 1E rules for pummeling, grappling and overbearing -- with their long lists of factors to add and subtract -- perhaps epitomize the kind of approach I tend to find cumbersome. It can depend on circumstances, though. However one arrives at them, if there are some chances used repeatedly then it may be "a stitch in time" to jot down a matrix of them before the action is played out. [i]To Hit vs. Foe #1: A, B = 15+; C, D = 13+[/i]. Rather than add BAB to the roll, I would find it more elegant to add it to a base "number or less" figure calculated once. Eventually, that may exceed 20 and call for an add to the roll, but up to that point you're free of the business. So, if you've got a base of 13 or less against a difficulty of 5, then a roll of 6-13 is a success. Spell memorization, complete with the 1E time requirements, is something I appreciate as part of the challenge and "flavor" of playing a magician. It's also part of how their power is "balanced" against that of other types. Something like the 3E sorcerer might "feel right" to me for clerics. If were to undertake a radical overhaul of clerics, though, I might go instead for a probabilistic system. Sometimes, the answer to a prayer is, "No." The combination of flexibility (perhaps not so strictly limiting potential effects by character level) with uncertainty as to how often one can produce miracles could be very interesting. [/QUOTE]

Verification