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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="El Mahdi" data-source="post: 5559666" data-attributes="member: 59506">I know that is a common sentiment on these boards to express a dislike in something.  But this time it has a bit more import to me, and resulting disapointment.  I remember from the Gamers Seeking Gamers page that you're relatively close to where I live.  Once I finally got my houserules and campaign finished, I was going to start trying to put together a full group.  Hopefully one with multiple GM's switching between campaigns and game systems.  I'm not presuming that you would have wanted to participate, but I am disapointed now knowing you likely wouldn't even consider it because of this.  You have some misconceptions about my houserules (but understandable since there's no way you could have ever seen them...<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f631.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":o" title="Eek!    :o"  data-smilie="9"data-shortname=":o" />). First, I use the 4E concept of being able to choose which physical attribute one wants to use as the primary for combat.  That means choosing Strength or Dexterity (I even allow using Intelligence) as the determiner for Attack and Damage bonuses.  If what one is looking for is a specific numerical bonus, then go with an ability that can be raised the highest (and roleplay it accordingly: i.e.  Strong, Dextrous, or Smart). Second, I do cap other abilities also.  No ability score for any race can ever be higher than 23...period.  Beyond this is a range unreachable by Mortals.  Also, other races have caps much lower.  For instance, I think it's absurd to have a 3' tall Gnome walking around with 18 strength (able to lift 300 lbs. over their head...that's ten times their own body weight!). Third, characters have a defensive progression, with Defense bonuses based on a choice of Dexterity or Intelligence.  Also, armor provides a slight defensive increase in combination with a damage reduction factor (but I don't use RAW DR, armor instead provides extra Hit Points). Lastly, I've rewritten the majority of skills.  Swimming, orginally a Strength based skill, is now Constitution based (endurance) - and can only be used trained.  Jump (and similar skills), much like combat bonuses, use either Strength or Dexterity (whichever the player chose as the primary attribute at character creation). So, even with a Strength cap, a Female character has the EXACT same potential as a Male character, at every level and across all aspects of the game (combat, skills, feats, etc.).  A Female Armored Tank character is going to have the exact same combat potential as a Male Armored Tank...no sugar coating necessary.  The only difference will be in sheer lifting capability.  Since a 21 Strength allows for an equivalent to the real-world Womens Olympic Weightlifting World Record (and then some), and a 23 Strength allows for an equivalent to the real-world Mens Olympic Weightlifting World Record (and then some, again), AND THIS IS THE ONLY DIFFERENCE, I don't have a problem with it.  Different is not automatically unequal. In a pure Fantasy game, the sky is the limit - and I prefer it that way.  Character concepts that are completely outside of reality, even character concepts that seem silly or absurd to some, are completely okay and even encouraged.  The campaign I'm preparing IS NOT a Fantasy Campaign.  In a non-Fantasy campaign, allowing unrealisitic concepts or abilities would be absurdly inappropriate. I appreciate and understand your feelings about this and the reasons for it, but I think you're unfairly judging this based on that. Personally, I also wouldn't want caps like this in a standard D&D game, but I'm also not going to tell anyone who does that they are wrong or sexist.  I believe that I'm not qualified to judge anyone elses intentions or motivations, and I'm definitely not qualified to tell anyone else what is wrong or un-fun for them or their group.  I don't believe anyone else here is qualifed to do that either.  Both of which would be completely inappropriate for a campaign based on a real historical period and events.  I wonder if you told him the entire premise in which it was being used, specifically a historical non-fantasy campaign, and whether his answer would be different with that information? Even in this campaign, PC's are special.  But they're special not because of their skills or stats, but because they think and act differently than those who aren't Heros.  It's not the stats that matter, it's what you do with them. Just like in real life. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification