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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="seasong" data-source="post: 827940" data-attributes="member: 5137">Well, he was expecting flames, and you provided.The rules don't look like they will work very well, although they should be functional with a good GM, and as long as there aren't any math inclined players who will try to abuse the stacking bonuses, etc. Fortunately, good house rules is rarely, if ever, a prerequisite for being a good GM.Unless you have Drawmack as a player, apparently. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />CerberusAOD: Really, if those rules make you more comfortable and able to focus on the game, by all means, go with them. If you're just trying to improve the system in a general sense, however, I'd just leave 'em alone - not dissing you as a GM, but the rules don't look much improved.WP+VP: This is okay.Crits: The +1 per x+1 is kind of crappy; a 19-20/x2 is immensely more valuable than a 20/x3 under this system. I would recommend, instead, allowing a x3 to apply x1 damage to VP in addition to x1 damage to WP; and a x4 to apply x2 damage to VP.Initiative: Not particularly useful change, but, eh.Staves: Huh? Does not seem to have any impact other than to screw non-fighters, yet again.Special Actions: As Drawmack said, this does NOT look streamlined.Skills: Goodbye, intelligent skilled fighter. Goodbye, Spellcraft for wizards. Goodbye, goodbye, goodbye.Exorcizement: Interesting. Don't much like the mechanic, though.The feats are too much for me to look at quickly.</blockquote>

Verification