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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6103144" data-attributes="member: 37579">In theory it's just as easy to add as to subtract. In practice it's easier for a DM to add options and powers and bonuses than to take away.Plus balancing is always easier when you knowing using a module will make the game easier. Let's use hitpoints as an example. You can either have high starting hitpoints with low hp as an option for those who like it or low starting hp with high as an option. We should have both and they're functionally equal. Except in play having the DM have starting hitpoints feels like a nerf, it feels like the DM is trying to make your characters mortal. But if they double starting hp it feels generous and a bonus. So start with low hp and give DMs the tools for higher potency level 1 characters with more bonus Hit Dice.The "negatively impact" argument is based around the idea that some people don't like it, so including as a core assumption drives them away. And driving people away is bad. We want to bring people in. So if one option is neutral and the other drives people away, go for the option that's neutral, knowing you can add options later. Again, having hp being a mix of health and vigor and not having martial healing has the best chances of bringing in the largest number of players. And you can add martial healing on for those people who like it, giving them a game very simmilar to if it had been a core assumption. But if the game says "martial healing is a core assumption if you don't like it you can just remove this class, these manuvers, these specialities, and this background" then many players will just say "orrrr I could just not play and find a game that doesn't do something is dislike."</blockquote>

Verification