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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5935778" data-attributes="member: 6668292">I'm glad you're willing to compromise, even if I'm for something that's not quite as quick if it means it scales better.If we're going by the core rules of the game that everyone shares, then my answer is yes. Just like Reaper should be tweaked in the core so that an overwhelming majority like it, I think SOD should be the same.Vancian is a harder issue to respond to, admittedly. I think that the majority could get on board with something that really scaled down the number of daily spells you get, but I'm not sure it'd be overwhelming. So far, though, Vancian had the most threads about it before the playtest, not after. Reaper is the reverse. That's why I'm talking about it and not Vancian casting. Thanks for the civil reply (as it always is, when we occasionally do intersect in this big, wide internet). As always, play what you like <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=":)" />With that in mind, I'd rather them go for something that the overwhelming majority can be fine with (like Advantage seems to be overall, as a mechanic). That's not to say that I need Reaper to use the Advantage mechanic, or anything, just that certain things seem to have a lot of support (flatter math, for another example).I think they can definitely try to find a way to implement a rule that reflects that fiction in a way that makes most people happy. If the conversation goes "well, the ability you liked is getting changed. Before it was cool and you liked it, but some people objected (some disliked the flavor, others thought it was overpowered; I personally think it was underpowered). So, here's this cool ability instead, which is something that we hope everyone likes!" and it is then something everyone likes, then it shouldn't be too much of a problem.I know that when designing my RPG, I've dramatically swapped how things have worked, and my players -even if initially hesitant to the idea- have come around to liking the implementation better in the long run. Is that because of their personal relationship with me (mostly close friends from 10-13 years)? Perhaps, though not all members of my group are part of that group. Is it just adjusting to it? Perhaps, though many people didn't adjust well to the changes of 1e, 2e, 3e, or 4e. Is it because they liked the mechanic after using it for a while? Well, that's what they say, but who knows, really.No matter the tact they take, as long as the large majority likes the mechanic, I'll be behind it. I personally don't like the focus on HP/damage over attack bonus/AC, and while I like the static DCs of non-combat tasks, I don't like the little-to-no increases to bonuses on those tasks over time. I don't like that someone who trains to be the best and is the most naturally gifted humanoid (ability of 20) might only get +9 to attacks, while a Wizard with a quarterstaff might get +2, so the paragon of humanoid combat is only 35% more likely to hit. Yes, I do fully understand that other abilities are supposed to shore up this fault (in my eyes), such as things like the Reaper feat (though my understanding is that the Wizard could get that, too). I just dislike the implementation, and the implications within the fiction.But, even with my objections, I'm not advocating changing or compromising on the flatter math. I may voice a concern over non-combat tasks not having a depth mechanic like what HP/damage serves for combat, but I haven't been engaged in a thread for a few pages looking to change it. And that's because the large majority seems to like that. With the Reaper feat, that doesn't seem to be the case. And that's why I'm looking for compromise (not omission). As always, play what you like <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