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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5643495" data-attributes="member: 82106">I think if you did something like this you'd have to 'hide' the silos because you'll never make a manageable system where you are acquiring resources in 5+ different categories. I'm not real sure how you would do that.One way might be to simply rate every single character resource in terms of how much it contributes to each 'silo' and then you'd have to create some sort of meta-mechanic that either forced or heavily encouraged PCs to be built in a balanced fashion. Still seems awkward to me.I think the better alternative is a system of diminishing returns. You can keep pouring your resources into combat buffs if you WANT, but the more heavily you go in that direction the less you get for it. At some point most PCs will at the very least end up with a reasonable amount of the 'low hanging fruit' from each category. My fighter might skew pretty heavily towards combat, but he'll probably also pick up some other things that are likely to be useful to a fighter. The Bard OTOH will probably pick all the juiciest stuff from each category, being quite good as a generalist and if it is balanced properly not very far behind the fighter, but just enough to make both sets of choices worthwhile. In effect this could be accomplished by simply making each feature cost an amount that is based purely on the number of other features you have in that silo. Basically the same concept that point buy uses for ability scores. You can get that 17 to an 18 but it is a LOT more expensive than raising a 14 to a 15 in some other stat. As long as all the combat oriented resources aren't simply flatly superior in every way you won't find too many really lopsided characters. This of course shows the problem with ANY type of system you can create though, if a group simply doesn't value one mode of play much then all of this is meaningless and effectively any silo you create for that mode of play will either just be a tax or be left empty, and it really doesn't matter which way that goes since they won't use both anyway (and actually have no problem they need to solve anyway). So, yeah, I think diminishing returns. I also like it for the reasons I stated before, silos themselves aren't a great thing. They'd still sort of exist with diminishing returns, but at least it would be a bit less in your face.</blockquote>

Verification