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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 5786933" data-attributes="member: 92511">Wow! Thanks for giving me something to do this afternoon! lol.Ok. Let's seeeee...I think a 3d6 and a 4d6 (keep the highest).Then each applied 1) "In order" for those in the "work with wutcha got" campand/or  2) "Place as desired" for those wanting a bit more player freedom/class choice vs. class by what the dice say.Yes to Ability scores (by which I'm guessing by the rest of this grouping to mean using/rolling "Ability checks" vs. specific skill checks.).Yes to Simple Skills -broken down/applicable by Class.Yes to Skill challenges in certain circumstances. Yes to Old School, roll less approach.I'm really on the fence for the "non-combat conflict rules". I am, again, presuming here that you are referring to things like "Diplomacy/Bluff/Intimidate" type skills...On the one hand, I am all for "Role-your-Play" over "Roll-your-Play". On the other, I see the value for those Players (not characters) who might not be the most vocal or charismatic but want/imagineer their PCs to be so. So...I don't know. Maybe if presented a different way they'd be ok...but, I think I'm gonna go with the gut here and stick to my first choice, No. Leave Non-combat conflict skills/rules/checks out. NOW, if you mean "non-combat conflict rules" to mean something like ye olde "Morale" rules/checks. Then yes. That should come back.Yes for Standard races. Yes, also, for additional customizable Race-based features. This is something that really only recently was brought to my attention/I saw as a possibility for character advance-/enhancement. So any starting PC can be an Elf or Dwarf or what have you with a limited set of Racial Skills. As they increase in level, they can customize themselves further with other Racial Skill options (better/increased/innate spell casting or bow-based/archery tricks for elves, specializing attacks/damage vs. certain foes or increasing resistances for dwarves, for example). I also have no problem with "Themes" or "Origins" type stuff, but that's really on a DM-by-DM, group/world-by-group/world case basis. Presented as optional additional rules with some examples and guideliens how to develop your own, sure. Ok.I'm a bit tired of sub-races myself. But I suppose, a select FEW for each base race would be fine, and help lend in world/game flavor, would be ok.But, like, 3 each! None of this 10 types of elves and 2 kinds of gnomes silliness.And not introduced until AFTER the Basic/Intro game set. You can be a Dwarf. Then later, there's also this and that kind of Dwarf to choose from.3 Dwarves to choose from. 3 Elves. 3 Gnomes...I don't really see how you could do 3 Halflings, but fine. Even 3 Humans, if you want I suppose, tweak a few ability scores and permit/build in a few specializations/skills/tricks. Yes Standard Classes...with customizable features (whether they are called "Skills/Feats/Powers/Talents/Abilities" I don't care. But pick ONE term and stick to it. I shouldn't have to keep track of 5 different sets of "things I can do." I need my Class, my level, and a set of 'things I can do"...2 sets (if you absolutely MUST distinguish between "Skills" and "Feats" or "Powers" or whatever, tops.Power sources...I like the categorizing of things that way for flavoring the class archetype...but I suppose it really isn't a necessary element. I mean, I've been differentiating between Divine and Arcane magic since BECMI...and "magic" vs. "Psionics" since 1e...I don't need specific "assigned by the rules" power sources. I like and use them. I think the best way of presenting them for today's (or tomorrow's) game, given the amount of flack they take from many gamers, is as an Optional element of play. Myself, yes, 9 points. Yes they matter. And yes, for certain classes you WILL find yourself "in trouble" for breaking out of certain alignments.Spells for Spell-Caster Classes! "Skills/Feats/Powers/Talents" I don't care what you call them...but they are NOT magic for "Non-caster" Classes. Combat maneuvers for the marital/warrior classes, yeah sure. Something for their players to play around with and keep track of so all of the "My Fighter can't do what your Wizard can" nonsense might die down finally.Meta-magic could be included as skills available to Caster classes. Sure, why not?Not enough experience with "alternate systems" to really comment. But supplying one or two alternate methods as "optional/alternate rules" couldn't hurt, I suppose.BECMI with ascending AC combat. Fine with me. Done and done. Crits and fumbles seem easy enough to include with a couple of "optional/alternate" tables. Parries and other combat options could,. similarly be presented as "optional rules to include"...Let the groups/DMs decide how complicated, precise, streamlined, grinding or quick they want their combats to be. Let them decide how important or detailed combat is to their game.Gods DO AWAY WITH SURGES! Clerical healing. Magical potions. Mundane 'first aid' and/or "medicinal herb" knowledge/training for any class.Unconscious at 0. Dead at -10...As it has been, so it ever shall be...in my games. <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=":)" />I'm not sure what this is saying. Yes, the monsters should be statted up and listed somewhere...whether its accessible only by the DM or a separate "monster book" of its own, I don't really care that much.All of this stuff.Wow. Ok. Here goes: Yes. Yes, sometimes. NO! Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Sure, I guess, in addition to real/monetary & magic "treasure." Not in my games, no.1) Of course. 2) Trusted retainers are always welcome. <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=":)" /> 3-5) Some day. Some day. Some day.  6) If the Players/DMs like those kinds of story elements in game (personally, I do). 7) Sure, why not?Personally, I have my own elaborate homebrew. BUT, for new/beginner players & (especially) DMs, I think some framework of a setting should be in place for immediate play. Guidelines to world/setting building could be included as/for "alternate" settings though, I think.A default cosmology should also be presented for the same reasons. Once a DM gets to wanting to build their own world, they can worry about "finger-painting" with the structure of the cosmos. But to begin with, yes, I'd say there should be a default cosmology presented for easy/immediate use.--SD</blockquote>

Verification