Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kensanata" data-source="post: 3291234" data-attributes="member: 47845">1. I like it the way it is. My main requirement is d20 compatibility such that I can plug in monsters and NPCs from other games. I don't have a problem choosing one of WIS/INT/CHA from a monster stat block for MIND, and so that's what I do.2. I don't think that rule elegance necessarily means improved playability. I used to think that way when I was younger. Not anymore. In my German translation I called MIND "Will", in fact, because I couldn't bother to get it exactly right, and there's no single word for "intellect" or "brains". There's something for the mind as opposed to the soul, but it is synonymous to "ghost", which sucks. <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=":)" /> If you think MIND means intelligence, then use it as that. But I'm not buying the four letter word thinking...3. I don't think that rule elegance necessarily means improved playability. CHA is what roleplaying is for, in my game! <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=":)" />4. I like negative bonuses. Some mages are weak in my game, and that's ok. Plus backwards compatibility. It also allows you to use the "increase one attribute by +1 every three levels" and it allows simple poisons to work unchanged ("-1 STR/-2 STR" stuff).5. The revised rules have a different description of magic against unwilling targets, one for physical stuff like fireballs in which case AC is the relevant DC, and one for mental stuff like charm or sleep, in which case the old 1d20 + Level is relevant. Works for me, and it's simple to boot. I guess I could get used to picking knowledge+WILL for resistance to mental stuff, because on the average, it's the same as just the level. <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=";)" />6. I like it the way it is. Mages & Clerics have less HP because they cast spells. It works out in the end! I'm currently trying to figure out whether fighters are truly underpowered at higher levels. I'm suspecting that applying their to-hit/damage class bonus to their AC would kind of fix that, however. I'll have to do some playtesting, first.7. I disagree, since I don't plan to reduce HP of dwarves, for example. HP are not just physical – it's all sort of hardiness that is measured, I tell myself. And big or small monsters get changes to their to-hit and AC based on size. That's enough.8. The current system works for me because my encounters are all challenging. Should they not be challenging because of the number of PCs, I'll wing it and give less EL. So basically I'm saying it's simpler than dividing XP and it's good enough for me. Not a strong argument, I guess, but being the conservative cold blanket that I am, let me disagree with this one as well. <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=":)" />Oh and I was surprised to read that CHA was such an important attribute. My players have thought CHA to be a waste for years...</blockquote>

Verification