Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5703151" data-attributes="member: 6668292">Not quite core. By far the most common implementation I've seen is looting. This is, of course, only based off of my perception, so it's anecdotal. I don't think your sources contradict my point that the norm is different from "other ways" to accomplish the same task.I mean more in terms of scaling power or the assumption of magical items. I'd prefer a system that supports as much narrative range as possible, and while a system that gives me a lot of ways to explain magic items (scaling to personal power, looted from enemies, upgraded through magic, blessed by the gods, etc.) is nice, it's still forcing the narrative of the assumption of magic items or "heroic scaling" (for things like inherent bonuses). I'd much prefer a system that goes gritty as well as gonzo. Something like, "here's the rules for gritty, they're base (because they're the simplest). If you want a highly fantastic game, here's the rules on how to expand it (giving inherent bonuses and the like). If you want magic items, here's the rules on how to add them, what they do, and how they'll affect things."... so, you agree with me then?Well, considering cash is a character resource (as in, not just consumable, but also strongly tied into PC power in 3.X), I have to disagree here. You can actually make arms and armor at cost, and if the party reimburses you for your work, you're down a little XP, but everyone ends up ahead on money. That's not the case if you're buying armor, bribing, paying for contacts, buying allies(?), providing magical gear that doesn't exist(?), and the like.That would be wonderful.Depending on the setting and what other characters have, Craft Armor is a better choice. As I said, in my group, one spellcaster had weapons/armor, and one had wondrous items. They didn't want overlap, they wanted diversity. And, as I said, they picked arms and armor before wondrous items. I think you're projecting your assumptions to everyone's game.I can think of a lot, especially in the more narrative games. Let's say you have to spend a character resource, like, say, Background Points. Depending on how you spend them, the world will be affected. For example, if you bought the Background of "raised in a monastery" then the world would have a monastery in it, whereas it might not if you didn't take it (and you taking it might indicate where it is, or how it interacts with the world). If the goal of the character resource is not to increase power of the character, but is instead to help shape the world, that's fine.Or, take Plot Points. You can spend one to affect any other character in some minor or major way (depending on the number of Plot Points spent). For example, if a party member was looking for a clue, you could spend a Plot Point to let them find it. Or, if the bad guy was about to get captured by the cops, you could let him escape (to further the plot in a more interesting direction, or because you have other plans for him, it really doesn't matter). This is a character resource that definitely doesn't directly help your character in particular, but it's a fine design.In 3.X, you can take the Leadership feat. It allows for people to follow you, and for you to have their loyalty. It gives nothing inherently to your character, though it's well known that it's one of the most powerful feats in 3.X. The flexibility, character combinations, and extra raw power (through the action economy if nothing else) is evident in the feat. However, the feat does not directly increase your character's power (it brings in allies to help you, much in the same way the magic weapons/armor feat allows allies to help you more easily). This feat is also fine for its design, including the advice to carefully allow it.But, hey, these are just off the top of my head. It's nowhere near as open and shut as it is for you. I'm okay with you not agreeing with me, but I still don't find your disagreement compelling. 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