Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Graf" data-source="post: 4431408" data-attributes="member: 3087">I actually tend to agree with Ata; we should reward people who do annoying jobs nobody wants to do.If the community votes on it (which they will) then I don't see how it "reeks of impartiality". Something simple like "active judge gets 1 per month" seems fine (assuming your average DM gets 2-3 a month).I know covaithe had an option "judges just give points to themselves whenever they want". I think that's silly borderline insulting. I mean... the system will be voted on. It's not like we say "points for judging" and then the next thing that happens is "judges get 1000 points and have 20th level characters". We have a vote and then decide. Just like we have with every other thing.And if we try to change the system later? Vote again.They -don't- have to get as many as DMs, but I think judges deserve something.[d]--[/d]>...t this just seems horribly confusing to me. My "vote" > should be interpreted as follows: I think the best option > would be no OOC points.So then that's your vote. You've voted for that and against everything else.> However, I expect that others will probably vote for some > OOC points, and that being the case, points for DMing only > is acceptable. I'm not sure thatI agree that the voting is corrupted because you can't vote against something twice.Or you want to vote in half incriments? Like 1 for against, .5 for DM points, and 0 for other options?I mean... I'm not really tracking the problem. Everybody gets a vote, we look at the numbers and sort it out.It's early days. You've posted a lot about how bad it'll be, you're influential, people listen to you. You've got a reasonably good chance of convincing people to stick with a low/no point system. And there will be more votes in the future and each one will include many opportunities to vote to limit the system.It's the sign that we've got a good compromise when no-one is happy... <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=";)" />[d]--[/d]> I note that there's no option for spending points on gold. I have given a lot of thought to the idea of gold and I've come to the same conclusion that WotC has.We're basically going to ignore it.How do characters survive day to day? Do they eat? Have jobs? This is all roleplaying fodder. If you hand out gp players will live on the street and hunt rats to save up for that +1 sword.WotC focuses on magic items and magic item balance and I think we should stick with that. > Would it be possible to take out the one for spending  > points on magic items and replace it with gold? Honestly,> the idea of trying to balance buying magic items with> points gives me a headache....if you do then you should beleive that gold would make everything about an order of magnitude worse.For starters... Magic items in 4e are very very rigorously defined. You get certain +s at certain levels. All items of the same level cost the same amount of gold."Turning it into gold" would 1. Allow someone to turn a couple of 3rd or 4th level items into one (potentially destabilizing) 9th level item.2. Encourage the proliferation of consumables. Not so many in the PhB, but even so... At some point we may allow in more (see new alchemy rules), and then we'll start to see power spikes...The amount of magic items you are supposed to have are proscribed by level.Tresasure distribution is now defined by "packages" (or packets? I forget).We will also have "average # of magic items" "average level of magic items" "average # and level of all items per level"I am strongly in favor to going to the source and focusing how limiting how points are spent on magic items directly.My idea? Provided that you have no more than 3 magic items<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Levels 2-4 you may buy one item with OOC points up to your character level.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">4-10 you may buy two items with OOC points up to your character level.</li> </ul>But anyway.... this is an application problem. -If- people vote to allow the spending on magic items -then- we take it up.Actually, you've given me another idea....</blockquote>

Verification