Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Proposal: Replacing Half Level Bonuses
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Alex319" data-source="post: 4677974" data-attributes="member: 45678"><p><strong>Design Notes:</strong></p><p></p><p>- I based most of the point costs on the point costs given in the OP's initial post. I increased the cost of the attack bonus because that seemed like the one everyone seemed to want.</p><p></p><p>- The purpose of the diminishing returns for both "buying" and "selling" CMs is to make "min-maxing" less likely and diversity more desirable. (It's effectively the same reason why the ability score point buy has diminishing returns.)</p><p></p><p>- I added the "3 Related Skills" option because it seemed to fill a gap between the one skill and all skills options. In the OP's system, if you wanted more than one or two skills to have bonuses you might as well just buy all skills.</p><p></p><p>- The rules for combining individual skills and "all skills" packages may be a little confusing, but it was the only thing I could come up with that was logical, fair, and not easily exploited. The way to think of it is that if you get, say, +2 to all skills, the +2 is the "base" that you've already paid for if you want to buy more for a particular skill.</p><p></p><p>- The reason you can't get a penalty to an individual skill or 3 related skills is because otherwise everyone would just take big penalties to skills that they didn't plan to use in order to get lots of points to put in other. Also, they could get lots of free points by say, getting +4 to all skills for 12 CP and then selling back all 17 of those skills one at a time for 3 CP each.</p><p></p><p>- Initiative has a very low "sell-back" value because many characters have little use for initiative, for example back-line characters like wizards and archer rangers that aren't usually the first into combat and often want to wait anyway to see the enemies move up before they attack. These characters would almost always want to sell back as much initative as they can for points if the value was higher.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Alex319, post: 4677974, member: 45678"] [B]Design Notes:[/B] - I based most of the point costs on the point costs given in the OP's initial post. I increased the cost of the attack bonus because that seemed like the one everyone seemed to want. - The purpose of the diminishing returns for both "buying" and "selling" CMs is to make "min-maxing" less likely and diversity more desirable. (It's effectively the same reason why the ability score point buy has diminishing returns.) - I added the "3 Related Skills" option because it seemed to fill a gap between the one skill and all skills options. In the OP's system, if you wanted more than one or two skills to have bonuses you might as well just buy all skills. - The rules for combining individual skills and "all skills" packages may be a little confusing, but it was the only thing I could come up with that was logical, fair, and not easily exploited. The way to think of it is that if you get, say, +2 to all skills, the +2 is the "base" that you've already paid for if you want to buy more for a particular skill. - The reason you can't get a penalty to an individual skill or 3 related skills is because otherwise everyone would just take big penalties to skills that they didn't plan to use in order to get lots of points to put in other. Also, they could get lots of free points by say, getting +4 to all skills for 12 CP and then selling back all 17 of those skills one at a time for 3 CP each. - Initiative has a very low "sell-back" value because many characters have little use for initiative, for example back-line characters like wizards and archer rangers that aren't usually the first into combat and often want to wait anyway to see the enemies move up before they attack. These characters would almost always want to sell back as much initative as they can for points if the value was higher. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Proposal: Replacing Half Level Bonuses
Top