Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 53524" data-attributes="member: 172">Well, it is that, but not just that.I mean goofing up stat blocks, assigning arbitrary HP and HD types, out to lunch CRs, spells too powerful for the level, and classes or feats that give you in-game adventages for role-playing disadvantages or by penalizing thing you will not use vice drawing it from your resource pool (class abilities, feats, skills) are obvious things that will earn a product a &quot;weak&quot; from me in a category.But it's not just adhering to rules, but using them well. For example, creating a subsystem that is new but consistent with other stuff that has been done, creature statistics and tactics that mesh well with feel that the product is trying to create, attention to appropriate placement of challenges and consciousness of their impact, and addressing a need in a novel or clever way are all factors that will tend to earn a product a strong in my system fidelity category.Take, for example, Libram Equitus. One could have made a character that is good at archery and bad at melee by slapping on a bonus with missile weapons and penalty to melee weapons. Effective, but clumsy. Now what he did was give his archery classes medium bab advancement and gave the class a class ability that gave them a competance bonus with missile weapons that let them edge out a fighter. This was clever and worked within the system vice brute-forcing it.Unfortunately, he lost some of those points by making multiple classes that used the same type of scheme that were obviously intended to work together, but never stating the bonus stacked. <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Psion, post: 53524, member: 172"] Well, it is that, but not just that. I mean goofing up stat blocks, assigning arbitrary HP and HD types, out to lunch CRs, spells too powerful for the level, and classes or feats that give you in-game adventages for role-playing disadvantages or by penalizing thing you will not use vice drawing it from your resource pool (class abilities, feats, skills) are obvious things that will earn a product a "weak" from me in a category. But it's not just adhering to rules, but using them well. For example, creating a subsystem that is new but consistent with other stuff that has been done, creature statistics and tactics that mesh well with feel that the product is trying to create, attention to appropriate placement of challenges and consciousness of their impact, and addressing a need in a novel or clever way are all factors that will tend to earn a product a strong in my system fidelity category. Take, for example, Libram Equitus. One could have made a character that is good at archery and bad at melee by slapping on a bonus with missile weapons and penalty to melee weapons. Effective, but clumsy. Now what he did was give his archery classes medium bab advancement and gave the class a class ability that gave them a competance bonus with missile weapons that let them edge out a fighter. This was clever and worked within the system vice brute-forcing it. Unfortunately, he lost some of those points by making multiple classes that used the same type of scheme that were obviously intended to work together, but never stating the bonus stacked. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification