Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lackhand" data-source="post: 4430978" data-attributes="member: 36160">As others have said, this is really an issue of emphasis: I'd need my books in front of me, but a guard in a thorpe on the plains is probably a level 1 warrior, while a guard in a mountain village is more like level 4, and swamps breed 'em really tough, to the tune of level 7 I think. The population dynamics section implies this but also answers the question directly pretty easily. It's definitely something that could use more emphasis though.This one's bittersweet. I play about three times a month, for just over five hours each time, and wouldn't want to level less frequently than once a month, perhaps because I master systems quickly. One can do the math on that, but I suspect that a much slower curve would lend itself to artificial inflation at my tables, and I don't think either of our playstyles are unusual (despite their clashing); I think what the game _really_ needs is to drop the direct linkage from "encounters" to XP, because then the advancement rate is truly in the hands of the DM/players.The game also needs an "adventuring metabolism" ruleset -- dailies become much more powerful when the style of the campaign lends itself to 1 encounter/day; thus, some explicit method of scaling their availability (and enforcing noncombative downtime) would, I suspect, make both of us happy.Depends which skills and feats. Sure, ranks in languages and Craft(Basketweaving) can be plot-driven, but I'd be really uncomfortable with handing out, say, Weapon Focus based on time spent practicing with the bastard. Let's just say I think this proposal requires a lot more detail -- which I await eagerly <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=";)" />Amen <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=";)" />Amen, again <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=";)" />. I've had some luck taking the rules as they are and abstracting them; it would be nice if something like that were the default.Not really an issue of sandbox vs scripted, more one of how 'adversarial' (maybe. Not the best word either.) the DM is being. But yeah, it's an important balance point for consumable resources -- when they're gone, it needs to mean something.I agree with Remathilis. I actually really like the healing surge mechanic for filling much the same role, but if you don't, that's fair -- d20 modern's low massive damage threshhold was another take on the same idea; in general, it's that your availability of round-by-round hit points is a different number than your availability of daily or hour-by-hour hit points. This is a fairly neat idea and one which wound points are also trying to model. I think surges do it better than VP/WP by far though, and are less fiddly/deadly than the massive damage cap.</blockquote>

Verification