Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 7042040" data-attributes="member: 71699">I think we both agree that Little Foom! is better than Big Foom! We may disagree about how to size that advantage, but if we're working in points then I think we must also agree that some point value captures it. You probably have something different in mind when you think of "1 point" than I do. Again, I believe we could agree that a point needs to be equal to the least advantage (i.e. the smallest increment). Thus I suspect my 1.5 points is a lot closer to your concept of a point's worth of stuff than you might at first glance have thought it.I would call a system in which points can be "wasted", one in which the value of a point has been assigned incorrectly. Spending 1 point on something should be well worth 1 point <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" />Agreed however that it will be unsuitable for creating new spells. It's unlikely without a tremendous amount of data and work that a consistent scale can be developed. That said, using "$" as shorthand for "spell buying point", I'm tempted to suggest that $1 = 1/2 point of average damage. So let's say we have a d10 that can be saved against for half, and the assertion that we can add 25% damage if we change it to saved for none. I think that statement amounts to saying that saving for half takes a quarter off the damage (50% chance to save * 50% of the damage). Thus we begin with the idea that 1d10 saved for half is worth $8.5. Perhaps making the smallest quantum = 0.5?</blockquote>

Verification