Splat control

[Nifft]

By bring in things, do you mean non-core, extra, or both?

The goal is to add another layer of choices, in a controlled way, so that players feel "safe" trying out something that is perhaps otherwise mechnically weak but sounds fun/interesting/whatever. If it was just core vs. non-core, then my thinking has changed -- no big deal, 0-1 points. However, the extras need to have a price....

Non-core.

IMHO it's a mistake to equate non-core with more powerful, and thus it's a mistake to "compensate" core-only PCs by giving them more power.

There are some powerful things in the splatbooks, but the really broken ones are SO broken that no point buy could possibly justify their inclusion.

If your goal is to allow a limited number of non-Core things into your game, just do so! Let each player pick whatever number you think is appropriate. If you want to give players the option to try stuff without much risk, do so! Grant "character amnesty" every few levels, wherein players get to redesign their PCs and make different choices. Or, use the retraining rules in the PHB-II (or a variant in one of the various house rules threads).

Does that make sense?

Cheers, -- N

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I guess I'm assuming that one can significantly improve any PC by having access to non-core options...so it makes sense to me that there should be some cost associated with taking non-core options, assuming there is a cost to improve PCs by ability score bumps, extra feats, etc. So I decided to give the players "points" that they can use to go beyond the usual character creation process described in the PHB. I now agree that having access to non-core options probably shouldn't be as expensive as I initially thought, but I still don't agree with free.

That some non-core options are more powerfull than related core options is not really a matter of debate, is it? A core-only cleric is powerful, but can't we build an even more powerful cleric if we have access to non-core options as well?

Since it would be a lot of work to price each non-core option, I'll settle for a ballpark figure. I'm thinking of it like this: You're going to a party and you want to bring some booze. The liquor store accepts cash, nothing is free. Some options are better than others, some give you more bang for the buck. Rather than price each individual item, I'm pricing beer=x, wine=y, spirits=z, etc.

You're right; some noncore options are obviously better than core options, so a player could make a significantly better character using splat books...which is what this system of yours will teach your players to do:

1. After you show your players the list of things they can buy with their points, they'll see non-core options right under ability boosts, bonus feats, etc. Seeing this, they will make the logical deduction (whether consciously or subconsciously) that noncore options are inherently better than core options. If you explain to them that it's only certain noncore options that are better than core, your point system has still built up the expectation that "points = power".

2. As a result of that expectation, your players will naturally want to spend their precious points wisely. So if they don't get a bonus feat or ability boost or whatnot, they're going to make damn sure that any non-core option they spend points on will be well worth it. In order to make a noncore option worth the lost feat or ability boost, they'll comb through the splat books and visit CharOp boards at wizards.com in order to find the very best use of their precious points.

This is how I foresee your point system turning out. Maybe your players are blithely ignorant of power gaming and their transformation into power gamers will take a while, but it will happen sooner or later with this system. Well I'm not here to tell you how to run your game, but I will advise you to reevaluate your "munchkin solution."

TS

 

[Flatus Maximus]

TS: As I alluded to before, fortunately I don't have to deal with this pessimistic scenario. When one of the other players (all very experienced) runs a game, we don't have problems with munchkinism and I don't expect that all of the sudden it will be a problem for me. Of course, I could be wrong...but again, I'm not even trying to prevent munchkinism. Maybe I shouldn't have used "splat" in the thread title -- I didn't mean it as a pejorative, I just meant "non-core."

Nifft: Yes it makes sense if, as you previously suggested, you throw out extra feats and stat boosts. However, I can't help but think that the extra feat and/or stat boost options would be nice to have for some (MAD and/or feat-poor) classes. And since I'm not trying to create a system that cannot be abused, I'd like to focus on rough (maybe very rough) prices. I still have hope....

For example, a wizard gets two spells at each level. Equivalently, wizards get 2 points at each level that they can spend on spells, each spell costing 1 point. Feats: An equivalent formulation would be that each feat costs 3 points, you accumulate 1 point per level, and (apparently?) you can't save these points.

Of course, it's not written like this. But if there were some sort of point system, and each feat (or spell or stat boost) had an appropriate cost...would the world be a better place?

 

[Nifft]

Of course, it's not written like this. But if there were some sort of point system, and each feat (or spell or stat boost) had an appropriate cost...would the world be a better place?

There are free-form systems out there, but D&D isn't one of them... for better, and for worse. Level is king, and class level is earl. There are some classes which are feat-starved by design; there are some classes which are MAD by design.

There are products out there like "Buy the Numbers", "Four Colors to Fantasy" and probably even "Elements of Magic" which might have some similar rules, and which have seen actual play. Sadly I haven't spent enough time looking at that stuff to make a solid recommendation, but probably someone else around here has, if that's the direction you want your game to take.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

TS: As I alluded to before, fortunately I don't have to deal with this pessimistic scenario. When one of the other players (all very experienced) runs a game, we don't have problems with munchkinism and I don't expect that all of the sudden it will be a problem for me. Of course, I could be wrong...but again, I'm not even trying to prevent munchkinism. Maybe I shouldn't have used "splat" in the thread title -- I didn't mean it as a pejorative, I just meant "non-core."

Well I hope I'm wrong about your system. Good luck with your game.

TS

 

[Asurya]

[sblock=@Piratecat(sblocked due to off-topicness)]I'd have prefered not to pollute this thread but, for some reason, you have to pay to PM...
really, if I trouble myself to write [ size=1 ][ color=grey ]quote [ b ]'some poster'[ /b ]:[ /color ] some text of his post[ /size ] you can suppose I know BBCode fairly well and decided not to use [ quote ] ... [ /quote ]. (the reason is that the 'div' so created adds bulk to the post, whereas quotes should only set the context of the reply)
[/sblock]

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

This line from the SRD suggests that one could do so already,

A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

The problem is that if you look at the spells required to enchant an item with this weapon ability or that armor/shield ability, most of them don't actually target the weapon or armor being enchanted.

One could argue that the entire process & ritual of enchanting a weapon qualifies as a "spell" or "effect"- whether it would or not qualify is not actually answered in the rules, so the DM would have the final say. Many, not all, would contend that the language cited above applies only to short term effects, not a long-term thing like enchantment.

And considering that the mind that came up with Hands as Weapons also was one of the driving forces behind 3Ed, you could at least infer that he found the PHB/SRD text in question to be vague enough that he made it explicit in his one-off AU/AE RPG...while simultaneously opening up the possibility of doing the same to any PC who took the feat.