Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Yaarel" data-source="post: 6291310" data-attributes="member: 58172">Different DMs use different settings at different times. The ‘rules’ need to accommodate the needs of as many DMs as possible.You mention the example of the Gnome. The Gnome includes several different D&amp;D traditions about them. The ‘rules’ for the Gnome need to be flexible enough to accommodate the Illusionist Gnome, the Tinker Gnome, the House Sprite Gnome, and so on. The rules even need to be flexible enough to make your own homebrew ‘Gnomes of Zurich’ possible (which I like much).I know you arent saying it, but it sounds as if: All DMs must use the Gnomes according to the archetype that I like, in the setting that I like, with core rules that can only match my Gnomes in my setting.Obviously, DMs need flexible rules to make different Gnomes according to their own tastes.I dont understand your objection.The +1 +1 −1 ability system that I propose is less of a ‘freebie’ than any systems that you are using now.If you use 4e, then you grant +2 +2 as powerful upgrade.+1 +1 −1 is much less powerful.Moreover, the option of a single +1 is even less powerful than +2 +2.Note in the 5e playtests, the races gain +1 +1.My system is even less of a freebie, with the addition of a penalty −1, or else only one +1.With regard to 3e Pathfinder, +2 +2 −2. I can live with that. But DMs who dislike the formidable −2 penalty, might be more comfortable with it by using the system that I propose.Rock Gnome (+2 to Intelligence or Constitution, or both if −2 to Strength), Tinker Gnome.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Yaarel, post: 6291310, member: 58172"] Different DMs use different settings at different times. The ‘rules’ need to accommodate the needs of as many DMs as possible. You mention the example of the Gnome. The Gnome includes several different D&D traditions about them. The ‘rules’ for the Gnome need to be flexible enough to accommodate the Illusionist Gnome, the Tinker Gnome, the House Sprite Gnome, and so on. The rules even need to be flexible enough to make your own homebrew ‘Gnomes of Zurich’ possible (which I like much). I know you arent saying it, but it sounds as if: All DMs must use the Gnomes according to the archetype that I like, in the setting that I like, with core rules that can only match my Gnomes in my setting. Obviously, DMs need flexible rules to make different Gnomes according to their own tastes. I dont understand your objection. The +1 +1 −1 ability system that I propose is less of a ‘freebie’ than any systems that you are using now. If you use 4e, then you grant +2 +2 as powerful upgrade. +1 +1 −1 is much less powerful. Moreover, the option of a single +1 is even less powerful than +2 +2. Note in the 5e playtests, the races gain +1 +1. My system is even less of a freebie, with the addition of a penalty −1, or else only one +1. With regard to 3e Pathfinder, +2 +2 −2. I can live with that. But DMs who dislike the formidable −2 penalty, might be more comfortable with it by using the system that I propose. Rock Gnome (+2 to Intelligence or Constitution, or both if −2 to Strength), Tinker Gnome. [/QUOTE]

Verification