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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5783576" data-attributes="member: 42582">Agreed. Although - judging from your tone - my expectations as to "minimal effort" might be a bit slacker than yours. But that's a point of detail (important detail when it comes to rules and advice for pacing item acquistion, but detail).Agreed.I like the maths of this, but would be signficicantly (perhaps irrationally) moved by the flavour. And that makes me a bit tense - when I think of Gandalf "powering up", for example, I think of him hacking through the goblins in The Hobbit, or declaring to the Balrog that he is "A wielder of the Secret Fire", or (in the movie) leading the charge down the hill to Helm's Deep. But these aren't mopping up operations - they're just the opposite!That's interesting, but - based on my own experience GMing warrior-mage PCs built a little like this in Rolemaster - the player is (or, at least, some players are) going to want the buffs on all the time. Which can push towards 15 minute day problems, etc, etc. Those experiences make me very wary of a system where any part of a PC's base prowess is expected to dervie from durational buffing. I'm going to take a stab and say that 8 is too big: what the fighter hits on a roll of 9 (60%), the wizard hits only on a roll of 17 (20%). A gap of 6, assuming again that the fighter needs 9, gives the wizard a 30% chance to hit - and I don't think I would want less than half odds, given that the wizard is likely also (in any D&D-ish system) to be doing less damage. Even a gap of 4 will be noticable in play - hitting on a 13 (40%) and doing less damage.</blockquote>

Verification