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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5706343" data-attributes="member: 54877">Whereas, I always thought one of the big drawbacks of the spell lists in earlier versions was that these lists always ended up having a lot of clunky conceptual overlap that confused things more than a bit of upfront organization complexity would have. YMMV. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> I thought this was especially bad in later 3.*, where the system that had worked ok in 1E, limped by in 2E, finally got overwhelmed with the sheer sizes of the lists. Though really, this is just organization discussion. I don't think there is that much difference in the two approaches, otherwise. So realistically, we'd have to see something approaching a complete list to know if it mattered. That is, we know there would be a bunch of basic "martial" powers and basic "divine" powers. If there is enough "paladin-ish" powers to make a list under "holy warrior" or whatever, then your way would work better. If out of the main fighter and cleric powers, there is a small set of such powers, then my way would work better. Then you have to compare that against every such combination. My main intuition that makes me prefer my way as a hunch is that I think the more "complete" lists we have, the more filler we will get. Whereas, if we have complete lists only for the major roles, with extra stuff put in only when warranted (i.e. not even pretending to be complete), then we'll get less filler. Edit: Agree with you on the ability scores. If ability scores don't affect to hit, then the rider effects can be more powerful.</blockquote>

Verification