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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dragonhelm" data-source="post: 3350856" data-attributes="member: 3867">lol  Yeah, I can understand what you mean by Balance.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />To me, though, it seems like it's easier to reference one single chart rather than several.I can see having a greater range for not having modifiers.  Beyond that, though, the ranges seem a bit off to me.  To illustrate...Attribute     Modifier9-12_________013 - 15______+116 - 17______+218 - 19______+3Okay, so we have a range of 4, a range of 3, and two ranges of 2.  The inverse applies for negatives.  So there is a system, but it isn't that standardized.  Though perhaps this isn't such a big deal.To me, it's more game-breaking to have primes.  They effectively give a whopping +6 to various rolls, compared to the occasional extra +1 D&D would give.As far as I can tell, the main reason for the various XP charts and attribute modifiers is more for a sense of nostalgia than anything.  Nothing wrong with that, mind you.  I disagree with the idea that this approach is simpler, but as always, one's mileage may vary.What I have to ask myself in all of this is whether these issues are enough to warrant some house rules or not.  As time goes on, I think I feel that there are some points to argue, and some things that I can live with.  I think these are minor points, so no big deal.  *shrugs*</blockquote>

Verification