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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Croesus" data-source="post: 5594614" data-attributes="member: 35019">1/2: Option 1 fits my idea of D&D (hit points) better than option 2. However, other game systems use option 2, for example Hero System, so I could live with either.3. I'd be willing to try it, but my experience with similar limitations in other systems is that players tend to hate it. This basically becomes a "nerf the spellcaster" if the GM constantly disrupts spells, or "spellcasters rule" if he doesn't. A difficult balancing act.4. I love this idea, but I suspect it would be difficult to implement in some situations. It could also be very difficult to protect spellcasters and other weak characters, unless everyone simply stays in the same arena.5. Never liked such rules. Wouldn't want to play with this.6. Fine by me.7. Way too many rolls and calculations. I'd like something simpler, with the option for the player to modify the result (hero points or some such). Your idea of dodge points would be preferable to me.8. Depends on how this limits how I can play the character. If it results in the GM deciding what my character does, not a chance. If it simply applies modifiers to certain actions, that's okay.9. Not sure I like the concept of "attacks against reputation", but I do like the idea of a social score as a guide to how NPC's react, and something players can actively work to improve.10. Within limits, ok. If we're talking Deck of Fate level of impact, nope.11. (Saving throws) Agree 100%. it would require a complete rework of many spells, but eliminating "save or die" would be a good change to the system, IMO.</blockquote>

Verification