Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 5595260" data-attributes="member: 29398">My opinion of the changes may or may not affect whether I'd play; those are two separate questions, and even if I didn't (or did) like one or more changes my decision whether or not to play will take many more variables into consideration than just these. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  But, as for what I think of the changes:Can't be done unless you do away with all types of armour and-or magical defenses.  As characters gain wealth as they go along, they're logically going to try and improve their defenses.  Their h.p. are going to improve as a simple function of advancement.  Thus, both will improve.  This option is not a change, as written.That is a straight body point/fatigue point system (or wound-vitality, depending on your preference of terminology), which we use now.  Your term for fatigue points is defenses, your term for body points is h.p., but it's pretty much the same thing.Spells don't need to take more than a round to cast and don't need to be stronger, but do need to take time *within* a round to cast and very much need to be interruptable.  We play this way now.In other words, largely simplify combat movement and then eyeball the rest.  Works for me.Within limits, this can be a reasonable addition to any critical hit system where a crit. just does more h.p. damage.  You need to make sure the campaign's pace is relatively slow, however, to allow healing time. (4e-type adventures, where the intent is to plow through the whole thing in one expedition without much resting, would certainly not work with this)The only dealbreaker here, as I like that the game is open-ended.  That said, I prefer what most would consider to be very slow advancement - 3e and 4e are both much too fast.Yuck.  I'd play it if I had to, but combat would take forever unless the number of these sequences required per battle could be somehow greatly reduced (better chance to hit, fewer h.p. all round, etc.)Take or leave - specific to campaign, I think.Take or leave - specific to campaign and to DM's (and players') willingness to track another score along with h.p.  The DM would also have to be willing to work this completely into the fabric of the game world and campaign.If interrupted while casting, very much yes.  We play this way now.  We also have it that destruction of a magic item might trigger a surge.  Magic should be a high-risk, high-reward thing.Gradated saving throws, where the amount you fail or succeed by determines what happens to you, are worth looking at but a pain to implement...I tried once.  The multiple save idea doesn't thrill me.Lan-"I think RangerWickett is part-way to designing the game I play now"-efan</blockquote>

Verification