[PF] Houserules I'm considering for next game.

[Alias]

My players have made me promise to start running again (I've taken nearly 2 years off from running d20 stuff, with a brief spat running SW). I'm revising my setting books, and planning out some house rules to incorporate a few of what I consider good ideas out of 4e and other sources. In no particular order:

1. Rituals
Spells with casting times of 1 minute or more become rituals. What this means is they are not prepared or known as part of their use. They instead must be cast from a spellbook, prayerbook or non-magical scroll holding them.

I looked over the core spells and my own spells to see what types of spells this affects, and for the most part the answer is support divinations, planar calling spells and some of the restorative magics like raise dead. More than a few are flavor spells players would rarely use anyway, like guards and wards.

The effect on the wizard and cleric is minimal - while they do pick up some flexibility from this setup, the long casting time of these spells inhibits the benefice of that flexibility considerably.

Spontaneous casters get an enormous pickup from this. To be honest, as a group these are spells I've not seen sorcerers and the like pick up precisely because they aren't combat worthy spells.


2. Static HP gain
This is one of the more controversial 4e changes, but I've grown to like it. Also front loading some of the HP to 1st level to help low level character survival wasn't a bad idea. The formulas I'll start with are

Barbarian: 40+CON Score+10 / level past 1st
Fighter, Paladin, Ranger: 30+CON Score+8 / level past 1st
Monk, Bard, Rogue, Cleric, Druid: 20+CON Score+ 6 / level past 1st
Sorcerer, Wizard: 10+CON Score+4 / level past 1st

Con modifiers are not applied - this mainly to reduce the headache of con draining monsters. Those attacks now simply deal hit point damage in addition to their other effects.

I am open to crunching that range - a dwarf barbarian with 60 hp at 1st level could be scary stuff. 10/3, 15/4, 20/5, 25/6 was the other spread I was considering.


3. Feats
1 a level instead of 1 per odd level. Otherwise the huge number of feats in the game will never see play (yes, I'm aware that, combined with the above this is a significant step up in power).


4. Action Points
I've going to use some form of action point / benny rule from SW.


5. Skills
Characters can have up to 6 ranks in a skill. Skill tasks have one of 8 levels. The names of these overlap as follows

Routine These are tasks no one ever checks for. Simply walking is a routine balance check for anyone that isn't 1 years old.
Untrained
Studied
Accomplished
Expert
Master
Grandmaster
Impossible


All characters are untrained in all skills (obviously) and studied in the skills of their class. If the difficulty of the task is less than the character's rank in the skill then the task is routine for that character and they automatically accomplish it. If the task is above the character's skill then they will fail at the task and must find a tool or favorable circumstance to lower the difficulty of the task. If skill and difficulty match the character makes an ability check.

At each level the character can up the rank of a number of skills dependent on class: Rogues 4, Bards & Monks 3, Everyone else 2. At first level a character can up the rank of a number of skills equal to their intelligence modifier. They may also pick up a skill rank the first time they've spent an entire level with a new intelligence modifier.

(All of the above is a loose draft)


That's enough to chew on for now.

[CTrees]

How will the skill-boosting feats function? Depending, they could suddenly be valuable (especially with more feats gained). Also, what about PrCs with skill rank requirements?

[Krazzman]

1. Rituals
-snip-


sounds good.




2. Static HP gain
Barbarian: 40+CON Score+10 / level past 1st
Fighter, Paladin, Ranger: 30+CON Score+8 / level past 1st
Monk, Bard, Rogue, Cleric, Druid: 20+CON Score+ 6 / level past 1st
Sorcerer, Wizard: 10+CON Score+4 / level past 1st

Con modifiers are not applied - this mainly to reduce the headache of con draining monsters. Those attacks now simply deal hit point damage in addition to their other effects.


I would say:
D12: 30+CON+10/Level
D10: 25+CON+8/Level
D8: 20+CON+6/Level
D6: 15+CON+4/Level
And maybe I would introduce Con-Mods and con drainers. In your example with out Con-Mods the drainers just drain 2 points from your 14 Constitution and you lose 1 HP. On the other hand this helps barbarians hugely as in they don't die when low HP and out of ragerounds per day.



3. Feats
1 a level instead of 1 per odd level.

This definitely help feat starved builds. But could lead to the point that some feats are just there for taking to retrain later because there are just not enough good feats.



4. Action Points
I've going to use some form of action point / benny rule from SW.

There ARE rules for this in Eberron and in PF already.



5. Skills
-snip-
I've got no Idea what this would bring. (Not familiar with 4e.)

Additionally if you thought about introducing the ability bonus system of 4e. Don't do it. At least not for the casters. Let the "Mundanes" get a +1 boost to physical attributes every even level if you want to pimp them further. The feat thing will probably help casters more than you might think. So beware.

Hope this helps.

[Alias]

How will the skill-boosting feats function? Depending, they could suddenly be valuable (especially with more feats gained).

I'm considering dropping them actually. The goal of this new skill system is to reduce the frequency of checking and when checks are made, the number of modifiers that are considered.


Also, what about PrCs with skill rank requirements?

That however, easily maps over. Prestige classes are very rare in my setting and so I can handle this on a case by case basis.



This definitely help feat starved builds. But could lead to the point that some feats are just there for taking to retrain later because there are just not enough good feats.

I have about 40 setting feats, and between Core, UM, UC and the Advanced Player's Guide I don't think that's going to be a problem.


There ARE rules for this in Eberron and in PF already.

I know. The issue is picking out which system to use and any tweaks.


Additionally if you thought about introducing the ability bonus system of 4e. Don't do it.

Wasn't planning on it.

[Krazzman]

The eberron one or the one in Unearthed Arcana or PF are all similar with the difference lies is some minor details.

The 3.5 one you can push feats to double effect, recall spells and so on which you can't do in the Pathfinder one.

[Arbane]

The one problem I can see with the hitpoint thing is it will make PCs _really_ absurdly tough at lower levels. (Which DOES mean you can toss more enemies at them.) It'll also render low-level healing magic nearly worthless, same reason. Which might be a feature, not a bug...

[Fax Celestis]

That is an absurd amount of HP. Why not just use the die average plus Con mod, and just say that Con damage/drain doesn't alter HP?

d12 = 6.5, round up to 7
d10 = 5.5, round up to 6
d8 = 4.5, round up to 5
d6 = 3.5, round up to 4
d4 = 2.5, round up to 3

And then give bonus HP equal to CON score and maxed die instead of averaged at 1st level.

This way, a barbarian at 1st has about 30 HP, while a wizard has closer to 15.

[Alias]

Maybe do 2x at first level. This leaves low levels fragile, but not house cat cat kills in one round fragile.

d12: 24 + 5 / level ( 119 / 20th level )
d10: 20 + 4 / level (100 / 20th level )
d8: 16 + 3 / level (76 / 20th level )
d6: 12 + 2 / level ( 62 / 20th level )

Thing is, I'm playing a PF right now that the 10th level sorcerer has reached the 53 mark and will pass that 62 mark. Part of that is the removal of the con modifier. Even a 12 con is 20 hit points over the career of the character.

Hmm.. An 18 con character has 80 hit points at 20th level regardless of his class choice.

Maybe this approach is backwards. Maybe start at 20th and work back. How many points should the hit dice grant at 20th. My thoughts..

d12: 200
d10: 180
d8: 160
d6: 140

Now divide for per level

d12: 10
d10: 9
d8: 8
d6: 7

If we add constitution score that allows a barbarian to start with up to a 30 hit points. The maximum a wizard would see is 27 - impressive, but it will fall off.

This is a bump at low levels, but a slight to considerable shave off at high levels. Consider the average rolled hp for a d12 die at 20th level is 130 plus at least another 100 for an expected con of at least 20 leads to 230 hp. But given re-rolls being allowed on hit dice and the fact most characters would have started with a con of around 16 if they are a barbarian and should have it up around 22 a hit point pool over 300 isn't impossible.

With this new system the wizard and barbarian will be 60 apart at the end - roughly 2 sword swings given the damage things do at that level - so in hailing distance.

* * * * *

No one had any comments on the rituals. Over the weekend I'll specifically list off the spells that will be affected by the change. Now for some new wrinkles. First, what if these, like in 4e, could be accessed through a feat? If a bard takes the arcane rituals list he can use rituals as a wizard. More significantly, consider a fighter who can scry.

Maybe make it a feat tree - minor rituals (0-3rd), major rituals (4th-6th)?

Or Link it to the spellcraft skill?

Studied - cantrip & 1st
Accomplished - 2nd & 3rd
Expert - 4th & 5th
Master - 6th & 7th
Grandmaster - 8th & 9th.

A character must make an intelligence check to perform a ritual that isn't routine for them. No character can perform a ritual that a wizard/cleric of their level could not perform routinely.

* * * * *

Speaking of skills, minimum level for expert - 5th, master 10th, grandmaster 15? Need to do the math on this - particularly the rogues.

* * * * *

Saving throws in 4e are defenses. I HATE that. But good / bad saves move very far apart at 20th level 6 points. What if saves where 1/2 level (round down), and classes get a +3 bonus to what where their good saves?

* * * * *

Base Attack bonus has a similar problem but worse with +20, +15, +10 being the end stops. Flattening this out though hurts the martial classes a lot. I'll leave this alone for now.

* * * * *

Not a new change for the players in the game, as this rule has been around as a setting rule since they were introduced to it, but worth introducing to this discussion, is how alignment is handled. My setting has 5 alignments taken from MtG but modified slightly. The colors are Green, Gold, Blue, Silver, Red. Each alignment can be good or evil depending on what the character is willing to do to further the aims of the alignment. Each alignment has two sympathetic and two antithetic alignments. Characters can have multiple alignments - or even all five though this is rare. Spells and class abilities dependent on the old style of alignment aren't in the setting, and many new spells are in the setting which express the attitudes of the five.

In 3e the spellcasters got to have the most fun with this (630 spells worth of fun), but I want to break this out to the other classes with feats and alternate class features that are color keyed.

* * * * *

Powers. 4e powers went overboard, redefining how all classes work and making them all Vancian spellcasters. No amount of gamist gobbeldygook can justify a fighter only able to use a combat maneuver once a day.

I know spellcasters and spellslots need to remain but here's a thought. Do spellcasters really need the per level mechanic to remain viable and fun? Wouldn't fireball just be fine at 5d6? The linear warrior / quadratic wizard problem - not only do the slots increase in number, but the number of slots increases.

Here's a thought - the level a spell is prepared at determines it's damage. So a 5th level fireball might do 10d6, while a 3rd level one is 5d6.

* * * * *

One thing I'm certainly doing is waiting for the 5e playtest materials to come out. Some of the ideas here are echoes of what they've talked about. Some are not. In any event, I don't start until this fall, so I've got time.

[Pilo]

I think it is far too much HPs.

Lets say I'm a lvl1 mage fighing an other lvl1 mage.
2 magic misiles each: 2d4+2 (8 HP-damages)
Then light crossbow 1d6/turn *50% chance to hit: 1.75 HP-damages hope.
With 10 in constitution this fight will last 6 rounds. in game term it is almost fifteen minutes.

Maybe you think that many more hps will help your characters: it's not true.
A level 1 mage can still kill a barbarian with 20 constitution in 2 turn: 1st round: lucky sleep/rainbow patern, 2nd turn Coup de grâce. End of the fight.

More hps means longer fights, not more interressant ones. Especially because casters won't have enough spell slots at low level to have fun with their magic.

[CTrees]

With 10 in constitution this fight will last 6 rounds. in game term it is almost fifteen minutes.
Maybe 15mins of real time, but six rounds is 36 seconds of game time.

[Talentless]

Maybe 15mins of real time, but six rounds is 36 seconds of game time.

Makes it a bit worse honestly, 15 mins real time to resolve an unoptomized blasty level 1 wizard duel because they blew through all their spells for the day fighting each other and still didn't kill one or the other... Not fun at all.

While getting gibbed because of low health at level 1 isn't particularly fun, it is a faster combat pace.

Plus, most reasonable DMs at level 1 will just say, alright, that character died, give the sheet a new name, make some minor changes to the backstory, and bring the new character in rather than waste time rolling up a new character.

[CTrees]

Makes it a bit worse honestly, 15 mins real time to resolve an unoptomized blasty level 1 wizard duel because they blew through all their spells for the day fighting each other and still didn't kill one or the other... Not fun at all.

D&D combat is generally not quick or fluid, though. That's just an artifact of the system. With a large group of beginners, I've seen eighteen seconds of in-game combat take over two hours of real time to resolve. My group is a lot faster these days, and 15mins for that proposed fight is a bit much, but... well, it's the system, until you hit high levels/high op, when it turns to rocket tag.

[Alias]

I think it is far too much HPs.

Lets say I'm a lvl1 mage fighing an other lvl1 mage.
2 magic misiles each: 2d4+2 (8 HP-damages)
Then light crossbow 1d6/turn *50% chance to hit: 1.75 HP-damages hope.
With 10 in constitution this fight will last 6 rounds. in game term it is almost fifteen minutes.

Maybe you think that many more hps will help your characters: it's not true.
A level 1 mage can still kill a barbarian with 20 constitution in 2 turn: 1st round: lucky sleep/rainbow patern, 2nd turn Coup de grâce. End of the fight.

More hps means longer fights, not more interressant ones. Especially because casters won't have enough spell slots at low level to have fun with their magic.

What I find most hilarious about this post is that you give an example of why this won't work, and then give an example of why it will. Magic Missile might be a 1st level spell, but it isn't a great spell for a 1st level wizard - that's what sleep, color spray, et al are for.

Anyway, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

[Anxe]

I think everyone else touched on some good points. I'd like to point out that I consider the Ranger to be a skillbased class as well deserving of those 3 skills.

Also, you may want to consider appropriate knowledge skills having their first rank be free. Wizards and Sorcerers get one free rank in Arcana, Clerics get a free rank in Religion, etc.

[Alias]

I think everyone else touched on some good points. I'd like to point out that I consider the Ranger to be a skillbased class as well deserving of those 3 skills.

Also, you may want to consider appropriate knowledge skills having their first rank be free. Wizards and Sorcerers get one free rank in Arcana, Clerics get a free rank in Religion, etc.

All classes have the first rank (studied) in all their listed class skills. That's why they are class skills.

[Anxe]

I missed that. Oops! I still support rangers getting that boost.

I'd also agree with other people that you pushed initial HP too far. The other system you suggested with it increasing by 5 for every HD type instead of by 10 works better.

[Dude_Here]

The starting hp solution I saw on another site's forum is:

Starting HP = Con score + class hit die. Also, I use a 1/2 minimum hit die roll rounded up till level 5. For levels 6-10 a 1/4 minimum hit die roll. After level 10 it's all random. The problem I have is trying to figure out how to adjust monster hit points. One suggestion was to only give the hit point bonus to monsters with class levels.


Con modifiers are not applied - this mainly to reduce the headache of con draining monsters. Those attacks now simply deal hit point damage in addition to their other effects.



Speaking of con draining monsters: does anyone else think stirges are overpowered for a 1/2 cr monster? +7 melee touch attack and the ability to drain 4 points of con in one round. I don't see how they could possibly drain more than 1 point per round due to their small size.

[ericgrau]

1. Saves bookkeeping and bothering with tricks to work around it a legal way. Sounds good.

2. Heavily disrupts system balance since unlike 4e it wasn't designed for it. Way too strong low level, way too weak high level. Even if you give the same thing to monsters it will throw offensive abilities way out of whack by comparison. Giving average HP per level instead of rolling works though (half die size plus 0.5).

3. Makes fighters less special but otherwise works fine. Expect brief fighter dips at most.

4. The APG has hero points if you want something pre-made, otherwise have fun on your own system.

5. To avoid balance problems, since overhauling an entire skill system is a monumental balancing task, I'd give everyone a free +5 and that number must now beat the DC without adding any roll. That's what it normally needs to be anyway for it to be worth the risk in combat. For skills used outside of combat or those with no risk (like knowledge and perception checks), give an extra +5 for a +10 total, same as taking a 10. You might add this extra +5 ahead of time for the risk free skills rather than remembering to add it every time the player isn't in danger. Then you just have to remember not to add it again outside of combat. Whenever a player could take a 20 (typically search or open lock, taking 20 times as long as normal), let him do so with an extra +10. That totals to +20 including the free +10 to all risk free skills.

For example:

Bob the level 3 fighter has an 18 strength (+4 modifier), 3 ranks in jump, and a +3 bonus for it being a class skill. He gets an additional +5 for free for a total of 15. He writes 15 on his character sheet. Bob may automatically jump over 15 foot pits with a running start, or 7 foot pits without a running start. Outside of combat he gets an extra +5 so he may jump a 20 foot pit

Bob the fighter also has 3 ranks in perception and a 12 wisdom (+1 modifer). Because perception is a risk free skill he gets a free +10 for a total of 14, which is the number he writes on his character sheet. He gets no additional bonus outside of combat.

Henry the level 1 rogue has 1 rank in stealth and an 18 dexterity (+4 modifier), and a +3 bonus for it being a class skill. He gets an additional +5 for free for a total of 13. Henry starts following Bob and gets an extra +5, so Bob can't see him. Before he can sneak attack Bob a fight breaks out, Henry loses his extra +5 and now Bob can now see him. But Henry knew he'd lose his +5 and that he's only level 1 so he's already fleeing just in case Bob put ranks in spot.

This might seem unfair to Henry but it's better than giving an auto-success in a situation where normally there would be a high risk to Henry, almost a 50:50 shot. Often not even worth attempting. It's balanced by his knowledge of this, and his auto-successes in situations where there normally would still be a small risk. For example if Henry were level 3 or higher himself and had 2 more ranks.

[Alias]

I'm going off the rails here but I'm going to follow these thoughts and see where they go.

Ability Scores
Make the score itself matter. One thing Monty (or Mearls) discussed was using the score itself as a target number. Rolling a strength check against the giant's 24 strength definitely is daunting.

But I've been puzzling with this because once you hit 31 the giants can't arm wrestle anymore because neither one can roll high enough to overpower the other given the current modifiers (31 strength is a +10 modifier, but d20+10 never hits DC 31)

I set it aside, until last night. Why not simplify modifiers to score -10??

So, if you have an 18 strength, that's a +8. You have a 50/50 shot of defeating someone of equal ability. This works all the way up and down the stat chart, even two 6 strength wimps have a 50/50 shot against each other.

A repercussion of this is the 3e +2/-2 business can (no MUST) be dropped in favor of returning to 1e and 2e's +1/-1 racial modifiers. 19 again becomes the highest starting stat.

So to bluff someone it's CHA vs. WIS. To elude someone with stealth is DEX vs. WIS.

The skill system I detailed above only has checks if there is a tie in difficulty vs. rank. Once that tie occurs I don't want to spend more time resolving skill - we've resolved that to a tie. Now it's Luck + Ability. (d20 + ability score -10)

Other doors open with this rapidly. For instance, for an unarmored opponent, AC is DEX. You have an 18 DEX, well, you have an 18 AC. If you are immobilized your AC is 0. Good luck with that. Yet melee attacks of STR vs DEX still make sense. At the end of the day the 18 strength fighter has 50/50 odds of hitting the 18 DEX rogue, until he puts on armor.

Saving Throws. Reflex, Fortitude, Will. In 4e those where dropped in favor of having the attacker roll. INT vs. REF. However, who rolls doesn't matter.

So, to avoid the fireball of an 18 intelligence wizard is DEX vs. INT + 3 (3rd level spell). It can work...


Speaking of fireballs.

A 20th level wizard has 36 different spell options at the start of a combat, not including his bonus spells. That's, well, a lot. More than ever get used in practice, because fights rarely push such characters out of slots and, given the rocket tag nature of high level play wizards will retreat once their upper two or three slot tiers are exhausted. A 20th level wizard who has cast all his 9th and 8th spells for the day isn't in markedly better a position than a 14th level character.

So why flood the player (or more importantly, the DM) with 36 choices when only 8 or so are going to matter?

Again, Monte mentioned in passing the idea that a wizard might give up lower level powers as they go up in level. That got me to thinking...

What if wizards (and from wizards we can deal with the other spellcasters) only have 12 spell slots. This is even less than the 17 slots 4e characters get at 30th level. Like this...



L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 1 - - - - - - - -
2 2 - - - - - - - -
3 2 1 - - - - - - -
4 3 2 - - - - - - -
5 3 2 1 - - - - - -
6 3 3 2 - - - - - -
7 3 3 2 1 - - - - -
8 3 3 3 2 - - - - -
9 3 3 3 2 1 - - - -
10 2 3 3 2 2 - - - -
11 1 2 3 3 2 1 - - -
12 - 1 3 3 3 2 - - -
13 - 1 2 3 3 2 1 - -
14 - - 1 3 3 3 2 - -
15 - - 1 2 3 3 2 1 -
16 - - - 1 3 3 3 2 -
17 - - - 1 2 3 3 2 1
18 - - - - 1 3 3 3 2
19 - - - - - 2 4 3 3
20 - - - - - - 4 4 4


But I know what the blow back will be... Why can't a 20th level wizard prepare a magic missile? Well he could, in one of the higher level slots, but there's no benefit in doing so...

What if there was?

Long standing issue - Linear Warrior / Quadratic Wizard. To wit, a warrior's base attack goes up in a set progression - the wizard's slots progress on two planes - both the caster level and the slot level are taken into account. So the 1st level spell slot of a 9th level wizard does 5x as much damage as that of a first level, and he has so much more ability besides.

With this new progression, lower level spells must be placed in higher level slots if they are to continue to be used. What if that, and not the caster level, was the determinant of the damage? I quickly jotted off a magic missile spell.

Magic Missile
Evocation [Force]
Base Level: 1
Components: V, S
Range: Medium
Target(s): One or more creatures in range
Duration: Instantaneous
Save: No

You evoke a bolt of energy that deals 1d4+1 force damage to the target. You create one such bolt per level the spell is cast at. All targets must be chosen before damage is rolled or spell resistance is checked.


So, as a 9th level spell, that's 9d4+9 damage. 36 on average - impressive but a little underwhelming. Hardly the marquee spell it has been.

Then 4e whispered to me, y'know - encounter and at will aren't that bad a thing if they'd have respected the past, and a light went on in my head...


If a spell is prepared 3 levels over the base, it is usable once per encounter. If a spell is prepared 6 levels over its base, it is usable at will.

So a 9th level slot to lay down 36 average damage / round all day? This is balanced if the fighter can lay down a similar amount of damage (or more) per round at that level. As for other spells, I next jotted down how Fireball would change..

Fireball
Evocation [Fire]
Base Level: 3
Components: V, S, M
Range: Medium
Area: 20' radius sphere
Duration: Instantaneous
Save: DEX 1/2

Fireball creates a globe of flame dealing 2d6 + 1d6 / spell level (minimum 5d6) to all creatures in the area of effect.


So, as a 9th level spell this is 11d6 to the area at will. 37.5 / damage is only slightly more than Magic Missile, but magic missile can be freely thrown into a melee with your friends and fireball can't. The two spells remain comparable and have equal claim to the slot.

You might have noticed I didn't mention spell resistance. I think this can be simplified to the following - spell resistance is rolled if the creature is targeted (the spell has a target entry) or if the spell has a saving throw. I can't off the top of my head think of a spell that has one of those attributes that didn't allow spell resistance.

At this point I'm far away from where I started and I know it. But I think this warrants further mental exercise, even if its never actually played.

[ericgrau]

I'm a fan of house rules for new and interesting options. That said, don't mess with the numbers. You will pile drive balance so far into the ground you'll pop out in China. Likewise for any change that dramatically overhauls the system mechanics. It's hard enough to balance these things right with a big company blowing a million dollars in testing, let alone a few minutes of some guy's whims. As a player I've been on the receiving end of major house rules that still weren't as huge as these and believe me it sucked.

Low level spells aren't worth much so ditching them won't do much. It will make the wizard player's life easier while being a minor nerf if you want to do it.

If you want to give spells something for being in a higher level spell slot, it's best to err on the side of weak. That way the player will rarely do it yet at least the 20th level wizard will get something for preparing a 1st level spell in a 5th level slot. Try +1 or +2 caster levels per spell level, and this caster level can exceed normal caps (e.g., a 4th level fireball doing 11d6 or 12d6). That's at least worth more than nothing without going overboard or dramatically overhauling the sytem.

[Alias]

I'm a fan of house rules for new and interesting options. That said, don't mess with the numbers. You will pile drive balance so far into the ground you'll pop out in China. Likewise for any change that dramatically overhauls the system mechanics. It's hard enough to balance these things right with a big company blowing a million dollars in testing, let alone a few minutes of some guy's whims. As a player I've been on the receiving end of major house rules that still weren't as huge as these and believe me it sucked.

That's your problem, not mine. I've been doing this for a while now - 20 years. I know how to design and balance things as well as anyone. And for the record, I find your comments elitist and very offensive.

[Fax Celestis]

That's your problem, not mine. I've been doing this for a while now - 20 years. I know how to design and balance things as well as anyone. And for the record, I find your comments elitist and very offensive.

So have I, and two things: time has nothing to do with ability, and he's right. The numbers game in D&D is already resting on a precarious edge: fiddling with it has a very very high chance of making it fall off the broken scale (on either the wtf side or the suck side, depending), rather than moving it to steadier ground.

[Alias]

{{scrubbed}}

[Fax Celestis]

Hey, you're the one who opened the can of hostile. All eric was doing was giving you advice about how potentially difficult it could be.

[Alias]

Hey, you're the one who opened the can of hostile. All eric was doing was giving you advice about how potentially difficult it could be.

I'm sorry, but I read this:


It's hard enough to balance these things right with a big company blowing a million dollars in testing, let alone a few minutes of some guy's whims.

As, "Shut up - there's no way you can be smart enough to do this." And honestly, there's no other way to read it but a heavy handed smack down.

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned the thread is ruined. Have a nice day gents, you win - I'll go post elsewhere or not post at all.

[Fax Celestis]

And honestly, there's no other way to read it but a heavy handed smack down.

...yes there is? How about, "It's incredibly difficult, so don't expect perfect results"? Possibly, "I think you're barking up the wrong tree and should try something else"? Perhaps even, "I have an opinion, and like all opinions it can be wrong or disagreed with and not have it be a personal attack"?