PDA

View Full Version : A Mechanicaly fixed 3e (Or house-rules for a mechanically fixed 3e)



Scowling Dragon
2013-06-15, 03:46 PM
Im looking for a mechanically fixed 3e.

I tried Legends (It was too simple), as well as Point buy systems (Not my thing). Also tried Fantasy Craft.

Are there any good 3e (In terms of magic and martial might) like games that are more mechanically sound that are not point based?

erikun
2013-06-15, 07:45 PM
Not too much.

I mean, there are games that tone down the magic aspect of classes - Iron Heroes is very D&D3e and the classes are rather useful, although I've heard the Arcanist has the Wizard problem. Mutants and Masterminds is generally very good at fixing a ton of faults in D&D3e, although does so by generally bypassing most of the core system altogether. It is also, despite the levels, fundamentally point-based.

However, there is just so much that I find faulty in the core D&D3e system that it is hard for me to suggest a system I'd consider "fixed" and still have much relation. Pathfinder has a free SRD (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/) with most of its core content, if you wanted to check it out without spending any money. Pathfinder is intentionally very similar to D&D3e, and might fit what you want.

magwaaf
2013-06-15, 07:49 PM
they already fixed it... they call it pathfinder

Hiro Protagonest
2013-06-15, 08:04 PM
they already fixed it... they call it pathfinder

I can't think of a way to adequately express how I'm going berserk, so I'm just going to appeal to reason: SKR is the lead designer.

Jeraa
2013-06-15, 08:26 PM
Pathfinder, while it does make some good changes, still has one major flaw. Its still based on 3.5 D&D. If the mechanics of 3.5 D&D are the problem, then using Pathfinder won't fix that. It does improve it a bit, but its not a fix.

If you want a more mechanically sound game, avoid anything that uses 3.5 as a base.

Fearghus
2013-06-15, 10:11 PM
Out of curiosity, what are the major broken areas of 3.5 that are causing issues?

Gavinfoxx
2013-06-15, 10:59 PM
Let's see...

I would consider Pathfinder 3.55, Trailblazer 3.60, True20 3.65, D&D with the Frank & K Tomes 3.65, Fantasycraft 3.70, 'Mutants and Dungeons' (both versions) also 3.70, and Legend 3.75, as far as the 'number of things fixed' goes...

For Example:

Legend:
http://www.ruleofcool.com/
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/47651526/LCGb.html <-- an online character generator, a bit old though, doesn't contain everything or the current version. Were you adding the splat stuff or just using the core rules only?

Other good things to do is use mutants and masterminds 2e to write up D&D-esque characters, a la:
http://greywulf.net/2011/06/03/mutants-and-dragons-third-edition/

Also, someone is trying to make D&D stuff with mutants and masterminds *3e*:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=279503
and
http://www.atomicthinktank.com/viewtopic.php?p=706712#p706712

Fantasycraft is found here:
http://www.crafty-games.com/node/348

Trailblazer is found here:
http://badaxegames.com/

The Frank & K tomes are here:
https://sites.google.com/site/middendorfproject/frankpdf

True20 is here:
http://true20.com/

And could you explain what was too simplistic about Legend? Especially with all of the extra options and the extra sets of rules posted online?

erikun
2013-06-15, 11:17 PM
Out of curiosity, what are the major broken areas of 3.5 that are causing issues?
There are a lot of areas in the game where the rules work poorly, work not as expected, or just don't work at all. It would take a lot of space to list them all, but to try to be brief:

Melee combat, unless you optimize Power Attack, scales very poorly compared to HP. This means that, while 1st or 2nd level encounters can be deadly, higher than that you start seeing HP damage become irrelevant. Ranged combat requires a lot of feats to just use competently, and has the same damage problems as melee (without the Power Attack option). Combat maneuvers are so hard to pull off and so heavily penalized that they are frequently useless, even with the feats, while monsters with the same attacks get them for free off a successful hit and have massive built-in bonuses. Skills are awkward, with the ability modifiers meaning little by mid-levels; most skill DCs at that time either being "character with ranks passes" or "character without ranks fails"; and the whole skill point mini-system is just bulky. Constitution modifier means far more to HP than class does, with a high-CON wizard frequently getting more HP and moderate-CON frontline classes. Classes are sold as equally viable, despite some (Fighter and Monk notably) being rather poor or just working awkwardly. Spells can do nearly anything, spellcasters get tons of magic, and it is remarkably easy to avoid any penalities or danger preventing a caster from casting a spell.

I'm sure I could go into more detail if needed, but I don't think I want to have that conversation again.

Scowling Dragon
2013-06-16, 02:50 AM
Let's see...

I would consider Pathfinder 3.55, Trailblazer 3.60, True20 3.65, D&D with the Frank & K Tomes 3.65, Fantasycraft 3.70, 'Mutants and Dungeons' (both versions) also 3.70, and Legend 3.75, as far as the 'number of things fixed' goes...

I Tried Pathfinder, Trailblazer (Both didn't seem to fix the math), Fantasy Craft (It has some rules that force the game too be only one type of game), and Legends.



And could you explain what was too simplistic about Legend? Especially with all of the extra options and the extra sets of rules posted online?

The tracks system means that I can't create monsters unless I lump in useless stuff with it that I don't need.

The system allot of times doesn't fix the issues with 3e as much as often just skipping them. Like instead of making weapons matter, they just skip it altogether.

Also I want this for Fantasy games.

Seharvepernfan
2013-06-16, 03:25 AM
By all means, check mine out. They're in my sig.

shadow_archmagi
2013-06-16, 07:30 PM
they already fixed it... they call it pathfinder

I agree completely. 3.5 really didn't have any flaws besides that bull-rush and trip were too complicated. With those resolved, there really isn't anything wrong with the system.

Scow2
2013-06-16, 07:38 PM
I agree completely. 3.5 really didn't have any flaws besides that bull-rush and trip were too complicated. With those resolved, there really isn't anything wrong with the system.Heheheheh... no. Those are tiny compared to the real problem with the system - Magic users and spells.

The mechanically fixed version of 3rd edition is 4th edition.

jindra34
2013-06-16, 07:42 PM
The mechanically fixed version of 3rd edition is 4th edition.

This I disagree with. 4e isn't a 'fixed' version of any prior DnD system. its an entirely, from the ground up NEW system that just happens to share a lot of key terms. A mechanically fixed 3.5 would still use a lot of the constructions and rules of 3.5 but with selective and precise changes. Potentially starting with removing stats as boni to everything by default.

Jeraa
2013-06-16, 07:46 PM
Heheheheh... no. Those are tiny compared to the real problem with the system - Magic users and spells.

The mechanically fixed version of 3rd edition is 4th edition.

Or, if you are willing to wait, maybe 5th edition. Its far closer to 3.5 in feel and mechanics then it is to 4th edition. Spell slots and all that, instead of at will/encounter/daily powers.

Seharvepernfan
2013-06-16, 08:46 PM
I agree completely. 3.5 really didn't have any flaws besides that bull-rush and trip were too complicated. With those resolved, there really isn't anything wrong with the system.

Could not possibly disagree any harder.

Grinner
2013-06-16, 09:08 PM
The mechanically fixed version of 3rd edition is 4th edition.

Not true. Like jindra said, they're two different systems, the most obvious difference being that 4e knew what it wanted to accomplish. Yes it was basically skirmish boardgame, but it was a very good skirmish boardgame.

3.X, on the other hand, overextended itself by trying to be too many things at once. It tried to be realistic in its treatment of economics in addition to being balanced in gameplay, leading to the divide between mundane and magic economies. It tried to be viable for many sorts of genres, but the fact that spellcasters could actually do anything by the sheer number of different spells they had prohibited everything but Gygax's vision of high fantasy.

Pathfinder attempted to address 3.X's flaws, but all it did was patch up the most obvious holes. Truly, the whole thing needs to be rebuilt from square one, built on shaky foundations as it is.

Gavinfoxx
2013-06-16, 09:14 PM
The system allot of times doesn't fix the issues with 3e as much as often just skipping them. Like instead of making weapons matter, they just skip it altogether.

You do know that they are working on rules for more expanded weapons with Legend, right?

And it's Legend, not Legends.

And the 1.0 version of Legend will arrive tomorrow. So... that should probably include some stuff, yea?

Zeful
2013-06-16, 09:20 PM
they already fixed it... they call it pathfinder

No. Pathfinder fixed nothing in 3.5. It generated several cosmetic changes and then closed the matter. Actually fixing it would have nuked the backwards compatability that was supposed to exist.

Scowling Dragon
2013-06-17, 02:11 AM
The mechanically fixed version of 3rd edition is 4th edition.

No, thats like saying the fixed version of a dented banana is an Orange.


You do know that they are working on rules for more expanded weapons with Legend, right?

Eh. Lets see how it ends up.

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2013-06-17, 02:40 AM
While I hate to be the one to potentially open this can of worms, there is also the opinion that Pathfinder exacerbated, rather than ameliorated, the balance problems of 3.5.

Tholomyes
2013-06-17, 03:18 AM
True20 works pretty well, or alternatively Mutants and Masterminds if some of the True20 mechanics seem restrictive. M&M falls on the problem that if you don't make an effort to make characters feel distinct, they might not. PL limits prevent certain archetypes like glass cannons, so unless you distinguish characters in other ways, a ranged +5 to hit, Damage 7 attack will be the same, coming from a Wizard as from a ranger.

Still, there are some interesting things you can do with the ruleset to mitigate this. For example, using M&M3e rules, (and the very underutilized Trigger rules) I made these options to mechanically capture the flavor of distinct class options:

Sheild of Faith: Deflect 4 (Triggered 4; When a nearby ally is attacked) [8pp] (Basically, it's activated as a standard action, and for the first 4 times an ally within range is attacked, the shield goes off, treating their Defense as though it were 1d20+4, adding 10 to all rolls natural 10 and under, so effectively 1d10+14, which isn't too shabby, assuming a PL 6 character)

Attack of Opportunity: +3 Reaction (An enemy moves past him, or disengages him) to Damage 6 [18pp] (M&M doesn't have built in rules for AoOs, but with this, you can make a fighter able to tie down enemies, to be "tank-y"; If you really wanted to have fun with it, you could also apply an alternate effect to your Damage, to make it an affliction that stops/slows movement somehow, to make the fighter not deal damage, but prevent them from moving away)

Edge of Dreams
2013-06-17, 03:23 AM
Personally, I've given up on D&D clones entirely. Now I play Runequest (6th edition) for all my generic medieval fantasy needs. It is sort-of a point buy system instead of class-and-level, but you're not buying spells and special abilities with points, just your basic stats and skills. There's no feats to worry about, but there's five different systems of magic, each of which can be tweaked by the GM to create dozens of different magical traditions to choose from that can all exist side-by-side in a setting (a Sorcerer of the Viper Cult and a Sorcerer of the Brotherhood of Scholars both use the Sorcery rules, for example, but would have access to very different spell lists and emphasize different values, tactics, and goals).

RQ 6 also balances melee and magic very well, if that's what you're going for. The rate at which casters recover spent magic points from casting spells is up to the GM to determine based on what is appropriate for their setting. I went for a low recovery rate for my setting, but made learning magic readily available - there are lots of powerful mages, but they have to conserve their resources and choose when to cast spells very carefully. Also, I love that RQ doesn't make you have to invest resources (like feat slots) just to be decent at things like tripping a foe. If you know how to fight, you know how to trip, disarm, parry, shield bash, overextend, impale, or stun a foe, plus another dozen or so tactical combat options in addition to just dealing damage. Every character gets a combat style which determines which weapons they are proficient with (which matters! Maces and hammers can't impale, swords are bad at doing knockback, etc.) and grants one special ability unique to that style.

My absolute favorite thing about RQ 6, though, is that the most effective and powerful characters are often magical warriors who buff themselves before engaging the enemy and use only a few carefully chosen, properly timed combat spells to get the job done when the sword alone won't cut it, so to speak. In fact, there's an entire sub-system of magic (Mysticism) based around spells that ONLY buff the caster and grant him special abilities (perfect for doing monks, paladins, jedi, etc.).

Tholomyes
2013-06-17, 03:29 AM
While I hate to be the one to potentially open this can of worms, there is also the opinion that Pathfinder exacerbated, rather than ameliorated, the balance problems of 3.5.Which is a legitimate complaint. It solved some things that were way out of line, but also provided more goodies to each class, which in the case of some classes which no one was really saying needed them (like for the case of full-casters) only served to make them better. However, it's largely a matter of taste. Personally, I think balance wise, it's about even. PF fixed some things, but exacerbated others, to the point where I'd argue it's a toss up. However, I prefer Pathfinder, because it fixes a lot of the non-balance based problems, like skill consolidation and eliminating cross-class skills, and Archetypes making certain concepts viable, even if Multiclassing wasn't, and eliminating empty levels, to make every level feel like an actual progression, rather than just the numbers going up.

erikun
2013-06-17, 11:22 PM
Personally, I've given up on D&D clones entirely. Now I play Runequest (6th edition) for all my generic medieval fantasy needs.
Would you be interested in explaining more in-depth about RuneQuest 6, either in PM or in another thread? I am curious about how the game works and runs, and such a conversation would probably end up taking over this thread.

Soras Teva Gee
2013-06-17, 11:50 PM
Not asking too much huh?

"Fixed" is a more of an opinion depending on what you actually want aesthetically because the solutions are actually different.

You can "fix" 3.5 by for example going around and selecting various base classes (and homebrew base classes) that all have rough equivalency and making only those available for play. Then just tell people to refluff so their Rogue is now a Beguiler or whatever. Find Tier 1 "versions" of everything even.

Or you could alternately you could cook up a major spellcasting nerf since that's the central issue. Attack the methods of casting spells to smash the action economy to bits by making them longer casting. Up the Glass in Glass Cannon. Weaken the centralized Save DC structure with say penalties on certain effects to account for their severity and everything else getting re-rolls. Some specifics like not allowing Summons to be "disposable" through some means.

(A nerf would work better on a PF base since they actually did reign in a lot of things, just look at Polymorph. And made all the classes more fun to play)

Edge of Dreams
2013-06-18, 12:47 AM
Would you be interested in explaining more in-depth about RuneQuest 6, either in PM or in another thread? I am curious about how the game works and runs, and such a conversation would probably end up taking over this thread.

I'd be happy to. Expect a PM soon.

Ravens_cry
2013-06-18, 02:03 AM
Mutants and Masterminds is probably your best option. While some options are objectively better than others, taking all those options and what fluff you give them is your choice. As long as you are willing to be flexible and work with a point buy system (I tend to find they have just so many choices that I get overwhelmed) I think it could really work out.

Gavinfoxx
2013-06-18, 02:35 AM
Legend just came out for 1.0.

They have a LOT more tracks, and lots more information on weapons. Maybe it has that complexity you were looking for now?

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2013-06-18, 02:50 AM
Which is a legitimate complaint. It solved some things that were way out of line, but also provided more goodies to each class, which in the case of some classes which no one was really saying needed them (like for the case of full-casters) only served to make them better. However, it's largely a matter of taste. Personally, I think balance wise, it's about even. PF fixed some things, but exacerbated others, to the point where I'd argue it's a toss up. However, I prefer Pathfinder, because it fixes a lot of the non-balance based problems, like skill consolidation and eliminating cross-class skills, and Archetypes making certain concepts viable, even if Multiclassing wasn't, and eliminating empty levels, to make every level feel like an actual progression, rather than just the numbers going up.

Yeah, I was using passive voice to remain somewhat neutral, but I brought up the complaint because I agree with it. I wouldn't even really say it's a toss-up, since a lot of the streamlining had unforseen consequences; rogues got hit especially hard with "collateral damage," while the consolidation and simplification of skills basically made int-based casters de facto skill monkeys. I like a few of the changes, mostly the addition of flavorful abilities to unfortunately dry classes (sorcerer and paladin, specifically; regardless of balance, they feel like holy warriors or whatever, now, at least to me), but I'd come down on the side that it hurt balance more than it helped.

Moreover, most of the fixes removed the opportunities for blatant exploitation at the expense of cool, flavorful mechanics; shapeshifting may not be broken anymore, but it's also a lot less fun and doesn't even make sense a lot of the time. I'd much rather just have a DM just say "Newwwwp," when That Guy tries to pull something cheap than have something that used to be fun relegated to "numbers going up."

Anyway, that's kind of an aside, so to draw it back into the conversation, I think that a lot of the problem with balancing 3.5 is that, as someone else put it, the balanced version of 3.5 is 4th edition and, as other people pointed out in response to that, they're really not the same thing at all. Most of the attempts to "balance" 3.5 tend to edge more and more into making an essentially different game and, in a lot of cases, a duller and more homogeneous one. While it's certainly not ideal for casters to run roughshod over mundanes in the way that they do, I'd prefer dealing with that and planning around it to simply running in a system where all of the characters feel essentially the same. I guess what I mean is that I'm of the opinion that the best "fix" to 3.5's balance is a good DM and a Gentleman's Agreement. I'm sure that's one of the newfangled internet fallacies, the names of which I can never recall (Is that Stormwind? One of them is Stormwind.), but it's my opinion, all the same.

Scowling Dragon
2013-06-18, 03:08 AM
They have a LOT more tracks, and lots more information on weapons. Maybe it has that complexity you were looking for now?

Where? From what I seen they just took the tracks they had before separately and combined them together into one document.


The game itself is geared more towards pure adventure rather then any form of world development, so the "No Golems, undeads, or any kind of minion creation" bugs me. Also I dislike the "Movie" based recharge system because it doesn't work at all.

When watching a movie you don't want to be constantly reminded that your watching a movie, just like in a RPG I don't want to be reminded that Im playing a game. Its not cinematic. Its just distracting.

Some more weapon qualities are OK, but not enough, and weapons still begin to matter little at around 7th level.

Seharvepernfan
2013-06-18, 03:16 AM
I'm fairly confident that I have fixed 3.5 with my houserules, assuming you play the classes in that PDF.

The Rose Dragon
2013-06-18, 06:23 AM
No point buy? Good luck.

There are lots of systems that do dungeon crawling much better than D&D 3rd Edition, but nearly all of them are point buy. GURPS and Unisystem come to mind. True20 and M&M do not handle dungeon crawling that well, but they can do the world development part, at least.

Then again, I'm not sure what you want from D&D 3rd Edition. Maybe if you told us what you wanted from a game, rather than attempting to fix a notoriously unbalanced system, I could give you better suggestions.

Eldan
2013-06-18, 08:26 AM
Yeah, Legend really isn't a fix. It doesn't try to improve the broken things. It just cuts them out entirely. I read 1.0. There's no magic in the system, it's just gone.
It's a sterile fantasy martial arts simulator with some bare-bones non-combat stuff added which seems to mainly serve to getting you back to hitting things with weapons. All the world simulation elements are just cut out. Including all those ways in which players could influence the world beyond their immediate environment.


If I may suggest someting, your best bet is probably staying with 3.5 and then replacing all the classes with homebrew classes and expansion classes. Throw out core, is what I'm saying, that's what I do. 90% of the feats are gone, all but maybe two or three classes (bard, certainly. Not many others.) Find a homebrew magic system you like, homebrew fighting classes you like, and then just go on. Build your own system from the homebrew.

Scowling Dragon
2013-06-18, 11:17 AM
To be honest I don't have an issue with 3e. Every once in a while I read some thread about nutso 3e rules, get upset, go looking for other games.

But in the end I always return to 3e/ Pathfinder. I don't know. Call it magic but I just can't get upset for long.

Elderand
2013-06-18, 11:21 AM
I recomend taking a look at Arcan Evolved, it's hardly perfect but it does have a clever magic system that is less extreme than what you can end up with in standard 3.5.

Metool
2013-06-18, 12:25 PM
I read 1.0. There's no magic in the system, it's just gone.

I am fairly certain you missed Chapter 12, Magic & Spellcasting.



EDIT: Reading this thread in full, I just want to say a break between Legend's [Scenes] is like 4th Edition D&D's extended rest, while a break between [Encounter] durations is like the shorter rests. Not a perfect parallel, but close enough.

Gavinfoxx
2013-06-18, 02:02 PM
I am fairly certain you missed Chapter 12, Magic & Spellcasting.

This! That IS what you were talking about, right Eldan?

eepop
2013-06-18, 03:04 PM
What is "right" about 3.5 that you would hope the game would be fixed or balanced to?

There are fixes people can propose, but without knowing what your group is looking to fix it to, its hard to give a satisfactory answer.

To one person, non-casters need to be buffed up to be as powerful as casters.
To another, casters need a nerf down to the level of non-casters.
And there are people that think the perfect balancing is on every class in between. One person thinks that if every class were balanced against Bards that the game would be perfect.


Does backward compatibility matter to your group?

Even after answering those questions, you're unlikely to ever get a perfect fix.

But if you're mostly happy now, you could probably get a lot of mileage out of the right house rules. But we'd need to know what you're aiming for before we could take a shot that even hopes to hit the target.

Hiro Protagonest
2013-06-18, 04:03 PM
Well, if you want a semi-generic fantasy class-based system... HackMaster 5e.

Morty
2013-06-18, 04:50 PM
No amount of houserules is going to fix 3e. It's broken on a fundamental level. If you want to play the kind of games that 3e is meant to simulate but with a system that actually works... well, people have offered a lot of suggestions already. I don't think I know of any system that hasn't been named yet.

MirddinEmris
2013-06-20, 11:27 AM
Scowling Dragon, can you elaborate about rules in Fantasy Craft that pushes it towards "one kind of a game". From what i can tell, playing FC a couple of years, it quite the opposite, being the modular game in which you can easy switch on and off parts of it that you want.

Scowling Dragon
2013-06-20, 03:52 PM
The mind numbing rules for magic items and social interaction.

The idea that I have to give away magic items (WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY) if I loose social points and the stupid system that points out itself that social points would change in every different area. This means that I am pretty much chained to a "Town" or "Home base", otherwise the rules make no sense.

Also the plug in stats for monsters seems like a good idea at first, but then you realize that it makes advancement mostly pointless.

Whats the point of advancement if the creatures I fight have the exact same abilities, just higher numbers?

Thats what mainly killed the system for me.

MirddinEmris
2013-06-21, 01:46 AM
The mind numbing rules for magic items and social interaction.

The idea that I have to give away magic items (WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY) if I loose social points and the stupid system that points out itself that social points would change in every different area. This means that I am pretty much chained to a "Town" or "Home base", otherwise the rules make no sense.

Also the plug in stats for monsters seems like a good idea at first, but then you realize that it makes advancement mostly pointless.

Whats the point of advancement if the creatures I fight have the exact same abilities, just higher numbers?

Thats what mainly killed the system for me.

I see what you a talking about, but it's just the case about misunderstanding the rules. First of all, Renown is not "social points" (though they could be) they are abstraction for your progression as a hero and bought on a Reputation which is given to all players as one of the reward at the end of adventure (and sometimes on the DM whim). Second, for the amount of Prizes you count your total Renown + 1, so if you have Heroic Renown of 3 and Military Renown ( Elven Kingdoms ) of 4, you can keep amount of Prizes equal of 8 by the end of Adventure (keep in mind, that you can have more than that, it's just that you need lose some by the and of adventure).

About NPC...well, the way Fantasy Craft handling NPC/monster creation is by far one of the best feature of the game. I don't understand what you mean by "have the exact same abilities, just higher numbers?". If you mean that their advancement negates PC advancement, than you are wrong - first, every "plug" have a grade and each of them have it's own progression rate, so if the monster have an Attack of III, it will mean that the more levels your PC melee combatant have the more bigger numbers he will have compared to this monster (assuming, that he has a decent attack progression). Of courser, when moster has an Attack X grade, story will be different, but that is why every game needs DM - to oversee this kind of thing. Also, progression in level doesn't mean only numbers in Fantasy Craft - every character will have plenty of class features and feats (which are good thing here, unlike in certain system, we all know), so even with scaling numbers monster that beat the crap from most of the party ten levels ago, now will be just a pushover, if you don't add any NPC qualities. Besides, there is a campaign quality which you can apply to your games and it says, that monsters doesn't have scaling Threat Level and remain the same like when you meet them.

Scowling Dragon
2013-06-21, 02:14 AM
Yeah I know I called them social points because I couldn't be bothered to find the real name.

I mean, by giving away magic items don't I LOOSE renown? Its so clunky and chunky.

I mean what If my magic blade is iconic and its the thing that people recognize me for. Wouldn't giving it away just have a chain effect for every Renown lost I loose more renown?

And what If I did something that was secret? I could have killed the god beasts of the 12 moons and yet since nobody saw me do It I have to give away my magic items to a doofus.

Its just so poorly implemented and a forced, crowbarred way to give more value to Charisma.

Yes there is the campaign quality for no scaling but it doesn't account for how much XP they cost in comparison. The whole system becomes more confusing then it would be if enemies didn't scale.

MirddinEmris
2013-06-21, 03:55 AM
Yeah I know I called them social points because I couldn't be bothered to find the real name.

I mean, by giving away magic items don't I LOOSE renown? Its so clunky and chunky.

I mean what If my magic blade is iconic and its the thing that people recognize me for. Wouldn't giving it away just have a chain effect for every Renown lost I loose more renown?

And what If I did something that was secret? I could have killed the god beasts of the 12 moons and yet since nobody saw me do It I have to give away my magic items to a doofus.

Its just so poorly implemented and a forced, crowbarred way to give more value to Charisma.

Yes there is the campaign quality for no scaling but it doesn't account for how much XP they cost in comparison. The whole system becomes more confusing then it would be if enemies didn't scale.

Like i said, Renown is not "social points", while it does have a function about recognizing your character, it's main function is an abstract scale to measure how much of a big damn hero your character is, so it doesn't matter if anyone saw how you beat the crap out of a couple angry gods, you still gain your Reputation, which can be used to buy Renown. And you don't lose Renown (you can lose Reputation, but it doesn't follow with losing anything else), at least there are no rules for it, i just don't know where are you taking this from.

Also, Renown in no way have any ties with Charisma, i think that you are talking about Lifestyle (which happens to be responsible for how much money you spend between adventures and size of money income you have).

Scaling monsters doesn't invalidate character growth. 10 npcs with 30-40 XP cost can be dangerous for a couple 1st level pcs, but when they hit level 5-6, it will just be a no-so-dangerous band of mooks, but not because "i have much bigger numbers than you". Scaling here is just so high level PCs wouldn't react to a band of goblins like "Oh, we fought with them 10 levels ago, now they will not be able to hit me with my high defense". Like, you know, in DnD where high level fighter could slaughter a town of a respectable size because most of it's inhabitants have only 1-2 level in npc classes.

The most wonderful thing is that you can play without most of rules and the game still be playable and balanced, nothing is compulsory like characters doesn't expect to have a certain amount of magic items or access to certain spells in level progression, but granting access to this things, doesn't throw game balance out of window.

P.S. No offense, but it seems that you didn't actually read the rules very carefully, so you made assumptions that was based only on your image of them, which wasn't very accurate. I suggest, that you give it another try (as any other system, if you read them with same level of patience) otherwise i doubt that you will find what you are seeking.

Scowling Dragon
2013-06-21, 05:05 AM
I read the rules, I just read them a while ago, and I don't have the book at hand to refresh my memory.

I don't buy anything unless I have a good read through. Either way I just don't remember liking the system very much, and the way you mention it I still don't.

But I definatly remember there being something about being forced to give away magic items if some score drops too low.

Maybe Il try to find the book again and give it another read and then give a more thorough trashing.