Rob CHA and other complaints
Mark, the main reason to keep a CHA or WIS-like stat is for NPCs. To systematize skills and spells. We could get rid of IQ for the same reasons... in fact, IQ is a more boring stat than CHA. Abilities are so you can look at a char sheet and be like 'okay, that's what this guy is basically about'.
The system defines the games, Paul is correct. Your arguments for CHA apply equally to IQ. Why not just codify 'Chickens', you only have one or two simple stats? Easier that way.
CHA is not 'for people who can't roleplay'. A system with only physical stats is for people who don't roleplay, though.
Jimmy Swill from Narbohring is actually a horrible argument for you to use against CHA. A stronger CHA set of skills would've kept Jimmy in the game longer. He was just useless after 5th level, plain as day. He was 'useless' all along, but in a fun way. When the stakes went up and Jimmy was totally ineffective, he was useless in an unfun way, which is obviously why you retired him.
Actually, that's not true what I said above. The main reason to add CHA is to expand the range of skills in your system and give CHA-like skills a focal center. END skills are basically lame. The skillset and ability set still seems flat.
I think that's absolutely right- you really couldn't play a great bard in a CHA-less system. Unless you want all bard 'skills' beyond lute strumming to be hedge magic, but that sort of defeats the purpose- why make all the great 'skills' into spells in that case? Hedge magic should be much more general.
The more stats, the more abilties, the more skills, the better.
Really, I have no idea why you're throwing out core d20 D&D here in the first place. The useful part of this system is replacing the classes with a more general skill system, presumably to increase the possibilties for characters. Instead, it sounds like you're trying to reduce those possibilities, or ust reinvent the wheel for the sake of, hmm, not sure.
At this point, I still wouldn't use the system in place of 3E. I like the Hedge/Ritual magic things of course. Wait, and you're playing with specific book memorization? Again, a rule that limits characters rather than expands possibilities. I see that it's not exactly like 1E (you don't have to mem MM twice if you want to cast it twice), but it still means that spellcasters won't be selecting the quirkier spells, just because they'll need to pick good ones to stay alive. God, we got rid of specific book memorization ages ago; why the return to the Stone Age?
I dunno, I don't really want to argue any more about it now. It's your system, do what thou wilt.
The system defines the games, Paul is correct. Your arguments for CHA apply equally to IQ. Why not just codify 'Chickens', you only have one or two simple stats? Easier that way.
CHA is not 'for people who can't roleplay'. A system with only physical stats is for people who don't roleplay, though.
Jimmy Swill from Narbohring is actually a horrible argument for you to use against CHA. A stronger CHA set of skills would've kept Jimmy in the game longer. He was just useless after 5th level, plain as day. He was 'useless' all along, but in a fun way. When the stakes went up and Jimmy was totally ineffective, he was useless in an unfun way, which is obviously why you retired him.
Actually, that's not true what I said above. The main reason to add CHA is to expand the range of skills in your system and give CHA-like skills a focal center. END skills are basically lame. The skillset and ability set still seems flat.
I think that's absolutely right- you really couldn't play a great bard in a CHA-less system. Unless you want all bard 'skills' beyond lute strumming to be hedge magic, but that sort of defeats the purpose- why make all the great 'skills' into spells in that case? Hedge magic should be much more general.
The more stats, the more abilties, the more skills, the better.
Really, I have no idea why you're throwing out core d20 D&D here in the first place. The useful part of this system is replacing the classes with a more general skill system, presumably to increase the possibilties for characters. Instead, it sounds like you're trying to reduce those possibilities, or ust reinvent the wheel for the sake of, hmm, not sure.
At this point, I still wouldn't use the system in place of 3E. I like the Hedge/Ritual magic things of course. Wait, and you're playing with specific book memorization? Again, a rule that limits characters rather than expands possibilities. I see that it's not exactly like 1E (you don't have to mem MM twice if you want to cast it twice), but it still means that spellcasters won't be selecting the quirkier spells, just because they'll need to pick good ones to stay alive. God, we got rid of specific book memorization ages ago; why the return to the Stone Age?
I dunno, I don't really want to argue any more about it now. It's your system, do what thou wilt.
posted by Rob @ 3:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home