Genuinely, why do you hate the d20 so much?

Interesting. I found the 2021 census in the archives. The data sheet is available there, but I haven't had a chance to try to parse any conclusions from it yet.
https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/77652106/#77698551

That was your conjecture. I was talking about the most discussed topic on each board, which also happens to be the most trolled-about topic on each board.

You can go for more specific and exact equivalences if you want, and pick the specific most discussed/trolled anime/video game/topic/etc. on each board if you happen to actually know what they are, but nothing really changes the fact that the most basic b***hes of each board troll the most on whatever happens to be the most discussed topic. That's what makes them basic b***h trolls.

Something can be more than one thing simultaneously.
Anime is both the most discussed topic of the board as well as the topic of the board.

Are you actually stupid?

Not him but you can effectively have 5e bounded accuracy by just shifting the proficiency progression (+4 to +12 for example) and having a bell distribution of attributes modifiers (eg: -3 to +3 much like B/X), it's just the 5e implementation that suck balls.

Something like this:
Everyone gets to pick: 2 of (craft, profession, or perform), or 1 knowledge as a free skill proficiency, independent of class.
Number before the slash are normal skill points. Spend on anything. Number after the slash, can only be spent on profession, craft, perform, and knowledge.

Barb
4/3+(intmod/3)
Bard
5/3+(intmod/2)
Cleric
4/2+(intmod/2)
Druid
3/4+(intmod/2)
Fighter
4/2+(intmod/2)
Monk
5/2+(intmod/2)
Paladin
4/2+(intmod/2)
Ranger
6/2+(intmod/2)
Rogue
8/1+(intmod/2)
Sorcerer
2/3+(intmod/2)
Wizard
2/3+(intmod/2)

The problem with skill points is that too many characters don't get enough of them, not the underlying idea.

They're good if they're less granular

> What the frick are you taking about?
About mathematics. A cursed topic for /tg/.

Not only can't /tg/ into maths, they invent their own mathy terms or use actual math terms with a completely different meaning than everyone else.

Surprising, then, that

It is not how probabilities work. Dice roll resupts form the curve as a total, not just for a single roll. Five d20 in a row is have almost the same probability with the same deviation as a single 3d6 roll. The game of GURPS with three rolls per session is more random than a session of D&D with multiple rolls.

doesn't recognize the difference between probability and statistics, and why it matters. 1d20 and 3d6 have roughly the same probabile average (10.5), but in statistical terms are totally different.

Exceeding DC by 5 or 10 can be a 5% chance or much less depending on the DC. A flat distribution also means you're merely likely to turn up extremes, which is why DC checks on 1d20 are meant to be a pass/fail binary and not a qualitative roll where the absolute value of the result describes the effort.

I don't see how using bigger numbers is an inherent advantage. Unless you're a weird MMO fanatic, seeing big numbers shouldn't be what's compelling about a game. The mods are smaller on 3d6/other dice pool systems, but because they're more impactful, you care about them a lot more - it's a lot easier to get excited about a +3 in a 3d6 system than it is a +3 in a d20 system.

And if your only idea for interacting with a system is "make the modifier bigger", maybe you shouldn't be GMing in the first place.

A +1 on a 3d6 is still small enough to hand out incidentally, but more often than not the way it's done is reducing negative modifiers rather than adding positive ones - which is just as well, since you usually will have such situational modifiers in a 3d6 system.

16 or greater is 25% odds.

You're right, I miscounted.

I have lost the argument.

I'm gonna kms now.

>A +1 on a 3d6 is still small enough to hand out incidentally,
Not if there's a high degree of potential to combine them.
A single +1 may not matter too much, but two such bonuses start to really twist the system, and with three such bonuses cracks really begin to form. And that's just with +1's, with +2's being big enough that adding just two together is a huge impact.

There's just no space for small modifiers to stack or to be treated as small modifiers. You have to be far more careful giving out these bonuses, and the idea that you're encouraged to use more negative modifiers in order to keep the positive ones in check (and vice versa) is a clear indication of the dice system putting unnecessary pressure on the game's design, because it just can't handle a larger range of values.

Try this thought experiment. 5d4. Think about all the reasons you wouldn't want to use that dice configuration, and then try to understand those reasons are, to a lesser extent, why some games prefer d20 over 3d6. It's very similar to how you can go in the opposite direction, with d% being more granular than d20, and while that works for some applications, it comes with its own weaknesses.

>You SHOULD be much more likely to succeed when you have a good skill level, situational advantages, and there isn't anything that would make the task more difficult.
Yes, but it shouldn't be automatic, and having as little as a (relative) +6 total bonus from various sources vs. the TN is enough to make rolling the dice just a formality 95%+ of the time. (Where the exact threshold of "Why are you even bothering to roll" lies varies, but let's just use the 5% rule of thumb for now because it's something that could otherwise be eternally debated upon, with anywhere from 1/10 feeling to some people as being to unlikely to roll for, all the way to people asking for rolls even for 1/10000 odds of success.)

>you're encouraged to use the modifiers that make sense,
No, you're reshaping the world to match the modifiers, because going too far will break the world. If you figure out how to configure three (relative) +3 bonuses together, the world can't even begin to offer a challenge until there's at least an amount of penalties equal to -4, which thanks to the lack of granularity need to be substantial in their own turn.

>If he's still got like 20-30% odds of randomly eating dick
If everything is in his favor to the point where 95%+ of the time he will succeed, you really don't need to roll in the first place. That's one of the major issues with 3d6, in that a lot of the time it's used in a "simulationist" sense that assumes that every action is being rolled for, like a baker having to roll 3d6 for every roll he bakes. While with a d20 (and low bonuses), the baker might fail to bake potentially several of those rolls, the point is to ask why these rolls are being made in the first place (the dice rolls, not the dinner rolls.)

Dice rolls are supposed to offer excitement. If you're rolling for something, and there's not at least a 5% chance of failure/success, you're really just wasting everyone's time.

If it's actually automatic, the roll is unnecessary.

Correct.

Isn't the rule when doing opposed checks that both characters eat penalties until the higher bonus would fail on a 17? Something like that? If you want a curve with more granularity, going up to even 3d100 is possible. Most often when I see someone wanting a curve different than gurps though, they want *less* granularity. Like using fate/fudge dice.

>cherrypicking
Not only do you not understand what cherrypicking actually means, you don't understand the common perceptions of probabilities. Sub 5% odds are tiny.

Most people can grasp a coin flip. They have a pretty decent sense of what a 50% chance feels like.
Getting two heads in a row? 25% odds? Trickier, but in an average of 4 tosses they'll see it, so given enough flips they'll get a good sense of what 25% really is.

Three heads? 12.5%? Most people are already struggling. In fact, even just around 10% is where people really begin to become surprised when something that should occur 90% of the time fails to happen. Some games even adapt to this perception, with Fire Emblem in particular making any attack with a displayed 90%+ chance to hit actually hitting 100% of the time, because missing with those odds feels "cheap" and "unfair" to most players, even though it is perfectly "fair."

A good number of XCOM memes involve people expressing intense shock and disbelief when an attack with 99% chance to hit misses, even though an event with a 1 in 100 chance of occurring is not all that rare. It all comes down to expectations and various perceptual fallacies, in a similar way that you can easily imagine two apples, or three apples, but 67 is basically just a pile not too disimilar from 54 or 72.

4 heads in 4 tosses, or 6.25%, is just hard for us to really perceive, with some people thinking it's quite easy to achieve but that rapidly fading to feeling like it's impossible once you actually start flipping, even though it has a 1/16 chance of occurring. And, even lower than that is 5%, an increment so small that even with people making dozens of rolls in a game each Natural 20 still feels oddly special.

5% is a decent cutoff, which is why many 3d6 games have crits occur at rolls of 16+. If they instead had it a 18, it would simply be too rare to warrant a special rule.

Xcom does the same thing Fire Emblem. Effectively its 5e's advantage, rolling two probabilities and taking the higher if it's above 50% or the lower if it's at or below 50%. That means 99% chance of missing is more like 99.67.

>think about a tactics video game like xcom or fire emblem. if your chance to hit is 85% or 90% you probably feel pretty good about taking the shot, but if it was only 65% you might start looking at other options. in d20 games trying to hit a dc of 12 with only +4 to your roll is so commonplace you wouldn't think twice about it. the way dcs and modifiers scale is completely stupid. in d&d a naked and unaware enemy has an ac of 10. in order to have a 95% chance of hitting you would need +7 to hit. a level 1 rogue with superhuman dexterity would still have up to a 20% chance of missing. people will argue that d20 is good because of granularity, but in reality it just means that you are playing spreadsheet games stacking as many +1s and +2s as you can to get whatever modifier you need to hit that 80-95% accuracy you want so your character actually feels like he is good at what he is supposed to be good at.
This. If you're in a d100 system is it's pretty usually for a starting character to have a +50 or higher in the thing they're good at.
I can't think of any d20 systems that start players out with a +10.

if you have 20 in your main stat, are a full attack bonus class, and take weapon focus for your level 1 feat, and are using a masterwork weapon that's +8 to hit. you can probably get +2 by having a party member cast a few spells on you. now consider that scale mail is 15 ac. that means your reasonably min/maxed character only has an 80% chance to hit an enemy wearing only medium armor with no shield, no dex bonus, and no defensive magic. if you give the enemy a tower shield, the barkskin spell, and say he's fighting defensively the chance to hit drops all the way to 45%, and that kind of enemy isn't even "boss" tier for a level 1 party.

the point I was making though is that the chance of hitting your target are way lower in d20 systems compared to other turn based strategy games.

>only has an 80% chance

...that's a pretty fricking good chance. A bookie looking at those odds would only give you a maximum of $2 for every $10 you bet.

read the post again. 80% is low considering that it's a relatively optimized pc against a target that's not optimized at all. half plate and a tower shield drops it to 50% and that's not even taking magic or class abilities into account. remember that russian roulette is 83% in your favor.

> If you're in a d100 system is it's pretty usually for a starting character to have a +50 or higher in the thing they're good at.
In whrpg 4e outside of combat/stress situations tests are at +20 as base line, so starting char. easly can have 50+ chance of passing (other strory is how meny Succes Levels there will be). And it's not uncommon to have 50+ in combat if you make char. for combat and during fight you play right (advantag + combat bonuses for flanking, outnumbering enemy ect.)

>I can't think of any d20 systems that start players out with a +10.
4E
+5 training +5 stat, then you can layer +2 racial, +1-+3 background, +3 skill focus if you focus hardcore on one skill.

>No, the assumption is that IF dice are being thrown around the results will match believable expectations
And that is the case if the dice are thrown when there's actually a reason to throw them, and not just to confirm that yes, all dozen of your rolls were individually baked correctly.

It's like the old Arm-wrestling theorem. A character with +1 Strength and character with +4 strength, when arm wrestling, are not going to roll a d20 (or 3d6) every time they arm wrestle, because even with 3d6 the +1 Strength character is going to "unbelievably" win a fair percentage of the time. Instead, you're just going to compare +1 Strength and +4 Strength, because the challenge is not chance based.

But, if the contest is something like a baking contest, and there's plenty of exciting variables at play, and you actually want it to be entertaining and not just a straight "He's got a +4 to baking and you have a +1, he wins", then you bring the dice out.

If 5e wanted to be an accurate strength simulator where every arm wrestling action needed a roll, it would need to have modifiers with much wider ranges, with the difference between a weak and strong character being something like 50 or more to simulate how little chance there is in an arm wrestling contest. Instead, it's a game with rolls reserved for situations with exciting outcomes.

5e does err on the side of skills not having anywhere near enough range to simulate reality, but that's not the point of the rolls. The rolls are there to make exciting situations possible, like the underdog novice baker winning the baking contest despite only having a +1 while the master baker has +10. Most of the time the Master Baker will win, but there's plenty of chance to make the contest exciting.

I'll agree that vanilla 5e does err way to much in this regard, with skills rarely even hitting +10, but that's system, not dice. If it wanted to be more simulationist, it could just jack up its modifiers.

If you want the d20 to matter less, use larger modifiers.
If you want the d20 to matter more, use smaller modifiers.
The die can accommodate either. It can be used for exciting chance-filled games, as well as whatever mundane farming or trucking simulator you Germans play.

The problem with 3d6 is that the limit of how small its modifiers can be is much stricter than d20. While it's inherently suited for situations where you want the dice to matter less, it does not scale as well when you want the dice to matter more, because of the inherent limitations of its range and the forced consistency it has. Of course, you could do things like use decimals/fractions and otherwise shrink the assumed minimum +1 modifier to be smaller, but playing around with fractional modifiers like that is the sort of thing that only a German would enjoy.

In a binary pass/fail system?

>the die
Cannot produce a result by itself.

In an opposed roll of arm wrestling a difference of 3 will result in the stronger character winning 72% of the time. Maybe this isn't ideal for a simulation of arm wrestling in particular but it's pretty okay. Honestly, that includes a 7% chance of draws which, if you reroll, are going to be going to that player 72% of the time too so 77% odds of the stronger character wining.
Maybe you'd want to special case a roll like this and say that difference in modifiers count double, which would bring the stronger character's chance of winning to 90%
FWIW I think either is okay for arm wrestling, there's a decent amount of skill and what you could simulate with random chance involved in the technique.

>5e does err on the side of skills not having anywhere near enough range to simulate reality, but that's not the point of the rolls. The rolls are there to make exciting situations possible, like the underdog novice baker winning the baking contest despite only having a +1 while the master baker has +10. Most of the time the Master Baker will win, but there's plenty of chance to make the contest exciting.
Even a pretty ludicrous difference of 9 only gets you a 83% chance of winning (3% draws)
Just "jacking up the modifiers" doesn't help you actually approach anything reaching simulationism since you're going to quickly get into situations where rolls are just entirely impossible to make.
On the other hand, the distribution of 3d6 more closely matches a logistic curve which has been used with great success for handling player skills in chess and videogames. It is the basis of the Elo rating system and its multitude of derivatives
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system#Mathematical_details

Having both a strength bonus and advantage/disadvantage seems like double dipping. The math sounds like it should work out well enough though
(still hate advantage, awful idea for a mechanic)

16 or greater is 25% odds.

>Always go the actor's way because otherwise why roll dice.
Something may be possible and attainable at this level, just not possible for your character. Jim can hit a DC42 this level. I have not memorized your sheet and have no way of knowing if you can personally hit a DC36 on this specific task.

>The GM calls for dice rolls.
You bet. But characters have a lot of numbers. It's impossible for one GM to remember them all and who is how good at what. In my example, the GM remembers seeing Jim hit a DC this high on some other task, and has no idea what your bonus is on this check. You are not Jim, you are Mike.

Just got out of the shower and I was thinking about it while in there. This is true. I think there should be a type of check (free action) you can do before attempting something that will tell you (you have to tell your GM the total bonus on what you are considering to roll):

"Piece of cake": you can succeed even on a 1. No roll.
"I can do this": you can take 10. No roll if outside combat.
"Looks tricky": you need an 11-17 and have to roll no matter what.
"Nope": you would either need an 18+ or it's completely beyond you.

Maybe a DC of 9, add your wisdom mod, to be aware of your own abilities, and if you get a 14+ and its within your abilities, we tell you the exact DC. If you fail it, GM gives you the assessment as if your skill was +1d10 points higher or +1d10 points lower. Why DC9? +1 Wis let's you take 10.

If we're playing 3.x, my usual go-to is to point out they can print out the skill benchmarks (I do) and have a very good idea of what their bonuses let them do and take 10 on.

But having a game mechanic to check for this specific thing they want to attempt seems like a good idea.

Also,

>The GM calls for dice rolls.
You bet. But characters have a lot of numbers. It's impossible for one GM to remember them all and who is how good at what. In my example, the GM remembers seeing Jim hit a DC this high on some other task, and has no idea what your bonus is on this check. You are not Jim, you are Mike.

Just got out of the shower and I was thinking about it while in there. This is true. I think there should be a type of check (free action) you can do before attempting something that will tell you (you have to tell your GM the total bonus on what you are considering to roll):

"Piece of cake": you can succeed even on a 1. No roll.
"I can do this": you can take 10. No roll if outside combat.
"Looks tricky": you need an 11-17 and have to roll no matter what.
"Nope": you would either need an 18+ or it's completely beyond you.

Maybe a DC of 9, add your wisdom mod, to be aware of your own abilities, and if you get a 14+ and its within your abilities, we tell you the exact DC. If you fail it, GM gives you the assessment as if your skill was +1d10 points higher or +1d10 points lower. Why DC9? +1 Wis let's you take 10.

If we're playing 3.x, my usual go-to is to point out they can print out the skill benchmarks (I do) and have a very good idea of what their bonuses let them do and take 10 on.

But having a game mechanic to check for this specific thing they want to attempt seems like a good idea.

I will be afk for a couple hours. I'm still interested in your, and maybe other's opinions if they wish to chip in.

I suppose I could rename Luck to Momentum or something like that, but I do enjoy metacurrencies. But still I think they're better implemented in a game that's trying to play out more like an action-drama or a graphic novel (The Cortex system does that, and I loved it).

I still think you have a good point. Rolling the dice ought to leave a lot out of your hands, which is why I think including Momentum ought to be an optional rule/variant. I can vouch for the frustration of rolling piss poorly all session long and it always being ruled as "You miss" or "Nothing happens", but that sounds more like a GM problem than a system problem.

Thanks for reading my blog.

Re: Mike and Jim. They're both players. The idea is the GM will never remember all the many bonuses different players have, and therefore can't know which players have a chance of success at which DCs without being told immediately before the roll what the player's total bonus is.

This does raise the issue of making sure one knows where all the modifiers are coming from. If it's like D&D 3.X, the modifiers are going to be getting large and coming out of nowhere. This is why my system is going to have different trait groups to make it easier for the GM to ask where the numbers are coming from.

Also as a guy who has GMed over a long period of time, I'd rather trust my players. If my players would pull the wool over my eyes especially with regards to getting ahead, then I can't trust those players. In other words, the Mike & Jim problem is an out-of-game problem rather than an in-game problem. Out of game problems call for out of game solutions, while in game problems call for in game solutions.

Alright then, here's my answer.

In my system, it's rare for the following to be above a certain modifier:

Attributes: +5 (Theoretically more, am working on a better limitation system for Attributes)
Racial: +2 (Halfling gets a +5 in an extraordinary circumstance, but that's about it)
Skills: +10
Feats: +5
Equipment: +2

All bonuses of the same kind don't stack, but overlap. I would ask, "If you were to jump that chasm, what modifiers would you select to jump?" Then you can add the modifiers right there and then, and then add 20 to it to see the maximal possible limit.

Going with overlapping rather than stacking does control the numbers a good deal, and a GM ought to be aware of what sounds right and what doesn't.

The question is how exactly does Jim get a +46 Jump Skill? +10 (Rank 5) is represented as being the best there is, and chances are they will have feats, equipment, and other modifiers to represent that as opposed to Mike who isn't that committed at high jumps but can still leave an odd gap or two as they come up. This is done to keep the numbers manageable by most, and +10 is half of 20, and considering the other factors that go into a Jump, I think it's about right for what a 1d20 + Modifiers system ought to be cooking up by and large. The beauty of a 1d20 system is that it does function even if you get to +9000 or more, but the 20 difference in the DCs of that scale does make it look silly.

I am open to having my mind changed on this, but I still think that less is more in this case. I still think 5E D&D is too little, and D&D 3.X is too much such that skill focus and such are practically useless feats.

3.X was my first love, but she taught me so much. You're not wrong for liking what you do. I personally feel that systems around the d20 are saturated with simulation types of games so I want to take it in a different direction while playing off of its strengths. It's not going to be for everybody, but I'm still going to aim to make sure there's something for everybody.

As for why the limits? I have it so that 5XP is enough to buy...

+1 Skill Rank (Adds +2 Skill Bonus)
+1 to one Core Attribute
+1 Feat (Each Feat comes with a small array of effects to limit Feat taxes)

If any one of those gets to be too large, I feel it would be over-represented. If I make it so that Rank 10 is the maximum and I keep it to being a +2 Skill Bonus per rank, Skills would dwarf Attributes, Feats, Racials, etc. I'll need to do something to increase those limits too.

But if I keep it to 1 Skill Rank equals +1 Skill Bonus, I can break Feats up into each individual ability, but what about Attributes? Those will have to cost twice as much as a Skill Rank due to affecting both Effort and Effect Rolls.

It's just ugly is all.

I have not looked at Eclipse. Is that the full name?

Also, thanks for the links! I do enjoy free game pdfs.

I don't go into the 3.X Generals often, but now that 3.X is no longer in the limelight, I find the remaining fanbase there to be a lot easier to talk to about the system for its quirks, both "positive" and "negative". Sorry you and your wife are sick, but as they say, "This too shall pass".

I also want to avoid classes in my system, too. It's great for getting a mold for something playable right away, but also confines the class to the vision of the designer rather than to the vision of the one making the character. If I am to administer "Heroic Archetypes", I need to be mindful of this. But that's all work for later down the road. I still gotta finish writing my primer!

But yeah; I appreciate how flexible skills are, compared to rigid powers, though I'm fine with magic being rigid powers. GURPS Powers may be less or more rigidly defined than what you describe, depending how you build them.

I'm also fine with magic being more rigid, and let each GM decide just how rigid it is while providing a guide for how to rule the rigidity of magic, such as if it requires long drawn out rituals and a lot of components, or if it can be used spontaneously. It's the mundane stuff that I want open to everybody, even if they would normally be terrible at a particular application of a mundane skill.

I should be doing the same. Thanks again for all your help!

>The illness your family has is not real
Then what do you think my test detected that causes this specific grab bag of symptoms (incl complete loss of smell and taste)?

>Muh TV Brainwash
That would be impressive, given the last time I watched news TV, Obama had just been elected, but sure. Lol.

>my test detected
Christ, please enlighten me with how you believe your plastic stick is testing you for a viral infection. Go ahead and google it, (you have no fricking idea how it is even purported to work) and repeat whatever the narrative is while cognitive dissonance eats at you because you know it obviously isn't true.

You NPCs are goddamn moronic.

>PCR Tests are Voodoo
Oh. I hadn't heard this one before.

K. Have a good day.

I should be doing the same. Thanks again for all your help!

What's up, other homebrew anon?

We're feeling better, mostly. She can smell stuff a bit now, still no taste. Tomorrow is her first day back at work.

>Ammo is fine if it's in character.
Yes

>Per player
It's worse if I need to play with meta currencies, but I think it really needs to be a campaign toggle. I don't want to play a game with metacurrencies, not just don't want to use them myself. My "half a shot of diarrhea in the soup is not a compromise" comment was a reference to half measures where "you don't get to choose if you're playing a game with metacurrencies, you only get to choose how much you personally use them". Eclipse phase comes to mind.

Your powers on roles idea sounds like it has potential, but yeah; I would say, offer meta currencies as a yea or nea campaign toggle, not an individual character thing.

I bought trailblazer when it came out. I like it's math analysis, I'm less sold on some of it's "improvements". It's "everyone has all the spells" thing in particular, and yeah, I also didn't like their action points.

But their spine analysis is one of the things I'm referencing for my wbl replacer.

I got a bit done too. Working on my ranger class book some more. I decided a while ago that my design paradigm wasn't to be one big disorganized everything book, but many smaller topical volumes. If I do have a multi-topic corebook it won't include any character options or equipment and will be like a RC type manual.

Cont.

Before the Threshold is reached, a character can impose other Effects onto the target at the cost of Effect Points. By expending 2 Effect Points, the target can also be subjected to an effect that imposes a -2 penalty onto them so long as they are in a bad position, or maybe granting others a +2 Bonus against them while the target is pushed into a bad position, etc. At the cost of 5 Effect Points, they can make the penalty be a -5 Penalty, or the bonus a +5 Bonus, or maybe still keep the +/- 2 Bonus/Penalty, but make it more of a bear to get out of the bad position. You can also spend 1 Effect Point to grant the next effect against them that imposes Effect Points impose 1 more Effect Point than normal, or maybe at the cost of 1 Effect Point the next Effort Roll against them will be at a +1 bonus per Effect Point spent, etc.

Now is where you come in.

I see this system as the means for the Player to decide what exactly his action did without leaving it purely up to GM fiat. I think something like the outcome of the PC's action is more tangible to the PC than something more abstract like Hero Points or even Luck that only the people around the table would know.

Now my question to you. Would you be willing to give something like Effect Points a try? Or is there something off about it that I ought to know about?

FATE isn't a system I have a lot of knowledge about, but I have heard of it. I read the SRD here: https://fate-srd.com/fate-core/invoking-compelling-aspects

I'm thinking I should give you an example of what Effect Points are, because compelling sounds different from what I had in mind. An ability in D&D 3.X is the Rogue ability of Crippling Strike which, if you sacrifice 1d6 Sneak Attack Damage in return for dealing 1 or 2 Strength Damage to the target (I can't remember the exact number)- it's more like that, except it doesn't just have to be Strength that gets crippled.

Now, the example:

Bob the Fighter strikes Yozz the Orc with his Broadsword. The Effort roll was successful, Bob rolls the Effect Roll. Broadswords use a d8, and Bob's Strength is +2. Thus, Bob rolls d8(6) + 2 = 8. Thus, Bob applies 8 Effect Points against Yozz. Yozz can take some punishment, as his Constitution Threshold (which represents the body) is 14, but Bob figured that Yozz could take a beating with his musculature and frame. If Bob wants to, he can keep all Effect Points on Yozz to count against his Constitution Threshold to bring Yozz up to 8/14 (and if it becomes 14/14, a serious effect comes onto Yozz), but Bob decides that he doesn't want to allocate all Effect Die onto Yozz. Instead, Bob wants to cripple Yozz somewhat. Bob is going to play the long game with him.

So Bob decides to spend 5 of the Effect Points he inflicted onto Yozz to make him start losing blood rapidly (With a broadsword that sharp? He absolutely can pull this off).

(Cont, comment too long)

Oh. So effect points aren't a resource you track out of game, it's multiple ways for you to apply your (damage) value to the target, presumably with at least some example effects provided?

I think I would prefer if you declared what you wanted to spend it on before you roll for a bit more surprise in how it turns out, but I don't hate that.

That sounds sensible, but perhaps a little overly fiddly? I think I would have to try it to see if it's hard to keep track of. It also sounds like there are underlying rules at play that I don't know, so some stuff is coming out of left field. But yeah. That's not what I was imagining, and it sounds much better than what I thought you were describing.

My day was less innovative. Just working on my a la carte Ranger feature buffet based on mostly-followed Eclipse rules, with a bit of common sense math applied as well, like if an Eclipse feat gives you three of something for 6 pts, and you only need one of them, that's 2 pts, even if that dividing is not one of the modifiers available in the book.

I got through processing most of the PF1 core ranger abilities though, and changes were made, like a custom 0-5 spell slot progression that starts at level 1. Inspired by the 3.5 wizard, the duskblade, and the 5e ranger.

So, y'know. Progress.

It's starting to look a bit like the GURPS Dungeon Fantasy RPG professions, which is the goal. Classless point buy being used to build classes or customize them, no fiddly prereqs like normal 3.5, and the classes should be flexible themed packages of abilities, not rigid 1-20 tracks.

Once I've ironed out the overall rules better, I'll loop back around to each class booklet and write out a full 1-20 build for an iconic of each class, so a newbie can just grab one and go, but the idea is that a more seasoned player, even staying within "Ranger" class, will be customizing their progression for their character.

Kindof building a system to wrap around Eclipse, with the Eclipse book being used as an optional DM homebrewing tool and not needing to be player facing.

(In addition to class booklet there will be a skills booklet and gear and goods and services and magic items and combat and other topics as they come up).

(Cont)

I'll admit I'm not the most familiar with GURPS, but it is fun to be a GURPS fanatic to shitpost.

Anyways don't let me distract you from what you gotta do. You've been a great help for me, and I'm more convinced to keep building up Effect Points as a core feature now that a guy who hates metacurrency approved it. I'll be on the lookout for more updates, but I'm more apt to frequent the Amateur Game Design threads more than the 3.X threads. It might behoove me to go to the 3.X threads, since I did derive the roots of my own system from what I learned from 3.X.

I like Mutants and Masterminds. It’s a d20-based superhero system with a lot of customization options. Tons of fun. It exemplifies what many people dislike about d20 systems, though.

The only way to reliably do anything in the game is to have double-digit modifiers in every stat and skill. The game does away with modifier derivatives (10 STR in DND is a +5 modifier, where 10 STR in MnM is just +10). It also includes a tank and measure system that scales modifiers way, WAY upwards in actions, so that a comparatively weak DND character would, mechanically, be far superior to baseline humanity. The conclusion is that d20 systems are only fun at higher levels of play. 99% of complaints you hear about DND come from players slogging through level 1,2,3. At those levels you really are dependent on the dice gods and the game feels capricious and random.

That game is a lot of fun to make characters in, but playing them out does get dicey, I agree. The systems in place to make your own superpowers are really well down (and I stole them by and large for my "Fantastical Power" system for those games where one wants Fantastical Powers be spontaneous and flashy).

Because most systems that use a d20 are just slight variations on D&D and carry most of the same flaws. Statistically multiple d6s or d10s will always be better or if you want a granular role like d20 then percentiles do the same thing but once more in a better way.

How exactly are multiple d6's and d10's "better"?

Yeah, I rarely go to the game design threads. I should drop by there more often.

The new Effort Points addition has thrown the balance I had in previous renditions of this system into disarray, and part of why I was harping about Effect Points so much to you is because they are still a new concept and one that I want being a core part of the game. I'm glad that you as somebody who hates metacurrency is giving Effect Points a pass, which gives me the cue to see how much further I can take this concept.

When I GMed this system for my group, figuring out how many actions an intended course of action costed has tripped me up from time to time. After the game session, if I made a mistake or two, I would mark it down and then let the player(s) know who benefited or took the piss for it what the actual amount is.

Also, the old system I had was a Hitpoints system that was just Strength Defense + Constitution Defense + Modifiers, or maybe Composure for Wisdom Defense + Charisma Defense. With this new Effect Point system, the Attribute Threshold has been included so that you have Constitution and Dexterity Thresholds, but more than just that, too. When writing out my example, I had to do away with a hypothetical definition of a Major Action as "The action's Effect applies against a Defense". I'm going to need to finish this draft and playtest it by myself and then with my group some more, but a lot of this is still on the drawing board.

Sounds like you still got more done than me. I personally am more of a fan of non-spellcasting Rangers who call more on resourcefulness than on magic. I like when a Ranger (or a Scout) can use their abilities to designate terrain and features as having different properties, or even find more ammunition than marked down. This gets into the realm of metacurrency if you're not careful, but it's your creation.

I like how classes are in Star Wars SAGA where it's just "Bonus Feat/Talent" every level or some variant of it, and it sounds more or less like what you're going for here.

Character Limit.

>Non-spellcasting rangers
I definitely prefer "guy with noncombat nature magic and a cool pet" druid-fighter rangers. But thanks to the pointbuy nature of the thing, if someone wants to play a spell-less ranger, they will just have a big bucket of points to spend elsewhere.

No worries, bruh. I wasn't really looking for any advice, just someone to talk to while I work on stuff. It was fun being a sounding board for your effect mechanics and such.

>my test detected
Christ, please enlighten me with how you believe your plastic stick is testing you for a viral infection. Go ahead and google it, (you have no fricking idea how it is even purported to work) and repeat whatever the narrative is while cognitive dissonance eats at you because you know it obviously isn't true.

You NPCs are goddamn moronic.

The metacurrency stuff won't be part of the core of the system, but I still think working out how to work it in for those who may want it is a good idea, much like with character level, or even Hero Points and such. It's supposed to play out any kind of fantasy game, and metacurrency is good at giving you a place to shine and turn things around.

But I do have a question for you. Is there a better way of doing a heroic fantasy feel without the metacurrencies that you can think of? Dice are beautiful in their ability to turn up a number without bias (assuming they aren't loaded), but that lack of bias can also sour an otherwise great moment without GM intervention. Am I making sense with my inquiry? It shouldn't just be GM fiat and call it a day, even if the GM's input is paramount.

Wait, no, for the "prevent death" ones, you'd need a cooldown. That comment was an afterthought, and poorly considered.

Also, thanks for the links! I do enjoy free game pdfs.

You're welcome. I liked it enough I bought the 2nd volume, which is mostly sample builds.

He has a spell design book too, called Practical Enchanter. I haven't done anything with it yet but I've skimmed it and it looks good.

What you posted here made me remember something important, and that is my general dislike for the power systems found in 4E and even Star Wars SAGA when it came to Force Powers and Pilot Maneuvers. It comes with the side effect of thinking of what your character can and cannot do in terms of a list of options rather than just be given a broad understanding and being set loose to figure out what to do with it.

If I am to incorporate those abilities, I cannot have them be set powers. I like how they were written out in Mutants & Masterminds (I borrowed a lot from that system).

Maybe I can come up with a list of fantasy character archetypes, such as the Vanguard (the archetypical "main character", but isn't because they are playing with other PCs), the Mentor, the Anti-Hero, the Defender, etc. Each of the archetypes ought to also have a capstone ability to encourage playing up their archetype. I guess XP can be used to advance them, but I would rather something else. The idea is still very raw.

Not sure how you feel, but chatting with you has been very valuable to me. Thank you, anon.

I bookmarked the Archetypes and Roles article. I hope I can remember why I did it down the road...

Ultimately I'm relatively happy with how 3e's skill checks work, if not the number of points handed out by class, but they do need the player to learn their character, like spells, and know when to take 10 or when to roll. There's probably a way to spoon-feed the newbies and lazy players, but I would prefer it not be terribly slow or add a bunch more work to me to do so; and they could use some additional solid benchmarks and maybe some slight benchmark tweaking. Skills & Spells in a mobile app that lets them see at a glance the benchmarks relative to their take 10 and what's impossible, would be decent.

The system needs a lot of work in some other areas, but this one specifically, I think is mostly good, aside from a player who thinks they can accomplish literally anything if they roll a 20, or thinks that the GM should know (with no information) what their personal superhuman adventurer can and cannot do in every regard.

If we wanted to decide some skills (like jump, spot, or the knowledges) have a minimum that scales with level - I could see making them not normal skills perhaps. I think as-is works fine up to about level 16 or 17, but I admittedly have not played in or run an epic campaign. Either way, infinitely better than the 5e approach.

I suppose ultimately you were right, it has looped around to being an out of character problem, but not one of cheating, one of "learn your character".

Maybe at the end of the day, the answer is to just print out the skills and have multiple copies floating around the table.

And it's GURPS-like in it's granularity as a point buy system if you use Eclipse for building characters instead of the default classes and feats (which, these days, I am inclined to do). Eclipse Volume 2 (or his blog) have Eclipse builds of all the base classes and then some, so if someone wants to start from wizard and change things around rather than design a character progression from scratch or fake it as they go - that's easy to do.

3e still has a bunch of issues, but the biggest one goes away by using Eclipse for character building and not rigid classes or feats with complex prerequisites.

After that... Well, I'm working on something to fix WBL.

>What I am doing in my own system that is centered around 1d20 + Modifiers is firstly defining the outcomes not as pass/fail, but as "Outcome goes in favor of the actor/doesn't go in favor of the actor"
This sounds like the same thing, but more nebulous. Edge of the Empire with its wacky funtime special dice does this with options for "success, but with a setback" or "failure, but with a benefit" or a mix thereof and in between, but its kookoo unique dice actually allow it to represent that mechanically rather than leaving it all up to the GM to decide whether a result means "Yep you succeed" or a more moderate "Things go in your favor generally, but not completely". I'd definitely look at that system since you're not using Degrees of Success/Failure as a way to arbitrate - well, degrees of success or failure.

> because if there's no chance of either, why roll dice?
I agree. When a situation is either functionally impossible to succeed at or fail at, you shouldn't be rolling at all. And when you're not rolling, the dice don't matter. You don't need to roll for every action made, nor should you.

>Binary pass/fail
A lot of 3e skills have fail by 5 or succeed by 5 type degrees of success baked in, not just pass/fail. It's just not universal.

...which isn't D&D?
Is the joke supposed to be that there's people complaining about Pathfinder, and are being told to not play D&D, when the dominant D&D of the time solved the issue that they were specifically complaining about?

Because that's actually hilarious.

>Pathfinder
>Not D&D

Saying PF isn't dnd, it's just pure cope and braind dead opinion.

Pathfinder is literally off-brand D&D 3.5.

Playing something that's 99% identical to D&D when people's advice for D&D's variety of issues is to stop playing D&D is stupid, yes. If I said I was having problems riding a bike and someone told me to just buy a car, and my response was to get a different brand of bike, I'd be a moron.

I play PF1e and PF2e on a weekly basis. PF 1e was an outgrowth of 3.5, since WotC went with WoW-tabletop for 4e. It's often called "3.75" in the community.
I don't know why you're so intent on pushing the idea that it's not D&D, but you're wrong. It is mechanically identical, with a few tweaks and adjustments, and most things weighted in favor of the PCs, to 3.5.

>it's 99% similar but it's not the same because of the label
If that makes you feel better, sure.

The idea that people consider it 3.75 is a bit funny, given that it has so much of a 1 step forward two steps back design approach.

>Everyone gets 3/2 as many feats.
>All the feats that the people who need the boost would take have been drawn out over 2x as many feats.

>Let's simplify combat maneuver math.
>But make combat maneuvers harder to do, and make it so monsters will have such a numerical advantage by the time you can do one of them that it will be a trap option.

> Let's roll some lesser skills together to make a more concise list.
> Also combine several of the most useful skills into a perception super skill
> And roll out a pointless fly skill.

> Let's go hard into letting people customize their classes like 3e had with ACFs and alt levels.
> In rigid archetype packages which are frequently incompatible.

>Let's make lots of options.
>But ensure most of them are completely useless so people have to wade through a sea of trash to find any decent ones.

I played it for years, got fed up, tried 5e and pf2 for a bit, got fed up very quickly, and in ~2020 went back to 3e, and got Eclipse, and started modding 3e.

>trap options
Not all options are suited to all campaigns, but unfortunately, your statement is generally correct. The major problem is the design and the lore team didn't communicate, and there was so much splat put out that research was never done before developing new feats / options / etc. One glaring example is the magus and Slashing Grace, compared to Dervish Dance. Paizo specifically said magus can't utilize Slashing Grace (mostly because PFS players were whining about DEX magi being OP), but Dervish Dance came out and it was never errata'd. So, the magus -can- take Slashing Grace, but just call it something else and require him to waste two skill points in Perform (Dance). I am hoping this sort of stupidity doesn't carry over to 2E, as my players are starting to eye that system after being fatigued from 10+ years of PF1e.

>it's slogan
It's a forced meme spammed by trolls, right from the start. It was never meant to be advice, because

[...]
No, I went and found its original context, this is where it was first started being used significantly:

https://desuarchive.org/tg/thread/26805016/#26805286

It was used two times before this over the previous entire year, but basically by coincidence; after this post, it gets used four more times in August 2013 alone. Possibly there are some uses that are the picture actually getting turned into a meme, cbf.

It was a response to people making hyperspecific complaints that only applied to D&D specifically.

has it in a thread complaining about Instant Death effects, something almost entirely absent from 4e, the most played D&D of the time.

>Ergo if you have problem with some aspect in PF with 99% probability it's problem of core mechnics of dnd.
Not only is that wrong, it even also happens to be directly wrong in the exact case we're talking about. Instant death effects are not a core mechanic of D&D, and there's actually relatively few mechanics that are universal to every edition and variant of D&D. Even things like six ability scores isn't universal, with Gygax including the pseudo-ability score Comeliness as early as the first Unearthed Arcana.

Most of the "Stop playing D&D" spam doesn't even resemble advice; it's just being upset about people discussing D&D, while being passive aggressive so that when people tell you to frick off you can cheekily reply "Hey man, I'm just trying to help."

There are official variants for all of those, with none of them being explicitly baked into the system. There's even official replacements for the d20, including 3d6 and 2d10 variants. Hell, there's been official options for non-class and non-level based D&D, with "Create your own class" options that basically function like a point-buy system. There's even action speed rather than purely iniative based combat in 1e, wound options rather than pure HP, and so on.

Hell, you are being so disingenuous you included Vancian Magic and Caster Supremacy, which are so far from universal I don't think you even know what "universal" actually means. It's hardly universal if just not selecting a narrow set of classes from a few editions means you won't encounter it (with plenty of alternative magic classes/systems to provide alternatives in every single edition), and what "Vancian" even means has changed between each edition. Caster supremacy, aside from being opinionated as frick, is also absent from 4e and 5e, and in lower levels of earlier editions the mages were actually unbalanced by being far too weak, with casting one or two spells a day and then being a dead-weight in combat.

Even something like AC isn't truly universal. While the name typically remains relatively the same, what components make it up and how it interacts with various sub-systems changes, even to the point where AD&D strangely inverted the idea alongside using THACO. And, then there's official variants that do away with AC and instead have things like armor providing damage reduction as opposed to a miss chance.

Above all else, there's nothing inherently wrong with any of those, aside from "Caster Supremacy" which is so far from universal you've basically just played your hand.

Many of the strongest builds are fricked up fighter/paladin/three-other-classes that have stupidly high damage, action economy manipulation, and defenses, while also having access to plenty of utility options.

Hell, even the concept of "martial" and "caster" is so poorly defined that the mere concept of discussing "Caster/Martial" in 5e is just opening up a troll argument, because every class has access to casting magic and there's common scenarios where a Fighter will have more access to spells than a Warlock will. Before you can even try to imply
>Caster Supremacy
You'd first have to define what you mean by "Caster" and "Martial", at which point you're going to realize that you're going to really struggle to stick to one definition and also succeed in pretending that there's an inbalance with Casters on top.

>The game as it is played by the majority of people

You mean, with variants and electing to use some options over others? Almost no group plays the game like any other, and even something like the decision of whether to roll for stats, to use standard array, or to use point buy during character creation creates a split between groups.

You're trying to pretend there's a "default" way to play D&D, and that's what needs to be assessed, when that's not only functionally impossible because there's many times where no default option is presented among several, it fails to appreciate how people actually play the game.

So, yeah. You're so wrong it gives weight to the idea that you don't even actually play games and have next to no experience with them.

>??? What the frick are you talking about
If I play in a 3.5 (or 5e) game with a barbarian, a rogue, and a sorcerer, there's no Vancian caster (unless one of those selected vancian casting options). If I play 4e, there's either no Vancian casters or every class is Vancian caster, depending on how you choose to define Vancian. If I play with psionic characters in 3e, there's no vancian casting.

Actual "Vancian" Casting is like how it is described in the actual Vance novels: A Caster prepares and commits a spell to memory, and expends that spell by casting it, having to prepare it again if he wants to cast it again, ie. a Wizard from 3rd Edition. That's not even the most common way to cast spells in almost every edition of D&D, and is really nothing more than an optional subsystem alongside dozens of other magical subsystems, including spell slots used to cast known spells, power points, at-will casting, and so on. There's even modular casting, on-the-fly spell shaping, spell sacrifice and exchange, and so on and so forth.

>"but everyone plays differently" is moronic sophism.
It is a truth that you don't seem to appreciate. Which is why you imagine "Don't play the system" can be seen as actual advice for a specific complaint, when the very nature of roleplaying games is about customizing games to suit your personal preferences rather than always jumping from system to system as soon as you inevitably discover some rule or option you disagree with.

Let me explain it in a way you might comprehend. Let's take [game you like best]. Is it perfect? No. Will you use every option in the game simultaneously? No. Is it absent of ways to adapt, adjust, or otherwise modify the game to make it more closely suit your personal preferences? No.

So, what do you do if you have a specific and ultimately minor complaint, but otherwise like the system? Will you do what most people would do, or would you take your own advice and play a different system, only to discover you'll encounter new (or often, the very same) things to complain about?

>"the way magic works in D&D which has been called vancian since the start
Magic in D&D was never consistent. There has never been a singular way to use magic, and it certainly has not been solely Vancian casting, which itself has changed between editions to the point where it's dramatically different in 4e and 5e, even if there are spell levels and spell slots in 5e. Hell, the slots are not even truly "daily" in 3.5 or 5e, and are only truly daily in 2nd edition AD&D.

Seriously, I'm getting a strong sense that you may literally have never played a game in your life, let alone having experience with every edition of D&D. Hell, you don't even seem to have basic knowledge of each edition.

>from the perspective of a D&D player.
You mean from the perspective of anyone who actually knows what they're discussing? D&D isn't even among the games I'm currently playing in, it just happens to be a brand that I'm actually familiar with and have experience playing in its various systems.

>You've still got a system based around having a number of slots for spells of a specific level.
Except that's not the only way that spells are cast, and we've already moved well beyond Vancian casting even just by introducing spontaneous casting. Hell, Pathfinder actually went ahead and made cantrips at will, which is another type of casting those types of spells from 3.5 and one used in 4e and 5e. Jesus christ, I'm starting to think there's no way of getting you to comprehend something that basic.

How about Psionics? Do you understand 3.0 Psionics? What about things like the Paladin's Lay on Hands, Ki systems, and various other point based magic? Hell, we can even go so far as to start talking about really niche shit like candle magic (and other forms of item resource based magic), blood magic (ie. HP based casting), the tragedy that was skill-based magic, and if we're going to treat Pathfinder as a D&D there's even stupid shit like math magic.

Hell, even what spell slots are and how spell levels have worked have changed between editions, with things like 5e making spells far more modular by being able to use higher level spell slots for spells, while 3e used metamagic and slot sacrifice and slot recovery and other funky mechanics, and 4e doing away with spell levels entirely and just having powers you can obtain at certain character levels.

Please, for frick's sake, just take the L and admit you're out of your element and you're just regurgitating things other people have said without any actual practical experience on your part.

>The economy doesn't meaningfully change just because you don't have to select exactly which spells you need to cast ahead of time.
...

...

...Frick off.

You're already going for the "No True Scotsman" fallacy here, going from "no change" to "no meaningful change", while you're demanding I accept your claim that a change substantial enough that it was the defining split between two classes wasn't considered enough to be "meaningful."

I kind of knew you were a dumb troll, but frick me, you're just going from one troll fallacy to the next, all while demanding I treat you like anything other than the dumbest of trolls.

You played your hand too strongly, and I'm calling you on it. I should have just stopped replying to you all the way back to when you insisted Caster Supremacy was a universal mechanic.

Hey moron, dnd sucks

1e is 50 years old so "most people" wouldn't be using it now anyway, also the action speed rules are a fricking mess
>In AD&D you spend either 10 or 15 minutes per spell level, per spell. With the slots of a 20th level wizard, IIRC, it will take you like 3 days straight to re-prepare your spells in 2e, and more like 5 days in 1e.
It's true that you (RAW) need time to prepare spells, but that's still after a night of sleep - you can't just rememorize spells between fights. They're for the most part effectively dailies, although you could argue that for a sufficiently high level wizard and high autism DM you'd need more free time to recharge those slots.

>1e's action speed rules are a mess.
I was just pointing out they were the default.

>"Most people" wouldn't be using it now anyway.
It seems there are several AD&D1e people in /osrg/. More than the 2e players. But sure. It's going to have fewer players than 3e or 5e.

>it's okay if you add enough variants and houserules
or I could play a game that has support for those things in its core systems instead of as "mini game" addons

For frick's sake. it's like you don't even understand what rules are for, ie. your "rules focused on combat" complaint. Rules are meant to settle disputes and adjudicate contested scenarios, so it's no wonder D&D has plenty of combat rules, and why almost all RPGs also have high percentages of combat rules. It's like you've really never thought for yourself and are only repeating what you've heard other trolls say.

Similarly, because Magic isn't something easily agreed upon, D&Ds (and other games with magic) tend to have a lot of pages concerning rules about magic. On the other side of things, D&Ds are still very large games as a whole, and their non-combat and non-magic rules still end up having higher page counts than many games in their entirety.

But, I will grant you, (Core+GMG+APG+UM+UE) + various 3e books; is alright as a starting point. You'll want to mostly use 3e feats; and 3e's combat maneuvers; and either scrap CMB/CMD or give it a heavy redesign.

And Paizo's domains are rigid in comparison to what 3e had, and you can't easily use the 3e ones because PF added domain powers... IMO ban PF cleric and use the 3e Cleric, or find more domains from d20pfsrd and add them in selectively.

More ranger combat styles from d20pfsrd might be a good idea.

But, it makes a few improvements while losing a lot of what was great in 3e, and makes a few good additions while adding in a lot of traps, and making prereq planning even more onerous.

It's not a clear improvement, it's just a random grab bag of houseules.

My complaint isn't the existence of perception as a stat, only how much better it is than so many of the other skills. "Shall I put another point in perception, or raise my craft(pottery)?" It really needs some gurps style variable skill pricing, for how much it exacerbates the existing difference between good skills and weak skills.

>it's 99% similar but it's not the same because of the label
If that makes you feel better, sure.

[...]
>trap options
Not all options are suited to all campaigns, but unfortunately, your statement is generally correct. The major problem is the design and the lore team didn't communicate, and there was so much splat put out that research was never done before developing new feats / options / etc. One glaring example is the magus and Slashing Grace, compared to Dervish Dance. Paizo specifically said magus can't utilize Slashing Grace (mostly because PFS players were whining about DEX magi being OP), but Dervish Dance came out and it was never errata'd. So, the magus -can- take Slashing Grace, but just call it something else and require him to waste two skill points in Perform (Dance). I am hoping this sort of stupidity doesn't carry over to 2E, as my players are starting to eye that system after being fatigued from 10+ years of PF1e.

>Generally correct.
I should hope so. I've got a few thousand hours at the table GMing and playing it. There's a reason I was frustrated enough to try 5e. Paizo had some good ideas, but typically weak execution, and a lot of bad ideas with worse execution. One time I came across a post asking what process they had in place to filter out options that were too shit, so they wouldn't get published. IIRC the Paizo employee said there was no process like that. They only checked for "too good". IMO the way to go is to treat them as a 3e 3pp to cherrypick bits from, same as Mongoose or Green Ronin. A lower quality 3PP than Dreamscarred Press, Atlas, Fantasy Flight, or Monte Cook Games.

Perception is one of the rare ones you really want to keep maxed out. It's just too good compared to the other skills. And yeah, removing it from your skills and making it something else isn't a bad idea.

What for? Once you can take 10 the things you want the skill for, there is no reason to invest further, unless it's on a moving treadmill of opposed DCs like stealth / perception. Once you get your ride skill high enough for the ride tricks you care about, BAM, done. Free points to spend elsewhere. Perception is a skill that rots to uselessness as you level up if you don't keep buying it up. Most skills are not.

>Skill Unlocks
PF1 has skill unlocks? Are they just one of the variant rules in Unchained I never used?

Just because there *ARE* things you can do with higher skill levels, doesn't mean they're things you personally care about for your character. Like my Ride example. I don't care about all the fancy tricks, I'm good once I won't fall off if I catch an arrow while running away, or in the first round of a surprise combat and the horse gets spooked before I dismount to fight.

>It's not 3.5
I have indeed gone back to 3.5, an only import PF1 content selectively, like any other 3PP. PF1 has more missteps than improvements, IMNSHO.

Imagine if you will a game so fricking shitty that you can say "there are no wands in the universe that you can't use as soon as you get a +19 to your roll, so stop learning use magic device at that point or you are wasting skill points."
What an utterly soulless letdown, worse by far than shitty video games that at least tell you"You mastered this skill!".

Frick dnd

These are the people that crack a shit when you tell them to stop playing D&D because they are not playing D&D just something that is almost the same with nearly all the same flaws but NOT D&D!

You're a delusional c**t and you just make people hate your favorite little WotC goyslop more.