[FantasyCraft] Making New Classes.

[Doublebond]

I just want to clear something up. A higher progression will always have a higher end number, right? It makes things delightfully easy if that is so.

One of THE most important design advances of d20 over previous incarnations of D&D was the hard and fast meta-rule that more IS always better. You always want to roll high. You always want your enemies to roll low.

I understand that. Though already answered, my question at the time was more directed towards insuring there were no progressions that had the same final number but...erm...progressed differently.

[Morgenstern]

Within the same colum? No.

(there are several ways to top out at 15, but they're not shared by the same class colum)

[pawsplay]

So the Mage's SP progression "high," the Alchemist's is "medium," and low is presumably "No spell points for you," right?

[Sletchman]

So the Mage's SP progression "high," the Alchemist's is "medium," and low is presumably "No spell points for you," right?

Yup.

[Bigode]

The "8 points" rule may as well (and, I think, more intuitively to many people) be phrased as "you must have as many weak progressions as strong progressions; all others left are medium".

Besides, what would be people's thoughts on treating vitality and skills as another 2 "normal progressions"? That is, then the 8 points would become 10 (the rephrasing above would still be valid), and you'd be able to trade off high/low vitality/skills against things other than skills/vitality. Granted, maybe skills should be priced at 2 points/increase instead of 1, but what about the idea itself?

Also: snoop progressions?

[pawsplay]

I'd say no. The skills/vitality split is a nice way to balance archetypes. If you really want a class to move outside that space, I think it would better just to grant extra skill ranks (as Swashbuckler), Prodigal skill or Well-Rounded as a bonus feat, or skill bonuses. Plus, that space currently belongs to Sage.

[Morgenstern]

The "8 points" rule may as well (and, I think, more intuitively to many people) be phrased as "you must have as many weak progressions as strong progressions; all others left are medium".

Until spell points get in the mix and that rule you are suggesting shatters to bits .

Besides, what would be people's thoughts on treating vitality and skills as another 2 "normal progressions"? That is, then the 8 points would become 10 (the rephrasing above would still be valid), and you'd be able to trade off high/low vitality/skills against things other than skills/vitality. Granted, maybe skills should be priced at 2 points/increase instead of 1, but what about the idea itself?

Both of those progressions are more valuable to the vast majority of players than any other colum except maybe BAB. It would become a comedy act about med/high, high/high, or high/med skill point and vitality progressions. You'd never see a low value again, nor should you.

Also: snoop progressions?

Errata?

[Bigode]

Went "some time" without Internet access ...

Until spell points get in the mix and that rule you are suggesting shatters to bits .

There are things I shouldn't do while sleep-deprived.

Both of those progressions are more valuable to the vast majority of players than any other column except maybe BAB. It would become a comedy act about med/high, high/high, or high/med skill point and vitality progressions. You'd never see a low value again, nor should you.

Well, the possible progressions are {low/low, low/med, med/low, med/med, low/high, high/low, med/high, high/med, high/high}; I'll disregard {med/med, low/high, high/low} because they're the ones already in place (not that I'm arguing for eliminating them, to the contrary), and {med/high, high/med, high/high} because they're the ones you'd already expect to see.

That leaves me to argue in favor of {low/low, low/med, med/high} - won't argue for low/low, but I do think a bunch of backer- (especially backer/combatant, with low skills/med vitality) and/or wildcard- (especially spellcasters, with med skills/low vitality - for example, I think the mage should be here) -based concepts could use one of {low/med, med/low}, to free points for Lifestyle, Legend, spell points, possibly other things.

Do note that: A) I'm only taking about "low skills" at all because it's a lot better than in "that other game", and B) I recognize it might be fairer to price skill points at two points per increase.

Also: snoop progressions?

Errata?

1)I'd thought there was no errata past 2nd printing. Was evidently wrong, and this may serve as a warning against crack.
2)Still, the second printing errata only mentions a change to the sleuth's initiative (which I don't understand, as it already is equal to the scout's), making no comment on the snoop's base progressions. Or did I miss some errata not in the Downloads section? Either way, thanks.