I don't understand D&D's +3 fetish, to be honest, but changing things to +5 bonuses is more intuitive (and more aesthetically pleasing). Fore instance, Toughness should give +5 HP to start with so one ends with +25 HP at level 20, and Skill Focus: Whatever should give a +5 bonus. This would make the feats look better as well as settling my spastic nature that is irked at the existence of +3 bonuses.
|
I don't understand D&D's +3 fetish, to be honest, but changing things to +5 bonuses is more intuitive (and more aesthetically pleasing). Fore instance, Toughness should give +5 HP to start with so one ends with +25 HP at level 20, and Skill Focus: Whatever should give a +5 bonus. This would make the feats look better as well as settling my spastic nature that is irked at the existence of +3 bonuses.
Why do you hate the number three so much? ^____^
Because 5 is easier to do math with.
Really? I always thought that 7 + 3 was easier to do than 7 + 5.
It's just the way SAGA does it.
By the way, they also changed every +/-4 (and it's multiplications) to +/-5 (etc.)
Actually, they just streamlined the modifiers to (+/-):
2, 5, 10, 15, 20, etc.
I don't know how you "GM" it but I never applied a +6 or a -3 or something similar.
If you take a look at the DCs. They too come up with multipliers of 2 and 5.
It's just a streamlining effect. You like it or not.
I do.
Because 5 is easier to do math with.Really? I always thought that 7 + 3 was easier to do than 7 + 5.
5+5 is better than 7+3.
3 is a magic number. I want to keep the magic. When I think 5, all I can come up with is "5th wheel" :P
What about the pentagram?
BTW: Three is always one to many!
5+5 is better than 7+3.Because 5 is easier to do math with.Really? I always thought that 7 + 3 was easier to do than 7 + 5.
Which only proves that if you adding 5 to a multiple of 5, then it is easier to work with, if you are adding it to a number that is not a multiple of 5, then it is no easier to work with.
Which only proves that if you adding 5 to a multiple of 5, then it is easier to work with, if you are adding it to a number that is not a multiple of 5, then it is no easier to work with.5+5 is better than 7+3.Because 5 is easier to do math with.Really? I always thought that 7 + 3 was easier to do than 7 + 5.
And since many of the DCs in D&D are multiples of 5...well, that's just icing on the cake, now isn't it?
And since many of the DCs in D&D are multiples of 5...well, that's just icing on the cake, now isn't it?Which only proves that if you adding 5 to a multiple of 5, then it is easier to work with, if you are adding it to a number that is not a multiple of 5, then it is no easier to work with.5+5 is better than 7+3.Because 5 is easier to do math with.Really? I always thought that 7 + 3 was easier to do than 7 + 5.
Except this isn't 4th edition, you don't add to the "DCs" you add to the roll to make the DC, and that number won't necessarily be a multiple of 5. In fact on a d20 there are only 4 numbers that are multiples of 5 on it.
Four numbers on a d20 are multiples of five.
Two numbers end in one.
Two numbers end in two.
Two numbers end in three.
Two numbers end in four.
Two numbers end in six.
Two numbers end in seven.
Two numbers end in eight.
Two numbers end in nine.
Hmm.
The main point is to make the feats marginally more useful, yes? Makes sense, right? The easier addition is just a bonus.
Ok let's just take a closer look to feats like Skill Focus.
At which point does this feat gets too powerful, at which point is it not worth taking it?
Would you spend a feat to get a +2 on one Skill? Well I think I wouldn't. But on two skills, well that is something I had to think about.
How about +3 on one skill? Still not that much, right?
+4 one one skill. Now that's something I guess. But might this be already to powerful?
And how about +5? If we stick to the classical full level + x cap for skills, that's a major boost I would say.
To be honest, the only time I might take Skill Focus for something is as a truenamer.
|
|
I'm in favor of this.
I think allowing skills to maximum of level+5 is good, giving a +5 bonus for skill focus, and even +5 hit points for 'Toughness'.
I think at +5 it will be a more attractive option than Improved Toughness. At 1st level the extra 5 hit points will be better than +1/level that improved toughness gets, making it more of a difficult choice for the player between instant and long term benefit.
Well, at least someone agrees with me.
Four numbers on a d20 are multiples of five.
....
Two numbers end in three.
....
Hmm.
Six numbers on a d20 are multiples of 3.
;P
I'm not arguing that +3 is better than +5...I'm just being a jerk.
Yeah, I was tempt to say something about there only being 2 numbers ending in 5 and 2 ending in 0. And that there was four numbers that were 2mod(5) [2,7,12,17] that three could have been added to easily. But I decide there wasn't much point.
+5 is better than +3.
That is all.
Toads should give +5 HP.
What, no love for +4?
I hear you Jack! +4 is our Lucky Number! All you have to do is add two 2s. Odd numbers stay Odd, Even numbers stay Even.
There are 5 numbers on d20 that are divisible by 4. We get a stat increase every 4 levels. Stat increasing spells boost stats by 4. 1 ranks plus 4 is 5, the older synergy value for skills, and what you need to take 10 and meet DC 15. 4 is a little better then double the new Wizard's average HP per HD (what 3 was before). Skill boosting feats add +2 to two skills, Skill Focus would add +4 to one.
This may be the most rediculous thread I've ever read. Really.
You want +5 on a skill, take skill focus (+3), and the relevent two-fer skill. Bam! +5.
I'm done.
Yes, because wasting two feats is way better.
|
Yes, because wasting two feats is way better.This may be the most rediculous thread I've ever read. Really.
You want +5 on a skill, take skill focus (+3), and the relevent two-fer skill. Bam! +5.
I'm done.
I agree -- a Feat should give you a better benefit than just +2 on one or two Saves/Skills. That's why I've removed all those Feats from my campaigns ('Deft Hands', 'Acrobatic', 'Agile', etc.). Besides, some of them just don't make sense -- you can be "Acrobatic" without investing a single rank in Acrobatics?
The problem I see with heavily increasing the bonus you get from a feat is that it makes your ability bonuses increasingly irrelevant. A +3 is the equivalent of going from a 10 in the relevant ability score to at 16, or going from average to naturally gifted. A +5 is the equivalent of going from average (10) to beyond human (20).
|
I...I have no idea what to make of this idea. Actually I do. I am going to make a website where you can enter a number into the field and hit the "Submit Plus" button and the site will return the number you entered plus 3. You may select the "Submit Minus" button and the site will subtract 3 from the number you supplied. This should speed up play where needed.
I will offer this as a free service. There is no need to subscribe to my Digital Initiative. I am generous that way.
|
|
It isn't just that 5s are easier to work with (sometimes they are, and sometimes they aren't).
They're a more appealing number for many reasons. Certainly some people might disagree, but they're certainly larger than a +3. And that makes them more significant. A feat should be significant, and a +5 shows that pretty clearly. That is true whether we're talking about hit points, skill adjustments, or any other number. That's the maximum bonus for a magical weapon.
The number os aesthetically pleasing. Some people obviously disagree. But those that think that it could be a good idea should have their idea considered. Any good reason not to do this other than the fact that 3.5 did something different.