I am thinking of resurrecting my homebrew campaign not as a Pathfinder campaign, but as a "D&D 3.625", combining elements of 3.5 D&D and Pathfinder.
My question is, what aspects of 3.5 most need/should be changed or upgraded?
My thoughts are to mainly use the Pathfinder mechanics where they have been improved, such as the Skills and the CMB/CMD, but use the 3.5 classes with a few tweaks. I'll probably want to boost the Sorcerer and the Paladin from 3.5, but overall I think the 3.5 classes are what I want.
I think I'd like to keep 4x skills at 1st level, and allow 1st level characters to build skill ranks up to 4. This allows a level 1 character to define himself as either a dabbler (1 rank), a novice (2 ranks), serious (3 ranks), or expert (4 ranks). This of course means that, with the +3 class skill bonus from the Pathfinder ruleset, 3.625 characters would be able to reach skill DCs 3 higher than equivalent level characters in either system.
What else should I consider for this project?
One thing I'd like to do is keep the old Player's Handbooks and/or SRD relevant, so players can use those if they have them. This means that for the most part, spells and feats will be as they are in 3.5 unless there is a need to change one.
1) I think I will use Pathfinder combat maneuvers.
2) Spells will be 3.5, unless there really needs to be a change.
3) Feats also will be 3.5, unless there really needs to be a change.
4) I never liked the way opposition schools worked, and am tempted to just drop them. It would be more work, but perhaps do them the way they were in 2nd Edition, where each specialty was essentially its own class.
To make things more complicated, ever since 2nd Edition came out, I was disatisfied with the way the Illusionist was not like the 1st Edition Illusionist, but had trouble thinking of how to fix it. My solution is to recast the Psion is the descendants of the ancient Illusionist school, with the modern Illusionists being like the 2nd/3rd/Pathfinder Illusionists.
5) I like the Pathfinder system, since it is a lot easier. As mentioned, I think I'll keep quadruple skill points at 1st level and 3+Level being the skill point maximum, but use the Pathfinder system for a cross class skill bonus. In addition, the following house rules get converted:
5a) At each level, a player may designate a Special Interest, which grants +1 rank to a Knowledge, Craft, or Perform skill, or a skill from an activities list. This can't raise the skill ranks above the maximum for the PC's level.
5b) At character creation, a Personal Class Skill is designated for the character, which is a skill that is considered to be a class skill for that character. The Personal Class Skill has to be based on the character's background, so a PC from a horse-riding clan could have Riding, a PC from the frontier could have Survival, etc.
I am sorry to say, but I hate the Pathfinder feats with a passion. They nerfed things in the most passive way mossible by making most alright at early levels, and useless at higher levels. Examples: Cleave and Power attack.
They also when completely swift action crazy!
An eldrich knight, playing in flavor, will take arcane armor training feats, and arcane strike. Then they get #$%!^(% up the $#@ when they get their capestone ability, as every time they would have the ability to use it they would have already used their swift actions on other feats.
I personally would change the feat actions to auto-matic in these cases.
Other feats, should be 3.5 version, like cleave. Power Attack isn't all that bad, but upping the progression to -8 and give the option to chose what minus they want to take.
Great Cleave needs an upgrade, and pathfinder just dropped the ball.
I personally like the pathfinder skill system, and I suggest using it, but I would get ride of the fly skill, and bring back concentration skill.
|
I'd recommend not going back to 3.5's skill system. It's much less refined and gets bothersome quickly compared to Pathfinders, especially if your making a higher level character. Keeping track of where you took which skill point and then worrying about cross class again isn't something you should do to your players. The first thing I hate going back to play in a 3.5 game is the skill system.
Speaking of your players, what are their thoughts on all this? They're the ones who are going to give you useful feedback since they'll be the ones actually playing in your game.
The retro-active skill points and Int also makes things a world easier too.
I'd recommend not going back to 3.5's skill system. It's much less refined and gets bothersome quickly compared to Pathfinders, especially if your making a higher level character. Keeping track of where you took which skill point and then worrying about cross class again isn't something you should do to your players. The first thing I hate going back to play in a 3.5 game is the skill system.
Speaking of your players, what are their thoughts on all this? They're the ones who are going to give you useful feedback since they'll be the ones actually playing in your game.
I have only one player at this time, and don't know if I will actually be able to recruit enough players for a game. I don't think there was really a need to upgrade from 3.5 in the first place, especially with the house rules that I had made to make everything work out for the specific way that I ran my campaign.
As for skills, I do intend to use Pathfinder skills, with just the exception of quadruple skill points at 1st level and setting the max skill ranks to Level + 3. And adapting the house rules I had made for 3.5 to this new system.
Class skills/cross class skills work as per Pathfinder, with a +3 bonus for class skills.
This means that PCs can hit a DC 3 higher in my system than in either 3.5 or in Pathfinder, but I can live with that, or set the DCs to 3 higher.
I'd recommend not going back to 3.5's skill system. It's much less refined and gets bothersome quickly compared to Pathfinders, especially if your making a higher level character. Keeping track of where you took which skill point and then worrying about cross class again isn't something you should do to your players. The first thing I hate going back to play in a 3.5 game is the skill system.
Speaking of your players, what are their thoughts on all this? They're the ones who are going to give you useful feedback since they'll be the ones actually playing in your game.
I have only one player at this time, and don't know if I will actually be able to recruit enough players for a game. I don't think there was really a need to upgrade from 3.5 in the first place, especially with the house rules that I had made to make everything work out for the specific way that I ran my campaign.
As for skills, I do intend to use Pathfinder skills, with just the exception of quadruple skill points at 1st level and setting the max skill ranks to Level + 3. And adapting the house rules I had made for 3.5 to this new system.
Class skills/cross class skills work as per Pathfinder, with a +3 bonus for class skills.
This means that PCs can hit a DC 3 higher in my system than in either 3.5 or in Pathfinder, but I can live with that, or set the DCs to 3 higher.
Just realize that it may allow PCs to qualify for some Prestige classes early than originally intended.
Just realize that it may allow PCs to qualify for some Prestige classes early than originally intended.I'd recommend not going back to 3.5's skill system. It's much less refined and gets bothersome quickly compared to Pathfinders, especially if your making a higher level character. Keeping track of where you took which skill point and then worrying about cross class again isn't something you should do to your players. The first thing I hate going back to play in a 3.5 game is the skill system.
Speaking of your players, what are their thoughts on all this? They're the ones who are going to give you useful feedback since they'll be the ones actually playing in your game.
I have only one player at this time, and don't know if I will actually be able to recruit enough players for a game. I don't think there was really a need to upgrade from 3.5 in the first place, especially with the house rules that I had made to make everything work out for the specific way that I ran my campaign.
As for skills, I do intend to use Pathfinder skills, with just the exception of quadruple skill points at 1st level and setting the max skill ranks to Level + 3. And adapting the house rules I had made for 3.5 to this new system.
Class skills/cross class skills work as per Pathfinder, with a +3 bonus for class skills.
This means that PCs can hit a DC 3 higher in my system than in either 3.5 or in Pathfinder, but I can live with that, or set the DCs to 3 higher.
Only the Pathfinder ones as skills requirements are always done by the number of ranks, NOT the bonus, and that +3 does not add to the number of ranks in any way.
Actually, I think the skill system is one subsystem of 3.5 that should have been scrapped and rebuilt anew instead of just some patching, since after a few levels, it's getting binary: either the character is really good in the skill, or he has no chance.
This makes higher-level skills boring; it's always the druid who does survival, the bard or rogue who does diplomacy, ....
While I don't like 4E, I think the idea of using 1/2 level as base skill and a fixed bonus for 'class skills' (e.g. +3 as in PF) is the best of both worlds. This gives the characters specialized in the skill an advantage, but at the same time allows everyone to take part.
So the skill modifier might be something like:
1/2 level + class skill bonus (maybe +3 up to level 10, then +6)
You could also use
1/2 level + ability mod + class skill bonus
but this weakens the 'everyone has a fair chance' goal because large ability modifiers are the norm in higher level games...
I run a Pathfinder/3.5/3.0 hybrid game. I use 99% of the Pathfinder stuff, but there are a few things I kept from 3.5, and one thing I kept from 3.0. I would be careful mixing classes from 3.5 and Pathfinder, if I were you. Pathfinder classes tend to be more powerful.
3.5 stuff I use:
1) I kept Concentration, but dumped Spellcraft (Pathfinder did the opposite). My reasoning is that a) I believe there should be at least one skill for every ability (there are no Constitution-based skills in Pathfinder). b) Concentration can be used for other, non-spellcasting things. c) Knowledge (arcana) and Knowledge (religion) can be used to fill a similar role to Spellcraft, depending on the source of the spell (divine or arcane).
2) I am keeping 3.5 Prestege classes. There are more of them, and offer they more variety. Also, 3.5 prestege classes are roughly similar in power to the Pathfinder "core" classes.
3) I use 3.5 monsters every now and then, when there is not a published Pathfinder version of them.
3.0 stuff I use:
1) My large creatures are 5x10, not 10x10. I don't want 20ft wide chariots, just because the chariot has 2 horses. This just my personal preference. Horses are not really much "wider" than people.
Other than that, I use all Pathfinder stuff. Well, that's not entirely ture. I also have my own intoxication rules, based on my police breathalyzer training, modified to use D&D/Pathfinder rules. But as far as published material goes, It's mostly Pathfinder.
Just be careful with too much mixing/matching. It can alter the play ballance in lots of unintended ways.
3) I use 3.5 monsters every now and then, when there is not a published Pathfinder version of them.
How has that worked so far? I've only recently started running PF and I'm leery at the moment about mixing critters in, although I would really like to.
I also kept concerntration, although I don't require spell casters to have it. It's more used for monks and a few other classes.
3.0 stuff I use:
1) My large creatures are 5x10, not 10x10. I don't want 20ft wide chariots, just because the chariot has 2 horses. This just my personal preference. Horses are not really much "wider" than people.
10x10 is how much space they need to be able to fully fight. A large creature can easily squeeze into 5x10 space and so 2 horses in a chariot harness can take up 10x10 space in 3.5.
Actually, I think the skill system is one subsystem of 3.5 that should have been scrapped and rebuilt anew instead of just some patching, since after a few levels, it's getting binary: either the character is really good in the skill, or he has no chance.
This makes higher-level skills boring; it's always the druid who does survival, the bard or rogue who does diplomacy, ....
While I don't like 4E, I think the idea of using 1/2 level as base skill and a fixed bonus for 'class skills' (e.g. +3 as in PF) is the best of both worlds. This gives the characters specialized in the skill an advantage, but at the same time allows everyone to take part.
So the skill modifier might be something like:
1/2 level + class skill bonus (maybe +3 up to level 10, then +6)
You could also use
1/2 level + ability mod + class skill bonus
but this weakens the 'everyone has a fair chance' goal because large ability modifiers are the norm in higher level games...
I take an 'existential' approach to skill DCs, so characters can always find skill tasks to challenge them, no matter what their skills. In my philosophy, it is not a bad thing that at higher levels the classes start to broaden out, as only those who focus on a skill can hit some of the near epic DCs they encounter.
Pathfinder is a little better than 3.5, in that in Pathfinder a class skill is a +3 bonus, so if a Fighter wants to focus on Survival, he can always almost match a Druid or Ranger at high levels. In fact, at higher levels, the +3 bonus for the wilderness classes becomes less significant overall, except in reaching the very highest DCs possible for the party.
But still, in pathfinder, a character has to focus to reach these high DCs, whether they are a Druid or whether they are a Fighter. I think I like that aspect because it forces players to choose what they want to focus on, and Pathfinder gives players of low-skill classes more opportunities.
I take an 'existential' approach to skill DCs, so characters can always find skill tasks to challenge them, no matter what their skills. In my philosophy, it is not a bad thing that at higher levels the classes start to broaden out, as only those who focus on a skill can hit some of the near epic DCs they encounter.
My problem with the 3.5/PF skill system is that in order for e.g. a negotiation to be interesting for all the players (in the sense that they can meaningfully contribute), you have to use different DCs for the different characters, which is unfair and illogical. Otherwise the +hueg bonus in diplomancy that specialized characters will have make them the only sensible choice for any roll.
Pathfinder is a little better than 3.5, in that in Pathfinder a class skill is a +3 bonus, so if a Fighter wants to focus on Survival, he can always almost match a Druid or Ranger at high levels. In fact, at higher levels, the +3 bonus for the wilderness classes becomes less significant overall, except in reaching the very highest DCs possible for the party.
But still, in pathfinder, a character has to focus to reach these high DCs, whether they are a Druid or whether they are a Fighter. I think I like that aspect because it forces players to choose what they want to focus on, and Pathfinder gives players of low-skill classes more opportunities.
Of course, but I think everyone should be able to contribute meaningfully, not only the specialists. YMMV :)
Another thing: If you use CMB/CMD, you probably should adjust the values a bit, because they don't really work mathematically; that is, unless you build a character specifically for tripping, they won't have a 'fair' chance, and even a melee attacker with all tripping feats has only a small chance at succeeding. 3.5 did this better...
Honestly the only really, really good skills systems I've seen are employed by point based systems. I think a level based system simply doesn't lend itself well to skills, especially with a) the degree of specialization encouraged and b) the difference between low, middle and high level characters. How if you can come up with a system to prove me wrong I'd be happy to hear it.
Honestly the only really, really good skills systems I've seen are employed by point based systems. I think a level based system simply doesn't lend itself well to skills, especially with a) the degree of specialization encouraged and b) the difference between low, middle and high level characters. How if you can come up with a system to prove me wrong I'd be happy to hear it.
That's exactly the point - 'the degree of specialization encouraged' is just another way of saying that most characters don't get to play when it's not their specialization.
A good level-based system (e.g. something similar to what I proposed above) does not give the specialized character a huge advantage (which some people might not like), but on the other hand allows all players to participate in all skill-based tasks.
For me, the inclusive aspect is far more important than rewarding the specialist with options exclusive to him....
Honestly the only really, really good skills systems I've seen are employed by point based systems. I think a level based system simply doesn't lend itself well to skills, especially with a) the degree of specialization encouraged and b) the difference between low, middle and high level characters. How if you can come up with a system to prove me wrong I'd be happy to hear it.That's exactly the point - 'the degree of specialization encouraged' is just another way of saying that most characters don't get to play when it's not their specialization.
A good level-based system (e.g. something similar to what I proposed above) does not give the specialized character a huge advantage (which some people might not like), but on the other hand allows all players to participate in all skill-based tasks.
For me, the inclusive aspect is far more important than rewarding the specialist with options exclusive to him....
Except that your system means that everyone is good at all skills. There is not specializing at all. Frankly it isn't unreasonable for a character to have something they are good at, and when it comes up for the other characters to let them handle it.
Your system just reduces it to "who has lucky dice tonight" with the characters who have a bonus being a little luckier. Honestly I think your system is a worse system then the current one.
Except that your system means that everyone is good at all skills. There is not specializing at all. Frankly it isn't unreasonable for a character to have something they are good at, and when it comes up for the other characters to let them handle it.Your system just reduces it to "who has lucky dice tonight" with the characters who have a bonus being a little luckier. Honestly I think your system is a worse system then the current one.
It's a bad system for someone with your goals, namely, rewarding specialists and punishing/excluding everyone else. Its a good system for someone with the goal of including all players and punishing/not overly rewarding specialists.
It's not only lucky dice, though. Look at the numbers. With 3 as spec bonus, the specialists get 15% bonus on their skill rolls, with 5, they get 25%. This is enough so they have a reasonably better chance at succeeding, but not enough to make them the only sensible choice to use certain skill.
As already mentioned, the skill system has fulfill your goals. If the default 3.5/PF skill systems meet yours, no need to change. But for many people, they don't...
Except that your system means that everyone is good at all skills. There is not specializing at all. Frankly it isn't unreasonable for a character to have something they are good at, and when it comes up for the other characters to let them handle it.Your system just reduces it to "who has lucky dice tonight" with the characters who have a bonus being a little luckier. Honestly I think your system is a worse system then the current one.
It's a bad system for someone with your goals, namely, rewarding specialists and punishing/excluding everyone else. Its a good system for someone with the goal of including all players and punishing/not overly rewarding specialists.
It's not only lucky dice, though. Look at the numbers. With 3 as spec bonus, the specialists get 15% bonus on their skill rolls, with 5, they get 25%. This is enough so they have a reasonably better chance at succeeding, but not enough to make them the only sensible choice to use certain skill.
As already mentioned, the skill system has fulfill your goals. If the default 3.5/PF skill systems meet yours, no need to change. But for many people, they don't...
Please don't confusing rewarding specialist with punishing/excluding everyone else. If that's been your experience I'm sorry, you should look to whoever is GMing the game.
Please don't confusing rewarding specialist with punishing/excluding everyone else. If that's been your experience I'm sorry, you should look to whoever is GMing the game.
So how do you set a DC for a diplomacy challenge that works equally well for a bard or rogue with maybe +15 on diplomacy and a fighter with -1?
Please don't confusing rewarding specialist with punishing/excluding everyone else. If that's been your experience I'm sorry, you should look to whoever is GMing the game.
So how do you set a DC for a diplomacy challenge that works equally well for a bard or rogue with maybe +15 on diplomacy and a fighter with -1?
How about using the skill check to assist roleplaying rather than replacing it?
How about using the skill check to assist roleplaying rather than replacing it?
Don't change the topic. Please answer my question. You have to set a DC for the skill check when 'replacing' roleplaying as well as when assisting it...
Don't change the topic. Please answer my question. You have to set a DC for the skill check when 'replacing' roleplaying as well as when assisting it...
How about using the skill check to assist roleplaying rather than replacing it?
Instead of say the DC is X number and anyone who doesn't make it fails. I have those who decide to chime in on the discussion make a roll. The highter they roll the more favorable a light the NPC will look at their statements/comments. From there it will depend on what they actually said to the NPC.
If the Bard said "suck my c*ck" then rolled a nat 20 he still is probably in trouble. Unless of course he is negotiating with a hooker, at which point he'll probably get a discount.
If the Fighter starts talking reasonably and making fair suggestions, then a bad roll on his part might mean the NPC gets greedy and starts demanding more then is fair, at that point how the fighter and other party members react will make a huge difference is the direction the negotiations take.
That is an example of letting skill assist roleplaying instead of replacing it.
If you absolutely must go with make X DC get to get what you want then some people are going to have a harder time than others, sometimes drastically so. Of course that bard has spent years polishing his ability to operate smoothly while the fighter was spending those years learning to put his sword where it does the most damage. Frankly letting different people do different things is one of the reasons there is more than 1 person sitting at the table.
For those who don't like seeing the non-specialists not able to do anything, don't make scenarios where only one skill is relevant. The one thing I liked with the 4th edition skill challenges was that any given challenge could be resolved using a number of different skills. Even if you keep the 3.5 one roll = success/failure, you could expand what skills could be used to aid that primary roll. This would allow other characters to participate, but still reward the character that specialized in a given skill.
Instead of say the DC is X number and anyone who doesn't make it fails. I have those who decide to chime in on the discussion make a roll. The highter they roll the more favorable a light the NPC will look at their statements/comments. From there it will depend on what they actually said to the NPC.If the Bard said "suck my c*ck" then rolled a nat 20 he still is probably in trouble. Unless of course he is negotiating with a hooker, at which point he'll probably get a discount.
If the Fighter starts talking reasonably and making fair suggestions, then a bad roll on his part might mean the NPC gets greedy and starts demanding more then is fair, at that point how the fighter and other party members react will make a huge difference is the direction the negotiations take.
But this doesn't solve the basic problem. Either you have to set different DCs for different people (and have to know their 'skill range' in order to set it), or you disqualify the fighter from participating. In the example I made, the bard/rogue has a worst-case skill check of 16 (1+15) while the fighter has a best-case skill check of 19 (20-1). It gets even worse when ignoring criticals: bard worst-case 17, fighter best-case 18.
While I do think that a Bard should get an advantage, the default system just breaks the RNG after a few levels.
That is an example of letting skill assist roleplaying instead of replacing it.
So what do you do if the rogue as well as the fighter bring good, nicely role-played arguments to negotiate with an NPC?
If you absolutely must go with make X DC get to get what you want then some people are going to have a harder time than others, sometimes drastically so. Of course that bard has spent years polishing his ability to operate smoothly while the fighter was spending those years learning to put his sword where it does the most damage.
A rogue is much better at dealing damage as a fighter...but that's another topic and would derail this thread even more.
Frankly letting different people do different things is one of the reasons there is more than 1 person sitting at the table.
That's your philosophy. I rather include everyone, in combat as well as during social or any other non-combat encounters...
You seem unable to see my point, which is too bad. I have never had a player complain that they felt excluded by any part of my running, and that includes any skill system I have used.
I hope you figure out and use a system that makes you happy.
You seem unable to see my point, which is too bad.
Thanks for the insult. I'm not 'unable to grasp your point', I just don't agree with you.
Almost any broken system can be washed over with DM fudging. This doesn't mean its not better to strive for a working one...
You seem unable to see my point, which is too bad.
Thanks for the insult. I'm not 'unable to grasp your point', I just don't agree with you.
Almost any broken system can be washed over with DM fudging. This doesn't mean its not better to strive for a working one...
I did not intent it as an insult, and have been trying not to take any of your comments as suck.
Alright, let's remind people who is the GM here, and is me.
As for using skills in non-combat encounters, the first thing I consider is: is this an extended action or is this a brief action.
For example, if the party comes to a locked door and only the Rogue has the skill to pick the lock, I don't see much of a problem in having the Rogue roll to see if she can open it. It's only one die roll, and if she fails she just takes 20, and odds are that will get the party through and on to the next thing.
But if there is an extended negotiation with the baron, then it is good if everybody can contribute, but they might not be able to contribute in the same way. This could be seen as analogous to combat, where the Fighter-types will contribute most directly by laying down of damage, but other types also contribute by doing other things (casting spells, healing, sneak attacks, taking care of minions, etc).
I've long used the rule that you determine what you say, and the dice determine how well you say it. Then I determine how the NPC reacts.
A Fighter with no ranks in Diplomacy might be able to draw on common ground between himself and the baron's military background. A cleric may be able to make religious arguments in the party's favor. A wizard could offer to enchant something for the baron. The ranger could catch the goblin spying on the proceedings. Some of this may require "thinking outside the box".
I've been thinking of ways to make social situations more interesting. A high Diplomacy has always helped, but it has never been the only factor in such conditions. (It might be an essential factor, if the NPCs are not positively predisposed to consider the PCs' case.)
In other situations, usually it is whoever has the skill makes the skill. Usually there are a couple characters who are the ears and eyes of the party. There is one or two characters who can lead everybody else through the wilderness. (If not, the party may very well get into trouble.) If there isn't anybody able to get through the locked doors, the fighter-types can smash it down.
From my point of view, the major problems with the 3.5 skill system were:
1) The cross-class skill system was more complicated than I would have liked.
2) In designing prestige classes, some logical possibilities were practically excluded because only certain classes could meet the skill qualifications.
In my opinion, Pathfinder fixes both these problems. However, I like how quadruple skill points at 1st level allows for better delineation of a character's background, so I think I'll keep that.
How has that worked so far? I've only recently started running PF and I'm leery at the moment about mixing critters in, although I would really like to.
It's worked fine. No one seems to notice when I switch between pathfinder/3.5 creatures. The only thing you should do before hand is calculate the CMB and CMD before they party encounters the creature, if you are using the Pathfinder system for grapple/sunder/etc.
10x10 is how much space they need to be able to fully fight. A large creature can easily squeeze into 5x10 space and so 2 horses in a chariot harness can take up 10x10 space in 3.5.
Yeah, I GET it. I just don't LIKE it. Again, horses are not much "wider" than people. In fact, I've met a few people that were "wider" than every horse I've ever seen. I prefer the 3.0 sizes to the 3.5 sizes. Also, I don't agree with your use of the word "easily", as any character that is "squeezing" has it's movement restricted. So a 3.5 horse can't move normally through a 5ft wide corral fence, but a 3.0 horse can.
I don't want to threadjack. I only mentioned it because the thread was about mixing rules. I mix 3 different editions, and have no problems.
A couple thoughts that I am having about race:
1. I think I'll drop the Favored Class concept. I always liked it, but it always seemed to punish players whose PCs did not match certain concepts. It seems to be a holdover from 1st/2nd Edition where different races had different classes open to them. But I don't see it really solving any problems.
Instead, I'll probably write up races with an indication of which classes NPCs tend to have, and how the different classes fit into their societies. I might make some additional classes like an Eldritch Knight base class for elven fighter/wizards.
I haven't decided whether to open all of the new classes to all the races. A thing that occurs to me is that if the Elves have an Eldritch Knight class, what are the odds that a half-orc is going to get training? After character creation, any character who can find a 2nd level character to train them can pick up a class, but I might make a policy of asking how a PC got trained in a class associated with a different race.
2. I think I'll drop the concept of Substitution Levels. It just makes things more complicated. I do have a concept I adapted from BESM D20 where PCs get character points; these _could_ be used to implement the ideas that Substitution levels are intended to implement. But I'm not sure I even like doing that.