Talk:Useful Pluses (3.5e Variant Rule)
Ratings
|
Fluffykittens is neutral on this article and rated it 2 of 4. |
|---|---|
| Poorly written and calculated- but not a bad idea in and of itself. |
|
DanielDraco dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4. |
|---|---|
| The writing is incredibly sloppy and confusing. An unreadable article is an unusable article. This is saved from a Hate by the fact that the comprehensible bits actually do seem to be a good idea. |
|
Aarnott likes this article and rated it 3 of 4. |
|---|---|
| As a general rule, anything you have written Spazalicious Chaos, can be assumed to be rated as "dislike" by me. It's nothing personal, I just find your work terrible. This, on the other hand, is a pretty cool idea. It certainly scales up the damage by crazy amounts, but as long as the DM is prepared for that, they can just scale up HP.
Some questions that weren't clear from the article (and when I say "questions" I mean things you should be adding or clarifying on the actual article most likely:
Also, you should consider that casting Greater Magic Weapon on a +1 weapon will have a massive effect and still mean that nobody cares about buying a +2 weapon. They will still get a +1 flaming farting keen bacon-frying longsword. Also, your opening statement is stupid. Everybody wants a +1 sword since you need it to get other modifiers. Nobody wants a +2 sword. |
I was refering to just +1, no extras. Last time I checked, noone wants one of those. As for the other questions... I'm open to suggestion.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 22:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- People want to bypass DR/magic. So the statement is still stupid. The to-hit bonus I'm not sure about, really. I would like to say that AC in the MM was gauged by the designers to have magic weapons in mind, but that isn't the case: monsters are designed pretty poorly. Multipliers should not be multiplicative, they should be additive. Just say that the multiplier from the weapon bonus acts as a normal D&D multiplier (so it adds with critical hits and the like). --Aarnott 23:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Suggestion: Have Greater Magic Weapon continue to provide its normal benefit of +1 through +5 without the damage dice boost. Only "permenant" enhanced weapons gain the dice boost. It's a little heavy handed and I don't know the fluff reason why that would be, but it would fix some of the issue (the real issue being as long as GMW exists, it will always be better than paying for it permenantly). -- Eiji-kun 01:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Already in there as "continue to function as described", but thanks for the note. You have also drawn my attention to the lack of fluff. Then again, most of my stuff follows the WOD Formula (90% Fluff, 10% mechanics), making this one of only a few attempts at fluffless rule building. Should I fix that?--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 02:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Personally I follow this format:
- Title, of course.
- Line of fluff to get people interested on what it does. This should be both fluff and a vague summary of what we're expecting.
- The crunch. Almost always the biggest part.
- Optional fluffy example.
- I find it useful to keep the fluff light but potent. The fluff should be effective enough to turn heads, but not so long that you're slogging through layer of layer after fluff trying to find what numbers you need to work. Its an art, so practice and stealing from other people's templates are probably your best bet. -- Eiji-kun 02:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Personally I follow this format:
Adoption
People seem to like this, and Spaz seems to have left. Would anyone like to adopt this and polish it up shiny like? - Tarkisflux Talk 07:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- I made a rewritten version it is currently being playtested. I could adopt and merge it with mine , or allow someone else to take the original over. --Leziad (talk) 07:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
