The Campaign Builder's Guild

1.25.

Quote from: Xeviat
*Xeviat casts raise thread*

Here are some examples, drawn from 4th Edition D&D.

(snip)

I'm thinking a lot can be done with superscripts for keywords, especially those that are requirements (like little "w"s or "i"s for weapon and implement powers), maybe even one for melee, ranged, close, and area. It would help avoid the repetative "a melee attack that ..." language.

Thoughts?

Keywording is good. Your description sounds a lot like my range/area keywords in the recent thread (target, melee, zone, and sight). Keywords are good for damage types, status effects, range/area, and even weird quirky effects (my system includes the keyword "soft" to describe why you can't effectively block with a whip or similar weapons). It's a great way to save space and avoid the feeling of recycled powers. It would be good to get keywords into new places. You might be able to use more complicated movement (for example) if the concepts were chunked out under a few keywords.

Quote from: Steerpike
1.25.

Do you mean something slightly more descriptive than 1, but closer to 1 than 2?

For this example, I vote Option 1.

The reason being that Option 2 does nothing to inform you how to actually apply the power/skill/ability in the game. It describes the action, not how to use the action. I agree with LD's impression that concise mechanics are important to smoothly running a game, and that's what short-lists should be for.

And honestly, for things like 3.5 Spells, I've been more entertained by the variety that players can bring to the table with how they may choose to describe casting magic and how it takes effect, rather than it be clearly spelled out in the book. I recall a particular Beguiler who did most of his spells with either a flourish of a wand or a magician's top-hat. Theatrical and funny.

I also think that Steerpike is suggesting that the mechanics and numbers are necessary, but they can be couched in some descriptive text-- either in the same line or separated, as with most flavor text. Or like 3.5 feats short-lists-- some of those were fairly comprehensive for short-lists, though not all made use of numerical effects.

List one for players, list two for game-masters

Quote from: Señor Leetz
List one for players, list two for game-masters

That's probably a very decent solution.

Everyone is aware that I'm not suggesting a list to substitute for power cards, I'm suggesting a list as an aid to choosing your powers so you can look over the 18+ options per level and decide which 1 or 2 you are going to select. The list will not be used in play, it will only be used while leveling up or retraining.

Some of the replies were talking about usefulness in play, so I wasn't sure if I miscomunicated.

Quote from: Xeviat
Everyone is aware that I'm not suggesting a list to substitute for power cards, I'm suggesting a list as an aid to choosing your powers so you can look over the 18+ options per level and decide which 1 or 2 you are going to select. The list will not be used in play, it will only be used while leveling up or retraining.

Some of the replies were talking about usefulness in play, so I wasn't sure if I miscomunicated.

Well if that's the case, definately number 1. there is nothing worse than building your character into a worthless ability corner because you weren't aware of costs and whatnot.

Looks like I need to come up with a 1.5 then, as I'm getting pretty even between the two.