User talk:Spazalicious Chaos/The Book of Splendid Performance (3.5e Sourcebook)/Fate

Tying Experience Value to Fate Value
Means that the players have a very strong incentive to not defeat an opponent until they've fatebound them as much as possible. Expect players to cast bestow curse a lot, especially on random irrelevant bears. Ironically, most of the ways to fatebind an opponent are cruel; the optimal and sane strategy for the players is to be as sadistically evil as they can. Fatebinding is one of the few things in Scion that actually seems like a clever idea, worth developing; you've botched it horribly. --Foxwarrior 06:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, you certainly missed the point. The XP mill thing is a problem that exists in normal D&D: what your system introduces is the concept of an encounter with no value. That may be a good thing, but there's a less hideous way to implement it: simply don't tie experience to encounters. Since you have the concept of a "story", you can have the players level up whenever they finish one.
 * Also, I have very little idea what the Foil is supposed to be. You imply that they reveal their nature when they strike, but if they only exist to get in the way of the Hero, they could sometimes be put to more interesting use just bumbling about. Also, ironically, the Foil is the only type of Fatebound that cannot hide the fact that it is Fatebound (see: immune to divination). --Foxwarrior 03:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Out of sheer curiousity, how did you come to the conclusion that most of the Fatebinding action are cruel? You can just as easily reap in the XP value by resurrecting random farmers, swearing oaths to various knightly orders and nations, helping young people improve their skills and by sheer chance. Especially since winning allies also results in XP, as does defeat at higher Fate levels. Hell, one of the things you could do is literally train Heros that are meant to be played later and spar with them regularly, gaining XP on both losses and victories.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 19:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not that most of the Fatebinding actions are cruel, it's that most of the Fatebinding actions you would use on your enemies are cruel; this makes sense, but it meant that if the DM introduced an encounter with enemies of little Fate for some reason, the players would only get an appropriate experience award for the encounter if they tortured the enemies before defeating them. Now that can't happen and the party should just leave instead of fighting such an unrewarding battle. I should point out that there's a name for creatures that spar regularly in order to gain XP, and that name is "spiraling dangerously into ridiculousness". --Foxwarrior 20:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is how I see it- XP should be a reward vs. risk factor. In standard D&D, while you could try to fight an adult dragon at first level, it is not recommended but hugely rewarding if successful. Add Fate in and you add a significance factor. If one orc is important to the story and yields just as much XP as fighting twenty of orcs that are just as powerful but not as important, which do you think the party will fight? While the standard is risk v reward, the Fate standard is risk v significance/reward. Thus, the only reason to torture enemies would be the standard reason- the false assupmtion it is productive.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 17:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)