Talk:Replacing XP Cost with Essence Point Cost (3.5e Variant Rule)

Ratings
I dislike constant-adventuring-syndrome and consider PC downtime a good thing. I have put in fixes for your other objections.


 * And I dislike having the game force a year of downtime so that casters can get even MOAR power. --Ghostwheel (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Numbers
The number of essence points you get in this system is quite a bit larger than the number of experience points a crafter could ever afford to spend before. With these sorts of numbers, you could almost call this variant rule "Replacing XP Cost with Essentially No Cost At All". Especially considering that the point where crafting full time doesn't use up all of your essence points before a year has passed is only level 8.

To make this rule actually be worth its length, the breakeven point should be above level 20, so you never reach it. I'd go for a somewhat lower value, like 100*Level, but a value as high as 750*Level would be somewhat reasonable, I suppose. --Foxwarrior (talk) 05:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * When I changed my mind about whether GP costs would be replaced, I forgot to divide by five. Fixed.

Disproportional Racial Benefits
Longer lived races get a lot more from this than shorter lived ones. Intentional? - Tarkisflux Talk 20:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Not really, and between this and Leziad's point I have removed the 'if a year has passed' bit. There are less problematic ways to encourage downtime.--Ideasmith (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)