I like the idea. :) Is this part of Pathfinder?

It would need to balance the level-up requirements against the cost to improve attributes, which might make it less feasible. If a new level grants a new feat, or spell, etc., but the same amount of experience could improve the base attributes, say, then this is one of the benefits of a (leap) level-up, and so it may need to cost as much as four levels to achieve. Which would be a difficult trade-off to make. I suppose the current rules about higher point costs the larger the attribute is might help (i.e., to raise an attribute from 14 to 15 costs 2 points that might raise a lower score in another, different attribute by two points).

The devil is in the details, as always.

I am just getting the nostalgia blast of seeing Spoony again.

And a damn shame he practically quit youtube.

But then again the dude is a bipolar asshole.

No, i've been watching suggestions that weak stats is better because it allows more entertaining results. Plus characters with no flaws might not be fun to play. But i haven't played enough to get to that point.

The idea was likely for stats up to 12 you'd do 1:1, and every 4 after it doubles in cost. You can also only expend 500xp per 1 improvement, and can only do it for your level equal to a level up. (so first level could only do it twice, second level 4 times, third level 6 times, etc). Hitpoints would be similar, under average 3hp for 500xp, up to 3/4 would be 2:1 and up to full 4:1.

Also since players and monsters would likely be taking this option, the 1 free stat every 4 levels goes away. And later (6th level and up) there would be probably quite a few more elite monsters seen.

This improvement/upgrade can't push you past your natural maximum for hitpoints or the like. So if you could have had say 34 HP if you max rolled, then you can only go up to that. To get more, you have to spend a feat or something.

On the other hand if you got a spell permanency cast on you (for dark vision or something) the XP cost would be there, up front, no ECL crap.

Another idea is you can spend a feat to get a loan of say 1,000g to 2,000g. This would give you an early equipment boost, but you'd pay it back later if you wanted to spend the feat on... something else. No more starting with a piddly 80g :P though it isn't enough to get really good armor/weapons, it's enough to deck out with full plate and a cart with horses and enough rations for a month. It's estimated a feat is worth 2000g approx if going by training to get a new feat. So one could also convert gold into raw feats, though in some cases that might be seen as magical tattoos that give the bonus but since they are there pretty much permanently...

The argument that weak stats somehow enforce roleplaying is a little misguided, methinks. Probably the inverse might prove more problematic; if a character has managed to upgrade their stats to (near) maximum, the game will still be almost as difficult. I noticed my characters that had poor stats weren't that much less effective than those I had played with maxed stats.

That explanation makes a lot of sense. :) I was unsure how the implementation would handle the leap-level bonus, but the system you describe sounds — if anything — fairer and more reasonable. Because it applies equally to monsters, there is no unbalancing force.

As for a rationale, a player can concentrate on a particular training regime and improve a characteristic. Easy to roleplay. If it seems a little too cheesy, simply change the costs until it balances better; a single point might be a fraction of the XP needed to level-up, and a second point might be double the cost (or 150%, or 125% with the third point 150%, or whatever).

I think it might work better if the cost was a fraction of the amount needed to level-up, since that would put the choice in stark contrast: viz., is it better to just level up or do some remedial work to make the character better for future adventuring.

Enforce roleplay? No. Be more fun because of goofy results? More than likely.

There's a build that's suppose to be the Murry Build, which is a person who's terrible and not intended to adventure but bumbles by pure luck to success. (gets 5 luck dice at level 4)

I'm reminded playing 2adnd. I played a halfling rogue with like a strength of 6. All other stats were 'average'. She was mostly there, things changed when she got a ring bringing her strength to 20. Suddenly she was kicking butt. Though she always had her charm, playing off the strength playfully knowing it wasn't really hers.

It is, it's also optional. 500xp is never an amount to level up with. You can also only take as many 'upgrades' that you could have used if you blew all your xp in upgrades (1st level would be 2, 2nd 4, 3rd 6, etc). More than likely the result of everyone using said system more players and 'elite' monsters would be seen.

Speaking of fractions of leveling up, i did a game a while back where the DM ruled to use an XP penalty rather than a ECL. I did the math and getting like a 20% penalty meant you were like 2 fights behind everyone else level wise. It was an interesting spreadsheet to calculate the effects.

I agree. It's common practice to raid the INT ability for every profession apart from arcane wizards, who need it as a primary stat, to buff other more useful stats. But rarely is this enforced. (There's a premium mod for Neverwinter Nights that does, and of course Fallout is famous for it. :)

I was thinking more about higher character levels, like 10+, where 500XP is negligible, and new rulesets even use similar amounts to craft scrolls and imbue crafted items with magical bonus, and the like. Still, during the first couple of levels, sure, 500 will be a big decision against levelling up, especially when a level 2 mage is almost as useless in a fight as at first! Likewise, 20% is four on a d20, so that would be a significant minus, especially if it extended the epic fail conditions from a natural one to include all the rolls up to a natural five!

By now I got a few books and played a few rounds. Its quite cool, feels balanced and still extremely versatile. Players start either with a kit (kind of a class like in other games) or build their own** hero with a point pool based on power level (or the other way). So that "pool guy" from the Spoony clip would only be possible if you actively refuse to spend points on your character.

Also nice: a single d20 is enough.

** requires either the rather rare out of print DC Adventures or the Mutants and Masterminds Deluxe Heroes Handbook (basically the same I guess without the DC license and from what I read a few kinks ironed out); the normal Heroes Handbook has everything on rules, classes, skills and how to use them to play but not how to build your custom char/class from the ground up.

In the fist SaGa Frontier JRPG game, one of the characters, you can select multiple stories in the game, is a super hero with a secret identity. Only when all the other members of the party collapses (faints) you can choose to turn him in a super hero.
It was an interesting, and original, strategy mechanism for boss battles, to not wake your downed party members to be able to access a more powerful one character.

In Alan Moore's rejected Twilight of the Superheroes proposal from 1987, he appears to approve of "merchandising" to "credibly spin role playing games, toys, 'Waiting for Twilight' posters and T-shirts and badges and all the rest of that stuff from the title." So no, it isn't far-fetched to think that Alan Moore might approve of merchandising, including role-playing games, spinning off from a story he'd written.

The closest thing that came to mind was the Infamous series. However they are more action games with light rpg elements.