Chris F's page

Saern,I like the idea of devotions. Presumably, the devotions from which a cleric may choose would depend on his deity's area of interest-- no "fire" devotion for the priests of a sea-god! A cleric's devotions could also affect his class skills...

This is very reminiscent of 2E, isn't it?

One of the conceits of D&D is that clerics are warrior-priests. Partly because of tradition, but also for game balance issues (i.e., because D&D is about killing things and taking their stuff). Of course, the conceit doesn't necessarily make sense-- The priestesses serving a goddess of marriage and childbirth probably wouldn't have any combat training.

Any thoughts on what such a "temple-preist" class might look like? A sort of "divine wizard," perhaps?

Chris F wrote:

As for the OGL, I'd bet good money that WotC created it without fully considering the possible consequences. For instance, I doubt they expected anyone to create complete games under the OGL. Seeing stuff like Mutants and Masterminds come out must have driven them up the frigging wall.

As been said elsewhere, the d20/OGL FAQ from last week said the exact opposite. In fact, Mongoose was even outright challenged to do so - and they did.

So, when you paying up? :)

I stand corrected. Would you prefer to recieve payment in Flanian Pobble Beads or Triganic Pu? :-)

Is the GSL seen as so restrictive simply because the OGL was so exactly the opposite? It still boggles my mind that WOTC ever let the OGL exist.

I think it's seen as restrictive because it IS. In fact, isn't this the sort of thing lawyers call "Unconscionability?"

As for the OGL, I'd bet good money that WotC created it without fully considering the possible consequences. For instance, I doubt they expected anyone to create complete games under the OGL. Seeing stuff like Mutants and Masterminds come out must have driven them up the frigging wall.

Its kind of like a non-compete agreement clause in that if you've agreed to it, and its legally allowed in the state where you agreed to it, it will remain enforceable even after you cease to use the license.

Of course, non-compete agreements are sometimes heavily regulated, here in Louisiana they have to be very specific and can only last two years. Other states may vary.

However, by using the GSL, you pretty much forfeit any such protection your home state might offer. The GSL explicitly states that licensees agree that only the state of Washington has jurisdiction over the GSL.

Why did WotC even bother? The GSL grants so little benefit, and comes with so many strings attached as to make it virtually useless. I think that one would have to be a fool to release anything under the GSL. Anyone who creates new crunch for a GSL product would be an even greater fool, since the GSL pretty much gives WotC the right to kill a product and steal it.

I'd change the Cleric from a warrior-priest to a more scholarly temple-priest, and leave the Paladin to cover the holy warrior role. It must be a very strange world in which the priests of every religion need so much combat prowess.

I have never liked the Vancian magic system that was part of D&D until the release of Fourth Edition. Apparently I am not alone, because I have seen a number of alternatives, both homebrew and in official products.

*Open casting: How the 3.X sorcerer works. Cast any spell you know, as long as you have an unused spell slot of an appropriate level remaining.

*Points: The CRPG standard. Like open casting, except spell slots are replaced with a pool of points that are spent to cast spells. Obviously, the more powerful a spell is, the more points it costs to cast it.

*Skill check: This type of system doesn't limit the number of spells a caster can let off in a day, but instead requires him to succeed at a skill check to see if the casting attempt succeeds. Fail the skill roll, and the spell fizzles.

*Recharge: I ran across this at the HTML SRD website. Basically, when you cast a spell, you have to wait a bit before you can cast a spell of the same level, up to 7 rounds at the longest.

What alternative do those of you who dislike the Vancian system prefer? One of the above, or something different?

Although I have been interested in tabletop RPGs for a very long time, I very rarely have an oppurtunity to play: one weekend a year, at a convention in my area. Although I likely won't actually be able to participate in the playtest, my curiostiy got the better of me, and I downloaded the playtest document. While I haven't had an oppurtunity to read it through exhaustively, I'd like to share some of my initial thoughts.

ART
That a playtest document contains full-color illustrations is remarkable, but I particularly like the quarter-page single-character portraits in the Classes chapter, becuase of their large and expressive faces. My two favorite pieces are the Barbarian on page 12, who looks like she's about to go totally totally mideval on someone; and the Druid on page 23-- Gnomes are cute!

The only illustration I actively dislike is the one on page 8. There are too many figures in such a small a space, and the character's faces don't really have much detail. The characters all seem too angular, even the hair, which is all spiky. Mr. Elf is considerably taller than is traditional for an elf, and his sculpted physique doesn't really suggest Elven grace. Also, please find some clothes for these people!

Now onto the crunchy bits.

RACES
I like the net +2 ability bonus, and that every race gets some free weapon proficiency. Humans are now the only race without a racial language... why not give them one? It's no more unlikely than the human language being adapted by every other race as a lingua franca. (Actually, I think the best way to deal with languages is to divide them according to countries rather than races, and give everybody Common + their local language for free.)

Elves are immune to sleep, and get a bonus to enchantments; and Gnomes are good with illusion spells. In short, the same bonuses they've had since 2E. Meh.

CLASSES

Barbarian: I never really liked this name for the class, since it just means "someone uncivilized." I like "berserker." Well, that's neither here nor there.

I like the mechanic of rage points, and the concept of "rage powers," but a number of the rage powers presented seem unthemely. Clear Mind, Elemental Rage, Low-light vision, Darkvision. To me, "raging barbarian" means: "crazy attack frenzy, while disregarding personal safety; mindless engine of destruction." Rage powers ought to be about hitting harder and faster, ignoring the hits you take, terrifying your opponent, throwing him around like a rag doll, and forcing him to stay on the defensive. So stuff like Animal Fury, Knockback, Powerful Blow, and Intimidating Glare are really great. Perhaps there could be a rage power that makes an opponent loose their iterative attacks? Or animal totem powers?

Sorcerer: Paizo has done something really great with the Sorcerer class. They made it not suck. :-) Bloodline abilities look pretty awesome.

SKILLS

Falchion: 75 gold pieces.
Chain mail: 150 gold pieces.
A better skill system: Priceless.

I LOVE the elimination of crossclass skills, and that skill ranks are awarded directly so there is no bothering with skill points. I would have expected Wizards and Sorcerers to get more skill ranks, though. Fly skill looks pretty interesting.

MAGIC
No more burning XP? Great.

"Read Magic" is still a spell? IMO, any mage worth his salt should be able to read magical writing without half trying. Better way to handle this is a class feature.

The "Atonement" spell gets mentioned a couple of times throughout the book, but aren't doing pennance and getting absolution for sins
just plot points?