I had a 1st ed. gnome fighter/illusionist/thief who was turned into a werefox, along with two other party members, on his first adventure. The most sadly unplayed character, however, is a Champions character - Captain Fury, who had elements of the Shadow, the Phantom, and the Terry McGinnis Batman (though my character actually predated Batman Beyond by several years), with patriotic overtones (he was the protector of Philadelphia). His primary enemy was going to be an immortal Egyptian alchemist, and my GM had several notebooks full of adventure ideas (similar to the plots of the later National Treasure films) and villains for him to combat. All of those notebooks were given to me by my friend's wife after his death. So that's the one I usually think about when asked this question.
Fun fact - I have one of the original spiral-bound proofs of SenZar. It had been sent to members of my AD&D group because one of the creators had played with said group some years before (prior to my joining). So a bunch of us are sitting around a table leafing through copies of SenZar, and every few minutes someone says, "That was from my campaign!" or "I created that race!" or "Hey! I said that in character years ago, and he even used the name of the character in the quote!" Of course, no one had ever been asked for permission to use material they had created. That was my last real experience with SenZar. I didn't know until years later of all the idiocy involving the creators of the game and their reaction to criticism.
Erik Mona wrote: I'm unsure of where this leaves necromancers and other sort of standard caster types, but what I'm hearing about 4e leads me to believe that you (or we) will have little trouble modeling that sort of thing. And that's the real problem - necromancers, enchanters and illusionists are so basic to fantasy fiction, which has always been a better match for D&D than video games. The abandonment of that philosophy really scares me when I look at the material coming out of WotC. I know they've promised to create new base classes each year following, but that's going to become as much overkill as it was in 3.5.
ArchLich wrote:
Reread the first post. That's exactly what Mearls said. Sorry, the schools of magic were great; specialists were poorly done. There should have been more options for focusing solely on one school, and an expanded list of universal spells. There were too many basic utilitarian spells socked into one school or other. One of our DM's still used 1e, with some adjustments taken from the old Atlantis/Talislanta system; she has hundreds of pages of supplemental rules, new spells and spell changes for logical purposes, rewrites of some monsters, simplified character advancement, etc. Basically she had a lot of details from 3e already, but no skills, feats or prestige classes. I use 3.5, but with adapted material from 3e and outside products. I especially liked to use material from Fantasy Flight Games; it's too bad they dropped their Legends and Lairs line, because it was really useful. To get back on topic, despite WotC's protestations to the contrary, 4e is looking more and more like it takes its cues from video games, and they've never been a perfect match. |