It is a fairly large document so I did not read through all of it. Besides the obvious bias, what is the problem?
The part where his "economics" system falls apart is with people/organisations who would logically value both money and powerful magic items (e.g. a kingdom or a large church). According to Frank, it's impossible to trade one for the other, no matter how much you might logically want to.
|
Here is the Page on NPC DEVELOPMENT from my 5th Edition DMG
CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT: THE NPC
“It’s Provine the Moneylender...you haven’t seen me!”The NPC has been notoriously ill-developed as a consistent party in the D&D game. While monsters have in-depth exploration of their ecologies, the NPC is little more than a set of stats, light background, and perhaps some character traits to fill out the wading-pool of NPC personality.
ABILITIES ARE PERSONALITY
Asaeran the Sworder has literally fought for survival all his life and his physical abilities and combat cunning are a record of that life. He certainly isn’t a public, noisy personality, but in battle, his scared body and severed tongue are of little importance as he destroys his enemies.RACE IS PERSONALITY
The Halflings are physically a small people. While they were treated as children as far back as their earliest contacts with humans, they have nothing but contempt for the assumption. They survived the darkness and fought for their own place in the world and expect to be treated as equals or better. For Asaeran the Sworder, being short simply provided him with a better view of his enemy’s underbelly.CHARACTER CLASS IS PERSONALITY
Becoming a Fighter had more to do with circumstance than choice. For Asaeran it was ‘do or die’. While he wonders what being a farmer, or a wizard, or a cleric would be like, he is a fighter: a disciplined warrior, a master of his weapons and environment, and whether it is the condition of his weapons, the behaviour of those around him, or the slightest unexpected noise, Asaeran is constantly focused on the real world.LEVEL IS PERSONALITY
The pit fighters of Wardenclyffe do not leave the pits until they are adults. Consequently they will have fought and survived many times over before they are released as warriors with names.ALIGNMENT IS PERSONALITY
Whether Law, Order, and Organization. Chaos and the Government of one, or Good, Neutral, or Evil; Alignments are all aspects of the Psychological Personality. They are based in the education of the individual and the experiences of a lifetime.HISTORY IS PERSONALITY
While the Halfling people have a long history in peaceful farming, things have changed. For nine centuries one war mongering tyrant and his army after the next have marched across the Halfling lands looting and burning on the way to someplace important. Famine, pestilence, and war have shaped the Halfing People.
Asaeran the Sworder is considered by outsiders an agrarian hick turned child soldier, but being raised in the fight pits of Wardenclyffe from childhood have defined him physically and psychologically in a way that makes him something terrible and furious.WHO IS THE NPC?
The NPC will be a combination of all the aspects that you find on the character sheet, not just a one word character trait. For Asaeran, A fighter who has not seen outside the fight pit since he was a child, He is strong, agile, healthy, and distinctive (S16, D15, C13, I12, W13, CH5). He values life and has terrible nightmares about his childhood (his most prominent is being attacked by a wolf while he slept in the corner of a pit – and only to kill a little puppy) His fighting prowess is great (level 5), and he is focused on discipline and survival. He is a Halfling with personal and cultural history and knows it is a tactical advantage. But he is also unexperienced with life in the wider world. He is Neutral. He hates the anarchy of his culture and despises the cruelty and destruction of life but also values it for the order and stability that it has granted his people.
Here is the Page on NPC DEVELOPMENT from my 5th Edition DMG: <snip>
So we've given up talking about Frank's "economic" system? That was a short conversation. :-)
|
it's funny because the writing style does vary wildly from vaguely offputting and haughty
to just hillariously over the top
to making a good point (see his section on the morality of necromancy). I don't quite agree with his points about races but I do think that some good stuff can be mined from within his little bundle and seriously it does read entertainingly if you can get past the "I'm writing this because I'm obviously correct" writing style.
I would put the precise ratio as:
-60% good suggestions
-10% bad suggestions
-30% hot air & bloviating
A 6:1 good-to-bad suggestion ratio is pretty decent, in my book.
|
|
This is why the Book of Exalted Deeds is such an unsatisfying read... you can’t just take the material in the Book of Vile Darkness and multiply by negative one to get Good.
I have to give mr. trollman this, no truer words have ever been spoken than that quote right there, I've said it myself numerous times.
This is why the Book of Exalted Deeds is such an unsatisfying read... you can’t just take the material in the Book of Vile Darkness and multiply by negative one to get Good.I have to give mr. trollman this, no truer words have ever been spoken than that quote right there, I've said it myself numerous times.
WARNING: I may be straying off topic.
But I'm going to ask you to expand on this a little. What is the problem with the Book of Exalted Deeds?
I know about the problems with Vow of Poverty. And I know I have a problem with the very concept of... Ravages was it? The poison for good characters.
But what was expected from Book of Exalted Deeds that wasn't included?
|
I've also noticed that many things in the BOVD were kinda broken and get nerfed when and/or if they were reused or represented in some later fashion; however I don't have the BOED, since it's a bunch of good stuff it didn't seem that useful to me as monster supply, so I couldn't tell anything about the BOED.
A lot of the spells from Libris Mortis seemed to get nerfed in later incarnations as well;...
|
|
This is why the Book of Exalted Deeds is such an unsatisfying read... you can’t just take the material in the Book of Vile Darkness and multiply by negative one to get Good.I have to give mr. trollman this, no truer words have ever been spoken than that quote right there, I've said it myself numerous times.WARNING: I may be straying off topic.
But I'm going to ask you to expand on this a little. What is the problem with the Book of Exalted Deeds?
I know about the problems with Vow of Poverty. And I know I have a problem with the very concept of... Ravages was it? The poison for good characters.
But what was expected from Book of Exalted Deeds that wasn't included?
been a while since I read the thing, it just really honestly came across to me as here's the opposite of the Book of Vile Darkness. Good isn't the opposite of evil, it's a different paradigm entirely but that book just seemed for the most part to give you the good version of things in the BoVD. And I loved the BoVD (except poison shouldn't be in there), I just didn't like the BoED
Ahh... That is where we differ. I thought the Book of Vile Darkness was rather bland. But then again, I've been nicknamed "The Evil Bastard" in my group. (Never really get to play evil though...)
Mechanically speaking, I expect BoVD x -1 = BoED. That is how D&D handles things.
Unhallow x -1 = Hallow.
Desecrate x -1 = Consecrate.
Inflict <whatever> Wounds x -1 = Cure <whatever> Wounds.
Bane x -1 = Bless
Etc.
But thank you for expanding on that.
|
|
Ahh... That is where we differ. I thought the Book of Vile Darkness was rather bland. But then again, I've been nicknamed "The Evil Bastard" in my group. (Never really get to play evil though...)
Mechanically speaking, I expect BoVD x -1 = BoED. That is how D&D handles things.
Unhallow x -1 = Hallow.
Desecrate x -1 = Consecrate.
Inflict <whatever> Wounds x -1 = Cure <whatever> Wounds.
Bane x -1 = Bless
Etc.But thank you for expanding on that.
Yeah that's what always bothered me with DnD good and evil version being opposites.
Hey if killing is evil, then giving birth is good.
Doesn't that make orcs, goblins, rabbits, and every creature that breads heavily good aligned?
I want good to be described in terms that aren't just, take the evil version and make a good opposite. Or vise versa.
Oh yeah and both were bland, but that's what you get even with a mature audience tag from WotC
|
|
Thanks for sharing. At a hefty 200+ pages, I couldn't read all of it, but skimmed and gave it a solid 15 minutes. After reading it through, I'll come back and share my feedback.
At a glance, however, this collection of alternative debates and challenges piques my interest... I will give it a read. Thank you for sharing.
|
|
Any "economics" system that ignores the Law of Supply and Demand is doomed to failure anyway...
CAMPAIGN DEVELOPMENT: ECONOMICS IN A D&D PERSPECTIVE
“Burn the Wheat Fields!”In D&D there are Shortages not Surpluses. The distance between the wheat and the bakery is the price multiplier.
THE LAW OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND
"Stand and Deliver!"
In a Shortage Economy, Piracy is a legitimate process of redistribution. If social grouping X doesnt supply a surplus for the use of social grouping Y, Y invades X and Kills them and take what they need. The economic system of X (just enough for us) fails through its own destruction and the economic system of Y succeeds.
-Sean
|
|
I had quite a long discussion with K about Frank's economic ideas (Frank's own lengthy epistle on the subject was a terrible turgid and rambling read) back in the day. They are intended to address the following issue: how do you deal with low-level, rich people in the game? Why don't they get rolled over for their stuff, and why aren't they uber-powerful since they can afford serious magic gear? How do they get all this stuff anyway? In other words, what happens when treasure per level limits break down because someone is a king/prince/powerful merchant.
In order to deal with it, Frank came up with the Wish Economy. Effectively, he decided that above a certain level (I think it was about 8) you can get pretty much what you want by wishing for it - either you wish for it yourself (at high levels) or you get someone to wish for it for you (i.e. you pay them). He then placed some limits on what you can wish for (I think it was magic items up to a value of about 15,000gp) and, critically, he made it that in order to buy into the Wish Economy you had to use a different currency - astral diamonds or something like that (the name is actually unimportant). As a consequence, someone rich in gold but low level cannot get into the Wish Economy, because they don't have astral diamonds. That way, the PCs can separate themselves off from the gold-rich, low level bods as they get access to astral diamonds. The incentive to adventure still exists because the Wish Economy only produces relatively minor magic items - you still have to kill Orcus for the good stuff. And PCs will totally lose interest in gold because they can wish for everything that gold can buy or need astral diamonds to purchase the stuff the Wish Economy cannot create.
I have a number of problems with the model. As a cure for the arbitrary gold-per-level rules, it introduces another arbitrary thing in the division between gold and astral diamonds - in other words, it replaces one contrived system with another. As someone mentions above, it totally ignores genuine economics, so it is contrived-squared (if I might flirt with a Trollmanism). If you have a wish economy, what happens to supply and demand? Is the market flooded with "worthless" minor magic items, what about their price? Does it put farmers out of business if food can simply be wished into existence? Do you end up with a dependency culture? If everyone is doing this across the multiverse, do the prices on gold-traded goods drop to zero, or does the infinite nature of the multiverse mean it has no impact? And is there really no way of trading gold for astral diamonds? There is normally an exchange rate between all currencies, even if it is steep, allowing the low-level gold-rich types into the Wish Economy and thereby undermining its basic premise.
In a sense, these criticisms are unfair because I was happy to accept the contrived system in the DMG which also totally ignores economics, but on the other hand, I don't really see how Trollman's ideas really impacted (as he suggested they did) the issues of economics in D&D and I consider they were really just an amendment to the treasure-by-level rules. In fact, I don't believe that economics really can be brought into D&D in a meaningful sense because of the notion of "level" (another contrived, non-existent rules-based element in D&D that has no relation to the real world) and the attachment of expected wealth to said level.
But taken on their own, they are an interesting approach to dealing with the issue of handling wishes and its impact on PC treasure levels. If you ever thought it was a problem, which I never did and still don't since I was always happy to hand-wave as DM and it never came up with my players anyway. For those who don't like hand-waving and find this is an issue, it's a clever way out of a potential problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Frank is always popular with DMs.
Here is a Link to his PDF.
I think that's the first time I've ever heard Frank Trollman described as being "popular". :)
|
|
I think that's the first time I've ever heard Frank Trollman described as being "popular". :)Frank is always popular with DMs.
Here is a Link to his PDF.
I quote him in the real world...
"Students of modern economic thought may notice that cutting the remote regions in on a portion of the central government's wealth in order to buy actual loyalty from the hinterlands could quite easily pay itself off in greater stability and the ability to invest in the production of the hinterlands causing the central government's coffers to swell with the enhanced overall economy..."-Frank Trollman, Economist.
Its all good when you are criticising a government selling off the national resources for a percentage of their real value - just to employ themselves.
Or the other one:
"Let's say that you don't want to exchange goods and services for other goods and services at all. Well, it's medieval times baby, there's totally another option. See, if you kill people by stabbing them in the face when they want to be paid for things, you don't have to pay for things. Indeed, if you have a big enough [Army] at your back, you don't have to pay anything to anyone except your own [Troops]." - Frank Trollman, Economist
He's always good as an intersting point of view.
|
I would put the precise ratio as:
-60% good suggestions
-10% bad suggestions
-30% hot air & bloviatingA 6:1 good-to-bad suggestion ratio is pretty decent, in my book.
It's the 3:0 unfriendly attitude ratio that puts me off. I read RPG-related stuff in my awfully scarce spare time, and having to endure such a berating pamphlet feels somewhat like a waste of my very own resources.
It has a bunch of interesting ideas, and if you can stomach the (not so) occasional ramble and the "trollman slang" it's actually good food for thought regarding a number of issues.
|
|
I think that's the first time I've ever heard Frank Trollman described as being "popular". :)Frank is always popular with DMs.
Here is a Link to his PDF.
I quote him in the real world...
"Students of modern economic thought may notice that cutting the remote regions in on a portion of the central government's wealth in order to buy actual loyalty from the hinterlands could quite easily pay itself off in greater stability and the ability to invest in the production of the hinterlands causing the central government's coffers to swell with the enhanced overall economy..."-Frank Trollman, Economist.
Its all good when you are criticising a government selling off the national resources for a percentage of their real value - just to employ themselves.
Or the other one:
"Let's say that you don't want to exchange goods and services for other goods and services at all. Well, it's medieval times baby, there's totally another option. See, if you kill people by stabbing them in the face when they want to be paid for things, you don't have to pay for things. Indeed, if you have a big enough [Army] at your back, you don't have to pay anything to anyone except your own [Troops]." - Frank Trollman, Economist
He's always good as an intersting point of view.
1. is obvious, 2. ignores the highly disruptive effect of warfare upon economic activity - stabbing your factors of production in the face normally leads to less production. 2. probably works where you don't want to settle but unless you are highly mobile (vikings, mongols) it isn't a very good economic theory in the long term. Even the vikings and mongols gave up raiding and settled down to agriculture in the end.
|
|
It's the 3:0 unfriendly attitude ratio that puts me off. I read RPG-related stuff in my awfully scarce spare time, and having to endure such a berating pamphlet feels somewhat like a waste of my very own resources.
It has a bunch of interesting ideas, and if you can stomach the (not so) occasional ramble and the "trollman slang" it's actually good food for thought regarding a number of issues.
Whereas I find the style is a selling point. I love a good rant and I also love an informed exploration of RPG ideas. With Mr Trollman you get both, generally at the same time, so reading it is a good use of my time.
Whereas I find the style is a selling point. I love a good rant and I also love an informed exploration of RPG ideas. With Mr Trollman you get both, generally at the same time, so reading it is a good use of my time.It's the 3:0 unfriendly attitude ratio that puts me off. I read RPG-related stuff in my awfully scarce spare time, and having to endure such a berating pamphlet feels somewhat like a waste of my very own resources.
It has a bunch of interesting ideas, and if you can stomach the (not so) occasional ramble and the "trollman slang" it's actually good food for thought regarding a number of issues.
I have mixed feelings. When he has a legitimate rules gripe, it's fun to read his caustic thoughts on the subject. But when the issue is just a matter of taste (or when he's just flat-out wrong), it's grating to see him insulting everyone who disagrees with him.
Let's please try really, really, really hard not to make this a thread about Mr. Trollman the person, and focus entirely on the contents of the linked PDF.
If he is in fact a person.
Frank is always popular with DMs.
Here is a Link to his PDF.
Does anyone know how to break this up into smaller chunks? I'm, uh, "lawful" on my computer and I'd like to break this up into the separate netbooks it really is.
Edit: I'll also say, having just started this, that he has a way with titles. There's bunches of things that I read the title of and want to read.
This made me chuckle. He's trying to fix the impact of the "N00B to Godhood in 4 months" dynamic would have on a setting and talking about why you should sell your players on the concept of downtime:
"Furthermore, you shouldn’t be adverse to downtime on the grounds that waiting a month or
two for a storm to go by will leave your enemies driving air cars powered by t-rexes on bicycles."
But there needs to be an editor for this: lots of ... represented as the word "dots" and the section on illusion raises the issues with that school and ends with, "That being said, here are some playable rules regarding illusions that won’t cause you to stab out your own eyes."
But it doesn't have any rules thereafter.
|
|
using his classes would impact a serious boost on the power level of the game. I can bet that in order to significantly challange the party you would have to throw some much higher CRs at the party consistently, on the other hand, if you're running a no/low magic game, you could probably run his non-magic classes as is and the CR system might hold up at high levels.
Any "economics" system that ignores the Law of Supply and Demand is doomed to failure anyway...
The section I'm reading has it: "”Costs” in the turnip economy are extremely variable. In lean times, the buying power of a carrot is relatively high and in fat times the buying power of a cabbage is very low."
Any "economics" system that ignores the Law of Supply and Demand is doomed to failure anyway...The section I'm reading has it: "”Costs” in the turnip economy are extremely variable. In lean times, the buying power of a carrot is relatively high and in fat times the buying power of a cabbage is very low."
What Houstonderek is commenting on is the complete - and arbitrary - inability to "buy into" the wish economy with gold. That somehow, someway, there wouldn't be anyone selling an item from the wish economy for gold. And even if there was, it simply would not start a market for them.
|
|
...ignores the highly disruptive effect of warfare upon economic activity - stabbing your factors of production in the face normally leads to less production. 2. probably works where you don't want to settle but unless you are highly mobile (vikings, mongols) it isn't a very good economic theory in the long term. Even the vikings and mongols gave up raiding and settled down to agriculture in the end.
"Let's say that you don't want to exchange goods and services for other goods and services at all. Well, it's medieval times baby, there's totally another option. See, if you kill people by stabbing them in the face when they want to be paid for things, you don't have to pay for things. Indeed, if you have a big enough [Army] at your back, you don't have to pay anything to anyone except your own [Troops]." - Frank Trollman, Economist
Actually this one covers the "Why do zero level rulers exist?" question: They lead. They employ thugs to stomp the face of anyone not paying their taxes. They are tyrants.
MERCENARIES AND THUGS
"Beat that Unionist to death and I’ll pay you a thousand gold pieces!"
If you are incapable of doing something yourself, employ others to do it for you. This is how the Zero level Aristocrat retains the capacity to keep his millions from being plundered by the fifth level fighter over the street in the Tavern. Armies of Mercenaries protect and defend the wealth of those otherwise incapable of doing so.
Ordinarily this would seem to have a half-life equal to the amount of gold you have, but the point is that the zero level Aristocrat employs mercenaries in obtaining income far greater than the amount he/she spends to retain it.
Its pretty much why the Chest he keeps his gold in, cant be teleported out by a scrying wizard or broken into by anyone incapable of overcomming the security mechanisms.
1. is obvious, 2. ignores the highly disruptive effect of warfare upon economic activity - stabbing your factors of production in the face normally leads to less production. 2. probably works where you don't want to settle but unless you are highly mobile (vikings, mongols) it isn't a very good economic theory in the long term. Even the vikings and mongols gave up raiding and settled down to agriculture in the end.
Correct me if I'm wrong...
but I thought going to war was the best way to stimulate your economy (war production and looting).Also didn't vikings eventually become merchant traders as they had the most knowledge and experience of what groups were where and how to get to them (from raiding and pillaging)?
I thought agriculture is not that profitable (in itself) but controlling distribution is.
I have a similar economic bases. At around 10th level it starts kicking in and at by about 15th gold doesn't matter much.
Instead of using a wish based model, I use a favor based model. Favors make the world go round. Everyone at ~12th level and up has a lot of money or can get a lot of money (taxes, magic, looting, adventuring, magic item creation, etc). Thus they trade favors (and money) for magic, assistance and magic items. Gold is used for 'mundane' things like land, food, employees, etc.
Thus the high level economy becomes 'what can you do for me?'
To make sense of magic items I added power components necessary to create magic items. The rarity/hardness to acquire of these components increases with the cost of the item. So you want a Storm sword (+2 elemental burst (lighting), storm of vengeance 1/month)? You need to go quest for X & Y to make it. Now the number of adventurers and their competence (not amount of gold) determines the types and amount of magic items that are available.
Hope the ramble made sense.
I have a similar economic bases. At around 10th level it starts kicking in and at by about 15th gold doesn't matter much.
Instead of using a wish based model, I use a favor based model. Favors make the world go round. Everyone at ~12th level and up has a lot of money or can get a lot of money (taxes, magic, looting, adventuring, magic item creation, etc). Thus they trade favors (and money) for magic, assistance and magic items. Gold is used for 'mundane' things like land, food, employees, etc.
Thus the high level economy becomes 'what can you do for me?'
To make sense of magic items I added power components necessary to create magic items. The rarity/hardness to acquire of these components increases with the cost of the item. So you want a Storm sword (+2 elemental burst (lighting), storm of vengeance 1/month)? You need to go quest for X & Y to make it. Now the number of adventurers and their competence (not amount of gold) determines the types and amount of magic items that are available.
Hope the ramble made sense.
Not really. It makes no sense that a PC can have enough gold to buy the loyalty of every man in King Rolf's army and navy, but he still can't afford to buy King Rolf's +4 longsword.
Whether it's gold, magic items, or favours, it doesn't matter. They're all just different flavours of "What can you do for me?" (with different, varying exchange rates).
It's one thing to say "This NPC doesn't have any use for money, so you can't buy a magic item from him" to saying "NO powerful NPCs have any use for money, so no one can buy a magic item from ANYONE" (<-- the Frank Trollman approach).
I have a similar economic bases. At around 10th level it starts kicking in and at by about 15th gold doesn't matter much.
Instead of using a wish based model, I use a favor based model. Favors make the world go round. Everyone at ~12th level and up has a lot of money or can get a lot of money (taxes, magic, looting, adventuring, magic item creation, etc). Thus they trade favors (and money) for magic, assistance and magic items. Gold is used for 'mundane' things like land, food, employees, etc.
Thus the high level economy becomes 'what can you do for me?'
To make sense of magic items I added power components necessary to create magic items. The rarity/hardness to acquire of these components increases with the cost of the item. So you want a Storm sword (+2 elemental burst (lighting), storm of vengeance 1/month)? You need to go quest for X & Y to make it. Now the number of adventurers and their competence (not amount of gold) determines the types and amount of magic items that are available.
Hope the ramble made sense.
The ramble made sense, but touches on the same difficulty several of us had with Frank Trollman's Wish Economy.
That kind of situation encourages a "we'll harvest every X, Y, Z, L, M, N, & O we come across to save us time and effort." By itself that is little problem, but what do collectors do with the 3 L's they have laying around. They've been here for months and are starting to stink the place up.
So they trade them. Maybe for a castle. Maybe for a few hundred thousand platinum. Whatever.
And once that crossover happens, why doesn't the division of economies break down?
Yes, the wealth system of D&D is weird (at best) when you study it too hard. But I think it really was meant to abstract the very thing you - only as an example - are trying to simulate. Large amounts of coin are really just representations of component N. Yeah the PC's took 100000gp's out of the Troll Lair, but that really represents the favor of the local noble and townsfolk. When they buy that masterwork longsword, really the blacksmith is giving it to them as a reward.
But with the current abstraction, it quantifies it and allows players to more closely control what favors they get.
This isn't to say that your specific system is horrible, or doesn't work. Apparently it works great for your game.
But then again, you aren't presenting it as the only way to fix every ones game...
yellowdingo: I've noticed over the years that you seem very interested in things like the basis of society, economics, social systems, etc in game context. I'm curious about what kind of game you'd ideally like to either run or play in.
I tend to ask myself these questions when I'm doing some kind of design:
- how do the pcs fit in with the society?
- how do they go about getting stuff they want?
- who do they talk to, save from danger, get information from?
- who makes the rules? Who might challenge the pcs, and why?
- what kind of technology/magic is available?
- what does stuff look like--clothes, buildings, roads, bridges?
- how does society reward them for doing well, if at all?
- how does the place they start out interact with other places? (ie city to village, city to city, kingdom to kingdom, etc)
The ramble made sense, but touches on the same difficulty several of us had with Frank Trollman's Wish Economy.
That kind of situation encourages a "we'll harvest every X, Y, Z, L, M, N, & O we come across to save us time and effort." By itself that is little problem, but what do collectors do with the 3 L's they have laying around. They've been here for months and are starting to stink the place up.
So they trade them. Maybe for a castle. Maybe for a few hundred thousand platinum. Whatever.
I personally get around that by not having generic component items. Crafter 1 making item P comes up with a different formula (and thus components) then Crafter 2 making item P.
I use the organic and personal approach as then anything could be a component and collected components might be useless to anyone but that one person.
Don't know how much of a cop out that is but...
I enjoyed the section on alignments. Also the ideas presented in the paladin code.
I found that the PrC ideas would be good (for unique NPC monsters and villains) but not something I would want my players messing with.
I also liked the idea of ammunition (in the equipment section) only being destroyed when it does more damage then its hardness. Though I didn't agree with indestructible cheap magic arrows.
You know I like his implementation for feats, but not the power level of some abilities. A fighter with the blindfighting feat has magical tremor and blindsense without the aid of magic items at higher levels he just feels the vibrations of things touching the ground.
It's not any worse than what I've seen in a few kung fu movies.
You know I like his implementation for feats, but not the power level of some abilities.
Ever take a look at Pulp Hero's Super Skills?