|
People proficient with 3.X don't have to bend over to make it work. Speed and ease of play only get you so far.You kind of do actually at mid to higher levels imo. A cheat sheet is almost mandatory imo. As most modifiers don't stack. So if I cast a spell that provides a morale bonus. The cleric with Nobility as a domain can't use his Inspiring Word domain ability as they don't stack. Then their is the various modifiers from spells and items one needs to keep track off. As again similar bonuses don't stack. Take a look at the description for Haste as a spell it's not a lot but enough to remember.
The game slows down when players who use casters don't know their spells. Flipping through the core and various books the delays do add up. One had the same problem in previous edition as well. Not so much as in third edition/PF. Even as a dm having tio flip through books to find out what feat XYZ does slows the game down. Trying running a game frm level 1-20 with players and a dm who does not prepare ahead of time and tell me how fast it goes.
GMs should prepare and casters should know their spells. That's common courtesy. I imagine there is GM prep even for 5th. Maybe not, though. To me, prepping is the fun part of GMing.
|
GMs should prepare and casters should know their spells. That's common courtesy. I imagine there is GM prep even for 5th. Maybe not, though. To me, prepping is the fun part of GMing.
Both players and dms should know their spells and abilites. I find that I could run a 5E with little preparation and not have to worry about it slowing down in play. Eve nwith Hero Lab and a cheat sheet the various modifier in Pathfinder can be a pain in the behind.
|
|
I meant no offence Jeff. It is a interesting case study in terms of gamer behaviors and tastes though.
I'm not that huge a fan of 4E like I used to be. I would probably play in a game of it. I'm more interested in 5E. Or even something completely different like Rifts. Though David true feeling about 5E do keep emerging as this thread keeps going on imo. He tries to pass himself as being open minded about yet is anything but imo.
|
GMs should prepare and casters should know their spells. That's common courtesy. I imagine there is GM prep even for 5th. Maybe not, though. To me, prepping is the fun part of GMing.
That's funny, because a few pages back you seemed to imply that D&D, no matter the edition, is a game where the GM just wings it.
EDIT: Sorry, I seem to have misremembered. That was sunshadow21:
Most systems, though, require that the DM does most of that work before the players are even invited to play in the campaign. D&D is one of the few that allows a DM to start from scratch after the players have already sat down with their dice, and that is both it's biggest strength and biggest weakness.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stylistically (the art, race and class descriptions, etc.), do you prefer the 5th Ed. style or the Pathfinder style?
Both have their merits. Both are pretty inspirational on how to play. I think the Pathfinder ones get into the nitty gritty, but it takes time for some to accept what is happening. The Alchemist in PF is a good example. I didn't like how they made the Alchemist a caster class, but I realized that it didn't matter if the class was according to style. It's officially a casting class, but I see it as a non-casting class.
Dang, re-reading this, I was thinking -- "I need to revise this, because it's terrible."
so, lets trying this again.
Both Pathfinder and D&D 5th Edition have their merits. You can be inspired to create characters and play in both games. However, the Pathfinder one is much more oriented to using action as it's point of sale. Character art in Pathfinder is strong and mighty. The Alchemist, so far, is pictured as a man with bottles full of chemicals and a look saying, "I can get things done, move aside He-Man."
Pathfinder has buffed out Wizards and Sorcerers, Clerics that have a serious attitude, and their paladin looks like she could actually cleave someone in two while giving a sermon on "those who live by the sword, dies by the sword." Pathfinder is very, very Cinematic in it's approach.
On the other hand, 5th Edition turns from posturing. 5th Edition, rightfully, has a literary approach for inspiration. It's almost like that both turn to different sources for inspiration, and that's a good thing. 5th edition reads and feels like a place where you pick up your sword and your backpack and go out and leave the village. Oh, and you burn down your house. Pathfinder on the other hand, feels like heroes for hire. "We have a problem!" "Don't worry, we'll take care of it!"
Both approach gaming from different angles. In relation to each other, D&D 5th Edition is more like What is in your backyard. And Pathfinder is a lot like there's a monster down in the hole and it takes real men to take care of it. The feelings of the two is like the difference between a camping trip and a rescue mission.
This is not bad for both games, actually. A lot of people love the Rescue Mission feel of Pathfinder, and D&D is going back to what actually creates wonder.
/ -- I hope this reads better. My initial post was incredibly awful.
|
|
GMs should prepare and casters should know their spells. That's common courtesy. I imagine there is GM prep even for 5th. Maybe not, though. To me, prepping is the fun part of GMing.That's funny, because a few pages back you seemed to imply that D&D, no matter the edition, is a game where the GM just wings it.
EDIT: Sorry, I seem to have misremembered. That was sunshadow21:
Most systems, though, require that the DM does most of that work before the players are even invited to play in the campaign. D&D is one of the few that allows a DM to start from scratch after the players have already sat down with their dice, and that is both it's biggest strength and biggest weakness.
I make NPCs before hand, but usually end up winging what they actually do in the game. Obviously, mindless or stupid NPCs don't adapt as well.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I presently play and prefer Pathfinder, and I want to comment on some of the recent discussion.
For some GMs, Feats are a simpler way to present a creature because the GM already has the Feat memorized. For others, they just aren't facile in recalling the Feat's subroutine, so they need it printed on the page. And for some Feats, there are subtle wordings that have a vast effect on play. I just did some research recently preparing for a dragon encounter, and realized that Flyby Attack, when used to grapple, meant that the dragon had to end its turn where it grappled the creature, since moving a grappled creature requires a 2nd grapple check. And the answer for that is not in the Feat itself, but in the portion of the Combat chapter that deals with combat maneuvers.
However, if a GM is able to internalize the rules, then the designer need only a few words to present a lot of information.
Someone mentioned above that the Pathfinder monster design is too belabored, for example that giving a creature two battleaxes requires a minimum DEX of x and applying two-weapon fighting penalties; why not just add two battleaxes and be done with it?
I would argue that, if I were the Pathfinder GM in that situation, my FIRST concern would be asking myself "is this a fun encounter"? If I give 3x-crit battleaxes will that one-shot-kill one of my players? Given that, I ask myself what is the ACTUAL level of challenge presented to the players? Still, I like having the Pathfinder rules available to me as guidelines, first because I LIKE designing creatures from the ground up, and second it gives me some confines to work within so that if I break those confines I know I'm going into new territory.
Where the power scale ramps up as steeply as it does in Pathfinder, this danger of creating an over- or underpowered encounter becomes a trickier business. Where Bounded Accuracy is involved, there is tolerance for "error."
What I like about 5e's design philosophy is that it sheds this idea that there is a precise arithmetic to encounter design. The rules in Pathfinder gives this illusion that you can calculate the power level of a creature. But in Pathfinder, you can't exactly predict the actual level of a challenge because every party is different. Seugathis are extremely strong for CR 6 creatures for nearly all parties, but you can't chalk it up being under-CRed: if you have a party protected against mind control then they do not pose that much of a threat. (So many arguments in these forums are about "this is overpowered/underpowered" which wouldn't be an argument to begin with if we stopped pretending that everything can be strictly quantified to a specific power level.)
In 5e AND in Pathfinder, it's the GM's job ultimately to step back and gauge the power level of a creature and not slavishly assume the CR tells the whole story. What I like about 5e is that it doesn't place lots of restrictions on monster design pretending that adhering to those rules "fixes" having to step back and think how this actually plays on the table, with your specific players.
|
|
Storyteller could be used for fantasy. It's extremely adaptable, actually, because of its simplicity.Is there actually a published fantasy Storyteller system? Or anything generic with guidelines to develop one?
I'm really only familiar with some of OWoD games (Vampire/Werewolf/Mage) and it doesn't seem that simple to adapt to me. The differences between those systems are extreme, even though the basic mechanic is the same.
You'd need to come up with a magic system, unless you're going to steal that from Mage, and then you'll have to come up with some wild powers to match the power level.
Use magic from mage, and just make up the rest. It would be easy peasy. Or take stuff from Exalted, too.
|
|
I guess we'll see when they put out the fourth edition of 3.0 (AKA Pathfinder 2e).
I'm wondering if it's major change is to admit Paizo's bias and relegate all non-caster classes to NPC class status.
The bias is built in to the engine they modified. They did some really nice things in the Beta, then decided to scrap all of them, I'm thinking, because the caster fans didn't want their "we can do anything you can do better, we can do anything better than you" niche infringed upon. Oh, and that commitment to "backward compatibility" that tied their hands.
Storyteller could be used for fantasy. It's extremely adaptable, actually, because of its simplicity.Is there actually a published fantasy Storyteller system? Or anything generic with guidelines to develop one?
This is not a stand-alone sourcebook just for Storyteller Fantasy, but it does have a chapter on it, plus other cool stuff:
|
|
Use magic from mage, and just make up the rest. It would be easy peasy. Or take stuff from Exalted, too.
Magic from Mage, especially in a fantasy world without Paradox to worry about, would be incredibly powerful. From the start. What do you give martials to boost them to similar levels?
Or you could play an all Mage game, which would be easier, but isn't everyone's cup of tea.
Maybe Exalted would help, but I'm not familiar enough with that.
Well, as much as he's been hyping Pathfinder, and his concerns about wizards being underpowered in 5e, I would have to imagine that non-spellcasters are pretty much an afterthought for him.
|
|
Well, as much as he's been hyping Pathfinder, and his concerns about wizards being underpowered in 5e, I would have to imagine that non-spellcasters are pretty much an afterthought for him.Use magic from mage, and just make up the rest. It would be easy peasy. Or take stuff from Exalted, too.Magic from Mage, especially in a fantasy world without Paradox to worry about, would be incredibly powerful. From the start. What do you give martials to boost them to similar levels?
Or you could play an all Mage game, which would be easier, but isn't everyone's cup of tea.
Maybe Exalted would help, but I'm not familiar enough with that.
Spell casters need martial support in PF or they will fail spectacularly. Spell casters ironically kinda stink at causing damage at high levels.
I was actually more concerned about clerics than wizards. They might have kept wizards damage high, but they destroyed many, many modes of play. Including all the ones I like.
For the record, I have more martial PCs than casters.
|
|
At low levels and in the hands of someone who does not know what he is doing. Then sure a Wizard at low level may not have as much damage output as a martial character. To sit there and tell me with a straight face at mid to high levels casters damage output sucks. I can honestly say that you don't know what your talking about. Again unless the person running the Wizard is a complete novice to the hobby. Otherwise just with the core I can do so much more than a martial character without their support. Who needs martial support when one can summon Elementals. Who are Neutral in alignment and are unaffected by any of the Protection spells. Magic Missile, Lightning Bolt, Fireball, Cone of Cold, Ice Storm etc.. Casters stink with causing damage at high levels...gimme a break.
|
|
You aren't gaming it out well. Those spells really lose efficacy once opponents have a combination of SR, elemental resistance, and awesome saves. If you try to direct damage high level opponents to death, you will lose. You can try to summon your way out of it, but summons don't have the to hit values anywhere near good martials. A good archer can outdamage any caster in the game against single targets. And that target gets no SR, no saves, no nothing. Thanks to clustered shots, they just eat nearly all the damage with no recourse.
5e casters can now churn out good damage
PF ones cannot. PF casters win by adding dazing to their damage spells. Assuming the archer hasn't shot the place up
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmmn I like 5E but would be in the market for a fixed 3.x type game. Such a game would have to be incompatible with 3.5/PF but it could draw heavily on 3.x type games. For example it could keep BAB, fort/ref/will and the basic structure of the 3.x system.
It would need tweaked classes and overhauled math, spells and combat chapter and parts of 4E, 5E, Star Wars Saga and even AD&D could help out there.
I would also want gritty healing a'la AD&D/Swords and Sorcery and no default ye olde magic items shop but feats and skills could stay, skill points would probably have to go.
I would buy a game like that.
Hmmmn I like 5E but would be in the market for a fixed 3.x type game. Such a game would have to be incompatible with 3.5/PF but it could draw heavily on 3.x type games. For example it could keep BAB, fort/ref/will and the basic structure of the 3.x system.
It would need tweaked classes and overhauled math, spells and combat chapter and parts of 4E, 5E, Star Wars Saga and even AD&D could help out there.
I would also want gritty healing a'la AD&D/Swords and Sorcery and no default ye olde magic items shop but feats and skills could stay, skill points would probably have to go.
I would buy a game like that.
I do hope that the upcoming Pathfinder Unchained will give a toolkit of house rules to modify the system, something approximating Bounded Accuracy and counteracting the Christmas Tree Effect is what I'm hoping to see. It doesn't require a lot of pages, as we can see with the toolkits provided in the 5e DMG. However, this DOES disrupt the system: for Bounded Accuracy in particular, Bestiary statblocks would need to be retooled. So some guidelines (divide monster attack bonuses by 3?? general advice?) to deal with the ripple effects across the system would be appropriate as well.
Perhaps an alternative chart to the one provided in the Bestiary for "Monster Creation," that gives hp, attack bonus, DC, and saving throw expectations?
Again, these are modular changes to Pathfinder that can be attached to the Pathfinder chassis. I am not willing to jump to 5e because I am too familiar with Pathfinder's classes and rules and rather like the building-block approach to creating PCs and creatures.
|
|
David Bowles has actually sold me on 5e. A thread like this with a vociferous critic generates a lot of back and forth discussion which is very interesting and insightful.
It's worth a peek even if it winds up not being your cup of tea. They do some things very nicely that could be stolen for house rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
David Bowles has actually sold me on 5e. A thread like this with a vociferous critic generates a lot of back and forth discussion which is very interesting and insightful.
Glad something good came from it.
Not sure I would classify it as criticism, though.
If nothing else, you can get the Basic pdf for free (a player pdf and dm pdf are available) from the WotC website, in case you don't want to throw down the 30-50 bucks (each) for the full hardcovers.
The core problem with monsters having feats is that the game master needs to know how the feats work to use the monster. Even knowing the feats are available, that feat is not listed in the statblock under things the monster can do.
So you end up having list of passive and active abilities where some of them can be used while some are precalculated into the statblock itself.
Of course, even having stats results in weird and entirely artificial things such as monsters having skill focus feats. WHY? Drop the feat and add the modifier directly to the skill bonus. The feat itself is just some attempt at an in-game explanation for hy that monster has a bigger bonus in that skill than just the base ability modifier.
Anything passive should be baked into the monster statblock. Anything that is active should be its own ability. 5e handles monster statblocks very well. There is no doubt as to where one would look to see what a monster is capable of. None of this scrutinising the list of feats.
I do hope that the upcoming Pathfinder Unchained will give a toolkit of house rules to modify the system, something approximating Bounded Accuracy and counteracting the Christmas Tree Effect is what I'm hoping to see.
I'd really like to see this as well, however I didnt think this was the kind of alternate rule system being contemplated. Have you heard any comment from the design team somewhere about alternatives to the Christmas Tree Effect, in particular?
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stylistically (the art, race and class descriptions, etc.), do you prefer the 5th Ed. style or the Pathfinder style?
This is really two separate categories: covers and interiors.
Pathfinder wins covers. Especially Wayne Reynolds. Even if you don't like the dungeon punk aesthetics, the use of colour and detail are better, as is the composition. The cropping of the 5e covers doesn't help. The 5e Starter Set has a pretty solid cover, but the core books are "meh" at best.
The interiors are a different story. The 5e books look great. Both have great art but 5e has a nice aesthetic and simply has more art. It wins by sheer quantity, being one of the best looking RPGs I've seen. (The best being Shadows of Esteren.) Pathfinder has had some good pieces of art. I was impressed by Ultimate Campaign and the aesthetic of Inner Sea Gods, but the ACG had a lot of walls of texts or bland shots of generic adventurers.
I do wish 5e had opted to have iconic characters like Pathfinder.
Mechanically, what did it do better than Pathfinder?
A lot.
Really, 5e has an unfair advantage. Most of what Pathfinder does well is what 3e did well, so 5e reflects fourteen years of changes to how people play games and feedback to work with. The balance is better, the foundational math is better, the flatter math and bounded accuracy is nice, it doesn't assume magic items, play is faster, and so many other things.Plus, as a DM, I like the simplicity. Both in running the game and designing. Rulings versus rules, so I spend less time looking up content in the book. I can decide what happens, what makes narrative sense.
It's a very hackable game. I'm doing some magic items and similar 5e content for my webcomic/ blog (www.5mwd.com) and then started doing some stuff for RPG superstar and in the time it takes to do one magic item for PF I could do five for 5e.
So, really, the benefits of 5e is not what it does mechanically but what it doesn't do.
Mechanically, what did it do worse than Pathfinder?
Mechanically... not much. There are a few small things, but most come down to individual play style.
A couple of my players really like building characters and optimizing, which you just can't do in 5e to the same extent. The rest of my table mind less, as they just don't spend the same amount of time working on characters or thinking of the game away from the table.
I do like using the carrot rather than the stick for favoured classes.
Traps giving xp is nice.
I like races having a negative ability score.
Among those things it did better, can or should any of them be translated to the PF system?
I'm already using advantage/disadvantage as a situational modifier.
No negative hp, and rolling a DC 10 to stabilize; 3 successes before 3 failures.Other than that it's hard to translate, as so much of the benefits would be removing things. Or be tricky to implement, like casting using higher level spell slots rather automatic increases.
Among those things it did worse, was the PF mechanic the clearly superior option, or could they be fixed with small tweaks?
Most of the time, it's small fixes. 5e is customizable enough that you could make the game more what you want.
It'd be easy to change things to have three saves, or a skill point system, add negative modifiers for races, make colossal sized monsters, allow concentration on multiple spells, etc.Honestly, most of what attracts me to Pathfinder is Paizo, and what makes me worry about 5e is WotC. WotC is first and foremost the Magic the Gathering company. D&D is an afterthought, and the RPG moreso.
I don't think it's possible for D&D to be as successful as WotC's upper management expects from its brands. I'll always be expecting the other shoe to drop and major changes to happen as the D&D brand shifts to accommodate mandates from up above. Which also means safer products.
Plus Paizo is much more open, actually talking to their fans without constant spin and secrecy. WotC seems convinced there'll be a fan revolt if they tell us the straight truth.
Paizo also seems to be better at merchandising their brand. WotC seems to be content letting side products go out of print (like board and card games) and has few side products and questionable licensing partners.
|
|
If you're playing a high level caster and you're focusing on DAMAGE, the YOU are the one who isn't gaming it out well.It's hard to win without damage, therefore, martials are needed.
Wait, I thought you played 3x type games. It's true you need them in 1e, 2e, and 5e (didn't play enough 4e to know first hand, so I won't comment), but I hate to break it to you, martials are an anchor to the wizard and CoDzilla in 3x, and really aren't much more effective in Pathfinder, unless GMs completely ignore any possibility of opponents being intelligent at high level.
If you're playing a high level caster and you're focusing on DAMAGE, the YOU are the one who isn't gaming it out well.It's hard to win without damage, therefore, martials are needed.
I'd say that this is true from about 1st through 6th or 7th level. It's at this point that martial (ie. non-magical classes) really start to fall to the way side in terms of contributions. It's basically why I'd really fight hard to play E6 when playing v3.5 or E7 (for Pathfinder) because I know that once 4th level spells start to become the norm when combat arises, my character will instantly be taking a back seat to the Rocket Tag that occurs in the mid- to late-levels.
Now I've played the Rise of the Runelords adventure with a rogue (later reworked as a Swashbuckler 3/ Rogue 6/ Swordsage 1) that did an OK job at dealing damage. However I'll point out that he only did this well with a WHOLE lot of 3.5 help ie. Tome of Battle feats, maneuvers, and classes as well as lots of 3.5 magical items like the rod of ropes, and assassinating weapons) and spells from the Cleric and Wizard placed on him.
|
|
I think it becomes more and more true as you go up in levels. Casters actually lose the ability to do direct damage more and more as enemy defenses improve, as HD scale non-linearly with PC level. In my homebrew especially, cloaks (or whatever slot I want) of resistance +5 become commonplace for enemies eventually.
Yeah, you can summon, but the summons have crappy to hit numbers, or you can try to dominate, but that is also a crap shoot.
Also, one anti-magic field and all your casters have a sad face indeed.
|
|
I do hope that the upcoming Pathfinder Unchained will give a toolkit of house rules to modify the system, something approximating Bounded Accuracy and counteracting the Christmas Tree Effect is what I'm hoping to see.I'd really like to see this as well, however I didnt think this was the kind of alternate rule system being contemplated. Have you heard any comment from the design team somewhere about alternatives to the Christmas Tree Effect, in particular?
I believe someone asked about this at a GenCon panel and they didn't have any plans. But that could be me misremembering.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, you can summon, but the summons have crappy to hit numbers, or you can try to dominate, but that is also a crap shoot.
Also, one anti-magic field and all your casters have a sad face indeed.
Outside of GM fiat AMFs don't happen, and summons to-hit doesn't matter when the enemies are paralyzed, blinded, stunned, and all the other wonderful things casters can inflict on foes.
The fact that you drop resources like candy to counter casters says a lot.
|
|
Yeah, you can summon, but the summons have crappy to hit numbers, or you can try to dominate, but that is also a crap shoot.
Also, one anti-magic field and all your casters have a sad face indeed.
Outside of GM fiat AMFs don't happen, and summons to-hit doesn't matter when the enemies are paralyzed, blinded, stunned, and all the other wonderful things casters can inflict on foes.
The fact that you drop resources like candy to counter casters says a lot.
No joke. I played Fiachra the way I did to avoid niche encroachment, and to let everyone have fun. Most encounters really don't NEED a ton of magic to defeat, not at low to mid levels anyway, so why waste resources when the other members of the group have sufficient tools for the job, maybe with a scroll from me here or there to tilt the odds in our favor if the encounter is a little more daunting, but not deadly.
But then, I don't need to shine every round to have fun, I can have my fun with the RP after the encounter and enjoy the in character banter about "could have used your help back there!" "What? Ghouls? If you can't handle that without me, why are you my body guards?"
Fiachra was pretty arrogant.
But, yeah, even at fifth level, I probably could have shut down a few things a lot more quickly.
|
|
Outside of GM fiat AMFs don't happen
That's not entirely true. I have not seen the new MM, but if Beholders are kept true to form, then they have an anti-magic field "attack" (through their main eye), and I can't comment on the state of the current Forgotten Realms, but I know that both 2e and 3e FR had large areas that were anti-magic zones...
Just sayin'
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my homebrew especially, cloaks (or whatever slot I want) of resistance +5 become commonplace for enemies eventually.
And in my homebrew a +5 item would be an epic thing, rare as hens teeth, with an extensive backstory and deep ties to the campaign world. Not a parlour trick to challenge PCs.
Outside of GM fiat AMFs don't happenA spell in the CRB is DM fiat?Look at the entry of the spell and tell me how often you'll see that come into play.
Level cleric 8, sorcerer/wizard 6
...
Area 10-ft.-radius emanation, centered on you
If I were to do it...a LOT.
yes, it may be 10 ft, but that's enough to shut down a spellcaster with a AMF caster/Martial Duo.
Of course, I use AMF's all the time in my PF games, which I think would discourage a LOT of the caster lovers around here. I also use group synergy with my enemies I use...sooooo...
10 feet can be restrictive, but it's not half as bad as you may think.
Ironically, I'd rather play PF than 5e right now...so doubly ironic coming from me.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just sayin'If your GM is throwing you into the Mana Wastes or facing you against cabals of beholders, that's introducing AMFs through fiat.
As much as I hate to seem even for a moment like I'm in agreement with David Bowles, if you extend GM fiat that far, then the mere fact that an adventure happens is GM fiat.
As much as I hate to seem even for a moment like I'm in agreement with David Bowles, if you extend GM fiat that far, then the mere fact that an adventure happens is GM fiat.Just sayin'If your GM is throwing you into the Mana Wastes or facing you against cabals of beholders, that's introducing AMFs through fiat.
Well yes but I think the point is that if the way you deal with a class, or spell or whatever is by having a bunch of " you can't do that " things then you are already conceding you have a problem that "normal" rules don't solve.
It's like designing a river crossing problem for a 6th level party then saying there is some magic preventing you from flying.
Btw you look way over there, in the distance , you can see the point of this thread : )
Pathfinder is awesome for those that like it, same for 5e.
Has anyone played 5e to high level yet? How did that compare ? ( I haven't but I have given up on trying to run 3.x/pathfinder above 15th)
I believe someone asked about this at a GenCon panel and they didn't have any plans. But that could be me misremembering.I do hope that the upcoming Pathfinder Unchained will give a toolkit of house rules to modify the system, something approximating Bounded Accuracy and counteracting the Christmas Tree Effect is what I'm hoping to see.I'd really like to see this as well, however I didnt think this was the kind of alternate rule system being contemplated. Have you heard any comment from the design team somewhere about alternatives to the Christmas Tree Effect, in particular?
Cheers.
|
|
If your GM is throwing you into the Mana Wastes or facing you against cabals of beholders
Oh, yeah, and Beholders are lurking around every corner
ROFL...
I just mention, in passing, that there are beholders and dead magic zones (specifically in ONE setting at that), and that's taken that I somehow mean that there are cabals of beholders lurking around every corner, and that every setting has vast swaths of zones of nothing but dead magic!?
Talk about taking things to the extreme... Goodness. :-)