Author
|
Topic: UtDB
Critique |
Xythlord
Member Member # 70903
|
posted August 17, 2002 08:48 PM
Just print
out what you want them to have and not the rest. Treat them
like mushrooms, keep them in the dark and feed them $h!t. ![[Devilish]](Wizards_Com Boards UtDB Critique (2)_fichiers/diablo.gif)
-------------------- Only two things are
infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure
about the former. Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)
From:
Denver, Co | Registered: Mar 2002 |
IP: Logged
| |
Grayswandir_Blade Member Member
# 92933
|
posted August 17, 2002 09:11 PM
Drothgery,
I agree with what a lot of other people are saying...yes, this
is a critique thread, but not hack-and-slash the suggestions
and hard work by saying "this is bad, this sucks, etc."
without suggesting ways they can be revised. I fully
understand your issues with things that simply don't make
sense with WoT novel mechanics. However, I don't for a moment
respect your throwing out weaves/items/creatures/etc. simply
because they don't appear in the novels. Why? Because, quite
frankly, WotC covered 90% of what's already _in_ the novels!
An E for effort is certainly in order, in that nothing
absolutely massively huge went wrong in the RPG. Granted, they
didn't do very well in some places, but they covered most of
what they could...and the _need_ for new weaves is great.
There simply aren't enough, and scratching a weave out because
it mimics a D&D effect is like saying "I want more weaves,
but I won't accept any more." Open up the imagination a bit,
and ask yourself not what RJ has exclusively said can be done
with the OP, but rather what *might* work with the OP.
$0.02
Anyway, on to the point of my post...and I'll be
a bit general, since I don't have access to any of my stuff
right now. About the Noble class. As someone already said,
making the use-once-only ability into a check is a big plus
for that class. There are only two problems: one, the check
isn't significant enough, and two, there's too much gain at
level 1.
The first problem is that the Queen of Andor
only has about a 25% better chance of getting what she wants
than a low-ranking Tairen noble kid. Now, I don't know if the
SW rules (that someone said this class was copied from)
include bonuses for titles and stuff, but I'd suggest
something a little more linear. For example, giving the Noble
a plus every level or every other level, then bumping the DC.
This would make leveling in Noble much more significant in
influence.
The second problem I have with the new Noble
class (and one of the reasons I suggest making the check a
more linear bonus) is the "magical" ability to request stuff
at 1st level that doesn't get much better later on. I know
this changes with good background and character RP, but simply
taking a single Noble class level allows you power represented
in a mechanic that's not otherwise gained. In other words, you
get all the big guns at the front door. It makes it less
appealing to go on in the class instead of stopping after you
get the biggest benefit.
So, my final suggestion is
this: make the plus a per-level gain and bump the DC. Then use
the old "plus" levels to set categories for what degree of
request you could ask for (steal/buy something, kill someone,
raise an army). That way you won't have a Tairen minor noble
succeed at having a fortress built and end up with the Queen
of Andor turned down when she asks for...bleh, something
simple, since I'm brain-fried right now. Heh. Another
$0.02
[ August 17, 2002, 09:19 PM: Message
edited by: Grayswandir_Blade
]
-------------------- "We laugh in the face
of danger, just before it hits us and knocks us out" -
Lysander. :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E:
:88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E:
:88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E:
:88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E:
:88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E:
:88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E:
:88E:
Registered:
Jul 2002 | IP: Logged
| |
drothgery
Member Member # 4490
|
posted August 18, 2002 06:56 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Philosopher Jack: If
I understand your argument, it is okay to model a D&D
spell (even word for word) if that weave is seen or
mentioned in the novels, but a fan who creates a weave must
ensure that it is nothing like a D&D spell. Damn, Dave,
with those rules I wonder why we even bothered with the
netbook.
You're misreading me. I dislike weaves modeled on
D&D spells when they clearly do things that are in whole
categories of magic that no one in WoT uses. And when I saw a
weave that both seemed like a copy of one of the most broken
spells in D&D and seemed to use a kind of effect that no
one has done with the Power, it seemed like someone was trying
to import a broken D&D spell as a power grab.
I
think that the novels at the very least give an outline of the
kinds of things that are possible with the One Power. Big
elemental effects are easy. Healing and mind-altering effects
are hard. Summoning is impossible. Necromancy is a True
Power-only thing, and only the Dark One can bring back the
dead. Really altering a living thing (ala Polymorph in
D&D) is impossible. Creating magical objects is hard.
Altering objects is not.
Along these lines, I don't
think short-term 'power-up'/buff weaves along the lines of
Haste or Bull's Strength exist. We've seen Aes Sedai and
Warders in combat a lot, and no one has ever used one.
Besides, weaves like that would be a mind-bogglingly cheesy
way of circumventing the Second
Oath.
-------------------- Dave Rothgery Picking
nits since 1976 drothgery@alum.wpi.edu http://drothgery.editthispage.com/
Optional d20 WoT Rules at http://home.san.rr.com/drothgery/wot_rpg.htm
From:
San Diego, CA | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
| |
aoMalandra
Member Member # 70086
|
posted August 18, 2002 07:29 AM
The Renew
Weave shows us that it is possible to alter the bodies
abilities at a high price for the user. Something like haste
is a combat related weave and most combat channelers are
fairly weak in the heal talent. Since the Yellow Ajah would
have little general use for this weave it would not be common.
It is possible that a few Channelers with the heal talent and
lots of combat experience could have developed the weave as a
personal and therefore rare weave. As for it being a cheesy
way around the 2nd oath, Aes Sedai excell at finding ways
around them.
Also a word about the amount of rare and
lost weaves. Personally I don't have a problem with this
because a lot of them are becoming common by Winters Heart
(traveling for instance).
Note to Eosin: Let me know
what other stuff you'd like to see fleshed out for mass combat
rules. I have a bunch of other stuff that was discarded when
my group play tested the system for the Battle of Tarwin's
Gap. What we ended up with is the simplest version that
allowed all players to get into it without to much difficulty
which was my goal. I did not set out to create a minitures
battle system with terrain mods and the like although such
things can easily be plugged in. I'm glad you liked it. I
think the stregnth of the system is that numbers are taken
into account. 1,000 Shienaran's although supperior warriors
will find themselves in a lot of trouble against 10,000
Trollocs. Anyway I'll be glad to provide any other info you'd
like to get.
Malandra
Registered:
Mar 2002 | IP: Logged
| |
Xythlord
Member Member # 70903
|
posted August 18, 2002 07:52 AM
I really
like this system you created, especially the add in the UtDB
Errata. This way we can have a nice large battle and still
have heroics. What other stuff did you have for
it?
-------------------- Only two things are
infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure
about the former. Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)
From:
Denver, Co | Registered: Mar 2002 |
IP: Logged
| |
Ghaerdon Fain
Member Member # 90264
|
posted August 18, 2002 08:40 AM
quote:
Originally posted by drothgery: [QUOTE] I
dislike weaves modeled on D&D spells when they clearly
do things that are in whole categories of magic that no one
in WoT uses.
Ok, I started this thread, it was inevitable that
someone would. I agree in principal with what drothgery is
saying but, like others, not the tenor. And for that matter
many are now jumping down his throat... hence the reason why I
gave my warning; and so did Eosin.
Look we have strayed
as a thread (he says trying not to sound like a moderator ). The point of this is not to focus on one opinion.
Thats what most of the thread has been. All I ask was that we
as a collective figure out what we thought worked really well
and would definitely include and what we absolutely would not.
Drothgery has lived up to his sig. and is picking nits. FINE!
He's also told us all what he thinks ans why...
OK
moving on...
-------------------- "My Brother? By
the Light, I've never seen this darkfriend before!" Go to
my "Tiny Wheel of Time"; http://pages.globetrotter.net/pastor/wot.html
From:
Basse Cote Nord, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
| |
Philosopher
Jack Member Member
# 95890
|
posted August 18, 2002 09:15 AM
Dave,
You make some very good points and I
apologize for taking umbrage at your opinions. I agree that
there are whole categories of magic that would violate RJ's
unwritten rules concerning the One Power, including summoning
and, especially, anything necromantic in nature. I think that,
by and large, the One Power is a hammer. It is far easier to
destroy with it than to create, but a skilled user can use
that hammer to create. That skill is just difficult and rare.
As far as using weaves modelled on D&D spells,
either intentionally or unintentionally, I think we can leave
that up to the individual users of the netbook. Let's continue
the discussion about what is appropriate and within the
framework of the novels with more level heads and not-quite-so
sharp tongues. I think this discussion will bear fruit when/if
we ever decide, as a community, to create another netbook.
From:
Bellingham, WA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
| |
Jak Shadow
Member Member # 39941
|
posted August 19, 2002 04:31 AM
Damn,
reading some of those responses to Dave I'm getting images of
a legion of Simpsons Lenin's. *Smashes out of glass coffin and
lurches off zombie-syle* "Must-crush-critics.
Rargh!!!"
Dave has made a number of critical comments
about some of the content of the netbook but he has beacked up
each and everyone of them with reasons. It's not like he's
said "this is all cr@p and should be thrown out." He's said,
"I don't like this becasue of this" and, quite frankly, his
reasoning is pretty much valid. He does have experience
with fan generated material and with DMing the RPG and, until
now apparently, his opinions have always been considered
valuable and well thought out.
So basically, lay off!
It isn't necessary, warrented or, quite frankly,
wanted.
-------------------- "I'm not feeling
very well, it must be the anthrax." ~ Saturday night Delta
Green, GenCon UK
From:
London, UK | Registered: Aug 2001 |
IP: Logged
| |
aoMalandra
Member Member # 70086
|
posted August 19, 2002 06:16 AM
I think you
wrong in this instance Jak, Dave does deserve the critisism
he's getting not beccause he critisized peoples work but
because of how he did it.
I have enjoyed Dave's
material from the start but that doesn't mean he's always
right. He starts off his post with a list of 5 things that
bugged him abut the netbook and even though I don't agree with
all 5 of his points they are valid and well thought out
points. Dave goes on to day and I quote "So here's what id've
eliminated from the netbook" and goes on to name a long list
of items with reasons for it. The word "eliminate" is very
strong and implies that the materials listed below sucked so
bad that they don't merit viewing by the community. I hope
that that wasn't Dave's intent so if it wasn't he should say
that that phasing was a bad choice of words. I agree with some
of the things that Dave said under the list and disagree with
a lot of it and thats ok, thats just our opinions, but I
object to him invalidating peoples work by saying it is worthy
of "elimination".
Being a critic isn't easy, you sould
expect to recieve critisism but I think that their hasn't been
any flaming here and thats good.
Malandra
Registered:
Mar 2002 | IP: Logged
| |
Ghaerdon Fain
Member Member # 90264
|
posted August 19, 2002 06:28 AM
quote:
Originally posted by aoMalandra: The word
"eliminate" is very strong and implies that the materials
listed below sucked so bad that they don't merit viewing by
the community.
We're now just being silly. "Dave" does not deserve
this what so ever! Nobody does. He was honest. So what if he
"eliminated" anything. Isn't that the purpose of this thread
to get what people have discarded? This aint the Bible... and
even that is critically questioned. This is no sacred cow.
There's great stuff and stuff that is questionable. Dave did
that. This is a critical review of the content just like with
the Core book and with PotD!!! And we ripped that apart. You
don't see such passionate offence discribed when we trashed
it.
droth. has every right. Who else has "eliminated"
or will not be using stuff and why? Why keep other stuff as
standard? I use Ishamael's Weave Pool; powerful and reflects
the books. So not everyone does. I hope that 20 posts won't
trash me for it
Now lets move on with this thread,
please.
-------------------- "My Brother? By the
Light, I've never seen this darkfriend before!" Go to my
"Tiny Wheel of Time"; http://pages.globetrotter.net/pastor/wot.html
From:
Basse Cote Nord, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
| |
aoMalandra
Member Member # 70086
|
posted August 19, 2002 07:02 AM
As I said
in several of my post I do not discount Dave's opinions and
critism, they are valid. And if Dave meant to say that he is
"eliminating" stuff from his campaign thats one thing, but
thats not what it sounded like, it sounded like he was saying
that the stuff on his list shouldn't have been in the netbook
in the first place. That may not have been the intent but
reading the post certainly leaves that impression especially
if you don't know the person writing the post. This is likely
a situalion of miscomunication, droth can clear it up by
simply clarifying what he meant by the quote I posted above, I
don't think anyone is faulting him for his opinions on
specific aspects of the book although some might want to
defend their work.
Malandra
Registered:
Mar 2002 | IP: Logged
| |
Jak Shadow
Member Member # 39941
|
posted August 19, 2002 07:13 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Ghaerdon
Fain:
quote:
Originally posted by aoMalandra: The
word "eliminate" is very strong and implies that the
materials listed below sucked so bad that they don't merit
viewing by the community.
Now lets move on with this thread,
please.
I the spirit of this I shall refrain from commenting on
the other.
-------------------- "I'm not feeling
very well, it must be the anthrax." ~ Saturday night Delta
Green, GenCon UK
From:
London, UK | Registered: Aug 2001 |
IP: Logged
| |
aoMalandra
Member Member # 70086
|
posted August 19, 2002 07:26 AM
hehe,
sometimes when I get something caught in my beak I have a hard
time letting go. I'm sorry I kept puching, this is how simple
misunderstandings get blown out of proportion, someone who
means well just keeps pushing instead of just letting go. This
is a great community and droth has been one of its leading
members for a long time. Please accept my apology Dave for
getting overly excited when nothing bad was
meant.
Malandra
Registered:
Mar 2002 | IP: Logged
| |
Ghaerdon Fain
Member Member # 90264
|
posted August 19, 2002 09:21 AM
I continue
to be proud and priviaged to be part of this community. I have
found that we can get "into" it but equally be humble enough
to admit that we can be led astray. Thanks all.
After
some play testing I think I'm going to go with Randy Madden's
Wolfbrother Madness system. Any challenges So... which do we collectively use? Again, not to
knock the options out there, just the majority .
-------------------- "My Brother? By the
Light, I've never seen this darkfriend before!" Go to my
"Tiny Wheel of Time"; http://pages.globetrotter.net/pastor/wot.html
From:
Basse Cote Nord, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
| |
Eagle Prince
Member Member # 67693
|
posted August 19, 2002 06:38 PM
Haven't
read the whole thing yet, but here's the stuff that really
jumped out at me.
I agree with what someone else said
above, the Dai'dore class was something needed imo... alot of
swashbuckler types in WoT, and this lets you start one from
the get-go.
Noble- I think most anyone would have done
this... needed, recommended, etc. Someone above mentioned it
might be front-loaded, so I'll keep that in mind.
Alot
of good PrCs... I had one question looking through them
though... what does the Friend of the Dark's "Authority"
ability do? Couldn't find it anywhere.
Class-combos,
already saw them. Good examples of how to set up a character
the way you want with multiclassing.
Bad-guy temples,
not exactly how I would have done them... but pretty
close.
Haven't looked through the sword-forms really.
But off my head, I like the idea of having a mechanic for
sword forms. And the idea of some of them needing the Old
Blood feat was really awesome.
Haven't looked through
all the feats. Noticed the mining one, and like it. I've
played alot of "miners" in WoT games, so just the idea of
having a feat for it was cool to me. And for the question of
balance mentioned above, looks balanced to me. +2 strength is
good for a feat, but it also gives -2 cha and you can only
take it at first level. Fair/balanced/in good flavor/etc imo.
As for the ability talent feats... yes there is dnd Epic feats
that do this, but if you note, those are also a simple +1 to
the attribute, which is powerful. The talent feats are a +1
inherent bonus, that's a huge difference. Inherent
bonus is not unheard of in the "official" WoTRPG... and if you
droped those same feats into a DnD game, I doubt if anyone
would take them. However, inherent bonus is harder to get in
WoT, so in the end I would argue that the feats are worthwhile
without being "overpowered".
The feats like instant
embrace/etc... people have been hammering out those feats
since the game came out. So even if a minority doesn't like
them, or finds them overpowered, obviously many people
do want them, and thus a very good idea to put them in
the netbook. Like I said, haven't really looked through all of
them, but they look decent for the most part. Also, I saw the
Animal Talker feat mentioned above... and I would argue that
this does hold a place in WoT. Handle Animial lets you train
them, this seams like the feat for someone who's instead
accepted by them, and so has an intuitive sense to talk to
animals. There's people who are kind of like this in real
life, and with Wolfbrothers and being in a fantasy setting,
it's no stretch of the imagination to have such a thing. I
like it, I'd let a player take it in my
game.
Wolfbrother feats... makes more sense then the
PrC... but it would still be a hard choice, to spend all my
feats for the feat chain, or take the PrC and spend my feats
on Dreamwalking stuff or whatever else. Wolfbrother madness...
I think I already asked on the boards if anyone had some, so I
was glad to see it. Which reminds me of the "two options"
deal. Some people have said this was a bad idea, but since it
is a netbook and not the official product, I think it was a
good choice by the editing team, as one might appeal to a
group more then the other.
Weaves... only glanced at
them. However, from previous posts I can say a few things.
About "shapechanging", this did happen one time in the books,
Rahvin doing it to Rand. You might argue that it was in the
World of Dreams, but he was there in the flesh. And it
did, in fact, seem like an act of the Power. Also, Slayer is
able to shapechange at will. The first WoT campaign I ran
(about the time the Great Hunt came out), one of the PCs
became a Wolfbrother and eventually had a way of entering the
wolfdream and exiting as a wolf. So you might argue different,
or argue that it is only possible in the world of dreams...
but it is there, even if in a limited form. Also, on
replacing/tricking memories, summoning creatures, etc... This
is a very big thing in WoT. Mind control/manipulation
does happen in WoT, and it happens alot. Nearly
anything you could think of that deals with it, is possible
with the One Power IMO. For those who disagree, I believe they
simply have a very rigid view of the world of the WoT and are
unaccepting of anything the don't think fits it, even if it
does. And as for a weave/etc being half-based of something
similiar from DnD, or Star Wars, etc... the OFFICIAL game was,
how is this suprising you??? Unless you are really going to
arge that, lets say Noble and Wanderer classes, weren't
heavily based of Star Wars classes... LoL. Not to mention, it
makes said weave probably that much more balanced, and if you
play alot of DnD then you already know what sort of problems
can/might come of it, and how to deal with
them.
Ter'angreal stuff... only looked at one or two.
The iron stomach one sticks out. Anyway, the more the better.
I only wish they had a price or something, just for a quick,
vague idea of how powerful it is and about which level it
should come up. I've heard alot of hardcore WoT'er say that
more isn't better, because they are so rare. Which really boggles me, as PCs are supposed to be
the "unique" special-case people who do have them. The
same way book characters are. And looking at the book
characters, they have bagloads of them. (If you don't believe
me, you really need to read through it again and take a closer
look. Because all the big-guns have a small museum-type
collection of them.)
Only read through the Trouble with
Tinkers. Looks alright, but the name really got me. ("The
Trouble with Tribbles"). Now I have to use it just because of
the name. heh.
The tables at the end... man I don't
envy whoever did that, but they really kick ass. Makes the
whole thing managable, exp. if you don't want to print out the
entire thing (just print out the tables and keep the computer
on )
Anyway, just a bit of what I thought.
Overall very impressive. And even if everything isn't exactly
how I would have done it, at the least nobody can argue that
it won't give them an insane ammount of new ideas to
build up a horde of new material that "meets their group's
expectations/view of WoT".
![[Devilish]](Wizards_Com Boards UtDB Critique (2)_fichiers/diablo.gif)
-------------------- I am the Immortal
One hidden from the dawn, I am the Emperor-King after day has
gone.
From:
Utah | Registered: Feb 2002 | IP: Logged
| |
Merclaar
Member Member # 67223
|
posted August 19, 2002 10:33 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Eagle Prince: I agree
with what someone else said above, the Dai'dore class was
something needed imo... alot of swashbuckler types in WoT,
and this lets you start one from the get-go.
Agreement here.
quote:
Fair/balanced/in good flavor/etc imo. As for the
ability talent feats... yes there is dnd Epic feats that do
this, but if you note, those are also a simple +1 to the
attribute, which is powerful. The talent feats are a +1
inherent bonus, that's a huge difference. Inherent
bonus is not unheard of in the "official" WoTRPG... and if
you droped those same feats into a DnD game, I doubt if
anyone would take them. However, inherent bonus is harder to
get in WoT, so in the end I would argue that the feats are
worthwhile without being "overpowered".
Sorry I haven't (yet) the ELH, but why is this
inherent so bad???
quote:
Weaves...
only glanced at them. However, from previous posts I can say
a few things. About "shapechanging", this did happen one
time in the books, Rahvin doing it to Rand. You might argue
that it was in the World of Dreams, but he was there
in the flesh. And it did, in fact, seem like an act of the
Power.
Disagreement here, IMHO it was a World of Dreams act,
like Egwenes and Amys first encounter (the strip ;-)
)
quote:
Also,
Slayer is able to shapechange at will.
Slayer is a creature from the Dark One, nothing to do
with the One Power.
quote:
The first
WoT campaign I ran (about the time the Great Hunt came out),
one of the PCs became a Wolfbrother and eventually had a way
of entering the wolfdream and exiting as a wolf. So you
might argue different, or argue that it is only possible in
the world of dreams... but it is there, even if in a limited
form.
I argue, it can be, but not with
weaves...
quote:
Also,
on replacing/tricking memories, summoning creatures, etc...
This is a very big thing in WoT. Mind control/manipulation
does happen in WoT, and it happens alot. Nearly
anything you could think of that deals with it, is possible
with the One Power IMO. For those who disagree, I believe
they simply have a very rigid view of the world of the WoT
and are unaccepting of anything the don't think fits it,
even if it does.
Agreement here. IMHO the WoT
Compulsion is a sort of hypnosis without Emergency
brake.
quote:
And as
for a weave/etc being half-based of something similiar from
DnD, or Star Wars, etc... the OFFICIAL game was, how is this
suprising you??? Unless you are really going to arge that,
lets say Noble and Wanderer classes, weren't heavily based
of Star Wars classes... LoL. Not to mention, it makes said
weave probably that much more balanced, and if you play alot
of DnD then you already know what sort of problems can/might
come of it, and how to deal with them.
Whats your point here? *little confused* It's clear WoT
is heavly D&D and SW based. But it should/must have a base
on Robert Jordans WoT....
quote:
I've
heard alot of hardcore WoT'er say that more isn't better,
because they are so rare. Which really boggles me, as PCs are supposed to be
the "unique" special-case people who do have them.
The same way book characters are. And looking at the book
characters, they have bagloads of them. (If you don't
believe me, you really need to read through it again and
take a closer look. Because all the big-guns have a
small museum-type collection of them.)
Shure the have bagloads, but bagloads
of thinks they can't use .
quote:
The
tables at the end... man I don't envy whoever did that, but
they really kick ass. Makes the whole thing managable, exp.
if you don't want to print out the entire thing (just print
out the tables and keep the computer on )
Agreement here.
quote:
Anyway,
just a bit of what I thought. Overall very impressive. And
even if everything isn't exactly how I would have done it,
at the least nobody can argue that it won't give them an
insane ammount of new ideas to build up a horde of
new material that "meets their group's expectations/view of
WoT".
And also a 'Agreement here'.
In my
imagination the One Power is a science not magic. In the
world of dreams you dream. The true power use anothers Laws
of nature. The prison from the dark one is outside the Wheel
of Time...
All IMHO!
cu
[ August 19, 2002, 10:40
PM: Message edited by: Merclaar
]
-------------------- cu
-- Merclaar
Registered:
Feb 2002 | IP: Logged
| |
Eagle Prince
Member Member # 67693
|
posted August 19, 2002 11:26 PM
@inherent
bonuses. In a WoT game, they are more valuable then in DnD,
but only because they're harder to get in WoT. But speaking
strictly DnD, a +1 unnamed bonus is alot better then a +1
inherent bonus to a stat (in truth, an unnamed bonus is always
superior to a named bonus). Now in the ELH there is alot of
new feats, many of them general, and most all of them epic.
Epic feats can only be taken by epic-level characters (level
21+), and are generally stronger then regular feats. There are
a series of feats, "great strength/great intelligence/etc"
which gives +1 to your attribute. This is an unnamed bonus,
which means it stacks with all other bonuses (ie, if you have
a +2 enhancement bonus from one thing and a +4 enhancement
bonus from something else, you only get the higest one; +4,
not +6). So, let's say your character is starting at level 30.
He will have 4,300,000 gold pieces to start play with, which
he can by magical and mudane equipment/property/etc with. For
825,000gp he could get a +5 inherent bonus to all his
attributes (+5 is the highest inherent bonus you can get
through any means... and as I said before, a +3 inherent bonus
from one thing and a +2 inherent bonus from something else
wouldn't give you a +5 inherent bonus; you'd only get +3, the
highest one).
So, a feat that gives a +1 inherent bonus
to a stat in DnD isn't a very powerful feat. In fact, nobody
who plans on reaching over probably 6th level would ever take
it. However, an inherent bonus is worth more in WoT, because
they are harder to get... but not to the point of it being
overpowered. Powerful, sure... so is great cleave, improved
critical, and sunder. -shrug-
Anyway, that's the basic
argument with comparing it to the epic feat that grants an
unnamed bonus.
-------------------- I am the
Immortal One hidden from the dawn, I am the Emperor-King after
day has gone.
From:
Utah | Registered: Feb 2002 | IP: Logged
| |
Eagle Prince
Member Member # 67693
|
posted August 20, 2002 12:02 AM
quote:
Originally posted by
Merclaar:
quote:
Weaves... only glanced at them. However, from
previous posts I can say a few things. About
"shapechanging", this did happen one time in the books,
Rahvin doing it to Rand. You might argue that it was in
the World of Dreams, but he was there in the flesh.
And it did, in fact, seem like an act of the Power.
Disagreement here, IMHO it was a World of Dreams act,
like Egwenes and Amys first encounter (the strip ;-)
)
...
In my imagination the One Power
is a science not magic. In the world of dreams you
dream. The true power use anothers Laws of nature. The
prison from the dark one is outside the Wheel of
Time...
I don't look at the One Power so much as a science, I
think of it as a magic easily explainable with science.
But in general, I think we are in agreement here. Like you, I
don't think shapechanging with the One Power is possible (and
if it is/ends up being, I would equate it along the lines of
how it works in the Coldfire Trilogy. One of the hardest
things to do; in Coldfire it took absulute submission to
magic, which the normal human mind couldn't... thus making it
impossible to anyone, save a few superpowered immortals and
the like). However, my point was this is a RPG, not the next
novel. And with what we do know of shapechanging (something
that is possible, somehow), if a gaming group wished to
include such a thing, there does in fact happen to be some
facts on the subject to make it half believable to WoT
readers. For example, I do think Rahvin used the Power on Rand
to shift him into Lews, but that this was only possible
because they happened to be in the World of Dreams (we already
know shapeshifting here is possible, just not all the
details.) So you could in theory invent a weave for your
campaign that made you shapeshift. To everyone else, it just
looks like you morph from one form to another, but actually
the weave is taking you into the World of Dreams, dreaming you
into the new form, then returning you to reality. Now this
might not actually be possible with whatever OP rules RJ has
set up, but I think it's plenty good for a group who wants to
use shapeshifting and still keep it
WoT-flavored.
quote:
Originally posted by
Merclaar:
quote:
I've heard alot of hardcore WoT'er say that
more isn't better, because they are so rare. Which really boggles me, as PCs are supposed to
be the "unique" special-case people who do have
them. The same way book characters are. And looking at the
book characters, they have bagloads of them. (If you don't
believe me, you really need to read through it again and
take a closer look. Because all the big-guns have a
small museum-type collection of them.)
Shure the have bagloads, but
bagloads of thinks they can't use .
I think we are someone in agreement here. I don't think
just because the players find a ter'angreal that they should
know what it does. Or even that it is a ter'angreal.
That's exactly how I'd run it in my game... they're only going
to find out with some hard work and a bit of luck. But even
approaching *angreal like this, I still find it the best
interest of the game to have many writeups of them on-hand. I
think it lessens the fun of the game if you've found the same
ter'angreal in the last three campaigns... having so many that
you probably won't get through half of them in three campaigns
means the players will always be surprised and not know what
to expect.
Now, your PCs could easily have 6
ter'angreal among them at level 8, by my reasoning. And I
think it would be very in line with the world if they didn't
know what any of them did, or maybe only one or two. But I
also think it's very much in line with the novels for a single
lvl 16 PC to have 6 him/herself, and know what 5 of them do
(and uses them on a regular basis). Looking back on Winter's
Heart, Nynaeve discovered what many of the ter'angreal she had
did. And it was revealed that Cadsuane has a number of
ter'angreal herself, which she regularly uses. Now these would
both be high level NPCs... but I think PCs of the same level
should have just as many toys. From a game-perspective, I
think this is a good thing, as a 16th level character should
have more to their name then 16 levels. They should have a
long list of adventures, discoveries, character development.
And I simply wanted to point this out, because even those who
want to keep the game close to the truths of the story won't
feel out of line by doing this under the notion that it's
simply good for the game (and not matching with the story,
which I am trying point out that it does this as well. Sort of
a double bonus.)
-------------------- I am the
Immortal One hidden from the dawn, I am the Emperor-King after
day has gone.
From:
Utah | Registered: Feb 2002 | IP: Logged
| |
Merclaar
Member Member # 67223
|
posted August 20, 2002 01:16 AM
quote:
I don't
look at the One Power so much as a science, I think of it as
a magic easily explainable with science.
Where is the practical difference?
![[Wink]](Wizards_Com Boards UtDB Critique (2)_fichiers/wink.gif)
-------------------- cu
-- Merclaar
Registered:
Feb 2002 | IP: Logged
| |
Grayswandir_Blade Member Member
# 92933
|
posted August 20, 2002 09:25 PM
[edit
away]
[ August 20, 2002, 09:26 PM: Message
edited by: Grayswandir_Blade
]
-------------------- "We laugh in the face
of danger, just before it hits us and knocks us out" -
Lysander. :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E:
:88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E:
:88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E:
:88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E:
:88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E:
:88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E: :88E:
:88E:
Registered:
Jul 2002 | IP: Logged
| | |