Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Magic of Incarnum opinions?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 1:51:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Hi All,

I saw the new WotC offering in the FLGS yesterday, didn't have time to
really look at it. I'm interested in it, but WotC has disappointed me
somewhat with some of its recent releases that sounded promising.

For someone who has it (Mal?), how is it?


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Always code as if the guy who ends up
keith.davies@kjdavies.org maintaining your code is a psychopath
keith.davies@gmail.com who knows where you live."
http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Damian Conway
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 1:51:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
news:slrndirobl.gf3.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
> Hi All,
>
> I saw the new WotC offering in the FLGS yesterday, didn't have time
> to
> really look at it. I'm interested in it, but WotC has disappointed
> me
> somewhat with some of its recent releases that sounded promising.
>
> For someone who has it (Mal?), how is it?
>
>
> Keith
> --
> Keith Davies "Always code as if the guy who ends up
> keith.davies@kjdavies.org maintaining your code is a psychopath
> keith.davies@gmail.com who knows where you live."
> http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Damian Conway

Picked it up, just started reading it, so no opinions yet.

Interesting Fact 1: There are 3 new base classes, and they use CON as
a primary stat but if I remember correctly
at least 2 of those also require a higher number in one other stat.

Interesting Fact 2: A couple of "Human like new races." There is also
a race of extraplaner Fey. Dusklings, they look interesting enough.

I for one am getting tired of the "Humans in funny suits" type races.
If the only major difference between your face
and a human is the fact that you have a subtype, or one patch of fur,
or scales on a plae where "humans" wouldn't
why not just be a human?

Form the stuff I've read so far, Incarnum use depends a lot on
alignment, and I've noticed a lot of alignment choice restrictions
based on race, or class so far. The alignment system exists, yes, and
it should be used as a rough guideline perhaps, but I don't
think for most things it should be a forced issue.

Barbarians can't be lawful. Rage is a chaotic ability? Really, I know
what they are getting at, but I wonder why it isn't possible
for a lawful character to rage. What is up with the rage ability that
it goes so far against the grain of Lawfulness?

Anyway, I'll be happy to share more thoughts after I've had more time
to read through the book.

DA
September 19, 2005 3:02:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Alien mind control rays made Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> write:
> I saw the new WotC offering in the FLGS yesterday, didn't have time to
> really look at it. I'm interested in it, but WotC has disappointed me
> somewhat with some of its recent releases that sounded promising.
>
> For someone who has it (Mal?), how is it?

i picked it up yesterday, and the cover is real pretty.
might have time to read it later, gaming now.

--
\^\ // drow@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/&gt;
\ // - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
// \ X-Windows: Complex non-solutions to simple non-problems.
// \_\ -- Dude from DPAK
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 4:42:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <SLmXe.25637$dm.14481@lakeread03>, harker@coxdot.net says...

> Interesting Fact 2: A couple of "Human like new races." There is also
> a race of extraplaner Fey. Dusklings, they look interesting enough.

They were in the preview on the website, IIRC. What are the other races
like?

> I for one am getting tired of the "Humans in funny suits" type races.
> If the only major difference between your face
> and a human is the fact that you have a subtype, or one patch of fur,
> or scales on a plae where "humans" wouldn't
> why not just be a human?

I prefer human-like races: as a rule, aasimar, tieflings and yuan-ti
tainted ones fit much better in a fantasy game than dromites. Otherwise
you risk creating too mucho of a Mos Eisley cantina atmosphere, which
might be OK for some games, but which IMO shouldn't be the default for
D&D.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 4:42:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jasin Zujovic wrote:
>
> I prefer human-like races: as a rule, aasimar, tieflings and yuan-ti
> tainted ones fit much better in a fantasy game than dromites. Otherwise
> you risk creating too mucho of a Mos Eisley cantina atmosphere, which
> might be OK for some games, but which IMO shouldn't be the default for
> D&D.

Lies!

--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia

SERENITY - The Future Is Worth Fighting For

http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigec...
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatel...
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 4:42:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Christopher Adams wrote:

>Jasin Zujovic wrote:
>
>
>>I prefer human-like races: as a rule, aasimar, tieflings and yuan-ti
>>tainted ones fit much better in a fantasy game than dromites. Otherwise
>>you risk creating too mucho of a Mos Eisley cantina atmosphere, which
>>might be OK for some games, but which IMO shouldn't be the default for
>>D&D.
>>
>>
>
>Lies!
>
>
>
I have to say that I would love a truly alien race in D&D. Something
not even vaguely humanoid. I've always been attracted to the rather odd
races, the wemics, thri-kreen, the aberrations if you will.

--
Tetsubo
My page: http://home.comcast.net/~tetsubo/
--------------------------------------
If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.
-- Anatole France
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 8:57:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <DhyXe.608$4f3.451@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
mhacdebhandia@yahoo.invalid says...

> > I prefer human-like races: as a rule, aasimar, tieflings and yuan-ti
> > tainted ones fit much better in a fantasy game than dromites. Otherwise
> > you risk creating too mucho of a Mos Eisley cantina atmosphere, which
> > might be OK for some games, but which IMO shouldn't be the default for
> > D&D.
>
> Lies!

Elaborate, please?

Strange races don't create a Mos Eisley atmosphere, or a Mos Eisley
atmosphere isn't a bad thing?


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 2:16:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jasin Zujovic wrote:
> mhacdebhandia@yahoo.invalid says...
>
>>> I prefer human-like races: as a rule, aasimar, tieflings and yuan-ti
>>> tainted ones fit much better in a fantasy game than dromites. Otherwise
>>> you risk creating too mucho of a Mos Eisley cantina atmosphere, which
>>> might be OK for some games, but which IMO shouldn't be the default for
>>> D&D.
>>
>> Lies!
>
> Elaborate, please?
>
> Strange races don't create a Mos Eisley atmosphere, or a Mos Eisley
> atmosphere isn't a bad thing?

The latter. :)  I'm not serious about it . . . except inasmuch as I'd be
perfectly content to never heard the word "Tolkien" in association with D&D
again. I *like* fantasy where the primary focus is on the "weird", not the, hmm,
"romantic" in the literary sense.

--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia

SERENITY - The Future Is Worth Fighting For

http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigec...
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatel...
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 5:45:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Decaying Atheist wrote:
> Barbarians can't be lawful. Rage is a chaotic ability? Really, I know
> what they are getting at, but I wonder why it isn't possible
> for a lawful character to rage. What is up with the rage ability that
> it goes so far against the grain of Lawfulness?

IMO Lawful is associated with an inner predominance of the
intellect and Chaos with emotion, if you're looking at
individuals. To rage is to be completely overwhelmed by
emotions: anger, wrath, you name it...
It's against the inner nature of Lawful persons.

Do we have another alignment thread?
<casts Protection from Fire>

LL
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 11:36:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Christopher Adams wrote:
> Jasin Zujovic wrote:
> > mhacdebhandia@yahoo.invalid says...
> >
> >> The latter. :)  I'm not serious about it . . . except inasmuch as I'd be
> >> perfectly content to never heard the word "Tolkien" in association with
> >> D&D again. I *like* fantasy where the primary focus is on the "weird",
> >> not the, hmm, "romantic" in the literary sense.
> >
> > Even in such fantasy (Howard? Moorcock? what else?), the protagonists
> > tend to be more similar to tainted ones than to thri-kreen, even if
> > there are thri-kreen who fill other roles, no?
>
> I'm thinking less Howard, Moorcock, and Leiber, and more Lovecraft and Clark
> Ashton Smith.

Real men read Alan Burt Akers, *he* rulez.

LL
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 12:06:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <sNGXe.61$0E5.13@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
mhacdebhandia@yahoo.invalid says...

> >>> I prefer human-like races: as a rule, aasimar, tieflings and yuan-ti
> >>> tainted ones fit much better in a fantasy game than dromites. Otherwise
> >>> you risk creating too mucho of a Mos Eisley cantina atmosphere, which
> >>> might be OK for some games, but which IMO shouldn't be the default for
> >>> D&D.
> >>
> >> Lies!
> >
> > Elaborate, please?
> >
> > Strange races don't create a Mos Eisley atmosphere, or a Mos Eisley
> > atmosphere isn't a bad thing?
>
> The latter. :)  I'm not serious about it . . . except inasmuch as I'd be
> perfectly content to never heard the word "Tolkien" in association with D&D
> again. I *like* fantasy where the primary focus is on the "weird", not the, hmm,
> "romantic" in the literary sense.

Even in such fantasy (Howard? Moorcock? what else?), the protagonists
tend to be more similar to tainted ones than to thri-kreen, even if
there are thri-kreen who fill other roles, no?


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 6:02:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jasin Zujovic wrote:
> mhacdebhandia@yahoo.invalid says...
>
>> The latter. :)  I'm not serious about it . . . except inasmuch as I'd be
>> perfectly content to never heard the word "Tolkien" in association with
>> D&D again. I *like* fantasy where the primary focus is on the "weird",
>> not the, hmm, "romantic" in the literary sense.
>
> Even in such fantasy (Howard? Moorcock? what else?), the protagonists
> tend to be more similar to tainted ones than to thri-kreen, even if
> there are thri-kreen who fill other roles, no?

I'm thinking less Howard, Moorcock, and Leiber, and more Lovecraft and Clark
Ashton Smith.

Converted to D&D, of course. Call of Cthulhu is a fine game but I'm just as
happy to work with mind flayers, demons, and undead for my weird factor.

Compared to them dromites and warforged and volodni (oh my!) are not so far
off-base, and *much* more interesting than elves and dwarves if you're going to
have non-human PCs at all.

--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia

SERENITY - The Future Is Worth Fighting For

http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigec...
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatel...
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 8:54:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <wDUXe.711$0E5.383@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
mhacdebhandia@yahoo.invalid says...

> >> The latter. :)  I'm not serious about it . . . except inasmuch as I'd be
> >> perfectly content to never heard the word "Tolkien" in association with
> >> D&D again. I *like* fantasy where the primary focus is on the "weird",
> >> not the, hmm, "romantic" in the literary sense.
> >
> > Even in such fantasy (Howard? Moorcock? what else?), the protagonists
> > tend to be more similar to tainted ones than to thri-kreen, even if
> > there are thri-kreen who fill other roles, no?
>
> I'm thinking less Howard, Moorcock, and Leiber, and more Lovecraft and Clark
> Ashton Smith.
>
> Converted to D&D, of course. Call of Cthulhu is a fine game but I'm just as
> happy to work with mind flayers, demons, and undead for my weird factor.
>
> Compared to them dromites and warforged and volodni (oh my!) are not so far
> off-base, and *much* more interesting than elves and dwarves if you're going to
> have non-human PCs at all.

This is interesting... analyzing my reaction to these examples, it seems
that my decision whether a race is "new and interesting, good" or "too
weird, bad" depends a great deal on superficial humanoid-ness.

Warforged I wouldn't even think about listing as one of the weird races
I don't like. Volodni are borderline, but on the right side (if they're
who I think they are: the big tree-folk from Unapproachable East?).
Dromites are probably on the wrong side, by just a bit: I'd can see
using them in a campaign, but if I could pick 10 races to be in the 4E
PHB, they wouldn't be it. The thri-kreen I simply don't like as a PC
race.

In a way, it seems that I prefer funny people in human suits to humans
in funny suits...


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 12:49:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<Lorenz.Lang@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:1127205959.176170.176990@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Decaying Atheist wrote:
>> Barbarians can't be lawful. Rage is a chaotic ability? Really, I know
>> what they are getting at, but I wonder why it isn't possible
>> for a lawful character to rage. What is up with the rage ability that
>> it goes so far against the grain of Lawfulness?
>
> IMO Lawful is associated with an inner predominance of the
> intellect and Chaos with emotion, if you're looking at
> individuals. To rage is to be completely overwhelmed by
> emotions: anger, wrath, you name it...

I would not say "overwhelmed" when it comes to Rage; you are completely in
control.

> It's against the inner nature of Lawful persons.

Of course, that does not explain why there are several Lawful-only Prestige
Classes that can Rage.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 1:48:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jasin Zujovic wrote:
>
> Warforged I wouldn't even think about listing as one of the weird races
> I don't like.

Haha, because they don't serve droids in the Mos Eisley cantina?

> Volodni are borderline, but on the right side (if they're who I think they
> are: the big tree-folk from Unapproachable East?).

That's them.

> Dromites are probably on the wrong side, by just a bit: I'd can see
> using them in a campaign, but if I could pick 10 races to be in the 4E
> PHB, they wouldn't be it.

That's an interesting exercise. I'm not sure I could come up with ten, because I
doubt I'd include any of the ones that are in there now except for humans.

Luckily for the fanbase, I'm not in charge of it.

--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia

SERENITY - The Future Is Worth Fighting For

http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigec...
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatel...
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 5:57:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Malachias Invictus wrote:
> <Lorenz.Lang@gmx.de> wrote in message
> news:1127205959.176170.176990@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Decaying Atheist wrote:
> >> Barbarians can't be lawful. Rage is a chaotic ability? Really, I know
> >> what they are getting at, but I wonder why it isn't possible
> >> for a lawful character to rage. What is up with the rage ability that
> >> it goes so far against the grain of Lawfulness?
> >
> > IMO Lawful is associated with an inner predominance of the
> > intellect and Chaos with emotion, if you're looking at
> > individuals. To rage is to be completely overwhelmed by
> > emotions: anger, wrath, you name it...
>
> I would not say "overwhelmed" when it comes to Rage; you are completely in
> control.

Overwhelmed is a bit (too) strong, you're probably right.
Although complete control is overstated also (AC penalty,
restrictions to skill use, spell casting and magic item use).

> > It's against the inner nature of Lawful persons.
>
> Of course, that does not explain why there are several Lawful-only Prestige
> Classes that can Rage.

Okay. I don't know any. Are they 'official' WotC stuff?
And what *does* explain these alignment restrictions in
your opinion?

BTW I use my explanation for bards alignment restriction as well.

LL
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 2:01:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Malachias Invictus wrote:
>> Of course, that does not explain why there are several Lawful-only Prestige
>> Classes that can Rage.

Lorenz.Lang@gmx.de wrote:
> Okay. I don't know any. Are they 'official' WotC stuff?

There are two examples in Oriental Adventures: the sohei (basic class)
and the singh rager (prestige class). The sohei's "ki frenzy" ability is
slightly different from rage, but the singh rager's "lion's fury"
ability appears identical to rage except for the name.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 2:01:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrndj2brv.chs.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> Malachias Invictus wrote:
>>> Of course, that does not explain why there are several Lawful-only
>>> Prestige
>>> Classes that can Rage.
>
> Lorenz.Lang@gmx.de wrote:
>> Okay. I don't know any. Are they 'official' WotC stuff?
>
> There are two examples in Oriental Adventures: the sohei (basic class)
> and the singh rager (prestige class). The sohei's "ki frenzy" ability is
> slightly different from rage, but the singh rager's "lion's fury"
> ability appears identical to rage except for the name.

The Hida Defender only requires nonevil, and has Rage.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 6:02:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <Qs%Xe.814$0E5.334@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
mhacdebhandia@yahoo.invalid says...

> > Warforged I wouldn't even think about listing as one of the weird races
> > I don't like.
>
> Haha, because they don't serve droids in the Mos Eisley cantina?

:) 

> > Dromites are probably on the wrong side, by just a bit: I'd can see
> > using them in a campaign, but if I could pick 10 races to be in the 4E
> > PHB, they wouldn't be it.
>
> That's an interesting exercise. I'm not sure I could come up with ten, because I
> doubt I'd include any of the ones that are in there now except for humans.

I'm not sure I could either, really, unless each type of planetouched
counts separately.

> Luckily for the fanbase, I'm not in charge of it.

So, what would be your top choices? You don't have to give ten, just a
couple of WotC races that you like best.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 6:02:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jasin Zujovic" <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d9b6a4dc89c90839897fc@news.iskon.hr...
> In article <Qs%Xe.814$0E5.334@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> mhacdebhandia@yahoo.invalid says...
>
>> > Warforged I wouldn't even think about listing as one of the weird
>> > races
>> > I don't like.
>>
>> Haha, because they don't serve droids in the Mos Eisley cantina?
>
> :) 
>
>> > Dromites are probably on the wrong side, by just a bit: I'd can
>> > see
>> > using them in a campaign, but if I could pick 10 races to be in
>> > the 4E
>> > PHB, they wouldn't be it.
>>
>> That's an interesting exercise. I'm not sure I could come up with
>> ten, because I
>> doubt I'd include any of the ones that are in there now except for
>> humans.
>
> I'm not sure I could either, really, unless each type of
> planetouched
> counts separately.
>
>> Luckily for the fanbase, I'm not in charge of it.
>
> So, what would be your top choices? You don't have to give ten, just
> a
> couple of WotC races that you like best.
>
>
> --
> Jasin Zujovic
> jzujovic@inet.hr

10 races to include in 4th Edition PHB, my take.

1. Human
2. Dwarf
3. Elf
4. Halfling (Or Halfling like races, Kender)
5. Goblin
6. Orc
7. Half-races (A single template, that produces a pairing of any two
standard PHB races). Making Half Orc/Goblins a reality
8. Lizardfolk
9. Sahuagin (Koa-toa, Bullywug, although this race should probably be
both a air and water breather for simplicity)
10. Gnolls

Okay brief explanation for each.

1. Humans. Yes, humans are important in my fantasy settings as they
are probably the race we as "players" will most identify ourselves
with.
Many people, at least in the groups I've played in both before 3 and
after 3rd edition, picked human as their first character since they
figured
it would be easier to play a human.

2. Dwarves, well because they are one of my all time favorite races.

3. Elves, for standard Fantasy settings, not including elves would be
like saying for now on Wizards will not have magic missile, fireball,
lightning bolt, haste
or for that fact any other iconic spells. Elves like humans, and
Dwarves are probably the 3 core races that I would suggest never leave
the system. They should
be more or less the "basic" races, and the other 7 races should be
open to more creativity.

4. Halflings have become a major thing in the latest game I'm been
playing in, and my Halfling fighter/rogue/master thrower/invisible
blade has been a blast. I probably included them right now
since I'm playing one. Next week my opinion might be different.

5. Goblins, seem like a logical exchange for Gnomes, to not only
introduce a new "Iconic race" as a PC race, but to introduce a race
with few if any "extras" to complicate the creation
of new characters for new players.

6. Orcs, never made sense that if Half-orcs were a common choice, why
there was no option for Orcs.

7. Half-races: This should be a slightly complicated, but not overly
so, formula for creating a Half-race with a pairing of any of the
standard PHB races. The exception might be Orc and Elf
due to past racial hostility. Although, I'd be happy to even forget
that exception, playing an Eorc (Half elf/orc) or whatever you'd want
to call it might open an interesting series of encounters
with both parent races. Elves seeing a half-orc with elven blood might
be disgusted, but still show a bit of pity for the half-breed, while
Orcs in standard setting right now would give the Eorc
a very hard time, so where does this Eorc turn to in time of need?
Adventure!!!

8. Lizardfolk, need I say more? Why the hell can't I play a level 1
Lizardman Barbarian? Over all the other suggestions above, lizardfolk
seem like a race with some adjustments that should have been
considered a long time ago.

9. I listed Sahuagin, Koa-toa, Bullywug, but what I'm hinting at
mostly is an Amphibious race, but one with few overt bonuses as the
ability to breath both water/air is a big bonus in some campaign
settings.

10. Gnolls, another race I've always wondered why they weren't thought
about for a standard race. Love the Hyena people.

Okay, now some of these races have racial HD, Level adjustments, etc
or are of slightly higher power compared to the Standard, Dwarf, Elf,
Human races. This can easily be fixed by using the idea
of racial levels that has been used in a few recent products, but take
it one more step. All races begin as Race/Class level 1. At any time
they gain their 2nd level they could take a racial level, or a class
level.
Racial levels make you more like a normal example of your race, class
levels (well we know the drill there). Racial levels should include a
single HD, addition to BAB, saves etc based upon the type of creature.
Most Racial levels should max at 5 levels perhaps, allowing for 15
class levels. Half-breeds might be allowed to take two different
Racial levels (based upon their half-half races) but should be limited
to 5 levels of racial levels too.

For Player characters, Level adjustments should be removed, and racial
levels should be created. Use a system that makes those racial levels
for overly powerful races, unable to be taken until higher total level
has been reached. Ogre characters wouldn't be able to take their 2nd
level of Ogre Racial (until they are at least level 3). The system
would need a lot of testing, and balancing but I think with the a new
system that uses Racial levels you can still have people who play
things like Half-dragons, Mindflayers, Ogres, Ogre Mage, Flinds, but
they are not typical of their race. This makes some sense to me, as
how often are these races accompanying a standard party on
"adventures", and if they do how often do they conform to the "Ideal"
image of their race?

I think the 4th edition should also use either Point buy (not sure
which level), or 4d6 drop the lowest 1 roll six times, arrange as
desired, for standard generation methods. Point buy might be the
better choice.
It doesn't include the randomness of die rolls, but after you
understand how the system works, I think it is a bit faster to create
a character using Point buy, and the DM can assign whatever Point Buy
value he wants, and know that most of the characters at level 1 will
be around the same starting power (Ability score wise at least)

Also a few other thoughts, Feats are nice, Skill points are nice,
Flaws and Weapon groups are nice as well from Unearthed Arcana. If I
had a choice 4th edition would use a feat system that grante feats
every other level, skill points based upon the type of class, Meleee
2/per level, Caster 4/level, Expert (Rogues/bards, people who deal in
information, etc) 6/level Hybird classes (Paladin, Ranger, Monk)
would be based on a class combination, for instance Paladin considered
Fighter/Cleric (not really but close) would be 2+4/2=3/level of course
that doesn't count ability modifies. Ranger = Barbarian/Druid (Okay
not really but the idea is a melee class, and a nature Caster) so like
the Paladin would be 3/level. Monk seems to be (Melee + expert) 6 + 2
= 8/2 = 4 per level.

If that doesn't float well, maybe a skill point system based upon
level might be good. A large base pool (standard 3.5 PHB type, (Class
value + ability mod) x 4 to begin with, include human bonus of more
skills, or not your choice, for level 1.

So most players could start with (2+ 0) x 4 =8 to (2+5) x 4 28 skill
points for melee based characters
(4+0) x 4 =16 to
(4+5) x 4 36 caster based
(6+0) x 4 = 24 to
(6+5) x 4 44 expert

THere is no need to fill out the formula for hybird classes as the
information above should be enough.

8-28
16-36
24-44

Maybe for simplicity sake, Hybird classes are assigned one of the
three decided skill levels 2, 4 or 6 so characters will get anywhere
form 8-44 skill points in the beginning. That is assuming that with
racial adjustments to ability scores, most characters have a score of
10 -11 min, 19-20 max for intelligence at level 1.

Wow, long post. Perhaps, I should pull all this information apart, and
post a new thread, with my thoughts on the subject. Yeah, I think I'll
stop right there, and complete my thoughts offline, and post in a new
thread, as I've hijacked this thread. My apologizes.

DA
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 7:07:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Decaying Atheist wrote:

> "Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
> news:slrndirobl.gf3.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
>
>>Hi All,
>>
>>I saw the new WotC offering in the FLGS yesterday, didn't have time
>>to
>>really look at it. I'm interested in it, but WotC has disappointed
>>me
>>somewhat with some of its recent releases that sounded promising.
>>
>>For someone who has it (Mal?), how is it?
>>
>>
>>Keith
>>--
>>Keith Davies "Always code as if the guy who ends up
>>keith.davies@kjdavies.org maintaining your code is a psychopath
>>keith.davies@gmail.com who knows where you live."
>>http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Damian Conway
>
>
> Picked it up, just started reading it, so no opinions yet.
>
> Interesting Fact 1: There are 3 new base classes, and they use CON as
> a primary stat but if I remember correctly
> at least 2 of those also require a higher number in one other stat.
>
> Interesting Fact 2: A couple of "Human like new races." There is also
> a race of extraplaner Fey. Dusklings, they look interesting enough.
>
> I for one am getting tired of the "Humans in funny suits" type races.
> If the only major difference between your face
> and a human is the fact that you have a subtype, or one patch of fur,
> or scales on a plae where "humans" wouldn't
> why not just be a human?
>
> Form the stuff I've read so far, Incarnum use depends a lot on
> alignment, and I've noticed a lot of alignment choice restrictions
> based on race, or class so far. The alignment system exists, yes, and
> it should be used as a rough guideline perhaps, but I don't
> think for most things it should be a forced issue.
>
> Barbarians can't be lawful. Rage is a chaotic ability? Really, I know
> what they are getting at, but I wonder why it isn't possible
> for a lawful character to rage. What is up with the rage ability that
> it goes so far against the grain of Lawfulness?

I can certainly see FRENZY being Chaotic, though...

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 1:58:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Decaying Atheist <harker@coxdot.net> wrote:
>
> Also a few other thoughts, Feats are nice, Skill points are nice,
> Flaws and Weapon groups are nice as well from Unearthed Arcana. If I
> had a choice 4th edition would use a feat system that grante feats
> every other level, skill points based upon the type of class, Meleee
> 2/per level, Caster 4/level, Expert (Rogues/bards, people who deal in
> information, etc) 6/level Hybird classes (Paladin, Ranger, Monk)
> would be based on a class combination, for instance Paladin considered
> Fighter/Cleric (not really but close) would be 2+4/2=3/level of course
> that doesn't count ability modifies. Ranger = Barbarian/Druid (Okay
> not really but the idea is a melee class, and a nature Caster) so like
> the Paladin would be 3/level. Monk seems to be (Melee + expert) 6 + 2
>= 8/2 = 4 per level.
>
> If that doesn't float well, maybe a skill point system based upon
> level might be good. A large base pool (standard 3.5 PHB type, (Class
> value + ability mod) x 4 to begin with, include human bonus of more
> skills, or not your choice, for level 1.
>
> So most players could start with (2+ 0) x 4 =8 to (2+5) x 4 28 skill
> points for melee based characters
> (4+0) x 4 =16 to
> (4+5) x 4 36 caster based
> (6+0) x 4 = 24 to
> (6+5) x 4 44 expert
>
> THere is no need to fill out the formula for hybird classes as the
> information above should be enough.
>
> 8-28
> 16-36
> 24-44
>
> Maybe for simplicity sake, Hybird classes are assigned one of the
> three decided skill levels 2, 4 or 6 so characters will get anywhere
> form 8-44 skill points in the beginning. That is assuming that with
> racial adjustments to ability scores, most characters have a score of
> 10 -11 min, 19-20 max for intelligence at level 1.
>
> Wow, long post. Perhaps, I should pull all this information apart, and
> post a new thread, with my thoughts on the subject. Yeah, I think I'll
> stop right there, and complete my thoughts offline, and post in a new
> thread, as I've hijacked this thread. My apologizes.


Take a look at my class framework writeup:

http://www.kjdavies.org/rpg/rules/classes/

It does a lot of what you're trying to describe, I think.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Always code as if the guy who ends up
keith.davies@kjdavies.org maintaining your code is a psychopath
keith.davies@gmail.com who knows where you live."
http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Damian Conway
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 2:02:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:
>
> Decaying Atheist wrote:
>
>> Barbarians can't be lawful. Rage is a chaotic ability? Really, I know
>> what they are getting at, but I wonder why it isn't possible
>> for a lawful character to rage. What is up with the rage ability that
>> it goes so far against the grain of Lawfulness?
>
> I can certainly see FRENZY being Chaotic, though...

Oddly enough, I can also see it being lawful rather than chaotic.

I'm somewhat inclined to drop all alignment restrictions on rage, as an
ability. That messes with the barbarian class balance a bit, though, so
either it'd have to be kept for barbarians -- *they* can't rage if they
become lawful -- or something else would have to be found.

I've seen a few places where rage is used by lawfuls... usually renamed
to avoid the "why can't barbarian's do it, then?" question.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Always code as if the guy who ends up
keith.davies@kjdavies.org maintaining your code is a psychopath
keith.davies@gmail.com who knows where you live."
http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Damian Conway
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 2:32:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jasin Zujovic wrote:
> mhacdebhandia@yahoo.invalid says...
>
>> That's an interesting exercise. I'm not sure I could come up with ten,
>> because I doubt I'd include any of the ones that are in there now
>> except for humans.
>
> I'm not sure I could either, really, unless each type of planetouched
> counts separately.
>
>> Luckily for the fanbase, I'm not in charge of it.
>
> So, what would be your top choices? You don't have to give ten, just a
> couple of WotC races that you like best.

Humans, aasimar, tieflings, genasi (or count them all as "planetouched"),
warforged, shifters, changelings, dromites.

If it weren't so early in the morning, I'd come up with a few more races like
dromites and warforged which don't look human. I actually prefer a mix of
human-looking races like planetouched and shifters and very nonhuman-appearing
races. What I guess I don't find so interesting are races which don't look like
strange humans but aren't really far from it - elves, dwarves, halflings.

A setting with those races in it, I think, would be pretty interesting. If it
were Fourth Edition, though, I'd create racial levels with a Hit Die at each
level for most or all of the races except humans; for instance, you might have
aasimar with minor appropriate benefits like they've already created (
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sp/20040213a ) and extend the
progression for a few levels by perhaps borrowing from the
aasimar-to-half-celestial transition class (
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sp/20040319a ). I'd do the same for all
the planetouched, as well as shifters and changelings, but crucially, each
racial level would give a Hit Die and I'd make spellcasting work somehow so that
it wasn't stupid to take it as a caster.

The aberrant paragon in the Cults of the Dragon Below article by Keith Baker in
a recentish Dragon Magazine has a "+1 class features" thing, which provides
advancement in spellcasting and the like that you'd normally miss out on. That's
a mechanic I might borrow.

--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia

SERENITY - The Future Is Worth Fighting For

http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigec...
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatel...
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 12:45:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jasin Zujovic wrote:
> So, what would be your top choices? You don't have to give ten, just a
> couple of WotC races that you like best.

My current favorites: elans, elves, giants, gith, humans, illumians,
kobolds, planetouched, orcs, and shifters.

Some notes: I wasn't too impressed with elans until I decided that they
were variant mind flayers. A cool backstory like that can make up for
lackluster game stats. Elves (including drow), giants, planetouched, and
shifters have mythological elements that I like. Githyanki, illumians,
and shifters are just cool. Githzerai aren't as cool, but you can't have
githyanki without them. Orcs are good bruisers; half-orcs are OK but I'd
rather use the purebreeds. Kobolds are good "little guys," better than
the PHB races IMO.

On the flip side, I dislike half-elves and half-giants. Half-elves have
too many quirky benefits and not enough justification in the genre or in
mythology. Likewise for half-giants, plus I really dislike the "powerful
build" trait. I have mixed feelings about gnomes and dwarves. They're OK
when played straight, but I'm sick of stereotypical, Dragonlance-
influenced portrayals.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
!