You are quite right, of course, about the scheme being a 'D&Dism' -- and it is one that many people dislike (some with a passion)!Mikaze said:Never said anything about the mechanical reasons for it. My hatred for it stems solely from the resulting effects and implications on the fluff.
There was simply no satisfactory way to explain it that worked for my campaign setting.
Never said anything about the mechanical reasons for it. My hatred for it stems solely from the resulting effects and implications on the fluff.
There was simply no satisfactory way to explain it that worked for my campaign setting.
It's the fact that it's harped on: the racial descriptions of humans always have to point out how diverse they are in a bit too obvious a way. It's so smug it hurts.
There is literary precident for big obvious battle magics. The wizards in the Thomas Covenant series or those in the sword of truth series or those in Ursula K Leguins novels.
Excatly. I always put the 'lack of giant battle spells' in classic fairy tales to the fact that back then, the concept of doing mass damage over a wide area was too alien for them to have thought of - it would have been laughed out of the tavern as just too silly and implausible. I see no reason to shackle D&D to the stone of some 12th century tavern tale.
If it has to be repeated (or even explained to humans) more than once it's either not true and you're trying to drown out the truth or if it is true then you are reveling in it for no good reason because you don't need to keep reminding people about it.It's never smug when it's true.
Didn't William Wallace shoot lightning bolts out of his arse? I'm sure I heard that somewhere.
Yes, that's exactly right. I am shamed.Your reading material is limited to relatively modern history (or is that movies with questionable accents) it seems.