Search results

You're thinking about a druid with a bandolier of potted plants, aren't you? I'd be okay with it, though you'd have to successfully throw it, and I'd limit the range to no more than the size of the plant (probably just one square). It's a nice, if contrived, way of using the spell in barren...

There's nothing wrong with the idea of turning, but it doesn't need its own wonky mechanic when whatever magic system the cleric winds up using would work just as well. I do like the idea of a channelling-only cleric, though.

For what it's worth, you can still buy this in PDF.

It's not Golarion-specific in the slightest, but you might be interested in the Gnoll volume of the Wicked Fantasy line.

There's a rogue archetype that swipes Uncanny Dodge with the ability to sneak attack on a charge, then later any time he moves 10 feet or more. They even called it a Scout.

Someone upthread mentioned Midgard by Open Design. Tales of the Old Margreve and the books on Zobeck feel particularly Slavic to me.

"Fun" isn't going to be one of my gates, because these are what make the game fun for me. Fun is the goal, not the means of getting there. 1.) Are the rules elegant? By elegance, I mean making the most out of as few rules as possible, given the scope of the system. "Elegant complexity" is not...

The bit you cite was from an earlier essay. A later essay refined it to the much more sensible position, that GNS refers to smaller gaming moments, not games or gamers at large. I don't think GNS theory is the hopelessly self-contradictory hodge-podge you seem to think it is, but even if it...

Important tangent: This much more limited claim is what GNS theory actually purports. It does not claim that no one or no game can express more than one stance. If a game or player tends toward certain stances—gamism, for example—, then that player or game can be described as "gamist", but that...

They kind of are though. It's what I meant by the common definitions being "congruent"—not "identical"—to the more jargon-y GNS definitions. GNS simulationism is about internal consistency in the game world, which are enhanced by granularity (solid rules for social conflict are more consistent...

I could see that. Do people really have an agenda driven toward RPG's with deliberately or explicitly gamelike elements? I believe the common meaning of these words are congruent to their GNS meanings, so I don't believe that's a problem.

Prophecy fulfilled, I guess. Another objection to "gamist" as it's typically used: If one means "like a game," why is "gamist" a better or more intuitive word choice than "gamelike"? I think it's for the patina of authority that using unclear jargon seems to lend. It's like when people say...

I prefer the GNS theory definition: a gamist element or tendency is geared toward achieving success in the game. Achieving goals, overcoming obstacles, that sort of thing. For the more colloquial sense of the word—an element that is like a board game or video game, or an element that reminds...

If you can, check out the Monster Hunter class from the 3e or PF version of the Freeport Companion from Green Ronin. It plays with basically this same idea: each favored enemy has a tree of three abilities each time you get a favored enemy ability. One neat twist is that you get scaling bonuses...

These sound like Background components to me. I wonder if your proposal could tap into the Background mechanic in some way.

As they say on Mythbusters, there's your problem! Even if you could demonstrate that most RPGers are playing OGL games, that doesn't mean we already have a unified, "evergreen" system. The differences between core 3e and OSRIC, or FantasyCraft, or Iron Heroes, or True20, are at least as marked...

This is probably an unoriginal thought, but it seems pretty clear that it was important for WotC to test both the fighty cleric-in-armor and casty cleric-in-robes if both were included in the initial playtest. Since the former is basically a paladin in all but name, could they be deliberately...

Maybe not a tautology, but definitely a truism. You're not going to find a "magic number", but there is definitely a number of classes that is too much for the core book. Even if they could design them, WotC is not going to include 1000 classes in the 5e PHB, both because it would literally be...

Just because humans get +1 to all abilities does not make them the best at all abilities. Other races could get +2 to one or more abilities. I very much doubt humans will be more graceful than elves, or hardier than dwarves, by default.

Super Genius Games has a "War Master" class, which is essentially a warlord concept. Purchase here in PDF, or view the OGL version here. Edit: They also have the Archon class, which sounds like what you're looking for in a Spellblade conversion. PDF, OGL.