Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mallus" data-source="post: 1069084" data-attributes="member: 3887">Exactly. Or put another way, any given set of game mechanics can be adapted/rationalized/shoe-horned into a specfic setting in a way that jives with that settings underlying assumptions/flavor/cosmology. Provided that the DM finds the game mechanics justify the effort.In my homebrew, the Akashic class is going to be used to a range of characters from adventurer scholars to traditonal bards and rogues. I might lose the whole 'delve into collective memory' thing [replacing it w/some bonus feats], or chalk it up to latent psionics, or ancestral spirits like Ezrael suggested. Maybe I'll create an order monks who are Akashics as the book describes them, only 'cause I find the concept so cool. I'm going to use Mageblade for most of the combat-capable cleric orders. Most casting centered priests will be Magisters, w/the staves replaced by holy symbols. Runethanes will become Alchemists... you get the idea.Its far easier for me to alter the setting-specfic flavor stuff from AU than to retool all the 3.0/3.5E core mechanics I'm dissatisfied with. That's why I find AU to be valuable.Semi-related question: Has there been a paradigm-shift in gaming? It was my impression that most gamers kludged together their settings/systems from an array of house rules, published products, TV/book/film inspirations/adaptations, etc. The kind of work required to adapt and personalize AU to ones own chosen setting was once par for the course. How many gamers out there really demand "plug and play" from the material they buy.</blockquote>

Verification