Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="sabby" data-source="post: 749084" data-attributes="member: 5522">Re: Re: Rigidity of RulesOh, I agree tremendously.  It's just an odd place to be in where you want to build upon their OTHER work and find it to have this artificial barrier.  Please don't think I'm belittling their contribution.I just think that WotC suffers as much as the rest of us by making some of their best work closed content.  The Forgotten Realms books allow for their Forgotten Realms modules and sourcebooks to have more detail than their core stuff is allowed, due to the fact that they're allowed to use the FRCS book to construct upon.  (They do it because they are being very good about not requiring you to buy all their old books to use their new books, but it has the same consequences.)But, don't think that I feel that they're obligated or that they are somehow "cheating" us.  I just am making an observation that it feels "odd" that some of their best work is "invisible" to everyone except for their "end-users."  (No "duelist" prestige class in a book about swashbuckling, for instance.  Or if there is, it's "Yet Another Duelist Prestige Class.")Oh, my intention isn't to create things that duplicate, merely fulfill the same purpose.  Let's take a simple example:  The "Called" property for armor allows you to have armor which appears on your body in a moment's notice.  Nice nifty property, and something that becomes a standard amongst some of my players.  Were I to publish my gaming world with the characters duplicated in any fashion, I would have to have a similar ability.For instance, I could make a "Transform" armor ability, where the armor changes form into a set of bracers (taking up the bracers slot, in fact) but loses any bonus to AC.   That would fulfil the same role, and be quite different from Called.  If I went ahead and made it so that armor still provided the benefits of other special qualities, such as acid resistance for armors with that special ability.  (This feat would be balanced well against the "Glamered" ability, which is a +1 enhancement where the armor still provides the bonus to AC but just LOOKS like normal clothing.)  Then the fact that it was "inspired" by called is quite well hidden, and relatively safe.Balancing that "I want to fill the same role" with "I want to duplicate this material" is the tricky thing.  I'm quite sure that I could make 'Transform" ... I'm also rather sure that I could get away with "Extra Favored Class" (since it's a basic game mechanic, and mine would have entirely different language)... But, there's others where I'm going to have to sit down, scratch my chin, and ponder just leaving the purpose unfilled.  I had a home-rule feat which provided the benefits of "Spellcasting Prodigy" (from the FRCS book) but it was required to be able to cast spells, just to make spellcasters "special" while not providing a tremendous penalty for making a spellcaster.  The goal is the important thing there, so the mechanics would HAVE to change.  (Though, the important thing there is that I would just have to find some benign feat that spellcasters won't feel terrible about being required to take.  It could even be a standard SRD feat.)Drawing the lines "This is too close" and "This is rather unique, so I can include this" will be the challenge.  And if I find something that I DESPERATELY want to include, then I guess I'll draft up a nice, intelligent, and concise letter to WotC asking for permission.Thanks for the replies.</blockquote>

Verification