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="Mach2.5" data-source="post: 1036507" data-attributes="member: 12834">Okay, I'm not on the design team or anything, but I do know that they were/are creating a 3e conversion of the old 2e DS material. In the old DS, stats for races were through the roof (5-20) and intentionally racial bonuses and penalties for certain races were altered to give them a whole different feel. I agree that the doc should stress a little that the races presented (as well as classes and such) are balanced against the core rules. Therefore, though the feral little cannibals may still be different from say those halflings from FR, there wouldn't be any problems just transposing your own versions of such races (or monsters, or such).   It wouldn't quite be balance concerns, but generic halfings would be a complete flavor crush, but as with any setting, what you do in your game is your thing. The team is not 'creating', they're converting. The bard example then, is the team's best attempt at converting the original DS bard. Don't like it? Don't use it. Once again, its a flavor thing. Yes, a troubador style swashbuckling lute strumming poet is very out of place, unless of course you feel otherwise for your game. So would tree hugging happy go lucky elves, etc.Can't argue with you there. Since the material that the athas.org team is going to be comming out with will likely be at a much slower pace than a full fledged company may produce, it would have been nice to have a page or two devoted to DMs to give a bit of direction with fleshing out DS for their own game.I think this is a symptom of 3e nixing the idea of weapon groups. Just about any slight variance in a weapon means a new weapon stat. Its rather a core precedence that I don't think the team would be allowed to delve into (they were given guidlines to follow by WOTC on the project, in return for being able to use DS flavor text and non SRD resources).After rereading the innitial section, I have to agree that the differentiation is a bit vague. It does in fact need clarified that both follow the same rules a regular wizard. That the difference between one and the other is how spells are cast. They are the same class, but one defiles and one does not.  Ever live in Arizona, or Utah, or Nevada? Ask someone from there if the 'desert' they live in is nothing but rolling sand dunes. If you created a world entirely covered in one huge forest, wouldn't you differentiate the 'forest' a bit, or would you have just that one default from the core rules terrain? You'd probably split it up a bit with light forests, jungles (which are nothing more than tropical forests, so technically, under your view, jungles could be nixed from the core for simplicity).Well, and I hope I'm getting the right impression here, your saying that the doc is not very 'user friendly' in some regards (like flavor, wizards and magic) and contains a few redundancies (such as weapons) and perhaps a few balance issues (though I highly doubt that one extra partial action once per day is that unbalancing after looking through some of the regional feats in the FRCS).You make some interesting points. Type up a proposal and send it over to the official team at athas.org and see what they think of your suggestions. Or head over to the DS boards at Wizards.com and post them up there. Who knows, maybe they'll agree with you on some of that. I do <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification