Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MortalPlague" data-source="post: 6191109" data-attributes="member: 62721">I've read (and quite enjoyed) Stross and Sanderson.&nbsp; I can't think of anything in their books that made me think they were RPG-derived... quite the opposite, in fact.&nbsp; Sanderson's &quot;Way of Kings&quot; series is a really different take on a fantasy world; built from the ground up to be very different from the norm.It's true, but I wish Circle of the Moon would at least gain some opportunity to be decent melee combatants.&nbsp; Even if they had to give up spellcasting entirely, I'd be happy.&nbsp; In my campaign, we had a druid player who flavored it to be a 'werewolf'.&nbsp; This was when the packets gave him a bear form early on.&nbsp; Well, cut to a few packets later, and he pales next to the barbarian and the rogue in melee combat.&nbsp; And he always will.I'd definitely be in favor if spellcasting was only for one subclass, while wild shape was only for another.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MortalPlague, post: 6191109, member: 62721"] I've read (and quite enjoyed) Stross and Sanderson. I can't think of anything in their books that made me think they were RPG-derived... quite the opposite, in fact. Sanderson's "Way of Kings" series is a really different take on a fantasy world; built from the ground up to be very different from the norm. It's true, but I wish Circle of the Moon would at least gain [i]some[/i] opportunity to be decent melee combatants. Even if they had to give up spellcasting entirely, I'd be happy. In my campaign, we had a druid player who flavored it to be a 'werewolf'. This was when the packets gave him a bear form early on. Well, cut to a few packets later, and he pales next to the barbarian and the rogue in melee combat. And he always will. I'd definitely be in favor if spellcasting was only for one subclass, while wild shape was only for another. [/QUOTE]

Verification