Have any of you been to the Wizards boards?

[ledded]

Felon, I don't see how "I disagree with his assessment" means "vague and flaccid". I can see other uses for, say, baleful polymorph. It's a great curse to slap onto a captured opponent that one has sworn not to kill, for example. It serves a wonderful plot purpose. Some high-level death-type incantation could be a way to kill a creature that cannot be permanently killed by any other method -- so the arcanists start the ceremony, and the hunters go out and do their best to drag the creature back.

I have to agree with takyris, there are a lot of creative ways to use them (and takyris provided several good examples). Personally, I actually felt like they left incantations a touch vague intentionally to promote a mechanic that could easily be customized by a GM, but that's just me.

Perfect? Oh, gosh no. Would I like to see rules for increasing the range of the spell or using some sorta other delivery system? Oh, gosh yes. But it's an answer worth disagreeing with in intelligent commentary, rather than just calling him vague and flaccid.

Ya know what, I can come up with a lot of this stuff myself pretty easily, and the magic system we use in our game is flexible enough to handle it; I'd rather see a few more things in a book that are based off of things that would require more research, knowledge of, or issues around game balance than I really want to put into it on my own. I thought that the incantations were written just about the way I'd like to see them, for me to use as a tool or building block in my campaigns. After all, if you had every little variation of every incantation stat'd out for you, then it would be pretty easy for your players to pick up a copy of the book and possibly spend 2 minutes learning about something that could be the core for an entire short campaign.

I believe that I've disagreed with enough rulings to have established myself as "not just a Charles Ryan fanboy", but really, there's no need to be insulting just to get your jollies off.

No, it's much more fun to be dismissively hostile

I dont think that you are anybody's fanboy takyris; quite the opposite, you do always seem to have your own path clearly thought out, which is a good thing, even if it does occasionally have a few briars on it for anyone following along

Or, possibly, there is. Which is sad. But hey, mileage may vary.

 

[takyris]

I like "always has his own path thought out, even if there are a few briars along it." That's a nice way to say "can be a stubborn idiot" without, ya know, actually saying it.

The fanboy comment was largely a pre-emptive defense against Felon saying, "Oh, of course you'd defend him, you're just a fanboy." Which he hasn't done yet, so, really, needless on my part.

 

[ledded]

I like "always has his own path thought out, even if there are a few briars along it." That's a nice way to say "can be a stubborn idiot" without, ya know, actually saying it.

Heh... nah, I think you misunderstood; I didnt mean idiot at all. Jack*ss... well, er, *maybe*, but definitely not stupid at all

Hey, wit often comes with a variety of barbs.

EDIT: I just read that again, and, um, you do realize I'm joking there, right? Not really name-calling?

The fanboy comment was largely a pre-emptive defense against Felon saying, "Oh, of course you'd defend him, you're just a fanboy." Which he hasn't done yet, so, really, needless on my part.

Gotta love the pre-emptive defense... one reason why I annoyingly pepper a lot of my longer posts with "in my *opinion*"; also helps act as sort of an pseudo-intellectual minefield for those following my train of thought without watching where they are stepping. Damn... allegory, did it again. Sorry.

Oh, oops, back to topic.

The wizurds boardz are c00l. W00t!

 

[Felon]

Felon, I don't see how "I disagree with his assessment" means "vague and flaccid".

It is not a matter of simply disagreeing. I don't believe his answers were properly supported. I asked him why the standards for monstrous PC's in UA are so much more generous than they are in D&D, and he replied "because UA is a different game from D&D". While that is undeniably true, it is not particularly insightful, is it? It is a classic example of begging the question ("it's different because it's not the same"). So I begged. I followed up with Charles and asked him "how exactly are they different, and how do those differences mean that the game mechanics for UA's monstrous races warrant such low level adjustments?" and I did not see any reply.

As for the incantations, I wanted to know why they included offensive incantations in UA without a delivery system to make them practical. The rationalization that "they're still very useful because someone can creatively cobble together some highly-specific scenario where they actually do something" is lacking. To make a broader analogy, if D20 Modern's Equipment section never made mention of how much damage guns did, could someone still argue that there are plenty of creative ways to use a gun even if you can't shoot it at someone? Certainly. You can still threaten someone with it, clop them on the head with it, or use it as a paperweight. You can also hog-tie your opponent, empty the clip, and take your time cramming the bullets down his throat just to be mean (which seems to be the general response in regards to how to use incantations offensively). Furthermore, someone could also argue that "as a DM, it's no trouble at all for me to write up those figures on my own". However, none of those fine observations mean that the absence of that content from the book isn't questionable.

Now I've been on these boards long enough to go ahead and engage my own pre-emptive defenses by heading off some of the more predictable irrelevant responses anyone might attempt to rebutt with. First off, please don't attempt to answer those questions on Charles' behalf. Any answers we come up with for the designers' motives are just based on supposition (that's why I asked a designer after all). And at any rate, whether or not you agree that the level costs for playing bugbears and ogres is reasonable is beside the point. Likewise, whether or not they've been allowed into your campaign and there's been no problems whatsoever and there's no reason for all this whining is beside the point. Whether or not it's easy for a DM to tweak the existing rules if he doesn't like them is beside the point. And the fact that he's one of the guys who designed the book and therefore he must be right is beside the point.

The point we're discussing here is did Charles answer the questions in a manner that was not vague (i.e. lacking insight) or flaccid (i.e. poorly-supported)? He's certainly gone into great detail to answer questions regarding other areas of D20M mechanics, such as how a machine gun can disable a tank, and in IMO in those instances when he does elaborate he does a good job of addressing the question at hand. He did not make such efforts in regards to my questions.

 

[Ranger REG]

Maybe he does not have ALL the answers, just as Skip Williams or the JD Wiker not have ALL the answers in their respective games (D&D and Star Wars).

Perhaps you can try and revisit the question at a later time.

 

[Felon]

I might at that, but ideally, other mechanically-minded folks will come along to raise those issues. I can't be the only person of the opinion that a monstrous race's level adjustment should at least keep pace with its hit dice.