Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Felon" data-source="post: 1243698" data-attributes="member: 8158">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.</blockquote>

Verification