-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
I vote SHARK should publish
- Thread starter Limper
- Start date
Limper
First Post
Ive been surfing these boards in many incarnations both of them and myself and have always looked forward to new SHARK posts, I even enjoyed his work on the darkside (Bad Fur Day).
I do wonder how the standard races survive when confronted by SHARKs version of humanoids, properly run they would be stunning to behold.
I do wonder how the standard races survive when confronted by SHARKs version of humanoids, properly run they would be stunning to behold.
Teflon Billy
Explorer
Limper said:
Heh, well in that respect, I'm usually on the *opposite* side from SHARK.
Doesn't change a thing about my appreciation for his campaign stuff.
SHARK
First Post
Greetings!
Kenjib wrote:
"There are many posts over the last couple of years with info on different parts of his world, the massive wars, his view on paladins and smiting evil, the effects of the D&D level of magic on warfare, castle design, and other aspects of the game, as well as snippets of all kinds of cool stuff over the years. The majority of the stuff was probably on the boards when they were Eric Noah's and is long gone, gone, gone!
It's a shame really. Hopefully he keeps copies of all the major stuff he posts - or better yet these posting were just clippings from some huge collection of documents he maintains about his setting with lots of more interesting stuff."
____________________________________________________
End Quote.
Hmmph!
Kenjib does go way back! Kenjib, yes, you have the right of it! Some of my postings are mere excerpts from indeed--*huge* collections of documents that I have on file! I have stacks and stacks of things written, covering all sorts of history, races, religion, various mechanics, invasions, magical inventions, and the list could go on. It really is mind-boggling all of the work that I have put into my campaign world!
Your comments brought back some fun memories of posts that I first posted, now seems so long ago! I'm glad that you, too, have such fond memories of them.
Hmmm...Teflon Billy--I have always enjoyed talking with you. I respect your opinions on many different things. I appreciate your courage to stick to your opinions, reasonably argued, even if they are unpopular with some, or if others disagree with you. I'm grateful that you appreciate my work as you do. Thankyou.
Mistwell, it seems that this thread, among others, got swallowed suddenly, or I got swallowed in school and work, or both, because I just seem to have missed these last postings, or even been on the boards here much lately. If you care to restate some of the questions that you mentioned, I'd be quite happy to answer them.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Kenjib wrote:
"There are many posts over the last couple of years with info on different parts of his world, the massive wars, his view on paladins and smiting evil, the effects of the D&D level of magic on warfare, castle design, and other aspects of the game, as well as snippets of all kinds of cool stuff over the years. The majority of the stuff was probably on the boards when they were Eric Noah's and is long gone, gone, gone!
It's a shame really. Hopefully he keeps copies of all the major stuff he posts - or better yet these posting were just clippings from some huge collection of documents he maintains about his setting with lots of more interesting stuff."
____________________________________________________
End Quote.
Hmmph!
Kenjib does go way back! Kenjib, yes, you have the right of it! Some of my postings are mere excerpts from indeed--*huge* collections of documents that I have on file! I have stacks and stacks of things written, covering all sorts of history, races, religion, various mechanics, invasions, magical inventions, and the list could go on. It really is mind-boggling all of the work that I have put into my campaign world! Your comments brought back some fun memories of posts that I first posted, now seems so long ago! I'm glad that you, too, have such fond memories of them.
Hmmm...Teflon Billy--I have always enjoyed talking with you. I respect your opinions on many different things. I appreciate your courage to stick to your opinions, reasonably argued, even if they are unpopular with some, or if others disagree with you. I'm grateful that you appreciate my work as you do. Thankyou.
Mistwell, it seems that this thread, among others, got swallowed suddenly, or I got swallowed in school and work, or both, because I just seem to have missed these last postings, or even been on the boards here much lately. If you care to restate some of the questions that you mentioned, I'd be quite happy to answer them.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Maldur
First Post
Shark, if you have mounds of material, can't you just publish : The Shark notebooks.
You could even make series out of it. "This month in Sharks notebook: Orcs, paladins and the dreaded werehamster.D)"
I always love reading your posts, as your ideas are always different and well documented ( I might not always agree, but you explain why you do things, making it easier for me to form my own opinion)
btw you probably explained this before but, why so many HP from the "shark-style" toughness feat?
cheerz, maldur
You could even make series out of it. "This month in Sharks notebook: Orcs, paladins and the dreaded werehamster.
D)"I always love reading your posts, as your ideas are always different and well documented ( I might not always agree, but you explain why you do things, making it easier for me to form my own opinion)
btw you probably explained this before but, why so many HP from the "shark-style" toughness feat?
cheerz, maldur
SHARK
First Post
Greetings!
Thankyou Maldur! Well, the answer to your question, I suppose, is when I had a discussion with my players about the feat, *Toughness* In the book, it's obviously quite worthless as a feat. Thus, the need to improve the feat, and make it worthwhile for *anyone* of *any class* to choose to have the feat.
I questioned whether adding just one or two hit points was worthwhile--which it didn't seem to be. The idea of adding hit points of a certain number for each level after you took the feat was discussed, and discarded. It was important that the feat also retained it's "Repeat-Factor"--or the potential for it to be selected more than once.
Finally, I considered the ramifications for making the feat truly useful for any class. I saw that as a prime consideration, and yet, I also didn't want to make something that was unbalancing. Thus, I considered six hit points as a base, which isn't too large, but still useful, and then modified by the character's Constitution bonus. Realistically speaking, most of my players would not take the feat more than once, but taking it once is always a serious consideration. Thus, with say a +2 Con bonus, which is fairly typical for any adventurer, of any class except wizard or something, the extra bonus would be six points. Thus, 6+6=12 extra hit points, for a whole feat! I thought it doesn't exceed the base hit die available to most characters, so that establishes a sort of "outer limit".
It means though that if you have a wizard with no Con Bonus--if you need hit points, an extra six can be nice.
Or, if you have a Rogue or Cleric with a +2 Con Bonus, you would get 6+6=12 bonus hit points, which is pretty cool, I think.
Then, let's say you are a Ranger or a Fighter, with an 18 Con. This would be 6+(3x4=12)=18 hit points. This is for one precious feat that they could use for Spring Attack, or some really wicked ability. Or, they can have an extra hit point boost that actually means something, and is tangible. If considered carefully, an extra 18 hit points is merely an extra Great Sword or Great Axe attack that strikes home. Thus, I concluded that even with a really buffed character, the bonus would potentially "save them" by enduring one more lethal strike. It seemd pretty balanced, and I even querried the group about monsters and creatures having the feat. They all agreed that it was balanced, useful, and now it was a serious consideration for any character to choose. It was with that, I was persuaded that I had designed something that was just right. That is the design process of my adaptation of the Toughness Feat.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Thankyou Maldur!
Well, the answer to your question, I suppose, is when I had a discussion with my players about the feat, *Toughness* In the book, it's obviously quite worthless as a feat. Thus, the need to improve the feat, and make it worthwhile for *anyone* of *any class* to choose to have the feat. I questioned whether adding just one or two hit points was worthwhile--which it didn't seem to be. The idea of adding hit points of a certain number for each level after you took the feat was discussed, and discarded. It was important that the feat also retained it's "Repeat-Factor"--or the potential for it to be selected more than once.
Finally, I considered the ramifications for making the feat truly useful for any class. I saw that as a prime consideration, and yet, I also didn't want to make something that was unbalancing. Thus, I considered six hit points as a base, which isn't too large, but still useful, and then modified by the character's Constitution bonus. Realistically speaking, most of my players would not take the feat more than once, but taking it once is always a serious consideration. Thus, with say a +2 Con bonus, which is fairly typical for any adventurer, of any class except wizard or something, the extra bonus would be six points. Thus, 6+6=12 extra hit points, for a whole feat! I thought it doesn't exceed the base hit die available to most characters, so that establishes a sort of "outer limit".
It means though that if you have a wizard with no Con Bonus--if you need hit points, an extra six can be nice.
Or, if you have a Rogue or Cleric with a +2 Con Bonus, you would get 6+6=12 bonus hit points, which is pretty cool, I think.
Then, let's say you are a Ranger or a Fighter, with an 18 Con. This would be 6+(3x4=12)=18 hit points. This is for one precious feat that they could use for Spring Attack, or some really wicked ability. Or, they can have an extra hit point boost that actually means something, and is tangible. If considered carefully, an extra 18 hit points is merely an extra Great Sword or Great Axe attack that strikes home. Thus, I concluded that even with a really buffed character, the bonus would potentially "save them" by enduring one more lethal strike. It seemd pretty balanced, and I even querried the group about monsters and creatures having the feat. They all agreed that it was balanced, useful, and now it was a serious consideration for any character to choose. It was with that, I was persuaded that I had designed something that was just right. That is the design process of my adaptation of the Toughness Feat.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Similar Threads
