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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GIBattiste" data-source="post: 2350545" data-attributes="member: 33465">Wow, really!  No extra resistance to spell burn?  Yikes.  I think I would have to ignore that.  I have talked to Rob and Doug over at Privateer, and as fluff writer guys, they wanted me to be straight that the IK universe is a lot more magic rich then people will give it credit for.  (Warjacks and warcasters are pretty magical.)With the spell burn are written, I thought it dangerous, but not magic poor.  This would definately change up the mix a bit.  I will be keeping a handle on magic lists available to wizards and the sort, while giveing a bit more free reign to the clerics.  I can see IK clerics needing a lot of access to healing magic.  Pain of healing in IK I think helps temper the urge a player may have to abuse the forces of the gods.  Perhaps I should give clerics free access to just the domains available to the cleric by choice.  (Boy am I gonna have some pissy players!<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />)Wizards I will probably limit to three first or so to start, and then the one spell a level bit.  Wizards, I don't think, will be up for sharing spells.  The IK does have several tight knit wizard societies, and I think a guild might allow one extra spell a level.While this is much higher magic then the true pulp feel of GT, IK needs something more then standard 3.5 D&D.I am definately sticking to the 6 classes of GTs.  I will be allowing prestige classes as normal, and I WILL NOT rework feats and talents that are already printed in GT.  That would be redundant work, and it is hard enough to get me to do normal work.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />How effective do players find it if they are allowed to abuse spells that heal spell damage?  I can't see it being that effective, being that you could get burned worse for the trouble.  Where I am at, what do you think about the idea I posted about spell levels?  I would like to get casters up to 20th level, so what would you think about the imp. caster talent giving +2 caster level, and +1 burn resistance.  It does get spell burn to the point where you only worry about rolling a 1 on a D6...  that with a "fox's cunning" would be an effective shield.  Hmmm, limit the spell, or make a mechanic that if you take spell burn, you effectively get your buffs dispelled.Magic items are really giving me a headache as well...  I hate D&D item creation about as much as I hated slotting your spells.  GT has some great ideas about time and xp on magic items.  What do you guys think about people sacrificing others xp, willing or no, for magic item creation?  Also, in IK, there is a 20% flat chance of losing a hp for every 200 xp you spend on an item.  How would you guys figure something like that in?  I am pretty sure that once I wrap my head around how I want to handle magic items for sure, all the IK mechanika rules will fall into place.  (who am I kidding?<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=";)" />)Thanks a lot.Battiste</blockquote>

Verification