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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MThibault" data-source="post: 465609" data-attributes="member: 7971">Quick fix: Base a character's DR penetration on his wisdom or charisma bonus. "Gotta have faith." Personally I would lean towards Charisma as it's the governing stat for turning undead, it fits the concept better.That's a good one.  But in a really useful general supplement, it couldn't be the only one.  This assumes 1) DR is something that is not tangible or physical (a tough hide) and 2) Bards should be better at penetrating DR than Barbarians.If youwant to keep the first assumption, but not the second, you could give "Spiritual Bonuses" to overcoming DR.  This would be similar to Ki Strike.  Each class would have a different  progression so paladins would get this bonus first (this would assume that would be losing or significantly delaying their spell progression) and fastest, and wizards and sorcers would get it last and lowest.  I would allow it to stack from various classes (but not with actual magic items) so a multiclassed Fighter/Wizard won't be too screwed.This way, a 1st level bard can't overcome DR20/+4 and a 20th level Fighter won't be too weak against DR10/+2.This complicates the system a bit, so if there were a way to reuse this progression for other compensatory features of the low-magic classes, that would be a benefit.I don't actually see that there is a big difference between sourcebooks and rulebooks. Each handles new rules or scenarios to add to a game.I guess the big difference is that the former provides rules in context, so the in-game and metagame ducks are all in order. When you create a setting sourcebook you are defining the assumptions (magic works in this way, divine intervention works in this way, gravity works in this way, etc.).  DMs are free to change or ignore those assumptions, but the reason you purchase a campaign setting is for the integrated flavor and rules. So, if it is done well, if you like one you'll probably like the other (or at least be able to live with it).A rulebook doesn't have the in-game and metagame information all tied together in a neat package.  It has to be either generic enough that it can be dropped into any setting or it has to present a series of less generic options, of which there will be at least one that will suit the customer's needs.Low magic can potentially apply to any world of the DM's chosing, from home bew to even the Forgotten Realms, and this would not require a separate setting just to accomodate low magic. It might change much of what we take for granted in published settings, but it can be done.Sure.  But they would have to be very generic.  That isn't very exciting to read and still might not satisfy the in-game assumptions of the DM.  The more generic the setting (i.e. Greyhawk, FR, et al.) the easier it will be, unless of course your definition of low-magic just doesn't fit (low magic = low level, for example) in which case you probably won't even try to apply those rules to a high-level setting like FR.  You would probably appreciate a few pointers on how the game changes without higher level spells (even from NPCs) such as Teleport, Raise Dead, Atonement, etc.It can be done.  But whether it could be done well and thoroughly remains to be seen.  I would like to see it done, though.Cheers.</blockquote>

Verification