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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Andor" data-source="post: 4014811" data-attributes="member: 1879">We're getting it from the simple fact that you are looking at a system which appears to be easily adaptable and complaining that you do not want it to be adaptable, you want it to exactly reflect your own prejudices. If you don't know where I'm getting this it is from: But they haven't provided the option. If they had provided options, I could say, "Hmm, I like that one, I'm going to use that one in my campaign" and be done with it. But instead, they've provided the standard. And since that's the standard, if I want to do something differently, I've got to do the work. If I want tables for random treasure, I've gotta make them for my game. If I want fewer slots, I've got to house rule them and communicate those to my players. If I use published adventures, I have to modify them."That seems to me to state very clearly that you know you can adapt the rules to your own playstyle, you just don't want to. You'd rather everyone else do the work to adapt from your style. Some of the rest of us are okay with concept of the happy compromise. I don't think your presumption follows at all there. It's like argueing that because men only have two hands no one would ever own more than 2 guns. Most shooters I know own several. If your problem is really with the existance of a magic system which allows magic items to be easily produced than you should address that directly, because I think limiting application in order to limit supply is perhaps not the most efficient way to reach your goal.You might want to take a look at Earthdawn. In that system most magic items are not manufactured per se, rather they aquire powers as their legend grows. A sword made by a wizard? Big deal, dime a dozen. But the sword that slew the great blue dragon Valhuuzichik? The blade that pierced the heart of the demon of the bloody crossroads? Now you're talking...</blockquote>

Verification