Races of Destiny: First Look

It's a pity we can never have a good debate about a new book without it being turned into yet another crunch vs fluff debate 1/4 down the first page... :\

Personally, I'd like to hear how people feel about the Able Learner feat? IMHO, it's bordering on overpowered; and I'm still undecided about allowing it for my campaigns.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

It's a pity we can never have a good debate about a new book without it being turned into yet another crunch vs fluff debate 1/4 down the first page...

Personally, I'd like to hear how people feel about the Able Learner feat? IMHO, it's bordering on overpowered; and I'm still undecided about allowing it for my campaigns.

Well, start a thread in the D&D Rules Forum. Thats what it's there for I believe.

As for the crunch vs. fluff debate, it's whats itching me. I can't possibly concieve of a topic more boring than yet another this feat is under-, over-, whateverpowered and personally think there is no way to solve such a case anyways since that always depends on the type of game you run (note: the fluff behind it *grin*)
 

Jolly Giant said:
It's a pity we can never have a good debate about a new book without it being turned into yet another crunch vs fluff debate 1/4 down the first page... :\

Personally, I'd like to hear how people feel about the Able Learner feat? IMHO, it's bordering on overpowered; and I'm still undecided about allowing it for my campaigns.
Bordering? I'd say it merrily dances over the line and thumbs its nose at lesser feats! :) For any character that gets a fair number of skill points and a somewhat restricted list of class skills, it's incredibly valuable. For comparison, the granted powers of a Cleric domain tend to be roughly equal to a feat, and several domains simply add 3 skills to the Cleric's skill list. Able Learner makes ALL skills cost 1 pt each, though cross-class skills still can't be raised as high as class skills. The next time I play a Human character with a limited class skill list and high Int, I'm getting this feat at 1st level!
 

Since the Able Learner feat is restricted by race and as "1st level only", it should be fine.

I also like the City Slicker feat, providing bonus class skills as a "1st level only" feat. it's the closest D&D has come to D20 Modern Occupations.

Now the Destiny feats might be a little much, especially when you consider they are a chain of feats. If you get all of them, you are going to wear your dice out re-rolling them. ;)

The Initiate feats are a good idea, like the learning the inner secrets of a religion, but they could have used a sidebar on how to create new Initiate feats for different gods and settings.

I loved the Tactical feats before and these are one feat I don't mind seeing more of. Crowd Tactics and Roofwalker both add some nice tactical options.

The Racial Substitution levels are well done as well, but I would have liked to see some for Humans. Some Multi-class Substitution levels could be very interesting :cool:

The Spells and Powers are nice, but additional powers would have been nice. All it would have taken was Choose Destiny, Psionic {Psionic Stats} and See page 164. The Insignia spells will be very good for Harper campaigns in the Forgotten Realms.

The "Elements of a Town" is also good, but only touches on this subject and the sample NPCs are a godsend for DMs, except for their repitition (A full paragraph to explain what Evasion, Sneak Attack, etc are). And repeating Half Elf Traits in every Half Elf NPC, Half Orc Traits in every Half Orc NPC.

:confused:
 
Last edited:

The intricate problem here is your example. "Take all the Middle Earth..." Yea, that's Middle Earth. I've already seen people demand fluff for Oerth, for Forgotten Realms, for Ravenloft, etc... anytime that it goes beyond the simple, I believe that as Psion notes, it's overall utility goes way down to the general public.


That is (in my humble and limited opinion) the point where you're wrong.

Fluff needs to inspire people. You cannot doubt the sheer endless wave of stories, adaptations, variations, copies and concept that roleplayers from all walks of life have drawn from the Lord of the Rings.

Similar observations can be made for D&Ds own and infamous Dark-Elf Ranger. He spawned legions of stories, characters & adventures mainly because this vision of Bob Salvatore was very compelling to a broad base of players.. those playing Forgotten Realms and those who don't.
And all the Drow-Mania only happend, because it got very, very, very specific.

After the Eberron CS was released, threads sprang up like mushrooms after the rain on how to fit Warforged into the Realms, how to make Sharn a Planescape town, how to use Valenar Elves as a basis for your own homebrew, etc..., etc... (and there is nothing like that now happening for RoD)

A compelling piece of fluff can even trancend the very borders of genre and come from different places all together.
Just think of the vast influx of swashbuckling pirate-games that sprang up after Jonny Depp played Captain Jack Sparrow or the never-ending demand for Dual-Sword-Wielding Darth Maul wannabies.

The overall utility of a good piece of fluff depends on how compelling it is, the visions and stories it paints into peoples minds, of what it inspires.
And any 'Writing-Ficiton-for-Dummies' will tell you that nailing down the fine and seemingly negligible details is one of the necessites to achieve something compelling.

All this generic, vanilla-flavor, watered-down vagueness simply does nothing of that. (or at least not too me, though my observations above are valid I believe)


(and I call bvllshjt, as you so eloquently put it, on anyone who says they don't need fluff: not even Tolkien could write an adventurestory out of thin air, so excuse me if i doubt that any of you could)
 

About the Able Learner feat: considering that in effect, it allows one character to spend one feat slot to get the effect of my skill points houserule (see sblock below), I have no problems with it.

[sblock]When you gain a level in a class, you can put your skill points in class skills, up to character level +3 ranks, and in cross-class skills, up to (character level+3)/2 ranks. If your cc skill rank is already higher than that (because it's a class skill for another of your classes, frex), you can't raise it this level.

So, I guess I'd have to modify Able Learner so that it instead raises the cross class rank limit. Rather than 1/2*(CL+3), it would be 3/4*(CL+3).[/sblock]
 

About the fluff vs crunch...

The chamaleon has no alignment requirement, yet by the guild description, they are mostly assassins (so should be evil).
Some rogue chamaleon exist, but are hunted by the guild.

What if I want chamaleons to be members of the intelligence services for a good king, followers of the monk that invented the focus switch (Seng Li), elite of some changeling nation/region and so on?

I have to drop one page of the book and just use my own ideas.
Moreover, the concept of mimic assassins it's the most cliche, so it's not something I say: "Hey, really good idea, I could never have thought it by myself!".
 

Vecna said:
Moreover, the concept of mimic assassins it's the most cliche, so it's not something I say: "Hey, really good idea, I could never have thought it by myself!".

My point precisely. The RoD is just really, really dull and generic, to the point of being 1.) inconsequental as it doesn't add anything new (fluff wise) and 2.) totally useless as it doesn't inspire any new story.

All of this makes the fluff therein about as useful as (on a crunch vs. fluff comparison) reprinting 160 pages of 2ed. rules and the frenzied berserker PrC ad infinitum.

But on a crunch vs. fluff level, that doesn't mean we now no longer need good and creative fluff.. quite the contrary.
While the crunch-lovers are treated with new toys in every publication, the fluff-lovers are fed the same old boring sh..t over and over again.
 

Zweischneid said:
But on a crunch vs. fluff level, that doesn't mean we now no longer need good and creative fluff.. quite the contrary.
While the crunch-lovers are treated with new toys in every publication, the fluff-lovers are fed the same old boring sh..t over and over again.

IMO, probably WotC doesn't make more fluff because:
1. it's more demanding to develope
2. it would generally sell less
3. if too specialized, it could interest only few players/DM

Take Planescape as example: it has a lot of flavor, but many people doesn't like it for many reasons: the chant, the baatezu/tana'ri, the powers...
Same reasoning for Ravenloft, Dark Sun...

When the new setting contest was announced, WotC asked for a "classical fantasy" setting, they were not interested in something exotic
Probably Eberron being quite generic will sell more than Planescape, but we'll know only in the next years.
 

The "Baatezu/Tanar'ri/etc." names instead of demon/devil/etc. were not a feature of Planescape (the setting line) but of AD&D2 (the whole edition).

Planescape is not responsible in any way for renaming the outsiders.
 

Remove ads

Top