Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Unseelie" data-source="post: 1232876" data-attributes="member: 6940">Let's be clear... the real issue isn't exactly that a nuclear war or holocaust is less plausible. The real issue is that we understand that radiation doesn't work that way. No amount of radiation is likely to turn rabbits into the anthropomorphical equivalent of the Michigan Militia. Nor is it going to cause you to grow new limbs, or suddenly be able to shoot heat rays from your eyestalks.Nano isn't that likely to do that either, but it has more internal logic than radiation and mutation. Mutation doesn't work that way, and radiation isn't likely to cause that to happen, and certainly isn't going to cause it to happen to YOU. Your kids... damned unlikely, but theoretically plausible.The radiation angle, IMO, was ditched because it was 'silly'. WW isn't going to publish a 'silly' game, sadly.My objections to the new version of GW are because of the derth of player options, regardless of what pseudo-scientific arguement is used to justify them. It's awfully expensive for a Player's Handbook when you factor in how little player info you get. Not enough mutations, not enough cyber, little to no anthro information, no map, etc., etc. Oh, and using new, non-standard rules for psionics rather than what already exists. That annoys me even more when I consider that new rules are not terribly balanced and can easily result in player death for a bad roll.Sure, they may publish more books to give that to me, but my gaming budget makes it fairly unlikely that I'll shell out $70+ to get what should have been in the first book.</blockquote>

Verification