Sean Reynolds' new company press release

[Felonius]

Spellfire

I do find it....amusing?... to hear someone whose name was on the cover of the book that brought us Spellfire bitch about feats that break expectations established in the core rules.

Read this thread on his forums about Spellfire and SKR's thoughts regarding it.

Should be required reading for all FR DMs... and players.

- F

 

[Soul]

I see some things being said here that I find a little absurd. I for one probably will look forward to Sean's products, but I don't want anyone telling me what is or isn't right for my game. If I want armor as DR or Sneak attack damage vs Undead as a feat, no one has any business telling me its wrong. If my players and I are comfortable with a given set of rules, whether others think it unbalanced or not, thats tough. Also, to say Undead don't have anything that sneak attack damage would benifit from, can be somwhat skewed. HP are an abstraction that covers a lot of things. I would think broken tendons and destroyed muscles could in theory cause further damage to undead. Certain types of undead might not function without perticular organs, like their brains, or hearts. To say that destroying various other organs has no effect on all undead is sort of lame imo, as it serves to only limit other peoples views and telling you how things 'have' to be, instead of how they 'suggest' things to be.

 

[jmucchiello]

The prospect of playing a super-intelligent ham sandwich outweighs the poor rules used to model the world of super-intelligent ham sandwiches.

Can't wait for the release of Deli [en]Counters, Mike!

 

[mhensley]

With a press release like this, he better make damn sure his products are flawless. I think I can hear reviewers sharpening their katanas even now. scrape....scrape...scrape...

 

[Crothian]

With a press release like this, he better make damn sure his products are flawless. I think I can hear reviewers sharpening their katanas even now. scrape....scrape...scrape...

Nope, at least I won't. What the writers say outside of books does not have any relation with the book as I do a review. Its best to just judge the item in front of you instead of breinging in a lot of baggage with the writer and publisher.

 

[FireLance]

P.S. - I wonder what he means by "the tools to recognize what's good and what's not?" Will they be including the whys and wherefores behind hte mechanics as well as the mechanics themselves - something I've been begging WotC to do regularly for years?

Good news, Henry. I mentioned something similar on the SKR Games messageboard and Sean replied thusly (text in parenthesis is mine):

{Yup, good news for DMs like me who like good, balanced, consistent rules. Flavor is less of an issue because I can always add that later. Hopefully, we'll also get more "behind the screen" discussions so we can get a better sense of the thinking behind the rules.}

In fact, there are three Behind The Curtain sidebars in TNA explaining why I chose to do certain things with the rules.

 

[Psion]

FWIW, I don't have the faintest objection to the way that he designs his own material. I think he holds himself to his own standards, some of which, while "tidy", are not really compulsory AFAIAC. (He is also tidy in ways that aren't optional as well...)

 

[Remathilis]

Just to Clairify

I MEANT FAST FORWARD ENTERTAINMENT AND TYPED FFG NOT FFE

I have no problems with the fine folks at Fantasy Flight Games

Stupid acronyms...

 

[Scribble]

I'm not saying that one could not design alternatives as long as they are labeled as such. I wouldn't have a problem with a magical weapon that enables sneak attacking undead in a setting where undead have vulnerable spots with links to negative energy plane. However, dropping one to basic d20 environment (D&D) without such justification is (again IMHO) sloppy design.

Eh... I don't really agree with this. Feats, in my opinion serve two purposes. To either grant a special ability of some type, or to overcome a limitation placed on a character by the rules.

Take for instance Eschew Spell Components. The rules say you must have material components for some spells. Without them you can't cast the spell. Take that feat and you overcome that limitation. It doesn't get into the physics of the thing really. So this new feat to me is just another overcome a rules limitation type feat.

Granted, I haven't actually seen it yet, so who knows if I would allow it in my game. My point is, that any feat really, should be looked at and judged by the current group/dm as to wether it would be overpowering in the context of the game.

 

[Michael Tree]

The FRCS, Magic of Faerun, Living Greyhawk Gazeteer and Anger of Angels are all very good books.

They all have very good flavor, and a great examples of setting writing, but are not good books for game mechanics. The FRCS in particular is loaded with extremely unbalanced feats and prestige classes. The 3.0 archmage, red wizard, incantatrix, persistent spell metamagic, and the spellcasting prodigy feat are among the most unbalancing game mechanics ever introduced into d20.