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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="seankreynolds" data-source="post: 1807584" data-attributes="member: 3029">I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I'll cut & paste a response to a similar question from my boards:{Sean - does/will TNA discuss how a DM should handle a low-magic setting as contrasted against the "default" setting and reams of magic items?}  It's difficult for me to give a short answer to that because the talk-to parts of the book aren't all in one place and aren't always broken out into a handy sidebar (in some cases, it's part of a larger discussion and it would be hard to follow the point if you had to jump out in the middle to read a sidebar and then come back to finish a paragraph).  I know I specifically mention the lack of easy healing affecting encounters, how there are few area attacks or mental attacks so Ref and Will saves become less important, how Toughness should give a little more kick because of the lack of heating, alternate ways to build magical/legendary items (like Heracles using the Nemean lion's skin) without needing spellcasters, and toning down monsters that deal a lot of damage. I know this because it's in one of the early sidebars about it being a low-magic campaign. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Basically there are several places where I talk right to the DM and say, "Because of the low-magic assumption of this campaign, you need to think about X, Y, and Z."Actually, the smarter thing to do is build a rogue class with a different ability instead of sneak attack*, rather than changing what the definition of what "sneak attack" is. As soon as you allow the rogue to sneak attack in one book, any player with that book thinks he should be able to sneak attack in the campaign he's in, whether or not that campaign is undead-heavy. In other words, changing the meaning and effects of a core mechanic has a much greater effect on the game than creating a balanced variant class.*Just as the smart thing to do in a campaign without undead is to give the cleric something other than turn undead, rather than changing the effect of turn undead. Just as the smart thing to do in a campaign without heavy armor is to give heavy-armor-proficient classes something to compensate for their lower-than-core armor classes, rather than changing the definition of "heavy armor." Just as the smart thing to do in a campaign without divine spellcasters is to give arcane spellcasters healing spells, rather than changing the definition of "healing."Easier isn't always better, or fair. It would be easier if all magic items cost exactly 1,000 gp to create no matter what they did. It would be easier if we didn't use level adjustments at all and a drow Ftr1, human Ftr1, and vampire human Ftr1 were all treated as exactly the same power level. It Would be easier if D&D had only one character class, with one rate of progression for saving throws and BAB. I don't think anyone would reasonably argue that's a better situation than what we have now. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification