The Planar Handbook - Merric's views (in a rambling way)

[Gez]

Mmh, makes me want to give a Dread Behemoth "cohort" to Ashardalon.

 

[WizarDru]

I liked the Planar Handbook a good deal, and I really liked the Planar Substitution levels....BUT, I didn't like seeing them in Races of Stone. I'm worried about Substitution Level creep, where no core class is safe. It makes sense for a Planescape type campaign, with planar travel being an everyday facet of life...but I'm worried that being a ranger or bard won't be a predictable thing, if tweleve different 'substitution' variants suddenly are available.

I like the touchstones, but thought they ran a little long. Loved the Sigil material, of course.

 

[Fiendish Dire Weasel]

I think the substitusion levels were bad because it is basiclly setting up a bad precident that doesn't support their own products. Adding substitusion levels only to the core classes means any other base classes (past, present and future) don't get this feature unless the DM/players make up their own. Prestige classes could be designed around play concepts and be made available to different classes (for example: They could do a PrC based on "sneakyness" so a Rogue, Monk, Bard or Ranger who wanted to focus on planar sneakyness could take it... but so could a Swashbuckler or whatever there will be in the upcoming Complete Adventurer).

I agree, more PrCs isn't somthing I look forward to, at the same time, I believe well made PrCs can do a lot for the game. It's a "quality over quantity" thing for me I guess.

Anyways, I think one of the main reasons I disliked the Planar Handbook is it was full of bad ideas that I fear (some of which are proving true with the Races of Stone previews) are going to turn into precident and then turn into a continuing line of unfortunate rules... Interestingly, almost every new WotC book I buy (Eberron being a glaring exception) make me more interested in playing/running games with only the 3 core books

 

[mhacdebhandia]

By way of contrast, I think that substitution levels are a very good idea.

I feel confident in predicting that they will also feature in the Frostburn, Sandstorm, et cetera line of products, by the way.

The reason I like them is simple: they provide a way to customise a class mechanically in a way which is strongly tied to flavour. Dwarves are tough people, so their substitution levels kick Hit Die up one step, for example.

The fact that each race in Races of Stone only has three classes for which they receive substitution levels is a good sign, I think, for those who are worried about their overuse.

Besides, for comedy purposes I'm looking forward to a flood of character optimisation builds relying on substitution levels.

 

[JoAT]

I'm actually begining to think that it would be interesting to try all 3 levels of Dwarf Sorcerer and all 3 levels of Planar Sorcerer... It would certainly make for interesting play.

Oh, and I'm with the Mephling suport. Mephits are cool - now only if I could get the rest of them as mephlings...

 

[Ranes]

What good is a Friday night in if it can't accommodate a bit of threadromancy?

An old friend once said to me that he never got interested in anything until it was past its sell-by date. That was a quarter of a century ago. Appropriately enough, I'm appreciating the sentiment more now than ever. As a result, I've just picked up a copy of this book and spent a few hours reading it. Having formed a generally favourable impression, I then Googled Merric's review because it had vaguely stuck in my mind that he hadn't enjoyed it. To my surprise and delight, upon finding this thread again, I discover he that he did like it. Hilariously, I also discover a nine year old post from me, thanking him for the review and saying I'd add it to my wish list.

Though I haven't digested the whole book yet, not by any means, my favourite ideas so far are the planar substitution levels and the planar touchstones. It's been about a year now since my last campaign ended and, although I'm desperately busy and probably kidding myself, I'd love to get a group together for a new game soon and this book has already got me building NPCs - on a Friday night, for flip's sake. (NPC creation is almost always where I get my campaign ideas from.)

It also occurs to me that I've never run a planar-themed campaign. My campaigns have always been about what happens when they come here. To those more accustomed to such games, at what level have your PCs typically gone multi-planar-peripatetic?

Thanks.

 

[Isida Kep'Tukari]

The one thing that ever really stopped me from doing a full-on planar campaign was the one thing that makes plane-hopping so fun - i.e. the traits of the planes. There are several planes where you are taking plenty of penalties if you're not the correct alignment, and several planes where you're taking constant damage if you don't protect yourself. So everyone is often at a disadvantage. It makes plane-hopping the sole providence (in my mind) of high-level characters. Which is really a shame with all the possibilities of planar races, substitution levels, and whatnot. I always wondered how you wrangled plane-hopping so that it was appropriately challenging, and not either a cakewalk or TPK in terms of planar survival (just by being on plane, not counting any monsters).

 

[Ranes]

I was reading about the fact that the City of Brass is unaffected by the traits characteristic of the wider plane. I suppose you could do something similar every now and then - by location or magical means - to give players the aesthetic flavour of a plane without exposing their PCs to harmful effects - but you wouldn't want to do that too often or what's the point?

Magical protections from insidious or otherwise hazardously inclement conditions could be time limited and thereby lend drama to the proceedings.

But it all does seem to command a relatively high level price tag, I suppose.