Too much character makes TS ARGHHH!!!

[Tequila Sunrise]

It's great that D&D has it's own peculiar way of doing things, because it makes for a game with character. But honestly, too much character is just too much.

I'm expanding my list of most common spells when I come upon the globe of invulnerability spells. It should be simple enough to create higher and lower level globes, but it isn't. The lesser globe affects spells of one level lower, while the normal globe only affects spells of two levels lower.

Can someone help me find some kind of rationale behind this idiosyncrisy, or is this really just another case of D&D's over-abundance of character?

 

[Thurbane]

-nevermind, my maths is awful-

 

[Destil]

A 9th level spell that protected from all spells of 8th level or lower would be overpowered. The more spells you shield out the better the globes get, especially against sorcerers who may rely almost entirely on meta-magiced spells for some types... hope you've got heighten spell. Against psions the globes are even better.

 

[the Jester]

A 9th level spell that protected from all spells of 8th level or lower would be overpowered.

Uh... prismatic sphere?

For that matter, antimagic field?

 

[Nail]

It's great that D&D has it's own peculiar way of doing things, because it makes for a game with character. But honestly, too much character is just too much.

I'm expanding my list of most common spells when I come upon the globe of invulnerability spells. It should be simple enough to create higher and lower level globes, but it isn't. The lesser globe affects spells of one level lower, while the normal globe only affects spells of two levels lower.

Err.......

Could you explain how your first paragraph and your second paragraph are related? It seems like a non sequitur to me.

 

[Nail]

Uh... prismatic sphere?

For that matter, antimagic field?

There's a problem with that comparison.

Globe of Invulnerability (Sor/Wiz 6) allows you to cast spells out of it.

 

[Sound of Azure]

TS ARGHHH!!!

I take it you don't like 2e?

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Err.......

Could you explain how your first paragraph and your second paragraph are related? It seems like a non sequitur to me.

The first paragraph is a lead into the second, by way of a small rant about how all the little idiosyncrisies of the game get on my nerves. The second paragraph is one of those idiosyncrisies. But yeah, it is a bit of a non secuitur.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I take it you don't like 2e?

You have no idea. As bad as 3rd ed still is...I don't even want to know what 1st/OD&D was like.

 

[Pielorinho]

You have no idea. As bad as 3rd ed still is...I don't even want to know what 1st/OD&D was like.

Aw, c'mon. Where's the love for the to-hit tables and for the magical properties of gemstone table (which took about three pages of text and had no in-game effect whatsoever)?

Daniel