Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kae'Yoss" data-source="post: 3439294" data-attributes="member: 4134">I don't mind too much if paladins only get some magic, but I can totally see things like that being moved to the realm of multiclassing or feats. A ranger would take a couple of druid levels. Or there's feats to get some spellcasting (Midnight works like that, and the Book of 9 Swords allows you to get some manoeuvres via feats)I don't see it: Chances are that the restrictions are part of the balancing (after all, arbitrary restrictions in a ruleset rather than a campaign setting are bad design), so you'll have to change other things if you take away restrictions like that.I did. Had no problems with it. Not that I want many restrictions. I think they're bad. They're crutches for those who don't want to think about their campaign's cultures and taboos. Choices are better. Choices - and consequences. Instead of saying "dwarves cannot be wizards because the rules say so", I say "dwarves aren't very fond of arcane magic, and those who practise the Art are often ostracised, or at least never chosen for more prestidious or influential positions.On the other hand, I had anal DMs who would insist on the restrictions imposed by the game even if they made no sense, they couldn't explain why they are in their world, and the whole thing would mess up the character concept I had in mind.So AD&D can keep its stuck-up DMs and restrictions.Why make magic different? For differece's sake? What applies to magic, with great results for great risks, can work for everything else, too. Monks can try to walk on hot embers even though they haven't practised long enough to make it safely, fighters can use difficult weapons and fighting styles they only saw, rogues can try to do a stunt that should be beyond them....One of the things about game design is. If you want to do something differently, ask yourself why you want to do that. If the anwser is just "because", ditch the idea.Don't get me wrong: I'm not against the idea of risky magic. I'm just agains the idea that only magic can be risky.It's not easy to do it, unless you base the whole game around magic. And I don't know about creepy. It's okay for some worlds, but not for all.Not in D&D. D&D has to work for many, many worlds. So the components should be fairly standard. Vanilla. Things like that would have to be done in campaign settings.</blockquote>

Verification