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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Najo" data-source="post: 3932299" data-attributes="member: 9959">Fair enough. They can still make mistakes though, look at spell caster multiclassing in the last edition.Ok, so lets take D20 modern and take all of your organizations and create feats connected to them. Lets say each one governs something specific, a modern resource, better than the others. Freemasons could have +2 bonus to government social rolls, the Rosucuricians could have +2 bonus to church based rolls, etc. So, I want to make a political character that is a Freemason Initiate of the 4th degree (or whatever) in order to get the bonus, but I don't want them to be a freemason? How do I do that?1) what happens if the group's power struct or influence changes? Now, instead of moving a feat from one group to another, I need to explain it everytime.2) what happens if I set my campaign before these groups existed? What if I move to a time in the future where they might be gone?3) What if I don't want these groups in my game, but I want the feats?4) What if I want these groups to have different effects or be represented by other feats that actually do something specific with the group instead of a generic modifier?All of these issues create WORK for the DM. If the feat is instead changes to Government Infleunce or Church Influence and then I can say the Freemasons have government influence, etc.. it makes it much easier. Now my political non-freemason can have his feat, the freemasons can have it too and when the end of the world happens the feat for the freemasons can change as they move into a new power position then the current one.Almost every product in the gaming industry is tied to a setting. D&D hasn't REALLY been until now. Problem is, this is not a real setting, it is pieces and fragments of one they are using to inspire us. The fluff in other games have meaning because it ties to storylines. This fluff just exists to not be generic fantasy. With most of the elements here, that is ok. But the Feats and Talents are bad. Why not add in rules for Organizations, that is something that D&D could make good use of and keep simple. D&D 2nd edition was all about other campaign worlds. D&D 3rd and 3.5 was somewhat like this with Forgotten Realms and Ebberron. WOTC even said they found their surveys told them players and DMs wanted options and tools for making their own worlds and that too many campaign settings fractured the market. This approach goes against giving DMs tools to make their own worlds by forcing them to use premade fluff. We want more than mace hits head. We want spellshaper so we an attach it to our own wizard orders, secret traditions or other methods of learning magic then being stuck with the idea of the six orders over our heads ALL THE TIME. This change with the feats is restricting most of the DMs, not helping them. I am not going to get into a flame war. There are points we have brought up that you are not considering. Still, you have not offered a solution that keeps in the orders and gives us freedom with the feats. We want to create our own fluff without having to make pages of errata to rename core player choices, what is so hard about that to understand? How is that us being childish or reduced to 'hit in head with mace'?Our camp doesn't want to hear the words Golden Wyvern Adept unless the order/ school/ path/ secret society is in our game setting by our choice.</blockquote>

Verification