The Gaming Den

You know what? I think that was actually a knee-jerk reaction. You're right. And to the extent that I do want to keep low-level options around, it's better to do it with incentives than just by forcing you to have them. That means making sure 1. most spells continue to scale with level so they don't...

Here is something else to talk about. 5e Multiclassing rules, which no one discussed before because no one cares: (...) With the exception of the subclasses-that-cater-to-fighter/mages stuff (3e already shows us that creating effectively mandatory patch PRCs to mitigate trap options is bad design),...

I had a similar thought at one point, but that just leads to phasing out the lower-level spells, which isn't good either. And if you start making schemes to mitigate that, you're halfway to spell point land.

So, I really like spell slots, as they are used in D&D, as a resource management mechanism. They're easy to wrap your head around, quick to use and feature a minimum of bookkeeping. As a bonus, they're a resource that you can conceptualize in-character, with some interesting implications for how...

Nobilis is not like that. Once you're enNobled, you don't have to worry about things like hostile millitary superpowers, the laws of physics getting in the way of your plans or necessarily even "being dead", but you have a whole slew of new and exciting problems.

Well, in 3.x a spellbook doesn't have any magic energy at all. It will, for example, not light up under a Detect Magic spell. It's just a record, basically analogous to a cookbook. The fact that most people, even ones trained in Spellcraft or Knowledge: Arcana, can't get any use out of a spellbook i...

Because then they would lose at least a few mini sales?

Um. Last I checked the Modrons lived in the Clockwork Nirvana... (Mechanus, if you prefer.)

Most of that is completely true, but so the fuck what?

That's why it is a genre, because it's primarily ruled by its own idiosyncratic internal logic. Other than that it's just cheap sci-fi. (or thriller, I guess, for some characters/stories.)

...yes? The only reason why supers campaign settings like the ones you mentioned don't do this is that you can't have a published supers campaign setting with no powered NPCs. But the vast majority (we're talking 80-90%) of supers games I've seen, run and played in have been one of three things: - s...

Yes, but just about any of the other suggestions here would work better for this. (Only one I can't call for sure is Anima.)

I'd love to join this, but I don't have any of the relevant rulebooks.

I'm pretty thoroughly familiar with the d20 rigmarole, though, so if you could hook me up?

Nobilis 3e, because it is an awesome game that I've played all too little.

Deadlands (Classic for preference, Hell on Earth if I had to run it) -not because I think it's objectively good, it's far too mired in 90's excess, but damn is it fun!

You are both Schrödingering. Stop it.

(NPCs can actually Schrödinger in practice, because the DM can change stuff in response to PC actions to ensure an encounter happens on his terms, but they shouldn't be doing that because it's bullshit.)

Chamomile: Terrible execution? You didn't like Nobilis?

Or do you mean something other than the mechanics? Because those are pretty solid IME, and the design intent is actually fairly well communicated, too.

That story's fun.

It was expanded into a graphic novel, "the Life Eaters", which unfortunately just dragged on and became weird and was a chore for me to finish.

I like this, but I have to point out that "Were" just means "man".

Seems very reasonable in concept. (By which I mean I can't speak for the spesific numbers).
This:

I like the ability to keep going (It was awesome with ToB), but there needs to be a cap on the amount of spells you can do in a day at some point.

is great and very important.

Definitely. People whose true agenda is "I want to actively avoid getting anything good, yet succeed anyway" are idiots and deserve nothing but scorn. But they are also rare. For me, the reason I would prefer to have the Fighter in the game in some sense is mostly one of aesthetics. And by...

Lago PARANOIA wrote: Do I have it right?

Sorry I didn't respond to you in my preceding post, you ninjaed me.

But yeah, that looks pretty much right.

I don't care what you call your classes. I do care that you have sufficiently many or flexible classes that you can make Conan, Roland and Benedict of Amber, at least if your game purports to be a "general" fantasy RPG system. You can tell me that those are all low-level characters, and I'...

Holden is a dev, EricZahn is not a dev. And the moderation at SA is evidently shit.

stuff Yes, more or less. The only problem is that any high-level fighter in that paradigm basically becomes a Steve. (Or perhaps I mean an Elothar -not really sure about the distinction). This guy learns to control his inherited lycanthropy and becomes the champion of the moon goddess, while that g...

That doesn't sound like his particular brand of absurd detail. That's more something I'd expect out of Ed Greenwood.

Greyhawk was a bit more... rough-and-tumble, and full of "zany" details like Whyestil Lake and the Egg of Coot.

Only problem with running beholders is adjudicating timing and positioning for the placement of their antimagic cone, since D&D doesn't have much in the way of facing rules.