| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| IronHammer |
Posted - 20 Oct 2007 : 04:07:47
I always wondered why game designers will so drastically change a Item from one edition to the next. Take for instance Aegis-Fang..Forever it was a +5 Warhammer(Since 1E). Now all of a sudden its a +4 Maul.. You know I can almost understand changing its designation to Maul as its desribed as a large Warhammer. But to change weapon bonuses??? Much the same way with Twinkle. Go from a +5 weapon to a +2 . Ive noticed this with several magical items that went from 2E-3E-3.5E without any kind of explanation for the power loss. Am I missing something? |
| 11 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Kheris |
Posted - 23 Oct 2007 : 17:14:30
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
My line of thought is : The best way to avoid error is to give less mechanical details.
The Bubblegum Crisis RPG (I was young and confused!) summed it up best:
On the details of Anime super-science: Unexplained tech is better than stupid tech.
It serves me well in every game I run 
|
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 23 Oct 2007 : 00:59:00
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
quote:
Originally posted by Jamallo Kreen
On the other hand, if it's good enough for Ed Greenwood's home campaign, it is good enough for me!
What work for a very specific group will work for all groups is a very bad reasoning. 
That's not what he said though. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 22 Oct 2007 : 23:08:00
quote:
Originally posted by Jamallo Kreen
On the other hand, if it's good enough for Ed Greenwood's home campaign, it is good enough for me!
What work for a very specific group will work for all groups is a very bad reasoning. |
| Jamallo Kreen |
Posted - 22 Oct 2007 : 22:49:15
I just proposed to my players that I revert to AD&D's system for awarding x.p. for magic items, and am trying to get the AD&D Encyclopedia Magica.
Hasbro should be congratulated for driving more and more gamers to play using an obsolete system that most of us didn't particularly like when it was (literally) "the only game in town." On the other hand, if it's good enough for Ed Greenwood's home campaign, it is good enough for me!
|
| IronHammer |
Posted - 20 Oct 2007 : 21:29:10
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
[quote]
Also : If the PCs have to fight a famous NPC, make up stats that matchs the need of the encounter.
My way of doing things exactly |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 20 Oct 2007 : 21:26:24
quote:
Originally posted by IronHammer
I dont really. Ive never even used the "big name" NPC's befor. Just seemed odd to me to change a long standing history for whatever reason. Just curious to what other folks thought about it.
My line of thought is : The best way to avoid error is to give less mechanical details.
Also : If the PCs have to fight a famous NPC, make up stats that match the need of the encounter (That doesn't mean to send level 5 PCs agains't Manshoon). |
| IronHammer |
Posted - 20 Oct 2007 : 21:14:59
I dont really. Ive never even used the "big name" NPC's befor. Just seemed odd to me to change a long standing history for whatever reason. Just curious to what other folks thought about it. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 20 Oct 2007 : 21:00:35
Can I ask why you care so much about novel characters NPC stats ? |
| IronHammer |
Posted - 20 Oct 2007 : 20:53:54
I can understand the game mechanics idea. They even did it with characters. Ill use Drizzt for an example because Im sure most folks are familiar with him. He was a straight 16th/ranger and a straight 18th/fighter befor that. I can understand why they added the barbarian levels but they took so much away in the fighter and ranger classes. Even with "getting more for less" with the new weapon abilites and feats It seems odd to take so much away that was the same for so many years Not that it really bothers me as I can just change it to suit my needs anyway Stats are another thing...Wulfgar basically had the str on a hill giant for two editions. Then they bring him down to a strong human. I understand his barbarian rage brings it up, but it still dosnt bring it up to where his base was at for all that time.. I did like that they made several of the magic items minor artifacts. I always thought several items from the DMG should have been to start with. I guess it all equals out |
| sirreus |
Posted - 20 Oct 2007 : 15:44:01
i think dalor is right. with such great mechanic changes from 2e to 3e and weapon abilities expanded, they could probrably get the same bang for the buck by lowering enhancement. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 20 Oct 2007 : 04:19:34
The best explanation I could give you are game mechanics.
Aegis-Fang was perhaps a +5 Warhammer before...but they didn't have mauls, and the newer mechanics mean that the weapon doesn't have to have the same plus to do the same thing.
The only thing that bothers me is item appearance and story that changes. |
