43 réponses à ce sujet

[Shadooow]

 

I think my biggest pet peeve was weapon sizing. In 3.0 a greatsword was a large sized weapon. Medium creatures used large weapons in two hands. Simple. A large sized creature could use a large weapon, such as a greatsword, in one hand. Simple.

I like in NwN that a human can hand his halfling friend a longsword that the halfling can use without penalty in two hands. In 3.5... the halfling gets a size penalty for not having a 'Small Sized Longsword'. Blah...

So you prefer 3.0 over 3.5 because something that isnt even factor in nwn? I agree this feature isn't much good and I didn't know about it. But it makes sense because the oversized scimitar/longsword would trump any normal twohanded weapon (over 100% damage), which probably lots of players in 3.0 realized and started abuse. WotC simply must put something to fix this. The generalization in NWN works well though as long as you don't allow tiny and large sized creatures to be played by the PC.

 

Anything else?

 

Honestly, you can't because from the ground up the class system is unequal.

 

Some classes get a passive that scales indefinitely with a stat rather than with class level, e.g. Monk AC, Dark Blessing, Divine Grace, making it innately attractive to simply beeline for a class feat and forget about that class afterwards.

 

Some classes get a abilities that scale indefinitely with class level, e.g. Enchant Arrow, Epic Superior Weapon Focus, Sneak Attack, Caster Levels, making it innately attractive to invest heavily in that class compared to others that don't.

 

Some classes have very common counters to their main ability, e.g. Sneak Attack which is resisted by anything with Crit Imm, Sneak Imm, Uncanny Dodge, Defensive Awareness 2+ etc, while others have abilities that will always be useful, e.g. Epic Superior Weapon Focus, Divine Might.

 

Some classes get bonuses at very slow increments - compare Ranger FEs vs. Arcane Archer Enchant Arrow, Barbarian DR vs Dwarven Defender DR.

 

Some classes have abilities that are not just disadvantaged by being temporary, but also limited by game engine caps - Paladin buffs vs Epic Superior Weapon Focus, Barbarian Rage vs RDD Stats.

 

The skill system is innately broken - you can hoard skill points and have a level 2 Rogue/Level 38 Wizard be a better trapper and lockpick than a Rogue 40.

 

Some classes are incomplete - Rogues for example are limited in ways to set up Sneak Attacks by themselves and hampered by low AB.

 

The game also heavily revolves around instant win mechanics and stacking immunities to ignore instant win mechanics - HiPS Stealth vs. True Seeing, Instant Death vs Death Immunity/Crit Immunity (if Dev Crit)/Mantles (Implosion), Mind Spells vs Mind Spell Immunity, Time Stop vs Counterspell, Harm vs. Shadow Shield/Conceal/Negative Prot and so on.

Most of this is problem only because Bioware badly implemented it in NWN, didnt implemented secondary features of that class or added something that shouldn't be there etc. Also, some issues arise only above epic level which we in NWN use usually in a way that wasn't really intented. In 3.5 almost all of this what you pointed is not a problem. Only the instant win mechanic regarding immunities wasn't handled (which is where Pathfinder strikes but at the big cost imo).

[Aelis Eine]

Most of this is problem only because Bioware badly implemented it in NWN, didnt implemented secondary features of that class or added something that shouldn't be there etc. Also, some issues arise only above epic level which we in NWN use usually in a way that wasn't really intented. In 3.5 almost all of this what you pointed is not a problem. Only the instant win mechanic regarding immunities wasn't handled (which is where Pathfinder strikes but at the big cost imo).

 

I play both NWN1 and NWN2, and yes, NWN2's 3.5E-inspired system does avoid many of the issues in NWN1. However, it comes with its own set of problems like a very big preference for self-buffing melee casters because of immunity stacking like I mentioned. 6-second spells are also IMO way too slow for a CRPG.

[The Mad Poet]

So you prefer 3.0 over 3.5 because something that isnt even factor in nwn? I agree this feature isn't much good and I didn't know about it. But it makes sense because the oversized scimitar/longsword would trump any normal twohanded weapon (over 100% damage), which probably lots of players in 3.0 realized and started abuse. WotC simply must put something to fix this. The generalization in NWN works well though as long as you don't allow tiny and large sized creatures to be played by the PC.

 

Anything else?

 

I was speaking from a pure PnP point of view. I prefer 3.0's weapon size rules. For NwN... yeah it's irrelevant.

 

A longsword is a longsword in 3.0. It's always the same size. Medium. It always deals 1d8 dmg. For a small creature it is a two handed weapon. For a medium creature it is a one handed weapon, and for a large creature it is a light weapon.

 

In 3.5 a longsword is made for the size category. So a longsword for a halfling is small sized, and deals 1d6 dmg. In the hands of a human it deals 1d6 damage and is light, but the human takes a -2 penalty because it is not sized for him. A longsword for a human deal 1d8 damage, and is a medium sized weapon. In a halflings hands it deals 1d8 damage, but is two handed and the halfling takes a -2 penalty to hit. A longsword for a large creature, such as an ogre, deals 2d6 damage and is a large weapon. In a humans hands it deals 2d6 damage, but they take a -2 penalty to hit because it is a longsword not sized for them.

 

This means that there is no real difference. A greatsword made for a halfling is 1d10 damage in 3.5... which is just only a touch bit better than the 1d8 longsword a halfing would use in 3.0. Both would be two handed. Both would be 1 + 1/2 strength. But the halfling can't let his human buddy use the small greatsword without him taking a -2 penalty to hit.

 

The change just... to me... added unnecessary complexity to what was essentially not an issue. DM's would have to size all weapons in the game meaning you might treasure roll that +2 Holy Longsword for the parties human paladin, but then end up it is just a size too small for him to use without a -2 penalty, so it has to go to the halfling fighter. Where as a +2 Holy Longsword in 3.0 could be used by the human paladin without penalty, and given to the halfling fighter to use as a two handed weapon if you wanted.

 

I liked a lot of the skill changes 3.5 came with, but removing scry was a mistake to me. I much preferred it being a skill.

 

I thought it was a mistake to get rid of Mass Haste, and allow third level Haste to affect multiple party members. Haste is potentially (not certainly) one of the most damaging spell in the game. When you consider the extra attack damage a hasted fighter can put out over five rounds easily averages a 5d6 fireball, if it's not just plain better. At least in 3.0

 

In 3.5 you can haste multiple party members meaning the rogue can get an extra 3d6 sneak attack in each round, each fighter can add another 10 dmg from a 2d6 greatsword attack per round. In a party where the morningstar wielding cleric deals 1d8+2 dmg per hit (avg 7 [maybe 6] I think), the fighter deals avg 2d6+3 dmg (avg 10 I think) with the greatsword, and the 3d6 sneak attack rogue (avg 11 dmg I think)... over five rounds? That's an average of 35 dmg for the cleric, 50 dmg for the fighter, and 55 for the rogue. 140 dmg for the casting of a single 3rd level haste spell. Fireball maxes at 60 dmg. Sure some of the party members may miss... and they might roll poor damage. They might also crit. Haste at caster level ten, in that same party, is over 280 dmg average. A fireball is 60 tops , not counting metamagic.

 

Though even I'll admit the ability to cast 2 spells per round as a mage under haste in 3.0 was too much. 

 

There are more examples. And there are examples of things that, IMO, 3.5 improved on. I loved almost every change they did with the ranger... except dropping the hit points to a d8. I just never understood that decision. The 3.0 ranger was bland, and just felt like a worse fighter. 

[Aelis Eine]

A Fireball still has a few advantages. For one, a Fireball is an AoE, so your number of 60 tops is per target. Taking the average of 35 damage per target, suppose there's a cluster of 8 goblins, the Fireball would have matched the damage of a Haste spell. Another advantage is that the fireball's damage is all done in a single burst, which means it's faster and cleaner when it works - less risk of taking hits and incurring damage.

[Pstemarie]

 

Sounds promising. Like gaining an extra +2 dmg with two handed weapons when using the heavy style, or maybe a bonus to hit if using daggers with the assassin style. Am I on the right track?

 

 

Yup, exactly what I'm looking at.

[The Mad Poet]

A Fireball still has a few advantages. For one, a Fireball is an AoE, so your number of 60 tops is per target. Taking the average of 35 damage per target, suppose there's a cluster of 8 goblins, the Fireball would have matched the damage of a Haste spell. Another advantage is that the fireball's damage is all done in a single burst, which means it's faster and cleaner when it works - less risk of taking hits and incurring damage.

 

True true. And haste won't ever be as useful as lightning bolt a 5 foot wide hallway full of monsters. Though from my experience most DM's don't like to run a fight against 9-10 monsters at a time. And the less creatures that are on the field... the less useful AoE spells like fireball become. A hasted party can dump all the damage on one target, or split it up among targets that aren't in cones, spheres, or lines. To me... having the party go off and smash stuff while having my wizard sit in the back while they have fun is just fine. Let them get splashed with blood, I'll just be back here bending the laws of physics in our favor. Thank you.

[Grymlorde]

So to clarify this: the classes in DnD/NWN has a role. In this sense they are all balanced already provided your module has a meaning and support for all roles. If it doesn't, then changing the class, its feats or its spells rarely help as it usually shift the role of that class somewhere else.

 

This. It takes a bit more work to design scenarios that are more than 'hack-n-slash' but it is much, much more rewarding for players and DMs alike--both in NWN and in PnP.

 

Some random ideas:

• Negotiate/Threaten/Bribe intelligent monsters to get information and/or loot out of them. Give the characters reasons to invest in Persuade, Intimidate, and Appraise (I use the Appraise skill for handling bribery).
• Speak with Animals (Druids, Monks, & Rangers). Animals can reveal hints or outright secrets, e.g. a secret entrance to the dungeon
• Tracking monsters to their lair
• Unusual stonework for Dwarves to notice
• Merchants that give discounts for a specific race, class, alignment, and/or worshiper.
• Magical doors/chests that cannot be broken or opened with a knock spell and with a high Trap & Lock DCs.
• Tunnels/Trapdoors/Secret doors that can only be used by Small creatures and Dwarves.
• Magic items that can only be used by a specific class, race, and/or alignment [plus gender if using CEP]
• Different dialog options/NPC reactions based on gender, race, class, alignment, deity, etc.
• Scrolls can't be used during a rainstorm
• Require wizards to carry around a heavy grimoire (spellbook) which can get stolen, damaged, etc.
• Require clerics & druids to carry around a heavy prayerbook which can get stolen, damaged, etc.
• High level PCs should have their reputation proceed them. Paladins are welcomed and celebrated. Assassins, and Evil characters are despised. Rogues and Chaotics are distrusted. And so on.
• Rust Monsters!

There's a wealth of ideas to be found in old Dragon magazines and the Dragon Magazine Archive. And there are several Old School forums such as www.dragonsfoot.org which have ideas as well.

[FunkySwerve]

I second a lot of Shadoow's suggestions in this thread - generally the sorts of things we've done on HG, as well.

 

Rebalancing classes is certainly possible, though it's very complex and time consuming, as you're aiming at a constantly shifting target. Nearly everything you do will effect class balance.

 

We have an entire subforum dedicated to our rebalancing edits. In that forum is this thread, which details edits to the various base and prestige class abilities:

 

Class Edits

 

Bear in mind, that's just one vector for balancing. A lot of what we do involves environmental factors of the kind Shadoow was talking about - variety in mob races, secret rooms, variety in mob defenses (crit immunity vs non, conceal vs none, sr vs none, etc), edits to spells (greatly effect wiz vs. sorc balancing), and much, much more.

 

Funky

 

[_Guile]

Personally, I'm with the players usually on editing of base classes, and that opinion is generally spoken as, "If you edit the core rules, it causes changes that were not intended to be changed."  Like for example, nerfing spells, removing abilities or feats of a class, etc.  Most builders, mistakenly in my opinion, want to take away things, rather than add to the benefit of playing a class to help balance things, and though this is the best policy, it's not always the best choice.

 

As is the case for PVP modules, where balance is critical to ensure fair pvp combat game play, which would indeed require that certain spells to be nerfed or changed, like Time Stop, Greater Sanctuary, etc, to prevent overly powerful casting combos.  (Like timestop, bigby's, then IMGS your opponent to death, or Greater Sanctuary followed by some powerful spell casting to give the cleric a major advantage over their opponent.)  Likewise the nerfing of Devastating Criticals or handing out immunities to critical hits & knock down, prevents casters from being completely owned in one round or even just one hit.  Nerfing has it's place on some type of modules, generally speaking though most players would probably detest it, and personally I refuse play on servers that nerf everything.  (Rest especially)

 

I don't think the core game is really balanced towards PVP at all to be perfectly honest, though some people dig PVP, it's far more enjoyable when balance is more focused on power, rather than nerfing the heck out of everything, meaning players have access to more powerful items rather than weak items.  Then there is the other factor that makes a huge difference, properties on items, which in itself is quite a balancing act as well, for if you give out powerful properties, it can come back to bite you really hard.  (Players get use to their powerful items and detest it when they start losing power.)

 

Even in a base +5 gear system, some classes clearly have an advantage over others, it's really tough to make a Character that is well balanced for PVP or any module to be realistic, balance isn't really obtainable unless there was only one class, everything was "preset", and magic was very nominal if allowed at all.  Some people may think -2 to an ability score doesn't mean much, but on the contrary, it restricts what a race can play, or greatly diminishes the power of that class should the player be of said race.  (Example a Dwarf Bard, because it receives -2 Charisma, wouldn't be able to start with 18 Charisma, like other races can.)

 

I always thought TSR did a wonderful job on balancing game play, provided you learn to respect those +2 / -2 adjustments, the benefits of feats, and learn to increase the desirability of a class by adding more benefits to the class, rather than nerfing another class to make it more on par with other classes.  It's when put subraces and legendary levels (or other similar systems that allow a PC to level beyond level 40) in a module, that balance becomes extremely difficult to juggle, unless you are great a juggling power, and that would require much experience & adjusting frequently indeed.

 

If I was to make a solid recommendation, it would be to adjust classes by giving them better benefits, thereby effective increasing the overall "desirability" to play on your module / server, rather than nerfing classes, spells, etc, and then adjust accordingly & revise adjustments where needed.  (Players probably won't complain as much if you take something away you recently gave them, but if you start tampering with core rules, that's where things can get a bit touchy & sensitive.)

[MagicalMaster]

If I was to make a solid recommendation, it would be to adjust classes by giving them better benefits, thereby effective increasing the overall "desirability" to play on your module / server, rather than nerfing classes, spells, etc, and then adjust accordingly & revise adjustments where needed.

 

Allow me propose an alternative perspective.

 

Say I have a boss meant to be fought by a party of adventurers with 2-3 tough minions to help him and I am using the default rules.  Which is likely the case?

 

A. The boss and his minions are immune to Harm

B. The boss and his minions are vulnerable to Harm

 

The answer, of course, is A.  Being able to effectively automatically bring each mob to 1d4 HP with no save is insanely overpowered and you'd make them immune to Negative Energy damage, to Harm specifically, or figure out some way to not make Harm an effective auto-win (hey, I just did 2000+ damage to that Ancient Red Dragon with one spell).  You could argue that in theory you could throw in some weaker "trash" mobs which are meant to be Harmed/Death Magiced/etc but you get the idea.

 

However, what if you change Harm to something more reasonable?  Suddenly you don't have to make anything meant to be reasonably tough immune to Harm.  Clerics/Druids can actually use the spell as a powerful single target nuke.  By nerfing the spell you've made it actually usable because you don't have to make things completely immune to it.

 

Otherwise you have to figure out how to design in SPITE of certain spells.  Which seems to be an odd position to start from.

[_Guile]

@ MagicalMaster  yes there are many work arounds to delimit the uberness of some things...

 

However, I'd like to point out that my post was mostly about "adding value to" > "taking away from" the Game play / core system.

[MagicalMaster]

However, I'd like to point out that my post was mostly about "adding value to" > "taking away from" the Game play / core system.

 

So was mine?

 

My point was that by nerfing Harm you're actually adding value because you don't have to make anything halfway important immune to Harm.  It makes the spell more usable.

 

In general, sometimes hammering down a few nails opens up a options which were either previously overshadowed or rendered useless.

[_Guile]

So was mine?

 

My point was that by nerfing Harm....  (A nerf is a nerf dude)

 

... you're actually adding value...    (No it's not)

 

...because you don't have to make anything halfway important immune to Harm.  (How about give them damage immunity to negative, if you aren't lazy as this suggestion suggest?)

 

Do you even listen to yourself, seriously?  (No slight against you sir, though your words are evidence enough that you aren't.)

 

I think what many builders get wrong is, nobody wants to play on your nerfed version of NWN (or D&D for that matter, which is why players despise 3.5 edition so bad), where you believe everything should be nerfed to the nines, just like those lame ducks at WOTC's R&D Department have done to multiple games now....  (I've seen it first hand how they killed the love of games doing this, player bases just dwindled away to nothing.)

 

Don't listen to me, don't take my advice if you don't want to, it matters not to me, but if you want quality input, I'd be more than happy to provide it....

 

When you take away the power from the players, the players begin to feel like you don't want them to have fun, and this most definitely applies to players who are "use to" playing with said power.  We could debate that a sword is too powerful, having the power to reduce something's life to 1 or less as well, but then I suppose most arrogant people wouldn't see my point there either.

 

What is too powerful?  Nothing!  Everything within the system was designed to be used, a gun on a First Person Shooter (FPS) game can kill in one hit, much like On-Hit slay or spells that the target fails the save on, only spells never miss!  Magic in the world of D&D in undoubtedly extremely powerful, but rather than taking away that power, why not give other non-caster power as well to balance the two?  (Hence devastating critical hits & knock down, viola!)

 

Alas, I digress power is fun, who doesn't love it other than stingy old hags/hermits who want all the power for themselves so they can be supreme god of an empty mod...  (I hope that helps you see, that power is good, not bad.)

[henesua]

Guile, you are missing the point. MM's point is not about NERFing, but considering the relative powers of all abilities next to one another so that all options are interesting depending on the situation rather than one option being clearly better regardless of situation.

 

That is a totally different conversation than you are having here. You seem to be talking past MM in this regard since the only thing that you seem to be saying is that more should be added to other abilities in order to balance the scales. It sounds good in theory, but not sure how it plays out in practice.

 

My view is that you usually need to do a bit of both as you strive to make all options interesting. You give a little here, take a little there. Make up some new stuff somewhere else to round it out.

 

In other words you can't simply nuke the problem of game balance by juicing up underpowered options. Its a good idea to juice up some things. And its definitely a good idea to add more to the game. I grant you that. But in some cases you might want to scale back too, depending on your project. In other words, this is not a choose one path or the other kind of thing. You need all options at your disposal in order to work towards a vision.

 

I think that is what MM did with their module. Its a unique offerring to NWN and one that you might even enjoy given your proclivities. But I dunno, up to you.

 

Have fun.

[_Guile]

@ Henesua

 

As long as you don't take the "fun" out of the game by handing people "flowers" & "cantrips" to fight level 60 demons with, hey, do what you like....

 

Though anyone can build whatever they like, I believe your players will ultimately be the judge of what they like and don't, naturally...

 

I think some builders may be unaware of the fact that we build & DM to make the game fun for all, and should avoid designing a world where we get to lock players in a rat cage and watch them like an emperor of a gladiator stadium...   (I detest these types of worlds, give me freedom & power, or goodbye!)

 

Recently I logged into this server that hands out a bunch of "Old" items, as starting items, I got to the part where it tells me I just cannot "play" a cleric, but rather the world is all screwed up now, and I can only play certain domains if I am of a certain alignment, requiring me to read for a long time, write a bunch of BS down, to which I just said, screw this, and left..

 

I guess ultimately I'm trying to drive to the point that, people (players & DMs) see that nerfs are bad, real bad, and we shouldn't accept them, in general...

 

If I wanted to swing flowers at trees, I'd go in my back yard and kick on my trees, till then, my final advice is, learn to build a better game!!

[Shadooow]

@ Henesua

 

As long as you don't take the "fun" out of the game by handing people "flowers" & "cantrips" to fight level 60 demons with, hey, do what you like....

 

Though anyone can build whatever they like, I believe your players will ultimately be the judge of what they like and don't, naturally...

 

I think some builders may be unaware of the fact that we build & DM to make the game fun for all, and should avoid designing a world where we get to lock players in a rat cage and watch them like an emperor of a gladiator stadium...   (I detest these types of worlds, give me freedom & power, or goodbye!)

 

Recently I logged into this server that hands out a bunch of "Old" items, as starting items, I got to the part where it tells me I just cannot "play" a cleric, but rather the world is all screwed up now, and I can only play certain domains if I am of a certain alignment, requiring me to read for a long time, write a bunch of BS down, to which I just said, screw this, and left..

 

I guess ultimately I'm trying to drive to the point that, people (players & DMs) see that nerfs are bad, real bad, and we shouldn't accept them, in general...

 

If I wanted to swing flowers at trees, I'd go in my back yard and kick on my trees, till then, my final advice is, learn to build a better game!!

You are right. There are peoples who consider any kind of nerfs to be utterly stupid and refuse to play on such moduleserver. There are also peoples who consider new features the same way.

 

Keep in mind that adding stuff to balance is rather action-style preffered option. Your suggestion isn't much preffered by a less action modules or modules that focus on early levels.

 

As I said adding a new feats/spells/etc. is definitely an option, but its not the only right one. Actually, this thread is not about what is right or what is wrong. We can never agree on that. But I second what MM said, often nerf actually adds a possibilities, because you dont have to make every monster immune to that. Nerfs are indeed very negatively received, but when they are justified and reasonable they actually enhances the game.

[MagicalMaster]

I think what many builders get wrong is, nobody wants to play on your nerfed version of NWN (or D&D for that matter, which is why players despise 3.5 edition so bad), where you believe everything should be nerfed to the nines, just like those lame ducks at WOTC's R&D Department have done to multiple games now....  (I've seen it first hand how they killed the love of games doing this, player bases just dwindled away to nothing.)

 

I'll let you in on something that you might find interesting.  These are two things that I made for a PW I was building for a few years back and people requested I upload them for public use.

 

Epic Vrock

 

Hellball/Greater Ruin

 

 (How about give them damage immunity to negative, if you aren't lazy as this suggestion suggest?)

 

This is again missing my point.  I specifically said I could easily make them immune to Harm specifically or to Negative Energy in general.  But this means Harm is then completely useless against anything meant to be tough precisely because the builder has to make it immune.

 

Would you rather have a Harm that can do 10,000+ damage but just about everything is immune to it or a Harm that does 150, 200, 250, or whatever damage but nothing is immune to it?

 

If I wanted to swing flowers at trees, I'd go in my back yard and kick on my trees, till then, my final advice is, learn to build a better game!!

 

That's what we're trying to do

 

We don't to have to make stuff immune to Harm because it's too powerful.  We WANT Clerics to be able to Harm anything and for Harm to be useful -- but we also can't have situations where Harm does 10,000 damage to a boss with a single cast.  Either the boss has to be immune or Harm has to be changed -- and I'd rather players have the OPTION of using Harm rather than saying "Hey, anything tough is immune to Harm.  Sucks to be you."

 

Guile, you are missing the point. MM's point is not about NERFing, but considering the relative powers of all abilities next to one another so that all options are interesting depending on the situation rather than one option being clearly better regardless of situation.

 

Precisely.

 

I think that is what MM did with their module. Its a unique offerring to NWN and one that you might even enjoy given your proclivities. But I dunno, up to you.

 

Not so much, actually -- I believe the only spells I actually modified are the damage reflect shields.  For the other stuff I simply made monsters immune to them and in retrospect I could have left many of the weaker enemies vulnerable to Harm (I think I just made everything immune).  But since all of the tough enemies are immune I didn't want players to get in the habit of thinking Harm would work and walk into a boss with with useless spell slots.

 

Now, I was working on a project a few years back (where those scripts earlier came from) where I did modify a ton of spells.  One of the things I did was make Harm 30 damage + 3 per level as I recall (so 150 damage no save for a level 6 spell as a level 40 Cleric).  I also buffed a ton of higher level spells and Epic Spells so players were overall more powerful and Harm was still the best single target nuke in the game given its spell level (Meteor Swarm could do 165 damage per enemy but that's also a level 9 spell, Power Word: Kill could do 330 damage but that's also level 9 and required the enemy to be below 25% HP).

 

Maybe I'll release some of the work I did there at some point as a module for people to fiddle around with if they want -- mostly a multiplayer mod, though, with six different dungeons for level 40s (two for 3 players, two for 5 players, and two for 7 players).  Also had three single player dungeons (one for level 4, one for 20, and one for 40) but it was mainly a testing ground for multiplayer stuff.  Technically also had some hidden boss fights not normally accessible where I was testing some concepts -- could probably enable those, I suppose, but those are both 7 person fights again.

[MagicalMaster]

But I second what MM said, often nerf actually adds a possibilities, because you dont have to make every monster immune to that. Nerfs are indeed very negatively received, but when they are justified and reasonable they actually enhances the game.

 

Exactly.  We're trying to avoid having to take options away by making stuff immune.  We want players to have lots of options.

[WhiteTiger]

 

Exactly.  We're trying to avoid having to take options away by making stuff immune.  We want players to have lots of options.

 

 

What I'm trying to do.