Today I find that I am more disliking the poll questions then the editorial itself. I like some things, if not most, but the poll questions do not compensate for that. I get to tell you whether i hate them or like them or in between, but not a way to state which parts i like. So, unless i write something, my vote can be interpreted incorrectly. All that would be needed is to add in one or two more poll questions to see what i did or did not like to get a more focused answer would have been...
View full commentToday I find that I am more disliking the poll questions then the editorial itself. I like some things, if not most, but the poll questions do not compensate for that. I get to tell you whether i hate them or like them or in between, but not a way to state which parts i like. So, unless i write something, my vote can be interpreted incorrectly. All that would be needed is to add in one or two more poll questions to see what i did or did not like to get a more focused answer would have been better. And use check box options so that we are not locked to one answer. Don't get me wrong, I like the direction I see wizards going, just dont pidgeon hole the poll questions like this one here to be so black and white. Keep options in the polls to show the shades of grey like you have in other polls. Otherwise I'm afraid to answer. Anyways, just my thoughts on better getting our opinions especially if i dont have time to write "what i really mean" after each vote.
As someone who really likes the concept of golems, and constructs in general, I would really like to see them become more flexible for campaign use. If not specially "Golems" it would be nice to have a range of constructs across a wide range of levels. I feel like just lifting the 3e ones is a waste of potential for something better. For example, how often is the berserker rage of clay and flesh golems really relevant to gameplay? It's only really there to be an obstruction for PCs that...
View full commentAs someone who really likes the concept of golems, and constructs in general, I would really like to see them become more flexible for campaign use. If not specially "Golems" it would be nice to have a range of constructs across a wide range of levels.
I feel like just lifting the 3e ones is a waste of potential for something better. For example, how often is the berserker rage of clay and flesh golems really relevant to gameplay? It's only really there to be an obstruction for PCs that might want to make golems of their own. And really, why should they suffer for that? It would be awesome to play a kind of arcane puppet master with a powerful golem ally as an alternative to the summoner or necromancer concepts.
As for their spell immunity, it's a tough call for me. As an Ogre Battle fan, I'm used to the idea of a golem as a ponderous, physical wall whose weak spot is actually magical assault. On the other, there's of course the DnD tradition of an ageless, magic-resistant juggernaut. Still, while it's good for casters to get taken down a bit every once in a while (speaking as someone that loves casters) no one should ever be completely shut-out of a fight, nor have to resort to cheesing to remain relevant. I think the solution is to give them resistances, but exchange immunity off several golems for other abilities that provide interesting, even puzzle-like challenges. for instance, maybe clay or stone golems constantly heal so long as they are in contact with natural earth or stone, and let iron golems be the bulwarks on which spells shatter. Give flesh golems the potential for intelligence maybe. Just take the chance to make them something more.
I am not sure I will go through with it; I was just brainstorming. I was going for a noirish type of set up. I like demons as primal spirits, because there is a surplus of bad guy elemental types (giants, efrets, archons), not enough primal spirit bad guys, and Balors aside, they don't look very elemental. Besides, the notion that nature is out of whack has some storytelling potential.
View full commentI am not sure I will go through with it; I was just brainstorming. I was going for a noirish type of set up.
I like demons as primal spirits, because there is a surplus of bad guy elemental types (giants, efrets, archons), not enough primal spirit bad guys, and Balors aside, they don't look very elemental. Besides, the notion that nature is out of whack has some storytelling potential.
In my opinion, there are a few things the wrong with this gnoll; a) the little braids near the ear, need to go, this is, in a sense, a bipedal, humanoid hyena, so the ear hair, looks unnatural, b) they need to look dumb, but not like Quasimodo, the hunchback thing is weird and awkward, it needs to look hyena like, so have their back straighter, but give them sloping shoulders, c) their knees do not ALWAYS have to be bent, they are humanoids, so give them something that says 'feral' without...
View full commentIn my opinion, there are a few things the wrong with this gnoll; a) the little braids near the ear, need to go, this is, in a sense, a bipedal, humanoid hyena, so the ear hair, looks unnatural, b) they need to look dumb, but not like Quasimodo, the hunchback thing is weird and awkward, it needs to look hyena like, so have their back straighter, but give them sloping shoulders, c) their knees do not ALWAYS have to be bent, they are humanoids, so give them something that says 'feral' without saying 'unevolved' or 'underdeveloped', d) they need to be muscular, but not so bulky, they're hunters, not lumbering oafs, so their necks do not have to bee 4 feet in circumference, and lastly, e) their faces need to be a tad more humanoid, they should be distinctly hyena like, but not so much it looks like someone cut out a hyena head and stuck it on a body.
View full comment
I feel like just lifting the 3e ones is a waste of potential for something better. For example, how often is the berserker rage of clay and flesh golems really relevant to gameplay? It's only really there to be an obstruction for PCs that...
View full comment