mrfish

Really like your maps, and thanks for the reply. Think I might steal some of the ideas here, but I´m thinking that I might place the entrance in the bottom of a sinkhole or something like that, would like to have it a bit more sealed off. Something like the devils sinkhole in Texas. Perhaps also making it a holy place for the local indigenous people, the woods surrounded with blair witch/true detective wooden trinkets to ward off the "evil spirits" below and perhaps the sinkhole being filled with items and cadavers, tossed down as sacrifice to soothe the spirits. Looking forward to seeing further updates from this and other projects!

The advantage/disadvantage rules wound up being my favourite part of 5E. I like how it solves so many of the cumbersome rules discussions that tended to plague 3.5 and pathfinder (I´ve never played 4th btw). I also like how it is a tool I can use to give small temporary benefits or penalties on the fly. I also think it solves some of the balance issue from previous editions, though they are still present, and combat is much faster and more streamlined. I dislike feats, and have done so since 3.0. I think, as a tool used to creature fun and interesting PC´s, feats are worse in 5E then later editions. If you solely used feats to optimise then 5E handles them better. I really dislike the short rests as it severely interferes with my GM´ing style. If I´m going to use 5E in the future I´ll have to make a house rule that makes its easier to gain the benefits. Most of the classes are/seem fun to play. The warlock tend to suffer from not getting short rests, its still a good class, but it gets boring when you only get to use one spell each and every time. I feel that the warlock is the only class that suffers from poor design, but thats maybe because I´m seeing more as a caster than as an alternative ranged warrior. The warrior classes still doesn’t bring much, and they tend to get boring in the long run, perhaps with the exception of the battle master. And I don’t like the new wizard, without any metamagic, I prefer the sorcerer class. There are some other major problems with the classes, like the beast master being horrible and the moon druid being too powerful (especially at early levels), but like I said the balance issues are nothing compared to 3.5/PF. I like it as a d&d edition, perhaps the best one yet, maybe besides E6 versions of 3.5/PF. But as a GM I dislike it, it encourages optimization and gets slow and boring on higher levels, and the numerous sources of magic leaves me with fewer options to challenge my party. As a player I´m an optimizer when it comes to d&d, and would rather have the toolbox that 3.5/PF gives me to create fun and powerful characters. I´ve never played an MMO (besides dark ages of camelot, once or twice), so I can't say whether it solves any problems associated with that

I really like the "noahs ark" dungeon idea. But a couple of questions: You say you plan for a settlement to be built close to the entrance, what kind of revenue are you planing on the characters excavating from the dungeon, did the builders (mentalists) store ancient artefacts, precious metals etc there, or are they simply going into the dungeon to kill off potential threats? If a settlement were to be established close to the entrance, wouldn't there be a constant possibility of getting attacked by creatures from the dungeon. And whats making the creatures stay in the dungeon after its been opened or discovered, wouldn't they simply wander off? How much time are you planning on having passed since the creatures woke from their "stasis", have the creatures had time to hunt each other down, time to breed and multiply (or are there only two of each, still), if they have bred, have inbreeding caused any effects? Could the builders perhaps have sealed themselves down here, entering the same stasis and hoping to wake up when the world above is extinct, could such a process perhaps have driven them mad, turning into "lich" type creatures?

Thanks again for the replies! I´m currently reading up on the rules for MW, ES and the d100 basic book. AS is on the list, but I´ll hopefully get around to it soon. Since I´m not too familiar with d100 yet, would it make a huge difference if I were to go with a single sorcery skill or a separate skill for each and every spell? I like the idea of a separate skill better, perhaps focusing on certain types of magic, but being somewhat useless when it comes to other spells, having a few signature spells that are almost always cast successfully, but still having a chance for failure most of the time. But not sure how that plays out in the long run. I´m especially concerned about the "mage" stretching his skill points too thinly if they are all separate. When it comes to advancement, am I right when I think that it is not too hard to get a skill to a decent level, but it can be difficult to raise it when your getting close to 100% and above? With simply one skill, would it perhaps defeat the purpose of having a skill because its too easy to get it to 100%, or at least very close to 100% (I´m guessing this is the same as with weapons etc. but I have an idea of spells always being more uncertain and difficult to master).

I´ll be reading through ES first, but AS is on the list as well, thanks! But a couple of questions about Arete, how powerful is it compared to say folk magic from RQ6? And, since its based on achieving a certain level of skill, could it perhaps represent the mystical skill of a medieval smith?

Thanks for the replies! The campaign is going to low magic, getting inspiration from western and central Europe around 11-1200, and perhaps harnmaster (which fits at least my definition of low magic). I´m thinking of letting the campaign at least start as a semi-histroical introduction into manorialism, and perhaps also introducing different PoV, a bit similar to Ars Magica, if I remember that system correctly, but with serfs and lords. Such campaigns tend to get a bit too complex though, so I´m not decided upon that yet. I´ve been thinking of using d20 variants that fit low magic settings better than standard 3.5 and Pathfinder, like adopting the magic system from true sorcery to GoT d20, or simply ruinnig black company d20, but I´d really like to move away from d20. At the same time I don't want to overwhelm the players with too complex rules, my experience is that there are few players less willing to experiment with new systems than long time d20 players I´ll check out classic, but its seems like its a bit to close to d20. Enlightened Sorcery seems interesting, its the sort of magic I´d like to introduce into a low magic setting. I really like your quick fix tooley, have to check up on some of the other BRP magic systems first, and if I don't find anything that suits me, I might run with that. Am I right in thinking that Advanced Sorcery uses rules similar to Magic World, not being skill based etc? I´m really liking how modular BRP seems to be btw, and really looking forward to getting back to playing d100 systems that aren't CoC. Haven't done that since Elric Dark Fantasy RPG from chaosium, which must be 17-18 years ago.

I´m in the very early planing stages of my first d100 campaign, and I´ve settled on Magic World to be the base for the rules. I like that it seems like one of the more simple variants but has enough depth to keep long time d20 players interested. What I found I didn't really like was the magic system, therefore I was wondering how easy it would be to import one of the systems from RQ6, and whether there are anything I should watch out for if doing so. I´d like a system that is skill based in combination with magic points, so if theres any other system out there that might fit, especially if its simpler, then let me know.