mNo edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Should the number of gems a Gemcaster receives really be random, especially when you're using numbers like 1d2? The chances of you not having enough gems to attune to every spell you know are actually pretty low anyway. It seems like an unnecessary clutter of numbers to me. - [[User:Viatos|Viatos]] 19:44, April 19, 2010 (UTC) |
Should the number of gems a Gemcaster receives really be random, especially when you're using numbers like 1d2? The chances of you not having enough gems to attune to every spell you know are actually pretty low anyway. It seems like an unnecessary clutter of numbers to me. - [[User:Viatos|Viatos]] 19:44, April 19, 2010 (UTC) |
||
| − | I did a bit of editing and decided to only make the starting number random. All other gems have to be purchased or found. I'm also thinking of adding a value system for gems that have stored spells. [[User:Synthii|Synthii]] 4:29, April 29, 2010 |
+ | I did a bit of editing and decided to only make the starting number random. All other gems have to be purchased or found. I'm also thinking of adding a value system for gems that have stored spells. [[User:Synthii|Synthii]] 09:23, April 29, 2010 (UTC)[[User:Synthii|Synthii]] 4:29, April 29, 2010 |
Revision as of 09:23, 29 April 2010
Should the number of gems a Gemcaster receives really be random, especially when you're using numbers like 1d2? The chances of you not having enough gems to attune to every spell you know are actually pretty low anyway. It seems like an unnecessary clutter of numbers to me. - Viatos 19:44, April 19, 2010 (UTC) I did a bit of editing and decided to only make the starting number random. All other gems have to be purchased or found. I'm also thinking of adding a value system for gems that have stored spells. Synthii 09:23, April 29, 2010 (UTC)Synthii 4:29, April 29, 2010