Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Charles Phipps 09-06-05, 02:52 PM	It was just occurring to me that a large portion of people's questions on this game are based around their inability to seperate the standard "D&D tropes" from the game. There was a lot of problem with Oriental Adventures and the idea of not collecting the loot off dead bodies. Eberron seems to challenge people's sense of what D&D is from the start. * No racial alignments * 13th level is "High" * Stories are PC rather than NPC based * Good is not necessarily "right" * Level matters little in politics And so on.... What do people think of this?
Euangelion 09-06-05, 03:13 PM	Actually, I think the biggest issue isn't confusing that Eberron is different from traditional D&D, but confusing on how Eberron is different from traditional D&D. As an illustration, take your point of "No racial alignments." There's a lot of people who post on these boards who probably agree with that statement, but I challenge you to provide an actual quote from an official Eberron source that states that. (And let me save you a little time by pointing out that "blurring" of racial alignments does not mean "no racial alignments!") Yes, alignment is handled differently in Eberron, but how is it handled? That's the real question, and the real source of confusion.
CzarGarrett 09-06-05, 03:15 PM	What do people think of this? I think its good. It makes for diffrent actions/thought patterns, giving a significant enough change from your standard D&D, but still close enough to home to not really be different.
Dhakaani Heir 09-06-05, 03:30 PM	It was just occurring to me that a large portion of people's questions on this game are based around their inability to seperate the standard "D&D tropes" from the game. There was a lot of problem with Oriental Adventures and the idea of not collecting the loot off dead bodies. Eberron seems to challenge people's sense of what D&D is from the start. * No racial alignments * 13th level is "High" * Stories are PC rather than NPC based * Good is not necessarily "right" * Level matters little in politics And so on.... What do people think of this? Don't forget the other big difference *No definitive proof of Gods Which I love! No more gods stomping around telling people how to interpret holy texts or handing out quests. Religion becomes a matter of faith not like in other settings as Terry Pratchett said "Like believing in the postman". Finally no need to be lightning proof to be an Atheist
Zalaz Mavi 09-06-05, 05:54 PM	Myself and a good friend, who also runs an Eberron campaign, had a discussion just yesterday about whether D&D was actually an appropriate system for Eberron. The argument was that D&D (and by extension Greyhawk and FR) draws almost exclusively from the fantasy genre. Eberron on the other hand, by our interpretation, draws elements from numerous decidedly non-fantasy genres and translates those elements into fantasy equivalents. As such, Eberron has a more contemporary basis than D&D which has more preteritive roots. In that light, D&D is a poor match to Eberron as the sensibilities are incompatible. With a totally new system out of the question; and Eberron's soul mate, the Star Wars RPG, off limits due to licensing concerns; that left d20 Modern — a game with a contemporary setting married to fantasy elements. Strip out the guns, cars and so forth that are nonexistant in Eberron, leaving a system that hits close to the mark of addressing Eberron's high points...
Salla 09-06-05, 06:15 PM	Myself and a good friend, who also runs an Eberron campaign, had a discussion just yesterday about whether D&D was actually an appropriate system for Eberron. The argument was that D&D (and by extension Greyhawk and FR) draws almost exclusively from the fantasy genre. Eberron on the other hand, by our interpretation, draws elements from numerous decidedly non-fantasy genres and translates those elements into fantasy equivalents. As such, Eberron has a more contemporary basis than D&D which has more preteritive roots. In that light, D&D is a poor match to Eberron as the sensibilities are incompatible. With a totally new system out of the question; and Eberron's soul mate, the Star Wars RPG, off limits due to licensing concerns; that left d20 Modern — a game with a contemporary setting married to fantasy elements. Strip out the guns, cars and so forth that are nonexistant in Eberron, leaving a system that hits close to the mark of addressing Eberron's high points... Eberron is still fantasy; it's just not Tolkien warmed over and repackaged. Everything still runs on magic, you still have ancient empires with artifacts, divine power, races, demons, fiends, all that good stuff. It's not TRADITIONAL fantasy by any stretch of the imagination, which is a good thing, but it remains fantasy. It merely takes the existance of magic into account in sociological development, rather than having the odd situation that I've seen in some games, where magic is a force that is proven to exist and operates reliably, and yet somehow people still don't believe in it. :rolleyes:
Tek 09-06-05, 06:17 PM	D20 modern is just D&D 3e with a few changes. Its barely any different. And I think that Eberron IS the perfect fantasy setting, and just because it has airships and the lightning rail doesn't make it non-D&D compatible. I don't really see how you could think d20 modern works better then D&D, since when it comes to the bare bones of the system, they're the same. I can see how people would get confused at how Eberron is so different then FR or Grayhawk, and although the Eberron Campaign setting does a great job of explaining how on a certain level, I think just the expierence and the time spent playing Eberron is the only way you can find that out. People who practically live on these forums, have read every answer to the AKB thread, etc. I think we've got a better grip on HOW Eberron is different, much better then someone who comes in and has read the ECS from front to back.
Zalaz Mavi 09-06-05, 08:18 PM	I don't really see how you could think d20 modern works better then D&D, since when it comes to the bare bones of the system, they're the same. Modern is light years beyond D&D in one major respect — the class system. D&D's class system is based on the premise that there is only a single way to play a character with a warrior bent; only a single way to play shifty characters; etc. While those archetypes work fine as tropes in a typical fantasy setting, Eberron with it's contemporary leanings offers numerous other possibilities for PC concepts that are impossible to achieve under the D&D class system. I can think of hundreds of modern literary "rogues" who are never once called upon to disarm a trap. However, according to D&D, the only thing a rogue should know how to do is disarm traps. As I said in my earlier post, Eberron is closer to our modern world translated into fantasy terms, than a straight fantasy world. Accordingly, one designs a character differently for a "present day" RPG than for an RPG with a preteritive setting. Which is why we think Modern is a better fit to Eberron than D&D. Mechanically in most respects, yes, there is little difference. But in the character creation process, D&D is blatantly inadequate for generating the types of heroes that would inhabit a world like Eberron...
Lady Morn 09-06-05, 08:28 PM	Modern is light years beyond D&D in one major respect — the class system. You forgot the most important reason: you only need one book to play d20 Modern, not a zillion like you do with D&D! :D
Marshall Stone 09-07-05, 12:41 AM	Don't forget the other big difference *No definitive proof of Gods Which I love! No more gods stomping around telling people how to interpret holy texts or handing out quests. Religion becomes a matter of faith not like in other settings as Terry Pratchett said "Like believing in the postman". Finally no need to be lightning proof to be an Atheist Don't say that to a cleric. "Dol Arah obviously exists, whom do you think just cured you of that mummy rot disease. It was my god granting me the power necessary to do so, that's who!" From a meta-game point of view yeah each DM will have to decide on the status of the various Deities in thier Eberron. But as far as NPC's go, I have no doubt that they belive thier god exists and will offer up the spells clerics cast, the turning of undead, and any other "clerical" abilities as proof. And while one could counter that it was ones faith in the deity, not necessarily the deity himself, that enabled the casting of the spell, to the devout and even the not-so-devout that would probably seem a bit far fetched. I know for my Eberron, I never run an NPC cleric as someone who has any doubt his deity exists. Which is a good thing, since in my Eberron the various deities do exist and it would be a bad idea to anger one. If such a thing were possible requiring some truly extradorinary effort on the players or Npc's part.
polt 09-07-05, 01:40 AM	It actually says in the ECS that the racial alignment stuff has changed, I think it uses Dragons as example. BUT, remember that outsiders still mostly have the alignment they have in MM.
Charles Phipps 09-07-05, 02:22 AM	My opinion is that the racial alignments are still largely true in Eberron but instead they're cultural traits instead of genetic ones. They're also far less universal than more. As human beings are neutral, good, and evil, so do all races have the same level of variance. Red Dragons might be taught to be greedy, arrogant, wrathful, and psychotic but they're able to change if they are so inclined to be different.
Straylight 09-07-05, 04:45 AM	My opinion is that the racial alignments are still largely true in Eberron but instead they're cultural traits instead of genetic ones. They're also far less universal than more. As human beings are neutral, good, and evil, so do all races have the same level of variance. Red Dragons might be taught to be greedy, arrogant, wrathful, and psychotic but they're able to change if they are so inclined to be different. Exactly. This, however, is NOT the way alignment is treated in "vanilla" (Greyhawk) D&D. The "standard" interpretation, to use the Red Dragon example, is that they are not taught to be evil, they are born evil. They are creatures of evil, born of evil, and no amount of persuasion or philosophy will ever get a Red Dragon to change his alignment because that evil is in his very nature as a Red Dragon. Eberron didn't tell us to ignore monster alignements, it simply noted that, since humans can run that gamut from Fanatical Good to Chaotic Stupid, why can't the same be true for everything else? Eberron, speaking of alignments, didn't tell us "why." It asked us "why not?"
hiryuu 09-07-05, 05:03 AM	Don't say that to a cleric. "Dol Arah obviously exists, whom do you think just cured you of that mummy rot disease. It was my god granting me the power necessary to do so, that's who!" From a meta-game point of view yeah each DM will have to decide on the status of the various Deities in thier Eberron. But as far as NPC's go, I have no doubt that they belive thier god exists and will offer up the spells clerics cast, the turning of undead, and any other "clerical" abilities as proof. And while one could counter that it was ones faith in the deity, not necessarily the deity himself, that enabled the casting of the spell, to the devout and even the not-so-devout that would probably seem a bit far fetched. I know for my Eberron, I never run an NPC cleric as someone who has any doubt his deity exists. Which is a good thing, since in my Eberron the various deities do exist and it would be a bad idea to anger one. If such a thing were possible requiring some truly extradorinary effort on the players or Npc's part. You're forgetting philosophy clerics, which can exist: "But what about Bill, down the street? He says gods don't exist and he can do the same stuff you can, Mr. worshipper, but Bill uses lots of mathematics and says that all before us is an illusion!" And if a deity exists, why would it allow its followers to become corrupt, which can (and does!) happen in Eberron?
The White Sorcerer 09-07-05, 05:14 AM	*No definitive proof of Gods Yup. Then there's one thing many posters seem to forget: *No definite proof of the absence of gods. Too often one sees statements like "In Eberron, there are no gods" on these boards, confusing the newcomers.
Dhakaani Heir 09-07-05, 09:51 AM	Yup. Then there's one thing many posters seem to forget: *No definite proof of the absence of gods. Too often one sees statements like "In Eberron, there are no gods" on these boards, confusing the newcomers. Exactly in Eberron no-one knows for sure but Clerics believe in their gods, if they didn't then they couldn't perform miracles. Gods don't walk down the street but for the faithful a clerics powers are all that are needed. One thing I love about Eberron is the range of faith. Atheists (a first in a D&D world), Philosophers (including the Path of Light), Devout clerics of the sovereign host, Clerics of the Silver Flame who know their "god" is real because they've been to Flamekeep, Priests of Transition who want to become "Gods", Ancestor worshipers, Druids and more. Worshipers from all these faiths for the first time have faith not proof - and many may believe that there god is the only real god
Lady Morn 09-07-05, 10:19 AM	Accordingly, one designs a character differently for a "present day" RPG than for an RPG with a preteritive setting. I think it's broader and more basic than this. I know when I move from one game to another, whether from one system to another or one genre to another, my creative process changes. I don't approach scifi the same way as a western, or espionage the same way as wuxia. I think this pretty much describes the relationship between regular D&D and Eberron; in many ways, it isn't possible to approach Eberron the same way one would D&D because in many fundamental ways they aren't in the same category. I don't know if d20 Modern is the best system for Eberron though. True, it does handle magic in a modern-esque world fairly well, and the class system is a vast improvement over D&D's. d20 Modern just isn't a setting saturated by magic, and doesn't tackle "sword and sorcery" to any great extent. Star Wars is only slightly better because it and Eberron share the same spiritual grandparents. Again, it just isn't as "magic" pervasive as Eberron. I agree with you that D&D's class system isn't up to the task of handling many of the stock archetypes found in most non-fantasy pulp fiction. I think the solution is for Eberron to have an Unearthed Arcana style book that offers alternate class abilities and maybe more Eberron specific base classes to reflect the different tone and emphasis of Eberron. I know that the Noble class from SW works well to represent members of the Dragonmark houses and...duh!...nobles. Apart from that, D&D along with the mechanics proposed in the Eberron sourcebooks, does a fair job of capturing the action side of things.
polt 09-07-05, 10:27 AM	One thing I'd like, is to make it better to wear light armor and still don't be totally ripped apart in combat. I love moves. I love combat Pirates of the Carribian style, with people swinging from ropes. Balancing on stuff and basically high flying action and pulp. HOWEVER, I think that's pretty darn difficult to do when your party Paladin and Fighter is wearing Full Plate and are running around with a big shield.
Euangelion 09-07-05, 10:33 AM	Another possible caveat might be "No definitive proof of certain gods." Try telling a Church of the Silver Flame cleric or a Undying Court paladin (or perhaps even Blood of Vol and the Cults of Dragon Below!) that their deities don't exist, and they can drag your rear to Flamekeep or Aerenal and show you their god(s). And their god might even talk to you about it. As I said on an old thread somewhere else, Eberron adds the component of transcendant deities/religions (SH, D6, PoL) to D&D, but not all of its deities are transcedant, some are very, very imminent (SF and UC). As for alignment, basically the way I interpret it is that (except for outsiders which remain "always" and dragons which lose any alignment-to-color correlation) basically the alignment modifier (always, usually, often) is dropped down one step. But remember that even in standard D&D "always" doesn't necessarily mean "always without exception, forever and ever, amen." It just means that while there are exceptions, they are very rare, unique individuals. But even in Eberron, most vamps will still be evil, since it's still in their nature as they are powered by negative energy. It's just that you're more likely to find a vampire that has rejected its evil nature and turned to good in Eberron than in FR or Greyhawk. (But there are examples of fallen angels in Eberron in the Radiant Idols as well as standard D&D in the erinyes devils, so even with outsiders "always" still doesn't mean "always without exception, forever and ever, amen.") Edit: it also doesn't necessarily mean that in Eberron just because creature A and person B are "good" that they work together, and in Eberron it is very likely that neutral creature A, evil undead B and good person C might very well need to cooperate to stop a disaster from occuring. But that's just the way I look at things, that doesn't mean that my way is the definitive Eberron way. But I think its rather faithful to the tone of the setting, but I expect others to disagree, which is great!
realdm 09-07-05, 11:02 AM	Eberron is dnd for a more mature audience. It is a compromise between a roleplaying game with levels and treasures rewards and a storytelling one. however levels still counts a lot. the 8th level half elf bard, even with all the negative modifiers , can still convince the king of traders (4th level commoner) to do what he wants or to sell at half price. i guess that this cs made many more dms change the way they grant xps.. less rewards from fights (at least to not fighters) welcome skills rewards!!!
Mortok 09-07-05, 11:16 AM	You forgot the most important reason: you only need one book to play d20 Modern, not a zillion like you do with D&D! :D Yes that´s really the biggest problem D&D has. If you want to play a Goblin for instance you need to buy the Monster Manual and rhe Dungeon Masters Guide to calculate yout stats. Why not just give the stats for Goblins in the main book or even the Monster Manual. Or why not just include Psionics in a Main Book and so on.
TheRedRobedWizard 09-07-05, 11:30 AM	Or why not just include Psionics in a Main Book and so on. Because a lot of people hate psionics for some reason or another and they would complain because 100 pages of their new PHB were devoted to a thing that they "will never use". Eberron is wholly different from basic D&D in that respect, psionics are afforded some logical place to exist; but if you don't like Psionics, you can just kinda ignore the Kalashtar/Inspired thing. I personally can't wait for Magic of Incarnum, so I can introduce a "fifth" magic to Eberron (Arcane, Divine, Artifice, and Psionics being the other four). GLEE. -TRRW
The White Sorcerer 09-07-05, 12:46 PM	Personally, I try to concentrate on what Eberron has in common with generic D&D, not the differences.
polt 09-07-05, 12:50 PM	Personally, I try to concentrate on what Eberron has in common with generic D&D, not the differences. Really? Why?
The White Sorcerer 09-07-05, 01:14 PM	Really? Why? Because it is, when you get down to it, still D&D. I use Eberron as a backdrop for D&D campaigns. Epic quests, goblin infestations, that kind of stuff. It's just that in Eberron, those things make more sense. Eberron might not be like Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk, but it's still like D&D. Eberron is great because I can run the kind of campaigns I like in the setting. Epic and mysterious. And no matter what people say, Eberron is a high-fantasy, high-magic, setting. Just like Generic D&D.
PoeticJustice 09-07-05, 01:24 PM	Am I the only one who stopped thinking about D&D in non-Eberron terms? I mean, I'll never run low-magic again. I'll never have Epic NPCs, and probably never run an Epic game. Random enouncters are a thing of the past, and my adventure brainstorming usually begins with thinking about a set piece and building around that. Alignment will never again be wholly cut-and-dried, because the concept of an 'evil' race like Orcs or goblins is absurd. Has anyone else given up on conventional fantasy and is thinking along these terms, or is it just me?
UnkemptSage 09-07-05, 01:50 PM	Eberron is very much DnD. As far as alignment goes, I find that Eberron's rules are actually more restrictive than my own homebrew, as in Eberron outsiders' alignments are considered to always be the same. My own homebrew world had a major focus on the concept that alignment could really be screwed up. There were times when my players had to fight undead pirates lead by evil hound archons! Modern is light years beyond D&D in one major respect — the class system. D&D's class system is based on the premise that there is only a single way to play a character with a warrior bent; only a single way to play shifty characters; etc. While those archetypes work fine as tropes in a typical fantasy setting, Eberron with it's contemporary leanings offers numerous other possibilities for PC concepts that are impossible to achieve under the D&D class system. I can think of hundreds of modern literary "rogues" who are never once called upon to disarm a trap. However, according to D&D, the only thing a rogue should know how to do is disarm traps. This is a common misconception, often made by players with little imagination. Look at the skill list of the rogue. Does it anywhere suggest that a rogue must invest skill points in Search? Does it say anywhere that a rogue has to take ranks in Disable Device? I've played rogues before that didn't have a single rank in either of these skills, and did just fine. In fact, in Eberron, you could play a rogue with the Education feat and be a professor from Morgrave University. It just takes a little imagination to adapt the character classes to a different character concept, and a lack of imagination on your part does not constitute a change of rules on my part.
polt 09-07-05, 01:55 PM	Because it is, when you get down to it, still D&D. I use Eberron as a backdrop for D&D campaigns. Epic quests, goblin infestations, that kind of stuff. It's just that in Eberron, those things make more sense. Eberron might not be like Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk, but it's still like D&D. Perhaps, but still, I've never used as many houserules as I'm using now in my Eberron campaign. I've changed a lot, and my players are really the only reason I'm not changing the system.
Majorafire77 09-07-05, 02:00 PM	Yes that´s really the biggest problem D&D has. If you want to play a Goblin for instance you need to buy the Monster Manual and rhe Dungeon Masters Guide to calculate yout stats. Why not just give the stats for Goblins in the main book or even the Monster Manual. Or why not just include Psionics in a Main Book and so on. Goblins are not suitable for a PC to play in almost any setting but Eberron, in case you haven't noticed. Same with other races that may seem like they should be PC races in Eberron (hobgoblin, bugbear, lizardfolk, and others). You don't need the DMG to calculate the goblin's stats for a PC anyway. It's right there in the monster manual 3.5 and the SRD... Looks like you're still stuck with a 3.0 manual. Don't put psionics in the PHB, put "core rulebook four" on the cover. That way, WotC can make as much psionics content as much as they make magic content and give the middle finger to anyone who whines about it. Plus, there's too much info in the XPH to dump into the PHB.
Rolapin 09-07-05, 02:59 PM	Am I the only one who stopped thinking about D&D in non-Eberron terms? I mean, I'll never run low-magic again. I'll never have Epic NPCs, and probably never run an Epic game. Random enouncters are a thing of the past, and my adventure brainstorming usually begins with thinking about a set piece and building around that. Alignment will never again be wholly cut-and-dried, because the concept of an 'evil' race like Orcs or goblins is absurd. Has anyone else given up on conventional fantasy and is thinking along these terms, or is it just me? Carrots everyone ! I'm a french GM of Eberron and would like to say I'm pleased to hear people change their way of gamemastering with Eberron :) We don't have the same D&D culture in France as you have in the USA and I only came to D&D3.5 because of Eberron. The setting brought much appeal to my senses and I was excited to see such a "sexy" setting in the hand of Wizards of the Coast. There was a hope for this company ;) Now, the D&D setting seems a bit heavy to run Eberron and I plan to use the True20 game system from Green Ronin Publishing for my next game in Khorvaire (in fact a french translation of the game system called 20Naturel). In France, Eberron seems to have appeal for many gamers disappointed by D&D in general but who want to get a fresh adventure & intrigue feeling. We are still a bit disappointed by the quality of the adventures published for Eberron (apart from the ones by Keith Baker) but a french magazine called Casus Belli has already published two adventures for Eberron which are quite good. Well, thanks for reading me. I hope that my spelling mistakes don't make the whole too difficult to read. Play Eberron !
Zalaz Mavi 09-07-05, 03:18 PM	It just takes a little imagination to adapt the character classes to a different character concept... Imagination isn't the problem (and I'll forgive you for speaking out of ignorance). The D&D classes are narrowly defined and inflexible in every respect. I often use the term "overspecialized." As such, it's often the case when trying to apply a particular concept to a particular class, that the concept either has to be abandoned or dumbed-down to work within the confines of the class. That's really the heart of my objection — the D&D class system does more to inhibit creativity than it does to promote it. And frankly, that's a major reason why I don't play Eberron using D&D mechanics. I'm a creative person and I surround myself with other creative people. When it comes to gaming, I'm very passionate toward the idea that a game should foster creativity. In my opinion, D&D goes a long way toward doing the exact opposite. So I will never have anything nice to say about D&D until it shows me otherwise...
Serpentine 09-07-05, 03:56 PM	Am I the only one who stopped thinking about D&D in non-Eberron terms? I mean, I'll never run low-magic again. I'll never have Epic NPCs, and probably never run an Epic game. Random enouncters are a thing of the past, and my adventure brainstorming usually begins with thinking about a set piece and building around that. Alignment will never again be wholly cut-and-dried, because the concept of an 'evil' race like Orcs or goblins is absurd. Has anyone else given up on conventional fantasy and is thinking along these terms, or is it just me? I think for me it is less that I've stopped thinking about D&D in non-Eberron terms that D&D finally fits with my concept of roleplaying. Random encounters are useless if not detrimental to games that revolve around a tightly-plotted story, particularly a mystery or clue-based structure; statistics are not needed for most NPCs at all. Before Eberron, I liked to have ambiguous morality choices; bad orcs were the orc tribes attempting to kill the heros but there were good orcs who could be integrated into society. I bought the Epic Level HB and I've never actually used it; none of my FR stuff (and I have a lot of it) has been opened since I started with Eberron. But I have used D20 Modern. D20 Modern is similar to Eberron because it's a low-level setting, where PCs can shine regardless of level and NPCs are also low-level as a rule. None of the Modern classes are as powerful as D&D classes, but they're more flexible and they allow earlier entry into Prestige-type Classes. D20 Modern has a sensibility that blurs alignment and easy moral choices, featuring normal NPCs off the street who are noncombatants, experts, old women and children. The mayor is not a superhero, just a guy with an above-average charisma and some good contacts and the backing of powerful lobbies. However, magic is integrated into Eberron from top to bottom, but for D20 Modern magic and psionics are modules that can be tacked on.
makeshiftwings 09-07-05, 04:13 PM	Imagination isn't the problem (and I'll forgive you for speaking out of ignorance). The D&D classes are narrowly defined and inflexible in every respect. I often use the term "overspecialized." As such, it's often the case when trying to apply a particular concept to a particular class, that the concept either has to be abandoned or dumbed-down to work within the confines of the class. That's really the heart of my objection — the D&D class system does more to inhibit creativity than it does to promote it. And frankly, that's a major reason why I don't play Eberron using D&D mechanics. I'm a creative person and I surround myself with other creative people. When it comes to gaming, I'm very passionate toward the idea that a game should foster creativity. In my opinion, D&D goes a long way toward doing the exact opposite. So I will never have anything nice to say about D&D until it shows me otherwise... That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. If you honestly base your personal worth and creativity on your preference of skills-based RPG character stats over class-based RPG characters stats, you are a sad, sad person. If you want to say you prefer the super-artistic d20 modern classes of 'Smart Hero' and 'Strong Hero' :rolleyes: then that's fine, but don't go off thinking that it somehow makes you into some kind of brilliant author. If you can't figure out how to make a wrestler using the Fighter class or a spy using the Rogue class, it's your creativity that's at fault.
Zalaz Mavi 09-07-05, 04:26 PM	That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. If you honestly base your personal worth and creativity on your preference of skills-based RPG character stats over class-based RPG characters stats, you are a sad, sad person. If you want to say you prefer the super-artistic d20 modern classes of 'Smart Hero' and 'Strong Hero' :rolleyes: then that's fine, but don't go off thinking that it somehow makes you into some kind of brilliant author. If you can't figure out how to make a wrestler using the Fighter class or a spy using the Rogue class, it's your creativity that's at fault. I never said anything of the kind. I simply stated that D&D classes aren't conducive to concepts outside of a rigidly defined range. Which is a flaw in the game's design and not with my conceptual ability...
Lady Morn 09-07-05, 05:17 PM	If you can't figure out how to make a wrestler using the Fighter class or a spy using the Rogue class, it's your creativity that's at fault. You're misunderstanding what Zalaz is saying (and what's with the personal attacks?). The classes in D&D are designed to encompass the usual stock characters found in various fantasy works. Your examples of a wrestler and a spy fall within that purview. What Zalaz is talking about is that Eberron goes a step further and incorporates numerous elements from genres outside of fantasy, and places them in a fantasy context. So, when he wants to design a character that is unconventional or not typical to a fantasy world, the D&D class system is unable to accomodate his idea without significant house rules and redesign. I know several people who have struggled with this, and calling them "stupid" and Philistine is far from the truth. It is simply that D&D was not designed with those type characters in mind and therefore doesn't address the situation of bringing atypical character concepts into the game. For him the solution to this problem is to have a flexible class system that is unique to the Eberron game; a class system that addresses the fact that Eberron isn't a standard fantasy world and requires a larger degree of versatility when it comes to character generation than does the typical D&D game.
makeshiftwings 09-07-05, 06:19 PM	Sorry about the personal attacks; the post just came off sounding very elitist. I see now it was more a response to UnkemptSage's personal attack, and well... ah, come on everybody, let's just hug. :)
Just another user 09-07-05, 06:34 PM	You're forgetting philosophy clerics, which can exist: Or artificers, that can cure mummy rot (or raise dead) without involve any god or philosopy, they just put together their gizmos and POW! healed. One the things I prefer in Eberron is that you can play both a strongly convinced ateist and a fervent believer of a god and nobody could tell which one is right or wrong except (maybe) the GM. Try to do the same in the Realms. :D
Just another user 09-07-05, 06:52 PM	This is a common misconception, often made by players with little imagination. Look at the skill list of the rogue. Does it anywhere suggest that a rogue must invest skill points in Search? Does it say anywhere that a rogue has to take ranks in Disable Device? I've played rogues before that didn't have a single rank in either of these skills, and did just fine. In fact, in Eberron, you could play a rogue with the Education feat and be a professor from Morgrave University. The problem is to justify a professor with sneak attack. :) Zalaz have a little exagerated, but is true that the D20 moderrn class is system is much more flexible than D&D's. Expecially because is rarer to find the "my character is a fighter/a rogue/ a wizard (etc) of XX level. In Modern happen more often than "my character is a cop/a bouncer in a night club/ a doctor/ an hacker, i.e you focus more on what your character is/does more than of which classes he have and IMO that is a good thing.
makeshiftwings 09-07-05, 07:11 PM	The problem is to justify a professor with sneak attack. :) Zalaz have a little exagerated, but is true that the D20 moderrn class is system is much more flexible than D&D's. Expecially because is rarer to find the "my character is a fighter/a rogue/ a wizard (etc) of XX level. In Modern happen more often than "my character is a cop/a bouncer in a night club/ a doctor/ an hacker, i.e you focus more on what your character is/does more than of which classes he have and IMO that is a good thing. Still, in d20 modern, the 6th level professor's going to be better at combat than the 3rd level kung fu master. He can also take like 4 bullets without losing a step. I agree that having extremely bland classes like d20 Modern does "force" you to place more emphasis on your character's background, but i think you can do just the same with the d&d classes. Being a level 4 rogue doesn't mean you can't also be a cop, bouncer, doctor, or hacker... you just happen to be one that can also sneak attack.
Siran Dunmorgan 09-07-05, 08:25 PM	I'm sorry; did this thread really turn into something about adapting Eberron to other game systems? If so, you have got to be kidding! Eberron was developed hand-in-glove with the 3.5 rules; there has not been a closer alliance of rules and setting since the 'white box' days of Greyhawk. The very purpose of Eberron was—and is—to provide a foundation for marketing Dungeons & Dragons into the forseeable future. The setting and its authors take every aspect of the core Dungeons & Dragons rules into account and says "how can we use this?" Sometimes, the answer is "we turn it on its head." Sometimes the answer is "just like it is." The major exception to the core rules—the relaxation of alignment restrictions in certain circumstances—is relatively trivial. All it means is that a party won't know how a given intelligent creature will react to a given situation, and that clerics aren't restricted to acting within one 'step' of their deity's alignment. This represents a minimal mechanical change, having far more impact on rôle-playing than on the game balance of the cleric class per se. But for the most part, the setting is tuned perfectly to the 3.5 core rules; the societies depicted in the setting are still built along the same lines as every other society depicted in a Dungeons & Dragons setting, with the four classes of society[2] known from early renaissance times: men who fight, men who work, men who pray, and men who trade,[3] reflected in the ancient rules as fighters, magic-users, clerics, and thieves. Today we have a much more complex society, but it still revolves around these societal rôles; we still have fighter-like (barbarian, fighter, paladin, ranger) classes, magic-user-like (artificer, bard, sorceror, wizard) classes, cleric-like (cleric, druid), and thief-like (rogue)[4] classes. The key point is that the societies described in Eberron live by these same standards: taking away the rules that underlie these assumptions is effectively gutting the setting itself, since the setting was built from the rules, and not vice-versa. —Siran Dunmorgan [1] The Church of the Silver Flame does not have a monopoly on corruption. [2] Not classes in the d20 sense of 'class'. [3] The actual medieval aphorism excluded traders and the 'middle class'. This revision is reflective of Joseph Cambell's analysis of the imagery of the Marseilles Tarot deck, and the early Renaissance understanding of society. [4] In the old days, bards were much more like thieves—in fact, in the original Advanced Dungeons & Dragons rules, 'bard' was something like a prestige class for thieves.
Roxlimn 09-07-05, 08:54 PM	A person who thinks that one cannot build a character who's a Professor without also having Sneak Attack using the Core Rules is simply showing his limited grasp of the rules system. In 3e, it's perfectly doable. You take as many levels of Expert as you think is appropriate and that's that. It's not a big issue to use Expert for PCs. It's one of the classes (together with Aristocrat) that's considered close enough to PC class power not to require tweaking at all. For concepts that do require tweaking, the DMG provides DMs with a rough guideline on how to exchange abilities and customize classes to fill in what he would think is an important niche in the game. I challenge anyone to come up with an Eberron character concept that can't be portrayed by judicious multiclassing and class tweaking. As for "going against the grain," I happen to think that for the most part, Eberron is truer to the D&D rules than most other settings, and in a more integrated fashion. In Faerun, you have to wonder why people using dye are still making a living when many gnomes can do better with prestidigitation. In Eberron, the best dyers anywhere do use that kind of magic themselves. What about other "issues?" No racial alignments Not really a big problem. I like to think that more people had problems with static alignments than they did with flexible alignments. 13th level is "High" 13th level is high. You can see adventures labelled "high level" coming off from just under 14th level or so. By the time PCs are 13th level, they can rearrange topography and travel hundreds of miles in the blink of an eye. Large numbers of NPCs with levels of this sort, taken to logical conclusion, would make the game world into more of Dragonball Z than Eberron. Complete with itemized capsules of various magical vehicles. Stories are PC rather than NPC based Stories have always been PC based. In Eberron, though, it's less possible for the DM to mess up and have sock puppets talking to each other across entire sessions. Eberron focuses the camera squarely on the PCs. The focus may be sharper, but it never really left there to begin with, and that's true even for good Faerun games. Good is not necessarily "right" Good never was necessarily "right." Look at the Theocracy of the Pale. They're Good. That doesn't mean that everyone in GH is aching to be part of their nation. Same for the Kingpriest of Ishtar. The difference in Eberron is that we can now properly give Evil Clerics the right alignment and we don't suffer continuity problems with how an Evil Cleric can exist in an otherwise Good institution. For example, oppressing Evil peoples because they're Evil isn't a Good Act. That's just as Evil as oppressing Good (or really, any alignment) people. What would be Good would be to defend yourselves in a strict non-offensive manner and use mercy, compassion, and a Good example to turn Evil people Good. Likewise, forcing conversion or the Sword isn't a particularly Good act, either, but you have such alignment disconnects in other settings (like Dragonlance) because the religious system simply wasn't flexible enough to portray this important RL paradigm. Realistically speaking, a Cleric who did such a despicable act should rightly call down the wrath of Paladine on himself, or at least cease to receive support in the form of spells. His alignment should undoubtedly change, if he does this on a regular basis. In Eberron, this is completely possible. There are fanatical crusaders who murder and commit atrocities in the name of the Silver Flame because they can be corrupt and still not lose power. Level matters little in politics Level never mattered much in politics. Even in 2e, you can have a low level Prince surrounded by many bodyguards and advisors. Certainly, this was true in Llewellyn, one of the settings for an official Con adventure in 2e. Many political leaders in Ravenloft were similarly low level. I seem to recall a certain canny vampire hunter whose level was ridiculously low for the exploits he was supposed to have done. Likewise the Sultan leading the Lancers in Deserts of Desolation wasn't a high leveled character. Even in Gygax's 1e Greyhawk, the necessity to become high level to gather followers was a restriction only for PCs to overcome. Low level political figures were by no means impossible or improbable.
Euangelion 09-07-05, 09:03 PM	The problem is to justify a professor with sneak attack. :) Clearly you haven't had some of the professors that I have during my 8 years of higher education!
Ricohard_Draconis 09-07-05, 09:20 PM	Exotic weapon profficency: Chalk eraser.
UnkemptSage 09-07-05, 11:57 PM	I challenge anyone to come up with an Eberron character concept that can't be portrayed by judicious multiclassing and class tweaking. I would like to see what people come up with for this challenge, as I was thinking of making the same offer as I was reading through the posts. Also, I'd like to state in my defense that I wasn't intending to make an attack on Zalaz Mavi, but I admit that my post did seem a bit offensive. I apologize, and I would like to get a good discussion going as to why I disagree with you. The problem is to justify a professor with sneak attack. I can pretty easily justify sneak attack, actually. Everyone is familiar with Professor Henry Jones Jr., better known as Indiana Jones. He was pretty effective with a sucker punch. I'd qualify that as a sneak attack easy.
Zalaz Mavi 09-08-05, 10:13 AM	...I would like to get a good discussion going as to why I disagree with you. To be honest, I don't have much more to say on the topic of the D&D class system. I think Lady Morn was spot on with her idea that D&D wasn't designed with non-fantasy concepts in mind. Any effort to stray outside the parameters of the design is obviously going to lead to problems. Despite the fact that Eberron tries to put a tighter knitting on D&D's elements, it also makes the case for some decidedly non-D&D possibilities. When someone like myself and my players try to explore those possibilities, we find D&D is a bit cramped. Which is why I make the argument that D&D is a poor match to Eberron in a number of areas, and that Eberron's design should address those areas separate from D&D...
Salla 09-08-05, 10:20 AM	Am I the only one who stopped thinking about D&D in non-Eberron terms? I mean, I'll never run low-magic again. I'll never have Epic NPCs, and probably never run an Epic game. Random enouncters are a thing of the past, and my adventure brainstorming usually begins with thinking about a set piece and building around that. Alignment will never again be wholly cut-and-dried, because the concept of an 'evil' race like Orcs or goblins is absurd. Has anyone else given up on conventional fantasy and is thinking along these terms, or is it just me? OOOOOH YEAH. I'd discard the concept of 'evil races' that weren't outsiders a long time ago, never cared for Epic, and de-emphasized alignment a long time ago. I don't ever want to play Warmed Over Tolkien again. Prior to Eberron, I either homebrewed worlds, or used Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed, which I loved primarily because it was different, yet similar, though there were times his rules-tweaks confused me because I was used to straight 3rd Edition. Now, we have Eberron, which uses 3.5 rules, and remains 'similar yet different'. I'm almost tempted to play a PHB race again, something I haven't done since the early days of 3rd Edition (and never since Lord of the Rings ... that movie screwed up every D&D game I've been in since it came out).
Just another user 09-08-05, 05:30 PM	Still, in d20 modern, the 6th level professor's going to be better at combat than the 3rd level kung fu master. I should make a couple of checks but... not really. They have the Same BAB, but the kung fu master is stronger (more Attack and damage) and probably have Talents that increase his HTH damage and an easier access to feats that make him a better HTH combattant. He can also take like 4 bullets without losing a step. Again, not really (massive damage thresold = CON, not 50) one bullet (expecially for a low con character have a good chance to send him to negative HPs. I agree that having extremely bland classes like d20 Modern does "force" you to place more emphasis on your character's background, but i think you can do just the same with the d&d classes. Being a level 4 rogue doesn't mean you can't also be a cop, bouncer, doctor, or hacker... you just happen to be one that can also sneak attack. D&D classes like rogues are more strictly defined. if you want a rogue/professor then you must go out of your way to rationalize why your professor have a sneak attack. What if I want a professor that can't totally dodge a fireball (evasion) ? Sure, you can adapt them, but that was true even for AD&D. and when you think to your character you tend to think him as class and level before than anything else.
Just another user 09-08-05, 05:49 PM	A person who thinks that one cannot build a character who's a Professor without also having Sneak Attack using the Core Rules is simply showing his limited grasp of the rules system. In 3e, it's perfectly doable. You take as many levels of Expert as you think is appropriate and that's that. It's not a big issue to use Expert for PCs. It's one of the classes (together with Aristocrat) that's considered close enough to PC class power not to require tweaking at all. First, he said rogue, not I. Second, I thought we were talking of PC classes only here. I thought Expert but I discarded it. And last, Expert is considered close enough to PC class power? from whom? Expert are essentially rogues with less skill point per level, no weapon or armor proficiency, no evasion, no sneak attack, no uncanny dodge, no etc, etc how can they be considered on the same power level of other PC classes? Just because they can pick their skill list? (oh, yeah, a rogue have 29 skills out of 36 in his skill list, an expert 10.). Then warriors are a valid PC class, too. I challenge anyone to come up with an Eberron character concept that can't be portrayed by judicious multiclassing and class tweaking. Well, that was equally valid for AD&D, too. ;)
UnkemptSage 09-08-05, 06:33 PM	I still have yet to see anyone accept the challenge and put up an Eberron character concept. If no one is going to try that, than I offer a different challenge: Make an Artificer using D20 modern rules. Artificers are a huge part of the Eberron world, and I can't think of a single way someone could make one using D20 Modern rules without doing MASSIVE rules tweaking, which would essentially change the game to a different system altogether. I'm not against Eberron having its own system, but I just can't see how D20 Modern would work better than Dungeons and Dragons.
Salla 09-08-05, 07:09 PM	I still have yet to see anyone accept the challenge and put up an Eberron character concept. If no one is going to try that, than I offer a different challenge: Make an Artificer using D20 modern rules. Artificers are a huge part of the Eberron world, and I can't think of a single way someone could make one using D20 Modern rules without doing MASSIVE rules tweaking, which would essentially change the game to a different system altogether. I'm not against Eberron having its own system, but I just can't see how D20 Modern would work better than Dungeons and Dragons. Smart 3/Fast 1/Mage 6/Artificer 5/Archmage 5 Artificer is in the Urban Arcana book, and, while it's not in the same class (no pun intended) as the Eberron Artificer, its primary schtick remains making magical stuffs. So, TECHNICALLY ... ;)
Zalaz Mavi 09-08-05, 09:02 PM	I challenge anyone to come up with an Eberron character concept that can't be portrayed by judicious multiclassing and class tweaking. Here's one a player in my group came up with for our "Age of Worms" campaign. It was a bloody pain trying to fit a character class to it: Learned Lao Lao spent his formative years shelving and cataloguing books in the Morgrave University library. As he neared adulthood, Lao found himself bored with a life of shelving books and decided to become an adventurer. Unfortunately, Lao didn't possess any of the practical knowledge or skills required to be an adventurer. So, he carries with him scrolls and books filled with diagrams illustrating a number of subjects. Whenever Lao finds himself in a situation that he doesn't know how to handle, he simply pulls out the appropriate scroll or book, studies the necessary diagrams, then tries to perform that particular action. We found a solution to this problem. So I challenge you right back to figure out how to pull it off — within your own parameters of using only multiclassing and class tweaking, of course...
The White Sorcerer 09-09-05, 03:23 AM	Unfortunately, Lao didn't possess any of the practical knowledge or skills required to be an adventurer. This is like saying "Bob the Farmer is a farmer turned adventurer, but he doesn't possess any adventuring skills. He knows how to farm." I'll answer you: Expert. Your character makes no sense as a PC, so he should use an NPC class.
Zalaz Mavi 09-09-05, 08:59 AM	Your character makes no sense as a PC... Wrong. The concept works very well as a PC. Read a bit further in the description: ...he carries with him scrolls and books filled with diagrams illustrating a number of subjects. Whenever Lao finds himself in a situation that he doesn't know how to handle, he simply pulls out the appropriate scroll or book, studies the necessary diagrams, then tries to perform that particular action. My player made the case when proposing the concept that Lao's ability to learn quickly and well just from looking at pictures set him apart from the hoi polloi. I thought the concept was unique enough and made for an interesting mechanical challenge, so I allowed it. Addressing your example of the farmer, to me this would be like saying that a soldier from the Last War couldn't take the Fighter class because the character's background states he was common infantry; or a merchant fallen on hard times turns to burgulary, but can't take the Rogue class. Think of how many stories begin with a protagonist who starts off as a farmer, etc. and develops into a hero/heroine. A nobody with an exceptional ability makes sense as a PC concept to me given that precedent...
Lady Morn 09-09-05, 09:25 AM	So I challenge you right back to figure out how to pull it off — within your own parameters of using only multiclassing and class tweaking, of course... To start, take three levels of Bard gaining Bardic Knowledge and Inspire Confidence, but changing the first ability so that it applies to skills beyond just Knowledge and the second being usable only on himself. Drop the music related abilities he gains at 1st and substitute them with a bonus feat. As a houserule, I'd allow him only 4 + Int for skill points, but give him a floating pool of skill points worth 2 + his current level to assign to any skill or skills, but only for as long as he needs them to perform whatever action is necessary, then the points go back into his pool for later use. That's how I'd do it. ;) This is like saying "Bob the Farmer is a farmer turned adventurer, but he doesn't possess any adventuring skills. He knows how to farm." I'll answer you: Expert. Your character makes no sense as a PC, so he should use an NPC class. I remember Jack the Giant-Killer being included in a list of examples of literary figures that exemplified the Ranger class (I think it was in the 2nd ed. Player's Handbook). If you've ever read "Jack and the Beanstalk," you'd know that he was raised on a farm and didn't possess any adventurer "qualifications." Yet, he was still considered a model for Ranger PCs. Don't dismiss the idea too readily because there's different ways of defining "heroic." :)
The White Sorcerer 09-09-05, 11:28 AM	I did specify that the farmer only had farming skills. That's why he's a commoner. Now a farmer who has protected his farm against marauding beasts all his life… that's a fighter, or maybe a barbarian. And the concept you presented is a clear bard concept, but if the player insists that the character not possess any particular adventuring skills… an expert. Or, if you have access to it, a master from War of the Lance (Dragonlance).
makeshiftwings 09-09-05, 12:05 PM	Never mind.
Argonel 09-09-05, 12:36 PM	Using only core classes I would build Lao as a commoner, expert, or noble and simply let the library provide an insight bonus to the appropriate skills. Stepping out of core material I would use teh akashic class from Arcana unearthed/evolved.
Lady Morn 09-09-05, 01:07 PM	I did specify that the farmer only had farming skills. That's why he's a commoner. Now a farmer who has protected his farm against marauding beasts all his life… that's a fighter, or maybe a barbarian. And the concept you presented is a clear bard concept, but if the player insists that the character not possess any particular adventuring skills… an expert. Or, if you have access to it, a master from War of the Lance (Dragonlance). Maybe Jack wasn't a good example. How about one you might be more familiar with. Frodo and Bilbo didn't have much knowledge of the world outside of the Shire and lived very comfortable, unexciting lives at the beginning of their stories. Yet, they went on D&D type quests and I'm sure many gamers view them as being quintessential D&D style characters. Just because they didn't pop out of the womb sword in hand and throwing fireballs at the midwife doesn't automatically exclude them from being considered a PC option. ;) And just because the class is called "Bard" doesn't mean that's what you have to use it for, silly boy. :D
UnkemptSage 09-09-05, 01:46 PM	I would actually build Lao as a Rogue with the Education feat and a lot of skill points dumped into Use Magic Device, Decipher Script, and a number of Knowledge skills. Furthermore, I'd put my highest ability scores into Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma, to represent the specialized mental ability. A lot of people think of the special abilities that a Rogue gets as special training, but a number of my Rogues get their special abilities from a combination of interest in certain studies and sheer dumb luck. I think of a Sneak Attack as more of a lucky shot than a trained, accurate strike. I did once play a studious character as a rogue who rarely got into combat, and every once in a while he'd step into the fight when he saw an opportunity and he'd hit some poor soul over the head while he was distracted.
Uller999 09-09-05, 01:52 PM	right, umm with the multitude of feats presented in all of the books if you wanted to make farmer bob who had defender his farm his entire life you might want to just give him the militia feat or if he really is fighting all the bloody time he probably isn't a farmer any more or not much of one. as far as that academic guy mentioned above wit hthe scroll and what not I'm not 100% sure what the hell that means, it sounds like he has Wacko Warner's gooky bag and from hammer space he can pull whatever correct plan of action he wants to solve any situation. I may have a plan for doing some crazy Matrix thing but that by no means I know how to do it. I mean what practical skills does academic dude have? he sounds like a glorified librarian who wants to see the world. So he's an expert with a buttload of class skills. I mean no he's not as powerful as a fighter and he didn't learn to cast spells like a wizard. The player in question is wanting to play something that whilst interesting is slightly gimmped. The only way to fix that is give him one or two free levels and leave it at that. if you decide to be a fighter or rogue or whatever you are going to have more skills that are conducive to adventuring in a fantasy world than if you are a bookeeper or farmer. If you want to make Bobby the adventuring librarian than fine but don't expect him to keep up with the bard, rogue or fighter build. Basically it seems to work like this. In your average D&d game the party is said to be adventure out for whatever reason. Adventurer is a given occupation. To be fair a fighter would be rubbish at being a librarian compared to an expert but at fighting and surviving in a dragon's cave he's well better. A fighter is better at the adventurer occupation than say a farmer or a librarian or a sage. If a librarian wanted to be an adventurer he wouldn't be balanced he would be gimped just as I would if I want to be say a professional basketball player, I ain't got the skills.
Lady Morn 09-09-05, 02:45 PM	The player in question is wanting to play something that whilst interesting is slightly gimmped. I don't think so. I think some gamers (not you necessarily) get hung up on the idea that base classes are like prestige classes — in order to take one, you have to meet certain requirements. So, to play a monk, the character has to have spent time in a monastery. I don't think that way. I look at what the class does and not what it's called. When I see that Flurry of Blows can be applied to weapons, I think "Cool!", I want to play a dashing swordsman and apply Flurry to his rapier, and change Ki Power to something else more in flavor with my idea. I'm not saying the other way is wrong. I just think sometimes classes are given too strict of an interpretation. Now, back to Lao. Bards aren't just musicians; they're the jack-of-all-trade class. Isn't that what the player is doing with Lao, playing a character that doesn't focus on any one area of expertise but pursuing a variety of abilities? That's why I used Bard without the musical bits, because that was the best fit of the options available.
Orion Polaris 09-09-05, 04:14 PM	I did specify that the farmer only had farming skills. That's why he's a commoner. Now a farmer who has protected his farm against marauding beasts all his life… that's a fighter, or maybe a barbarian. And the concept you presented is a clear bard concept, but if the player insists that the character not possess any particular adventuring skills… an expert. Or, if you have access to it, a master from War of the Lance (Dragonlance). Naw, the farmer would probably be a Warrior, not a Barbarian or Fighter.
Uller999 09-09-05, 06:12 PM	Lady Morn Quote: Originally Posted by Uller999 The player in question is wanting to play something that whilst interesting is slightly gimmped. I don't think so. I think some gamers (not you necessarily) get hung up on the idea that base classes are like prestige classes — in order to take one, you have to meet certain requirements. So, to play a monk, the character has to have spent time in a monastery. I don't think that way. I look at what the class does and not what it's called. When I see that Flurry of Blows can be applied to weapons, I think "Cool!", I want to play a dashing swordsman and apply Flurry to his rapier, and change Ki Power to something else more in flavor with my idea. I'm not saying the other way is wrong. I just think sometimes classes are given too strict of an interpretation. I guess I don't understand why you responded that to me. I was speaking about adventurers and the relevant skills that tend to be adventurers and how some sets of skills regardless of the class don't really work well for adventuring types. I wasn't saying the guy in question's character would objectivley suck or be gimmped compared to all existant classes and all occupations to which those classes works I was saying that for adventurering(if we are assumig the example above isn't a political campaign or something) he would be gimmped compared to say a bard or a wizard or whatever but when it comes to doing what he's got the skills at he holds no equal. A fighter might annhilate a sage in combat but that sucker knows more stuff than the fighter probably ever well (unless he multiclasses in which case he's no longer a fighter) so again I don't understand the relevance of my being quoted unless it was out of context which if it was than that was wrong on you.
The White Sorcerer 09-09-05, 06:23 PM	Naw, the farmer would probably be a Warrior, not a Barbarian or Fighter. But this is a heroic character we're talking about here. You know, one with Potential. Same goes for the librarian. Make him a bard, and explain his magical abilities as a mystic power he manifested after he started adventuring. Player characters always possess a Special Something™, no matter what their background.
Lady Morn 09-09-05, 06:53 PM	A fighter might annhilate a sage in combat but that sucker knows more stuff than the fighter probably ever will... Actually, this proves my point exactly. You're making the assumption that because the character has a warrior-bent that he's a "dumb jock." Just because the class is called "Fighter" doesn't mean the character has to be a meathead, from an uneducated background, or is restricted to Climb, Swim and Ride as class skills. If you covered up the class name and just looked at the chart, all you would see is a column full of "bonus feat." You could turn that into anything! Think of the classes as toolkits rather than stereotypes.
Lady Morn 09-09-05, 07:20 PM	But this is a heroic character we're talking about here. You know, one with Potential...Player characters always possess a Special Something™, no matter what their background. Maybe you can help me with something. By your reasoning, in order for a character to be considered PC-worthy, that character has to possess certain tangible and intangible qualities that make that person extraordinary. Yet, Lao, with his ability to merely look at a series of pictures in the heat of the moment, is able to figure out how to pick a lock, wield a weapon, whatever, still only rates him as being mundane. The favor I ask of you is how exactly are you defining "extraordinary?"
Uller999 09-09-05, 07:32 PM	Actually, this proves my point exactly. You're making the assumption that because the character has a warrior-bent that he's a "dumb jock." Just because the class is called "Fighter" doesn't mean the character has to be a meathead, from an uneducated background, or is restricted to Climb, Swim and Ride as class skills. If you covered up the class name and just looked at the chart, all you would see is a column full of "bonus feat." You could turn that into anything! Think of the classes as toolkits rather than stereotypes. That's actually incorrect without signifigantly bending the RAW. Mainly you'd have to change the fighter class skills and ignore that their bonus feats come from a select list which do not include skill focus, or educated. So they might not be a dumbjock, they might be a mediocre (I can't spell to save my life) but nonetheless his skills have specialized in the direction of learning the use of weapons and other such fighterly things. A sage has learned knowledge and other such scholary things. Is the fighter a dumbass? not necessarily, is he a sage as a 10th level fighter? not unless you bend the rules. He has speciazlied in something other than being a librarian a something that is more conduscive to adventuring and the adventuring life style and again I know it happens on the boards all the time but please avoid taking things out of context. I didn't expressly state he was a dumbass, I didn't even give that implication. Unless you take it out context I implied he wasn't good at being a sage as an expert who wasn't as good at being an adventurer as being a fighter.
Uller999 09-09-05, 07:38 PM	in relevance to the actual point of the thread...Basically I think Eberron is against the grain to the classical D&D setting. I mean classical D&D is based on greek mythology and Tolkien, its based on an understanding of high fantasy. Jordan's world (despite its history and stuff) is high fantasy, forgotten realms is high fantasy. Ravenloft is horror. Eberron is high fantasy as well but is heavily intermixed with high adventure (read: indiana jones) and noir. Call of Cthulu is a horror noir setting as well. You could run a Call of Cthulu esk game very easily in Eberron because of how much mystery exists in the world. this would be harder to do in Faerun I think (note I used the word harder which means its possible its just not as easy).
The White Sorcerer 09-10-05, 04:23 AM	By your reasoning, in order for a character to be considered PC-worthy, that character has to possess certain tangible and intangible qualities that make that person extraordinary. Yet, Lao, with his ability to merely look at a series of pictures in the heat of the moment, is able to figure out how to pick a lock, wield a weapon, whatever, still only rates him as being mundane. Wait... I know what that character is... A chameleon, as in from Races of Destiny. Or heck, make that a cloistered cleric... or a bardic sage... Damn, there are just too many options for doing this character. Apart from that, I think a character who can just look at a series of pictures to instantly learn how to pick locks and stuff is a wee bit overpowered. I see now that Lao shouldn't be considered mundane. I stand by my suggestion for the master class, and any of the three options I posted above. Note: For those of you who don't know, both the cloistered cleric and bardic sage are from Unearthed Arcana.
Xaxor 09-10-05, 04:47 AM	Show me where the Mind Flayer shows up in Greek mythology, ok? D&D is a mishmash of countless inspirations. You just have preconcieved notions as to what D&D is. Tolkien played a big part, I agree. But so did Moorcock, Lovecraft, and Howard. Not to mention Jack Vance... Vancian magic anyone? I'm sure their are more authors and other creators, but they don't come to mind right now. Each of them had a different vision, and inspired different parts of the system. D&D=/=Tolkien, not by a longshot. If you want to play Tolkienish D&D, more power to you. But don't claim D&D is this and only this. It can accomodate a boatload of ideas.
Roxlimn 09-10-05, 07:50 AM	Zalaz Mavi: Chameleon for sure! Whenever he finds that he needs to do something, he pulls out the diagram and "mimicks" the abilty using his Chameleon class powers. Quite honestly, I can more closely model the exact abilities of your character concept if you actually posted the character slate, not just the background. Your background is too vague to be useful in making a specific character. It could mean any of a number of possible character powers, hence the multitude of proposed solutions. The challenge was to model a concept, not to read your mind!
Zalaz Mavi 09-10-05, 10:07 AM	...if you actually posted the character slate, not just the background. Your background is too vague to be useful in making a specific character. I don't understand what you mean by a "character slate." If you would elaborate further, that would help. I thought the background (which is verbatim the paragraph my player wrote up to describe the concept) was very straight forward. He's lived a secluded life, but can look at a diagram of a skill or feat and understand the principle of thing well enough and just long enough to perform it (he would have to look at the pictures again to refresh his memory if he wanted to repeat the same action at a much later time). If you want any more information than that (without ruining the challenge, of course), I'll do my best to relay it on Monday...
Azual 09-10-05, 01:45 PM	Don't forget the other big difference *No definitive proof of Gods Which I love! No more gods stomping around telling people how to interpret holy texts or handing out quests. Religion becomes a matter of faith not like in other settings as Terry Pratchett said "Like believing in the postman". Finally no need to be lightning proof to be an Atheist dont you be dissin Pratchett! :mad:
Azual 09-10-05, 01:51 PM	Eberron is still fantasy; it's just not Tolkien warmed over and repackaged. Everything still runs on magic, you still have ancient empires with artifacts, divine power, races, demons, fiends, all that good stuff. It's not TRADITIONAL fantasy by any stretch of the imagination, which is a good thing, but it remains fantasy. It merely takes the existance of magic into account in sociological development, rather than having the odd situation that I've seen in some games, where magic is a force that is proven to exist and operates reliably, and yet somehow people still don't believe in it. :rolleyes: i couldnt agree less. Eberron is the evolution of Tolkien. In Tolkiens time, sure you had locomotives and gas lights, but there was little technology, he got his inspiration for Moddle Earth from the forests of England- forests that, frankly, dont exist anymore. So to say that Eberron is not a repackaged Tolkien is wrong. Every modern fantasy story is Tolkien repackaged. Eberron is merely the most fit of the fantasy "organisms" to evolve. Tolkien evolved fantasy by bringing it out of the mythology and anicent history and making it a modern epic. Eberron takes Tolkein and evolves into the twenty-first century.
Charles Phipps 09-10-05, 02:58 PM	I disagree... There was fantasy before Tolkien. La Morte De Arthur for instance. Beowulf. Etc. Tolkien repackaged these in a new form that is enjoyable but that doesn't change that he's still repackaged them. Eberron is more like Zorro, Doc Savage, and to an extent HG Wells and Jules Verne than tolkien.
Dhakaani Heir 09-10-05, 03:01 PM	i couldnt agree less. Eberron is the evolution of Tolkien. In Tolkiens time, sure you had locomotives and gas lights, but there was little technology, he got his inspiration for Moddle Earth from the forests of England- forests that, frankly, dont exist anymore. Tolkien wrote his books during WW2 you know. The distinct anti-technology bias in his stories came from blaming improved technology for all the deaths in the war and the desrtuction of his childhood english countryside. Tolkiens work is great and ground breaking - the problem people have with "Tolkien-esque" is that its often the fall back of the uncreative. People ripping off Tolkien has gotten so bad that it sometimes causing people to look at Tolkien in a negative and imo undeserved way One of the many things I love about Eberron is how it breaks from "Tolkien-esque" Stereotypes. In most settings elves are warmed over hypies (which actuallly isn't much like how Tolkien treated them), Half-elves wishy-washy inbetweeners, dwarfs the same old stoic miners, gnomes clueless fools, Half-orcs violent monsters and halflings childlike. What Eberron does is takes what we know about the races from 3.5 and reinterprets it in a fresh way - Elves are the longest lived so they spend their time contemplating enternity, a trained elf is over 100 years old so they are paranoid about death. Half-Elves are now the Khoraver, finally they have their own identity, no longer watered down elves. Dwarfs are the best miners and for once they put all their mineral wealth to good use and become bankers. Gnomes are skilled illusionists and have a reputation as happy go lucky eccentrics but their reputation is a well crafted illusion too, hiding a darker more serious side. Half-orcs no longer have to ashamed of their Orc heritage instead many can be proud of their ancestors, just because the Orc/Half-Orcs had a int penality didn't stop them becoming powerful druids and saving the world. Halflings have finally grown up, city halflings use their natural ability as thieves to become crime lords. Talentan take advantage of their small size to become dino riders. Eberron didn't throw away who the old races were just looked at them in a different way. That goes for alot of things in Eberron, how monsters are treated: natural sentient creatures have free will (I'm excluding outsiders, undead and abominations from this) they now can choose who they want to be. dont you be dissin Pratchett! :mad: "Dissing Pratchett" shut your mouth ;) :D I love the man I've read every single Discworld, own alot of them and have his new one "Thud" pre-ordered The Quote I used was a comment made by Terry made about how faith in Gods in most stereotypical fantasy worlds, isn't faith because the Gods turn up all the time. You don't have faith if Gods walk down the street you have proof. I love Gods in Eberron because Clerics don't have concrete evidence and yet believe anyway (like in our own world), this seems much more realistic than some worlds where Gods never stop bothering you. Not that I'm saying that that is allways bad but I personally am alittle tired of the greek gods angle (Yet I love Malazan: Books of the Fallen). In this respect Eberron is a breath of fresh air compared to most settings. BTW Pratchett has his own lightning proof atheist - Dorfl
Uller999 09-10-05, 03:35 PM	Show me where the Mind Flayer shows up in Greek mythology, ok? D&D is a mishmash of countless inspirations. You just have preconcieved notions as to what D&D is. Tolkien played a big part, I agree. But so did Moorcock, Lovecraft, and Howard. Not to mention Jack Vance... Vancian magic anyone? I'm sure their are more authors and other creators, but they don't come to mind right now. Each of them had a different vision, and inspired different parts of the system. D&D=/=Tolkien, not by a longshot. If you want to play Tolkienish D&D, more power to you. But don't claim D&D is this and only this. It can accomodate a boatload of ideas. I don't know if context isn't considered important by a number of people or what. I said classical D&d implying how it was made. Most of the now iconic D&D monster like beholders (and notice I said most implying there are exceptions) come from Tolkien and greek mythology not all. So yeah modern D&D and even a good portion of 2nd edition is heavily influened by a bunch of stuff including old school D&D stuff. I mean Drow sa far as I know whilst they obviously have outside influences were contribed primarily within the pages of D&D. I don't have time to go through the historical influences of every race, monster, and class in the game. To be honest if you don't see the massive amount of PC races and monster that come from Greek mythology that's not my problem nor do I care. Simply put is this I have been posting on these boards for awhile and I now people do this in daily life all the time but please if you have a rebuttal to something do so in the obvious context in which it was said. Thanks
a_psh 09-10-05, 11:21 PM	Learned Lao Lao spent his formative years shelving and cataloguing books in the Morgrave University library. As he neared adulthood, Lao found himself bored with a life of shelving books and decided to become an adventurer. Unfortunately, Lao didn't possess any of the practical knowledge or skills required to be an adventurer. So, he carries with him scrolls and books filled with diagrams illustrating a number of subjects. Whenever Lao finds himself in a situation that he doesn't know how to handle, he simply pulls out the appropriate scroll or book, studies the necessary diagrams, then tries to perform that particular action. We found a solution to this problem. So I challenge you right back to figure out how to pull it off — within your own parameters of using only multiclassing and class tweaking, of course... To frame this in the context of the game system discussion... How would you do it in any system? Say, d20 Modern? A Smart Hero? But how does that let him do *everything*? In a classless skill-based system? Would Lao just have all skills / no skills? A character that has very little intrinsic knowledge but a wide set of abilities he can hot-swap by reading books doesn't really work with most systems based on, y'know, having stats and picking your abilities. The Chameleon PrC is close enough, of course, for D&D.
a_psh 09-10-05, 11:43 PM	The problem is to justify a professor with sneak attack. :) As a professor, what kind of combat abilities or special powers should the character have? If you answered "effectively none other than a handful of skills," make him an expert. If you said "he's a good leader," give him a few bard levels and Perform (oratory). (Or a Noble from Dragonlance, some people would say.) If he's an explorer, bring on the Ranger, Rogue, and Extreme Explorer. If he's a spellcaster, well, you know what to do. I think the core classes pretty nicely cover most imaginable fighting styles. Yes, the PC classes do fall short if you want to make a character that absolutely can't do jack in battle... but most of the crunch of any class is related to combat, anyway. While we're talking about sneak attack... if you want to make a character who doesn't have any magical powers, can't buff his allies, and isn't a good martial artist or front-line fighter or archer, what's left for you to do in battle? Not much other than the "sucker punch"/"hit them in the head with a frying pan from behind"/"stand there and just look for an opening because it's the only way you're gonna be of help to the armored knight" trick. So rogue actually works nicely as a class for a ton of different kinds of skilled characters who want to be useful in battle but don't have any specific magical or martial capabilities. E.g., As the bugbear warrior lunges for him, Professor Jamison, an adventurous Morgrave historian (expert/rogue), does his best to dodge its blows (Expertise). The bugbear is much stronger and more capable than he is, however, and he knows he's not going to last more than a miute unless he can turn the tables. Thinking back to the little bit of geology he knows as an archaeologist, he notes a bit of loose rock in the cavern wall and whacks it with his walking stick (Bluff check to feint). The spray of dust and small stones momentarily distracts and blinds the professor's attacker, giving him time to sidestep and hit the raging thug over the head with the heavy iron ball on the end of his cane (club). (If we're talking higher levels here and the professor likes this trick, also give the professor Improved Feint and a merciful walking stick.) He then proceeds to continues his attempts to read the ancient inscriptions in the cavern he's exploring (Knowledge, Speak Language, Spot, Search, and Decipher Script). He should hurry up. More bugbears might be coming down the passageway (he has Listen to help him know when they do), and he needs to get back to Sharn within a week to teach his first class of the new semester (Knowledge, Perform - oratory; potentially Bluff or Intimidate depending on what sort of professor he is).
cerberuspuppy 09-12-05, 02:02 AM	Modern is light years beyond D&D in one major respect — the class system. D&D's class system is based on the premise that there is only a single way to play a character with a warrior bent; only a single way to play shifty characters; etc. While those archetypes work fine as tropes in a typical fantasy setting, Eberron with it's contemporary leanings offers numerous other possibilities for PC concepts that are impossible to achieve under the D&D class system. I can think of hundreds of modern literary "rogues" who are never once called upon to disarm a trap. However, according to D&D, the only thing a rogue should know how to do is disarm traps. I totally disagree. Not about Modern, insofar as I know anything about it, it's great for what it does, but about the current edition of D&D. I can see how you might think that the class system pigeonholes characters and makes characters the same. While that might have been true before, it is not true now. Feats alone provide a great deal of room for customization. Only one way to play a warrior? That's just obviously wrong. In the PHB alone, there's Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, and Ranger, and you can make a Cleric into a pretty good tank too. Four Fighters can easily be completely different from each other without multiclassing. As for "shifty" characters, the rogue is the most customizable character in the PHB, even moreso than the Fighter. Why? Because with so many skills, you can cover just about any role outside of combat. A Rogue might be a professional adventurer, or he might be a diplomat, spy, assassin, thief, merchant, or a leader within a criminal organization. Even within a thief's guild, one might specialize in opening locks (a "box man"), and another at getting into tall buildings ("cat burglar" or "second-story man"). Yes, every rogue has Sneak Attack and Evasion, and that might not seem appropriate for a diplomat, but if not, well that's what NPC classes are for. Nowhere does it say that all a rogue is good for is disarming traps. Even within a dungeon, any decent DM can come up with several challenges for the party rogue, and outside, it's wide open. The player who just had to max out Disable Device and Pick Pocket might find his skills lacking in Diplomacy and Gather Info. And that's fine, nobody is good at everything. In fact, you don't have to take ranks in Disable Device at all. I can see how Eberron might require the characters to have more diverse capabilities, but there's alot that can be done between feats, skills, and even multiclassing. I would understand if a DM decided to waive the penalties for multiclassing, but there are usually avoidable anyway. Then there's the stuff beyond core+ECS. Do you have Complete Adventurer? I think you'd find it very helpful. If you don't have Unearthed Arcana, look at the Hypertext SRD. Some of that stuff, like the Paragon classes, might be useful to you as well. When he gets to 8th level, my current character will have four classes- Cleric, Wizard, Human Paragon, and Mystic Theurge, and all of this with never a multiclassing penalty. Multiclassing can be a good way to round out a character's abilities. A "two-level dip" of Fighter or Rogue can be especially effective.
cerberuspuppy 09-12-05, 02:13 AM	One thing I'd like, is to make it better to wear light armor and still don't be totally ripped apart in combat. I love moves. I love combat Pirates of the Carribian style, with people swinging from ropes. Balancing on stuff and basically high flying action and pulp. HOWEVER, I think that's pretty darn difficult to do when your party Paladin and Fighter is wearing Full Plate and are running around with a big shield. Play a Swashbuckler from Complete Warrior.
nyysjan 09-12-05, 02:49 AM	Learned Lao could be an expert with few ranks in most skills and huge amount of books that give him +2 circumstance bonus on skill checks if studied at least 10 minutes before doing the skill check. if you wan't to gain the same amount of protection from light armor than from heavy armor you need to have high dexterity.
cerberuspuppy 09-12-05, 03:29 AM	Imagination isn't the problem (and I'll forgive you for speaking out of ignorance). The D&D classes are narrowly defined and inflexible in every respect. I often use the term "overspecialized." As such, it's often the case when trying to apply a particular concept to a particular class, that the concept either has to be abandoned or dumbed-down to work within the confines of the class. That's really the heart of my objection — the D&D class system does more to inhibit creativity than it does to promote it. And frankly, that's a major reason why I don't play Eberron using D&D mechanics. I'm a creative person and I surround myself with other creative people. When it comes to gaming, I'm very passionate toward the idea that a game should foster creativity. In my opinion, D&D goes a long way toward doing the exact opposite. So I will never have anything nice to say about D&D until it shows me otherwise... Sometimes creativity means working within perameters. I think I see where you're coming from. I have played five different point-based systems, and enjoyed them all (even though the old Shadowrun had some big problems). The best was Alderac's 7th Sea. While these systems all allowed alot of breathing room, characters still tended to fall within somewhat predictable archetypes. We all put our own twists on them, but what really made the characters shine was roleplaying, which can be done in any system. One thing will always limit a character concept regardless of system- power level. Nobody imagines the original character concept as a guy who walks up to a goblin, swings and misses. We envision that character at the peak of his power, staring down a Lich, sword at the ready. But we don't start at 10th level, we start at 1st. It's the same with other systems- if we charge an Oni, we'll probably get eaten, and when we try to swing from a chandelier, there's a chance we'll fall. I don't really have a problem with the class system, but I will say this- In any game I ever run, there will never be a single die rolled during character generation. Even with the allowances built into the rules, the dice can screw you, or make one character effectively unbalanced with the rest of the party. I think the dice can do more to railroad your character concept, especially in the long run, than the classes can ever really do. I could go on, but point buy is, IMO, far superior. It's a significant investment, but if you have the relevant race and class book for your character, you can do alot. That investment seems a better deal when you consider the milage you'll get from some of those books- Complete Warrior especially. Some might see this as a need to buy a ton of books, but nobody has to buy everything that comes out. Still, the sheer volume of material available combined with the fact that nearly every gamer knows how to play D&D make it a great choice of systems, and the flexibility to do more or less what you want is there.
cerberuspuppy 09-12-05, 03:49 AM	To be honest, I don't have much more to say on the topic of the D&D class system. I think Lady Morn was spot on with her idea that D&D wasn't designed with non-fantasy concepts in mind. Any effort to stray outside the parameters of the design is obviously going to lead to problems. Despite the fact that Eberron tries to put a tighter knitting on D&D's elements, it also makes the case for some decidedly non-D&D possibilities. When someone like myself and my players try to explore those possibilities, we find D&D is a bit cramped. Which is why I make the argument that D&D is a poor match to Eberron in a number of areas, and that Eberron's design should address those areas separate from D&D... What is there that couldn't be addressed by the right combination of races, classes, and feats, even if a new class or feat has to be made? I think we should start another thread for that challenge...
cerberuspuppy 09-12-05, 04:29 AM	As a professor, what kind of combat abilities or special powers should the character have? If you answered "effectively none other than a handful of skills," make him an expert. If you said "he's a good leader," give him a few bard levels and Perform (oratory). (Or a Noble from Dragonlance, some people would say.) If he's an explorer, bring on the Ranger, Rogue, and Extreme Explorer. If he's a spellcaster, well, you know what to do. I think the core classes pretty nicely cover most imaginable fighting styles. Yes, the PC classes do fall short if you want to make a character that absolutely can't do jack in battle... but most of the crunch of any class is related to combat, anyway. While we're talking about sneak attack... if you want to make a character who doesn't have any magical powers, can't buff his allies, and isn't a good martial artist or front-line fighter or archer, what's left for you to do in battle? Not much other than the "sucker punch"/"hit them in the head with a frying pan from behind"/"stand there and just look for an opening because it's the only way you're gonna be of help to the armored knight" trick. So rogue actually works nicely as a class for a ton of different kinds of skilled characters who want to be useful in battle but don't have any specific magical or martial capabilities. E.g., As the bugbear warrior lunges for him, Professor Jamison, an adventurous Morgrave historian (expert/rogue), does his best to dodge its blows (Expertise). The bugbear is much stronger and more capable than he is, however, and he knows he's not going to last more than a miute unless he can turn the tables. Thinking back to the little bit of geology he knows as an archaeologist, he notes a bit of loose rock in the cavern wall and whacks it with his walking stick (Bluff check to feint). The spray of dust and small stones momentarily distracts and blinds the professor's attacker, giving him time to sidestep and hit the raging thug over the head with the heavy iron ball on the end of his cane (club). (If we're talking higher levels here and the professor likes this trick, also give the professor Improved Feint and a merciful walking stick.) He then proceeds to continues his attempts to read the ancient inscriptions in the cavern he's exploring (Knowledge, Speak Language, Spot, Search, and Decipher Script). He should hurry up. More bugbears might be coming down the passageway (he has Listen to help him know when they do), and he needs to get back to Sharn within a week to teach his first class of the new semester (Knowledge, Perform - oratory; potentially Bluff or Intimidate depending on what sort of professor he is). Bravo! The sneak attack can just represent the old frying pan to the head gag. (or vase, or bowling ball, or other convenient heavy object) Watch Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Sr. is a great example of this kind of character. If there ever was a D&D setting in which a non-combat character could do well, it's Eberron.
BBQ_Ferret 09-12-05, 05:21 AM	Personally, I like the different feel of Eberron. While I'm not a fan of action points (PC's get far too many. Seems like "Hmm. Stupid Ghost Gaze, ACTION POINT I WIN!", but I imagine if the Unearthed Arcana total was halved to start with, they'd become much more heroic.), the setting overall is good. The high magic system is something all my players enjoy. And while I do like how Eberron is low-levelled, I also dislike that. After a few Eberron Campaigns I imagine wanting to play a game of Dragonlance or Forgotten Realms, just to play the best of both worlds. Anyway, I never got a feel for the whole ambiguous alignment system they tried to push; I already had variants from the norm, such as a tribe good yuan-ti, and I had just thought everyone else did too, to make things interesting. Overall, I rate Eberron Highly and worth my money, but that's not to say I'll ever shun epic level or low magic worlds because of it; I like them, too :)
cerberuspuppy 09-12-05, 05:57 AM	As for "going against the grain," I happen to think that for the most part, Eberron is truer to the D&D rules than most other settings, and in a more integrated fashion. In Faerun, you have to wonder why people using dye are still making a living when many gnomes can do better with prestidigitation. In Eberron, the best dyers anywhere do use that kind of magic themselves. Yeah, you can find a +1 longsword in the trash, but magic is static for eons and people don't use it for practical day to day stuff. I made a joke once that somewhere in Faerun, Kathy Lee Gifford was running a sweatshop full of 5th level halfing wizards and she was unwittingly glutting the market. :D (The factory is guarded by Awakened Fiendish Giant Frogs with Improved Spell Resistance) What about other "issues?" No racial alignments Not really a big problem. I like to think that more people had problems with static alignments than they did with flexible alignments. This one threw me off at first. It seemed silly to go out of their way just to have an evil Gold Dragon flying around somewhere. I understand and appreciate it much more now. I do think alignment is important, but it's handled much better in Eberron than other settings. It's not that it "just doesn't matter", but it won't become a bludgeon for (or against) the PCs. Judge: Why did you kill the merchant? Paladin: Well, I cast Detect Evil, and sure enough, he was evil, so I killed him. Judge: Okay. Fine with me, go about your business. This is completely unrealistic, and yet that's the way things go down all to often. Yes, fantasy is unrealistic, but this is the wrong kind of unrealism- the kind that stresses the verisimilitude and the very logic of the setting. I like the fact that a DM can run a Lawful Evil 3rd level Aristocrat as a main villain, and not have the PCs just drag him out of bed, kill him, and loot his house. 13th level is "High" 13th level is high. You can see adventures labelled "high level" coming off from just under 14th level or so. By the time PCs are 13th level, they can rearrange topography and travel hundreds of miles in the blink of an eye. Large numbers of NPCs with levels of this sort, taken to logical conclusion, would make the game world into more of Dragonball Z than Eberron. Complete with itemized capsules of various magical vehicles. I appreciate this too. I understand that some players enjoy high level play, but I think it just gets to be pretty ridiculous pretty quickly. "Eliminster Syndrome" is, in a way, worse. Why do anything dangerous or epic if you can just go get Eliminster and talk him into doing it. "C'mon, it's just a Balor. You could kill it, and still be home in time for tea." I like the idea that there's always somebody more powerful, but I don't like the idea of a dozen 20th level NPCs running around. I think Eberron pulls this off by introducing those powers, but making them nobody you'd ever want to talk to. It may seem that Eberron doesn't mesh with the sterotypical D&D game, but I think it goes well with the way the game should be played. Yeah, some campaigns are hack & slash or monty haul, and everybody's fine with it. But if there's supposed to be any real roleplaying going on, some basic assumptions have to be made about things like alignment and the power level of NPCs. I think Eberron just nudges the DM in the direction he should be going anyway. Since it also gives you more than enough tools to do things right, this isn't a problem at all.
Just another user 09-12-05, 10:52 AM	As a professor, what kind of combat abilities or special powers should the character have? If you answered "effectively none other than a handful of skills," make him an expert. If you said "he's a good leader," give him a few bard levels and Perform (oratory). (Or a Noble from Dragonlance, some people would say.) If he's an explorer, bring on the Ranger, Rogue, and Extreme Explorer. If he's a spellcaster, well, you know what to do. Bard is a good idea, except for the spells (bard actually is a very versatile class with a little immagination) Ranger have the full BAB and high hit points, at this point better go barbarian ;) . (beside rangers have spells, too) Rogue, Sneak Attack Extreme explorer, is a PrC, let's stick to basic classes, please. Expert is probably the best option, but expert is underpowered, there is very little an expert can do than a rogue could not do better, you could (and should) come up with an expert PC class but it would be a home rule (actually I have made one, quite simple, take the expert, raise the skill points/level to 8 and add a bonus feat at first level and one every second level, -bonus feat include, well, everything that is not a combat feat essentialy, I'm not sure -there are too many feats- but I've not found yet one that could give problems- .also you start with 10 class skills of your choice and add one at first and every third level. Opinions?) Yes, the PC classes do fall short if you want to make a character that absolutely can't do jack in battle... but most of the crunch of any class is related to combat, anyway. And that is limit of D&D (a limit that in Modern is less felt, if I can say it) While we're talking about sneak attack... if you want to make a character who doesn't have any magical powers, can't buff his allies, and isn't a good martial artist or front-line fighter or archer, what's left for you to do in battle? Not much other than the "sucker punch"/"hit them in the head with a frying pan from behind"/"stand there and just look for an opening because it's the only way you're gonna be of help to the armored knight" trick. So rogue actually works nicely as a class for a ton of different kinds of skilled characters who want to be useful in battle but don't have any specific magical or martial capabilities. E.g., As the bugbear warrior lunges for him, Professor Jamison, an adventurous Morgrave historian (expert/rogue), does his best to dodge its blows (Expertise). The bugbear is much stronger and more capable than he is, however, and he knows he's not going to last more than a miute unless he can turn the tables. Thinking back to the little bit of geology he knows as an archaeologist, he notes a bit of loose rock in the cavern wall and whacks it with his walking stick (Bluff check to feint). The spray of dust and small stones momentarily distracts and blinds the professor's attacker, giving him time to sidestep and hit the raging thug over the head with the heavy iron ball on the end of his cane (club). (If we're talking higher levels here and the professor likes this trick, also give the professor Improved Feint and a merciful walking stick.) He then proceeds to continues his attempts to read the ancient inscriptions in the cavern he's exploring (Knowledge, Speak Language, Spot, Search, and Decipher Script). He should hurry up. More bugbears might be coming down the passageway (he has Listen to help him know when they do), and he needs to get back to Sharn within a week to teach his first class of the new semester (Knowledge, Perform - oratory; potentially Bluff or Intimidate depending on what sort of professor he is). Very nice, sound a little too much like climb mirrors to me, but is very nice, Why don't you take a shot to justify evasion and uncanny dodge for our good professor, too. ;) Basically what are you saying is that in D&D there are some concepts that are not possible to do unless: a) you choose to stretch the concept to include combat abilities that your character reasonably should not have, or b) you accept to play with a class that is largely underpowered in confront to the other classes. In Modern this is not so true, I can make the professor concept quite easily (Smart hero). I'll give him the Savant Talent and avoid to pick combat-related feats, he will be useless in a combat (as the concept) but he will know more than any other character on a number of subject (the savant talent give a bonus to a skill equal to the levels of smart hero you have) if the GM use the knowledge skills the way they are meant he could be the most important member of the group.
Just another user 09-12-05, 11:01 AM	Learned Lao could have taken the heroic spirit feat more than once and use an action point every time he had to use a skill.
poeticyde 09-12-05, 11:18 AM	Very nice, sound a little too much like climb mirrors to me, but is very nice, Why don't you take a shot to justify evasion and uncanny dodge for our good professor, too. ;) I imagine a character who was not very skilled in combat would be rather flinchy...more likely to overreact. This explains both evasion and uncanny dodge...but would be best if role played to make the character VERY jumpy in other situations where its not so helpful (social gatherings, etc.). Imagine Ichabod Crane - a coward's coward, who jumps at his own shadow. He gets evasion and uncanny dodge cause he's ALWAYS jumpy. :)
nyysjan 09-12-05, 11:25 AM	a) you choose to stretch the concept to include combat abilities that your character reasonably should not have, or b) you accept to play with a class that is largely underpowered in confront to the other classes. Expert is on completely equal footing with other classes when you don't count battle/action relatid issues it has high skill points, free selection of class skills and if you take two flaws from Unearthed arcana (non combatant and Shaky are very appropriate) and spend those extra feats to become more effective in your chosen occupation, then you are not underpowered unless you end up in battle.
Just another user 09-12-05, 08:14 PM	Expert is on completely equal footing with other classes when you don't count battle/action relatid issues 'nuff said. The rogue can do almost everything that an expert can do, plus other things. He have more skils per levels, more class skills and all a series of extra ability You can't seriously say they are on the same level. Playing an Expert in D&D is like if in a GURPS game you had to play a 50 points character while the all the others plays a 100 points character.
Just another user 09-12-05, 08:17 PM	I imagine a character who was not very skilled in combat would be rather flinchy...more likely to overreact. This explains both evasion and uncanny dodge...but would be best if role played to make the character VERY jumpy in other situations where its not so helpful (social gatherings, etc.). Imagine Ichabod Crane - a coward's coward, who jumps at his own shadow. He gets evasion and uncanny dodge cause he's ALWAYS jumpy. :) Awwww come on!! :rolleyes: ;) Then a commoner should have uncanny dodge at first level, if I had only 2 hp I'd be a lot nervous and jumpy. ;)
a_psh 09-12-05, 08:57 PM	In Modern this is not so true, I can make the professor concept quite easily (Smart hero). I'll give him the Savant Talent and avoid to pick combat-related feats, he will be useless in a combat (as the concept) but he will know more than any other character on a number of subject (the savant talent give a bonus to a skill equal to the levels of smart hero you have) if the GM use the knowledge skills the way they are meant he could be the most important member of the group. So the big thing missing from the core classes is... characters who suck in combat? I don't believe introducing such a base class would've been sensible. The fact is, combat takes a while. In any game where there is combat, I would hate to be absolutely worthless for 30 minutes to an hour any time there was a battle. In Modern, this guy has something going for him... guns. Guns make the little pipsqueak a threat to many enemies, as he can always get lucky and score a hit above the massive damage threshold. If you were playing the professor in Modern, would you cower under tables at every opportunity? You might in the first battle or two, for roleplaying effect, but would you have a character who was perpetually worthless and afraid or start gently nudging him towards having at least a modicum of self-defense? However, if we give the professor enough abilities to "balance" him, what really happens is that the expert is eclipsing everyone any time you need to use a skill and hiding and running any time blades are drawn and he can't Diplomacy his way out of things. It solves the on-paper balance issue, yes, but I feel like it doesn't make the expert any more, y'know, fun. Now, I think the general point is still valid, and I'm not dismissing it solely based on the above, but I'd like a slightly different example... Can someone suggest an archetype that isn't about being a liability in battle that D&D has a hard time representing? Edit: In other words, the only reasoning for not just using the Expert here seems to be that it's suboptimal. The same can be said of a number of possible characters, and sometimes even entire classes. Can we think of a build that's actually impossible rather than just suboptimal?