Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Boda 05-18-07, 05:52 PM	I was wondering about the prestige classes and their popularity or lack of it. So which prestige classes are your favorites and why, and which are not? Pesrsonally, i'am a big fan of the shadowdancer, dread pirate and dervish. I specially dislike the divine champion and occult slayer.
Lord Karsus 05-18-07, 06:32 PM	-One of my personal favorites is the Archmage.
GothicDan 05-18-07, 08:01 PM	Some of the ones I like a lot (FR specific and core) are Archmage, Incantatrix, Morninglord of Lathander, Eye of Horus-Re, Shadowcrafter, Argent Savant, Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil, Elemental Savant, Nightcloak, Stormlord... Yeah, I don't play spellcasters a lot, or anything.
Old Sage 05-18-07, 08:47 PM	A few of my particular favorites are contained herein:- http://www.ericlboyd.com/dnd/prestige_classes.html Such is the magic of Tom Costa! :cool:
GothicDan 05-18-07, 08:49 PM	Oh, yeah! I think I really liked the Circlesinger of Angharradh.. Was that one of the ones contained in that particule document?
Old Sage 05-18-07, 09:16 PM	Indeed, it was.
Lord Karsus 05-18-07, 11:30 PM	-The picture of the Elven High Mage is kind of cool. Mind you, not the PrC, but the picture.
GothicDan 05-19-07, 06:48 PM	It's.. Okay. Only because it depicts an Epic Level Sun Elf Wizard.
Dark Wizard 05-19-07, 07:21 PM	What picture?
GothicDan 05-19-07, 07:23 PM	In Races of Faerun, the Elven High Mage PrC picture. Cool concept, not terribly well done.
Lord Karsus 05-19-07, 10:11 PM	It's.. Okay. Only because it depicts an Epic Level Sun Elf Wizard. -Not many pictures of Epic Level Sun Elven Wizards are in circulation, however. Therefore, the picture is automatically good! :)
Dark Wizard 05-19-07, 11:00 PM	In Races of Faerun, the Elven High Mage PrC picture. Cool concept, not terribly well done. Oh that one. I agree. It lacks something, perhaps details and subtle glow effects.
Steelwind 05-20-07, 06:59 AM	Heres some of the PrC's for characters I have played recently, all some of my favorites. Incantatrix, Dervish, Radient Servant of Lanthander. Other PrC's that I really like include Abjurent Champion, Fist of Raziel, Champion of Corellon, Hammer of Moradin, and Windwalker. While I love the Bladesinger and would've included it, I despise all 3.X incarnations of it. There are more, but thats the basic gist of it.
Mr. Master 05-20-07, 08:32 AM	I play with FR 3.0 and,even if I've seen just few of the incredbile amount of PrC available,I particularly like Cavalier,Archmage,Assassin,Purple Dragon Knight,Wood Archer and Ierophant.
Lord_Steve 05-20-07, 04:54 PM	Various Dragon Disciple prestige classes, Shifter, Black Guard.....them are me favs
Karsus the Mad 05-21-07, 06:24 AM	I like any prc that's actually...uh...prestigious and/or better represents a methodology or tradition:) I usually don't go with just the abilities it gives. My particular favorites being archmage, loremaster (only if you find being a librarian a prestigious job, which I do), olin gisir, Lantanese artificer (not so much in the execution of the prc, but the idea of it), techsmith of Gond. I like magelord and Incantatrix also for their representing unique methodologies of spellcasting. On a sidenote, I've been toying with two, totally seperate ideas for my own setting. 1. Turn the Wizard into a prestige class, requiring the ability to cast arcane spells (sorcerer or bard base class). I kind of like the idea that only those with the innate talent can learn to refine the magical energies inherent within and around them. 2. Turn the various Specialty Wizards into prestige classes. I find it a bit off that someone would immediately go into specializing without first learning the broader basis of magic.
Lord Karsus 05-21-07, 09:39 AM	2. Turn the various Specialty Wizards into prestige classes. I find it a bit off that someone would immediately go into specializing without first learning the broader basis of magic. -Good point. Or, if not PrCs, make Specialist Wizards Class substitution levels.
Darakhoranon 05-21-07, 11:22 AM	That would require some serious reworking of the mechanics, but if you feel like it, go ahead. And please share your results with us, ok? On topic: I prefer PrCs with a "draconic" feel, e.g. Dragon Disciple, Platinum Knight, Wyrm Wizard...
Boda 05-21-07, 11:30 AM	Can anyone tell why is that the blackguard is a prestige class but the paladin is class? Arent they, the same thing(with different alignment)? And divine champion?
Alediran 05-21-07, 11:34 AM	-Good point. Or, if not PrCs, make Specialist Wizards Class substitution levels. That is why i love the Master Specialist from Complete Mage. Other PrCs I like: Elven High Mage, Bladesinger, Archmage, Elemental Savant, Shadowdancer, Duelist (altough I much preffer the Swashbuckler base class), Ultimate Magus, Anointed Knight (BoED), Geometer, Mage of the Arcane Order, Lion of Talisid (BoED), Vassal of Bahamut (BoED), Wild Soul, Drunken Master, Arcane Hierophant, Champion of Corellon Larethian, Knight of the Weave.
Lord_Steve 05-21-07, 02:28 PM	Can anyone tell why is that the blackguard is a prestige class but the paladin is class? Arent they, the same thing(with different alignment)? And divine champion? Never understood that one either, let's wait and see if anyone would answer.
Lord Karsus 05-21-07, 07:12 PM	Can anyone tell why is that the blackguard is a prestige class but the paladin is class? Arent they, the same thing(with different alignment)? And divine champion? -Because in order to become a Blackguard, one must be a fallen Paladin. And, in order to be a fallen Paladin, one must already be a Paladin. Sounds good in theory, anyway...
MaskedOne 05-21-07, 07:24 PM	1. Turn the Wizard into a prestige class, requiring the ability to cast arcane spells (sorcerer or bard base class). I kind of like the idea that only those with the innate talent can learn to refine the magical energies inherent within and around them. 2. Turn the various Specialty Wizards into prestige classes. I find it a bit off that someone would immediately go into specializing without first learning the broader basis of magic. The premise behind #1 seems to be widespread in fiction though not necessarily enforced in notable way through mechanics. Always manages to annoy me though. I prefer magic as a matter of choice and knowledge to a matter of talent but I'm odd. I like the second idea. Provided that the there isn't a mechanical (not necessarily game mechanic) preventing a person from gaining a general basis, it's odd that people would choose to start without one.
Zandilar 05-22-07, 05:58 AM	Heya, -Because in order to become a Blackguard, one must be a fallen Paladin. And, in order to be a fallen Paladin, one must already be a Paladin. Sounds good in theory, anyway... You don't have to have been a paladin to be a blackguard. A level 6 or 7 evil Fighter could qualify, provided they had a decent Int - only need 2 ranks of knowledge (religion), and 5 of hide. Also need Cleave, Improved Sunder, and Power Attack as feats, and given the number of feats a fighter gets - it's a romp in. Clerics can also qualify later, especially if they have a level or two of fighter or rogue. Rogues can also qualify later, Hide is a class skill for them. As for the topic of this thread - and speaking of prestige class Paladins, I've always been fond of the Unearthed Arcarna Paladin, Ranger, and Bard PrC variants - making all three classes PrCs... Bard is especially nice, quite a nostalgic nod at 1st Ed Bards. :) Otherwise, I like Eldritch Knight and Mystic Theurge. I don't think I've found a PrC outside of those that really appeals to me.
Lord Karsus 05-22-07, 08:19 AM	You don't have to have been a paladin... -I never said what I was saying was actually true. I ended my statement above with the disclaimer, "Sounds good in theory, anyway".
MerrikCale 05-22-07, 09:27 AM	Heya, Otherwise, I like Eldritch Knight and Mystic Theurge. I don't think I've found a PrC outside of those that really appeals to me. no bladesinger?
Zandilar 05-22-07, 09:30 AM	Heya, -I never said what I was saying was actually true. I ended my statement above with the disclaimer, "Sounds good in theory, anyway". It was confusing because you said "one must be a fallen Paladin" as if it were a statement of fact. I admit I missed the "sounds good in theory" part, though... Which colours it differently. Oops. :embarrass Mia Culpa! @MerrikCale - hmm... I haven't had a chance to play a bladesinger, really. And I'm always wary of anything that cuts down caster level and spells/day for a caster. Thing with Eldritch Knight and Mystic Theurge is that they both grant (almost) full caster progression. Some of the abilities of the bladesinger look nice on paper, but don't really make up for losing 5 wizard/sorcerer levels worth of spells. (I need to take an indepth look again, but that's just my gut reaction)... Also, I've mostly been playing humans lately. :)
Stigger 05-22-07, 09:56 AM	Archmage, Argent Savant, Exalted Arcanist, and Ultimate Magus are all favorites of mine. Elven High Mage would be good too, particularly if you house rule in a full spellcasting progression, as I can't fathom any reason behind the 1/2 progression they gave the class really. The Master Arcane Artisan from Epic Insights, the Candle Caster, and the Master Alchemist wasn't too bad either for an fairly uniquely flavored utility mage approach. Pity I don't get to actually play PCs all that often.
Steelwind 05-22-07, 12:05 PM	@MerrikCale - hmm... I haven't had a chance to play a bladesinger, really. And I'm always wary of anything that cuts down caster level and spells/day for a caster. Thing with Eldritch Knight and Mystic Theurge is that they both grant (almost) full caster progression. Some of the abilities of the bladesinger look nice on paper, but don't really make up for losing 5 wizard/sorcerer levels worth of spells. (I need to take an indepth look again, but that's just my gut reaction)... Also, I've mostly been playing humans lately. :) Thank you zand, just thank you.
Mad Mage 05-22-07, 03:24 PM	Realms-specific: - Hammer of Moradin (PGtF) - Shadow Adept - Red Wizard (at least it originates from this setting, though it's garnered some core D&D appeal in recent years) - Runecaster - Battlerager (RoF) Non-Realms-specific: - Knight of the Silver Chalice (CW) - Exotic Weapon Master (CW) - Dwarven Defender (3.5 Ed. DMG) - Arcane Trickster (3.5 Ed. DMG)
GothicDan 05-22-07, 03:51 PM	The premise behind #1 seems to be widespread in fiction though not necessarily enforced in notable way through mechanics. Always manages to annoy me though. I prefer magic as a matter of choice and knowledge to a matter of talent but I'm odd. I agree. That's how it is in my own world, but the Wizards of my world are more like Physicists that just use the alternative Physics of their world.
Karsus the Mad 05-25-07, 07:43 AM	The premise behind #1 seems to be widespread in fiction though not necessarily enforced in notable way through mechanics. Always manages to annoy me though. I prefer magic as a matter of choice and knowledge to a matter of talent but I'm odd. Good point. The basis for the idea stems from the fact that in my setting arcane magic is a perversion of natural magical forces. It's twisting the forces of nature to ones will, rather than working with the natural forces of magic (that's the province of my elves). Arcane magic's not as much a science as it is simply having the gift. Either you're born with it or you're not. A few cultures who have enough of a population that are perverse ("unnatural" if you will) from birth (ie: sorcerers, a feat that allows arcane casting, etc) have developed certain methods and techniques to "perfect" and control their innate abilities (thus Wizard being a prestige class). However, it's still up in the air as to exactly how I'm going to work it out. I'm also pondering the idea that arcane magic is the exact opposite, where it litterally is the science of my world. This is a pickle for me. I can't continue further with my setting until I nail down the exact nature of magic and since I want magic (of any kind) to have a reason, cultural influences, style, personalize methodology, unique traditions, etc, the generic standard of D&D magic simply doesn't work for me. Ideas are definitely welcome:D I'm also considering using the D20 Modern style, where there's 6 base classes (such as Smart hero), and everything else is advanced classes (such as Mage). After that you get into prestige classes (Archmage). I like the second idea. Provided that the there isn't a mechanical (not necessarily game mechanic) preventing a person from gaining a general basis, it's odd that people would choose to start without one. Ditto. If I go with Wizard being a base class rather than a prestige class, I'm pretty set on having specialization of wizardry being a prestige class. Even more so if I go with the idea that arcane magic = science.
GothicDan 05-25-07, 12:23 PM	I'm also pondering the idea that arcane magic is the exact opposite, where it litterally is the science of my world. This is a pickle for me. I can't continue further with my setting until I nail down the exact nature of magic and since I want magic (of any kind) to have a reason, cultural influences, style, personalize methodology, unique traditions, etc, the generic standard of D&D magic simply doesn't work for me. Ideas are definitely welcome As this is the way that I'm doing magic in my world, you might want to check out Ars Magica and Mage the Ascension for inspirations. I'm going along those lines. Here's an excerpt from a little blurb I've come up with thus far. Watch as I recklessly smash together quantum mechanics and mysticism! MAGIC Magic is hardwired into the world, much like science is in ours. In fact, it’s a very good analogy. Just as early people considered rudimentary natural phenomena to be magical because they did not understand them enough to predict and affect them, so too do the people feel the same in the this world. But the Magi have worked to empirically categorize and study the world around them, and they have effectively learned the inherent natural laws of reality. They are, in short, physicists, but the physics of the world are so bizarre compared to those of our universe that their methodologies of utilizing their theories appear arcane to us. First of all, all of reality is made up of what is known as the Argot, which has no physical analogy that we know of. The Argot is reality in its raw, unprocessed form – or at least, it’s the theory and working tool that the Magi have developed in response to what they think they’re seeing, much as concepts like energy and momentum are to us. It’s a framework that all Magi drill into their minds so that they can later understand the grandiosity of all of reality opening up before them. The Argot is probability of being. It swirls about like a soup, seemingly mindless, coincidentally falling into sinusoidal and spherical patterns of movement here and there. And its density differs, too, reflecting how probable something is. It turns out that some patterns have more “pull,” causing more Argot to flow into them and endure, effectively increasing their probability density and making them more real. Each of these patterns is ever-shifting, swirling and rippling, but at a mostly predictable rate and shape – for those who know how to understand them. And these patterns all interact with each other, overlapping, shoving, crushing, and the like. This causes them to grow distorted if enough force is applied, and in time the Argot shifts away, making the previous pattern less probable, and sometimes finds new, less-disturbed patterns to form in solidity. This is effectively the goal of the Magus: to change the flow of Argot so that patterns will change, by setting up either resonances or cacophonies in the flow of probability. Yet, probability has a lot of weight behind it, and doing so is a very taxing task, requiring exacting knowledge of the patterns in question, and a good analytical wit in figuring out just how the environment’s different compared to the ‘perfect teaching environment’ in which the patterns are cast and taught. This requires the right motions, sounds, and often utilizes focus materials (almost always crystalline) to be accomplished. The Argot inherent in a pattern results directly in how we perceive it in life. Mental patterns – thoughts – are so subtle as to go unnoticed by almost everyone (who’s not telepathic!), and jump back and forth with seeming ease, unless one can restrain it. While they are the easiest to push around, requiring the least energy, they are also the least precise. Mental patterns are taught almost helplessly flawed, since each one varies significantly even from one person to the next. So, in order to accomplish any significant, lasting goal, a psychological analysis of the subject must also be undergone. Maintaining Mental patterns requires little actual energy, but constant attention, unless tailored to a specific target’s psychology. The ‘backlash’ of moving around such relatively frail and light amounts of Argot is, for the most part, small. Magi that do so very rarely show direct physical results, let alone take any damage. But when a mishap occurs, all Mental patterns in the area (the caster’s include) end up getting changed in minor, temporary ways, until the Argot can settle back into its own natural flows. Of course, failures can be more dramatic, spectacular, and devastating if one tries to affect multiple Mental patterns at once. Then, there’s Energy patterns and Material patterns, which are both in truth categorized as Physical patterns, but broken into two groups for sake of easy nomenclature. Energy includes Argot patterns of relatively low density, such as all known gasses, light, darkness, and fire. Material patterns are all forms of macroscopic matter as we know it, from dust to water to steel. In reality, what we see often as “one thing” is in fact many patterns of various densities overlapping each other, existing within each other and curled around each other, occasionally melting at the edges into one and the same before pulling back apart again. These patterns within patterns all represent the way that nature comes to finally represent the end product. For instance, to represent a plant, you need the Material Plant pattern, which also contains the Energy patterns for color and utilizing photosynthesis and gas, and so forth. And then there is each pattern’s Time Matrix. The Time Matrix is an infinitely-large list of parameters about a given pattern (color, size, shape, etc.) as it could potentially evolve, in time. Each element of the matrix for a given time shows an altered characteristic pattern of the overall pattern, made up of how likely the system is currently to end up perturbing the characteristic into that state. More dense characteristics of a pattern in a given column of that pattern’s Time Matrix have more ‘weight’, and are more likely to occur, the Argot providing greater risk and difficulty in being pulled from that possible destiny to be put into another. The resonances and disharmonies the Magus performs actually act more like a catalyst, changing the possible outcomes of a system by altering the densities in the pattern’s Time Matrix, and “letting” the natural result come about. This aspect of the Magi’s system of magic is perhaps the most confusing of all, and can be maddening even to accomplished Magi who try to predict too many possible paths with too great an accuracy, utilizing patterns that are too complex or shifting. Yet, it’s utterly vital, because without first recognizing the Time Matrix, the Magi cannot know how best to help a pattern evolve into a given end state. Most simply screen out all but the most important characteristics of note in the Matrix, and look only at the more probable outcomes projected a short duration into the future. Notes: I might change 'Time Matrix' to 'Temporal Perturbation Matrix.' Hm. I am going to work in 'Atomic Theory,' in that some people are trying to find patterns within the raw Argot streams themselves, molecular eddies that have thus been nigh impossible to detect. These theoretical probability particles will be named 'Argols.' I'm also working on the idea that the more talented Magi can go into a full sixth dimensional perceptive state where they literally 'sense' (I don't want to say 'see') pure Argot for extended periods of time. This may be more of a special talent (rare Feat), though. Then I have the Adepts. They are untrained in the way of the Magi, but have some natural talent (just a drop). They end up being superb craftsman, as they unconsciously feel out the Argot of a material source and affect it to the most probable, perfect state. As far as the Time Matrix/Temporal Perturbation Matrix, Magi often use crystals to act as computers that bring up the appropriate Matrix for a given viewed Argot environment, and do all of the processing for them, and spits out probably results and suggestions. But it obviously lacks a certain level of human accuracy and ingenuity, but is much, much faster. The creator of the Matrix Periapts (temp name) is heralded as one of the greatest revolutionary Magi of the modern age, since it's allowed one to basically to 'real science, right on the scene, in a fraction of the time!' And... There's lots more scribbled in various notebooks.
Apupunchau 05-25-07, 07:40 PM	Here are some that I've had fun with: Divine Seeker (PGtF) (Drow Rouge Divine Seeker of Elistraee[sp?]) Master Thrower (CW) Whisper Knife (RotW) (Ghostwise Halfling Fighter 6/Master Thrower 5/Whisper Knife 3 [and counting]) Dervish Tempest (Air Genasi Fighter 5/Dervish 5/Tempest 3 [he'll go back to dervish after Tempest is done]) Animal Lord Halfling Outrider Sacred Fist
Boda 05-27-07, 07:03 PM	It's just me, or does anyone else agrees that paladin should be a prestige class? I like think that prestige classes are like specialzations of the classes(like in this kind of wizard or this kind of rogue), and if blackguard is a prestige class, adding the fact that no one reallisticlly starts of as a paladin( usually someone is a warrior or a priest that at sometime chooses to become the champion of a cause), in my opinion paladin shouldnt be a main class(my opinion only, not a lore fact). His this scout thing a class or a prestige?
Zandilar 05-27-07, 08:03 PM	Heya, It's just me, or does anyone else agrees that paladin should be a prestige class? Unearthed Arcarna provides alternative PrC versions of Ranger, Bard, and Paladin. I think they probably work well, but as of yet I've not been able to convince anyone to replace the core versions. (Hmm I guess it's up to me then... *makes note for her current homebrewed campaign*) (So, yes, I agree with you. ;))
Karsus the Mad 05-27-07, 09:05 PM	It's just me, or does anyone else agrees that paladin should be a prestige class? I like think that prestige classes are like specialzations of the classes(like in this kind of wizard or this kind of rogue), and if blackguard is a prestige class, adding the fact that no one reallisticlly starts of as a paladin( usually someone is a warrior or a priest that at sometime chooses to become the champion of a cause), in my opinion paladin shouldnt be a main class(my opinion only, not a lore fact). His this scout thing a class or a prestige? I agree as well. I feel that the base classes should be more archetypal and union. Something as specialized as a paladin (or cleric, druid, ranger, bard) would be better represented as prestige classes. Then again, I think paladin should be erased from existence;) Just my opinion.
GothicDan 05-27-07, 09:17 PM	I agree with KtM. D&D 3E seemed to really be starting to go with the archetype + Feat feel. I wish they had left PrCs out altogether, instead... And just used appropriate Feat chains with the right prerequisites and such.
MarkusTay63 05-27-07, 09:22 PM	Anything outside of the basic four should be a PrC, IMHO. A sorceror is probably the most redundant, a simple feat for the Wizard could have acccomplished as much.
GothicDan 05-27-07, 09:28 PM	Exactly, Markus. On the Sorcerer part. Or maybe several Feats, since spontaneous casting is really powerful. Maybe like Spontaneous Casting (0-1st level), Spontaneous Casting (2nd-3rd level), and so on. Sort of like the way they did the Automatic XXX Metamagic Feats in the ELH. PrCs, though... Really. Why couldn't they have just used Feats, instead, and just given people more Feats to deal with?
MerrikCale 05-28-07, 12:57 PM	I have always been partial to realms specific PrCs for flavoring, bladesingers (originally a FR), silverstars, divine seekers/champions, etc.
Lord Karsus 05-28-07, 06:02 PM	It's just me, or does anyone else agrees that paladin should be a prestige class? -I had a DM who did something like that. For the first couple of levels, our party's Paladin did not know that she was a Paladin. It took some good role playing and a party crisis for her "divine spark" to manifest.
Zandilar 05-28-07, 07:48 PM	Heya, Exactly, Markus. On the Sorcerer part. Or maybe several Feats, since spontaneous casting is really powerful. Maybe like Spontaneous Casting (0-1st level), Spontaneous Casting (2nd-3rd level), and so on. Sort of like the way they did the Automatic XXX Metamagic Feats in the ELH. I don't think that would work. That would result in wizards taking "Spontaneous Casting" as a matter of course. Think about it - having unlimited spells to choose from, then being able to spontaneously cast anything from your spell list. Every wizard who was worth his/her salt would be taking it. Only ever preparing spells if they wanted to apply other metamagic feats to them. In short, everyone'd play a "sorcerer", since you'd be offering wizards the best of both worlds and the restrictions of none. PrCs, though... Really. Why couldn't they have just used Feats, instead, and just given people more Feats to deal with? They would have to completely change the structure of the four basic archetypes (Warrior, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard) to offer more feats, and in some cases that would be a touch unbalancing - especially if the base/standard abilities of some archetypes remained unchanged (Rogue in particular, comes to mind).
Karsus the Mad 05-28-07, 07:54 PM	Heya, I don't think that would work. That would result in wizards taking "Spontaneous Casting" as a matter of course. Think about it - having unlimited spells to choose from, then being able to spontaneously cast anything from your spell list. Every wizard who was worth his/her salt would be taking it. Only ever preparing spells if they wanted to apply other metamagic feats to them. I have a homebrewed feat called Netherese Spellcasting, which allows wizards to use unprepared spell slots to spontaneously cast spells they've mastered with Spell Mastery. It works out fine. Something like that'd prolly be better.
Lord Karsus 05-28-07, 09:07 PM	I don't think that would work. That would result in wizards taking "Spontaneous Casting" as a matter of course. Think about it - having unlimited spells to choose from, then being able to spontaneously cast anything from your spell list. Every wizard who was worth his/her salt would be taking it. Only ever preparing spells if they wanted to apply other metamagic feats to them. -You'd just have to offer something equally appealing to offset that.
GothicDan 05-28-07, 09:30 PM	Zandilar: They would have to completely change the structure of the four basic archetypes (Warrior, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard) to offer more feats, and in some cases that would be a touch unbalancing - especially if the base/standard abilities of some archetypes remained unchanged (Rogue in particular, comes to mind). That's why you'd make appropriate Feat prerequisites (and the prerequisites for the Feats) appropriately steep for certain paths. I don't think that would work. That would result in wizards taking "Spontaneous Casting" as a matter of course. Think about it - having unlimited spells to choose from, then being able to spontaneously cast anything from your spell list. Every wizard who was worth his/her salt would be taking it. Only ever preparing spells if they wanted to apply other metamagic feats to them. In short, everyone'd play a "sorcerer", since you'd be offering wizards the best of both worlds and the restrictions of none. And if you had to blow 4-5 Feats for this, every Wizard wouldn't be taking every one, even if they got increased Feat acquisition. Or you could do something like Spell Mastery, where you could choose CERTAIN spells to be cast Spontaneously. Either way would be more appropriate for how I've seen 'standard' (if there is any) Faerunian magical spellcasting work.
Zandilar 05-29-07, 01:04 AM	Heya, That's why you'd make appropriate Feat prerequisites (and the prerequisites for the Feats) appropriately steep for certain paths. Hmm.... *thinks about it* Why not do away with classes all together - have one basic generic class that gets a feat or two every level, and turn all class features into feats? (You would, of course, make feat chains - like taking the basic Wild Empathy feat would open up things like Favoured Enemy or Druidic Spell Casting which would in turn open up Archery Combat Style and Wildshape respectively...) It's an interesting idea, but one that would change the game so much that it would end up being unrecognizable. And if you had to blow 4-5 Feats for this, every Wizard wouldn't be taking every one, even if they got increased Feat acquisition. If the feat chain is so valuable, then they would do it without hesitation. Heck, I had a character (a sorcerer, in fact) spend like four feats (I think?) on Automatic Quicken Spell for all levels. Taken in conjunction with Multispell, she was able to cast multiple spells in one round. Or you could do something like Spell Mastery, where you could choose CERTAIN spells to be cast Spontaneously. Either way would be more appropriate for how I've seen 'standard' (if there is any) Faerunian magical spellcasting work. I think there are feats out there that basically do that already. I can't remember for the life of me where they are, but I'd start looking in Complete Arcane and Complete Mage. But I think you're right that the way arcane spellcasting is portrayed in Realms novels is very different to how it is in game.
GothicDan 05-29-07, 01:27 AM	Hmm.... *thinks about it* Why not do away with classes all together - have one basic generic class that gets a feat or two every level, and turn all class features into feats? (You would, of course, make feat chains - like taking the basic Wild Empathy feat would open up things like Favoured Enemy or Druidic Spell Casting which would in turn open up Archery Combat Style and Wildshape respectively...) It's an interesting idea, but one that would change the game so much that it would end up being unrecognizable. There's only one reason I might be against that: because it would allow too much versatility of character design. It wouldn't represent a world where cultures specifically developed more specialized paths of adventure profession. And there are (and were, before D&D, I believe) certain archetypes - the ranger-type, the cleric-type, the wizard-type, etc. While DM's fiat is always there, I would prefer the rules to at least give a nod to the reality of the world's design, built in. Now, in a world without such long-standing and (fairly) stable nations and organizations, I think a classless system would work well. A world where things have been scattered to the four winds and are just recovering.. Or a single extremely unified over-culture that's incorporated many traditions. That's how my Magocracy works - it's grown over thousands of years to encompass all cultural paradigms to fit (at least theoretically) into their own. If the feat chain is so valuable, then they would do it without hesitation. Heck, I had a character (a sorcerer, in fact) spend like four feats (I think?) on Automatic Quicken Spell for all levels. Taken in conjunction with Multispell, she was able to cast multiple spells in one round. Well, personally, in my worlds, I make spontaneous casting much more difficult and strenuous then pre-memorized spells, too - but the system I've been rolling around for my magi is more like a combination of D20, Mage: the Ascension, Ars Magica, and a few personal touches, so it's easier to do such a thing. But, again, I would be all for really entirely changing the mechanics of D&D to better reflect Faerun, if I was that serious about playing it in real life. :) I think there are feats out there that basically do that already. I can't remember for the life of me where they are, but I'd start looking in Complete Arcane and Complete Mage. But I think you're right that the way arcane spellcasting is portrayed in Realms novels is very different to how it is in game. I'd still love to try to portray it sort of like Mage: the Ascension and/or Ars Magica.... Mage has 9 Spheres, and one's rank in a Sphere gives you a rough idea of what you can do with that kind of magic. And then you make up your own spells, either ahead of time or on the spot (the latter is more difficult).
brisingre 05-31-07, 10:01 PM	the most versitile class combo i've found is my 34th level (it took me 2 years to get him there!) drow-1st level fighter, 6th level shadowcaster, 8th level warmage, 5th level spellsword, 1st level noctumancer, 5th level archmage, 5th level arcane devotee, its got a fairly good balance of offensive power and defensive magic, and at the moment im attempting to let my dm let me become a chosen of mystra.
GothicDan 05-31-07, 10:09 PM	... 34th level in 2 years? *blinks.* I got a character to 6th level in a year once...
Zandilar 06-01-07, 04:12 AM	Heya, ... 34th level in 2 years? *blinks.* I got a character to 6th level in a year once... It really depends on your game style, Dan. I had a character to that kind of level (actually higher) in one year. I've now taken over DMing for that group, and I'm hoping that I'll be able to demonstrate to the ex-DM, how it is possible to run a fun game without forcing players up a level per session (heck, there was one point at which we were going up several levels a session). (By forcing, I don't mean the DM was pushing us up against our will... All xp was legitimately earned in that game - but I can tell you I got very sick of 40+ minute fights... even though I enjoyed the rest of the game.) (Oh, by the way... Level 6 in one year? How many sessions?)
GothicDan 06-01-07, 01:25 PM	It really depends on your game style, Dan. I had a character to that kind of level (actually higher) in one year. Not to be offensive in any way, but I've never heard of that happening before. :) My two highest level characters were both online, through mostly one-on-one roleplay, or small group. One became an Abyssal Lord, and the other is currently a Fighter 20/Wizard 20. It took me.. I think 10 years to get them there? But not completely frequent RPing, and there was a lot of "I don't want them to gain power too quickly" going on, since there was no "official" DM. I've now taken over DMing for that group, and I'm hoping that I'll be able to demonstrate to the ex-DM, how it is possible to run a fun game without forcing players up a level per session (heck, there was one point at which we were going up several levels a session). (By forcing, I don't mean the DM was pushing us up against our will... All xp was legitimately earned in that game - but I can tell you I got very sick of 40+ minute fights... even though I enjoyed the rest of the game.) I would, too! (Oh, by the way... Level 6 in one year? How many sessions?) Once a week. This was pretty old school, though (2E Greyhawk). And we didn't get XP for combat at all unless it was particularly challenging or we did something particularly lucky or creative. (The 'lucky' part simulated actually learning something, having enlightenments, etc.)
Zandilar 06-01-07, 09:02 PM	Heya, Not to be offensive in any way, but I've never heard of that happening before. :) No offense taken. ;) We played twice a month, when we could manage, and some sessions were 8 hours long. The DM was giving us full XP per encounter, rather than dividing the XP per encounter between the characters (so at 1st level for EL 1, we were getting 300xp per PC, rather than 150xp per PC (there are only three of us, 1 DM and 2 players)). I also don't remember where I heard it, but isn't there some kind of rule limiting advancement to 1 level per session? I was just looking for it in the DMG... hmm... But if there is such a rule, the DM ignored it. Still, we did have fun. Except for those 40 minute+ fights, and then hours of leveling up. :waits: :bored: My two highest level characters were both online, through mostly one-on-one roleplay, or small group. One became an Abyssal Lord, and the other is currently a Fighter 20/Wizard 20. It took me.. I think 10 years to get them there? But not completely frequent RPing, and there was a lot of "I don't want them to gain power too quickly" going on, since there was no "official" DM. Hmm... I think that would be way too slow for me. :) The 20/20 character seems to have averaged 4 levels per year. I presume the games were heavy on role playing and light on combat? I've played those sorts of games too, but advancement is still never that slow. :) I would, too! I'm running today... *sigh* I'm only minimally prepared, and I expect the session is going to run to 8 hours... if I can manage it! Once a week. This was pretty old school, though (2E Greyhawk). And we didn't get XP for combat at all unless it was particularly challenging or we did something particularly lucky or creative. (The 'lucky' part simulated actually learning something, having enlightenments, etc.) I've never had games that run that slow (but maybe that's just because of the style my groups usually take)... Especially since you were playing run once a week. Perhaps it might have been more accurate for me to ask how many hours per session in addition to how many sessions. :) That way of handing out XP is also quite extreme, IMHO. It really does come down to what ever floats your boat, though. Hopefully I haven't come across too judgemental in this post. :)
GothicDan 06-01-07, 10:14 PM	We played twice a month, when we could manage, and some sessions were 8 hours long. The DM was giving us full XP per encounter, rather than dividing the XP per encounter between the characters (so at 1st level for EL 1, we were getting 300xp per PC, rather than 150xp per PC (there are only three of us, 1 DM and 2 players)). I also don't remember where I heard it, but isn't there some kind of rule limiting advancement to 1 level per session? I was just looking for it in the DMG... hmm... But if there is such a rule, the DM ignored it. I think there's a rule about you're not supposed to level during a game... But then again, I wouldn't be sure. I don't like the 3E writing style enough to sit down and read it all unless I absolutely have to. :) Still, we did have fun. Except for those 40 minute+ fights, and then hours of leveling up. Annoying! We always leveled up in between sessions and just communicated with the DM when necessary. Hmm... I think that would be way too slow for me. The 20/20 character seems to have averaged 4 levels per year. I presume the games were heavy on role playing and light on combat? I've played those sorts of games too, but advancement is still never that slow. Almost always roleplaying, in fact. :) And my 20/20 WAS a Tulani Proxy of Darahl Firecloak (later Corellon)... So in 3E terms that'd probably add on a ton of ECL levels. ;) I've never had games that run that slow (but maybe that's just because of the style my groups usually take)... Especially since you were playing run once a week. Perhaps it might have been more accurate for me to ask how many hours per session in addition to how many sessions. That way of handing out XP is also quite extreme, IMHO. Our sessions were only about 4 hours long - so it averages out to about the same time per month as you, in the end. I think the 'standard' campaign probably lies somewhere between our and your group's
Eled_the_Worm_Tamer 06-02-07, 11:03 AM	I tend to like Prcs that do one of 3 things. 1: Faciliate Multiclassing, sure Wizard 10 Cleric 10 strictly speacking works, but Mystic Thurge actaly lets you contribute. 2: Helps fit an archtype to narrow to be a base class, Order of the Bow, Drunken Master, Thrallherd. 3: Is just plain cool, Bladesinger, Fleshwarper, and my all time favorate, Dragon magazines Ostiomancer. Sure its 5/10 caster, abd asks for toughness, but nothing beats fighting with the adamantine hard spines of your own magicaly augmented skeliton as they pop fourth from yor flesh in disurbing, fear inflicting patterns. Its got a dark macabe style all its own.
MerrikCale 06-02-07, 01:10 PM	1: Faciliate Multiclassing, sure Wizard 10 Cleric 10 strictly speacking works, but Mystic Thurge actaly lets you contribute. 2: Helps fit an archtype to narrow to be a base class, Order of the Bow, Drunken Master, Thrallherd. 3: Is just plain cool, Bladesinger, Fleshwarper, and my all time favorate, Dragon magazines Ostiomancer. Thats the best wayto put it I've read. The coolest is the Blood Magus
Leukrythus 06-02-07, 01:46 PM	-One of my personal favorites is the Archmage. Same here, it's the best class for an arcane spell caster. I like the Hierophant for the divine spell casters. I don't get to play many prestige classes, as the DMs I've been associated with have not allowed us to create powerful PC. We've had to earn our experience and levels.
Karsus the Mad 06-02-07, 03:40 PM	We've had to earn our experience and levels. I remember when such a silly notion was mandatory in D&D:dice: :dice:
Eled_the_Worm_Tamer 06-02-07, 04:16 PM	I remember when such a silly notion was mandatory in D&D:dice: :dice: Those days are not gone, I haven't gone a level without being dropped to -s at least once since we moved to 3.5, that said I'm probably as tough when I Dm.
MerrikCale 06-02-07, 04:22 PM	I remember when such a silly notion was mandatory in D&D:dice: :dice: ahh yes the gold old days of starting at first level and demi-humans with limited level advancement
Lord Karsus 06-02-07, 07:40 PM	-What's the highest I've ever played a character? Three years, and I got 'em (A Cleric and a Fighter) to level 14 and 13, respectivley. I made up a 18th level Wizard/Archmage for a campaign, once, though. That was a fun character.
Boda 06-06-07, 01:36 PM	So why just 5 levels to archmage and hierophant?
Karsus the Mad 06-06-07, 01:53 PM	So why just 5 levels to archmage and hierophant? Because they're only 5 level PrC's. Or are you asking why are they only 5 level PrC's? If so, it's because their abilities are powerful, too powerful to extend into a 10 level PrC, which can then be extended infinitely into Epic.
Zombieslayer 06-07-07, 11:48 AM	Well I do indeed have some favorites. 1.) Battlerager - I always thought they were fun to play. 2.) Spellsword - Like the concept but haven't seen in it play so I don't know how good it really is. 3.) Shadowbane Inquisitor - Always have the idea of a Paladin of Torm taking this class and rooting out cults of Bane and Cyric in major cities.
Eled_the_Worm_Tamer 06-07-07, 11:52 AM	Another firm favorite type of PRC of mine is the 'Transfigural' prcs, those which aloter the charicters basic natures in some way, theres just something intreaging about such powers.
GothicDan 06-07-07, 12:40 PM	I super hate those. I'm not entirely sure why, but any time I see one, I immediately ignore it or change it. It seems to make such processes much easier and common than they should be. I don't think there should be an automatic "gimme" template, no matter how many levels you have to get to get there.
Darakhoranon 06-07-07, 05:58 PM	You could always change the prereqs for those classes to include something like "must have a LONG AND PEACEFUL/FRIENDLY association with a dragon/fiend/celestial/whatever"...
GothicDan 06-09-07, 12:38 PM	Spellcasters changing into Outsiders or whatnot just isn't really a very standard theme in the vast majority of fantasy literature that I can think of. And even the cases of spellcasters undergoing such life-changing transformations (a few cases in the Realms come to mind) didn't just come upon them after hitting 10 levels in a PrC. This implies that there's a sure-fire method of achieving this utterly alien biological/spiritual status that's just spelled out plainly, readily available for anyone who wants to take the PrC. Of course, I'm also the sort of DM that wouldn't let a PC advance in a PrC without spending training time with a higher level NPC or PC who had that PrC. So that would mean, if in my world the highest level Elemental Savant only had 6th levels? Well, then that means that particular magical method and style had only been developed that far in the world, or its secrets past that point had been long forgotten. If my player wanted to advance higher, he'd have a lot of research, experimentation, dungeon-delving and ruin-sifting to do.
BrennonGoldeye 06-09-07, 01:15 PM	I think I just might have to revoke your connection to Arvandor for that one. :plotting: Instead, I will make you pay with, yes, EMOTICONS!! .:yuck:.:pbbbtt:.:uh-huh:.:bigeyes:.:uh-huh:.:pbbbtt:.:yuck:.
Karsus the Mad 06-09-07, 02:42 PM	Spellcasters changing into Outsiders or whatnot just isn't really a very standard theme in the vast majority of fantasy literature that I can think of. I just had someone laugh at my "non-standard" orcs and elves..........it didn't comply with standard "orcs and elves"......
brisingre 06-09-07, 04:24 PM	what changes did u make to them?
GothicDan 06-09-07, 04:47 PM	I just had someone laugh at my "non-standard" orcs and elves..........it didn't comply with standard "orcs and elves"...... Personally, I would rather have core material provide absolutely no flavor, one way or the other, standard or unique. Core is there for mechanics as far as I'm concerned. It should be up to the inherent flavor, theme, and culture of the campaign setting how those mechanics are determined.
Dark Wizard 06-09-07, 06:02 PM	Personally, I would rather have core material provide absolutely no flavor, one way or the other, standard or unique. Core is there for mechanics as far as I'm concerned. It should be up to the inherent flavor, theme, and culture of the campaign setting how those mechanics are determined. My exact problem with Complete Champion.
GothicDan 06-09-07, 09:49 PM	What did that go and do, exactly?
MerrikCale 06-09-07, 09:53 PM	What did that go and do, exactly? you mean other than be completely useless for FR campaigns?
GothicDan 06-09-07, 09:59 PM	Well, that's expected. I mean, specifically?
MaskedOne 06-09-07, 10:54 PM	Spellcasters changing into Outsiders or whatnot just isn't really a very standard theme in the vast majority of fantasy literature that I can think of. And even the cases of spellcasters undergoing such life-changing transformations (a few cases in the Realms come to mind) didn't just come upon them after hitting 10 levels in a PrC. This implies that there's a sure-fire method of achieving this utterly alien biological/spiritual status that's just spelled out plainly, readily available for anyone who wants to take the PrC. Why in a highly magical setting would a semi-reliable means to become something else permanently not exist? Further why would such a means be out of place in FR where Shadovar and Liches roam about and semi-reliable means of becoming such are known to exist. Hell, 2E High Mages in the end were distinctly different without factoring spells into play from normal elves. I wouldn't make transformative prcs all that common but in a setting where relatively reliable mans of sel-transformation exist, I see little reason to go out of my way to obstruct them unless a player is just being silly in their goals and starting to annoy me.
GothicDan 06-09-07, 11:23 PM	Why in a highly magical setting would a semi-reliable means to become something else permanently not exist? Because, as I said, in Faerun magic is treated more like an Art than a science. We've seen things happen that 'shouldn't have happened' according to how we've thought the Weave's worked before. Any number of Elven High Magic Rituals went 'wrong,' and Karsus thought he knew what he was doing in relation to the 'science of magic' at the time. Further why would such a means be out of place in FR where Shadovar and Liches roam about and semi-reliable means of becoming such are known to exist. Shades have never existed prominently in FR until very recently. Liches always have, but even Ed notes that there's effectively an infinte number of ways to become a Lich, with slight variants (or greater than slight ones in some cases). The fact that ALL of these formulae 'work' show that such processes aren't just hardcoded into the science of the Weave, so to speak. Hell, 2E High Mages in the end were distinctly different without factoring spells into play from normal elves. Yes, and one only even started training to be a High Mage after one hit what, around 350 years? And then there was the period of training, from fifty years to a century, and that didn't even guarantee you'd become one. I wouldn't make transformative prcs all that common but in a setting where relatively reliable mans of sel-transformation exist, I see little reason to go out of my way to obstruct them unless a player is just being silly in their goals and starting to annoy me. If my player had a problem with me trying to mechanically represent a setting as I feel it should be, then I'd talk with him or her about it, calmly, and try to cooperate.
brisingre 06-10-07, 10:19 AM	that reminds me, if any have you have read "the blighted lands trilogy, book 2, the fortress of yuirwood" pay close attention to the planar gate-keeper, if you do you'll notice him in about 19 diferent forms throughout the book, this suggests hes got a few levels in a transformation PrC, he was originaly a human.
Karsus the Mad 06-10-07, 12:33 PM	what changes did u make to them? Nothing super drastic, I don't think. My orcs form tribalized "nations", some have a deep spiritual tie to their lands and a tradition of runecrafting. Others are nomadic raiders, others are in mountainous barbarian clans. My elves are pretty different. They disdain the arcane and see it as a perversion of the natural process. They're inherently tied to the land, and their magic focuses that aspect (druidic sorcery, so to speak). Personally, I would rather have core material provide absolutely no flavor, one way or the other, standard or unique. Core is there for mechanics as far as I'm concerned. It should be up to the inherent flavor, theme, and culture of the campaign setting how those mechanics are determined. Precisely. Also the reason the chap laughed at my ideas I think. Apparently all elven and orc (and pretty much all else) cultures should be identical on all worlds, regardless of the unique situations and conditions presented with each setting:rolleyes:
GothicDan 06-10-07, 12:48 PM	Precisely. Also the reason the chap laughed at my ideas I think. Apparently all elven and orc (and pretty much all else) cultures should be identical on all worlds, regardless of the unique situations and conditions presented with each setting I group up in a 2E mindset, when the multiverse was open and all worlds were theoretically connected. That's why, except for a few rare cases that have been noted, I tend to default to it being 'silly' when one takes an Elf (or whatever), erases the culture behind the Elf, and pastes another one onto the same body. In a multiverse in which Corellon Larethian is the undisputed master of Elves (except in Dragonlance, and perhaps Birthrite, and the few mentions of Norse Elves that serve Frey), I expect the vast majority of them to be culturally linked. But, I guess it comes down to me not seeing the point in doing this at all, and it's one of my main reasons for critism of Eberron. It's not the fact that I dislike any of the cultures, I just don't think that it was particularly effective to represent such non-standard cultures with the standard races. I stopped using Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes, etc. altogether when making my own settings at about 15 years old. It's a greater sign of personal care put into a setting to start detailing its natives from the ground up, logically suited to the world (magically, supernaturally, and/or even evolutionary, as I often do). When you take something with a very long-established tradition and basically apply that name to something entirely different, it feels like a dirty trick to me, because it overemphasizes the uniqueness of the subject at hand. I think newly introduced concepts have a better chance of being remembered and judged on their own merit if they're introduced under their own identity. As I understand it, the call for Eberron was that the setting had to make use of the standard PHB races. I wonder how the setting would have differed if this requirement had not been in place. Would we still have the same cultures, but represented by a few new unique races (or less traditionally established ones with a new twist) that were idiosyncratic to the world? I kind of like the Warforged myself, for instance, for what they are, not because of them being unique (since we've had living, thinking, free-willed Constructs in FR for decades already). I don't think it's really possible to introduce whole races in fore without at least a little bit of flavored attached. I mean, then you'd just have half a page of stats with a name tag place holder. Anyone can do that, and for the established races, there's already 30+ years of lore showing that Orcs act thus, and Elves thus, no matter what that blank block doesn't say about them.
BrennonGoldeye 06-11-07, 09:57 PM	spellcasters undergoing such life-changing transformations (a few cases in the Realms come to mind) didn't just come upon them after hitting 10 levels in a PrC. Well, yes, yes they did. Since said characters were never actually played out we must assume that there were some actions involved in gaining those levels. Those would be the same sort of actions that would allow someone to advance in those class specific 10 levels. The entire concept of a PrC assumes you have a DM that knows what the word Prestige means. I take exception to this phrase in particular. didn't just come upon them after hitting 10 levels in a PrC. 10 levels in any class, let alone a PrC, doesn't count as "just come upon". Right? Argh. So many reasons. Magic? The Magic-User? Sentient Deities? Sentient Magic? Fiction about Magic-Using Sentient Deific Spells? Frazzarazzin Rabbits! Gawghhhhgawkklth......:yuck:
GothicDan 06-11-07, 10:40 PM	I'm sorry, Brennon, but your personal (or my) expectation of DM should not affect how the classes should be written or played. The majority of new players aren't even aware of how DMs 'should act' any more.
Lord Karsus 06-12-07, 12:20 AM	...and Karsus thought he knew what he was doing in relation to the 'science of magic' at the time. -I knew what I was doing. The majority of new players aren't even aware of how DMs 'should act' any more. -That's a very opinionated statement, with no facts to back it up- especially when there isn't any set way a DM 'should act'.
GothicDan 06-12-07, 12:22 AM	It is a very opinionated statement, yes. Not a fact. But the fact that you, LK, learned the vast majority of lore from 2E sources, and tend to agree far more with the 'older crowd' of 1E and 2E people, makes this all incredibly ironic. I wonder how you would have turned out if you had never talked to people who played older versions of the game and if you had never read the lore material.
Lord Karsus 06-12-07, 12:30 AM	-I would have turned out more or less the same as I am now, since my path would have invariably led to 2e. I would have less friends, and a lot more spare time, though. -But, having learned mostly from older editions really doesn't have any bearing on how a DM actually runs his/her game, and behaves. John Doe, a DM who has been playing since the advent of D&D isn't necessarily a good DM, just because he's been running games for 20+ years. Likewise, Jane Doe, who had been running games for only a few years, and has learned most of her lore from 3e, isn't necessarily a bad DM, just because she's been playing in a mostly 3e setting. John Doe is unimaginative, bland, and doesn't take his campaigns too seriously. Jane blends imagery, props, and acting in her campaign, which is rooted in minor plothooks. Who would you rather play with?
GothicDan 06-12-07, 12:46 AM	Jane. However, I doubt Jane would play 3E in the first place, given its distinct lack of artistic and literary license and emphasis. I'm of the firm belief that certain types of people like certain things. It seems only logical to me, even if it seems closed-minded or offensive to other people. Those other people also find Nietzsche offensive and twisted, too, whereas I simply find him correct.
Lord Karsus 06-12-07, 01:12 AM	-If 3e is all Jane knows, though, why wouldn't she play 3e? I enjoy the emphasis on detail and intriguing storylines in my campaigns/setting, and I only play 3e. The game is what you make of it.
GothicDan 06-12-07, 01:28 AM	Basically you're inferring that the only reason she would play 3E is that she's ignorant of everything else? That's like trying to claim a religion is good just because you've been denied learning any other one.
Lord Karsus 06-12-07, 01:37 AM	-That's usually how it goes, concerning religion. That just made me think of these two Christian fundamentalist women who were campaining to ban Harry Potter books from school libraries, because they espoused the occult. The women believed that the Bible should be permitted to be in school libraries, while Harry Potter, and other books that supposedly supported Paganism, as they said, should not. While I don't really like Harry Potter, Harry Potter > Christian fundamentalism. -Anyway, the point is, Jane started playing 3e D&D. Even if she was turned on to all of the 2e stuff, and let's assume that she was, and enjoyed all of it, and uses all of the information in her campaigns, why would she be "constricted" to playing in 2e, especially when 3e is the only edition of D&D that is activley produced and supported? I am well-versed in my FR lore (I like to think so, anyway), and use 2e sources, but I only play in 3e, when I do play D&D (not the Realms, unfortunatley), and would never want to play in 2e.
GothicDan 06-12-07, 01:51 AM	I never said that she should be 'constricted' to play in any edition - just that the current edition does not support a lot of the same themes and methodologies that previous editions did. And this can be very bad for new people trying to learn the setting, who get turned off by discrepencies in the world design that make no sense under the new rules. The first two things that come to mind are Derren's blind arguments based on 3E mechanics rendered without thought for cultural standards in Faerun and the (fairly innocuous) claims in the Vremyonni thread. Your argument sounds more like an apologist's than someone who actually sincerely believes what he is defending entirely deserves it.
Lord Karsus 06-12-07, 02:20 AM	-My argument is that the edition that a DM choses to play in does not necessarily reflect how "good" of a DM they are. That 3e has largely ignored many of the more "bland" details of the setting, and that many of today's newer players are more..."rambunctious", to say the least, doesn't really impact the style of a DM, who has the qualities that you think shuld be in a DM.
GothicDan 06-12-07, 02:28 AM	I think it does because largely, as you said, new players are not given a choice. And this reminds me of a line from my story: “I’m sure it’s quite appealing for someone to formulate whatever psychological routines required in order to view one’s path as valid and worthy. This is especially true when one has little in the way of other realistic alternatives. It makes it harder to analyze facts more thoroughly, in fear of uncovering fissures in the foundation you’ve mentally created to keep from being buried in the inadequacies of your existence.” Painfully ancient Sun Elf Baelnorn to attempted Drow treasure hunter. He's supposed to sound robotic, having just about forgotten why living creatures think and act the way they do, but still having enough emotions (since he has a soul) to WANT to understand. He's not trying to offend the Drow here, truly, but just ruthlessly analyzing psychological conditioning that could apply to him.
Lord Karsus 06-12-07, 02:38 AM	-The qualities of a "good" DM transcend D&D, which is why the rule sets don't have much of an impact on the "job". An adept storyteller, which is all the DM is, is still going to be an adept storyteller using 1e rules and information, 2e rules and information, or 3e rules and information.
GothicDan 06-12-07, 03:06 AM	I do not believe that being a good DM is an innate trait to someone that others cannot learn through being holistically exposed to it through a suitable medium. What you're saying is all well and good if the people who are starting to play are already good as DMs. I preferred it when 2E was too confusing for people to comprehend to those who didn't actually really want to learn the ins and outs of the game. It feels a lot like NJ's "No child left behind" law. "We don't care that you've failed. You pass anyway." Not very Sun Elven, is it?
Lord Karsus 06-12-07, 10:08 AM	-So, basically, you are espousing the notion of practice makes perfect, where a DM's "skill" at DMing increases the more he/she plays the game. To a degree, I agree with you. This is true with anything. The more you type, the faster you will be able to do it. The more you cook, the better you will be at it. The more you speak in public, the better you will be at it. -Like anything else though, some people are just more predisposed to being a "good" DM. Some people are more charismatic than others- a good trait for a DM. Some people pay more attention to detail than others- a good trait for a DM. Some people are more imaginative than others- a good trait for a DM. -Those who aren't predisposed to being a "good" DM, and play 3e D&D are just as likely to improve as those who are not predisposed to being a "good" DM and play 2e D&D. Again, all it is is a rule set, one that can be ignored and/or altered at will. I can recall you mentioning that you consider a good session of role-playing one where no one even needs to roll dice. Does the medium of the game really matter, so long as the game unfolds to your (or anyone else’s) liking? -While 3e has it's problems and deficiencies, I don't think it's fair to label anyone who was turned on to D&D with 3e, or only use 3e as inferior DMs.
BrennonGoldeye 06-12-07, 02:51 PM	Sometimes it's like talking to an incredibly verbose rock. :P Still love me some GDan though. :ayyyy!:
GothicDan 06-12-07, 05:54 PM	I AM NOT VERBOSE! *stomps foot, sore spot.* -While 3e has it's problems and deficiencies, I don't think it's fair to label anyone who was turned on to D&D with 3e, or only use 3e as inferior DMs. I never actually said that, specifically. So we agree. :)
Lord Karsus 06-12-07, 10:18 PM	-You certainly implied it with, "The majority of new players aren't even aware of how DMs 'should act' any more."
Alediran 06-13-07, 11:38 AM	-You certainly implied it with, "The majority of new players aren't even aware of how DMs 'should act' any more." When I have new players I smite them with a good adventure to rock the boat and give them the first kick in the right direction. I'm with LK on this, I went to a club where they played many different settings and systems (most WoD and 7th Sea), believeing that D&D was an inferior setting because it promotes fights more than any other system, and has more than one book for monsters (totally ridiculous arguments), or that FR was the setting where WotC dumped what they "stole" (if I wasn't as calm as I am that person would remember me the rest of his life). What I did when I was allowed to DM, is to show them how wrong they were (the more extremists still belive the same bull****), but many who never played D&D because of those lies wanted to play. For example, I showed Lost Empires of Faerūn to a guy who kept repeating that D&D books where 100% crunch with no value to play. I posted the download link of C:EoE in the forum and with a friend of mine who could be called the Ultimate Bard (I don't know HOW he convinces other people of doing what he wants them to do), he started playing D&D because of me and after that became my Chosen to spread the "faith" :rofl:
GothicDan 06-13-07, 04:07 PM	Of course, I hope you guys realize that when it's my anecdotal evidence versus someone else's (neither one innately holding more logical validity behind them), I'll believe my own, right? And LK... I in fact didn't imply anything along the lines of what you said. "Most" is massively different than the blanket statements which you inferred I made, which seemed to infer a totality of the group rather than a portion.
Lord Karsus 06-13-07, 06:00 PM	Of course, I hope you guys realize that when it's my anecdotal evidence versus someone else's (neither one innately holding more logical validity behind them), I'll believe my own, right? -Not if you drink this potion...Have some, it's good.:shifty: And LK... I in fact didn't imply anything along the lines of what you said. "Most" is massively different than the blanket statements which you inferred I made, which seemed to infer a totality of the group rather than a portion. -You initially said "the majority", which means 50+ %, of which 'most' is a synonym. And, because the majority is of more importance than the minority, and has a "louder voice", we just ignore the minority. -At this point, I am arguing for argument's sake, however.
Passivearmada 06-16-07, 04:48 PM	-One of my personal favorites is the Archmage. yeah, i would think so with ur avatar. ive never had any experiences with archmages, though.
Mastergrubb 06-16-07, 05:54 PM	I like the hafling warsling sniper and the whisperknife haflings rule the realms and your pocket books.;)
Esnapand 06-16-07, 06:25 PM	I've played a Fey'ri Warmage/Wild Mage once and it was fun, but I won't count the Wild Mage on my list of favourites. I'm going for a Geometer/Archmage built right now and I think it would be a good combo. Oh, I would say the Master of Many Forms is my current favourite. I'd like to play one of those again.
BelainDefenderofJerusalem 06-25-07, 03:41 PM	my favorites are the WONDERFUL bladesinger from elves of faerun and the Kylorin Velve from prestige in the realms
Cryto 06-26-07, 02:08 AM	-Shadow Adept -Mystic Theurge (Wiz/Clr)