A Lore book about "Chosen" templets for all the Gods. [Archive] - Wizards Community

A Lore book about "Chosen" templets for all the Gods. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Orion "The Kid" Evereach
09-21-05, 03:42 AM I really would love for them to re-do a deity book on the realms and this time add templets for ALL the gods of the realms.
Ziatyn Phoenixwolf
09-21-05, 10:14 AM If the Faiths and Pantheon book did not even list all of the gods, let alone all of their stats. Why would they do a book detailing only choosen templetes that should never be given to a PC? Do not answer with so that the DM can use them against the players since the players would get the book also and want to be a choosen of their deity. I would much rather see more books with more detail for the other gods that have not been given the same treatment that the so called big ones got since in the games that I play in those gods barely see much use.
Razz
09-21-05, 11:56 AM They should post the Chosen templates on the website then. Like, an article detailing one per month or something. That way, they don't have to use up space printing it, DMs have easy access, and players don't hassle their DMs about it and if they do, well, the DM can say no.

I for one, as a DM, would like all the Chosen templates. Maybe I'd like to run a game where the Chosen of each deity are in a race to retrieve something of great importance, battling it out along the way or a myriad of other adventure ideas.

I'd wish people stop seeing new crunch and rules as "Player Abusive". They don't HAVE to be that way. If you're the freakin' DM then just put your foot down! I'm seeing missing material presented because of the rather stupid thought that "players are going to want it and abuse it". Like the saying goes, "Just say NO!"
GothicDan
09-21-05, 03:57 PM I for one, as a DM, would like all the Chosen templates. Maybe I'd like to run a game where the Chosen of each deity are in a race to retrieve something of great importance, battling it out along the way or a myriad of other adventure ideas.

WotC doesn't really care about individual desires; only if that desire is shared amongst the majority of gamers is it taken into consideration. Since WotC aims all of its printed products at a level of, "How often would people use these things in actual play (combat)?", and the vast majority of people would have no need to actually play (in such a way that they needed actual statistics) the Chosen templates, they wouldn't spend their time creating it.

This is the reasoning for WotC not detailing affairs that do not directly affect mortals (such as the Dawn Cataclysm) and for the abysmal power levels of the EEEs (who were made so as to represent a challenge in combat against to a significant group of players, rather than actually being consistent with their power levels).

And even with publication aside, the idea of WotC posting so much material on the web isn't really plausible - as they'd still have to pay their employees to write the stuff up. Considering how busy most of them are on editing, researching, and writing materials that people are actually going to buy, I don't see WotC wanting to pay them to write something that effectively has no return on it.

I'd wish people stop seeing new crunch and rules as "Player Abusive". They don't HAVE to be that way. If you're the freakin' DM then just put your foot down! I'm seeing missing material presented because of the rather stupid thought that "players are going to want it and abuse it". Like the saying goes, "Just say NO!"

That's a very good mindset. And the very fact that so many people are saying "NO!" to the majority of additional crunch material means that WotC isn't focusing so much on it. This could be due to any of a number of reasons, including a shortage of cash to buy the books in the first place, a preference for lore over crunch, or simply because the DM/Players aren't willing to spend time on paging through a dozen manuals all at once to utilize every little potential mechanical option.

Also, you have to understand things from a psychological point of view, too. It's much easier to tell players "no" to something when there isn't any official mechanics backing it up. I'm not saying it's harder to actually verbalize the word "No," but rather if a person sees something printed in a book (which means that according to WotC, it's okay!) he's more likely to be annoyed with his DM for not allowing it. This makes tense the entire group dynamic.

And the fact that if there is less actual core material for players to possibly find out about, the less likely they are to engage in such activities in the first place (asking the DM, or arguing with him about it, or being bitter about it), and thus allowing time to be spent on more important things, like roleplay.
Razz
09-21-05, 05:06 PM They used to do such website material but they cut it. Thus, I am quite sure, is the reason behind their increased drop of hits on their website.

That's my point, though, about D&D currently. There's no more "DM Only" material anymore and there should be. I know the current edition is supposed to appeal to players, but let's not forget without a DM there is no D&D.

A "DM's Guide to Forgotten Realms" is needed. I sure think so. Not in the extreme, just maybe 1 product a year made especially for a DM.
GothicDan
09-21-05, 09:25 PM They used to do such website material but they cut it. Thus, I am quite sure, is the reason behind their increased drop of hits on their website.

Yup. But that isn't cutting down on their revenue.

That's my point, though, about D&D currently. There's no more "DM Only" material anymore and there should be. I know the current edition is supposed to appeal to players, but let's not forget without a DM there is no D&D.

I agree. However, printing even one of such products a year in hopes that the minority of players who DM (I'd say 1 out of every 5 or 6, as from my personal gaming experiences for the past 10 years, no one ever wants to DM) would be lost cause, financially, for WotC.

And that doesn't stop people from buying them anyway, who want to see all of the crunch; the majority of players I know own the Monster Manual even though it's only technically supposed to be read by DMs. So this would not only not reduce the tension of the group dynamic, but also promotes players to 'break' little rules (reading DM-only material), and would severely cut WotC's income.
Razz
09-22-05, 12:52 AM Yup. But that isn't cutting down on their revenue.

I agree. However, printing even one of such products a year in hopes that the minority of players who DM (I'd say 1 out of every 5 or 6, as from my personal gaming experiences for the past 10 years, no one ever wants to DM) would be lost cause, financially, for WotC.

And that doesn't stop people from buying them anyway, who want to see all of the crunch; the majority of players I know own the Monster Manual even though it's only technically supposed to be read by DMs. So this would not only not reduce the tension of the group dynamic, but also promotes players to 'break' little rules (reading DM-only material), and would severely cut WotC's income.

On this topic, I actually agree with you. In the end it's more about the money and less about the spirit of the game. Though TSR was more into the spirit, they almost destroyed D&D itself because it either was too much or just wasn't the right stuff.

Ahh....the day when a happy medium forms into play. High hopes and dreams, unfortunately. :weep:
GothicDan
09-22-05, 11:51 AM Eh. Some crunch I don't mind. I don't mind crunch that in some way is specifically tailored to highlight or develop an aspect of a setting (be it an organization, NPCs, etc.) in a way that other pre-existent mechanics cannot. In most of the cases, though, it's simply superfluous, as the majority of crunch can be used interchangeably in any campaign setting; which is why, since it's not tailored specifically to the Realms in some cases, I don't think it should be in FR books, but rather in core materials. Also, I prefer core rules to be established such that they promote consistency with the established history and lore.

However, this is completely untrue in some cases. For example, Elven High Magi are so unique that they need specific crunch to support them; while this can be simulated by Epic Spellcasting, I would prefer new mechanics to be developed altogether for Epic Spellcasting (as I've done on my own). For the most part, I agree with new PrCs that reflect aspects of Faerunian cultures, organizations, or individuals that have already been established in lore to deviate somewhat (or more) from the standard abilities for their archetype.

PrCs I approve of being in FR material include (if not necessarily approving of how they were handled): specialty priests, spellsingers, spelldancers, incantratrixes, purple knights of cormyr, elven high mage, netherese arcanist, red wizards of Thay, wychlaran, etc.

PrCs that I don't approve of being in FR material:
Thayan Gladiator and Thayan Slaver: Since when was Thay famous for gladiators or their slavers? They have them, sure, but they were never described in detail enough that their abilities or characteristics set them apart from any other such individuals in any way.
Guild Thief: All thief guilds operate differently; there's no "standard" for guild thieves in Faerun.
Divine Champion, Divine Crusader, Divine Agent, Arcane Disciple, Heirophant: I would rather such roles be developed specifically to better suit each religion.

Apart from spellcasters (or perhaps compared to spellcasters), other archetype classes in the Realms have relatively little to distinguish one organization from the next. Oh, there are a few of such styles, such as bladesong, the dwarves' penchent towards defensiveness and endurance, and the like, but not so much that such roles couldn't be simulated with existent core classes without detracting from the theme of the character at all. So, I see little reason for many new PrCs to be developed along lines that are aimed primarily at martial-types, rogue-types, etc. Simply put, they wouldn't actually be supporting an existing aspect of the Realms. And sure you could "add" it to the Realms, but what then would make that PrC any more appropriate to the Realms than any other?

I do indeed approve of new spells being introduced all of the time, but I don't consider them really "crunch," since the kind of spells that I like to see introduced statistically are those which specifically reinforce certain cultural standards or traditions, or those that are tailored to a specific NPC in such a way that they are appropriate to that NPC's knowledge, history, and personality.

Feats I can really take or leave. I especially dislike new feats based for spellcasters, since it seems to detract from the overall power and versatility of spellcasters in general, which is something that Faerun always had, especially among the wizards. In previous editions (in which Faerun was developed), you didn't need to do anything "special" (i.e. take feats) to create magical items, use metamagic, or the like; these were simply aspects of the archetypical wizard. For an example of such thought in a specific application, see the Simbul's opinion about Nodes and Feats in a recent thread.

Of course, to specialize in certain aspects, one couldn't be just a normal "mage," but instead had to become a Red Wizard of Thay, a Dualist, an Incantatrix, or what have you. Thus I understand the need for prerequisite Feats for PrCs.

Any other major types of "crunch" that I missed? :)
Faraer
09-22-05, 12:28 PM Let's not forget that all gods don't have 'Chosen' of any kind. 'Chosen' of gods other than Mystra are an extremely dubious and marginal subject.PrCs I approve of being in FR material include (if not necessarily approving of how they were handled): specialty priests, spellsingers, spelldancers, incantratrixes, purple knights of cormyr, elven high mage, netherese arcanist, red wizards of Thay, wychlaran, etc.What ability do Purple Dragon Knights or Red Wizards have that can't be handled with the existing rules? Or most specialty priests (with multiclassing)?
GothicDan
09-22-05, 03:59 PM What ability do Purple Dragon Knights or Red Wizards have that can't be handled with the existing rules? Or most specialty priests (with multiclassing)?

Well, the Red Wizards, for example, are renowned mostly for being the most powerful specialist wizards around. In core D&D rules, specialists are kind of weak. The most that one could take to super-specialize in a given school would be to get Spell Focus (school) and Greater Spell Focus (school). Since there are very common feats that any arcane caster of appropriate level can (and often do) access, this means that spells from a Red Wizard's chosen school would not be any more potent than any other wizard's who happened to have these feats, too. Alone, the standard Wizard class is far too broad, and is not representative (I feel) of the power that Red Wizards wield in their chosen schools, to the exclusion of many other forms of magic.

Without the Red Wizard PrC, there is little in the core D&D Wizard rules that would make Szass Tam any better a Necromancer than a similarly-leveled general Mage who took the same feats.

As for the Purple Dragon Knights, though, I'm not particularly sure. They sort of fall into that general martial-esque category, I suppose.
GothWulf
09-22-05, 04:30 PM <SNIP>
And even with publication aside, the idea of WotC posting so much material on the web isn't really plausible - as they'd still have to pay their employees to write the stuff up. Considering how busy most of them are on editing, researching, and writing materials that people are actually going to buy, I don't see WotC wanting to pay them to write something that effectively has no return on it.

<SNIP>

Well, they could always do what W.W. did with the moderators of their old online game. They would "pay" them by every so many hours they were moderating the game, they would get a free book. <I'm pretty sure this is how it worked, but since it was a friend of mine that did it and not myself Im not totally sure...I just know that he got free books from them for doing it and it was somehow connected with how often he did it, or how many hours or some such.> It would be relitively easy <not to mention cheaper> for then to set up something like this. Have US write the "fluff" that people are asking for, then all they would have to do is instead of paying however many people to write it, they just have one or two people read and approve it, and "pay" the contributors with a free book or some such for every so many approved articles. Not really that much different then the magazines that give out a free years subcription for a published article instead of sending out a check. That way those of us with the time and inclination to do writing such as this get some type of compensation other then the "gee thats cool" responces on the boards <not that Im knocking those...I've gotten a few myself and its great to have others that play tell you that you came up with a good idea> and those that want the info but don't have the time, or the skill, or whatever, to do it themselves still have it.

Just my 2 cp.....<now how do I get ahold of someone from Wizards to suggest it? LOL>

Wulfe
Faraer
09-22-05, 09:25 PM I don't think a Red Wizard should be more powerful than a non-Red Wizard specialist wizard, or a general mage, of the same level. If 3E specialist wizards are too weak, they should be stronger. (Apart from that, the idea of all Red Wizards being specialists seems to have been contrived by FR6, and doesn't fit very well.)They sort of fall into that general martial-esque category, I suppose.That general martial-esque category which, as far as I can see, doesn't warrant prestige classes.
GothicDan
09-22-05, 09:32 PM I don't think a Red Wizard should be more powerful than a non-Red Wizard specialist wizard, or a general mage, of the same level. If 3E specialist wizards are too weak, they should be stronger. (Apart from that, the idea of all Red Wizards being specialists seems to have been contrived by FR6, and doesn't fit very well.)

I am not saying that they should be more powerful in general, but certainly more powerful in their chosen school of specialization. And how were Red Wizards detailed before they were identified as super-specialists? Were they merely like any other speciliast before the Red Wizard kit was introduced in Spellbound? Was their society less competitive and focused on domination of both arcana and the world?

Note that I'm not being sarcastic, but am genuinely curious. The majority of my information comes from 2E sources, as I don't own Dreams of the Red Wizards.
AW71
09-22-05, 10:33 PM Sorry, but I was pretty impartial to the original Faiths and Avatars handbook from 2nd edition, myself. The thing was so complete...I know that 2nd ed sometimes provided too much information, but at least you didn't have to wrack your brain trying to come up with things....

Maybe if 3rd edition came up with something similar...I though the Faiths and Pantheons book was really weak.
Razz
09-23-05, 02:22 AM Sorry, but I was pretty impartial to the original Faiths and Avatars handbook from 2nd edition, myself. The thing was so complete...I know that 2nd ed sometimes provided too much information, but at least you didn't have to wrack your brain trying to come up with things....

Maybe if 3rd edition came up with something similar...I though the Faiths and Pantheons book was really weak.

My thoughts exactly.
Faraer
09-23-05, 03:38 PM And how were Red Wizards detailed before they were identified as super-specialists? Were they merely like any other speciliast before the Red Wizard kit was introduced in Spellbound? Was their society less competitive and focused on domination of both arcana and the world?The society has always been like that, but -- without checking the books -- the Old Grey Box doesn't mention them as being all specialists, and many of the minor sourcebook and novel references to Red Wizards imply versatile spellcasters with no suggestion of the specialist thing -- which might have been there from the start, or it might have been Steve Perrin's idea in FR6. (Thay isn't an area I've thought about that much.)
Ziatyn Phoenixwolf
09-23-05, 11:55 PM I agree that the Faiths and Pantheons book was a little licking, buut it is better than most of the other WotC published books.

Razz it does no good to say no to the players that I had to deal with since they wanted to all be like a video game charactor so that they could destroy and have every thing that their greedy little hearts desired. They decided that they did not like my game since I forbid a few prestege classes without them finding out about them(by going to Kura Tura), and I made them acctually role play instead of roll play, so they quit. Now I have no group to play with.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Orion "The Kid" Evereach 09-21-05, 03:42 AM	I really would love for them to re-do a deity book on the realms and this time add templets for ALL the gods of the realms.
Ziatyn Phoenixwolf 09-21-05, 10:14 AM	If the Faiths and Pantheon book did not even list all of the gods, let alone all of their stats. Why would they do a book detailing only choosen templetes that should never be given to a PC? Do not answer with so that the DM can use them against the players since the players would get the book also and want to be a choosen of their deity. I would much rather see more books with more detail for the other gods that have not been given the same treatment that the so called big ones got since in the games that I play in those gods barely see much use.
Razz 09-21-05, 11:56 AM	They should post the Chosen templates on the website then. Like, an article detailing one per month or something. That way, they don't have to use up space printing it, DMs have easy access, and players don't hassle their DMs about it and if they do, well, the DM can say no. I for one, as a DM, would like all the Chosen templates. Maybe I'd like to run a game where the Chosen of each deity are in a race to retrieve something of great importance, battling it out along the way or a myriad of other adventure ideas. I'd wish people stop seeing new crunch and rules as "Player Abusive". They don't HAVE to be that way. If you're the freakin' DM then just put your foot down! I'm seeing missing material presented because of the rather stupid thought that "players are going to want it and abuse it". Like the saying goes, "Just say NO!"
GothicDan 09-21-05, 03:57 PM	I for one, as a DM, would like all the Chosen templates. Maybe I'd like to run a game where the Chosen of each deity are in a race to retrieve something of great importance, battling it out along the way or a myriad of other adventure ideas. WotC doesn't really care about individual desires; only if that desire is shared amongst the majority of gamers is it taken into consideration. Since WotC aims all of its printed products at a level of, "How often would people use these things in actual play (combat)?", and the vast majority of people would have no need to actually play (in such a way that they needed actual statistics) the Chosen templates, they wouldn't spend their time creating it. This is the reasoning for WotC not detailing affairs that do not directly affect mortals (such as the Dawn Cataclysm) and for the abysmal power levels of the EEEs (who were made so as to represent a challenge in combat against to a significant group of players, rather than actually being consistent with their power levels). And even with publication aside, the idea of WotC posting so much material on the web isn't really plausible - as they'd still have to pay their employees to write the stuff up. Considering how busy most of them are on editing, researching, and writing materials that people are actually going to buy, I don't see WotC wanting to pay them to write something that effectively has no return on it. I'd wish people stop seeing new crunch and rules as "Player Abusive". They don't HAVE to be that way. If you're the freakin' DM then just put your foot down! I'm seeing missing material presented because of the rather stupid thought that "players are going to want it and abuse it". Like the saying goes, "Just say NO!" That's a very good mindset. And the very fact that so many people are saying "NO!" to the majority of additional crunch material means that WotC isn't focusing so much on it. This could be due to any of a number of reasons, including a shortage of cash to buy the books in the first place, a preference for lore over crunch, or simply because the DM/Players aren't willing to spend time on paging through a dozen manuals all at once to utilize every little potential mechanical option. Also, you have to understand things from a psychological point of view, too. It's much easier to tell players "no" to something when there isn't any official mechanics backing it up. I'm not saying it's harder to actually verbalize the word "No," but rather if a person sees something printed in a book (which means that according to WotC, it's okay!) he's more likely to be annoyed with his DM for not allowing it. This makes tense the entire group dynamic. And the fact that if there is less actual core material for players to possibly find out about, the less likely they are to engage in such activities in the first place (asking the DM, or arguing with him about it, or being bitter about it), and thus allowing time to be spent on more important things, like roleplay.
Razz 09-21-05, 05:06 PM	They used to do such website material but they cut it. Thus, I am quite sure, is the reason behind their increased drop of hits on their website. That's my point, though, about D&D currently. There's no more "DM Only" material anymore and there should be. I know the current edition is supposed to appeal to players, but let's not forget without a DM there is no D&D. A "DM's Guide to Forgotten Realms" is needed. I sure think so. Not in the extreme, just maybe 1 product a year made especially for a DM.
GothicDan 09-21-05, 09:25 PM	They used to do such website material but they cut it. Thus, I am quite sure, is the reason behind their increased drop of hits on their website. Yup. But that isn't cutting down on their revenue. That's my point, though, about D&D currently. There's no more "DM Only" material anymore and there should be. I know the current edition is supposed to appeal to players, but let's not forget without a DM there is no D&D. I agree. However, printing even one of such products a year in hopes that the minority of players who DM (I'd say 1 out of every 5 or 6, as from my personal gaming experiences for the past 10 years, no one ever wants to DM) would be lost cause, financially, for WotC. And that doesn't stop people from buying them anyway, who want to see all of the crunch; the majority of players I know own the Monster Manual even though it's only technically supposed to be read by DMs. So this would not only not reduce the tension of the group dynamic, but also promotes players to 'break' little rules (reading DM-only material), and would severely cut WotC's income.
Razz 09-22-05, 12:52 AM	Yup. But that isn't cutting down on their revenue. I agree. However, printing even one of such products a year in hopes that the minority of players who DM (I'd say 1 out of every 5 or 6, as from my personal gaming experiences for the past 10 years, no one ever wants to DM) would be lost cause, financially, for WotC. And that doesn't stop people from buying them anyway, who want to see all of the crunch; the majority of players I know own the Monster Manual even though it's only technically supposed to be read by DMs. So this would not only not reduce the tension of the group dynamic, but also promotes players to 'break' little rules (reading DM-only material), and would severely cut WotC's income. On this topic, I actually agree with you. In the end it's more about the money and less about the spirit of the game. Though TSR was more into the spirit, they almost destroyed D&D itself because it either was too much or just wasn't the right stuff. Ahh....the day when a happy medium forms into play. High hopes and dreams, unfortunately. :weep:
GothicDan 09-22-05, 11:51 AM	Eh. Some crunch I don't mind. I don't mind crunch that in some way is specifically tailored to highlight or develop an aspect of a setting (be it an organization, NPCs, etc.) in a way that other pre-existent mechanics cannot. In most of the cases, though, it's simply superfluous, as the majority of crunch can be used interchangeably in any campaign setting; which is why, since it's not tailored specifically to the Realms in some cases, I don't think it should be in FR books, but rather in core materials. Also, I prefer core rules to be established such that they promote consistency with the established history and lore. However, this is completely untrue in some cases. For example, Elven High Magi are so unique that they need specific crunch to support them; while this can be simulated by Epic Spellcasting, I would prefer new mechanics to be developed altogether for Epic Spellcasting (as I've done on my own). For the most part, I agree with new PrCs that reflect aspects of Faerunian cultures, organizations, or individuals that have already been established in lore to deviate somewhat (or more) from the standard abilities for their archetype. PrCs I approve of being in FR material include (if not necessarily approving of how they were handled): specialty priests, spellsingers, spelldancers, incantratrixes, purple knights of cormyr, elven high mage, netherese arcanist, red wizards of Thay, wychlaran, etc. PrCs that I don't approve of being in FR material: Thayan Gladiator and Thayan Slaver: Since when was Thay famous for gladiators or their slavers? They have them, sure, but they were never described in detail enough that their abilities or characteristics set them apart from any other such individuals in any way. Guild Thief: All thief guilds operate differently; there's no "standard" for guild thieves in Faerun. Divine Champion, Divine Crusader, Divine Agent, Arcane Disciple, Heirophant: I would rather such roles be developed specifically to better suit each religion. Apart from spellcasters (or perhaps compared to spellcasters), other archetype classes in the Realms have relatively little to distinguish one organization from the next. Oh, there are a few of such styles, such as bladesong, the dwarves' penchent towards defensiveness and endurance, and the like, but not so much that such roles couldn't be simulated with existent core classes without detracting from the theme of the character at all. So, I see little reason for many new PrCs to be developed along lines that are aimed primarily at martial-types, rogue-types, etc. Simply put, they wouldn't actually be supporting an existing aspect of the Realms. And sure you could "add" it to the Realms, but what then would make that PrC any more appropriate to the Realms than any other? I do indeed approve of new spells being introduced all of the time, but I don't consider them really "crunch," since the kind of spells that I like to see introduced statistically are those which specifically reinforce certain cultural standards or traditions, or those that are tailored to a specific NPC in such a way that they are appropriate to that NPC's knowledge, history, and personality. Feats I can really take or leave. I especially dislike new feats based for spellcasters, since it seems to detract from the overall power and versatility of spellcasters in general, which is something that Faerun always had, especially among the wizards. In previous editions (in which Faerun was developed), you didn't need to do anything "special" (i.e. take feats) to create magical items, use metamagic, or the like; these were simply aspects of the archetypical wizard. For an example of such thought in a specific application, see the Simbul's opinion about Nodes and Feats in a recent thread. Of course, to specialize in certain aspects, one couldn't be just a normal "mage," but instead had to become a Red Wizard of Thay, a Dualist, an Incantatrix, or what have you. Thus I understand the need for prerequisite Feats for PrCs. Any other major types of "crunch" that I missed? :)
Faraer 09-22-05, 12:28 PM	Let's not forget that all gods don't have 'Chosen' of any kind. 'Chosen' of gods other than Mystra are an extremely dubious and marginal subject.PrCs I approve of being in FR material include (if not necessarily approving of how they were handled): specialty priests, spellsingers, spelldancers, incantratrixes, purple knights of cormyr, elven high mage, netherese arcanist, red wizards of Thay, wychlaran, etc.What ability do Purple Dragon Knights or Red Wizards have that can't be handled with the existing rules? Or most specialty priests (with multiclassing)?
GothicDan 09-22-05, 03:59 PM	What ability do Purple Dragon Knights or Red Wizards have that can't be handled with the existing rules? Or most specialty priests (with multiclassing)? Well, the Red Wizards, for example, are renowned mostly for being the most powerful specialist wizards around. In core D&D rules, specialists are kind of weak. The most that one could take to super-specialize in a given school would be to get Spell Focus (school) and Greater Spell Focus (school). Since there are very common feats that any arcane caster of appropriate level can (and often do) access, this means that spells from a Red Wizard's chosen school would not be any more potent than any other wizard's who happened to have these feats, too. Alone, the standard Wizard class is far too broad, and is not representative (I feel) of the power that Red Wizards wield in their chosen schools, to the exclusion of many other forms of magic. Without the Red Wizard PrC, there is little in the core D&D Wizard rules that would make Szass Tam any better a Necromancer than a similarly-leveled general Mage who took the same feats. As for the Purple Dragon Knights, though, I'm not particularly sure. They sort of fall into that general martial-esque category, I suppose.
GothWulf 09-22-05, 04:30 PM	<SNIP> And even with publication aside, the idea of WotC posting so much material on the web isn't really plausible - as they'd still have to pay their employees to write the stuff up. Considering how busy most of them are on editing, researching, and writing materials that people are actually going to buy, I don't see WotC wanting to pay them to write something that effectively has no return on it. <SNIP> Well, they could always do what W.W. did with the moderators of their old online game. They would "pay" them by every so many hours they were moderating the game, they would get a free book. <I'm pretty sure this is how it worked, but since it was a friend of mine that did it and not myself Im not totally sure...I just know that he got free books from them for doing it and it was somehow connected with how often he did it, or how many hours or some such.> It would be relitively easy <not to mention cheaper> for then to set up something like this. Have US write the "fluff" that people are asking for, then all they would have to do is instead of paying however many people to write it, they just have one or two people read and approve it, and "pay" the contributors with a free book or some such for every so many approved articles. Not really that much different then the magazines that give out a free years subcription for a published article instead of sending out a check. That way those of us with the time and inclination to do writing such as this get some type of compensation other then the "gee thats cool" responces on the boards <not that Im knocking those...I've gotten a few myself and its great to have others that play tell you that you came up with a good idea> and those that want the info but don't have the time, or the skill, or whatever, to do it themselves still have it. Just my 2 cp.....<now how do I get ahold of someone from Wizards to suggest it? LOL> Wulfe
Faraer 09-22-05, 09:25 PM	I don't think a Red Wizard should be more powerful than a non-Red Wizard specialist wizard, or a general mage, of the same level. If 3E specialist wizards are too weak, they should be stronger. (Apart from that, the idea of all Red Wizards being specialists seems to have been contrived by FR6, and doesn't fit very well.)They sort of fall into that general martial-esque category, I suppose.That general martial-esque category which, as far as I can see, doesn't warrant prestige classes.
GothicDan 09-22-05, 09:32 PM	I don't think a Red Wizard should be more powerful than a non-Red Wizard specialist wizard, or a general mage, of the same level. If 3E specialist wizards are too weak, they should be stronger. (Apart from that, the idea of all Red Wizards being specialists seems to have been contrived by FR6, and doesn't fit very well.) I am not saying that they should be more powerful in general, but certainly more powerful in their chosen school of specialization. And how were Red Wizards detailed before they were identified as super-specialists? Were they merely like any other speciliast before the Red Wizard kit was introduced in Spellbound? Was their society less competitive and focused on domination of both arcana and the world? Note that I'm not being sarcastic, but am genuinely curious. The majority of my information comes from 2E sources, as I don't own Dreams of the Red Wizards.
AW71 09-22-05, 10:33 PM	Sorry, but I was pretty impartial to the original Faiths and Avatars handbook from 2nd edition, myself. The thing was so complete...I know that 2nd ed sometimes provided too much information, but at least you didn't have to wrack your brain trying to come up with things.... Maybe if 3rd edition came up with something similar...I though the Faiths and Pantheons book was really weak.
Razz 09-23-05, 02:22 AM	Sorry, but I was pretty impartial to the original Faiths and Avatars handbook from 2nd edition, myself. The thing was so complete...I know that 2nd ed sometimes provided too much information, but at least you didn't have to wrack your brain trying to come up with things.... Maybe if 3rd edition came up with something similar...I though the Faiths and Pantheons book was really weak. My thoughts exactly.
Faraer 09-23-05, 03:38 PM	And how were Red Wizards detailed before they were identified as super-specialists? Were they merely like any other speciliast before the Red Wizard kit was introduced in Spellbound? Was their society less competitive and focused on domination of both arcana and the world?The society has always been like that, but -- without checking the books -- the Old Grey Box doesn't mention them as being all specialists, and many of the minor sourcebook and novel references to Red Wizards imply versatile spellcasters with no suggestion of the specialist thing -- which might have been there from the start, or it might have been Steve Perrin's idea in FR6. (Thay isn't an area I've thought about that much.)
Ziatyn Phoenixwolf 09-23-05, 11:55 PM	I agree that the Faiths and Pantheons book was a little licking, buut it is better than most of the other WotC published books. Razz it does no good to say no to the players that I had to deal with since they wanted to all be like a video game charactor so that they could destroy and have every thing that their greedy little hearts desired. They decided that they did not like my game since I forbid a few prestege classes without them finding out about them(by going to Kura Tura), and I made them acctually role play instead of roll play, so they quit. Now I have no group to play with.