Post/Author/DateTime	Post
artel 10-11-05, 12:13 PM	After browsing the forums for a while, and getting ready to run a new campaign, I had a few question for all of you in the "know" :) I only want to have a specific listing of books, the setting will be placed in the DragonLance Campaign Setting, in the Age of Mortals. Currently my book list looks like this: Players Handbook Dungeon Masters Guide Monster Manuals Complete Arcane Complete Divine Complete Adventurers Complete Warrior Arms and Equipment Dragonlance Age of Mortals Dragonlance Campaign Setting Beistary of Krynn Planer Handbook Now, I have been DM'ing for the same group of guys since middleschool, starting with Orignal D&D, moving to 2e, then to 3e. We have went from campaign to campaign, setting to setting, so we have a big collection of books and material to draw from. As the years moved on, all this material started to just run together, people drawing from all sorts of books/web enhancements, etc. After a good year break in D&D, we are starting up again, but I wanted to limit the material to the above list. One of my players likes to play a cleric, always does, and wants to use the BoVD (Book of Vile Darknees) and BoED (Book of Exalted Deeds), which are relativility new books to our collection. I have heard from many DM's on here that don't like this book, and don't allow it, and a few that do like it and allow it. I am of the opinion that these 2 books just wouldn't fit into the campaign very well, but I just would like some opinions from all you, as to why you don't like it, or why it would/wouldn't be sutible for my campign. btw - this is a campagin where the players are starting off at 8-10th lvl.
Mirikon 10-11-05, 12:17 PM	Standard rule for my game is that anything outside of the core books may or may not be allowed, on a case by case basis, for the individual things being sought. In other words, make him point out which things he wants out of the books, and then decide on those things. If they don't fit the campaign world, tell him no, and leave it at that.
Illion the Red 10-11-05, 12:19 PM	BOVD should be a DM-Only book. BOED requires a VERY mature group of players and DM. Exaulted characters require a great deal of roleplaying and can be a lot of work for both the players and DM. That said, if you and your players can handle it, there's nothing broken in the book as long as you are willing to be as strict as the book says. "The ends NEVER justify the means" means just that. There is no lesser of two evils. It's a hard path, but one that can lead to some great roleplaying opportunities. If your player is looking for crunch, look elsewhere.
OctoberRaven 10-11-05, 12:22 PM	BoVD is pretty useful IMO, even if you don't run an evil campaign and especially if you run a dark, gritty campaign or a game based on games/TV shows/movies (I plan on doing an Eternal Darkness campaign in the future) I dont have BoED so I can't give you any input on it.
Cromm10k 10-11-05, 12:45 PM	IMHO the whole BoED/BoVD doesn't fit the DragonLance setting. Especialy the BoED with the most broken monk and druid builds (via Vow of Poverty) gives insane power to two classes that are not that prominent in DL anyway. I wouldn't allow BoED stuff in a DL campaign. BoVD is nice for flavor but compared with the BoED the powers/crunch in it are weak. The evil guys definitely get the shorter end of the stick... DL has enough to offer with dragons and all the setting specific stuff, so you don't have to mix the two books in it. Only my 2 €-cents! :)
weasel fierce 10-11-05, 01:45 PM	How does your campaign benefit from using those books ? Thats the question to be asking, really. Likewise, what does the player receive, that he cannot get from a normal cleric, and roleplaying accordingly
UltimateReality 10-11-05, 01:47 PM	How does the player want to use both the BOVD and BOED in one build? :confused:
Jancarius 10-11-05, 02:13 PM	I wouldn't allow either in Dragonlance. I've been playing Dragonlance since the 2nd edition boxset with the Heroes of the Lance sitting around the fire on the cover (You know, before the Master of Past and Present), and there has been not one single character I would ever say was Vile or Exalted. Fistandilus probably comes the closest to being Vile in the whole series (Raistlin isn't even close. He still had a spark of good in him all the way through), with Goldmoon maybe being the closest to Exalted. Considering that in 2e, there weren't even any druid sects (all druids were simply clerics of the Zishlev, Brachala or Zebiom), the Vow of Poverty would make you wonder why you never saw a single character (of those type) in any of the books that I can remember ever influencing events. Monk wise, I believe most of the monks would have to be followers of Gilean or Majere, both of who are kind of isolationist. Either way, it doesn't really seem to fit the setting (and NEVER let PCs BoVD anyway)
artel 10-11-05, 02:14 PM	How does the player want to use both the BOVD and BOED in one build? He dosen't, he just wants to use the BoED, they are a good aligned party. I was just throwing both out there for discussion, since people seem to be either very for, or very against these books. (sorry for not making that a little clearer) He mainly wants to use the spell selection from BoED I will definitly get with him and see what we can workout, we are all very easy going people, and would accept my ruling either way. I guess I was just mainly curious about specific's on "why" both of these books seem to be so regularly thrown out of peoples gaming session. Seems to me almost as if these books weren't playtested that great, and they tend to overbalance campaigns, and I was just hoping for maybe some specifics or examples. (ie. spells that just seem way over the top, feats that are overpowered, etc) For those of you that use the books, do you run high powered/high magic campagins or low magic/powered settings, and if so, have these books worked out well for you, things you wish you hadn't allowed, etc
artel 10-11-05, 02:18 PM	I wouldn't allow either in Dragonlance. I've been playing Dragonlance since the 2nd edition boxset with the Heroes of the Lance sitting around the fire on the cover (You know, before the Master of Past and Present), and there has been not one single character I would ever say was Vile or Exalted. Fistandilus probably comes the closest to being Vile in the whole series (Raistlin isn't even close. He still had a spark of good in him all the way through), with Goldmoon maybe being the closest to Exalted. Considering that in 2e, there weren't even any druid sects (all druids were simply clerics of the Zishlev, Brachala or Zebiom), the Vow of Poverty would make you wonder why you never saw a single character (of those type) in any of the books that I can remember ever influencing events. Monk wise, I believe most of the monks would have to be followers of Gilean or Majere, both of who are kind of isolationist. Either way, it doesn't really seem to fit the setting (and NEVER let PCs BoVD anyway) From the little I have looked at both books, I would tend to agree with you Jancarius, and thanks for the input. What would you think of the spell selection? Has any of your players used the spell selection out of BoED? Do you limit your DL campaign to certian books? Are you still playing with 2e rules, or 3e rules? Just curious
Talonz 10-11-05, 02:20 PM	You're wanting a Dragonlance campaign? Focus on the dragonlance books. No need for planar, vile or exalted. They don't fit. I'd even steer away from the complete books unless you were sure they fit into a dragonlance campaign on a case by case basis.
Jancarius 10-11-05, 02:28 PM	The ONE time I've handled Exalted characters (I've only heard about the Vile ones), the main problem I encountered is the strict roleplaying requirements more than the spells balance (though some are just crazy good). I am (now) an Eberron oriented DM, did Dragonlance in 2e (was a bit dissapointed by 3e Dragonlance), and some FR in 3.0. Even a level one Exalted draws a LOT of attention from evil (especially if they have Nimbus of Light or similar strong good radiating abilities), because they are so pure. To cover a few specific spells: Starmantle can be fun (and essentially means you can laugh at anyone without a magic weapon) but the normal problems you might expect from players having that kind of spell should NOT come up (no having them pick fights with the town guard... not something an Exalted would do), Blessed Sight is a lot like Arcane Sight for Detect Evil so be sure to use anti-divination magic if you want a secret evil around. Other than that, most of the Sanctified spells are pretty strong, but you need a specific feat just to cast them, and most of them have an EXP or other cost ontop of that, so it generally balances out (man is it badass to cast Armageddon though... Celestial Host, hear my call and descend! Let your righteous blades smite my wicked foes!).
UltimateReality 10-11-05, 03:38 PM	He dosen't, he just wants to use the BoED, they are a good aligned party. I was just throwing both out there for discussion, since people seem to be either very for, or very against these books. (sorry for not making that a little clearer)Ah. I wondered how he planned to pull that off. :P He mainly wants to use the spell selection from BoEDOhhh, he wants Sanctified spells: clerics get a whole list of spells they can cast spontaneously. (Other classes can learn them, or prepare them, but not spont-cast.) In my mind, this is BAH-ROKEN, and you should only use it if you're planning a high-powered game or you know the player will not abuse it to all get out. If you don't already know it, Santified Spells are described on pages 83-84, and the spell list itself is on pages 84-85. I know nothing about Dragonlance other than the common misinterpretation of kender, so I can't help you there. The deal with BoED and BoVD is that they contain many conventionally "broken" things that are only balanced if you enforce the RP requirements...which a lot of DMs don't. Also, the books require a more morally extreme character than many parties can comfortably accomodate. Also, some people take issue with the moralities the books present (calling them too simplistic or inaccurate), and other people aren't fond of alignment at all, so don't like making it such a central part of their game. Edit: Someone mentioned needing a feat to cast Sanctified spells? Where are you getting that from, cuz I can't find it... Also, you asked about spells. If you let your player go with the Sanctified spells, you will have to temper the party's adversaries somewhat. I once played an exalted wizard with Wages of Sin. The DM was sending hordes of drow at us by that point. That didn't last long. Luminous Armor is also pretty disgusting for what it is -- Mage Armor and Daylight and a lesser form of Bestow Curse all rolled into a 2nd level spell. Hammer of Righteousness is like a ranged touch fireball, but with no damage die cap. (Also, clerics adept at pumping up their CL will abuse it like crazy.) Inquisition can be campaign-breaking if you don't set up your information flow right. 7th level spells and up are broken anyway, and to be honest I've never played a character above 15th level, so I can't help you with those, although Sanctify the Wicked gets a lot of flak on these boards for being a non-good spell. A lot of people take issue with the whole "let's rename poisons to ravages and call them exalted!" thing too. One last thing -- if you go with this, make sure your player is paying the appropriate material/gold, xp, and abstinence/sacrifice costs!
rkr1970 10-11-05, 04:04 PM	If he wants spells from the BoED, and you have the book, you may want to try this... Everytime he performs an act of overwhelming goodness or promotes his deity's portfolio in some significant way, his deity grants him access to a few new spells. You pick the spells as you see fit from whatever sources you choose. I would personally tie the new spells to the act he's performed and the deity he serves, making sure that he understands the sacrifices involved with sanctified spells. A good example would be a cleric, whose party just defeated a powerful necromancer that had been causing suffering throughout the area, might receive the following spells from the BoED: Ease Pain, Heart's Ease, Phieran's Resolve*, and Celestial Brilliance. *Sanctified spell It would force the player who wants the spells from BoED to have his cleric play a proactive role in his deity's portfolio. IMHO, good role-playing should get more than just XP as a reward!
rkr1970 10-11-05, 04:24 PM	Also, you asked about spells. If you let your player go with the Sanctified spells, you will have to temper the party's adversaries somewhat. I once played an exalted wizard with Wages of Sin. The DM was sending hordes of drow at us by that point. That didn't last long. Luminous Armor is also pretty disgusting for what it is -- Mage Armor and Daylight and a lesser form of Bestow Curse all rolled into a 2nd level spell. Hammer of Righteousness is like a ranged touch fireball, but with no damage die cap. (Also, clerics adept at pumping up their CL will abuse it like crazy.) Inquisition can be campaign-breaking if you don't set up your information flow right. 7th level spells and up are broken anyway, and to be honest I've never played a character above 15th level, so I can't help you with those, although Sanctify the Wicked gets a lot of flak on these boards for being a non-good spell. Wages of Sin isn't sanctified, or all that powerful. A 6th level spell that affects 1 creature/level for 1 round/level. Those must have been small hordes. Actual sanctified spells can be a bit over-the-top, though. Luminous armor seems a tad too powerful (+5 AC for 1 hour/level and only costs 1d2 Str points). Hammer of Righteousness has no miss chance, but allows a Fort save and costs 1d3 Str. Inquisition, however, is rather weak for a sanctified spell IMHO. You force a creature, who gets a save, to answer truthfully 1 question/3 levels, and it cost you 1d4 Con. These spells are, of course, only to be used in the battle of good vs. evil. If you allow players to get their hands on these types of spells, and they use them for anything that isn't absolute good, make them suffer. I personally double the sacrifice and then have the spell fail anyway!
UltimateReality 10-11-05, 04:29 PM	Wages of Sin isn't sanctifiedOopsy, my bad. We only played with the book for one campaign. :P These spells are, of course, only to be used in the battle of good vs. evil.Exactly. So if the PCs don't face evil opponents, the spells become useless. A good way to balance out their effectiveness -- balance out the NPCs. Myself, I'm tending to more flavour-determined-flavour and not mechanics-determined flavour these days, as well as having to lug around less books, so I wouldn't allow these for any group I currently am in. I might consider the vows of Nonviolence and Peace for some NPCs, but that's it, really. I don't generally go for the whole epic good vs. epic evil theme (a bit weighty for my escapist entertainment), and don't like the way alignment is handled, so I don't use the books. Half of the people I game with wouldn't know roleplaying if it hit them in the face, so trying to play exalted is a lost cause anyway. :P
Jancarius 10-11-05, 04:34 PM	Ah. I wondered how he planned to pull that off. :P Ohhh, he wants Sanctified spells: clerics get a whole list of spells they can cast spontaneously. (Other classes can learn them, or prepare them, but not spont-cast.) In my mind, this is BAH-ROKEN, and you should only use it if you're planning a high-powered game or you know the player will not abuse it to all get out. If you don't already know it, Santified Spells are described on pages 83-84, and the spell list itself is on pages 84-85. I know nothing about Dragonlance other than the common misinterpretation of kender, so I can't help you there. The deal with BoED and BoVD is that they contain many conventionally "broken" things that are only balanced if you enforce the RP requirements...which a lot of DMs don't. Also, the books require a more morally extreme character than many parties can comfortably accomodate. Also, some people take issue with the moralities the books present (calling them too simplistic or inaccurate), and other people aren't fond of alignment at all, so don't like making it such a central part of their game. Edit: Someone mentioned needing a feat to cast Sanctified spells? Where are you getting that from, cuz I can't find it...Huh, I remember before seeing something like "Sanctified Spellcaster" which was a pre-requisite to cast from the Sanctified spell list... But I no longer see it... Also, you asked about spells. If you let your player go with the Sanctified spells, you will have to temper the party's adversaries somewhat. I once played an exalted wizard with Wages of Sin. Yeah... Wages of Sin is more powerful the more evil fodder are available. I didn't have that much problem with it because the session involved a lot of constructs and undead which are immune to mind affecting, but that was just lucky. The DM was sending hordes of drow at us by that point. That didn't last long. Luminous Armor is also pretty disgusting for what it is -- Mage Armor and Daylight and a lesser form of Bestow Curse all rolled into a 2nd level spell. Hammer of Righteousness is like a ranged touch fireball, but with no damage die cap. (Also, clerics adept at pumping up their CL will abuse it like crazy.) Well, it's single target, so it's closer to being a ranged touch Lightning Bolt. There is a Fort Save for half, but it's d8s if the target of evil (which it presumably will be). Inquisition can be campaign-breaking if you don't set up your information flow right. Zone of Truth on crack. With con damage. 7th level spells and up are broken anyway, and to be honest I've never played a character above 15th level, so I can't help you with those, although Sanctify the Wicked gets a lot of flak on these boards for being a non-good spell.I don't really think it's non-good... afterall, your teaching an evil creature the error of it's ways. Of course, it has no choice, presuming it fails it's save and SR, but... The end result is that it DOES become a good creature. The thing you'll notice about these spells is they are generally either rather underpowered, such as Heavenly Lightning, or incredibly powerful like the spells mentioned above. A lot of people take issue with the whole "let's rename poisons to ravages and call them exalted!" thing too.I've never felt poison use is inherently evil, so I never had this problem. One last thing -- if you go with this, make sure your player is paying the appropriate material/gold, xp, and abstinence/sacrifice costs! This is critical. RKR's idea is quite awesome, in my opinon. Have him earn the spells as a reward. This not only lets you control their access to which spells you want in the campaign, but encourages 'Exalted' roleplaying.
UltimateReality 10-11-05, 05:21 PM	I don't really think it's non-good... afterall, your teaching an evil creature the error of it's ways. Of course, it has no choice, presuming it fails it's save and SR, but... The end result is that it DOES become a good creature. The whole "it has no choice" thing is what people object to, mainly. They feel, IIRC, that it denies the sentient life its dignity or somesuch...that, coupled with an earlier quote from the book about "swordpoint conversions not being good" (which some argue this spell essentially is), make it a sticky topic for lots. RKR's idea is quite awesome, in my opinon. Have him earn the spells as a reward. This not only lets you control their access to which spells you want in the campaign, but encourages 'Exalted' roleplaying. This would be a really nice compromise. Depending on your group setting it works well -- as long as the players don't come to expect bonuses for certain actions, you're fine. But this definitely adds the most flavour to the campaign, while allowing you to remain in control of which spells (or PrCs, feats, and items, for that matter) make it into the world. I'd talk to the player about this.
Simetrical 10-11-05, 05:23 PM	I don't think the whole good-vs.-evil thing meshes with the Dragonlance setting at all. A fundamental aspect of the setting is balance: good doesn't try to wipe out evil. White mages coexist with red and black with no problems, clerics don't kill each other solely for their allegiances, etc. The whole idea of a category of spell used in the "war against evil" goes against the heart of Dragonlance. There aren't really any "exalted" characters, because anyone who sets himself up to "oppose the forces of evil" actually becomes evil himself―witness the last Kingpriest of Istar. So vile stuff certainly has a place, but anti-evil doesn't.
Jancarius 10-11-05, 05:38 PM	Though I didn't get very far into Amber and Ashes yet, generally even the gods of evil maintain balance, except when Takhisis drags them along into her schemes (and she's dead, bout time). Though Chemosh appears up to something nowadays :)