http://athas.org/releases/ds3/ds3_r6.pdf
Enjoy.
http://athas.org/releases/ds3_r6.pdf
Enjoy.
http://athas.org/releases/ds3/ds3_r6.pdf
You forgot the "ds3/" portion.
DS3 is again updated, with feedback from the previous thread (now closed). Comments and edits and feedback go here.
http://athas.org/releases/ds3_r6.pdf
Enjoy.
Happy Birthday to me!!!!!!!!!!!
Now I only need images to go with that...
It still hasn't been added.
The rogue class has no "Adventures" or "Background" sections, although it looks like one of the two was put in but not given a title.
I took the liberty of writing some text for both in case it is needed (not trying to be presumptous or anything, just trying to be helpful )
Adventures: To a rogue, adventures are about one thing – profit. Occasionally a pet cause or mere circumstances will drive a rogue to adventure without the lure of easy money, but even then they tend to be on the lookout for a way to make a quick ceramic or two.
Background: Wherever people settle, there will be rogues. This maxim is especially true on Athas, as rogues are everywhere in Athasian society. From the trade lords of the merchant houses and scheming nobles all the way down to the lowliest of street thief, everyone fights for survival even in the relative security of the city-states. Rogues just take the shortcuts.
Also, the Elven Longblade still has no fluff description. I believe Jon or someone else wrote one in some thread somehwere, but I can't find it.
A few questions
- in regards to Coat of Mists (from the errata on your site), has the idea to have the material component be as a focus been abandoned? And what of the idea that "The mist gives you concealment..."?
- pertaining to the Conglagration spell (pg. 79), has the following description (also from the errata) been abandoned - Add this line to the end of the first paragraph of the conflagration description: "If the target is killed by this spell, the rise 1 minute later as a skeleton with the Fire sub-type under the caster's control. This skeleton's HD count against the total number of undead the caster can command." Also, replace the first sentence of the second paragraph with the following: "The target of this spell automatically catches on fire (see catching fire in the DMG) and any other creature within 10 ft. must a Reflex save (DC 15) or catch on fire as well."
and lastly
- about the spell Create Oasis (pg. 82) the errata has "No Material component", but there is one still. Should we ignore this errata entry, or does that line need to be corrected.
p79: Coat of Mists - 3rd sentence - change "provids" to provides" and "weathher" to "weather", and "endure elements" should be in italics.
A few questions
- in regards to Coat of Mists (from the errata on your site
Ah. No, the errata listed on-site is old, and does not apply to this version. The spells are as they are intended to be.
I know that in an earlier post on the site, Jon had said that the rules would be out in about two weeks, so I was wondering if this was just a date error on the Releases page or if the doc has not been actually updated yet?
Speaking of releases, on the Athas.org site there is listed that the Dragon Rules were releases on June 30th, but the playtest version is still up.
I know that in an earlier post on the site, Jon had said that the rules would be out in about two weeks, so I was wondering if this was just a date error on the Releases page or if the doc has not been actually updated yet?
No, I got the date wrong when I ws updating the index page. There is a new version due out shortly.
No, I got the date wrong when I ws updating the index page. There is a new version due out shortly.
:evillaugh
If it was changed to be more similar to the XPH, why not do the same with the HG too?
I've noticed you changed the TK stats, now they're the same as the XPH. Why?
If it was changed to be more similar to the XPH, why not do the same with the HG too?
Because the XPH kreen is fine, with the removal of the automatically psionic bits (if we make 'kreen automatically psionic, we have to make everyone automatically psionic)
The half-giant, however, we don't feel represents an Athasian half giant. Any more than we feel that the PHB elf represets an Athasian elf.
The half-giant, however, we don't feel represents an Athasian half giant. Any more than we feel that the PHB elf represets an Athasian elf.
It's kind of a joke that they call it a Half-Giant, it's not even as big as a half-ogre.
It's kind of a joke that they call it a Half-Giant, it's not even as big as a half-ogre.
Its "half" because its an hybrid of giant and another race.
A few things are repeated and one thing is contradicted
by the information below it sounds like they are to be CG but the description is all over the map. so what is the norm for them? right now as this states it is CG, NG, and CN Are these to be the norm for the new DS Elf
In the section on elfs
Alignment: Elves tend towards chaos because of their love of freedom
With respect to good and evil, elves tend towards neutrality, although their behavior leans towards chaos because of their love of freedom.
With respect to good and evil, elves tend towards neutrality, although their behavior leans towards good – even self-sacrifice -- where the good of their tribe is at stake.
That must have been a very small giant, either that or they were breed with halflings :D
Er...its a magical crossbreed, originated by the sorcerer-monarchs long ago.
With respect to good and evil, elves tend towards neutrality, although their behavior leans towards good – even self-sacrifice -- where the good of their tribe is at stake.
The part you didn't emphasis is the important part of that statement. Their neutral or evil where other races are concerned, but where their own tribe is concerned, they're known to be self-sacrificing (good, basically)
It's a failing of the alignment system that it takes no relativism into account.
It's a failing of the alignment system that it takes no relativism into account.
Awsome thanks for the clerification
I was hoping to have the new rules to start intorducing the AB concept to my players next week. I want to be able to perhaps let them (the PC's) find a document that has some incomplete information and hints to dragons powers.
Thanks :D
While I was reading throught the new update, I stumbled across something that caught my attention. A while back, I had brought up an issue with the datchi club's description. The problem had been fixed, but has apparently been changed back (at what point, I'm not sure, but didn't notice till now - so sorry).
The problem is thus - a datchi club is described as having a roughly 5' long head and 3' long handle, but has reach of 10' - no real biggie here, BUT - As the deadly part of the weapon is being held at about 3'-8' (probably closer) away from the body it makes no sense at all that a person would not be able to hit someone in a space adjacent to him. Just think for one second on how the weapon would be used, and you'll see that the description needs changing.
flip- WHERE BE DRAGONS??
I was hoping to have the new rules to start intorducing the AB concept to my players next week. I want to be able to perhaps let them (the PC's) find a document that has some incomplete information and hints to dragons powers.
They're coming. some last minute debate about things is going down, and I keep ending up with new versions of the document. When we settle, it'll be out that evening. Soon, I promise. ;)
Flip -
The problem is thus - a datchi club is described as having a roughly 5' long head and 3' long handle, but has reach of 10' - no real biggie here, BUT - As the deadly part of the weapon is being held at about 3'-8' (probably closer) away from the body it makes no sense at all that a person would not be able to hit someone in a space adjacent to him. Just think for one second on how the weapon would be used, and you'll see that the description needs changing.
I think it's a matter of weildiness. You need room to swing the thing to get the momentum you need. I'll refer it to the equipment bureau.
Soooo, ANY news when the final release for the core rules and/or the AB comes out?
AB dragon rules will be coming out tonight.
From the low post count on this thread, it looks like the rules are basically there. That said, the next version to come out will be illustrated. But don't hold your breath, we're going to be taking the time to make sure that we're getting good illustrations in, rather than just grabbing whatever's on-hand.
Originally Posted by flipOriginally Posted by Bengeldorn
page 25: You should rename the bard's trade secret Agile to avoid confusions with the PHB's equally called feat.
Any suggestion?
What about lissome?
Dictonary.com
lissome
adj : gracefully slender; moving and bending with ease
Stony Barrens and Scrubland appears under both Barren and Infertile terrain types.
Also, the examples appear to be listed under the wrong terrain types and the types themselves are hard to distinguish. I'd recommend using the terrain types listed on page 28 of the Age of Heroes rulebook from the Revised Boxed Set instead. I've posted it here for reference.
Barren should include boulder fields, sandy wastes, and salt flats.
Infertile should include stony barrens, rocky badlands, and bare mountains.
Fertile should include oases and scrublands.
Abundant should include verdant belts, grasslands, and mud flats.
Lush should include forests, large gardens, and parks.
I'm not sure why this was changed, or if I missed this discussion, but it seems easier to just keep the old table than make a new one with different names.
Proof Against Undead: Prevents dead subject from being raised as undead.
There is no spell-description of this spell.
3rd-Level Druide Spells - page 71:
Water Walking: Replaced by surface walk.
As Water Walk wasn't in his spell list I guess it should be "Water Breathing: Replaced by worm’s breath." instead.
And btw. Daylight ist allready in the Druid's Spell-List ;)
stats:
Saving Throw: Fortitude neagete
text:
Creatures caught in the cone of sound you emit must make a successful Will save or be stunned for 1d3 rounds.
Will or Fortitude, which save is the right one?
This isn't actual an error, but Blowgun, Puchik and Tonfa are simple Weapons and Rouges are allready profcient with all simple Weapons ( PHB - page 50), so these weapons doesn't need to be listed.
Their practice of cannibalism to emphasize their superiority over other sentient beings puts the ranger’s tracking abilities to deadly use.
Do halflings actually it each other?
Cannibalism is the act or practice of eating members of one's own species...
Ranger - Races, page 35:
Do halflings actually it each other?
I guess they could be viewed as cannibals in the sense that halflings eat other humaniod races.
Spells: A templar can cast divine spells according to Table 3-4: The Templar... Spells per day are listed in Table 3-5: Templar Spells Known.
Little bit of a contradiction... I assume this should read "Known spells are listed in Table 3-5 and spells per day in Table 3-4" ?
Also, nothing seems to clearly explain Table 3-5 (what does the +a mean, what does the superscript 1 mean).
Is it susposed to be this way? Every other terrain type is listed only once and I thought it was strange that this one appeared twice.
Is it that you removed this domain or that you forgot to put it back in the class table?
• -2 Dexterity, +2 Wisdom, +2 Charisma: Pterrans’ strong confidence and keen instincts for others’ motives makes them keen diplomats, and when they take the path of the psion, powerful telepaths.
Now that MAD is gone, telepaths don't benefit from Charisma nearly as much as they used to. Wilders on the other hand, do.
• Wild Telepathy. All pterrans are gifted from the day they hatch with the ability to use the missive talent at will, but only with their fellow reptiles.
Talents are no more; missive is a 1st level power.
Now that MAD is gone, telepaths don't benefit from Charisma nearly as much as they used to.
No, they don't. They do, however, benefit from a higher Wisdom (ie keen instincts).
Shouldn't the Craft (poisonmaking) skill be included in DS3? I don't recall seeing it in the SRD...
Craft(Poisonmaking) is basically the replacement for Alchemy.
(does some searching, was gonna find a reference)
... except, it's not. Craft(Alchemy) is the replacement for alchemy.
I gotta do some checking in my DMG, see what the deal is for *creating* poisons. If it's already assigned to Craft(Alchemy), then I've got some editing to do ...
No, they don't. They do, however, benefit from a higher Wisdom (ie keen instincts).
Yes but not in a very measurable (game stat) way. Psions have 1 class skill based on Wisdom and telepaths get one more for a total of two. That's all Psions get for high Wisdom (aside from things everyone gets like Will save bonuses). As for Charisma, Psions don't get any class skills based on it, but telepaths get 3. Again, aside from that telepaths gain nothing more from Charisma than anyone else.
By contrast, in the original PsiH, the telepath's power DCs, his bonus PPs, and his highest available power level was based on Charisma. Now all Psions are based off Intelligence; on the other hand Wilders (previously unavailable) are now the psionic class based off of Charisma (DCs, PPs, etc).
I'm not advocating a rules change, I'm just pointing out that the bit of flavor text is not really accurate anymore; pterran telepaths really aren't any more powerful than say human telepaths.
Btw, how about the domain I previously asked about?
Here is another point made by my munchkin number cruncher player. I dont recall exactly how he explained it (it's been a moment I havent see him), but he explained me that the half-giant, in this current version is missing a feat because it's a two hit die monster. I will have to ask him further explanation, but if you want to have a look at your HG, my friend told me that EL+1 and 2hd should give two feats instead of one (btw, it's a giant, maybe there is something else to look at in the MM ?).
Don't have the material in front of me to reference, so I can't address specifics (and therefore don't know if I'm arguing or agreeing ;) ), but:
Feats are based on your total HD, not your ECL. So, a half giant with 2HD and a +1 LA would calculate out as follows:
- a classless half giant (2 giant hd, +1 LA -> ECL 3, 2HD) would have 1 feat (1st level)
- a first level HG fighter (2 giant hd, +1 la, +1 fighter -> ecl 4, 3 hd) would have 3 feats (1st level, 3rd level, 1st level fighter)
- a 3rd level HG barbarian (2 giant hd, +1 la, +3 bar -> ecl 6, 5 HD) would have 2 feats (1st level, 3rd level)
Any chance it'll happen this year? Maybe, like, until X-mas??? :D
Don't have the material in front of me to reference, so I can't address specifics (and therefore don't know if I'm arguing or agreeing ;) ), but:
Feats are based on your total HD, not your ECL. So, a half giant with 2HD and a +1 LA would calculate out as follows:
- a classless half giant (2 giant hd, +1 LA -> ECL 3, 2HD) would have 1 feat (1st level)
- a first level HG fighter (2 giant hd, +1 la, +1 fighter -> ecl 4, 3 hd) would have 3 feats (1st level, 3rd level, 1st level fighter)
- a 3rd level HG barbarian (2 giant hd, +1 la, +3 bar -> ecl 6, 5 HD) would have 2 feats (1st level, 3rd level)
No, you are right, we looked into it yesterday with the rule books and everything is right. Sorry.
Btw, how about the clerical DOMAIN question?
No, you are right, we looked into it yesterday with the rule books and everything is right. Sorry.
Btw, how about the clerical DOMAIN question?
I'd have to say that it's just missing in the table, and will be added back in.
So, flip, release 7 will only come out when you have all the artwork done?
Any chance it'll happen this year? Maybe, like, until X-mas??? :D
I think there will be one more release before then. Minor typo-fixes and the like. End of the month.
Penn is coordinating artists for me, and once I start getting a steady art supply, I'll be working on integrating the pretty pictures for the final release.
Templar Spell List: Templars choose their spells from the templar spell list. A templar receives an assigned
spell at every spell level, as indicated in Table 3-6: Templar Spells Known., in addition to a number of picks he
may make on the templar spell list.
Tabel 3-6 has nothing to do with spells known, but rather with Secular Authority abilities.
And I think a simpler way of LA would be simply
Only count Racial Hit Dice and Class Levels for any feat gain or Ability gains, etc., as this is your "Actual" Level, or Hit Dice. Add the LA to this total to find your "Effective" Character Level whenever Experience points come into play. CRs, Experience gains, etc are all based on Effective Character Level (ECL) which includes the +LA.
Granted, maybe it is not easier to explain this way, but
a first level HG fighter (2 giant hd, +1 la, +1 fighter -> ecl 4, 3 hd) would have 3 feats (1st level, 3rd level, 1st level fighter)
seems to be putting out too much info that may just confuse people.
But yeah, when your ECL reaches 8 but your total hit dice only reach 7, you do not gain the ability mod that everyone gets every 4 levels, since you are only actually 7th level/HD.
Monsters as Races, SRD:
Use ECL instead of character level to determine how many experience points a monster character needs to reach its next level. Also use ECL to determine starting wealth for a monster character
it's come to my attention that the info describing when spell energy is gathered (ie, at preperation or casting) is missing.
It's gathered at casting time.
Gathering energy at preparation is a cheap cop-out and shall be relegated to the bottom of the sludge pile, where it belongs.
It's gathered at casting time.
Gathering energy at preparation is a cheap cop-out and shall be relegated to the bottom of the sludge pile, where it belongs.
And stamped on. And acid poured over the remains.
Heck, nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
Chapters 3 through 9 need to be moved out to the top-level bookmark range. Currently they are actually under the Chapter 2 bookmark so that when you go to collapse it, it collapses the whole thing rather then just Chapter 2: Races.
It's probably just a nit-pick, but it was one of the first things I noticed.
1) I think it is more than time to add an OFFICIAL poisons list for the Darksun Setting 3.5ed. Why? It's simple. We have a settings before all other settings that should have it poisons because we have bard that do not have any magical abilities SOOOOOOOO since a big part of their classes is about poisonning (not just that, but a part)... geez we should have a poisons list with description. IMO.
2) I think it could be (it IS) a good idea to create a PDF errata when you change your documents or when you update the core rules. What did I meant... Let's say today, I print the whole ds3.5_r6. In 6 months, you product r7 with new change. I dont want to print it again. Although, if I had a small errata pdf, I would print it and enjoy. That's an idea, would it be too much work? Just curious.
Just my two cents.
I think it could be (it IS) a good idea to create a PDF errata when you change your documents or when you update the core rules.
*grumbles*
Yes, it would also help when athas.org wants to update their previously released products.
EDIT: There also doesn't seem to be a section describing whether or not PCs still begin at 3rd level like they used to or if they now begin at 1st level.
A behind the veil section covering the magic-psionics transparency rule. Exactly how it works in DS. Not just MR and PR are different, but minor aspects as well.
Would the feats that are an exception to rule be avaliable to manifesters too because Athas is a high-psionics world?
For example, it says that a creature who has SR is also considered to have equivalent PR in Dark Sun.
But the whole point of spells that affect psionics, such as psionic dampener and psionic override, is that magic can be made to affect psionics. So its all a bit moot if all beasties have SR and PR at the same time.
Some creatures should have SR, some PR, some both. If need be, make a master list of all Monster Manual creatures that are considered allowed in DS and mention which ones have equivalent PR to their SR.
Oh! And btw, why dont delete the closed sticky thread about providing feedback, create another clean one and close it again so only the information you want to be there would be there?
Just my two cents.
That was my plan. That's why this thread has the release date tagged on it.
I can make my own threads sticky. It seems that I don't get to do that with any other thread.
After reading through it a bit more, I also noticed that the cleric is missing the Alignment section in its flavor text.
Noted. Thanks
EDIT: There also doesn't seem to be a section describing whether or not PCs still begin at 3rd level like they used to or if they now begin at 1st level.
Nope. There should probably be a BtV section discussing this. Basically, there is no "official" starting level. It's entirely up to the DM ... just like it's always been entirely up to the DM.
But, I can also say that it's "recommended" to consider starting at higher level, to allow access to the more exotic races for starting characters, and to point to the sections of the DMG that discuss starting out a levels above first. And to make it explicitly clear what gets covered by your ECL: Experience required to level and starting treasure.
There's a magic-psionic transparency article on the athas.org website, but the conclusions it gives the reader are not those I like.
The article is not official. It's a suggestion.
Some creatures should have SR, some PR, some both. If need be, make a master list of all Monster Manual creatures that are considered allowed in DS and mention which ones have equivalent PR to their SR.
Prod the monster folk on that. Quite an undertaking.
PS btw jon, have a look at the prc thread please.
What is your though about the pdf errata Flip?
I think a changelog is a great idea, I believe that's what Grummore is asking for here
What is your though about the pdf errata Flip?
PS btw jon, have a look at the prc thread please.
I've done it before, in the respect of keeping a web page up to date with edits.
That page got derailed with the 3.0 -> 3.5 conversion, because there was just so much that got touched ....
I can manage a changelog for this release fine, however. For other products, well, I'm not the one to ask about a lot of those, but I'll try and get people to start supplying a list of changes.
There's a magic-psionic transparency article on the athas.org website, but the conclusions it gives the reader are not those I like.
For example, it says that a creature who has SR is also considered to have equivalent PR in Dark Sun.
But the whole point of spells that affect psionics, such as psionic dampener and psionic override, is that magic can be made to affect psionics. So its all a bit moot if all beasties have SR and PR at the same time.
When dealing with the monsters, we have been proceeding under the variant of "magic and psionics are different", as this was the case with the original DS setting. The XPH allows for them being similar or the same but, imho, this would detract from the inherent flavour of the setting. We need a judgement call on this from the Overcouncil or Paper Nest.
Some creatures should have SR, some PR, some both. If need be, make a master list of all Monster Manual creatures that are considered allowed in DS and mention which ones have equivalent PR to their SR.
If need be, I'll have a look at doing that further down the line, once all other ToA matters are stowed away.
But, I can also say that it's "recommended" to consider starting at higher level, to allow access to the more exotic races for starting characters, and to point to the sections of the DMG that discuss starting out a levels above first. And to make it explicitly clear what gets covered by your ECL: Experience required to level and starting treasure.
I should be starting a new DS campaign in the upcoming weeks and I'm trying to get some base characters started to make sure I have a feel for all the rules. I'm expecting to have at least one Thri-Kreen and/or Half-Giant in the party, and I want my players to start at 3rd level.
Since Thri-Kreen and Half-Giants start at ECL 3, how much XP would they need to get their first class level? I get myself confused every time I try to figure this out... but I think the answer is 3000 XP required to get their first class level. Am I right?
Since Thri-Kreen and Half-Giants start at ECL 3, how much XP would they need to get their first class level? I get myself confused every time I try to figure this out... but I think the answer is 3000 XP required to get their first class level. Am I right?
Yes and no, depending on how one interprets your post.
A kreen or half-giant needs a 6.000 xp total to reach 4th level (ECL 4) and get their first class level, just as any other character would need to reach 4th level. A 3rd level character starts with 3.000 xp, so any 3rd level character would need 3.000 more xp to reach 4th level.
I wish that were spelled out more clearly in the sourcebooks.
Thanks!
Will there be significant changes to this part of the pdf on the next release?
To athas.org:
Have you had any release date for a core pdf with image?
Each ability requires both a minimum templar level and a minimum number of ranks in the Diplomacy skill to qualify; if a templar does not have the required number of ranks in the Diplomacy skill, he does not gain the secular authority ability until he acquires the needed ranks.
Many people ask me about this and this should clear things out.
To the Spells and Powers bureau.
Will there be significant changes to this part of the pdf on the next release?
To athas.org:
Have you had any release date for a core pdf with image?
No, no date yet. I'm going to be speaking with overseer Pennarin about assignments for the artisan slaves soon, but I'm not rushing this.
I am thinking that an update is in order sometime soon, however. Say, within the month. Mostly minor stuff, as it looks like there wasn't a lot of errata to come back from the last release.
I think this should be added to the templar's secular authority ability:
Each ability requires both a minimum templar level and a minimum number of ranks in the Diplomacy skill to qualify; if a templar does not have the required number of ranks in the Diplomacy skill, he does not gain the secular authority ability until he acquires the needed ranks.
Many people ask me about this and this should clear things out.
No. The secular authority ability explicitly does not require a minimum Templar level. There is a reason for this.
The basic mechanic is modeled after the core bard's Bardic Music ability, which requires a certain number of Ranks in the Perform skill in order to unlock new abilities. It does not follow the 3.5 mechanic in requiring a specific class level to unlock those abilities, because in four cities (Tyr, Draj, Balic and Raam), a majority of the Tablelands cities, the Templar is essentially an NPC class, because they cannot cast spells.
Templars in those cities have taken other paths to power, but they are still a part of the bureaucratic structure, and still have duties and requirements and policing to do. Tying the skill to diplomacy makes flavor sense, and it also generally limits it to specific classes -- clerics, and certain psions. Wizards don't even have it as a class skill. And there are clear examples of psions being high in the templar heiarchies. The mechanical implementation must allow for advancement beyond "levels as a templar"
Truth be told, Secular Authority is one mechanic that I've never been comfortable with; but that's because I'm not comfortable with the basic concept -- a class skill / roll determining your influence and power within a heiarchy, granting all sorts of police-state powers.
Templars in those cities have taken other paths to power, but they are still a part of the bureaucratic structure, and still have duties and requirements and policing to do. Tying the skill to diplomacy makes flavor sense, and it also generally limits it to specific classes -- clerics, and certain psions. Wizards don't even have it as a class skill. And there are clear examples of psions being high in the templar heiarchies. The mechanical implementation must allow for advancement beyond "levels as a templar"
Truth be told, Secular Authority is one mechanic that I've never been comfortable with; but that's because I'm not comfortable with the basic concept -- a class skill / roll determining your influence and power within a heiarchy, granting all sorts of police-state powers.
You could fix it creating a feat that makes Diplomacy a class skill, say Bureaucrat. Then it could be tied to level+ranks like the bardic music.
Nonetheless, i think this should be further explained in the ability entry. It is quite confusing the way it is.
You could fix it creating a feat that makes Diplomacy a class skill, say Bureaucrat. Then it could be tied to level+ranks like the bardic music.
We could, but it's not your complaint that not enough classes have Diplomacy as a class skill.
level + ranks means tying the skill to templar levels, which is what I'm saying is not acceptable, given the NPC-class power level that the templar class has in 4/7 city states in the Tablelands, and that there are notable examples of Templars following other paths for gaining spellcasting abilities.
Tying it to "character" levels is meaningless, because your ranks in a skill are already limited by your character level. Remember, this is ranks, not roll modifier (which is ranks + cha + feat adjustments + synergy + situational modifiers).
Nonetheless, i think this should be further explained in the ability entry. It is quite confusing the way it is.
There are aspects of the skill that could be confusing. This requirement isn't one of them.
Secular Authority: Once per day per templar level, a templar can use secular authority within his city state. Depending on the ranks he has in the Diplomacy skill, a templar can order slaves to do his bidding, requisition troops, enter the homes of freemen and nobles and have these arrested.
That's it. No mention whatsoever of levels, just "depending on the ranks he has in the Diplomacy skill" ... I don't see how this is confusing, so you'll have to explain that to me, or I'm not going to be able to correct it to where it isn't confusing.
I do see your point, though.
Does athasian clerics have this (in the r6 doesn't say the don't have)? What kind of aura does each element have? All are Neutral?
Prerequisites: Defiler
...except for Controlled Raze and Distance Raze.
In the old days defilers had a single huge advantage, namely requiring fewer xp than preservers. Nowadays its a couple of very very slight advantages and the disadvantages are at least as bad and the feats dont really make much of a difference imo.
Why not give the defilers a distinct advantage so there would be a reason to go the down the dark path and not something people do just to be different ?
Have I missed something or are the defilers and preservers almost the same, and is the advantage for going the dark path of the defiler pretty much non-existant ?
Have I missed something or are the defilers and preservers almost the same, and is the advantage for going the dark path of the defiler pretty much non-existant ?
You have touched upon rather a sore point
Basically, the deal that athas.org made with WoTC was that Dark Sun 3.5 has to be D&D as opposed to D20. Which specifically means that all the classes have to be balanced against each other. And also "balanced" means balanced in rules terms - you can't balance, say, the Defiler having a faster spell progression by increased social hostility.
I, and many others, have bemoaned what this does to the Preserver/Defiler relationship, but it's a necessary consequence of making Dark Sun compatible with D&D 3.5.
There is at least one Dark Sun D20 project, which cheerfully hurls "balance" out of the window tied to an anvil, and if you hunt about the forums, you can find it.
Q: Why can’t Dark Sun races and classes be more powerful than their counterparts in the D&D 3rd Edition Player’s Handbook? E.g. why can’t we get half-giants that double their hit dice rolls, random and powerful free wild talents for all, and defilers be significantly more powerful than preservers in DS3? This is how it was in the original setting.
A: The original Dark Sun setting had many unbalancing elements. The new 3rd edition D&D rules system does not allow unbalanced elements due to the nature of the CR system. The CR system balances on the edge of a knife. Even a small change could have great impact. You will see that some of the most unbalanced elements of the original Dark Sun setting, psionics, are no longer unbalanced. E.g. Kinetic Control is now an Epic level spell.
Q: Many of the unbalanced elements of the original Dark Sun setting contributed to set the mood in the setting. Without them the setting loses its uniqueness. E.g. the supremacy of defiling magic as the quick path to power over preserving magic shaped history and the way Athas is today.
A: Even if the game mechanics change and are rewritten to be more balanced, the history of the world is not rewritten. We have faced many dilemmas when it comes to balance vs flavor, seeing as you point out some people feel part of the uniqueness of the Dark Sun setting lies in its unbalanced elements. When dealing with such cases, we try to create rules that help sustain the setting flavor and explain history. The example of defiling magic vs preserving magic is probably the single most difficult issue we have had to deal with. After two years we feel confident we have a balanced solution that takes into consideration most of the elements people feel are important to the setting. We have a balanced system that allows for more magical power to defilers by choosing certain feats that only defilers can benefit from, and defiler specific prestige classes that border the thin line between very good and overpowered. That is as far as we can go to preserve both flavor and balance.
I finally got around to checking out the new version of my favorite D&D world and I must say I like alot of it and hate some of it but the one thing that stands out is why the heck would anyone ever want to play a defiler unless specifically playing an evil caster ?
In the old days defilers had a single huge advantage, namely requiring fewer xp than preservers. Nowadays its a couple of very very slight advantages and the disadvantages are at least as bad and the feats dont really make much of a difference imo.
Why not give the defilers a distinct advantage so there would be a reason to go the down the dark path and not something people do just to be different ?
Have I missed something or are the defilers and preservers almost the same, and is the advantage for going the dark path of the defiler pretty much non-existant ?
+1 effective spellcaster level is NOT something to just shrug off. It affects every variable in the spell -- duration, casting time, damage dice, range, and ability to overcome spell resistance.
Is it maybe not so effective if you just dabble in it? No. It takes time to get that boost. But, take a few feats -- dedicate yourself to defiling, and you do get some power out of it.
Fast raze reduces the amount of time you spend gathering for that +1 boost -- down to where it's just a full action (standard + move action). Destructive Raze gives you a damage boost, Efficient Raze is a free +1 to save DCs), Exterminating Raze lets you do more damage to plant creatures (remember all those carnivorus cactii?)
No, it's not a huge, earth shaking difference between defiling and preserving. But there is a difference, and can be used very effectively ... and maybe it makes defilers all that much more reprehensible -- the destruction they cause, for such a small edge. But there is an edge there, and it's sharper than it looks.
The Brazilian readers are still stuck on the r4!
And what about release 7???
The Brazilian readers are still stuck on the r4!
End of the month. Something of a higher priority pushed this down the stack.
I just made a very curious Brazilian, mister!
Higher?!
I just made a very curious Brazilian, mister!
You'll just have to be curious for a while, then.
I think this should be added to the templar's secular authority ability:
Each ability requires both a minimum templar level and a minimum number of ranks in the Diplomacy skill to qualify; if a templar does not have the required number of ranks in the Diplomacy skill, he does not gain the secular authority ability until he acquires the needed ranks.
Many people ask me about this and this should clear things out.
Are you talking about the more diplomacy=more respect=more power?? If so then I'm with you it just makes sense. A Templar who isn't respected isn't feared and the other way around.
Are you talking about the more diplomacy=more respect=more power?? If so then I'm with you it just makes sense. A Templar who isn't respected isn't feared and the other way around.
Kinda. It's a combination of respect and influence. But as Flip explained, unfortunately it can't work like that...
d% Designated Foe
01–09 Aberrations
10–15 Animals
16–19 Constructs
20 Dragon
21–28 Elementals (air)
29–36 Elementals (earth)
37–44 Elementals (fire)
45–52 Elementals (water)
53–57 Giants
58–60 Humanoids, dwarf
61–63 Humanoids, elf
64–65 Humanoids, gith
66 Humanoids, halfling
67–69 Humanoids, human
70-72 Humanoids, reptilian
73–75 Humanoids, tari
76–80 Magical beasts
81–85 Monstrous humanoids
86 Oozes
87-89 Outsiders
90-93 Undead, free-willed
94-95 Undead, walking dead
96-100 Vermin
Type (Subtype)
Aberration
Animal
Construct
Elemental (air)
Elemental (earth)
Elemental (fire)
Elemental (water)
Giant
Humanoid (dwarf)
Humanoid (elf)
Humanoid (gith)
Humanoid (halfling)
Humanoid (human)
Humanoid (jozhal)
Humanoid (psionic)
Humanoid (pterran)
Humanoid (reptilian)
Humanoid (tarek)
Humanoid (tari)
Magical beast
Monstrous humanoid (aarakocra)
Monstrous humanoid (baazrag)
Monstrous humanoid (belgoi)
Monstrous humanoid (braxat)
Monstrous humanoid (dray)
Monstrous humanoid (dune freak)
Monstrous humanoid (ssurran)
Monstrous humanoid (thri-kreen)
Outsider
Plant
Undead
Vermin
and we would still have 32 types in the table
Those are my two bits.
Here's your prize.
In the SRD says that "Every humanoid creature also has a subtype." but doesn't say that monstrous humanoid doesn't have subtypes...
Since Athas has many monstrous humanoid and few outsiders, this was a way to keep the list populated...
Always wondered why they weren't expanded more.
1. The Starting age chart on page 20 references Brute. I'm thinking this should reference Barbarian.
2. I feel that the XPH Half-Giant is perfectly fine as far as HGs go and I prefer that one to the one presented in the book. Personal preference.
3. I'd like the weapons table to include some of the traditional weapons from D&D. The DS modules I have reference battleaxes, short swords, etc, and, while these are in the PH, having a table that lists the effects of an obsidian short sword right next to other Athasian weapons would be cool.
4. The Gladiator. I liked the write up on this guy in the 3.0 release. Now I feel the class is underpowered. For one, I see no reason why he should have perform if the class has no real use for it. The class progresses just fine for, say, the first 5 levels, but after I feel the fighter's advancement is far superior- not to mention the psionic warrior. I should like to see a return to using some of the Sword and Fist Gladiator abilities Roar of the Crowd, Poison Use, Make the Bleed and The Crowd Goes Wild to help balance thing out a bit.
1. Mercy, Exotic Weapon Prof.
2. Unarmed Strike, Roar of the Crowd
3. Improved Feint
4. Uncanny Dodge, Arena Guile +1
5. Study Opponent +1
6. Sneak Attack 1d6
7. No Mercy, First Armor Optimization
8. Improved Uncanny Dodge, Arena Guile +2
9. Insightful Feight +2
10. Study Opponent +2
11. Make Them Bleed
12.. Sneak Attack +2d6, Arena Guile +3
13. Parry
14. 2nd Armor Optimization
15. Study Opponent +3, Poison Use
16. Arena Guile +4
17. Superior Feight
18. Sneak Attack +3d6
19. Improved Parry, The Crowd Goes Wild
20. Arean Guile +5, Study Opponent +4
Where the abilities are as follows:
Armor Optimization: At level 7 you choose one armor and reduce the armor check penality by 1, and increase the max dex by 1. At level 14, the gain the ability gained at level 7 for a second armor type and the armor chosen at level 7 has the armor check penalty reduced by an additional 1 and the max dex increased by an additional 1.
Roar of the Crowd: If you have an audience of at least 6 non-combatants, you may make a perform check (DC 15) as a move equivalent action to gain +1 morale bonus to attack and damage for the remainder of the fight.
Study Opponent: Any opponents who attack you during any round where you take an all out defense action, you gain the stated bonus as a dodge bonus to your AC starting next round against those opponents for the remainder of combat.
Make Them Bleed: You are skilled at dealing wounds that cause extra blood loss. When you deal damage with slashing weapons against a creature that is not immune to critical hits, the wounds bleed for one additional point of damage each reound thereafter until: a Heal check (DC 15) is made or; any magical healing is applied or; 10 rounds minus the opponents Constitution modifier elapse. Multiple Wounds are cumulative.
The Crowd Goes Wild: If you have already engaged the crowd of spectators, you gain a +2 morale bonus to damage on the first blow you land. This bonus increases by two for each successive blow you land, but is reset to 2 should you miss.
My Proposed Version of the Gladiator would have these special abilitiy progressions:
6. Sneak Attack 1d6
12.. Sneak Attack +2d6,
18. Sneak Attack +3d6
.
Yeah, that's a bit much if you ask me, should rather be flanking, and an experienced gladiator should be a master of flanking and as in the official release, have improved uncanny dodge. It makes more sense to me.
explain that to my axe...elf
With my proposal, you have some incentive to progress as a gladiator beyond level 4.
Oh, BTW, how come DS D20 doesn't have any Tree of Life references? This seemed part of the flavor of the old DS setting, why cut it out?
and my axe, will have your throat....
Shouldn't 5 or more ranks in Knowledge (warcraft) give a +2 bonus to Bluff or Diplomacy or vice-versa?
Why should it? It's a strategic and tactical level skill, not a one-on-one skill. I would be interested in seeing your line of reasoning.
Diplomacy changes the attitude of others, sometimes even making others take risks to help you. Since warcraft deals with a lot of supervising and commanding, I think this would be like a good general inspiring others to give extra effort to accomplish something they otherwise wouldn't...
Bluff deals with creating diversions and sending secret messages. So does warcraft, right?
I agree with Jon in that I do not see how Bluff or Diplomacy have a direct effect on troop placement in the battlefield.
Good generals do not necessarily make good politicians.
Maybe I am misunderstanding the description of the skill ("You are knowledgeable in organized warfare"), but warcfraft isn't only about placing troops or fortifications.
You are right- it is also logistics of maintaining supplies, movement of large forces, conducting reconnaissance, maintaining a siege.
But the one of the most important aspect of warfare is placement on the battlefield- having the high ground forces your opponent to tire themselves as they charge up a hill, or if keeping control of a large open plain for your calvary troops to charge.
If it were to give bonuses to Bluff or Diplomacy, I can only see that working on certain conditions... such as "+2 to Diplomacy when in battle-related situations".
Good generals do not necessarily make good politicians.
Yes, just like Knowledge (nature) and Survival.
And since it focus so much on supervising stuff being built, maybe Knowledge (architecture and engineering) would give it a bonus.
So either Knowledge (architecture and engineering) and Knowledge (geography) or Bluff and Diplomacy should be the ones to have sinergy with Knowledge (warfare), depending how you see the skill.
Life Path: A pterran’s life path determines his favored class. Those following the Path of the Druid have
druid as a favored class; the Path of the Mind gives psion as a favored class, while the Path of the Warrior
gives ranger as a favored class. A Pterran chooses a life path upon coming of age, and the path cannot be
changed once chosen at character creation time.
Ethical reasons?
I've always wondered why there isn't a 'slave price table' in the equipment section...
Ethical reasons?
Partially, but also since we didn't have a solid price structure. Grummore made a fair attempt at a list, but his proposition had some logical flaws IIRC.
Partially, but also since we didn't have a solid price structure. Grummore made a fair attempt at a list, but his proposition had some logical flaws IIRC.
True, but I have been working (for age now) on something better. Will eventually get this out.
Is there any date on the first hard-cover release??
Yep!
April 1st, 2006, it will hit the stores nationwide at exactly 12:01am!
Be ready!!!
Yep!
April 1st, 2006, it will hit the stores nationwide at exactly 12:01am!
Be ready!!!
You are sooo cruel Nyt- I love it :D
Ok, sorry Ivan, it's just that question is brought up at least every other month, so I couldn't resist. :D
Anyhoo, here is the real answer...
http://athas.org/faq/
Q: Why isn’t there going to be a printed version of Dark Sun 3rd edition released at bookstores/gaming stores?
A: Athas.org is a volunteer organization. We don’t have the funds to get our material printed and out into stores. Even if we had, we could not do so without the approval of Wizards of the Coast due to shared intellectual property rights. This works both ways, Wizards of the Coast cannot print and sell our products without our approval either, though we would most likely say “yes” if they asked us if they could.
Check the FAQ out from time to time peeps, it's chalk full of helpful information.
End of the month. Something of a higher priority pushed this down the stack.
Fliiiip! Where is it? I'm dying here!!!
End of the month. Something of a higher priority pushed this down the stack.
Rest assured, it was something of higher priority.
The feedback from them was that the description of the defiler rules (chapter 7) could be more precise. They understand how it works after I explained it to them. But it needed further explanation. Not to mention, what if a newbie starts to read it, without any knowledge about the 2e rules or Athas in general?
Is it possible to have a clearer, more straightforward write-up on it? Possibly only adding 2-3 clarifying sentences would solve the problem. If you need, I can make an attempt for it.
IMHO for a rulebook it's better to be crystal clear and even a bit overexplained than short but confusing.
Thanks!
I'm looking for spell lists for wizards, clerics and templars, as well as a list of psionic powers for psions/wilders and psychic warriors. Have anyone made something like this for Dark Sun 3? A list of nothing but the spells/powers for each level, making memorizing and listing powers known easy...Tried to find it somewhere in these forums, but not having a search feature sure makes it hard to dig through the old material
Thanks!
I made a druid spells list a while back, but I dont know if it's what you are looking for. It's on my web page.
I made a druid spells list a while back, but I dont know if it's what you are looking for. It's on my web page.
Thanks, always nice to have. Unfortunately none of my players chose to be a druid (too bad, I think it's a cool class), but nice to have for the future anyway
Some examples would be (chosen from the weapons typically regarded as "good", price excluded as they don't vary _that_ much):
D&D PHB:
Longsword: Dmg 1D8, Crit 19-20/x2
DS 3:
Macahuitl: Dmg 1D8, Crit 19-20/x2
(or even worse, though it requires a feat: the Elven longblade, 1D8, Crit 18-20/x2)
D&D PHB:
Greatsword: Dmg 2D6, Crit 19-20/x2
DS3:
Macahuitl, Great: Dmg 2D6, Crit 19-20/x2
For all I know there is some 3.5-rules/balance reason for this, but in 2nd edition all non-metal weapons had minuses...which made metal weapons strictly better. Now, I can't see any reason to get a metal weapon apart from the coolness factor, and that's some mighty expensive cool ;)
Anyone got an idea?
You say 2E non-metal weapons had minuses, well now a days in 3E you can get athasian weapons (all those listed in the DS3 document) that, albeit they are constructed from inferior materials, actually have no minuses. This stems from a flavor explanation that says athasians designed weapons from primitive materials that were as good as metal ones.
For all I know there is some 3.5-rules/balance reason for this, but in 2nd edition all non-metal weapons had minuses...which made metal weapons strictly better. Now, I can't see any reason to get a metal weapon apart from the coolness factor, and that's some mighty expensive cool
Yes, debated to death, resurrected for the nth time and slain again. It's all in the laq, err... I mean FAQ.
http://www.athas.org/faq
Yes, debated to death, resurrected for the nth time and slain again. It's all in the laq, err... I mean FAQ.
http://www.athas.org/faq
Yeah I kinda figured there had been a debate
As far as I can see, the only place the FAQ mentions weapons specifically is the following:
Q: There are d20 rules systems and campaigns with more powerful (...) and weapons than your conversion has. (...)
A: (...) Balance and Simplicity.
I just wondered what the rationale was, and if this is it, it's understandable. And I hadn't considered what Pennarin said about Damage Reduction, which is of course very relevant. Thanks for the answers guys
Short justification for why you would want metal weapons.
1. Superior hardness
2. Can harm DR/metal
3. Status symbol
(4. XP source :P)
(4. XP source :P)
Aroo?
My skull is so thick tonight this comment ain't getting through...
My skull is so thick tonight this comment ain't getting through...
You smoke too much, Pennarin. :P
Anyway- I have another feat to go into the Archive Pen. Thanks.
Erudit Lore - http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=7814025#post7814025
Having metal weapons and displaying them attract people that want to rob you of them, hence an xp source unless the DM is out to kill your PC. :P Sort of akin to a defiler attracting the attention of a druid on his guarded lands. It's supposed to be a joke.
OOHHH- well then
:heehee 
:D 
Weapons that are designed without metal are not affected, which is why the DS core weapons don't suffer the penalties. A greatclub is just as functional -- there's no -2 penalty for being made of wood.
it is, and always has been, a flavor decision -- in order to make people use more "savage" seeming weapons (spears and clubs and boards with obsidian shards), remove the abundance of "normal" weapons ...
Hidden Talent [General]
This feat is described in the Expanded Psionics
Handbook. Athas is a high-psionic world. If the DM
allows it, this feat replaces the Wild Talent feat.
This feat is not in the ESH as stated. The Wild Talent feat is in the ESH, on page 52.
However, Wild Talents: How to Handle Them in 3e is a thread on these DS boards which lists various options for Hidden Talent, Wild Talent, and several related feats and substitution levels.
This feat is not in the ESH as stated. The Wild Talent feat is in the ESH, on page 52.
Hidden Talent is on page 67, outside of the feats section.
Hidden Talent is on page 67, outside of the feats section.
Dang, I knew about the epic feats being out of the feats chapter. Sometimes WotC seems to go out of its way to hide stuff in its product. It'd be handy if they listed "feats" as a separate entry in the index so people could find all of the feats at once.
Thanks, Penn. My appologies to everyone.
Dang, I knew about the epic feats being out of the feats chapter. Sometimes WotC seems to go out of its way to hide stuff in its product. It'd be handy if they listed "feats" as a separate entry in the index so people could find all of the feats at once.
Thanks, Penn. My appologies to everyone.
You are forgiven- now flay the skin from you back to show how truely contrite you are and we will not have to do this again :D
Dang, I knew about the epic feats being out of the feats chapter. Sometimes WotC seems to go out of its way to hide stuff in its product. It'd be handy if they listed "feats" as a separate entry in the index so people could find all of the feats at once.
Actually, if you check the index in the back of the Expanded Psionics Handbook - presuming you know the alphabet (most Athasians don't) - you'll find Hidden Talent (feat) listed under H. :P
Actually, if you check the index in the back of the Expanded Psionics Handbook - presuming you know the alphabet (most Athasians don't) - you'll find Hidden Talent (feat) listed under H. :P
If this were WoW and not DS (and I was 14), I'd be saying "lolz, pwn1d!11" right now :D
If this were WoW and not DS (and I was 14), I'd be saying "lolz, pwn1d!11" right now
Uh... sure. You're not a WoW junkie (and you're not 14, probably closer to 13 1/2). :P
Uh... sure. You're not a WoW junkie (and you're not 14, probably closer to 13 1/2). :P
How did you know? :OMG!
You truly are an oracle...
Actually, if you check the index in the back of the Expanded Psionics Handbook - presuming you know the alphabet (most Athasians don't) - you'll find Hidden Talent (feat) listed under H. :P
Yeah, I only noticed that after Penn's post, and prior to my reply. I thought about including it in my reply, but figured the rest of you already knew.
It was in fact that discovery that made me wish that "feats" were in the index under "f", with all of the relevant pages listed. Hense,
Dang, I knew about the epic feats being out of the feats chapter. Sometimes WotC seems to go out of its way to hide stuff in its product. It'd be handy if they listed "feats" as a separate entry in the index so people could find all of the feats at once.
Now I have another one who has been for years a telepath. He has studied the Way and is very good in interacting with others (max. ranks in the Diplomacy skill). After years he decides to become a templer. He quickly managed the templer training and is now a templer. Now he is as much power as the templer, who has been for years in the templer ranks. If I'd be the templer, I'd ask myself, why someone, who has just became a templer, has the same power as I do. I have devoted my whole life to the king/queen, and now there is this "guy", who overrules my decissions?
This example should just show that although the mechanik could work as it is, there seems something broken when it comes to the fluff part. My suggestion would be the the secular authority should be mechanically connected somehow to the templer class levels, I know that the templer, who has been templer for years, can use his authority more often a day than the telepath/templer, but it still makes no sense to me how someone who just became a templer can overrule this guy.
As for the argument, that many templers are multiclassed and still "powerfull", I'd suggest to design some PrCs that resemble. That's what PrCs are for IMHO.
Comming to another point. The Knowledge (Warcraft) skill. Every Knowledge skill of the PHB with 5 or more provides a synergy bonus to something else. If another knowledge is introduced in the rules it should provide a synergy bonus as well IMO. I'm still not quite sure on what checks it should do this, but it should be there. I just took a brief look in Cry Havok (Malhavok Press) and there was something like a command check (I'm not quite sure but I think to remember something similar in the DMGII), without going to much into this book, as I know that athas.org can't use other sources than the core-rule-books from Wizards of the Coast, I'd suggest that something similar should be introduced in DS3.5. The skill is allready introcuded in the rule book of DS, but it actually has no real use besides fluff (you can correct me, if I'm wrong).
Just looking at the DS3.5 release 6, I see another knowledge skill, the Knowledge (Ancient History), I suggest that 5 or more ranks in this skill should provide a +2 synergy bonus on bardic knowledge checks, but than again, knowledge history allready provides this bonus. Don't know how to handle this one, but bardic knowledge seems to be the most appropriate one.
Another point I want to talk about are the defiler scent and slave scent spells. This two spells seem very powerfull especially for 0-level spells. Both don't allow any saving throws and there no ways (AFAIK) to protect oneself from these spells. This seems very broken to me, and these spells should be redisgned IMO.
Although it seems that I only criticize, but I just want to provide some feedback and help. I realy appreciate your work, but unfortunatelly it is in the human nature to complain...and I'm not an exception to it. :P
Edit: With all this writing I forgot the ranger's favorite terrain class feautre. It seems unbalanced to to favorite enemy as favorite enemy provides bonuses to 5 skills and a bonus on weapon damage rolls and favorite terrain just prorives bonuses to 4 skills. My suggestion would be to provide a bonus on movement when being in one's favorite terrain, when wearing light or no armor or something else, but right now it just seems unbalanced. Additionally I'd suggest to create some feats, that that have the favored terrain ablity as prerequiste, for example a feet that allows you to find non-magical traps it's favorite terrain or something else that seem appropriate to terrains.
With all this writing I forgot the ranger's favorite terrain class feautre. It seems unbalanced to to favorite enemy as favorite enemy provides bonuses to 5 skills and a bonus on weapon damage rolls and favorite terrain just prorives bonuses to 4 skills. My suggestion would be to provide a bonus on movement when being in one's favorite terrain, when wearing light or no armor or something else, but right now it just seems unbalanced. Additionally I'd suggest to create some feats, that that have the favored terrain ablity as prerequiste, for example a feet that allows you to find non-magical traps it's favorite terrain or something else that seem appropriate to terrains.
I agree that the ranger's favored terrain feature is underpowered in DS3. My personal fix for this is to use the favored environment feature from Unearthed Arcana instead. It slots right in as a replacement to favored terrain and it's open content too, which means that athas.org can use it:
Instead of selecting a type of creature against which to apply a bonus on certain skills and damage rolls, the ranger selects a specific natural environment and gains bonuses when in that environment.
At 1st level, a ranger may select a natural environment from among those given on Table: Ranger Favored Environments. Due to the ranger's experience in that environment, he gains a +2 bonus on Hide, Listen, Move Silently, Spot, and Survival checks when using these skills in that environment. He also gains the same bonus on Knowledge (nature) checks made in association with that environment (or on Knowledge (dungeoneering) checks made in association with underground environments, if the ranger has selected underground as a favored environment).
At 5th level and every five levels thereafter (at 10th, 15th, and 20th level), the ranger may select an additional favored environment from those given on the table and gains an identical bonus on the appropriate skill checks in that environment. In addition, at each such interval, the bonuses in any one favored environment (including the one just selected, if so desired) increase by 2. For example, a 5th-level ranger has two favored environments. In one he has a +4 bonus on the appropriate skill checks, and in the other he has a +2 bonus. At 10th level, he has three favored environments, and he gains an additional +2 bonus, which he can allocate to any of his three favored environments. Thus, his bonuses could be either +4, +4, and +2 or +6,+2, and +2.
If the ranger chooses desert or forest, he must also choose a climate type, as indicated on the table (either "cold" or "temperate or warm" for desert, or "cold or temperate" or "warm" for forest).
The game master may rule that a ranger can't select an environment that he has never visited.
Man, where were you 2 months ago when I said the exact same stuff in here?!
busy ... but I was thinking about this, because you said it back then. ;)
Instead of selecting a type of creature against which to apply a bonus on certain skills and damage rolls, the ranger selects a specific natural environment and gains bonuses when in that environment.
At 1st level, a ranger may select a natural environment from among those given on Table: Ranger Favored Environments. Due to the ranger's experience in that environment, he gains a +2 bonus on Hide, Listen, Move Silently, Spot, and Survival checks when using these skills in that environment. He also gains the same bonus on Knowledge (nature) checks made in association with that environment (or on Knowledge (dungeoneering) checks made in association with underground environments, if the ranger has selected underground as a favored environment).
At 5th level and every five levels thereafter (at 10th, 15th, and 20th level), the ranger may select an additional favored environment from those given on the table and gains an identical bonus on the appropriate skill checks in that environment. In addition, at each such interval, the bonuses in any one favored environment (including the one just selected, if so desired) increase by 2. For example, a 5th-level ranger has two favored environments. In one he has a +4 bonus on the appropriate skill checks, and in the other he has a +2 bonus. At 10th level, he has three favored environments, and he gains an additional +2 bonus, which he can allocate to any of his three favored environments. Thus, his bonuses could be either +4, +4, and +2 or +6,+2, and +2.
If the ranger chooses desert or forest, he must also choose a climate type, as indicated on the table (either "cold" or "temperate or warm" for desert, or "cold or temperate" or "warm" for forest).
The game master may rule that a ranger can't select an environment that he has never visited.
Better, but still doesn't seem to be comparable to a +2 on weapon damage rolls.
I have been thinking a lot about the templar's class feature Secular Authority and I have a problem with the way it is now. Let's say I have someone who decided to be a templer from the begining of his carrier. With every level in the templer class his power increases as he increases in the the templer ranks. He has been a templer for several years and worked hard to get the power in his city state he has now.
Now I have another one who has been for years a telepath. He has studied the Way and is very good in interacting with others (max. ranks in the Diplomacy skill). After years he decides to become a templer. He quickly managed the templer training and is now a templer. Now he is as much power as the templer, who has been for years in the templer ranks. If I'd be the templer, I'd ask myself, why someone, who has just became a templer, has the same power as I do. I have devoted my whole life to the king/queen, and now there is this "guy", who overrules my decissions?
Circumstance modifiers -- the new guy is, well, new and doesn't carry as much weight.
On the other hand, consider just how arbitary and backstabbish the templarate has been painted to be. The scenario you describe is entirely possible ... consider that another high level tempalr recruits your mindbender and gives him a nice cushy role somewhere in the heiarchy -- in return for the psion's loyalty, of course. It's just another form of power-politics.
Look at our own world -- how often does the life long civil servant end up on top of the heap? Not often. They're usually bossed around and overruled by political apointees with questionable credentials, but good connections. Witness our former head of FEMA.
Depending on class levels for gaining templar abilities breaks the model, as I've described above. It's not going to happen.
Potentially adding Templar levels to the rolls? Well, that might happen.
Comming to another point. The Knowledge (Warcraft) skill. Every Knowledge skill of the PHB with 5 or more provides a synergy bonus to something else. If another knowledge is introduced in the rules it should provide a synergy bonus as well IMO. I'm still not quite sure on what checks it should do this, but it should be there. I just took a brief look in Cry Havok (Malhavok Press) and there was something like a command check (I'm not quite sure but I think to remember something similar in the DMGII), without going to much into this book, as I know that athas.org can't use other sources than the core-rule-books from Wizards of the Coast, I'd suggest that something similar should be introduced in DS3.5. The skill is allready introcuded in the rule book of DS, but it actually has no real use besides fluff (you can correct me, if I'm wrong).
Just looking at the DS3.5 release 6, I see another knowledge skill, the Knowledge (Ancient History), I suggest that 5 or more ranks in this skill should provide a +2 synergy bonus on bardic knowledge checks, but than again, knowledge history allready provides this bonus. Don't know how to handle this one, but bardic knowledge seems to be the most appropriate one.
Will think about the synergies. Honestly, I don't think there's necessarily much that Knoweldge(Ancient History) will apply to ... it's an isolated sort of field.
Another point I want to talk about are the defiler scent and slave scent spells. This two spells seem very powerfull especially for 0-level spells. Both don't allow any saving throws and there no ways (AFAIK) to protect oneself from these spells. This seems very broken to me, and these spells should be redisgned IMO.
Although it seems that I only criticize, but I just want to provide some feedback and help. I realy appreciate your work, but unfortunatelly it is in the human nature to complain...and I'm not an exception to it. :P
Edit: With all this writing I forgot the ranger's favorite terrain class feautre. It seems unbalanced to to favorite enemy as favorite enemy provides bonuses to 5 skills and a bonus on weapon damage rolls and favorite terrain just prorives bonuses to 4 skills. My suggestion would be to provide a bonus on movement when being in one's favorite terrain, when wearing light or no armor or something else, but right now it just seems unbalanced. Additionally I'd suggest to create some feats, that that have the favored terrain ablity as prerequiste, for example a feet that allows you to find non-magical traps it's favorite terrain or something else that seem appropriate to terrains.
Favored terrain provicdes bonuses to 5 skills: Hide, Move Silently, Spot, Survival and Knowledge(Nature).
It doesn't have to be perfectly balanced. Knives don't have to be the equal of swords just because I may choose to be a knife fighter.
There's also the "control" issue ... Favored terrain is a lot more applicable; the bonus is in effect for the whole time the ranger is in his favored terrain. Favored enemy bonsuses are only useful in combat, or in negotiations ... which generally aren't chosen situations, and generally last much less time. (Yes, there's the "hunter" archetype`)
I agree that the ranger's favored terrain feature is underpowered in DS3. My personal fix for this is to use the favored environment feature from Unearthed Arcana instead. It slots right in as a replacement to favored terrain and it's open content too, which means that athas.org can use it:
[/i]
... maybe I'm just dense, but the only difference there seems to be the addition of Listen (which makes sense, and will probably add) and some better wording on the advancement.
Other than that, it's identical.
... maybe I'm just dense, but the only difference there seems to be the addition of Listen (which makes sense, and will probably add) and some better wording on the advancement.
Other than that, it's identical.
Yeah, that's all there is to it. I had started a thread about this some time ago, but it has long since been swallowed by the boards and I couldn't be bothered to go looking for it, so I just pasted the relevant section from UA into the thread
.Circumstance modifiers -- the new guy is, well, new and doesn't carry as much weight.
On the other hand, consider just how arbitary and backstabbish the templarate has been painted to be. The scenario you describe is entirely possible ... consider that another high level tempalr recruits your mindbender and gives him a nice cushy role somewhere in the heiarchy -- in return for the psion's loyalty, of course. It's just another form of power-politics.
Possible, but not the scenario I described.
Look at our own world -- how often does the life long civil servant end up on top of the heap? Not often. They're usually bossed around and overruled by political apointees with questionable credentials, but good connections. Witness our former head of FEMA.
Don't know what FEMA is. Besides that IMO the temlper level should represent the rank, and a templer high-ranked templer should have more influence than lower-ranked templers.
Depending on class levels for gaining templar abilities breaks the model, as I've described above. It's not going to happen.
I think it has a good reason, why bardic music has been changed from 3.0 to 3.5, it was broken. You could be multiclassed charakter with one level as bard and you could still perform high-level-taks, even without being a high-level bard. The Templer now is like that "old" bard, therefore broken (IMHO). The model of the templer is quite simple to keep, by creating appropiate PrCs, thats what they are for.
Potentially adding Templar levels to the rolls? Well, that might happen.
Don't know how this should work, unless secular autorithy is completly indebepend from the diplomacy skill.
Will think about the synergies. Honestly, I don't think there's necessarily much that Knoweldge(Ancient History) will apply to ... it's an isolated sort of field.
Why is introduced in the first place? Doesn't Knowledge (History) fullfil this roll good enough? Ancient History just would have higher DCs.
Favored terrain provicdes bonuses to 5 skills: Hide, Move Silently, Spot, Survival and Knowledge(Nature).
It doesn't have to be perfectly balanced. Knives don't have to be the equal of swords just because I may choose to be a knife fighter.
There's also the "control" issue ... Favored terrain is a lot more applicable; the bonus is in effect for the whole time the ranger is in his favored terrain. Favored enemy bonsuses are only useful in combat, or in negotiations ... which generally aren't chosen situations, and generally last much less time. (Yes, there's the "hunter" archetype`)
The thing is, that the +2 bonus on weapon damage is a combat orientated bonus. IMHO it is comparable to the Weapon Specialization feat, becuase weapon specialization works only for one weapon and favorite enemy only for one kind of enemy. If you compare now weapon spezialistion with a feat that grants bonuses on skills, you see several things: Those feats provide a +2 bonus on two skill checks or +3 bonus on one skill check. Weapon specializazion is hase prerequisites, which "mostly" is a sign that this feat provides a "bigger" bonus than other feats, which don't have prerequisites.
You are right that I misscounted the numbers of skills, you are also right that favorite terrain applies more often to checks than favorite enemy, but still, a bonus on on combat related checks counts more than a bonus on skill checks. Therefor I suggested to ad something, adding Listen to the skills that benefit from favorite terrain is a good step. I added that the Ranger get a +2 bonus a on search checks to find non-magical traps (even traps with a DC more than 20).
Circumstance modifiers -- the new guy is, well, new and doesn't carry as much weight.
On the other hand, consider just how arbitary and backstabbish the templarate has been painted to be. The scenario you describe is entirely possible ... consider that another high level tempalr recruits your mindbender and gives him a nice cushy role somewhere in the heiarchy -- in return for the psion's loyalty, of course. It's just another form of power-politics.
(emphasis mine)
This sounds a lot like roleplaying penalties being used to offset a game mechanical benefit and as we all know from the Defiler-Preserver conflict of ages past, that's a serious no-no.
This IMHO should be considered for any modification of the rules.
Bengeldorn and flip, don't forget that there are other classes besides templar that give secular auhority as a class feature, and also (this is total fluff) that some templar are not actual divine spellcasters yet are templars.
This IMHO should be considered for any modification of the rules.
That's why I think, that PrCs are the best sollution.
That's why I think, that PrCs are the best sollution.
Solution to what?
A base templar class is perfect IMO. Having PrCs that also confer secular authority only goes to show that other people besides templars can fill the role of a templar. All it takes is secular authority.
Solution to what?
A base templar class is perfect IMO. Having PrCs that also confer secular authority only goes to show that other people besides templars can fill the role of a templar. All it takes is secular authority.
I don't understand your point. The idea is, as far as I understood it, that there are templers with the ability to cast divine spells and templers who don't. Both do have the ability of secular authority.
Right now you have to take at least on class as templer to get the secular authority class feature, but you also get the abilty to cast divine spells (unless you have a charisma-score of 9 or lower), but if I understand you right, there are templer that don't cast divine spells, therefore those shouldn't take the templer class, but they still should get the secular authority ability.
IMO there are two ways:
1. secular authority as a feat
2. secuar authority as class feature
The other thing is that secular authority is a class feature. As far as I know all class features depend on their class levels, secular authority does, but also doesn't. Usually the class features that "develop" by increasing levels depend on classes that also have the same ability. Again Secluar authority does this, and again doesn't. This makes the actuall secular authority a weird class feature, in some ways it works like one (uses/day) and in other ways it doesn't (power by level/rank). I allready mentioned the "old" 3.0 bardic music class feature, secular authority works pretty similar to this old version of the bard's class feature. From 3.0 to 3.5 the bard's class feature changed, IMHO becuase it is was broken. Secular Authority still uses the "old" bardic music class feature system.....IMHO it broken and should be adjusted to 3.5.
OK, coming back to the issue that, there are templers that can cast divine Spells and those who don't. Now keeping in mind that the actuall secular authority as likely as not is broken and it should work more like the current bardic music ability, there are two ways to give other classes, without taking the templer class, to get the secualr authority ability/feature.
1. Secular Authority as a feat.
2. Secular Authority as a class feature and other classes have to take a Prestige Class.
IMHO the best way is a prestige class as I don't want secualr authority to be a feat.
Maybe you can show my a 3.5 class feature that works like the current class feature. It'll be intresting to see.
Anyways, what i gather that you're saying is that you don't like the current secular authority class feature because of xyz reasons. I have no comments on your opinion, in favor or opposition, so it is for other people than me to comment.
Meanwhile, what i was saying about templars who are not divine spellcasters is simply that the templar position is a "civil servant of a SK". This position is best represented by the actual templar class, but can also be filled by any other class as long as the character also has the secular authority class feature. A rogue, psion, fighter, whatever, can be a templar as long as he's got 1 level of a class that provides the secular authority class feature. The best representation of that is some templars in the novels who appear to be psions or wizards.
The same applies to the royal defiler position, which is a "provider of arcane services for a SK". This position is best represented by the actual royal defiler prestige class, but can also be filled by any other class as long as the character is an arcane spellcaster.
Ultimately, the first time I mentionned to you and flip that you should remember that one can be a templar without taking levels in the templar class...was simply to remind you all that if secular authority is rewritten to apply only to the templar class, then royal defilers and templar knights won't benefit from it.
Besides that IMO the temlper level should represent the rank, and a templer high-ranked templer should have more influence than lower-ranked templers.
Maybe I'm wrong here, but I've always considered a character's level to represent his or her skill, not social rank... there are many people who are less skilled, but still manage to have more power (higher rank) over people more skilled than they are.
To make an item using Craft (Alchemy), you must have alchemical equipment and be a bard (as opposed to generic D&D where the requirement is being a spellcaster).
I just saw this one, and I was wondering, if spellcaster are no longer able to make items with Craft (Alchemy). If they are, then the bard should get this as a class feature. If they don't I still think the bard should get this as a class feature, because it is no longer a regular skill.
Without sitting down and comparing the information in the free download with that offered in Dungeon 110 and Dragon Magazines 315 and 319, are the stats on races and weaponry the same?
Absolutely not. Check out the old thread for more information: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=214718
My question is whether the bonus to damage also includes damage from spells and powers?
My question is what happens to the penalties of a masterwork obsidian longsword? Does it stays at a no penalty to hit but with the -1 to dmg, or it becomes like a steel masterwork longsword in rule terms?
Let me know...
Does it stays at a no penalty to hit but with the -1 to dmg...
As far as I understand it, yes.
"With respect to good and evil, elves tend towards neutrality, although their behavior leans towards chaos because of their love of freedom."
Shouldn't be "With respect to law and chaos"?
Page 44
Speak Language was deleted from updated skills. Was it intentional?
Page 54
The frase "The throwing sap is swung overhead with both hands." should be
made "The mekillot sap is swung overhead with both hands."
Page 73
'Elemental Chariot, Lesser: Enahnces chariot with elemental effects.' Enhances is spelled wrong.
Page 74
"Breathing: Subjects can breathe underwater, in silt or earth." The spell
now is called 'worm's breath'
Page 83
In the Echo the Lirr spell says 'Fortitude negates' but under its
description says 'Creatures caught in the cone of sound you emit must make
a successful Will save or be stunned for 1d3 rounds.'. Which one is
correct?
Page 84
The Elemental Chariot, Lesser spell no longer exists, but there are several
references to it.
Page 85
In the Elemental Weapon last says 'At 9th level and every 3 levels
thereafter, the enhancement bonus of the armor or shield increases by 1, to a maximum of +5 at 18th level.'
Page 88
In the Glass Storm spell says 'The particles whip about the storm’s area, leaving a 10-ft. diameter eye where you and your companions may stand unharmed.' Should be radius, according to its description?
Page 91
The spell Lungs of Water is referenced sometimes as a 'power'.
Page 93
The Poisoned Gale spell is sometimes referenced as 'Poison Gale'. It's written 'EffectArea' where the Effect entry should be.
Page 96
The Sirocco spell has the following Area: 'Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level) e Cylinder (1,000 ft. radius, 400 ft. high)'. Something isn't right.
Page 96
In the Sandstone spell says 'It has a hardness of 6 and only 10 hit points
per inch of thickness. A 1-foot-thick wall of sandstone created by this
spell has hardness 5, 25 hit points, and a break DC of 30'. It should have
hardness 5 and 1 hit point, right? (crazy US measures...)
Page 100
In the Water Shock spell says the spell changes 'A quantity of water
between 1 and 100 gallons' but under its description says 'ranging
from 1 pint to 100 gallons'. Which one is correct?
Page 105
The power 'Aura Reading' is referenced sometimes as a 'spell'.
Page 108
The power 'Hush' does not have a power point cost.
Page 110
The power 'Trail of Destruction' does not have a power point cost.
Weapons: Heavy lance, light lance, trident
My PHB only has "Lance", no light or heavy versions. Should this entry be changed to simply:
Weapons: Lance, trident
?
Just wondering.
And while I am on the art thing- any chance of a ToA with critter pictures?
) :Isn't scrab environment 'Sands' instead of 'Silt'?
Not really a DS3 core error, but a Terrors of Athas' one (I don't know where else to post it
Isn't scrab environment 'Sands' instead of 'Silt'?
There is a ToA errata thread somewhere, but it's probably a few dozen pages back
.Thanks for the catch. We're using "deserts", iirc - but I've amended it in the master doc. Cheers.
I think that yes- he would. This ability seems lile a magical effect then one of skill, so I would allow the cleric to have the shield bonus while wielding the flaming sword, but I would like to know what you fellers think.
Oh nd while I am here, anyway we could get an update on the status of the other projects like the Equipment Guide and the AB rules?
Technical question- if a fire cleric has the domain Wrath of the Fire Lord and wields a flaming sword (but not a torch) would he get the +2 shield bonus? He is holding a flaming object that sheds light like a torch, and it is...well...flaming.
I think that yes- he would. This ability seems lile a magical effect then one of skill, so I would allow the cleric to have the shield bonus while wielding the flaming sword, but I would like to know what you fellers think.
I did some research and I didn't find anything that especially stated that the shield bonus would apply, but I also didn't find anything that it wouldn't.
Unfortunatelly for you, I have more reasons for why the shield shouldn't apply, because...
- a torch is an improvised weapon, but a sword is not.
- a flaming weapon deals more fire damage than a torch does (this could also be an arguemnt why the shield bonuse should apply).
- the "flaming" ability description doesn't say that a flaming weapon does illuminate an area.
- shield bonuses usually apply only with items, with which you do not attack.
On the other hand, I can't see what harm it would make, if the shield bonus would apply, but IMHO only if the wielder doesn't attack with it (but using it as a shield).
Oh nd while I am here, anyway we could get an update on the status of the other projects like the Equipment Guide and the AB rules?
This thread is the wrong thread to ask about status on other projects than the core rules. Put it in the latest status update thread.
In my copy of ds3_r6.pdf, all of the bookmarks are contained in the Races chapter heading, so that minimizing that list makes them all disappear. Has anyone else noticed this?
Yeah, I know. Bad bookmark builder. *grumble* It'll be fixed in the next release.
As has been noted, the lack of spellcasting abilities effectively makes them a NPC class in some cities. Have you considered providing alternative class abilities, such as Wizards is providing for the core classes (such as removing spellcasting from the paladin and ranger)? Combined with the rules from the PHB2 allowing you to change your class abilities at a later date, that seems to be a good solution to the loss of a templar's sorcerer-king.
In terms of tying a Templar's social power to their level, how about adding one's Templar level to Diplomacy checks for Secular Authority (or even better, some guidelines for circumstance bonuses for in-game rank)?
Comparing the Templar to the Favored Soul in Complete Divine, the Templar seems to be somewhat underpowered as a spontaneous divine caster. They receive fewer spells known, a much smaller spell list to choose from, and worse saves. Now, while the Templar does receive more skill points and has Secular Authority, I wonder if the Templar should be a bit better.
Are there any plans for an update incorporating stuff on this thread?
And I was curious, how come there weren't any changes to the cleric to incorporate their resistance to their element's attack and ability to ignore it (walking through earth has many uses).In the description for the Impaler, the word parallel should be changed to perpendicular.
Are there any plans for an update incorporating stuff on this thread?
All feedback is considered.
And I was curious, how come there weren't any changes to the cleric to incorporate their resistance to their element's attack and ability to ignore it (walking through earth has many uses).
These are incorporated in the Elementalist prestige class.
Why is the Thri-Kreen favored class a Psi-Warrior? Shouldn't it be Ranger as they are so focused on the hunt?
For the Ranger favored terrain feature, you could add movement penalty reduction to it, mainly in the case of overland movement, but do something like 1/2 the movement penalty in the favored terrain, or a movement bonus when in light armor and no more than medium load.
An expanded Survival DC chart would be nice, one that's a little tougher, higher DC's, DC variables for the differing terrain, etc. etc. As it is, anyone with Survival bonus +5 or greater can get along easily taking 10 which then removes the terrain as a threat to survival.
Have you considered not giving Templars spells at first level? They didn't in the original as they were train in there martial and bureaucratic duties first. This would also give the Non-Casting Templars viability. Take a level, gain the Authority and then progress in alternate class...
Psionics: Kreen view psionics as a natural part of their existence. Some packs rely on telepathy to communicate with each member and coordinate their hunting abilities. Many kreen also use psionic powers to augment their already formidable combat prowess. Psychometabolic powers are often used to boost speed, metabolism or strength to gain an advantage in combat. Most kreen (even non-adventurers) take the psychic warrior class, which kreen consider a natural part of growing up. Kreen do not need instruction to advance in the psychic warrior class—it comes to them as part of their ancestral memory.
AFAIK, athas.org decided to closely associate the PsyWar class with the kreen back when they were converting DS from 2E to 3.0.
I'll follow your question with another regarding kreens: I noticed that the thri-kreen gets climb as a racial skill; what's the rationale behind that? I thought kreen were supposed to be horrible climbers.
As to Climb skill...
That's a cut and paste issue I hope, they should get Survival or other adequate skill instead as they are indeed to be reputed poor climbers.
They are suppose to be less socially developed and less sophisticated then there Crimson Savanah brethren.
True, though the racial memories about how to mesh psionics with hunting and combat may remain quite strong. I Can't speak for athas.org, but I think that the PsyWar was chosen as the favored class in order to emphasise the new connection between the race and the class.
As to Climb skill...
That's a cut and paste issue I hope, they should get Survival or other adequate skill instead as they are indeed to be reputed poor climbers.
That's my guess as well...
Wow, you are right, they don't get Survival. Freaky.
I've noticed that it's not clear as to what seperates a Tainted Wizard from a Defiler. There is a clear process up until that point. I've asked about months ago and never did get a clear response, but I've forgotten about it until now, I've been working on other campaign material.
I don't know if someone has mentioned this yet, but Ranger Favored Terrain should have listen added to skill list.
On a side note, why haven't the Dwarves, Elves, and Halflings racial adjustments been modified further than norm? I recall an answer that it has to do with matching up with d20, if that's the case, why break the mold with the half-elf? If you can do it there, why not modify the others?
Also, the chart should include a burdened rate for medium to heavy load, as is done for mounts in PHB.
Should probably cover water needs under Adventuring, such as increased need during Hot periods, armor, activity, etc. etc.