Game templars vs Pentad novel templars? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Game templars vs Pentad novel templars?

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
Pennarin
Mar 20, 2010 14:25:42 So any idea on how this is going to work out? Or is it going to be worked out at all?

After all, the Pentad states Kalak's templars lost all spellcasting powers after his death...while the new campaign setting will (apparently) state the contrary.

I have no problem keeping two opposite ideas in my mind at the same time, and can imagine playing a DS campaign that would have powered or powerless templars in it. I'm ok with it either way.

I'm just wondering what official stance they're going to end up taking.
#2
Raddu76
Mar 20, 2010 23:42:38 I don't think they're going to work it out. I think it comes out as Templars can keep their powers no matter what happens to the SK. Otherwise it woudlnt be very 4e-centric. There aren't any penalities in 4e. So, that looks the way to go.
#3
ian.thomson
Mar 21, 2010 8:13:52 One compromise would be some additional options for templars of different SKs, something comparable to a channel divinity feat, and Kalak's templars can't get those.
#4
603
Mar 25, 2010 15:22:01 It looks like they removed the whole "elemental conduits created by these long-dead creatures in the whatever plane" thing that made the original S-Ks the only ones capable of granting spells. From reading a developer blog, it looks like the ritual is something which activates the character's spell using ability and can then be forgotten. No need to grant specific spells or such nonesuch.

Tithian in 4e, for example, will still have access to his spells from being a Templar pact Warlock, and may even be able to "invest" new Templars.
#5
Pennarin
Mar 25, 2010 15:42:26 This looks like it'll be the biggest retconn yet. I'm ambivalent towards it as well. Game-wise it's good, but for respecting canon it's not...whatever that means anymore.
#6
kingdrew
Mar 25, 2010 16:09:57
...but for respecting canon it's not...whatever that means anymore.

I think that statement may hit the nail on the head!
#7
603
Mar 25, 2010 16:55:38 I wouldn't consider old Dark Sun canon to be such anymore. It was written around a very specific ruleset which isn't compatible with 4e without removing a lot of the improvements made in 4e. So I wouldn't consider anything to be a retcon. Instead, its more like a complete redo from the ground up.
#8
greyorm
Mar 25, 2010 18:42:12 It could be like Old BSG versus new BSG. A different take on the same material. I am totally fine with that. (Canon can suck it, anyways.)
#9
nimblegrund
Apr 07, 2010 3:45:57 Tithian I would say is more of a templar-theme rogue than a warlock. ;]
#10
masterfat78
Apr 12, 2010 1:52:53 I think any time you compare books to pen and paper games your gonna have some things that just dont mesh.In my opinion its better to go for the flavor than go for complete accuracy.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Pennarin Mar 20, 2010 14:25:42	So any idea on how this is going to work out? Or is it going to be worked out at all? After all, the Pentad states Kalak's templars lost all spellcasting powers after his death...while the new campaign setting will (apparently) state the contrary. I have no problem keeping two opposite ideas in my mind at the same time, and can imagine playing a DS campaign that would have powered or powerless templars in it. I'm ok with it either way. I'm just wondering what official stance they're going to end up taking.
#2 Raddu76 Mar 20, 2010 23:42:38	I don't think they're going to work it out. I think it comes out as Templars can keep their powers no matter what happens to the SK. Otherwise it woudlnt be very 4e-centric. There aren't any penalities in 4e. So, that looks the way to go.
#3 ian.thomson Mar 21, 2010 8:13:52	One compromise would be some additional options for templars of different SKs, something comparable to a channel divinity feat, and Kalak's templars can't get those.
#4 603 Mar 25, 2010 15:22:01	It looks like they removed the whole "elemental conduits created by these long-dead creatures in the whatever plane" thing that made the original S-Ks the only ones capable of granting spells. From reading a developer blog, it looks like the ritual is something which activates the character's spell using ability and can then be forgotten. No need to grant specific spells or such nonesuch. Tithian in 4e, for example, will still have access to his spells from being a Templar pact Warlock, and may even be able to "invest" new Templars.
#5 Pennarin Mar 25, 2010 15:42:26	This looks like it'll be the biggest retconn yet. I'm ambivalent towards it as well. Game-wise it's good, but for respecting canon it's not...whatever that means anymore.
#6 kingdrew Mar 25, 2010 16:09:57	...but for respecting canon it's not...whatever that means anymore. I think that statement may hit the nail on the head!
#7 603 Mar 25, 2010 16:55:38	I wouldn't consider old Dark Sun canon to be such anymore. It was written around a very specific ruleset which isn't compatible with 4e without removing a lot of the improvements made in 4e. So I wouldn't consider anything to be a retcon. Instead, its more like a complete redo from the ground up.
#8 greyorm Mar 25, 2010 18:42:12	It could be like Old BSG versus new BSG. A different take on the same material. I am totally fine with that. (Canon can suck it, anyways.)
#9 nimblegrund Apr 07, 2010 3:45:57	Tithian I would say is more of a templar-theme rogue than a warlock. ;]
#10 masterfat78 Apr 12, 2010 1:52:53	I think any time you compare books to pen and paper games your gonna have some things that just dont mesh.In my opinion its better to go for the flavor than go for complete accuracy.