Dragonlance and 4e?

235 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ignoring the lack of a Dragonlance campaign setting, is it possible to hold a campaign in a Dragonlance setting and have it feel like, well, Dragonlance? I'm a huge fan of the Dragonlance setting, at least before all that silliness of the Gods leaving (or the world leaving them I later learned).

In AD&D mages could become exceptionally powerful, perhaps more-so than other classes, and this was reflected in the Dragonlance novels. In 4e not only are all classes more closely balanced, but Rituals are open to pretty much everyone (the Feat cost is really trivial). Given this, could Dragonlance feel like Dragonlance?

Has anyone given it a go (someone who knows the novels well)?
If "some people are better then others" is a mechanical requirement for you, then no. 4e won't do Dragonlance well, unless you heavily houserule it.

If you're going for a specific flavor, then sure. Remember that the heroes are exceptional and that you shouldn't measure the world by them. Just because they can do certain things doesn't mean others can.

Plus, if your players are as interested in Dragonlance as you are, they won't break the flavor of the world because it's not the point.

Consider the following changes to the world (not the players) and you should at least get pretty close to what you're describing (I don't know much about Dragonlance)

- There are no Martial characters above level 10 other then minions (doesn't apply to the PCs)
- Spellcasters can advance freely and don't start below level 5 (again; doesn't apply to the PCs)
- Ritual casting is reserved for powerful spellcasters only, not NPCs and also not Martial NPCs.

Now, if the players want to play Dragonlance they'll probably not play a Martial PC with Ritual Casting (unless they have a good in-flavor reason for being able to, of course) and if they play Martial characters they'll be larger then life.

While the 12th level Wizard in the party is just an average Wizard amongst Wizards, the 12th level Fighter is the epitomy of Martial ability; a one-of-a-kind warrior and a legend among men... you'll capture the Dragonlance feeling and make the PC special.

On the other hand; you could also just ban Martial PCs entirely, or warn players beforehand that once they hit 10th level or so, their characters will have to be replaced with a magical character as they've reached the Dragonlance peak of martial ability.

Again; all of these things apply flavor to the world without changing the rules for players. And, they all assume your players want to play Dragonlance, because if they don't... well... why are you playing Dragonlance? 
Epic Dungeon Master

Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!

Your Kingdom awaits!
Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
I don't really see why you even have to go that far. Look at the setting with fresh eyes. Imagine it independently of the AD&D context in which it was realized. You have certain types of characters. Magic works in a certain way, etc. Now look at 4e and see how that fits with the setting. Ignore the existing assumptions that 4e carries about how different classes and mechanics fit into the imagined 'PoL' type world they have been imagined for. Is it REALLY absurd for there to be a wise and powerful character in DL that is a powerful fighter and is also in possession of powerful strategic magic? What if that character is called a 'white mage' or whatever? In other words don't assume that just because a class has certain things written on the tin that that's the only thing you can use it for. Remember too, 4e is VERY easy to refluff. Often things can be explained in a way that matches with the setting without any need to touch mechanics.

Beyond that you may also find that adding a feat or two, removing a feat or two, leaving out one or two classes that just don't fit well with the setting's assumptions, etc is not a big deal, especially with 4e. Dark Sun certainly shows that this isn't a drastically difficult task. The game plays fine without clerics in that setting. DL could play quite well without any old random class or race as well.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
I don't really see why you even have to go that far. Look at the setting with fresh eyes.



I like the setting as presented by the novels (of which I've read more than 60).


Is it REALLY absurd for there to be a wise and powerful character in DL that is a powerful fighter and is also in possession of powerful strategic magic?



Yes, for two primary reasons.

In Dragonlance is taught, like modern engineering, through an apprentice-program.

And more importantly, those using spells above 3rd level who are not members of the conclave are Renegade wizards in Dragonlance. These are often hunted and taken care of by the Conclace.


Beyond that you may also find that adding a feat or two, removing a feat or two, leaving out one or two classes that just don't fit well with the setting's assumptions, etc is not a big deal, especially with 4e.



I don't mind leaving stuff out (classes, feats, etc). My point though is do the core mechanics conflict too much with what the Dragonlance novels present?

Dragonlance actually works fairly well in 4e. 

At first level you can start the game as a knight or a wizard of high sorcerery. You don't need to delay the campaign or main quest to work in a knighting or Test just because you started at level 1 or be forced to start at level 3-5 to avoid that. (But you can choose to have that happen on camera as well). Themes (introduced in the Dark Sun article and included in Dragon content) are perfect for Dragonlance, and solve little problems with how characters can belong to a group while not necassarily having the exact right class. Knights of Solamnia would be a theme, and knights could be fighters or warlords or rangers or even avengers. 
Characters are heroic and make a difference at the world at a much lower level. Dragons are large and impressive even at first level. You could easily run the Chronicles/ War of the Lance story as a level 1-10 or 1-15 campaign, starting at 1 and working until mid-Paragon. 

Wizards are a little more balanced and less powerful, but that's not too different from the novels. Even less powerful, a level 2 wizard is dramatically more potent than a level 1 minion aka a common farmer or town guard.  Wizards are powerful but not unkillable. In Legends, and injured and weary Kitiara all but killed Dalamar. Wizards might not be more powerful than a level 2 fighter, but those represent rare and talented heroes: the Tanises and Caramons. 
Speaking of Tanis, he very much strikes me as a warlord. He's always been a bit odd to pin down to a single class. He was a fighter in 1e but he always seemed more like a ranger. In 4e he'd be a skirmish warlord armed with a bow, leading and directing the party while occasionally pulling out his sword and stepping to the front line.
 
Things that don't work well are many of the new races: eladrin, dragonborn, and shifters. Half-orcs of course don't fit and gnomes are still completely different. You'd have to tweak many of the races, akin to the Neverwinter campaign setting's sub-races. An alternate feature for the gnome and a few different elves. 

The edition isn't a perfect match for the novels. There's no weakness inherent in mages when they cast their spells and no vancain magic any more. But there have been differences and inconsistancies since the update to 2nd Edition. And no game will ever perfectly match the novels where a single sword blow is lethal yet heroes don't die on a regular basis.  

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

Themes (introduced in the Dark Sun article and included in Dragon content)



I suppose its not available freely online? It is in Dragon magazine you say? Which number?


Wizards are a little more balanced and less powerful, but that's not too different from the novels.



Didn't Raistlin kill Takhisis...


Things that don't work well are many of the new races: eladrin, dragonborn, and shifters. Half-orcs of course don't fit and gnomes are still completely different.



Ya, I have no problem denying access to certain races.


The edition isn't a perfect match for the novels. There's no weakness inherent in mages when they cast their spells and no vancain magic any more.



I'm not sure how predominant Vancian magic is in the Dragonlance novels. It is mentioned, but there are also times when wizards seem to cast spells in such a manner that would suggest its not Vancian.


But there have been differences and inconsistancies since the update to 2nd Edition. And no game will ever perfectly match the novels where a single sword blow is lethal yet heroes don't die on a regular basis.  



I'm still debating, AD&D 2e vs 4e. Fourth is more balanced, and there are more specialised attacks for non-casters. This is great for the console-generation. I have $800 in AD&D 2e soucebooks and campaign settings though (I'm not exagerating), so its hard just to turn away from it all.

I'm tempted to run 2e with some changes (higher starting hit points like 4e, change the alignments to be just "Good, Neutral, Evil", etc)

I don't know. 
Themes (introduced in the Dark Sun article and included in Dragon content)

I suppose its not available freely online? It is in Dragon magazine you say? Which number? 


Not free (sorry). Available here:
wizards.com/DnD/TOC.aspx?x=dnd/4new/drto...

Wizards are a little more balanced and less powerful, but that's not too different from the novels.

Didn't Raistlin kill Takhisis...
 
Lots of 4e campaigns end with a dead god. Raistlin solo-ing one is impressive, but he is a little tougher than the average wizard. That's what makes him impressive and Bad-A.

The edition isn't a perfect match for the novels. There's no weakness inherent in mages when they cast their spells and no vancain magic any more.


I'm not sure how predominant Vancian magic is in the Dragonlance novels. It is mentioned, but there are also times when wizards seem to cast spells in such a manner that would suggest its not Vancian.

 
Exactly. No novel is perfect. The core novels tend to emulate the rules a dash more though.

But there have been differences and inconsistancies since the update to 2nd Edition. And no game will ever perfectly match the novels where a single sword blow is lethal yet heroes don't die on a regular basis.  


I'm still debating, AD&D 2e vs 4e. Fourth is more balanced, and there are more specialised attacks for non-casters. This is great for the console-generation. I have $800 in AD&D 2e soucebooks and campaign settings though (I'm not exagerating), so its hard just to turn away from it all.

I'm tempted to run 2e with some changes (higher starting hit points like 4e, change the alignments to be just "Good, Neutral, Evil", etc)

I don't know. 


Depends on your players and the game style you want to play. 4e is good for tactical combats and big set piece fights, which Dragonlance has many of. But if 2e floats your boat and you don't want to re-buy books that's valid as well. And if you're struggling to learn and remember new rules, it's going to impact your fun. 

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

I don't really see why you even have to go that far. Look at the setting with fresh eyes.



I like the setting as presented by the novels (of which I've read more than 60).


Is it REALLY absurd for there to be a wise and powerful character in DL that is a powerful fighter and is also in possession of powerful strategic magic?



Yes, for two primary reasons.

In Dragonlance is taught, like modern engineering, through an apprentice-program.

And more importantly, those using spells above 3rd level who are not members of the conclave are Renegade wizards in Dragonlance. These are often hunted and taken care of by the Conclace.


Beyond that you may also find that adding a feat or two, removing a feat or two, leaving out one or two classes that just don't fit well with the setting's assumptions, etc is not a big deal, especially with 4e.



I don't mind leaving stuff out (classes, feats, etc). My point though is do the core mechanics conflict too much with what the Dragonlance novels present?




Sure, but 'level' is a game mechanical concept, not a SETTING concept. My character spends a few years in the military, then goes to wizard school, where his speciality is using magic for non-combat support purposes. Maybe he's a Warlord with ritual casting. He doesn't particularly cast spells in battle, he's already got the melee weapon chops he needs to handle combat, and he's not a big bruiser anyway. Outside of combat he uses divinations, etc to bolster his team. It seems like a pretty viable concept that doesn't have to violate the DL setting concepts. As a PC my character starts out as a warlord, and maybe he uses some low level ritual magic he picked up. Maybe at level 5 he joins the conclave and starts learning some of the higher level rituals that are 'illegal' otherwise. If he's qualified to take the Wizard MC feat that grants ritual casting he can even power swap in a couple wizard powers later on if it suites him.

The trick is to keep straight in your mind what is an actual setting concept that the inhabitants of the DL world know and understand and which explains the world to them, and separate that from mechanical concepts that were used in AD&D to implement that. Then when someone wants to use 4e mechanics to do specific things in DL the only question is how does that work in the DL world? I'd note that like my warlord 'wizard' example above, 4e can often model certain types of things that are logically possible in the DL world that were simply impossible to implement using AD&D rules. I think you'll also find that in a lot of cases there are just 'lacunae' in DL where the material never says something is impossible or not done, but because it didn't fit with the rules being used it was just untouched. You may find there are aspects of the DL world you can now explore that you couldn't explore in AD&D.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
And if you're struggling to learn and remember new rules,



Nah. I'm a computer programmer. I'm overly familiar with having to learn new "rules".

Its just that I miss the mages being *very* powerful (power word kill, travelling the planes of existence, etc). I suppose Rituals replace some of that, but.

I think what really bugs me is that any class can learn a ritual too, just for ONE example, raise dead characters to life. I can see possibly letting paladins do that, but it does not strike me as a wizard/fighter/etc thing to do. 
Sure, but 'level' is a game mechanical concept, not a SETTING concept.



I would think that in a "real world" point of view they may not call it "spell level", but they realize that no apprentice can cast fireball his first week (whereas he might be able to cast magic missile).

For example, they would know which spells are forbidden to those who are not a member of the conclave.


You may find there are aspects of the DL world you can now explore that you couldn't explore in AD&D.



Like?

I like Dragonlance because of the novels. Anything that would seem/feel contradictory to status quo would no longer feel like Dragonlance.  This is why I stopped reading Dragonlance when the 5th Age nonsense was introduced.

I think another big difference is that, as seen in Dragonlance novels, mages in Dragonlance can have *lots* of spellbooks. Perhaps even a librariy full of them. But in 4e this is reduced to a ritual book or two. Doesn't really have the same flare (in my opinion anyway).

And perhaps a mage only needs a few combat spells, but certainly a large number of utility spells is really useful. 
Well if you want Wizards to shine and Fighters to suck, then 4e is definately not the system you are looking for.
Epic Dungeon Master

Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!

Your Kingdom awaits!
Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
Well if you want Wizards to shine and Fighters to suck, then 4e is definately not the system you are looking for.



Did fighters suck in 2e?

I don't think requiring spellbooks, esp large numbers of them, adjusts game balance at all. Perhaps I just like my Vancian system  
I didn't play 2e, but with all your "Wizards used to be soooooo powerful" I'm more or less assuming you're aiming to have them be sucky.

Also, giving Wizards more spells will probably upset the balance. Requiring them to have 10 spellbooks won't, though. As long as you don't actually give them more spells it's fine. Rituals they can buy with their own money (and you can certainly fill a few books with them and they're quite awesome)
Epic Dungeon Master

Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!

Your Kingdom awaits!
Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
Also, giving Wizards more spells will probably upset the balance.



Unless it was a Vancian-blend.

AD&D 2e used a Vancian casting system. This meant a wizard might have 100s of spells in their spellbooks, but the beginning of each day the player had to choose which spells his character would memorize that day, and the wizard was limited by how many spells he could cast per day.

A vancian blend in 4e might allow a wizard to potentially have hundreds of spells (like in previous editions), but each in-game day perhaps the wizard would have to choose which spells he has access too on that day.

... in fact, I quite like this idea

Why limit it to just the Wizards?

Simple rule:

After every extended rest, you get to pick new powers, any ones you like from your class.

*bam* instantly you have what you're looking for, and it applies to everyone rather then just favoring Wizards.

Alternatively, you could hand out new powers and spells as rewards and let people swap between any powers they know. Then they can quest for a new spell, or a new blessing, or the ability to train under a new master and learn new tricks.

There's no reason to limit something like that just to Wizards. 
Epic Dungeon Master

Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!

Your Kingdom awaits!
Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
Why limit it to just the Wizards?



Not just to wiazards. Wizards is my concern is all. I didn't mean to imply it was a wizards only thing.
Also, giving Wizards more spells will probably upset the balance.



Unless it was a Vancian-blend.

AD&D 2e used a Vancian casting system. This meant a wizard might have 100s of spells in their spellbooks, but the beginning of each day the player had to choose which spells his character would memorize that day, and the wizard was limited by how many spells he could cast per day.

A vancian blend in 4e might allow a wizard to potentially have hundreds of spells (like in previous editions), but each in-game day perhaps the wizard would have to choose which spells he has access too on that day.

... in fact, I quite like this idea




If you are looking for god wizards who have access to every spell ever, then 4th edition is porbably not your cup of tea.

However . . .

There is a method of giving them more options, albeit limited ones.  Check the end of the "What you may have missed" thread stickied atop this forum for a way to use wands to give wizards or any other wand using arcanist an edge.

Also, Raistlin didn't kill Tiam. . . Thakaisis.  Fought yes, delayed yes, killed no.  That finally happened at the end of the War of Souls, where she took mortal form and was killed with a spear. *giggles*
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
Yeah, again I'm not sure where the issue lies exactly. My warlord **** student of magic knows that if he wants to master powerful magic (lets say we just decree that up to 4th level magic is 'too trivial' to be illegal) then he is going to have to either refrain from using 5th level or higher rituals (or spells if he power swaps) or else he's going to have to be a rogue caster, or he's going to have to join the Conclave, or he's going to have to be VERY discrete. An AD&D wizard faced the same set of choices. The difference being there was no option for him to come from a martial background where he might have gained substantial non-magical expertise before he made that choice. My warlord doesn't violate any precept of the DL setting that I'm aware of. The inhabitants of the world don't know about levels. They don't even strictly speaking know about classes and the mechanical restrictions on what class abilities can be combined. To a hypothetical inhabitant of that world some people have the talent and interest to take up magic. MOST such people probably take it up early on and stick with it as their primary focus. They're mechanically wizards. Nothing stops a person in that world from having a different life history. If we for instance used an analogy 'mathematician' might be a way to model certain people in the real world mechanically, but there are plenty of people who don't spend their entire lives studying math. Many of them do other things and might not be well modeled by a mathematician class, yet we who inhabit this world find nothing astounding about a 35 year old truck driver who decides to get a Ph.D in math. It may be remarkable enough to take note of, but it certainly doesn't violate the consistency of our real world. Likewise AFAIK my warlord doesn't violate the consistency of the DL world just because his class isn't 'Wizard'.

And yeah, its fine that AD&D wizards had a specific set of spells, and 4e wizards don't necessarily have exactly the same progression or powers that are perfectly corresponding to the AD&D ones. High level 4e wizards are still pretty awesome. Nobody will scoff at them and they can pull off many rather astounding effects, including the vast majority of the ones that were common in AD&D. Fighters are relatively at parity with wizards in 4e, yes, but honestly if my dim recollections of DL literature is any guide the material in the books probably matches better with the 4e equality than it does with the AD&D lopsided power balance. There were plenty of things in the books IIRC that didn't mesh all that well with the specific details of the 1e/2e rules anyway.

Another thing is, much is fluff. There's no reason why wizards can't own large libraries of books. There are a ton of useful books in 4e. Your wizard might easily own several magical tomes, and in fact it is pretty hard to fit all the spells and rituals a typical wizard will know at high levels into one book (there is a rule for this BTW, spells and rituals take up book pages, and you can and probably will need to obtain extra physical books to hold your 'spell book'). Moreover there's no limit to how many rituals you could acquire. 4e has over 300 of them. I don't know exactly how many pages that takes up, but I'm pretty sure it is far more than a single volume can hold. A high level wizard with a room full of books might well know the vast majority of those 300+ rituals. If so he's going to be pretty well set up because a lot of them are pretty potent.

As for the whole 'but why can a fighter Raise Dead?' again this is 'game thinking'. To the inhabitants of the world there are just people with expertise and knowledge. There's no conceit of the game world that demands that a person couldn't master both fighting and magic, only limitations of the AD&D rules that mostly prevented you from building such a character and playing it. Nor is it necessary to rigidly pigeonhole WORLD roles with GAME roles. Just because my character is built using the fighter class doesn't mean he's not a priest, wizard, etc in terms of his WORLD role. Again, maybe he possesses an atypical skill set, but so what? Beyond that it is pretty easy for the DM to create world consistency here. My fighter can only manage to acquire the Raise Dead ritual because functionally in the world he belongs to a group of people who have that knowledge and he finds a way to access it. Mechanically he takes a feat and pays some money to learn the ritual. In game he goes to the temple, makes a donation, studies, takes some sort of orders or whatever, and acquires the ritual. Maybe he also takes the 'Ordained Priest' theme to represent the commitment that he has to make to the temple and the other benefits of his holy orders or whatever.

Obviously if you're going to want to go scene-by-scene through all the mass of DL novels and justify every single action and fact that you find there with a 4e mechanic for it you'll probably come up short at SOME point. IMHO you'd run into that problem with 1e or 2e as well though. That level of consistency is just not really practical. Given the extreme plasticity of the 4e rules though I think you'll probably not have a large amount of problems there, especially since a LOT of stuff in 4e is more guidelines, fluff, and DM options than it was in previous editions.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
I ran a dragonlance game in GURPS for 3 years and it worked perfectly fine, so 4E should be no stranger to the setting. The only thing that would need to be "ported" over are the schools of magic based on the red, white and black moons, and it is easy to balance within itself with casters if you run the moon cycles in the game (full, waning and waxing), so the caster becomes more powerful at full moon, but weaker when there is none. Add in the cycles of the other moons and it gets interesting.  You would also have pay consideration to divine casters as well, and depending on the timeline, it would be rare to find a true priest of faith.

Like any organization that controls power, it would be wise to listen to your respective tower of high sorcery. The biggest drawback is not having the original books, like the DragonLance Adventures book from AD&D. Similar to Oriental Adventures, you would only need one book to have the necessary information to bring the world alive.
MOST such people probably take it up early on and stick with it as their primary focus. They're mechanically wizards. Nothing stops a person in that world from having a different life history.



Pidgeon-holing is an important part of D&D. In fact a class-based RPG *is* a pidgeon-holing system. What, you're a Wizard, ok you can do A, B and C, and you can't do X, Y, Z. Allow players to cross boundaries too much, and each specialty (cleric is a healer, rogue is great at sneaking etc, etc) becomes, well, non-special.


As for the whole 'but why can a fighter Raise Dead?' again this is 'game thinking'. To the inhabitants of the world there are just people with expertise and knowledge.



But I'm a real person, a player, not a character in the story. Pidgeon-holing is a big part of what makes D&D, well, D&D.


My fighter can only manage to acquire the Raise Dead ritual because functionally in the world he belongs to a group of people who have that knowledge and he finds a way to access it.



Although in a D&D sense it has more to do with devotion to a God, and less to do with technical understanding. At least in Dragonlance.


'Ordained Priest' theme to represent the commitment that he has to make to the temple and the other benefits of his holy orders or whatever.



I really have to find out what this Themes thing is.

And yes, I don't mind that it CAN happen, I worry that it would become the norm.
Also, giving Wizards more spells will probably upset the balance.



Unless it was a Vancian-blend.

AD&D 2e used a Vancian casting system. This meant a wizard might have 100s of spells in their spellbooks, but the beginning of each day the player had to choose which spells his character would memorize that day, and the wizard was limited by how many spells he could cast per day.

A vancian blend in 4e might allow a wizard to potentially have hundreds of spells (like in previous editions), but each in-game day perhaps the wizard would have to choose which spells he has access too on that day.

... in fact, I quite like this idea




I think the issue here is more a lack of a really super detailed look at the 4e wizard. I'm not going to do the math for this AGAIN in this thread. It has been done numerous times before in the older edition war threads. A 4e wizard at a comparable level to an AD&D wizard has at least an equal number of powers available to them. A casual glance at the rules might seem to suggest otherwise, but it is true. Your basic level 30 (roughly 18th level in AD&D terms) character has a baseline AEDU of 2/4/4/7, which is 17 powers. An 18th level AD&D wizard has 34 spell slots. The 4e wizard however has a considerable number of additional powers at his disposal. First of all he's also got another 11 spells in his spell book. There are NUMEROUS ways he can access those, including tomes, mnemonic staff, staff of wizardy, a couple of feats, several epic destinies, etc. There are also ways he can recover powers he's already used. He can also pick up a fairly substantial number of extra powers. His theme, if he has one for instance will add one, as will his race. He can pick up another with the Skill Power feat, and possibly another with an MC feat. You could also use the Mage class, which adds its encounter powers to its spell book as well, giving him another 4 spells to choose from. There are a few other tricks you could use as well. Many of your 4e character's innate abilities are also spell-like. He can detect magic for instance, and a lot of his other skill uses could simply be fluffed as "I wave my hands and open the lock with a simple charm" or such. Then there are of course the rituals we've already noted. Given that most AD&D wizards will only memorize a fairly limited subset of their spell book by default and leave the rest as 'spells of convenience' or for 'strategic spell casting', the 4e wizard is really very similar. He's got some arbitrary number of rituals that he likewise only casts outside of combat (generally, again certain characters can engineer some very limited in-combat ritual casting at high levels). All-in-all if you do a detailed comparison of the 2e and 4e wizards (and especially the 1e magic user) you'll find they are pretty comparable. The main difference is that the 4e fighter at high levels is equally powerful. Wizards haven't really been all that nerfed. It is more that some of the crazy game-breaking stuff tends to be had at epic tier and other classes are at parity, so the 30th level 4e wizard isn't the utterly dominating character that the 18th level 2e wizard is.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
MOST such people probably take it up early on and stick with it as their primary focus. They're mechanically wizards. Nothing stops a person in that world from having a different life history.



Pidgeon-holing is an important part of D&D. In fact a class-based RPG *is* a pidgeon-holing system. What, you're a Wizard, ok you can do A, B and C, and you can't do X, Y, Z. Allow players to cross boundaries too much, and each specialty (cleric is a healer, rogue is great at sneaking etc, etc) becomes, well, non-special.


As for the whole 'but why can a fighter Raise Dead?' again this is 'game thinking'. To the inhabitants of the world there are just people with expertise and knowledge.



But I'm a real person, a player, not a character in the story. Pidgeon-holing is a big part of what makes D&D, well, D&D.


My fighter can only manage to acquire the Raise Dead ritual because functionally in the world he belongs to a group of people who have that knowledge and he finds a way to access it.



Although in a D&D sense it has more to do with devotion to a God, and less to do with technical understanding. At least in Dragonlance.


'Ordained Priest' theme to represent the commitment that he has to make to the temple and the other benefits of his holy orders or whatever.



I really have to find out what this Themes thing is.

And yes, I don't mind that it CAN happen, I worry that it would become the norm.



Within 4th ed you have your race, class, and optional backgrounds and themes.  Race defines you as a culture to a great extent (Or can be set as a contrast for what you are supposed to be like, in some cases), class defines what you do, background defines who you are (and gives you a single mechanical bonus regardless of how many background you take) while a theme is how you do what you do and grows with the character.  For example, an Alchemist rogue might be a rogue to find rare components for their mixtures and to use those mixtures to then be a rogue. 

Some themes give powers, some give free feats or other mechanical fun stuff to represent the "how you do"part.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
I think the issue here is more a lack of a really super detailed look at the 4e wizard. I'm not going to do the math for this AGAIN in this thread. It has been done numerous times before in the older edition war threads.



I've read the argument for this in the past, and read more than one of those threads.

The end result is that I simply do not agree. My AD&D 2e toon with a 19 inteligence could have hundreds of thousands of spells in his library (for each level!). Yes he can only memorize a small subset of those, but I'm OK with that. To me, reasearching / acquiring new spells was half the fun.

And I *liked* that mages had verbal/somatic/material components for most spells. I was never a fan of at-will powers, such seemed the domain of Gods and certain creatures on a very limited basis.
And yes, I don't mind that it CAN happen, I worry that it would become the norm.



How could that happen? There will be at most a handful of people not abiding by the norm. Everyone else is under the DMs control. The only thing having a player be a Martial Ritual Caster will do is reinforce that the PC is exceptional.

Since he'll be the only one in the universe that managed to get utility magic + martial power mastered.

It's impossible for something to become the norm unless the DM makes it so. 
Epic Dungeon Master

Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!

Your Kingdom awaits!
Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
In addition, a 4E dragonlance setting can pose certain conditions just like in Dark Sun. But if you prefer 2nd edition, over 4E, then just buy the appropriate dragonlance books and play.
I think the issue here is more a lack of a really super detailed look at the 4e wizard. I'm not going to do the math for this AGAIN in this thread. It has been done numerous times before in the older edition war threads.



I've read the argument for this in the past, and read more than one of those threads.

The end result is that I simply do not agree. My AD&D 2e toon with a 19 inteligence could have hundreds of thousands of spells in his library (for each level!). Yes he can only memorize a small subset of those, but I'm OK with that. To me, reasearching / acquiring new spells was half the fun.

And I *liked* that mages had verbal/somatic/material components for most spells. I was never a fan of at-will powers, such seemed the domain of Gods and certain creatures on a very limited basis.



Well, if you 'do not agree' with cold hard facts, there's really no point in continuing the discussion, is there?
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
MOST such people probably take it up early on and stick with it as their primary focus. They're mechanically wizards. Nothing stops a person in that world from having a different life history.



Pidgeon-holing is an important part of D&D. In fact a class-based RPG *is* a pidgeon-holing system. What, you're a Wizard, ok you can do A, B and C, and you can't do X, Y, Z. Allow players to cross boundaries too much, and each specialty (cleric is a healer, rogue is great at sneaking etc, etc) becomes, well, non-special.


It is a matter of degree though. 4e is pretty good about niche protection. It is definitely far less rigid than AD&D was. The fighter is still hacking on things, the cleric is still healing things, and the rogue is still sneaking around jumping people. The role concept helps here too. The fighter holds the line and has strong class features that support that. The cleric has healing capacity that dwarfs anything a fighter could acquire no matter how much of his resources he spent on it. A rogue making a surprise attack on an enemy can do damage that no fighter or cleric will match, and has many utility powers and default access to a skillset that insures that he's quite sneaky etc. You CAN make a sneaky fighter, there's just not a whole lot of reason to want to use the fighter class to make that character, and once you do decide to be a fighter you're generally rewarded more by enhancing your built-in abilities than by branching out into some other territory.


As for the whole 'but why can a fighter Raise Dead?' again this is 'game thinking'. To the inhabitants of the world there are just people with expertise and knowledge.



But I'm a real person, a player, not a character in the story. Pidgeon-holing is a big part of what makes D&D, well, D&D.



Sure, up to a point. Consider it this way. Why would I as a player decide to have my fighter acquire Raise Dead? Surely the cleric can get that without spending a feat and will have a higher skill check in Heal in the vast majority of cases. Two possible reasons exist. Either there is for whatever reason no cleric in the party and someone needs this ritual, in which case 4e at least allows for the possibilty. The other case would be some sort of story consideration where I want it because it works with my character concept and ties in with the story somehow. Again the option is nice to have. Personally I've never seen a fighter take ritual casting in 3 years of play though, so the whole thing is more academic than practical.


My fighter can only manage to acquire the Raise Dead ritual because functionally in the world he belongs to a group of people who have that knowledge and he finds a way to access it.



Although in a D&D sense it has more to do with devotion to a God, and less to do with technical understanding. At least in Dragonlance.



Sure, but nothing really says that a fighter can't be as devout as a cleric is. That's an RP consideration. Sure, the 4e rules don't FORCE me to only take the ritual if my character is devout, but then again no edition of the game can really enforce devout behavior mechanically. I guess you could chuck the insincere cleric from his alignment and take his spells away. 4e doesn't enforce such a rule, but the DM certainly could if it matches with the sensibilities of the setting and he makes sure everyone knows about it ahead of time.


'Ordained Priest' theme to represent the commitment that he has to make to the temple and the other benefits of his holy orders or whatever.



I really have to find out what this Themes thing is.

And yes, I don't mind that it CAN happen, I worry that it would become the norm.



Themes first appeared in the Dark Sun setting. They also appear in the Neverwinter setting. There are additionally a number of themes that have been published in Dragon (so you can get them via DDI). They just added a couple new ones the other day for Oriental Adventures, which is this month's magazine feature. They don't cover all the possibilities yet, and some of them are fairly setting specific, but they do let you do some interesting extra things.

I wouldn't be too concerned about it. The truth is most players have a pretty good handle on basic character concept. It may be a bit mutable or fuzzy, but they usually are pretty clear about what falls totally outside that. 4e also 'enforces' a certain amount of separation simply by practical considerations. Your STR/WIS dwarf fighter build clanking around in plate armor CAN use his feats to take Stealth, Acrobatics, and Thievery. Even with training he's simply going to be inferior at those skills than basically every rogue ever. Combine that with the way class features support the typical functions of each class and you find that the party will stick to their archetypes pretty closely most of the time.

The exceptions to that are also instructional. AD&D in particular was a very hard game to use to create a specific concept unless there was an existing class that provided exactly that concept. You also didn't have the option to NOT have certain specific features. You got the whole package or none of the package, if your character didn't fit the existing pigeonholes you were just out of luck. Niche protection was guaranteed, but that too created problems. You HAD to have a cleric. There were no 2 ways about it, a party without a cleric was deaders. That is simply not true anymore, you can graft a bit of healing onto your fighter or druid or whatever (or play a warlord or bard, etc).

Another aspect of this is specific types of games. Suppose you want to play a game of intrigue and spying. In 4e you can build a whole sneaky party with a whole range of classes. Not EVERY build can be everything, but you can make a very nice sneaky fighter, sneaky cleric, sneaky wizard, etc. Now everyone can sneak and they don't need to either hit up the DM for a bunch of magic items to enable that, or rely on a wizard/cleric to magic them all to sneakiness, or just clunk around and force the DM to figure out how to make the plot not rely on sneakiness much. The cool thing is that yes, in this case the whole party is sort of poaching on the rogue's niche, but he's probably still best at it, and even if he's not THE BEST we come back to the 'game concept vs world concept'. I call my super sneaky fighter a rogue! He wears hide armor, wields a rapier, sneaks around, picks locks, pockets, and traps, so really is that a problem? He's just a rogue that uses fighter powers and is a defender in combat. He's probably STILL not as good at every rogue type thing as a rogue class character, but he can perform that function. Likewise I can use the ranger class to make a guy who's an expert archer and hasn't ever set foot outside a city in his life.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
I think the issue here is more a lack of a really super detailed look at the 4e wizard. I'm not going to do the math for this AGAIN in this thread. It has been done numerous times before in the older edition war threads.



I've read the argument for this in the past, and read more than one of those threads.

The end result is that I simply do not agree. My AD&D 2e toon with a 19 inteligence could have hundreds of thousands of spells in his library (for each level!). Yes he can only memorize a small subset of those, but I'm OK with that. To me, reasearching / acquiring new spells was half the fun.

And I *liked* that mages had verbal/somatic/material components for most spells. I was never a fan of at-will powers, such seemed the domain of Gods and certain creatures on a very limited basis.



Well, if you 'do not agree' with cold hard facts, there's really no point in continuing the discussion, is there?



Well, in all fairness, this all starts to become hair splitting. There are a couple ways to think about it. IN THEORY he's right, his wizard in 2e is technically not limited to any specific number of spells in his book. OTOH in a practical sense it is a fairly dubious argument in that there are a total in 2e of what, maybe 500 wizard spells, counting every published source of spells in existence as of the day 3e came out. Having a 19 INT is also pretty unusual, so this is somewhat of a corner-case. Technically you could make up new spells and research them and have 100's of spells of every level (maybe 1000's, there's an issue at some point of time). Fairly put you can certainly have a LOT of spells as a 2e wizard. The question is how much practical value does that have in actual play? The existing spell list is quite extensive. It certainly doesn't cover every possibility imaginable by any means, but there is a level of diminishing returns there at some point. As I said before, once you have all the basics covered in terms of combat spells you'll probably just memorize the most effective ones and leave it at that. The rest of your spell library is relegated to either niche situations or 'strategic casting' where you sit in your tower and cast your esoteric spells without the need to consider what is memorized and what isn't. The 4e wizard likewise memorizes his most effective core combat spells, maybe once in a while picks an alternate option, and strategically casts his unlimited library of rituals while sitting in his tower. The end result is pretty much the same. I'd also observe that while 4e lacks an explicit rule for researching new rituals it isn't exactly a major challenge to invent one (lets say 1 week per ritual with a hard DC arcana check at the level of the ritual at the end of the week, or maybe it is 1 week/tier of ritual with an easy/medium/hard arcana check and the material cost is the same as the listed purchase price). I'd also note that your 4e wizard can always retrain a spell. He can only do it once per level, but he's certainly capable within that restriction of accessing ANY wizard power in the game that he can cast, with enough preparation.

Then there are the workarounds. As Salla noted back up thread a ways you can place ANY at-will or encounter arcane power into a wand. There is no real limit to how many wands you can make except your resources. If carrying around a large barrel of wands feels cheezy, well, refluff it as a big book full of spells. You can cast each one once a day or once an encounter for the at-will ones IIRC. The upshot is there are really very few limits to what your wizard can do if he puts his mind to it, and doesn't mind spending the resources.

As for having a distaste for at-will spells (or encounter ones for that matter) what can anyone say? If every way in which 4e differs in the slightest degree from 2e is going to be met with distaste, then clearly one should be playing 2e. It is all a matter of taste at that point. All at-will spells do for you is insure that you have SOMETHING interesting you can do in any situation. Wizards are pretty focused on their daily spells for their big guns, so IMHO again 4e isn't that much different from 2e, once you blow your dailies you're reduced to a lower level of effectiveness. Most any decent level 2e wizard has some sort of wand or something he can fall back on anyway, so it isn't as if having an 'at-will' spell type resource was foreign to 2e. It was just handled in a slightly different way. In fact since a wizard without an implement is a sorry puppy in 4e past 3rd level or so the difference there is actually pretty much moot. Neither the 2e nor the 4e wizard will be worth much once he's expended his big powers and has somehow lost his implement.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
I tried to approximate 4e versions of the Heroes of the Lance: 

community.wizards.com/wiki/Dnd:Heroes_of...

They were very rough drafts based on the stats from Dragons of Mystery and no doubt they could do with a bit of tweaking.  None of them are optimised but they might be fun to play.

In our home (Greyhawk) campaign one long-running character converted from 1e/2e/3e is a fighter warlod hybrid with bard multiclass and ritual casting.  In previous editions he was just a fighter who developed an obsession with history and legends.  In 4e he has picked divination rituals as a specialty so his ritual powers are a bit like Giles in Buffy.  I think you can justify a lot of builds by using the right mixture of fluff, themes, and feats.  Plus with Kara-Tur themes out now, Dragonlance may not be far behind.
Well, if you 'do not agree' with cold hard facts, there's really no point in continuing the discussion, is there?



The problem is that its not cold hard facts, its arbitrary opinions. And yes with a LOT of min/maxing you can change the situation a bit, but you disadvantage yourself a lot in feat expenditure just to emulate something which is not meant to be emulated. 
Also, giving Wizards more spells will probably upset the balance.



Unless it was a Vancian-blend.

AD&D 2e used a Vancian casting system. This meant a wizard might have 100s of spells in their spellbooks, but the beginning of each day the player had to choose which spells his character would memorize that day, and the wizard was limited by how many spells he could cast per day.

A vancian blend in 4e might allow a wizard to potentially have hundreds of spells (like in previous editions), but each in-game day perhaps the wizard would have to choose which spells he has access too on that day.

... in fact, I quite like this idea





Roll out the way back machine...

When I got the 3.o new third edition Player's Handbook in my hands, I was pouring over the overall book when I came across the Wizard and Sorcerer. Now, I am not the brightest bulb on the fixture, but the Sorcerer had different mechanics while the Wizard was stuck shifting spells and having to "Prepare" multiple spells to cast Magic Missile, for example, more than once. I had wondered why both these classes was there, why the Sorcerer still seemed a bit light, and scratched my head over the need to cling to the Vancian casting system.

4th edition took this away, except for the Dailies for the Wizard, and created Rituals (Remember those) to replace the daily preperations and the crafting skills.

Essentials expanded the Vancian aspect to Encounters for the Wizard, to the point that I don't want to play them at all anymore.

Vancian Casting needed to be gone in 3rd Edition, but Wizards wimped out and provided the Sorcerer as an alternative instead. It needed to be completely gone, but the Wizard held on to the last vestiges and Wizards expanded on it in Essentials.

In 5th edition, The Wizard needs to Hot Cast his choices, have access to his spells without having to guess which one to "Prepare" before being in the situation for it. Vancian Casting needs to die. Painfully. With a lot of blood and a long, agonizing last look before exhaling it's last, bubbly breath.
Terms you should know...
Show
Kit Build - A class build that is self sustaining and has mechanical differences than the normal scale. Started in Essentials. Most are call their own terms, though the Base Class should be said in front of their own terms (Like Assassin/Executioner) Power Points - A mechanic that was wedged into the PHB3 classes (with the exception of the Monk) from the previous editions. This time, they are used to augment At Wills to be Encounters, thus eliminating the need to choose powers past 4th level. Mage Builds - Kit builds that are schools of magic for the Wizard. A call back to the previous editions powering up of the wizard. (Wizard/Necromancer, for example) Unlike the previous kit builds, Wizards simply lose their Scribe Rituals feature and most likely still can choose powers from any build, unlike the Kit Builds. Parcel System - A treasure distribution method that keeps adventurers poor while forcing/advising the DM to get wish lists from players. The version 2.0 rolls for treasure instead of making a list, and is incomplete because of the lack of clarity about magic item rarity.
ha ha
56902498 wrote:
They will Essentialize the Essentials classes, otherwise known as Essentials2. The new sub-sub-classes will be: * Magician. A subsubclass of Mage, the magician has two implements, wand and hat, one familiar (rabbit) and series of basic tricks. * Crook. A subsubclass of Thief, the Crook can only use a shiv, which allows him to use his only power... Shank. * Angry Vicar, a subsubclass of warpriest, the angry vicar has two attacks -- Shame and Lecture. * Hitter. A subsubclass of Slayer, the Hitter hits things. * Gatherer. A subsubclass of Hunter, it doesn't actually do anything, but pick up the stuff other players might leave behind. Future Essentials2 classes include the Security Guard (Sentinel2), the Hexknife (Hexblade2), the Webelos (Scout2), the Gallant (Cavalier2) and the Goofus (Knight2). These will all be detailed in the box set called Heroes of the Futile Marketing. (Though what they should really release tomorrow is the Essentialized version of the Witchalok!)
I am currently running a 4e dragonlance campaign.   So far I think 4e works rather well with Dragonlance.   With that said, I've had a lot of help from the Dragonlance Nexus dlnexus.com.    They have good conversions for the races and a number of ideas on how to run the game in 4e.

In addition, someone has already converted Dragons of Despair in 4e.    

wotl4e.pbworks.com/f/DL1%20Despair.pdf


The biggest problem I've had to deal with so far is recreating the WoHS.      It's rather challenging with 4e because I don't feel like anything I try is really making them feel like the WoHS.    Previous editions restricted access to schools and granted bonus spells depending on the phases of the moon. but that is rather hard to do in 4e.   I've seen other ideas with themes and feats, but even they don't manage to recreate the WoHS.     Then there is the added problem of what to do with all the other 'arcane' classes in 4e.  Why would anyone care to be a wizard and pass a test (a test that could kill them) if they could just become a non-wizard arcane class?  Clearly any solution has to encompass all the arcane classes or they have to be barred from dragonlance.        



I built Goldmoon as primarily a bard as a way of reflecting the fact that there was no divine magic to start off.  I don't think you need to be totally restrictive in you approach though.  Despite the 'arcane' power source, a lot of powers can be retooled to be less magical.  A wizard of High Sorcery theme could grant bonuses to certain powers or rituals but apply to many arcane classes.  A 'wizard' does not have to be a wizard in 4e in the same way that the traditional druids and clerics have been broken up into different niche classes.  You could also restrict the access of certain rituals to certain classess.

The biggest problem I've had to deal with so far is recreating the WoHS.      It's rather challenging with 4e because I don't feel like anything I try is really making them feel like the WoHS.    Previous editions restricted access to schools and granted bonus spells depending on the phases of the moon. but that is rather hard to do in 4e.   I've seen other ideas with themes and feats, but even they don't manage to recreate the WoHS.     Then there is the added problem of what to do with all the other 'arcane' classes in 4e.  Why would anyone care to be a wizard and pass a test (a test that could kill them) if they could just become a non-wizard arcane class?  Clearly any solution has to encompass all the arcane classes or they have to be barred from dragonlance.        




Easy solution: All arcane classes, with the exception of the Bard, are just Wizards who simply have different foci.

An Artifacer is simply a Wizard who likes allies and has an affinity for Magic items. The Sorcerer is simply a Wizard who likes blowing things up. A Swordmage and Bladesinger are simply Wizards who enjoy a bit of swordplay. A Warlock is simply a Wizard who skirts the traditions and utilizes magic from extra-planar beings.
Why except the bard?  No reason it can't just be a wizard, too.

Plus, a Warlock can just be a 'vanilla' wizard as well; the pact is just fluff.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Why except the bard?  No reason it can't just be a wizard, too.

Plus, a Warlock can just be a 'vanilla' wizard as well; the pact is just fluff.



I couldn't remember if there was a lot of fluff for the Bard in Dragonlance or not, so I was erring on the side of caution. If the setting doesn't have fluff for the class, then yes, its just a Wizard who likes stories, knowledge and, perhaps, music.
Yeah, I'd say all arcane classes were "wizards" insomuch as they would be required to be part of the Wizards group or be branded an outcast.  Also, there would totally be room for a warlock pact that was sworn to the moons, giving them a strange and eerie connection to one of the three gods of those moons.  Orders of blade, spell and song, possibly letting the background of the setting take place at the end of the War of Souls, with Bahamut and Tiamat . . . I'm sorry Paladin and Thakisis as mortals or dead, the pantheon back to the world, and whole realms of possibility open to players.

I think the biggest thing that works in favor of the DL world is the ability to have clerics and paladins and such of every god, much as there were dark Knights of Thakisis that were essentially eeeeeeevil paladins.

I could see, with the return of the gods, how invoker magic would rise, the use of the primal spirits as an alternative to the ordered ways of religion or the arcane, and even the possible effects that could create a rise in psionic powers.  Dragonborn would be hard to explain, unless they were manufactured as the "good" versions of Draconians to battle said Draconians.

And so on.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
Why except the bard?  No reason it can't just be a wizard, too.

Plus, a Warlock can just be a 'vanilla' wizard as well; the pact is just fluff.



I couldn't remember if there was a lot of fluff for the Bard in Dragonlance or not, so I was erring on the side of caution. If the setting doesn't have fluff for the class, then yes, its just a Wizard who likes stories, knowledge and, perhaps, music.



Doesn't matter if the setting does or not.  If you want to play a bard that doesn't perform in any setting, it's fine.  Fluff is mutable.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.

The biggest problem I've had to deal with so far is recreating the WoHS.      It's rather challenging with 4e because I don't feel like anything I try is really making them feel like the WoHS.    Previous editions restricted access to schools and granted bonus spells depending on the phases of the moon. but that is rather hard to do in 4e.   I've seen other ideas with themes and feats, but even they don't manage to recreate the WoHS.     Then there is the added problem of what to do with all the other 'arcane' classes in 4e.  Why would anyone care to be a wizard and pass a test (a test that could kill them) if they could just become a non-wizard arcane class?  Clearly any solution has to encompass all the arcane classes or they have to be barred from dragonlance.        




Easy solution: All arcane classes, with the exception of the Bard, are just Wizards who simply have different foci.

An Artifacer is simply a Wizard who likes allies and has an affinity for Magic items. The Sorcerer is simply a Wizard who likes blowing things up. A Swordmage and Bladesinger are simply Wizards who enjoy a bit of swordplay. A Warlock is simply a Wizard who skirts the traditions and utilizes magic from extra-planar beings.



Well some of those classes allow you to use armor which isn't very WoHS like.    With that concept what defines you as a black robe wizard? Would it be only your alignment?    Also, would you force every arcane caster to take the test?   And then what defines you as a Renegade?   Is that a theme, a background, or  feat?    Would a renegade be like the FR's red wizard of thay theme?  If so, don't forget that even though a WoHS has passed the test he could still become a renegade if he dabbles in magic that is forbidden.    And therein lies the problem with 4e there is no such thing as forbidden magical spells because everything that is available to your class is all you'll ever have.  With 4e there are no magical rules that you as a a player must decide to follow.  Then again there are no role playing requirements /restrictions for any of the classes in 4e.     Lastly, how would you allow the moons to influence all these classes?    With moon magic you'll need to ensure that it affects combat.   For example, it should be far more difficult to defeat a black robe when nuitari is in high sanction and your moon is in low sanction.    

      .  



I built Goldmoon as primarily a bard as a way of reflecting the fact that there was no divine magic to start off.  I don't think you need to be totally restrictive in you approach though.  Despite the 'arcane' power source, a lot of powers can be retooled to be less magical.  A wizard of High Sorcery theme could grant bonuses to certain powers or rituals but apply to many arcane classes.  A 'wizard' does not have to be a wizard in 4e in the same way that the traditional druids and clerics have been broken up into different niche classes.  You could also restrict the access of certain rituals to certain classess.



What you do here is simply allow Goldmoon to access her spells via a property of the blue crystal staff.

Property: The Blue Crystal Staff allows a user belonging to a divine class toaccess class features and powers normally, even if cut off somehow from hisor her deity.

That's what they did in the Dragons of despair conversion anyway.
Sign In to post comments