|
1 year ago ::
Feb 08, 2012 - 3:35AM
#1
|
|
|
The following setting assumes a Dawn War, Primordials, and Primal spirits like 4E, but as long as the Primal Spirits exist, it should be easy enough to adapt to other settings. When the dawn war began , the gods sent a number of angels to the world to hold off the attacks of the Primordials. Durng the defence, they discovered the unborn Primal Spirits. Awakening them to help, they were not ready for the Primal Spirits power. Awakened, the Primal spirits ended the war, sealed the world from the Gods and Primordials alike, and claime the world as their own domain. The angels were given a choice, to go back to heaven, or be bound to the mortal plane forever. Those that chose to be bound were altered, each given a totem form, the head of an animal symbolic to their personality on a humanoid body. Each was given a mortal span to live their lives… but on death, their souls were not allowed to leave the mortal realm either- instead, to be born into the next generation. Some turn to their old gods for guidance, others invoke the new Primal spirits… while still others, the Rakasha, use their immortality for personal gain.   
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 08, 2012 - 3:49AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Oct 22, 2007
|
Meh. Guardinals were a dumb idea back in 2005. Seven years hasn't changed that any.
I think this is a great idea for your home campaign. As a core property? No. Too specific, too closely mirroring a couple of real-world mythic constructs, and too... fetishy.
-m4ki; one down, one to go "Retro is not new.
Retro-fit is not new."
--Seeker95,
on why I won't be playing DDN
| DDN Metrics (0-10) | enthusiasm: 1 | confidence in design: -3 | desire to play: 0 | Sticking with 4e?: Yep. | Better Options: IKRPG Mk II |
The Five Things D&D Next Absolutely Must Not Do:
Show
1. Imbalanced gameplay. Any and all characters must be able to contribute equally both in combat and out of combat at all levels of play. If the Fighters are linear and the Wizards quadratic, I walk.
2. Hardcore simulationist approach. D&D is a game about heroic fantasy. I'm weak and useless enough in real life; I play RPGs for a change of pace. If the only reason a rule exists is because "that's how it's supposed to be", I walk. I don't want a game that "simulates" real life, I want a game that simulates heroic fantasy.
3. Worshipping at false idols (AKA Sacred Cows). If the only reason a rule exists is "it's always been that way", I walk. Now to be clear, I have no problem with some things not changing; my issue is with retaining bad idea simply for the sake of nostalgia.
4. DM vs. players. If the game encourages "gotcha!" moments or treats the DM and players as enemies, adversaries, or problems to be overcome, I walk.
5. Rules for the sake of rules. The only thing I want rules for is the things I can't do sitting around a table with my friends. If the rules try to step on my ability to roleplay the character I want to roleplay, I walk. Furthermore, the rules serve to facilitate gameplay, not to simulate the world.
NOTE: Items in red have been violated.
Chris Perkins' DM Survival Tips:
Show
1. When in doubt, wing it.
2. Keep the story moving. Go with the flow.
3. Sometimes things make the best characters.
4. Always give players lots of things to do.
5. Wherever possible, say ‘yes.’
6. Cheating is largely unnecessary.
7. Don't be afraid to give the characters a fun new toy.
8. Don't get in the way of a good players exchange.
9. Avoid talking too much.
10. Save some details for later.
11. Be transparent.
12. Don't show all your cards.
Words to live by.
Quotes From People Smarter Than Me:
Show
"Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging..." -Foxface on Essentials
"Servicing a diverse fan base with an RPG ruleset - far from being the mandate for 'open design space' and a cavalier attitude towards balance - requires creating a system that /works/, with minimal fuss, for a wide variety of play styles, not just from one group to the next, but at the same table." -Tony_Vargas on design
"Mearls' and Cook's stated intent to produce an edition that fans of all previous editions (and Pathfinder) will like more than their current favourite edition is laudable. But it is also, IMO, completely unrealistic. It's like people who pray for world peace: I might share their overall aims, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for them to succeed. When they talk in vague terms about what they'd like to do in this new edition, I mostly find myself thinking 'hey, that sounds cool, assuming they can pull it off', but almost every time they've said something specific about actual mechanics, I've found myself wincing and shaking my head in disbelief and/or disgust, either straight away or after thinking about the obvious implications for half a minute." -Duskweaver on D&D Next
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 08, 2012 - 4:52AM
#3
|
|
|
I love Deva as they are in 4e! Perhaps my favorite race to play across all editions. IMO they don't need to be reimagined.
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire Concerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 08, 2012 - 6:44AM
#4
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
Deva are easy enough to imagine in any campaign world in which deities have messengers. One or more angels loves the world so much they pleaded with their deity to be allowed to experience it directly. The god ached to see beloved servants leave, but could not refuse their heart-felt plea, encasing their immortal spirit into a house of flesh. Each time the deva dies, it is returned to its patron, and each time, it requests to be returned to the mortal world.
But immortal spirit cannot stay unsullied so close to the mortal world. The deity tries to refine the deva's soul each time it passes through the god's dominion onto reincarnation. This leaves the reincarnated deva with incomplete memories (the more impurities, the more incomplete). And not all the stains on the deva's sould could be purged. Eventually, the deva will either have to cease reincarnating, or its soul will become so corrupted that the deity cannot allow it to stay in the god's dominion. It must return one last time to the mortal world as rakshasa, and upon its death, the rakshasa's soul dissipates to nothingness. Rakshasas are therefore desperate to find an escape from dissipation, and indulge in the worst depravities in an attempt to find a way to prolong its last incarnation.
That's the essence of the deva, stripped of its Dawn War. I think this will fit in most standard polytheistic campaigns, and even some monotheistic or duotheistic ones.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 08, 2012 - 7:42AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2002
|
I'm all for giving devas some Great Wheel bloodlines, but there's no need to alter the base concept.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 08, 2012 - 12:13PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jun 25, 2008
|
My problem was art style. The concept was alright, but there was no way I was going to be able to like the devas with the way they were depicted in 4e. Go ahead and keep the race and lore if you want. But COMPLETELY redesign how they look starting from scratch.
At least to make me happy. I'm sure somwhere someone likes how they look.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 08, 2012 - 12:18PM
#7
|
|
|
My problem was art style. The concept was alright, but there was no way I was going to be able to like the devas with the way they were depicted in 4e. Go ahead and keep the race and lore if you want. But COMPLETELY redesign how they look starting from scratch.
At least to make me happy. I'm sure somwhere someone likes how they look.
You do realize, of course, that your character looks exactly like you want him to, right?
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 08, 2012 - 12:32PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jun 25, 2008
|
A couple different responses to that.
First off you make a very real point, and I do realize that. But it's alot easier to invision my character however I want when it's a human, or any other race where I've seen scores of different versions artistically.
I actually am a big supporter of taking something mechanical in the game and reflavoring it. I ran the Nentir Vale adventures for my group, chaning the setting to a rain forest coast instead of the blistery north. I could see myself taking the mechanics of Deva and making anthro wolfmen. Or reinventing them in some other way.
But when you present a completely new race (at least I hadn't heard of them before) you want to show people something that's cool. Something to catch their interest. Most people aren't total min/maxers. They don't look at a race and say, "dang...those are some sexy mechanics". Most people look at the art and description and say, "hey! I like the style here!"
So I maintain my beliefe that redesigning the race's art would help a lot of people like them more.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 08, 2012 - 1:14PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2007
|
But when you present a completely new race (at least I hadn't heard of them before) you want to show people something that's cool. Something to catch their interest. Most people aren't total min/maxers. They don't look at a race and say, "dang...those are some sexy mechanics". Most people look at the art and description and say, "hey! I like the style here!"
So I maintain my beliefe that redesigning the race's art would help a lot of people like them more.
Well, they were blue people. IMO D&D gained a lot by remaking the genasi into something more than "technicolor people", but I have little idea how else could you present "incarnated angels" – marble statuesque?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 08, 2012 - 7:47PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2003
|
Meh. Guardinals were a dumb idea back in 2005. Seven years hasn't changed that any.
They've been around as part of D&D since well prior to 2005. Specifically, they've been around for two decades or so since 2e Planescape back in the 90s.
Shemeska the Marauder, Freelancer 5 / Yugoloth 10
|
|
|
