|
2 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2011 - 8:22PM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Jan 27, 2010
|
Well, if such a system existed within 4th ed, it would have to reject many of the newer classes on the basis that those classes didn't exist at the time of the War of the Lance, most specifically because they didn't exist at least as base classes within the original system which the War of the Lance used as it's base.
I don't think this is a problem because the novels of the dragonlance world only need to have a small selection of the classes available.
Tanis for example makes a good Warlord.
Not specifically shadow and death, no. Notice my question marks. 
Still, one might at least assum that for a wizard, the darker schools of Essentials would be black robe material; I'd also consider traficking in dark powers or devil assistance (dark and infernal pacts) would probably be black robe activities. That is not, however, to claim that a mage with no shadow/death powers or a pact with horrible things would not be a black robe. In fact, because of the heavy emphasis on the neccesary "evil" of having the black robes around, one might need to look towards allowing all alignments in as a matter of rule for the setting, and let that in fact be the indicator. Honestly I know how I'd do it, barring any rules intervention from the source.
I truely think that in order to make Dragonlance work Good, Neutrality, and Evil must be real forces in the campaign world. I would make Metallic Dragons good and Chromatic dragons evil. There is just too much of this embedded in the lore of dragonlance that you would have to ignore if you didn't.
With a table visible, and no way for the DM to cheat, I think that would be fantastic. Hell, it makes me want to create a beautiful graphic representaition of the moon's cycles for that world, complete with a marker. I'd assume that since all mages (in the case of all arcane classes being mages meaning each and every arcane class) connect to a moon in that world, a mage would have to choose their moon as a facet of beginning their character, and that whatever functions would enhance them would be listed under the class abilities.
Actually, the nexus has already created a chart for this.
www.dlnexus.com/weather/moons.aspx
www.dlnexus.com/fan/rules/11899.aspx
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2011 - 8:31PM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2008
|
I think it is important to separate aspects of the setting from aspects of the older edition of D&D.
For example, the existence of mages that were more powerful than other classes was not something idiosyncratic to Dragonlance; rather, it was simply a part of 2E D&D and found in every setting.
On the other hand, the Towers of High Sorcery and the different robed orders of wizards was something unique and special about Dragonlance, as were the Knights of Solomnia.
So, rather than asking if you can use 4E with Dragonlance, a better question is: what do you prefer, the mechanics of 2E or 4E? If you prefer 2E, then use it with the old Dragonlance rules. If you prefer 4E, then think of how the Dragonlance setting would exist under the new ruleset. And work to separate the fluff of the setting from the mechanics of 2E. Don't get caught up on how things were, simply because newer stuff didn't exist.
Arcane classes wearing armor is an example of this. Did all wizards in 2E Dragonlance go without armor? Of course, because in 2E wizards didn't wear armor. But in 4E you can have Warlocks and Swordmages in leather armor, and Bards in chain (and any of them can wear heavier armor by spending feats). But a wizard in armor doesn't ruin the Dragonlance setting. The wizards of dragonlance didn't go without armor because of special Dragonlance fluff, they did it because that was how 2E worked.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2011 - 9:01PM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Jan 27, 2010
|
I think it is important to separate aspects of the setting from aspects of the older edition of D&D.
For example, the existence of mages that were more powerful than other classes was not something idiosyncratic to Dragonlance; rather, it was simply a part of 2E D&D and found in every setting.
On the other hand, the Towers of High Sorcery and the different robed orders of wizards was something unique and special about Dragonlance, as were the Knights of Solomnia.
So, rather than asking if you can use 4E with Dragonlance, a better question is: what do you prefer, the mechanics of 2E or 4E? If you prefer 2E, then use it with the old Dragonlance rules. If you prefer 4E, then think of how the Dragonlance setting would exist under the new ruleset. And work to separate the fluff of the setting from the mechanics of 2E. Don't get caught up on how things were, simply because newer stuff didn't exist.
Arcane classes wearing armor is an example of this. Did all wizards in 2E Dragonlance go without armor? Of course, because in 2E wizards didn't wear armor. But in 4E you can have Warlocks and Swordmages in leather armor, and Bards in chain (and any of them can wear heavier armor by spending feats). But a wizard in armor doesn't ruin the Dragonlance setting. The wizards of dragonlance didn't go without armor because of special Dragonlance fluff, they did it because that was how 2E worked.
Yes you are correct, this is the main problem with dragonlance . The fluff of dragonlance was designed around the mechanics of 2e. In addition, the novels were written arround the mechanics of 2e. Then again I do recal people wondering how Raistlin casted a lightning bolt when he was a black robed wizard or something like that, which apparently was against the rules. So even those novels got it wrong back then.
It really is hard to change something when the lore is completely built around it.
Anyway the one thought I had that makes everything simple for the WoHS was the following.
Wizard's of High Sorcery
White Robes
Requirements:
Alignment: Good
Level / Class: 4th Level Arcane Class
Must take the test of high sorcery and take the multi-class Invoker feat.
Red Robes
Requirements:
Alignment: Unaligned
Level / Class: 4th Level Arcane Class
Must take the test of high sorcery and take the multi-class Sorcerer feat.
Black robes
Requirements:
Alignment: Evil
Level / Class: 4th Level Arcane Class
Must take the test of high sorcery and take the multi-class Warlock feat.
If you don't take the multi-class feat you're a renegade.
Then for moon magic you can give them a bonus/penalty to saves and attack rolls depending on phase of the moon. There is also a Pearl of Power in MME that gave me an idea for the bounus spells.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2011 - 9:03PM
#54
|
|
|
Now, what I'd prefer is something like this:
You have a spellbook. In that book are a number of spells, some powers and some rituals. Any time you use a power from Power Slot: Level One Encounter, that power slot closes until you take a short rest, or otherwise regain the use of an encounter power. Each power slot has a couple options, by default. So Level One Encounter has two powers to choose from, say Burning Hands and Acid Spray. If you use Burning Hands in round one, you can't use it or Acid Spray again until you regain encounter powers.
At extended rests, you can change out what spells you have readied. So you can basically retrain Acid Spray for Bongo's Bubbling Breath; a burst 1 within 10 that dazes targets and does psychic damage, and has the illusion keyword.
If you know you're going to the Icemorn Caverns to hunt Rycambrix the White Dragon and his frosty minions, you can get rid of your ice powers, and load up on more appropriate powers.
I would rather have a system that allows you to cast the same encounter power more than once per encounter.
I also really miss how important preparation was in previous editions, but I wouldn't want to resurect vancian spell casting. In 4e knowing that you're up against ice creatures or undead means absolutely nothing because there isn't anyting you need to do to prepare. PCs can just walk into each encounter without ever needing any information at all. In addition, allowing just one class to pick new powers makes 4e an incomplete system.
I'm not talking about resurecting Vancian spellcasting. I'm talking about a new system that has some of the thematic trappings of older editions, but is mechanically quite different. For instance, I'd rather not see an attempt to make a system where you can use the same encounter or daily power over and over again work. Even if it had power level restrictions.
Also, you seem to have missed the part where I specifically stated that wizards woudn't be the only class with a similar power choice system.
Yes I did see that. I wasn't disagreeing with you.
I do think that encounter powers should be allowed to be cast more than once. For example if I'm fighting an ice creature and I have 4 encounter powers I might want to cast my fire based encounter power 4 times. I see no reason why 4e has to force you to use an encounter power only once. At-wills can be used over and over again so why not encounter powers? After all what if only one of your 4 enounter powers are usefull against the monster?
In that case one of two things has to happen.
1. All encounter powers have to be equal in power at a given level. That means either you pick from the same list every time, or they all scale.
2. A trade up system similar to trading action types. IE, a level one power would be like a minor action to a level 3 power's move action.
I'm not really fond of either option, personally.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2011 - 9:17PM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
Well, here's a few thoughts... 1. Armored casters... Refluff non-magical armor as a class feature - none of the "armored" casters except the hexblade and the bard get hide armor, so you could work it like this: (This basically brings back the feel of the armor spell failure of previous editions, as well) Any arcane character class proficient with anything more than cloth armor gains the Arcane Armor class feature. Arcane Armor class feature
Show
Arcane Armor
Over the long years of your magical study, you have spent countless hours enhancing your personal magical defenses.
This class feature replaces any armor proficiency the character gains from their class other than cloth armor.
When not wearing armor of any sort, the arcane caster gains an armor bonus to their AC. Choose a type of armor that the character would have been proficient with had they not chosen this class feature. The armor bonus given by this class feature equals the armor bonus of a suit of masterwork armor of that type of the character's level. If the armor type chosen for this class feature has any skill check or speed penalties, the character also suffers those penalties. The Arcane Armor class feature occupies the character's magical armor slot and can be enchanted with armor enchantments appropriate to the armor type chosen.
If the character wears any sort of non-magical or magical armor, or any item that bestows an armor bonus, they lose the effects of this class feature until they remove the armor or item and take an extended rest.
The armor type chosen for the Arcane Armor class feature can only be changed when gaining a character level and counts as the character's retraining for that level.
2. Spellbooks... Both the arcanist and the mage get a spellbook, the Bladesinger gets a modified spellbook and the swordmage can take a feat to gain one. All but the swordmage can take a feat to expand their spellbook. It doesn't wildly unbalance the game if arcane characters with a spellbook can "find" new powers during the campaign, since not only can they still only cast the same number per day, just as in past editions, but the DM controls when and how they find new spells not given by their class advancement. Also, as previously mentioned, there are lots of ways to get aditional powers from race, magic items or from the character's theme which could easily be refluffed as being one of the character's "memorized" spells. 3. Wizard Orders... It shouldn't be too terribly hard to divide the various arcane classes and their schools/pacts/spells into different orders of wizardry - black is easy, although deciding which are white rather than red gets a bit tougher. For example, spells of the necromancy and nethermancy schools, as well as the dark, gloom, and infernal warlock pacts are pretty clearly Black. Anything that deals necrotic, poison or acid dmage as well. The fey/sorceror king/star pacts, anything with the shadow keyword, charm or illusion spells or anything that dominates should probably be Red. White is a bit harder, though, but could include things (other than warlock powers) that do radiant damage and possibly most of the elemental stuff.
Spoiler:
Show
I am the Magic Man.
(Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.)
I am the Lawnmower Man.
(I AM GOD HERE!)
I am the Skull God.
(Koo Koo Ka Choo)
There are reasons they call me Mad...
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2011 - 9:55PM
#56
|
|
|
White could be defined by effect. Support oriented powers, for instance.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2011 - 10:36PM
#57
|
Date Joined:
May 13, 2009
|
Wizards actually wore armor in older editions. A combination of Mage Armor (hello, Int bonus to AC) and Bracers of Armor (hello, refluffed Chain)
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.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2011 - 10:42PM
#58
|
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek
Date Joined:
May 31, 2003
|
Wizards actually wore armor in older editions. A combination of Mage Armor (hello, Int bonus to AC) and Bracers of Armor (hello, refluffed Chain)
But they didn't in Dragonlance and they explained why. They also explained in Dragonlance why Wizards could only use a dagger and a staff. The reason they could use a dagger was in honor of the wizard Magius who fought with Huma against the dragons. A Fighter/Wizard could wear armor, Gilthanas did but straight Wizards could not.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2011 - 11:03PM
#59
|
Date Joined:
May 13, 2009
|
But didn't they because that was a core part of the flavor of the game, or didn't they because those were the rules so they had to come up with a reason for it?
It sounds like "Wizards can't mechanically wear armor, so lets find a flavor reason why they don't"
'sides it's easy enough to call both the Swordmage and the Bard a Fighter/Wizard since both also fight with weapons.
Also, Bracers of Armor and Mage Armor were probably still allowed? Neither really counts as "armor" except for the mechanical "grants an Armor bonus to AC" part.
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.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2011 - 11:11PM
#60
|
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek
Date Joined:
May 31, 2003
|
But didn't they because that was a core part of the flavor of the game, or didn't they because those were the rules so they had to come up with a reason for it?
It sounds like "Wizards can't mechanically wear armor, so lets find a flavor reason why they don't"
'sides it's easy enough to call both the Swordmage and the Bard a Fighter/Wizard since both also fight with weapons.
Also, Bracers of Armor and Mage Armor were probably still allowed? Neither really counts as "armor" except for the mechanical "grants an Armor bonus to AC" part.
Actually back then it said that Wizards could not wear armour because it interfered with their spellcasting. What Dragonlance did was it gave a flavour reason to go with the mechanical reason why they couldn't. With regards to weapons other than the staff and a few others was because Wizards didn't have time to study the use of other weapons.
Bracers of Armour and Rings of Protection were perfectly fine to wear.
|
|
|
