D&D General Reading Ravenloft the setting

humble minion said:

That's where i have the questions about the stance 5e is going to take.

Click to expand...

Faolyn said:

Yeah, but those three races aren't necessarily going to look monstrous, which is where the problem is.

Click to expand...

Faolyn said:

Is that an eldritch corgi?

Click to expand...

Remathilis said:

There were a lot of classes in regular AD&D that were doomed even if played correctly. Specifically, Literally the Arcanist class from Domains of Dread required a powers check equal 5x your level WHEN YOU GAINED A LEVEL. That was greatly expanded in the 3.5 RL PHB where fighters similarly made Powers Checks for leveling because "they engaged in violence routinely". Similarly, a wizard made powers checks not only for learning necromancy, but also evocation (since evocation magic was where all the big boom spells are) but due to how 3e categorized spells, Tensers Floating Disc and Light (LIGHT!) also forced a Powers check to learn. Barbarians made a powers check whenever they raged as another example. While I didn't play using the 3e rules, I can certainly say the fact that they opted to cripple every class in some way like this was a major turn-off from ever trying.

Click to expand...

M.L. Martin said:

Please don't think of that stuff from the 3.5 RLPHB as 'mainstream' Ravenloft--it was very much an aberration, added by the line developers, and rejected by both the original 3E design team and most of the fans. It don't think it's purely coincidence that the WW line died soon after its release.

Click to expand...

M.L. Martin said:

Please don't think of that stuff from the 3.5 RLPHB as 'mainstream' Ravenloft--it was very much an aberration, added by the line developers, and rejected by both the original 3E design team and most of the fans. It don't think it's purely coincidence that the WW line died soon after its release.

Click to expand...

Remathilis said:

That was greatly expanded in the 3.5 RL PHB where fighters similarly made Powers Checks for leveling because "they engaged in violence routinely".

Click to expand...

Second, to say that powers checks are "required" for fighters with each level is to give the pertinent paragraph a superficial reading. What we actually say is that powers checks reflect what happens to an individual who spends most of his life killing creatures -- whether monsters or brigands or evil wizards or whatever. Bringing death to creatures has a long-term effect on those who are the deathbringers, whether they are soldiers, executioners or adventurers.

Again, this is not a mandatory process. The sentence reads as follows: "As fighters advance in levels and kill more monsters and people, the DM might also call for powers checks to indicate the hardening or deadening of the character's soul as he becomes inured to dealing out death." Please notice the word "might." This means that a DM also might NOT call for powers checks as fighters advance. Please read what's actually written before you denigrate it...

Click to expand...

If a fighter never offers an intelligent foe the chance to surrender, he should be required to make a powers check. This is not true, however, if the foe has proved to be an ongoing villain who has escaped justice numerous times due to clemency offered in the past or unless offering such poses a clear danger to the fighter’s party. As fighters advance in levels and kill more monsters and people, the DM might also call for powers checks to indicate the hardening or deadening of the character’s soul as he becomes inured to dealing out death.
For those DMs who prefer an easier way to determine when to ask for a powers check, you may assume there is a base 5% chance per level above 1st that a fighter commits some action worthy of calling for such a check. Every obviously selfless, humble and good action performed may reduce this percentage by 1%, but the chance never falls below 1% total. Those who dance on the precipice by acting in an evil manner may add to the percentage chance by +1% for each instance of uncaring or evil action. Obviously, those who commit atrocities should not receive a DM’s roll to determine if they need to make a powers check. Some things should simply spell automatic failure.

Click to expand...

Alzrius said:

That's somewhat exaggerated. I'll quote designers Jackie Cassada and Nicky Rea here:

Click to expand...

• Barbarians couldn't end their rage voluntarily, meaning if foes were dead, they became frenzied beserkers until there 3+ Con Mod rounds ended, attacking both allies and innocents (which would provoke a Powers Check)
• Bard Cure Spells had a % chance of failure. No reason except the "Dark Powers" will it (and it cripples bards as healers)
• Good/Neutral Clerics and Paladins Double the % of a Powers Check. On top of all the other hits to paladins and Turn Undead
• Druids have a base chance of corruption/taint by entering Sinkholes of Evil.
• Fighter, Rangers, and Monks have the 5% chance per level if they engage in acts of violence. Rogues are 1%, but shoots to 5% if they use Sneak Attack to kill ANYONE (good or bad).
• Sorcerers and Wizards have a DP check learning Necromancy, Enchantment, and Evocation magic, regardless of its effects. Again, this is on top the fact your familiar is an agent of evil and your spells are all manner of mutated.