-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
What do you want to see in D20 Dragonlance?
- Thread starter Arcanus
- Start date
Geron Raveneye
Explorer
Magius...
..yeah, at least he was portrayed like that in the "Huma" books...
..yeah, at least he was portrayed like that in the "Huma" books...
Michael Tree
First Post
hong said:
In other settings I would agree with you, but the Knights of Solamnia in Dragonlance have a similar cult of the sword. Ancestral swords are very important to them. Just look at all the hullabaloo surrounding the Brightblade with Sturm and Steel.
Actually, Sturm is a great example of this game mechanic working. Sturm recovered the Brightblade fairly early in his career, but continued using it until he was fairly high level. In addition, among the knights, many of the most important magic items are considered important not because of great enchantments, but because they were carried by important people, like Huma, or Vinas Solamnus, or Sturm.
It obviously wouldn't apply to two swords though. Perhaps to a sword and shield, or a sword and armor, or just the sword, with the option of spending a feat to gain the ability with other items like armor and shields.
Geron Raveneye
Explorer
Hmmm...
...just my 2 cents, but the sword, as in longsword, wasn´t a common weapon in any pseudo-medieval background. The nobility wore it..and some strange adventurers, of course ...but the common man couldn´t spare the cash to buy a longsword. Many were happy to have some kind of shortsword, most had daggers...the Sword was some kind of cult object to the western cultures, too, as it stood for wealth, honour and nobility. The knight was the one figure closely associated with a sword...
...just my 2 cents, but the sword, as in longsword, wasn´t a common weapon in any pseudo-medieval background. The nobility wore it..and some strange adventurers, of course
...but the common man couldn´t spare the cash to buy a longsword. Many were happy to have some kind of shortsword, most had daggers...the Sword was some kind of cult object to the western cultures, too, as it stood for wealth, honour and nobility. The knight was the one figure closely associated with a sword...
Michael Tree
First Post
Re: Hmmm...
The Sorcerer class is definitely appropriate for Irda, since Irda magic has always been described as being spontaneous and innate. I'd be very wary about including any other sorcerers though. It just doesn't feel right to have arcane spellcasters who aren't part of the conclave but who also aren't renegades either. It takes away from the monolithic nature of the order.
5th age sorcery is another matter altogether. The PH sorcerer class is a good start, but the spell list would have to be seriously altered, since 5th age sorcery can only affect inanimate matter. Conversely, 5th age mysticism can only affect living things, but is also spontaneous magic like sorcery. Given the restrictiveness of the magic, both classes should probably be somewhat more physically beefy, akin to Shugenja or Monte Cook's alternate sorcerer.
Actually, Monte Cook's sorcerer would be a particularly good fit, since the use of material components like bat guano and amber seem to be an integral part of moon magic, but not other magic.
Geron Raveneye said:
The Sorcerer class is definitely appropriate for Irda, since Irda magic has always been described as being spontaneous and innate. I'd be very wary about including any other sorcerers though. It just doesn't feel right to have arcane spellcasters who aren't part of the conclave but who also aren't renegades either. It takes away from the monolithic nature of the order.
5th age sorcery is another matter altogether. The PH sorcerer class is a good start, but the spell list would have to be seriously altered, since 5th age sorcery can only affect inanimate matter. Conversely, 5th age mysticism can only affect living things, but is also spontaneous magic like sorcery. Given the restrictiveness of the magic, both classes should probably be somewhat more physically beefy, akin to Shugenja or Monte Cook's alternate sorcerer.
Actually, Monte Cook's sorcerer would be a particularly good fit, since the use of material components like bat guano and amber seem to be an integral part of moon magic, but not other magic.
If the PH sorcerer class is to be included in the game, this would be a good way to handle it. I have reservations about including it, especially since PH Sorcerers poorly portray the magic that existed before the moons (ie. 5th age magic).As for how to handle them...well, first, I wouldn´t place them in the WoHS, for the simple reason that their magic is not of the moons, but much older than that of the Conclave. I wouldn´t have the Conclave force a sorcerer through the Test either, because it is designed to test a wizard...not a sorcerer. I´d rather place a WoHS at the side of every known sorcerer, under cover or in the open, to watch over the sorcerer and report back to the Conclave. Makes for a nice adventure hook and eases the getting together of a sorcerer and a WoHS in any potential group.
No, that isn't neccessary, and always struck me as being artificial. However, Dragonalnce sample characters should be moderate levels, on a much lower scale than, say, the characters in the Forgotten Realms book. The non-existance of life extending magic in Krynn (except for the Bloodstone of Fistandantilus), would preclude the extremely high level characters that we see in the FRCS.
Michael Tree said:
Sure. I'm not denying that swords play an important part in the setting, I'm just saying that you could broaden the mechanic to apply to more than just swords and knights. This way, other characters besides knights could have their heirlooms too.
Dragon 289 (I think; it's the OA/ninja/monk issue) had an article on signature items, which basically increased in power as their user went up levels. It fills the same purpose as the ancestral daisho mechanic, but you can use it for all sorts of other things. Thus, you could have a "signature item" feat, which lets you pump XP into the item and enchant it up as you gain levels. The knight might get this feat for free, while other classes have to spend a feat slot on it.
RandyWalker
Explorer
Discussion of d20 DL
If you all are interested in real-time discussions of d20 Dragonlance, I'd like to mention that Psionics.net, the same server that hosts EN World's official chatroom also hosts #dragonlance, a place for such discussions! I urge you to drop in and speak your mind with other interested persons!
If you all are interested in real-time discussions of d20 Dragonlance, I'd like to mention that Psionics.net, the same server that hosts EN World's official chatroom also hosts #dragonlance, a place for such discussions! I urge you to drop in and speak your mind with other interested persons!
Randolpho
First Post
Time for me to chime in again.
On the subject of WoHS/Knights as a core vs prestige class:
My big problem with having them as core classes is the fact that they're campaign-specific modifications of a core class. I do not like this. It's against the flavor of 3e, IMO. In 3e, the core classes are generic, i.e. anyone can become one. The prestige classes are supposed to be campaign specific groupings. Core classes should not be modified, IMO.
If it means that much to you that the WoHS always take the test at level 3 (I think this was an artificial constraint created by the rules set available in 1e, not a setting flavor item -- certainly not something that's worth keeping IMO), and you want the character to advance further than the default max PrC level of 10, then make the WoHS a 17 level prestige class.
Above all: do not modify the core classes!
As for Sorcerer...
When 3e first came out, I instantly thought the Sorcerer was designed to help fold the SAGA magic rules back into D&D. Even though I have it on authority that this was not the reason for the Sorcerer (RyanD), I think it might be a good use for it. Although there would probably have to be a class "name change" to keep people from confusing the class with High Sorcery. Perhaps call it Magicka, or something.
Anyway, pre 5th-age, Sorcerers do not exist, or if they do, they are unheard of and extremely rare (there's no reason why Palin and Goldmoon have to be the first to discover the power) -- they keep away from the watchful eyes of the High Sorcerers. Although modifying the spell-list might be an idea to keep the Sorcerers in line with the feel of SAGA magic, it might require extensive additions to the spell list as well -- something that might be a problem. Because of this, I suggest that, rather than changing the rules to fit the setting, change the setting to fit the rules. Probably a bad idea, but a good fix on a system that never should have existed at all, IMO. Of course, this part may be moot after June -- Weiss/Hickman seem to be planning to ret-conn the entire 5th age out of existence, but we won't know for sure till the book series is done.
If that ends up the case, I suggest that rather than even try to adapt 5th age to D&D, they should just say "Go play the SAGA version if you want to play in this alternate time-line that ended up never happening". Sorcerers, under such circumstances, could become hedge-wizards, witches, renegade spellcasters. Outcast, always on the run, never able to show their powers, etc.
On the Irda as Sorcerers.... I think this has potential, but I'd rather see the Irda represented as Psionicists. They always seemed a bit psionic to me in DoSF -- loners, yet hive mentality, wierd magic with different effects than "conventional" magic, etc. The Wizard/Sorcerer spell list is identical, Sorcerers are just Wizards who happen to know how to cast their spells without having to prepare them first.
On the subject of WoHS/Knights as a core vs prestige class:
My big problem with having them as core classes is the fact that they're campaign-specific modifications of a core class. I do not like this. It's against the flavor of 3e, IMO. In 3e, the core classes are generic, i.e. anyone can become one. The prestige classes are supposed to be campaign specific groupings. Core classes should not be modified, IMO.
If it means that much to you that the WoHS always take the test at level 3 (I think this was an artificial constraint created by the rules set available in 1e, not a setting flavor item -- certainly not something that's worth keeping IMO), and you want the character to advance further than the default max PrC level of 10, then make the WoHS a 17 level prestige class.
Above all: do not modify the core classes!
As for Sorcerer...
When 3e first came out, I instantly thought the Sorcerer was designed to help fold the SAGA magic rules back into D&D. Even though I have it on authority that this was not the reason for the Sorcerer (RyanD), I think it might be a good use for it. Although there would probably have to be a class "name change" to keep people from confusing the class with High Sorcery. Perhaps call it Magicka, or something.
Anyway, pre 5th-age, Sorcerers do not exist, or if they do, they are unheard of and extremely rare (there's no reason why Palin and Goldmoon have to be the first to discover the power) -- they keep away from the watchful eyes of the High Sorcerers. Although modifying the spell-list might be an idea to keep the Sorcerers in line with the feel of SAGA magic, it might require extensive additions to the spell list as well -- something that might be a problem. Because of this, I suggest that, rather than changing the rules to fit the setting, change the setting to fit the rules. Probably a bad idea, but a good fix on a system that never should have existed at all, IMO. Of course, this part may be moot after June -- Weiss/Hickman seem to be planning to ret-conn the entire 5th age out of existence, but we won't know for sure till the book series is done.
If that ends up the case, I suggest that rather than even try to adapt 5th age to D&D, they should just say "Go play the SAGA version if you want to play in this alternate time-line that ended up never happening". Sorcerers, under such circumstances, could become hedge-wizards, witches, renegade spellcasters. Outcast, always on the run, never able to show their powers, etc.
On the Irda as Sorcerers.... I think this has potential, but I'd rather see the Irda represented as Psionicists. They always seemed a bit psionic to me in DoSF -- loners, yet hive mentality, wierd magic with different effects than "conventional" magic, etc. The Wizard/Sorcerer spell list is identical, Sorcerers are just Wizards who happen to know how to cast their spells without having to prepare them first.
Randolpho said:
I wholeheartedly disagree. If a role in the dragonlance game would constitute a core type class (i.e. something that starts from day 1 of a person's career) then by all means, the core classes should be modified to fit or a new class added.
A campaign setting is a unique setting. Nothing in it necessarily needs to be transferable to another setting. All that is important is that it makes sense in the context of the setting for which it has been modified/added. I've had it up to my ears with people trying to be overly generic for fear of pissing off the OGL nazis.
