Mechanics of Revived Settings; your thoughts?

[pming]

Hiya!

Dragonlance seems the most appropriate. As for mechanics...well, everything you'd need for DL to be DL; archtypes for classes, the races, etc. The biggest would be how magic works (the four types...three colours plus the renegade wizards IIRC?), and some heavy reworking of Alignment back into the 'core' of the game. In DL, your Alignment was sort of 'tracked' and as you moved too far into another AL you would start to become "morally confused and conflicted". Always thought that was a neat addition that made a characters "unspoken oath" to their outlook on life was a cool idea that added a lot of opportunity to really hammer home the DL focus on a person and how 'the world changes them' as they explore and live their life.

Only thing I would NOT want to see is them try and force Multiclassing and Feats! Instant deal-breaker for me.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's hard to express exactly what the feel of it is, but it's different from Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk, while still feeling like it hits a "core fantasy" niche. It's kind of like a stew made of Celtic, Arthurian, Germanic, and various other flavors, topped with a brooding, mystical, gritty sauce.]

For me, a standard setting, even with a distinctive atmosphere, wouldn't get me to buy a campaign book. I would be looking for something different from pseudo-medieval with distinct mechanical differences to get me to part with money.

As for "gritty", I prefer the opposite.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Hiya!

Dragonlance seems the most appropriate. As for mechanics...well, everything you'd need for DL to be DL; archtypes for classes, the races, etc. The biggest would be how magic works (the four types...three colours plus the renegade wizards IIRC?), and some heavy reworking of Alignment back into the 'core' of the game. In DL, your Alignment was sort of 'tracked' and as you moved too far into another AL you would start to become "morally confused and conflicted". Always thought that was a neat addition that made a characters "unspoken oath" to their outlook on life was a cool idea that added a lot of opportunity to really hammer home the DL focus on a person and how 'the world changes them' as they explore and live their life.

Only thing I would NOT want to see is them try and force Multiclassing and Feats! Instant deal-breaker for me.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

I think DL could be the setting where Backgrounds and their related bond and flaws are more than an afterthought. I think in the case of DL it create tier features for Backgrounds, representing how your background grows as you level-up. If your a Knight, you start with a small feature, but at level X,Y,Z this features develops in the form of contacts, boons and blessings. The focus of DL is the interaction of a character with a world troubled by darkness, so a greater focus on character backgrounds rather than mechanical class should be the focus of those new rules.

I think that Inspiration given for backgrounds ties should be cumulative and that some Background features could be fueled by those Inspiration points.

 

[Eltab]

The Dark Sun setting (based on the original boxed set, none of that revised garbage).

I liked the 4e Dark Sun hardback books.
I haven't looked carefully at the 2e material since original print, and never read the novels. I would not be happy with a DS setting that opened the door to improving 'the world where Evil has almost won', allowed only one version of that quest (which is placed in the backstory), and put everything back like it was except for a few details - now here you are and The Powers That Be are much more vigilant against anything you might attempt.

 

[tardigrade]

Probably because few people know anything about it. It wasn't very popular when it first came out. And that wasn't because people bought it and didn't like it. It was because it's marketing fell flat and no one even read it.

I don't think that's entirely accurate. IIRC they were pumping out supplements, had a series of tie in novels and a PC game by the time WoTC took over, at which point it became one of the lines they dropped. It wasn't FR but it wasn't exactly Red Steel either.

 

[Jer]

I don't think that's entirely accurate. IIRC they were pumping out supplements, had a series of tie in novels and a PC game by the time WoTC took over, at which point it became one of the lines they dropped. It wasn't FR but it wasn't exactly Red Steel either.

That's what TSR did, though. They pumped out supplements without really paying much attention to whether things were selling or not. The existence of a ton of supplements for Birthright tells us nearly nothing about how well it sold given TSR's practices at the time. Especially since the entire line - 5 boxed sets, something like a dozen nation books for players, 5 adventures, 5 novels and a half-dozen or so other supplements - all came out within less than 2 years. They all were published between 1995 and 1996.

That says nothing about the quality of the setting - which I quite liked - just that you can't tell what was popular during the late TSR era based solely on what they threw money at publishing. Late era TSR could crank out multiple supplements for a single setting in a single month - meaning they would have to have multiple supplements in the pipeline at various stages before they got any feedback at all on how they were selling. (I think that's how we ended up getting 8 different "Amazing Engine" games...)

 

[tardigrade]

That's what TSR did, though.

Very true (for the supplements and novels, at least - apart from the SSI games I don't recall any other PC adaptations until Baldur's Gate, and I can only think of ones from DL and FR. It's entirely possible I missed some, though). It doesn't prove the opposite either, though, and awareness of the setting on this thread seems pretty high.

I saw the request for a setting summary upthread; some of this has been said already, but basically:
- Bloodlines. Regents (mostly kings, not always) derive actual magical power from their heritage, which gives them extra abilities including realm actions (IIRC non-blooded regents were technically possible but massively hobbled). Bloodlines derived from specific dead gods, giving related powers, and blood power could be stolen by slaying other blooded characters or creatures. Non-blooded characters could become blooded by killing blooded characters; it wasn't 100% about heritage.

- Nature of magic. There was a very Celtic/pagan magic-in-opposition-to-civilisation feel: the magical potential of provinces was greatest for ancient-growth forest and was 'damaged' by development, and areas with high magical potential had sites of striking natural beauty (crystal caves, etc). There were ley lines, battle magic, etc. Critically, only Blooded characters could be wizards; there was a separate magician class for non-blooded magic-users that could use swords and (I think) medium armour, but could only cast spells from a couple of schools of magic above 2nd level - enchantment/charm and illusion, IIRC. No fireballs for you, commoner!

- Low-magic setting. Magic items were rare but powerful. There were entire magical materials that were setting-specific, like tighmaevril, a metal that allowed much more efficient bloodtheft. There were half a dozen known dragons in the whole setting but they were extremely intelligent and thousands of years old. There were no more dragons being born.

- Races. As mentioned above, there were human subraces and elves and dwarves were (at least initially) much more Other than in other settings, which suited me perfectly. Halflings were refugees from a terrible threat in the shadow realm.

Apart from the richness of the setting, one attraction to me was that it offered a mechanical explanation of parts of D&D better than any other setting. Why did regents risk going adventuring? Why were monarchies so popular? Why did so many wizards live in towers in the middle of nowhere?

 

[GreyLord]

[MENTION=4348]GreyLord[/MENTION] #47 One Moment ... Isn't it that rose is the highest order with the most spellcasting ability? Should they not be the clerics and sword Knights the Paladins instead?

I don't like multiclassing either but i see no easy way to roleplay the ascension from one of the three orders to the next in any other way.

It depends on which edition you go by. Originally, if you look at Dragonlance Adventures the Knights of the Rose actually don't have the clerical abilities that the Knights of the Sword possess. It is an oddity.

Originally they started out as Knights of the Crown, then after two levels could petition to be Knights of the Sword and then after two levels could petition to be Knights of the Rose. Thus a starting Knight of the Rose would be 4th level. The Spells of a Knight of the Sword did not start until 6th level.

As many older books, there are some things that are not defined in this version...for example, what happens if you have a 7th level Knight of the Sword who becomes a Knight of the Rose...do they simply LOSE their spells, or do they retain them (thoughts would be they retain them as what they got as a Knight of the Sword). However, they do not gain Any MORE spells as Knights of the Rose.

Significantly, although Knights of the Sword could cast divine spells it was a markedly lesser ability than Clerics. They had lesser spells and could cast them once a week vs. once a day.

The question of course then comes to Sturm...was he a Fighter? Did he Dual Class to a Knight of the Crown? What was his progression and how did it change from the original modules to Dragonlance Adventures?

This was later partially clarified differently and also explained why Tanis was a Knight of the Rose. Class was not specifically Knighthood. The Knight Class would be one who was officially part of the Knighthood by blood, but there were others who could be honorary Knights by deed. These Honorary Knights became Knights of the various orders without the rigor morale of going through the various stage. Hence, it could be awarded to those who were not officially of the blood or of the Order, to be Honorary Knights...ala...Tanis as a Knight of the Rose.

This changed somewhat in the Dragonlance Campaign Setting. Here, once again one needs to get One level of Knight of the Crown in order to advance to be a Knight of the Sword, and at least 3 levels to become a Knight of the Rose. Knights of the Rose, after this, basically advance similarly to those of Knights of the Sword in Spellcasting ability, which is the same as what they possessed previously as whatever divine spellcasting class they had to qualify for the prestige class. Thus, they were not necessarily lesser spellcasters as they were in previous editions.

However, one could be any divine spellcaster, which indicates that you could be a Paladin and qualify for the class.

Going off that, Keeping Knights of the Rose and Sword as the same subclass could fit, with the differentiation simply being the name...OR...one could make it so they could leap from one subclass to the other. The Oath Knight (SCAG) keeps in line the idea that they have spellcasting abilities, but of a lesser degree than that of a full blown Cleric (similar to the older editions), but keeps the spellcasting along the same lines that it advances the same rate with the same abilities as previously (as per the later edition).

It also makes it simpler to qualify. I like the idea of multiclassing to change from a Knight of the Crown to a Knight of the Sword (and if we do the idea of Warpriest to Paladin to replicate the advancement in the older editions rather then the DLCS it has it as three class changes), but three class changes is rather hefty and requires pretty LARGE ability scores overall. For example, for the former example I posted it would require one to have 3x13 ability scores with a STR, WIS, and CHA of 13.

I think either way could replicate the different orders, but in regards to the spellcasting abilities, originally only Knights of the Sword and the divine spellcasting abilities, whereas, Knights of the Rose did not gain any spellcasting abilities from their order. My opinion is that they RETAINED all spellcasting abilities gained as Knights of the Sword.

Later on, though, it wasn't that they were superior spellcasters to Knights of the Sword (and in some regards, even with the spellcasting as equal advancement, with some of the class features one could still claim Rose Knights were inferior casters to Knights of the Sword), but they did retain their advancement in their spellcasting class at the same rate as Knights of the Sword (DLCS).

 

[GreyLord]

I think DL could be the setting where Backgrounds and their related bond and flaws are more than an afterthought. I think in the case of DL it create tier features for Backgrounds, representing how your background grows as you level-up. If your a Knight, you start with a small feature, but at level X,Y,Z this features develops in the form of contacts, boons and blessings. The focus of DL is the interaction of a character with a world troubled by darkness, so a greater focus on character backgrounds rather than mechanical class should be the focus of those new rules.

I think that Inspiration given for backgrounds ties should be cumulative and that some Background features could be fueled by those Inspiration points.

In relation to Knights of Solamnia that could be a good idea. Make it so Knight of the Crown is a Background. Thus you could have Sturm who is a Knight of the Crown, but also has another class.

If one wants to be a Knight of the Sword they need to have the Warpriest Cleric Subclass, and then to become a Knight of the Sword multiclass into a Paladin with an Oath of the Crown Order.

OR...you could simply have a Paladin (or Cleric) subclass called Knight of Solamnia where you gain start off as a Knight of the Sword and then at 5th level have characters make a choice of whether to follow the track of being a Knight of the Rose or continue as a Knight of the Sword.

Could also work for Knights of Takhisis, where they take a Knight of the Crown background, but then could become a Knight of the Lily (Fighter subclass), Knight of the Skull (Cleric Subclass) or Knight of the Thorn (Wizard subclass...or would a warlock or sorcerer work better with this these days?).

 

[Satyrn]

Originally they started out as Knights of the Crown, then after two levels could petition to be Knights of the Sword and then after two levels could petition to be Knights of the Rose. Thus a starting Knight of the Rose would be 4th level. The Spells of a Knight of the Sword did not start until 6th level.

That sounds dreadful, how it feels like it ties a whole slew of NPCs into specific class levels, and puts into a stark relief all the other - I don't know the best word, let's say "complications" - that come from tying in-world social positions up with classes and character levels.

But I'm not a Dragonlance fan, so I don't care about this specific example. Earlier in this thread, though, I stumped for Maztica and its Jaguar and Eagle Knights and you've made me realize that if I ever run Maztica I will not include these as classes.

They are the perfect fit for the knight background - including adding into the background feature that they can wear the armor without being guilty of a capital crime! - and leaving it mostly at that. They still need to be able to have the chance to wildshape into their respective beasts, though, and I can see 3 ways of doing it (and wouod definitely include at least the first 2 of these, maybe all three:

1) magic armor that grants the wildshape
2) a feat that lets them do it
3) a prestige class that gives that wildshaping and also grants some hishna/pluma casting.


Does anybody have any homebrew or 3rd party feat that gives wildshaping?