D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 Forsaker

[Crothian]

Actually he is correct. Forsakers have no way of finding out if an item is magical on their own. They must have someone cast detect magic to find out if it is. I never thought about the irony inherent in that before, actually... Also, they destroy magical items to gain their abilities. So, they would smash them if they were magical.

Its only one ability that they need to smash magical items for; Damage reduction. So, the Forsaker can refuse to destroy thing as long as they don't want DR. And he doesn't need anyone to detect magic for him. He can just destroy things and hope he gets lucky.

 

[Crothian]

Wouldn't that be unbalancing though?

I can't use it, and I have to make a save just to heal. Sure I'm a burly fighter, but I get no prtection from it?

They get fast healing and Spell resistance. One could make DR something else but the default is magic and nothing else really makes sense.

 

[Storyteller01]

They get fast healing and Spell resistance. One could make DR something else but the default is magic and nothing else really makes sense.

i don't have the 3.5 rules, so forgive my ignorance...

Does every creature with damage reduction have to have a weakness?

almost sems like a moot point, since DR in negated by spells.

 

[Liquidsabre]

I always thought of the Forsaker as the B.A. Barakus of D&D mysef:

Ftr: "Damn, we gotta get to the other continent."

Wiz: "Well there's only one way to do that..."

Forsaker: "No way, uh-uh, there's no way I'm gonna let you-" *THWAP* *THUD*

Rogue: *puts sap down* "There's no way he's gonna fall for the ol' random-falling-brick-from-the-sky story again..."

Wiz: "You'd be surprised..."

 

[Crothian]

i don't have the 3.5 rules, so forgive my ignorance...

Does every creature with damage reduction have to have a weakness?

almost sems like a moot point, since DR in negated by spells.

I don't follow. DR and spells do not interact, that is correct. But the Forsaker has SR which is the defense against spells.

All creatures with DR do not have ea weakness. They have a greater resistance to everything but one kind of weapon, but that weapon will do no greater damage to them then anyone with no DR.

 

[Crothian]

I always thought of the Forsaker as the B.A. Barakus of D&D mysef:

Ever seen the Gamers?

 

[Three_Haligonians]

Actually he is correct. Forsakers have no way of finding out if an item is magical on their own. They must have someone cast detect magic to find out if it is. I never thought about the irony inherent in that before, actually... Also, they destroy magical items to gain their abilities. So, they would smash them if they were magical.

Now, I'm sure you can't throw him a stick off the ground and say its magical, but you might, for example, hand him the masterwork sword and tell him that its magical, while keeping the brooch that actually does detect as magic to yourself as the party wizard. Many PCs would be aghast at giving a fellow adventurer their share of the dragon's hoard only to see them smash them up the next day.

Oh, I know about their magic smashing requirement and yes it is true that Forsaker's have no method of determining what is magical and what isn't, beyond their normal senses I mean, for instance, why can't the Forsaker lay claim to say the staff, or wand, that the BBEG wizard was using to fire spells at the party. The point I was making was that it was a bit much to assume that Forsaker's are so dumb that they will just sit there and wait for the rest of the party to place something in front of them and say, "here you go... this is magic."

Also, even if the party did try and fool the Forsaker, since they are not magic items, the Forsaker gets no benefits and would catch on eventually.


J from Three Haligonians

 

[Saeviomagy]

Oh, I know about their magic smashing requirement and yes it is true that Forsaker's have no method of determining what is magical and what isn't, beyond their normal senses I mean, for instance, why can't the Forsaker lay claim to say the staff, or wand, that the BBEG wizard was using to fire spells at the party. The point I was making was that it was a bit much to assume that Forsaker's are so dumb that they will just sit there and wait for the rest of the party to place something in front of them and say, "here you go... this is magic."

And most parties are not so stupid as to let the forsaker have their pick of the treasure. I can honestly see fights starting over the forsaker making a grab for stuff destined for the party wizard - who's had to put up with his crap all this time.

Mind you, most parties shouldn't be so stupid as allowing them to join up.

Also, even if the party did try and fool the Forsaker, since they are not magic items, the Forsaker gets no benefits and would catch on eventually.

How - the party can always just tell him that he's being hit by foes with magical weapons (that are overcoming his DR). So he'd better smash them.

Honestly - the forsaker as written (and the concept behind him) is almost like it's TRYING to promote in-party conflict. And I can tell you - it's not going to be the wizard, cleric and whoever else you've got magiced up to the gills that will lose out.

On the other hand - if you go with a slightly modified version "magic is a powerful tool for good or evil - lets destroy the evil half", then the character is viable.

I'd seriously suggest dropping any idea of smashing magic to fuel powers or refusing to use magic or accept spells from allies though.

I mean we have a character in our current party. He still uses magic items. He still uses magic weapons. He still accepts spells. He just stays away from 'overt' magic. Flying, teleporting and the like.

He's still a pain because of it, and he's almost died a couple of times as a direct result of this policy while the rest of the party were snug and sound.

 

[Crothian]

And most parties are not so stupid as to let the forsaker have their pick of the treasure. I can honestly see fights starting over the forsaker making a grab for stuff destined for the party wizard - who's had to put up with his crap all this time.

I can't. It doesn't matter what magical items the Forsaker gets. So, everyone splits up the magic and the Forsaker gets his equal share, just it consists of mostly stuff no one else wants. He destroys that stuff. Hey, have an evil magical item that needss destroyed? Let the Forsaker do it and he gains power from it. Kills to birds with one stone. Sure the Foresaker could be a problem but isn't it better to work with him them against him if he is going to be in the party? And what "crap" opf his are they putting up with?

How - the party can always just tell him that he's being hit by foes with magical weapons (that are overcoming his DR). So he'd better smash them.

And he destroys the items and gets no abilities from it. So, he no longer trusts the party. Instead of working with him, you have made the situation much worse then it needs to be becasue you have to be a biasness against a class.

Honestly - the forsaker as written (and the concept behind him) is almost like it's TRYING to promote in-party conflict. And I can tell you - it's not going to be the wizard, cleric and whoever else you've got magiced up to the gills that will lose out.

No, it isn't. What conflict? If there is conflict over the class, then there was probably conflict in the group before hand. I can not see a sensible group of friends coming to conflict over this.

 

[Three_Haligonians]

And most parties are not so stupid as to let the forsaker have their pick of the treasure. I can honestly see fights starting over the forsaker making a grab for stuff destined for the party wizard
- who's had to put up with his crap all this time.

Who said anything about the Forsaker automatically getting first dibs of treasure? There are plenty of rules and guidelines for splitting up treasure amongst a party in a fair manner.. one would assume the players had worked that out beforehand. Let the forsaker choose some magic items as part of his share like everyone else, after that who cares what the Forsaker does with them.

As for crap, that again depends on how the player decides to play the Forsaker, you could just as easily get "crap" from a player who decides his Rogue steals from everyone, fellow party members included. This Rogue would also run afoul with the rest of the group I'm sure but does that mean that Rogues should be banned?

How - the party can always just tell him that he's being hit by foes with magical weapons (that are overcoming his DR). So he'd better smash them.

So, Forsaker's are so inept that they can't even tell when their abilities work or not? They need the other PC's to tell them? Does a fiend know when its DR has been bypassed by a Good-Aligned weapon? One would assume so, so why can't the Forsaker tell the difference between having a magic weapon bypass his DR and not having DR at all?

Honestly - the forsaker as written (and the concept behind him) is almost like it's TRYING to promote in-party conflict. And I can tell you - it's not going to be the wizard, cleric and whoever else you've got magiced up to the gills that will lose out.

Actually, in the description of the Forsaker in MotW, it talks about different ways a Forsaker character can get along with other, magic using, members of the party.

On the other hand - if you go with a slightly modified version "magic is a powerful tool for good or evil - lets destroy the evil half", then the character is viable.

I don't think you need to modify it, the idea that the Forsaker can only think in terms of "magic = smash!" and therefore goes around blindly destroying and attacking all things magical without giving thought to the other PC's does not come from the PrC itself, that aspect comes from outside interpretation and it is one that I, personally, am not going to take.

J from Three Haligonians