Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- individual adventure modules! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed to plug in to your game.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="moritheil" data-source="post: 2234995" data-attributes="member: 30610">First off, UG, thanks for the comments.IMC, I have not had problems with huge weaknesses + huge bonuses. The key to balancing them is an absolute willingness to kill off the player by exploiting those weaknesses. Only then can a class be balanced. In every case I have seen where there was imbalance due to huge bonuses and huge weaknesses, the imbalance resulted from a DM being too reluctant to kill off players. In short, if you play a cinematic style game, then yes, those things will not be balanced. This is not, IMHO, an inherent weakness of the system; it is an inherent problem with DMs who refuse to kill players. 1. I asked around and was told that DR could be made to stack by specifying it. I inferred that somewhere out there, stacking DR existed, but I guess that wasn't true. The same holds true for fast healing. These can easily be reverted by removing the stacking specification. Balance-wise, I am curious as to why you think they're overpowered, when everyone else keeps clamoring for more hit points for the Forsaker.2, 4, and 5. You can think of it this way: the repeated backlash of violations of natural laws by magic are incarnate in the Forsaker. With Spell Blank, here's a crude analogy: think of a "black hole" for magic. If you move within range of a black hole and fire weapons at it, not only is your weapons fire useless, you have a serious problem because you need to escape the pull of the black hole itself. Through careful and judicious selection of movement and weapons, you can avoid that problem (which is represented by the check that casters make if they utilize magic that is nullified by Spell Blank.) Mechanically, Spell Blank is intended to punish spellcasters from carelessly engaging a Forsaker with spells. It prevents a bunch of wizards from simply pounding a Forsaker until some spells get through and hit. If that sort of thing were possible, it would be nearly impossible for Forsakers to survive, since wizards would band together and exterminate all known Forsakers like rats, rather than fearing them.The Forsaker is the realization of the resistance (or backlash) of reality itself to magical alteration, as opposed to the lesser "spell resistance" that individual beings have, which is merely opposing the effects of a spell through their own magical or supernatural might.Would it help if I renamed Spell Blank "Memory of Reality," or something more powerful-sounding?3. If a wizard was standing inside an antimagic field with a Permanent Detect Magic (or Aurasight) on them, and they looked outside of the field at a magical weapon, they wouldn't get anything because the antimagic field would suppress their Detect Magic capabilities. There is an additional issue as to whether or not an artifact that radiates magic has its magic radiations suppressed while in an antimagic field (because artifacts and their properties, IIRC, are not affected by antimagic fields), but most artifacts apparently do not radiate magic, so it is minor.4. Forsakers are not meant to be remotely compatible, fun, or happy people in conjunction with a normal party. This was true of the original forsaker, to some extent, but it is trebly so here. Armies will be mobilized to stop them. They will be hounded out of cities, if they are not simply executed on sight (which would be far more likely). They are heretics beyond heretics, unredeemable entities that not even the purest clerics of good or the vilest blackguards will want to touch.As written, they certainly will not put up with any party attempting to acquire magic items for their own use, so the complaint about them angering others in the party is moot. They would actively seek to destroy the party's magic, too, although they would gain no tangible benefit from it.Forsaken Touch was a primarily thematic decision.  However, given that they can never, ever benefit from any magic, I think it goes a long way towards evening the playing field to give them their abilities. Consider how easy it is to kill a Forsaker of the appropriate level without that ability, and you'll see what I mean.In balancing it, I look at things this way: Is a 15th level character able to kill a small army, more or less singlehandedly?  Yes.  Is he able to kill a vampire, or similarly dangerous enemy with minimal effort?  Yes.  A 15th level forsaker should be able to do many of these things as well.5. The Forsaker does not undertake meditation or ritual, for those are the trappings of magic. However, he must truly forsake magic. This is difficult and far different from simply not wanting to use magic. In effect, amongst other things, he fundamentally rejects all magic. (Think "I disbelieve!" applied globally.) To give you an idea of the sort of thing I'm talking about, look at In Nomine or GURPS and the rarity of True Believers in those games. Sure, many or most people get the trappings of religion, but only a rare few Truly Believe, and it's something intangible that separates them from those who don't.I don't think the idea that the Forsaker is completely nonmagical is ridiculous at all. Indeed, that is the core of his being and ability. He is SO nonmagical that magic itself stops working in his presence - transcendently nonmagical. If it makes you feel any better, you can think of him as "antimagical" rather than simply nonmagical in nature.</blockquote>

Verification