FR, GH, AU - character power levels

[BiggusGeekus@Work]

There are definately different power levels between settings. AU is a little trickier because a 1st level AU character p0wnz a 1st level core rules character, but the core character will typically be tougher at 20th level (when the AU guy will still be 19!)

Which is why I'd like it if game designers put in some kind of table or multiplier to generate the EL of a party so the DM has an idea of how many monsters to chuck at them. Midnight did this (though I wish they had gone a mite further). I'm hoping Eberron will, but who knows?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

This inability to edit posts is really annoying. Fortunately, Biggus Geekus prevented a double post.

I meant to say 12d8, not 18d8. It's not that bad

I also messed up a quote, but can't go back to change it.

(The third quote is Dr. Strangemonkey's)

 

[I'm A Banana]

The races in AU have some minor thingies that make them unacceptable in the Core Rules (such as unbalanced ability score modifiers).

Still, those are no worse than your usual FR bonus....until you get into bonus feats, etc.

But yeah, AU does scale slower and less powerfully than D&D, and certainly the spellcasters of AU are generally weaker than a Wizard or Cleric would be (but have FAR greater variety). Still, I prefer the D&D power curve myself.

 

[Gez]

I'm trying to mix AU and D&D spellcasting a bit. Because I maintain a big bad massive mother of all spell-lists kind of documents (more than 2000 spells now!) and I'm getting annoyed by all these little classes and prestige classes having each their own spell list. Because only the core classes get support in sourcebook (and, to a lesser extent, the two psionic classes).

The totally unified spell list of AU is thus rather appealing. However, a part of D&D is the distinction between the four magics (as shown by the four relevant knowledge skills: arcana, nature, psionic, religion).

So, what I have decided to do is to use, for each spell, a level/complexity/type stat (cued from AU). A simple psionic power is a spell with the [Psionic] descriptor and a Simple complexity. An exotic arcane spell is a spell with the [Arcane] descriptor and the Exotic complexity.

 

[Staffan]

The races in AU have some minor thingies that make them unacceptable in the Core Rules (such as unbalanced ability score modifiers).

Loresong Faen: +2 Int, -2 Str
Mojh: +2 Int, -2 Con
Verrik: +2 Wis, -2 Cha
Quickling Faen: +2 Dex, -2 Str
Giant: +2 Str, -2 Dex
Litorian: +2 Dex, -2 Wis
Sibeccai: +2 Con, -2 Int

What was that about unbalanced stats? The only one that comes close is the Litorian (who gets a Dex bonus in exchange for an Int penalty), but I don't think anyone gets anywhere near as good a deal as the Dwarf gets (+2 Con, -2 Cha).

And if you're thinking about the extra stats they get for racial levels, remember that they're paying levels for those. Racial levels are otherwise rather inferior to class levels.

 

[seankreynolds]

FR material was designed and balanced to the same standards that core material was held to. In fact, the Word From On High (the D&D brand team) to the FRCS designers was "A Forgotten Realms character can be no more powerful than a similarly-equipped core character."

Yes, some mistakes were made, and yes there are some combos that people found that the original designers didn't find, but at least at the time WotC still had a permanent Rules Council to review books, so the mistakes in power were no more common in FR books than in core books. Since then, the Rules Council has been dissolved and other problems have cropped up, but the FRCS was reviewed by myself, Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Andy Collins, Rich Redman, and others. Intensely.

FR characters should be no more powerful than core characters, and FR crunchy bits should be no more powerful than core crunchy bits.

 

[Gez]

Heh! What did I say? It's not Spellcasting Prodigy nor Greater Spell Focus that got nerfed with "3.5" -- those were FR feats -- but the core Spell Focus feat!

 

[Dinkeldog]

I'm not disagreeing about that Lu. Hell I'd be the first to step in line to get a few of these spells fixed so that they ARE useable. But what I have a problem with regarding Dink's complain is Sacred Journey. You know the spell. It's one a paladin should be able to use much like any other. Should it be used a lot? No. But I feel it's a perfectly decent spell for its level. Dink's PROBLEM was he didn't figure on how it would affect his game with undead. That's where I have a problem is because of that, he views that spell as bad as opposed to say Illjam fire or Multiplicy(sp).


Perhaps. But the only thing I'm defensive about is Dink's assertion that Sacred Journey is broken. The other spells I can deal with. I do appreciate you find my reviews at least semi non-biased.

Nightfall, just because Sacred Journey was the final straw doesn't mean there weren't other straws before that.

There's lots of good stuff in R&R, but you really need to go through spell by spell. That's a bit cumbersome, so our group elected to take it out of circulation completely.

 

[Nightfall]

Nightfall, just because Sacred Journey was the final straw doesn't mean there weren't other straws before that.

There's lots of good stuff in R&R, but you really need to go through spell by spell. That's a bit cumbersome, so our group elected to take it out of circulation completely.

Dink,

I understand that. But I don't see how you can lump that spell in with others, that I will agree, need fixing. There is NOTHING wrong with that spell as it's written. Just its implementation was off for you.

 

[DMScott]

Of course it's not as strong as wish - it's 8th-level and doesn't cost 5000 XP.

Wish-type spells includes Limited Wish, which is seventh level and considerably more useful in the general case. If I had a choice as a player, I wouldn't trade Limited Wish for Bring Down The Moon straight-up, let alone as a higher level spell plus a feat.