Midnight with different rules?

[Calico_Jack73]

The Wildlander and the Defender were created to provide non-magical versions of the Ranger and the Monk. If you can perhaps tweek the PHB Ranger and Monk then I'd say go with it. There also obviously are no PHB Druids in the setting at all though there is a Midnight PrC Druid that Channellers can take. Honestly, the new classes and rules aren't that hard to learn. The Wildlander, Defender, and all the new classes are great for the setting. I'd stick with it as is... the new rules and classes are there to intentionally give it a different feel from D&D. If you are going to run with the PHB classes why did you bother forking out the money for the Midnight book when all you are really going to do is run a Midnight "inspired" D&D game?

 

[arnoo]

Eventually I need to upload my pregens from the Into the Garden of Good and Evil playtest.

Yeah, just do it Wil !

 

[Desdichado]

My issue with it is in the wealth of new rules it incorporates; specifically, the magic system and some of the classes (notably the wildlander and defender, with which I'm not too enthralled).

Funny... the defender and the wildlander are the two new mechanics that I specifically quite like; I've borrowed both of them to replace the monk and ranger respectivally in my low magic homebrew. I really like the a la carte approach of both classes.

 

[ruleslawyer]

It's funny, Josh; I like the Wildlander and the Defender, but at first pass, they look just a bit too weak for my comfort. "Monks" are hard enough to run as tough characters (even in a low-magic setting); the defender appears to be just not up to par compared with a fighter or barbarian, or even a combat rogue. The wildlander has good skill-related abilities (again, I like the idea behind it), but again, without some serious beef to it, the class just can't stand up as a wilderness warrior type. (It certainly will never compare to a rogue as a scout anyway, so it seems that it needs to be able to fight in compensation.)

I'd stick with it as is... the new rules and classes are there to intentionally give it a different feel from D&D.

This is a good point. My attitude is that setting feel is rarely captured in rules; it'd be easy enough for me to call my (non-spellcasting, BTW) rangers "wildlanders" and monks "defenders" and have done with. (As is, I'm not fond of the "monk" in a setting like Midnight, so I'd prefer a less-Asian flavored character anyway, and I do like the defender's flavor text.) My reasons ffor wanting to keep the D&D classes are twofold: First, I already intimately understand the issues and balance headaches involved in running said classes, and second, my players know how to play them and how the rules work.

The point about wizards/sorcs (and, BTW, I'd use AU magisters and greenbonds) not having enough to do besides spellcasting compared to channelers is a good one. However, I assume that this will simply be a risk that PCs will have to take; the fact is that spells are so potent when they ARE used that it more than makes up for the lack when they aren't. As for the spell restrictions, it's hardly a problem, in part because AU already removes many of the flashier spells from the game (and gives out healing spells to all spellcasting classes) and in part because I can just make all damage-dealing spells with an energy or elemental descriptor Exotic and thus render them hard to get without the right feats.

I'm in StalkingBlue's game (great game!) and have had some discussions w her re the magic system, so maybe I can help a little....

Interesting points from experience on this front, S'mon! I wouldn't use the 3.5 druid anyway, except possibly as a (much differently written) greenbond-oriented PrC, since I find the druid tough enough to begin with.

If you are going to run with the PHB classes why did you bother forking out the money for the Midnight book when all you are really going to do is run a Midnight "inspired" D&D game?

Well, I guess I could have just downloaded it illegally, hmm? Seriously, I don't see the classes as being truly integral to the setting, to be honest; the channeler is a nice class, but just doesn't have the appeal to me required to use it. Wil seems to think I can use the setting with different classes! As is, I'll be using all the races, the heroic paths, the magic item rules, and basically everything else from my $35 purchase, if you must know; it's really just the spellcasting mechanics that I feel add a bit too much encumbrance.

Really, thanks for all the help, guys! It's been huge!

 

[wizofice]

You'll might want to get Against the Shadow: A Player's Companion for Midnight as well. Has 14 new heroic paths, some character background ideas, feats, an Herbalism system, and PrCs.

 

[StalkingBlue]

My reasons ffor wanting to keep the D&D classes are twofold: First, I already intimately understand the issues and balance headaches involved in running said classes, and second, my players know how to play them and how the rules work.

Hi rl - sounds as if you're going to have fun! My group and I have been playing Midnight (or my increasingly modified version of it) for half a year now and are enjoying it a lot. S'mon (hiya! ) has already reported bits from our game above.

I'm not familiar enough with Monte's AU magic system to comment in detail, but any change away from flashy spells and towards making cure spells more widely available to casters should make for a cooler and more Tolkienesque flavour than the 'take your pick from PHB' approach the Midnight book uses. I've put a lot of work into changing the Midnight magic system to work better with the setting flavour as I envision it.

Re healing, offering PCs lots of cure potions is of course an option if you want to send packs of Astiraxes after them... a stash of potions makes for a nice strong magic signature that's pretty easy to track. I'm not as nasty as that (neh S'mon ), so I've introduced a house rule instead that allows Heal checks to cure a limited number of hp per day (similar to the rule in the Conan RPG).

The magic system apart, the rules additions in the Midnight book are fairly easy to learn and use IME. Of course if you want to avoid balance headaches, you might want to stay away from Midnight races and paths as well. The Midnight rules appear to have been written more to provide flavour than as tools for dealing with challenges. Balance doesn't appear to have been an issue in designing those rules, and that's not limited to the classes, it's true for the races and paths as well.

As written there are only two or three paths in the main book that are powerful enough to be worth taking if you are making a character for a challenge-focussed game like mine (and I suspect yours, seeing that balance and rules knowledge figure large in your considerations). It's worse if you allow paths from Against the Shadow - the paths in there range from stylish-but-useless to hopelessly broken. The races aren't particularly balanced against each other either: compare the three human races and you'll see what I mean.

That said, Midnight is a setting that has great potential for a highly enjoyable game. If you can find a rules set that works for your group and helps provide the flavour you like, then by all means go for it.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

It's funny, Josh; I like the Wildlander and the Defender, but at first pass, they look just a bit too weak for my comfort. "Monks" are hard enough to run as tough characters (even in a low-magic setting); the defender appears to be just not up to par compared with a fighter or barbarian, or even a combat rogue. The wildlander has good skill-related abilities (again, I like the idea behind it), but again, without some serious beef to it, the class just can't stand up as a wilderness warrior type.

First of all you've got to understand that in most cases (at first anyway) your PC party will almost always be outgunned. The Orks in Midnight are MUCH more powerful than standard D&D Orks. I believe their primary weapon does 1d12+4... more than enough to kill characters in one swipe for their first couple levels. The Wildlander's skill are what make him shine in the setting. If you get the Netbook at Againsttheshadow.org you'll see that the Survival roll for finding food is much more difficult in Midnight than in your typical D&D campaign setting. The Wildlander is all about allowing the party to survive while hiding in the wilds.

I view Defenders not so much as Monks but rather more like the Capoera practitioners in the Carribbean. The way of the Defender is a martial art that can be taught to slaves so that they have a chance at rising up against their captors. In a world where possessing a weapon or armor can get you sentanced to death Defenders have a HUGE advantage.

It seems to me like you are looking at the Midnight setting through the eyes of someone who has been running other campaign settings for a very long time. In Midnight it isn't always the guy who can take/dish out the most damage who is the most powerful but the guy who can survive to fight another day who has the power.

 

[Desdichado]

It's funny, Josh; I like the Wildlander and the Defender, but at first pass, they look just a bit too weak for my comfort. "Monks" are hard enough to run as tough characters (even in a low-magic setting); the defender appears to be just not up to par compared with a fighter or barbarian, or even a combat rogue. The wildlander has good skill-related abilities (again, I like the idea behind it), but again, without some serious beef to it, the class just can't stand up as a wilderness warrior type. (It certainly will never compare to a rogue as a scout anyway, so it seems that it needs to be able to fight in compensation.)

Huh. I guess I'm just not seeing it. I think the Defender and the Wildlander both are on par with other non-magical classes like the fighter or the rogue in terms of general effectiveness. I wouldn't hesitate to play either in a game even against the standard line-up of classes.

 

[Gregor]

ya I REALLY like the Wildlander. I ran a Midnight campaign for a few months and the player who controlled the wildlander single-handedly kept the party alive each and every day. Food and water was always hard to find but with him around he could spend his evenings hunting for the party at great success. Plus, remember that most of the economy is based on bartering. If you have a wildlander who can catch food every day, then you pretty much have a disposable income to trade with others. The power selection, or a la carte abilities as Joshua Dyal put it gives you great flexibility and almost allows a few wildlanders in the same party to play different roles.

I cannot comment on the Defender as I have yet to use one.

I think the wildlander is perfect if you want an Aragorn-style Ranger instead of the combat heavy two-weapon fighter / archer king in the PH. If you are looking for the latter however, I dont think it would hurt the setting to replace it.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Hi rl - sounds as if you're going to have fun! My group and I have been playing Midnight (or my increasingly modified version of it) for half a year now and are enjoying it a lot. S'mon (hiya! ) has already reported bits from our game above.

Thanks to you and S'mon for all the input, SB! Part of what really sold me on Midnight was your Story Hour, and it's great to get suggestions and encouragement from someone running such a great game.

AU actually makes healing quite easy to deal with; the Greenbond can cure some damage, which while not on par with a cleric's ability does provide a buffer. Also, the greenbond's spirit communion and nature abilities make a lot of sense in Midnight.

(As to the races: The only one that really bothers me is the Erenlander, and that's easy enough to fix. The heroic paths: Well, I'd probably use my own anyway. It seems to me that the ones in the Midnight CSB are really best considered templates for designing one's own.)

First of all you've got to understand that in most cases (at first anyway) your PC party will almost always be outgunned. The Orks in Midnight are MUCH more powerful than standard D&D Orks. I believe their primary weapon does 1d12+4... more than enough to kill characters in one swipe for their first couple levels.

Actually, that makes them similar in damage potential to 3.0 orcs, and is an issue of equipment rather than power. The default orc weapon (the greataxe) was changed in the 3.5 MM for precisely the reason that the designers didn't want a one-shot kill. Since one-shot kills from enemies seem to fit Midnight's flavor nicely, I'd be fine with 'em.

The Wildlander's skill are what make him shine in the setting. If you get the Netbook at Againsttheshadow.org you'll see that the Survival roll for finding food is much more difficult in Midnight than in your typical D&D campaign setting. The Wildlander is all about allowing the party to survive while hiding in the wilds.

I do agree, except that I find that the ranger is an equally good survivalist AND better in a fight. While I think the wildlander fills a valuable role in Midnight, I think the ranger would do just as good a job AND keep the player more involved in combat situations. The wildlander's "a la carte" ability selection does add value, though; I may just offer it side by side with the ranger and see which one my players take.

Note that I'm not seeking "balance" because I'm worried about overpowered PCs trashing everything. Hardly the case; in fact, my PCs already know to avoid combat whenever possible, and my XP award system encourages that thinking. Rather, I like each player to feel like he's making a contribution at all times, that he's an asset to the party, and that there are no "no-brainer" character options (such as the Erenlander on the strong side, or [IMHO] the defender on the weak side). But I do take your point!