D&D 3.x what book are 3.5 forsakers in?

[Storyteller01]

In short - I can't imagine why a party of adventurers would burden themselves so.

They want to play a game where magic is not the central theme, or where characters are actually challenged outside of combat?

SOunds like some decent rp opportunites, but that's just me.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

I, also, would build it with the occult slayer, a modified VoP, and the Mage Slayer feats if your DM allows them.

 

[ThirdWizard]

They want to play a game where magic is not the central theme, or where characters are actually challenged outside of combat?

SOunds like some decent rp opportunites, but that's just me.

The problem being that only that one PC is challenged by the situations. At level 15 the raging river isn't really supposed to be an obsticle. You were challenged by those from lvels 1-5; it's fun the first 10 times maybe, but after 2 years of playing the same characters, lets at least give them some new encounters. I'm sure its a valid playing style, but it sounds pretty boring to me... especially since everyone else can get across except the forsaker, and so the point isn't to get across but to get this one character across. Insert random other things here: undergrowth, lavaflow, snowbank, frozen mountain pass, etc etc etc.

EDIT: And if you're just going to say "You travel for three weeks before ariving at the Castle [size=-1]of Cagliostro, then you arn't having your roleplaying opportunities anyway.

Or you know, you could have roleplaying opportunities that can't be solved by magic, are supposed to be solved by intersting and innovative use of magic, or where a middle ground is reached. And, you know, if the only way to the mad wizard's chamber who you need to talk to about some crucial matter is a teleportation circle, the forsaker can't even get to be in that roleplaying opportunity. He'll sit outside and guard the horses.

EDIT2: Not to mention that the forsaker is probably the waekest PrC I have ever read.
[/size]

 

[Aust Diamondew]

I think that altered Vow of Poverty is the best way to go with making a forsaker archtype, as has been brillantly suggested.

That being said, I really do not think a forsaker would work well in a traditional party. It would be like a paladin working with a cleric of vecna.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Over react much? Because the thought of someone playing a Forsaker but first mentioning it to the DM (who has to allow it) and to the other PCs obviously never crossed ytour mind. No one is claiming it fits into all parties and with all players. But the same can be said for every prestige class to one degree or another.

I really don't think that any other prestige class (with the possible exception of some of the exalted classes - which are basically labelled "warning, this may screw up your game") has the extreme limiting qualities that the forsaker does. Also, very few of them have the sneak attack quality that the forsaker has - I mean sure, if you're in a level 13 campaign and someone says "I want this guy who doesn't use magic at all", then the other players have sort of fair warning. But at level 5 or 6 (or 3, when I think is the earliest it can be taken) it's not going to look like that big a deal, and 10 levels later, you'll still be paying for the guy who can't negotiate a simple chasm when to the rest of the party it's just not there at all.

I mean - if it actually gave something beneficial then I might not have a problem with it - but it doesn't. It's quite probably worse than the player who insists on taking all his levels in peasant for 'role playing' reasons. At least he just sucks.

 

[moritheil]

Why on earth do you want a 3.5 Forsaker?

While I really like the concept of the class, the 3.0 Forsaker has to be the most poorly implemented PrC I've ever seen.

It's just completely wrong to build a PrC whose schtick is giving up magic and then making them mechanically dependent on having magic items.

Bleh.

Here's a much better 3.5 Forsaker for you.

Well, I'm aware that this is a Rules question, but if we've established that there is no 3.5 conversion, that leaves the door open to homebrewed versions.

So here's my shot at a 5-level PrC for the Forsaker. Perhaps it really should have been spaced out over 10 levels, but I didn't think that the character concept warranted a full 10 levels of emphasis.

Before you comment, let me note that the discussion here continually indicates that the PrC is worthless and needs to be changed so that it's much more powerful. I wrote the abilities with that in mind.

 

[Crothian]

I really don't think that any other prestige class

The frenzied Beserker can cause even more problems since him getting hurt can have him attack the rest of the party.

I do like how you contunie to priove the class is not for everyone. You make great reasons for the DM to evaluate the class and only allow it in certain campaigns. The class has not been reprinted becasue it does cause problems and is badlky wirtten. That doesn't mean a compintent group can't talk it over and allow it. Okay, it is not for your game, but that doesn't mean it cannot work in mine.

 

[Stalker0]

That doesn't mean a compintent group can't talk it over and allow it. Okay, it is not for your game, but that doesn't mean it cannot work in mine.

I think what he was saying, and rightly so, is that the forsaker won't work in the majority of games. For the forsaker, the big problem in my opinion isn't the items...VOP shows you can at least get by without them....its the fact you can't even have spells cast on you.

At high levels, fly, teleport, plane shift become commonplace...and its unfair to the rest of the party to slow down for one character.

Now of course the forsaker can work in some games, and makes a great npc in many, but he is a very bad Prc for most dnd games.

 

[Alzrius]

If there ever was an official 3.5E forsaker, I'd like it to address some of the things the 3E version left unsaid. Namely:

How does that work with monstrous PC's that have spell-like and supernatural abilities? Do they just never use them? What if they're always-active abilities?

Just come out and say that you can't have a psionic Forsaker!

 

[Saeviomagy]

here's my shot at a 5-level PrC for the Forsaker. Perhaps it really should have been spaced out over 10 levels, but I didn't think that the character concept warranted a full 10 levels of emphasis.

The disjunction effect is too much. Spell blank is too much of a departure from conventional mechanics, as is the volume calculations for his dispelling-style radius. Drop spell blank, and make forsaken presence a flat save against the effect. Also specify that it works against all supernatural, spell like and spell effects that enter or pass through the area, regardless of whether they normally allow a save or not.

I'd change forsaken touch to be more like dispel than disjunction.