D&D 3E/3.5 what book are 3.5 forsakers in?

[Saeviomagy]

WHy would a mage teleport to a sight if it was a days ride away?

Why walk to the store when it's only a day's ride away?

Answer - a day's ride is a long time.

Saying "the spellcaster may have used..." is not really relevant. If he's smart, he uses those even if they travel overland.

IOW - the choice is between
"you take a whole day, may have random encounters, and may arrive less than fresh"

and

"you take 6 seconds and are down one spell"

It's just a tad bit of a difference.

WHy would a spellcaster waste a Fly spell to cross a ravine/canyon when the ranger/barbarian/other survivor type is just as well versed at creating rope bridges in about an hour?

Because it's a whole hour! And probably because the spellcaster (or other character) has some sort of all-day flight, or another type of item (bronze griffin etc). Why wait an hour when it takes less than 5 minutes?

Not to mention the fact that if the ravine/canyon was that easy for the PC's, then the DM didn't even bring up it's existence in the first place.

Unless the encounter is time based (we have to be there NOW), why is it such a bother to do things the 'mundane' way? Especially if this frees up the spellcasters slots for more important spells?

Seriously now - have you never heard the saying that time is money? Beyond that - if the situation is not a challenge, why is the DM even bringing it up? And if it IS a challenge, then you have to expend resources to overcome it. Often it's very easy to make that resource a single spell.

Mechanically, the damage differential is a matter of playing smart. If you ant a good OGL example, play Dragon Star. Every weapon does incredibly high amounts of damage. A 20th level character still fears being hit by larger weapons. Because of this, healing may not get to you in time, if at all. This forces the player to fight smarter. I just don't see the problem with a Forsaker if it is played intelligently.

Not really relevant. Damage differential? We're talking about the forsaker

1) being disruptive

and

2) sucking

I fail to see how dragonstar having weapons that make character skill moot has anything to do with a forsaker having a pathetic attack and damage bonus.

I love this convo! It's the same as saying 'Why walk a block to the store? I have a car!'.

Well, it's more like "why walk all day to the store, potentially encountering dangerous creatures and hazardous terrain when I can travel there instantly". I think that there's more than a trivial difference between the two.

 

[Storyteller01]

Right, but as mentioned earlier, this is a matter of how the campaing is run. HOw many stories do you see of mage's choosing to walk/ride/build the bridge rather than waste the spell?

How many non-D&D stories do you read where all members have access to magical flight/teleportation/fireballs/etc? Or that such magic is common without special circumstances? I can think of the Darksword triology and the Xanth novels, but that goes back to special circumstances (In both stories, nearly everyone is a born magic user).

The class is only disruptive/sucking in a D&D setting where min/maxing is common and characters actually think 'I have x thousands of gold. Let's buy the magic sword/potions/scrolls/ etc'. In a power build with everything in the DMG being available, it is suboptimal. Played for the story perspective, and it's a damn good class to play. Tends to go against the norm.

IMC, magic is less than common. Not nesseccarily low magic, but it's expensive. Except for the rare sorcerer, magis requires education and resources. The Forsaker fits in well.



To each their own...

 

[Saeviomagy]

Played for the story perspective, and it's a damn good class to play. Tends to go against the norm.

See - I don't think the forsaker class is necessary to make a story about a guy who dislikes and distrusts magic. I think you can do that just fine without it, especially if you don't care how bad your character is, which is apparently your stance.

IMC, magic is less than common. Not nesseccarily low magic, but it's expensive. Except for the rare sorcerer, magis requires education and resources. The Forsaker fits in well.

So what you're saying is... in a low magic campaign (compared to normal D&D), the forsaker is playable.

 

[Crothian]

See - I don't think the forsaker class is necessary to make a story about a guy who dislikes and distrusts magic. I think you can do that just fine without it, especially if you don't care how bad your character is, which is apparently your stance.

None of the prestige classes are necessary, that is why they are optional. THis complaint is not unique to this one class; it applies to all of them.

 

[Storyteller01]

So what you're saying is... in a low magic campaign (compared to normal D&D), the forsaker is playable.

Or if magic is played as a mystic force, instead of a commodity.

You also have to define what is 'normal' for D&D. Is it normal to find clerics in a church resurrecting folks all day long, or is it just possible because there is a price for it written somewhere? Why is it only the party who get these benefits, given how much more a noble can pay? WHy aren't kings living for thousands of years because of this?

If you applied some level of economics, no one except the very rich or the characters can afford magic items, even by the DMG standards (doesn't it list wages for services in there somewhere?). How many commoners can pay for a single potion of healing? Why can characters find these on some street corner?

How common is the ability to bend reality supposed to be?


By the numbers, the forsaker is 'sub par'. Then again, that's only thinking by the numbers, which make no sense when you break them down.

When other factors are considered, it works well.


Again, to each there own...

(RUN CROTHIAN. I'LL COVER YOU!!!)

 

[Endur]

Frenzied Berserker is worse than Forsaker, but I tend to agree that I was never fond of Forsaker. If I want to play a magic-hating barbarian, I'd play a Barbarian and not worry about PRC levels.

Although someone made a comment up above in this thread about a Forsaker who also takes the Vow of Poverty. That's an interesting idea; the only classes I had really thought about for Vow of Poverty were Monk and maybe Druids and Sorcerors. Forsaker with VOP is an interesting concept.

Maybe a Bear Barbarian/ Forsaker who focuses on grappling since he can't buy anything with VoP.

And the interesting part about the combo is that the Forsaker gets SR and the VOP gets DR, and the attribute bonuses from both stack.

 

[Stalker0]

Or if magic is played as a mystic force, instead of a commodity.

You also have to define what is 'normal' for D&D.

(RUN CROTHIAN. I'LL COVER YOU!!!)

Well at higher levels a party tends to have fly. Why? Because mages have fly. At higher levels parties tend to teleport. Why? Because they can. At high levels, players tend to plane shift. Why? Because bad guys can, and often do.

Define your game anyway you want, but by the book dnd, these spells are used at higher levels, and if you don't have access to them your just going to be left behind.

 

[Crothian]

Well at higher levels a party tends to have fly. Why? Because mages have fly. At higher levels parties tend to teleport. Why? Because they can. At high levels, players tend to plane shift. Why? Because bad guys can, and often do.

Define your game anyway you want, but by the book dnd, these spells are used at higher levels, and if you don't have access to them your just going to be left behind.

As you say, parties "tend" to have them more often then not. But not all parties do. And not all parties that have them use them.

One think about prestige classes is they are not assumed to be useful in each and every campaign.

 

[gabrion]

Although someone made a comment up above in this thread about a Forsaker who also takes the Vow of Poverty. That's an interesting idea; the only classes I had really thought about for Vow of Poverty were Monk and maybe Druids and Sorcerors. Forsaker with VOP is an interesting concept.

Ya, I think that was me when I said...

I really think they would have updated this class for 3.5, except they didn't want have both it and VoP stick around. A forsaker with VoP is nuts.

I'm not really sure if people on this thread are arguing that the Forsaker should still be around in 3.5 (I haven't read most of it, I just have a sixth sense for when someone mentions my posts ), but it does seem kinda dangerous if combined with VoP. Both of these ideas make huge sacrifices in exchange for abilities equal to the magic items a character would normally have (even though both of them didn't quite make the right calculations). In theory, combining the two would give you twice as much power as the normal character would get from magic items (even though it would be more like 1.5x)

So if anyone is arguing for an update, just think about what the VoP monk/forsaker could potentially do to a game. LOL...normally you have to force a forsaker to come along with the party via magical transportation, with this guy you would probably all get a beat down instead!

 

[ThirdWizard]

Or if magic is played as a mystic force, instead of a commodity.

It might not be a commodity to the world as a whole, but magic is pretty much a commodity to PCs. High level PCs rely on magical items to a very large extent, whether that's good or bad. Forsakers can't even have restoration cast on them after they are energy drained or take ability damage. They can't be cured, they can't be healed of poison or disease, and they can't benefit from normal buffs like death ward and hero's feast. These are a few reasons why people say that the suck.

The second part is the generic teleport problem. At higher levels the PCs have been traveling a lot their whole careers. They don't want to have to do the overland travel thing over territories they most likely have been through multiple times before. Also, they usually have business to attend to, especially in a story based campaign. So, they want to teleport. But, the Forsaker can't, so the party chooses to either go without him or drudge for however long to get to their destination. I've never actually seen a DM not allow teleport (I also never played those old dungeons either, though ).

You also have to define what is 'normal' for D&D. Is it normal to find clerics in a church resurrecting folks all day long, or is it just possible because there is a price for it written somewhere? Why is it only the party who get these benefits, given how much more a noble can pay? WHy aren't kings living for thousands of years because of this?

That's more of a commodity as a world-building excersise, however, kings arn't living thousands of years because you can't raise someone who died of old age. Nobles and such are probably getting raised, though, when accidents occur in most "default" campaigns, since they probably have ties to religious orders.

If you applied some level of economics, no one except the very rich or the characters can afford magic items, even by the DMG standards (doesn't it list wages for services in there somewhere?). How many commoners can pay for a single potion of healing? Why can characters find these on some street corner?

Because 99% of the wealth of the world is underground of course.

How common is the ability to bend reality supposed to be?

Very common for a 15th level PC.

By the numbers, the forsaker is 'sub par'. Then again, that's only thinking by the numbers, which make no sense when you break them down.

¬_¬
(those are my skeptical eyes )

When other factors are considered, it works well.

A low magic grim and gritty campaign setting you mean?

Again, to each there own...

(RUN CROTHIAN. I'LL COVER YOU!!!)

BAH! To each my own! Er... I didn't say that. Carry on carry on.

*shoots Crothian with happy medicine*