My personal take on Defiling is that it should damage any life, not just plants, there was always a bit of a fudge on that in 2nd ed.
"Pain for animals", but "death for plants"...why? Especially when the dragon and, iirc, some of the SKs, could kill when defiling.
IMHO, defilers suck life energy irrespective of source, and linking it clearly, is a good idea. Plants though, are the easiest to use, no wills to resist it.
My suggestion is this:
Defiling does 1hp damage per level of the defiler, in 1 square per level of the spell. WIll defence vs usual arcane attack for the spell being cast.
(or you could reverse character level and spell level for damage and range for less lethality?)
Poor scrub land has only 2hp; lush farmland 10 hp; thick bushes/light trees 25hp; jungle heavy trees/jungle 100hp. This is a total.
Life force of creatures is of course, as norm. So, the DM could decide that a bit of lifeless desert, that ha smany strange but not "npc monster" creatures living in the sand, has "15 hp worth" of life, or check monster manual for animals like lizards.
Defilers cannot cast spells at all, when no life force is drawn out. The spell fizzles. Normal plants never get a save. This gives them a serious advantage, and disadvantage:
-they harm allies, but also can kill with their spells regardless of what it does.
-They cannot cast without life being present.
So, evil defilers would have slaves or animals around...think of the problems with henchemen, lol.
I can imagine a feat, letting the defiler spare 1 creature per 3 levels, from the defiling effect, as an idea.
The effect would be one of a chosen series of powers, like metamagic effects, added to the normal spell. The defiler gets these as bonuses, one per 3 levels, and may chose to use whatever one they know, on any appproriate spell as it's cast, but only 1 power per spell.
It makes defiling more complex, and powerful, but defiling is a rare thing, and I cannot see defilers being "game balanced", they are meant to be totally imbalanced, more powerful than preservers, but also limited, they need life energy to cast, and destroy it in so doing.
Hm?
How do folk think defiling should work with 4th ed?
My personal take on Defiling is that it should damage any life, not just plants, there was always a bit of a fudge on that in 2nd ed.
"Pain for animals", but "death for plants"...why? Especially when the dragon and, iirc, some of the SKs, could kill when defiling.
IMHO, defilers suck life energy irrespective of source, and linking it clearly, is a good idea. Plants though, are the easiest to use, no wills to resist it.
Hm?
My suggestion if that living creatures are near to delifer he must overcome a willpower test to suck live out of the creatures... will to resist as you mentioned
I think 4th edition and the death of Gary Gygax is no coincidence. I don't even want to fathom DarkSun in the 4th edition. I plan on finishing off my collection of 3.5 ed material and adding that to my completed alternity, 2nd edition, 1st edition, rolemaster and MERP collections... then be done with new editions of anything.
The great Gary once said,"The last thing we should ever tell Dungeon Masters is that they don't need rules." I think that statement has a new understanding now that he's past and 4th edition rears it's ugly head. WotC is a marketing machine cranked by Hasbro for the purpose of taking away your money in return for poorly hashed out never ending product. In the end, I should have quit with TSR.
If anyone is interested in playing games rather than just buying more stuff, let me know. I'm always 'game'.
Just my $0.02
-Jason
***RANT COMPLETE***
***RANT WARNING***
I think 4th edition and the death of Gary Gygax is no coincidence. I don't even want to fathom DarkSun in the 4th edition. I plan on finishing off my collection of 3.5 ed material and adding that to my completed alternity, 2nd edition, 1st edition, rolemaster and MERP collections... then be done with new editions of anything.
The great Gary once said,"The last thing we should ever tell Dungeon Masters is that they don't need rules." I think that statement has a new understanding now that he's past and 4th edition rears it's ugly head. WotC is a marketing machine cranked by Hasbro for the purpose of taking away your money in return for poorly hashed out never ending product. In the end, I should have quit with TSR.
If anyone is interested in playing games rather than just buying more stuff, let me know. I'm always 'game'.
Just my $0.02
-Jason
***RANT COMPLETE***
Amen!
...and what's that got to do with Dark Sun and 4th ed?
If you don't like 4th ed and WOTC, fine, but post a new thread on that topic please! :/
Aggilus,
aye, long as some creatures fails to resist, defilign should work (nonrmal, non-monstrous plants automatically fail)
My system also allows for thick growth being used more than once, as it makes no sense for a defiler to gow luxurious plant life, if he auto kills it in one cast. IMHO, they would seek out lush growth, and eek it out to keep themselves going, unless they are insane or power mad. Hence, the SKs huge gardens aren't going to get wiped out...just damaged.
However, a real spell battle will annihilate vegetation.
YoungPreserver
...and what's that got to do with Dark Sun and 4th ed?
If you don't like 4th ed and WOTC, fine, but post a new thread on that topic please! :/
Well, to be quite honest... everything. My reply had EVERYTHING to do with DarkSun and 4th Edition. But I'll assume you wish me to respond to your posted topic in regards to defiling. I apologize, I should have posted a new thread to bash 4th Ed.
But since I'm already posting again, here's my $0.02 regarding defiling:
Defiling does indeed draw power from all life around the caster, even 2nd edition was fairly clear in that regard. Low power defilers simply did not have the power to draw enough life from an animal to damage it, thus it would just cause some pain. Plants on the other hand ash easily when what little life is drawn from them. Allowing low level (read: not Dragon or similar power) defilers to draw life force and damage creatures as well would severely unbalance the game.
Those few defilers who can draw life force to power spells (SKs mainly) do not often resort to defiling as their dragon magic is so much more powerful. These 'defilers' are no longer massive dangers to the ecosphere, they are a danger to civilization and the existance of all life. You would have all defilers fit this criteria?
My answer: Defilers were built correctly already. The meta (rules) might change but the fluff (flavor) should stay the same. Otherwise you're not making Dark-Sun... you're making 4th Edition "Dim-Sol" a similar game, but completely different.
Hope my pennies add up... $0.02
-Jason
"Pain for animals", but "death for plants"...why? Especially when the dragon and, iirc, some of the SKs, could kill when defiling.
This isn't as weird a problem as it seems.
Part of canon is that life-energy is more difficult to draw from higher order, sentient beings. Defiling only provides enough "oomph" to take the lifeforce from plants and nonsentient materials. The difficulty has to do with inherent willpower, desire, and the ability to actively resist or desire to resist being injured or harmed and plants simply don't have the willpower or personal, internal drive with which to resist the draw on their lifeforce while animals and people do.
By way of crude analogy, if you grab the branch of a tree and bend, you will break the branch if you only apply enough force. But if you grab the arm of a person and bend, their muscles will tense and they will fight back. It becomes more than a matter of force.
Now, the dragon and the SKs, being super-powerful defilers AND psionicists are able to overcome this barrier and draw lifeforce even from higher-order, sentient beings, despite the victim's instinctual will to resist. Their mastery of psionics, and rare technique combining the disciplines of sorcery and psionics, allows them to break down, overcome, or ignore the victim's willpower and tap into/siphon their lifeforce.
I know there are all sorts of questions and arguments that might arise from this: what if the person is unconscious? What if their willpower is stripped away? What if they want to give up their lifeforce?
Think of it this way: people and animals naturally have a barrier between their lifeforce and the world, like a sealed clay jug holding and protecting water, whereas the lifeforce of plants is open directly to the world, like the water in an oasis. Now, that's just a metaphor, but it points out you can't help but have that barrier, and unless you know the secret Dragon techniques, you can't drink the water through the clay.
In a gaming sense, it does make sense, though.
I know there are all sorts of questions and arguments that might arise from this: what if the person is unconscious? What if their willpower is stripped away? What if they want to give up their lifeforce?
Oooo, nice imagery! Imagine a Star Wars Emperor-like dragon, losing consciousness, and his spell goes awry, somewhat draining part of himself and everyone and everything around him, in a big chaotic laser show of green and gold plant and animal life energy ribbons!
Defile Wizard Utility 1
Desperate for power, you leech the very life from the planet, withering the landscape around you.
Encounter* Arcane
Minor Action * Personal
Effect: You gain +2 to your Attack roll on the next Spell you cast and deal an additional 5 points of Necrotic Damage.
Special: All terrain in Burst 3 becomes Defiled. Every Wizard can use this power.
And
Defiler [Wizard]
Benefit When you use the Defile power, you gain +1 to your Attack roll & deal an additional 3 Necrotic Damage.
IMHO a wizard has to learn how not to defile, so he should spend a power/feat for reducing defiling effects. Unfortunatelly it's hard to balance the effects of defiling to the base class.
Another idea I was thinking about, to get/use an extra action point, when a wizards defiles. But again there is the balance Problem. But I'd rather have a more powerfull defiler than having to spend powers/feats for defiling.
For example, instead of the 2e version where defiling ruins the land for years, if not permanently, have all arcane magic defile, just not for as long or as harshly. That way all wizards have to deal with its effects in a real and significant way. Leave it to the story to say how much defiling is enough to ruin the land forever.
In this method, maybe defiling doesn't utterly destroy all plant life in the area, but only weakens it significantly. Then there would be a place for feats or powers that both turn defiling into a potent weapon in and of itself, and others that prevent all effects of defiling. That way "preservers" and "defilers" all start on the same page and must spend something to get the good stuff.
Base defiling isn't quite as bad this way, but since Athas is already ruined, few people would want a defiler around.
I know this breaks canon and is a somewhat radical departure, but remember, it's just an idea.
I'd rather like to have the base wizard being the defiler.
I really like that idea thematically, but one of the problems that always comes up in this case is: "If defiling is the basic wizardry and any wizard can defile, and defiling is tempting and addictive even for preservers, how was it Rajaat could teach preservers and then teach only the secret defiling method to his chosen Champions?"
The most reasonable option I've ever heard (or maybe that I made up), that also accounts for the biggest questions/hurdles in my mind, is that it used to be easier to preserve than defile, but defiling still brought greater power, and now the balance has shifted because of the environmental damage to Athas, making it is easier to defile than preserve.
The other reasonable option is the canonical history is a great, big, stinking lie. Which I also like. Rajaat...get outta here!
I like that idea, it fits well
CSK,
defiling came after preserving, in canon, but since I hate the DS canonical history to hell...lol. But I disagree, however.
1) Defiling is more powerful than preserving, otherwise defilers would nto have won. It's simple logic folk should accept. Defiling somehow gives a very definate advantage, otherwise, the sorceror-kings woudl not have won.
2) Defiling is a form of arcane magic, it is a form of wizardy. Defiles learn spells same as wizards do.
Defiling is a trick, an add on, a method of wizardry that parasitizes life energy to add more power.
3) Defiling doesn't greatly change the spells cast, a defiler lightning bolt is still a lightninbg bolt, however, ti maybe more powerful or harder to avoid, or maybe the defiler can cast them more often, who knows.
basic point is a defiler is still a wizard, he's just more powerful because of the defiling ability.
I think Sunsword's idea fits very well in all this, by choice, you can sacrifice life around you for more power in your spells. And more Defiler abilities would exist, did SUnsword make the one, on Enworld?? about a defiler ability allowing re-use of a per day or per encounter ability? that too, would be great
Sunsword
defiling came after preserving, in canon, but since I hate the DS canonical history to hell...lol. But I disagree, however.
No, the first magic came from Rajaat defiling the lifeforce of Athas itself, and nearly killing himself in the process, thus creating the swamp below the cliff-dwelling halflings. I forget its name.
1) Defiling is more powerful than preserving, otherwise defilers would nto have won. It's simple logic folk should accept. Defiling somehow gives a very definate advantage, otherwise, the sorceror-kings woudl not have won.
Not necessarily. From a game balance standpoint, defiling can't be more powerful, or players playing preservers have less "fun". If you're willing to throw out balance, then you're not making 4e D&D (or 3e either). Not that that's bad, it just means houserules that can't be official. And in 2e, defiling wasn't really more powerful that preserving anyway. A defiler and preserver of the same level had the same spells and the same effect with them (defilers did have more spells though). The main difference was that defilers progressed faster, which isn't possible under the current rules.
Also, there's no reason to think that the sorcerer-kings wouldn't have won. They are ruthless mass-murderers/genocidal maniacs who were willing to do whatever it took to cleanse Athas of entire species. They had more training, were powerful psionicists, had the backing of Rajaat, and obviously no morals to get in the way. Their defiling just has the added side effect of an automatic "scorched earth" policy against their enemies.
2) Defiling is a form of arcane magic, it is a form of wizardy. Defiles learn spells same as wizards do.
Defiling is a trick, an add on, a method of wizardry that parasitizes life energy to add more power.
3) Defiling doesn't greatly change the spells cast, a defiler lightning bolt is still a lightninbg bolt, however, ti maybe more powerful or harder to avoid, or maybe the defiler can cast them more often, who knows.
basic point is a defiler is still a wizard, he's just more powerful because of the defiling ability.
Here we almost agree. The only difference is I'm suggestion that there's a difference between "defiling" (hurting but not ruining) to cast any spell and "DEFILING" (utter destruction) to make your spell better.
I think Sunsword's idea fits very well in all this, by choice, you can sacrifice life around you for more power in your spells. And more Defiler abilities would exist, did SUnsword make the one, on Enworld?? about a defiler ability allowing re-use of a per day or per encounter ability? that too, would be great
Again, we almost agree. Allowing a re-use of a per encounter or per day power is an epic abillity according to the recent Archmage Epic Destiny preview, so simple 1st level defilers should not be able to do that, even if you are chucking balance out the window.
To reiterate, my suggestion is to change canon in two ways.
One, all spells defile. And two, the difference being that defiling is not the utter-destruction-of-all-life-as-we-know-it, but rather a severe depletion of resources and health. Repeated applications would certainly destroy the land (and did). This has a slight benefit of making the decision to defile more subtle (it won't destroy the world to defile this once, will it?) and also of allowing defilers to remain in the same general area for longer periods of time.
game balance is entirely the wrong way to look at Dark Sun!
You're putting the horse before the cart.
To be a "hero" in Dark Sun, you have to work harder, and that's a good thing!
Dark Sun, or any D&D millieu does not, ever, need "game balance" as a straight jacket to design
For example, if you look at Lord of the Rings, the classic staple of fantasy, the Maia, the wizards, are both incredibly weak, and incredibly powerful, there's no balance, vs a fighter (Boromir) etc.
That's not bad, that's what makes it fun!
Also, the idea of "game balance" to defiling is missong the fact that they do defile...it's harder ot balance, but, in this more ecologically aware world of ours in reality, we can see the problem.
Defilers are hated, folk kill 'em on sight. That itself is pretty game balancing :D
If DMs dont play they, it's their fault for sucking, not the setting's.
Defilers will have less allies, cause their areas to wither and die (so even less reason to want 'em for allies) etc.
Oh, IMHO, one of the best ways to think of/run the sorceror kings, is that they all have gladiatorial combat so they can secretly leech life energy for their defiling! This makes a lot of sense, in many ways.
1) beyond social control, it gives SKs a vital reaosn to have gladitorial games
2) Explains how the SKs dont' vape their gardens etc.
3) Gives a really nasty, icky thematic, imagine Tyr's arena, thousands of years old, with all that death fuelling Kalak...
To me, DS has nice touches of Robert E Howards Hyborean tales and Clarke Ashton Smith's work. Evil wizards are weird and nasty, unfettered by morals that hamper good mages...but they are laothed. Who the heck wants to work for such a creep unless you are a creep yourself, or desperate?
Defilers should always be mostly NPCs, and require non-good alignment. It's a selfish, stupid thing to do. The SKs are hard proof of this, they want to become dragons, but in so doing they will destroy the last life on Athas, and thus eventually, even themselves.
Dark Sun, or any D&D millieu does not, ever, need "game balance" as a straight jacket to design
For example, if you look at Lord of the Rings, the classic staple of fantasy, the Maia, the wizards, are both incredibly weak, and incredibly powerful, there's no balance, vs a fighter (Boromir) etc.
Whoa, there...
You can't compare literature with a game, they are very separate beasts. Literature doesn't have "game balance" because it doesn't require it -- characters in books don't have levels, hit points, spells per day, or anything else. They lack mechanically limited expendable resources to be strategically spent or utilized in the pursuit of some possibly arbitrary goal.
If LotR had been a D&D game, the 20th-level Gandalf would have teleported the party to Mount Doom and engaged in a battle of wizardry with Sauron, and the 1st level halfling peons wouldn't have done crap of importance or interest to the conflict...because they're 1st-level peons. What could they accomplish that Gandalf couldn't? (Especially without being squashed like bugs by relevant and meaningfully important obstacles/opposition.)
Literature does have balance of a different sort: it utilizes character balance based on the character's importance to the overall conflict, the premise of the work, and the interactions of these items with the character and his interests.
Now you can write a game that uses measures of literary balance, and thus allows you to play people of wildly disparate power levels because the game-play isn't about that set of character resources, but D&D isn't that game.
Game balance -- ie: matching difficulty versus effectiveness compared to available resources per player and overall effectiveness on the overall results of play -- is one of the necessary keys to good game design. Unbalanced games are NOT fun or enjoyable for the participants because players with underpowered characters are not able to contribute substantially to group effectiveness or towards the results of play.
"Ok, they can't fight, but they can shine in role-playing" only paints this problem all the larger, because you're playing the wrong game if that's the issue.
If everyone is rewarded and balanced on the important role-playing issues and not on their relevant effectiveness or power level, then character powers are unimportant to the game except as Color (precisely as things like name, religion, clothing, sex and family are to the D&D system).
If what I mean by that isn't clicking, check out John Wick's Houses of the Blooded RPG, which started out as an "anti"-D&D experiment: in which everything that isn't important in D&D is made vitally, mechanically important (from your clothing to your name to your family).
Perhaps a (rough) example: you're playing Monopoly with someone and you start with six thousand dollars, they start with five hundred. You get two rolls/moves each turn, they get one. In order to make up for this deficit, you both decide the shafted player gets to put on a little play using the game pieces each time it is his turn.
Sure, it could very well be fun. But then...why are you playing Monopoly? Or rather, why are only half of you playing Monopoly? Or getting to play Monopoly if you were all there to play Monopoly?
Using an example from Magic the Gathering a few years ago they made a block called mirrordin and there was a deck type Affinity.
Affinity won damn near every main event and the anti affinity deck only had roughlyl a 50/50 matchup. FNM attendence went down, tourney attendence went down and there was 2 viable decks to play- affinity and anti affinity and the mirror match (affinity vs affinity ) often came down to who went 1st or who drew XYZ card 1st.
A D&D equivilent would be your PCs know in advance that they have to face an XYZ character of the same level. The day before they prepare all there spells and defences for this character and if they win initiative they have a 50/50 chance of success, if they lose initiative they lose the encounter and get killed.
Thas an extreme example but its actually not to far off how high level comabat in D&D and epic levels work in 3.0/3.5. Now imagine if it was like this at the lower levels where the rules kinda work. Some online games have failed for balance reasons. If the game is no fun people play something else. It may be fun for a short game or one off game but yeah.
Defilers weren't exactly balenced in 2nd ed and DS in particular had alot of balence issues on top of te already existing ones in 2nd ed. Defilers advanced almost as quick as rogues and alot of people in 2nd ed rolled up half giants, mulls and thri kreen for some reason.
At the time Darksun in alot of gaming circles was regarded as a munchkin game and it was unheard of to find a DM willing to run it. I ran it for my players for a while and we loved it but didn't pretend it was balenced and I won't bother mentioning Dragon Kings.
Clerics sucked even more than usual as well in the original boxed set until they were revised to gain major access to trhe cosmos sphere (Earth, Air, Fire, Water or the revised boxed set?)