I'll post my ideas shortly, but if you would like to see them or have ideas of your own to discuss, please email me at [email]kdyal@hotmail.com[/email].
As a compromise, I've also offered up that, for dragons, at least, there are a multitude of different spells tumbling about. Essentially, these are:
1) False Dragon. This is a red herring put out there by the SKs to fool would-be competitors. The fact that, in thousands of years, a few people will discover that the SKs were once human is inevitable. This spell is put out there to create a weaker class of dragons that would never threaten an SK.
2) True Dragon. This is a dragon that goes through all the necessary steps to become a full-blown dragon: 20 levels in both psion and spellcaster, ten full levels of dragon, and so on.
3) Lens Dragon. This is a "created" dragon. In this case, the dragon was created with the assistance of the Dark Lens and, of course, Rajaat. Some knowledge of magic is required, some knowledge of psionics is required, but not nearly as much as a true dragon. In a Lens Dragon, where you start also determines how powerful you are to other Lens dragons. A 15/15 psion/wizard becoming a Lens Dragon would be considerably less powerful than one who was 18/18. These are the SKs and, if he would have been successful, Tithian.
4) Leap Dragon. A Leap Dragon is one who "jumps" in levels, skipping from wherever they were in the process to the end (tenth) level. These dragons are not as powerful as a True Dragon who's 10th level, but they are considerably more powerful than their 2nd, 3rd, and 4th level cousins. And they're full-grown dragons, something that cannot be underestimated. While this is a theory, it has not been successfully performed by anyone (Kalak or Kalid-Ma...something about those K's...).
As far as the other higher lifeforms go, they are equally hard to reach in my campaigns. The Elemental Lords do not just dole their power out on anyone: only the best and brightest (20/20, again).
Avangions are exceedingly rare both because preservers are ruthlessly hunted and because the process to be good and powerful is wicked-super-hard, dudemar. That's pretty hard.
For a Druid to become a Spirit of the Land (or merge with it), the druid first has to live long enough, and then be powerful enough to undergo the transformation (20/20, again).
In my campaigns, it's incredibly difficult to reach these highest levels, and even harder to become and advanced being. My players rarely play beyond 8th level, preferring the lower levels and the challenges that come with it. So, for this reason, my rules are mostly aimed at creating realistic NPCs. Other GMs and designers on this board are not quite so harsh, or have players who like those higher levels.
Xlor's an excellent example of someone who's made useable rules for Dragons that are pretty cool and work with canon material.
Originally posted by kdyal
I am trying to get an idea of what people are thinking about the advanced being PrCs. IE, translating them into 3.5E. I have some ideas and would love to see what other people are thinking.
I'll post my ideas shortly, but if you would like to see them or have ideas of your own to discuss, please email me at [email]kdyal@hotmail.com[/email].
The epic bureau is, right now, working on this very thing. Details are still being haggled over, but essentially (and Xlor or Jon, hit me if I'm deviating here):
We're deviating from the letter of DK, to keep with 3e. For one, you don't have to be an AB to cast epic level spells ... so being an AB is really about being an AB. Dragons, Avangions, etc require an amount of psionic ability, but we're not tlaking about 20 levels worth here. More like the ability to manifest 5th or 6th level psionic powers, and the abililty to cast 9th level spells.
Primarily, there are four transformation spells that jump you from stage to stage. In between castings, you can advance in your prestige class -- same class, regardless of stage. the spells account for the gross physical transformations -- size jumps, that sort of thing, while the levels account for smaller scale things. Exact detaails there are still being worked on.
Originally posted by flip
The epic bureau is, right now, working on this very thing. Details are still being haggled over, but essentially (and Xlor or Jon, hit me if I'm deviating here):
We're deviating from the letter of DK, to keep with 3e. For one, you don't have to be an AB to cast epic level spells ... so being an AB is really about being an AB. Dragons, Avangions, etc require an amount of psionic ability, but we're not tlaking about 20 levels worth here. More like the ability to manifest 5th or 6th level psionic powers, and the abililty to cast 9th level spells.
Primarily, there are four transformation spells that jump you from stage to stage. In between castings, you can advance in your prestige class -- same class, regardless of stage. the spells account for the gross physical transformations -- size jumps, that sort of thing, while the levels account for smaller scale things. Exact detaails there are still being worked on.
Originally posted by Jaanos
Damn. Well, that means the advanced being rules will be the only other part of the athas.org rules along with Defilers that i *won't* be using.
Heh. I could comment more, but my head cold is making it hard for me to concentrate. so for now, I just say heh.
Originally posted by Dawnstealer
I'm actually in the minority when I brought my version across. I basically followed Dragon Kings verbatim and require that the would-be Dragon or Avangion have twenty levels of both Psion and spellcaster. High-powered? Yep. Unrealistic or overpowered? I don't think so: Dragon Kings are the equivalent of living gods - they should be overpowered.
As a compromise, I've also offered up that, for dragons, at least, there are a multitude of different spells tumbling about. Essentially, these are:
1) False Dragon. This is a red herring put out there by the SKs to fool would-be competitors. The fact that, in thousands of years, a few people will discover that the SKs were once human is inevitable. This spell is put out there to create a weaker class of dragons that would never threaten an SK.
2) True Dragon. This is a dragon that goes through all the necessary steps to become a full-blown dragon: 20 levels in both psion and spellcaster, ten full levels of dragon, and so on.
3) Lens Dragon. This is a "created" dragon. In this case, the dragon was created with the assistance of the Dark Lens and, of course, Rajaat. Some knowledge of magic is required, some knowledge of psionics is required, but not nearly as much as a true dragon. In a Lens Dragon, where you start also determines how powerful you are to other Lens dragons. A 15/15 psion/wizard becoming a Lens Dragon would be considerably less powerful than one who was 18/18. These are the SKs and, if he would have been successful, Tithian.
4) Leap Dragon. A Leap Dragon is one who "jumps" in levels, skipping from wherever they were in the process to the end (tenth) level. These dragons are not as powerful as a True Dragon who's 10th level, but they are considerably more powerful than their 2nd, 3rd, and 4th level cousins. And they're full-grown dragons, something that cannot be underestimated. While this is a theory, it has not been successfully performed by anyone (Kalak or Kalid-Ma...something about those K's...).
As far as the other higher lifeforms go, they are equally hard to reach in my campaigns. The Elemental Lords do not just dole their power out on anyone: only the best and brightest (20/20, again).
Avangions are exceedingly rare both because preservers are ruthlessly hunted and because the process to be good and powerful is wicked-super-hard, dudemar. That's pretty hard.
For a Druid to become a Spirit of the Land (or merge with it), the druid first has to live long enough, and then be powerful enough to undergo the transformation (20/20, again).
In my campaigns, it's incredibly difficult to reach these highest levels, and even harder to become and advanced being. My players rarely play beyond 8th level, preferring the lower levels and the challenges that come with it. So, for this reason, my rules are mostly aimed at creating realistic NPCs. Other GMs and designers on this board are not quite so harsh, or have players who like those higher levels.
Xlor's an excellent example of someone who's made useable rules for Dragons that are pretty cool and work with canon material.
Originally posted by xlorepdarkhelm
Heh. I could comment more, but my head cold is making it hard for me to concentrate. so for now, I just say heh.
so one very crude way of working out a conversion...
XP for 20th level - 190,000
XP for 40th level - 780,000 (I think)
2 x XP for 20th level - 380,000 ( approximately 28th level)
Originally posted by afromonkey
The difference is, in 3e, advancing to a 20/20 character is the same as advancing to 40th level, experence-wise, but in 2e (AFAIK) it was the same as advancing to 20th level twice. One can cast spells as 20/20 by 27th level with cerebremancer, or by 25th with more prestige classes
so one very crude way of working out a conversion...
XP for 20th level - 190,000
XP for 40th level - 780,000 (I think)
2 x XP for 20th level - 380,000 ( approximately 28th level)
I agree. I'm thinking of requiring 9th/9th arcane (or divine)/manifesation; 30 ranks of appropriate knowledge skills, spellcraft and psicraft; and 20 ranks of knowledge: the planes and knowledge: history. This will make for a minimum level of 27 when allowing Cerebromancer.
An "average" guard in a city might be 1st level, in 2e, while a commander might (might) be as high as 3rd. Heroes were exceptional if they were over 5th level.
In 3e, because of the way feats and skills work, 3rd is probably closer to the average while 7th or so would be the tough guys. 10th would be elites. Anything higher than that would be pretty impressive.
I don't think having 20/20 is inconceivable or wildly uncalled for (and, yes: I can do math and do know that it ads up to more xp this way under 3e rules). Like I said, though, it's more a function of the prereqs. The False Dragon only requires the ability to manifest 5th level powers and spells (thus leading to a weaker dragon, overall). Lens Dragons are a bit more stingy, but the Dark Lens is a great equalizer.
I don't think having 20/20 is inconceivable or wildly uncalled for (and, yes: I can do math and do know that it ads up to more xp this way under 3e rules). Like I said, though, it's more a function of the prereqs. The False Dragon only requires the ability to manifest 5th level powers and spells (thus leading to a weaker dragon, overall). Lens Dragons are a bit more stingy, but the Dark Lens is a great equalizer.
As I've stated in other posts on this topic. Players IMO don't have any buisness becoming full blown Advance Beings. It should be hard to become a Dragon or an Avangion as Dawn pointed out. If your campaign reaches that level of play (Through 8 years of play or more) I'd say it would be conceivable that a PC could become an Advance Being. Otherwise it sould be a NPC mechanic.
With that being said here's my suggestion:
The process should be stream lined to a simple plug in template system, series of spells, and prereqs. 10 stackable templates would do the trick. In between each template the character must meet prereqs (i.e. ranks in Knowledge arcane, psionic, spellcraft, psicraft) and gather the necessary material components for the next casting of the metamorphsis spell.
Not unlike the 2e mechanics for the metamorphsis.
As I've stated in other posts on this topic. Players IMO don't have any buisness becoming full blown Advance Beings. It should be hard to become a Dragon or an Avangion as Dawn pointed out. If your campaign reaches that level of play (Through 8 years of play or more) I'd say it would be conceivable that a PC could become an Advance Being.
Can't argue with that.
Originally posted by Jaanos
One thing i think is in favour of the 'old' 20/20 requirement is it means you can require the prospective advanced being to have certain epic feats BEFORE they begin the transformation, and as we ARE talking about ADVANCED beings. Although other models would also alow them to have epic feats, there is alot of difference between a PC with 4 or 5 epic feats becoming an advanced being compared to 1 or 2 epic feats as a prerequiste.
Easy there ... we're definately talking about an Epic Level character here. None of us think otherwise. Heck, even with the Cerebremancer class, you can't meet those requirements without being epic level:
9th level arcane spells requires 17 levels in Wizard. 6th level powers requires 11 levels of psion. Lessee. Without the Cerebremancer class, that's 28th level.
Now, add cerebremancer to the mix. Requirement: ability to cast 2nd level spells, ability to manifest 2nd level powers. Which translates to 3rd level in Psion and Wizard before the class can be taken. Still required: 14 levels of wizard, 8 levels of psion. The final eight levels of psion (and then some) are covered by the cerebremancer, but only ten of the required 14 levels are covered by wizard, so you'd still need an addition 4 levels of wizard. Total levels required: 10 cerebremancer, 7 wizard and 3 psion. 20th level.
So, the other points:
* It's only 6th level manifestations, so that Psychic warriors can actually qualify for the transformations -- For some of the sorcerer kings, Psywarrior fits far better than Psion.
* I never said that we wouldn't require other prerequisites; I only specified the spell minimums.
* Like all epic PrCs, there's no level limit, so we're not dealing with a simple 10 level class here. Which is, to some extent, why the transformation spells are there...
Originally posted by Sysane
As I've stated in other posts on this topic. Players IMO don't have any buisness becoming full blown Advance Beings. It should be hard to become a Dragon or an Avangion as Dawn pointed out. If your campaign reaches that level of play (Through 8 years of play or more) I'd say it would be conceivable that a PC could become an Advance Being. Otherwise it sould be a NPC mechanic.
Unfortunately you can't stop people from starting out playing in that high level of an epic campaign. Nor can you stop people from working up to that point before 8 years has passed.
All in all, I don't see a problem with what Xlorep and athas.org are doing and welcome it, since I want to be able to have some epic and advanced being rules in my DS campaigns.
Originally posted by Sysane
As I've stated in other posts on this topic. Players IMO don't have any buisness becoming full blown Advance Beings.
And you're free to feel that way. and that's you're style of play, and that's fine. However, that's not the design mindset that goes into 3e. It's about supporting different goals and different playing styles. It's about the system not saying that "Wizards can't wear armor" ... I mean, there's an entire sourcebook dedicated to covering how to become and play Gods. The entire idea is that a player can do anything that an NPC can do (Or, to look at it another way, NPCs must be legal characters) ...
Unfortunately you can't stop people from starting out playing in that high level of an epic campaign. Nor can you stop people from working up to that point before 8 years has passed.
If your going to power game and start and characters at epic levels. Thats fine, knock yourself out.
Never stated that PC couldn't aspire to be an advance being. Just that I felt it was a bad idea if you let them to soon. I do however feel it should be a NPCish thing.
I mean would you let a player become a vampire or a lich? Let me rephaze that. Would you let them and continue to be PCs or NPCs if they became a vampire or a lich?
And you're free to feel that way. and that's you're style of play, and that's fine. However, that's not the design mindset that goes into 3e. It's about supporting different goals and different playing styles. It's about the system not saying that "Wizards can't wear armor" ... I mean, there's an entire sourcebook dedicated to covering how to become and play Gods. The entire idea is that a player can do anything that an NPC can do (Or, to look at it another way, NPCs must be legal characters) ...
Again, never said there shouldn't be a rule set for certian things like a character becoming an advance being. Just that I thought it was a bad idea for PCs to become one and continue being a PC.
If a DM wants players to be able to play lemmings as a character by all means let them. To each their own. I just think it comes down to juggement.
Also, if I didn't do so in this post, I usually point people to Xlor's design as an optional method to my own (primarily since I haven't thrown my ideas down here, recently).
Originally posted by Sysane
I mean would you let a player become a vampire or a lich? Let me rephaze that. Would you let them and continue to be PCs or NPCs if they became a vampire or a lich?
Yes and yes.
Mainly because there are templates out there already that cover those that have some hefty LAs. So if the player wants to play one of those, fine, he's going to pay for it in LA though.
Course I've always been more about saying maybe and less about saying no when I run too. Like most DMs should be, otherwise it just becomes a game where the DM can bash on the players all day, and that's no fun for the players. Been there, done that, not interested in wasting anymore time with it.
Originally posted by flip
The epic bureau is, right now, working on this very thing. Details are still being haggled over, but essentially (and Xlor or Jon, hit me if I'm deviating here):
We're deviating from the letter of DK, to keep with 3e. For one, you don't have to be an AB to cast epic level spells ... so being an AB is really about being an AB. Dragons, Avangions, etc require an amount of psionic ability, but we're not tlaking about 20 levels worth here. More like the ability to manifest 5th or 6th level psionic powers, and the abililty to cast 9th level spells.
Primarily, there are four transformation spells that jump you from stage to stage. In between castings, you can advance in your prestige class -- same class, regardless of stage. the spells account for the gross physical transformations -- size jumps, that sort of thing, while the levels account for smaller scale things. Exact detaails there are still being worked on.
Why not also require 9th level powers? If the original called for levels 20/20, shouldn't the 3.5e conversion require the 3.5e equivalent (9/9)?
But I agree about Epic magic not requiring AB status. Psionic enhancements, however... (more when I figure out what I want to do with them)
Originally posted by kdyal
Why not also require 9th level powers? If the original called for levels 20/20, shouldn't the 3.5e conversion require the 3.5e equivalent (9/9)?
Originally posted by Flip
So, the other points:
* It's only 6th level manifestations, so that Psychic warriors can actually qualify for the transformations -- For some of the sorcerer kings, Psywarrior fits far better than Psion.
Originally posted by Sysane
I mean would you let a player become a vampire or a lich? Let me rephaze that. Would you let them and continue to be PCs or NPCs if they became a vampire or a lich?
Yes, and I have. I've allowed for a sorcerer/cleric of nerull/true necromancer character become a lich, and at about ECL 36 or so, he was just beginning to get an idea that there might be something more. Of course, he also spellstitched himself, thus slowing his own progression, all in the name of power.
The idea behind 3/3.5e is that player-characters could be just about anything. Now, if the DM decides they can't be, that's one thing, but don't make the mechanics force people to follow your ego, rather than have the freedom of choice.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Flip
So, the other points:
* It's only 6th level manifestations, so that Psychic warriors can actually qualify for the transformations -- For some of the sorcerer kings, Psywarrior fits far better than Psion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which goes along with my Lens Dragon, allowing the player or NPC to circumvent the "normal" rules through the use of (what I consider) divine magic and the use of an artifact (Dark Lens). The catch is that it requires two things that are no longer currently accessable: Rajaat and the Dark Lens. I also have it that being a Lens Dragon is the only way to grant spells to followers. It's kind of a balancing act with the True Dragon, which is technically more powerful, but doesn't gain the same benefits as a Lens Dragon (Rajaat's Chosen Few).
[ed] These are all things that I will flesh out a great deal more (after I move) in the Far Off Lands (tentative name), which details the lands on the other side of the Sea of Silt.
Now the method I devised for Advanced Beings was 9th level spells & 6th level psionics. Which means that a character would need 17 levels of Wizard, and 11 levels of Psion. That means the character is actually level 28. Sorry if I raised the bar 2 levels from the above, it just worked out better this way. I've already gone over, time and again, why I chose for psionics to be the lesser and magic to be the greater of the two, I don't feel that I need to repeat it yet again, unless someone's at a complete loss as to why.
So, the official conversion rules would make a character level 26 (20 wizard/6 psion), and my configuration means they are level 28 (17 wizard/11 psion). Plus, the original Dragon and Avangions were 10 levels, my system is for a bit more, and I'm not entirely certian what the Epic Bureau has nailed down yet. So, it becomes a lengthier process in levels, while at the same time the characters technically start 2 levels later than the conversion rules demand (for the record, the conversion rules would demand that the Dragon & Avangion process becomes 3 levels as well, as it would be more dual classing characters undergoing it)
I'd add more, but another dizzy spell hits, and I need to lay down.... I hate being sick.
Originally posted by xlorepdarkhelm
Well, the problem easily forgotten about when converting things from 2e to 3/3.5e is, as according to the conversion booklet released by WotC when they released 3E, you cannot concert multiclass or dualclass characters on a 1:1 ratio for every class level. For the first (highest-level) class, you convert it 1 2e level for 1 3e level, straight across. However, for each class beyond that, you convert it by dividing the number of levels the character has in that class by 3. So, a character in 2E with 20 levels in Wizard & 20 levels in Psionicist, you end up with a character in 3/3.5e with 20 levels in Wizard, and 6 levels in Psion (or 20 in Psion and 6 in Wizard) - which means the character is actually level 26. This is the official rules for converting from 2e to 3e/3.5e, which means it's what you've got to work with.
I have to admit to not having noticed this before. Works great, except for multicasters...
The Cerebromancer and Mystic Theurge specify advancing as both types simultaneously. The Advanced Being class(es) should probably do so as well.
Originally posted by kdyal
I have to admit to not having noticed this before. Works great, except for multicasters...
The Cerebromancer and Mystic Theurge specify advancing as both types simultaneously. The Advanced Being class(es) should probably do so as well.
Which they do. Each level of Advanced Being (at least in my current system) advances the character +1 level in both their magic and psionic classes, in terms of caster level, spells per day, spells known, etc. and power points per day, maximum power level known, number of powers known, etc. The class also has a "metamorphic effect" that happens each level, dictated by the current stage's spell - basically, it is the changes that happen over time (ie: each level) that the current stage's spell dictates. Of course, this is my homebrew system, and most likely, the Epic Bureau's version won't follow it precisely.
The idea behind 3/3.5e is that player-characters could be just about anything. Now, if the DM decides they can't be, that's one thing, but don't make the mechanics force people to follow your ego, rather than have the freedom of choice.
Don't remember saying anything about forcing anyone thru game mechanics or it being a matter of ego? That actually has nothing to do with what I've said at all.
Becoming an AB should be difficult and geared towards NPCs. Much like the vampire and lich example they are ment to be templates used for NPCs not PCs. Hence why they are in the MM not the PH. If you have an unusal campaign I guess they would be alright to be used by PCs. But just because they want to be one is no grounds to let them if it doesn't fit the campaign or its goals.
DM stands for dungeon master and thats what they are suppose to be doing. Controling the game so it doesn't become unbalanced or cheesy. You can't let the player walk all over you just because the rules say you can when it may endanger the integrity of yours and the other players game.
Thats just IMO though. I don't expect everyone to feel the same. As I've stated, to each their own. Run your games as you see fit.
Originally posted by Sysane
Becoming an AB should be difficult and geared towards NPCs. Much like the vampire and lich example they are ment to be templates used for NPCs not PCs. Hence why they are in the MM not the PH.
Except that there are no templates in the PHB, so basically you are saying that PCs should only be from the core races and core classes of the PHB and can't pick any classes or PrCs or templates from any books, including those more geared towards PCs like Complete Warrior, Complete Divine, etc.
Sorry bad argument there man, and going by what you are saying is totally against what 3rd edition is all about, which is options instead of just flat out saying no you can't do it, hence why wizards can wear armor now and cast spells, etc.
If you want what you are describing, why not just stick with 2e? Seriously.
Originally posted by Sysane
Becoming an AB should be difficult and geared towards NPCs. Much like the vampire and lich example they are ment to be templates used for NPCs not PCs. Hence why they are in the MM not the PH. If you have an unusal campaign I guess they would be alright to be used by PCs. But just because they want to be one is no grounds to let them if it doesn't fit the campaign or its goals.
Actually, they are in the MM, because they didn't include *any* templates in the PHB. And things in the MM are not specifically for NPC's - which is why many creatures also have racial statistics for players to use. Really a bad example. There is nothing in the 3/3.5e system that states Vampires and Liches are not intended for player characters. There's not even anything implied along those lines. That just happens to be what you feel it should be,
DM stands for dungeon master and thats what they are suppose to be doing. Controling the game so it doesn't become unbalanced or cheesy. You can't let the player walk all over you just because the rules say you can when it may endanger the integrity of yours and the other players game.
And who said letting them walk all over you? I just like options. Personally, I don't mind that if I have a campaign that goes into epic levels, having the potential for a character to discover, unlock, and begin the Advanced Being process. That doesn't mean that every character, upon making epic levels, gets the "how to be an Advanced Being for Dummies" book, handed to them. They still have to figure it out, discover that it is even possible, and then find out how to achieve it.
As such, the system *allows* for possibilities such as a PC becoming an Advanced Being, it's up to the DM to dictate how, when, or if it is possible in his campaign. Making unrealistic (and I mean that as in does not translate from 2e-3/3.5e correctly) locks, such as level 20 wizard/20 psion, even when making specific class/level requirements are against the very fiber of 3/3.5e mechanics and considered "bad form" in the extreme, thus makes the Advanced Being process virtually unatainable, and thus means that if a DM wishes to permit such a being in his campaign, there's a rather daunting task of rewriting the rules, or advancing the characters rapidly, to even see it. To me, that is enforcing one's ego, one's own personal beliefs that it should not be possible, on everyone, rather than letting each DM make the decision themselves.
Thats just IMO though. I don't expect everyone to feel the same. As I've stated, to each their own. Run your games as you see fit.
Which I do. So far, I've not had a character who has attained any level of Advanced Beings in any game I've run. They've primarily been NPC's - which I really have a lot of fun fleshing out, and using a standard set of rules for.
Originally posted by NytCrawlr
Except that there are no templates in the PHB, so basically you are saying that PCs should only be from the core races and core classes of the PHB and can't pick any classes or PrCs or templates from any books, including those more geared towards PCs like Complete Warrior, Complete Divine, etc.
Sorry bad argument there man, and going by what you are saying is totally against what 3rd edition is all about, which is options instead of just flat out saying no you can't do it, hence why wizards can wear armor now and cast spells, etc.
If you want what you are describing, why not just stick with 2e? Seriously.
Bah, you beat me to it.
Originally posted by xlorepdarkhelm
Bah, you beat me to it.
:D
Originally posted by Sysane
Cerebromancers are a PrC out of the 3.5 Psi Handbook. Eurdites are from the infamous issue of Dragon that featured 3.5 DS rules.
With this issue being so infamous I assume that someone could tell me what the issue number was, and perhaps an easy way to get my hands on it.
Except that there are no templates in the PHB, so basically you are saying that PCs should only be from the core races and core classes of the PHB and can't pick any classes or PrCs or templates from any books, including those more geared towards PCs like Complete Warrior, Complete Divine, etc.
As you just stated yourself. Those books are geared for the PCs not the MM. Never said they couldn't be anything from the MM just not advised in the normal campaign sense. But if you want a vampire rubbing elbows with your players lawful good paladin and feel nothing is wrong with that go right ahead.
If you want what you are describing, why not just stick with 2e? Seriously.
Honestly, do you feel better after stating this?
Originally posted by Jaedaken
With this issue being so infamous I assume that someone could tell me what the issue number was, and perhaps an easy way to get my hands on it.
What was it..... #319 or something, right? Obne of the issues that had the Dim Sun...err.... "Dark Sun" Conversion in it.
Originally posted by Sysane
Funny how you guys conventiently ignored the part of me stating that If you have an unusal campaign I guess they would be alright to be used by PCs. But heh, whatever you have to to do.
But, which is more open of a system - forcing everyone to have the frowned upon approach of restrictive class/level requirements, or even just extremely high requirements (instead of 20 wizard/20 psion, say something like 24 ranks in Knowledge(arcana), 24 ranks in Knowledge(psionics) and 9th level psionics as well as 9th level arcane spells), or look for something that meshes more with the system, something that doesn't totally break the conversion rules? something that takes just as long, or actually, a little longer to reach, despite what the levels read, because multiclassing rules for 3/3.5e work completely different than the ones from 2e?
As you just stated yourself. Those books are geared for the PCs not the MM. Never said they couldn't be anything from the MM just not advised in the normal campaign sense. But if you want a vampire rubbing elbows with your players lawful good paladin and feel nothing is wrong with that go right ahead.
What about all those races that are in the MM but not in the PHB? Would you say those can never be Player Characters, and are reserved *only* for NPC's? What about all the subraces? Would you say that it's completely insane for someone to play a different subrace of elf besides that found in the PHB, if the only place it is described is the MM? Your argument is still quite significantly flawed. Especially when you take into account books like Savage Species.
Originally posted by Sysane
Funny how you guys conventiently ignored the part of me stating that If you have an unusal campaign I guess they would be alright to be used by PCs. But heh, whatever you have to to do.
Who are you to judge what is usual or unusual for other people's campaigns. You don't like templates, be they vampire, lich, or advanced being, being available to PC's. I would argue then that your campaign is the unusual one. A usual campaign would embrace the spirit of 3E and allow PC's of qualifiying level and power, with a well roleplayed character and motivations / interests to take their character along different paths.
Originally posted by Sysane
As you just stated yourself. Those books are geared for the PCs not the MM. Never said they couldn't be anything from the MM just not advised in the normal campaign sense. But if you want a vampire rubbing elbows with your players lawful good paladin and feel nothing is wrong with that go right ahead.
Who said anything about allowing a vampire to hang out with a paladin. In case you didn't notice or weren't aware, there aren't any paladins here. Nobody is advocating tossing aside roleplaying for powergaming, but the fact of the matter is that while your games may be limited in character development options, in terms of templates or level or whatever else, other people's are not. Additionally, in 3E, it is important to have NPC's that adhere to rules that PC's are held to, and creating templates and stats and the like for important NPC's is a critical part of this process.
Epic doesn't mean munchkin, I've got characters I've played for decades, converted from AD&D to 2e, to 3e, and now to 3.5, damn right they are epic. And they are extremely well roleplayed, and one of them is on the path of becoming an avangion.
Everyone in my gaming group has been playing for years and years together, we have characters that are in their 30's or higher in a variety of campaign settings and it's not because we rolled them up that way, it's because we've played them out. We play low levels occasionally, to experience something different, to try out a new character idea, to do an adventure that sounds like a lot of fun, but would be a walk in the park for our high leveled characters. Often those PC's are offshoots of our epic characters, sons or daughters, apprentices or the like. It is just a more immersive gaming experience when the players can associate with the history of a PC instead of just creating it and forgetting it.
As an aside, why do so many people feel this pressure to start new characters every time they take their existing ones to high levels? That's a sign of an unimaginative DM in my opinion, by the time PC's reach epic levels, the players are involved, interested, and have an emotional investment in their characters. As a DM, that's the IDEAL situation, I get the best roleplaying out of players in those kinds of games, their characters are like a second skin to them, it's not "god mode" in a video game.
Originally posted by Sysane
As you just stated yourself. Those books are geared for the PCs not the MM. Never said they couldn't be anything from the MM just not advised in the normal campaign sense.
You're missing the point. Nothing, and I do mean nothing, states anywhere, that any template, PrC, etc from other books can only be used for NPCs just because it's not from the PHB. Heck, bout the only time this rule is contradicted is in the DMG with the NPC classes, and even those are allowed to be used as other PC classes if you want.
Basically anything the NPCs can do or be, the PCs should be allowed to do or be. Everything, on both sides, is legal.
But if you want a vampire rubbing elbows with your players lawful good paladin and feel nothing is wrong with that go right ahead.
I would only find something wrong with that if the vampire PC is evil, and even then I would allow it as long as the two PCs could play it out right.
I'm not against having a mixed aligned party, in this situation though someone will want to leave, unless the evil PC can hide his alignment.
Honestly, do you feel better after stating this?
It wasn't meant as derogatory. Just sounds like you picked the wrong system when 3rd ed is all about options and 2nd ed wasn't.
The only time I remember SEEING athas.org come back and say 'hey, we may have gotten it wrong, let's throw it open again' was on the defilers agonizing radius issue - if I’m wrong, and they have done this is the past, by all means point me in the right direction.
I can't see why a compromise can't be reached on the whole thing. I know certain posters won't compromise because they think they are right (just as the ones who don't like that posters comments also think they are right) but personalities aside, this is an important issue for athas.org Dare I say the most important? Advanced beings are a defining element of DS, and it's important that it's done right.
I don't know the inner workings of athas.org, but I’d like to think that on this issue they maybe willing to bring someone into the fold with differing views on the AB template / class / progression system, to give the differing views of the community some input - AND work towards a workable model that (hopefully) will placate both sides of the AB progression debate. If this is already happening, let me know, but as far as I can tell.... one set of opinions is getting disproportionately larger say into the whole (very passionate and contentious) issue.
It's important that we strike a balance between the old 2e flavour, 3/3.5e mechanics, and the diverse views represented on the actual process.
Originally posted by Jaanos
What I find somewhat ironic about this whole issue is the way it is being dealt with. We are a community, and there are diverse opinions within it. It's very apparent that athas.org (from various posts in this and other threads) are taking a particular slant towards AB that many. Many people object too. Even if we are a minority, we are a very, very, very large one. I suppose what I’m driving at is when athas.org release the rules and ask for feedback, this group of people will present their view and....????
That is called an "Appeal to Popularity": "A proposition is held to be true because it is widely held to be true or is held to be true by some (usually upper crust) sector of the population." Please reword your argument without the logical fallacy in it, or back up your claim.
The only time I remember SEEING athas.org come back and say 'hey, we may have gotten it wrong, let's throw it open again' was on the defilers agonizing radius issue - if I’m wrong, and they have done this is the past, by all means point me in the right direction.
This is an attempt to argue From Ignorance: "Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false." With this, you are claiming that since you don't know of any other times Athas.org had done this, they don't exist. And somehow, this means that Athas.org doesn't listen to the community, which honestly couldn't be farther from the truth. In fact, the Preservers and Defilers had been reviewed several time, with the community arguing against one version or another, until the current one was settled on. The community is playtesting Athas.org's works, and as such, as playtesting proves something incorrect, there is a procedure for suggesting such, as outlined by Flip in the stickied topic above.
I can't see why a compromise can't be reached on the whole thing. I know certain posters won't compromise because they think they are right (just as the ones who don't like that posters comments also think they are right) but personalities aside, this is an important issue for athas.org Dare I say the most important? Advanced beings are a defining element of DS, and it's important that it's done right.
Honestly, there have been several compromises - just apparently, not enough for you. However, there are two points to bring up:
1. What is your "ideal" comprimise?
2. Comprimise ideas are not always the best ideas.
Further, this is an Appeal to Consiquences of a Belief: It's implied that if there isn't compromise, then Advanced Beings will be done wrong and DS will be hurt.
Your argument also is a Middle Ground Fallacy: This fallacy is committed when it is assumed that the middle position between two extremes must be correct simply because it is the middle position. this sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
1. Position A and B are two extreme positions.
2. C is a position that rests in the middle between A and B.
3. Therefore C is the correct position.
This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because it does not follow that a position is correct just because it lies in the middle of two extremes. This is shown by the following example. Suppose that a person is selling his computer. He wants to sell it for the current market value, which is $800 and someone offers him $1 for it. It would hardly follow that $400.50 is the proper price.
This fallacy draws its power from the fact that a moderate or middle position is often the correct one. For example, a moderate amount of exercise is better than too much exercise or too little exercise. However, this is not simply because it lies in the middle ground between two extremes. It is because too much exercise is harmful and too little exercise is all but useless. The basic idea behind many cases in which moderation is correct is that the extremes are typically "too much" and "not enough" and the middle position is "enough." In such cases the middle position is correct almost by definition.
I don't know the inner workings of athas.org, but I’d like to think that on this issue they maybe willing to bring someone into the fold with differing views on the AB template / class / progression system, to give the differing views of the community some input - AND work towards a workable model that (hopefully) will placate both sides of the AB progression debate. If this is already happening, let me know, but as far as I can tell.... one set of opinions is getting disproportionately larger say into the whole (very passionate and contentious) issue.
It is covered. And believe me, there have been arguments for all sides. What Athas.org is doing, in the Epic Bureau, is choosing the directions that are most rational and logical. They are not taking my system, and working from there. Rather, it is a different system, where the Epic Bureau is starting from scratch, and taking ideas from several people.
It's important that we strike a balance between the old 2e flavour, 3/3.5e mechanics, and the diverse views represented on the actual process.
Which is being done, it's a real shame you won't see it. It also is a shame that you keep attempting to goad me into responding, because apparently, you have some sort of problem with me personally, despite your claims to the contrary. Your subtle pseudo-anonymous jabs are quite humorous. Now - we've had this argument before, several times. Each time, you seem determined to argue that I'm unwilling to compromise, yet don't provide any form of foundation to your arguments beyond the fallacy of saying that "you should do it like it was done in 2e", since that simply does not apply in this case, and has been argued ad nausium to the contrary, but apparently, is unacceptable to you.
Further, to prove that I am willing to work with compromise, I will state again what changes I've done to my system, from what people have recieved thus far. To the problem of my system being complex, and being more complicated than the 2e 1 Prestige Class, 10-spell class, and my system being 4 epic spells, 4 templates and 3 prestige classes for each advanced being type, I've since revised it to be more streamlined, and be 4 epic spells and 1 epic prestige class. I have made the system simpler, while keeping it robust. It also is not necessarily the system which the Epic Bureau is working on - contrary to your belief, I am not the loudest, or only person in the Epic Bureau. There are even members there which had not seen my write-up. However, multiple sides are looked at for each part, and a decision is made, then we move to the next part. This is how progress is achieved.
And really, statements like 'but those mechanics in 3e don't mesh with the flavor of 2e' are entirely lame when your only really discussing the conversion of 2e mechanics into 3e anyhow. If anything, most of the more complete systems out there for 3e AB (Xlore's as the primary example, heck, even Struts) actually hold truer to the flavor of 2e than the 2e mechanics were able to.
You're missing the point. Nothing, and I do mean nothing, states anywhere, that any template, PrC, etc from other books can only be used for NPCs just because it's not from the PHB. Heck, bout the only time this rule is contradicted is in the DMG with the NPC classes, and even those are allowed to be used as other PC classes if you want.
Yet again I never said that PCs could not be anything from the MM or any other source. What I said are those sourse aren't intially geared to be PCs in a standard campaign.
Let me qoute you something from a little book called the 3.5 DMG.
PG172 under Monsters as Races:
"While every monster in the MM has the statistics that a player would need to play the creature as a character, most monsters are not suitable as PCs"
Also on PG 173 under Crating New Races:
"While the creatures in the MM make for interesting PC racial choices, thats not really what they were made for. Most were made to be opponents for the PCs (which is why they're monsters)"
And a bit further down:
"Monsters in the MM weren't created to be PC races and shouldn't be used as models for anything other than monsters and NPCs"
It really doesn't spell it out any clearer than that.
To reiterate, I NEVER said that PCs couldn't be anything from the MM. Just that it is not advised in the typical campaign setting.
Who said anything about allowing a vampire to hang out with a paladin. In case you didn't notice or weren't aware, there aren't any paladins here.
Yes, and I'm also aware that there are no vampires either. This was an example to drive home and make a point.
Just because a player wants to be something doesn't mean you have to let them especially if it jeopardize the integrity of a campaign. If a player trys to become something let them. This doesn't mean they will actually succeed.
I mean honestly. If a DS player wanted to create a spelljamming ship would let them? Or more appropriately, would you let them succeed in successfully making one and flying off to wild space and back for the rest of your campaign? Reading what I've seen posted here I'm sure a few will answer "yes". But hey, thats your campaign. Run it the way you like.
My point is you shouldn't be afraid to say no to your PCs once in awhile.
All of your examples of things to say no to, are things that don't exist in this setting. Vampires, Paladins, Spelljamming, etc. are not a core part of Dark Sun... Advanced Being metamorphisis is.
Which intially I feel is a NPC mechanic. And as I've stated in previous posts, if PCs get to that level of play after many years of campaign play and it doesn't directly interfere with your campaign I guess that becoming one isn't out of the question. I never said that they couldn't become one .
There are vampires, spelljamming, and paladins in other settings. What I was getting at was just because their in those settings isn't the grounds for PCs to become a vampire, or create a spelljamming ship when the goal of the campaign isn't geared towards that.
I'm with Jaanos, on this one:
What I find somewhat ironic about this whole issue is the way it is being dealt with. We are a community, and there are diverse opinions within it.
And go with my usual response of: if it works in your campaign, use it. If it doesn't, don't.
I'm with Mach on this one:
Wow, Flip gives only a very brief description of how the team is handling advanced beings, and all the sudden its broken and flawed? Quite presumptuous. I think I'll wait and see the entirety of how its being handled, then I'll judge its merits.
I'll see what Athas.org comes up with before I pass judgement. Frankly, I've been using my rules since 3.0 came out, so my players probably wouldn't like a shift in rules at this point.
As far as PCs and NPCs go, I'm with Nyt on the fact that a PC should be able to do anything an NPC can, and likewise the other way around. Does that mean they always should? That's a question for individual GMs.
In short: EVERYONE CHILL THE HELL OUT. This board is here to express opinions. What works in your campaign may not work in someone else's. Stop taking these issues so personally - this is a game, fer god's sake. If you're taking it this seriously, you need to take a deep breath, step out into the sunshine, compose yourself, and remember IT'S ONLY A FREAKIN' GAME.
It seems recently that every post is degenerating into arguments of "my idea's more righteous than yours." Take what you like and leave behind what you don't. Leave it at that...
...Unless someone says that Dregoth is more cool than Nibenay: Everyone knows Nibenay is cooler.
There's no rainbow emoticon, so I'll just give you all cotton candy:
As far as PCs and NPCs go, I'm with Nyt on the fact that a PC should be able to do anything an NPC can, and likewise the other way around. Does that mean they always should? That's a question for individual GMs.
Never said they couldn't just that the standard is they normally would not be able to unless the individual DM allowed. Thats what my entire point was.
But heh, everyone was to caught up in thinking the rules say with out a shadow of a doubt that the standard is that a PC can be anything if they so choose, period, end of story. Which really isn't the case. I was just defending my stance.
I'm not going to sit idly by when people are telling me I'm blatantly wrong when the rules back up my opinion.
DM's jugdement call when everything is said and done though.
Never said they couldn't just that the standard is they normally would not be able to unless the individual DM allowed. Thats what my entire point was.
Read my earlier posts, please.
Read my earlier posts, please.
extremely helpful. Thanks
All right, I get it: you're a little defensive right now. The earlier posts have me defending you, in case you hadn't noticed. I'm still doing so, so lighten up.
Yeah your right. Sorry Bro, my B.
Originally posted by Sysane
Yet again I never said that PCs could not be anything from the MM or any other source. What I said are those sourse aren't intially geared to be PCs in a standard campaign.
And yet again, you're missing my point of me pointing out to you that you are simply mistaken.
PG172 under Monsters as Races:
"While every monster in the MM has the statistics that a player would need to play the creature as a character, most monsters are not suitable as PCs"
Note the key word of most. There's quite a bit of stuff in there that can be played. Gobins, orcs, kobolds, etc. Note also that I am using this as a general example and not trying to make it a specific DS example like some on here have failed to recognize.
Also on PG 173 under Crating New Races:
"While the creatures in the MM make for interesting PC racial choices, thats not really what they were made for. Most were made to be opponents for the PCs (which is why they're monsters)"
WotC backpeddle since they opened up a can of worms that they weren't expecting to open up.
While we are quoting the DMG:
Pg. 171 Under New Races
"You can give your players new race options either by using creatures from the Monster Manual or new creatures from your own design. In either case, handle this radical change to the campaign with care."
Pg. 172-173 Further goes into listing what critters from the MM could be used as PCs, giving their LAs and everything. Also goes on to say that when in doubt on creating new races use the MM as a guideline.
To reiterate, I NEVER said that PCs couldn't be anything from the MM. Just that it is not advised in the typical campaign setting.
Unfortunately I think we are both right at this point.
Originally posted by Sysane
Just because a player wants to be something doesn't mean you have to let them especially if it jeopardize the integrity of a campaign.
I have also stated that if it in any way, screws with the flavor of the campaign setting, then I probably won't allow it. Allowing paladins and vampires into Athas, etc.
If this wasn't clear, then I hope it is now.
I mean honestly. If a DS player wanted to create a spelljamming ship would let them? Or more appropriately, would you let them succeed in successfully making one and flying off to wild space and back for the rest of your campaign? Reading what I've seen posted here I'm sure a few will answer "yes". But hey, thats your campaign. Run it the way you like.
Now you are just trying to pick a fight. No one has said that, and you are yet again missing the point.
To use a DS example, if player A wants to play say an elf, and player B wants to play a halfling, then I will allow both in the group, but you know what, you better roleplay out the racial prejudices each has against each other (even if this leads them to becoming friends or whatever later).
To use non-DS examples: If one player wanted to play god, and another satan, or one wanted to play jesus christ, or another the antichrist, I will allow it. HOWEVER, you better be able to roleplay the differences out, and I can guarantee that someone is going to leave in a body bag, or just leave the group altogther, doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed, esp if one of them can disguise who they really are.
I'm all for allowing anything that will spark a good roleplaying encounter or two, as long as it doesn't effect the flavor and the balance of the campaign setting.
Two cases in point:
1) I've witnessed a group of good guys functioning quite nicely with a NE wizard in the group. How was this accomplished? No one knew his alignment till the very second he backstabbed them. Sure they had their ideas on what he might really be about, but it still didn't stop them from roleplaying it out. From the other party members questioning him, from the wizard putting on a good story to persuade them he was genuine, etc. They still had their doubts, but didn't realize it till the bitter end.
2) In my last epic FR campaign, I've actually allowed a paladin of Torm (or was it Tyr?) who was all about detecting lies and untruths, be in the same group as an assasin-rogue type of character that was a worshipper of Shar. Along with another character that was all about being a good bluffer. That had it's issues becausee the PC playing the paladin didn't understand the true nature on how bluff worked and had made his character based on player information, which he should have not played on (which is why I don't allow players to talk about their characters anymore before the game has started), but in the end it worked out. The player playing the paladin realized he wouldn't work well in this group, left, and brought in a new character.All of this was done through ROLEPLAYING though, had nothing to do with powergaaming like someone else mentioned earlier.
My point is you shouldn't be afraid to say no to your PCs once in awhile.
I agree, and I'm not, I say no to my players on a regular basis, especially when playing in Athas...
Originally posted by Dawnstealer
In short: EVERYONE CHILL THE HELL OUT.
Bah, it's a debate. I'm not taking it anywhere near as emotional or personal as people think.
Besides, I'm just as hard headed as Sysane is when I know I am right, probably why we are butting horns like two rams in heat fighting over the only ewe in existance.
...Unless someone says that Dregoth is more cool than Nibenay: Everyone knows Nibenay is cooler.
I like good ol Nib, he's probably #3 on my list, but Dregoth would hand him his arse any day of the week and thrice on Sunday.
Bah! I want an eggroll instead.
/me chases after some Asian women
And yet again, you're missing my point of me pointing out to you that you are simply mistaken.
I'm not understanding what you think I'm mistaken about? That the MM creatures are core races that players can choose? I have no doubt in my mind that I'm not in wrong in that account. Are they an option if the DM allows it? Sure I'll agree with that.
Note the key word of most. There's quite a bit of stuff in there that can be played. Gobins, orcs, kobolds, etc. Note also that I am using this as a general example and not trying to make it a specific DS example like some on here have failed to recognize.
As you pointed out, yes there is a table that lists the degree in dificulty in intergrating the non-core races as PCs into the campaign if the DM goes that route. Gobins, orcs, etc are the easier ones to insert. As in my vampire example they are on the very difficult end of the scale to make as PCs.
WotC backpeddle since they opened up a can of worms that they weren't expecting to open up.
This just appears to be your stance and assumption of WotC intentions.
"You can give your players new race options either by using creatures from the Monster Manual or new creatures from your own design. In either case, ahndle this radical change to the campaign with care."
This statement just proves further that these "radical changes" are non standard and the DMs option and discretion. Which I've agree with all along.
Unfortunately I think we are both right at this point.
I can live with that
Besides, I'm just as hard headed as Sysane is when I know I am right, probably why we are butting heads like two rams in heat fighting over the only sheep in existance.
Good point. ;)
Originally posted by Sysane
Never said they couldn't just that the standard is they normally would not be able to unless the individual DM allowed. Thats what my entire point was.
But heh, everyone was to caught up in thinking the rules say with out a shadow of a doubt that the standard is that a PC can be anything if they so choose, period, end of story. Which really isn't the case. I was just defending my stance.
I'm not going to sit idly by when people are telling me I'm blatantly wrong when the rules back up my opinion.
DM's jugdement call when everything is said and done though.
But the standard, in the books themselves, is that anything is allowed, it's up to the DM to disallow it. There is a very subtle difference there.
Now you are just trying to pick a fight. No one has said that, and you are yet again missing the point.
Nah, I was just trying to drive my point home with this statement.
I have no issue with inner party conflict. That makes for good role playing. My issue is allowing non standard races for PCs unless the campaign is designed to be.
Originally posted by az_zel
As long as the process is hard (and I mean extremely hard; I liked the original 20/20 + 10 2e idea) and involved (some nice fluff) then I would be happy with the system. AB's are the pinnacle of what a PC can achieve with a ton (TONS) of work, so although it should not be completely impossible, they should definetly have to struggle for it. Otherwise, your campaign would be full of both dragons and avangions.
Believe me when I say, the Advanced Beings aren't something just anyone casually starts and completes and moves on about. First, there's the whole epic spell issue. Then, there's surviving the epic spell, then there's making the requirements to advance in the prestige class (of which, the 9th level arcane spells/6th level psionic powers is a part of), then there is the next, more powerful epic spell, researching, developing, casting, surviving, repeat 2 more times. Believe me, the surviving isn't all that easy. I give a 50/50 odds of survival for the first spell to a 17 wizard/11 psion attempting to cast the spell. Better odds if you are higher level, worse odds if you are lower level - with my own write-ups. But, it is possible for a person to potentially achieve it at level 21 with the Carebrmancer class, but the odds are a 75% chance he's dead. If he wants to do it, more power to him, but to me, that really isn't good odds. Then again, 50% chance really isn't good odds to me either. Maybe it might be in the character's favor to wait a few levels, to better their odds of survival.
Of course, I add in other elements, that people apparently blow off, or don't think about. How likely is it that a character, honestly, would discover the Dragon Metamorphosis process? I mean, are the Sorcerer-Kings exactly handing out fliers on it for characters who reach epic levels? Look, I know of one non-Sorcerer-King Dragon - Farcluun. to me, this means the process is really unknown. Not only would the character have to research the spell, but the character would have to know it exists in the first place. How? Well the character could have possibly found out from Farcluun, or one of the Sorcerer-Kings, maybe. Or possibly as a rumor or legend from other Defilers - it's up to the DM. Heck, an entire campaign could be run just figuring out the honest truth about the process, with the secrets of the first spell being revealed at the end, or the DM could simply hand information to the players off the bat, and then has no right to complain when his players all want to become Dragons, Avangions, Spirits of the Land and Cleric-Elementals. I've had campaigns reach epic levels. I have yet to have had a character who discovered (or even started looking for) the path to transformation - and that campaign got to about level 36 or so before we just simply got tired of it.
Originally posted by xlorepdarkhelm
But the standard, in the books themselves, is that anything is allowed, it's up to the DM to disallow it. There is a very subtle difference there.
Pretty much what I was trying to point out, thanks Cliff.
I'm just burnt out on this debate and it's lovely work time, boo!
But the standard, in the books themselves, is that anything is allowed, it's up to the DM to disallow it. There is a very subtle difference there.
I'd have to disagree on this. The standard is the PHB, the Complete Book Series, and Campaign World Books. Its the DMs option to allow non standard PC races, classes, etc. Hell, the DM could even disallow core races and classes if he wanted. I'm not arguing that.
Yes the DMG gives the option to play creatures from MM and advises several times that its to be handled with care. Its an "option" not standard or the typical of a PC to be one of these races. Hence why its an option.
Originally posted by Sysane
Yes, and I'm also aware that there are no vampires either. This was an example to drive home and make a point.
So far, your point seems to be, you let your players do anything, regardless of the flavor of your campaign, as long as the game mechanics allow for it, which is why you want the game mechanics to be designed in such a way that your PC's could not use it themselves. Which is funny, because you tell others to tell their PC's no, and we do, yet you are fighting to have the mechanics reflect that no permanently, and effectively cut off those DM's who do allow for players to become Advanced Beings, just because you feel that characters have no place in it.
Just because a player wants to be something doesn't mean you have to let them especially if it jeopardize the integrity of a campaign. If a player trys to become something let them. This doesn't mean they will actually succeed.
Thanks for making my argument for me. Just because a player wants to be somethng doesn't mean you have to let them. For me, I require the players to achieve it through the campaign, not by simply paging through a book, finding something cool and pointing to it, while saying "I want this!" If they cannot, through roleplaying the hell outta their character, attain what they desire (and thus, keeping the campaign flavor intact) they simply don't get it. It's a real simple rule. It's the same basic rule I use for making characters that are non-standard. I don't outlaw them completely, I require a background & character who is developed well enough to convince me that he can work in the grou, if the player doesn't want to do that, or is incapable of doing it, they have to pretty much stick to the standard steriotypes.
I mean honestly. If a DS player wanted to create a spelljamming ship would let them? Or more appropriately, would you let them succeed in successfully making one and flying off to wild space and back for the rest of your campaign? Reading what I've seen posted here I'm sure a few will answer "yes". But hey, thats your campaign. Run it the way you like.
What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Honestly, you are being very argumentative here. This is known as a Complex Question: "Two otherwise unrelated points are conjoined and treated as a single proposition. The reader is expected to accept or reject both together, when in reality one is acceptable while the other is not. A complex question is an illegitimate use of the "and" operator." You are stating that people who accept the newer idea for Dragons also accept that characters can build spelljamming ships on dark Sun. The two points are mutually exclusive, and have nothing to do with each other. What you are apparently incapable of seeing is - just because the rulesystem mechanics allow for something to happen, that doesn't mean there can't be some roleplaying method to stop or inhibit players, or you can simply tell them no. This way, DM's that want to tell their players yes can, and those that don't, have that option as well.
My point is you shouldn't be afraid to say no to your PCs once in awhile.
Yet your argument seeims to imply you are incapable of doing that, which is why you want the rulesystem mechanics for Advanced Beings to be set in such a way that only NPC's could take them period. 3/3.5e is all about knocking down those barriers, and providing a lot of options for a campaign, rather than restricting players from being able to do anything out of te ordinary. If you want those restrictions, go back to 2E, that edition was all about restricting and limiting players to predefined concepts - classes, races, kits - all complete concepts, all unable to be broken away from mechanically without breaking the 2E system. But if that's what you are after, then more power to you.
Originally posted by Sysane
I'd have to disagree on this. The standard is the PHB, the Complete Book Series, and Campaign World Books. Its the DMs option to allow non standard PC races, classes, etc. Hell, the DM could even disallow core races and classes if he wanted. I'm not arguing that.
Yes the DMG gives the option to play creatures from MM and advises several times that its to be handled with care. Its an "option" not standard or the typical of a PC to be one of these races. Hence why its an option.
It's the DM's OPTION. Now, let's look. Yup, the mechanics allow for it, and it's up to the DM to allow and disallow it. he mechanics don't blatantly force a DM to not use it, without redesighing the mechanics. Your whole case is thus an excersize in futility, as you are making the case for making the mechanics be the means to make it inaccessable to players, but the mechanics of alternate races and options for 3/3.5e are very much not the means for stopping it - that is left to the DM. The gamesystem designers are not forcing their will on the DM that things MUST go one way, they leave it as an option. Period.
So far, your point seems to be, you let your players do anything, regardless of the flavor of your campaign, as long as the game mechanics allow for it, which is why you want the game mechanics to be designed in such a way that your PC's could not use it themselves. Which is funny, because you tell others to tell their PC's no, and we do, yet you are fighting to have the mechanics reflect that no permanently, and effectively cut off those DM's who do allow for players to become Advanced Beings, just because you feel that characters have no place in it.
You would be wrong in this assumption. I'm not fighting for mechanics that stop players from being anything. My point was that not everything should be open to PC just because its there.
This discussion ceased being about ABs and game mechanics long ago.
Thanks for making my argument for me. Just because a player wants to be somethng doesn't mean you have to let them. For me, I require the players to achieve it through the campaign, not by simply paging through a book, finding something cool and pointing to it, while saying "I want this!" If they cannot, through roleplaying the hell outta their character, attain what they desire (and thus, keeping the campaign flavor intact) they simply don't get it. It's a real simple rule. It's the same basic rule I use for making characters that are non-standard. I don't outlaw them completely, I require a background & character who is developed well enough to convince me that he can work in the grou, if the player doesn't want to do that, or is incapable of doing it, they have to pretty much stick to the standard steriotypes.
Thanks for reiterating what I just said. This has been my point all long.
What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Honestly, you are being very argumentative here. This is known as a Complex Question: "Two otherwise unrelated points are conjoined and treated as a single proposition. The reader is expected to accept or reject both together, when in reality one is acceptable while the other is not. A complex question is an illegitimate use of the "and" operator."
Bro, no one cares about the correct formula on how to debate something. All this does is take up space which people brush over. We understand, your wicked smart! This contributes nothing to the thead.
My spelljammer example was to drive a point across. Thats all.
Yet your argument seeims to imply you are incapable of doing that, which is why you want the rulesystem mechanics for Advanced Beings to be set in such a way that only NPC's could take them period. 3/3.5e is all about knocking down those barriers, and providing a lot of options for a campaign, rather than restricting players from being able to do anything out of te ordinary. If you want those restrictions, go back to 2E, that edition was all about restricting and limiting players to predefined concepts - classes, races, kits - all complete concepts, all unable to be broken away from mechanically without breaking the 2E system. But if that's what you are after, then more power to you.
I've agreed several times that if the DM allows it, sure a PC can be it. All I did was state that I don't think PC have any business being a AB IMO. Never did I say "I think the AB mechanic should be made in such a way so that only NPC can be one and alienates the PC".
You've been missing the whole point of my posts. Sorry.
IMHO Dark Sun is a high-psionic campaign. If ABs are allowed with a "able to manifest 6th level powers" prerequisite it would lower psionics (IMHO). Only the "masters" in both ways should be allowed to become an AB, means "ability to cast 9th level spells and to manifest 9th level powers". Of course ABs should be epic, so other prerequisites must be aplied, but IMHO 9th level powers and 9th spells are a must .
* It's only 6th level manifestations, so that Psychic warriors can actually qualify for the transformations -- For some of the sorcerer kings, Psywarrior fits far better than Psion.
I don't why. Maybe because of SKs need some fighter skills? I don't know, but this should be part of a "Champion of Rahjat" PrC.
Originally posted by Sysane
I'd have to disagree on this. The standard is the PHB, the Complete Book Series, and Campaign World Books.
Actually, the standard is the core books, PHB, DMG, MM. Anything above and beyond that is not standard.
So I disagree with your assumption there.
It's the DM's OPTION. Now, let's look. Yup, the mechanics allow for it, and it's up to the DM to allow and disallow it. he mechanics don't blatantly force a DM to not use it, without redesighing the mechanics. Your whole case is thus an excersize in futility, as you are making the case for making the mechanics be the means to make it inaccessable to players, but the mechanics of alternate races and options for 3/3.5e are very much not the means for stopping it - that is left to the DM. The gamesystem designers are not forcing their will on the DM that things MUST go one way, they leave it as an option. Period.
Yet again, never did I say that any mechanic should be in place that would only allow things to be NPC oriented. All I said was that most of the MM material was ment for NPCs with the option of the DM to allow it to be played by a PC at their own discretion.
The DMG clearly pointed this out with the statment of:
"While the creatures in the MM make for interesting PC racial choices, thats not really what they were made for. Most were made to be opponents for the PCs (which is why they're monsters)"
How can you argue this?
Savage Species was made to allow PC to become some of the MM races, but at gradual pace. With creatures abilities gained thru advancement.
Originally posted by Bengeldorn
Ok. I've followed this thread a while and missed one point.
IMHO Dark Sun is a high-psionic campaign. If ABs are allowed with a "able to manifest 6th level powers" prerequisite it would lower psionics (IMHO). Only the "masters" in both ways should be allowed to become an AB, means "ability to cast 9th level spells and to manifest 9th level powers". Of course ABs should be epic, so other prerequisites must be aplied, but IMHO 9th level powers and 9th spells are a must.
Except that the Champions, and now the few that are left and SMs, were/are all about being masters of defiling with psionics enhancing that. Much like the way psionic enhancements were and will probably continue to be.
Originally posted by Bengeldorn
Ok. I've followed this thread a while and missed one point.
IMHO Dark Sun is a high-psionic campaign. If ABs are allowed with a "able to manifest 6th level powers" prerequisite it would lower psionics (IMHO). Only the "masters" in both ways should be allowed to become an AB, means "ability to cast 9th level spells and to manifest 9th level powers". Of course ABs should be epic, so other prerequisites must be aplied, but IMHO 9th level powers and 9th spells are a must .
I second that point. Psionics are one of the most important if not defining qualities of DS. I feel like they should definetly not play second fiddle to magic in this process.
Actually, the standard is the core books, PHB, DMG, MM. Anything above and beyond that is not standard.
Bro, this is just being nit picky. I pruposely went out of my way not to use the word "core". By standard I mean PC standards. Books with the intent to be used by the player for character creation. MM and DMG are ment for the DMs use.
Originally posted by Sysane
Bro, this is just being nit picky. I pruposely went out of my way not to use the word "core". By standard I mean PC standards. Books with the intent to be used by the player for character creation. MM and DMG are ment for the DMs use.
Alright, my bad.
But then Savage Species gets thrown into that mix as well by that definition.
Which then opens up the MM to that as well. :D
But then Savage Species gets thrown into that mix as well by that definition.
Yeah, but that book went of its way to "make" MM creatures PC playable. They staggered when most of those races get their abilities. A centuar from SS is vastly different from one in MM.
I also think SS is a bit broken IMO. But thats a whole other issue.
Originally posted by Sysane
Yeah, but that book went of its way to "make" MM creatures PC playable. They staggered when most of those races get their abilities. A centuar from SS is vastly different from one in MM.
But according to your defintion, the book is legit, because it is all about character creation. Doesn't matter that said character creation comes from examples that are in the MM.
3.5 later came out and pretty much made SS obsolete, but at least you can still use the breakdown method if needed.
Originally posted by Bengeldorn
Ok. I've followed this thread a while and missed one point.
IMHO Dark Sun is a high-psionic campaign. If ABs are allowed with a "able to manifest 6th level powers" prerequisite it would lower psionics (IMHO). Only the "masters" in both ways should be allowed to become an AB, means "ability to cast 9th level spells and to manifest 9th level powers". Of course ABs should be epic, so other prerequisites must be aplied, but IMHO 9th level powers and 9th spells are a must .
I don't why. Maybe because of SKs need some fighter skills? I don't know, but this should be part of a "Champion of Rahjat" PrC.
Well, with the +1 manifester level/+1 spellcaster level each level of Advanced Being, your point becomes more or less pointless. Plus, due to a mechanics problem with 3/3.5E, requiring such a heafty toll on Manifester and Spellcaster classes results in substantially weakened characters. Multiclassing works as written for non spellcasters/manifester. However, when dealing with spellcasters/manifesters, it cripples the characters. You an either take my word for it, or check it yourself. A 20 Wizard/20 Psion will be grossly overpowered by a 40 Wizard, or hell, even a 30 Wizard (or Psion). A 40th level character will be able to be defeated by a 30th level character, due to how spell/power resistances, and DC's works. This doesn't work. Now, you cannot completely get rid of one or the other, or else it won't quite mesh up correctly. So, there's a comprimise - which was 6th level Psionics and 9th level Magic.
Why did I come up with it like that? Contrary to popular belief, it was not because of Psychic Warriors - that was merely a convinience. It was because, in order to not totally screw the character, it's necessary that both abilities are not maximum - once again, before you argue with me on this, I strongly recomment playtesting it, or sifting around on boards where people are constantly talking about it. WotC even acknowledged this problem within the book Unearthed Arcana, where they provided a means for caster level/manifester level to keep increasing even when you aren't raising that class, to help mitigate the effects.
So, one had to be lowered (or else, the whole idea of a character who is the most powerful spellcater/manifester is really thrown out of whack by requiring a max of both at the beginning, simply because of the rules mechanics problems and limitations). Well, in every reference material for 2E I read on Dragons, Avangions, Sorcerer-Kings, etc., they are always referred to as having powerful *magic*, sure, their psionics are also mentioned, but mostly it is Magic. Even the term "Sorcerer-King" is not "Psionic-King" - it's "Dragon Magic", not "Dragon Psionics", and so forth. I decided to work with the idea that Psionics are used to enhance magic with them, and therefore, are secondary to their Magic. So, keeping with the flavor of the setting, based on the books (both novels and game books) from 2E Dark Sun, I went with the idea that psionics should be the one to take the hit, so as to not cripple the character who is working towards transforming into an Advanced Being (as outlined in the paragraph above).
Now, my question I put forth to myself was, if I was to reduce Psionics, how much would I lower it? Well, I went with 6th level because the Psychic Warrior did not exist in 2e, and I felt that it could be plausable that a Psychic Warrior could attempt the transformation. Besides, for certian Sorcerer-Kings, I rationalized, it makes more sense that they are Psychic Warriors, than Psions (like: Borys, Hamanu), of course, that was a means for me to explain how they got special, next-level swords from Rajaat, and nobody else did - what if the Scourge and the Scorcher were given to Borys and Hamanu (or rather, to Myron originally) to enhance their already more developed melee and martial abilities, while the others had more powerful psionics to their beck and call? This also means I think Irikos and Myron were Psychic Warriors, rather than Psions, for similar reasons.
Plus, I have, just like the Cerebrmancer class, that the Advanced Being Epic Prestige Class advances the character +1 level in their previous spellcasting class, and +1 level in their previous manifesting class. So, within 6 levels, the character is (as a psion) manifesting 9th level powers. Now. Let's see.... as a wizard/psion, this means the character could *potentially* (ignoring the Cerembrmancer PrC for the moment) begin the process at level 28 (17 Wizard/11 Psion). Now, let's look at what the official conversion rules booklet would say about converting a 2E character to 3E. You'd take the first class (of the dual-class), ie: highest level class, of course, since both would be the same, we'll just pick Wizard here. a 20 Wizard would transfer to 3E as a 20 Wizard. The second class, Psionicist, then transfers across at 1/3 of the levels. So the character becomes a 20 Wizard/6 Psion (rounding down), or Character Level 26. in my system, the character would be Character Level 28, two levels higher. I think I got pretty close to the mark on that one.
Sure, the character doesn't *begin* as the most powerful psionic character, but there's other bonuses to deal with here. First, they keep advancing in their psionic class, and become more powerful each level of Advanced Being. Second, I have special rules involving my rewrite of Psionic Enchantments, which are methods and means of combining magic and psionics together to enhance a spell or power as if it is both, plus making it substantially more difficult for people to resist them if they can only resist one or the other. It technically provides more rules for enhancing magic, including rules on how to augment spells using power points, above their normal cap. Plus, being able to metapsionically enhance spells is a handy feature, especially taken into account that it is pretty much on the fly.
The character becomes quite powerful, in actuality, due to several features of being an Advanced Being, much less a Dragon - which also adds in Dragon Magic - that wonderful ability to rip the life energy of animals out in order to enhance their spells even more, the double-whammy, as a player called it, he kills by casting his spell, and then kills more with the spell.
Originally posted by Sysane
A centuar from SS is vastly different from one in MM.
I don't have the book with me, but not sure what you mean here.
Don't recall that being an issue in SS at all, just an issue on how they were broken up to begin with.
But according to your defintion, the book is legit, because it is all about character creation. Doesn't matter that said character creation comes from examples that are in the MM.
Well I guess you got me there. ECL would play a factor, but I guess it would be allowble. I'd still use DM judgement on some of the material because lots of the things in it are busted.
Originally posted by Sysane
Yet again, never did I say that any mechanic should be in place that would only allow things to be NPC oriented. All I said was that most of the MM material was ment for NPCs with the option of the DM to allow it to be played by a PC at their own discretion.
The DMG clearly pointed this out with the statment of:
"While the creatures in the MM make for interesting PC racial choices, thats not really what they were made for. Most were made to be opponents for the PCs (which is why they're monsters)"
How can you argue this?
Savage Species was made to allow PC to become some of the MM races, but at gradual pace. With creatures abilities gained thru advancement.
Of course, you are missing the point, once again. The clearly, obvious PC races in the MM, where there are multiple subraces for it, like: Elf: Aquatic, Drow, Gray, Wild, Wood? The only two elf types from the PHB are High and Half. Even if you don't want Drow & Aquatic there, are you saying that Gray, Wood or Wild elves are any less valid a PC Race? Good lord man!
I mean, I can understand if you don't want them in your own campaign. That's not even the argument here. The argument is you feel they shouldn't even be an option, that WotC apparently wasted a lot of time making racial stats for races that most obviously were not meant to be PC races (yea, I mean, Wood Elves are so... well.... unbalancing in a typical D&D setting, sheesh!). The point of this whole thing is - we're providing an option to include Dragons and Avangions, as well as other Advanced Beings, for DM's who opt to allow PC's to achieve them, if they so desire. so, the argument you proposed that the characters should not be attainable by PC's because it's too much power for a PC to have, is missing the point.
I don't have the book with me, but not sure what you mean here.
I could be wrong, but I remember that SS broke down when a centuar got its racial abilites and had to advance in levels of centuar before they could with another class. Or that they could multi class between centuar race levels and a class level. Your not a centuar straight out of the MM.
It may have been another creature entirely but thought it was the centuar.
Originally posted by Sysane
Well I guess you got me there. ECL would play a factor, but I guess it would be allowble.
:D
I'd still use DM judgement on some of the material because lots of the things in it are busted.
Oh absolutely, don't disagree with you there. I was overuling LAs/ECLs on a daily basis when I ran my last campaign.
I think WotC has a good base with them going, they just need to be modified up or down a tad most times.
Originally posted by Sysane
I could be wrong, but I remember that SS broke down when a centuar got its racial abilites and had to advance in levels of centuar before they could with another class. Or that they could multi class between centuar race levels and a class level. Your not a centuar straight out of the MM.
It may have been another creature entirely but thought it was the centuar.
That's the option of racial class levels. note, the word, option. You don't need to use it. It was a method of starting a high-ECL race at lower levels. Personally, I don't like it, and don't use it. I use the ECL to gauge when a race is acceptable to be part of a group.
To remind you, this is your initial argument:
As I've stated in other posts on this topic. Players IMO don't have any buisness becoming full blown Advance Beings. It should be hard to become a Dragon or an Avangion as Dawn pointed out. If your campaign reaches that level of play (Through 8 years of play or more) I'd say it would be conceivable that a PC could become an Advance Being. Otherwise it sould be a NPC mechanic.
Originally posted by Sysane
I could be wrong, but I remember that SS broke down when a centuar got its racial abilites and had to advance in levels of centuar before they could with another class. Or that they could multi class between centuar race levels and a class level. Your not a centuar straight out of the MM.
Actually you're a bit confused I think.
Any of the monster breakdowns made you have to keep taking levels in that race until you had all the hit dice and abilities of a normal specimen of said race, as shown in the MM. These were also considered your class levels at the time too. You couldn't multiclass into another class until this was accomplished, something I was hoping they were going to do when word of this book first came out.
It may have been another creature entirely but thought it was the centuar.
Well, some of the breakdowns were a bit nerfed, I will give you that.
Originally posted by Sysane
Bro, no one cares about the correct formula on how to debate something. All this does is take up space which people brush over. We understand, your wicked smart! This contributes nothing to the thead.
When you stop using the blatant logical falacies to make a point, I'll stop pointing them out. it's not about being smart or not. It's about using incorrect means to prove a point, and blatantly false attempts to achieve your goals. Most logical Fallacies attempt to appeal to someone's emotions, one way or another, rather than providing proof, many also attempt to change the subject. These don't accomplish anything for the argument, but rather are means to attempt to come off "correct" in an argument, without actually being so.
My spelljammer example was to drive a point across. Thats all.
But there was no point to it.....!
I've agreed several times that if the DM allows it, sure a PC can be it. All I did was state that I don't think PC have any business being a AB IMO. Never did I say "I think the AB mechanic should be made in such a way so that only NPC can be one and alienates the PC".
You've been missing the whole point of my posts. Sorry.
Well, then, apparently, your initial argument and the basis for your later arguments no longer apply. Because you have been arguing against the newer idea for Advanced Beings, under the premise that PC's should not be able to reach them, and they should only be available for NPC's. Now, if that was changed, then I apologize, apparently, you changed tracks without warning.
Of course, you are missing the point, once again. The clearly, obvious PC races in the MM, where there are multiple subraces for it, like: Elf: Aquatic, Drow, Gray, Wild, Wood? The only two elf types from the PHB are High and Half. Even if you don't want Drow & Aquatic there, are you saying that Gray, Wood or Wild elves are any less valid a PC Race? Good lord man!
Are you just trying to continue this debate for arguement sake? Your just picking select examples that had been intergrated as standard races in other campaign worlds. Thats just asinine and have no real baring in this coversation
The original ABs required MASTERY of both arcane (or divine) AND psionic energies, even if they focused more on the arcane. This would imply that a psychic warrior should NOT have access, as 6th level powers are not mastery of psionics, they are utilization of psionics to bolster a primarily PHYSICALLY-focused class
Originally posted by Sysane
Your just picking select examples that had been intergrated as standard races in other campaign worlds. Thats just asinine and have no real baring in this coversation
Ok, let's find other races. Since apparently, I have to use a different set of rules than you. If it wasn't for the potion of being used as PC Races, why would the following entries have obvious, PC Ractial statistics blocks in them, with the heading "... AS CHARACTERS": Mind Flayers, Centaurs, Dopplegangers, Janni (Genie), Hill Giants, Stone Giants, Githyanki, Githzeri, Gnoll, Goblins, Grimlocks, Hobgoblins, Kobolds, Lycanthropes, Minotaur, Ogre, Ogre Mages, Orcs, Aasimir, Tiefling, Rakshasas, Satyrs, Pixies (Sprite), Troglodyte, Troll, Yuan-Ti Purebloods.
Why would there be all of these creatures with definite Racial statistics for a Character, under the heading of " AS CHARACTERS" in their description, if they were not intended as options for Players to make into Characters? Honestly!
Originally posted by kdyal
One thing about the 6th level manifestation being a requirement... Why not allow 6th level arcane manifestation for bards' sake?
Because Dark Sun Bards don't use magic. We're talking, after all, about the Athas.org version of things here, which I used for my own Advanced Being designs, and tha Athas.org bards don't use magic, just like the 2E Dark Sun bards don't use magic.
The original ABs required MASTERY of both arcane (or divine) AND psionic energies, even if they focused more on the arcane. This would imply that a psychic warrior should NOT have access, as 6th level powers are not mastery of psionics, they are utilization of psionics to bolster a primarily PHYSICALLY-focused class
Answered above. My lengthy, and detailed explanation as to how I came to the 6th level powers mechanic answered the questions you are proposing here.
As I've stated in other posts on this topic. Players IMO don't have any buisness becoming full blown Advance Beings. It should be hard to become a Dragon or an Avangion as Dawn pointed out. If your campaign reaches that level of play (Through 8 years of play or more) I'd say it would be conceivable that a PC could become an Advance Being. Otherwise it sould be a NPC mechanic.
Yes I remember what I wrote. All in the stance of my opinion. Right from the get go I said if the campaign reached that level of play it was conceivable a player could become an AB. Otherwise it should be a NPC mechanic.
The lich and vampire templates weren't originally created with the intent of them being applied to a PC later on. They were made to add to creatures inorder to challenge the PCs as they advanced in level.
Originally posted by Sysane
Yes I remember what I wrote. All in the stance of my opinion. Right from the get go I said if the campaign reached that level of play it was conceivable a player could become an AB. Otherwise it should be a NPC mechanic.
The lich and vampire templates weren't originally created with the intent of them being applied to a PC later on. They were made to add to creatures inorder to challenge the PCs as they advanced in level.
Ok, are you now assuming you know what the intent of the templates were? How do you know that it just happens, by pure coincidence, to be that PC's *can* take those templates, in an appropriate campaign, as opposed to there being at leas the considereation of that possibility from the people at Wizards of the Coast? The whole lich & vampire examples you've provided have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion, not because they don't exist in Dark Sun, but because you are making a point for something that is mutually exclusive to the argument about Advanced Beings, completely. Same with the Spelljammer reference, it's irrelevant to the discussion, unless you find some way to actually show the relevance of it. Until that time, I'm simply not even going to discuss with you on it, as it is an excercise in futility.
Originally posted by kdyal
One thing about the 6th level manifestation being a requirement... Why not allow 6th level arcane manifestation for bards' sake?
The original ABs required MASTERY of both arcane (or divine) AND psionic energies, even if they focused more on the arcane. This would imply that a psychic warrior should NOT have access, as 6th level powers are not mastery of psionics, they are utilization of psionics to bolster a primarily PHYSICALLY-focused class
Except that in all the literature, including alot of the actual accessories, like I and xlorep have pointed out, go on to describe how the champions, which some later became SMs, are in fact mostly powerful wizard masters that use their psionic abilities to enhance said wizard mastery. Only a few cases contradict this, and that's all the champions/warlords that got swords from Rajaat.
Otherwise, why did Rajaat teach his students preserving and defiling magic instead of mastering the way of psionics? I think if both were suppose to be equal, it would have mentioned him teaching his students psionics as well and getting them to master that side too, instead of picking students that had already had some mastery of psionics and teaching the wizardly arts to them as well and getting that side to where it was more powerful than the former psionic side. This only being true for the champions of course.
God I hope that makes sense, damn obscure hosting calls.
Why would there be all of these creatures with definite Racial statistics for a Character, under the heading of " AS CHARACTERS" in their description, if they were not intended as options for Players to make into Characters? Honestly!
Bro, your beating a dead kank. The DMG (which I'm sick of quoting) reads:
"While every monster in the MM has the statistics that a player would need to play the creature as a character, most monsters are not suitable as PCs."
Yes the creatures you listed are there if you wish to incorporate them into the a campaign as PCs and talks about the varying difficulty of intergrating them.
Its also states that the Difficult and Very Difficult sections are to problematic for most campaigns.
You keep misconstruing the fact that I'm not saying that MM creatures "can't" be PC where I'm really stating "they normally are not".
Prior to all that it has a disclaimer that you can use MM creatures in the game but is a "radical change" to the campaign.
Wouldn't "radical" strike you as meaning beyond the norm or the scope of a regular games setting?
Ok, are you now assuming you know what the intent of the templates were? How do you know that it just happens, by pure coincidence, to be that PC's *can* take those templates, in an appropriate campaign, as opposed to there being at leas the considereation of that possibility from the people at Wizards of the Coast? The whole lich & vampire examples you've provided have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion, not because they don't exist in Dark Sun, but because you are making a point for something that is mutually exclusive to the argument about Advanced Beings, completely. Same with the Spelljammer reference, it's irrelevant to the discussion, unless you find some way to actually show the relevance of it. Until that time, I'm simply not even going to discuss with you on it, as it is an excercise in futility.
Ah, the pattened Xlorep" trying to make the poster look like a fool when he really can't make his point" move.
Yeah your right. Liches, vampire, ABs? All templates of a sort. Positivily nothing to do with each other. What was I thinking
Originally posted by Sysane
Ah, the pattened Xlorep" trying to make the poster look like a fool when he really can't make his point" move.
Yeah your right. Liches, vampire, ABs? All templates of a sort. Positivily nothing to do with each other. What was I thinking
I think we just all need to move on at this point. LOL
I've done a good job trying to make my point at least, even if I was beating my head against the wall the whole time, heh.
Originally posted by Sysane
Bro, your beating a dead kank. The DMG (which I'm sick of quoting) reads:
"While every monster in the MM has the statistics that a player would need to play the creature as a character, most monsters are not suitable as PCs."
But not every creature has racial statistics blocks specifically for "as characters", so your argument is irrelevant to this.
Yes the creatures you listed are there if you wish to incorporate them into the a campaign as PCs and talks about the varying difficulty of intergrating them.
Its also states that the Difficult and Very Difficult sections are to problematic for most campaigns.
You keep misconstruing the fact that I'm not saying that MM creatures "can't" be PC where I'm really stating "they normally are not".
No, you stated that the creatures in the MM are not for PC's to make characters from, which is a fallacy.
Prior to all that it has a disclaimer that you can use MM creatures in the game but is a "radical change" to the campaign.
Wouldn't "radical" strike you as meaning beyond the norm or the scope of a regular games setting?
No, "radical" would mean going beyond the norm or the scope of a setting. Like, for instance, in the ToA, Jozials are playable, and have character statistic blocks. It seems "radical" to me, because they are rare, For my campaigns, this means the player better give me a damned good reason, through a filled out character and background, as to why I'd allow such a thing in my campaign.
Originally posted by Sysane
Ah, the pattened Xlorep" trying to make the poster look like a fool when he really can't make his point" move.
Now, the flames are set. This is a fallacy known as "Attacking the Person", which is also known as argumentum ad hominem. It also is a "Style over Substance" fallacy. You basically have attempted to change the subject, by attacking me personally. Your personal views about me personally, or your perception as to the style of my writing, has absolutely nothing to do with the subject. You are merely trying to change it, and incite a flame.
Yeah your right. Liches, vampire, ABs? All templates of a sort. Positivily nothing to do with each other. What was I thinking
AB's are not templates. Using such a broad definition, you might as well throw PRestige Classes, Base Classes, heck, anything else in the gamesystem at it. Once again, you are causing yet another fallacy here, to incite a flame - the fallacy of "Too Broad Definition", where you are defining Advanced Beings in amongst templates, which they are not.
Please, try again, I'm only trying to help you see where the other side is coming from, I'm not telling you that you can't do what you want in your campaign, merely trying to explain the reason and rationale used to come up with the methods I had used for developing my Advanced Beings. I would rather everyone understands where the other is coming from, even if we can't agree. For instance - I really don't have much of a problem with Dawnstealer, since both he and I understand each other, and have agreed to disagree on it. I'm not persicuting those who go against what my view on Advanced Beings are, I just really dislike when people use illogic in order to somehow pick at my proposal, and expect it to hold any weight. I also have been mildly annoyed that apparently, even sometimes with the same person, I'm having to repeat myself. But, at the same time, I understand that new people don't necessarily know all of the history. But still, repetition of an idea, thought, premise or proposal to the same person becomes redundant, and tends to show at least a mediocrum of disrespect to the person who is attempting to explain their side of the argument, by ignoring it when it is convinient.
:D
Originally posted by NytCrawlr
Well, at least we apparently are entertaining, since this thread is barely two days old and already has 584 views on it.
:D
Heh. And this is reply 100 for it as well....
Originally posted by xlorepdarkhelm
No, "radical" would mean going beyond the norm or the scope of a setting. Like, for instance, in the ToA, Jozials are playable, and have character statistic blocks. It seems "radical" to me, because they are rare, For my campaigns, this means the player better give me a damned good reason, through a filled out character and background, as to why I'd allow such a thing in my campaign.
You watch what you're saying about our jozhals, OK, epic-boy? :P
I just really dislike when people use illogic in order to somehow pick at my proposal, and expect it to hold any weight.
Bro, I haven't said a word about your AB mechanic in this thread. But we appreantly view the MM material differently. I view as a monster source for PCs to fight and maybe for possible PC races in unusal campaigns. You view it that as a catalog of PC races.
I'll agree to disagree. All we're doing is causing noise at this point.
:D
Originally posted by Kamelion
You watch what you're saying about our jozhals, OK, epic-boy? :P
I say we sick that jozhal pack we have contained on him.
:D
Anyways, here's some more fuel to the fire (I'll put them point by point for easy access):
1) You are correct that a base DS bard did not have magical abilities. However, once the DS bard crossed the "20th level threshhold," they did. Since this is pretty much the 2e equivalent of an epic level character, it would stand to reason that an epic DS bard would, indeed, have access to spellcasting abilities. You could write this off to their abilities as loremasters, I 'spose.
2) The Dragon Kings used psionics to focus their magical abilities, but their powers were listed as "Psionic Enchantments" and not pure spells. There's some wiggle room here, although I'd be willing to concede this point for the shear fact that my head hurts and this wall is damn hard.
3) Mastery of psionics would not be so unusual for the Champions. At the height of the Green Age, when Rajaat was seeking them out, Athas was at the absolute height of psionic achievement, probably meaning that anyone disciplined enough to be a magic user was probably already a psion (note I said "probably" - that's my escape clause. Just pointing it out now).
4) I took a shortcut around these prereqs by have a Lens Dragon that basically circumvents the typical rules.
5) It's been stated by a few others that an AB should have mastery of both psionics and magic. I tend to agree with this assessment as that was the spirit of the original. Believe me, the goal of Dragon Kings was probably (there it is again) to make the Dragon King as powerful as it could be. For me, at least, it makes more sense and is more loyal to the canon material that dragons have access to 9th level spells and powers. Maybe not 20/20, but high enough.
6) Xlor, you bring up a good point with the 30th level Epic wizard being more powerful than a 20/20 wiz/psion. I think, on it's own, that's debatable simply because that 30th level wizard would not have defenses against psionics (I use the "Psionics is different" rule). Even if this is disregarded, though, I simply would not give the 30th level wizard psionic enchantments (10th+ level spells). Since all the rules in the Epic Level Handbook are optional, they can be used or tossed as the GM wishes.
7) In my campaigns, though, I use "dragon magic" which is a limited wish as long as the dragon has its obsidian ball (uses limited by the level of the dragon and a few other stipulations). This gives the would-be dragon an enormous advantage to go along with it's physical abilities.
8) Can't think of anything to put here.
9) I think the big difference between our two systems, Xlor, is that yours is one method to solve all the problems and mine is four. I'm not saying either is better or worse, simply that the methods are different. I like my way, I see the creativity in your way. I'll just leave it at that.
10) Keep it civil, guys, and Xlor, if you whip out a term like argumentum ad hominem again, I'll have no choice but to resort to logical arguments using modus tollins and modus ponens and all that other crap I learned in Philosophy.
...And I thought I'd never get a chance to use it. :D
Originally posted by Dawnstealer
3) Mastery of psionics would not be so unusual for the Champions. At the height of the Green Age, when Rajaat was seeking them out, Athas was at the absolute height of psionic achievement, probably meaning that anyone disciplined enough to be a magic user was probably already a psion (note I said "probably" - that's my escape clause. Just pointing it out now).
Doesn't mean that they would have to be masters at it though, just enough training to give them the discipline needed that Rajaat was looking for.
Originally posted by Dawnstealer
Maybe I should have been a bit more controversial in some of my drawings?
Hell yeah!
You need a nude villichi in ever pic now.
Better yet, just do some of Nibenay templars.
The high level, nude, kind....All right, it was intended.
Originally posted by Dawnstealer
Believe it or not, nude figure drawing is something that I specialized in, in college. Best in my class, hands down.
Assumed so when I saw your portfolio. :D
A 20 Wizard/20 Psion will be grossly overpowered by a 40 Wizard, or hell, even a 30 Wizard (or Psion). A 40th level character will be able to be defeated by a 30th level character, due to how spell/power resistances, and DC's works.
...
It was because, in order to not totally screw the character, it's necessary that both abilities are not maximum
I agree with this (you can easily see it at a lower level by comparing a wiz20 to a wiz10/psi10), but I think it's interesting that it implies that it should be feasible in a high level campaign for a PC to become an AB. While requiring both 9th level spells and 9th level powers is a problem for PC's with 30-ish character levels, it's a not a problem for NPC's. In fact, I think it would be an interesting issue for epic-level PC's to have to sheperd around an NPC who was reaching towards becoming an AB.
Well, I went with 6th level because the Psychic Warrior did not exist in 2e, and I felt that it could be plausable that a Psychic Warrior could attempt the transformation. Besides, for certian Sorcerer-Kings, I rationalized, it makes more sense that they are Psychic Warriors, than Psions
While I like that Psychic Warriors can become AB's, to qualify they'd have to be wiz17/PyW16, which means that the process becomes difficult for PC's. While the Psychic Warrior levels might not be quite as weak as Psion levels would be, it's still an underpowered 30th level character who's going for AB via wizard and psychic warrior. (Maybe the special swords that the Rajaat gave to the champions that took the psychic warrior route gave them access to higher level powers?)
Going for AB with psychic warrior for the power access also means that you never get access to 7th, 8th, and 9th level powers. While SK's may arguably be more focused on magic than on psionics (I haven't read enough background cannon material to have a valid opinion on this), I sort-of expect them all to have access to to 9th level powers. If they went the psychic warrior route, no amount of manifester levels will ever get them powers above level 6.
Finally, I think it's worth noting (since I'm already rambling on) that while there are epic spells that are above level 9, with rules for how to make them up, there are no powers above level 9. Yes, you can eventually have plenty of power points to stack all sorts of meta-psionic feats and augmentation onto level 9 powers, but you'll never be able to create powers that do the same sorts of things as epic level spells. With that in mind, I don't think it's unusual that only 6th level powers are required vs. only requiring 6th level spells. If I have time (unlikely), I'd like to come up with a mechanic for using manifester levels / power points / special powers / whatever to allow AB's to cast more difficult epic spells. Since the idea of level 50+ spellcasters doesn't really jive with most people's ideas of Athas, using powers to cast more difficult epic spells effectively makes AB's even more powerful. Which is the whole idea behind them, IMHO.
Pneumatik
Originally posted by pneumatik
I like a lot of xlor's AB ideas. They made me think of a couple of things, though:
I agree with this (you can easily see it at a lower level by comparing a wiz20 to a wiz10/psi10), but I think it's interesting that it implies that it should be feasible in a high level campaign for a PC to become an AB. While requiring both 9th level spells and 9th level powers is a problem for PC's with 30-ish character levels, it's a not a problem for NPC's. In fact, I think it would be an interesting issue for epic-level PC's to have to sheperd around an NPC who was reaching towards becoming an AB.
I do think, that for the DM's that want to have it, that it should be feasable for a PC to attempt to become an AB. My system allows for the option. But, I personally play that information about AB's are so limited, and the sources of that information are not exactly willing to part with it (namely, Sorcerer-Kings), that it would be an epic undertaking just to discover the process, before actually achieving it. I don't exactly hand out fliers of information to my players as to every detail of my campaigns. Actually (and Nytcrawlr can testify to this little fact), I believe in a little bit of misinformation, or even simply not including certian details about things in the world, details that the average Athasian would not necessarily know about, like for instance, that all the Sorcerer-Kings are Dragons, or that Dragons are actually a transformational process that an epic spellcaster/manifester character could undertake. As far as they are concerned, The Dragon was unique, and was always The Dragon, and nothing else. They may have heard rumors that he's been killed, but then again, depending on where they are at, they may just be under the impression that he's just gone off somewhere, like Dragons are rumored to do, and all for the better.
While I like that Psychic Warriors can become AB's, to qualify they'd have to be wiz17/PyW16, which means that the process becomes difficult for PC's. While the Psychic Warrior levels might not be quite as weak as Psion levels would be, it's still an underpowered 30th level character who's going for AB via wizard and psychic warrior. (Maybe the special swords that the Rajaat gave to the champions that took the psychic warrior route gave them access to higher level powers?)
Going for AB with psychic warrior for the power access also means that you never get access to 7th, 8th, and 9th level powers. While SK's may arguably be more focused on magic than on psionics (I haven't read enough background cannon material to have a valid opinion on this), I sort-of expect them all to have access to to 9th level powers. If they went the psychic warrior route, no amount of manifester levels will ever get them powers above level 6.
True enough, the Psychic Warrior would be at a psionic disadvantage from a Psion. Of course, I have specialized rules for my Advanced Beings on what exactly "Psionic Enchantments" are, which are independant of Epic Spellcasting or Epic Manifesting, but can enhance both if available. The method behind my madness was a total rewrite on Psionic Enchantments, to make it something which Advanced Beings can use on *all* their spells and powers, from level 0 spells to epic, or level 1 powers to potentially epic. It's a method which they blur the line between them, and makes spells work like powers, and powers can work like spells. Metapsionic feats can be added to spells, metamagic potentially added to powers. There are also a set of special "psionic enchantments" that are uniqe to being psionic enchantments, and are not possible any other way (these would potentially be the psionic enchantments from 2e, restructured/rewritten to work for 3/3.5e, and their level adjusted based on where they would be placed in the new spell level system, up to and including epic).
Now, all Advanced Beings gain access to using "psionic enchantments" - this ability of mixing magic and psionics when they become Advanced Beings (they can combine the two supernatural powers that are normally separate from each other), and in order to become Advanced Beings, they only need Epic Spellcasting. Epic Manifesting also can be enhanced through the process (the psionic equivalent, as explained in the ELH), but is not mandatory. It also is not mandatory that 9th level psionics be attained in order to use this, as the primary focus is psionics enhancing magic, being used as a means to augment magic's power.
Beyond even that, there are specialized "dragon magic", "avangion magic", etc. that are special enhancements to magic (or rather, their psionic enchantments, as it were), that can even further bolster their formidable power beyond anything else. Dragons, for example, use psionically empowered flawless obsidian orbs, most of which they swallow eventually, to safeguard and carry with them (and thus, are the key weakness in their "dragon magic". Other Advanced Beings use other means. Once again, this does not demand 9th level powers.
But please, understand, those that *do* have 9th level powers, tend to have more power points, and can use more power points in a round, they also tend to be able to do even more with these abilities. So, those with more psionic power, can obtain even greater ability with this. But, that doesn't mean that Psychic Warriors, who are more limited in their psionics, can't become an advanced being either. It just means that you'd have a more martially-inclined Dragon on your hands. And, it's not like the Dragon isn't loaded with a bunch of martial attacks or anything.
Finally, I think it's worth noting (since I'm already rambling on) that while there are epic spells that are above level 9, with rules for how to make them up, there are no powers above level 9. Yes, you can eventually have plenty of power points to stack all sorts of meta-psionic feats and augmentation onto level 9 powers, but you'll never be able to create powers that do the same sorts of things as epic level spells. With that in mind, I don't think it's unusual that only 6th level powers are required vs. only requiring 6th level spells. If I have time (unlikely), I'd like to come up with a mechanic for using manifester levels / power points / special powers / whatever to allow AB's to cast more difficult epic spells. Since the idea of level 50+ spellcasters doesn't really jive with most people's ideas of Athas, using powers to cast more difficult epic spells effectively makes AB's even more powerful. Which is the whole idea behind them, IMHO.
Once again, I'm keeping Epic Spells and Epic Powers separate from the AB's, in so much as I do not wish to take away from the ELH, only add to it. Making Epic Spells and Epic Powers the province of Advanced Beings only, results in effectively limiting an Epic Wizard or Epic Psion, who according to the rules set down by WotC, have every right to be able to choose that feat and develop those spells and powers through research. Heck, I even make the first stage metamorphosis spell, which is necessary to be able to begin the process of the divergant Advanced Being transformations, is an Epic Spell. Now, if you have to be an Advanced Being in order to use Epic Spells, but the first spell to become an Advanced Being is an Epic Spell, this, to me, places a charactr into a Catch-22. And honestly, the first stage metamorphosis spell just doesn't seem right if it is simply a 9th level spell.
And, for the record, I do have a system for using power points to be able to cast more powerful epic spells. Thart is part of my revised form of the "psionic enchantments" which all Advanced Beings (and only Advanced Beings) can do.
Also, the Epic Level Handbook (ELH) does actually explain how to accomplish Epic Manifesting rules. They basicaly follow the same rules as Epic Spellcasting. As such, there are rules for making powers above level 9.
The method behind my madness was a total rewrite on Psionic Enchantments, to make it something which Advanced Beings can use on *all* their spells and powers, from level 0 spells to epic, or level 1 powers to potentially epic. It's a method which they blur the line between them, and makes spells work like powers, and powers can work like spells. Metapsionic feats can be added to spells, metamagic potentially added to powers.
I can see how one could write something like this without making it overly complicated and inventing lots of new rules (I never like making up more rules for the game). I'd be a little worried about overpowering AB's, but it may just balance out the straight classed wizard or psion's focus on one thing.
And, for the record, I do have a system for using power points to be able to cast more powerful epic spells. Thart is part of my revised form of the "psionic enchantments" which all Advanced Beings (and only Advanced Beings) can do.
I'm curious what you mechanic for this is. IMC, I was thinking of making up a 6th level power that any AB can learn. This power would allow the AB to develop epic level spells that require the caster to spend PP's to lower the spellcraft DC of the spell on a 1-1 basis. Looking at the table on page 92 of the ELH, this should be the same as applying the "ritual" mitigating factor to the spell, except 1) instead of spell levels, the AB has to spend PP's equivelent to manifesting a power of the same level as the ritual members would have to sacrifice a spell of, and 2) the caster of the spell (an AB) would spend the PP's itself, instead of having other individuals take part in the ritual.
Pneumatik
I could have this off, and I haven;'t really playtested it, but this was one of the features of "psionic enchantments" I was including. My Psionic Enchantment rules are really not too complicated, as basically it provides a means to use power points to augment spells, and how to make a spell or a power work like a spell and a power simultaneously, plus little details like handling metamagic and metaph\sionic (duplicate metamagic & metapsionics don't work together and are redundant - IE: Maximize Spell and Maximize Power used together only does one Maximize, the other is ignored. It also handles which is done first to the "psionic enchantment". As power points are actually rather important in the whole making a spell into a psionic enchantment, much less augmenting it above and beyond it's normal limits, Psychic Warriors do find themselves.... lacking on being able to do much with this - but, they make that up with being able to bash people better.
My Psionic Enchantment rules are really not too complicated, as basically it provides a means to use power points to augment spells, and how to make a spell or a power work like a spell and a power simultaneously, plus little details like handling metamagic and metaph\sionic (duplicate metamagic & metapsionics don't work together and are redundant - IE: Maximize Spell and Maximize Power used together only does one Maximize, the other is ignored. It also handles which is done first to the "psionic enchantment". As power points are actually rather important in the whole making a spell into a psionic enchantment, much less augmenting it above and beyond it's normal limits, Psychic Warriors do find themselves.... lacking on being able to do much with this - but, they make that up with being able to bash people better.
Thats sounds really cool. Do you have the mechanics for psionic enchantments in some kind of doc format?
Originally posted by Sysane
Thats sounds really cool. Do you have the mechanics for psionic enchantments in some kind of doc format?
Not currently. The newer revision on it (of which I mentioned) will be on my new website - which I've been working on getting built for a while now. Of course, it's all dependent on me actually getting my server back on the 'net too. I'd whip one up real quick, but am kinda still fighting off the last bits of this head cold I have, and am kinda being needed on other things right now.
Not currently. The newer revision on it (of which I mentioned) will be on my new website - which I've been working on getting built for a while now. Of course, it's all dependent on me actually getting my server back on the 'net too. I'd whip one up real quick, but am kinda still fighting off the last bits of this head cold I have, and am kinda being needed on other things right now.
So psionic enchantments work much like 3.5 psionics agumentations but its applied to spells?
Thats a really good mechanic. I'd like to see those rules when your site's back up.
Let'ss start right here:
I refuse to be held to an academic standard of debate ¡n regards to logic or critical thinking when you fail to display these attributes yourself.
Please reword your posts without bad arguments, lack of critical thinking and your own logical fallacies and I will contemplate your request.
You accused me of:
Appeal to popularity
Arguing from Ignorance
Using middle ground fallacy
Now let's look at your bad arguments and lack of logic, and total inability to display critical thinking.
You stated:
Please reword your argument without the logical fallacy in it, or back up your claim¨
This in it's self is a classic Ad Hominem. Instead of addressing the evidence for a particular position, a writer attacks the character or capabilities of the person providing the evidence¨
You have also made further Ad Hominem arguments when you stated:
"Honestly, there are several compromises, just apparently, not enough for you¨
Another even better example of you flagrant use of Ad Hominem arguments is this little gem:
"Which is being done, it's a real shame you won't see it. It is also a shame that you keep attempting to goad me into responding, because apparently you have some sort of problem with me personally, despite claims to the contrary¨
Now, not to dwell on that lack of logic, and that display of a total lack of critical thinking application, let me move onto your OWN appeal to Authority arguments:
"The community is playtesting athas.orgs works"¨
"It is covered, believe me¨
Your writing also ignores evidence to the contrary, and uses false a dichotomy argument. I could go on, but really, the energy would be wasted on you (it seems). So to re-iterate: I will not be held to an academic standard of argument / debate on this (or any other issue) unless you (or any other poster) first display those attributes. You have failed to display those attributes, and as demonstrated above, have yourself committed logical fallacies
Now, let's re-visit my post:
"What I find somewhat ironic about this whole issue is the way it is being dealt with¨
Personal opinion offered, on the basis of visible information. I'm not part of Athas.org; I don' know the inner workings. I only have their website, and this forum to go off.
"We are a community and there are diverse opinions within it¨
Indisputable Fact.
"It's very apparent that athas.org (from various posts in this and other threads) are taking a particular slant towards AB that many. Many people object too.¨
In this statement, I qualified the source of my observation (posts and threads). The brief stretches provided by athas.org so far do show your influence, not your model as a whole, but your influence. Maybe others had the same idea, but again, I'm basing it off the evidence I have access to. The second part is also fact, people do object to your model, or any variants of it. Sorry Xlor, it's true, you just can't please everyone
"I suppose what I¡¦m driving at is when athas.org release the rules and ask for feedback, this group of people will present their view and....????¨
Xlor, this is what is called a QUESTION. I was asking, when the AB rules are released, would athas.org take on feedback, even if the feedback attacks the model presented? Now IF I was to believe you, which I don¡¦t because you have been proven to lie (that's next) on occasion, then that question has been answered.
Now, briefly, you stated that you are willing to compromise. You have previously stated on this forum, and in a private message to me, that you see no need to compromise. So you lied in you post, in which you attacked me. But that's OK, I forgive you, you are passionate about your system, and deep down, you would love it if it was adopted wholesale, who wouldn't? But if I do believe your current post, it appears you have made some progress in taking on other peoples views. Moving on.
Next up I said:
"The only time I remember SEEING athas.org come back and say 'hey, we may have gotten it wrong, let's throw it open again' was on the defilers agonizing radius issue - if I'm wrong, and they have done this is the past, by all means point me in the right direction¨
This was me stating what I remember. Again, I asked for clarification. It is perfectly acceptable to say "I remember this, but if I'm wrong, show me¨
Then I said this:
"I can't see why a compromise can¡¦t be reach on the whole thing¨
Exactly what it is. A statement. Compromise can be reached, and if I was to believe your comments re: process happening (remembering that you have lied in the past about being willing to compromise) then I'm now satisfied that a compromise solution is / will being / be reached. If I don't like the compromise, that's fine too. And yes, you are right in saying that a compromise isn't always the best solution, but neither is an extreme position. Could we agree that CONSENEUS would be the preferred option?
The I went on to say:
"I know certain posters won't compromise because they think they are right (just as the ones who don't like that posters comments also think they are right)¨
First off, that's me avoiding an Ad Homiem. Secondly, I know this, because again, you have publicly stated (and privately as well) that you think you are right, and don¡t see a need to compromise. If your position on this has changed, that's great, and a welcomed by me.
Next I said:
"but personalities aside, this is an important issue for athas.org¨
Statement. Factual. If it weren't important, athas.org wouldn't be doing the conversion.
"Dare I say the most important? Advanced beings are a defining element of DS, and it's important that it's done right¨
Personal opinion, and factual statement: it is important that we get it (the process) right. Thatss what this whole post was about Xlor, the process and transparency. Weather I think the end product right is unimportant, what is important is the process by which the outcome is achieved. If it's an open, transparent, democratic process, and I don¡¦t like the result, I'd be happy with that. If it's a closed, murky and dictatorial process, I'm unlikely to feel very good towards the end product regardless of what it is.
I then went onto say:
"I don't know the inner workings of athas.org, but I'd like to think that on this issue they maybe willing to bring someone into the fold with differing views on the AB template / class / progression system, to give the differing views of the community some input - AND work towards a workable model..¨
Again, Factual statement: I DON'T know the inner workings of athas.org Then there is a personal opinion that "¡'d like to think¨ on differing views being presented. I then go onto state another fact (that there has been passionate debate) and again, ask for clarification. I then state another personal opinion, that one set of views maybe getting more airtime. Again, this is based of the evidence that I can SEE (threads, website) ¡V again I DON'T know the inner workings of athas.org, having said that (again, if I believe you) then I now understand better, and be honest, I'd be a lot more confident in the whole process.
I then finish with another personal statement, and another QUESTION, and other personal opinion.
"that (hopefully) will placate both sides of the AB progression debate. If this is already happening, let me know, but as far as I can tell.... one set of opinions is getting disproportionately larger say into the whole (very passionate and contentious) issue. It's important that we strike a balance between the old 2e flavour, 3/3.5e mechanics, and the diverse views represented on the actual process.¨
What's amusing about your response to my post is, firstly, that you took it as an argument.
It was seeking clarification on the process being undertaken by athas.org to develop the AB rules. It contained facts, questions and opinions and was written to elicit a response from people within athas.org as to how the process was being undertaken. It was also an attempt to raise my personal concerns based on the evidence that I HAVE ACCESS TO.
What is also bemusing that you think that I'm taking:
"subtle pseudo-anonymous jabs" at you.
Now, if I was doing this, it could mean:
1. I'm not committing an Ad Hominem error in debating with you (good)
2. That you are being silly by responding (your personal issue)
3. That you are reading into something that just isn't there (again, your personal issue)
4. That you are taking this way to personally (again, something for you to contemplate)
Now before I move onto the actual question you asked me, let me summarize:
You cannot hold anyone to an academic standard of debate in this forum if you personally fail to first display that level of conduct. You have failed to present your attacks / arguments / opinions in a logical manner, or with any regard to critical thinking. To expect me, or any other member of this forum to then rise to that standard, which you yourself fail to display, is the ultimate in hypocrisy. Further, by attacking people's apparent lack of critical thinking or logic, you are in fact presenting ad Ad Hominem argument, which is in itself is flawed. If people don't want to get into an academic-style debate, that is their choice.
You certainly haven't displayed a willingness to get into this style of debate, because, as outlined above, you fail to adopt that standard yourself.
This is not academia. I work in Academia, and thankfully, this is not it
I, and everyone else in this forum are entitled to present their views / questions / facts / evidence in whatever manner they please. YOU are not who determines what is acceptable logic. If you had ever worked in a University / Academic environment, you would know that two people, presented with the same evidence, following logic, often derive at startling different conclusions. That's life.
Let me give you a lesson in how logic, applied to the same material, results in different outcomes. You believe that you system results in the AB's being "more" epic, whilst the model(s) I propose, believes the same thing. Both wind up with nearly identical levels. The difference is the starting qualifications, not the ultimate desired end-product (truly epic beings, verging on god-like power)
Now (drum roll), to answer you question about what my ideal compromise would be, and to outline my preferred models (in order)
1. Get the original authors of 2e DK / PD to do the conversion.
2. Inspired by the advanced being kit, a 10-level prestige class that qualifies you to become an advanced being (dragon, Avignon, elemental etc) at a lower level of qualification than 20/20, and opens the doors for Psiwarriors. By taking this class to 10th level, you can fast track your evolution to an advanced being (i.e. qualify earlier, lower level of manifesting etc). Without this prestige class, which allows you (upon reaching 10th level) to take up a specific advanced being progression, the requirements would be based off the old 20/20. I will outline my qualifying model in more detail at the first available opportunity, as you can probably tell by my belated response to your attack on me, I haven¡¦t had much time to divulge to my hobbies recently.
3. 20/20 model. There are a few good ones out there. PLUS a series of prestige classes specific to advanced beings, to beef up the levels (i.e. Warrior King prestige class) and provide flavor to the SK's, make them unique.
4. 2 x 10 level prestige classes that lead to advanced being status
So there you go, four models to work from, those are my preferred compromises. On a final note, Xlor, I am really getting bored of you attacking me. I know you are passionate about your DS, and I really do admire the amount of time you devote to this forum. But please, just give the attacks on my opinions and me a rest, and please don't pretend that you present your arguments without logical fallacy, because you do, all the time (and no, I'm not saying that I don't do that as well).
Others have said it: it's role-playing. When you have asked for evidence, I provide (quotes from books, your previous posts etc), so I hope you have learnt that when I make call, I can (usually) back it up. It did it on thread related to the Grey, and you then accused me of getting angry, when all was doing was responding to your call for proof, which I did, and you somehow then got offended, then committed a False Etymology (by trying to show that I had a different meaning from what I actually did). I know how frustrating it can be to have your personal beliefs successfully challenged, even proven wrong. It happens. I just hope you learn to deal with it a little better.
I DONOT have a problem with YOU AS A PERSON. I have issues with your (apparently previous?) models for AB'ss, and bigger issues with how you attack me personally. They are the things I will continue to pull you up on, when i have the time. Maybe in the future, when addressing your model, I will just simply address them without reference to you.... oh wait, I'll be accused of making "subtle pseudo-anonymous jabs" at you...
Balls in your court now Xlor, you gave keep going with this, or we can move on. Your call.
(1) I look forward to what Xlore comes up with. In general, I like the idea he is laying out.
(2) I have designed gods with the idea that the players might pick a fight with them (they didn't) and I will probably do it with sorcerer-kings as well.
(3) I find Burnt World a useful resources, even if I don't like how everything comes out. I pay attention what they do even if my bards (assassany prestige class) and defilers are different. And I stick with my opinion you guys nerfed defilers and that social considerations are important (the core rogue and bard are built around increased social competence). If they do something you don't like, don't use it.
Originally posted by Enslaved DM
(3) I find Burnt World a useful resources, even if I don't like how everything comes out. I pay attention what they do even if my bards (assassany prestige class) and defilers are different. And I stick with my opinion you guys nerfed defilers and that social considerations are important (the core rogue and bard are built around increased social competence). If they do something you don't like, don't use it.
I agree 100%. But having said that, i suppose if they have WOTC going "no social balance, has to be game balance" they had little choice. Defilers never last long in my campaings, unless they learn how to tap an alternative energy source - then things get even more complicated