It's easy to picture things like sorcerer/Mystic/Mystic Theurge, but what about
Wizard/Cleric/Mystic Theurge?
I've never seen any characters in Kyrnn have the ability to blend magic with Divine
power, especailly in fourth age. Any suggestion?
...and the patron diety granting clerical power is OK with that arrangement.
Or in other words the DM is OK with that. ;)
Or in other words the DM is OK with that. ;)
Most of the time that would be true. But not here. They really mean if it was okay with the gods, its just how the campaign setting works.
It's stated that sorcs can't multiclass as mystics and that any ambiant magic users can't multiclass as wizards or clerics. The only way for a mystic theurge or Eldritch Knight to work on DL is is via the cleric/wizard combo mentioned, and the sorc/fighter. Just about anything else is going to not go over well campaign-flavor-wise.
It's stated that sorcs can't multiclass as mystics ...
Where is that stated?
Cheers,
Cam
Where is that stated?
Dragonlance the Fifth Age 101.
It dates back to the old SAGAS stuff, its just a flavor thing.
Sorcery focuses on the external and mysticism focuses on the internal. As for Wizards and clerics multiclassing as Sorcs and Mystics: Wild magic vs. godly magic.
It dates back to the old SAGAS stuff, its just a flavor thing.
OK, that I get. In strictly 3.5 terms, it's not a canonical rule, but it's not an unreasonable house rule.
Dragonlance the Fifth Age 101.
It dates back to the old SAGAS stuff, its just a flavor thing.
That's not true, either. There were several characters in the SAGA products with both Reason and Spirit codes of B and/or A at the same time. In SAGA, there were no character classes, so, being able to use mysticism or sorcery was just one of a variety of things you might be able to use, such as heavy armor, heavy shields, or heavy weapons. They weren't exclusive of each other.
Using them in combination to cast a single spell was even introduced in Heroes of Sorcery and Heroes of Hope, so once again, no big deal in SAGA.
Cheers,
Cam
OK, that I get. In strictly 3.5 terms, it's not a canonical rule, but it's not an unreasonable house rule.
Yeah, Dragonlance is an intentionally nerfed campaign setting. We don't want those darn Gishes running all over the place!
And I know a few characters had that ability, Cam, but don't split hairs, its unsanitary ;) .
You know what I'm talking about, flavor-wise.
Yeah, Dragonlance is an intentionally nerfed campaign setting. We don't want those darn Gishes running all over the place!
So allowing something nerfs the setting? I don't think nerf means what you think it means.
And I know a few characters had that ability, Cam, but don't split hairs, its unsanitary ;)
You know what I'm talking about, flavor-wise.
You're using non-existant flavour to counter existing crunch? What?
If one person in a million has an ability that isn't impossible, and doesn't affect those million, how exactly does it go against flavour? It's an exception allowed by the rules.
Mystic Theurges of Krynn
So allowing something nerfs the setting? I don't think nerf means what you think it means.
Back up a second. Not allowing something nerfs the setting. So yes, I do know what nerf means.
You're using non-existant flavour to counter existing crunch? What?
If one person in a million has an ability that isn't impossible, and doesn't affect those million, how exactly does it go against flavour? It's an exception allowed by the rules.
It's existing flavor.
Aside from that, there is no millionth person. As far as I know, there has never been a character ever statted out in *any* Dragonlance product (as far as I know) that has been a multiclass mystic/sorc (although there might have been in the Sagas rules, according to Cam), or wizard/mystic.
So it's existing flavor. And crunch is highly iffy in a shared universe. Just say "Persistent (sp?) spell" next to a Forgotten Realms board and watch the fireworks. Or mention cosmology in FR.....or DL. Yikes. Just Yikes. Too many hands in the cookie jar. But that....is a tale for another time.
Back up a second. Not allowing something nerfs the setting. So yes, I do know what nerf means.
Are you sure you are in the right thread here? This is about allowing a mystic theurge on Krynn. That's not nerfing. That's the opposite. Sheesh.
As far as I know, there has never been a character ever statted out in *any* Dragonlance product (as far as I know) that has been a multiclass mystic/sorc (although there might have been in the Sagas rules, according to Cam), or wizard/mystic.
So it's existing flavor.
No. That's non-existing flavour. "Has never been" means exactly that. Lack of evidence can't be used as evidence. When a book says "there are no orcs on Krynn", that's fluff supporting the non-existance of orcs native to Krynn. When a book doesn't say that mystic theurges don't exist, that's non-existant fluff. Lack of evidence for and against.
So, since the rules allow it, that's non-existing fluff against existing crunch. There's no precedence, but there's still a possibility of being.
Ambient multiclassing is perfectly fine and backed up not only by the original flavor of the setting but by current rules.
Remember the only restrictions are:
1. No multiclassing between ambient and focused.
2. No multiclassing that requires devotion to more than one deity.
Cheers,
Cam
Are you sure you are in the right thread here? This is about allowing a mystic theurge on Krynn. That's not nerfing. That's the opposite. Sheesh.
And I said something to explain that, then a off hand comment about other classes sparked a discussion. Stop being contrary for the sake of being contrary. There are many message boards out there that are perfect for that, and you're welcome to them. If you're here, however, be on your best behavior please.
No. That's non-existing flavour. "Has never been" means exactly that. Lack of evidence can't be used as evidence. When a book says "there are no orcs on Krynn", that's fluff supporting the non-existance of orcs native to Krynn. When a book doesn't say that mystic theurges don't exist, that's non-existant fluff. Lack of evidence for and against.
OK. How about this then? There is no book that says that there are no drow on Krynn. But we all know there are no drow. That's just an example. All I was saying with that "has never been" thing was just to illustrate my main point about the flavor thing, which apparently Cam doesn't hold to. Good for him. It's not a big deal. Calm down.
So, since the rules allow it, that's non-existing fluff against existing crunch. There's no precedence, but there's still a possibility of being.
I deny your
. What you are saying here is something that could commonly occurred never occurring is not an example of something not being possible (what?). If that's the case, then it would be possible to have a purple Zebra.Either way, chill. Cam's post pretty much cleared everything up anyway.
...then it would be possible to have a purple Zebra.
But that was my point exactly. It is possible to have a purple zebra. There are certainly a lot weirder things on Krynn already. See, you came here to say that mystic theurges are somehow against the flavour of the setting. If you feel that way, then don't use them. But since there wasn't much anything said about them to begin with, there wasn't really anything against or for them.
But the reason I came so strongly against it is that you objected to my comment about a DM allowing it. And that to me is the one thing I find most offensive about rules-lawyers. If a DM allows something then that's that. It's his setting. And mine was only an innocent comment about the DM being the one who at the end of the day says whether it fits or not.
Because while a good DM is one who can stay within the rules to create a fun and challenging adventure for the players, a great DM is one who can break all the rules if needed without the players ever even realizing it because they are having so much fun.
It doesn't matter as long as you have fun.
I am calm. This is a conversation. If it isn't as one-sided as you would hope, I can't help that. I never hold grudges and I'm always up for a good debate. Don't take any of it personally.
Hey, man, that's great. It's just a jungle out there on those other message boards, and so comparitively nice on these boards that I kinda get into "protector of paradise" mode. It's cool.
But that was my point exactly. It is possible to have a purple zebra. There are certainly a lot weirder things on Krynn already. See, you came here to say that mystic theurges are somehow against the flavour of the setting. If you feel that way, then don't use them. But since there wasn't much anything said about them to begin with, there wasn't really anything against or for them.
See, that's the only thing that I find irksome. "are somehow against the flavor", my arguement would be that certain class combinations (not even talking about the theurge specifically, since discussion had lead away from that) are against the flavor. Period. But Cam has been kind enough to disagree with me and I don't feel strongly enough about this to dig through *every* DL resource that I have to cite it. It's something that's so intristically tied to the setting it would be like asking you to cite where it says "no lycanthropes". You know it would be stated somewhere, but speicifically, who knows. That's why I'm so adamant, it's up there with the "no lycanthropes" thing. But....meh.
But the reason I came so strongly against it is that you objected to my comment about a DM allowing it. And that to me is the one thing I find most offensive about rules-lawyers. If a DM allows something then that's that. It's his setting. And mine was only an innocent comment about the DM being the one who at the end of the day says whether it fits or not.
And my original statement where only a off-hand comment, not meant to spark the debate that it has. I think this is an articulation problem on my part, because something like this happened in another thread with Cam. It still only died down when I just stopped responding to the thread.
As for me being a rules lawyer....you bet. If you met my gaming group, you'd develope into one as well. But even besides that, I'm an literature and myth buff. Mythological worlds have certain rules that make it what it is. If you want to play FR as Commoners, go ahead, but it won't be FR anymore. If you want to play DL with level 60 psionic drow, go ahead, but it won't be DL anymore. Aside from the wonderful novels, the DL game is so attractive to lots of gamers because of the lack of power creep, and the focus on characters staying to a certain character concept, not to mention the detail that goes into describing how magic works.
Because while a good DM is one who can stay within the rules to create a fun and challenging adventure for the players, a great DM is one who can break all the rules if needed without the players ever even realizing it because they are having so much fun.
Redgar's Repository had an aritcle on the different types of DM's. What you described was put somewhere in the middle of the list.
It doesn't matter as long as you have fun.
*crowd slowly begins clapping as the Boston Pops begin playing*
.....we come from different worlds.......Besides, Candyland is fun... ;)
And my original statement where only a off-hand comment, not meant to spark the debate that it has. I think this is an articulation problem on my part, because something like this happened in another thread with Cam. It still only died down when I just stopped responding to the thread.
You have to admit, it's a lot more interesting than single-sentence "me too!" or "keep us posted on your kewl game, d00dz" posts.
For the record, though, SAGA magic was never meant to be as sharply divided as wizard and cleric magic was in the pre-Fifth Age materials. It was more organic, holistic, and New Age stuff, which I suppose was appropriate given that it wasn't connected to the gods. From the very beginning, heroes with both mysticism and sorcery were included in the game - Feril, for instance, the Kagonesti elf with the tattoos, had a Reason and Spirit code of A.
Cheers,
Cam
You have to admit, it's a lot more interesting than single-sentence "me too!" or "keep us posted on your kewl game, d00dz" posts.
Cheers,
Cam
Wait. You're saying that you actually *like* the controversial debates that spring up from my comments? Should this mean that I should visit the dl3e.com boards more often? :P