But if you read the description in the book, Pavek spontaneously casts spells by drawing on the Spirit of the Land, or from from Hamanu -- at Pavek's option. Essentially, Pavek has become a templar with two masters. You don't see Pavek taking on other druid class attributes, like the rest of Telhami's druids.
Since we seem OK with the idea that a ranger might be drawing spells either from the land or from an SK, and the idea that a templar could switch continue to cast spells of the same level if a different SK accepted him into his organization, then I wonder if a corrupted druid could draw power from an SK. That could be quite the ugly surprise to pull on players who thought they knew who the "good guys" were. :D
My two bits anyway.
I agree that it's different; it's a different story. Pavek had a difficult transition. But I'm not sure why for story or balance purpose that the caster would be lower level. Can't think of any precedent to require that.
I really don't have any basis for this other than it would seem to make sesne for there to be a penalty for changing from one divine source to another which are essentially the polar opposites.
A while ago, I created a couple of PrCs based on templars (and their switching of allegiance) that were sort of inspired by Pavek.
They are currently residing in the archive - Part 1 - Classes. :D
The reason I mention it is because I had one of the classes suffer a crisis of conscience and swap spell source from SK to SotL.
In the second Pavek novel, he even manages to draw power from the moons and stars if you believe it...just to show how a bit crazy and opened minded Abbey was.
He *thinks* he's drawing power from the moon and stars. Big difference, if you know how to read Abbey. That's simple spirit of the land stuff.
Pavek's a unique case. He's receiving spells from both an SK and a SotL who have a loose alliance. I think it would be more common (while still rare) for a druid to lose his faith in a SotL and beseech another patron such as a SK or an element.
That makes sense. I agree.
I really don't have any basis for this other than it would seem to make sesne for there to be a penalty for changing from one divine source to another which are essentially the polar opposites.
There would be consequences. The transition would be tough. The new source would not trust you, but that's no different than jumping SKs. But the only reason I could see for a penalty is that maybe the sotls don't like spontaneous casting, and wouldn't give as many spells. The ability to cast the highest level spells ... I can't see why that would be affected at all.
There might be penalties associated with alignment shifting.
Pavek's come up a couple of times in these arguments about what a templar is and isn't. Some have described Pavek as a multi-classed templar-druid.
But if you read the description in the book, Pavek spontaneously casts spells by drawing on the Spirit of the Land, or from from Hamanu -- at Pavek's option. Essentially, Pavek has become a templar with two masters. You don't see Pavek taking on other druid class attributes, like the rest of Telhami's druids.
Since we seem OK with the idea that a ranger might be drawing spells either from the land or from an SK, and the idea that a templar could switch continue to cast spells of the same level if a different SK accepted him into his organization, then I wonder if a corrupted druid could draw power from an SK. That could be quite the ugly surprise to pull on players who thought they knew who the "good guys" were. :D
I have no problem thinking that Pavek is a multi-classed templar/druid - the fact that he does not display the other druid abilities could be explained as litary license on the authors part, or just that he is too low of a level to have gained them - like wildshape.
I do not know where you are getting the idea that rangers draw powers from an SK - so if you could fill me in there I would be happy to comment on that.
And I will also agree that IF a templar were to change SK, live to tell about it, AND was accepted by another SK with no loss of rank (ie level) then they would be able to cast spells of the same level that they had previously enjoyed with their first SK.
I do not think that the last section of your post would work though, a corrupted druid pulling power from an SK to fuel his druidic powers - that is what I am assuming you are implying. For one, the spell lists are different - the energy that powers a templars spells and a driuds are different - one comes from the living vortex via the SK, and the other comes from a SotL. So a druid, even a corrupt one who worshiped an SK, would not be able to cast spells from his druid spell list by praying to the SK - the mystic connection is different and the 'type' of power is different IMO even though both are both listed as divine - one SK cannot hear the prayers of a templar who is praying to a different SK or to the Elemental Lords, so who should a druid be able to call upon an SK to power his druid spells. The only way I could see a corrupt druid being able to call upon an SKs power was if he had levels as a templar dedicated to that SK he was calling to.
Thems my two bits
I have no problem thinking that Pavek is a multi-classed templar/druid - the fact that he does not display the other druid abilities could be explained as litary license on the authors part
It's the author's own explanation on this as well. She needed, for the purposes of her novels, that the Quaraite druids not be like those described in the DS products - widely spaced loners each with his own guarded land. So she created her druids as a commune living under one leader, one spirit of the land, and Abbey considers the Quaraite druids as sectarians who purposefuly secluded themselves for...an appropriate word might be heresy.
So Pavek, in fluff terms, is not a regular druid. However this doesn't mean it's portable into the game mechanics facet of D&D...
A powerless druid wouldn't be able to power his druid spells using templar spell energy...but he could take the templar class or take a yet inexistant PrC akin to the Shadow Templar...but for a druid attempting to become a templar.
I would instead not create such a class and never attempt to stat out Pavek, or similarly endowed characters.
If you take example of Jon's Shadow Templar...a powerless templar does not fuel his templar spells with Black energy...he instead get arcane spells fueled by Black energy...just like a Shadow Wizard does.
A powerless druid wouldn't be able to power his druid spells using templar spell energy...
There's no such thing as templar spell energy. Templars take divine spell energy, channeled from the elemental planes.
Rangers eventually learn to use the lesser spirits that inhabit Athas in order to produce spell-like effects.These lesser spirits inhabit small features of the land – rocks, trees, cacti and the like. These spirits are relatively powerless, and cannot manifest themselves. Their awareness is low, and their instincts are of the most primitive sort. The relationship between these lesser spirits and the creatures known as Spirits of the Land is unknown.
...
Religion: Many rangers pay homage to the elements, but a greater number honor the moons and the stars that guide them in the night - even though these celestial bodies do not have priests. In several city-states, particularly Gulg, Kurn, and Eldaarich, many rangers owe fealty to the sorcerer-kings - virtually the entire noble caste of Gulg is comprised of rangers called judaga. Some rangers pay patronage to the Spirits of the Land, although these spirits do not bestow spells on rangers except those that multi-class as druid.
So - what I have gotten from the material I am quoting above is this. Rangers DO NOT get their spell power from the Spirits of the Land - instead they tap into lesser "land spirits" (for lack of better words - but these "things" are not SotL) that are drastically reduced powers that are somewhat related to the SotL. These lasser spirits are the ONlY sourse that this material points out that rangers DO gain spells from
It also says that some rangers pay fealty to the SKs, but it DOES NOT say that though worship of the SKs do the rangers gain their spell powers.
This material does day that a multiclassed ranger/druid does gain spells from the SotL - but I believe that this sourse of energy ONLY powers their druid spells.
And as for the Shadow Tempars using the Black to cast spells - one has to wonder if they would not suffer from arcane spell failure seeing that, IMO, their spells may no longs fall within the divine ranks - seeing as how the energy fueling them is now arcane - humm that is something to think about. I do realize that bardic spells in the core D&D setting are arcane and bards do not suffer arcane spell failure IIRC, but this could be different. Just a thought.
Champions get their spell granting from 'fossilized' Elemental Vortexes, and Spirits of the Land grant their spells from their innate 'Spirit of the Land-y-ness'. I don't think they are as incompatible as druid and defiler but I would still think the skills involved in channeling those energy sources would be two separate classes.
the fact that he does not display the other druid abilities could be explained as litary license on the authors part
You don't need to explain something away unless there's another souce that contradicts it. We can't just go blowing off official sources because they contradict our personal assumptions.
There's no such thing as templar spell energy. Templars take divine spell energy, channeled from the elemental planes.
How is this relevent to what I said, Peter? Please respond to the ideas themselves ok?
The Shadow Templar gains arcane spells he powers through the Black, like a Shadow Wizard does.
A possible fallen druid PrC could, very possibly (if you follow the example of the Shadow Templar), no longer get his divine energy from the spirit of the land (no matter where it gets it from) but from a SK (no matter where it gets it from).
This is different from the idea that a cleric following one god can switch allegiance, now powering his spells using divine energy given by another god. In both cases he's powering cleric spells. In this case a druid receives druid spells, not templar spells. In typical D&D, for example, rangers can change allegiance and receive spells from a god that usually give spells to clerics and not rangers, since in D&D gods have extensive portfolios...so even a god of death and revenge can have rangers powering their nature-realted spells through him.
A druid has druid spells and druid class abililites, none of which are supposed to be able to be powered by worshiping a SK. Worshiping a SK leads you to the templar class, with templar class abilities and spells.
Please respond to the ideas themselves ok?
Penn, you seemed to be basing your argument on the false assumption that templar spell energy was somehow different than that of clerics. I can't read your mind. if your words don't reflect your ideas, then choose different words.
The Shadow Templar gains arcane spells he powers through the Black, like a Shadow Wizard does.
A possible fallen druid PrC could, very possibly (if you follow the example of the Shadow Templar), no longer get his divine energy from the spirit of the land (no matter where it gets it from) but from a SK (no matter where it gets it from).
That's a big if. Why should we follow the example of the shadow templar? Shadow-magic is a different source of power from elemental magic, isn't it?
My understanding was that SotLs power also comes from the elements. See EAFW, and The Brazen Gambit.
In typical D&D, for example, rangers can change allegiance and receive spells from a god that usually give spells to clerics and not rangers, since in D&D gods have extensive portfolios...so even a god of death and revenge can have rangers powering their nature-realted spells through him.
In which case there should be no problem with a ranger getting spells from an SK.
Worshiping a SK leads you to the templar class, with templar class abilities and spells.
Not necessarily. As Kal pointed out correctly, worship isn't necessarily the same thing as obtaining spells. Nor does it speak to how they obtain the spells. The Jugada rangers worship Lalali-puy; does that make them templars?
Closest mechanic I've seen for how Abbey handled spellcasting is this Spontaneous divine caster from Unearthed Arcana. http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/unearthedClasses.html
I'm delighted to see how very closely it parallels our own templar class, with the domain + spells known closely following our assigned + spells known.
If you combine that domain concept with UA's generic spellcaster, http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/unearthedNewClasses.html
you see a mechanic that treats the divine casting classes as a single class, which IMO makes a lot more sense anyway. Learning to channel divine energy should be a single exercise.
I also like how UA handles the "prestige ranger" and such, with +1 level divine spellcaster class/day at every other level. Makes it easier to figure out how to swap out abilities. Anyone who designs prestige classes should look these critters over to see how the designers equate the spellcasting aspects of these "core" classes.
Penn, you seemed to be basing your argument on the false assumption that templar spell energy was somehow different than that of clerics.
No matter how I said it, what I conveyed is that templars cannot power their templar spells by worshiping the elements. Same is true for all other divine spellcasters in DS.
That's a big if. Why should we follow the example of the shadow templar? Shadow-magic is a different source of power from elemental magic, isn't it?
You are keen on solid arguments. This is one. The answer: We should follow that example because its a solid precedent that happens to work well. It should work well in this case if adapted to the druid/templar particulars.
My understanding was that SotLs power also comes from the elements. See EAFW, and The Brazen Gambit.
Everyone knows this and its not part of the current discussion or arguments. The elements provide cleric spells, the spirits of the land provide druid spells (no matter where they get it from), and the SKs provide templar spells. You need to be a cleric and worship the elements to cast cleric spells, a templar affiliated with his SK to cast templar spells, and a druid in good standing with his spirit of the land to cast druid spells. The ranger happens to be the only class that is in the gray zone, and apparently it was intentionnaly made that way by athas.org, concerning the source of their ranger spells.
In which case there should be no problem with a ranger getting spells from an SK.
A big no. The bit of text you quoted, from what I wrote, was written to show this is doable in other campaign settings because those settings have gods with multi-faceted portfolios through which they can give cleric spells to clerics, druid spells to druids, paladin spells to paladins, and ranger spells to rangers. Not so in DS.
Not necessarily. As Kal pointed out correctly, worship isn't necessarily the same thing as obtaining spells. Nor does it speak to how they obtain the spells. The Jugada rangers worship Lalali-puy; does that make them templars?
This is a play on words on your part. The judaga rangers get their spells from the same place/source as any other rangers do, independant of allegiance. My use of the word "worship" was meant as a synonym of being a templar, or being a cleric, or being a ranger, by listing what they worship. I was trying to vary the way I type so its less boring for other people to read
I can't read your mind. if your words don't reflect your ideas, then choose different words.
I use words that work, and worked in the past, with dozens of other people. Those people have, through their easy comprehension (a leap of understanding, one might call it) cimented successful relationships with me which filled my email, MSN, and Spyke contact folders with numerous contacts. Half the time with Fabricio (Brun01's colleague in DS Brazil) the discussion is about what one or the other meant, and despite this its very pleasant (hi Fabricio! :D ). We both speak french and english to various degrees. God knows me and Kalthandrix have had problems, and still do sometimes, but I do speak with him on Skype and we try to have fun...which ain't that hard when you come down to it. This is why I proposed to you to bring conversations such as these over to Skype video, so we can use the faster - and more precise! - communication that speech and body language bring over written text sent back and forth. Maybe after your studies you might consider this Skype option, and I'd be glad to do it.
Kidding Pennarin - I think we have had some great conversations and have been able to address some ideas much faster and with more understanding then if we would have typed out our responses :D
Sorry for the Spam - Pavek Rulz! - best part of the Brazen Gambit book was when Pavek requested flamestrike, and Hamanu said "Granted!" and boom - bad guys are now a smoking pile of greezy soot! <--- there - I think that is enough to say that this was not total spam! :P
What do you mean by try!!!!
I take offense at this. Your outburst here is just why me and many others have disliked you from the very beggining, Kal. You consistently ignore our comments and disregard key arguments to... /inability to continue due to severe blow on the head
:D
I take offense at this. Your outburst here is just why me and many others have disliked you from the very beggining, Kal. You consistently ignore our comments and disregard key arguments to... /inability to continue due to severe blow on the head
:D
YOU take offense? No it is I who am the wronged party here. Your use of a clause within the subject matter of the second line as it relates to the pronoun in sentance three offends me!
Why does everyone seem to be picking on me. I didn't do nothing!
:P
I guess I could do like others here and say, "I don't understand you," and then let people guess what I'm asking you to clarify, or whether I'm just stalling. 
I don't see where you got that from.I don't understand what you mean.I don't understand how you could think I was unclear.Well I don't see how you could not see how I saw that you were being unclear.
Typical board argument
LOL. So true.
The whole point of this little lightening-up-the-mood parable of me and Kalthandrix is that this type of missunderstanding can happen with anyone, but of late it has happened a lot in discussions involving you, Brax.
Your stand concerning this is that we are at fault in our inability to...convey our intent correctly, or use arguments backed up by hard facts, etc. I, on the other end, suggest that the cause might not be us but rather the way you write your posts, since you are the recurring element among all those discussions. Your posts, unwittingly or not, are recurringly prone to being intepreted by the people reading it - specifically those to whom they are adressed - as insulting, perhaps to a small degree, but yes, insulting. I cannot speak for others, so I cannot confirm if this opinion is shared or not. Despite all that is happening, I will still attempt to do my best reviewing/proofreading with the two document portions that have been given me.
I can't even remember the last time we had, and its what it looks like in this case, a flame war.
I hope this is the last time that you'll try to persuade me with a bold appeal to groupthink. With me, if you can't be precise, you haven't said anything at all. That doesn't mean that you're wrong. It just means that no one that disagrees with you could reasonably know if you were right.
I do notice that Meth Seker, Jon, Flip, Gab, Xlorep, etc., don't spend near as much time as I've spent here lately. You think that's because of me, too? ;)
Maybe the only pointer I could give, not being good at this at all, is for your arguments, make that counter-arguments, to be less meta. So many times they apply to how we said things, and not what we meant. I don't have difficulty understanding most people's comments, and they mine, and I believe you don't either, yet you point out stuff in a way that feels condescending, so we feel we need to respond...to the meta comment itself. So it really becomes about "I object to your use of that pronoun.", just like for your joke above. The phrases you used in your above joke, well those are not typical board arguments, those are rare board arguments. This is a rare situation. I don't argue like this, over this stuff, with others. I don't recall the last time this has happened with others either. I think I've only done it with you.
And sometimes it has to be a "groupthink" appeal. If your email discussions are as bugged down as the board ones, then there are no venues left.
The way that Brax has been going about that feels like (at least when I read it) he is engaging in a harsh, fierce, legalistic debate. Maybe I am reading it wrong, but given finals preparation I can understand why this is the case.
Then we have others, like Penn and Sysane who are more in the collaborationist mode of acting. They may or may not have fierce opinions about things (and due about some) but their posts feel more like they are open to new ideas and less prone to engage in a legalistic debate.
Of course, this is coming from Mr. Psychotherapist Social Work Minister Boy, so my position comes from a certain place. Personally I like the method of collaboration with partially formed ideas. But, people need to come at this community in a way that makes them comfortable. It’s not my home, or Brax’s, or Penn’s, or even Wizards. It belongs to all of us.
X: Stop making me mad.
Brax: What did I do to make you mad?
X: that's your problem. Figure it out, and stop it.
"onslaught", "unfair", "grossly", "unreasonable" : I don't believe its the case. I like you, you like me, so I hope you can understand that - besides those facts - its possible for us two to have this problem without it steming from maliciousness. It's not an onslaught, but a confrontation: I'm informing you of the perception your posts are leaving on several of us, that is, a disagreable sensation, and I'm pleading for it to stop so we can talk normally, like pretty much everyone else is doing.
Your latest posts in the JM and WM threads have been exemplary, undistinguishable from anyone else's in propriety, and more brilliant than most. Keep doing what you're doing in those posts and it'll work.
As the author of the Ranger text in question from DS3r6, I can say with absolute certainty that it was never inentended to convey the idea that rangers could recieve their spells direct from the Sorcerer kings. All rangers draw the power for their spells from the Lesser Spirits ... the intention was that rangers were something like master animists.
The religion section basically meant that rangers observe, serve fealty to, etc, to sorcerer kings or elements, but they no more draw their power from those sources than wizards or psions... More of a "you are my lord" thing.
Rangers don't serve the lesser spirits, they use them ... part of their mastery over the wild bit.
I hadn't realized that that passage would convey the idea that rangers could gain spell power from sorcerer kings, or it would have been amended to be sure it didn't present that concept.
There'll be no more of this "spat" stuff anyway.As the author of the Ranger text in question from DS3r6, I
Oh?
Oh?
Yes, Brax. The 'using lesser spirits of the land' thing was something that I came up with after 3.5 came out. I may not have written the religion section -- that's quite likely a holdover from previous releases, when rangers had no spells, in which case it still wasn't meant to imply that SKs grant ranger spells.