Well, I got the DLCS yesterday, and though (unhappily) I cannot regret any of the negative things I have said before, I am happy to report that I only have one new major complaint about the DLCS. You call that a political map?
But aside from the Geography chapter, the curse of the magi variant rule, and the elfsight, I have nothing that I really feel the need to gripe about. All in all, a fairly solid book.
That said, there are numerous, numerous little complaints that stem from flaws in the rules. Nothing serious that requires more than 5 minutes of tweaking for each rules feature (class, race, etc) but enough to be an annoyance. For example, the Kagonesti race's improved weapon proficiencies do not justify the -2 Cha penalty. It would have been better to simply take away some ability useful to spellcasters to balance that out, rather than penalizing other classes. Thus, instead of an ability you should have done something like giving Kagonesti all illiteracy regardless of class, forcing them to spend a couple skill points learning to read and write magical script.
A more serious flaw is how the Knights of Solamnia were handled. I understand that you wanted the flavour of progressing through the orders, in order to make the Knights of the Rose the epitome of all knightly virtues. However, requiring levels in a prestige class to do so isn't the way to go about it, for two reasons:
1) I'll let you in on a dirty secret with D&D. The more you multiclass, even with most prestige classes, the less powerful your character is overall. You have many variable skills, but in combat or spell-duels the single classed character will generally wipe the floor with you. By requiring 3 classes at the very minimum, you weaken the Solamnic Knights unless you only take classes which are directly complimentary to the cleric class (in terms of divine spell caster levels and BAB). That brings us to the second problem.
2) Most Knights of the Rose will look very, very similar to each other. It would be nice to have more levels to play with so you can have a Rose Knight who is a horizon walker, or hangs around in Estwilde and picks up barbarian levels or even becomes a renegade wizard (or one who is secretly a member of the conclave!). The more variety, the more adventure seeds available to you.
It would have been better to simply design three feats "Squire of the Crown", "Acolyte of the Sword (fasting gives sacred bonus similar to the divine favour spell)" and "Novice of Roses" (favoured enemy) and simply make that the prerequisite to joining the order. See, you require a level or two to gain another feat. So while you are waiting to get the feat "Novice of Roses" you spend a few levels as a Knight of the Sword. This also is a concrete way of showing that you are a member of the Knights of Solamnia without taking a level in the prestige class.
But of the two points, only the 1st is a problem at all, and it is a relatively minor one. The second is more of a matter of flavour text and my own preferences. The ideas and class abilities for all the classes are excellent. So the talent is definately there, but Sovereign Press really needs a good rulesmith. I can sympathize, since a good rulesmith is worth his weight in gold, and are very, very hard to find. I personally don't know any, and lord knows I wish I knew one. I think Green Ronin is hoarding them all.
Now, on to the positives.
Dying Curses? Magnifique! XP story awards system? Oh yeah. Arial combat rules? Fantastic! Spells? Good enough to forgive the Curse of the Magi (almost). ;) Goblins in Southern Qualinesti? I'm really looking forward to seeing their mysterious leader. Oh, and thank you, thank you for shrinking Khellendros' desert.
Good work.
NPC Kagonesti on the other hand will work under the DLCS as written.
I wonder how many people will notice the lack of Common? That's significant in its own small way.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by Cam Banks
My wife's playing a Kagonesti in my upcoming Dragonlance campaign, and I decided not to apply the Charisma penalty. Common isn't an automatic language for Kagonesti, she's not going to have much of an Intelligence bonus, and she's playing a barbarian, so she'll have enough problems without the additional Charisma hit.
NPC Kagonesti on the other hand will work under the DLCS as written.
I wonder how many people will notice the lack of Common? That's significant in its own small way.
Cheers,
Cam
I am probably going to do the opposite, and take away the Intelligence penalty for my kagonesti players, but like you, I will keep it for the NPCs.
Originally posted by Daedavias
I am probably going to do the opposite, and take away the Intelligence penalty for my kagonesti players, but like you, I will keep it for the NPCs.
I just want her to get the most out of Intimidate.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by Cam Banks
I just want her to get the most out of Intimidate.
Cheers,
Cam
I like the way, Cam. You just singlehandedly changed my view of the entire Kagonesti race :D Maybe I will write a review of the DLCS and AoM someday...
Originally posted by Cam Banks
I wonder how many people will notice the lack of Common? That's significant in its own small way.
Cheers,
Cam [/b]
I certainly didn't... I may have to have a talk with my GM about this... I'm having enough trouble finding a PrC to go into with a Bar 2/ Dru 3, now I've got to worry about not being able to speak to the party!
"What did the wookiee say?"
"He said he wishes he could speak Basic."
Cheers,
Cam
Personally, I find that the spellcasters are the only classes that really suffer from prestige/multiclassing. Fighter/barbarians, barbarian/rangers etc. all seem to work.
Banshee
Originally posted by ferratus
1) I'll let you in on a dirty secret with D&D. The more you multiclass, even with most prestige classes, the less powerful your character is overall. You have many variable skills, but in combat or spell-duels the single classed character will generally wipe the floor with you. By requiring 3 classes at the very minimum, you weaken the Solamnic Knights unless you only take classes which are directly complimentary to the cleric class (in terms of divine spell caster levels and BAB). That brings us to the second problem.
I wanted to touch on this briefly because I completely disagree. Granted, your ftr5/rog5/brd5/wiz5 won't be on par with a ftr20 or a wiz 20, but in most cases your multi-classed character can outstrip a single-classed character with the same focus (arcane spellcasting, melee combat, etc) and a bit of planning. The best examples would probably dwell on the Character Optimization board.
Back to other stuff -- IMC Kagonesti get either Common, Qualinesti, or Silvanesti depending on where they were raised. The DMG states that a +2 Con is roughly equal to -2 Int and -2 Cha, so I can understand replacing -2 Con with those two ability modifiers.
Streamdragon, I don't remember the requirements, but maybe Nomad Shaman (from the Age of Mortals book) or Verdant Lord (from Masters of the Wild) would work?
I personally love the curse of the magi and will be playing with it. There are so many ways to get aound it. And dont gimme that crap about how it makes mages suck. Look at Dalamar's Ligh Lance @ 10th lvl you get 2 lances @ 13 d6 each so you can do 26d6 dmg to one target. And that is not unbalancing ? Mages have always been the most powerful class by far. And I think makes it a lil more fair.
Originally posted by Insta_AxE_Toast
No way, I have a dwarven fighter 6, barb 2, frenzied besserker 2 and he is nasty to fight against.
I personally love the curse of the magi and will be playing with it. There are so many ways to get aound it. And dont gimme that crap about how it makes mages suck. Look at Dalamar's Ligh Lance @ 10th lvl you get 2 lances @ 13 d6 each so you can do 26d6 dmg to one target. And that is not unbalancing ? Mages have always been the most powerful class by far. And I think makes it a lil more fair.
That is nasty, I never looked at it before. I just told the guys that they would have to get Dalamar to teach them the spell and most simple decide not to worry bout it after that.
I'd say the Curse of the Magi is a nice compromise. It certainly adds the flavor of DL mages that has been there since the beginning.
But, you can say that the Curse of the Magi is to have a spell erased from memory after casting, so they must spend every day studying their spell books...and that works too. But I must say, I really liked the Variant rule.
Originally posted by Kalanth
I require the constant study of the spell books, until, of course, spell mastery is aquired for a certain spell. I always get the characters that master the simpler spells, the last character being a master of the light spell.
Yeah, and see...I think that'd work just as well as an explination of the "Curse of the Magi."
The other rule is for the really nasty, mean DMs.
But is still really cool, nonetheless.If Knight of the Sword and Knight of the Rose both go up a spellcasting level per level of advancement, and thet Knights of the Rose get more and (often) better abilities, as well as a better Hit Die and Base Attack... What motivation is there to stay a Knight of the Sword?
I always understood them to be the more 'clerical' of the Knighthoods, and yet it seems that in everything except Turning Undead, you might as well go into Knight of the Rose as soon as humanly possible. They're just as good at casting, and they get a horde of other stuff. Someone point out how I'm wrong, if they would. It just seems really odd...
Originally posted by The Udjat
Somebody help me out here, I'm a little confused about something.
If Knight of the Sword and Knight of the Rose both go up a spellcasting level per level of advancement, and thet Knights of the Rose get more and (often) better abilities, as well as a better Hit Die and Base Attack... What motivation is there to stay a Knight of the Sword?
I always understood them to be the more 'clerical' of the Knighthoods, and yet it seems that in everything except Turning Undead, you might as well go into Knight of the Rose as soon as humanly possible. They're just as good at casting, and they get a horde of other stuff. Someone point out how I'm wrong, if they would. It just seems really odd...
A couple personal points of motivation.
1) If you go 10/10 in Sword and Rose (Of course taking in epic level characters) then your effective casting level for these spells is 20. Not to shabby.
2) The character may be forced to rise in the order of the Sword. After all, who is to say that they will automatically be excepted into the Knight of the Rose on their first petition. Maybe they don't make it till the character is ECL of 19 or something.
3) If you are a Cleric / Knight, then Sword is pretty good to go in just to get that bit of Knight in you. My cleric based Knight of the Sword does not want to be Rose knight, since they are more political than Sword Knights.
Perhaps the knights family have always been sword knights and therefore it is a family tradition?
Perhaps the sword knights are in charge of certain rules or dictates of the entire solamnic order, and the knight wishes to change said rules?
Originally posted by The Udjat
If Knight of the Sword and Knight of the Rose both go up a spellcasting level per level of advancement, and thet Knights of the Rose get more and (often) better abilities, as well as a better Hit Die and Base Attack... What motivation is there to stay a Knight of the Sword?
I agree, there isn't much reason "stat-wise". However, the full BAB and caster level is more potent than you'd think. Their 10th level ability is pretty decent, though (I think) it's essentially having a watered-down bless weapon spell. I could be wrong. You could add some minor benefit around 6th-8th level to make the benefits more streamlined, like skill bonuses or some such.
That said, it's not so terrible that a Knight of the Rose essentially does what the Crown and Sword both do. They are, after all, the elite. So if that's the aim - then all's well.
I guess it just seems a little disappointing that the Crown get quite a number of unique abilities that distinguish them from the Sword and Rose while the Sword get most of their abilities in the first three levels - The levels you'll probably be taking anyway to get into Knight of the Rose.
My only really suggested fixes, unfortunately, include either adding some later abilities to the Sword that fit their warrior priest role (like Shugi mentioned) or disrupting the Rose's caster progression so that the Sword are the only ones that get a full level-for-level divine casting increase.
I still love the class, don't get me wrong. I've always liked the Knights of the Sword. I just thought it'd make sense for them to have some sort of... I don't know. Clerical know-how that fits their role.
I'm just nit-picking anyway, though.
Originally posted by Odde Bogodde
what I don't get is that I don't remember one instance in the books for the Knights casting spells.....Derek didn't when they were at Icewall, did he? Please someone tell me when did the Knights cast spells?
That is exactly what I was thinking. Not once during the legend of huma does any knight cast a spell.
Most do not become Knights of the Rose. Knights of the Rose should not be something that is merely handed out. If every 8th level fighter could qualify to become a Knight of the Rose, something would be clashing with the flavor of Dragonlance. It keeps in step with the progressions from ealier editions.
I am eager to get my hands on Age of Mortals (is that it) where the generalist Wizards of High Sorcery are supposedly discussed...to see how that is handled.
Kagonesti aren't exactly like they used to be, but they still are wild, and they still are awesome.
Overall, I like what I see. I wasn't so much concerned with the rules, as I was with the flavor, and it seems with the War of Souls Trilogy, and the DLCS that they've restored the flavor of Dragonlance...thank goodness.
If I merely wanted another campaign setting, well Ghostwalk just came out. I was looking for the flavor of Dragonlance, and that's what the DLCS delivered. I for one am happy about it.
When you boil it down I think most DragonLance players are in it for the flavor, and not for the application rules. I like how they did the flavor. It works for me.
As for multiclassing with the Knights, I don't see much weakness. They don't lose out on the BaB arena, they gain combat abilities as they gain spell abilities on Knights of the Sword upwards (Clerical Spell gain of +1 level and +1 in BAB) making them MORE powerful than clerics of equal level in battle abilities excepting dealing with undead.
Finally, to boot, they gain some pretty powerful abilities along the way.
For example, maybe this is a new thing to counter act the Knights of the Thorn and Knights of the Skull (or Lily, whichever were the preists). You know, the God's of Good, stepping in to power up their own champions.
With paladin gone, maybe Mishakal took over a Knighthood (rose?) and was responcible for the change. i.e. "Go forth and spread healing through the land." etc etc.
I'll read this and get back on my thoughts.
To handle for now: i'd say in 4th Age, with no Gods, no spells. Make a character have to take a few ranks as a Cleric, which only m eans they went to a school and learned about the old Gods and learned piety and got more abuse after basic training.
I think that would work.
Rosisha
Originally posted by Odde Bogodde
what I don't get is that I don't remember one instance in the books for the Knights casting spells.....Derek didn't when they were at Icewall, did he? Please someone tell me when did the Knights cast spells?
Yeas, but keep in mind that this is during the period before the gods "return" at this point goldmoon is one of the only clerics in the world...
The ONLY time a Knight had anything that sounded Clerical is in Winter Knight when they were talking about the Knight's Council and the High Clerist. However, there has never been a knight that cast a single spell, or healed, or did anything else, and this does bother me a little. But until I have time to sit down and seriously read this I'm going to refrain.
The reasons for this stem from many different things. Very little has been written of the knights before the Cataclysm. After the Cataclysm there weren't any with clerical magic. The time between WotL and the Chaos War is very short and there probably were very few, if any, knights who became clerics. After the Chaos War clerics were gone, again. WoS happened only a short time ago in the current timeline, and there are, again, very few knights with clerical powers.
The time period when there were the highest number of knights with clerical powers is also the time period of which virtually nothing has been written, the 3rd Age.
Originally posted by Rosisha
The ONLY time a Knight had anything that sounded Clerical is in Winter Knight when they were talking about the Knight's Council and the High Clerist. However, there has never been a knight that cast a single spell, or healed, or did anything else, and this does bother me a little.
Actually, there were Sword Knights who cast healing magic in Dragons of Summer Flame.
Do they use any other Clerical magic? Where did they do the healing? Any info and sources would be appreciated. (For all those who are wondering why this is my second post about sources and page numbers it is because I am about to make a campaign of course and am looking for happy details
)Rosisha
13d6 damage is VERY nasty especially times 2 but at the same time you have to HIT with a wizards BAB thats not an easy thing. Consider what happens if you DO miss. You just pooped away a fairly high level spell for....NOTHING. Thats why I always liked Magic Missiles more then Melfs Acid Arrows. No IFs about them. Fighter misses his attack roll....Oh gee I missed with my sword this round? Well I'll just swing a few more times. Wizard misses his attack roll.....@#%@#^@$#^_@$^@_$^)*^@_$#*@!#.
Oh btw Curse of the Magi SUCKS in its current form. No ifs ands or buts about it. I can tell you guys play alot of melees or clerics haha. I remember having 5 or 6 spells for an entire day. And you want to cream the poor wizards even more.
Hey Cam.....is it just me or is Krynn full of 'ugly' (well not really) and very un leaderlike normal joe schmoes? The number of races with negative charisma is just mind boggling. One word....WHY??
Has charisma gotten so strong that we have to make sure nobody scores above a 16?
As for the CHA-penalty races, there aren't many. Centaurs, half-ogres, and ogres always had them -- no change there. I assume you're thinking of minotaurs and Silvanesti/Kagonesti elves. Silvanesti and minotaurs are far too arrogant to not give them a CHA penalty, but it's questionable for the Kagonesti.