Arandur
Originally posted by Baron the Curse
Why is Dragonlance so restricting? A lot of times filled with contradictions. I had hope that with the release of 3rd Edition Dragonlance a lot of the restrictions and limitations would be left behind. Instead I find High Sorcery Wizards that have to specialize, and are LIMITED even in the school they have to specialize (The Age of Mortals rule of generalist High Sorcery Wizards is optional). The Knights of Solamnia are great mostly, but it’s daunting that you have to multiclass in so many classes just to reach the Rose Knight. The races I really don’t have a problem with, except the Kagonesti who get a +2 Dex, - 2 Int, -2 Char. That’s not fair at all. It should read +2 Dex, +2 Str, -2 Int, -2 Char. At least that’s how I remember them. Aside from limitations with some of the Prestige Classes I’ve always noticed Dragonlance has always seemed to limit itself in many other forms. Why would anyone even need to ask if vampires exist in Krynn? No one would ever ask that question regarding Forgotten Realms, hell any other world. I understand why someone would ask of course, why not, orcs, werecreatures, Halflings, and countless others don’t seem to exist. With the new cosmology technically all the devils of the Nine Hells no longer have a place in a summoner’s spell book. I could go on about Dragonlance many limiting quirks but this rant has already gone on too long. I do love Dragonlance; it was my first instruction to fantasy. I don’t limit my Dragonlance campaign, and every time I bring something new to it I strive to keep the heart and mood of Krynn alive. I agree something’s just don’t belong in Krynn, psionics for one. Then again I’m being bias since I always thought psionics belonged in a sci-fi setting more than a fantasy one. This thread is not meant to insult anyone’s preference of Dragonlance. But, out of curiosity, how many people actually like Krynn the way it is officially presented. How many of you have actually run your campaigns without changing the rules or the way things are on Krynn?
Wow...
I dunno if I have the energy tonight.
Christopher
Originally posted by Baron the Curse
The races I really don’t have a problem with, except the Kagonesti who get a +2 Dex, - 2 Int, -2 Char. That’s not fair at all.
*chuckles*
Dragonlance has a certain feel to it, that may be seen in your eyes as a limitation but to many of us that is part of the Dragonlance mythos.
Thirdly, if you don't like something in DL it's good that you change it to suit your gaming groups particular interests. Personally I like DL, don't mind the restrictions that keep the flavour of the setting(admittedly I have a problem with ECL and the like). Not all eras are my particular kettle of fish, but then again I think the right GM could make any era alive and interesting.
I guess it all comes down to this:
If you don't like it, change it. If you still don't like it, then don't play it.
Arandur
OF COURSE DL IS ABOUT RESTRICTIONS. THATS THE WHOLE DAMNED POINT.
Dragonlance is not a free for all open world like greyhawk or the realms. Its a very constricted campaign, with a ton of restrictions and a ton of flavor issues which make some otherwise fun concepts not viable.
The point is to make it different. There are only so many mechanics you can add, but you can always take more away. By offering more restrictions based on flavor, the campaign world gains individuality. Dragonlance is what it is because there are no psionically enhanced orcs with ray guns.
Originally posted by Baron the Curse
How many of you have actually run your campaigns without changing the rules or the way things are on Krynn?
Oh! Oh! Me, me!
I wasn't being sarcastic. We (my gaming group), you know..actually give the designers a chance before we start house ruling things. So..when we try a new setting, our first campaign is as it is presented to us. And then, when we do start changing things, it's usually game mechanics, not the continuity of the timeline or things like that.
Edit: Spelling.
I beleive there should be no lyncanthropes, because there are three moons, not one. However, I don't really see the point of banning orcs from the setting, since they are just another monstrous humanoid. I just don't bother to harp on the point, because hobgoblins have almost exactly the same stats.
I'm very, very thankful that DLCS specifically mentions that the weapon restrictions are just a matter of tradition, rather than something that could cause serious consequences such as being declared a renegade. Frankly, no mage in his right mind would give a rat's ass about a 4 foot long peice of metal strapped to a fellow mages' belt, other than to perhaps cluck disapprovingly.
I'm rather annoyed at elfsight, not so much because it is redundant, but because of the attitude that led to its inception. I mean, why ressurect infravision? Didn't y'all get enough of the arguments and bad pseudo-science to explain why they can see invisible people, or what bonuses invisible tracks would give to seeing hidden creatures (and more) back in second edition?
DLCS has mostly chucked the restrictions that don't really make sense, however, and that is very good. I'll frankly just ignore the rest. To close:
It is not good game flavour to have a restriction, if there isn't a good and logical reason behind it. If you are scratching your head and saying "Why on earth would the people on this world think this?" then your suspension of disbeleif is shattered. If your suspension of disbeleif shatters, the magic you feel for the story dies.
There are several ways that one can achieve flavor. Good storytelling and background is key. One can also look at things through new eyes. Take hobbits for example. In LotR, they just want to stay in their hobbit-holes, and not see the world. In Dragonlance, the halfling race of choice is the kender, who are just the opposite.
You can also add something to a world to help give it flavor. Yes, you have arcane magic in DL, but when you add in 3 moons that affect magic like the tides, suddenly that adds a whole new dynamic.
Flavor can also be defined by restrictions and limitations that one puts on a world. No lycanthropes, orcs, drow, Ringo Starr lookalikes, etc. By adding restrictions, we help to define the world better.
Now, in Baron's defense, I will say that I think people sometimes limit DL themselves based on perceptions as to what the elusive "Dragonlance feel" is. I've actually heard people say that beholders shouldn't exist on Krynn, yet nothing says that they don't belong.
All of us look at Dragonlance through different eyes. We each see a different picture, and therefore have a different interpretation as to what DL is.
I am currently running a game where the pcs are from claran elian, which has been cut off from ansalon since the cataclysm and they dont believe that anyone else survived. They hold sirrion as the high god and his sons qu'an and sargas as the twin dieties of honor. They were sent on a mission to basically stop the KoT invasion of krynn during the chaos war.
Its a hella fun game =)
Originally posted by Baron the Curse
Why is Dragonlance so restricting? A lot of times filled with contradictions. I had hope that with the release of 3rd Edition Dragonlance a lot of the restrictions and limitations would be left behind. Instead I find High Sorcery Wizards that have to specialize, and are LIMITED even in the school they have to specialize (The Age of Mortals rule of generalist High Sorcery Wizards is optional). The Knights of Solamnia are great mostly, but it’s daunting that you have to multiclass in so many classes just to reach the Rose Knight.
The WoHS topic I think has been beaten to death, so I won't add anymore to that.
Just as it says in the DMG, prestige classes are used to add flavor to individual campaign settings. It sure is daunting to become a Rose Knight, but then it should be, considering how rare they are. They probably could have done the Solamnic Knights a different way, like just one prestige class, but I think the current way captures the difficulty in advancing through the various orders.
The races I really don’t have a problem with, except the Kagonesti who get a +2 Dex, - 2 Int, -2 Char. That’s not fair at all. It should read +2 Dex, +2 Str, -2 Int, -2 Char. At least that’s how I remember them.
As someone already stated, it's a balance issue. If the Kagonesti had your latter stats, they'd likely get a +1 level adjustment.
Aside from limitations with some of the Prestige Classes I’ve always noticed Dragonlance has always seemed to limit itself in many other forms. Why would anyone even need to ask if vampires exist in Krynn? No one would ever ask that question regarding Forgotten Realms, hell any other world.
Prestige classes are all about limitation. They're designed to focus on a specific aspect of a more general class or classes.
Forgotten Realms has everything. It's the ultimate campaign world that has everything under the sun. That's why noone has to ask if it exists there, because the assumption is that it has everything D&D. It's really surprising that they even bother to keep Greyhawk around. Oh yeah, so you have to buy both the core books plus the FR hardcover.
Actually, you would have to ask if vampires (or whatever kind of creature) exist in other worlds.
e.g.
Rokugan is a japanese-oriented campaign setting. Would vampires as presented in the MM exist there? That's a good question since vampires as presented in the MM have a very western flavor to them.
Swashbuckling Adventures is a renaissance era campaign setting. Would vampires exist there? A very good question, since most opponents in that setting are human and the nonhuman ones are rather narrowly tailored to fit the swashbuckling "feel" of the setting and magic itself is decidedly much lower than standard campaigns.
Midnight is a tolkienesque campaign setting. Would vampires exist there? A very good question, since undead are handled differently, usually in the form of templates unassociated with vampires.
Nyambe is an african inspired setting. Would vampires exist there? See the Rokugan entry above.
The point is all these campaigns have their own unique flavor, and certain monsters and concepts just don't work well with them. Could you have an Orc wizard/archmage in Swashbuckling Adventures, sure, but it would undoubtedly look out of place.
I understand why someone would ask of course, why not, orcs, werecreatures, Halflings, and countless others don’t seem to exist. With the new cosmology technically all the devils of the Nine Hells no longer have a place in a summoner’s spell book.
Why not? Just because Krynn has only one evil plane, the Abyss, that doesn't mean devils can't exist. By definition the Abyss is a plane and nearly all planes are infinite in size. Why can't one part of the Abyss have demons and another part devils and a third part yuguloths? Just because it's called the Abyss in Krynn and there's an Abyss in standard D&D doesn't mean they are the same plane. There are minotaurs in Krynn but they're nothing like minotaurs in standard D&D. I've got the Kalamar's Player Guide and they've got deep gnomes in there that are nothing like the deep gnomes in the MM. There are elves in the Nyambe campaign setting but they're nothing like standard elves. There are humans in Rokugan, but they're nothing like humans in Dragonlance, etc. etc.
I could go on about Dragonlance many limiting quirks but this rant has already gone on too long. I do love Dragonlance; it was my first instruction to fantasy. I don’t limit my Dragonlance campaign, and every time I bring something new to it I strive to keep the heart and mood of Krynn alive. I agree something’s just don’t belong in Krynn, psionics for one. Then again I’m being bias since I always thought psionics belonged in a sci-fi setting more than a fantasy one. This thread is not meant to insult anyone’s preference of Dragonlance. But, out of curiosity, how many people actually like Krynn the way it is officially presented.
Aside from lacking vital stats for certain races and the map issue, I like it just the way it is.
How many of you have actually run your campaigns without changing the rules or the way things are on Krynn?
Can't tell you, since I have yet to run a campaign using the DLCS. Chances are I won't run it exactly like in the DLCS. But chances are you won't be seeing any LG Orc Wererat Adept/Paladins either. The rules they've got in the DLCS are there for a reason, and unless you've got a good reason for why they shouldn't be there, I'd default with keeping it as it is. If I run a campaign and everyone just hates that White Robe Wizards can't specialize in Enchantment and they can justify it, then I'll change it. If there are no serious complaints, then it stays as is. If they want Kagonesti to have a +2 to Strength as well, then sure, but i'll also give the Kagonesti a +1 level adjustment.
As it says in the DMG (or thereabouts), if you don't like it, change it ... just be prepared for the consequences.
I wouldn’t have an Orc Wererat Adept/Paladin in my campaign either because I’m not a freaking moron, I presume you’ll have to be one to allow or come up with such a character concept. The Kagonesti with the +1 Level Adjustment I completely agree with, that's fair. I don’t think the Baatazu and Tanar’ri could share one plane, since they have this Blood War thing going even when they are in each other’s plane. That’s irrelevant though, the Blood War probably has no place in 3.5 or Dragonlance. I don’t have werewolves in my campaign by I do have true lycanthrope wererats that are not affected by the moon phases. They are a thieve guild in Neraka living in the warrens mostly dodging undead when they are not stealing or extorting officials. The only problem I have with the daunting Solamnic process also goes back to the core story. I recall Gunthar Uth Wistan re-writting the Measure. The Knights of Solamnia where now more like the Knights of Takhisis in the sense that all the Solamnic Orders shared equal ranks. Basically a higher-level Knight of the Sword would be the commanding officer of a recently knighted Knight of the Rose. I probably missed something along the way. I’m too tire so I’ll end it here. I appreciate the time you put in replying.
As for some of the prestige classes. well I'm not entierly impressed with how the WoHS are dealt with in the DCLS and its mandatory requirement to specialise. I know there was a provision for generalists in the AoM's book but that provision should really have been in the DLCS.
yours Salthanas
Originally posted by Baron the Curse
The races I really don’t have a problem with, except the Kagonesti who get a +2 Dex, - 2 Int, -2 Char. That’s not fair at all. It should read +2 Dex, +2 Str, -2 Int, -2 Char.
Now this was something I had a big discussion about with one my players. He firmly believes that all race stat modifiers must add up to at least 0. I on the other hand don't mind so long as the feel of the race is maintained. This player won't touch a kender for love nor money because they are underbalanced... yet strangely enough I have two other players planning on having two kender in my next campaign simply because they liked them after reading the Chronicles.
See, I'm tired of Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk. Nothing against them, but with one of the groups I game with... Well, it's just not fun or interesting anymore. Strangely enough, it's more interesting to have less, I think.
I like magic in Dragonlance - Arcane and Divine. I like that, on the whole, the two don't mix. I like that magic is difficult, in its way. It's not just an easy, breezy, take some levels and look what you can do! It leaves a lot of reason for characters to create their own spells, something I've wanted to see more often. It's tiring to see the same old spells, I think. The limitations, in this case, seem to be more conducive to gaming and flavor.
And I like the absence on certain monsters. Orcs, in my opinion, are tiring. I'm so glad they're not around. All you need are goblins, anyway (in my opinion) for a 'horde race'. I'm glad there are no true lycanthropes, no halflings, and I even kinda wish there weren't vampires. But no biggie.
I don't know, there's just something about Dragonlance that makes these 'restrictions' necessary, in my opinion - And indeed, helpful. It channels the story, the flavor. Sure, I could do that myself, but it wouldn't feel the same as knowing the way the world works, and being able to say, with certainty 'see, this is how it works!', while pointing to the proper passage in the book.
I love Dragonlance. Everything about it. I almost clamor for more 'limitations' - But really, I think they did a good job with 3rd edition. It feels right. There are a few things to be hammered out, but that's to be expected. I agree, for instance - Something about WoHS is a little off. But I don't think it's in the fact that three schools of magic are eliminated, I think maybe it's just which three are eliminated. But I plan to give it a go the way they wrote it.
But in short - Yeah, I like Krynn the way it is, and I don't believe everything from prior editions needs to be carried over. The falvor needs to be carried over, not the mechanics. Besides, it's not like the old mechanics were flawless or anything, so why are some people adhering to them like the bible of DL?
Originally posted by AkumaDaimyo
Um Half-Orcs have a -2 on two abilites and a +2 to only one and I dont hear anyone complaining about those. If you had read the DMG it says WHY some races have a -2 to two more abilites and a +2 to only one ability. Its called evenining it out. If you have a +2 to a combat related stat you need to have more penalties since combat is a big part of the game according to them. a +2 to int is nothing when the +2 to str guy kicks your butt. THATS why the Kagonesti have a -2 to two stats and a +2 to only one. Plusses to phsyical stats require more negatives to other stats to balance them out. Its all in the DMG guide under creating races.
Actually, so many people have asked/complained about this that it shows up in the DnD FAQ. In there they say that the +2 Str and favored class of Barbarian balance out the other stat penalties. Many people, myself included, don't agree.
My problem with the Kagonesti (who I still intend to play, despite all the problems I see with them) is that they get kicked twice.
Wild Elves (FRCS, or Savage Species) get +2 dex -2 int. They are basically the same as Kagonesti, yet Kagonesti suffer several additional penalties. -2 Cha is just the start. As was pointed out in another thread, Kagonesti don't get Common as a starting language. They have to spend for it, and with their -2 int penalty, there's a good chance they may not be able to take a bonus language. Favored class of Ranger isn't really a complaint, just something I see as odd. Why not Barbarian? Surely that would make more sense for this "savage" "uncivilized" race. Or druid. Elves of all types are supposed to be a very magical race, and both other types of elves still have wizard (casting class) as their favored. Why not the Kagonesti?
As for physical stats being more important that other stats, I simply don't agree. Regular elves get +2 dex, -2 con. These are hardier elves, so they don't lose con. Does that really justify -2 from two other stats? Heck, dwarves get +2 con -2 cha. That's a plus to a physical stat, and a minus to arguably one of the best stats to take a hit to. (No saves draw from the stat, and basically only a very few skills.) So why do Kagonesti take another hit? Their only bonus over the other elves that I can find, is their different weapon proficiency list.
OOooooo! That's so worth it! /sarcasm.
So..... yeah, that's my rant.
Originally posted by ferratus
I beleive there should be no lyncanthropes, because there are three moons, not one. However, I don't really see the point of banning orcs from the setting, since they are just another monstrous humanoid. I just don't bother to harp on the point, because hobgoblins have almost exactly the same stats.
Augh.
No they don't!
Orcs are +4 Str, -2 Int, -2 Wis, -2 Cha. They're dazzled in sunlight. Their favored class is barbarian. They're chaotic evil. They are bloodthirsty conquerors and brutes.
Hobgoblins have a +2 Dex and +2 Con. They geta +4 bonus to Move Silently. Their favored class is fighter. They have a +1 level adjustment, and they're lawful evil. They are a disciplined military race with a firm belief in tribes organized along martial lines with a chain of command.
They're similar only in that they're both 1 HD humanoids in the Monster Manual, but then that's because the entry provides a 1st-level warrior as an example. The same can be said for elves and dwarves.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by Cam Banks
They're similar only in that they're both 1 HD humanoids in the Monster Manual, but then that's because the entry provides a 1st-level warrior as an example. The same can be said for elves and dwarves.
ACK! Don't say that lad! Not even in jest! There's nothing similar between us and those weak, skinny, demon-eared squirrels! (now try saying that thrice over)
Someone, can't remember who, mentioned that sales of DL products dropped off so TSR stopped making them, SAGA had the same problem and one person mentioned a crappy product etc etc. for reasons as to why this would happen.
I disagree. I think the major problem is the amount of books on the DragonLance world, and then the games and designers adding "flavor" from the books. New players feel like they have to had read a million books just to be able to play.
For example, we'll use Curse of the Magi (cause almost everyone is familiar with it, arguements for and againt). Your DM (in this case me) is trying to get you (my group who has never read any DL book before) to play a DL campaign (all of us get to lobby between games, and then we vote to see which game we play. There are only three DMs and 8 players, so it works). The lobby process usually involves a write up:
Me: You can travel to the world of Krynn! If you want to play a wizard, you get all sorts of limitations, that make you super weak cause its really cool. Or you can be a Knight, but not right away, you got wait a few levels. Etc etc.
Others: You can play a fairly balanced and fun game where all the characters will be able to contirbute equally, you don't need to know most of the worlds history to appreciate any rules changes, cause i'll have logical reasonable explinations for them.
Thats why I flinch every time I hear flavor. The DLCS seems to have been made by Fans for Fans, which is REALLY COOL! I mean, as a fan, I'm totally psyched about this product and am going to do a Curse of Carrion Land on Amazon's website for delaying my access to such a great game (what I do for free shipping!). However, if this fan base wasn't enough to have TSR keep it on the shelf, how can we expect to keep it going if we go out of our way to make the game unappatising to new players.
Rules balance is not about being a munchkin, its about presenting a balanced playing world where each player can contribute equally while still having the chance to explore a concept that they like, not that they get forced into.
I always believed this was the flavor of Krynn. Yes, there are limitations, but many were taken by Choice. Raistlin didn't have to take the Test so young, nor did he have to accept Fist.'s help. Tanis didn't have to spend four days (nights) in Kitera's bed. You get the idea.
Everywhere in the Chronicels stories you have the characters swinging between choices, doing their best to cope, so why isn't THAT reflected in the rules? Look at it from a marketing perspective:
Come play Dragonlance! In FR you're wizard will rock and be an equal and happy member of the party, not a stone cold drag. Here you can be a stone cold drag! WOOHOO!
or
Come play Dragonlance! Sway between the temptations of good and evil, of loyalty and love, duty and honor! Choose your own path, and carry your banner proudly!
This is the problem I see: these limitations, in the name of flavor, will not be understood, and many DMs who want to play will have their party say "no thanks, we don't consider this balanced enough to give us an equal oppertunity to play the game." My players have hinted at this, so i've already begun working on rules changes from whats been posted on the boards.
I guess, in the end, thats how I look at it. We each must go out into the world of Krynn and do our own thing. Some will carry our own lights to shine the path we walk on, some will choose instead to walk the darker paths, power their jealous companion. But in the end, that path has to be ours to create, it cannot be forced.
Rosisha
The guy who has been playing for 5 years is happy to play D&D but it wasn't until we started a Dragonlance campaign that he took an interest in reading the Chronicles. Never before has he cared enough to read a D&D novel.
In the end I think that Dragonlance is a setting that has to appeal on some level or players will get turned away. Without meaning to sound bad, I think the number of roleplayers compared to Rollplayers has dropped off with the 3rd/3.5 edition of the rules. 3rd is much more devoted to rules/power freaks than any prior edition, and since DL doesn't lie in that direction a DM has to work to try and draw interest.
Originally posted by Rosisha
I think Baron has raised a good point, but I want to look at it from one other perspective that I think has been missed, but has been hinted at in other posts:
Someone, can't remember who, mentioned that sales of DL products dropped off so TSR stopped making them, SAGA had the same problem and one person mentioned a crappy product etc etc. for reasons as to why this would happen.
I disagree. I think the major problem is the amount of books on the DragonLance world, and then the games and designers adding "flavor" from the books. New players feel like they have to had read a million books just to be able to play.
Thank Goodness the DLCS was so nice enough to contain all the info necessary for players....
Originally posted by Rosisha
For example, we'll use Curse of the Magi (cause almost everyone is familiar with it, arguements for and againt). Your DM (in this case me) is trying to get you (my group who has never read any DL book before) to play a DL campaign (all of us get to lobby between games, and then we vote to see which game we play. There are only three DMs and 8 players, so it works). The lobby process usually involves a write up:
Me: You can travel to the world of Krynn! If you want to play a wizard, you get all sorts of limitations, that make you super weak cause its really cool. Or you can be a Knight, but not right away, you got wait a few levels. Etc etc.
Others: You can play a fairly balanced and fun game where all the characters will be able to contirbute equally, you don't need to know most of the worlds history to appreciate any rules changes, cause i'll have logical reasonable explinations for them.
Seems more realistic to me....some people just are not as tough as others...
Originally posted by Rosisha
Thats why I flinch every time I hear flavor. The DLCS seems to have been made by Fans for Fans, which is REALLY COOL! I mean, as a fan, I'm totally psyched about this product and am going to do a Curse of Carrion Land on Amazon's website for delaying my access to such a great game (what I do for free shipping!). However, if this fan base wasn't enough to have TSR keep it on the shelf, how can we expect to keep it going if we go out of our way to make the game unappatising to new players.
Unappetizing? Whatever... They went out of their way to make DL more like DL....
Originally posted by Rosisha
Rules balance is not about being a munchkin, its about presenting a balanced playing world where each player can contribute equally while still having the chance to explore a concept that they like, not that they get forced into.
They dont have to play if they dont want to do they?
Originally posted by Rosisha
I always believed this was the flavor of Krynn. Yes, there are limitations, but many were taken by Choice. Raistlin didn't have to take the Test so young, nor did he have to accept Fist.'s help. Tanis didn't have to spend four days (nights) in Kitera's bed. You get the idea.
Everywhere in the Chronicels stories you have the characters swinging between choices, doing their best to cope, so why isn't THAT reflected in the rules? Look at it from a marketing perspective:
Come play Dragonlance! In FR you're wizard will rock and be an equal and happy member of the party, not a stone cold drag. Here you can be a stone cold drag! WOOHOO!
Thats why the Curse of the Magi is optional......and there is the whole option in AoM so you dont have to specialize...but the Orders of High Sorcery always used a different kind of magic for each robe order, so....I most certainly wont be having generalists....
Originally posted by Rosisha
or
Come play Dragonlance! Sway between the temptations of good and evil, of loyalty and love, duty and honor! Choose your own path, and carry your banner proudly!
This is the problem I see: these limitations, in the name of flavor, will not be understood, and many DMs who want to play will have their party say "no thanks, we don't consider this balanced enough to give us an equal oppertunity to play the game." My players have hinted at this, so i've already begun working on rules changes from whats been posted on the boards.
Funny....most players I have seen have been completely receptive to these limitations as they have very good in game explanations
Originally posted by Rosisha
I guess, in the end, thats how I look at it. We each must go out into the world of Krynn and do our own thing. Some will carry our own lights to shine the path we walk on, some will choose instead to walk the darker paths, power their jealous companion. But in the end, that path has to be ours to create, it cannot be forced.
Rosisha
All in all...this last statement is very true.....I have just been trying to play Takhisis's advocate here....Just to give a more positive light on the restrictions......wait....did I say restrictions?....I meant roleplaying tools....lol
Im not trying to blast you Rosisha....I hope you dont take this that way....
You can travel to the world of Krynn! If you want to play a wizard, you get all sorts of limitations, that make you super weak cause its really cool. Or you can be a Knight, but not right away, you got wait a few levels. Etc etc.
As the famous saying goes, "A sucker is born every day."
With that in mind, Let me say, it's all about how you sell the product to fellow gamers. For example, At work, I've been kinda showing off my DLCS to coworkers. I don't talk about limitations. I talk about ultra-munchkin coooooooolness. When they asked, i got excited telling them about the moons.
Me: In a full moon you get to cast like you were one level higher! Same for an alignment. and they STACK. That means you might get two levels higher. and in the night of the eye? THREE LEVELS HIGHER!
co-workers: Dooooood.
Me: But there's a catch. The moons don't often align, and when the it's a new moon, you get a level penalty. And there's this curse. if you cast too many spells, you're burn youself out. like putting a Thunderbolt through a Fuse. it's just to balance it out...
Co-workers: Dooood. you said these wizards can cast higher levels than normal wizards. cooooool.
See? It's all about the pitch. Upsell the cool parts, and downplay the balancing parts. :-)
Talk about the knighthoods, the wizards, kender, gnomes, and dragons! Go into story, and maybe provide some examples.
You're travelling with your party of friends, a Red Robe walks in. He's not going to instantly know you're a renegade (unless I missed something in the DLCS). Even if he figures out you're a renegade, chances are he'll be alone or at worst he'll have some friends (who won't likely be wizards). You've got your friends too. He wants to make you take the Test, then let the bastard try.
You're first point is that the DLCS has all the info necessary to play. So did Tales of the Lance (at least in my opinion), and I am REALLY happy they did this. However, if a customer thinks that they need to buy other books to enjoy one books (which many people have used as a complaint for the 3.0 to 3.5 conversion, "What?! I just spent 90 bucks and now i have to spend another 90?" I mean this is a serious complaint for someone who wants a hobby where they don't have to spend millions on figures like Warhammer), but if they think this about the product, they won't even bother to pick up the DLCS. In their mind they'll just go 'Oh DragonLance, I wonder which of the 1 million books are required reading for this new version." I know it sucks, cause as a Fan I think that DL could easily be the ONLY D&D world and I'd still be as happy as a clam (which they are doing by stealing all the cool parts from Dragonlance, like Kender. What can I say "Resistence is futile!"), but it is what is happening. I've talked to gamers about it, and my own group is hesitent.
As to the players not being "tough enough" or the "rules are realistic, so whats their problem?" They don't look at it that way. The first thing we do look at, as world designers are self, is play balance. It is very important to us that each member of the group bring in an equal amount of skills and abilities. Wizards can't fight, but they can throw a fireball for sure!!! And yes, Wizards might look unbalanced with the spells they get, but you have to look closely. From my experience as a player who normally always plays wizards, I have consistently done more damage with noncombat oriented spells then combat spells because with my limited spell book our opponents learned what I was capable of and simply counteracted the advantage i gave the group. Of course the fighter was immune to sleep, but not his horse... oops
Most players get more enjoyment out of a game when they can participate and feel like heros: which do you think would be more enjoyable,1) Player: My player casts magic missile, collapses unconcious. DM: Ok you'll walk up the next day, of course most of the adventure should be done by then. Player: Ok. Cool i'm going to go over and read a book while you guys continue to roleplay because as an unconcious character I really can't rp any encounters except for "I groan and thrash on the floor."
2) Player: My player casts magic missile, and then holds up his staff as if preparing to summon more power, can I use a cantrip to make my staff radiate with a blue glow while I bluff them into thinking they are about to become Draconian meat? DM: Sure. (after checking the characters bluff skill) Ok the Goblins were definietly frightened. They saw something they didn't understand, and that glowing staff and said "Ain't no chance in hell we screwing with him!"
Another point: what happened to roleplaying? With this rule that is no longer an issue you just roll dice and see what happens! That isn't fun either, because everyone is then the same! Why can't you play a wizard who doesn't keel over with one spell? Maybe he's a farm kid, found out he had some talent and the village sent him to school to be the local kid done right. He's strong, and laughs at the weaklings he works with, but they laugh at his poverty, so he decides to take the red robes and champion the poor, he will lead a Revolution wielding a sickle from the days of his farming (hence the red robes? Get it? Thats funny! You could even make it a gold sickle.... lolololol)
Going back to the example above, now the Wizard has saved the party from a goblin attack, he feels happy that he contributed in a meaningful and positive way and did it with two low level spells (notice I didn't talk about him blasting the goblins back to the Dark Queen with lightning or firebolts. This came from a real game experience I had a while back).
My perspective is from the point that the worst game experience I had was one where my character kept getting knocked to 1 hit point by random encounters, traps that other characters sprung but my low saves made me the only one vulnerable, and the enemy wizards who targeted me thinking I was the biggest threat. I did absolutely nothing that game. And i was bored to tears, angry, and really upset. Sure I get a fair shair of the experience. I was able to use a lesser sonic orb to blast down a door, but two minutes later the thief triggered a boulder trap and I was knocked unconcious again.
I mean its to the point where the druid made a ton of heal potions which she makes my character wear at least one around his neck so that if i'm knocked down my last dying act can be drinking the heal potion. My character is like a lush: dagger in one hand, drink in the other!!!
See the thing is, I am two levels behind everyone in the group because "wizards are so damn powerful at higher levels!" SO damn powerful that I spend most of the game dead!!!!! I went down to negative 38 hit points and negative 15 hit points in that game, and the DM looked kindly on me and put me at 0. If wizards are so powerful and unbalanced why is my character barely able to contribute?
But I love to play wizards. I like the idea of a schollary adventurer. I played a wizard archeologist once and solved the riddle to an adventure with my nonweapon proficieny of writing and reading ancient languages. It was fun and constructive, and gave my wizard a chance to participate, and allowed everyone else to get involved in a major campaign, becuase we learned about this "ancient evil" and we decided to fight it. Everyone got a chance to do something cool and character related, and that was a fun game. But after that game above, i would never willingly put myself into a position where I would be forced to make saves on my lowest save, even for the sake of flavor.
Those sort of games aren't fun. It would be like a fighter who plays a game where every creature is immune to physical attacks and only the Cleric and Wizard can damage it. "I sit here as a human shield!" Oh yeah, something to really be proud of.
Its not balanced, and its not fun to play. And if DL is taking that course, DLCS and and AoM might be the only products I purchase. I might be a DL fan, but i'm not going to support a product that isn't fun to play without serious revision.
And yes, I know Curse of the Magi is optional, but it is what that curse implies, and there are other limitations from what people have posted and what is here. when i get the book i'll post a full review, and i pray to Paladin that my concerns are unfounded. I love the game world, I love the game, and I'm very proud that WotC and the people on the design team have gone through the effort of doing this, but I believe I have a serious concern for players everywhere.
Rosisha
Christopher
To judge the entirety of DL role-playing based on one variant rule is a bit hasty. It's there just in case someone wishes to simulate the novels through rules.
You can do the same thing through role-playing if you wish, without having to use that rule.
As many of you know, I'm a huge fan of Guardians of Order's Gaming Manifesto. It says so many things that I think people forget from time to time.
Here's a few of my favorites:
"These rules are written on paper, not etched in stone tablets."
"Rules are suggested guidelines, not required edicts."
"There are no official answers, only official opinions."
"When dice conflict with the story, the story always wins."
There's more, but you get the idea.
Yes, there must be a guideline in the form of rule books. At the same time, the DM has to be able to shape those rules to work with his group.
So take the DLCS, and shape the materials within to match the needs, wants, and desires of your own group.
Good gaming!
Originally posted by Baron the Curse
Serena, I knight you orthodox defender of Krynn.
I shall strive to be worthy of my post. ;)
*claps his sword against his shield! But then remembers he is usually a red robe and so simpy beats his staff on the ground (and its a staff of power so it makes a BIG clap!*
Rosisha
We played and still had a good session but as a low lvl campaign my party is far from ready to into into any political struggles and thats cool with them.
One was a half-ogre cleric of Sargas (I used the savage species half-ogre cause I just don't like the DLCS Half-ogre) plus we had a ranger and fighter and it went very cool.
I think we have to remember again that the game is played to have fun and the rules are guidelines to help us achive that. If your group is having fun then you played it right. If I decide to bring back Paladin and Tahkisis later in my campaign then I will.
If we are having a good time, including both the DM and the players then its all good.
Oh, I play half-orcs with the +2 -2-2 and I dont mind at all/. I also have zero issues with the Kaganesti but the half-ogre does annoy me a tad so I changed it. Its all good,haha.
Oh, and whenever I think that a race shouldn't be on Krynn but is I blame it on either the Gnomes or Spelljamming that the Gnomes created so basically just blame the Gnomes.
Howcanyoutrustsuchadoubletalkingraceanyway?Theysaymuchtoomuchwaytofastanditgetsatadannoying.
Originally posted by Rosisha
All Hail Serena!
*claps his sword against his shield! But then remembers he is usually a red robe and so simpy beats his staff on the ground (and its a staff of power so it makes a BIG clap!*
Rosisha
Don't hail me, hail the One God.
Anyway, I am proud of the DLCS design team, it sounds like they really did a good job, despite my critism. One question: did the art in the Tales of the Lance: World Book of Ansalon make it into the DLCS? I really liked some of those pictures... especially the Draconians in the winter wood. Are their larger prints of that available? its on page 33.
Rosisha
Originally posted by Rosisha
One question: did the art in the Tales of the Lance: World Book of Ansalon make it into the DLCS?
Nope.....The DLCS contains no recycled art.
BTW, hailing the one God?! Shame on you! I should beat you with my evil beating stick. Prepare to defend your evil self evil minion of evil! Did I mention you were evil?! MUHAHAHAHAHAH *Rosisha grabs some red robes, rose petals, an evil beating stick, and some antievil stuff.*
Rosisha
Originally posted by Serena DarkMyst
Nope.....The DLCS contains no recycled art.
Actually, it does have recycled art (not from TotL though) but it's pretty minor.
Originally posted by Richard Connery
Actually, it does have recycled art (not from TotL though) but it's pretty minor.
Really.....where in the DLCS.....I havent noticed it.
Now, with that said, I'd like to say something else. There's nothing wrong with stating opinions, so long as it is done in a non-hostile manner. Now, I'd like to present my own opinions on certain things:
1. Curse of the Magi: I like this idea, for a few reasons. One, it has the feel that makes it a low-magic setting. Two, it makes for interesting role-playing situations. For example, I find it much more fun for a party to try to figure out the solution to a problem, rather than simply use magic and, poof, problem solved.
2. Knights of Solamnia: One does not have to multiclass to achieve a place in the Order of the Rose. To meet the divine spell-casting requirement and keep the KoS feel, have a Paladin base class. I've never understood why it is said that Paladins don't belong on Krynn. To me, they fit perfectly as a base class for a KoS. One could even refer to them as Squires until they can get the Crown status.
3. Wizards of High Sorcery: I can't say much about them as I do not yet have a copy of the DLCS. However, I do not like the idea that they are always painted as being the same. I could easily see Roshisha's idea of a farm-boy turned WoHS happening in any DL game. All I can say here is... All Hail Diversity!!!
4. Monster restrictions: My rule of thumb on this is that unless there is a specific rule regarding said creature, I will use it. Also, there are ways around the rules, which make for much more interesting villians, particularly when they have an interesting backstory explaining their existence and why they are the only one of their kind.
I will also request that people would please present their opinions in an indifferent manner. There are few of us DL fans, we don't need to faction ourselves against one another.
Originally posted by Paladin's Wrath
Something I've seen on this thread I've also noticed on other ones. A penchant for *****ing. This is one thing that really angers me to no end. If you don't like something, simply change it, don't try to convince others that they are wrong simply because they disagree. When this happens, we end up factioning ourselves, instead of recogizing that we all have a deep-seeded love for the world of DL.
Now, with that said, I'd like to say something else. There's nothing wrong with stating opinions, so long as it is done in a non-hostile manner. Now, I'd like to present my own opinions on certain things:
1. Curse of the Magi: I like this idea, for a few reasons. One, it has the feel that makes it a low-magic setting. Two, it makes for interesting role-playing situations. For example, I find it much more fun for a party to try to figure out the solution to a problem, rather than simply use magic and, poof, problem solved.
2. Knights of Solamnia: One does not have to multiclass to achieve a place in the Order of the Rose. To meet the divine spell-casting requirement and keep the KoS feel, have a Paladin base class. I've never understood why it is said that Paladins don't belong on Krynn. To me, they fit perfectly as a base class for a KoS. One could even refer to them as Squires until they can get the Crown status.
3. Wizards of High Sorcery: I can't say much about them as I do not yet have a copy of the DLCS. However, I do not like the idea that they are always painted as being the same. I could easily see Roshisha's idea of a farm-boy turned WoHS happening in any DL game. All I can say here is... All Hail Diversity!!!
4. Monster restrictions: My rule of thumb on this is that unless there is a specific rule regarding said creature, I will use it. Also, there are ways around the rules, which make for much more interesting villians, particularly when they have an interesting backstory explaining their existence and why they are the only one of their kind.
I will also request that people would please present their opinions in an indifferent manner. There are few of us DL fans, we don't need to faction ourselves against one another.
Well said....Exactly my feeling on the matter.
Originally posted by Serena DarkMyst
Really.....where in the DLCS.....I havent noticed it.
The border graphics of the pages are recycled from 5A products. Since Dawn Murin worked on both "generations" this is understandable and recommended, to maintain some sense of continuity between product lines. But like I said, in the grand scheme of things, pretty minor.
Originally posted by Richard Connery
The border graphics of the pages are recycled from 5A products. Since Dawn Murin worked on both "generations" this is understandable and recommended, to maintain some sense of continuity between product lines. But like I said, in the grand scheme of things, pretty minor.
lol....I thought you had meant a painting in the book or somesuch.....I didnt even think of that. And, I like that they did that......It really drives home the fact that the DLCS is something for all fans of DL, whether a 5th Ager of any other Ager. Those borders, when they first appeared in the SAGA products, made each one look really elegant, and they continue to do so.
Paladin’s Wrath. One does have to Multiclass to achieve the Order of the Rose because a Knight of Solamnia has to go through the Knight of the Crown and the Knight of the Sword before he/she can become a Knight of the Rose. And since the aforementioned Prestige Classes require you to first belong to a Core Class it stands to reason a Knight of the Rose will likely have a minimum of four classes (example, Paladin/Crown/Sword/Rose).
As for the Wizards of High Sorcery, they are lacking in diversity as they stand right now. Fortunately, there are sites like the Dragonlance Nexus where folks who are unhappy with how things stand can find answers. I for one, not owning yet, the Age of Mortals discovered here that there’s a Generalist option in that book. I look forward to buying it.
Paladin’s Wrath, I completely agree with your take on using monsters. As for the Curse of the Magi, I like it for mood, but I don’t much care for it at the same time. I’ll leave it up to my players to decide. Each class has different means to deal with and solve problems. It is the player’s job to roleplay, that requires thinking and knowing how to use their chosen class. I don’t think it’s fair to take away a wizard’s magic because a DM might feel they need to solve a problem themselves. I for one wouldn’t take away a rogue’s Disable Devices because I want the player to find a clever way to deal with my trap.
With that said, I think there a plenty of Dragonlance fans with different views of Krynn and that’s what makes Dragonlance so great. It belongs to all of us.
Originally posted by Baron the Curse
I for one think that everyone on this thread has expressed their honest opinion in a non-hostile way. However, I don’t expect anyone to present their point of view in an indifferent manner. That’s just ridiculous; this is a forum after all. People will disagree; this is a fact that will never change. Dragonlance fans already belong to different factions; there will be those who believe the Dragonlance tale ended with the Companions and others who embrace the Fifth Age with religious zeal. No one is here to try and convinced others that their view of Krynn is the correct one, but to share their different view points.
Paladin’s Wrath. One does have to Multiclass to achieve the Order of the Rose because a Knight of Solamnia has to go through the Knight of the Crown and the Knight of the Sword before he/she can become a Knight of the Rose. And since the aforementioned Prestige Classes require you to first belong to a Core Class it stands to reason a Knight of the Rose will likely have a minimum of four classes (example, Paladin/Crown/Sword/Rose).
As for the Wizards of High Sorcery, they are lacking in diversity as they stand right now. Fortunately, there are sites like the Dragonlance Nexus where folks who are unhappy with how things stand can find answers. I for one, not owning yet, the Age of Mortals discovered here that there’s a Generalist option in that book. I look forward to buying it.
Paladin’s Wrath, I completely agree with your take on using monsters. As for the Curse of the Magi, I like it for mood, but I don’t much care for it at the same time. I’ll leave it up to my players to decide. Each class has different means to deal with and solve problems. It is the player’s job to roleplay, that requires thinking and knowing how to use their chosen class. I don’t think it’s fair to take away a wizard’s magic because a DM might feel they need to solve a problem themselves. I for one wouldn’t take away a rogue’s Disable Devices because I want the player to find a clever way to deal with my trap.
With that said, I think there a plenty of Dragonlance fans with different views of Krynn and that’s what makes Dragonlance so great. It belongs to all of us.
Well, Baron, let's straighten some things out...
First off, this is a very sensitive subject, and while it is a rule on this board not to openly flame others, it is obvious to an observer that there is hostility here. Factioning is also one of the worst things that can happen, and it is because of this factioning that that the hostility is present. Just because you perfer one age over another is no reason to try to convince others that they are wrong, which I have seen on these boards many times. Presenting one's opinion indifferently is not ridiculous at all, but rather an intelligent and pacifistic solution, in my opinion. I have seen many people adamantly defend their own positions, which is fine. But, I have also seen people attack others ideas, which you have done as evidenced in the above quote. With indifference, we can perhaps end this hostility.
Now, with KoS. I misunderstood your problem there. Others have had problems with KoS needing to be able to cast divine spells and thought they would have to cross class with cleric to achieve this. Now that I understand your problem, here is my answer to it. This is a matter of tradition. While some have been able to go straight to the Rose Order, these people are the exception, not the rule. Almost every person that becomes a Rose Knight, they must first pass through the other two Orders. This has always been, and was not changed when Gunthar Uth Wistan revised the Measure. This should also be relfected in gameplay, should it not. Also, it makes it so much more moving to me to roleplay the scene when one of your players is made a Rose Knight. To finally see that trials that were overcome bear fruit. The same effect is not had when all one simply needs to do is take the prestige class, thus requiring little hardships to attain it.
With the Curse of the Magi... People have said that this is an imbalanced feature. Perhaps it is. But when one were to take, say, the Monk class and look at it. It is incredibly imbalanced, but in the player's favor, thus you never hear about that. I feel it is a good balancing feature, particularly at high levels. Which would rather have:
Scenario 1. The party is encountered by a force of twenty Sivak draconians, all riding red dragons. The party's wizard blasts 'em all to the Abyss with uber-powerful spells, one after another, and after he's through dusts off his hands, while the rest of the party sits at the gametable, bored out of their minds because this is the humpteenth encounter that ended this exact same way.
Or...
Scenario 2. The encounter begins the same, but this time, the wizard gets off only one or two spells, taking quite a bit of the enemy, but is now too tired to cast any more. Now, the adrenaline is racing in the party's fighters, who now get a chance to use their True Dragonlances and clash sword and spear against the enemy face-to-face.
It think Scenario 2 is better, particularly from a ROLEplaying point-of-view, while Scenario 1 works for a single person from a ROLLplaying point-of-view. Admittedly, the Curse of the Magi blows chunks at lower levels, but it also is representative of just what a wizard has to do to attain great power. If anybody and his brother could become a magic-user, than DL would be just like Forgotten Realms, not like the individual world it is. You say Dragonlance is restrictive. I say it is exclusive.
Now is my turn to be presumptuous. I get the feeling that you’re pegging me for some power-gaming mongrel since you felt the need to emphasize ROLE-playing. Let me tell you something, most of the experience points I award in my games are base on Story, Role-playing, and character development. I don’t believe in random hack-and-slash, every battle has a purpose in my campaign. Occasionally, the players want a dungeon crawl and I’m okay with that as well, so don’t presumed. Then again maybe I read too much into it. If I’m wrong about you please let me know.
On the wizard note, I know my wizards very well as they are my prefer class to play. Although I have to admit I’ve never played, or known anyone who’s played, a wizard powerful enough to take on twenty sivak draconians ridding red dragons. Sure the sivaks are toast, and maybe a red dragon or two.. maybe.. but that wizard is dragon meat.
And finally, it’s pretty damn self-righteous to ask people to share their options on a forum indifferently. For the sake of avoiding endless arguments I agree people shouldn’t go around bashing someone else’s preference, but there’s nothing wrong with explaining what you don’t like and why.
Originally posted by Baron the Curse
Paladin, you’re being very presumptuous to assume I view all wizards as weak. Even without the Curse most wizards would have a decent Con to balance their d4 Hit Dice. As for the Knights of Solamnia in the Fifth Age Box Set Heroes of Steel it states that under the new Measure the knights are ranked by achievement. In the old edition a 20th Level Knight of the Crown was inferior in status to a 6h Level Knight of the Rose. Under the new Measure the Knight with the highest achievement is consider the higher rank (I guess that would translate into levels). I’ll have to read it again to see if it allows a knight to enter the Order of the Sword or Rose without first having to be a Crown Knight. The Measure changed so drastically that it might just allow that.
Now is my turn to be presumptuous. I get the feeling that you’re pegging me for some power-gaming mongrel since you felt the need to emphasize ROLE-playing. Let me tell you something, most of the experience points I award in my games are base on Story, Role-playing, and character development. I don’t believe in random hack-and-slash, every battle has a purpose in my campaign. Occasionally, the players want a dungeon crawl and I’m okay with that as well, so don’t presumed. Then again maybe I read too much into it. If I’m wrong about you please let me know.
On the wizard note, I know my wizards very well as they are my prefer class to play. Although I have to admit I’ve never played, or known anyone who’s played, a wizard powerful enough to take on twenty sivak draconians ridding red dragons. Sure the sivaks are toast, and maybe a red dragon or two.. maybe.. but that wizard is dragon meat.
And finally, it’s pretty damn self-righteous to ask people to share their options on a forum indifferently. For the sake of avoiding endless arguments I agree people shouldn’t go around bashing someone else’s preference, but there’s nothing wrong with explaining what you don’t like and why.
I have to admit, I did presume you to be a powergamer, but in my own defense, that is what you appeared to be from your arguments. For this, I sincerely apologize. One other thing I would like to point out, as stated in a post from a different person early in the thread. You can't hold old rules as some sort of DL Bible. Rules change with editions. With the advent of v3.5 D&D, it was definite that DL rules were going to change. I feel they have indeed changed for the better, making it much more difficult to advance in the Orders of KoS make so much more important when a character does actually do this. I also feel it is a problem to hinder wizards twice over with spells per day and the Curse of the Magi. However, it makes a game much more interesting to me to make it so that a wizard will think twice about using spells frivolously. On a final note, I don't think it is that self-righteous of a request. My attempt there was to simply curb factioning and hostility. I am a very firm believer in the expression of opinion, as you can see from earlier posts. However, one should not take it so seriously as we are both guilty of doing. One should state their opinions, definetly, but also, when doing so indifferently, there will be less of a chance that a heated debate will arise from a person saying that another's opinion is wrong simply because it is different. As I stated earlier, my attempt in that request was to not develop an enemy with a fellow DL fan, but rather the opposite, to have both sides calmly make their statements.
It is not even part of the DLCS 'core rules'. The Curse is listed as a sidebar and as an optional rule, just as the Instant Kill and Death from Massive Damage rules in the 3.5 DMs guide are listed as OPTIONAL. This means it is not mandatory so if you don't like the rule don't use it. Perhaps instead of bashing the Optional rule (and each other) suggest a proposed method to fix it and then discuss your reasoning behind that choice.
I also believe it is fairly safe to assume that most of the players and GMs on the DL board are role-players rather than roll-players, otherwise they would be playing in other 'Monty Haul' style gameworlds without the restriction settings imposed by Dragonlance and where their characters can freely wield psionics and magic and a giant magical greataxe.
And as for the Knights of Solamnia. It is true that the code was revised to recognise the merit of each individual knight regardless of their Order, it is still more evident in the novels that the 'pecking' order of the older days is still very much prevailent (ie: Rose over Sword over Crown). However one still has and (with noted few exceptions) always has had to pass through the Orders from Crown through Sword then to Rose. Each order teaches the knight a different aspect of the Oath and the measure which is required for their time as a Rose Knight and to skip one of these 'lessons' would seem impractical. A Rose Knight is what he is not because of their powers, but because they have the experience and that experience is expected to have given them Wisdom.
Arandur
Perhaps you can substitute WILL in place of FORT saves or perhaps you use the variant suggested by Shugi (which we use in our campaigns) that a mage becomes fatigued after casting his daily alotment of spells and becomes rested again after 8 hours of sleep (and none of that elvish reverie, 'I only need to sleep for 4 hours' crud). Perhaps a Wizard can cast an ability modifier (GMs choice) of 'free' spells before the Curse sets in? These are just some ideas that we can debate over...
Why debate something that your not going to use? That's arguing for the sake of arguing and is kind of pointless...
Arandur
Paladin, I misunderstood your stand on indifferent as well. I have no problem with people expressing their opinions as just that, an opinion. I suppose I’ve also been clinging to the rules presented in Tales of the Lance a little firmly. I guess I'm getting old. I love 3rd Edition D&D, excuse me, I mean I love 3.5… well I didn’t like that dirty “oh my god I just got ripped-off hardcore!” feeling I got when I parted with my 90 dollars, but that’s another topic. Arandur I slap silly any player who tries to pull that “my elf meditates for 4 hours” crap in my Dragonlance game. They're free to mediate and then get up with a headache and no spells memorize. Now get your damn 8 hours sleep. This is Dragonlance not Tolkein’s world.
Now that that's done... perhaps here's a way to use the Curse rule without losing the epic flavor. Make spells per day the number of spells a wizard can use without feeling the effects of the curse. After those are used up, the character can continue to cast spells, but at the risk of the Curse of the Magi. What do you think?
Also if the Curse is used in conjunction with NPC characters (as mentioned earlier) then I think they would factor this into their everyday lives. They know it exists so I doubt they would wade in with the possibility of the spells knocking them flat. THey would more than likely have potions to remove exhaustion and allies their to protect them or whisk them away if they collapse. In many ways it makes them more crafty, less confrontational and in my experience much deadlier (the arcanist wouldn't waste the energy unless they know they can win).
I like the idea of the Curse because it once again makes Wizards intelligent (they have to use what they have sparingly and dilligently) and not just as some sideshow attraction that wastes their spells at every chance they get. How many Wizards have you seen that look for the arcane way of doing something BEFORE actually using the more mundane? Be it from simply opening a strange door to yelling a warning to a fellow party member during a large battle. The curse grounds the arcanist a little and brings the more down to earth nature of DL wizards into view...
Just a few random thoughts plucked from the entropy
Arandur
Arandur
Arandur
Personally, it depends on the load the character is carrying, what they have been doing previously (being chased, climbing etc.). If they have been exerting themselves prior to combat I give them a number of 'free' rounds equal to their Con bonus. This may sound harsh but I use it for NPCs also. I find it adds to many battles and works great in large scale sieges where the forces have 'Hard Marched' or have been stretched to the limit of endurance. From a refreshed point, I usually give the characters a number of rounds equal to their Constitution score in combat (some situations, like smoke for example, lessen that but it is all common sense). In the examples above, this is where the FORT save for fatigue begins, if characters make the save then they do not suffer the effects. Using these rules I have seen a ranger run from a small goblin party to tire them out and give himself an edge when he took a stand. I just find that exhaustion adds another level of realism to the campaign and players begin to pick their battles a little better.
Just my take on the matter
Arandur
A warrior that goes into battle fresh could fight for a half hour without needing water, in one hundred plus degree weather. After a hard march, said warrior could fight for ten minutes at least before needing to stop, in moderate temperatures. But that is beside the point. What I was trying to point out is should a second wind be given, and if so, how would that be handled game mechanics-wise. Perhaps one could make a Fort. saving throw every round to simulate the second wind idea. Any thoughts on that?
If I equate the temperature right that is about 40 celsius here, in the sun, that makes it damn hard to even sandblast in a blasting hood for 30 minutes, let alone run around in heavy armour. Look at boxers and how quickly their bodies start feeling fatigue. No armour, no heavy weapons just the jostle of the ring. The armoured warriors probably could fight for the half and hour, but they would definately feel the exhaustion long before the half hour was through. I guess that is what I based the above upon but as I said those are just based upon my own personal experiences.
There are differing levels of fatigue, I don't have my trusty GMs guide in fornt of me but there is multiple levels, the final being unconsciousness. If you fail the first you merely suffer penalties which increase if you fail the second and the third failure indicates you are to exhausted to continue. As for the second wind, it sounds more like an adrenal response from the body. Perhaps a feat could handle this. Or maybe a Will save to represent the determination?
Arandur
I could indeed see a Will save for that, but another question arises. Could this idea be used to perhaps counter the Curse of the Magi. Just something to ponder.
For fatigue rolls as a result of combat situations for arcanists (ie casting defensively), I would allow them the same time frame and perhaps create a feat that allowed them either a bonus to their recovery check or shortened the time for recovery checks. In the example I gave for my campaign's variant of the Curse of the Magi (kicking in after the daily spells are cast) there is no rest short of the 8 hours sleep that will rejuvenate the tired Mage. I use this because it is suppoesed to be a curse and a curse always has negative effects.
Arandur
I would just like to state for the record that I think the Curse of the Magi is a GOOD thing in that it makes things a little more real as far as the possible negatives. I don't like the lack of balance that it causes.
Some possible balances:
A powerful magic item (moreso then a level 3 or 4 would have)
A curse that only applies when you're casting the HIGHEST level spells that you can cast...a level 18 wizard should NEVER be fatigued from casting a magic missile.
A curse that is based off of the strongest saving throw a wizard/sorceror has rather then the weakest.
No limit on spell casting? Memorize a spell and use it as much as you like...just take the risk on fatiguing yourself every time you cast.
etc.
Thoughts, ideas??
That being said, If I were to think of this in terms of balanced gameplay, I'd insist that The Curse of the Magi be included to insure game balance.
Here's my reasoning:
You have moon magic Which can give you higher casting levels. Combined with Conjunction (Which never penalized a WoHS), you have on the average, higher casting levels. This is an extra power over what normal wizards can cast at the same level. Once every 504 days, you get to cast *THREE* cast levels higher than normal.
Wizards 0, WoHS +1
Item of Power: You get a free Permanent magic item of 2,000-4,000 in value from the DMG. Wizard goes up one level? no magic item. Wizard takes WoHS prestige class, you get a magic item. Free treasure.
Wizards 0, WoHS +2
Wizards of High Sorcery get access to libraries, labratories, and research, meaning more spells in the spell book, and more magical items. We're also forgetting bout Secrets from each order, which add extra damage, Free empower, enlarge and extend metamagic feats on spells, and allows WoHS to cast extra spells.
Wizards 0, WoHS +3
What do wizards get at those high levels? Bonus Feats, which i might add, are available in some form in WoHS prestige classes.
Wizards +1, WoHS +3
So, in Summation, WoHS get bonus spell levels at the right times, free metamagic on certain schools, free magic items, free extra damage, more spells and magic items through research at the sacrifice of gaining 3-4 bonus metamagic (item creation or spell mastery) feats, You're right the WoHS is unbalanced. It might be TOO powerful, and the Curse of the Magi might be mandatory to prevent the overpowered WoHS characters from ruining the game.
Thank gods SP included it. it gives game balance back to the DM AND it gives world flavor. You want game balance? enforce the Curse of the Magi.
Why penalize arcane spell casters when there aren't any penalties for other classes? Are you telling me you can get fatiqued and fall unconscious by casting an arcane spell but not by casting a divine spell or fighting another person for an extended period of time? Doesn't make sense.
Granakrs last I checked the Curse of the Magi was for all arcane spell casters. Thats sorcerers and wizards. I don't think you have to take the WoHS prestige class in order to be stricken with 'the curse'. Sure the prestige class can take some of the sting out of it but you could also be dealing with someone who takes a few levels of wizard, one level of WoHS PC then wants to go back to wizard for whatever reason.
Saying the Curse is balanced because of one prestige class isn't a very good argument imo.
As I stated before the Curse is NOT a bad thing. I just don't see how you can take a 'balanced class' and take something away from it and give nothing in return and claim that its still balanced.
Do you guys honestly think that a wizard we'll say level 18...no con modifier, no feats taken to offset it with a standard fort save ( I believe its 5 or 6) should be fatigued 1/4 of the times that they cast a MAGIC MISSLE spell? Thats a DC save of 11 with a fort of we'll say 5....that means on a 5 or less (25% chance on a d20) that that wizard would be fatigued by casting a level 1 spell? Please...thats like taking a level 18 fighter and telling him 'Sorry you're having a bad day...you can't swing your sword very well'.
Keep in mind wizards train from the time they are children. The should not be penalized so heavily as to take them completely out of the game from 2 bad dice rolls...and thats literally all it would take.
Basically what I'm looking for out of other posters is something that is justifiable in using this rule (which I think the concept of is very cool) and make it WORKABLE in a campaign.
Originally posted by Peyotie
Granakrs last I checked the Curse of the Magi was for all arcane spell casters. Thats sorcerers and wizards. I don't think you have to take the WoHS prestige class in order to be stricken with 'the curse'. Sure the prestige class can take some of the sting out of it but you could also be dealing with someone who takes a few levels of wizard, one level of WoHS PC then wants to go back to wizard for whatever reason.
Saying the Curse is balanced because of one prestige class isn't a very good argument imo.
And I will now quote pg 89 of the DLCS-As a variant rule, to reflect the exhaustion inherent in casting the powerful spells of High Sorcery, you can institute the full effects of the Curse of the Magi.
Seems to me that they made it especially for wizards....But..I guess it could work for Sorcerers as well....but it would not make sense.
If not, that's okay and you probably won't use the Curse of the Magi rule. Game balanced.
If you do then it becomes unfair for the other classes once again. They get penalised for doing something during an encounter while the mage sits back and lobs in the occassional fireball but suffers no penalty because all he does is wiggle his fingers and speak funny. In this scenario, how is that fair?
Arandur
Its not as if the WoHS is always casting stronger magic then a wizard or a sorcerer. They all involve power. Is the power in a WoHS magic missle less then, the same, or more then a regular wizards or a sorcerers?
How about this for a variant rule? The Curse of the Magi takes place on anyone using the moons cycle to draw strength from (assuming the argument is lower level wizards draw their power from somewhere other then the moons or are they too weak to gain the benefits of the moons? Also what about renegades?? They can cast spells just like any WoHS or sorcerer. Are they affected by the moons as well or just WoHS??) If JUST WoHS members are influenced by the moons power then I can see having the Curse of the Magi in place but lower the DC number to say 6 or 7 AND add in the modifier that the moons are having to their spell power. That way casting spells on the night of the eye would be VASTLY more dangerous then casting spells when their moon is at Low Sanction.
It makes sense to have a harder DC when the moons are channeling their spells power to higher levels then they normally can handle. It does not make sense for a high level wizard to suddenly become fatigued by casting an invisibility spell or any other low level magic.
Basically ALOT of explanation on how magic really works on Krynn needs to happen. Who is influenced by the moons? That would lead to a greater understanding of the Curse and the hows and whys.
Also Gran I just wanted to point some things out about what you said about the WoHS PC. Wizards would get a 2 to 4000 xp magic item. Thats not exactly amazingly powerful magic there. Also keep in mind that when a wizard takes the test they could very well DIE. I don't think the trinket necessarily makes up for the risk.
Casting spells at 3 levels higher for one day out of 504 doesn't seem overly unbalanced to me. They also have times when they cast spells weaker then what a standard wizard could do on that same day (provided they're not influenced by the moons...gads this is confusing at times). Its not always peachy great for WoHS.
WoHS are not getting extra magic feats, extra free damage, etc. All things have a cost. Also keep in mind a standard wizard could take these same feats as they progress so while the WoHS is getting stronger so what...EVERY class gets stronger as they progress...thats one of the ways the game works. WoHS in many ways is limiting. They get feats as they advance but they are more limited in what they can choose. They are also VERY limited in their spell selection. Limiting the #s of schools like they do can put a serious crimp on a wizard. A wizard has one thing...his spells. Taking whole sections of those spells away is not something that should be taken idlely.
Anyway posted a whole slew of stuff above....hoping to get more discussion on this as it seems to be going well imo.
After much deliberation, I would tend to say: "No, it's not." I tend to agree with the people who say that the restrictions actually add a lot of flavor to the setting. And one point that is being overlooked is, in my view, that Dragonlance does a pretty nice job of filling out the "gaps" left by these restrictions with rather cool and unique features of its own design. So you might look at the whole issue not as "restrictive", but just "different".
For example, while Krynn famously lacks some of the "standard" fantasy creatures - orcs, halflings, lycanthropes -, it also boasts a couple of exclusive and quite interesting races in their place, like draconians, high ogres or kender. It is interesting, in this regard, to look back to the original development process of the setting.
In the Annotated Chronicles - a very interesting and enlightening read for every Dragonlance fan because of all the footnotes, and a good reason to read the original trilogy again -, Hickman and Weis state that they felt at the time that orcs were "overused" in fantasy literature, and that they wanted to replace them with something else. That's how draconians came to be - as creatures, of course, they are quite different from orcs, but arguably, they fill a similar role in that they were originally designed as the typical "evil army soldiers". And it's beautiful to see how draconians evolved from there, how their background became deeper and more interesting, and how they became one of those races that makes Krynn unique - one not lifted straight out of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings for once. The point is that what was originally a restriction - "no orcs" - did not limit the imagination of the writers or make the setting duller, but actually fuelled it and compelled them to create something new and unique. This is what often happens in storytelling.
It's a similar story with kender. Hickman and Weis felt that the average "Tolkien hobbit" was "better suited to pastoral England than to the post-apocalyptic world of Ansalon". At the same time, they wanted to keep some kind of halfling race, so they decided to come up with one that had a totally different personality, rather the opposite of the traditional hobbit. So, kender came to be, with their curiosity, fearlessness and unmerciful taunting. "As innocent as children - and sometimes as cruel as children, too!" Again, leaving out a standard fantasy creature conspired to create one of the cornerstones of the setting we now know.
That is why I think that this "restrictiveness" is actually the very recipe that made Dragonlance such a successful setting. If the designers were to abandon it, they would probably succeed in pleasing various minority crowds who insist on playing half-orcs, werewolves, "classic" paladins or all-powerful mages who never tire - but they would also throw away the very thing that makes Dragonlance different and unique.
Besides, we already have one setting that tries to please everyone and include everything - the Forgotten Realms. Actually, I quite like the Realms, despite all the flaws - the setting does exactly what it's supposed to do, present "all possible fantasy worlds in one", and it does so well. But I don't think Dragonlance should try to emulate that approach, simply because it's been done elsewhere, and it's not what Dragonlance is about. At the end of the day, I like Dragonlance even more than the Realms - not in spite of the restrictions, but because of them.
In many ways, Dragonlance is an anachronism in the RPG world of today, a throwback to the old days of romantic, "classic" fantasy. It emphasizes quality over quantity, character depth and development rather than power-gaming, and roleplaying rather than roll-playing. I think the difference is neatly summed up in one example that came up earlier in this thread:
Now this was something I had a big discussion about with one my players. He firmly believes that all race stat modifiers must add up to at least 0. I on the other hand don't mind so long as the feel of the race is maintained. This player won't touch a kender for love nor money because they are underbalanced... yet strangely enough I have two other players planning on having two kender in my next campaign simply because they liked them after reading the Chronicles.
See what I mean? If you are a number cruncher who designs his character as a bundle of walking statistics, and who calculates for hours trying to come up with that ultimate "efficient" design of skills and abilities, Dragonlance probably isn't for you. Presumably, many of the younger players who grew up on Final Fantasy-fare and are used to slaying enemies by the droves will never quite "get" the setting - and I don't mean that condescendingly, I think people just reflect the environment in which they grow up with little fault of their own.
If, on the other hand, you value storytelling and depth - if you are a "book" type rather than a "TV" type, so to speak -, Dragonlance should be to your liking, as the world of Krynn is designed exactly for these things. You might even play a kender, never mind that - whisper it! - the blasted stats "don't add up to 0". Granted, there are other settings that have more creatures and races, more varied geography or culture, or meatier prestige classes - but in Krynn, all the creatures, areas or professions that do exist are fleshed out with loving detail, have their own history and their own place in the world. And in order to get that sort of quality and provide everyone of them with their own individual place, you just have to sacrifice some of the width and sheer quantity that, say, the Forgotten Realms provide. You can't have both.
I'm not saying one is better than the other - a silly statement which too often pops up in this sort of discussion. What I'm saying is that DM's and players just have to decide what style of play they prefer, and that certain settings are better suited to certain styles of play than others. That, ultimately, is what it comes down to. And that's why, depending on your point of view, you can judge the rules about the Knights of Solamnia, the Wizards of High Sorcery, the Curse of the Magi, or the absence of orcs and lycanthropes either as "unnecessary and too restrictive", or as "great flavor, and incentive for roleplaying". According to their own measures and values, both sides are "right" in their respective views, but what it really comes down to is a matter of taste.
Originally posted by Godagast
After much deliberation, I would tend to say: "No, it's not." I tend to agree with the people who say that the restrictions actually add a lot of flavor to the setting. And one point that is being overlooked is, in my view, that Dragonlance does a pretty nice job of filling out the "gaps" left by these restrictions with rather cool and unique features of its own design. So you might look at the whole issue not as "restrictive", but just "different".
It's like taking the PHB, and giving it definition, heart, and soul.
That is why I think that this "restrictiveness" is actually the very recipe that made Dragonlance such a successful setting. If the designers were to abandon it, they would probably succeed in pleasing various minority crowds who insist on playing half-orcs, werewolves, "classic" paladins or all-powerful mages who never tire - but they would also throw away the very thing that makes Dragonlance different and unique.
Exactly!
Besides, we already have one setting that tries to please everyone and include everything - the Forgotten Realms. Actually, I quite like the Realms, despite all the flaws - the setting does exactly what it's supposed to do, present "all possible fantasy worlds in one", and it does so well. But I don't think Dragonlance should try to emulate that approach, simply because it's been done elsewhere, and it's not what Dragonlance is about. At the end of the day, I like Dragonlance even more than the Realms - not in spite of the restrictions, but because of them.
I have to agree with this wholeheartedly. I'm a fan of the Realms too, and that's where I have fun with various things that just don't fit DL. In the end, DL is my gaming world of choice.
Now, this isn't to say that I can't enjoy more than one setting. In fact, I enjoy many settings, including (but not limited to) Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, Spelljammer, Dark Sun, Star Wars, and Rokugan.
In many ways, Dragonlance is an anachronism in the RPG world of today, a throwback to the old days of romantic, "classic" fantasy. It emphasizes quality over quantity, character depth and development rather than power-gaming, and roleplaying rather than roll-playing.
Exactly!
Too often these days, I see people who are so interested in game mechanics that it seems they have little room for characters and character development. To me, the magical art of role-playing is all about characters and their development. It should be about the DM telling the story, and the players acting out their character within that story.
Very well said on all your points, Godagast.
---------------------------------------------------------------
What is the Player's Handbook? Ask yourself this question, and see what answers you get.
The PHB, IMO, is a tool and a guide. It is a way to help you shape your character.
What is your character? Is it the sum of rules in the PHB?
No, and it shouldn't be. Yes, the PHB gives you the tools to shape your character, but it is the player that determines the background of the character, his wants, desires, and dreams.
In the case of Dragonlance, one can say that the PHB is a tool for you to develop a character in Dragonlance. However, this character will be shaped by the world as well as the PHB.
When I first started gaming, it was in the early days of 2nd edition. It was a time when you had the PHB, and it was applied to various different settings. This tool was used as a basis to show how characters in Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Spelljammer, Dark Sun, Planescape, Birthright, and Mystara all could be built.
Yet in each of these settings, there were some differences from the PHB, some of which may be looked at as "restrictions". I would like to think of them as "redefinitions". We can accept "redefinitions" in settings like Dark Sun since the setting is so different from standard fantasy. Dragonlance, though, is closer to standard fantasy, so the line is a bit blurred.
Dragonlance isn't about restrictions, it's about playing the setting. It's about getting entranced into a romantic fantasy setting, where things are a bit different. Yes, you have some "restrictions" compared to Forgotten Realms, but you gain so much in return.
If you look at DL, you have more races, classes, and feats than the PHB. The prestige classes are generic ones from splat books - they actually mean something. They represent roles in the world of Dragonlance, and each one helps to define the world.
So yes, there are some "restrictions" or "limitations", but what you get in return far outweighs all of that. You get a fleshed-out world that has definition, depth, and meaning. You get plenty of new options, and a flavor no other world can duplicate.
The Curse ruling makes Wizards examine their spells and use them more sparingly than regular games.
Originally posted by AkumaDaimyo
Um Half-Orcs have a -2 on two abilites and a +2 to only one and I dont hear anyone complaining about those. If you had read the DMG it says WHY some races have a -2 to two more abilites and a +2 to only one ability. Its called evenining it out. If you have a +2 to a combat related stat you need to have more penalties since combat is a big part of the game according to them. a +2 to int is nothing when the +2 to str guy kicks your butt. THATS why the Kagonesti have a -2 to two stats and a +2 to only one. Plusses to phsyical stats require more negatives to other stats to balance them out. Its all in the DMG guide under creating races.
You make a good point in evening out pluses with minuses. However, the basic elf race in the Player's Handbook get +2 Dex and -2 Con. Halflings get +2 Dex and -2 Str.
It seems that physical attributes are worth twice mental attributes. A +2 swing in a physical attribute will require either a -2 swing in another physical attribute (elves, gnomes and halflings) or a -4 swing in mental attributes (half-orc).
However, this doesn't hold true with the dwarf who gets a +2 Con and a -2 Cha. Perhaps the designers are taking more than just attributes into account when determining bonuses and penalties.
You can say Dragonlance is selective, unique, special, whatever, the fact remains that Dragonlance can be a very restrictive realm. Whether this is for the better or worse is beside the point. On a final note, just because some people express dissatisfaction with Krynn’s limitations doesn’t mean they are hack-and-slash Realm monsters. Hell, because Forgotten Realms is so huge and complex, a Dungeon Master could create a far more complicated, epic political campaign then would be possible in Ansalon. Again, I point out that I love Dragonlance and I don’t think it should be Forgotten Realms, but I think it could do without some of its limitations, like force specialist wizards.
Maybe the half-orc was an Irda in disguise??
Arandur
Dragonlance offers just as much scope as the Forgotten Realms perhaps in some instances substantially more. How many wars in Forgotten realms travel outside their circle of countires and engulf the entirity of Faerun/Toril? Dragonlance is designed to be an epic setting with epic tales and I think this is reflected in the setting wonderfully
Arandur
For example, what if Ergothian explorers reached another continent prior to the cataclysm and now have a thriving civilisation independant to the Ansalonian Ergoth and oblivious of the survival of the true Ergoth. Perhaps they have their own emperor. If the campaign you mentioned in the post has the Ergothians invading Daltigoth because they believe they have sovereignty then what about this other continent? Perhaps the other continent sees it the other way around and invades Ansalon or has become a twisted and dark version of the Ergothian empire you use in your campaign.
Check out the links on the Nexus and DL.com for some really outstanding Taladas material (by James O'Rance) and I think the Minotaurs from Adlatum. There are many sources for Taladas information (and more than likely someone will post the other sites after reading this).
Arandur
Thanks guys....
I'm sorry but I agree with having the schools restricted. As for needing to specialize to become a WoHS, except for in the Age of Mortals, your teacher most likely was a member of one of the orders, grooming you to join one. Otherwise he was a renegade, and you'd have a tough time not getting smoked on the doorstep if you tried to join.
And the Knights of Solamnia needing to progress through 3 prestige classes? Of course you do. You need to progress through the orders. You don't just automatically get into the Order of the Rose. It worked similarly in first edition (very much like prestige classes. Around roughly X level, you could petition to join the next order. Its just much more clearly cut with prestige classes. You could almost say the Knights were the original prestige class.
I only have 2 serious complaints about the book.
1) Map of The World Please. Not everyone has a book from previous editions (or wants to dig it up). Those who have seen one might be able to put together the pieces of map in the book but its tough. 3 maps would have been nice. The old book had a Pre Cat1 and Post Cat1 maps, how about those plus a Post Cat2 map, to show the changes the world underwent more clearly.
2) One Word: I-N-D-E-X
In regard to our discussion, maybe this is an interesting thread:
Are the Realms "too diverse"?
I started it in the Forgotten Realms forum, and quite a few people agreed with me. If nothing else, it goes to show you that people are never, ever happy - the weather is either too hot or too cold, and roleplaying settings are either too restrictive or too diverse! At the end of the day, we're all nitpicks...
As a sidenote I was always under the impression that the "curse of the magi" referred to the fact that wizards had to rememorize spells constantly. Why therefore the powers that be have decided to turn it into something its not strikes me as rather odd to say the least.
"High-handed of our elven princess, to be sure, but she did do both Margaret and me a large favor - she helped us break up our over-large group of heroes into two far more manageable groups. From this point on, the story in the novels was the driving force behind Dragonlance as opposed to the storyline the game modules were following and I believe both improved tremendously in the bargain - TRH"
- Annotated Dragonlance Chronicles, Dragons of Winter Night, pg 574
What works in a book, does not necessarily work in a game. What works in a game, does not necessarily work in a book. Slavish adherence to one or the other will make something worse then allowing each to grow in their own system.
Rosisha