First is about classes, why are there no Monks or Sorcerers? I know that they were not in the older version, but they were also not in the older version of D&D.
Next, the Brute and Gladiator classes, why have them? Why not do them as PrC’s . My guess was that the Brute took the role of the Barbarian and the Gladiator was the DS fill in for the Paladin, but if that is so, why does the Gladiator get a d12 hit die?
Racial Ability adjustments - Why are they so high in the Download ,when compared to the old modifiers in the DS box set. Do we really want 1st level half giants fighters with a possible 26 Str?
Next the Bard, why is this version of the Bard so powerful? His Saves are so powerful (him not having a weak set) and so are his special abilities, Was this to balance against something that I missed?
And lastly some questions about Preservers and Defilers. After reading the wizard write up and the Chapter 8 on Magic, I can fine no rules explaining the difference between the 2 other then flavor. Why would a character Defile, is it just in the feats that they can get or am I missing something.
Originally posted by Bayushi Tai
First is about classes, why are there no Monks or Sorcerers? I know that they were not in the older version, but they were also not in the older version of D&D.
Monks have been talked about on these boards recently, and there's some debate - but basically they didn't fit into the DS world design (weren't in it originally), and possibly might have been overlooked somewhat.
Sorcerers don't really fit well as described in the PHB due to the nature of arcane magic in DS (in my personal opinion). However there are some people who use them. It's really not that hard to add either class if you so desire in your games.
Next, the Brute and Gladiator classes, why have them? Why not do them as PrC’s . My guess was that the Brute took the role of the Barbarian and the Gladiator was the DS fill in for the Paladin, but if that is so, why does the Gladiator get a d12 hit die?
The Brute is basically the Barbarian, however DS 1 & 2 both had Gladiators, so it only made sense that DS3 would have them as well. They aren't a replacement to Paladins. Paladins just plain don't fit at all in DS, with there being no gods and such, also the elements/paraelements aren't really bastions of "good" in the world. They tend to be more neutral overall, and it just doesn't work right. Once again, there's been people who have thrown around ideas of ways to make a Paladin-esque DS class, but I haven't seen that brought up in a while.
Racial Ability adjustments - Why are they so high in the Download ,when compared to the old modifiers in the DS box set. Do we really want 1st level half giants fighters with a possible 26 Str?
Because the Ability Points scale radically differently in D&D 3.0/3.5 than they did in AD&D 2.0 and earlier. The numbers really don't mean the same thing. It's the same reason that DS3 uses the standard PHB ability generation rules rather than the old DS rules from AD&D.
Next the Bard, why is this version of the Bard so powerful? His Saves are so powerful (him not having a weak set) and so are his special abilities, Was this to balance against something that I missed?
He doesn't have any spells. The Bard in DS3 is not an arcane spellcaster, and the other abilities help counterbalance that - and tends to make them more in-line with a Rogue in many respects.
And lastly some questions about Preservers and Defilers. After reading the wizard write up and the Chapter 8 on Magic, I can fine no rules explaining the difference between the 2 other then flavor. Why would a character Defile, is it just in the feats that they can get or am I missing something.
Feats, plus they increase their caster level by defiling (if memory serves). Also, there will be some defiler-exclusive Prestige Classes that are being worked on, like the Arch-Defiler (if memory serves). The current set of rules have actually caused the least amount of frustration I've seen on Preserving/Defiling for DS3, and it works for me personally (it's simple and still useful). Plus the DS3 team had to keep the Preserver/Defiler balanced, and the Preserver had to be just like the PHB wizard (or really, really, really close to it), to be interchangeable with it. I think that was WotC's rule, and they had to follow it.
I can see that, but I wonder if a DS version of the monk could work. I know that they weren't in the old version of DS but then again they weren't in AD&D either. It just seems that a such a harsh world as DS, you AS a weapon seems like a well worth idea
"Sorcerers don't really fit well as described in the PHB due to the nature of arcane magic in DS (in my personal opinion). However there are some people who use them. It's really not that hard to add either class if you so desire in your games."
Have to wonder why not, in the Lands of the Sorcerer Kings, I have to ask shouldn't they be here. They use the same arcane energies that wizards use, maybe changed to fit more. But in a world, where reading adn studing spell books doesn't happen, and without Wizards Guilds, (ie Dragonlance) they might fit more then Wizards. Once again I know that they weren't in the old version, but again, they weren't in AD&D either. (Small part wonders if it's a case of "wasn't there before so it isn't going in now -just cause" going on).
"The Brute is basically the Barbarian, however DS 1 & 2 both had Gladiators, so it only made sense that DS3 would have them as well. They aren't a replacement to Paladins. Paladins just plain don't fit at all in DS, with there being no gods and such, also the elements/paraelements aren't really bastions of "good" in the world. They tend to be more neutral overall, and it just doesn't work right. Once again, there's been people who have thrown around ideas of ways to make a Paladin-esque DS class, but I haven't seen that brought up in a while."
Gladiators I totally get why they are in there. Ijust wonder why they got d12 hit points ( since the never did before and I wonder if that takes something from the Brute). As for my Paladian ref, that was in regard to them be special and different they just a standard Fighter
"Because the Ability Points scale radically differently in D&D 3.0/3.5 than they did in AD&D 2.0 and earlier. The numbers really don't mean the same thing. It's the same reason that DS3 uses the standard PHB ability generation rules rather than the old DS rules from AD&D."
Have to wondor about this, since (and fallow me on this little train of thought). The old DS was a much harsher world then say GH or FR, and the heroes in turn had to be that much tuffer. But didn't WOTC learn from that, 3ed characters are much tuffer in general then there old 2nd counterparts. and even if you don't agree with that threah. Why didn't the base races (elf, halfling etc) get increases in thier racial abalites scores.
"He doesn't have any spells. The Bard in DS3 is not an arcane spellcaster, and the other abilities help counterbalance that - and tends to make them more in-line with a Rogue in many respects."
Looking at it again, I can't see that big of differents with or without spell, to say max out all the saving throws. As is it is written, he gets way better saves then a rogue, more specail abilites then the rogue, and a few less skill points. Not enough of a difference to make me play a rogue over a bard.
"Feats, plus they increase their caster level by defiling (if memory serves). Also, there will be some defiler-exclusive Prestige Classes that are being worked on, like the Arch-Defiler (if memory serves). The current set of rules have actually caused the least amount of frustration I've seen on Preserving/Defiling for DS3, and it works for me personally (it's simple and still useful). Plus the DS3 team had to keep the Preserver/Defiler balanced, and the Preserver had to be just like the PHB wizard (or really, really, really close to it), to be interchangeable with it. I think that was WotC's rule, and they had to follow it."
I looked again, and still couldn't find anything about increasing the caster level, but that makes sense. Have to wonder why you have to keep Preservers and Defilers balanced. Defilers are on the express train to being evil or getting taken out by pc's or npc's. and that in of it self should keep players on the straight and narrow.
Anyway, I bring all this up, for one reason. To understand the reasons behind some of this. Cause I know there was some good reasons behind them, and that will greatly help when I have to make calls on other stuff, while playing.
Originally posted by Bayushi Tai
I can see that, but I wonder if a DS version of the monk could work. I know that they weren't in the old version of DS but then again they weren't in AD&D either. It just seems that a such a harsh world as DS, you AS a weapon seems like a well worth idea
The monk from the PHB does not require much to add it to a DS campaign, just say the sp-like abilities they have are psionic related and not arcane related and it's all good.
However, I did write up my idea of what an Athasian monk would be like back in the day when I was given the task since most of the designers didn't like the normal PHB monk.
Mystic
Check it out if you want.
Have to wonder why you have to keep Preservers and Defilers balanced. Defilers are on the express train to being evil or getting taken out by pc's or npc's. and that in of it self should keep players on the straight and narrow.
Roleplaying can not be a balancing factor, this is something that came into fruition since D&D 3.0.
That is why...
Originally posted by Bayushi Tai
"Monks have been talked about on these boards recently, and there's some debate - but basically they didn't fit into the DS world design (weren't in it originally), and possibly might have been overlooked somewhat."
I can see that, but I wonder if a DS version of the monk could work. I know that they weren't in the old version of DS but then again they weren't in AD&D either. It just seems that a such a harsh world as DS, you AS a weapon seems like a well worth idea
I was toying around with an idea of a psionic monk, as did Nytcrawlr at one point. To build a monk that was more of a DS Monk. Of course, I'm also waiting to see if the revised Psionics Handbook will have a psionic monk as one of it's new base classes.
"Sorcerers don't really fit well as described in the PHB due to the nature of arcane magic in DS (in my personal opinion). However there are some people who use them. It's really not that hard to add either class if you so desire in your games."
Have to wonder why not, in the Lands of the Sorcerer Kings, I have to ask shouldn't they be here. They use the same arcane energies that wizards use, maybe changed to fit more. But in a world, where reading adn studing spell books doesn't happen, and without Wizards Guilds, (ie Dragonlance) they might fit more then Wizards. Once again I know that they weren't in the old version, but again, they weren't in AD&D either. (Small part wonders if it's a case of "wasn't there before so it isn't going in now -just cause" going on).
It might be a little of that. I personally just can't visualize a Sorcerer on Athas. Rajaat invented Arcane magic, and it was based around the idea of a Wizard. There were two basic schools on it - the "public" one which became known as Preservers, and his "secret" group who became known as Defilers. But then again, as I said, if you want them in it, you could make the jump and say that people have become "imbued" with innate arcane magical talent, and work from there.
"The Brute is basically the Barbarian, however DS 1 & 2 both had Gladiators, so it only made sense that DS3 would have them as well. They aren't a replacement to Paladins. Paladins just plain don't fit at all in DS, with there being no gods and such, also the elements/paraelements aren't really bastions of "good" in the world. They tend to be more neutral overall, and it just doesn't work right. Once again, there's been people who have thrown around ideas of ways to make a Paladin-esque DS class, but I haven't seen that brought up in a while."
Gladiators I totally get why they are in there. Ijust wonder why they got d12 hit points ( since the never did before and I wonder if that takes something from the Brute). As for my Paladian ref, that was in regard to them be special and different they just a standard Fighter
I think the d12 was a playtesting thing. It might have something to do with that Gladiators don't habitually wear armor like a Fighter does, and instead rely on their own tough hide to survive like a Barbarian (or Brute) does.
"Because the Ability Points scale radically differently in D&D 3.0/3.5 than they did in AD&D 2.0 and earlier. The numbers really don't mean the same thing. It's the same reason that DS3 uses the standard PHB ability generation rules rather than the old DS rules from AD&D."
Have to wondor about this, since (and fallow me on this little train of thought). The old DS was a much harsher world then say GH or FR, and the heroes in turn had to be that much tuffer. But didn't WOTC learn from that, 3ed characters are much tuffer in general then there old 2nd counterparts. and even if you don't agree with that threah. Why didn't the base races (elf, halfling etc) get increases in thier racial abalites scores.
Because the races for DS have to be balanced with the core d20 book races. There is Challenge Ratings, Level Adjustments and such to think about in order to make the game really work well, which has been the bane of the athas.org team, I believe. However what they've been doing works. You do need to remember - that Half-Giant is the equivalent of a 3rd level character before he even gets 1 class level. A Level 1 Brute Half-Giant is the equivalent of a 4th level character.
"He doesn't have any spells. The Bard in DS3 is not an arcane spellcaster, and the other abilities help counterbalance that - and tends to make them more in-line with a Rogue in many respects."
Looking at it again, I can't see that big of differents with or without spell, to say max out all the saving throws. As is it is written, he gets way better saves then a rogue, more specail abilites then the rogue, and a few less skill points. Not enough of a difference to make me play a rogue over a bard.
Once again, I blame playtesting for that. The Bard's gone under many revisions. DS3 is out, and with the exception of errata, they don't want to keep changing the Core Rules, like has been happening for the past (what is it, 4?) years. They want to get other supplements out, and then after they get those, maybe look back and do some extra fine-tuning, with a lot of real playtesting information on the game material (not just rule-nitpicking, where people don't actually play the game and just read the rules).
"Feats, plus they increase their caster level by defiling (if memory serves). Also, there will be some defiler-exclusive Prestige Classes that are being worked on, like the Arch-Defiler (if memory serves). The current set of rules have actually caused the least amount of frustration I've seen on Preserving/Defiling for DS3, and it works for me personally (it's simple and still useful). Plus the DS3 team had to keep the Preserver/Defiler balanced, and the Preserver had to be just like the PHB wizard (or really, really, really close to it), to be interchangeable with it. I think that was WotC's rule, and they had to follow it."
I looked again, and still couldn't find anything about increasing the caster level, but that makes sense. Have to wonder why you have to keep Preservers and Defilers balanced. Defilers are on the express train to being evil or getting taken out by pc's or npc's. and that in of it self should keep players on the straight and narrow.
The balance rule was issued by WotC, and athas.org have to play by their rules, or else they can't make Dark Sun, and it most likely would have never come out (regardless of Dragon #315)
Anyway, I bring all this up, for one reason. To understand the reasons behind some of this. Cause I know there was some good reasons behind them, and that will greatly help when I have to make calls on other stuff, while playing.
I understand - I've had to make some calls on it myself in the past, but the DS3 core rules document worked for me while I ran my DS game (of course, it wasn't complete at that time, and I had to wing a bit of it). My best sugestion is this - read through the material for DS, and figure out what works for you. If something doesn't make sense, toy with it a bit, and see if you can make it work better (actually in a game, not just writing up rules on a whim without testing), then please, post your ideas. Everyone here seems to be full of 2 things: 1) Ideas; 2) Opinions. Me included. I may occasionally get.... irate about my opinion, but I try not to be. Others here are the same way. Some lucky few seem to just go with the flow and are pretty easygoing on these things - and are also frequently pretty good at coming up with decent solutions. Just keep an eye out on this board, and see what all transpires. Maybe someone can help you straighten out the rules in your head by their little comment here or there.
This helps with repeating things over and over and otherwise having a stampede of kanks sent after you or a lightning bolt shot at you.
(Small part wonders if it's a case of "wasn't there before so it isn't going in now -just cause" going on).
Actually, that stance was taken in the very early stages. Much arguing and debating (more of the former than the latter) caused the barbarian . . . excuse me, brute, to be accepted as a core class. Its not all simply a matter of 'pure revision' now though as it is a matter of preserving the integrity of the setting's flavor. Nytcrawler's monk, although in the end is very different from the core rules monk, is a fine example of how changing the flavor of something can make it fit quite well into Athas. Simply using his description and background for the Mystic and nixing the quasi arcane references out of the core monk class can make the core monk fit into Athas like a hand in a glove (assuming of course that you didn't like the Mystic's mechanics, which I do). There's still some debate about introducing a DS style paladin as well, though the idea has yet to garner any support over all.
Next, the Brute and Gladiator classes, why have them? Why not do them as PrC’s . My guess was that the Brute took the role of the Barbarian and the Gladiator was the DS fill in for the Paladin [spip]
Why aren't the ranger, paladin, and barbarian done as PrCs in the core rules? Whatever answer you give to that fits as an answer to your question as well. Yes, the brute is 100% a barbarian mechanically. The Gladiator is another specialized fighter that is too important in the setting to be relegated as a PrC. Also, some people do not feel the need for PrCs and would prefer not to overburden themselves with them. For those who want only a basic set of classes, expanding the Gladiator into a full class presents the best all around option.
but if that is so, why does the Gladiator get a d12 hit die?
You'll note that, although the Gladiator seems like a pretty hefty class, its not as overbalanced as it comes off at first glance. Take a little time and mock up a few simple gladiators and compare them to their equivalents in the fighter class. Run the class through some actual playtesting though, then judge whether or not the d12 hit dice are worth it.
Racial Ability adjustments - Why are they so high in the Download ,when compared to the old modifiers in the DS box set. Do we really want 1st level half giants fighters with a possible 26 Str?
Half-giants follow all the rules in the DMG and MM for a giant type monster. At over 10' tall and weighing as much as a half dozen sumo wrestlers, they fall outside the realms of being simple humanoids. I did a good amount of playtesting with 2 different half giants in a party and they fared as well as any other class/race of equal level, dying as often as anyone else (though they didn't fare quite as well in the tembo den as I thought they would
). There are some serious drawbacks to consider for the race though. Psions can make mincemeat out of one rather easily with such poor saves. Assuming you enforce the water and food requirements of living on Athas, the double water aspect itself makes them quite a trade off for being able to bash a few skulls around (which in itself is not very impresive on a world where there's always something around the corner than can bash much, much harder). Once again, do a little playtesting with the race before you begin your campaign to see if its suited to your playing style.