Peace out from the Jungle Room.
The developers have said many times that their (controversial, to say the least ;) ) addendum was an 'option' for RL DMs.
So for me, the RLPH is 99,9% canon :D
Regards,
Joël
And this isn't the first bad rule that has popped up.
Originally posted by The_Jester
Well based on the quite canon Dungeons and Dragons Player Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide do say that in the modern editions ALL rules can be considered optional.
Aside from a few years under Gygax, that's _always_ been the case. It's still no excuse for wasting space and money on ill-conceived or poorly constructed rules. Also, rules that aren't strongly called out as optional tend to be taken at face value by new players and GMs, and thus can be a few factor in shaping their impressions of the system/setting.
And this isn't the first bad rule that has popped up.
Care to give some examples?
Matthew L. Martin
1)The new spells are lovely
2)The hunter class is good
3)Half of the weaknesses on classes are very interesting (for example, the double percentage for Power Check Failure for non-evil clerics and paladins) and the rest can still find their uses - see www.fraternityofshadows.com for some posts on this.
4)The magic rating doesn't change the domains - it mostly affects the PCs - it is tailored to the domain, so Lamordia even with low magic rating, never had much magic. And, my opinion is that some PCs really need the new rule. I have encouraged my players to change what they don't like around them. That would be disastrous if a bard (with high diplomacy) and a wizard could convince 3-4 Lamordians that magic is a great thing (and believe me, they can! My players can convince almost anyone, that's why Charisma is maybe the highest party score). Then, Lamordia would have a normal (proportional to its population) amount of Wizards - and the domain would loose some of its feeling.
So, the RL PHB may have 2 pages you won't use, but that cannot make a book non-canon.
Paladins or Good clerics who commit power checks are already doing something against their faith which should take away all powers from them. I think this is punishment enough.
Originally posted by d20 Modern Elvis
So Has the Ravenloft 3.5 PHB been declared Non-Canon Yet?
I pray that it has. The future of the RL line is not bright at all if it has not.
~B4Real
Originally posted by tec-goblin
4)The magic rating doesn't change the domains - it mostly affects the PCs - it is tailored to the domain, so Lamordia even with low magic rating, never had much magic. And, my opinion is that some PCs really need the new rule. I have encouraged my players to change what they don't like around them. That would be disastrous if a bard (with high diplomacy) and a wizard could convince 3-4 Lamordians that magic is a great thing (and believe me, they can! My players can convince almost anyone, that's why Charisma is maybe the highest party score). Then, Lamordia would have a normal (proportional to its population) amount of Wizards - and the domain would loose some of its feeling.
if you're giving your players that much power, you might want to rethink the game setting itself.
Ravenloft isn't about changing the world, it is about the futile attempt to change the world.
if you want to change the world, play some high fantasy setting.
Originally posted by Aion Khonsu
Ravenloft isn't about changing the world, it is about the futile attempt to change the world.
Actually, I would say that, if anything, it's about finding the great value in small victories.
Originally posted by John W. Mangrum
Actually, I would say that, if anything, it's about finding the great value in small victories.
This is why I don't like some peoples' push to make Ravenloft have a higher population count. Some people feel that a campaign can't be exciting unless you're "in a big city."
What I've always told people I meet at conventions is that sometimes saving a village or even a single family can mean more than saving an entire city. If you save the village, chances are that your characters know the innkeeper. When you save that single family, you've actually sat down to dinner with them, perhaps even shared tales with them by the firelight.
Saving those few people can be much more powerful than saving a few thousand faceless souls.
Originally posted by Rucht_Lilavivat
This is why I don't like some peoples' push to make Ravenloft have a higher population count. Some people feel that a campaign can't be exciting unless you're "in a big city."
What I've always told people I meet at conventions is that sometimes saving a village or even a single family can mean more than saving an entire city. If you save the village, chances are that your characters know the innkeeper. When you save that single family, you've actually sat down to dinner with them, perhaps even shared tales with them by the firelight.
Saving those few people can be much more powerful than saving a few thousand faceless souls.
I like small backwards communities in Domains where such community can exist.
As someone pointed out long ago, cities in modern domains can't have such small population.
Being a history student, that's what irks me. Barovia's population is ok, but no Démentlieu's or Larmordia's.
Originally posted by Charney
The problem with magic ratings is that it's an overcomplicated rule. I know I wouldn't apply it because it's too complicated. A more streamlined rule would have been much better.
Paladins or Good clerics who commit power checks are already doing something against their faith which should take away all powers from them. I think this is punishment enough.
For one, I understand you. Just bear in mind that in an average campaign, you tend to stay in a domain for a month of gaming (at least in my next campaign). So, you apply once the rules as the characters enter and you only apply different Magic Ratings in very very special areas - about one or two will be encountered by the players. That makes it easier to keep track of the modifications.
For the second part, I disaggree. Don't see Power Checks as punishment. It's toying of the Mists, adventure hooks etc. The story of a paladin who loses paladinhood is so tragic that mists will surely be interested.
Originally posted by Aion Khonsu
if you're giving your players that much power, you might want to rethink the game setting itself.
Ravenloft isn't about changing the world, it is about the futile attempt to change the world.
if you want to change the world, play some high fantasy setting.
Hmm... the players still should be able to change small things. If not encouraged to change the world, they will stop doing anything.
As the book says(something like that): there are nice places elements in the world. Elements that are worth of being defended.
In the same way, I think there are some changes to be made. If they weren't there wouldn't be heroes! I just think that the rules should draw a line and keep the players from over-doing that and missing the concept by flinging fireballs in Neufurhtenburg
Originally posted by Rucht_Lilavivat
This is why I don't like some peoples' push to make Ravenloft have a higher population count. Some people feel that a campaign can't be exciting unless you're "in a big city."
What I've always told people I meet at conventions is that sometimes saving a village or even a single family can mean more than saving an entire city. If you save the village, chances are that your characters know the innkeeper. When you save that single family, you've actually sat down to dinner with them, perhaps even shared tales with them by the firelight.
Saving those few people can be much more powerful than saving a few thousand faceless souls.
I think that this is correct for Ravenloft for many levels. But, sometime in level 10+, the players (at least my players) have seen the futility of small victories and want to make a change - I think this is acceptable and should be encouraged, as it will help end the campaign with high emotion (victorious or defeated, I don't mind), or even continue the campaign outside Ravenloft.
If you have destroyed every hope the players have they would stop a bit earlier. IMC I don't want that - it's a matter of taste. I'm in the mood of campaigns as-lengthier-as-possible, starting from level 1 and ending around level 26(of course that means that the players leave Ravenloft) when speaking for my main campaign. The other ones finish in much shorter time.
Originally posted by tec-goblin
I think that this is correct for Ravenloft for many levels. But, sometime in level 10+, the players (at least my players) have seen the futility of small victories and want to make a change - I think this is acceptable and should be encouraged, as it will help end the campaign with high emotion (victorious or defeated, I don't mind), or even continue the campaign outside Ravenloft.
I think you're missing my point. By the time you've gotten deep into the campaign, the players should see the value of saving a handfull of lives. That victory should be very meaningful. Not futile.
Originally posted by Charney
The problem with magic ratings is that it's an overcomplicated rule. I know I wouldn't apply it because it's too complicated. A more streamlined rule would have been much better.
Paladins or Good clerics who commit power checks are already doing something against their faith which should take away all powers from them. I think this is punishment enough.
It's not really overly-complicated. You need to remembed the effects on a single domain unless you're traveling alot. And most MR are between 2-4 sticking closer to the middle, in which case most of the time there is no effect. How many players have 6th level spells and +4 magic items? A few, but not enoughto make things complicated.
There are only a few rare places where the MR fluxuates to 0-1 or higher than 5.
And not everything that calls for a power check is a sin against someone's faith. Likewise they don't lose all their powers automatically, clerics can bend the rules and paladins can make mistakes. It is only when the "willfully commit evil acts or grossly violate their ethics." They can still slip up and attack the wrong person or do something grey for the greater good. Not truely evil but still power check worthy.
Originally posted by d20 Modern Elvis
So Has the Ravenloft 3.5 PHB been declared Non-Canon Yet?
Originally posted by B4Real
I pray that it has. The future of the RL line is not bright at all if it has not.
Out of curiosity, what august body has this official power?
Originally posted by The_Jester
And not everything that calls for a power check is a sin against someone's faith. Likewise they don't lose all their powers automatically, clerics can bend the rules and paladins can make mistakes. It is only when the "willfully commit evil acts or grossly violate their ethics." They can still slip up and attack the wrong person or do something grey for the greater good. Not truely evil but still power check worthy.
Name one act worthy of a power check that a Paladin can do?
Originally posted by tec-goblin
For the second part, I disaggree. Don't see Power Checks as punishment. It's toying of the Mists, adventure hooks etc.
The end result of a series of failed powers checks is that the player loses his character entirely. They are, explicitly, punishment.
They like playing Ravenloft, but they do have a hard time dealing with how depressing the World is. 2 of the characters are from Greyhawk. They have told the rest what a "better" world can be like.
So they are striving to make Ravenloft a free and liberated world, even if that means destroying it. However, they will have to make it to Epic Level, and the Dark powers will not let them do it in Ravenloft, so the players need to find an escape from the world, or get the Dark Powers to kick them out rather than destroy them.
So we shall see how fruitless their efforst will be. Well, we won't, since i had to move across the country.
Originally posted by Charney
Name one act worthy of a power check that a Paladin can do?
Looting the tomb of an evil Ancient Dead in Har'Akir.
Originally posted by Charney
Name one act worthy of a power check that a Paladin can do?
I could easily see an overly-righteous paladin destroying icons or works belonging to a "wrong" (ie not his) religion.
Originally posted by Rucht_Lilavivat
I think you're missing my point. By the time you've gotten deep into the campaign, the players should see the value of saving a handfull of lives. That victory should be very meaningful. Not futile.
I think I miss the point alltogether. IMC there is not enough value in this after some point. You made me think some things and really consider your idea. The problem is that my players after a year of saving some lives want something bigger. And it's the only reason to escape from Ravenloft and do some epic things in the Planes later. I still think I should encourage them to think big after some point in the campaign. And if thinking big, they could return from the planes to Ravenloft and try to make Lamordians wizards. They have already taught the Mantis to use gunpowder in my previous campaign.
So, you may not need Magic Ratings for a traditional Ravenloft campaign where the players don't try to change the domains. It's a matter of campaign needs. That's why it's optional.
Originally posted by Prof. Pacali
Looting the tomb of an evil Ancient Dead in Har'Akir.
That's not correct actually... you can loot evil tombs all you want. Looting good ones is call for a check (Um? maybe?) i know you get cursed... I'm pretty sure it calls for a check too.
But next time you see an evil tomb, temple or shrine, make sure to desecrate it. Its good to do.
Originally posted by Prof. Pacali
Looting the tomb of an evil Ancient Dead in Har'Akir.
Ok I should have said name ten ;)
That's probably the exception for most act worthy of a check means instant lost of the title.
Even if the paladin murdered heretics, it goes against his ethos. Just look at Elena.
Originally posted by Levinthauer
Out of curiosity, what august body has this official power?
The only entity that can declare something canon or non-canon is the owner of the Ravenloft intellectual property (IP)--formerly TSR, now WotC/Hasbro.
And they could, hypothetically, declare something non-canon and then change their mind and make it canon again. Or they could declare everything published to date non-canon and restart the line. Or they could declare continuity unimportant and stop worrying about the whole canon/non-canon debate. Or they could declare two separate continuities--one for game products and one for fiction (the Forgotten Realms has actually been tilting in that direction for the past couple of years, though no decision has been made official).
It's the IP owner's call, and depending upon what staffer's voice is loudest in the corporate ear at the time, different decisions can be made.
Cheers,
James Lowder
Originally posted by daffy72
That's not correct actually... you can loot evil tombs all you want. Looting good ones is call for a check (Um? maybe?) i know you get cursed... I'm pretty sure it calls for a check too.
But next time you see an evil tomb, temple or shrine, make sure to desecrate it. Its good to do.
In Har'Akir looting anyone's tomb is a no-no, because of the local religions (such as Osiris). As far as losing paladinhood is concerned, so long as he isn't one of Osiris' paladins he can loot all he wants. The paladin would have to make a DP check, but he wouldn't lose his paladinhood because its not against his religion, its against another, local, religion.
A curse would be a separate penalty, one laid by the evil Ancient in question, or by the ones who laid it to rest.
We apply it here, that in Dementleiu, as gunpower in fairly common, and the pistol too, why not have a mad inventor make a cannon, makes an interesting plot line, also there is then the issue of the steamengine (occasionally), as clockworks exist) and the Iron Bridge, which from memory all apart from canon are mentioned in Gaz3. If not I will have to give my party a elicier of Yellow flowers of forgetfullness
Originally posted by LicheHazel
Cannon / no Cannon, Well the argument can go both ways.
We apply it here, that in Dementleiu, as gunpower in fairly common, and the pistol too, why not have a mad inventor make a cannon, makes an interesting plot line, also there is then the issue of the steamengine (occasionally), as clockworks exist) and the Iron Bridge, which from memory all apart from canon are mentioned in Gaz3. If not I will have to give my party a elicier of Yellow flowers of forgetfullness
I was confused. What do do try to prove? (sorry, sometimes my mind works awfully)
Cannon = a projectile weapon with massive damage potential.
It's a confusing homophone and common typo.
Paladins can do several things that warrant DP checks but aren't chaotic or evil or even un-paladinly.
Heck, Jesus Christ would have had to make a few Powers checks in Ravenloft. (Raising the dead requires a Powers check if I'm not mistaken. Healing on a Sunday violated a taboo that theoretically applied to him culturally and might have warranted a Powers check. Etc.) Sorta funny thought.
DP checks have never made a huge amount of sense in their entirety if the viewpoint is that they are only about morality (which its my understanding that they aren't.) In 2e at least, it was perfectly okay to cast Acid Arrow at someone or blow them up with a Fireball, but Chill Touch provoked a DP check, as did Speak with Dead.
Originally posted by Belac
DP checks have never made a huge amount of sense in their entirety if the viewpoint is that they are only about morality (which its my understanding that they aren't.) In 2e at least, it was perfectly okay to cast Acid Arrow at someone or blow them up with a Fireball, but Chill Touch provoked a DP check, as did Speak with Dead.
Correct. The difference is the idea that the power source itself is corrupt and corrupting. Chill Touch, Speak With Dead (etc.) all use Necromancy; they tamper with life energies or draw power from the Negative Plane... thus, by nature, they are corrupting. So Fireball and Acid Arrow are "clean energy" as that goes.
But, while Acid Arrow and Fireball aren't by nature "evil" nor draw from a corrupt power pool, they can be used to purposes that warrant a Powers Check. Negligently lobbing fireballs or using the pain of acid on a helpless victim will warrant powers checks... but it is the act of endangering innocents or the act or torture that actually define the offense, not the tools used. After all, "guns don't kill people, people kill people."
So it is about morality. Mostly.
Interesting point on JC and the Powers Checks, but the Biblical model assumes that life energies come exclusively from the Positive plane. But as far as Ravenloft goes: it would be interesting to consider that perhaps -- despite their righteous sincerity -- the most outgoingly humanitarian priests of Ezra all seem to wear gloves, shun daylight and have very strange eating habits...
Originally posted by Levinthauer
But as far as Ravenloft goes: it would be interesting to consider that perhaps -- despite their righteous sincerity -- the most outgoingly humanitarian priests of Ezra all seem to wear gloves, shun daylight and have very strange eating habits...
While you do make a point of mentioning more humanitarian priests of Ezra, I do believe it's worth mentioning that Ezra is not a good deity, and her priests have just as much an ability at wielding negative energy as they do positive.
I've never particularly held up Ezra as a decent model of morality in Ravenloft. Just the most popular one.
As regards, Canon, well It would depend on the God / Goddess celebrated. I would like to say that all the different chapter houses of Ezra (Different Domains) Have alsorts of differences, in Dementilue the Worshipers are nutral, and don't actively seek members, other branches are different. So a set code that applies in one domain may not apply in another. Just my 2 pence worth
And again sorry, for confusing peeps
*insert drumroll and loud applause here*
Thank you, thank you
Originally posted by Prof. Pacali
In Har'Akir looting anyone's tomb is a no-no, because of the local religions (such as Osiris). As far as losing paladinhood is concerned, so long as he isn't one of Osiris' paladins he can loot all he wants. The paladin would have to make a DP check, but he wouldn't lose his paladinhood because its not against his religion, its against another, local, religion.
A curse would be a separate penalty, one laid by the evil Ancient in question, or by the ones who laid it to rest.
On the part of no looting any tombs in harakir youre just wrong-
if we are going by 'the rules' and not home brewed
Theft, grave robbing- domains where tombs of the dead are revered- may be considered desecration (see below)
- read your DM screen-
Power Checks
Unholy acts Evil Faith Netural Good Own
Breaking a Tenet No check 1% 2% 5%
Breaking an oath No check 2% 5% 10%
Breaking a vow No check 5% 10% Auto fail
Defilement No check 4% 8% Auto fail
Desecration No check 8% Auto fail Auto fail
Har akir Osiris & Ra:
2%
5%
10%
8%
Auto fail
Set:
no check
in more specific details: if you take less then half the treasure of Anhktepots wives and granchilden nothing happens. take more then half a room full and you are cursed until its returned. you age one year for every day.
you can loot any evil tombs you find. you just cant desecrate any thing belonging to a good deirty in those evil tombs.
dont know which is which? well i guess you should have picked up a scholar in your rush to go off crypt raiding
The only thing that irks meis the somewhat incomplete conversion from 3.0 to 3.5 in the book. For instance, in the vampire section the DR valueslook as if they were simply copied and pasted from the original book and the new DR "Silver and magic" slapped on, when they should really have scalled those values down a bit. And why the heck do rank one ancient dead have DR vs. Silver when all the others have DR vs. magic? That smacks of not thinking through things throughouly enough.
Heck, Jesus Christ would have had to make a few Powers checks in Ravenloft. (Raising the dead requires a Powers check if I'm not mistaken. Healing on a Sunday violated a taboo that theoretically applied to him culturally and might have warranted a Powers check. Etc.) Sorta funny thought.
I belive raising dead people provokes a powercheck, because you work with lifeforces and thus are (like Dr.Frankenstein) playing god. JC on the opposite, isn't playing god...
At least if you're beliving in him.
About looting evil tombs:
- how u know they are from a evil being?
- A god of godness would be happy to have a paladin/cleric tomb raiding only for gold and goods?
That's why a paladin char need to explain what he believes in and what are his goals before entering a adventure.
Originally posted by The Dark One
About looting evil tombs:
- how u know they are from a evil being?
- A god of godness would be happy to have a paladin/cleric tomb raiding only for gold and goods?
-how do you know?
thats what blowing points on knowledges and lore is all about. Dont want to blow your points, hire an expert hireling- scholar or crypt raider or someone who knows various religions, cults, secret societies from within RL and outlander stuff
you can also go research it
i believe a good of good doesnt care what you do to an evil tomb or temple. relieve yourself in the unholy water font
make love (not have sex) on the alter or use it for a coffee table, etc.
there are detailed rules for consecrating an area to your own religion
you can also dispell sinkholes of evil with the hallowed ground spell.. if youre more powerful then the sink hole raiting- no more sinkhole
etc.
or just burn the place down. consecrating it is better. just destroying it, those kinds of places have a tendacy to rise up again. while if you destroy a good place evil seems to florish there.
thats how the dark powers "get ya"
but you said that a god of good wouldn't care what happends for a evil tomb?
It isn't about the tomb being evil or not, it is the target of the paladin /cleric that would make him shame the act.
A paladin enters a tomb. He thinks "well, this is a evil tomb, so let's loot it and get out before the evil one arises".
Paladins/ clerics of a good deity who enter a evil tomb, are there to defeat the evil that lives there, and not mainly to loot and desecrate anything.
Originally posted by The Dark One
Paladins/ clerics of a good deity who enter a evil tomb, are there to defeat the evil that lives there, and not mainly to loot and desecrate anything.
I agree with that. ANd they would try to consecrate it.
Think about how the Ottomans turned the St-Sophie church of Constantinopolis into a Mosque
maybe they dont find the evil. maybe they have the flu and arent up to it
or maybe they are just lazy.
paladins are people... RL also grinds you down.
most after they are in rl for a while probably dont care and would in just as soon go in and crap on the alter, smash stuff and leave.
then again with our group the "nicest" character in 13 years was the LG paladin and he would just leave the room and "didn't want to know"
so if the party was going to kill their own.. he would be given a list of gear to go pick up.
He learned not to ask too many questions because if he did, he would have to kill the whole party and there was no way he could take them all himself, and self preservation would kick in. Why die a useless death?
The group after 13 real years (45 in-game)
instead of fighting the big bad said screw this. These people don't deserve saving. And it was the PALADIN'S idea to escape.
when the paladin was even saying such things, the real "hero" of the group then we knew it was time to go.
Also when he would try to do good, bad would come of it no matter what, which is what RL is all about.
On the rare occasion we were able to save someone. Of course they would thank us by telling the enemy forces where to find us for a copper or 3.
They would tell ya ."Hey! we didn't ASK you to get involved. I got mouths to feed."
Then cackle as they walk off counting all the money.
Dealing with these situations you need opperating capital, a good place to get that is evil tombs.
Originally posted by daffy72
That's not correct actually... you can loot evil tombs all you want. Looting good ones is call for a check (Um? maybe?) i know you get cursed... I'm pretty sure it calls for a check too.
But next time you see an evil tomb, temple or shrine, make sure to desecrate it. Its good to do.
I don't think that that would be a good thing to do...
It's my opinion that one shouldn't enter dens of foulest darkness for the sole purpose of busting up the place. One risks being contaminated by the evil aura of such areas.
Furthermore, you might need to make a powers check for looting an "evil tomb" especially if your actions lead to setting free whatever was imprisoned in that tomb.
You never ever need to make a check for looting an evil tomb. as i stated 10 posts up in this thread, coppied off the DM screen- descrating and destroying evil tombs is "no check"
destroying evil is good.
and (again) as i stated earlier in this post- the BEST think you can do is cast hallow in a sink hole of evil
if your cast is higher then the sink hole rating- you abolish the sinkhole. if it isnt greater- nothing happens it remains evil and most likwly will attract evil again.. so smash. pillage.
wait a few weeks and come descrate some more. grab a few of your paladin buddies and a few jugs of good meed. make a bonding weekend out of it.... do a little research- find out what the evil hates most, and sprinkle that item all over... have fun with it
bring RL to rights.
sure it will crush you and utterly destroy you.. but give RL a run for its money before it does squash you like the grape that you are.
This often especially applies to tombs.
Tombs are meant to contain the dead. If you remember what Van Richten said in his guide to the Ancient Dead, "A successful mummy hunter is not a graverobber! ... Senselessly looting burial places can bring into being, or wake all manner of undead creatures..."
How would you feel when, after you've demolished the tomb where that vampire was lairing in, the original owner of the tomb has gone back to town, and demand restitution in the form of 7 young virgins every week, or else?
And the only way to lay that bugaboo to rest was in a spellbook in the tomb you blew up.
if it was my party back home playing they would probably get money from the town to "save" the virgins
go - end up getting most killed or defile the rest using dubious mind control, end up
the big bad off and have it hunting us across the countryside as each of us slowly met one horrible fate after another. most team work consisting ogf tripping one party member so the rest could get away whileone was disembowled. Then the squabbling and infighting would start over our two precious magic items- the +1 sword and the ring of invisibility. The usual senerio would result in all but one member dying and a new party forming.Of course- im having fun at your post's expense...
we never had such senerios like you posted in our campaign- we were too busy trying to keep Ravenloft from being destroyed as one domain after another fell to a great enemy. Or we were on the run from assassins or something from all the enemies we made along the way.
*Thinking*
no i cant recall ever going after something as cut and dry as sacking a tomb. We destroyed a cult of lawful good once but we were under the impression they were evil at the time so i don't know if that counts.
hmmm
no. i dont recall any or any stories of any in the 20 year long campaign. We were more interested in political intrigue and mystery, not dungeon/ crypt crawls.