I just wanted to add a comment on Dwarven Wizards. Apologies for spelling etc, but are not the "Modrigswerg" mentioned in Gaz 7 The Northern Reaches? Straight out of Norse myth (OK, not straight, but still recogniseable) - these are dark dwarves casting sinister magics etc. Here is a place to find Dwarven Wizards, and perhaps the reason why Rockhome does not tolerate such (or admit they existed)...
I know D&D doesn't follow Tolkien, but the premise that a very long-lived species would inter-marry with the ephemeral humans only in special circumstances seems quite logical.
... Apologies for spelling etc ... the "Modrigswerg" mentioned in Gaz 7 ...
I must say that I've seen so many spelling-versions for these guys, that I'm really not sure if there even is a correct spelling! :D
I thought I'd try and move this discussion away from the "will we ever" thread... This is a place to discuss what works or does not work in 3E when trying to preserve the flavour of Mystara.
An interesting topic, although it usually leads to flame wars, unfortunately. Anyways, one can always try to be optimistic.
The flavour of Mystara is hard to define, and different people will have different opinions to what defines Mystara. Back in the days when Mystara was being streamlined and bent to conformity under the AD&D conversion, I was very much concerned about underlining where Mystara did not fit with the AD&D scheme and where I felt that the rules/mutliverse etc should be changed to fit Mystara rather than the other way around.
With 3E, I don't feel the same. What I like about 3E is the flexibility of the rules; how I can create a Wizard swordsman or a dwarf sorcerer, or a Half-Orc Rogue-Cleric.
At the same time, Mystara should not be a setting where many of these unusual combinations suddenly become commonplace overnight IMO. But rather than having rules limit these possibilities, the setting itself places limitations to what is common and what isn't. If a player wants to create a Dwarf Wizard, I let him, provided that he comes up with a proper explaination to how and why he has learned this forbidden art and details how he has survived as an outcast from dwarven society. Alot of roleplaying possibilities can come out of this!
For Half-elves, I use the 3E half-elf to model those Elf-Human children mentioned in Alfheim and Darokin. Although under 3E they are now considered a separate race rules-wise, they are not considered True Half-Elves by the peoples of Mystara. True Half-Elves are a separate, more powerful race, as stated in the Alfheim Gaz.
Håvard
An interesting topic, although it usually leads to flame wars, unfortunately. Anyways, one can always try to be optimistic.
All the more reason to get it out of the catch-up thread - if neccesary this can be locked seperately. It would be a shame if that happened though so I am all for being optimistic.
This can be loosened quite a bit without harming the setting, but I think it's important that Dwarves and Halflings never have obvious magic users (otherwise Glantri's experimentation doesn't make sense) and that it's reasonable to assume every Elf is a magic user.
I don't think any class (except Paladin, which should be a prestige class) should be dropped completely, but certain classes/races/combinations should be marked "rare" - the Half-Elf and Half-Orc, the Sorceror, Dwarven and Halfling spellcasters. I don't know whether "rare" classes should be punished with an experience penalty in order to ensure that only people who really want to play that class will take it, or whether it's enough to just say the DM can forbid it unless the player gives a compelling character concept. (I lean towards the former, cause the DM can always drop the penalty if they don't like it, and it'll cause less conflict with players to be extra lenient than to be extra restrictive.)
Here's an idea: a "Rare Class" feat that has no effect except to allow you to take one of the rare races, classes, or race/class combinations. That means the character is slightly behind as one of its feat slots is essentially wasted, but you don't have to take an XP hit for your entire career.
The biggest flavour difference is, obviously, the fact that races are pretty monolithic in abilities. This isn't entirely true - look at the Dwarf-Cleric or Halfling Master - but it's enough that it's possible for outsiders to assume that every member of a race is alike in abilities.
The danger here is confusing the flavor of the OD&D system with the flavor of the Mystara setting. Although the one affected the other, they are not the same.
This can be loosened quite a bit without harming the setting, but I think it's important that Dwarves and Halflings never have obvious magic users (otherwise Glantri's experimentation doesn't make sense) and that it's reasonable to assume every Elf is a magic user.
Glantri's experimentation comes from those races being known for being resistant to magic, not from not being able to cast spells, IMO. Also, there is the possibility of this experimentation being based on false premises...
I don't think any class (except Paladin, which should be a prestige class) should be dropped completely, but certain classes/races/combinations should be marked "rare" - the Half-Elf and Half-Orc, the Sorceror, Dwarven and Halfling spellcasters. I don't know whether "rare" classes should be punished with an experience penalty in order to ensure that only people who really want to play that class will take it, or whether it's enough to just say the DM can forbid it unless the player gives a compelling character concept. (I lean towards the former, cause the DM can always drop the penalty if they don't like it, and it'll cause less conflict with players to be extra lenient than to be extra restrictive.)
Here's an idea: a "Rare Class" feat that has no effect except to allow you to take one of the rare races, classes, or race/class combinations. That means the character is slightly behind as one of its feat slots is essentially wasted, but you don't have to take an XP hit for your entire career.
This depends alot on your style of DMing. In all of my campaigns, PCs are considered unique individuals, not having to conform to the stereotypes of their culture. Even though a class, skill or ability is more or less unheard of in that culture I'd allow a pc to possess that class/skill/ability if the player came up with a sufficient explaination for it (cool background writeups would be encouraged!).
I've had some problems with the Barbarian, Monk (and to a certain degree the Paladin) though, as unlike the other classes, these are more culture specific classes than the others. This is not so much a problem with the paladin, since it can be interpreted as any kind of religious warrior, replacing their code of honor if neccesary. Barbarians and Monks are more problematic however.
I dont see a need for the paladin to be a PrC in Mystara, that was more of an OD&D feature than a setting feature anyway. Also, the paladin class was never properly adressed in any of the Mystara products. But YMMV on this one.
Håvard
In a game where everyone can do everything, a race that cannot do something becomes more unique, in particular.
As for half elves, when playing classic D&D, I treat them either as humans or elves, depending on what side of the family is dominant. Generally though, Im getting to a point of not liking "half-races" much.
For D20, I'd say leave the option of "forbidden" classes for special occasions, players who have done very well (and are prepared to work for the privilege), or simply an interesting surprise in an adventure.
The danger here is confusing the flavor of the OD&D system with the flavor of the Mystara setting. Although the one affected the other, they are not the same.
But the ones I was pointing out ARE the same. There are no Halfling Wizards in Mystara. If there were, the Five Shires would be a very different place.
Glantri's experimentation comes from those races being known for being resistant to magic, not from not being able to cast spells, IMO. Also, there is the possibility of this experimentation being based on false premises...
But if they were able to do magic, they could be nobles in Glantri so they wouldn't be seen as subhuman. Dwarven and Halfling Wizards ruin Glantri, that's all there is to it.
I dont see a need for the paladin to be a PrC in Mystara, that was more of an OD&D feature than a setting feature anyway. Also, the paladin class was never properly adressed in any of the Mystara products. But YMMV on this one.
That's why I think paladins are very uncommon - if they weren't, some Gazeteer would have dealt with them. I see it more as a Heldannic thing.
But the ones I was pointing out ARE the same. There are no Halfling Wizards in Mystara. If there were, the Five Shires would be a very different place.
If they were rare as in 1 to 10 in the known world, and not only do they have to hide their abilities from outsiders, but also from their own community. It gives a party a nasty surprise when they think he's only a halfling, but you know he's a halfling who learnt a bit of magic from that female mage the pirates support in that tower, and she woudn't like her new apprentice messed with.
But if they were able to do magic, they could be nobles in Glantri so they wouldn't be seen as subhuman. Dwarven and Halfling Wizards ruin Glantri, that's all there is to it.
For specials like this I remove the special defence vs magic in ODnD, and if they showed spellcasting ability in Glantri, when everyone Knows they don't cast magic, they'ed be straight to the lab
That's why I think paladins are very uncommon - if they weren't, some Gazeteer would have dealt with them. I see it more as a Heldannic thing.
I'd agree with this. Gaz 1 hinted that Paladins would be in the order of the griffon, but most members of these orders are fighters or clergy
Glantri's experimentation comes from those races being known for being resistant to magic, not from not being able to cast spells, IMO. Also, there is the possibility of this experimentation being based on false premises...
To further extend this- the spell resistance (save bonus) of dwarves, as well as their resistance to disease (legacy of the plague days) would provide ample in-game reason for the Glantrians to experiment on them. There is a lot of history with the dwarves.
Halflings don't seem to have quite the history with Glantrians, but there is some behind the scenes mentions here and there that lead one to believe there is some bad blood.
One idea this thread has given me to cover things is to use either racial feats (to simulate greater magic resistance and disease resistance) or class-substitution levels that build on the Mystara history of dwarves and halflings as inherently antimagical.
But if they were able to do magic, they could be nobles in Glantri so they wouldn't be seen as subhuman. Dwarven and Halfling Wizards ruin Glantri, that's all there is to it.
There is a bit more involved in becoming a noble in Glantri than just being a spellcaster, to be fair. One must first either graduate from the Great School of Magic, perform a great service for the Council of Princes, or inherit the title from a relative, in addition to being a spellcaster. Since there are no current halfling or dwarf nobles, the last option is out. I don't see the GSoM taking on halfling or dwarf students (due to the nation's feelings towards the two races), and similarly, the "great service" requires both the prospective helpful dwarf/halfling and the Council to be willing to work together.
Even Kol had troubles getting a title, despite being a spellcaster and doing a great service (albeit a fake one- "killing" a dragon). In the end, his "election" came down to politics. I suspect that allowing a halfling or dwarf wizard to become a noble, provided they jump through all the required hoops and difficulties, wouldn't break a Glantri campaign. Just the politics alone would be very suitable for a campaign there, I'd think. Could be very interesting.
That's why I think paladins are very uncommon - if they weren't, some Gazeteer would have dealt with them. I see it more as a Heldannic thing.
I don't think that just because they aren't mentioned in the Gaz's should be taken as proof of a negative- ie, they don't exist. The Paladin- along with the Knight, the Monk, and the Avenger- were "core rules" things, whereas the Gaz's built off of the core rules and tried to create a setting that was forced to use that ruleset. Hence, the "no wizards" among dwarves and halflings, and trying to find non-rules reasons for the explanation.
As far as that goes, even the Gaz's broke the rules or created new ones when necessary, to do things outside the scope of the "core rules." Thus we had dwarf-clerics, and wizard-elves (as opposed to Attack Rank Fighter Elves), among other things.
I think paladins can be found most places, if the DM wants to fit them in. As some have noted, they have some mention in Gaz1 evidently (in reference to the Order of the Griffon). There is mention of them in Dawn of the Emperors as well, and Gaz2 (of all places) talks about Paladins (Faris), so it's safe to assume there are paladins there, too.
We are talking about a race that was built to survive another GRoF (or similar cataclysm). They were built strong and hardy and value such qualities in their fellows. It is the strength of muscle and nerve that they appreciate. A wizard is an anethma to them as they are seen as week in body and spirit. Now, we all know that a wizard is a formiddable opponent regardless of race but to the dwarves it is not whether you destroy your opponent but how you do it. The best analogy I can come up with for this is think Klingons.
I too believe that if the dwarves had sorcerors among them they would have been more readily welcomed in Glantri. They migrated there during the 40 years war and could easily have melted into that society if they did not have a natural aversion towards magic.
As for the Modrigswerg there is never any reference to them actually casting spells. There are a few misleading clues about arcane artifacts. One thing that alot of people forget (player and DM alike) is clerics can make magic items too. It is stated that there are two specific skills that allow them to make these artifacts. The life-binding process and the Artificer's craft. The first was learned from "dark-elves" and the latter from the Lords of Entropy. As I see it, the enchant item spell is replaced by the Artificers craft. This works out like this: First get a "dark-cleric" to summon and negotiate the help of an "other planar" being. That creature then helps with the process of enchanting the materials. They could even proceed to help with the magical effects going into the item. The cleric can add their magic to the mix if needed or use the life-binding rituals to get the desired effects. Finally, the other planar creature along with the cleric would seal it up. There is alot of variation that could be done here but thats the general idea.
There is a "good" version to this as well. Obviously, because Rockhome has no wizards yet they can craft magic items. I see this as the "secrets of the craft" that are learned by the dwarves who stay in the apprenticeship programs and not go adventuring. If an immortal can grant you a portion of his power to cast spells it would certainly be within his power to help enchant items. Although, it might be argued that this would only occur when that item would be used to further the immortals cause.
Restrictions to class/race combinations is what sets a setting apart from its peers. Look at Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk. The only difference is socio-political and a map. The only enticement is FRs large library of novels as background filler. Now look at Mystara or Dark Sun. The "flavour" here is their departure from the normalcy of everything goes. The rules setup in the core books are for reference to flesh out the world. That doesn't automatically mean that everything should be available regardless.
Too many times people take up the PHB to decide what they want to play and use this like it is a campaign sourcebook. When my players get to choose new characters the core books never make an appearance, only the Gazetteers do. We also do not create characters on the basis of race/class but character concept. This helps tremendously in preventing strict powergaming and helps to promote roleplaying and an appreciation for the uniqueness of the setting. Even allowing rarities to exist sets precedent for it to happen again. If I allow it once my players will expect it to be available again later. I prefer to avoid the arguement rather than win it.
In every edition of rules I have played we have had an inordinate amount elves (dwarves are a second runner up). For a race that is reclusive there are an awful lot more of them running around the world than the supposedly more common humans. This is because humans only enticement is unlimited levels, which are often totally thrown out the window. This makes humans even less desirable. In 3E their only advantage is one bonus feat. This is to make up for infravision, perception bonuses, resistance to charm, and the ability to live for centuries? So do we really need unrestricted dwarven mages? We already have unrestricted elven mages being far more powerful (and desirable)than a human. No matter how you get around it one bonus feat doesn't make up for being able to see in the dark (explained to me by a player).
I have good players and I am a very patient DM and coax the players into better roleplaying situations, but when it comes to character creation it is always a rules crunch. They are not going to choose a dwarven wizard on the basis of fun roleplaying. It will be because of the advantages of being a dwarf over a human.
My biggest problem with dwarven spellcasters (in Mystara) is the innate magic resistance they recieve. I am in no way saying they cannot learn magic as they have the intellectual aptitude for it, but no wizard (who wants to live a long life) would be happy with 25-30% of his magic fizzling out on his own magic resistance. This isn't something they can turn off and on. It was a side effect of Kagyar trying to make them resistant to radiation.
Dwarves in 3E only receive a +2 racial save on spells/spell-like effects now. They don't suffer the 20% misfire chance they did in 2nd edition.
We are talking about a race that was built to survive another GRoF (or similar cataclysm). They were built strong and hardy and value such qualities in their fellows. It is the strength of muscle and nerve that they appreciate. A wizard is an anethma to them as they are seen as week in body and spirit. Now, we all know that a wizard is a formiddable opponent regardless of race but to the dwarves it is not whether you destroy your opponent but how you do it. The best analogy I can come up with for this is think Klingons.
All of the above that you mentioned seems to me to be more a roleplaying aspect of things, rather than something that is rules based. It is absolutely true that these are the traits of the dwarvish race, and should (and generally are) emphasized in products, and by DMs. The question is, should these descriptive traits have to be formalized by in-game rules? That seems to be the fundamental question on which there is divisiveness here.
I too believe that if the dwarves had sorcerors among them they would have been more readily welcomed in Glantri. They migrated there during the 40 years war and could easily have melted into that society if they did not have a natural aversion towards magic.
It wasn't just the magic aversion. In fact, the dwarves initial emigration seems to have gone over just as well as any migrations to Glantri- met with mixed feelings. That region has long bred hostility towards foreigners. The Flaems and their superior attitudes and anti-religious fervor didn't blend well with other humans, nor with the elves, who were likewise rather indisposed towards everyone else (they had a "we were here first" attitude). The dwarves came on the heels of a goldrush, which probably put a lot of noses out of place among the existing settlers, and probably didn't bother others.
It was the plague (sent by Yagrai to cause trouble) that killed humans and elves, and didn't affect the dwarves, that really caused the problems. After that, no one wanted the dwarves around, because they were seen as plague carriers.
All of the anti-Glantri sentiment towards dwarves is very well reflected in the campaign history of Mystara, even without any sort of "no wizards" rule to back it up.
There seems to be a chicken and egg thing going on to me. In the beginning, we had the rules set, where there was only a "dwarf" class (no wizards), and no campaign world. Then the world of Mystara began to develop, using the rules system provided. Since there were no dwarf wizards (rules), and dwarves were very magic resistant (as were halflings- rules), the developers of the world used that to create a really interesting feature of the Magic-User ruled nation of Glantri- ie, how would these wizards feel about people who had a high tolerance for their magic? Thus, the animosity between dwarves and wizards.
Now, however, there is a rules set where the "no dwarf-wizards" rule need not apply. Does that change the dynamic? It could, potentially, sure, if you allow it. But it need not. The dynamic came about as a result of working with the existing system, but now that dynamic exists and can exist, regardless of the absence of the underlying rules system. In effect, the "no dwarf-wizard" policy came about because of the rules, but became its own entity that can exist on its own right, because of the fleshing out done by the development of the campaign world.
I'm not trying to say you have to allow dwarf-wizards; no one does. Just pointing out that there is a very (IMO) reasonable way of looking at the issue that allows for the possibility of dwarf-wizards, without negating the flavor of the Mystara campaign.
Also, this little argument above, I concede, is only in regards to the specific Glantri/Rockhome issue. There may be other instances of dwarves and no-magic policies that might have more bearing on the specifics of rules. The above really deals with descriptive elements, rather than proscriptive.
There is a "good" version to this as well. Obviously, because Rockhome has no wizards yet they can craft magic items. I see this as the "secrets of the craft" that are learned by the dwarves who stay in the apprenticeship programs and not go adventuring. If an immortal can grant you a portion of his power to cast spells it would certainly be within his power to help enchant items. Although, it might be argued that this would only occur when that item would be used to further the immortals cause.
I lean towards the idea of allowing dwarves to take the Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat, but they can only use it to create items that have bonuses- anything else would require them to be either a caster themselves or have access to a caster.
). I find myself agreeing, for most part, with each post as a good way to run a "Mystaran" campaign.The flavour of Mystara is hard to define, and different people will have different opinions to what defines Mystara.
One thing I've learned on these boards is that Mystara leaves a lot of room for interpretation by the individual DM and group of players. I think that in doing this, it gives a group a lot of options in 3E. You can open it up or restrict away. Half-elves could possibly be used as in the PHB, OR, they may not be; instead leaning to human or elven attributes. Dwarves as wizards? Possibly, being very rare and estranged, OR, the arcane arts are incompatible with their nature.
I know D&D doesn't follow Tolkien, but the premise that a very long-lived species would inter-marry with the ephemeral humans only in special circumstances seems quite logical.
So either way, 3E half-elves or not, they are still rare, just as the gaz says.
In all of my campaigns, PCs are considered unique individuals, not having to conform to the stereotypes of their culture. Even though a class, skill or ability is more or less unheard of in that culture I'd allow a pc to possess that class/skill/ability if the player came up with a sufficient explaination for it (cool background writeups would be encouraged!).
Made me think of Lord of the Rings; Elves and Dwarves were secluded beings that did not really interact that much with Man anymore. And yet, in one "PC party" there is one of each, plus some humans and three halflings - I mean hobbits.
...but certain classes/races/combinations should be marked "rare"
I'd agree with that. After all, "rare" still exists; sometimes in a slightly different form and under another name.
I've had some problems with the Barbarian, Monk (and to a certain degree the Paladin) though, as unlike the other classes, these are more culture specific classes than the others. This is not so much a problem with the paladin, since it can be interpreted as any kind of religious warrior, replacing their code of honor if neccesary. Barbarians and Monks are more problematic however.
Me too. I restrict these classes to make sure they make sense in the culture the character has grown up in. But they are other ways to use these classes as well. For instance, I'd allow a Thyatian character to be a barbarian; raised for slave labour and then the games, he could be a bit slow and/or crude in the mental department, but built like an ox.
One other example is the Atruaghin Wild-Warrior I created for a player that really likes monks. He's an Atruaghin warrior (using the monk class) who's disipline draws him closer to the Spirit of the Land and who's cloister is nature itself. The dedication and religious self-disipline that the path these warriors take has helped them form their own martial art.
As for half elves, when playing classic D&D, I treat them either as humans or elves, depending on what side of the family is dominant. Generally though, Im getting to a point of not liking "half-races" much.
Ditto from me. I like to ask myself "why and how would such a half-race exist?" Half-elves are feasible but still likely to be quite rare, regardless of which approach you take with them. Half-orcs, IMHO, don't have much of a chance. One born into human society would likely be killed out of fear or superstition if not just to be "merciful". One born into orc society would likely become a meal... to something or another.
There are no Halfling Wizards in Mystara. If there were, the Five Shires would be a very different place.
There were no Halfling theives either, and yet the gaz says they "enjoy both thieving and mischievously playing pranks..."; There were no Halfling bards "when performing plays in taverns or halls"; There were no halflings crying "NO!" and performing mini-miracles; There were no Halfling Masters manipulating "a mixture of clerical, druidical, magic user, and unique spells...".
My point here is Mystara can be interpretted as No wizards OR Some wizards, depending on how you veiw it for yourself. Not mentioned does not always have to mean not present.
That's why I think paladins are very uncommon - if they weren't, some Gazeteer would have dealt with them. I see it more as a Heldannic thing.
That's a great idea. I have to remember that connection.
I'd agree with this. Gaz 1 hinted that Paladins would be in the order of the griffon, but most members of these orders are fighters or clergy
Great example of taking a gaz concept and translating that into a rules-set. They don't even have to be called "paladins". Perhaps they are called "holy knights" or "the Griffon clerics" or what-have-you.
As far as that goes, even the Gaz's broke the rules or created new ones when necessary, to do things outside the scope of the "core rules." Thus we had dwarf-clerics, and wizard-elves (as opposed to Attack Rank Fighter Elves), among other things.
Mystara had concepts that went beyond what the rules could, as they were, represent. The gazs showed that there are things out there that we didn't know about before. Cthulhudrew's statement about paladins showed me a few things I didn't know.
My biggest problem with dwarven spellcasters (in Mystara) is the innate magic resistance they recieve.
I hear you on this one; however, the Dwarf-cleric can not only cast spells granted to him by Kagyar, but can cast reversed, destructive spells that Kagyar does not approve of (for a while anyhow). Then beyond this the Dwarf can follow other Immortals and receive spells from them instead.
My point here is that these clerical spells never fail by the Dwarf's resistance, so it may be possible that spells cast by a particular dwarf are not subject to the dwarf's own magical resistance, thus making Dwarven Wizards a possibility. It's all in your own interpretation, however, and as Havard says "your mileage may vary".
These would be very rare and shunned by their own people. As for Glantri, they are not going to change their view on dwarves just because they find a few capable of casting spells, clerical OR arcane. This would make them all the valuable for experimentation. Perhaps the Glantri wizards are of the type which would rather not have "common knowledge complicated by the truth". Still, restricting this class or not, you can hold to the flavour of Mystara.
In every edition of rules I have played we have had an inordinate amount elves
I had to comment on this one because my group dis-likes those "uppity elves". I don't know why. It's kinda funny really. I know what you are talking about though, when you say one feat doesn't make up for all the other bonuses of the demi-humans; and yet of the 6 PCs (3 players), ALL of them are human. Again, I don't know why.
To sum it all up, the Mystara of OD&D transliterated into 3E is indeed a workable option (albeit done with a lot of effort), but there should also be the "sidebar options" that allow for "3E-mechanic interpretations of the OD&D concepts". I like to stick as close to the OD&D Mystara as I can. But I also don't get stuck on the options of 3E. Use them to the level of your own comfort. We all get to have our very own Mystara.
Ditto from me. I like to ask myself "why and how would such a half-race exist?" Half-elves are feasible but still likely to be quite rare, regardless of which approach you take with them. Half-orcs, IMHO, don't have much of a chance. One born into human society would likely be killed out of fear or superstition if not just to be "merciful". One born into orc society would likely become a meal... to something or another.
Angus McClintock is the obvious exception here...
There were no Halfling theives either, and yet the gaz says they "enjoy both thieving and mischievously playing pranks..."; There were no Halfling bards "when performing plays in taverns or halls"; There were no halflings crying "NO!" and performing mini-miracles; There were no Halfling Masters manipulating "a mixture of clerical, druidical, magic user, and unique spells...".
The difference is, you don't have to be a member of the Thief class to steal something, you just have to say, "My character steals it." But that's not enough to cause your character to cast spells.
I don't get what you mean by "there were no Halfling Masters" and "crying NO!" These things do exist in Mystara and the gazeteer has rules for them, which seems to be the opposite of the sense of the beginning of your sentence.
I understand that dwarves only get a couple of bonuses now but that strips away the Mystaran flavor. There is other discussions of converting monsters and they become something different by conforming to the new rules. This waters down any flavor there might have been. At this point they are no longer Mystaran but "generic" templates. Look at the official 3E campaign setting. Eberron has all the flavor of a piece of wet cardboard. Again this is because WotC is interested in making money and needed a setting in which all the rules were available.
I am not saying we don't need the rules for them. This would be in-case someone wanted to make a world that supported dwarven wizards. But there are none in Mystara (and almost every other world)
As for the characters being unique its really hard to say that when every other person has a character class. When you make exceptions and allow them things outside the cultural bias then it destroys the idea of a cultural bias in the first place. When the exception to the rule becomes the norm the norm becomes the exception. Cultural bias was the basis for the rules excluding certain class/race combinations. It might look like the rules dictated the bias but if that was the case there would also not be dwarven clerics or thieves. These were added in 1E and 2E AD&D but wizards weren't. Not because of the rules but because of the bias the rules were based on.
I agree that Glantrians are not going to change their views in the here and now. But in the past when the dwarves first showed up the bias wasn't there yet (other than the general bias of "I was here first") Dwarven clerics are easy to hide. They can wear armor and carry a hammer (typical dwarf weapon). A dwarven wizard is not as easily hidden. I would also argue that given the cicumstances it would have been in their best interest to reveal their wizards. There are other factors behind the scenes here but even the elves (and Kol) were accepted into the fold because they showed an aptitude for arcane magic.
It really all comes down to personal preference.
This game is about having fun, and when you overly restrict options, particularly under the mantle of preserving the "flavor" of an older ruleset- it no longer becomes fun.
my 2 cents :P
Angus McClintock is the obvious exception here...
Sorry. I didn't mean to say there were NO exceptions. :P
The difference is, you don't have to be a member of the Thief class to steal something, you just have to say, "My character steals it." But that's not enough to cause your character to cast spells.
I was just saying that a halfling that practiced theiving enough would indeed gain the skill levels that are represented in the rules as the Theif class. They generally all possess the potential, but for some inexplicable reason, they just can't do it as good as a novice human. BUT, they don't HAVE to either if that's the preference and interpretation of someone. That's the way I see it; to allow it or disallow it, you can still remain in the flavour of Mystara.
I don't get what you mean by "there were no Halfling Masters" and "crying NO!" These things do exist in Mystara and the gazeteer has rules for them, which seems to be the opposite of the sense of the beginning of your sentence.
They didn't always exist. At same point (co-inciding with the release of the eigth gazetteer ;) ), these things were given rules. Before this there were no halflings capable of using magic at all. Here we have concepts that were given rules so that they could be played out. With the theif and bard I was just trying to say that the concept is already there (as I see it, of course) of halflings being capable of being theives or bards. Therefore, allowing these in 3E does not go against the flavour of Mystara (IMHO).
Ok, I understand the arguement.
Cool. From here on in it's all in the eye of the beholder. :D
It was because dwarven culture is not conducive to the study of magic. This is especially true in Mystara.
I may not have come right out and said it, but I actually agree with you. I have no dwarven arcane spellcasters IMC. There are good campaign-world reasons why not; namely culture, history, and origin. However, I still wouldn't say that it is an impossiblity for a Mystaran campaign to have some rare dwarven wizards. In the same manner as above, I once said that there are no dwarven clerics, and then I finally got the gaz.
Would I allow a dwarven wizard? Not very likely. Maybe as a special campaign that used that as a major storyline, but only once. Or, as a small secret organization but again it would be a major storyline used only once. These may even be among the first to begin understanding their craft.
Of all the restrictions that have been discussed about using Mystara in 3E, I would say dwarven wizards are at the top of my list (and it is quite short). I don't believe any other one has as much weight as this one.
They didn't always exist. At same point (co-inciding with the release of the eigth gazetteer ;) ), these things were given rules. Before this there were no halflings capable of using magic at all. Here we have concepts that were given rules so that they could be played out. With the theif and bard I was just trying to say that the concept is already there (as I see it, of course) of halflings being capable of being theives or bards. Therefore, allowing these in 3E does not go against the flavour of Mystara (IMHO).
I'd allow thieves as well, though I prefer the halfling as a stout little warrior
Bard's I'd not allow, but I play AD&D1 and use the druidic version of the bard. If I were to run Mystara in 3.x, I'd definately use druidic bards as well, but they'd propably be a human and elf option only. Cool. From here on in it's all in the eye of the beholder. :D
And beholders have a lot of hit points ;)
It really all comes down to personal preference.
Could you imagine running a game in which you were not allowed to exercise your person prefences? Talk about flavourless!
This game is about having fun, and when you overly restrict options, particularly under the mantle of preserving the "flavor" of an older ruleset- it no longer becomes fun.
True. As much as it is great to have a "canon" Mystara in which we can all relate to, if you can't use some of your own "sidebar rules" and preferences to tailor it to your own group, it loses some of its fun. I think everyone would say they'd rather have their Mystara rather than someone else's.
Btw Traianus, I really like your sig. A sig that makes you think and gives you ideas has to be a good one.
I don't stick to an older ruleset because of some ill percieved "flavor" or familiar restrictions. It's because I don't see any real advantage in the newer system.
What happens when all 6 players want to be dwarven wizards? If you allow one you have to allow all. And if you allow it now, you'll have to allow it again later. Therefore, the term "rare" no longer applies and now it becomes normal. Next you'll be telling me it's ok to restrict it then.
For example, what is the difference between a dwarf who can't choose to be a mage, and a dwarf mage who is outclassed by other races because they have more bonuses and such? In both cases the player will most likely simply choose either not to be a dwarf or not to be a mage.
Or is it being suggested that dwarf mages be added wholesale to Mystara?
Yes, I am a bit of a classic D&D purist when it comes to these things, but the fact is, that is where Mystara's roots lie. An Alfheim with non-magical elves, a Rockhome with dwarven mages as standard - these are things that should be avoided in any conversion, because in the end they are integral parts of the setting. Adamantyr did suggest an idea for the dwarven mages, and I think that's the right way to go.
Still, if restrictions are what we're afraid of, I don't really see a way round that one while maintaining Mystara's history and integrity - and preserving "backwards compatibility". Without that, disagreements of this magnitude could easily fracture our already small fan base. In some ways, the race/class issue already has, I think.
I've just read through the 3rd edition comments in the "catching up" thread with interest. (Still reading this thread, but I thought I'd add some comments anyway. :P). I understand the idea of bonuses rather than restrictions, but in the end don't they end up being the same thing anyway?
For example, what is the difference between a dwarf who can't choose to be a mage, and a dwarf mage who is outclassed by other races because they have more bonuses and such? In both cases the player will most likely simply choose either not to be a dwarf or not to be a mage.
I see your point, but I have to disagree that "bonuses rather than restrictions" is the same thing. While giving bonuses to reflect certain predispositions may be catering to the Min/Max crowd, it also enhances the flavor by providing a reflection of racial tendencies (in this case). It might be more numerically feasible to choose a race with bonuses, but for the person who wants to play something "non-standard", taking a less powerful but potentially more creative roleplaying option, is still an option. He isn't completely barred from it.
Or is it being suggested that dwarf mages be added wholesale to Mystara?
I don't think anyone is suggesting that. I know that I- though an advocate of the "embrace the non-restrictive new way" am not. I see a huge grade of difference between saying it's possible to play a dwarf mage in Mystara, though there have been no known instances (or at least of any great magnitude) before, and saying "they don't exist, never did, and never will/can." Simply allowing for the possibility of their existence, IMO, does not suddenly mean that they will be ubiquitous, or that the nature of Mystara need change forever.
As I shared with someone before (it may have been Adamantyr, way back when he and I were discussing this side of the same issue), PCs were always meant to be exceptions to the rule. Even back in OD&D, PCs were considered a rarity- most of the standard denizens of the world were only "Level 1" demihumans or "Level-less" Commoners. I don't find that allowing for a character option that was not present before (due to design or rules limits), should or would change that in any way.
The real question, I see, that lay before those of us who want to do a conversion, is deciding whether those options were not present before due to design or rules limits. If the former, by all means, we should maintain the status quo. If the latter, then I think we should consider working with the new rules, rather than the old.
Mystara was anchored to its rules system from the very beginning. Said rules system had classes which in some cases were class-races (dwarf, elf, halfling). These class-races were designed to have some features of the basic classes (wizard, fighter and thief) but modified to make that class-race more powerful than normal humans (elf is superior to any human fighter or wizard up to 10th level, and dwarf is way better than any human fighter up to 12th level! Halfling likewise is better than any thief, although slightly worse than fighters due to his HPs, up to 8th level).
THat said, when Mystara took shape, the authors immediately understood the limits of the rules system, and for this reason they added new rules to give the setting more options and more flavour. This way we have elf-mage in GAZ5, dwarf-cleric in GAZ6, hin-master in GAZ8 and even Wokani(Wicca) and Shamans in GAZ10 for humanoids and all the monsters (rules already presented in Master set).
From the beginning of the Gazetteer line, the original rules have been bended and literally torn apart in some cases... but some fixed points have remained (no arcane spellcasters among hins and dwarves for example). The question now is: did they avoid breaking this barrier because this was a distinct feature of the setting, or did they avoid introducing these classes because they didn't have the time or will?
For all of you who don't see hins and dwarves with arcane abilities, though, just look at Hollow World: there's a rule that says only elves with high Intelligence get to cast spells, otherwise they progress as fighters. and another one gives every race the opportunity of learning to cast spells (arcane or divine) through the Wokani and Shaman classes. How do you explain a dwarf mage in the Hollow World ? (I don't recall any specific prohibition to dwarf and hin race from becoming Wiccas..) ;)
I have not taken a clear position on this yet, but I'm gonna let you know when I find my answers..
Mystaran Elven society teaches magic from a very young age; thus, all 1st level characters raised in Elven society must be Wizards, representing a character that learned the standard amount, or have the Elven Magical Training feat (from the Mystara 3E page) to represent a character that only studied the basics and then moved on to other interests. Elves without either must have a background of being raised somewhere special. (Note that this covers humans raised by Elves too, similar to Foresters. However, since human Fighter/Wizards aren't anything special any more, Forester should be a prestige class with more unique abilities.)
Perhaps a good way to do this is to give racial options that are exclusive with nonstandard abilities. For instance, Dwarves could have an "extra magic resistance" racial feat that must be taken at first level, but if they do they can never cast any magic (not clerical) spells. This would be a good rules mechanic to model a race in which magic resistance is widespread enough that many Dwarves who try to learn magic will fail, so that it never takes hold in the culture without being completely out of the question. Halflings could get Denial as a feat of this nature (and the Halfling Master prestige class is special because it works alongside Denial).
That is a really good idea Joe! It helps encouraging the cultural traits that we all agree upon without completely barring the occasional odd character.
Has anyone come up with a good way for modelling Hin denial btw?
Mystaran Elven society teaches magic from a very young age; thus, all 1st level characters raised in Elven society must be Wizards, representing a character that learned the standard amount, or have the Elven Magical Training feat (from the Mystara 3E page) to represent a character that only studied the basics and then moved on to other interests. Elves without either must have a background of being raised somewhere special. (Note that this covers humans raised by Elves too, similar to Foresters. However, since human Fighter/Wizards aren't anything special any more, Forester should be a prestige class with more unique abilities.)
I actually think having Wizard as a Favored class will make sure that nearly every elf has at least a few levels of Wizard. That said, I like the Elven Magical Training feat.
I agree that the Forester should be a PrC perhaps available to elves and non-elves, probably encouraging ranger type characters or fighter/wizard combinations.
Håvard
I like this idea too... its not about having Rockhome populated by dwarven wizards, but allowing for oddball or exceptional characters (whether player or NPC). I think its reasonable to expect that 95-99% of dwarves will want nothing to do with the arcane, but you allow the players the option to buck the trend and deal with the potential fallout. Or imagine their surprise finding out the archvillain is a dwarven wizard (Huh. Who thought they could cast a fireball?)
"Has anyone come up with a good way for modelling Hin denial btw?"
I have seen a feat for this ability, and I'll try to dig it up later...
Using feats to give bonuses while exacting penalties a good idea, but risky as well. A player who never intends to make a wizard or sorcerer would be happy to trade in the ability to do so for natural Spell Resistance, which is a very powerful ability, especially at low levels. This kind of thing is also difficult to change mid-game; a player will not be very happy if the feat he paid for gets weaker because you decide it's overpowered. Still, perhaps we could use this thread to suggest "Racial Preference Feats"?
There is one particular element of OD&D (and AD&D, for that matter) that doesn't exist in 3rd Edition: Longevity and Youth potions. There's no written explanation anywhere, but I suspect the designers of 3E decided that involving age as a mechanic just overly complicated the system, so they removed all abilities that altered age. This, obviously, has a substantial effect on Mystaran background.
That's not to say you couldn't re-introduce them. However, I happen to agree with the 3rd edition designers that ageing should be left alone. Unless you're planning a VERY long campaign, players won't even notice or care about who's older than who. Besides, the only characters who really benefit from long lives are NPC's. And there's other ways to circumvent some of the background problems.
For example, I would create new human subraces, the Alphatian and the Flaems. They physically resemble humans, but they live much longer, thanks to their magical background. (I'd double the figures in the PHB, so they'd live to be 150-180 years on average) This also explains why the red hair/copper skin and black hair/pale skin consistently re-emerge as dominant traits. As a penalty, they have a favored class of sorcerer (for flaems) and wizard (for Alphatians) because of their specialty. I'm sure I could come up with added skill bonuses and other elements to further flesh them out as a subrace.
As for classes... Foresters are, to me, just rangers. Instead of trying to restrict or remove core classes, why not recreate the old classes as prestige classes? The Knight of the Griffon could be a great prestige class for clerics, paladins, and fighters. The Avenger could become "The Dark Avenger" or something like that, like a Blackguard but perhaps more ambiguous in alignment. Barbarians fit very nicely in the Northern Reaches. The only core class that could present a problem is the monk. The Ethengar Khanates are the closest source of "East Asia" in the Known World, but there's also Ochaela. I'd not be adverse to having a Thyatian fighting school dedicated to the art of unarmed combat either.
I guess my approach is, instead of saying "It doesn't belong", I say "How can I fit it in?"
Adamantyr
I've found only a few "sacred cows" in my initial ponderings: Elves, the Radiance, and the Immortals.
Elves: "Its a figher! Its a magic user! Its a figher AND a magic user!" From the very beginning, elves were magical. It just seems to me to be built into their very nature. 3rd edition's multiclassing, though, just rubs me the wrong way. They didn't flip-flop their advancement: it was concurrent. (Solution: Unearthed Arcana's "Gestalt Classes"); Additionally, I liked the Gazetteers' notion of having to choose a Way upon reaching that pesky level limit: advance as a "vanilla" elf, or choose to bend your will towards magic (and not puny human wizardly magic, but the Elven variety)
Similarly, the Shadowelves (a much better concept than the Drow, I think) have their own brand of magic. Their spell lists would make a good starting point for crafting a Dwarven way of magic.
The Radiance. While I haven't read much on any of the other settings, I don't know that any of them (and certainly "core" 3rd edition doesn't) have any equivalent of this source of "deeper" magical power. Glantrians know of it and can use it, as do the Shadowelves. Dwarves, with their increased resistances to poison, disease, and radiation would make excellent Radiant mages, adding yet another layer of animosity between their kind and the Glantrans. Owing to the fact that their use stems from the Radiance, it would be no wonder that nobody has ever heard of such a thing as a dwarf using magic. Or, perhaps, not living long enough to tell anybody about it...
The Immortals: AD&D, and the 3rd edition just haven't pulled this off as well as BD&D. The balance of the five spheres is a bit deeper than the rather simplistic "good vs. evil."
Sorcerers: A rather "new" concept that came about with the 3rd edition. I haven't quite figured out what to do with these. Magic permeates the Known World, sure, and the notion of those directly touched by that magic (rather than forcing their will upon it, as do the Wizards) also is very much in the flavor of Mystara. Yet up until now, it was magic user or nothing. How would the Wizardly nations take to these alternate users of "their" magic? Would they be accepted alongside them? Seen as "dangerous"? (and not just in the "whoops, my house now on fire" sense, but politically/economically). Should elves be considered sorcerers, rather than magic users..? It would certainly explain the distinction in their uses of magic as opposed to the humans' study of it.
Paladins as a prestige class? Don't really need it, I think. I've simply made Paladins servitors of Tarastia, keepers of justice across national boundries.
One bit of flavor that I've always liked about Basic D&D as opposed to the 3rd edition: No clerical spells until 2nd level. :D
These are just some "surface" musings. Mystara grew in depth and complexity with every Gazetteer that was released (and these are still, to this day, some of the best, well-rounded supplements out there). Unravelling all that and re-weaving it into the new pattern of 3rd edition is one of those "convert-it-as-you-stumble-across-it" sort of things...
Rob
I agree that the Forester should be a PrC perhaps available to elves and non-elves, probably encouraging ranger type characters or fighter/wizard combinations.
I've actually never liked the default D&D Ranger having spells - I'd probably use a variant ranger that's just a fighter with woodland skills, and make the Ranger-with-magic into the Forester prestige class. (Or you can always just multiclass with Cleric.)
Using feats to give bonuses while exacting penalties a good idea, but risky as well. A player who never intends to make a wizard or sorcerer would be happy to trade in the ability to do so for natural Spell Resistance, which is a very powerful ability, especially at low levels. This kind of thing is also difficult to change mid-game; a player will not be very happy if the feat he paid for gets weaker because you decide it's overpowered. Still, perhaps we could use this thread to suggest "Racial Preference Feats"?
Well, they would still have to trade in a regular feat for it, so as long as we keep its power roughly in line with existing feats it shouldn't be unbalancing. And when I said, "Magic resistance", I didn't necessarily mean full spell resistance, just something that fills that role. Another saving throw bonus that stacks with the Dwarven racial bonus would work.
Sorcerers: A rather "new" concept that came about with the 3rd edition. I haven't quite figured out what to do with these. Magic permeates the Known World, sure, and the notion of those directly touched by that magic (rather than forcing their will upon it, as do the Wizards) also is very much in the flavor of Mystara.
As an aside, one thing that always bugged me about D&D and AD&D was that it was never clear whether anyone could become a wizard with enough study, or whether you needed an inbuilt potential first. Both ways show up in fantasy fiction, and often being one of the rare people who can become a wizard is the point of the story. So when I saw the Sorceror show up in 3E, I jumped on it immediately cause it showed the designers had been thinking of the same thing.
I agree that it works pretty well for Mystara - I'd say that they're viewed with suspicion in Glantri and Ylaruam, where everything is more regulated, and welcomed in Alphatia and Thyatis.
Sorcerers: A rather "new" concept that came about with the 3rd edition. I haven't quite figured out what to do with these. Magic permeates the Known World, sure, and the notion of those directly touched by that magic (rather than forcing their will upon it, as do the Wizards) also is very much in the flavor of Mystara. Yet up until now, it was magic user or nothing. How would the Wizardly nations take to these alternate users of "their" magic? Would they be accepted alongside them? Seen as "dangerous"? (and not just in the "whoops, my house now on fire" sense, but politically/economically). Should elves be considered sorcerers, rather than magic users..? It would certainly explain the distinction in their uses of magic as opposed to the humans' study of it.
Just to pop in with a weird thought - maybe, given the preponderance of Ancient Imperial Magocracies across the Known World, your average Sorcerer simply doesn't realize he doesn't need a spellbook a lot of the time. Characters with the potential to become sorcerers get the 'itch' long before they realize their power, get apprenticed to wizards who try to make them pore over musty old scrolls and such, and either go wizard directly or are just 'slow' students until they one day they happen to come across an inscribed spell that matches their natural talents. So there are wizards on Mystara who act like magic-users, and sorcerers on Mystara who... also act like magic-users. :D
(Cheesy? Sure. But it's at least a change from the usual 'huge divinely inspired magical cataclysm that's changed the very rules governing reality' over-the-top junk that everyone else indulges in...)
(Cheesy? Sure. But it's at least a change from the usual 'huge divinely inspired magical cataclysm that's changed the very rules governing reality' over-the-top junk that everyone else indulges in...)
Although we had one of those too... I don't like the "magical cataclysm to explain the rule changes" - just retcon it, everyone'll understand - but I actually think this would be a neat plot point: after WotI there's a brief period where all magic fails, but then there's no more magical drain since the Radiance is gone. It's not until now that Sorcerors start showing up, which would lead to even more confusion and uncertainty in Glantri. Lots of good stories could come out of that. I could see it having a big effect on the remains of Alphatia, too. IIRC, the island of Bellisaria was a sort of a rustic farming place, with a few wizardly overlords but nothing near Alphatia proper. Somehow I think once natural sorcery starts manifesting, they'd get a lot of them because they were steeped in magic for so long by being under Alphatian control. I see them setting up a new magocracy, starting themselves on the way to becoming a new Alphatia-level power but with wilder, unknown magics.
There is one particular element of OD&D (and AD&D, for that matter) that doesn't exist in 3rd Edition: Longevity and Youth potions.
3.5 Edition does indeed have aging effects. It's on page 109 of the PHB. Basically, at Middle Age physical stats are reduced by 1 and mental stats are increased by one. At Old Age the changes are by 2, and at Venerable they are changed by 3.
There is also die rolls listed for generating maximum ages, but I use those presented in the gazs, when present.
The implication is that Gen is a half-elf. This preceded the "no half-elf" entry in Gaz5, which laid out the rules. Interestingly, in Gaz5, the offspring of human females and elven males are always human (with males being stillborn), while those of female elves and human males are either human (if female), or elven (if male). Thus, Gen appears to be an anomaly- a female of mixed parentage who possesses elvish traits.
Also, just as an aside, I find the "male children are always stillborn" comment to be disagreeable. Probably has something to do with being taught in school that universal qualifiers (all, none) generally lead to false conclusions. Wouldn't it be interesting to have a male human child of mixed parentage? For some reason, I find the idea of these kids always being stillborn ominous... maybe they aren't really stillborn, but there's some elvish prophecy about them being evil, and so the midwives... well, maybe I just think dark, evil thoughts.
I am Cthulhu-drew, after all.
[EDIT] For that matter, the rules in Gaz5 are broken in that selfsame product. The NPC on p. 55, Engledoc Dewsap, is an elf born "of two offspring of mixed elf-human marriages. Neither of his parents had elf-like traits, but Engledoc turned out to be a full elf."
This isn't possible, near as I can figure. For Engledoc to be an elf, he must have a human mother (in this case, one with elven ancestry). So his mother must be born of a human female and an elven father (his maternal grandparents.)
However, that means his father has to be an elf, according to p. 70. If his father isn't an elf (and his description says his father had no elf-like traits), then his father had to have had a human mother and elven father- unfortunately, that would mean he would have been stillborn! Otherwise, his father had to be an elf... which contradicts the NPC's description.
I think we have our first case of the "non-stillborn" idea I suggested above. Maybe Engledoc is really eeeevil!!! :evillaugh