You can download Dregoth Ascending Part II: The Quest alpha release from the athas.org site:
http://athas.org/releases/dregothascending/da_chapter2-alpha1.pdf
This thread is for playtest feedback, where you can report bugs, experiences from running the adventure, and other elaborate forms of feedback.
General woohoo and bohoo ("great work!", "about time!", "can't wait to play" etc) can be posted in the following thread: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=6579539
First, the stats for Grogh-En seem a bit low to me. A party of 5-6 players of 13th level characters will cut him down with no problem. I realize that the party will most likely be ambushed soon after this encounter, but I feel he should be a bit tougher.
Second, you might want to increase the number of so-uts the party faces during the quest for the Scorcher. I had the party face off against three of them during this encounter, and they still delt with them pretty easily. The so-uts even had a surprise round due to them picking up the scent of metal from the party. I also used my version of so-ut which are slightly tougher than Kam's. If I were to do it again, I'd actually add a forth one.
Just some advise ;)
First, the stats for Grogh-En seem a bit low to me. A party of 5-6 players of 13th level character will cut him down with no problem. I realize that the party will most likely be ambushed soon after this encounter, but I feel he should be a bit tougher.
Grogh-En is more of a recurring problem the PCs need to face time and again, and the magical disease he carries is deadly. Though, I agree, he is fairly easily taken out. Maybe the badna zombie template could be made tougher.
Second, you might want to increase the number of so-uts the party faces during the quest for the Scorcher. I had the party face off against three of them during this encounter, and they still delt with them pretty easily. The so-uts even had a surprise round due to them picking up the scent of metal from the party. I also used my version of so-ut which are slightly tougher than Kam's. If I were to do it again, I'd actually add a forth one.
There's 10 so-uts. You can easily rule that the 8 outside wake up and join the battle inside the cave.
There's 10 so-uts. You can easily rule that the 8 outside wake up and join the battle inside the cave.
True, but the base encounter doesn't take into account that the 8 so-uts that are sleeping outside of the cave would be awakened due to the combat in the cave. Plus, the other 8 so-uts are below a 100' cliff. They would never get there in time.
Your concerns are noted.
Just trying to help.
I ran the encounter and the PC's didn't even break a sweat.I actually went as far as making special so-ut figures for the fight. They came out pretty sweet if I do say so myself.
I could also beef Grogh-En up. During my design I did not realize he was the head templar in Raam (which is stated in Dregoth Ascending IIRC). This alone would justify a power boost. Jon, please take note of this offer.
I'd change his damage reduction 10/magic to something more obsure. Good or something tied to the elements(i.e. fire, cold, etc..) would be cooler IMO. What 12-16th level character doesn't have some sort of magic weapon at this point in their career?
The last known caretaker of the Star of Badna was a human by the name of Grogh-En, a senior templar who had become sympathetic to the Veiled Alliance and the plight of Nanda Shatri.
...the information on preparations, components, and how to cast the spell are all contained within Dregoth’s mind and are not recorded in any other form. In other words, the odds that another sorcerer-king or other entity could develop and cast the spell are microscopic.
This problem is ignored not only here, but in EL as well: how can anybody "learn" an epic spell from somebody unwilling to "share" that knowledge. Does the mind **** spell from BV help? What epic spell does?
If it is possible anyhow, the PCs have one more quest...
Creatures with close ties to the Inner Planes, such as drakes and spirits of the land, fall into a state of hibernation from which they’ll eventually die if the elemental conduits are not restored.
How soon will this "event" occur if Stage Eight is never casted? If is?
“Time is short, and the sooner we begin the journey the better.”
Unless they have some magical means of transportation, it’s usually a three day travel south by the main road. Arru herself does not have the means to return to Nibenay via magic, and her master is too busy at this moment to exert the power to return her.
“Your master is a greedy old bastard. Has he got no scrolls of teleport without error? If he really needs us as soon as possible, why must we loose three days due to his f...ing greed?”
I'd change his damage reduction 10/magic to something more obsure. Good or something tied to the elements(i.e. fire, cold, etc..) would be cooler IMO. What 12-16th level character doesn't have some sort of magic weapon at this point in their career?
After thinking some more on this, the DR 10/magic should definitely be changed to something else. Why would an artifact that produces antimagic effects curse its guardian with being susceptible to magic? Even though its not obsure, it would make more sense for the DR to be 10/psionic at the very least.
Thoughts?
“Not since the time of Rajaat’s release at the hands of the usurper Tithian has Athas faced so great a danger. Dregoth the Undead Dragon-King, the Third Champion of Rajaat, is on his way to becoming the first god of Athas.”
“The destruction of Raam was only a single component in the spell our fellow Champion casts to elevate himself to godhood...”
“Our former master explained it to us once, having studied all forms of magic for over 2,000 years.”
“...the Ravager of Giants will reign...”
“Few weapons on Athas can truly harm a Champion of Rajaat, and fewer still can counter their power. One such item was the Scourge of Rkard used to slay the Dragon, though now it rests broken in the magma of the Ring of Fire guarded by Sadira’s wards. But the Scourge is not the only artifact of Athas’ past, and not the only one created by Rajaat the War-Bringer and others since and before him.”
“It was with this weapon that I dealt Dregoth his death blow with frightening ease, so much so that I threw the weapon into the center of the Silt Sea to prevent its use against us in the future. I had thought the Scorcher lost forever...”
“The last artifact was discovered by Rajaat when he took control of the Pristine Tower. This halfling artifact is known as the Pearl of the Sunrise Sea, and was given to Albeorn—the true name of Andropinis—by the First Sorcerer to aid him in his quest to rid Athas of elves. The Pearl...”
Are the SKs the wise rulers or the old chatterboxes? What is the use of revealing the underlined information?
And do the PCs really understand the words “god”, “godhood” etc.?
1) Where is the ability to ignore all magical defenses? This is a major ability that is the key reason the Hamanu was able to deliver a killing blow to Dregoth in the first place.
2) I would also have the weapon grant immunity to fire.
3) Why cure serious wounds, those are divine and I doubt Rajaat was asking clerics to help him forge his blades. Following that, why harm for the same reasons as above.
4) What ritual? I did not see anything about this in the body of the adventure, though I have not read it line by line yet.
As for the Pearl- what are the restrictions that a character would have to live with?
“These greedy cowards try to f... us. Scratcher, matcher... Where is the real thing? Where is the Lens?”
1) Where is the ability to ignore all magical defenses? This is a major ability that is the key reason the Hamanu was able to deliver a killing blow to Dregoth in the first place.
2) I would also have the weapon grant immunity to fire.
3) Why cure serious wounds, those are divine and I doubt Rajaat was asking clerics to help him forge his blades. Following that, why harm for the same reasons as above.
Kalthandrix, I don't know where the ability to ignore defenses has gone to.
Immunity to fire is not required since the wielder is automatically immune to his own weapon's fire.
Cure Serious Wounds comes from the fact Rajaat is a Pyreen, thus a powerful druid in his own right.
Kalthandrix, I don't know where the ability to ignore defenses has gone to.
Immunity to fire is not required since the wielder is automatically immune to his own weapon's fire.
Cure Serious Wounds comes from the fact Rajaat is a Pyreen, thus a powerful druid in his own right.
Wait a second! Did you just claim that Rajaat is a driud?
, even if he is a Pyreen doesn't a Spirit of the Land need to grant you the power to be a druid? Or do Pyreens count as their own spirits?If he did need a spirit of the land to grant him Druidic abilities, why would it do that!?! He is almost single-handedly responsible for the creation of Defiling magic and the Pogrom that destroyed most of the planet!
As for cleansing and changing the sun and other stuff, those thing I think the spirits don't care about.
3) Why cure serious wounds, those are divine and I doubt Rajaat was asking clerics to help him forge his blades. Following that, why harm for the same reasons as above.
¨
The 2E version had Cure Serious Wounds as an ability. We chose Harm over Slay Living since it is a more potent ability.
Are the SKs the wise rulers or the old chatterboxes? What is the use of revealing the underlined information?
You'd have to ask Kevin (Melka). Kevin, are you reading this?
And do the PCs really understand the words “god”, “godhood” etc?
Maybe not to the extent as the SKs do, but the concept of gods as beings of worship is known on Athas, even if there are no real gods.
As for the Pearl- what are the restrictions that a character would have to live with?
You become unable to manifest psionic powers. I would also say you lose the benefits of psionic feats.
I assumed the original manuscript wanted to emphasize the lack of magical equipment in DS2. Though, I agree it would increase the flow of the adventure if they could use a scroll to teleport to outside Nibenay.
Kalthandrix, I don't know where the ability to ignore defenses has gone to.
Immunity to fire is not required since the wielder is automatically immune to his own weapon's fire.
I realize that the wielder is immune to their own weapons abilities- for the most part- but I was suggesting immunity to fire b/c I thought that the fire resistance 30 was pretty weak for an artifact.
Cure Serious Wounds comes from the fact Rajaat is a Pyreen, thus a powerful druid in his own right.
So are you saying that Harm and CSW are going to be spell-like abilities for Pyreen- there is not a current write up on the race that I have seen so I would assume that the pyreen were one of the races overlooked in the first edition of ToA. As for Rajaat being a druid- I could see that he may have ONCE (maybe) been a tree-hugger, but in his development of defiler magic I would say that the Spirits of the Land would not have like that at all and his status as a druid would have changed to ex-druid- if in fact he ever had any level in said class to begin with. I would find it easier to swallow if it were just stated the he was a pyreen, and as a member of the race, he had access to some powerful spell-like abilities.
One other thing that I noticed when flipping through DAII, the suggested means of distruction for the Star of Badna says "Subjected to a weight of 2,000 pounds, one pound for every years of its existence." This does not read very well and the language at the end is wrong- I think it should be "for every year of it's existence." :D
After thinking some more on this, the DR 10/magic should definitely be changed to something else. Why would an artifact that produces antimagic effects curse its guardian with being susceptible to magic? Even though its not obsure, it would make more sense for the DR to be 10/psionic at the very least.
Thoughts?
"Well, Sysane. You've brought up some interesting points."
or
"Good lord man, what on earth are you babbling about now?"
:P
So are you saying that Harm and CSW are going to be spell-like abilities for Pyreen- there is not a current write up on the race that I have seen so I would assume that the pyreen were one of the races overlooked in the first edition of ToA.
[aside]The Pyreen were deliberately left out of ToA as the decision was made to save them for the epic rules. DS2e had them as powerful psions who were also druids of minimum 16th level, with a bunch of other abilities thrown into the mix. No decisions have been reached yet about how to deal with them in 3e.[/aside]
[aside]The Pyreen were deliberately left out of ToA as the decision was made to save them for the epic rules. DS2e had them as powerful psions who were also druids of minimum 16th level, with a bunch of other abilities thrown into the mix. No decisions have been reached yet about how to deal with them in 3e.[/aside]
I don't see Pyreens as a Monster personally and the idea of a cookie cutter version of them frankly offends me :P . They should each be individual beings, sure give them inate psionic abilities and levels in Druid/Preserver, but they are a rebirth race so they should be treated as a Demi-Human race rather than a monster. I think it would be a lot more usefull to have background and stats for a few individual Pyreen (of note if you will) than one standard cookie cutter pyreen. Plus, I don't think all pyreens would be epic in scope. Surely some of them would be, but if they all were I think Athas would be in much better condition than it is. I mean how many of them are there supposed to be? A couple dozen? Even with that number, if they were all epic, then they could have done more to oppose Rajaat and his champions.
Just my own thoughts on the matter... sorry to get side tracked.
[aside]The Pyreen were deliberately left out of ToA as the decision was made to save them for the epic rules. DS2e had them as powerful psions who were also druids of minimum 16th level, with a bunch of other abilities thrown into the mix. No decisions have been reached yet about how to deal with them in 3e.[/aside]
The layshee (sp?) from the ELHB might be a good model for the pyreen.
I don't see Pyreens as a Monster personally...snip...
Monster, race, whatever, the distinction is academic in 3e, imho. There will likely be a base race to which you can add levels/templates/whatever, and yes, Sysane, the leshay have been mentioned as possible inspiration for the pyreen. Let's leave further pyreen hijacks off this thread, though
. There'll be a specific thread about them closer to the design time (ie. after the current ToA revision and once the epic rules are out and stabilised).I stand corrected. But still I did not even realize he was a senior templar. I still offer (and advise) to beef him up.
So other than changing the damage reduction, what else could be done to jack up En-Grogh a bit?
My suggestion is that the blade could have a "morphic" bane ability which would be tied to the goals and desires of its wielder. When it was in the possession of Myron and Hamanu, it was a troll bane weapon. Prior to that, it may have been a preserver bane blade during the Jihad. Years later, it was a bane weapon vs dragons when Hamanu helped in killing Dregoth. After that, it was a bane weapon vs slavers or the minions of the SKs in the hands of Vorr.
I think with this ability added to Elonarc's version (which is good), the Scorcher would be complete.
Thoughts?
A suggestion about the Scorcher. Its stated that the blade is driven by the desires of its wielder, but none of the powers seem to depict this. The 2e alignment based powers were the original answer to this, but doesn't port over to well in 3e.
My suggestion is that the blade could have a "morphic" bane ability which would be tied to the goals and desires of its wielder. When it was in the possession of Myron and Hamanu, it was a troll bane weapon. Prior to that, it may have been a preserver bane blade during the Jihad. Years later, it was a bane weapon vs dragons when Hamanu helped in killing Dregoth. After that, it was a bane weapon vs slavers or the minions of the SKs in the hands of Vorr.
I think with this ability added to Elonarc's version (which is good), the Scorcher would be complete.
Thoughts?
I like the idea, but would still want to see something along the lines of the blabe being able to ignore magical defenses with reguard to AC. With both features added, the blade would be a true weapons of Champians and a killer of the same.
On another note, the Star of Badna is somewhat confusing. I do not see how Abalach-Re could have created the Star and not know about the "curse".
I think that it would be more plausible to say that while creating the star, she called upon the aid of he most powerful tepmlars- using them to add protections of a divine nature, which she could grant but not cast herself. At the end of the creation process, she used the templars' life energy to complete the process so she would not have to sacrifice her own energy (xp). While being drained, one of the templars could have fought back, and in doing so caused the curse to come into effect. This would be a good reason that she would be suprised at discovering it and also not want to use such a potent item personally after spent all of the time and energy to make it.
IMO this or something simular would be a greater story as to why an item of such power has a curse that it's creator did not know about.
So other than changing the damage reduction, what else could be done to jack up En-Grogh a bit?
Increase the damage of his natural weapons. The original had them at 3d10 if I recall correctly.
Of the 50 bodies in this area, nearly half have their head amputated.
The underlined construction seems to have some problems with the English grammar. At least, with the English grammar I was taught at school.
During the sorcerer-king’s confrontation with Rajaat during the Year of Friend’s Agitation, the First Sorcerer imprisoned Andropinis in the Black for 1,000 years.
The first sorcerer-king to feel Rajaat’s wrath was Andropinis of Balic. “For you, eternal confinement,” Rajaat proclaimed as his shadow swallowed the sorcerer-king and trapped him in the Black. [Beyond the Prism Pentad, p. 8]
In the same instant, Rajaat’s shadow emerged from the water and threw his dripping arms around Andropinis’s throat.
“For you, eternal confinement,” Rajaat hissed.
Andropinis screamed in alarm as his ancient master’s silhouette swallowed him. The sorcerer-king’s cry fell silent almost at once, and no sign of him remained. [The Cerulean Storm]
Where do the 1000 years come from?
Increase the damage of his natural weapons. The original had them at 3d10 if I recall correctly.
My original conversion had claw damage at 6d6 plus disease, a touch higher than 3d10, and a higher BAB (but was templated on a fighter, not a templar, iirc, as 2e ex-templars became fighters). And it had regeneration 3, not fast healing 3. This might be too beefy, though.
If the PCs Falmon provides the PCs with no information on his own without consulting his lord or his lord’s granddaughter first.
If the PCs do what?
Arru: Female human Tmp 5/Wife of Nibenay 9; CR 14; Medium humanoid (human); HD 15d8+30...
Where does she take her fifteenth hit die?
Asthira: Female human Tmp 6/Shadow templar 7; CR 12...
Dara-sin: Female human Tmp 1; CR ½...
Do you mean that a female non-casting templar has the same CR as NPC classes have? Quite reasonable, but where is it mentioned in the rules?
Roal: Male human Templar 5/Psion (telepath) 5; CR 10...
Toraus: Male Human Tmp 8; CR 8...
And why some males do not suffer from the lack of spellcasting...
Xion: Male Human Tmp 5; CR 4...
...while some do?
Korno: Male mul Brt 1/Gld 4/Arena champion 4; CR 10...
What the hell is going with the CRs?
Ex-templars: A templar who displeases or abandons his sorcerer-momarch, or whose sorcerer-monarch dies, loses all templar spellcasting abilities. An ex-templar is treated as a member of an NPC class (commoner, expert etc) for purposes of determining CR. If the templar later becomes the templar of another sorcerer-monarch, he immediately regains his full templar spellcasting abilities.
Korno: Male mul Brt 1/Gld 4/Arena champion 4; CR 10
The mul race gives +1 to the CR.
The mule race gives +1 to the CR.
Really? Where can I read about it?
Like I said, this is an alpha release - meaning it probably has its fair share of bugs.
I see.:D Do you need us guys to point at that bugs or do you prefer to find it yourself - that is the question.:D
Really? Where can I read about it?
Muls are LA +1. LAs figure into the CR calculations.
I see. Do you need us guys to point at that bugs or do you prefer to find it yourself - that is the question
Preferably a combination.
Muls are LA +1. LAs figure into the CR calculations.
How? MM has both CR ½ and CR 1 LA +1 creatures.
The first sorcerer-king to feel Rajaat’s wrath was Andropinis of Balic. “For you, eternal confinement,” Rajaat proclaimed as his shadow swallowed the sorcerer-king and trapped him in the Black. [Beyond the Prism Pentad, p. 8]
In the same instant, Rajaat’s shadow emerged from the water and threw his dripping arms around Andropinis’s throat.
“For you, eternal confinement,” Rajaat hissed.
Andropinis screamed in alarm as his ancient master’s silhouette swallowed him. The sorcerer-king’s cry fell silent almost at once, and no sign of him remained. [The Cerulean Storm]
Where do the 1000 years come from?
1,000 years of torment was Rajaat's punishment for Nibenay (I think), he was interrupted before he could carry it out. That's probably where the confusion came from.
1,000 years of torment was Rajaat's punishment for Nibenay (I think), he was interrupted before he could carry it out. That's probably where the confusion came from.
Probably. This will be corrected before the 1.0 release.
[aside]The Pyreen were deliberately left out of ToA as the decision was made to save them for the epic rules. DS2e had them as powerful psions who were also druids of minimum 16th level, with a bunch of other abilities thrown into the mix. No decisions have been reached yet about how to deal with them in 3e.[/aside]
[Darth Vadar]Leave that to me, I will see to it personally.[/Darth Vadar]
[Darth Vadar]Leave that to me, I will see to it personally.[/Darth Vadar]
"all to easy" :D
[Darth Vadar]Leave that to me, I will see to it personally.[/Darth Vadar]
Which part of "try to stick on topic rather than derailing the thread." was it you didn't get? :P
Which part of "try to stick on topic rather than derailing the thread." was it you didn't get? :P
Sorry, still trying to catch up. Didn't see that till it was too late.
Definately agree that the Scorcher isn't powerful enough, but you already knew that. :P
- and its on par with other artifacts.
Which is my whole problem with WotC artifacts for 3.0/3.5.
Though the newest writeup is a bit better, not sure where the whole unlocking concept came from, never seen that before and not sure it's approproate. Artifacts IMO should be more powerful than epic magic items, hence why they are called artifacts. But I digress.
Why was it not given fire immunity? Fire Resistance 30 is too low IMO.
Other than that I'm just going to have to agree to disagree I guess, cause it's not on the scale I think it should be, though it is better than the initial official writeup I saw awhile back. So it's good in that regard.
It also needs the morphic bane ability I mentioned eariler in the thread :P
That's a cool idea actually, and I agree.
Also not sure why there isn't some sort of armor (magical and normal) ignoring ability since that was one of the major points of the artifact in 2e, the ability to slice through someone like they were butter since it ignores armor (someone else brought this up too, but I'm going to echo it).
That's a cool idea actually, and I agree.
Also not sure why there isn't some sort of armor (magical and normal) ignoring ability since that was one of the major points of the artifact in 2e, the ability to slice through someone like they were butter since it ignores armor (someone else brought this up too, but I'm going to echo it).
I brought up both the points of fire immunity and the ignor all magical bonuses to armor. I know the latter was on the 2e version and I believe that it also acted as a ring of fire resistance (2e immunity to fire).
I had been working on my own version (not a small nuke like some have requested) but simular to the other 2 blades that I have converted (in the new items section of my sig.). I stopped working on the Scorcher when I realized the Athas.org would be putting out their own version.
But, the official version should at least have fire immunity and something that ignores magical armor (or close to it, more abilities to ignore more DR types would be ok too), since that is what the 2e version had. And since they initially wanted a 2e version converted to 3e, I'm not sure why those two abilities were left out, or at least one was left out and the other was lowered in power.
The icy burst ability still has me perplexed. I understand the reasoning behind it, but the weapon as it is would not be as effective against trolls. This being sort of odd for a blade that was weilded by two champions whose sworn duty was to eradicate them from the face of Athas.
I always thought that for a cool 3e version, that both flaming and icy be added to the weapon- getting cold fire- or the burst verson of both enchantments.
Barring that, a new enchantment would not be out of the question, maybe something like a negative energy fire- something that burns and saps the strength from you, like the the touch of the dead.
The athas.org version of the Scorcher was engeniered by Jon from versions offered by Elonarc on one side, and me and Seker on the other, plus the boards. There could have been other contributors, can't recall now.
Jon did not use any particular version, instead blending ideas and making up stuff of his own. The result was a sword that, as far as I know, did not please any of the contributors on a personal level, although it relatively pleased us on a professional level.
If you were to ask any of the contributors they'd tell you, I believe, that they think the sword is still lacking in some key elements. But Jon is the ultimate judge of that stuff as Designer for the adventure and jack-of-all-trades for athas.org
Elonarc imagined a sword that functionned in concert with another item, and when both were put together the real Scorcher activated, the one that could woop ass on Champions. The item would have been unavaillable for the player characters. I might be wrong in my analysis, been a while since I checked it all up.
Me and Seker offered a sword that rewarded a wielder that was a powerful defiler and manifester, that way the players had a relatively powerful sword in hand, while Champions who wielded it could woop ass on other Champions.
Hmmmm...I wonder if anything from Weapons of Legacy could be applied or used for the Scorcher?
Interesting thought- that would allow something like what is on the current version of the sword- the ability ti unlock progressively more powerful abilities. That would also allow for some abilities not to be available to the PC's in the adventure, but could be "unlocked" and built up later if the characters decided to keep the blade after the Dread King was stopped.
The cleansing abilities of a Champion, we concluded, were not in his sword but in his Champion template.
NytCrawlr should recall such discussions, its all there in our MSN Message History.
Hmmmm...I wonder if anything from Weapons of Legacy could be applied or used for the Scorcher?
I so need to get that book.
We had extensive discussions outside of athas.org and the conclusions were that Rajaat's three swords were not designed to cleanse any particular race, or eradicate preservers, but rather as powerful weapons with generic enough powers that they could do all such task with ease, as well as wiping out Champions one day.
The cleansing abilities of a Champion, we concluded, were not in his sword but in his Champion template.
NytCrawlr should recall such discussions, its all there in our MSN Message History.
Further argument for a morphic bane ability considering the Scorcher's history. :D
NytCrawlr should recall such discussions, its all there in our MSN Message History.
Too bad I didn't log until recently, heh.
I vaguely, and I do mean very vaguely, recall those discussions though.
Though the newest writeup is a bit better, not sure where the whole unlocking concept came from, never seen that before and not sure it's approproate. Artifacts IMO should be more powerful than epic magic items, hence why they are called artifacts. But I digress.
It was a balancing factor, so the blade wouldn't break the adventure balance - but the activation trigger is given to the PCs by Hamanu in late part 3. Regarding morphic bane ability, that works better than ignoring defenses - since the latter is extremely powerful. Though, playtesting will reveal if it might be necessary to have the ignore ability.
It was a balancing factor, so the blade wouldn't break the adventure balance - but the activation trigger is given to the PCs by Hamanu in late part 3. Regarding morphic bane ability, that works better than ignoring defenses - since the latter is extremely powerful. Though, playtesting will reveal if it might be necessary to have the ignore ability.
I just feel the morphic bane ability ties in better with the Scorchers past history and also capture's a bit of the 2e version's "alignment based abilities".
Elonarc imagined a sword that functionned in concert with another item, and when both were put together the real Scorcher activated, the one that could woop ass on Champions. The item would have been unavaillable for the player characters. I might be wrong in my analysis, been a while since I checked it all up.
Actually, it was Elonarc's idea to have a trigger - and not an item by default. We discussed possible triggers such as an emotion, a thought, or a command word. Elonarc is probably the contributor who is most pleased with the Scorcher.
After weighing the pros and cons, I've decided to add a Morphic Bane ability and an ability to ignore magical defenses to the Scorcher. Any suggestions on how to handle the latter elegantly?
So your set with the mechanics for morphic bane?
Any suggestions on how to handle the latter elegantly?
"This sword ignores all magical armor bonuses."
"The sword ignores all bonuses to Armor Class, as well as damage reduction, originating from enchanted or empowered items, and from powers or spells."
"When attacking with the Scorcher, the wielder ignores the value of all armor, natural armor, shield, and enhancement bonuses the target receives to its armor class, whatever the source, for the purposes of determining whether the attack hits successfully. Other bonuses, such as dodge and deflection bonuses, still apply as normal."
An example would also be spiffy.
what do you think
PS. Aslo psionic AC bonuses should not be ignored ( they should apply to the targets AC) reason being and i have to ask this questions was Rajaat that big on psionics and where they all that wide spead when the weapon was made?
I think the best bet for ignoring AC to get the fluff and not break the adventure is probly to ignore natrual AC and enchanment AC (rings or protection, mage armor, bracers of defense... etc) but not doge, nonmagical deflection, dex, size, or any other nonmagical AC bonus.
Each 2E write-up for the Scorcher and Silencer ignored one element of armor, not both: Scorcher was everything magical, and Silencer was mundane armor.
Ex.:
- Scorcher against leather armor +5 (+7 to AC) ends up being against leather armor (+2 to AC)
- Silencer against breastplate +2 (+7 to AC) ends up being against a +2 enhancement bonus (+2 to AC)
The easiest is probably to state: "Physical attacks made with the Scorcher ignore all bonuses to AC originating from magical items and spells". Question remains, should this be expanded to include psionic powers and psionic items?
The easiest is probably to state: "Physical attacks made with the Scorcher ignore all bonuses to AC originating from magical items and spells". Question remains, should this be expanded to include psionic powers and psionic items?
I'd say it should work against powers and psi items as well. I don't think it's to broken.
If your worried about balance issues you could have it that it's a percentile chance with each strike made with the Scorcher that it ignores the armor bonuses from powers, spells, and like items rather than it being a static or constant ability. Say a 25% chance or something like that.
Question remains, should this be expanded to include psionic powers and psionic items?
Yes, definately. The abscence of a 2E mention of psionics in the Scorcher's entry is but a relic of 2E mechanics: no "psionic" armor bonuses existed AFAIK.
Physical attacks made with the Scorcher ignore all bonuses to AC originating from magical items and spells.
Sounds good.
Morphic Bane: The Scorcher is a weapon that is driven by purpose. When first held, it instantly knows the desires and primary goals of the wielder. When used in pursuit of a primary goal the blade is treated as a bane weapon vs beings that are directly tied to the wielder's goal. The primary goal must take at least a month to complete, otherwise the Scorcher's bane ability will not function.
This may need to be reworded to make the ability clearer.
Yes, definately. The abscence of a 2E mention of psionics in the Scorcher's entry is but a relic of 2E mechanics: no "psionic" armor bonuses existed AFAIK.
But psionic powers which provided bonuses to AC did (Biofeedback, Displacement, Psionic Invisibility, and many more), and the Scorcher had nothing on them.
The way I had it set up in my earlier post was a bit... funky. I got the Scorcher and the Silencer mixed up a bit. As far as I see the easiest way to do this would actually be to get rid of enhancement and deflection bonuses to AC from any source. Neither of these *can* originate from non-magic/non-psionic sources, and I don't really see the wielder of the Scorcher being able to smash through Dodge or Dexterity bonuses, which can also originate from magic items.
But psionic powers which provided bonuses to AC did (Biofeedback, Displacement, Psionic Invisibility, and many more), and the Scorcher had nothing on them.
Those don't provide AC bonuses. Biofeedback gave DR and psionic invisibility (which doesn't exist in 3.5) had a miss chance.
Edit: Gah, you're right. I've been playing too much WotR. :D
Hmm, I'll have to have a look in my books. No mention of Displacement, though, eh? ;)
Edit: Gah, you're right. I've been playing too much WotR. :D
Displacement also gave a miss chance, not a bonus to AC :P ;)
As far as I see the easiest way to do this would actually be to get rid of enhancement and deflection bonuses to AC from any source. Neither of these *can* originate from non-magic/non-psionic sources, and I don't really see the wielder of the Scorcher being able to smash through Dodge or Dexterity bonuses, which can also originate from magic items.
This was my first idea, to have the Scorcher ignore enhancement, deflection, luck and sacred/profane bonuses to AC. Though spells such as epic mage armor easily circumvent this, being able to grant both armor and natural armor bonuses.
Yes, definately. The abscence of a 2E mention of psionics in the Scorcher's entry is but a relic of 2E mechanics: no "psionic" armor bonuses existed AFAIK.
That was what I thought, but I wasn't 100% sure. Thanks for verifying this. Even if there should exist an exception or two, that doesn't mean we shouldn't make the Scorcher function against psionic bonuses to AC as well.
Revised suggestion:
"Physical attacks made with the Scorcher ignore all bonuses to AC originating from spells and psionic powers, as well as psionic and magical items".
Even in the theoretical case of dodge bonuses granted from spells, I don't think it is unfair that an artifact can circumvent that effect of said spell. Though, in cases where the AC increase is indirect, such as from Cat's Grace, the spell's effects would not be negated.
Morphic Bane: The Scorcher is a weapon that is driven by purpose. When first held, it instantly knows the desires and primary goals of the wielder. When used in pursuit of a primary goal the blade is treated as a bane weapon vs beings that are directly tied to the wielder's goal. The primary goal must take at least a month to complete, otherwise the Scorcher's bane ability will not function.
How about:
Morphic Bane: The Scorcher is a weapon that is driven by purpose. When first held, it instantly knows the desires and primary goals of the wielder. When used in pursuit of a primary goal the blade is treated as a bane weapon vs beings that are directly tied to the wielder's goal.
For example, Vorr the Gladiator vowed to free all slaves - when used against slavers and templars trying to stop hm, the bane property came into effect. For the PCs, if their goals are to stop Dregoth, the bane property applies when fighting Dregoth and his army.
How about:
Morphic Bane: The Scorcher is a weapon that is driven by purpose. When first held, it instantly knows the desires and primary goals of the wielder. When used in pursuit of a primary goal the blade is treated as a bane weapon vs beings that are directly tied to the wielder's goal.
For example, Vorr the Gladiator vowed to free all slaves - when used against slavers and templars trying to stop hm, the bane property came into effect. For the PCs, if their goals are to stop Dregoth, the bane property applies when fighting Dregoth and his army.
Nice, but I'd also drop in the line of "A primary goal must take at least a month to complete, otherwise the Scorcher's bane ability will not function".
Revised suggestion:
"Physical attacks made with the Scorcher ignore all bonuses to AC originating from spells and psionic powers, as well as psionic and magical items".
That makes it sound like magic armor doesn't even provide its armor bonus. And it still should.
That makes it sound like magic armor doesn't even provide its armor bonus. And it still should.
Not what I'm reading.
Morphic Bane: The Scorcher is a weapon that is driven by purpose. When first held, it instantly knows the desires and primary goals of the wielder. When used in pursuit of a primary goal the blade is treated as a bane weapon vs beings that are directly tied to the wielder's goal.
The wording is too identical to the original, which already sounded weird. I'll think of a way to change the wording so its better.
The wording is too identical to the original, which already sounded weird. I'll think of a way to change the wording so its better.
What about this:
Morphic Bane:The Scorcher is a weapon driven by purpose. When frist held, it instantly knows the desires and goals of it's wielder. The blade is treated as a bane weapon vs beings directly opposed to it's wielder's primary goal. The wielder's primary goal must take a minuim of a month to complete in order for the Scorcher's bane ability to function.
The wielder's primary goal must take a minuim of a month to complete in order for the Scorcher's bane ability to function.
The issue with the goal-month element is that it implies the morphic bane feature cannot be used in the adventure - since the adventure's timeline is less than a month. Thus I will not include it.
The issue with the goal-month element is that it implies the morphic bane feature cannot be used in the adventure - since the adventure's timeline is less than a month. Thus I will not include it.
There are a few ways around that.First, if the goal was to try and stop Dregoth for good (i.e. kill him) that goal would take longer than a month. The character doesn't have to succeed in their goal in order for the bane ability to work.
Second, I don't exactly see in DA where it states that the module is less than or greater than a months time to complete.
The time limit of the goal could be lowered to weeks time if the need is there. The reason I feel that there needs to be a time tigger tagged to the ability is to stop players from setting small time goals. Whats to deter them from saying "stopping Dregoth isn't my characters chief goal right now, killing that shop keeper who ripped me off is".
There are a few ways around that.First, if the goal was to try and stop Dregoth for good (i.e. kill him) that goal would take longer than a month. The character doesn't have to succeed in their goal in order for the bane ability to work.
In theory you can kill Dregoth in DA. That would not necessarily take more than a month.
Second, I don't exactly see in DA where it states that the module is less than or greater than a months time to complete.
Part 1 can be done in 1-2 days. Part 2 has a timeframe of 20 days (which probably is too much). Part 3 I won't go into detail on, but its probably less than 30 days total (and that's regular weeks, not athasian weeks).
The time limit of the goal could be lowered to weeks time if the need is there. The reason I feel that there needs to be a time tigger tagged to the ability is to stop players from setting small time goals. Whats to deter them from saying "stopping Dregoth isn't my characters chief goal right now, killing that shop keeper who ripped me off is".
This is your concern and motive for including the ability? Then let's try to find another way to prevent abuse.
In theory you can kill Dregoth in DA. That would not necessarily take more than a month.
In theory, yes. Likely, no.
Part 1 can be done in 1-2 days. Part 2 has a timeframe of 20 days (which probably is too much). Part 3 I won't go into detail on, but its probably less than 30 days total (and that's regular weeks, not athasian weeks).
I guess it depends on the players and the DM.
This is your concern and motive for including the ability? Then let's try to find another way to prevent abuse.
Not to sure what you stating here, but yes it is a concern. If there's a better way to deter abuse of the ability I'm open to suggestions. I was just basing the time mechanic loosely off the dwarven focus ability which seems to prevent that from being abused.
Using it (btw its based on the DMG's oathbow) and the actual bane ability, I came up with this:
The Scorcher excels at attacking one type of creature chosen by its wielder. Against its designated foe, it functions as a bane weapon.
The type of creature that is the designated foe of the Scorcher is decided by the wielder upon first taking possession of the weapon. The weapon may only have one designated foe at a time. Once the wielder decides which type of foe is the target of the Scorcher, he cannot change this foe until all are slain or seven days have passed. This foe can be anything, as general as every elves to as specific as Dregoth the Dread King of Guistenal.
Anyone knows of another sure-footed category besides these two?
Besides, the sword functions on it's wielder's desires. What if the wielder sees someone who's using an alter self spell or similar means to disguise themselves as a member of another race? If the wielder chooses "Elves," and he sees a human wizard disguised as one, does he receive the bonus against that wizard?
I think Penn's got the right idea with the oathbow parallel but it still needs a bit more tweaking.
Besides, the sword functions on it's wielder's desires. What if the wielder sees someone who's using an alter self spell or similar means to disguise themselves as a member of another race? If the wielder chooses "Elves," and he sees a human wizard disguised as one, does he receive the bonus against that wizard?
It wouldn't work just like a turning or species enemy abilities won't work or effect someone disguised as an undead creature.
I say again: The blade is keyed to it's wielder's desires. It 'wants' to help its wielder accomplish his goals. It is *not* actually intended to function as an enemy to any particular group; its purpose is the greatest purpose of its wielder. If the wielder believes that his goal of exterminating elves is best served by killing the wizard he believes is an elf, wouldn't that be a bit of an exception to the normal species enemy abilities?
No, because the wizard isn't an elf. The Scorcher is semi-sentient and its magic would and be able to differentiate between a real elf and a fake. Thats like saying a intellegent elf bane weapon would work on a being disguised as an elf.
The Scorcher is semi-sentient and its magic would and be able to differentiate between a real... and a fake.
Now there's a statement we can use to clear up a lot of the messy rules questions that are going to come up otherwise. I think we're getting somewhere. I think we need to be still more specific, though.
A bane weapon against werewolves works on a human-looking werewolf, that you knew it was a werewolf or not in the first place. Same for a bane weapon against dopplegangers: it works on a human-looking doppleganger.
A weapon that glows when orcs are near will glow if orcs are disguised.
This weapon works on all elves, if your goal is to kill elves. If the creature isn't an elf, it won't work.
Besides, bane weapons in 3E now work on more than races, just look at the magebane ability from Complete Arcane.
We just need to define the limits of a designated foe. Because it needs to be a designated foe and not a "desire" or "ultimate goal". Why? If your greatest desire is to free Rajaat, how is that gonna help you take advantage of the bane ability? Priorities change over the course of an adventure, and as such the bane ability needs to be applied to more specific concepts than an "ultimate goal".
You should be able to target Alliance members, or preservers, or just defilers, or tareks, or humanoids, or followers of Dregoth, or the citizens of Tyr, or the warlord Arkan, or anything of that sort.
Now there's a statement we can use to clear up a lot of the messy rules questions that are going to come up otherwise. I think we're getting somewhere. I think we need to be still more specific, though.
No no no. What you're trying to do is paliate a problem you are seeing in the DMG's wording for its magical item abilities.
Like I said, the magic of a bane weapon works 100% of the time against its designated foe, no matter what. If the foe, say a monstrous humanoid, uses magic to change its type, even if temporarily, to that of humanoid, then the bane ability won't work since it's target is no longer a "monstrous humanoid".
At several occasions when I've made a spell that was similar, or based upon, a PHB spell, I found out that most people wanted this and that added to "clear up", or render "less messy", the wording, while in fact its the same wording as in the PHB. The people usually don't realise that the problem they have with my spell is in fact a problem they had with the similar PHB spell in the first place.
For example, adding an XP cost to Sorcerous Transformation, even though Tenser's Transformation has none, or adding a line that mentions an Epic Simulacrum does not posess any XP that the simulacrum can spend on costly spells, even though the Simulacrum spell does not mention that either.
The Scorcher has a morphic bane property. Its wielder chooses an individual (for example, Wheelock the bard), race (elves) or organization (Veiled Alliance), for which the weapon gains the bane property (+2d6 damage). The morphic bane property can be changed 1/week as a standard action.
EDIT: Added standard action.
Revised morphic bane suggestion:
The Scorcher has a morphic bane property. Its wielder chooses an individual (for example, Wheelock the bard), race (elves) or organization (Veiled Alliance), for which the weapon gains the bane property (+2d6 damage). The morphic bane property can be changed 1/week.
Pretty simple. I like it. Works for me
Has there been any resolution to how the bane ability is going to work on an official stand point? I really feel that theres been waaaay to much over analysis done on it (including some from myself). After everything is said and done its the DM that decides what the bane is going to function against.
Not to mention the fact that artifacts are a DM's tool, not a player's. The DM can take them away just as easily as he put them in.
No clue why we feel the need to talk about it as much as we have as well as over anaylyze it to death...