| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Sourcemaster2 |
Posted - 28 Jun 2004 : 05:27:52
Is it possible for a sorcerer to exceed the standard number of spells known? I'm familiar with the Spell Knowledge feat, but that's epic. Are there any lesser versions of it that a lower-level character can choose? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 02 Jul 2004 : 13:21:48
I actually hadn't looked at that one yet. 
I sometimes skip around the site. I try to take everything in order on the Active Topics page, but sometimes something will catch my eye and I'll skip ahead, and then miss something -- like that thread.
So, yeah, I'd like that. They sound interesting, and of possible use to a writer. And who knows, maybe I'll DM someday . . .  |
| Arivia |
Posted - 02 Jul 2004 : 13:17:38
quote:
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
 Dungeoncraft articles?
Since the scroll is off-topic enough as it is, why don't you email me? You can remind me about this matter I've forgotten (not unusual ) and you can also tell me what you think on that other matter I emailed you about.
What the Sage and I were talking about here. I'll email you feedback on that other matter, though, yes. |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 02 Jul 2004 : 13:14:17
Dungeoncraft articles?
Since the scroll is off-topic enough as it is, why don't you email me? You can remind me about this matter I've forgotten (not unusual ) and you can also tell me what you think on that other matter I emailed you about. |
| Arivia |
Posted - 02 Jul 2004 : 12:58:55
quote:
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
Please tell me that whatever files you wrote weren't converted properly by OpenOffice. If not, I beg you to try it.
I need to download that again. You've given it to me before, but I forgot to install it and try it out. Thanks for the reminder . . . .
No problem-always willing to spread the gospel. If this scroll ends now, it would perhaps be the fourth one around here that has ended on an OSS solution. While we're at it, do you want those Dungeoncraft articles? You might find them interesting. |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 02 Jul 2004 : 12:55:26
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
Please tell me that whatever files you wrote weren't converted properly by OpenOffice. If not, I beg you to try it.
I need to download that again. You've given it to me before, but I forgot to install it and try it out. Thanks for the reminder . . . . |
| Capn Charlie |
Posted - 02 Jul 2004 : 08:34:34
S'right, I have things under control now, and have posted my first class. YOu may view it Here. |
| Arivia |
Posted - 02 Jul 2004 : 07:02:40
quote:
Originally posted by Capn Charlie
As a side note, I am once again firmly on the teat of microsoft again, seeing as I just didn't have the time to learn all the complex commands and interface of Linux. So I am having to get all my files converted to a m$ compatible format. Once I do so I will post some of my "smoothies". Fortunately there is an excellent Free Word Processor that is easily the equivelant of programs worth several hundred dollars, totally free, and only a 4 meg download. Man I love free source.
Please tell me that whatever files you wrote weren't converted properly by OpenOffice. If not, I beg you to try it. |
| Capn Charlie |
Posted - 02 Jul 2004 : 06:22:24
Well, I wanted something very campy and "musketeer esque" wit has few of the laws of reality or physics getting in the way of my actions as possible.
I will come right out and tell you, the swashbuckler levels are jsut ther eto get dex to damage, so he can coompete with the tougher warriors in the group, and ditto with the "rogue" levels. It isn't backstab anymore, I see it is being an oppurtunistic combatant. WHich actuially is one of the things that makes me think allowing sneak attack as a feat that stacks is blanced, but wit ha max rank of level/3(so the rogue still has an advantage) and using a variant of the feat rogue.
As a side note, I am once again firmly on the teat of microsoft again, seeing as I just didn't have the time to learn all the complex commands and interface of Linux. So I am having to get all my files converted to a m$ compatible format. Once I do so I will post some of my "smoothies". Fortunately there is an excellent Free Word Processor that is easily the equivelant of programs worth several hundred dollars, totally free, and only a 4 meg download. Man I love free source. |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 02 Jul 2004 : 05:41:02
Well, that doesn't work for all situations, but in this case I agree.
quote:
Originally posted by Capn Charlie
Basicly a non throwable dagger stat wise, but exotic. It adds +2 to all parry and disarm rolls, and can also be used like a light shield stat wise. It can also be enchanted so that the enhancement bonus can apply to either the attack function or defense one, but at bonus squared x2500.
Sounds good. There's a feat for that someplace, to allow an offhand weapon to be used to provide a shield bonus.
As for the enchantment, doesn't the Defending ability already cover it?
quote:
You are right, there should be something special ther eim the higher levels of wizard. Maybe a variant of the rules in quintessential wizard? I believe they had one where you could use your staff to store spells and arcane power, maybe give something akin to the rogue special abilites at 14th, 17, and 20th level?
Like access to abilities a bit too powerful to be feats. Stuff along the lines of:
Master Artificer: Reduce the market price cost for all magical items you personally make by 10%. Or an ability to use your intelligence modifier to your leadership score.
Hmm, I will need to think about this.
 Oooo. Nice. I can't believe I didn't think of that, considering that my Fencer has similar lines.
By the way, your fencer character isn't quite what I was thinking of. I'm actually making a fencer that reflects Jack himself -- he's the basis. Take a modern fencing style and use it "for real."
It's closely based on Jack's own, invented style. He and some friends in high school decided to make a style of fencing that really depended on things like maneuvoring and, in advanced form, had multiple participants. It's not swashbuckling -- it's serious, formal, and controlled. (In the class, chaotic alignments are allowed, but they are limited to one path of advancement.)
I'll have to finish it up and post it. It's not for everyone, but it's good for cities like Waterdeep. (Of course, cities like Waterdeep are what started the whole thing.) |
| Capn Charlie |
Posted - 01 Jul 2004 : 19:55:18
Agreed. When the results are the same, how can one question the means. |
| Sarelle |
Posted - 01 Jul 2004 : 18:57:28
You certainly have valuable points, but I actually use both methods.
I don't see the harm in using a prestige class/template mix and then working from there - as long as your idea is developed well past mere statistics. You should explain the various points that make up the character/creature, and elevate its character above what you began with. In the end you can have just as interesting a character as if you did it the other way around, in my experience.
Generally I agree - concept should, and does tend to, come first. But when it doesn't I don't think that degrades the creation, unless you allow it to. |
| Capn Charlie |
Posted - 01 Jul 2004 : 08:20:40
I still don't understand why you want to make the wizard levels so attractive. I guess I see your point a bit, in that every other class has a reason to take mroe levels in it. Really though, about the only way I can think of doing it is to have something in the class that accrues wih levels, like granting additional abilities if you have x many of the wizard bonus feats.
Personally, I like the idea of making specialist wizard classes. Not too long ago in Dragon they had I believe three specialist necromancer variants. Each had a set of abilities tied into it's theme you gained as you got the twenty levels, and it worked great.
However, personally, I can't imagine not taking a prestige class of some kind in most situations. But especially if I was a wizard. You are right, there should be something special ther eim the higher levels of wizard. Maybe a variant of the rules in quintessential wizard? I believe they had one where you could use your staff to store spells and arcane power, maybe give something akin to the rogue special abilites at 14th, 17, and 20th level?
Like access to abilities a bit too powerful to be feats. Stuff along the lines of:
Master Artificer: Reduce the market price cost for all magical items you personally make by 10%. Or an ability to use your intelligence modifier to your leadership score.
Hmm, I will need to think about this.
quote:
Could you perhaps send me this guy's level/feat stats? That is, if you don't mind me potentially mining them . . . . I'm still working on high-level abilities for the Fencer.
Well, I was never too satisified with it. It ended up being a Swashbuckler3/Fighter5/Rogue(*)5/Duelist7 I think, but I found what I believe was the right amount of feats and rules to make it work. For one, I used the parrying rules from Dragon and several of their feats. I also found, modified, asnd implemented several new weapons and items. I am particularly fond of my Main Gauche.
(*)I wanted sneak attack damage, not all the other rogue abilities, so I used a variant with d8 hit die, no rogue abilities but the uncanny dodge and sneak attack, and fll bab.
Basicly a non throwable dagger stat wise, but exotic. It adds +2 to all parry and disarm rolls, and can also be used like a light shield stat wise. It can also be enchanted so that the enhancement bonus can apply to either the attack function or defense one, but at bonus squared x2500.
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 01 Jul 2004 : 07:28:47
There are some scattered 3e spells that enhance the familiar bond. One that I liked was familiar sense, where the caster supresses one of his senses to experience his familiar's. It didn't say, but I wouldn't let it grant the Scent ability -- after all, having the information doesn't mean the caster can accurately understand it. Perhaps if the caster used it a lot, I could let him build up a knowledge on how to use it.
Otherwise, it seemed great when you wanted to use your familiar as a scout. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 01 Jul 2004 : 07:20:56
quote:
Originally posted by Capn Charlie
I understand your concerns about the Familiar, and share them. Which is why one of the first things I houseruled in was that familiar abilities are tied to spellcasting, so each level of a class with +1 spellscasting levels gets to add on to the table for abilities for familiars.
Back in some long-ago issue of Dragon, from the 2E days, there was an article about improving familiars. I believe it was called "That's Certainly Un-Familiar" and it featured a series of spells. These spells, when cast on the familiar, improved the familiar in some way -- a minor magical ability, or an improved ability score, or some nifty ability... And there were several of these spells, each more powerful than the last, so you could only improve your familiar by advancing in levels.
If anyone is interested in this, I shall try to find the specific issue. |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 01 Jul 2004 : 06:15:50
quote:
Originally posted by Capn Charlie
I understand your concerns about the Familiar, and share them. Which is why one of the first things I houseruled in was that familiar abilities are tied to spellcasting, so each level of a class with +1 spellscasting levels gets to add on to the table for abilities for familiars.
Unfortunately, that also means that the only reason left to take base Wizard levels is to get an extra feat every five levels. I don't think that's enough, considering the way PrCs usually are built.
However, it makes it easier for me to consider taking something like the Archmage class; I've only ever considered one spellcasting concept that could let the wizard in question do it alone. Every other mage-type character I've thought of would get a familiar, if only for a tool.
I think I'll still attempt a varient spellcaster to make the base levels seem more attractive.
quote:
If the right mix of abilities that three levess each in five classes provides accurately allows your character to do in game what you see them doing in your minds eye, go for it.
Quite. Jack Archer started out as a highly modified Fighter. It was the only way I could construct a true "fencer" at the time. He had four levels of fighter, but no armor proficiencies and a limited weapon selection. He was intended to move into Duelist levels after the game started.
Now Sage and I have mostly developed a base-class Fencer, and it's based off of the trade-ins I did for Jack. It actually turns out that the trade-ins are appropriate for a mutliclassed Ftr4/Wiz5, but if you just had a level-four character, it would be overpowered. We dropped the Mobility feat (which I'd only needed to qualify for the Duelist, something no longer necessary) and Dodge (which Jack still has, but it's balanced by the fact that he has basically no resistance to non-Terran disease; all Fort saves he makes against disease are just d20 rolls). It's made things a bit more balanced, and I think it does a pretty good job of describing a fencer or duelist, rather than a swashbukler.
quote:
Just recently I had to find a way to make a fencer "work" in the game, and only managed to make him the deadly duelist I had envisioned by mixing in close to half a dozen classes.
Could you perhaps send me this guy's level/feat stats? That is, if you don't mind me potentially mining them . . . . I'm still working on high-level abilities for the Fencer. |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 01 Jul 2004 : 05:44:20
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Concept first, crunch second.
Or as a famous Englishman once said: "Invent first, then embellish."
Of course, I'm no immune to looking at a PrC or base class and constructing a character from that. However, it's not a "Lemme work out something to use that with" operation. Instead, it's two steps.
1) "What sort of character would take this feat/class/etc.?" and then
2) "Would I actually play a character like that?"
There are three answers.
A) "Yes." I start working out a rough character.
B) "No." I discard the PrC or feat.
C) "Perhaps." I put it aside, as I might wish to play a character concept like that in the future.
Like I said above, balance is everything. You need to have a mix of flavor and crunch or it's not worth it. |
| Capn Charlie |
Posted - 01 Jul 2004 : 02:56:34
I have seen nifty classes and built a character that uses it several times. However I could say the same thing ten times over about every thing from movies, television shows, and even servers at resturaunts.
Whenever something sparks the creativity, I go with it. Whether that is an interesting mechanic in a new necromaner class, or the way the guy that brought me my burger speaks, into my game it goes. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 30 Jun 2004 : 22:48:42
Well stated, Capn. Charlie. I should have said something similar, myself...
So, to clarify, when I'm making a new character or NPC, I worry about the character concept, first. Only after I've gotten that all figured out do I start worrying about the numbers and classes. I'll do whatever mixing and matching is necessary to match the concept as closely as possible.
I've never looked at a PrC, though, and built a character to match it.
Concept first, crunch second. |
| Capn Charlie |
Posted - 30 Jun 2004 : 22:03:36
I will see about posting them here sometime Bookwyrm.
I understand your concerns about the Familiar, and share them. Which is why one of the first things I houseruled in was that familiar abilities are tied to spellcasting, so each level of a class with +1 spellscasting levels gets to add on to the table for abilities for familiars.
While I can agree with the sentiment of people disliking those who use crunch solely to create a character, I am a staunch believer in the other side as well.
The mechanical abilities of a character are an integral part of concept. It is all well and good to pretend your ability to portray a character is so great that you could do so using commoner levels if you chose, but such is just lunacy. If being a deadly swordsman is integral to the character, you have to range a bit to find the right mechanics to support it. If the right mix of abilities that three levess each in five classes provides accurately allows your character to do in game what you see them doing in your minds eye, go for it.
Third edition finally gives players the tools to create a character that is mechanically unique, with diverse abilities unlike anything previous. Just recently I had to find a way to make a fencer "work" in the game, and only managed to make him the deadly duelist I had envisioned by mixing in close to half a dozen classes.
I am of the opinion that good roleplaying, and good rollplaying are not mutually exclusive. Gimping ones character to show you are a good roleplayer is as ludicrous in my opinion as working some halfling were dire ferret rogue/paladin/shadowdancer/Shadowlord and trying to tell me that the other guys shouldn't give you a hard time.
It all comes down to finding the proper mix of mechanics to realize your character concept. But if ever again I am in the situation whre I have to take two level dips in a dozen classes to get get my character doing on paper what he is doing in my head, I will have no compunctions with doing so. |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 30 Jun 2004 : 12:31:51
Sarta, that's almost exactly the same thing I had been trying to get out. You just did it in fewer words.
Of course, most people do it in fewer words than I do. 
Captain Charlie, I'd love to see some of those smoothies of yours. (Well, you did say you put them in the blender . . . .) I'm sure that Alaundo would like them too. It seems he doesn't like to see empty shelf space.
Personally, I think that the familiar class feature is one of the best of all spellcasting classes, so I'm reluctant to make a wizard that only advances with the familiar to the point where it talks to him. I don't think a level-five familiar would be able to do the same job when its master is epic that it did when its master was an apprentice, but that's all the power it has. That means that the wizard combo you mentioned would be better off without the familiar. That loses him a valuable tool as well as a great role-playing instrument.
(My half-elf in Mumadar's campaign is currently passed out from exhaustion, so his tressym familiar has gone and begged a meal off the party cleric -- whom he thinks of as a "nice two-legger" for healing his "person" earlier -- and is generally being an uber-cute creature. As I remarked to the cleric's player out of character: "Feed me, human, for I am cute and cuddly!"  ) |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 29 Jun 2004 : 20:13:46
quote:
Originally posted by Sarta
The real problem with prestige classes (and bizarre races) is that they have become a substitute for players coming up with unique personas for their characters. Rather than come up with a unique personality for their character, they instead make a gnome were-coyote, barbarian shadow-dancer and smugly feel that this makes them unique. Well, it does, but doesn't mean they have a good character.
Sarta
Hear, hear! I've said it more than once: for me, the concept is the most important part of the character. Only after I have a concept do I worry about numbers and things... |
| Sarta |
Posted - 29 Jun 2004 : 18:55:05
The real problem with prestige classes (and bizarre races) is that they have become a substitute for players coming up with unique personas for their characters. Rather than come up with a unique personality for their character, they instead make a gnome were-coyote, barbarian shadow-dancer and smugly feel that this makes them unique. Well, it does, but doesn't mean they have a good character.
Sarta |
| Capn Charlie |
Posted - 29 Jun 2004 : 18:53:47
I understand where you are coming from. After watching some of my players sit around setting up a four class build to get teh ability to do the things they wanted their characters to be able to do, I started cooking up new twenty level classes that combine aspects of several preexisting ones. Like for one, the player in my game that is a lycanthrope raised by wild elves, his character was something like a brb2(for the raqe) ranger2(for the favored enemy) druid 5(for the spells) wolf lord3(for the fluff of wolf interactions).
I jsust put the stuff in a blender, and cooked up a twenty level class that gives him access to the things that his characgter needed, thus greatly reducing the headache for all involved.
In faact, I have begun to see a three class 20 level build as less and lessa multi class, and more and more a twenty level class in it's own right. THE wizard5/Prestige wizard 10/archmage5 is the baseline specialist wizard in my game, as it just seems to moer accurately depict wizards, in my opinion. |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 29 Jun 2004 : 11:49:40
Well, first, the only RPG I know at the moment is D&D and some limited d20. As for the rest, I suppose I can't really explain it. But largely a part of it is just in a reaction to the extreme number of PrCs that are either redundant or have no bearing on a typical campaign. Most of them have no thought as to the background; I can't stand a D&D that's just numbers.
Perhaps making a slightly stronger core class isn't the way to go about it, but it's something I thought I'd try. It's possible to create a good character without ever touching a PrC. I don't mind the option, but when it becomes all there is, it's irritating. I just like things simple sometimes, I guess. A bit odd that I would say that in referrence to the most complicated game I've ever seen, but that's how I'm feeling at the moment, like that the majority of gamers out there think that PrCs make good characters by themselves, rather than knowing that it's easier to make a good one with simple construction. Perhaps it's just one of my mood swings.
D&D without roleplay is just a board game.
D&D without rules is just a chaotic story.
D&D with rules and roleplay . . . is D&D.
Balance is everything.
I'm having a bit of a headache, so sorry if that post's a bit confusing to people . . . . |
| Arivia |
Posted - 29 Jun 2004 : 10:45:30
quote:
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
Actually, I'm working on a minor Sorcerer varient. I'm a bit irritated by how many characters I've seen that only have enough core-class levels to qualify for a PrC and then never take that core class again. Particularly in the cleric, sorcerer, and wizard classes.
Anyone have any thoughts?
Why would this irritate you? It's a common practice in the construction of RPGs, period-there are many that work like that. Personally, I see no problem with it at all. |
| Capn Charlie |
Posted - 29 Jun 2004 : 10:33:10
Hmm, that all of the core classes are pretty bland, and that it is far more fun to be a Bladesinger or Asassin than a generic fighter or rogue. |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 29 Jun 2004 : 08:34:06
Actually, I'm working on a minor Sorcerer varient. I'm a bit irritated by how many characters I've seen that only have enough core-class levels to qualify for a PrC and then never take that core class again. Particularly in the cleric, sorcerer, and wizard classes.
Anyone have any thoughts? |
| Ty |
Posted - 28 Jun 2004 : 22:55:30
The Spellsinger prestige class from Races of Faerun allows the "spellsong" ability. Basically, you can "lose" a prepared or unprepared arcane spell to cast any arcane enchantment spell of a lower level on your spell list, as opposed to spells known. Quite an ability for sorcerers or bards assuming they have not/don't errata it. |
| Sourcemaster2 |
Posted - 28 Jun 2004 : 16:39:57
Many thanks, Artalis. I've been looking for a way to give sorcerers more versatility, and extra spells can add character. I've found it difficult to use a sorcerer because he either ends up too flavored by a majority of some kind of spell, or is too diversified to do much of anything. |
| Artalis |
Posted - 28 Jun 2004 : 16:36:34
quote:
Originally posted by Sourcemaster2
Any chance that you could post the specific feat here?
The feats Extra Slot and Extra Spell are both General Feats
Extra slot requires a 4th lvl spellcaster and Extra Spell requires 3rd lvl. They give exactly as advertised. |
|
|
