| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
 Posted - 08 Jun 2004 : 15:05:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lashan
Wooly, I think that the FR has been around and has it's story, but the rules failed to properly convey the world in a decent set of rules. To change certain NPCs to sorcerer isn't a big deal. In fact, it feels more right then it did before. Is it really such a big problem to change NPCs? I can see if a certain NPC is part of the campaign world and it is a big thing to change that person, but if it is just someone that perhaps might get mentioned in the game world? Or if the players haven't even met that person yet? Then I see no problem with continuity to just change them to sorcerer. But that is just me.
My only complaint is that characters have been changed with absolutely no explanation. As I said previously, some characters are certainly more suited to be sorcerers than they are wizards. Making that change isn't what bothers me -- it's changing years of established Realmslore with no explanation that bothers me. Everytime I see something else that WotC has decided to arbitrarily change, I feel as if I, a long-standing fan of the Realms (15+ years), am being spit upon.
I don't care if something gets changed, so long as it is explained. But the new crew at Wizards feels no obligation to us old-school folks, so they just change whatever they feel like without any consideration for how it affects things in the Realms, and for how the people who've kept the Realms alive all these years feel about it.
That's all I want: an explanation for the change. Is that too much to ask for? |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
 |
|
|
SiriusBlack
Great Reader
USA
5517 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2004 : 15:07:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I agree with Sarta. I simply ignore, for the most part, the draconic blood part. I don't need to know why it works, only that it does.
Actually, I don't really like the draconic blood explanation...
Yes, but if I recall correctly, there's not much to ignore as the PHB states on page 49:
quote:
the claim that sorcerers are partially draconic is either an unsubstantiated boast on the part of certain sorcerers or envious gossip on the part of those who lack the sorcerer's gift
So you see, nothing but Sorcerer Propaganda is what to tell any player that gets to big for his/her britches.  |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2004 : 16:35:26
|
A 1st-level character has completed a basic apprenticeship, or the equivalent. In the original AD&D, starting character age is determined like so: cleric/druid 18+1d4, fighter 15+1d4, paladin 17+1d4, ranger 20+1d4, magic-user 24+2d8, illusionist 30+1d6, thief 18+1d4, assassin 20+1d4, monk 21+1d4. This is probably at least as accurate for the Realms as the simplified one-age-for-all.
The D&D sorcerer is partly based on catering to players who don't like Vanceian magic, without going so far as to abandon deeply D&D-rooted Vanceian magic. That's a bad impulse to pander to and I feel no wish to retcon into my Realms any at all widespread sorcerer class, though the class works well enough for the rare magical wild talents who were in Ed's Realms already (though not under that name, because in Realmslore 'sorcerer/-ess' has always been used as a near-synonym of 'mage' and 'wizard', rather than anything distinct).
If there really *were* lots of sorcerer-type mages in Ed's campaign but we never knew because of the AD&D rules, declaring that those were 3E sorcerers would be fine, I'd have thought. I don't think the Simbul is really a D&D sorcerer, I think she was just picked on to show off the new class, so altering her background to match this would be to write back a rules artifact into Realmslore -- bad move. |
|
|
|
Lashan
Learned Scribe
USA
235 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2004 : 17:05:16
|
| So, the reason of that a certain NPC was always a sorcerer, but there were no rules for sorcerers in the DnD game aren't good enough? Personally, I am glad that they didn't come up with some reason to switch them. I dunno. It is just my opinion. How do you feel about all those 1E guys that were detailed that couldn't be that way since 1E changed? Those cavaliers and barbarians that disappeared in 2E? There was no reason in game to change them when FR went 2E. Did that bother you as well? I'm not trying to be snide or insulting, so apologies if that is the case. |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2004 : 17:16:12
|
| I think you're replying to Rupert, but anyway, I don't think those NPCs always *were* sorcerers. I agree that making little RSEs to accompanying each retcon (whether it's really a retcon or not) is adding insult to injury, Time of Troubles the most obvious and regrettable culprit. |
|
|
|
Mystery_Man
Senior Scribe
USA
455 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2004 : 17:40:53
|
| If they moved Anauroch to Halruaa someone would have some splaining to do, but class levels for an NPC are a guideline as far as I'm concerned. |
|
|
|
Sourcemaster2
Senior Scribe
USA
361 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2004 : 01:20:13
|
| I agree that the sorcerer's small spell list is the limiting factor. While this is important in terms of game balance, it can make a sorcerer too defined. Are their any feats that allow sorcs to gain additional spells per level, or change spells before leveling up? Also, what do you all think of a spontaneous divine spellcaster, such as the DL mystic? I find it to be equal if not superior to a sorcerer, having the domain spell as well as the standard number of sorcerer spells, both known and per day. The Citadel Mystic PrC can give an additional domain, adding even more spells. Divine spellcasting would be hard to introduce, and would definately need an explanation far more complete than the sorcerer's, but it might work with some sort of proper introduction, such as a missionary-type character teaching a new method of magic. |
But what have all the passing years/Done, but breed new angers, fears?/Show me now an equal worth/To innocence I earned at birth. |
|
|
|
Capn Charlie
Senior Scribe
USA
418 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2004 : 01:27:55
|
I run the Evangelist from Dragon #311 in my game, and it is not that much better than the sorcerer.
Essentially the problem in theFR is that deities often run out of domains, and I have to be creative.
Essentially you get a certain number of spells known, and then get the spells from two domains. THen every like 5 levels of the class you get to add the spells off of another domain. IT actually pays to take levels in instead of a PrC! I really like it. |
Shadows of War: Tales of a Mercenary
My first stab at realms fiction, here at candlekeep. Stop on by and tell me what you think. |
|
|
|
Sourcemaster2
Senior Scribe
USA
361 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2004 : 01:36:41
|
| The mystic class is interesting to use because you don't have a deity. Domains are chosen at will, except for those taken by a PrC, which still has a long list. If you take the Healing domain, and then another, such as Sun, Fire, or another with potent offensive magics, you can use normal spell choices for the less essential but more interesting/useful. Proper domains can eliminate the need for many spells, so careful choices lead to relative freedom in deciding on normal spells. Two domains, in my opinion, is definately enough to have an adequate spell list. If sorcerers could have a domain-type aspect, perhaps they could be more versatile. |
But what have all the passing years/Done, but breed new angers, fears?/Show me now an equal worth/To innocence I earned at birth. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2004 : 03:13:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lashan
So, the reason of that a certain NPC was always a sorcerer, but there were no rules for sorcerers in the DnD game aren't good enough? Personally, I am glad that they didn't come up with some reason to switch them. I dunno. It is just my opinion. How do you feel about all those 1E guys that were detailed that couldn't be that way since 1E changed? Those cavaliers and barbarians that disappeared in 2E? There was no reason in game to change them when FR went 2E. Did that bother you as well? I'm not trying to be snide or insulting, so apologies if that is the case.
I came aboard with 2E, so the loss of the barbarian and cavalier didn't bother me -- I wasn't around to see them lost.
But in 2E, regardless of whether they called them sorcerers, archmages, wizards, spellflingers, mages, or Merlin-wannabes, they were all just wizards. The same set of rules applied to all arcane spellcasters.
Now we have a new set of rules, and people that have been chucking spells one way for 20 years of Realmslore are now casting in a totally different manner, they reload spells in a different manner, and they know less spells because of their new class.
The change does not require a RSE to explain... But all we got was the exceedingly lame "they were always around, and no one knew about it." Excuse me? People can cast spells in a totally different manner, and over the course of millenia, no one notices? I'm sorry, I just don't buy that. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Sarta
Senior Scribe
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2004 : 05:04:47
|
Having played D&D over the years at so many conventions, I can say that spell-point rules have been a very common house rule dating back to 1st edition. In my opinion, the sorcerer class is far more balanced than any of the wizards made under a spell-point systems that I've played in. My only complaints about the class are a lack of charisma based class skills and the lack of incentive to stick with the class once one qualifies for a +1 spellcasting level prestige class.
With regard to the lack of explanation, I'm trying to come up with one that would fit, but frankly am hitting a wall. On the one hand you could say that sorerers are new to the realms, making it so that pre-existing npc's have very few levels if any in this class which nixes the Simbul as a sorceress. On the other hand you can say that the new Mystra has subtly altered the weave and some wizards have reacted to this alteration by internalizing their capacity to cast spells. However, neither alternative seems very satisfying. Anybody have a better explanation?
Sarta |
Edited by - Sarta on 09 Jun 2004 05:12:15 |
|
|
|
Sarta
Senior Scribe
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2004 : 05:11:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sourcemaster2
I agree that the sorcerer's small spell list is the limiting factor. While this is important in terms of game balance, it can make a sorcerer too defined. Are their any feats that allow sorcs to gain additional spells per level, or change spells before leveling up?
3.5 changed it so that sorcerers and bards that are higher in level can switch some of their spells known. A sorcerer at 4th level can switch one of their spells known for another of the same level as long as it is at least two levels below their highest level spell they can cast for another. They may do this at every even numbered level they attain from then on. Bards may do the same at 5th level and every three levels after.
Sarta |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2004 : 06:11:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sarta
With regard to the lack of explanation, I'm trying to come up with one that would fit, but frankly am hitting a wall. On the one hand you could say that sorerers are new to the realms, making it so that pre-existing npc's have very few levels if any in this class which nixes the Simbul as a sorceress. On the other hand you can say that the new Mystra has subtly altered the weave and some wizards have reacted to this alteration by internalizing their capacity to cast spells. However, neither alternative seems very satisfying. Anybody have a better explanation?
Sarta
I thought of a possible one, but it would have required some events to have played out in a different order...
See, sorcerers supposedly have dragon blood, right? So then tie the rise in sorcerers into some draconic event. If the Rage that seems to be starting now had happened earlier in 3E, then we could say that something about the Rage triggered the latent draconic blood in some people. This would explain the appearance of new sorcerers, and could even be stretched somewhat to allow existing spellcasters to change class.
But since we have sorcerers before the Rage, that doesn't work.
It also occurred to me that we could say that a new draconic deity showed up, or an old and nearly dead one suddenly gained a lot of power, and this triggered the draconic blood...
Of course, both ideas rely on sorcerers having dragon blood, and I've already said I don't like that idea.
So no, at the moment, I don't see a good way to explain it. But that's not to say that such a reason doesn't exist. After all, before the return of Shade, who among us would have thought of that story? |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Lashan
Learned Scribe
USA
235 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2004 : 15:33:07
|
I dislike tying any event to dragons, as it would assume that every sorcerer has a tie to dragons. I prefer to have other reasons for sorcerers and dismiss the dragon claim.
I prefer to use the "magic television" story for the change over. That is the one that WOTC gives that shows how it is only the television that has changed and not the actual story. In other words, it is the rules that have changed, and not the game world. I feel that that is the only thing that has changed. It's no as if the characters have really changed, but it is the rules through which they are translated that have changed. Sure, that means that they used to memorize spells, but now they don't, but there are a lot of other changes that have happened that are about as equivelant. They have feats and new skills and other issues that have changed with no explanation. I just view it the same. Also, what about multi-classing. People weren't able to do it before, but now they can. Some NPCs have different classes and even these Prestige Classes that they never had before. There is no explanation for this either. You don't have an issue with these? |
|
|
|
SiriusBlack
Great Reader
USA
5517 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2004 : 15:33:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
See, sorcerers supposedly have dragon blood, right? So then tie the rise in sorcerers into some draconic event. If the Rage that seems to be starting now had happened earlier in 3E, then we could say that something about the Rage triggered the latent draconic blood in some people. This would explain the appearance of new sorcerers, and could even be stretched somewhat to allow existing spellcasters to change class.
How long did it take you to type that out? One minute? Two? In that short amount of space and time, you gave some explanation that apparently the official FR source didn't have time or space for.
Of course your idea would limit sorcerers to having some type of draconic blood and that just can't be. 3.0e/3.5e are all about options, hence the 359,456 Prestige Classes currently in existence the last time I checked.
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2004 : 17:25:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lashan
I dislike tying any event to dragons, as it would assume that every sorcerer has a tie to dragons. I prefer to have other reasons for sorcerers and dismiss the dragon claim.
Oh, ditto that. I was just tossing out a possible explanation for the sudden appearance of sorcerers. As not good an explanation as it was, it was still more than Wizards gave us.
quote:
Originally posted by Lashan
Also, what about multi-classing. People weren't able to do it before, but now they can. Some NPCs have different classes and even these Prestige Classes that they never had before. There is no explanation for this either. You don't have an issue with these?
Oh, I have issues with that, as well. But we were focused on sorcerers, so I was limiting my arguments to them.
Though I should like to play a dwarven fighter/sorcerer, I'd still like an explanation for how a race that was previously so non-magical that they'd have problems with magic items now has arcane spellflingers.
I'd also like to know why a previously human-only class, the paladin, is suddenly available to everyone.
And so on and so forth...
Getting back to one of my earlier comments... We're now supposed to believe that sorcerers have always been around, but no one noticed.. For the sake of argument, we'll go back to -339 DR, when Netheril fell and Mystra was born.
That's over 1600 years ago. In 16 centuries, not one person has noticed that some people cast their spells differently and don't have to memorize them?
I realize that this is a fantasy setting, and it requires the suspension of disbelief. I can suspend my disbelief enough to buy dragons and flying cities. I cannot suspend my disbelief enough to buy that 1600 years of observation failed to notate something like that.
quote:
Originally posted by SiriusBlack
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
See, sorcerers supposedly have dragon blood, right? So then tie the rise in sorcerers into some draconic event. If the Rage that seems to be starting now had happened earlier in 3E, then we could say that something about the Rage triggered the latent draconic blood in some people. This would explain the appearance of new sorcerers, and could even be stretched somewhat to allow existing spellcasters to change class.
How long did it take you to type that out? One minute? Two? In that short amount of space and time, you gave some explanation that apparently the official FR source didn't have time or space for.
Of course your idea would limit sorcerers to having some type of draconic blood and that just can't be. 3.0e/3.5e are all about options, hence the 359,456 Prestige Classes currently in existence the last time I checked.
Exactly! We have had either no explanation whatsoever for the many changes, or utterly lame explanations. Even a web supplement explaining some of this stuff would have been nice, but they've not even given us that much.
The current crop of folks at WotC don't seem to care about explaining any changes. The reason? They want to basically start over, and get new fans. They're ignoring the established fanbase.
After buying FR stuff for 15+ years, it's more than a little irksome to be kicked to the curb like this. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Lashan
Learned Scribe
USA
235 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2004 : 17:50:53
|
I see your point of view. I believe, though, that if they came up with a reason, it would limit something in the game. Take, for example, that there is ANY reason, then if someone is playing a game at an earlier time then 1370 DR, then there are no sorcerers. I play in 1340 DR and if I wanted to stick to "cannon", then I have to disallow sorcerers in the game. That's just one example. I believe that no matter what type of reason you give, then it would create some sort of loophole or problem with the existing game world consistenancy.
There IS a reason for dwarves gaining magic use, though. It's the Soul Forge, or whatever that event is called. The one where Moradin re-cast the dwarven souls to increase their birth rate, increase the chance of twins, and also make easier the use of magic. That's tied to the whole "let's not make these non-human races be always in decline" idea. Just like Evermeet is in trouble, so elves are always retreating and, in fact, are coming back to the known world. But I just thought I would mention the dwarf thing. |
|
|
|
SiriusBlack
Great Reader
USA
5517 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2004 : 17:59:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The current crop of folks at WotC don't seem to care about explaining any changes. The reason? They want to basically start over, and get new fans. They're ignoring the established fanbase.
They want the best of both worlds. The established fanbase which I believe WOTC feels would buy any FR product and newcomers to the Realms who are attracted to enough of the generic stuff to bogart it to their own home world.
Anyone else do anything like Wooly suggested to explain the sorcerer class? |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2004 : 18:22:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lashan
There IS a reason for dwarves gaining magic use, though. It's the Soul Forge, or whatever that event is called. The one where Moradin re-cast the dwarven souls to increase their birth rate, increase the chance of twins, and also make easier the use of magic. That's tied to the whole "let's not make these non-human races be always in decline" idea. Just like Evermeet is in trouble, so elves are always retreating and, in fact, are coming back to the known world. But I just thought I would mention the dwarf thing.
The Thunder Blessing does explain why the newest generation of dwarves uses magic... But it doesn't explain how the race lost its problems with magic. Under 2nd edition rules, if a dwarf used a magical item not specifically intended for dwarves or for their class, it might malfunction. But now, if you decide to have a dwarf who was born the year before the Thunder Blessing, he still has the same ability to use magical items as any dwarf born after.
And why was this the only change that was explained? |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Sarelle
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
508 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2004 : 19:22:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lashan
I dislike tying any event to dragons, as it would assume that every sorcerer has a tie to dragons. I prefer to have other reasons for sorcerers and dismiss the dragon claim.
I prefer to use the "magic television" story for the change over. That is the one that WOTC gives that shows how it is only the television that has changed and not the actual story. In other words, it is the rules that have changed, and not the game world. I feel that that is the only thing that has changed. It's no as if the characters have really changed, but it is the rules through which they are translated that have changed. Sure, that means that they used to memorize spells, but now they don't, but there are a lot of other changes that have happened that are about as equivelant. They have feats and new skills and other issues that have changed with no explanation. I just view it the same. Also, what about multi-classing. People weren't able to do it before, but now they can. Some NPCs have different classes and even these Prestige Classes that they never had before. There is no explanation for this either. You don't have an issue with these?
This is how I see it, too.
Changes such as dwarves using magic affects the entire way dwarf society works, so yes, an explanation is needed. I can't see an explanation being needed for the Simbul, who was always meant as a magical powerhouse in battling Red Wizards, casting spells without preparing them (and she still has SOME wizard levels for to show her study).
I realise the Simbul is not the foremost of the wizards-turned sorcerers bunch, but what I'm trying to say is that it is such a minor change that it is a case of looking at the individual arcane spellcaster and fitting the class around their personality. IMO, game rules should reflect lore, not the other way around.
Can any of you find actual reference to a mage-turned-sorcerer preparing spells, in Realmslore? |
Chair of the The Rightful Return of Monster Deities to FR Society (RRMDFRS)
My character, drawn by Liodain: Sarelle / Sarelle (smaller) |
Edited by - Sarelle on 09 Jun 2004 19:22:48 |
|
|
|
Lashan
Learned Scribe
USA
235 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2004 : 20:02:22
|
The Thunder Blessing can kinda be blamed for the whole race changing a bit. Perhaps when the dwarven soul was reforged, it greatly effected newly born dwarves, yet there were repercussions that effected the whole dwarven race. The very fiber of reality was shaken by the mighty hammer of the Soul-Forger. The changes vibrated out of Dwarfholme and effected dwarves on all realities that caused them to be more in tune with the Weave that surrounds them. Crude scholars from our world have compared it with hitting a television that is out of whack and it getting the channel in clear.
At least it is an answer! |
|
|
|
Jarren Longblade
Seeker
USA
54 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2004 : 04:06:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Artalis
quote:
Originally posted by Jarren Longblade
When 3e first came out I thought the Sorcerer was going to be a great class, Not having to memorize spells, know a few spells and cast which one you need, But I have had PC play a Sorcerer various times so they dont have to bother with spell memorization, only to realize that they don't know enough spells, and wind up carrying around stacks of scrolls because they cannot scribe them into a book to memorize later, and dont want to use the spell in case they need it later. Also I have seen Sorcerer/Wizard classes is it just me or does that seem a little Redundant.
AHEM!
OK here we go. Sorcery and Wizardry are two entirely separate things.
Same spells different mechanisms. One could use that same logic to say that trucks and cars are redundant since they both get you where you need to go.
Sorcery is the spirit's way to the art. It is intuitive based on passion and personal will and native talent. A sorcerer's powers have nothing to do with anything else. They ARE part of him.
A Wizard on the other hand is a scholar, someone who delves into the art with his mind. Seeking to understand and to KNOW the Art. In that case it's all about intelligence memorization and disciplined study.
In case your wondering I have played a wizard/sorcerer multiclass. He's a very deeply detailed fellow too you can find a slightly outdated version of him here
His love of magic runs deep and his aptitude even further. He was doubly blessed by Mystra with the gift for sorcery and wizardry and he seeks to understand magic in all it's forms.
I understand the difference between a wizard and Sorcerer. I also have read you character before seem like a very interesting story when are you going to update further? But when playing the multi-class do you now any of the same spells with both classes, say Melf's acid arrowas both a wizard and sorcerer, or do you take certin spells you think you might needs but aren't sure as a backup for the sorcerer and attack spells with the wizards.
Example: Spells known sorcerer lvl 1 sheild, mage armor or other buff spells and spells memorized (W) Magic Missile, Chromatic Orb, chill touch??
Just curious how you play the character |
One of the few thing you don't want to hear while deer hunting with your brother-in-law "DUCK" |
|
|
|
Sarta
Senior Scribe
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2004 : 06:49:17
|
Do the levels of wizard and sorcerer stack with relation to familiar abilities? I don't see why they wouldn't, but have never heard that they do.
Sarta |
|
|
|
Bookwyrm
Great Reader
USA
4740 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jun 2004 : 07:25:52
|
They do. Any class with a familiar class ability will stack with another, obeying any rules thereof. For instance, a Hexblade 6/Sorcerer 1 would have the familiar of a fourth-level master, while a Sorcerer 4/Wizard 9 would have the familiar of a thirteenth-level master.
As to creating a flavor "reason" for sorcerers -- what am I, chopped liver? Mine doesn't require an RSE and works before even the Time of Troubles. It even works just fine for any other campaign setting that doesn't have rules already in place (for instance, Dragonlance apparently has a KSE to explain sorcerers).
I like mine because it isn't dependant on any one thing. Very much like the Realms as a whole -- lots of stories going on at the same time, and with few at all having any effect on the next.
As for changing the rules, in regards to dwarf magic and non-human paladins, well, I can see some things there. Personally, I'd like the dwarves to be more resistant to taking arcane classes. Perhaps a lowered effective ability -- instead of actually lowering their natural Int, make them treat their Int as if it were two (or more) points lower when it affects spells (what they can cast, bonus spells, etc.).
Paladins, though, I never agreed with. I don't know exactly what the balancing issues were between the races in the actual 2e rules, but in the computer games I was sure it was meant as a way to make humans more special. Personally, I couldn't understand why, if the dwarves are a Lawful race, steeped in religious tradition, they couldn't have paladins. |
Hell hath no fury like all of Candlekeep rising in defense of one of its own.
Download the brickfilm masterpiece by Leftfield Studios! See this page for more. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
A question of class...
