Warcraft Campaign Setting

[Lawrence DuBois]

Arrius wrote:

What the designer leaves to home games becomes the realm of GM Fiat. In most games, the latter is a bigger problem, as the rules cannot be relied on to provide arbitration, fairness, or predictability in the rules, and it begins to devolve into magical tea party land. At that point, the conversion removes something in the game, and leaves with naught but a sidebar that says 'do whatever'.

True. That's why the majority of the rules exist. However, one of those rules that exists is a handful of resurrection spells. As they stand, they are perfectly well balanced, mechanically speaking. Although it is particularly hard to say what, exactly, would count as "balanced" for resurrection given that on the one hand, there's no other in-game alternative to compare it to - outside of magic, there is no mechanical way to bring a character back to life so the only thing to measure it against is itself - and on the other hand, nothing prevents a player from simply writing up a new character to add to the party. So for the sake of simplicity we're just going to work from the assumption that the raise dead, resurrection, and true resurrection are all - for the purposes of this discussion - mechanically balanced. Because not doing so would open this to entire threads' worth of discussion that would not be even remotely on topic.

That means that the rules already supply an answer for how this works. A minimum difficulty/cost to be met. When it comes to resurrection, our discussion has only suggested making it more difficult to perform which pushes it in the direction of "underpowered" side of the curve in terms of mechanical balance. On top of this, the reasoning is purely narrative/fluff-based which everyone is going to view differently. Trying to dictate that "this" is the way to tell your story is nonsense. A sidebar saying that if you want to remain as lore-friendly as possible then don't include any resurrections is as far as that goes. And if you want to compromise between the world-lore and the game-lore (namely, the ability to "battle rez"), here's a little optional spell to mimic that specific feature. But there's no precedent for the three core Pathfinder resurrection spells existing as spells in Warcraft lore at all. So if you are going to include them in your game, then you're making it your own game and the authors have less and less authority over how you play it.

I believe that if you're going to go so far from Warcraft as to include raise dead, et al. and from Pathfinder as to further restrict those spells, then you've passed a point that I should no longer have any say in how you're going to run that aspect of your game, and if I were to do more than offer nebulous suggestions, it could be interpreted that I am passing rulings on how these things should be run. And if you're not trying to play a 100% lore-friendly Warcraft game, or a 100% rules-friendly Pathfinder game, then I have no further jurisdiction.

P.S. Remember, this whole thing is going to be a sidebar. Outside of sidebars, this book is going to defer wholly to core Pathfinder rules. Nothing that is available in core Pathfinder is going to be removed or disallowed - except for one quick mention of bards and skalds in the Class chapter just because they absolutely do not exist in Warcraft. But even that, I welcome GMs to overrule if they want to have bards in Azeroth. And who knows? I may even relegate that to a sidebar, just to maintain ...I think 'cohesion' is the word I'm looking for.

Arrius wrote:

+Spirit Healers can guide back the dead into the realms of the living when their spirits wander the Shadowlands, as Animated Paper said. Restoration is near the player's corpse. It is hinted that this occurs because the players' souls are extraordinarily strong and/or tied to the world by force of destiny (since they perform amazing feats in-game).

+Anduin resurrects his father with something that does seem eerily similar to the Resurrection spell (chanting for a long time). Their bond is apparently a critical aspect of this event. Anduin was next to his father's complete corpse.
+Aegwynn cast the resurrection spell once (at a cost of her power), and Jaina deduces that the bond between mother and son is what made it possible. It is unclear if Aegwynn had access to Medivh's corpse, but it is unlikely.
+Scarlet's Whitemane Resurrection seems to be implied to be an actual lore event. Whitemane had access to Mograine's corpse, and their bond is strong friendship that can be seen in the Caverns of Time instance in Old Hillsbrad, showing a strong emotional bond.
+Tirion's Mass Resurrection in Icecrown might be lore-sanctioned. Access to all players' corpses, and passing familiarity, but with the clash of magical energies with Ashbringer's resurgence, as well as the presence of powerful spirits such as Terenas's spirit in Frostmourne, etc., the time might have been right.
+Tauren Shaman in Borean Taundra's Return my Remains quest has the shaman resurrecting his friend (emotional bond) with remains (corpse), but requiring several foci.
+Thunder King is resurrected by the Zandalari. Access to corpse, not-so-strong emotional bond, but they had pledges of loyalty and mutual aid for millennia.

I don't feel that enough has been concretely established in lore about spirit healers to say anything about them. At most, they will be mentioned in passing somewhere, but I doubt it. I may change my stance once I get my hands on a copy of Warcraft Chronicles, but I rather doubt it. It would probably need to have at least a full and entire page - probably at least three - on them to answer all the minimum questions I'd need answered.

I would categorize Medivh's and the Thunder King's resurrections as being very special cases and as such are prime examples of where I believe mechanics should absolutely not get involved.
Alexstrasza, and probably the naaru (don't think they've rezzed anyone in lore, but I'm sure they're able to) are beings with special powers unavailable to mortals and can be granted the ability to resurrect others as a special ability distinct from spellcasting. (And, incidentally, I don't think the naaru should actually be given any sort of statblock or concrete mechanics, much how Pathfinder refuses to provide statblocks for Golarion's gods. I'm uncomfortable with making statblocks for the dragon aspects for similar reasons, but they have a much more active role in Azeroth and I can't really imagine getting away with not giving them stats. Certainly not if Deathwing has to get some.)
Most of the other resurrections are practically immediately after the subject died. It could easily be assumed that it was merely like healing a Pathfinder character with negative hp who isn't yet dead (just with a little extra Rule of Drama in the case of Anduin). Or at most like the resuscitate spell I proposed earlier.
In the case of Tirion, and the val'kyr who resurrect Sylvanas, more than one of these situations can apply.

[Here4daFreeSwag]

Good to see some vidMMOgame translated free stuff. ;)

[DM Alistair]

I'm totally dotting this for future reads.

[Arrius]

Lawrence DuBois wrote:

I don't feel that enough has been concretely established in lore about spirit healers to say anything about them.

Spirit Healers are neutral Val'kyr who reside in the spirit realm, and (sometimes) guide the souls of the dead back to the world of the living. When do they guide the souls back? Unclear. Why do they do it? Also unclear.

It's hinted that PCs have very strong souls, and can thus see the Spirit Healers and can be healed by them. Above that, there is a dragon who can see Spirit Healers and is aided by them, so their presence and powers in lore are concrete, although their motivations are not. Mostly, they are hinted at being benevolent.

Lawrence DuBois wrote:

It would probably need to have at least a full and entire page - probably at least three - on them to answer all the minimum questions I'd need answered.

I can get some answers if you give me questions. I know someone with the book. There is very few on resurrection except what I've already stated, however.

Rez:

Lawrence DuBois wrote:

I would categorize Medivh's and the Thunder King's resurrections as being very special cases and as such are prime examples of where I believe mechanics should absolutely not get involved.

I disagree. Aewgynn's loss of power and emotional bond is a big plot point. She knew many ancient magics--maybe even an Arcane resurrection spell. She could resurrect because she was powerful and sacrificed years of magic into this.

The Thunder King's whole pact with the Zandalari was also explicitly because he only trusted them to resurrect him. The Zandalari's power to resurrect was also tied to them channeling the power of the loa to do so. They could resurrect because they channeled the loa. Ergo, they were priests who can cast resurrection. Can't get around that.

That is how mechanics interact with lore; they move lore forward, and lore provides justification for mechanics.

Otherwise, there is an obvious and nonsensical disconnect/inconsistency in the game world. Only NPCs can do all the cool stuff because players have to adhere to the elusive Balance God and not get any cool crap.
No thanks.
People had enough with Faerun's way of doing things, where PCs just sit on their hands while NPCs do all the cool stuff.

Lawrence DuBois wrote:

Alexstrasza, and probably the naaru (don't think they've rezzed anyone in lore, but I'm sure they're able to)

Alextraza can resurrect. She promised Malygos to rez his dragonflight.

As for the Naaru...maybe, but it hasn't been shown yet.
Check out the Crusader Bridenbrad and Wrathgate quests in WotLK for reference.

Lawrence DuBois wrote:

...beings with special powers unavailable to mortals and can be granted the ability to resurrect others as a special ability distinct from spellcasting.

Normal spellcasters resurrected people already with spellcasting. Zandalari priests/Anduin/Aewgynn/Shaman/etc.), and probably more I am unaware of at the moment.

Lawrence DuBois wrote:

Most of the other resurrections are practically immediately after the subject died. It could easily be assumed that it was merely like healing a Pathfinder character with negative hp who isn't yet dead (just with a little extra Rule of Drama in the case of Anduin). Or at most like the resuscitate spell I proposed earlier.

Anduin could do this because he was extraordinarily attuned with the Light. That bit was hammered in several times (by Velen, several paladins, and Word of God exposition). It was not a few hit points that put him over 0, or else anyone could have done it.

"Extraordinarily attuned with the light" means having the power to cast the spell. That is what high level means.
The last time 'extraordinary attuned' was used, it was applied to Medivh and Aegwynn with regards to arcane magic. I'm sure both of them can cast pretty high-level spells.

Lawrence DuBois wrote:

But there's no precedent for the three core Pathfinder resurrection spells existing as spells in Warcraft lore at all.

Anduin, Aegwynn, the Zandalari, Tauren Shaman of Northrend, Spirit Healers, Tirion Fordring, Inquisitor Whitemane all disagree. They all had the power, and 5/6 are 100% known to spellcasters. Spirit Healers might just have Rez as a SLA.

True, nobody uses diamonds, and the spell might be different a bit, but Resurrection exists.
At this point, we're playing mental gymnastics and avoiding reality.

Solution: Resurrection:
Two ways to handle this. The spell can either be present normally and have requirements for the spell to act correctly (approach A) or be rarely found and acts normally as Pathfinder's spells (approach B).
Of course, GMs can ignore either, but the setting at least laid out a representative version of the spell in the setting.

A. Requirements:
So far, there can be a list that allow the resurrection spell to function (or otherwise it would not rez), such as the ones I detailed above:
* Emotional Bond (caster is closely bonded to target)
* Reagents (reagents are consumed, such as rare herbs)
* Access to corpse (Touch range)
* Power of Soul (must be willing to return/soul can be called back)
* Destiny (Has unfinished business/unsatisfied with death(?))
Fulfill 3/5, or otherwise the spell does nothing. There is evidence in lore that this is a somewhat reasonable framework (as above).

B. Controlled Access:
Hide the spell 'Raise dead' and upgrades, and make prepared casters search for it or 'earn' it, as a rare spell that cannot be easily found (Anduin's attunement/Aewgynn's knowledge/Zandalari casting, etc.).

To be truthful, the way players gain spells is different than how they are in Pathfinder.
1. They must be trained from characters who know the spell
2. Paladins carry holy librams where they hold their spells (such as spellbooks)
3. Priests also sometimes carry prayer books (in case of Anduin and with several items), and that's number two.
4. Druids, warlocks, and Shamans also have extensive oral traditions or learn directly from elementals or demons, which also hints that spells they can cast are spells that they are taught.

An argument can be made from the above facts that all casters in Warcraft are prepared casters, and prepared casting is not dumpster-diving for awesome spells (such as Pathfinder clerics), but spells that would reasonably be known in the area.
That means that the Resurrection spell can only be gained by taking it from someone who has it.

Supreme Beings and Stat blocks:

Lawrence DuBois wrote:

And, incidentally, I don't think the naaru should actually be given any sort of statblock or concrete mechanics,

In-game, you fight actual (darkened) Naaru and defeat them by reducing their hit points to 0. In fact, he starts as level 73.

Naaru die, get hurt, heal, fly, think, and are not gods by any stretch of the imagination.
In fact, if they are wounded or harmed (low hit points), they enter a darkened state wherein they come closer to the Void and their powers diminish. They can also physically harm their enemies (through their shards, apparently).
These are energy constructs. They don't actually provide spells or holy power. They are more akin to angels serving the Holy Light than personifications or gods.

That said, there is not much detail on them, so I understand the hesitation to stat them out from a design perspective (since the scope of their powers are not fully understood/revealed).
However, what has been seen of them is enough to make a relatively representative picture: Constructs with full Priest spellcasting.
They cast teleport, dimension shift, holy spells, cure, etc. and have natural Telepathy.
I'd say HD 18+ Light-Blessed Constructs, with the spellcasting capability of a level 18 Priest with the Light and Protection Domains, and several SLA abilities. Their powers so far exist in Pathfinder to a good extent.

Overall, don't take Paizo's approach for not--

Lawrence DuBois wrote:

much how Pathfinder refuses to provide statblocks for Golarion's gods.

...

Paizo refuses to detail anything about the gods that might be prelude to combat, or for breaking the immersion that gods are untouchable by mortals. All this stems from the (perhaps justified) standpoint that if you give stats, some asshat player will want to kill them to irk the GM.

The reasoning makes sense, but what that means is bad; gods can be interacted with NPCs only and are subject to GM Fiat.
That is a problem; it's mechanics hindering promising lore possibilities.

It denies players the opportunity to interact with gods when they are at levels where such a thing would be taken for granted (level 20). Can a player help a god? Not in any meaningful way. Slay a god? No. Do they need gods at all? No, and gods don't need them. In fact, gods of Golarion don't even need worship. They're just there.

They cannot interact meaningfully because not only do they not have stat blocks, but Paizo also refuses to explain the scope of their powers in any way. They do whatever the GM wants them to do.

Players cannot significantly impact the setting where gods are involved.
Demon Lords can slay gods (such as Lamashtu). We can slay Demon Lords. We can't slay gods. Because.

Overall, that line of thought (you can only be an NPC to do awesome stuff) is alien to Warcraft.
1. Nearly everything has a stat block in the approved material (and regardless of retconning or non-canon, the RPG books were approved and partially written by Metzen). Even Elune had a stat block in Shadows and Light, the one true deity of Azeroth (though that is somewhat disputed in Chronicles).
2. Aewgynn fought Sargaras's avatar and defeated him, Wild Gods fought Kil'Jaeden, and where massive powers clash routinely: Arthas fought and defeated a Faceless One (Old God), and Dragon Aspects vs. Mortals, and Kael'Thas captured and bled a Naaru for its power.
3. Players kill C'Thun, Naaru, and even defeat Kil'Jaeden in-game.C'Thun is an Old God.

Conclusion:
If C'Thun has a stat block (which as a raid boss, he totally should in an Ahn'Qiraj dungeon), then everything has a stat block.

But if I stat it, they can kill it:

Yes. I know.
You'll always have an optimizer who want to defeat Asmodeus and purify Hell, however. If I ran a Paladin (and I did), I would want to do the same. What would you do I come and begins rolling at your table and the campaign heads against Hell?

You can say one of the two:

1. "Sorry, dude. Asmodeus knows everything. You dead he remakes you into a Pitfiend b*tch" and end the campaign there.
I will not be able to depend on my character's strengths or exploit his weaknesses because this is the magical teaparty land of GM Fiat.
2. "Go ahead, prepare. I have his stats right here". The rules can be relied on to provide fair arbitration, and with the option of stats, I might even be able to exploit some ancient mistake or weakness Asmodeus has, and after a long and painfully difficult struggle, I may either become a pitfiend b*tch (though it was a fair fight), or cleanse Hell from the inside out, topping the forces of the Devil, and bringing greater order and good in the multiverse, ushering in a golden age of righteousness.

Key word is fairness. And not excitement. And fun.

At a level where fighting gods is a possibility (level 20), players becoming gods is sort of a justifiable event in-game.
Every in-game origin of deities has an NPC doing amazing stuff to ascend to godhood, and now players can do it, too. Let the players have their bleeding fun. Assuming Asmodeus is actually dead at the end...

[Arrius]

Posted due to the edit window closing:

There is no astral plane in Warcraft. This is stated outright by the RPG and confirmed in Chronicles.
If a character dies, their spirit heads directly to the Shadowlands. The Val'kyr can pick them up en route instead, or other beings such as Loa. Since several characters have been resurrected (see above), that means that what the Resurrection spell does is call their spirits back through the Shadowlands to their bodies.

[Lawrence DuBois]

All right, so I have a rough draft written up for a possible way to make totems work. This is only a very rough concept and is was kind of intentionally made to be poorly balanced. I don't know if this was a good idea, but it seemed promising at the time. Basically, I kind of went towards the extreme ends of both overpowered and underpowered. The theory being that having such extremes will make it easier to see what needs balancing and how. Additionally, the language is not particularly polished. I was basically just going for being as clear as possible, without really trying to make sure all the sentences sounded nice or were pleasant to read, or even really doing more than some cursory checking to see if they should go in a different order. All of that can wait until the mechanics are squared away.

And to clarify, what I mean by "balanced" is simply that the options are good enough to be worth taking, but not so good that you'd never not take them given the opportunity. So anyway...

Quote:

Totems replaces one domain for classes with access to domains (or the option between domains and another class feature for classes with such options). An oracle may take the totems class feature in exchange for their mystery's bonus spells, and their 1st and 7th level revelations. A shaman may take the totems class feature in exchange for their wandering spirit and wandering hex class features. A warpriest may take the totems class feature in exchange for their blessings and fervor class features. Any class that takes the totems class feature also reduces their spells per day by one for each spell level. Multiclass characters cannot gain totems from multiple classes.

A totem is a Tiny magical object that produces a specific spell effect within a 30-foot radius for a number of rounds equal to 3 + your spellcasting ability modifier. Totems act on initiative count 0 of the round they were summoned. Spells with an area effect are always centered on the totem, and totems never take damage from or be otherwise affected by their own spells, or from the spells of other totems. If the totem's spell has an area effect or multiple targets, it affects all enemies or allies within the totem's radius. If the spell has a single target and a non-instantaneous duration, it affects a number of appropriate targets equal to your spellcasting ability modifier (minimum 1). If the spell creates or summons a creature, object, or mobile effect, that creature, object, or effect must remain within the totem's radius. If the spell has an instantaneous duration, it effectively casts that spell each round on its turn for the totem's duration, but requires your concentration to do so (a standard action on your turn that provokes an attack of opportunity). If the spell has any other duration, it uses the totem's duration instead. When a totem's duration expires, the totem is destroyed and its effects end. A totem's spells use its owner's stats to determine save DCs, caster level, and all other level-based effects.

A totem has an AC of 15, 5 hp, hardness 5, and is always treated as an attended magic item with regards to damage, saving throws, and other effects. A totem is destroyed if its hp is reduced to 0 or below, instantly ending its effects as if its duration had expired. Totems may be dispelled with a targeted dispel magic or similar effect, and effects like antimagic field will suppress a totem's effects for their duration, however the totem's effects will return if its duration has not expired or it hasn't been destroyed while under such effects.

At 1st level, you choose one of the totem elements and gain the ability to summon all totems of the chosen element with a spell level equal to or lower than the highest spell level you can cast in this class that grants you totems. You receive a number of totemic charges equal to your caster level in this class, and summoning a totem costs a number of totemic charges equal to the totem spell level. You may not summon more than one totem from a given element at any given time. If you do summon a second totem from the same element, the older totem is immediately destroyed, ending its effect as if its duration had expired. At 4th level and every four levels thereafter you may select an additional totem element to a maximum of four elements at 12th level.

Air Totems
1st - alarm
2nd - gust of wind
3rd - haste
4th - lesser globe of invulnerability
5th - summon monster V (air elementals only)
6th - chain lightning*
7th - spell turning
8th - greater spell absorption
9th - greater communal spell immunity

Earth Totems
1st - entangle
2nd - barkskin
3rd - communal resist energy
4th - spike stones
5th - summon monster V (earth elementals only)
6th - communal stoneskin
7th - mass binding earth
8th - counterbalancing aura
9th - earthquake

Fire Totems
1st - burning hands
2nd - resist energy (cold or fire only)
3rd - rage
4th - greater flaming sphere
5th - summon monster V (fire elementals only)
6th - contagious flame
7th - firebrand
8th - fire storm
9th - fiery body

Water Totems
1st - delay poison
2nd - calm emotions
3rd - remove disease
4th - communal protection from energy
5th - pillar of life
6th - mass fox's cunning
7th - circle of clarity
8th - mass cure critical wounds
9th - mass heal

A couple final notes:

1) I'm fairly unsatisfied without about half of the spells, even considering the fact that this is just a rough draft meant to see if the system even works. Still, I was surprised by how little choice I had to create these lists and still match the sorts of totems available in WoW.
2) The extensive notes on targets and all that were written before I chose the spells to use and were basically there to cover all the possibilities I could think of. In retrospect, they're probably going to need a fair amount of revision, but I've spent much of the past week on this already, so I'd just like to get it up for people to look at and comment on.

Also, remember that this is basically one of three basic systems (that aren't entirely incompatible with each other, though I'd like to keep this as simple as possible given how it's already going to be mildly complex no matter which system I use) I've been considering for how to make totems in Pathfinder. The other two are essentially metamagic feats (which I think would be even trickier to write up the basic rules of, and will probably require investing a fair number of feats in order to get the same sort of base-level ability), and individual spells (which would allow the majority of rules to be handled by the spells themselves, but require repeating a fair amount of text as well as necessitating the creation of a fair few 'redundant' spells that work much the same as existing ones but happen to be totems instead).

[Arrius]

I'd rather not dissect the post above, but take a broader look at the whole issue. Approaches towards mechanizing totems fall under several possible guidelines, as discussed earlier.

1. Knight_Druid's "Totems grant access to that elements' spell list". In this approach, the totem is a creature that casts spells from a specific and narrow spell list.
Pros:
Quick spell-based conversion mechanics; write up the spell list (or defer to a domain) and the effects write themselves.
Cons:
As a creature (or spell-spawning spell effect), it interacts strangely with the rules; it is not an object, so it can technically not be targeted as an object. It also has its own hit points and spell slots, making the whole mechanics wonky.

2. Your own "Totems as Domains/Class Feature" idea. In this approach, the shaman class would not be necessary for totems, and totems are restricted to specific spells.
Pros:
Restricted list to carefully balanced spells, requires little conversion
Cons:
Requires a mechanic independent from spell slots to balance (in the case above, totemic charges)

3. My first "Totems as Metamagic" approach and writeup (which I recommended). In this approach, any spell can be metamagicked into a totem (+2 adjustment), although only shamans (or specific classes) would be able to gain the feat in question (perhaps unlocked by a class feature).
Pros:
Quick spell-based conversion mechanics; the totems write themselves and can be refluffed. +2 adjustment is fair, although fringe cases must be noted.
This also works as a good baseline for the Lightwell priest spell, as well as the Soul-well Warlock spell, and can be used as a standardized mechanic for the conversion's effort.
Cons:
As above, wording must be water-tight to prevent abuse with fringe-case spells (or those with explosive potential). Spells' parameters must be arrested as well, limiting range to 30 (in case of ray, line, or cone) or 0 (in case of burst or touch), targets to single (in case of single target) or a hard limit (in case of multiple targets), a cooldown between cast spells (1d4 rounds or none) and/or stipulations that describe stacking the same spell. For instance, would prot. from energy keep refreshing the absorption pool?

4. My second "Totems as Magical Items" idea. In this approach, totems are physical magic items (for simplicity's sake, Wondrous Items) that can be summoned (and unsummoned) via magical spells, but they ultimately remain active normally.
Pros:
Fluff is appropriate, and is consistent with in-lore depictions of totems (which are often carried by shamans anyway).
They also conform better with existing times/day or continuous custom magic item rules (as opposed to spell rules), requiring the least amount of effort to convert from all the above approaches.
Cons:
Totems can be stolen and utilized by other characters, and are divorced from shamanism entirely. The object being damaged makes repairs costly.
Above that, custom magic item rules are broken, and WPL is a mess (on a side note, did you check out Kirthfinder's Numen system?).

5. The final "Totems as Specific Spells" approach, wherein spells are pre-designed as totem spells (and have a specific descriptor to consolidate mechanics). This is similar to the metamagic approach, but there is no metamagic feat in question, and they are designed as totems from the get-go.
Pros:
Totemic spells are limited to specific spells with, with all potential for abuse studied beforehand due to the limited number of spells in question. If healing spells are overpowered as totems, there will not be any healing totems, for example.
Cons:
Redundancy of totem spells as established earlier, unless the spell's original description stipulates 'can be turned into a totem spell'.

There will be no need to repeat the mechanics every single time. A descriptor in the beginning of the spells chapter is enough to consolidate the mechanics in question.
The approach that falls in line the most with the stated design principles is approach number 4, because it requires the least rework.

[Lawrence DuBois]

Arrius wrote:

(on a side note, did you check out Kirthfinder's Numen system?)

I did do a search when you first mentioned it, and found this which I hope is what you were referring to. It appears to be a rather extensive reworking of various aspects of the core Pathfinder system which I'm certainly interested in looking through, but since I'm just wanting to make a campaign setting-type product, not a variant system, I bookmarked it as something to look at later. A decent rebalancing requires making sure all the various subsystems are, to some significant degree, dependent on each other, so even just determining whether or not one aspect can be appropriated for use outside of its original system requires careful examination.

Arrius wrote:

The approach that falls in line the most with the stated design principles is approach number 4, because it requires the least rework.

I disagree. Number 4 may require the least rework, but it does so by pretty much completely divorcing itself from class mechanics. While there are a few instances in lore of totems being used as an item by non-shamans, these strike me as being exceptions rather than the rule, and more analogous to the alchemist's infusion ability rather than how the default should work.

Anyway, I've already started working on making rules for options 2 through 5 (2 was actually inspired directly by 1, and is essentially my interpretation of what Knight_Druid was getting at), and the whole point of this is to see what ends up working best in practice, so I'd kindly ask that you do dissect the post above since even if that isn't the system I end up going with, determining what does and doesn't work with it can help polish the other options. Also, keep in mind that I am not ruling out the possibility of using more than one of these options. The ability to create consumable totems (a la alchemist infusions and option number 4, as mentioned) is pretty much a given, whether that's the base system or not. If I can figure out rules language that doesn't go on for a page and a half while still reasonably replicating totems without completely breaking the game, I'd like to at least consider metamagic feats, as well.

...And I also feel compelled to point out that since, from the various first version of this document I posted, both a Fetish Spell metamagic feat, and Craft Totem item creation feat existed (which I believe I, in turn, pulled more-or-less straight from the 3.5e books) that pretty much already do both of those things, calling them "your" ideas is a little bit galling.

[Lawrence DuBois]

I've been working on this project some more lately, and have decided, more specifically, to start working on some adventures. There have been a few fairly significant changes to the original plan, which are:

• I will be designing the campaign adventures for E6 (for those unfamiliar with the variant: in short, the maximum character level is set at 6th, and characters gain bonus feats instead of levels from that point on - plenty of variations on this basic concept, though, so feel free to google them). Each expansion will be getting its own E6-scaled campaign.
  
• In tandem with this E6 approach, my plan is to either do away with or rework XP so that level growth is based on completing adventures, regardless of how many enemies were defeated or how tough they were. There will be two main types of adventures: questlines, in which a series of quests from a zone (or, occasionally, zones) will be adapted to form a unified adventure, and dungeons, in which an instance (either dungeon or raid) will be adapted to form an adventure. I intend for questline adventures to take one (and only one) whole session to complete, and for (very roughly)* every five bosses in an instance to comprise a session. It will then, in turn, take a number of sessions equal to your current level in order to level up. I'm messing around with some particulars for things like allowing lower leveled character to catch up to higher ones, but that's all less important.
  
• I'm setting aside the core rules for now (which I will still be making with full 20 levels of play in mind), and ignoring all of its spells and feats for now. I will add them back in or create new ones as turns out to be necessary while writing the adventures. Once I've finished writing the adventures, I will review these to see if any more should be added. Ditto for archetypes and the like (though the engineer is definitely staying). Additionally, I will only be using/referencing material from the books included in the PRD.
  
• For a shift to more specific changes, I'm switching out the engineer's cognatogen class feature for inspiration, and will be reworking his discoveries and schematic list.

So then. Now that all that's out of the way, the adventure I'm writing up. It's fairly bare-bonesy - there's not much fluff to it, and essentially consists solely of stat blocks and encounter instructions. But considering as it's a direct adaptation of something that has all it's own fluff, it doesn't strike me as being terribly important to include it all here. At least not until I've got the mechanics all done.

It's been some time since I last wrote my own adventure, and I was much less experienced when I did, so I'd like some peer review to make sure I've made something decent. For this test run, I chose to adapt The Deadmines (dungeons being more easily defined than questlines), which will be made for a party of 3rd-level adventurers. My intention for dungeons is that they should be challenging, but not difficult. Success for an average party will require either thorough preparation or good resource management, but requiring both will be the purview of raids (questlines will be more casual "breather episodes"). That said, being the first dungeon, I intend for The Deadmines to not mean guaranteed failure for an ill-prepared party, but it should be hard enough that the party will know to prepare for future dungeons. Lastly, The Deadmines will be intended to last for two game sessions with the break occuring after Sneed is defeated. During these sorts of breaks in dungeons and raids, characters will be treated as having had an 8 hour rest (allowing healing, spell replenishment, and so on), but without any actual time passing in-game. The main reason for this being to allow for more challenging bosses (particularly the final one), but without undoing the players' progress up to this point, or otherwise creating plot holes for why the enemy hasn't taken advantage of the party's time sleeping.

As for feedback, I'd like thoughts from more experienced DMs on how difficult it would be for a 3rd-level party to run it, particularly keeping in mind various things I've said concerning balance and difficulty up to this point. I'd also like estimations on how long this would likely take to complete (and also whether those estimations are purely theoretical, based solely on time spent playing, or if they include allowances for out-of-character chat, looking up a couple of rules, and so on).
Lastly, I didn't really start playing WoW until halfway through Cataclysm, so I never actually got to run this version of the dungeon, myself (thanks to WoWpedia and Bradygames for allowing me to attempt this, anyway). As such, I'd love some feedback on how I adapted things to fit better into and make the most of it being a tabletop game rather than an MMO. I know I've diverted from how the actual dungeon plays out, but trust that any huge change (such as the Rhahk'zor encounter, the nature of the entrance - since I did include the tunnels leading up to the instance portal, not simply what's inside the instance itself - and so on) was intentional. I'd still like feedback on those adaptations, but please don't simply criticize it for not being exactly like the original. I'm going more for "in the spirit of" rather than "to the letter".
The Deadmines

*:

More specifically, dungeons will (sort of) be broken up into a number of sessions equal to the total number of boss encounters (note that this is not the same as the total number of bosses; also, counting certain bosses like rares and summons as half a boss boss encounter) divided by the median number of bosses per dungeon or dungeon wing in that expansion (which is usually 5, but occasionally 4). However, if a dungeon has, for example, 6 bosses when the median is 5, it will remain in one section. 7 bosses would be a judgment call. Raids will often have one fewer boss per session than dungeons from that campaign.
This does not mean that there will always be an equal number of bosses per session, however, but usually when there are noticeably differing numbers of bosses per session, then a session with fewer bosses will probably have more trash or longer, harder fights (for example, Naxxramas will be broken into five sessions, and if you know it, you can probably guess how it will be divided and why that fifth section will get a session all to itself). As with The Deadmines (explained well after this asterisk appears), the party will be granted a free 8 hour rest during the breaks between each session in these longer dungeons and raids.

[Here4daFreeSwag]

Good to have some free Deadmines laying about. ;)