Ok to be clear if you take a rank in know arcana
that lists Arcana (ancient mysteries, magic traditions, arcane symbols, constructs, dragons, magical beasts)
your saying I only may put ranks in to one of the listed items?
what about
Nature (animals, fey, monstrous humanoids, plants, seasons and cycles, weather, vermin)
sorry you put all your ranks into nature{animal] you can not tell if that thing is fey or what the weather might be like, or what season it is, or anything about plants.
You have some odd house rules man
by the book arcana is the field of study and covers (ancient mysteries, magic traditions, arcane symbols, constructs, dragons, magical beasts) you can house rule it out if ya want, but by the book it covers them all
Ok to be clear if you take a rank in know arcana
that lists Arcana (ancient mysteries, magic traditions, arcane symbols, constructs, dragons, magical beasts)
your saying I only may put ranks in to one of the listed items?
what about
Nature (animals, fey, monstrous humanoids, plants, seasons and cycles, weather, vermin)sorry you put all your ranks into nature{animal] you can not tell if that thing is fey or what the weather might be like, or what season it is, or anything about plants.
You have some odd house rules man
What on earth are you talking about? That's got nothing remotely to do with what I said. I'm not even sure that's in the same galaxy as what I said.
What on earth are you talking about? That's got nothing remotely to do with what I said. I'm not even sure that's in the same galaxy as what I said.
Yes it does
That isn't the list of "what knowledge arcana may be used for"; it's a list of "fields of study", and there are no rules for it
The fields of study listed are
* Arcana* Dungeoneering
* Engineering
* Geography
* History
* Local
* Nature
* Nobility
* Planes
* Religion
So your either using them as is or your braking them down into smaller subgroups
If you use them as they are Arcana covers {ancient mysteries, magic traditions, arcane symbols, constructs, dragons, magical beasts)]
If your braking them down into
* Arcana covers {ancient mysteries]
or
*Nature (animals] your house ruling
That's still in the next galaxy over from what I said.
I'll repeat.
There are no rules for "fields of study". That means that any rules you make up involving using Knowledge: Arcana to identify "magical traditions" are entirely your own creation. They do not exist in the rules.
They are listed in the book,
So nature does not cover {Nature (animals, fey, monstrous humanoids, plants, seasons and cycles, weather, vermin)}?
or Dungeoneering (aberrations, caverns, oozes, spelunking)?
You may choose not to use em, but they are listed as area's covered by the skill
They are listed in the book,
So nature does not cover {Nature (animals, fey, monstrous humanoids, plants, seasons and cycles, weather, vermin)}?
or Dungeoneering (aberrations, caverns, oozes, spelunking)?
You may choose not to use em, but they are listed as area's covered by the skill
Nowhere have I claimed that Knowledge: Arcana does not include magical traditions as one of its fields of study. What I have claimed is that there are no rules describing what magical traditions are or what you can learn about them using the Knowledge: Arcana skill, which means any use of the skill to learn about them is squarely in the house rules territory.
it does say how you lean about them DC 10,15 20 or 30. And if ya don't know what a traditions is , I am not sure what to tell you
it does say how you lean about them DC 10,15 20 or 30. And if ya don't know what a traditions is , I am not sure what to tell you
Ah yes, being condescending and superior. Works a lot better when you're using correct grammar and punctuation. "A traditions" indeed!
Now that the backhanded insults and such are over with, can we get back to actual discussion?
Please tell me where in the rules the game tells you what you can learn about a spellcaster with a DC 10, 15, 20, and 30 Knowledge: Arcana check to identify a magical tradition.
Knowledge(Int; Trained Only)
You are educated in a field of study and can answer both simple and complex questions. Like the Craft, Perform, and Profession skills, Knowledge actually encompasses a number of different specialties. Below are listed typical fields of study.
* Arcana (ancient mysteries, magic traditions, arcane symbols, constructs, dragons, magical beasts)
* Dungeoneering (aberrations, caverns, oozes, spelunking)
* Engineering (buildings, aqueducts, bridges, fortifications)
* Geography (lands, terrain, climate, people)
* History (wars, colonies, migrations, founding of cities)
* Local (legends, personalities, inhabitants, laws, customs, traditions, humanoids)
* Nature (animals, fey, monstrous humanoids, plants, seasons and cycles, weather, vermin)
* Nobility (lineages, heraldry, personalities, royalty)
* Planes (the Inner Planes, the Outer Planes, the Astral Plane, the Ethereal Plane, outsiders, planar magic)
* Religion (gods and goddesses, mythic history, ecclesiastic tradition, holy symbols, undead)
Ok so we see what a field of study is. Arcana is such a field of study and it lists common items covered under that study.
Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions).
So anything covered by your field of study you may ask questions over, and it gives you the DC's
As magic traditions are among the list of covered items you may ask questions about them, if it's very basic info the DC is 10, If it's common the DC is 15, if it's not well known the DC would be 20 or more
traditions that cast cure light wounds would not be rare or even uncommon knowledge to someone of that field
traditions that cast cure light wounds would not be rare or even uncommon knowledge to someone of that field
Please show me where in the rules it states that spell lists have anything to do with magical traditions. I don't think that you actually understand what a tradition is, if you equate spell list to tradition. Here's the dictionary definition of a tradition:
1. the handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc., from generation to generation, esp. by word of mouth or by practice: a story that has come down to us by popular tradition.
2. something that is handed down: the traditions of the Eskimos.
3. a long-established or inherited way of thinking or acting: The rebellious students wanted to break with tradition.
4. a continuing pattern of culture beliefs or practices.
5. a customary or characteristic method or manner: The winner took a victory lap in the usual track tradition.
Now, it is certainly *A* valid house rule to state that all Wizards belong to the same magical tradition, which is different from the magical tradition that all Sorcerers belong to, etc. It's not a house rule I would ever support as either a DM or a player, but it's a valid house rule.
That said, it is a house rule, because D&D does not define the magical traditions of any of its spell casters. I've already mentioned what I consider a magical tradition: "Mages from Tien tend to take vows of abstinence and purity" as an example. THAT actually has something to do with tradition, as in an established way of thinking or acting, a method that is handed down (presumably from master to apprentice), or a continuing pattern of beliefs.
Your interpretation sidesteps that and makes it bland by saying that all Wizards from anywhere in the world treat magic the exact same way. I find that boring, restrictive, and distasteful. Fortunately for me, here on the boards is the only place I have to interact with it, and I wouldn't even have to do that if you didn't insist that your interpretation was the Rules As They Are.
You seem not to understand just what a magical tradition is. Some one of a magical tradition would do alot of things, such as casting just like everyone else in the same tradition
This would cover rituals they preform, rites they had, how they cast spells, symbols they used. Kinda what makes it a tradition]
So yes druids for the most part all cast the same. You can change this if you like but 'druidic" spells could be seen though the skill. Wizards cast the same, they may have different customs but are all part of the same traditions
Now it's framwork and nothing wrong with changing it, but saying it can not be seen by default is incorrect
So yes druids for the most part all cast the same. You can change this if you like but 'druidic" spells could be seen though the skill. Wizards cast the same, they may have different customs but are all part of the same traditions
There is nothing in the rules that states that all druids belong to the same tradition. There's not even anything in the rules that state there are no cross-class traditions (a tradition that both clerics and druids belong to, for example). Actually, there are rules that say there ARE, albeit in expanded material (some of the deities specifically have two different spellcasting classes in their clergy).
Furthermore, "customs" and "traditions" are synonyms. They mean the same thing. For you to say "the customs may be different but the traditions are the same" is either sheer blatant ignorance (made all the worse because I quoted the dictionary definition of 'tradition' for you IN THE POST YOU RESPONDED TO and the very first definition defines a tradition as customs that are handed down!) or intentional trolling.
Ok zuri I read what you posted you still have no clue what a magical tradition is.
I'll let it go as I think your wrong, and you think I am. At this point I am not moving as think I am right. And your not moving as you think your right
Chill a bit man it's not all that dire or anything
@ VV
I'm not quoting that because... Pelor Christ.
Alright, the main point was that "shackling" the character class to an organization doesn't produce any additional benefits for the immersion of the game (If that wasn't your point, ride with it. I'm not reading through that post again to pull out exact pieces of text.
What if there's something in the water?
One possible line I've thought of for a more high-fantasy game than my own is that the paladin's powers come from ingesting some kind of drug. This drug allows them to use the detect evil spell, strike down people with guilt in their hearts, and tap into latent magical powers to summon a steed from their subconscious.
If that drug is the only way to gain those powers in the setting, it adds a lot. First up, It gives people who decide to represent themselves as users of that substance with a reaction from the NPCs. If some guy doesn't eat these drugs and can somehow still use the same abilities? He'll be treated the same. So why, if the GM gave you this hook, would you not use it? Especially if there are no other hooks for that class?
I dunno. I guess trying to marry the mechanics and the fluff makes me a horrible GM in your eyes, but the above example is? Exactly the same, using different magic joo-joo. And the query in the last paragraph is an honest question, not "can you make another character concept".
Really, if I let someone with paladin class levels into that environment, paladin or no, he will be mistaken for a member of that order. And if that adds nothing to the setting, we might as well not write anything as DMs. Let the players come from 6 different countries and all speak the same language! I was going for realism, but now I guess I'll go drink myself into a stupor trying to think of hackneyed ways to make this party work!
You got some of my examples wrong in your post (Including that I said if you're a member of the organization you have to be a paladin, that was way off), but I'll let it slide because for the most part it didn't affect your rhetoric. And I hate nitpicking examples.
@ Barbarian princess snowflake
If I just told you before making a character "I know you're running a political intrigue classical fantasy with heavy emphasis on these two religious orders, but look! I made a princess (Pain in the ass because either entourage of NPCs following her or people that want to kill her) voodoo priestess! But she doesn't cast spells she's a barbarian!" You would probably look at me a bit cockeyed. If it's a game where A. Barbarians mainly worship ancestral deities and B. The Christian religion and the Hutu religion don't exist, then the Voodoo part is also unacceptable, and if you're playing a member of the holy order of your tribe? Even in a fantasy setting you likely wouldn't be joining in raids. So literally everything about my example would fall apart against a backdrop of characters who try to fit with the world's expectations.
The background is really nice though. I would suggest a religion like voodoo but not in name as the only change.
(Not to anyone in particular)
The thing is, guys, you're assuming the players have the time to think out and draw up their own complete backgrounds. How long did you spend on typing up that background? How experienced are you? Yeah, a lot of players CAN write their own backstory, but a lot of them don't.
Plus, there's also the question of "why do you have to play X class?" If I as the GM have to adjust my setting to fit your demands, fine. But if I have a rule, like "wizards have to use the taboos from the wu jen class" (Completely arbitrary, I know. But say it's a balancing rule), and you don't like it for your concept, well, play another character! Worlds take at shortest 6 hours from my end to produce, while characters take upwards of 15 minutes. Character concepts a half second upwards.
There's also the issue of "The GM doing it all himself." I have a lot of free time in-between classes. So, I used that time to draw up some stuff for my setting, including a poor quality map and a bunch of specialized style feats for the monk (or unarmed fighter, but I digress). The players DO have to use the map, and they DON'T have to use the feats. I made all the players pick out an area where they were from on the map, in most cases they got a town, but the barbarian (background, not class) bard was in the middle of the unmapped plains. By FORCING them to pick out an area where they were from, I'm a bad GM by some of these arguments BECAUSE I didn't let them make their own little country of Barbaria or whatever, or I told the paladin where the major church of his deity was located, and told him a lot of new recruits received training there.
You ASSUME that restricting a class to that background does nothing. Well, that church is currently the only organization in that entire country with warriors who excel at fighting demons. This will become VERY important in the campaign, and the church could even annex itself until it is given a position like that of the major masculine deity in the pantheon when the demons attack and the estranged nobility have nowhere else to turn to. That means at some point, that character could be called upon by his organization to betray his party. And that is worth a lot of drama. The player, if he makes up such a background? Sure the GM would be garbage to throw it out. But only the GM can make a plot like that happen without the player knowing about it. Such an arbitrary restriction for a player who is probably going to play that class anyway (I have known people who would play their favorite class even if you told them their abilities came from smoking cheese for an hour each morning according to the GM) can have such a major effect on the gameplay. And even according to Gary Gygax, the roleplaying is really what sets apart these types of games from any other. To throw out a monster of a hook like that one so Mike can play his angry ex-farmer who has some great reasons to be a paladin but has no ties to the church is just as bad as telling him he can't play it at all because the mechanics are broke. To not assume that the roleplaying inherent in the game is part of the mechanics AND that the DM has nothing to offer the player for accepting a restriction is... I don't even know what it is. To use your words, BAD.
I could go on about a bunch of stuff, (if the GM uses the fluff in the players handbook as fact in his setting) like say you decide as a theme (Like Dragonlance, my apologies) to outright ban all divine casters to create a much more deadly and hopeless tone for the game, that's restricting my character concepts pretty harshly. Say I wanted to play a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde style character but as a healer (In Dragonlance?). The DM's answer in short would be "If you have to heal play a bard." Well, except for the awesome Broadway musical, I've never once imagined Mr. Hyde singing. Or inspiring courage. So, looks like I can't use that one. Oh, how about my ex-wizard gone warrior with the bad temper? Kinda fills the same role, and I can use the DM's rules, which he has laid down to create a game where we're going to have to be a lot more cautious. So, in my game, if you want someone hunted down and smote properly, and they're evil, but you don't know who they are, you have to contact this church. High-level magic users are not something I give my players because they produce the Elminster problem. The church can (cheaply!) send a guy out, kill this evildoer, and collect. They're the only ones that can do it without breaking your bank, that's just the way it is! And I'm fairly sure that does make the setting a lot more interesting in that regard.
I think, really, that both of our arguments are not taking into account that the players or the GM are putting a lot of thought into their ideas and actually have good roleplaying ideas behind them, so I suggest a shift to something else before this gets any more personal.
Damn these games can get complicated sometimes. Not that I'd have it any other way, just saying.
Approaching it from a different angle, a "magical tradition" is more along the lines of an Japanese samurai-era swordfighting school. You can use half a dozen or more different classes at the same time to represent Samurai, but they belonged to dozens or even hundreds of different swordfighting traditions. You could use Knowledge: Relevant (probably Local in this case) to identify which tradition the samurai belonged to by watching him fight, but that doesn't tell you anything about his character class.
Ok zuri I read what you posted you still have no clue what a magical tradition is.
Considering the dictionary agrees with me and you've provided literally zero evidence to the contrary, I posit that you're the one who has no clue about what a magical tradition is.
Wow, huge post Madcap. I hope your prepared to hang around a while, it'll take me time to absorb it all and reply.
EDIT: Ok, I've read and reread the part specifically directed at VV, and came to the conclusion not to spend my time replying to it when she's apt to come in and post a mountain in response to it anyway. On to the stuff about Snowflake.
Heheh, sorry about that. I guess I had a lot to say. I should edit in an addendum to that being just an open-ish portion.
Sorry, I'm in Vegas so I won't be around too much longer, I have to get up kinda early tomorrow. I should be around tomorrow night unless I decide to spend the night carousing.
That and there is barely any internet access in our Hotel. Free on the plus side, but none in my room. :(
@ kyrt-ryder. I just got around to reading snowflake. Seems very intresting
Edited in the first part of my response, read and reply if your able :)Wow, huge post Madcap. I hope your prepared to hang around a while, it'll take me time to absorb it all and reply.
EDIT: Ok, I've read and reread the part specifically directed at VV, and came to the conclusion not to spend my time replying to it when she's apt to come in and post a mountain in response to it anyway. On to the stuff about Snowflake.
Heheh, sorry about that. I guess I had a lot to say. I should edit in an addendum to that being just an open-ish portion.
Sorry, I'm in Vegas so I won't be around too much longer, I have to get up kinda early tomorrow.
That and there is barely any internet access in our Hotel. Free on the plus side, but none in my room. :(
I think I'll have a drink while you're finishing up. I'd like to see it all before I reply.
I'm glad you took that overly-acidic and sarcastic example of mine as a challenge though. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. But that could be the other drinks.
EDIT: I edited stuff in my last post as well regarding my schedule.
Regarding how much time it takes, honestly it takes me FAR less time to run a campaign than to make a character. I spend 100% ZERO time preparing and planning my world, I run purely off the cuff and expand the world in play spontaneously from my and my players imaginations.
Characters, on the other hand, I tend to spend hours researching, digging up concepts and ideas from real world and mythology, bringing the character to life, giving them a backstory that brings them to the point they are in the campaign and makes them real people.
I'll second this. I'm an improv-style DM; the most work I do is to write up stats for a key NPC or two and write outlines for a couple likely encounters. On the other hand, I spend hours and hours coming up with character concepts, fitting concept to mechanics, writing backstory, coming up with unique quirks (frex, for a character I played in a PbP I planned out exactly what the character was saying in which language when he cast any of the spells he knew), and so on. I spend waaaaaaay more time making characters than writing campaigns and adventures, even though I DM as often as I play a PC.
Lol, it can get even worse Zurai. Try running a Malconvoker (Summoning focused PC) using the variant where each of your summons is different.
The character was an Archivist with levels in the Alienist prestige class (one of the very few divine casters that can pull off being an Alienist well, btw), with several different metamagics as well as the Beckon the Frozen feat. Every variation of every spell had its own unique text; a spell that summoned 1d4+1 pseudonatural scorpions had a different text than one that summoned 1d4+1 frozen scorpions, which was different than the one that summoned 1d4+1 pseudonatural frozen scorpions, which was different than the one that summoned 1d4+1 normal scorpions, which was different than the one that summoned 1 elemental (even though they're all summon monster IV).
Examples:
Summon Monster:
(small fiendish scorpion) (Draconic)
Six scampering legs, two grasping claws, eyes of shadow and an acrid sting! I call, you answer. I order, you obey. I bind you to my service! Come forth, fiend, and relinquish your will to mine!
Six shimmering legs, two frozen claws, eyes of shadow and an icy sting! I call, you answer. I order, you obey. I bind you to my service! Come forth, fiend, and relinquish your will to mine!
A hundred scampering legs, two dozen grasping claws, eyes of shadow and acrid stings! I call, you answer. I order, you obey. I bind you to my service! Come forth, fiends, and relinquish your wills to mine!
A hundred shimmering legs, two dozen frozen claws, eyes of shadow and icy stings! I call, you answer. I order, you obey. I bind you to my service! Come forth, fiends, and relinquish your wills to mine!
A thousand scampering legs, two hundred grasping claws, eyes of shadow and acrid stings! I call, you answer. I order, you obey. I bind you to my service! Come forth, fiends, and relinquish your wills to mine!
A thousand shimmering legs, two hundred frozen claws, eyes of shadow and icy stings! I call, you answer. I order, you obey. I bind you to my service! Come forth, fiends, and relinquish your wills to mine!
Winter's Embrace: (Giant)
Winds of the north, sea of rime, gather to me! Steal the breath, freeze the blood, shatter the heart! Ye foe, bathe in Winter's embrace!
Dark tempest, glacial ocean, gather to me! Steal the shadow, freeze the essence, shatter the soul! Ye foe, bathe in Risia's embrace!
Produce Fire: (Giant)
O Surtr, bright-flame and world-ender! Grant but a sliver of your power to my touch!
O Angrboda, frostbitten and windswept! Grant but a sliver of your power to my touch!
O Rimurstar, rimebeard and death's-head! Grant but a sliver of your power to my touch!
Cure Minor Wounds: (Elven)
May the grace of the Undying fill you for the slightest moment.
Detect Magic: (Draconic)
Ancestors, guide my eyes to visions of your glory.
Etc etc. He was a level 9 or 10 character by the end and had dozens of spells with (mostly) several variations each. Maybe not 120 unique monsters, although he was a summoner and I had statblocks written for all of his summons in all of their variations, but still a very time-consuming process.
Alright, maybe I'm just thrusting a lot of my ideas on my setting here. That and I'm sure I haven't told you everything about the setting, so that could be making me look pretty rotten here.
First: worship is a hugely independent thing. I know I wouldn't want to play in a game where my PC had to worship X religion just because of his race and culture. There should always be exceptions, both exceptional individuals and exceptional groups.
Yes, but you're not very likely to risk worshiping such a deity in a fairly dark setting where the church of one side says you worship the wrong gods and should be burned and the other says that your made up gods are harming the world. If you're from such an insular culture, you'd be very likely to stick to what you know. If not, you're right. Exceptions do exist, but I don't think such a character would be a good PC in my setting unless they kept their worship downplayed because the main civilized settings are pretty darn opposed to them talking to their imaginary friend and, well, they'll just kill them for it for various reasons, which detracts from the ideas the GM put forth when making his game. Say he's put a lot of thought and maybe even some full on NOTES on how house X interacts with house Y and what will happen if the PCs actually ally with either one. If the Princess is allowed to play as a PC, staying true to her character, she will get eaten alive by some zealot or another and her character sheet will have been a waste. If she's not exactly what you said she is, and keeps her religion concealed because she knows it will harm her, well, that's a snowflake of a different color.
Who's to say you wouldn't be going on raids? I've done a fair amount of study in this subject, and in west african tribes it was not at all uncommon for the younger religious leaders in lesser ranks to go on, or even lead raids.
This principle also applies to the Nordic raiders as well, quite often there were holy men among the warriors.
(Additionally, take a look at the crusades. Every large unit had a holy-man of some level in it)
For one thing, being able to commune with the spirits is something very valuable. Something that a tribe wouldn't want to lose. So, provided it's not the custom, the chief probably wouldn't let the character go on raids. That's assuming a lot about this person's made up society (Including that the leaders are competent and concerned about the future of their people, which obviously has a lot of real-world examples that support that idea) and about their position, but since a lot of parental concerns would be another factor, that would probably stack up to being correct.
Plus, the "your dad" NPC is controlled by the GM, past present and future, which could result in a hackneyed GM denying you such a privilege by retroactively taking control of your dad and having him lock you in a trunk or whatever while the rest of your village went to go sack the gnoll village nearby for the non-existent food they have.
On the crusades (the only one I know a bit about), the holy men seldom were at the front, but were usually placed in command of general strategy. The Knights Paladin were officials who dictated military stuff post-crusades a few hundred years, and the actual paladins were fictional representations of France's martial power against the Muslims in the First Crusade (France was actually pretty bad back in the day, apparently). They probably were considered too valuable to put in the front lines, but obviously some may have been officers who were inaugurated into the priesthood due to some political reasoning or another. For the most part, the priests were there to deliver sermons, not actually do something that would risk their lives.
Your other examples I cannot dispute, the only refute I can offer is common logic. Common logic, however, is relatively uncommon amongst barbarians. (Snooty accent optional)
could you explain exactly HOW this character falls apart?
I forget who said it, but "If everyone's unique then no one is unique" was the gist of what I was saying. If your character is so against my entire setting that I can think of several ways she would be killed (not inconvenienced, KILLED) by the area the story takes place then she doesn't fit in with the setting. Playing as a political character is good, great even in a game where politics play a big part, but when they're not the politics involved and they're a weak player compared to those involved, it becomes more of a distraction than a benefit to the game. Finally, if the rest of the group is playing something relatively baseline, like a fighter mercenary, a cleric pursuing the arcane arts, or a monk whose goal is to become stronger, then she really seems to be sucking the spotlight away from the rest of the group and will either do just that or get no spotlight at all from a sore GM. In short, she's too off-beat from the setting's tone and fluff to be playable.
(I do have a few behavioral rules like bathing shortly before coming to game and having good table manners)
Now all I can imagine is your players quickly running into the shower before they ship off for game, muttering to themselves. "If I don't shower, GM will kill my character!"
I think I've sucked up enough of the spotlight for now lol. I'll stop for now, give you guys time to post and all that while I ruminate over the rest of Madcap's post.
I hope your still around (and not too boozed up lol) Madcap, looking forward to your replies.
After I had posted that response the bar was closed. :(
What? Me can too writes drunk whiles.
I opted for Malconvoker because for once it was a class with a bad-ass flavor built in, and because mechanically it beat out alienist.
Yeah, Alienist isn't that hot mechanically. A lot of penalties for just the ability to add a template to your summons. It's got terrific flavor, though, and I loved the concept of an Archivist Alienist -- very Cthulu mythos. He delved too deeply into the secret lores of the past and his magic is twisted and corrupted as a result. I loved that character. He was a true neutral gray elf in Eberron who summoned and created undead (strictly forbidden by the Undying Court, the main elven religion), researched into all kinds of forbidden knowledges, and used Beckon the Frozen and Lord of the Uttercold to great effect. Nothing like launching an uttercold frostball (fireball with Energy Substitution: Cold and Lord of the Uttercold applied, so that it deals half cold and half negative energy damage) into a pack of skeletal and/or Frozen undead all meleeing a bunch of enemies. Harm my foes and heal my minions at the same time!
@ Kyrt-rider
On building characters... I mean I built the whole setting. Not just where the players were actually going to be, the whole setting.
The shortest amount of time I invested in a setting is no time (I run things completely off the cuff on a lot of occasions), but a fully fleshed out one... This is my second one, and it's still ongoing. I just made fluff for new sub-races of goblin that I'm going to have to inform the goblin player about (He'll either be ecstatic or disappointed he couldn't be them). The last one was a high-fantasy steampunk setting with magic, floating cities, the entire continent covered in chaotic energies, etc. I had the rough-edges of all but two of the major cities, and I still had another continent minimum to finish. I also included a bunch of new races, some rewrites of classic ones... Needless to say a tad more than 8 hours. If the GM doesn't throw something that crazy together though, then I can see your point. If I don't do much for the background setting besides "you are cowboys, go", then I'm not going to expect that the players retroactively attempt to fit in with my evolving ideas of the setting.
By that same note, not making a setting too big is a good thing, since the players will never all find out about the major NPC you statted up a month ago, mister cool-sorcerer-king-not-a-BBEG, if they never go there. I think my current setting is around 2000 miles at the longest side, and there's a bunch of sea to the north that's only been explored by the orc confederacy.
If you do put a lot of time in as a GM for your setting or pre-planning your sessions, you should have the right to pull a few strings to keep them on track. Keep a few PCs alive even though they went way past dying, have this alchemical reagent rumored to be in the desert where your plot takes place even though it's a fungus... Sure, a fantastic GM can make a good game out of anything, but we can't all be fantastic GMs all the time. I tend to let the PCs do whatever they want. But if they do nothing then I am going to hook and drag them kicking and screaming into what I have planned, hell or high water be damned. Of course I do it with style and fresh breath, but I still do it. It's either that or the night's a bust sometimes. I can make blacksmithing all day fun, but the other PCs will hate your character for his talents when their horseshoes need replaced, their magic sword suddenly has a crack in it, and only the magic hammer of Immakingthisupso'harditsnotevenfunny, ancient dwarven king of old can solve all these problems! And for some reason, the hammer is held by a bunch of orcs! In this castle no one lives in!
It's for this reason that I force my player's characters (FORCE! RESTRICT!) to have motivations, like any good character. Even if it's just "get stronger", at least I have something I can use to hook them on instead of having to genuinely wow their fictional character with mountains of treasure that they may or may not care about.
I hope you get a chance to use princess Snowflake! Anything I spend that long on I'm constantly trying to find ways to use. One of my groups is sessions away from plummeting into a war between two major tribes of lizardfolk and the mysterious serpent-folk of the Minotaur swamp, a slight alteration to a plotline I wrote up about 6 motnhs ago for a game I thought I was going to have to run, but didn't. And that sucked because I freaking love lizardfolk!
I'll second this. I'm an improv-style DM; the most work I do is to write up stats for a key NPC or two and write outlines for a couple likely encounters. On the other hand, I spend hours and hours coming up with character concepts, fitting concept to mechanics, writing backstory, coming up with unique quirks (frex, for a character I played in a PbP I planned out exactly what the character was saying in which language when he cast any of the spells he knew), and so on. I spend waaaaaaay more time making characters than writing campaigns and adventures, even though I DM as often as I play a PC.Regarding how much time it takes, honestly it takes me FAR less time to run a campaign than to make a character. I spend 100% ZERO time preparing and planning my world, I run purely off the cuff and expand the world in play spontaneously from my and my players imaginations.
Characters, on the other hand, I tend to spend hours researching, digging up concepts and ideas from real world and mythology, bringing the character to life, giving them a backstory that brings them to the point they are in the campaign and makes them real people.
I'm the exact opposite. I spend months working on a new campaign and my world is built up from all the previous campaigns. Every week, I spend at least 8 hours preparing and, in addition, continue to work on and enhance my world.
I'm the exact opposite. I spend months working on a new campaign and my world is built up from all the previous campaigns. Every week, I spend at least 8 hours preparing and, in addition, continue to work on and enhance my world.I'll second this. I'm an improv-style DM; the most work I do is to write up stats for a key NPC or two and write outlines for a couple likely encounters. On the other hand, I spend hours and hours coming up with character concepts, fitting concept to mechanics, writing backstory, coming up with unique quirks (frex, for a character I played in a PbP I planned out exactly what the character was saying in which language when he cast any of the spells he knew), and so on. I spend waaaaaaay more time making characters than writing campaigns and adventures, even though I DM as often as I play a PC.Regarding how much time it takes, honestly it takes me FAR less time to run a campaign than to make a character. I spend 100% ZERO time preparing and planning my world, I run purely off the cuff and expand the world in play spontaneously from my and my players imaginations.
Characters, on the other hand, I tend to spend hours researching, digging up concepts and ideas from real world and mythology, bringing the character to life, giving them a backstory that brings them to the point they are in the campaign and makes them real people.
It also helps that some of your players write 15 pg character backgrounds. Was I the shortest with 2?
Mr. Fishy is about half and half. Mr. Fishy writes up a general backdrop. Orcs are two sub races the civilized High Orcs and the barbaric Gorrath (fallen ones in orc). High Orcs live in an empire not unlike ancient Rome. Elfs are xenophobic and less than good. Several hundred years of life can make you a superior prick. Also elves were blamed by humans and dwarven for a major cataclym. Orcs and Dwarves wared over land and old wounds haven't healed yet. Then the players come in and the world evolves.
I'm the exact opposite. I spend months working on a new campaign and my world is built up from all the previous campaigns. Every week, I spend at least 8 hours preparing and, in addition, continue to work on and enhance my world.
This would be me as well, I put great thought into my worlds, and a great amount of time
I feel the need to point out that having a very small number of religions or groups, and each of those groups are completely united, is one of the very stark "D&D-isms" I really dislike.
In the real world, every group that has ever existed has had, like, a billion different subsects or heretical side believers. Furthermore, at times those sects could be very different from the parent religion and even cause internal strife to the point of war.
The thought that all paladins have to belong to a single group, and nowhere in the world are there alternate groups makes my brain hurt. That's like claiming that all Christians belong to a single denomination or group, and there are no others, ever, at all, anywhere, in the history of the world. Same with bards - are you really going to tell me that, for as long as the skalds have existed, they've NEVER had ANYONE leave or branch off into their own style of teaching? Ever?
As for being able to identify spells being cast, there's two skill tricks that stop that - one hides the casting altogether, and the other disguises your spell as a different one. How would that play in?
Church of Scientology? I am unaware of any of their splinter groups.
One time in Conspiracy X we fought a militant sect of the Church of Scientology.
Either that or the whole thing was actually militant with a really good cover.... we never figured that part out as far as I remember. All I remember is how well their bodies reacted to grenades.
And I think Seeker has proven his Knowledge argument. Nitpicking his English is a sure fire sign of imminent defeat... :)
I feel the need to point out that having a very small number of religions or groups, and each of those groups are completely united, is one of the very stark "D&D-isms" I really dislike.
In the real world, every group that has ever existed has had, like, a billion different subsects or heretical side believers. Furthermore, at times those sects could be very different from the parent religion and even cause internal strife to the point of war.
The thought that all paladins have to belong to a single group, and nowhere in the world are there alternate groups makes my brain hurt. That's like claiming that all Christians belong to a single denomination or group, and there are no others, ever, at all, anywhere, in the history of the world. Same with bards - are you really going to tell me that, for as long as the skalds have existed, they've NEVER had ANYONE leave or branch off into their own style of teaching? Ever?
As for being able to identify spells being cast, there's two skill tricks that stop that - one hides the casting altogether, and the other disguises your spell as a different one. How would that play in?
It depends on the size of the game world you are creating. If it is a single country that your outlining, you could very easily have something like this. You can always leave areas undefined.
Church of Scientology? I am unaware of any of their splinter groups.One time in Conspiracy X we fought a militant sect of the Church of Scientology.
Either that or the whole thing was actually militant with a really good cover.... we never figured that part out as far as I remember. All I remember is how well their bodies reacted to grenades.
And I think Seeker has proven his Knowledge argument. Nitpicking his English is a sure fire sign of imminent defeat... :)
No, the whole thing is militant. The drugged up ninjas were upper level members who passed beyond the "Drugs are bad" revelations to the "except ones that enhance psionic powers" part.
No, the whole thing is militant. The drugged up ninjas were upper level members who passed beyond the "Drugs are bad" revelations to the "except ones that enhance psionic powers" part.Church of Scientology? I am unaware of any of their splinter groups.One time in Conspiracy X we fought a militant sect of the Church of Scientology.
Either that or the whole thing was actually militant with a really good cover.... we never figured that part out as far as I remember. All I remember is how well their bodies reacted to grenades.
And I think Seeker has proven his Knowledge argument. Nitpicking his English is a sure fire sign of imminent defeat... :)
Good thing psionics doesn't really help you against HEAP.
I feel the need to point out that having a very small number of religions or groups, and each of those groups are completely united, is one of the very stark "D&D-isms" I really dislike.
In the real world, every group that has ever existed has had, like, a billion different subsects or heretical side believers. Furthermore, at times those sects could be very different from the parent religion and even cause internal strife to the point of war.
The thought that all paladins have to belong to a single group, and nowhere in the world are there alternate groups makes my brain hurt. That's like claiming that all Christians belong to a single denomination or group, and there are no others, ever, at all, anywhere, in the history of the world. Same with bards - are you really going to tell me that, for as long as the skalds have existed, they've NEVER had ANYONE leave or branch off into their own style of teaching? Ever?
As for being able to identify spells being cast, there's two skill tricks that stop that - one hides the casting altogether, and the other disguises your spell as a different one. How would that play in?
This is way you get worlds like FR with hundreds of gods, with scores of sects and faiths, and offshoot cults. I loved that
However it is all in the size of a given world. And in how much and if the gods interact with mortals. A religion with no power behind it will often fall to the wayside. Community may come to blows over gods, or "false" gods simply fade as clerics move in and "show" true faith brings magic. This happened often in the real worlds why would game worlds be much different?
It would really depends on a few factores.
How big an area?
How much cross trading between cultures?
How long has contact between cultures been there?
How "gun ho" and conversion minded are the faiths?
thease are what I think of as major deciders. there are more of coarse, but the older a faith is and the longer trade has been there the more cross culture faith comes into play. And in time most faiths with imaginary gods will fade when confronted with real power of "real" gods
But then you also have philosophy that may not be linked to any "god" but Central concepts. Stuff like this may or may not fade, or may be combined with a "gods" faith to make an offshoot branch of the faith
When creating a world you really need to think about how cultures, faith and trade interact.
|
I feel the need to point out that having a very small number of religions or groups, and each of those groups are completely united, is one of the very stark "D&D-isms" I really dislike.
In the real world, every group that has ever existed has had, like, a billion different subsects or heretical side believers. Furthermore, at times those sects could be very different from the parent religion and even cause internal strife to the point of war.
However, in the real world we don't have actual voices in our heads telling us the Word, and we certainly don't have avatars popping in to walk next to us. When your god can literally pull you aside and tell you to stop rewriting his law, it happens less.
That does not mean I disagree with you. Gods don't take the time to tell each and every person who has a different interpretation they're out of line, just the ones that are seriously bad. So you could certainly have two sides that are split over which knee to genuflect with. (Forum cookie for the first one to get the reference.)
So there certainly are alternate orders of paladins and bards and clerics. Labels are nice for indexing, but fail at cataloging life.