From the Tome of Magic, I remade the Shadowcaster and the Shadowblade into two classes that should hold the same feel as the original but be simpler, and more interesting to the player. Called the Shadowmage and the Dusk Knight.
I did this last year, and the files have since vanished, but hopefully this site will keep them about longer.
There are several, well almost all, rites that have been altered and adjusted to make them more thematic and useful without crossing the line of being more powerful compared to a base class. That, to me, is the most important thing, and I think I have it right.
If anyone has any remarks or comments about the classes, I would love to hear them and adjust accordingly.
Thank you.
Dusk Knight
Shadowmage
Dusk Knight
Shadowmage
Some small editing done to update them.
Listed to look at later. I'll try to give decent feedback :-)
Why not use "Shadowcaster" and "mystery" like the original?
Thanks for posting these! I've skimmed through the Shadowmage and notice that you've deviated quite a bit from many of the base concepts of the class's spellcasting abilities from ToM. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts behind the changes.
DCironlich wrote: Why not use "Shadowcaster" and "mystery" like the original? Maybe product identity?
Anyway, I really liked it. I always found the class from ToM somewhat weak. Making all the rites supernatural from the beginning put it on par a little.
EDIT: Reading it again I spotted a thing: At Rites, Groups and Paths section, about Bonus Feats you writed "The rite gained by Black Knowledge is not from this calculation, but the feat is purposely excluded from being chosen as a bonus feat.", but at the Shadow Feats section Black Knowledge says to choose a rite and you gain an additional casting of this rite. Which is right? Additional rite KNOW or additional rite CASTING per day?
IronDesk wrote: I'd be curious to hear your thoughts behind the changes. A lot of the original was weak, situational, and incomparable to a wizard or sorcerer. I wanted the class to be unique and playable.
A lot of the powers were just... lacking. And the way the powers were gained made little sense to me. I though making it a lot more linear and flavoring the magic to be unique would make the class stand out without being an overpowerful juggernaut like most homebrew entities.
I really hope it comes out that way.
DCironlich wrote: Why not use "Shadowcaster" and "mystery" like the original? Well I changed mystery, because I didn't feel it fit what I has done with the class. I changed to Shadowmage for naming sake. I didn't think it was right to call it the same thing exactly.
Icthulu wrote: From the Tome of Magic, I remade the Shadowcaster and the Shadowblade into two classes that should hold the same feel as the original but be simpler, and more interesting to the player. Called the Shadowmage and the Dusk Knight.
I did this last year, and the files have since vanished, but hopefully this site will keep them about longer.
There are several, well almost all, rites that have been altered and adjusted to make them more thematic and useful without crossing the line of being more powerful compared to a base class. That, to me, is the most important thing, and I think I have it right.
If anyone has any remarks or comments about the classes, I would love to hear them and adjust accordingly.
Thank you.
Dusk Knight
Shadowmage
Please, use GOOGLE DOCUMENTS.
It lets up update it with out having to re-post the links and anyone can see it. I, like others, do not want to down load some program just to read your documents.
freduncio wrote:
EDIT: Reading it again I spotted a thing: At Rites, Groups and Paths section, about Bonus Feats you writed "The rite gained by Black Knowledge is not from this calculation, but the feat is purposely excluded from being chosen as a bonus feat.", but at the Shadow Feats section Black Knowledge says to choose a rite and you gain an additional casting of this rite. Which is right? Additional rite KNOW or additional rite CASTING per day?
I have written down: "The Rite gained by Black Knowledge is not excluded from this calculation, but the feat is purposely excluded from being chosen as a bonus feat."
So you count the Rite you gained previously, if you picked a new Rite instead of an extra, from the feat when calculating bonus feats, but you can't pick Black Knowledge as a bonus to get a bonus Rite and thereby exploit the mechanic. I needed to state this so players wouldn't suddenly have 7 new rites by this mechanic. That would just be abusive.
Black knowledge lets you pick a brand new Rite or an existing one for an extra casting. So to answer your question it does both, but depends on what you want from the feat. If you feel it should be worded differently? What would be best? I thought I wrote it well enough to make sense. But then again I wrote it and edited it. No one can really edit their own work well. I am sure there are mistakes.
Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
Please, use GOOGLE DOCUMENTS.
Yes, you are right. I never thought to use it because I hardly put up documents for this type of purpose. Thank you for the link.
Googledocs links:
Dusk Knight
Shadowmage
Sorry, I probably readed the feat wrong, don't get the new rite part, just the additional casting per day to an already know rite. It's fine then.
And it's ok to have errors (like the the two feats with the same name "False Reflection"), they'll be corrected with time.
And you you should think again about Remake the World. One could get 3-7 wishes per day at 15th level with no cost. Or, like Wish, it have the 25k material component?
freduncio wrote: Sorry, I probably readed the feat wrong, don't get the new rite part, just the additional casting per day to an already know rite. It's fine then.
And it's ok to have errors (like the the two feats with the same name "False Reflection"), they'll be corrected with time.
And you you should think again about Remake the World. One could get 3-7 wishes per day at 15th level with no cost. Or, like Wish, it have the 25k material component?
Ack! Thank you for the feat note. I never noticed. I'll fix that later.
Yes, that is a good point about wish. I should correct that to make it match the wizard spell exactly as was the intention.
Of course, Google docs won't let me edit a pdf online. And cut and pasting the doc ruins the formatting to match the expected style... Sigh. Sorry and apologies that this isn't so easy to follow.
Dusk Knight
Shadowmage
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules
|
