Dungeons & Dragons... Discuss!

[Songbird]

It's more fair than you think, because 'equally proficient' doesn't mean 'full power' except for very specific builds. Because warrior-class levels don't add to your spellcasting, and spellcaster levels don't add to your melee ability (to any significant level), most gishes end up at around 50-75% effectiveness in either field compared to a dedicated character of that level. Particularly for Spellcasters, because of Linear Warriors Quadratic Wizards - every level they aren't spending getting better in spellcasting means less power gained, and gives them a bit of flexibility.

Ohhh, I see! :-) That does sound more fair. So long as they aren't at full power in both melee and spellcasting, it sounds fair enough for gameplay. Thank you for explaining it to me! :D

What do you think of Shadowdancers? Someone once told me that they thought Shadowdancers were a bit too powerful.

[TheGlyphstone]

Shadowdancers are very weak, in terms of power level. They require two awful feats and one decent one to get in, their skill requirements encourage a Rogue-like base class but doesn't advance sneak attack, and their various spell-like abilities are all gained at very high levels compared to when they'd be useful. A pure Rogue will usually be far more powerful than a Rogue/Shadowdancer - you surrender power for some fun and flavorful minor magic powers.

About the only 'really good thing' it gets is Hide In Plain Sight, and one of the better versions of such - so a 1-level dip into Shadowdancer can be a nice boost for a Rogue.

[Songbird]

Shadowdancers are very weak, in terms of power level. They require two awful feats and one decent one to get in, their skill requirements encourage a Rogue-like base class but doesn't advance sneak attack, and their various spell-like abilities are all gained at very high levels compared to when they'd be useful. A pure Rogue will be far more powerful than a Rogue/Shadowdancer - you surrender power for some fun and flavorful minor magic powers.

I'm so sorry, but I misspoke. :-[ I meant to write Duskblade, not Shadowdancer. I think I got them confused because "dusk" and "shadow" are often interchangeable. My apologies for the mistake. :-[

[TheGlyphstone]

Oh, the Duskblade is a completely different issue. I love the Duskblade, it's a class that can do its job very well without being too powerful, and isn't useless if you put it in a bad situation. It's a 'gish-in-a-can' class, one of those warrior-mage hybrids except you only need to take levels in Duskblade instead of splitting levels between Fighter and Wizard. Its primary class feature is the ability to hit someone with a melee weapon and do bonus damage by channeling an attack spell through the weapon, and it gets an assortment of boost and defensive spells to make itself better in melee.

Since Melee+Magic > Melee, it will be more powerful than most non-magical melee classes. If your friend mostly plays Fighters or Paladins or Monks, a Duskblade would be too powerful for him, but I find classes around the power level of the Duskblade to be at the perfect sweet spot of D&D balance...not too weak, not too powerful.

And yes, WoTC needs to use a thesaurus more effectively.

[Songbird]

Oh, the Duskblade is a completely different issue. I love the Duskblade, it's a class that can do its job very well without being too powerful, and isn't useless if you put it in a bad situation. It's a 'gish-in-a-can' class, one of those warrior-mage hybrids except you only need to take levels in Duskblade instead of splitting levels between Fighter and Wizard. Its primary class feature is the ability to hit someone with a melee weapon and do bonus damage by channeling an attack spell through the weapon, and it gets an assortment of boost and defensive spells to make itself better in melee.

Since Melee+Magic > Melee, it will be more powerful than most non-magical melee classes. If your friend mostly plays Fighters or Paladins or Monks, a Duskblade would be too powerful for him, but I find classes around the power level of the Duskblade to be at the perfect sweet spot of D&D balance...not too weak, not too powerful.

And yes, WoTC needs to use a thesaurus more effectively.

You explain it so well! :D A Duskblade doesn't sound nearly as godlike as my friend suggested, but then we all have different standards. Perhaps his campaign had more fighters than spellcasters, so the Duskblade wouldn't be a good fit. Hmmm... you've encouraged me to do some research on it! ;D

Thank you for not being annoyed with me. :-) It is true that there are a lot of "dusk/shadow/night/dark/black" words in classes and prestige classes. It gets hard to tell them all apart. ???

[TheGlyphstone]

If I should be annoyed with anyone, it's WotC for having so many different classes that sound so similar.

[Songbird]

If I should be annoyed with anyone, it's WotC for having so many different classes that sound so similar.

So true. :-)

I keep getting the Death Knight, the Blackguard, and the Anti-Paladin mixed up. ??? So many evil classes, so little time to research them properly! :-\

[TheGlyphstone]

I wasn't even including Homebrew. The Anti-Paladin is a Pathfinder invention (might have also been in Dragon magazine), and I've never heard of any WotC class called a Death Knight. But to make up for it, there are the Paladin of Slaughter and Paladin of Tyranny variants.

[tsc]

I wasn't even including Homebrew. The Anti-Paladin is a Pathfinder invention (might have also been in Dragon magazine), and I've never heard of any WotC class called a Death Knight. But to make up for it, there are the Paladin of Slaughter and Paladin of Tyranny variants.

The Anti-Paladin was introduced in Dragon for first edition AD&D.  Someone's done some version of it for every version of D&D since, but they've often changed the name, since really, 'Anti-Paladin' isn't the greatest name.

[TheGlyphstone]

The Anti-Paladin was introduced in Dragon for first edition AD&D.  Someone's done some version of it for every version of D&D since, but they've often changed the name, since really, 'Anti-Paladin' isn't the greatest name.

Yeah, it makes you wonder what the blast radius is when a Paladin and an Anti-Paladin hit each other at the same time.

[Songbird]

I think the Death Knight is considered a monster, template, or a NPC class.

Here's a Wikipedia article about them :-) :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_knight_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29

[TheGlyphstone]

Oh, there is a Death Knight template, yeah. There's just not a officially printed Death Knight class.

D&D lore is full of Death Knights, starting with the first and best, Lord Soth. Arthas ain't got nothing on him.

[Songbird]

Oh, there is a Death Knight template, yeah. There's just not a officially printed Death Knight class.

D&D lore is full of Death Knights, starting with the first and best, Lord Soth. Arthas ain't got nothing on him.

Lord Soth certainly is an iconic villain! He did a lot of awful things, but I'm glad he finally redeemed himself. :-)

I'd like to learn more about the Dragonlance setting. Any books in particular I should read?

[TheGlyphstone]

I never really liked Dragonlance, so unfortunately I can't give advice in that direction. I just think Soth is cool, primarily because I do like Ravenloft and he cross-stars there.

[Songbird]

I never really liked Dragonlance, so unfortunately I can't give advice in that direction. I just think Soth is cool, primarily because I do like Ravenloft and he cross-stars there.

I LOVE Ravenloft! :D Who is your favorite Darklord? I'm a big fan of Count Strahd (say what you want, brooding vampires are sexy), and also Adam, because I feel somewhat sorry for him. :-)

I believe they had a Darklord based on the fairytale Bluebeard. I'd love to see it updated to 3.5 Edition rules! :D

[TheGlyphstone]

Adam, definitely. I always liked the Monster as a character in Frankenstein.

[Songbird]

Adam, definitely. I always liked the Monster as a character in Frankenstein.

I love reading Frankenstein. :-) I've always felt sorry for the Monster. Were it not for Victor abandoning him, he might have become an entirely different being. :-(

That's how I feel about Adam. He's hated, and therefore he hates in return. It is interesting that he and not his creator became the Darklord of Lamordia. There are theories that Victor Mordenheim's soul was transferred to Adam during the monster's creation, so that in a sense they are the same being.

I would love to find more information about some of the less well-known domains. I've been trying to create domains inspired by "Macbeth" and "The Picture of Dorian Gray."

[Skynet]

I believe they had a Darklord based on the fairytale Bluebeard. I'd love to see it updated to 3.5 Edition rules! :D

I think they might have done this on the Fraternity of Shadows, a Ravenloft fan site.  Not sure though.

Also, White Wolf produced 3rd Edition revisions of the Ravenloft setting.  They are excellent books.

[Songbird]

I think they might have done this on the Fraternity of Shadows, a Ravenloft fan site.  Not sure though.

Also, White Wolf produced 3rd Edition revisions of the Ravenloft setting.  They are excellent books.

Ooo, I'll have to look! :D

Yes, I love Sword & Sorcery (White Wolf)'s Ravenloft supplements! :D I wish they had kept making them. I want more! :-\

[Chris Brady]

I never really liked Dragonlance, so unfortunately I can't give advice in that direction. I just think Soth is cool, primarily because I do like Ravenloft and he cross-stars there.

...He sat there and brood.  He did nothing in Ravenloft, he let other monsters roam in his lands, he let it over grow while he sat on his throne and whined about losing Kitiara (who by the way was a completely irredeemable character by the end of what they did to her.)  In fact, the Mists effectively got fed up and KICKED HIM OUT, for being too Emo.  He was cool in the original Dragonlance stories, but after that?  Blech.

Also, as for the 'Anti-Paladin', both 3 and 4e made an 'evil' version of the class and called it 'Blackguard'

Death Knights are undead warriors, the same as Lichs are undead spell casters of some type.

[TheGlyphstone]

Yeah, we had already discussed the Blackguard as a separate entity.

[Chris Brady]

Sorry, Glyph, I meant that 'evil Paladins' are know known as 'Blackguards'.  Personally, I can't stand the idea of Paladins (or at least the word, Paladin) being 'evil'.  Holy Warriors of other alignments, right down to similar power sets?  Yes, I'm totally cool with that, just don't call 'em Paladins, cuz you'll actually confuse people.

My two bits on it.  Then again, I am biased because I like Paladins.  I once had a Paladin who loved 'evil' looking armour, and the fear he generated because of his choice of fashion he accepted as punishment for his vanity.  Not to mention he had a REAL Nightmare as a loyal mount (who was Lawful Good, which according to the 3.5 Monster Manual, when it says "Always Evil" under Alignment, it can mean up to 90% of that Monster type IS Evil, but not all.  So this Female Nightmare was Lawful Good due to some sort of experience that she wouldn't tell anyone.  ...I blame Planescape: Torment.  Even after all these years.)

[Songbird]

I thought the Dark Powers' release of Lord Soth was interesting. I know it was done for the sake of convenience, but within the game, it makes you wonder. The reason the Dark Powers keep Darklords captive within their Domains is debatable, but I think it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to think that the Dark Powers are punishing them for their wicked deeds, both past and present. So long as a Darklord continues to suffer, cling to evil, and struggle against his (or her) prison, the Dark Powers keep them captive. I think that once Lord Soth ceased to struggle against his fate, and ceased to feel pain from his captivity, the Dark Powers chose to release him. I'd like to think that he had finally repented of his crimes, and was willing to make things right before his release, but that could just be my Neutral Goodness talking. ;D

[Chris Brady]

According to the source material that I remember, Songbird, Soth did NOT repent.  He just sat there, brooding and brooding and brooding.  He learned nothing, nor did he actually do anything evil.  So the Mists kicked him out and replaced him with another Dark Lord that might actually be interesting.

[Songbird]

According to the source material that I remember, Songbird, Soth did NOT repent.  He just sat there, brooding and brooding and brooding.  He learned nothing, nor did he actually do anything evil.  So the Mists kicked him out and replaced him with another Dark Lord that might actually be interesting.

Did it actually say he didn't repent, or did it just say that he brooded? One can repent and brood. Perhaps he was full of regret, but believed he would never be set free, so he just brooded away until the Dark Powers released him.

Or maybe, as you said, he simply ceased to care, so the Mists kicked him out. ;D