Re: D&D 3.5 - Athas

[illumination]

7, with steady threads of 1, 2 and 6 thrown in i guess.

i actually think dark sun should be attempted now i look at this, because it is mega gritty, and with neutral PC's we can still be the good guys. as a setting, it also looks to me to be the most compatible with that specific list which provides clues as to what types of campaigns you would prefer to run.

but most most importantly, its DIFFERENT.

dambrath is a nice spot in fareun, and would be a change but im not sure if its enough of a change.

dark sun has its own problems, ie how to make it not totally morale breaking and depressing, but indeed we are much better DMs and players than the last time it was attempted.

(see successful CoC event for an example of something which didnt really get off the ground before but works now)

to come back to the original question, my concern with the storyline is less than the interaction with the other characters and the general setting we are in.

but elf's are well wierd in athas so i might have to rethink that one if we changed...

[^^Truth]

If everyone wants to try out Dark Sun, I am very happy to give it a shot, happier than I am running another Faerun game.

Would take a little extra preperation, but I don't mind that at all really.

Thoughts?

[Tromador]

Dark Sun is good for me.

As for the vexed question of

Trom I don't even know if you're playing

That really comes down to time requirements. If played in parallel with CoC, I probably don't have time. If played alternately with CoC then I probably do.

I'll play one of those birdman dudes.

Char Pic:

[^^Truth]

They will be alternatively, that's almost definite. Most people don't have a lot of time these days. Guess there could be the odd week, but I dunno.

[^^Truth]

2nd post has been updated. Please take some time to read and digest the information and post all bitching in this thread.

Danke

[^^Truth]

The #2 post has been updated with more weapon changes. If anyone else wishes any weapons changed please let me know.

[Tromador]

Rangers will recieve no magical abilities nor an animal companion. Instead they will recieve a 1d6 sneak attack at 5th level, that increases at 10th, 15th and 20th. This sneak attack ability will only function with ranged weaponry, but the distance is increased to 60' (over the usual 30').

I'm not sure where the balance is in here. You've taken away 12 (potentially more if they have good wisdom) spells/day and a powerful ally, replacing with a situational +4d6 damage.

This is even more situational for the ranger who chooses the two-weapon combat style, who isn't going to be much up for ranged attacks anyway.

I understand why you've removed the spells (less sure about the animal companion) but it's not compensated for.

Perhaps consider upgrading to a d10 hit die and allowing the sneak attack when in melee or ranged (not both) to suit the ranger's chosen combat style.

[^^Truth]

I meant to write that the Ranger/Bard archetypes were subject to change in the section, I will do so now.

We're not using hit dice, but rangers are getting the same amount of hit points a level as fighters already. I can allow a choice I guess, it's not a huge deal.

If I do allow a choice, than I would have to put the ranged sneak attack back down to 30' to be in line with thieves again (as it wouldn't really then be a ranger-centric ability anymore).

Personally, I think the ability for a 60' ranged sneak attack is much more potent and lethal than you've considered. Naturally this is at 20th level, but the ability to add 4-24 damage onto ranged attacks upto 60' away is potent enough to kill most man and beast alone.

The animal companion has been removed because it's generally a pain in the anus to use for both player and DM, interferes with many situations within games and is an additional number to track within combat.

Also I would have to rebalance the companion

Your suggestion is noted however, if the others agree with you then I will change it and put the ability to decide where your sneak attacks are implemented.

[Tromador]

Personally, I think the ability for a 60' ranged sneak attack is much more potent and lethal than you've considered. Naturally this is at 20th level, but the ability to add 4-24 damage onto ranged attacks upto 60' away is potent enough to kill most man and beast alone.

It is potent - but:

If one takes archer track, they will benefit greatly from this a ManyShotting Ranger with Improved Precise shot and sneak attacks @ 60' is a pretty scary prospect with such a hail of perfectly placed shots. This may be so powerful it's unbalanced in and of itself.

Compare this with a dual wield style ranger and the benefit of the ability clearly favours one over the other.

The animal companion has been removed because it's generally a pain in the anus to use for both player and DM, interferes with many situations within games and is an additional number to track within combat.

Indeed. Still, nerfing a class because the ability is all too much effort, is a bit lame.

Given that not all attacks can be sneak attacks, I think that taking away a moderately powerful portfolio of spells and an animal companion, is not really balanced by a situational ability. I am reminded of Zert's rogue characters and how he rejoiced when he actually got to sneak attack, which was the exception, not the rule.

Rangers having similar hit points to fighters does help .

[illumination]

I wonder if it matters, anyone going for a ranger? I'm prob not. I reckon we're probably better off concentrating on the stuff that we will have to deal with first, but I would say that as a general point that I think it would have worked better with a few 'must have' rules changes rather than the revolution approach which is kinda where we're at now.

(PS. still think shields are imba. )

[^^Truth]

I know. You dislike large scale rule changes, where as I don't mind them if I think they're required.

We'll see about shields, if they are, they will be changed.

If shields end up OP for a little while, then I don't really see that as a bad thing, since they're been massively UP for so long.

[Tromador]

Well, I'm considering a ranger. Actually considering an archer track ranger, so my arguments for dual wield may be silly anyway.

Equally, I might go straight fighter for once. As we are low (zero) magic it might make sense for me to throw off the shackles of non-conformity and just 'it fings for once.

[^^Truth]

Post #1 has been half updated and will be continued to be updated when I have time.

Please read as some of the information in it is very important to the start of the game.

[Sponsored content]