| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| malchor7 |
Posted - 04 Apr 2007 : 19:15:13
I'm running a campaign starting (at least) in the dalelands of 1372-4 and need some information or at least where to find it. (This is partly inspired by reading lots of Ed's novels.)
What I need is to find the statistics (class, level, perhaps even ability scores) on the members of the knights of Myth Drannor. In particular, Jhessail, Torm and Rathan.
Are these established/published somewhere? Has anyone taken a shot at creating them?
Thanks!
m
P.S. 3/3.5 stats! |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| AlorinDawn |
Posted - 17 Apr 2007 : 23:03:24
You will have to forgive me for forgetting the source location, but I think Ed or THO had said the current KoMD are between lvl 7 for the lower end folks to 16 for the higher end. Ed also said somewhere that Florin was one of the few Knights still actively adventuring, so I think I'd slap 16th or 17th level on him. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 09 Apr 2007 : 23:28:22
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Actually, you could have multiple classes thru dual-classes... From the 2E Player's Handbook (I'm using a pdf made from the rtf that was in the Core Rules, so I don't have a page number handy):
quote:
There is no limit to the number of classes a character can acquire, as long as he has the ability scores and wants to make the change.
Oh. Oh duh -- guess I always read too much into the "dual" to the class.
quote:
I agree on the flexibility thing of 3E, though. And though some template stuff can get funky, I do like the system, overall.
Yup -- them's my thoughts.
Cheers |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 09 Apr 2007 : 23:06:50
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
In 2e, you couldn't dual class into three classes (dual = two, obviously). But the multiclassing rules of 3e allow for an expression of the character.
I guess I like the 3.0/3.5 system, and the flexibility it affords in producing characters.
I will confess, on the other hand, the adding of templates thing (the pseudonatural vampiric half-fiend illithid, for instance) does seem a little funky to me at times.  No arguments there.
Cheers
Actually, you could have multiple classes thru dual-classes... From the 2E Player's Handbook (I'm using a pdf made from the rtf that was in the Core Rules, so I don't have a page number handy):
quote:
There is no limit to the number of classes a character can acquire, as long as he has the ability scores and wants to make the change.
The ability score restrictions were prohibitive, but they didn't make it impossible. Lord Chess, in fact, was an F3/W3/P3 (Page 120 of the FRA).
I agree on the flexibility thing of 3E, though. And though some template stuff can get funky, I do like the system, overall. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 09 Apr 2007 : 22:16:59
If you don't mind my intruding -- I'd like to offer comments, strictly as a "gamer guy."
My campaigns can often have lots of multiclassing (and it's generally only that one min/maxer in my group, come to think of it), but I make people come up with a damn good reason.
You say you want your character to be a fighter / swashbuckler? Uh huh -- HOW did you get those two different class paths? Then there will be a long discussion about how he was just a brute warrior until he met a fencing master who schooled him bad, thus teaching him the value of grace and finesse. And of course, if he's first level, he has to play all this through the game.
(And I purposefully pick a ridiculous combination, so as to demonstrate the need for story telling.)
I shudder to confess that I once played a character who was a rogue/fighter/ranger/barbarian/exotic weapon master (from a number of years on his own in the wild). But I rather think he was a little over the top. 
As far as prestige classes and the like go -- well, I say that once you belong to a particular prestige class (meaning you've hunted down a practioner and had him teach you, including whatever quests/payment/naming or dedication of your firstborn that took), you can advance in it freely. But you can't spontaneously become an invisible blade in the depths of the Underdark, you know.
I rather think of the game as simply providing the tools for explaining how a character accumulated the unique powers he/she did. Elminster isn't a bad example -- he was a fighter, a thief, and finally a wizard. In 2e, you couldn't dual class into three classes (dual = two, obviously). But the multiclassing rules of 3e allow for an expression of the character.
I guess I like the 3.0/3.5 system, and the flexibility it affords in producing characters.
I will confess, on the other hand, the adding of templates thing (the pseudonatural vampiric half-fiend illithid, for instance) does seem a little funky to me at times. No arguments there.
Cheers |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 09 Apr 2007 : 02:27:40
quote:
Originally posted by Reefy
As for the Knights, in my campaign they're higher level, but I've written nothing more than a short stat line for them, of the CG male Chondathan human Cleric 6 of Sune variety, because I can't see any reason to do more unless for some very bizarre reason they end up facing off against my players.
That was one of the things I really liked in 2e. Except for odd products, most NPCs never got more than the short stat line. And part of the reason was so that the DM could do what he wanted with the character. Everything was left open.
I do like the fact that in 3e, a lot of things are more defined than they were -- but I wish that didn't extend to NPCs. Most DMs will never need more than a rough overview, but we're still stuck getting entire pages of stats, anyway.  |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 09 Apr 2007 : 02:22:19
quote:
Originally posted by Walls
I cannot fathom the background with multi classed characters.
As long as there's a good explanation, I can see 2 classes, easily. For example, one of the Lords I wrote up -- Terielle Nashirn -- spent time living on the streets, and thus became a thief. Later, when Shar visited Waterdeep during the ToT and impersonated Selūne, Terielle was one of many that was duped. She became a loyal follower, because here was a goddess made flesh, right in front of her. When it was revealed that Shar was an imposter, Terielle was ashamed to have been duped, and decided to dedicate herself to the real Selūne, thus becoming a priestess.
So 2 classes can be explained in a plausible manner. Admittedly, anything more than 2 might be stretching it, but I'll not rule it out. |
| Reefy |
Posted - 09 Apr 2007 : 01:08:29
While some of my players' PCs could do better with their personality, they're certainly getting better, and they're still only young so I'll forgive them.  The key thing is they are developing as we go along. And they also generally play 'normal' class and race combinations, only one of my players tends to come up with the more left field ideas, and he gets mocked for it anyway - 'What's it going to be this time, a half-gnoll berserker/cleric of Sharess?' He generally doesn't actually play anything too weird either, so it's not a problem. I'm happy to let most things go provided there's a good enough in-game reason for it and I generally like PCs to have mentors if they want to radically change class or move to a PrC. Currently only one PC is multiclassing, and while all but one is aiming for a prestige class, they're all natural choices. The one who isn't, a fighter, simply said 'Zoon enjoys combat, perhaps a little too much, likes women and beer, the latter possibly becoming a problem, amongst other things. There's not a prestige class that suits him so why should I need to look for one?' Admirable sentiments methinks.
As for the Knights, in my campaign they're higher level, but I've written nothing more than a short stat line for them, of the CG male Chondathan human Cleric 6 of Sune variety, because I can't see any reason to do more unless for some very bizarre reason they end up facing off against my players. |
| warlockco |
Posted - 08 Apr 2007 : 19:48:58
quote:
Originally posted by Walls
I cannot fathom the background with multi classed characters. Not just 2 classes but those with 4 or 5 or 6 or whatever, some not even remotely connected. Where is the storyline to the training? How could they learn such obscure skills?
It all comes down to DM's. Dammit, I want my cuniform stone slabs back.
Agree with you for the most part.
At least with the older rules those that had multiple classes truly paid for their "uberness" by having to split their XP/HP between all those classes. |
| Walls |
Posted - 07 Apr 2007 : 23:28:12
I cannot fathom the background with multi classed characters. Not just 2 classes but those with 4 or 5 or 6 or whatever, some not even remotely connected. Where is the storyline to the training? How could they learn such obscure skills?
It all comes down to DM's. Dammit, I want my cuniform stone slabs back. |
| scererar |
Posted - 07 Apr 2007 : 18:47:38
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by Walls
It's weird. Most characters seem to be much more powerful stat wise yet the Knights seem to hold a special place in the Realms as far as accomplishments. I think more players need to take a look at these guys, what they are, how they are done, and create REAL CHARACTERS instead of just uber optimized multi class "characters" who are just really super stats on paper and nothing else.
While I may not always ejoy the way Ed writes, The Knights were very real to me in text.
I totally agree with everything you just said.
Absolutely, Spellfire was the first realms novel I read. I was hooked and the knights of Myth Drannor are what did it for me believable characters, without having to worry about levels and stats |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 07 Apr 2007 : 04:18:37
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
I've got something in the pipeline which will hopefully be gracing Dragon magazine fairly soon. I've avoided the temptation of going the PrC route, and the individuals featured are just straight core classes.
Sounds interesting, Krash.
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
Their stories and background lore are way more exciting than their stats, believe me.
-- George Krashos
And this is the point I've often made. Anyone can come up with numbers -- it's the character concept that's harder, and that's the part that interests me more.
Back when I first got into D&D (when 2E was only a few years old), I went the munchkin route and came up with a score of NPCs that I thought were awesome. All they were was stats and collections of magical items, with a bit of a backstory added as an afterthought. Now, when I make a character, the concept and backstory are the important parts. Those take all the time and effort...
With my recent Lords of Waterdeep articles in the Candlekeep Compendium, all of the characters I dreamed up had detailed backstories, as much personality description as I could think of (it's still a weak area for me), and only the classes and levels listed for their stats. While the classes were picked early on, as part of the backstory, I didn't bother with levels until very last -- often, just a few minutes before submitting the article to Big Al.
I didn't bother with the stats for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was the fact that they were unimportant. Who a person is, where he comes from, what he wants, and how he lives is all the important stuff -- not how much can he bench, or what his IQ is. |
| warlockco |
Posted - 07 Apr 2007 : 03:25:59
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
I've got something in the pipeline which will hopefully be gracing Dragon magazine fairly soon. I've avoided the temptation of going the PrC route, and the individuals featured are just straight core classes. Their stories and background lore are way more exciting than their stats, believe me.
-- George Krashos
Can't wait to see it Krash. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 07 Apr 2007 : 02:58:17
I've got something in the pipeline which will hopefully be gracing Dragon magazine fairly soon. I've avoided the temptation of going the PrC route, and the individuals featured are just straight core classes. Their stories and background lore are way more exciting than their stats, believe me.
-- George Krashos |
| warlockco |
Posted - 06 Apr 2007 : 22:27:31
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
By the way, I totally agree with what seems like a general shunning of "normal" single-classed characters in favor of characters that dabble in five (or more) different classes.
True which is why my gaming group has a House Rule of 1 PRC per 10 levels and you must take 3/4 of the levels in the PRC before you can take up a new PRC. (I personally don't agree 100% with it, but it is a good guideline though)
As to exotic PCs, the most exotic I have ever had in one of my games was an Ogre Mage Paladin in one game (but this game was ran to see how far the rules could be pushed and not broken, so I or others could make House Rules for our games). Otherwise the most exotic has been Half-Celestial, Half-Fiend, or Half-Dragons of the standard races.
The most exotic that I have played is a Drow with one of the above templates (because we had to have one).
As far as multi-classing goes, most of my PCs will have a few levels of Ranger and several of Cleric to make what I call a Combat Cleric, a Cleric that can be in the front lines fighting it out with things and using their spells for buffing or healing, rarely for attacking.
But with the conversion of old NPCs from 1E and 2E it can be quite hard to do so, especially without taking PRCs or multiple classes, especially for some of the more "talented" NPCs. One thing that I try to do for any NPC that I convert over is to keep their Full Spellcasting capability, since it doesn't make sense for them to lose the ability to cast spells of a certain level just because the rules changed, which can get a bit sticky for NPCs with multiple spellcasting classes. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 06 Apr 2007 : 22:11:54
By the way, I totally agree with what seems like a general shunning of "normal" single-classed characters in favor of characters that dabble in five (or more) different classes. |
| MaxKaladin |
Posted - 06 Apr 2007 : 22:01:58
quote:
Originally posted by Walls
They must be a Fighter/Tempest/Knight/Wizard/Ranger/Druid! Why must they be? Why can't they just be a fighter? Why can't they just be a ranger?
It goes beyond the NPCs. One of the things that annoys me about D&D these days is the way everyone seems to think they have to play these bizarre combos that take a half-dozen books to make. It seems like nobody is ever a high-level human fighter anymore. No, they have to be a planetouched half-dragon, half-beholder, half-flumph Duskmain 7, Frenzied Defenstrator of Malar 5, Flumph Paragon 3, Uber-Samurai-Ninja-Pirate of Doom 5 or a vampiric, were-dire-panther, half-drow, half-illithid Warspell 5 (variant 7 from the Complete Book of OMGWTFPWNEDBBQ), Pierced Angstmage 4, Bonded Coprolite Adept 2, Tattooed Bladedancer 5, Shadowduskgloom 4 -- all with feats, spells and items from a dozen books and no thought given to the plausibility of any such character. It's all about how numerically badass can I be.
The designers buy into some of this, too. I was flipping through a book the other day and came across a part where the author casually mentioned that if the DM had an ogre mage PC then he could just do such and such. Are ogre mage characters really so common now? Evidently so. Reading various D&D boards, I certainly get the impression most parties have at least one PC that's not one of the "standard" PC races and that there's nothing prestigious about having a prestige class anymore (indeed, I'm starting to think the true "prestige class" is the character who has more than 10 levels in one class).
But this should probably be a seperate thread instead of hijacking one about the seven sisters.
Edit: And, in my day, we had to walk to the game store in the snow, uphill, both ways, in the blazing August heat, barefoot! And we used stone dice! And our game books were written in cuniform on clay tablets! AND WE LIKED IT!
(Another board I frequent has a smiley that has a long, white bard on it, one arm leaning on a cane and the other pointing a finger in the air in a stereotypical "lecturing" pose. I'd use it here if the board had one.)
|
| warlockco |
Posted - 06 Apr 2007 : 17:18:17
I think at one time RAS said he pretty much ignores the rules when he writes, or that he still stuck to the 1E/2E rules which is when he had first started to write for the Realms.
The problem is without resorting to PRCs or just giving them ALOT of levels, it is hard at times to convert old NPCs to the 3E rule set, especially to keep them as capable as they were previously. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 06 Apr 2007 : 11:08:06
quote:
Originally posted by Walls
RA Salvatore or Ed Greenwood or whomever put down stats for their guys.
While I do agree with most of your statement, I have to disagree with this line. A lot of writers don't think of their characters in game terms, and don't create stats for them. Stats are often generated by other WotC people (and TSR people before them). That's why characters often display some ability (or fail to display, such as Drizzt not casting ranger spells) that doesn't track with the rules.
Some writers have gone back after the fact and stated "Here's what I think this character would be", but it's usually some nameless WotC staffer that generates the stats. |
| Walls |
Posted - 06 Apr 2007 : 04:46:24
But he isn't one!
This is my gripe. Everyone takes book characters completely out of context just to make them as best as they can in game terms.
To each their own, but I look at it this way. RA Salvatore or Ed Greenwood or whomever put down stats for their guys. Why does everyone have to suddenly jump on and say how wrong they are. No! They must be a Fighter/Tempest/Knight/Wizard/Ranger/Druid! Why must they be? Why can't they just be a fighter? Why can't they just be a ranger?
This is my BIGGEST gripe with the game today. Likely why I've fallen in love with Faerun RP. They basically said "Screw the stats and write good stories." D&D, while a game, was created to tell stories. We need to go back to this.
Hey, to each their own... just my opinion. |
| warlockco |
Posted - 06 Apr 2007 : 04:28:34
Could cheat by giving Merith the Eldritch Knight PrC to maximize his BAB and Spellcasting Abilities. |
| malchor7 |
Posted - 05 Apr 2007 : 18:39:02
Agreed. That's pretty much how I do it as well.
quote:
That said, as a DM I invoke the "training clause".
Your free to pick up 2 levels of fighter, 3 levels of cleric, ect ect but if you start out as a fighter then you need to not only have shown a devotion to the god that you want to become a cleric of but you need to find a temple and devote yourself to at least a month of training. Same with rogue, ranger, wizard, ect
It gets even better with PrCs, as you not only have to find someone who can teach you that PrC but you have to convince them to teach YOU that PrC. And then spend the time learning it.
This effectively curbs "dipping" and can provide even more game hooks. (well, I need to travel to X to get my PrC, then find someone to teach me, then convince them to teach me, etc etc)
Also, thanks everyone for the help!
I'm having the Knights be about 9th level or so for use in my campaign (in 1372), so:
Jhessail wizard 9
Florin ranger 9
Torm rogue 9
Rathan cleric 9
Merith fighter 2 / wizard 8 (a bit more powerful)
Islif fighter 9
One of the PCs is sort of "apprenticed" to Jhessail, though his apprenticeship has thus far consisted mostly of gaping and stammering.
|
| ShadezofDis |
Posted - 05 Apr 2007 : 17:24:16
Oh, as a side note, I used to be really annoyed that the Knights were "low level" compaired to their achievments. I've since realized that a dozen PC's of mid level are nothing to shake a stick at.
My current group of PCs are seven strong and at 3rd level can rock some creatures I wouldn't have imagined possible (I've not run a group that big before and it's my first time playing again in YEARS, things are going pretty well though, even if I'm still a bit dumb when it comes to the mechanics *g*) |
| ShadezofDis |
Posted - 05 Apr 2007 : 17:21:34
quote:
Originally posted by Walls
It's weird. Most characters seem to be much more powerful stat wise yet the Knights seem to hold a special place in the Realms as far as accomplishments. I think more players need to take a look at these guys, what they are, how they are done, and create REAL CHARACTERS instead of just uber optimized multi class "characters" who are just really super stats on paper and nothing else.
While I may not always ejoy the way Ed writes, The Knights were very real to me in text.
While optomization boards make me vomit in my mouth a little I'm a-ok with whoever wants to run that sorta game. I won't be involved (well, I might jump in for a game or two of, IMO, mindless fun but I like video games too *g*) but more power to whoever wants to play that way.
That said, as a DM I invoke the "training clause".
Your free to pick up 2 levels of fighter, 3 levels of cleric, ect ect but if you start out as a fighter then you need to not only have shown a devotion to the god that you want to become a cleric of but you need to find a temple and devote yourself to at least a month of training. Same with rogue, ranger, wizard, ect
It gets even better with PrCs, as you not only have to find someone who can teach you that PrC but you have to convince them to teach YOU that PrC. And then spend the time learning it.
This effectively curbs "dipping" and can provide even more game hooks. (well, I need to travel to X to get my PrC, then find someone to teach me, then convince them to teach me, etc etc) |
| Marquant Volker |
Posted - 05 Apr 2007 : 10:29:30
Nice saying Walls. Another good example are the 3 first books of the Avatar series. Midnight Kelemvor Adon and Cyric are so realistic and "human" however their quest was epic.
|
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 05 Apr 2007 : 03:33:10
quote:
Originally posted by Walls
It's weird. Most characters seem to be much more powerful stat wise yet the Knights seem to hold a special place in the Realms as far as accomplishments. I think more players need to take a look at these guys, what they are, how they are done, and create REAL CHARACTERS instead of just uber optimized multi class "characters" who are just really super stats on paper and nothing else.
While I may not always ejoy the way Ed writes, The Knights were very real to me in text.
I totally agree with everything you just said. |
| Walls |
Posted - 05 Apr 2007 : 02:35:22
It's weird. Most characters seem to be much more powerful stat wise yet the Knights seem to hold a special place in the Realms as far as accomplishments. I think more players need to take a look at these guys, what they are, how they are done, and create REAL CHARACTERS instead of just uber optimized multi class "characters" who are just really super stats on paper and nothing else.
While I may not always ejoy the way Ed writes, The Knights were very real to me in text. |
| SiCK_Boy |
Posted - 05 Apr 2007 : 02:23:15
I might be retarded, but I never found them in the NPC lists from that website...
Anyway, all Knights have quick entrees at the end of the Hero's Lorebook. It's 2nd Edition, first printing may 1996.
Jhessail is a human female, Mage level 9. She has 29 hit points, is 5'9" tall and her alignment is CG. Her stats are STR 13, DEX 14, CON 9, INT 18, WIS 18, CHA 14. Her spells include jump, sleep, spider climb, tenser's floating disc, ESP, miror image, strength, fly, haste, leomund's tiny hut, dimension door, ice storm and feeblemind.
Torm is a human male, Thief level 7. He has 30 hit points and his alignment is CN. His stats are STR 13, DEX 16, CON 11, INT 12, WIS 12 and CHA 15.
Rathan is a human male, Cleric 7. He has 45 hit points, is 6' tall and his alignment is CG. His stats are STR 16, DEX 10, CON 12, INT 15, WIS 17 and CHA 9. His spells include bless, command, cure light wounds, detect magic, detect snares & pits, aid, augury, find traps, hold person, silence 15' radius, create food & water, dispel magic, locate object and cloak of bravery. He's a cleric of Tymora.
I don't know is they have stats for 3.0/3.5 edition, I haven't seen them if they do. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 04 Apr 2007 : 20:29:29
My 1e/2e file has their stats. None of them, except for Dove, have been updated for the new rules. |
| dwarvenranger |
Posted - 04 Apr 2007 : 20:01:48
More than likely, they're stated in the Hero's Lorebook, but like RF said it's 2nd ed. Should give you an idea of their abilities though. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 04 Apr 2007 : 19:57:41
I'm pretty sure there are 2nd edition stats for them, but I don't know about official 3.0/3.5 edition stats. |
|
|
