PDA

View Full Version : The wheel of time DND setting.



Jayngfet
2009-11-27, 07:21 PM
So, back in 02 WOTC unvieled 3.0 rules for playing in Robert Jordans wheel of time universe. I was wondering if there was ever a 3.5 update? If not official was there a fan made 3.5 update? Were rules for playing as Myrrdraal or Shadowspawn printed?

Rad
2009-11-27, 08:03 PM
I remember I saw that rulebook (the 3.0 version) in a shop a few years ago. I am not the biggest fun of Jordan's work but I found it to be absolutely awful, especially where it tried to give you a system to play WoT, which has a lot of hard facts that contradict openly D&D.

I think you'd better homebrew yourself what you need. The biggest point is the magic system since channelling is very different from vancian casting. The "official" sourcebook uses normal wizard casting but IMHO psionics could model it better.
Yes, you'll have to homebrew a bunch of stuff (races, feats, linked channelling, angreal) independently but, as I presume you actually read the books, I think you're going to do a better job by yourself.

Optimystik
2009-11-27, 08:42 PM
3.5 doesn't fit WoT at all. The gulf between channelers and non-channelers is too great. Even an Accepted or a Dedicated can demolish an army of noncasters.

Exalted might work better from what I know of it.

Jayngfet
2009-11-27, 09:25 PM
Given a proper level system it isn't really as bad as first thought. You've got to remember a few things.

1. Training time-Even the most rushed tome to get to Asha'man was several months, and even then they only had a few offensive weaves(granted one was Save or die but still). For an Aes sedai throwing about balefire you have several years of living a hard life as novice or accepted. Wise ones also have a period of being accepted and in general Windfinders learn more "utility" magic.

It strikes me as taking about ten levels just to start using balefire in any amount, hitting more than one opponent or going back more than one round would be like level 12-15

2. Magic items and substances-Ter angrael do any sort of thing. Homebrew a few things and you're golden. Nothing says some sorts of Ter-angrael work for non channelers only.

3. Non channeling abilities- Seeking out violence, dreaming, ta'varen, wolfbrothers, any number of things. Don't tell me getting the occasional bonus to dice rolls or the ability to seek out shadowspawn won't be useful, and a network of talking wolves just as much so.

4. Non channeling skills. You can channel, but does that mean you survive in the Aiel waste day after day? Do you know how to command a sea folk skimmer? How about Seduce like an Ebou Dari? You need a lot more than the power to get by, even if it does help.





In general, you progress faster in nonmagical fighting skills. Rand Al'Thor and co are epic level. Not everyone can conquer the world or be Amerlyn.



Essentially by the time a channeler gets their first angrael the fighter gets a cullendar light weapon.

KillianHawkeye
2009-11-27, 10:06 PM
So, back in 02 WOTC unvieled 3.0 rules for playing in Robert Jordans wheel of time universe. I was wondering if there was ever a 3.5 update? If not official was there a fan made 3.5 update? Were rules for playing as Myrrdraal or Shadowspawn printed?

It was not actually a D&D setting, but rather, a d20 System RPG on its own. Thus, it is not at all meant to be mixed with D&D, nor was it updated when D&D was. In fact, there was almost nothing released for it after the main book came out. There was an adventure book which was pretty decent, and I think some articles in a magazine. That's it.

As for Myrrdraal, I'm sure there were stats for fighting it, but it's not meant for use as a player.

GoatToucher
2009-11-28, 07:48 PM
The problem with that game is the fluff. Aes sedai have been the defacto rulers of the world for centuries, and every common man, woman and child is indoctrinated into accepting them as infallible. Every PC, bar none, is meant to obey any aes sedai without question, and if they don't, huge social problems. Similarly, it is illegal to be a male channeler, and everyone would fear you and report you to the aes sedai, who would make it an immediate priority to find and kill you.

Channelers are not only problematically higher on the power scale than non channelers, but the females are higher socially as well. No feats. You just hit seventh level and bang: Everybody obeys (supposedly).

The game was pretty lousy, and the books don't really lend themselves to an RPG system, being centered around an omnipotent Gary Stu as they are.

sombrastewart
2009-11-28, 09:19 PM
The problem with that game is the fluff. Aes sedai have been the defacto rulers of the world for centuries, and every common man, woman and child is indoctrinated into accepting them as infallible. Every PC, bar none, is meant to obey any aes sedai without question, and if they don't, huge social problems. Similarly, it is illegal to be a male channeler, and everyone would fear you and report you to the aes sedai, who would make it an immediate priority to find and kill you.

No one accepts them as infallible. If anything, everyone absolutely distrusts you because they never believe you're telling the truth, even though Aes Sedai are bound to do so.

As for the male channeler, that's only if anyone finds out. It's not exactly easy to do. I didn't say it was HARD if you know what to look for, just not easy.

Sanguine
2009-11-28, 09:20 PM
Given a proper level system it isn't really as bad as first thought. You've got to remember a few things.

1. Training time-Even the most rushed tome to get to Asha'man was several months, and even then they only had a few offensive weaves(granted one was Save or die but still). For an Aes sedai throwing about balefire you have several years of living a hard life as novice or accepted. Wise ones also have a period of being accepted and in general Windfinders learn more "utility" magic.

It strikes me as taking about ten levels just to start using balefire in any amount, hitting more than one opponent or going back more than one round would be like level 12-15

2. Magic items and substances-Ter angrael do any sort of thing. Homebrew a few things and you're golden. Nothing says some sorts of Ter-angrael work for non channelers only.

3. Non channeling abilities- Seeking out violence, dreaming, ta'varen, wolfbrothers, any number of things. Don't tell me getting the occasional bonus to dice rolls or the ability to seek out shadowspawn won't be useful, and a network of talking wolves just as much so.

4. Non channeling skills. You can channel, but does that mean you survive in the Aiel waste day after day? Do you know how to command a sea folk skimmer? How about Seduce like an Ebou Dari? You need a lot more than the power to get by, even if it does help.





In general, you progress faster in nonmagical fighting skills. Rand Al'Thor and co are epic level. Not everyone can conquer the world or be Amerlyn.



Essentially by the time a channeler gets their first angrael the fighter gets a cullendar light weapon.

I like this, unfortunately Rand and co according to the game are only level 16(And Rand has a horrible Gish build and can only use much of his key things because they gave it to him for free for being ta'veren). The game I did not like at all from what I saw. And the varous channeling prcs don't mention proggressing channeling.

AshDesert
2009-11-28, 09:59 PM
3.5 doesn't fit WoT at all. The gulf between channelers and non-channelers is too great. Even an Accepted or a Dedicated can demolish an army of noncasters.

Exalted might work better from what I know of it.

Who'd a thunk that you could actually find a setting in which the gap between casters and non-casters was too SMALL in D&D 3.5.

As for trying to adapt WoT to 3.5, if you really wanted to try, I'd suggest using Psionics for the Aes Sedai. It is closer to channeling than Vancian casting (albeit it's not perfect, but it's about as close as you can get in 3.5). Add in some sort of Taint or Insanity system for male channelers.

BloodyAngel
2009-11-28, 10:02 PM
I'm not a huge fan of the books, but I did have the joy of sitting and playing this game with friends, two of whom are big fans of the book.

... I'm kidding, there was no joy. The system is crudely set up. It's just the wheel of time fluff stapled to a random d20 system. Channeling was at once absurd AND nerfed from the books, from what I hear, and the classes are pretty terrible. I made the mistake of playing the game's version of a rogue the first time, only to find out that they get no real sneak attack to speak of, so I was terrible in a fight... and that even skill wise, the party's Aiel was superior to me at many of the skills I'd chosen to specialize in because of some crap about adding his level to his stealth skills on top of his ranks and ability mod. He fought way better too. And when my rogue died an ignoble death and I made an "armsman"... aka the setting's fighters... he STILL fought better than I did! And I am no slouch at optimizing either.

The culture of the books is great if you like them, but I couldn't get into it, or why I was supposed to be impressed by all these big important people that we kept seeing. Perhaps my DM was too hung up on the story of the books and wanted to have the characters we played be a part of it... but it felt like bad fanfic to me. The players were good... the DM's a friend of mine and I love her... but I could NOT get into that game. If you're a fan of the books and you want to imagine yourselves alongside the characters you love from it... cool. Otherwise, you're just playing a 3.0 game in a slightly different setting with MUCH worse rules. And who decided deleting things from time was an acceptable power? Sounds like a DM headache to me.

Anywho... if you're a fan, and your players are fans... play Wheel of time and have fun. But homebrew it... because the d20 version is pretty terrible.

averagejoe
2009-11-28, 10:08 PM
It seems like, setting wise, WoT is temporally expansive enough to be played without bumping all up in the main character's grills; maybe it's just me who gets bugged by that in my RPG's, though.

I haven't been a fan of the books for a long time, but I find the setting's conversion to the d20 system to be potentially fascinating. It would be a lot of work to homebrew well, though, and one would probably have to reexamine a lot of the DnD assumptions.

Jayngfet
2009-11-28, 11:35 PM
No one accepts them as infallible. If anything, everyone absolutely distrusts you because they never believe you're telling the truth, even though Aes Sedai are bound to do so.

As for the male channeler, that's only if anyone finds out. It's not exactly easy to do. I didn't say it was HARD if you know what to look for, just not easy.

Yes, Aes sedai are rare(less than a thousand worldwide and several never leave the tower). As for the ones seen, no one trusts them. They get suspected OF EVERY WORD THEY SAY.

As well, wisdom and int aren't exactly casting stats if you know what I'm saying. The white tower teaches many things, basic skills in survival in any setting at all are not among these things. Until you wear the shawl you aren't allowed near the horses, or able to make your own decisions.

From descriptions you barely know how to cook much or clean very well, and not anything else at all. An Aes Sedai expects people to do things for them because they need other people. Who else knows how to actually do something? Game wise they have next to no skill points and in some skills they may suffer penalties(I can see having like -10 to diplomacy for anyone save a grey ajah variant. Not to mention ride penalties.)


So, weak hit dice(d4 or perhaps d3, hell d2 wouldn't surprise me). Penalties in skills used most often in a fantasy world, less than half a dozen class skills, so few skill points you won't be good at all of those, and oaths making it difficult for you. Remember you begin to die if you begin acting against oaths, even if they contradict each other, and don't forget no weapon or armor proficiency.

If you give them a max number of weaves known per level and weaves per day this could work. Especially if you give them other features at much later levels(balefire x/day is near endgame)


Meanwhile on the opposite end lets look at a melee class. High hitdice(d12?) lots of skillpoints and class skills, a bonus feat every level, gaining other class skills much quicker. If you homebrew up fancy variant rules for weapons(saw toothed edge for +x damage -x accuracy maybe), you can optimize a fighter nicely. Grab a bit of heartstone and even balefire isn't one shot one kill.




In general emphasize some of channelings flaws. Healing makes you eat several times more for 1d20 days.Instead of failing and fizzling a botched weave can destroy everything in a respectable radius, even the caster.

HamHam
2009-11-29, 12:12 AM
I found the d20 system decent enough. It actually uses a pseudo-Vancian system, somewhat in between normal casting and Psionics. You still have spell levels and spells per day, but the level of a spell is dynamic based on how powerful an effect you are creating, kind of like augmenting. So like making a wall of air that is 5x5 would be like a 2nd level spell slot but a 10x10 one would be a 3rd level slot and so forth. Also, it gets modified based on what Talents and Affinities you have. And you can Overchannel to use a slot as though it was higher level.

Pretty interesting system actually. The caster/non-caster gap is huge though but this is actually kind of accurate to the books. On the other hand, there aren't really any defensive buff weaves (which is also accurate) so a sniper with a crossbow can totally take out a channeler, at least at low levels before everyone gets lots of HP.

If I was going to run WoT again though, I would replace the Armsman with Warblade. I think the ToB maneuver system fits the way sword fighting is presented in the books very well. Just rename the maneuvers to like "Crane Wading through the Willows" and "Bull Rushes Down the Mountain" and you are good to go.

I also found a lot of fan-created expansions available online, not sure if you can still find them though.

Geddoe
2009-11-29, 12:16 AM
It seems to me that channeling would be better represented as an UA bloodline of varying strengths, to represent different potentials with the Power from least(Morgase) to weak(Sorilea) to average(most) to strong(Sheriam, Moiraine) to great(Elayne, Egwene) to greatest(Nynaeve, Lanfear or Rand), rather than a class system anyway. Generally the Aes Sedai are basically attempting to be diplomancers who happen to have a bloodline ability(through learning to use it or naturally) rather than mages or wizards as known in D&D.

BobVosh
2009-11-29, 12:32 AM
Two classes I liked from the system.
Wolfbrother and blademaster.
If you go one level ranger, you can go into wolfbrother at second level for like 2-3 D6 sanity. Fun class.

I really like the crit abilities of blademaster, also it has a standard action whirlwind. Charging and then whirlwind is fun.

The system kinda breaks down at level 10ish. The creatures in the game seem to assume you never break past level 10.

The biggest use for balefire we had was body disposal. The best offense spell is one that did damage, save for half. You always fell down from it though.

Thats pretty much what I remember from playing it.

Also: the casters in my party never made a tied off harden air hockey table for me :( I wanted a rec room.

Jayngfet
2009-11-29, 12:41 AM
It seems to me that channeling would be better represented as an UA bloodline of varying strengths, to represent different potentials with the Power from least(Morgase) to weak(Sorilea) to average(most) to strong(Sheriam, Moiraine) to great(Elayne, Egwene) to greatest(Nynaeve, Lanfear or Rand), rather than a class system anyway. Generally the Aes Sedai are basically attempting to be diplomancers who happen to have a bloodline ability(through learning to use it or naturally) rather than mages or wizards as known in D&D.

So would you on character creation roll some sort of dice? As in roll 1d20, that number is your strength in the power, allowing you to use certain weaves that are higher up.

Geddoe
2009-11-29, 12:53 AM
So would you on character creation roll some sort of dice? As in roll 1d20, that number is your strength in the power, allowing you to use certain weaves that are higher up.

Well, that is one way to do it, say:
1-10 no channeling
11-13 least
14-15 weak
16-17 average OP power
18 Strong
19 Great
20 Greatest

If your group is mature you could just let them pick their strength in the OP on the basis that higher OP potential means a larger level adjustment. So a person with greatest potential could end up with say a max of 15 class levels pre-epic rather than 20. 16 levels for great and so on. And not all the LA is at first level, but you acquire more as you level.

Jayngfet
2009-11-29, 07:10 PM
Well, that is one way to do it, say:
1-10 no channeling
11-13 least
14-15 weak
16-17 average OP power
18 Strong
19 Great
20 Greatest

If your group is mature you could just let them pick their strength in the OP on the basis that higher OP potential means a larger level adjustment. So a person with greatest potential could end up with say a max of 15 class levels pre-epic rather than 20. 16 levels for great and so on. And not all the LA is at first level, but you acquire more as you level.

So if you take a channeler class it's like instead of leveling until you get to the proper level you just buyoff it? I can see that working.

Tackyhillbillu
2009-11-29, 08:10 PM
I found the WoT D20 system to be a rather large dissapointment. If you are going to try homebrewing a system, remember, Male Channelers are usually stronger then female, but pay a price in that they are constantly at risk of going mad.

As well, make a Gleeman Prestige or base class that doesn't suck, please? That was easily the single greatest fact that made me put down the books.

Sanguine
2009-11-29, 08:25 PM
I found the WoT D20 system to be a rather large dissapointment. If you are going to try homebrewing a system, remember, Male Channelers are usually stronger then female, but pay a price in that they are constantly at risk of going mad.

I personally wouldn't bother with the Male Increase in power as Asmodean compared it to the difference in physical Strength between men and women and that never gets touched in roleplaying games. Of course it still would be cool the other way but setting the game after Book 10(ish) would have Balance problems or canon problems.

Tackyhillbillu
2009-11-29, 08:42 PM
I personally wouldn't bother with the Male Increase in power as Asmodean compared it to the difference in physical Strength between men and women and that never gets touched in roleplaying games. Of course it still would be cool the other way but setting the game after Book 10(ish) would have Balance problems or canon problems.

Ehhh, it doesn't get touched in RPing games because the designers don't want to be seen as discriminating against female PC's.

Madness should balence it out. In my ideal WoT system, every weave cast by a Male Chaneller would risk sending him closer to madness.

Geddoe
2009-11-29, 09:12 PM
So if you take a channeler class it's like instead of leveling until you get to the proper level you just buyoff it? I can see that working.

No, there is no channeler class at all. You progress in one of the other classes presented, and you have a level adjustment that goes up since you gain more power as you level.

Elayne for example, would be a Noble with a Great channeling bloodline since she is stronger than just about any Aes Sedai in living memory. She starts off a level 1 noble, but when the rest of her group goes up a level she instead gains a channeling potential to use the power. The rest of the party is level 2, while Elayne is level 1 with minor channeling ability. Then when the rest of the party is level 5 and going up, instead of gaining going to level 6, she is instead a level 4 noble with 2 level adjustment. And so on ever at 11 and 16.

Problem is that it still isn't perfect, since in theory your channeler should be able to just gain more LA according to potential without ever leveling in a class, but the One Power is so powerful that anybody would be willing to attempt to get the powerful weaves at the cost a crippling level adjustment. So that say when the rest of the party is level 6, you are a level 1 Wanderer that happens to have maxed out channeling. The power is so strong in the setting, that a level 1 with maxed out channeling should demolish other level 6 characters unless the channeler is so exhausted they can't grab the Source.

Obviously, actual book characters don't really care about LA.

Jayngfet
2009-11-29, 11:54 PM
No, there is no channeler class at all. You progress in one of the other classes presented, and you have a level adjustment that goes up since you gain more power as you level.

Elayne for example, would be a Noble with a Great channeling bloodline since she is stronger than just about any Aes Sedai in living memory. She starts off a level 1 noble, but when the rest of her group goes up a level she instead gains a channeling potential to use the power. The rest of the party is level 2, while Elayne is level 1 with minor channeling ability. Then when the rest of the party is level 5 and going up, instead of gaining going to level 6, she is instead a level 4 noble with 2 level adjustment. And so on ever at 11 and 16.

Problem is that it still isn't perfect, since in theory your channeler should be able to just gain more LA according to potential without ever leveling in a class, but the One Power is so powerful that anybody would be willing to attempt to get the powerful weaves at the cost a crippling level adjustment. So that say when the rest of the party is level 6, you are a level 1 Wanderer that happens to have maxed out channeling. The power is so strong in the setting, that a level 1 with maxed out channeling should demolish other level 6 characters unless the channeler is so exhausted they can't grab the Source.

Obviously, actual book characters don't really care about LA.

Not perfect but lets think about this for a bit. What about actual class abilities? There needs to be things so amazing it has to be even. Aiel warriors likley get weapon focus in anything that isn't sword for free at level one, at level two they start getting unarmed strikes like a monk(the books say Aiel know kung fu, so does Rand but it never comes up). Pile on abilities described, Aiel are supposedly able to hide in areas you'd never think you'd trip over so hide bonuses.

Remember this is the things Aiel warriors do, wise ones never slog it out in combat.

If there's no channeling class what about base classes. Lets try to figure this out:

Farmer(or other labor based): High skill based, you know how to tend animals, ride horses, track game, spot targets at two hundred feet(just going off two rivers farmers). Not to mention proficiency in slaves and bows(not to mention other things based on backround like scythes, picks, axes, hammers). We may as well re do damage and range for weapons since in book bowmen can hit at two hundred feet without much difficulty using a longbow. Essentially lightly armored skill monkies.

Wetlands soldier: More in line with fighters, heavily armored with better weapon proficiency and hit dice. Grab your sword and shield and hack things up all day, or get a mount and lance and take to horseback. I'm thinking bonus feats every level and double bonus feats every third level, with perhaps a bit of bonus damage added(+1 damage to all numbers at level x, +2 two levels later)

Aiel Warrior: Stealthy and resourceful are the keys here. These are the ones that can sneak through near barren terrain in heat that would make an ordinary man pass out unaided, hide in a two foot deep hole flawlessly, and chuck a spear or fire a shortbow and slay the man they're looking for(or else kill him unarmed if they somehow loose weapons). Lots of skill points, bonuses to survival, hide, and move silently.

HamHam
2009-11-30, 01:11 AM
I really think taking the actual WoT d20 system and fixing it to the point were it plays smoothly for whatever mechanical balancing point you want it to be at would be easier than trying to develop the whole system from scratch or homebrewing something from 3.5 that would feel like WoT.

sofawall
2009-11-30, 01:16 AM
I found the WoT D20 system to be a rather large dissapointment. If you are going to try homebrewing a system, remember, Male Channelers are usually stronger then female, but pay a price in that they are constantly at risk of going mad.

As well, make a Gleeman Prestige or base class that doesn't suck, please? That was easily the single greatest fact that made me put down the books.

Male Channelers are stronger, but females have more precise control over their weaves.

How to model that in a game, other than making them equal, I have no idea.

Geddoe
2009-11-30, 02:03 AM
snip for space

Classwise, I could see a few options.

An updated wanderer/rogue. Basically can cover characters like Thom or Mat. They have a focus on many skills(Thom can juggle, tumble, play harp and flute, assassinate kings and play games with diplomacy) and adaptability to most situations. They can mix and match a few combat tricks or focus on skills.

A noble class, which is basically all about diplomacy and social skills.

A light-medium armored warrior. Basically like a Warblade, with mundane maneuvers. Moderate skills.

Maybe a heavy armored warrior(though nobody in the books seems like that would be used).

Most everybody else would just be a npc class like commoner, expert, warrior or aristocrat. In fact I'm not even sure that noble needs to be there, it could just be a skill and social focused wanderer or whatever it is called.

Optimystik
2009-11-30, 02:15 AM
Who'd a thunk that you could actually find a setting in which the gap between casters and non-casters was too SMALL in D&D 3.5.

I didn't say it was too small - quite the opposite. But in case you were being sarcastic, the gap between casters and noncasters in WoT is far greater than anything in D&D. In WoT, there's no such thing as spell resistance, unless you're Mat Cauthon or a gholam anyway. The closest to antimagic are the Steddings (plus that thing in Far Madding) and even those are imperfect thanks to Wells. Sure, channelers start off barely able to light a candle (unless they get mad, or scared - not likely to happen in combat, right?) but how long before they can just wrap you up in Fire? Bind and gag you with air? Throw everything at you that isn't nailed down? Shake the house down around your ears? And how much of what they do even has a saving throw?

You can't restrain them without another channeler (or forkroot tea) handy either. No component pouch to take away, no gestures to restrict with rope, no magic words to block with a gag. It's like tying up a psion - all you end up with is an angry psion.

Lets get into harder stuff. Most channelers can split weaves - few more than twice (it gets exponentially more difficult, after all) but even doing it once is Twin Spell for free, or Schism without the level difference. Just about every channeler can tie weaves off - that's free Persist, or Extend if they tie loosely. Any adaptation to d20 will either result in them stupidly broken or horribly nerfed.

It's the classic Jedi dilemma - any game with Jedi as an option might as well not let players be anyone else, because they can manhandle anyone else with ease. At least Star Wars has guns and bombs. WoT has bows (great as long as the channeler doesn't know you're there) and... other channelers. Even the Seanchan, hating channelers as much as they do, realized they'd damn well better get some of their own, and quick.

The_Snark
2009-11-30, 02:29 AM
Er, the current d20 version has its flaws, but I don't see the imbalance between channelers and non-channelers as being a problem. That's present in the books as well; the non-channeling characters are skilled, but nobody has any doubt that your average Aes Sedai or Asha'man would trounce Lan or Perrin in any situation but a surprise attack.

Now, this is not necessarily good material for a game... but it's based on the books; presumably, most of the people playing this game will have read them. They know perfectly well that channelers are going to operate on a different level than non-channelers, and if they're choosing to play non-channelers in a mixed group, they should be okay with this. The power imbalance is a convention of the setting, and the game is sticking with it, for better or worse.

Now, you could argue "but most of the other classes are boring as hell!", and I would be forced to admit you are right. They are. They're like early 3.0 classes stripped of any interesting features: a rogue without sneak attack, a ranger who doesn't get spells or an animal companion or the better stealth abilities, a bard who progresses beyond Inspire Courage 1/day and Inspire Competence... That is a flaw that could be remedied, so that non-channelers get cool things even if they're less powerful.

You could also argue that D&D's convention of making characters able to shrug off arrows and swords because they have high hit points is bad for the setting, especially since the one real weakness channelers have is that they die just like anyone else if you catch them by surprise. If you can't actually kill them, that weakness is pretty much meaningless. Geddoe's level adjustment mechanic could work here if you only want to apply it to channelers (it also forces them to pay attention to their own safety in a fight first), or you could try using the vitality/wound point (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/vitalityAndWoundPoints.htm) system and allowing surprise attacks to deal wound damage, if you don't mind a somewhat more deadly game for everybody.


It's the classic Jedi dilemma - any game with Jedi as an option might as well not let players be anyone else, because they can manhandle anyone else with ease. At least Star Wars has guns and bombs. WoT has bows (great as long as the channeler doesn't know you're there) and... other channelers. Even the Seanchan, hating channelers as much as they do, realized they'd damn well better get some of their own, and quick.

... now you've got me thinking about adapting the Saga system, which does a pretty reasonable job of making both character seem cool. The basic system they use for the Force would work well for channeling (almost better than it does for the Force, really), and talent trees are a good way of giving people options without pigeonholing them into a single archetype...

Kzickas
2009-11-30, 02:41 AM
I didn't say it was too small - quite the opposite. But in case you were being sarcastic, the gap between casters and noncasters in WoT is far greater than anything in D&D. In WoT, there's no such thing as spell resistance, unless you're Mat Cauthon or a gholam anyway. The closest to antimagic are the Steddings (plus that thing in Far Madding) and even those are imperfect thanks to Wells. Sure, channelers start off barely able to light a candle (unless they get mad, or scared - not likely to happen in combat, right?) but how long before they can just wrap you up in Fire? Bind and gag you with air? Throw everything at you that isn't nailed down? Shake the house down around your ears? And how much of what they do even has a saving throw?

You can't restrain them without another channeler (or forkroot tea) handy either. No component pouch to take away, no gestures to restrict with rope, no magic words to block with a gag. It's like tying up a psion - all you end up with is an angry psion.

Lets get into harder stuff. Most channelers can split weaves - few more than twice (it gets exponentially more difficult, after all) but even doing it once is Twin Spell for free, or Schism without the level difference. Just about every channeler can tie weaves off - that's free Persist, or Extend if they tie loosely. Any adaptation to d20 will either result in them stupidly broken or horribly nerfed.

It's the classic Jedi dilemma - any game with Jedi as an option might as well not let players be anyone else, because they can manhandle anyone else with ease. At least Star Wars has guns and bombs. WoT has bows (great as long as the channeler doesn't know you're there) and... other channelers. Even the Seanchan, hating channelers as much as they do, realized they'd damn well better get some of their own, and quick.

While channelers do have many advantages over D&D wizards they also have several weaknesses that wizards lack including a much more limited spell list, including almost no buffs of any kind, the fact that it's carried around by the channelers 10-15 hitpoints bum (one of tthe things I hated about the RPG was the unrealisticly high hp everyone has) and the fact that getting hit in combat doesn't just mean you risk losing your spell but risks you losing the ability to cast for an exstended period of time.

KillianHawkeye
2009-11-30, 02:47 AM
I didn't say it was too small - quite the opposite. But in case you were being sarcastic, the gap between casters and noncasters in WoT is far greater than anything in D&D.

He's not, you just misread him. He said the gap is too small IN D&D to accurately represent WoT.

averagejoe
2009-11-30, 02:55 AM
Male Channelers are stronger, but females have more precise control over their weaves.

How to model that in a game, other than making them equal, I have no idea.

Not a strictly necessary thing to do; however one would model this, it doesn't seem like one can do anything but make it a mechanical encumbrance with little benefit besides strictly interpreting the setting. One can say, in general, male characters are stronger, and females have more control (again, however one represents this), but that controlled males and strong females exist, and if you chose to do this then your character is just one of the statistical outliers.

That aside, in general trying to strictly model a setting not created to be a game creates too many mechanical encumbrances to little benefit. One doesn't need to track every +1 created because these people were stated in the book to be better at such and such than those people, or what have you. Often this can be adequately represented by just saying, "More of these people are better at such and such," making the mechanical representations only if it comes up. It just tends to be sexier that way.

Gosh, I'm longwinded tonight.

HamHam
2009-11-30, 03:21 AM
You could also argue that D&D's convention of making characters able to shrug off arrows and swords because they have high hit points is bad for the setting, especially since the one real weakness channelers have is that they die just like anyone else if you catch them by surprise. If you can't actually kill them, that weakness is pretty much meaningless.

This I think is important. Wheel of Time is better suited to a more lethal system than the normal HP system. You should change it to a VP/WP system at the very least, if not something even more lethal.

Holocron Coder
2009-11-30, 10:43 AM
In the series, it's explicitly mentioned that Male channelers are better at earth and fire, while female channelers are better at water and air weaves (with both being equally good at spirit).

Perhaps a simple way to do this is a simple +/- 2 for each weave element that the channeler is proficient with (assuming that its done with a single skill check).

Male channeler channeling a weave with Water, Fire, Earth = base ranks -2 +2 +2 vs DC 10+2*weave level

Alternately, if u one does what I have in mind and split each into a separate skill (and giving channelers 2/4+int skills), then possible make the skill bonus/penalty slightly more extreme (+/- 4/5) and each weave requires multiple checks, each with a rating on how important it is the weave (Minor = -4, Norm = +0, Major = +4). Potentially, each weave could have a failure for each failed skill check (i.e. Fail (Fire) = -2 dmg/level, Fail (Earth) = -4 to attack, Fail (All) = damage dealt to self and all allies in range 1)

Female channeler channeling the same weave with Water Major, Fire Minor, Earth Norm
Earth weave = base ranks - 4 vs DC 10 + 2 * weave level
Fire weave = base ranks - 4 vs DC 10 + 2 * weave level - 4
Water weave = base ranks + 4 vs DC 10 + 2 * weave level + 4

The latter is more complicated, obviously, but also more customizable and potentially closer to the source material.

Natael
2009-11-30, 10:45 AM
Pimping out GURPS again, I see this as fairly easy to represent using said system. It is lethal, and already has various rules for dynamic spell casting, or just using cosmic modular ability, maybe with some various restrictions based on what you can do. Yes, you'd have to design the magic/channeling system, but GURPS has a lot of resources to do so, maybe find some adaptation of Mage: The Ascention/Awakening for a more free form feel.

Once you have that figured, template out some basic professions (Gleeman, Aes Sedai, Ashaman). Then give out points based on what you want people to be able to do.

Optimystik
2009-11-30, 11:52 AM
Yes, Aes sedai are rare(less than a thousand worldwide and several never leave the tower). As for the ones seen, no one trusts them. They get suspected OF EVERY WORD THEY SAY.

Aes Sedai are, but as the later books have shown, channelers are not. Between Windfinders, Wise Ones, Kin, Wilders, and Damane, there are close to if not in excess of 1000 female channelers in the setting. And that isn't counting all of their apprentices/trainees.


As well, wisdom and int aren't exactly casting stats if you know what I'm saying. The white tower teaches many things, basic skills in survival in any setting at all are not among these things. Until you wear the shawl you aren't allowed near the horses, or able to make your own decisions.

From descriptions you barely know how to cook much or clean very well, and not anything else at all. An Aes Sedai expects people to do things for them because they need other people. Who else knows how to actually do something? Game wise they have next to no skill points and in some skills they may suffer penalties(I can see having like -10 to diplomacy for anyone save a grey ajah variant. Not to mention ride penalties.)[/QUOTE]

Survival outdoors is very much part of the Aes Sedai education. Remember that the girls whose POV we are given does not account for actual AS training; Moiraine's POV in New Spring is much more indicative of the Tower's technique. She has weaves that can attract animals for food (fish-catching incident with Perrin, honeybees with Lan etc.), can keep herself and her belongings clean and rations preserved, waterproof everything in sight or instantly dry it, insulate against heat and cold using hardened air (or make a fire, or just plain ignore both) and set wards that are nearly impossible to detect even without inversion.

As for Diplomacy; Aes Sedai are masters of politics - giving them a diplomacy penalty doesn't make sense. As Thom remarked "Aes Sedai invented the Great Game." The Gray aren't the best either (that would be the Blues - most extensive spy network and all that) but all of them, even the Browns - can tapdance around nobility whenever they please.


If you give them a max number of weaves known per level and weaves per day this could work. Especially if you give them other features at much later levels(balefire x/day is near endgame)

But that's the problem - even the elementary weaves are game breaking. Wrap someone in Fire - they're toast, no save. Wrap someone in Air - they're helpless, no save. All within an Accepted's capability.


Grab a bit of heartstone and even balefire isn't one shot one kill.

Unless you plan on encasing yourself in it (and keep in mind that even a tiny bit of heartstone is PROHIBITIVELY expensive - a piece of heartstone china was described as "a king's ransom") that won't do much good.


In general emphasize some of channelings flaws. Healing makes you eat several times more for 1d20 days.Instead of failing and fizzling a botched weave can destroy everything in a respectable radius, even the caster.

Those flaws simply don't come up often enough to close the gap, unless the channeler is grossly incompetent or insanely reckless. Though both have been applied to Elayne and co. many times, they aren't representative of formally trained Accepted.

And for goodness sake people, the balancing factor between males and females is NOT the madness. Males have always been stronger, even before the Taint on Saidin. The balancing factor is that females can link (i.e. circle magic) but men can't.

Aron Times
2009-11-30, 12:12 PM
I was thinking of running a game using Wheel of Time fluff but D&D 4e crunch. In a game set in the Third Age, channelers would be Arcane characters while exceptional nonchannelers (Blademasters, Warders, Algai'd'siswai) would be Martial characters. Heroic tier implements would be angreal, paragon tier ones sa'angreal, and epic ones the Choedan Kal.

Anyone interested in such a game?

Tackyhillbillu
2009-11-30, 01:20 PM
I might. Have to figure how to make a Gleeman under that system. Bard (while obvious) does not seem right.

Emmerask
2009-11-30, 01:45 PM
I might. Have to figure how to make a Gleeman under that system. Bard (while obvious) does not seem right.

Something with lots of skill points (for all the perform and knowledge skills) hmm Rogue with alternate class feature (feats instead of sneak attacks) might work not perfect but canīt think of another class atm complete scoundrel uncanny trickster prc might work too.

Tackyhillbillu
2009-11-30, 01:48 PM
Something with lots of skill points (for all the perform and knowledge skills) hmm Rogue with alternate class feature (feats instead of sneak attacks) might work not perfect but canīt think of another class atm complete scoundrel uncanny trickster prc might work too.

And that would be 3.5. He said 4e. 3.5, it would be easy. 4th is much more difficult.

Aron Times
2009-11-30, 02:11 PM
Your typical gleeman is a noncombatant NPC, and wouldn't have any stats. Besides, Thom is not your typical gleeman - He singlehandedly assassinated the king of Cairhien and plunged that nation into civil war, and he even went toe-to-toe with a Myrdraal.

Furthermore, the power level differences between channelers and nonchannelers can be explained by the full-fledged channeler starting at paragon tier. Accepted and Dedicated are heroic tier characters, while full Aes Sedai and Asha'man are paragon tier characters. Rand and his allies and the Forsaken are epic-level characters.

I'm thinking of handling linking as granting bonuses to attack and damage rolls. Each channeler in a circle grants a +1 attack bonus and a +2 damage bonus per tier to the leader's attacks, and perhaps the leader can use any member's powers.

This is powerful enough to be worthwhile without making unlinked channelers obsolete. In several occasions in the books, channelers chose not to link so that each individual could target a different opponent, or used small circles that gave a good balance of power and versatility, e.g. in the final battle of Winter's Heart, the good guys formed several small circles to protect Rand and Nynaeve while they were casting the Cleanse Saidin ritual. Basically, linking sacrifices actions for more power.

Also, linking can be used in rituals. The maximum number of participants in a female-only circle is 13, one of which is the ritual caster and the other 12 being assistants using the Aid Another action. Adding male channelers would increase the maximum size of the circle, the formula in a book I'm too lazy to dig up.

What do you think?

Tackyhillbillu
2009-11-30, 02:24 PM
Your typical gleeman is a noncombatant NPC, and wouldn't have any stats. Besides, Thom is not your typical gleeman - He singlehandedly assassinated the king of Cairhien and plunged that nation into civil war, and he even went toe-to-toe with a Myrdraal.

Thom is definitely not a typical Gleeman. He would probably be at least paragon tier, and I wouldn't be trying to emulate him to closely.

I'd still be interested in putting together a Heroic character in that vein, because I've always been fond of Bard characters, probably because one of my earliest fantasy experiences was the Chronicles of Prydain.

Master_Rahl22
2009-12-01, 11:43 AM
I think that's an excellent way to handle things, Joseph Silver. I would play in that game. :)

Aron Times
2009-12-01, 07:21 PM
Okay, just found the rules for linking, courtesy of the Wheel of Time Wiki:


If a man and a women link the man leads.
If a man and more than one women link any can lead.
Men cannot link without a women.
Circles of linked channelers are limited to 13 if there are only women involved.
Each man increases the number that can be part of the circle.
The maximum number of channelers linked in a circle is 72(with a minimum of 6 men involved).

So that's one person that's interested. Anyone else?