Some Notes Regarding Variants/Prestiges

[Grakor456]

If there was any question as to why I loathed the prestige system, this provides one of my biggest pet peeves with regards to how these classes are treated: people accept concepts blindly and create fanon for these things that aren't even close to the canon that was established in the d20.

1. Felsworn was not a Warlock prestige in the original material. It was designed for Warriors, providing them with mutations that amplified their close combat ability. Warlocks wouldn't want it because it didn't advance spell-casting progression. (The closest approximation, in Dungeons and Dragons terms, is the Dragon Disciple. Yes, Sorcerer opens the prestige up, but it's useless for them. You dip one level of Sorc/Bard to get the DD awesome and then stack melee.)

2. Shadow Ascendant was not a Priest prestige in the original material. It was designed for Rogues, essentially turning them into incorporeal assassins. There was a strong religious component to it lore-wise, but the benefits didn't really help Priests at all, and the prestige didn't advance spell-casting at all.

3. Bonecrusher did not increase the character's size in the original material. There was a gain in muscle mass, but never height. Bonecrusher was simply a warrior that got really, really strong and tough, that could then fight with fists/two-handers and a loincloth. There WAS a prestige that could result in a size category increase, but it wasn't Bonecrusher...ironically, it was Felsworn.

Keep in mind that a lot of the titles in the d20 were for ease of referencing specific ideas, and aren't necessarily IC. "Bonecrusher" is never used anywhere but in the d20, and just refers to the general idea of a Warrior getting huge muscles. We allow the titles to be used in profiles for general ease-of-use, but let's try to keep their use to a minimum unless they're used in the main games, please.

Okay, I'm done.

[flammos200]

I approve of this reminder. Greatly.

...Also, I could totally go Eldritch Knight / Red Dragon Disciple with my Sorc as multiclass. And Bard/RDD can be awesome in melee.

[Harmonic]

Bare hands and loincloth, you say?

Hmm. Gladiator looks to be less fun now.

Edit: I didn't miss the point. Promise!

[Beltharean]

2. Shadow Ascendant was not a Priest prestige in the original material. It was designed for Rogues, essentially turning them into incorporeal assassins. There was a strong religious component to it lore-wise, but the benefits didn't really help Priests at all, and the prestige didn't advance spell-casting at all.

I think you're mistaking Shadow Ascendants for Light Slayers.

Shadow ascendants, obviously, are universally Forsaken. Ascendants come from all walks of life, but most are priests (though the occasional warrior or rogue may find ascension in the Forgotten Shadow).

Rather, as far as shadow ascendants are concerned, I'd like to point out that for some reason they weren't restricted to just Forsaken. That always irked me, as did the other two 'classes' you pointed out.

[Grakor456]

Nope, there's no mistake. That's a case of WoW-Wiki being wrong. If you actually look at the rules for Shadow Ascendants, the benefits for that class are utter crap for Priests.

[Beltharean]

I hate not having the books on this computer, because now my curiosity is piqued... Without access though, I'll have to go the benefit of the doubt route. That's interesting though. I wonder what other Prestiges there are that I've overlooked that sort of thing on.

[Grakor456]

Kretol just mentioned to me that the line was pulled from the book, though the point still stands: Shadow Ascendant doesn't advance casting progression, so no actual Priest would want it. It could, at best, make you some bizarre hybrid (in the way you COULD take Fel-sworn with Warlock, it was just really suboptimal.) I'll have to look over the class again, since I don't have the books handy, but I distinctly remember Ascendant not giving spellcasting progression.

Edit: I'll look it up and return to this, just to be sure.

[Grakor456]

Double-post, but to draw attention to the confirmation after looking at the book:

The description for the SA mentions Priests, but that is likely for flavor reasons. The class itself doesn't require any knowledge of divine magic and provides no spell-casting progression. It DOES require Forsaken as a race (and, in fact, requires three ranks in the Forsaken racial class, AND the cannibalize ability. There's no way a non-Forsaken could enter it.) The rule descriptions themselves describe the prestige as an extension of the Forsaken racial class (page 64, under the special requirements.)

It literally has no value for Priests as it is written.

[McKnighter]

I have a sliiight problem regarding the Shadow Ascendant/Fel Sworn

... In fact, with the concept this is being approached.

Why base everything off of, "I want to do this because it will make me stronger," and "I should/will only do this because it grants me power."

Any Forsaken Priest would drool at the chance to become a SA, because it's effectively a god in their cults.

A Felsworn could be anyone, given that they can survive and their demonic masters find them useful and tolerable.

... Just saying.

[Binkleheimer]

Kretol just mentioned to me that the line was pulled from the book, though the point still stands: Shadow Ascendant doesn't advance casting progression, so no actual Priest would want it. It could, at best, make you some bizarre hybrid (in the way you COULD take Fel-sworn with Warlock, it was just really suboptimal.) I'll have to look over the class again, since I don't have the books handy, but I distinctly remember Ascendant not giving spellcasting progression.

Edit: I'll look it up and return to this, just to be sure.

What the flavor says =/= what you can do with the class.

Like you mentioned before, Dragon Disciple. It doesn't advance anything spell casting wise, but I've used it before to make some nasty melee bards. It was also a bard/sorc exclusive for the reason that it requires "dragon's blood" to acquire.

Hell, Arcane Archer is an even more oddball example, given that it also doesn't advance spell casting, but requires the ability to use magic. You could either go pure spellcaster and then AA, or ranger type/1 level sorc|wizard and then AA. But with how it's set up, it's meant to take advantage of your wizardy spells and mix it with arrows.

Plus, looking over the SA, they'd be horrible for rogues. Too many things lost for stuff that really don't benefit them. Especially considering when they do get them, most everyone is already toting around holy weapons and things that create light. It's better for S. Priests since it also works in conjunction with a lot of their spells. Rogues are better off with Assassin.

But, to repeat my main statement: Fluff =/= what you can truly do with a class. The flavor of the SA directly says priests mainly take it, with it being sometimes a warrior or rogue. Not every thing in the D20 is about min/maxing. Sometimes, utility tends to be more powerful.

If I'm also not mistaken, in the past few times we did the prestige system, it was written out that warlocks go Fel sworn. The staff itself made no indication that it was truly meant for warrior types, as you claim it's meant for.

Which means...

If there was any question as to why I loathed the prestige system, this provides one of my biggest pet peeves with regards to how these classes are treated: people accept concepts blindly and create fanon for these things that aren't even close to the canon that was established in the d20.

Didn't you overlook the system itself and if so, why didn't you point that out and explain it?

Most people on the server don't look into the D20, so whatever the GMs say is what they go by. Which means your issue with people making up fanon and concepts not in the D20 for things like this is something you could have logically prevented.

---

Edit: Stupid freakin' buttons.

[Grakor456]

Two points, I'll address both.

Like you mentioned before, Dragon Disciple. It doesn't advance anything spell casting wise, but I've used it before to make some nasty melee bards. It was also a bard/sorc exclusive for the reason that it requires "dragon's blood" to acquire.

Hell, Arcane Archer is an even more oddball example, given that it also doesn't advance spell casting, but requires the ability to use magic. You could either go pure spellcaster and then AA, or ranger type/1 level sorc|wizard and then AA. But with how it's set up, it's meant to take advantage of your wizardy spells and mix it with arrows.

Plus, looking over the SA, they'd be horrible for rogues. Too many things lost for stuff that really don't benefit them. Especially considering when they do get them, most everyone is already toting around holy weapons and things that create light. It's better for S. Priests since it also works in conjunction with a lot of their spells. Rogues are better off with Assassin.

Apples and oranges.

For one thing, Bard/DD has nothing to do with this one, neither does AA. Bard is a half-spellcaster, not a full one. What the Bard loses from picking up DD is far less than what a Sorcerer would lose, and the Bard starts in a better position to make use of it given the higher base hit dice and their attack bonus progression. A closer comparison was if you made a Sorc/DD, which only works if you get into epic levels (since at that point, they don't lose anything) and combine it with Eldritch Knight (to maximize the benefits.) Arcane Archer is a different animal since it functions very similarly to how DD was intended: that is, using an arcane class as a gateway into a physical one. AA is a fighter first and foremost, the magic is simply a dip you take to enable it.

Also, I have no idea how you can claim SA is terrible for Rogues. Hide in Plain Sight is one of the absolute best abilities a Rogue can pick up from a prestige. Free +6 agility, dimension doors, and spider climbs are amazing, and the SA benefits melee attacks like crazy thanks to energy drain. In contrast, it would be horrible for Priests, since it has such a focus on melee and grappling, neither of which they're good at. (This is even presuming you'd have anything worth speaking of on the Priest side. Keep in mind, if you max out SA, that's *thirteen levels* that you're getting no spellcasting progression at all. Unlike AA, the Priest levels aren't necessary and aren't providing any synergy at all. Possible exception in that they make it *slightly* easier to pick up the necessary ranks in Knowledge: Religion.)

In essence, SA is essentially a slightly different version of the D&D Shadow Dancer, and would work as well with Priests as SD works with Clerics.

Now, you could argue that Priest is sort of an enabler in terms of lore (if not in terms of mechanics) and should be seen in that similar light, as Wizard is the enabler for Arcane Archer. This would be fine, except SAs would still be improperly played. No matter how you slice it, SA is a *melee* prestige and was designed for that purpose. It's not "super shadow Priest" as most people played it as.

But, to repeat my main statement: Fluff =/= what you can truly do with a class. The flavor of the SA directly says priests mainly take it, with it being sometimes a warrior or rogue. Not every thing in the D20 is about min/maxing. Sometimes, utility tends to be more powerful.

If I'm also not mistaken, in the past few times we did the prestige system, it was written out that warlocks go Fel sworn. The staff itself made no indication that it was truly meant for warrior types, as you claim it's meant for.

Which means...

Didn't you overlook the system itself and if so, why didn't you point that out and explain it?

Most people on the server don't look into the D20, so whatever the GMs say is what they go by. Which means your issue with people making up fanon and concepts not in the D20 for things like this is something you could have logically prevented.

It's not that simple.

First off, this isn't the first time I've said these things. I have, in fact, brought this to people's attentions *many* times in the past. A lot of these misconceptions are very difficult to stamp out, though, because they spread very quickly. They were brought in by people coming in, not from the staff itself. People may not look to the d20, but they DO look to WoW-Wiki and WoWpedia, which copies information from the d20 as canon lore, whether it's right or not. People read the description of Fel-sworn on WoW-Wiki and proclaim that because it has something to do with demons, it MUST be a Warlock prestige. In fact, many of the prestige classes that we ended up adopting over time was never the idea of the GMs, but of players who went to WoW-Wiki and asked if they could do this because it's on the Wiki.

Now, I wasn't around for all moments of the prestige system. I've had my breaks from the server, and thus folks slip through the cracks. You get one person who rolls a Warlock-Felsworn and proclaims himself a master spell-caster as a result, and soon other people want to do the same. They look at WoW-Wiki and read what they want to from it, and soon everyone is thinking that Felsworn are amazing spellcasters. Sure, I could retroactively force that person to retcon, but is that any better? I can't be everywhere and police every character that ever gets made, approved, or prestiged, and it's unreasonable to presume that I could have logically prevented this without stopping to consider that.

When the last prestige system came about, this was indeed brought up. Allowances were made to prevent screwing people out of their past characters, but opened the classes up to their original intentions as well (remember the Felsworn split that had both a physical and a magical version? Remember SA being opened up to Rogues? Yeah, that was me. And I brought this up publicly at the time.)

[Piken]

If I may, I'm curious.. Why is "fanon" as it's claimed so.. crazy and bad, in respect to things such as Shadow Ascendants and Fel-sworn? I mean.. sure there is lore there, but we're a private server and have things happening of our own, therefore making our own "fanon". Otherwise, we'd just.. kinda sit around and do nothing "meaningful"(in my opinion, of course).

What I'm getting at is.. if it's not WAY OUT THERE, why isn't it feasible for a person to look at Fel-sworn as great spellcasters since they're ingesting large amounts of demon's blood/pure Fel/whatever. Sure, that causes mutations that would be beneficial for melee combat, but also, wouldn't the Fel increase one's ability to control that type of magic since they are indeed becoming more demonic?

Note: I'm not expert on.. well, any of this. I just have what I've seen and heard and did in bits of reading. So this may be completely wrong, but hey.. Figured I'd throw something in anyway.

[Grakor456]

If I may, I'm curious.. Why is "fanon" as it's claimed so.. crazy and bad, in respect to things such as Shadow Ascendants and Fel-sworn? I mean.. sure there is lore there, but we're a private server and have things happening of our own, therefore making our own "fanon". Otherwise, we'd just.. kinda sit around and do nothing "meaningful"(in my opinion, of course).

What I'm getting at is.. if it's not WAY OUT THERE, why isn't it feasible for a person to look at Fel-sworn as great spellcasters since they're ingesting large amounts of demon's blood/pure Fel/whatever. Sure, that causes mutations that would be beneficial for melee combat, but also, wouldn't the Fel increase one's ability to control that type of magic since they are indeed becoming more demonic?

Note: I'm not expert on.. well, any of this. I just have what I've seen and heard and did in bits of reading. So this may be completely wrong, but hey.. Figured I'd throw something in anyway.

A lot of this is just personal pet peeves of mine, hence why it's in my blog and not a server news post.

That said, I'm not proclaiming that the idea of a mutated warlock or the like is a bad one, or decrying every example of such as bad. I just get frowny-face when Felsworn and Shadow Ascendant concepts are portrayed as "super-caster!" as opposed to the more balanced hybrids they probably should be. You're right in that there's no "problem" persay, save that these perspectives can end up choking out the original concept and erase it from memory.

Also, see McKnighter's post above.

Bonecrusher is another matter entirely, since its fanon interpretation has caused some feelings of entitlement in regards to model scales. I'm not even sure how that one started, save that I think it was because of one of our GMs using a ridiculously scaled Tauren, and when we realized what he was doing told him to stop. I suppose that image ended up burning into the collective minds of the community.

This is also me reflecting on my own personal preferences in how this material is handled. Take my character Thragash: he's a huge dude, who is pretty dangerous even unarmed. In many ways, Thragash has most of the qualities of a Bonecrusher...but, since the restart, I've never used that title to describe him, especially not ICly. He's a massive warrior who can fight brute-force really, really well. That's good enough for me that he drew inspiration from the idea. I can understand why some folks are still clinging to the prestige names from the old systems, though...ease of reference, if nothing else.

[Kaghuros]

Edit: Aww man totally ninja'd by Grak, who put everything better. Yeah it's basically all fanon based on what people have done in the past, whether they knew what was up and were pushing the limits or just didn't get it. Anyway, read on for a more detailed and rambly explanation of things and stuff.

I guess, having had a hand in the second (third?) prestige system I should explain why some of those things started being true and apologize for what we ended up straight-up making up.

Firstly, we envisioned the prestige classes as something that could benefit people RP'ly, not necessarily as a tight connection to the d20 lore but more towards the spirit of what the Warcraft world seemed to be like. Fel-Sworn was one of those areas where we took the d20 (freaky mutations, cool!) and the wider lore base (the burning legion employs warlocks, right? Cool!) and good old Dr. Faustus and mashed them together to make something that could appeal to BL-sympathizing Warlocks who wanted to go in a more tragic direction and melee classes looking for enhanced strength.

As far as I recall though, nowhere did we mention that being a Fel Sworn directly made you better at casting spells. However, I think I know why it came about, in a way. I rolled a Fel-Sworn Warlock before the prestige system and wrote a guide on fel blood at the same time, part of which was based on the random Fel Blood mutations table from the d20 with the broken ones taken out. It's been my guess that people have conflated the two ever since because a side effect of taking Fel Blood was the ability to have all your prepared spells for the day have the Fel keyword, and taking massive amounts of Fel Blood is sort of kind of the best way to become a Fel Sworn. The Fel keyword didn't necessarily make spells more powerful in the d20, but that's what it became on the server.

My take on Fel Sworn is that people should be able to have appropriate mutations apply to their characters if they get that corrupted. Maybe some hulk out, maybe some get emaciated and grow horrid chitinous skin. It doesn't make you better at spellcasting, no, but it's a valid character concept and Fel spells have nasty effects that can certainly benefit casters.

Also, man, it's really hard to get my book collection back without being able to torrent All of the direct downloads for Horde Player's Guide and Dark Whatsitcalled are corrupted.

Anyway, I guess my tl;dr is that it's better to ditch the d20 mechanics that make less sense and make the whole thing flavor-based, because it was a D&D copy+paste that tried to force Warcraft lore into the strict progression system of d20.

But also I agree, people don't really know what they're talking about when they talk about prestiges because their conceptions are based on the characters that have come before, and those people based their ideas on the ones who came before them, and those people etc. etc. until it gets back to the original GMs who did prestiges like Qaza and Kenji(?) or the later era GMs like me and Mikain and Nostra, of whom only Nostra actually knew a lot about the d20 at the time and the rest of us just wanted to RP something fun.

Maybe you'll get my thought process here? I dunno, I got rambly half-way through but most of what I wanted to say got stuck somewhere in there, even if it might be out of order.

[Aphetoros]

Well, when you think about it...

A Felsworn gets bonuses for melee combat, but in the long-run who's more likely to fall into the path? The smiling warrior-guy, or the dark warlock seeking ultimate power. The latter! They'd become addicted to fel, seek-out felblood, sources of felblood, eventually become careless and slip into a felblood addiction. Then a demon could take advantage of that, bending the person to their will. They would so lust for demon's blood that they would grow lax in magical studies, eventually giving into the demonic rage that probably fills them after so much of the evil liquid infesting their soul. They'd be used by their demonic master as a kind of murderous dog-creature. And even if they broke free from their demon-master, they'd need to learn to deal with their new-found body and horrible soul. Would they regret what they'd become? Probably. Or would they be consumed by power and go on a rampage? The chances of them staying on the magical path is slim, simply because it takes self-discipline to maintain that kind of study regimen--and let's face it, self-discipline isn't really something most drug-addicts are good at. Of course they'd probably maintain some of their casting ability, but I doubt they'd improve upon their ability to cast demonic magic. Even if a non-warlock became a fel-sworn, it wouldn't make sense for a warrior to find sudden spell-casting prowess unless their demon-master took the time to teach them. And I doubt a demon would have the patience to train someone entirely non-magical in the finer arts. But just think about it: why would becoming addicted to felblood help your magical studies? Drug-addictions usually aren't the best for schooling! But then again, maybe the dark wizard is prepared for this, and has trained his/her self-discipline in order to steal blood from captive demons and drink it as they'd go through their transformation. However: no spellcasting bonus would come from this, aside from all of your spells becoming twisted and made more scary by fel energy. In reality, you'd still need to just keep studying like a warlock that decided not to gorge on blood.

And dem Shadow Ascendants. Really, most Forsaken follow the Forgotten Shadow and probably respect these (un)living proofs of their faith's power. But in reality, the power of a priest comes from his faith. Naturally a shadow ascendant would be a stronger priest than an unascended-- they've gone through tests, trials, and hard-ships to prove their faith and grow in power. These people have proven they're so faithful, they're able to shed their flesh and become manifestations of the Forgotten Shadow that lives in them all! But in real-life, does one really need to be a priest of a church to show their faith? Nope, anyone can show faith in many ways. A rogue could undergo the same tests of faith as a priest -and- prevail.

The point is, just because something is tailored -for- a specific type of play, does not mean it has to be! Even with Felsworn, it depends on the character and the scenario. It may not offer benefits to your class, but if the character is headed down that road, then it will go down that road! Let them grow useless talons and hooves, but in the end people just need to understand what their classes are. Becoming a bone-crusher doesn't suddenly make you grow five feet, but you sure as hell get more muscle! A shadow ascendant isn't granted the powers of an almighty shadow-priest just because he/she is ascended. It all depends on the character, and how they use the changes a 'prestige' gives.