BRCS Chapter 1 - the Magician Class

[Shade]

I like most of what the BR team has done with the classes section but I
have some issues with the Magician class. I`ll outline these in detail below.

Flavor text - most of this I am happy with, except the part concerning
races. Nowhere in 2e BR did dwarves become magicians. I think the BRCS doc
should reflect consistency with the concept of the Magician being a nerfed
Mage, and discourage Dwarven Magicians just like the doc discourages
Dwarven true mages. Both are arcane magic which is something Dwarves don`t
do in Birthright. I am kind of ambivalent towards halfling magicians - but
at least I think the doc should say that they`re quite rare, because there
is no mention of a halfling magician in the original BR products. P.48 of
the Book of Magecraft states that only Humans can become magicians.

Game Rules

Hit dice - d6. WTF??? A higher hit die implies a "beefier" character.
Magicians are bookworms just like wizards; why are they tougher? Magicians
did not have a d6 hit die in 2nd edition. Why the power increase in 3e? I
would change this back to a d4.

Class skills - I like the expanded class skill list. This reflects the
ability of 2e magicians to learn Rogue proficiencies. Only change I would
suggest is that you add Pick Pockets as a class skill; in 3e this
represents prestidigitation, which falls within the realm of Magician
abilities, IMHO.

Skill points/level - I like magicians getting 4/level. They study fewer
types of spells, so have more time to practice skills.

Weapon and Armor proficiency - I am happy with this overall but I would
also add rapier proficiency to magicians, as it was an allowed proficiency
for them in 2nd edition. This suggestion, like many of my other thoughts,
is aimed at converting the magician as closely as possible between editions.

BAB/Saves - identical to wizard. Looks good.

Spontaneous Casting - a nice touch and not a significant power increase.
Looks good.

Special Ability - I like how the Special Ability progression has been
nerfed from Travis Doom`s original conversion, in which it was possible for
a magician to pick up more metamagic feats than a wizard (which didn`t make
sense). Now it is equal to wizard, except magician has the OPTION of taking
Spontaneous Spell, Cantrips, or Class Skill, which are all weaker than a
metamagic feat and therefore not overpowering IMHO. One change I would make
here is if the Magician picks up the class skill special ability, to let
them choose 2 class skills rather than one. This brings the power of the
special ability up to 1 feat (the Versatile feat lets you pick 2 skills).

Spell Progression - I would prefer that the spell progression was exactly
that of a Wizard, except the magician gets +1 bonus spell per level from
Illusion or Divination. I understand why this was changed (the new Magician
spell list) which incidentally is my primary objection to the new Magician
class as written.

New Spell List - This is my main problem with the class. As I see it the
Magician spell list is basically the same as the Bard list, except it is
expanded to include 7th-9th level spells. This is a good idea in principle,
and I understand where you are coming from, but IMO the end result
distracts significantly from the original Magician.

The original magician was not designed to be "balanced" as a PC class.
Arguably it was 2e`s first NPC class. The original magician was MEANT to be
weaker in almost every way than a regular wizard; the only advantage it had
was that you were a specialist in BOTH illusion and divination, but at a
very high price.

The BRCS doc`s incarnation of the Magician is SIGNIFICANTLY stronger
relative to a wizard than the 2e magician was vis-a-vis the 2e wizard. The
d6 HD, expanded skill list, extra skill points, wider variety of special
abilities, and expanded spell list, all together, represent a very
significant power increase.

The biggest problem is the healing spells. In normal D&D 3e, it`s fine for
a bard to have healing spells as magic is hardly rare. In a setting like FR
especially, where you can buy healing wands by the truckload and there are
18th level archmages begging for money on street corners, magic is hardly
"fantastic" or "wondrous." In a setting like that, there is nothing
"miraculous" about bringing people back from the brink of death merely by
touching them and saying a prayer.

In BR on the other hand, magical healing is a big deal and is the main
reason the elves lost so hard to humans. Healing is the biggest advantage
of clerics over mages. Why then, would that be such a big deal if elven
bards/magicians could cast healing spells too?

Furthermore, even in 2e, BR bards received a significant nerf compared to
standard 2e bards. Considering the nature of arcane magic in BR, shouldn`t
this be the case in 3e as well? If we are trying to be as faithful as
possible to the original rules, shouldn`t the bard spell list be
significantly reduced (especially to exclude healing spells?)

Take it from another angle - the premise (which you may or may not agree
with) that the magician was meant to be a lesser form of the wizard. The
"poor man`s" wizard, if you will.

How then, does that make sense, if the magician can perform magical
miracles of healing and the wizard can`t? Wizards are supposed to be able
to do everything a magician can do and more.

Healing spells aside, the addition of charms and summoning spells to the
bard/magician spell list represents a significant expansion of power
relative to 2e BR bards and magicians. In 2e magicians could only use
illusions and divinations above 2nd level; why all of a sudden should they
get the power to also use summonings and charms? P. 48 of the Book of
Magecraft is explicit: "these spellcasters specialize in the magic of
knowing and seeming."

In 2nd edition BR it specified that bards cast spells as magicians, except
they learn to use enchantment/charm spells through the use of ancient elven
songs. But that`s ALL they`re supposed to be able to use. They are not
supposed to be able to summon fiendish creatures from the nether realms,
which is what a summoning spell is. To me, this is much more a "wizard"
type of ability than something a dabbler (bard) or a seer/illusionist
(magician) would be able to do.

I hope I`ve outlined my thought process clearly enough. If the BRCS team
already discussed this at length then I apologize for bringing it up again,
but I feel very strongly about this. I hate seeing power inflation and this
is precisely it.

How I would address it -

1. Bards - Nerf the spell list. Take out all healing spells and summoning
spells, making it resemble the 2e BR bard spell list. Arcane Illusions and
Divinations only as normal spells, plus Enchantment/Charm spells as songs,
in a verbal component-only format. Fits well with the bardic song ability.

2. Magicians - Keep the spell list identical to what magicians had in 2e.
Magicians are supposed to be seers and common illusionists. They can grasp
the fundamentals of true magic (all 1st and 2nd level arcane spells) but
lack the ability to progress farther. They can only use arcane illusions
and divinations of 3rd level and higher. Definitely lose the healing
spells. I also think being able to summon creatures from the Outer planes
and dominate a person`s mind goes far beyond the scope of a magicians power.

In this regard I liked Travis Doom`s original magician conversion much
better (in fact I thought it was quite good, except for the frequency of
the special abilities), because it stayed true to the 2e spell list.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Lord Grave]

>
> Hit dice - d6. WTF??? A higher hit die implies a "beefier"
> character. Magicians are bookworms just like wizards; why are
> they tougher? Magicians did not have a d6 hit die in 2nd
> edition. Why the power increase in 3e? I would change this
> back to a d4.

I don`t agree here. Magicians are more like Rogues, using their magical
skills to earn for living, just like you mentioned in Class Skills
comment.


>
> Skill points/level - I like magicians getting 4/level. They
> study fewer types of spells, so have more time to practice skills.


For same reasons, I agree here. They should not gain as many as thieves,
but a little more that 4.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Milos Rasic" <mrasic@TEHNICOM.NET>
To: <BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM>
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] BRCS Chapter 1 - the Magician Class


> >
> > Hit dice - d6. WTF??? A higher hit die implies a "beefier"
> > character. Magicians are bookworms just like wizards; why are
> > they tougher? Magicians did not have a d6 hit die in 2nd
> > edition. Why the power increase in 3e? I would change this
> > back to a d4.
> > >

this


> > Skill points/level - I like magicians getting 4/level. They
> > study fewer types of spells, so have more time to practice skills.
>


and this are related--they study a lot, but also can`t study magic or as
complex magic, this gives them more time to run and play outdoors er...ehm,
learn combat techniques, defense traits--they aren`t necessarily
tougher--just better trained--D&D"s paradigm of HP not being strictly a
measure of physical health.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Shade]

At 07:37 PM 2/5/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Milos Rasic" <mrasic@TEHNICOM.NET>
>To: <BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM>
>Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 7:06 PM
>Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] BRCS Chapter 1 - the Magician Class
>
>
>> >
>> > Hit dice - d6. WTF??? A higher hit die implies a "beefier"
>> > character. Magicians are bookworms just like wizards; why are
>> > they tougher? Magicians did not have a d6 hit die in 2nd
>> > edition. Why the power increase in 3e? I would change this
>> > back to a d4.
>> > >
>
>this
>
>
>> > Skill points/level - I like magicians getting 4/level. They
>> > study fewer types of spells, so have more time to practice skills.
>>
>
>
>and this are related--they study a lot, but also can`t study magic or as
>complex magic, this gives them more time to run and play outdoors er...ehm,
>learn combat techniques, defense traits--they aren`t necessarily
>tougher--just better trained--D&D"s paradigm of HP not being strictly a
>measure of physical health.

That`s a good point, and I know my suggestions look contradictory. HOWEVER,
in 2e BR Magicians had the same HP as wizards (suggesting a similar lack of
physical activity) but had more TRAINING in non-fighter, non-wizard areas,
reflected in their wider weapon selection and rogue profs.

I guess what I am getting at is yes, they do have more time on their hands,
but no, they don`t use that time to exercise. They instead use it to learn
roguish stuff without actually being a rogue.

A good precedent for this is the Arcane Trickster (mage/thief) PrC, which
gets d4 hp.

I just don`t see the need to increase the hit die from a d4 to a d6 - I
would keep it with Travis Doom`s original Magician conversion (which for
the most part is very good, IMO).

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

> I guess what I am getting at is yes, they do have more time on their
hands,
> but no, they don`t use that time to exercise. They instead use it to learn
> roguish stuff without actually being a rogue.
>

Well, consider this from the logic of pure physicality most thief stuff is
arduous....and likely physical.



> A good precedent for this is the Arcane Trickster (mage/thief) PrC, which
> gets d4 hp.
>
> I just don`t see the need to increase the hit die from a d4 to a d6 - I
> would keep it with Travis Doom`s original Magician conversion (which for
> the most part is very good, IMO).
>


I don`t use 3E or D20 currently as the only incarnation I`ve found tolerable
is Mutants and Masterminds. So it`s kinda moot to me...

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Shade]

At 09:13 PM 2/5/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>> I guess what I am getting at is yes, they do have more time on their
>hands,
>> but no, they don`t use that time to exercise. They instead use it to learn
>> roguish stuff without actually being a rogue.
>>
>
>Well, consider this from the logic of pure physicality most thief stuff is
>arduous....and likely physical.

Yeah, but we`re not giving magicians jump, balance and tumble as class
skills are we?

We`re giving them Use Magic Device, several Charisma skills, and I would
suggest Pick Pockets.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

There was a way for a halfling to gain Magician Levels in the original boxed
set; but it was sort of a cheese method: Become a priest of Ruornil and you
gain casting ability as a magician of half your priest level (I think that
is what it was). So I think halflings should be able to take levels in
Magician to try and stay true to the original setting somewhat; but ONLY if
they are first clerics of Ruornil.

Tony


----Original Message Follows----
From: Lord Shade <lordshade@SOFTHOME.NET>

I like most of what the BR team has done with the classes section but I
have some issues with the Magician class. I`ll outline these in detail
below.

Flavor text - most of this I am happy with, except the part concerning
races. Nowhere in 2e BR did dwarves become magicians. I think the BRCS doc
should reflect consistency with the concept of the Magician being a nerfed
Mage, and discourage Dwarven Magicians just like the doc discourages Dwarven
true mages. Both are arcane magic which is something Dwarves don`t do in
Birthright. I am kind of ambivalent towards halfling magicians - but at
least I think the doc should say that they`re quite rare, because there is
no mention of a halfling magician in the original BR products. P.48 of the
Book of Magecraft states that only Humans can become magicians.


__________________________________________________ _______________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Shade]

I really only have a problem with dwarves being magicians, because of their
"antimagic" nature evidenced by save vs spell bonuses. In 2e halflings were
considered to be "antimagic" as well because they used a similar mechanic.

In 3e halflings are actually totally unlike the halflings in 2e (2e
halflings are a complete copy of Tolkien hobbits) and furthermore they lost
the antimagic aspect.

I for one much prefer Tolkien`s hobbits to WOTC`s new interpretation of
them, so they`ll always be chubby, LG pastoral types in my games, even
though their stats might change.

At 11:55 PM 2/5/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>There was a way for a halfling to gain Magician Levels in the original boxed
>set; but it was sort of a cheese method: Become a priest of Ruornil and you
>gain casting ability as a magician of half your priest level (I think that
>is what it was). So I think halflings should be able to take levels in
>Magician to try and stay true to the original setting somewhat; but ONLY if
>they are first clerics of Ruornil.
>
>Tony
>
>
>----Original Message Follows----
>From: Lord Shade <lordshade@SOFTHOME.NET>
>
>I like most of what the BR team has done with the classes section but I
>have some issues with the Magician class. I`ll outline these in detail
>below.
>
>Flavor text - most of this I am happy with, except the part concerning
>races. Nowhere in 2e BR did dwarves become magicians. I think the BRCS doc
>should reflect consistency with the concept of the Magician being a nerfed
>Mage, and discourage Dwarven Magicians just like the doc discourages Dwarven
>true mages. Both are arcane magic which is something Dwarves don`t do in
>Birthright. I am kind of ambivalent towards halfling magicians - but at
>least I think the doc should say that they`re quite rare, because there is
>no mention of a halfling magician in the original BR products. P.48 of the
>Book of Magecraft states that only Humans can become magicians.
>
>
>__________________________________________________ _______________
>Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
>************************************************** **************************
>The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
>Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
>To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
>with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
>

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

The basic issue that has to be decided on with the magician is ifit is a PC
class or an NPC class.

Personally, I don`t favor using NPC classes at all, but I still think that
the Magician should be an NPC class. And that means it should be
significantly worse than a wizard. Preferably, it should also be less
complex to use in play, with less special abilities.

If this is the path chosen, there is no need for all the special abilities
or the d6 hit points. I still think they should have a good skill list and
skill points, but that is enough. After all, compared to adepts, they still
rulethe playing field (especially at low levels).

On the other hand, if they are made a PC-equivalent class, then the d6 hit
die and all the class abilities are highly motivated. I feel this is the
approach taken by the design team. It is not the path I would have taken for
the magician, but it is a valid design descision.

I also strongly agree that magicians should have the Pick Pocket skill for
stage magic!

/Carl


__________________________________________________ ___
Gratis e-mail resten av livet på www.yahoo.se/mail
Busenkelt!

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[doom]

On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 06:34:25PM -0600, Lord Shade wrote:
> I like most of what the BR team has done with the classes section but I
> have some issues with the Magician class. I`ll outline these in detail below.

[snip]

> How then, does that make sense, if the magician can perform magical
> miracles of healing and the wizard can`t? Wizards are supposed to be able
> to do everything a magician can do and more.
>
> Healing spells aside, the addition of charms and summoning spells to the
> bard/magician spell list represents a significant expansion of power
> relative to 2e BR bards and magicians. In 2e magicians could only use
> illusions and divinations above 2nd level; why all of a sudden should they
> get the power to also use summonings and charms? P. 48 of the Book of
> Magecraft is explicit: "these spellcasters specialize in the magic of
> knowing and seeming."

The "path of lesser magic" presented an interesting power. 3e bards have access
to healing magic. Thus a number of potential options were manifest:

Option #1: Bards don`t use lesser magic... they using something else, or lesser
magic plus some divine magic. Probably a bad option: All BR campaign
material suggests that bards are very much practioners of "lesser magic".

Option #2: BR Bards shouldn`t have access to healing magic. Probably a bad option:
Anything that powers _down_ bards seems like a big mistake.

Option #3: Reinterpret "lesser magic" to allow for the new bard spell list and
provide an opportunity for the magician class to be an actually playable
PC class.

The team went with option #3 (although I am oversimplifying the
discussion and the total number of options considerably). The PAGES of
kit information on magicians gives strong indication that the magician
was intended to be a full PC class. The previous "wizards/sorcerors can
do everything thing better" conversions made this unlikely. The d20
team came to accept this as being the "best" compromise in our
opinion. Not only does it make a very campaign specific class more
playable, it also GREATLY increases the believability of statements
like "there are are a few score true mages in all of Cerilia" from the
PCs POV if there aren`t two-four true mages in every realm.

- Doom

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

Lord Shade wrote:
...

>Nowhere in 2e BR did dwarves become magicians. I think the BRCS doc
>should reflect consistency with the concept of the Magician being a nerfed
>Mage, and discourage Dwarven Magicians just like the doc discourages
>Dwarven true mages. Both are arcane magic which is something Dwarves don`t
>do in Birthright. I am kind of ambivalent towards halfling magicians - but
>at least I think the doc should say that they`re quite rare, because there
>is no mention of a halfling magician in the original BR products. P.48 of
>the Book of Magecraft states that only Humans can become magicians.
>
Yes, exactly that I thought, too :-)

>Game Rules
>Hit dice - d6. WTF??? A higher hit die implies a "beefier" character.
>Magicians are bookworms just like wizards; why are they tougher? Magicians
>did not have a d6 hit die in 2nd edition. Why the power increase in 3e? I
>would change this back to a d4.
>
I second this as well. Even 3E Sorcerors have only D4 while looking to
be more often in non-magical combat with their slightly larger list of
weapons than wizards. In this aspect the Magician would be like the
Sorceror IMO.

>Class skills - I like the expanded class skill list. This reflects the
>ability of 2e magicians to learn Rogue proficiencies. Only change I would
>suggest is that you add Pick Pockets as a class skill; in 3e this
>represents prestidigitation, which falls within the realm of Magician
>abilities, IMHO.
>
:-)

>Skill points/level - I like magicians getting 4/level. They study fewer
>types of spells, so have more time to practice skills.
>Weapon and Armor proficiency - I am happy with this overall but I would
>also add rapier proficiency to magicians, as it was an allowed proficiency
>for them in 2nd edition. This suggestion, like many of my other thoughts,
>is aimed at converting the magician as closely as possible between editions.
>BAB/Saves - identical to wizard. Looks good.
>Spontaneous Casting - a nice touch and not a significant power increase.
>Looks good.
>
:-)

>Spell Progression - I would prefer that the spell progression was exactly
>that of a Wizard, except the magician gets +1 bonus spell per level from
>Illusion or Divination. I understand why this was changed (the new Magician
>spell list) which incidentally is my primary objection to the new Magician
>class as written.
>
Or even +2 as a Magician is a specialist in both divination and illusion?

>[snip] New Spell List and Magician NPC class... in 2E not thought as PC class...
>
Exactly! What the Adept is to the cleric, the Aristocrat to the Noble,
the warrior to the Fighter is the Magician to the Wizard.

>In BR on the other hand, magical healing is a big deal and is the main
>reason the elves lost so hard to humans. Healing is the biggest advantage
>of clerics over mages. Why then, would that be such a big deal if elven
>bards/magicians could cast healing spells too?
>
But there were no elven magicians as in 2E only humans were magicians
;-) (p. 12 old rulebook)
And the reasons that the elves lost can by anything you like:
Surprise of divine magic,
numbers,
active support of gods who had not sworn to not take part in worldly
affairs...

But I second his point in that magical healing is important and should
not be given lightly to a class which never had it and has no reason to
get it. Wizards do not have healing, Rogues do not have healing.
Magicians are best described as part Wizard/part Rogue. They get some of
the spells, and some of the skill and weapons. Healing is divine, or
alchemistic (as the healing salve in Tome&Blood).

>Healing spells aside, the addition of charms and summoning spells to the
>bard/magician spell list represents a significant expansion of power
>relative to 2e BR bards and magicians. In 2e magicians could only use
>illusions and divinations above 2nd level; why all of a sudden should they
>get the power to also use summonings and charms? P. 48 of the Book of
>Magecraft is explicit: "these spellcasters specialize in the magic of
>knowing and seeming."
>
For Magicians: Yes, I see it the same way. Only divination and illusion
above 2nd level.
For Bards: Even 2E Bards could cast Charm/Enchantment school with the
elven spellsong, so I see no problem with them having charm in 3E.

>In 2nd edition BR it specified that bards cast spells as magicians, except
>they learn to use enchantment/charm spells through the use of ancient elven
>songs. But that`s ALL they`re supposed to be able to use. They are not
>supposed to be able to summon fiendish creatures from the nether realms,
>which is what a summoning spell is. To me, this is much more a "wizard"
>type of ability than something a dabbler (bard) or a seer/illusionist
>(magician) would be able to do.
>
Summoning Fiends or other creatures is IMO something neither of the
normal classes should be allowed. In COG II there was a house rule which
allowed only summoning of creatures native to Aebrynnis (goblins,
Ogres...) and I liked it. It gave meaning to the barrier that is the
shadowworld and that secludes Aebrynnis from the other planes. And it
would be logical, as in the draft Knowledge (Planes) is advised to be
highly unusual - but summoning creatures from other planes is allowed as
spells exist that do so? Then those spells should be limited in Aebrynnis...

>1. Bards - Nerf the spell list. Take out all healing spells and summoning
>spells, making it resemble the 2e BR bard spell list. Arcane Illusions and
>Divinations only as normal spells, plus Enchantment/Charm spells as songs,
>in a verbal component-only format. Fits well with the bardic song ability.
>
Yes.

>2. Magicians - Keep the spell list identical to what magicians had in 2e.
>Magicians are supposed to be seers and common illusionists. They can grasp
>the fundamentals of true magic (all 1st and 2nd level arcane spells) but
>lack the ability to progress farther. They can only use arcane illusions
>and divinations of 3rd level and higher. Definitely lose the healing
>spells. I also think being able to summon creatures from the Outer planes
>and dominate a person`s mind goes far beyond the scope of a magicians power.
>
Exactly.
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[spehar]

Since 3rd Ed isn't restictive it was decided we shouldn't be restrictive either. The recemendations are there because, well honestly, I don't remember anyone off hand liked the idea. But I think it was done to be unrestrictive.

The d6 hit die. Magicians are very bard-like. It was debated to possibly get rid of the magician since bards significantly fill more of that role. The magician still can serve an important role, but decreasing their hit die would even further more limit their already highly restricted value.

Intended PC class or not, it still does not appeal to most players. It is a useful class and that is good enough for me. If it wasn't useful, get rid of it. Wizards are rare. Other spellcasters are rare. Why create a NPC class for virtually no one?

Mike Spehar

[ConjurerDragon]

Sidhain wrote:

>>I guess what I am getting at is yes, they do have more time on their
>>
>hands,
>
>>but no, they don`t use that time to exercise. They instead use it to learn
>>roguish stuff without actually being a rogue.
>>
>
>Well, consider this from the logic of pure physicality most thief stuff is
>arduous....and likely physical.
>
Arduos? I suddenly imagine a rogue sneaking into a dark mansion, moving
silently from shadow to shadow without making a noise, picking a lock of
a door, disabling a trap with his nimble fingers - and all the while
carrying dumbbells? (Hantel in german) because his skills are physical
and arduos ;-)

Logic tells me not to change what does not need to be changed. If the 2E
Magician could have the same hd as the 2E wizard, while he balanced his
lack of spells with a wider selection of weapons and 2 specializations,
then why does the 3E Magician have to change from the hd of the wizard?
As I wrote earlier the Sorceror also has all simple weapons (more than
the wizard) and the sorceror also has only d4 if you want an example
which is not the arcane trickster from another book.
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Shade]

>The d6 hit die. Magicians are very bard-like. It was debated to possibly
get rid of the magician since bards significantly fill more of that role.
The magician still can serve an important role, but decreasing their hit
die would even further more limit their already highly restricted value.

They weren`t "bard-like" in 2e, at least according to their hit die. 2nd
edition bards had d6; BR magicians had d4. To me this is not a good enough
reason to change it.

>Intended PC class or not, it still does not appeal to most players. It is
a useful class and that is good enough for me. If it wasn`t useful, get
rid of it. Wizards are rare. Other spellcasters are rare. Why create a NPC
class for virtually no one?

I`m not sure what point you`re trying to make here. The designers of 3e
included the warrior NPC class, knowing full well that no player in his
right mind would ever pick it. The 2e magician, as written, was similar; no
player in his right mind would pick it, but it served a useful purpose in
allowing the DM to introduce NPC wizard-types while keeping the flavor of
the setting (magic is rare) intact.

Magicians served an important purpose defensively; they can use detect
magic, detect invisibility, detect charm, and know alignment, all important
spells in a game where politics is everything and magic is so rare that a
simple invisibility (send in an invisible 4th level thief to steal war
plans; in FR there would be permanencies and wards all over the place to
prevent such skullduggery, but in BR the rarity of high-level casters
precludes such solutions) or charm person could influence the outcome of wars.

Since there are only supposed to be something like 25 wizards in Anuire,
and about half of them are detailed in Ruins of Empire, it just doesn`t
make sense for any regent to have a full wizard following him around all
day to make sure he doesn`t get charmed.

However protection from 1st level mind-influencing spells, both cleric and
wizard, is vitally important. That`s why you have a lesser wizard, a
magician, to defend you. But if you`re fighting a real war, you better
engage in diplomacy with a real wizard, because no amount of magicians can
summon troops out of thin air or shoot fireballs from their eyes and
lightning bolts from their arse.

Also keep in mind in 2e Dispel Magic was a Universal spell and therefore
accessible to magicians. We might want to make a special exception and
allow magicians to learn this in 3e as well (or we might not, saying you
need a magician to find the charm spell and then a cleric to dispel it).

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[doom]

> But I second his point in that magical healing is important and should
> not be given lightly to a class which never had it and has no reason to
> get it. Wizards do not have healing, Rogues do not have healing.
> Magicians are best described as part Wizard/part Rogue. They get some of
> the spells, and some of the skill and weapons. Healing is divine, or
> alchemistic (as the healing salve in Tome&Blood).

> >1. Bards - Nerf the spell list. Take out all healing spells and summoning
> >spells, making it resemble the 2e BR bard spell list. Arcane Illusions and
> >Divinations only as normal spells, plus Enchantment/Charm spells as songs,
> >in a verbal component-only format. Fits well with the bardic song ability.

I think the two "snips" above illustate one of the trickiest
decisions. 3e bards "suddenly" have healing spells. (Priests also
suddenly have a very differnet and more diverse selection of
high-level divine spells).

If we _keep_ the bard list intact then, elven bards can cast healing
spells that are _not_ divine. Likewise magicians should be able to
cast healing spells (since it is the same branch of magic).

If we "nerf" the bard spell list then we basically competely hose the
Bard class without offering anything in return. We decided to go with
a "do as little harm as possible" approach here and just incorporate
minor healing magic into the magician (which is just a BR class
in any case) rather than attempting to "fix" a standard class by
"removing" spells from its spell list.

I`d like to here more opinions on this topic and see what the
majority favors. Either way works, but they have very different
side effects.

- Doom

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Cobos]

Lord Shade wrote:

>>The d6 hit die. Magicians are very bard-like. It was debated to possibly
>>
>>
>get rid of the magician since bards significantly fill more of that role.
>The magician still can serve an important role, but decreasing their hit
>die would even further more limit their already highly restricted value.
>
>They weren`t "bard-like" in 2e, at least according to their hit die. 2nd
>edition bards had d6; BR magicians had d4. To me this is not a good enough
>reason to change it.
>
>
>
>>Intended PC class or not, it still does not appeal to most players. It is
>>
>>
>a useful class and that is good enough for me. If it wasn`t useful, get
>rid of it. Wizards are rare. Other spellcasters are rare. Why create a NPC
>class for virtually no one?
>
>I`m not sure what point you`re trying to make here. The designers of 3e
>included the warrior NPC class, knowing full well that no player in his
>right mind would ever pick it. The 2e magician, as written, was similar; no
>player in his right mind would pick it, but it served a useful purpose in
>allowing the DM to introduce NPC wizard-types while keeping the flavor of
>the setting (magic is rare) intact.
>
>Magicians served an important purpose defensively; they can use detect
>magic, detect invisibility, detect charm, and know alignment, all important
>spells in a game where politics is everything and magic is so rare that a
>simple invisibility (send in an invisible 4th level thief to steal war
>plans; in FR there would be permanencies and wards all over the place to
>prevent such skullduggery, but in BR the rarity of high-level casters
>precludes such solutions) or charm person could influence the outcome of wars.
>
>Since there are only supposed to be something like 25 wizards in Anuire,
>and about half of them are detailed in Ruins of Empire, it just doesn`t
>make sense for any regent to have a full wizard following him around all
>day to make sure he doesn`t get charmed.
>
>However protection from 1st level mind-influencing spells, both cleric and
>wizard, is vitally important. That`s why you have a lesser wizard, a
>magician, to defend you. But if you`re fighting a real war, you better
>engage in diplomacy with a real wizard, because no amount of magicians can
>summon troops out of thin air or shoot fireballs from their eyes and
>lightning bolts from their arse.
>
>Also keep in mind in 2e Dispel Magic was a Universal spell and therefore
>accessible to magicians. We might want to make a special exception and
>allow magicians to learn this in 3e as well (or we might not, saying you
>need a magician to find the charm spell and then a cleric to dispel it).
>
>
>
And the interesting thing is that in my running campaign I`ve now got
one player playing a
fighter/magician with the d6 hd and the nerfed spell list... His
character concept is that he
is primarily a fighter but the person dabbles in magic... Using spells
like detect magic,
comprehend languages, true strike etc... and I think it is great... So
IMHO keep the d6 hd
but make sure the spell list equals the one in 2e, and keep the large
skill selection... That
makes the class a good NPC court mage class as well as a good I want to
know something
about magic so I choose 1-3 lvls of magician class (then as a secondary
class)

Sindre

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Gavin Cetaine]

Sir Gavin Cetaine steps aside to allow Master Dietric Bliene to speak

What is this? People are daring to say "Let's take away from the bards." How dare they? The songs of wound binding are too vital to those of us who live by the song. Aside from some defensive castings, some persuasive magics, and the occasional divinational or illusory effect, they are all we really have. Now, like you I have heard rumors of this college that teaches one how to bring creatures from the Shadowlands. But these must simply be finely crafted illusions... at least I hope so.

Now, let me be honest with you. I'm not quite as good at sneaking around as my halfling friend. The Lord High Mage usually has the right spell at hand for every occasion and knows everything about everything. Our more spiritually minded friend, well let's just say that religion is a good thing to have around in a friend. And lets face it, I'm not exactly the bes.., er sec.., all that great a swordsman. Actually, I really can't figure out why His Grace hasn't had the Champion show me to the palace gate yet. But I do my best to help out where I can and the healing effects of music are a huge part of that.

And don't go thinking that magicians need powered down either. Really, magician is a fine career path. Yes, they take spots that should more properly be filled by humble lore keeper's like myself. But, lets face it, some of my brothers of the trade haven't exactly given the rest of us good names. Being a magician is a bit costly and its always easier to trust a man whose livelyhood depends solely on your good health.

Now, if you will excuse me, I need to get back to my masterpiece. Dietric's Tiny Abode... lasts 4hours a day for every......

Sir Gavin retakes his chair and tries to avoid glaring holes into someone's back.

[irdeggman]

Note that the bard's healing spells in 3rd ed are arcane spells. Skip talked about this in Sage Advice when refering to scribing scrolls. A bard with the scribe scroll feat could make a cure light wounds scroll that is arcane, hence a cleric/druid/paladin/ranger couldn't cast the spell from the scroll since the "arcane" designator takes it off of their spell list, since they are classified as "divine" casters.

Personally this is the one change in bards that I have never been too found of, giving them healing spells. But that is not for me to say and trying to change a "core" class is IMO beyond our charter. We are not after all rewriting the 3rd rules, that is for 3.5.

[DanMcSorley]

On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, irdeggman wrote:
> Note that the bard`s healing spells in 3rd ed are arcane spells.
> Skip talked about this in Sage Advice when refering to scribing
> scrolls. A bard with the scribe scroll feat could make a cure light
> wounds scroll that is arcane, hence a cleric/druid/paladin/ranger
> couldn`t cast the spell from the scroll since the "arcane"
> designator takes it off of their spell list, since they are classified
> as "divine" casters.
>
> Personally this is the one change in bards that I have never been too
> found of, giving them healing spells. But that is not for me to say
> and trying to change a "core" class is IMO beyond our charter. We
> are not after all rewriting the 3rd rules, that is for 3.5.

Right, ok, but why do magicians get healing spells? Originally they were
diviners and illusionists. I can see adding enchantment and summoning to
make them playable as PCs (though making them an NPC class like the Adept
and Warrior would have been an ok way to go too), but they should not have
healing spells.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

Dr. Travis Doom wrote:

>think the two "snips" above illustate one of the trickiest
>decisions. 3e bards "suddenly" have healing spells. (Priests also
>suddenly have a very differnet and more diverse selection of
>high-level divine spells).
>If we _keep_ the bard list intact then, elven bards can cast healing
>spells that are _not_ divine. Likewise magicians should be able to
>cast healing spells (since it is the same branch of magic).
>If we "nerf" the bard spell list then we basically competely hose the
>Bard class without offering anything in return. We decided to go with
>a "do as little harm as possible" approach here and just incorporate
>minor healing magic into the magician (which is just a BR class
>in any case) rather than attempting to "fix" a standard class by
>"removing" spells from its spell list.
>I`d like to here more opinions on this topic and see what the
>majority favors. Either way works, but they have very different
>side effects.
>
Another viewpoint on Magicians from me:
A Magician is foremost a specialized wizard.

In 3E as before in 2E a wizard who spezializes in a school is forever
and completely barred from at least one other school or more. A Diviner
in 3E has to select 1 prohibited school and an Illusionist either
Divination and Necromancy or any other one as prohibited from the eight
schools of magic from the PHB.

A Magician is a specialist wizard in BOTH Illusion and Divination and
thus it is only right that he has more than double the prohibited
schools than a specialist wizard who has and can only ever have one
special school.

However the 2E Magician retained mastery of spells of level 1 and 2 of
ALL schools which is an advantage compared to the specialized wizard,
who gives up all spells of his prohibited school.

In addition the Magician has the same (small) advantage as the Sorceror
of having a wider selection of weapons than the Wizard, and he can wear
light armour.

Furthermore he has more skills as he can not rely only on his magic
which makes him similar to the rogue.

That alone sounds balanced to me to let the Magician be as he was in 2E
and not give him access to more schools more hitpoints or even healing
(argh!) - if he needs the Magician can spend his more skill points to
buy Alchemy ranks and create Healing Salve to get the healing he needs!

But one more thing is to consider: A Magician is unblooded and can if
rolled use his best rolls for his abilitys or can if you use the buy
point system buy higher abilitys than the wizard, who has to build a
bloodline.

So there is no need to change the 2E Magician - he is even in my eyes
superior to the Wizard in some aspects:
In campaigns where the players start with low-level characters the
Magician will rule: At low levels he has the same access to spells as
the wizard and is a specialist in 2 schools. Additionally he has highers
ability scores because he has no bloodline.

In short-lived campaigns (sadly that are many) the Magicians will learn
more spells in the limited time as his twofold specialization allows him
better chances to succeed the spellcraft checks than his wizard
counterparts.

Only in high-level campaigns or in campaigns where the players are
regents the wizard has the advantage, as Magicians lack 3+ spells of 6
schools and can never be regents (unless they somehow aquire a bloodline).
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Green Knight]

Why not just make the magician into the twice-specialized wizard of old?

Throw in some mid-level enchantments and abjurations, as well as hit
points, fair BAB, and more skills/feats.

Then you have a very playable PC magician, without the need for dealing
with healing magic, or even worse, 9th level conjurations.

Just an idea; liked him better in v3.08

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

From: "Bjørn E. Sørgjerd" <bjorn.sorgjerd@C2I.NET>

> Then you have a very playable PC magician, without the need for dealing
> with healing magic, or even worse, 9th level conjurations.
>

Are we in agreement on that we want a playable magician? I for one do not. I
want a magician calibrated versus the other NPC classes, like warrior and
adept.


__________________________________________________ ___
Gratis e-mail resten av livet på www.yahoo.se/mail
Busenkelt!

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Lord Grave]

>
> If we _keep_ the bard list intact then, elven bards can cast
> healing spells that are _not_ divine. Likewise magicians
> should be able to cast healing spells (since it is the same
> branch of magic).
>
> If we "nerf" the bard spell list then we basically competely
> hose the Bard class without offering anything in return. We
> decided to go with a "do as little harm as possible" approach
> here and just incorporate minor healing magic into the
> magician (which is just a BR class in any case) rather than
> attempting to "fix" a standard class by "removing" spells
> from its spell list.
>
> I`d like to here more opinions on this topic and see what the
> majority favors. Either way works, but they have very
> different side effects.
>

Bardic healing powers are nothing compared to clerical, but in
Birthright setting Clerics who are high-level enough to feel that
difference are very rare. I suggest that you make all healing spells for
Bards and Magicians one level higher, but give them something to
compensate. For example, they could use their Cha bonus instead of other
bonuses for saves. This would represent the fact that Bards can use
their physical attractivness to disrupt the concentration of their
enemies. For example, a male wizard who thinks about attractiveness of
female person while he casts deadly spell at her is more likely to fail.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[DanMcSorley]

On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Milos Rasic wrote:
> Bardic healing powers are nothing compared to clerical, but in
> Birthright setting Clerics who are high-level enough to feel that
> difference are very rare.

Bards were balanced against clerics by the 3e designers, to be able to
heal, but not as well as clerics. This can be easily seen since bards
don`t get first level spells at all until second level.

Magicians, unlike bards, are a version of wizards, and should not use the
3e bard spell list. No healing for magicians.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[doom]

On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 05:28:55PM -0500, daniel mcsorley wrote:
> Bards were balanced against clerics by the 3e designers, to be able to
> heal, but not as well as clerics. This can be easily seen since bards
> don`t get first level spells at all until second level.
>
> Magicians, unlike bards, are a version of wizards, and should not use the
> 3e bard spell list. No healing for magicians.

I don`t necessarily agree with this statement. 2e BR Magicians were
their own class. Certainly they cast wizards spells, but their spell
lists were limited. Likewise, 2e BR bards cast wizard spells (with
limited spell lists). I don`t see that magicians should be "wizards"
in 3e anymore than bards should be wizards in 3e. Both have unique
advantages/disadvantages which differentiate them.

If the premise that they are a unique class is accepted (opinions will
clearly differ here) then their spell list is "up in the air", but
there are certainly advantages to said list being consistant with that
of the bard (the other class that practices lesser magic).

________
/. Doom@cs.wright.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[DanMcSorley]

On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Dr. Travis Doom wrote:
> If the premise that they are a unique class is accepted (opinions will
> clearly differ here) then their spell list is "up in the air", but
> there are certainly advantages to said list being consistant with that
> of the bard (the other class that practices lesser magic).

That would be OK, if bards really practiced lesser magic, but they have
divine healing spells that should be reserved for clerics. This works out
kind of for bards, since they have delayed spellcasting, but with
magicians you`d get 1st level wizards casting healing spells like they
were clerics. Not good.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Shade]

At 10:49 PM 2/7/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>From: "Bjørn E. Sørgjerd" <bjorn.sorgjerd@C2I.NET>
>
>> Then you have a very playable PC magician, without the need for dealing
>> with healing magic, or even worse, 9th level conjurations.
>>
>
>Are we in agreement on that we want a playable magician? I for one do not. I
>want a magician calibrated versus the other NPC classes, like warrior and
>adept.

I second this wholeheartedly. I do not want a playable magician. I want a
magician on power with NPC classes.

I don`t know if this is coming down to a vote but there`s no consensus as
of yet.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 06:20 PM 2/7/2003 -0600, Lord Shake wrote:

> >Are we in agreement on that we want a playable magician? I for one do not. I
> >want a magician calibrated versus the other NPC classes, like warrior and
> >adept.
>
>I second this wholeheartedly. I do not want a playable magician. I want a
>magician on power with NPC classes.
>
>I don`t know if this is coming down to a vote but there`s no consensus as
>of yet.

If I get a vote... I want a playable magician class. I`m not real keen on
the NPC class concept to begin with, but aside from that a non-blooded
arcane spellcaster that one might actually want to use would be very
appropriate to my campaigns in general--not to mention that I think the
magician was originally meant to be a playable class, not a precurser to
the 3e NPC class concept.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

Dr. Travis Doom wrote:

>On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 05:28:55PM -0500, daniel mcsorley wrote:
>
>>Bards were balanced against clerics by the 3e designers, to be able to
>>heal, but not as well as clerics. This can be easily seen since bards
>>don`t get first level spells at all until second level.
>>Magicians, unlike bards, are a version of wizards, and should not use the
>>3e bard spell list. No healing for magicians.
>>
>
>I don`t necessarily agree with this statement. 2e BR Magicians were
>their own class. Certainly they cast wizards spells, but their spell
>lists were limited. Likewise, 2e BR bards cast wizard spells (with
>limited spell lists). I don`t see that magicians should be "wizards"
>in 3e anymore than bards should be wizards in 3e. Both have unique
>advantages/disadvantages which differentiate them.
>
Magicians in 2E were Wizards in my opinion. Closely resembling
specialist wizards in two schools. Balanced somewhat by gaining more
weapons than the wizard and having better access to
nonweapon-proficiencys, but basically their core is a specialized wizard.

Unique about the Magician is not that their class - they´re Specialist
Wizards with some advantages.
Unique is that unlike in other worlds the True Wizard is so rare as he
has to be elven or have a bloodline. Magicians fill the need to have
more arcane spellcasters around (for court magicians, to protect those
who can afford them and as the many who sell spellcasting services as in
the PHB). Magicians in this fill a role very similar to that of the
warrior as already has been mentioned.

Comparing a Wizard with a Magician is not really correct. Better would
be to compare a Specialist Wizard with a Magician and they look much
more equal.

If Magicians are too weak to be considered as a separate class, perhaps
that is because most people do not like to be specialist wizards instead
of being able to learn spells from all schools? Is specialization not
rewarding enough to forfeit a school of magic?
And double specialization not rewarding enough to be banned from all but
two schools and spells lower than level 3 of the rest?

>If the premise that they are a unique class is accepted (opinions will
>clearly differ here) then their spell list is "up in the air", but
>there are certainly advantages to said list being consistant with that
>of the bard (the other class that practices lesser magic).
>
Bards may be practioneres of lesser magic, but even in 2E Birthright
they could not use all spells they were entitled to by the PHB - there
is no reason not to have them have the same limitation in 3E when they
were limited in 2E.

This is however not really a huge disadvantage for the 3E Bard - the 3E
Bard is limited similar to the Sorceorr in the total number of spells he
may know, and thus he could never learn all spells from his own spell
list or even from all schools of magic, not even most of them even if
he has access to more schools of magic.

So he selects the few spells he may know from a list which is not quite
so large - but he still may know the same number of spells as the 3E
Bard, only from a more limited list. That the Bardic spell list in 3E IS
already limited compared to the wizard arcane spell list makes it
complicated as the 2E bard simply used the wizard list. That could be
countered by allowing the Birthright Bard access to the same arcane
spells as the 2E Bard had (= the whole 2E lesser Magic), but more
spells than on the 3E bard list would make it difficult to use that bard
character in another world if the player wants to use his character
elsewhere in a different campaign - which is no reason for a character
only used in Birthright.

However one point in which I differ from my own point of view: I would
not object to have Bards cast healing spells - Music can soothe the
most savage beast and bring comfort to people. A nice Birthright way to
deal with 3E Bardic Healing would be to have formerly divine spells be
one level higher for the Bard (Cure Minor Wounds level 1, Light wounds
level 2, Moderate Wounds elvel 3, Serious Wounds level 4, Critical
Wounds level 5) - as the bard can know only a limited number of spells,
all players would think twice if they really want to know spells which a
cleric has much earlier and unlimited access to.

And a last word: Bards are Fighter/Thief/Mages or perhaps
Warrior/Rogue/Magicians - their spellcasting is not their primary focus
and not the worst problem as their foremost art is bardic music.
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

Dr. Travis Doom wrote:

>On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 05:28:55PM -0500, daniel mcsorley wrote:
>
>>Magicians, unlike bards, are a version of wizards, and should not use the
>>3e bard spell list. No healing for magicians.
>>
>I don`t necessarily agree with this statement. 2e BR Magicians were
>their own class. Certainly they cast wizards spells, but their spell
>lists were limited. Likewise, 2e BR bards cast wizard spells (with
>limited spell lists). I don`t see that magicians should be "wizards"
>in 3e anymore than bards should be wizards in 3e. Both have unique
>advantages/disadvantages which differentiate them.
>
>If the premise that they are a unique class is accepted (opinions will
>clearly differ here) then their spell list is "up in the air", but
>there are certainly advantages to said list being consistant with that
>of the bard (the other class that practices lesser magic).
>/. Doom@cs.wright.edu
>
Another important thought on giving Magicians healing what they never
had is the availability of magical healing.
Morg has a very good statement about healing on Aebrynnis on his page
but I do not know if I may post the URL to the public?
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[irdeggman]

Note that if the magician spell list goes back to the original one that there will be very few spells of higher level available. I think I calculated it some where around 5 or so per level for 7th and up. This is extremely limiting and more so than any other spell casting class.

The 2nd ed Universal spell list list of the Wizards' spell compendium also included spells like teleport, teleport without error and astral spell which should probably be excluded from the magician list.

[ConjurerDragon]

irdeggman wrote:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1272
>irdeggman wrote:
> Note that if the magician spell list goes back to the original one that there will be very few spells of higher level available. I think I calculated it some where around 5 or so per level for 7th and up. This is extremely limiting and more so than any other spell casting class.
>
Class. But not compared to a specialized wizard who loses access to one
or more schools for specializing in just one school of magic. The
Magician specilizes in two schools of magic and retains access to all
level 0, 1, 2 spells so it seems o.k. to me.
A specialist wizard does not gain more weapons or more skills, the bonus
to his specialized school is all he gets for losing another school.

However a player can always research more approbiate spells, the PHB
never did list all spells and 2E had lots of new spells in more books.
In 3E therer certainly will be more spells in more books coming
(although Tome&Blood does list no Illusion/Divination spells of level 7+).

What happened to the "seer" special ability from Dooms manual? It
allowed Magicians to add divine divinations to their spell list.

>The 2nd ed Universal spell list list of the Wizards` spell compendium also included spells like teleport, teleport without error and astral spell which should probably be excluded from the magician list.
>
Following the 2E PHB Teleport was an alteration spell of level 5, so
barred from Magicians.
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Ben Harrison]

Just to add to the discussion. Why not let the magician keep healing but
start receiving the healing spells at a different level.

For example, just to get started.

There is cure ?minor? wounds spell that only cures 1 hp. let that be a
magicians 1st heal spell and have it at first level.

let cure light wounds be a 2nd or 3rd level

and let cure serious wounds be at least a 5th. Also this would be the last
cure spell a magician gets.

Also let me make a plead for a magican to have "Magic Missle". I base this
partially on the flavor text at the start of the Battle magic section of the
Book of Magecraft. In it a magician, wishing he could help his kingdom in
war gets the idea of a large mass of magic missles striking down the
kingdoms foes.

Let Magic Missle be the "fireball" of magicians and make it a 3rd level
spell for them, maybe with the provision that a magicain CASTS it 3 levels
lower than he really is (i.e. he still only gets a single missle, which is
what levels 2nd level wizard gets to use)

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

Ben L. Harrison wrote:

>Just to add to the discussion. Why not let the magician keep healing but
>start receiving the healing spells at a different level.
>
Because a specialized Wizard does not get healing spells either?

>For example, just to get started.
>There is cure ?minor? wounds spell that only cures 1 hp. let that be a
>magicians 1st heal spell and have it at first level.
>let cure light wounds be a 2nd or 3rd level
>and let cure serious wounds be at least a 5th. Also this would be the last
>cure spell a magician gets.
>
Morgramen has written an (In my opinion) excellent article about the
availability of magical healing in Aebrynnis which can be read under

> http://www.bloodsilver.com/scholastic/healing.php

I would like to ask anyone who wants the Magician to have healing to
read this article before.

>Also let me make a plead for a magican to have "Magic Missle". I base this
>partially on the flavor text at the start of the Battle magic section of the
>Book of Magecraft. In it a magician, wishing he could help his kingdom in
>war gets the idea of a large mass of magic missles striking down the
>kingdoms foes.
>Let Magic Missle be the "fireball" of magicians and make it a 3rd level
>spell for them, maybe with the provision that a magicain CASTS it 3 levels
>lower than he really is (i.e. he still only gets a single missle, which is
>what levels 2nd level wizard gets to use)
>
Yes, definitely. See where the re-creation of the Magician brings more
troubles than it is worth!
Let him be the old 2E Illusion+Divination specialist with access to all
level 0,1,2 spells of all other schools, more skills and more weapons
than wizards and light armour and most will be happy :-)
And it will be compatible to the good old Book of Magecraft and the
"Rain of Magic Missiles".
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[DanMcSorley]

On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Ben L. Harrison wrote:
> Just to add to the discussion. Why not let the magician keep healing but
> start receiving the healing spells at a different level.

I feel like I should keeping harping on this. Magicians are wizards.
Wizards do not get healing spells. Have not, do not, nor should we make
them. There, got that out of my system.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Michael Romes wrote:

> Magicians in 2E were Wizards in my opinion. Closely resembling
> specialist wizards in two schools.

Absolutely. In fact as mechanics go I think they ought to be *precisely*
specialist wizards in two schools, in addition to the "no spells above 3rd
level other than illusion and divination" restriction.

At the very least, there should not be anything on the magician spell list
which is not also on the wizard spell list -- so no healing unless wizards
get it, too.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Shade]

At 04:13 PM 2/8/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at:
http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1272
>
> irdeggman wrote:
> Note that if the magician spell list goes back to the original one that
there will be very few spells of higher level available. I think I
calculated it some where around 5 or so per level for 7th and up. This is
extremely limiting and more so than any other spell casting class.

Why is this a problem? How many characters in Birthright actually get to
level 13? I am willing to bet you that there is not a single Magician of
level 13 or higher in ANY WOTC-published BR rulebook.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Shade]

At 12:22 PM 2/8/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>Just to add to the discussion. Why not let the magician keep healing but
>start receiving the healing spells at a different level.
>
>For example, just to get started.
>
>There is cure ?minor? wounds spell that only cures 1 hp. let that be a
>magicians 1st heal spell and have it at first level.
>
>let cure light wounds be a 2nd or 3rd level
>
>and let cure serious wounds be at least a 5th. Also this would be the last
>cure spell a magician gets.

In principle this changes nothing. My primary beef is that the magician
suddenly gets miraculous powers of healing he didn`t have in 2e. Healing
spells should, IMHO, be exclusively in the hands of priests and druids.

>Also let me make a plead for a magican to have "Magic Missle". I base this
>partially on the flavor text at the start of the Battle magic section of the
>Book of Magecraft. In it a magician, wishing he could help his kingdom in
>war gets the idea of a large mass of magic missles striking down the
>kingdoms foes.
>
>Let Magic Missle be the "fireball" of magicians and make it a 3rd level
>spell for them, maybe with the provision that a magicain CASTS it 3 levels
>lower than he really is (i.e. he still only gets a single missle, which is
>what levels 2nd level wizard gets to use)

I think we should keep the 2e system of letting magicians cast all sor/wiz
spells of level 1-2, and all sor/wiz divinations and illusions of level 3
and higher.

This would allow magicians access to magic missile.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Shade]

>Option #2: BR Bards shouldn`t have access to healing magic. Probably a
bad option:
> Anything that powers _down_ bards seems like a big mistake.

I don`t get this. The bard "spell list" got nerfed in 2e BR also. BR bards
lost access to 5 schools of magic that PHB bards often relied on. If
anything, 3e bards would lose access to a smaller number of spells because
their spell list is smaller to begin with.

>Option #3: Reinterpret "lesser magic" to allow for the new bard spell list
and
> provide an opportunity for the magician class to be an actually
playable
> PC class.
>
>The team went with option #3 (although I am oversimplifying the
>discussion and the total number of options considerably). The PAGES of
>kit information on magicians gives strong indication that the magician
>was intended to be a full PC class. The previous "wizards/sorcerors can
>do everything thing better" conversions made this unlikely. The d20
>team came to accept this as being the "best" compromise in our
>opinion. Not only does it make a very campaign specific class more
>playable, it also GREATLY increases the believability of statements
>like "there are are a few score true mages in all of Cerilia" from the
>PCs POV if there aren`t two-four true mages in every realm.

But no PC in his right mind is going to play a magician anyway. That`s what
wizards and sorcerers are for. Since 3e has the mechanic for NPC classes,
why not use it? And if we`re talking about PAGES of information suggesting
that magicians should be a PC class.. pp. 48-55 address the topic of
magicians. That`s not very much, especially considering that the rest of
the book is primarily geared towards true wizards.

On a book about arcane magic in Birthright, of course a small section is
going to be about magicians. That so little of it is about magicians shows
that the emphasis for PCs is on true wizards. And don`t forget, NPCs use
kits too. Also, the Sages & Specialists book for 2e is an example of how
"PAGES" of material can be written exclusively for NPCs.

In closing, what I am trying to refute here is the assumption that just
because kits for magicians were included in the Book of Magecraft, it was a
class meant to be played by PCs.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Shade]

>If we "nerf" the bard spell list then we basically competely hose the
>Bard class without offering anything in return.

Well, 2nd edition Birthright did this to the Bard too, so why can`t we?
After all, we`re staying true to the setting.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

daniel mcsorley wrote:

>On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Ben L. Harrison wrote:
>
>>Just to add to the discussion. Why not let the magician keep healing but
>>start receiving the healing spells at a different level.
>>
>I feel like I should keeping harping on this. Magicians are wizards.
>Wizards do not get healing spells. Have not, do not, nor should we make
>them. There, got that out of my system.
>
Yes :-)
(however specialized wizards to be more exact)

Perhaps we should give specialized Wizards healing spells as well? ;-)
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Raedwald]

I am really on the fence concerning the magician. Its seems the design group did not want to mess with the Bard. Therefore it had arcane healing, and since the Bard practiced lesser Magic, the Magician should have it.

I think the Bards magic should be considered derivations of Elven spell songs, which comprise lesser and true magic. This brings up the ball of wax that Elven arcane casters cast healing spells. This may not be so bad if they require 2 feats to do so (Elven Voice and Spellsong).

Anyway as to the magician, get rid of the healing and the summoning. Stick close to lesser magic, all spells of 0-2 level, Illusions and Divinations (seeming and Knowing) of levels 3-9. However if left at that, the magician is too weak to be a playable class. I like the idea of allowing the magician to sub-specialize in either Abjuration, Enchantment, or Transmutation, allowing access to 3rd level spells of 1 school.

Keep the hit dice d6. The d6 is tempting (Monte Cook's sorcerer variant has d6). Magicians are experts, dabblers in magic, sages if you will. Wizards d4 can also reflect the cost of handling True magic.

Skills are good, though I might add decipher script, pick pockets to allow additional flavor. I also miss the seer special ability (though I might require spell focus (divination) as a prerequisite).

Comments?

[Shade]

>Keep the hit dice d6. The d6 is tempting (Monte Cook`s sorcerer variant
has d6). Magicians are experts, dabblers in magic, sages if you will.
Wizards d4 can also reflect the cost of handling True magic.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I don`t think "because
Monte Cook did it" is a reason to justify ANYTHING. Monte`s ranger is
totally broken; just because he allowed it doesn`t mean we have to make the
same mistake. Just because he worked on the PHB and DMG doesn`t mean that
he has any concept of balance; I would guess he came up with a lot of
stuff, and had others try to balance it for him. (he even admits on his own
website that he went overboard with his ranger)

>
>Skills are good, though I might add decipher script, pick pockets to allow
additional flavor. I also miss the seer special ability (though I might
require spell focus (divination) as a prerequisite).
>
>Comments?

I like the idea of adding decipher script.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[DanMcSorley]

On Sun, 9 Feb 2003, Lord Shade wrote:
> >Skills are good, though I might add decipher script, pick pockets to allow
> additional flavor. I also miss the seer special ability (though I might
> require spell focus (divination) as a prerequisite).
>
> I like the idea of adding decipher script.

Pick pockets is the skill used for stage magic too, Magicians should have
that.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Shade]

At 02:34 PM 2/9/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>On Sun, 9 Feb 2003, Lord Shade wrote:
>> >Skills are good, though I might add decipher script, pick pockets to allow
>> additional flavor. I also miss the seer special ability (though I might
>> require spell focus (divination) as a prerequisite).
>>
>> I like the idea of adding decipher script.
>
>Pick pockets is the skill used for stage magic too, Magicians should have
>that.

I agree; I said that in my original post about magicians and didn`t think I
needed to repeat it. :)

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 01:11 PM 2/9/2003 -0600, Lord Shade wrote:

> >Keep the hit dice d6. The d6 is tempting (Monte Cook`s sorcerer variant
>has d6). Magicians are experts, dabblers in magic, sages if you will.
>Wizards d4 can also reflect the cost of handling True magic.
>
>You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I don`t think "because
>Monte Cook did it" is a reason to justify ANYTHING.

He didn`t really say _that_.... I do, however, agree that just because
Monte says/does something that doesn`t mean we do, and I would, in fact,
extend the same thinking into just about any game system or designer`s
work, right up to and including many of the standard D&D 3e rules.

>Monte`s ranger is totally broken; just because he allowed it doesn`t mean
>we have to make the
>same mistake. Just because he worked on the PHB and DMG doesn`t mean that
>he has any concept of balance; I would guess he came up with a lot of
>stuff, and had others try to balance it for him. (he even admits on his own
>website that he went overboard with his ranger)

In this case, MC`s ideas on the ranger and sorcerer are heading in the
right direction. His ranger has faults, but it deals with many of the
problems with the version of the class presented in 3e and is worth a
look. Similarly, his modifications to the sorcerer are a big improvement
over the version in the PHB.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Mark_Aurel]

I like the idea of adding decipher script.

Hmmm. I think I read over at ENWorld that the latest issue of Dungeon seems to indicate that Decipher Script will be a standard skill for wizards in the revised edition. Wouldn't really surprise me; it's been a house rule of mine almost since 3e came out.

[Green Knight]

Mark_Aurel wrote:
I like the idea of adding decipher script.

>Hmmm. I think I read over at ENWorld that the latest issue of Dungeon
seems >to indicate that Decipher Script will be a standard skill for
wizards in >the revised edition. Wouldn`t really surprise me; it`s
been a house rule >of mine almost since 3e came out.

What about the Use Magic Device skill? In the low-magic world of
Cerilia, should this skill really belong to the non-magical rogue? I
would suggest removing it, Decipher Script, and the ability to remove
magical traps (how do they do that?). It is all well and good with the
bard (and magician), who has at least some magical potential, but not
the Rogue.

Cheers
Bjørn

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[DanMcSorley]

On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, [iso-8859-1] Bjørn Eian Sørgjerd wrote:
> What about the Use Magic Device skill? In the low-magic world of
> Cerilia, should this skill really belong to the non-magical rogue? I
> would suggest removing it, Decipher Script, and the ability to remove
> magical traps (how do they do that?). It is all well and good with the
> bard (and magician), who has at least some magical potential, but not
> the Rogue.

We`re not rewriting 3e. If we were, I`d launch into a rant about how
Bards have healing spells even though they`re arcane casters. But we`re
not.

Besides which, 2e thieves and bards had an equivalent ability, and it
wasn`t removed for BR.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Bjørn Eian Sørgjerd wrote:

> What about the Use Magic Device skill? In the low-magic world of
> Cerilia, should this skill really belong to the non-magical rogue? I
> would suggest removing it, Decipher Script, and the ability to remove
> magical traps (how do they do that?).

I heartily concur. Heck, I did that even in my Greyhawk campaign.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Shade]

At 01:24 PM 2/10/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>At 01:11 PM 2/9/2003 -0600, Lord Shade wrote:
>
>> >Keep the hit dice d6. The d6 is tempting (Monte Cook`s sorcerer variant
>>has d6). Magicians are experts, dabblers in magic, sages if you will.
>>Wizards d4 can also reflect the cost of handling True magic.
>>
>>You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I don`t think "because
>>Monte Cook did it" is a reason to justify ANYTHING.
>
>He didn`t really say _that_.... I do, however, agree that just because
>Monte says/does something that doesn`t mean we do, and I would, in fact,
>extend the same thinking into just about any game system or designer`s
>work, right up to and including many of the standard D&D 3e rules.

Hmm, yeah, my statement was a little harsh. I apologize, I didn`t mean to
jump down your throat :)

>>Monte`s ranger is totally broken; just because he allowed it doesn`t mean
>>we have to make the
>>same mistake. Just because he worked on the PHB and DMG doesn`t mean that
>>he has any concept of balance; I would guess he came up with a lot of
>>stuff, and had others try to balance it for him. (he even admits on his own
>>website that he went overboard with his ranger)
>
>In this case, MC`s ideas on the ranger and sorcerer are heading in the
>right direction. His ranger has faults, but it deals with many of the
>problems with the version of the class presented in 3e and is worth a
>look. Similarly, his modifications to the sorcerer are a big improvement
>over the version in the PHB.

"Heading in the right direction" and "arrived in the right place" are two
different things. The ranger did need a power boost at the middle levels.
However, Monte improved the spells, skills, AND feats, removing only the
HD. For a build through level 20, the Monte Ranger is way overpowered
compared to a level 20 fighter.

I don`t know much about the Monte Sorcerer but I do not think that a
primary arcane caster should have a d6 hd. The only reason the Sorcerer is
underpowered compared to the wizard is that he doesn`t get anything after
level 1. If you give him a metamagic feat every 5 levels, I think he`s
fine. I`d also make a small change to the skill list, adding in Charisma
skills, but I WOULD NOT increase the skill points available.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

Ryan B. Caveney wrote:

>On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Bjørn Eian Sørgjerd wrote:
>
>>What about the Use Magic Device skill? In the low-magic world of
>>Cerilia, should this skill really belong to the non-magical rogue? I
>>would suggest removing it, Decipher Script, and the ability to remove
>>magical traps (how do they do that?).
>>
>
>I heartily concur. Heck, I did that even in my Greyhawk campaign.
>Ryan Caveney
>
This is strange to me. Do you forbid fighters to be able to use a Rod of
lordly Might, because the magic in the world is rare?

Rogues disable traps not as a hobby. They are able to disable them to
get to the things on the other side which are guarded by the traps. If
Magic is rare and magical traps also, then the magical treasure on the
other side of the trap of that wizard is certainly worth to train your
skill to be able to get around the trap.
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Green Knight]

> Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Bjørn Eian Sørgjerd wrote:
> >
> >>What about the Use Magic Device skill? In the low-magic world of
> >>Cerilia, should this skill really belong to the non-magical rogue? I
> >>would suggest removing it, Decipher Script, and the ability to remove
> >>magical traps (how do they do that?).
> >>
> >
> >I heartily concur. Heck, I did that even in my Greyhawk campaign.
> >Ryan Caveney
> >
> This is strange to me. Do you forbid fighters to be able to use a Rod of
> lordly Might, because the magic in the world is rare?
>
> Rogues disable traps not as a hobby. They are able to disable them to
> get to the things on the other side which are guarded by the traps. If
> Magic is rare and magical traps also, then the magical treasure on the
> other side of the trap of that wizard is certainly worth to train your
> skill to be able to get around the trap.
> bye
> Michael Romes
>

The question is how do you explain the rogue`s ability to interact with magic? I have problems with the rogue class doing this in a world of high magic, but where exactly did the rogue get to see a magic trao and thuse learn to remove them) in Cerilia?

The fighter can use the rod (even if it is a stupid item) since it works for his class (IMO removing such items might be a good idea). Use Magic Device allows the rogue (potentially) to grad a Staff of Power and start blasting people. Again I`m OK with this, except in Cerilia as I simply can`t figuer out how exactly the rogue learned to do this.

About the same applies for Decipher Script; as the skill is written it seems a "magic skill", since you`re able to decipher things that are beyond your knowledge of langueages etc.

Cheers
Bjørn

Cheers
Bjørn

-------------------------------------------------
WebMail fra Tele2 http://www.tele2.no
-------------------------------------------------

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

Green Knight wrote:

>>Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Bjørn Eian Sørgjerd wrote:
>>>
>>>>What about the Use Magic Device skill? In the low-magic world of
>>>>Cerilia, should this skill really belong to the non-magical rogue? I
>>>>would suggest removing it, Decipher Script, and the ability to remove
>>>>magical traps (how do they do that?).
>>>>
>>>I heartily concur. Heck, I did that even in my Greyhawk campaign.
>>>Ryan Caveney
>>>
>>This is strange to me. Do you forbid fighters to be able to use a Rod of
>>lordly Might, because the magic in the world is rare?
>>
>>Rogues disable traps not as a hobby. They are able to disable them to
>>get to the things on the other side which are guarded by the traps. If
>>Magic is rare and magical traps also, then the magical treasure on the
>>other side of the trap of that wizard is certainly worth to train your
>>skill to be able to get around the trap.
>>bye
>>Michael Romes
>>
>
>The question is how do you explain the rogue`s ability to interact with magic? I have problems with the rogue class doing this in a world of high magic, but where exactly did the rogue get to see a magic trao and thuse learn to remove them) in Cerilia?
>
To create traps is a skill Craft (Trapmaking), magical traps are simply
seen only more difficult, more powerful traps.
To remove or evade traps is the business of rogues. That magical traps
are more seldom in a world where magic is rare,
could result in rogues who never have seen a magic trap and could not
disable one, you are right. However as the treasure that is worth to be
guarded by a magical trap in a rare-magic world certainly is enormous,
it is of interest to any rogue to know how to get around the trap.
Thieves Guilds can pay huge sume to hire rogue wizards to teach the
skill. Rogues can give their experiences to their apprentices.

There are always ways to get valuable knowledge as humans are greedy ;-)

>The fighter can use the rod (even if it is a stupid item) since it works for his class (IMO removing such items might be a good idea).
>
The argument "it works for his class" can be used for anything. Rogues
can disable magic traps and use magic devices, because it "works for
their PHB class", too ;-)

> se Magic Device allows the rogue (potentially) to grad a Staff of Power and start blasting people. Again I`m OK with this, except in Cerilia as I simply can`t figuer out how exactly the rogue learned to do this.
>About the same applies for Decipher Script; as the skill is written it seems a "magic skill", since you`re able to decipher things that are beyond your knowledge of langueages etc.
>
e.g. Enigma. Could only a wizard decipher the code?
From small bits of information a code can be deciphered. An example
that comes to my mind is Russel Crowe in "A beuatiful mind" where he
deciphers a russian code by simply staring at a wall and comparing and
staring until he cracked the code.
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[irdeggman]

Decipher Script is specifically not used to read magic writings, only ancient and unknown languages. Use Magic Device is the skill used to deceipher magic writings if the character doesn't have spellcraft which is the actual skill that would be used.

Use Magic Device as written has a pretty good balance to it, there are sufficient (IMO) limitations or restrictions to prevent this from being overplayed if done correctly. Specifically "You mus consciously chose what to emulate. That is, you have to know what you are trying to emulate when you make an emulation check."

So to use the Rod of Lordly Might the rogue (or bard) must first determine (somehow) that is is usable by fighters and then make an emulation check using Use Magic Device before he can use it. And even then he has to make the check again every time he attempts to use the device.

The reason that rogues and bards have this skill is their adaptability and by using this ability to "pretend to be something else" they are able to successfully use the item in question. IMO the way the 3rd ed skill is written is a whole lot clearer than it was in 2nd ed and definitely by the description of how the skill works allows the deduction that I've made above whereas in 2nd ed it just happened.

[Birthright-L]

This seems to be another issue where the conversion should stay neutral and
let individual DMs decide how they want their games. In some campaigns, it
doesn`t make sense for rogues to be able to work with magic, butthe could in
the original, so there is no reason to think they should not do it in the
new version.

/Carl


__________________________________________________ ___
Gratis e-mail resten av livet på www.yahoo.se/mail
Busenkelt!

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Raedwald]

The Magician class seems to suffer from being from using the wizard as the base class. You basically restrict the spell list and then end up trying to balance hp, skills and special abilities to make the class playable.

An idea would be to base the Magician on the Bard class. To adjust it I would add +2 spells to each level (spells/day) of the Bards spells per day list. This can be explained as bonus for specialization in Divination & Illusion. Allow 0-2 spells of all schools, access to 3rd level schools of either transmutation, Enchantment, or Abjuration. Spell list would need to be revised a little (rule on Scry at 3rd level (Bard) or 4th level (Wizard) for example).

Allow the Magician the Bard addtional weapon proficiency (based on regional favored weopons list), same hp, and skills points as a Bard. Adjust the skills list a little from the Bard, such has been done and discussed

The spontaneous casting of cantrips is a great idea, why not take it further? I would also allow spontaneous casting of first level spells (perhaps 8th level), and spontaneous casting of second level spells (16th?). This would make the Magician a true master of lesser magic. I'm not sure if having bonus feats at 4th, 12th, and 20th level would be too overpowering.

I hope that this might capture the spirit of the Magician, without having to force them to be a lesser wizards. Comments?

[geeman]

At 07:36 PM 2/10/2003 -0600, Lord Shade wrote:

>The ranger did need a power boost at the middle levels.
>However, Monte improved the spells, skills, AND feats, removing only the
>HD. For a build through level 20, the Monte Ranger is way overpowered
>compared to a level 20 fighter.

He did remove (one) of the additional feats at 1st level too. It certainly
was still broken, but most of the improvements were I think a good
idea. The big problem with the ranger is the "front-loaded" feats at 1st
level combined with so few class abilities, and arguably the most anemic
spell list of the core classes. I really _hate_ his suggestion that
rangers should have d8 HD rather than d10. Just seems like a weird
departure from what is the standard for "fighting classes" vs other types.

>I don`t know much about the Monte Sorcerer but I do not think that a
>primary arcane caster should have a d6 hd. The only reason the Sorcerer is
>underpowered compared to the wizard is that he doesn`t get anything after
>level 1. If you give him a metamagic feat every 5 levels, I think he`s
>fine. I`d also make a small change to the skill list, adding in Charisma
>skills, but I WOULD NOT increase the skill points available.

The number of skill points available to a few of the character classes is
one of my oldest complaints about 3e, and I`ve written up a lot of stuff
regarding the skill system, so I won`t bore anyone by repeating it. I do
think it`s a good idea to bump the sorcerer`s skill points up to 4/level,
though.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Raedwald]

Some afterthoughts: With the puny selection of illusion and divination spells at 7-9 th levels Magicians start becoming very underpowered at higher levels and Restricting them to levels 1-6 I think helps foster the low level magic feel. The highest level Maagician I ever recall in an old Birthright products was 12th. So in most campaigns would limiting access really be so terrible?

At 5th level a wizard can cast 4-3-2-1; sorcerer 6-4-2; magician(proposed) 5-5-3.


At 10th level wizard 4-4-4-3-3-2; sorcerer 6-6-6-6-5-3; magician (proposed) 5-5-5-4-2.
With spontaneous casting the magician could cast any 0-1 level spell known, and adjusted on the fly with metamagic. Not the power of wizard/sorcerer, but could really be effective if the circumstances of the situation could be exploited.

Ok enough rambling, let the criticizing begin!

[ryancaveney]

On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Michael Romes wrote:

> Rogues disable traps not as a hobby. They are able to disable them to
> get to the things on the other side which are guarded by the traps.

Agreed.

> If Magic is rare and magical traps also, then the magical treasure on
> the other side of the trap of that wizard is certainly worth to train
> your skill to be able to get around the trap.

Except that I don`t think it makes any sense in terms of "gameworld
physics" for such training to be possible. IMO, if you want to disable or
circumvent magic, you need magic. To disarm a magical trap, IMO the spell
Dispel Magic is absolutely required. To unlock a magical lock, either
Dispel Magic or Knock will do. But no skill can ever replace the spell.

> To create traps is a skill Craft (Trapmaking), magical traps are
> simply seen only more difficult, more powerful traps.

I don`t see it that way at all. Craft (Trapmaking) can at most make
extremely good NONmagical traps, exactly