Birthright ADnD

[Landen_Haesri]

Hey guys~

Long time listener, first (or second) time poster, and I'm not sure whether or not this has been discussed yet in the light I am about to present, but here goes. I currently own most of Birthright's line of products and many ADnD 2nd Ed. books and am wary of the change that WotC has made. I've not yet purchased into the 3E products (including the core books) because, after the investment that I've made with my 2nd edition collection, its very vast, and I'm not sure I want to upgrade.

*begin love-spouting ramble*

The kicker is this- I love the Birthright setting. She's my baby, the one that stands out of many that I've worked on, and I've labored over her since I found her. I've altered the landscape and changed some history, and tweaked the system to work for me a bit. However, because I think Birthright is a great setting, I only want the best for her. This is where this forum becomes important.

*end love-spouting ramble*

Is the upgrade worth it? I've been watching Travis Doom present rule adaptation for 3e, and I've read the beta-official one from the Birthright 3e team. What does everyone think of this? How does the system change the feel of the setting, and how does it help/hinder? I'm trying to come at this from a nonbiased perception and, although I want to hold on to my TSR version thats worked for me, I do want to know what everyone else feels on the subject. It does seem that most of the forum is now dedicated to 3e Birthright, and I might be a dying breed, but maybe the reason for that is because 3e *is* that much better. Any thoughts or references?

I appreciate all of the hard work and dedication many of you put into both the Birthright website and the Birthright campaign. Its great, and keeps one of the best game settings I've ever had the pleasure to own alive and well. And I can ramble for ever, so I'll stop. :)

Any post would be appreciated!

Landen

P.S. I don't mean for this post to cause any arguments over which system is better and which is worse. I just want peoples' feel on how this switch might change my game and why. Thanks!

[Azrai]

Hi,

the 3. Edition is a great game. The 2. Edition also was a great game. Changing the system of course would also change the gameplay, spirit and flair. So if you change I would propose to start a complete new campaign on a different Cerilia region.

If you have collected all the 2. Edition material there is in principal no reason to take over the 3. Edition. The big fun factor of the 3. Edition are IMO all the new sourcebooks, core rules and additional rules. It makes fun to read them and use them into the campaign.

At the moment I'am playing two Birthright campaigns, one with the 2. Edition rules and one with the 3. Edition rules.

If you want that the spirit of Birhright is preserved then show up in the Playtesting thread...

[irdeggman]

3rd ed made several changes that in my opinion have improved the overall system.

One was the elimination of multiclassing restrictions. It changed to each race having a favored class and then applying an experience point penalty to each additional class (beyond 1 in addition to the favored class), to balance out the human vice demi-human benefits humans gain an additional feat at 1st level (feats, by the way are worth their weight in gold bars) an extra 4 skill points at first level, an extra skill point at each additional level and their highest class is considered their favored class.

Another of my favorites is the spontaneous casting of cure spells for clerics. No longer is a cleric relegated to being the band-aid and tying up all of his spell slots with curing spells. He can now memorize an offensive (or other type) of spell and substitute a cure spell for it if the need arises.

3rd ed also went to a skill based system of proficiencies. What this means is that characters get progressively better at things as they gain levels. The old proficiency system was very broke on this one - the only way to increase your "check" was to add another proficiency that increased the check by one. Proficiencies showed up about as often as do feats in third edition.

Now as for what this does to the Birthright setting. Nothing if you don't want it to. It is just a different mechanic, the setting is still the "same" setting. What is being attempted with the BRCS is to update the mechanics and yet maintain the "feel" of the setting. There are still bloodlines and blood abilities, even though we are still trying to determine what would be the best mechanic to represent these - the concept is still the same. There are still domains and domain level actions, again the mechanics are being restructured. There are still awnsheghlien, what would Birthright be without the Gorgon?

You are not the first or only person to object to 3rd edition. There are many people who still prefer the "old" 2nd ed mechanics and there are those who object to being "coerced" into spending hard earned cash on a whole new set of books.:)

[Birthright-L]

From: "Landen_Haesri" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>

> Is the upgrade worth it?

The baseline is this - the revision is worth it for those who work with it.
For those players who want to stay with 2nd edition, it`s clearly not worth
it. But those of us taking part in the revision project, it is. Or we
wouldn`t.

/Carl




__________________________________________________ ___
Gå före i kön och få din sajt värderad på nolltid med Yahoo! Express
Se mer på: http://se.docs.yahoo.com/info/express/help/index.html

************************************************** **************************
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]

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=1423
>
> irdeggman wrote:
> 3rd ed made several changes that in my opinion have improved the overall system.
>
>One was the elimination of multiclassing restrictions.
>
Mmmh? Did it?
Certainly the old 2E style of e.g. a Thief must have a STR of at least X
to become a dual-classed fighter, and he can´t use his thief abilities
as long as he does not have a higher level as fighter are gone.

However there are still multi-class restrictions. Even more :-)
e.g. not all fighers will multi-class to sorceror - simply because a
sorceror will need 10+ CHA to cast any spell, or any wizard needs 10+
INT, any cleric 10+ WIS to cast the spells.

When 3E characters multiclass they pay in comparison much more XP on the
multiclass than in 2E. A 2E evel Fighter 10/Thief 5would "buy" his
Thief levels for the same price as if he had started new from level 1 -
in 3E the Level 10 Fighter would have to spend as much XP on the first
thief level as on the 11th fighter level what is considerably more
restrictive than in 2E.

In my opinion in 2E not everyone COULD multiclass/dualclass but IF he
could, then it was cheaper in XP than in 3E.

That all was and should not be of any relevance in Birthright however!
Even in 2E where dual-classing for humans and multi-classing for the
other races existed, the Birthright rulebook allowed characters only to
have a maximum of TWO classes (p. 5 old 2E Birthright Rulebook).

So an half-elven Fighter/Thief/Mage of 2E would have never existed in 2E
Birthright.

That is the reason I would not like to see a Rogue (for the boost of
skills at first level)/Ranger (for the twoweaponfighting bonus at 1st
level)/Cleric/Mage in 3E Birthright - even IF 3E allows it, Birthright
should not to stay true to the setting.
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.

[geeman]

At 08:28 AM 3/11/2003 +0100, Landen_Haesri wrote:

>Is the upgrade worth it? I`ve been watching Travis Doom present rule
>adaptation for 3e, and I`ve read the beta-official one from the
>Birthright 3e team. What does everyone think of this? How does the system
>change the feel of the setting, and how does it help/hinder? I`m trying
>to come at this from a nonbiased perception and, although I want to hold
>on to my TSR version thats worked for me, I do want to know what everyone
>else feels on the subject. It does seem that most of the forum is now
>dedicated to 3e Birthright, and I might be a dying breed, but maybe the
>reason for that is because 3e *is* that much better. Any thoughts or
>references?

This is a tough one because it`s so subjective....

Personally, I think 3e is worth it, but if you`re a game rule purist then
maybe not. 3e does many things better than 2e, particularly things that a
BR aficionado might describe as the "adventure level" of play. Character
classes make more sense, the system is much more easily adjustable, the
concepts and vocabulary of 3e (templates, character levels, skills,
multi-classing, ECL, CR, etc.) are much more clearly defined. It`s far
from perfect but it is overall, in my opinion, a much more articulate and
intelligent system of rules. When one factors in the versatility of the
D20/SRD information and the way the system can be adapted to a vastly
different types of games ranging from Traveller to Call of Cthulhu, it`s a
system that is substantially better than 2e.

It is, however, arguable how well that system of rules really translates
into other settings. IMO D20 Traveller is a waste of time. Two of the
most significant themes of the setting are that BR is a low magic world (in
that there aren`t a lot of permanent magic items lying around) and that it
is a low level setting. D&D 3e directly interferes with both of these
basic aspects of the setting. The rate of XP awards and level advancement
is quite a bit faster in 3e than it is in 2e, which makes the low level
aspect of the setting more difficulty to justify, and the ability of
characters to create permanent magic items is streamlined, so logically
there would be a lot more of them. The 3e BR playtest text doesn`t do much
to deal with either of these two problems. To be fair, it`s not a simple
fix. Not a lot of satisfactory solutions have been presented for a 3e
conversion by anyone.

Then there is, of course, the issue of cost. Each edition of D&D can
easily cost several hundred dollars. Since 3.5 is going to be coming out
in a few short months I wouldn`t spend any money right now. If the point
is to update to the new set of rules you`ll be out of date in a few short
months if you upgrade now. If you`re still OK with 2e then at least wait
until the next "edition" comes out.

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.

[Green Knight]

One of the things I miss with 3E is AD&D`s multi/dual system. Sure, it wasn`t perfect, but it worked pretty well.

I wonder if anyone has experimented with different versions of multi/dual classing under 3E?

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.

[ryancaveney]

On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Landen_Haesri wrote:

> I`ve not yet purchased into the 3E products (including the core books)
> because, after the investment that I`ve made with my 2nd edition
> collection, its very vast, and I`m not sure I want to upgrade.

A very reasonable concern.

> I`ve altered the landscape and changed some history, and tweaked the
> system to work for me a bit.

I would like you to post a description of your changes, please! I`m
always interested to see what others have done with the setting.

> Is the upgrade worth it?

I don`t know. I`m inclined to say no. I had made a large number of
changes to 2nd Ed AD&D to make it feel more appropriate to me for BR, so I
have no trouble looking over 3e to pick and choose the bits I like. But
for anyone who is not a compulsive rules editor, I`d say don`t bother
converting. Play BR with 2e mechanics, Mystara with Rules Compendium D&D
mechanics, Greyhawk with 1st Edition AD&D mechanics, and two Glorantha
campaigns (one with RuneQuest and one with Hero Wars). I`ve thought about
trying to play BR with the White Wolf "storyteller system", but that seems
too daunting a task even for a mechanics junkie like me. John Machin and
I briefly considered the idea of doing a BR to Hero Wars conversion, but
we never really went anywhere with it (in part because of disagreements
over which groups in Cerilia would use which of the four completely
distinct magic systems from that rules set).

In fact, given that the 2e electronic software downloads are one-tenth the
price of the 3e hardcovers, I`d recommend anyone completely new to
roleplaying to start with *second* edition AD&D, because so much material
is available so easy and cheap.

> How does the system change the feel of the setting, and how does it
> help/hinder?

That`s been a major part of the many hundreds (thousands?) of messages
posted here about 3e conversion. As I`ve said before, I think the proper
way to convert is to change 3e so it is closer to Birthright, not change
Birthright so it is closer to 3e. As you may gather from this statement,
I think using unmodified 3e out-of-the-box hurts Birthright. The setting
must trump the core rules, not the other way around, or there is no point
in (or even real possibility of) having distinct settings.

> although I want to hold on to my TSR version thats worked for me

I think that`s the most important thing. If your version works fine for
you, I see no reason at all to change it. Becoming compatible with new
future TSR releases is irrelevant, since most likely they won`t ever
release anything new for Birthright.

> It does seem that most of the forum is now dedicated to 3e Birthright,
> and I might be a dying breed,

I don`t want you to be. Personally, I am most interested in hearing from
those who use game engines completely unrelated to D&D, like Ars Magica
(the favorite system of a long-time poster whom I regret we haven`t heard
from in a while). I am not at all committed to D&D, but I am committed to
Birthright.

> but maybe the reason for that is because 3e *is* that much better.

I don`t think so. Some things are better, some things are worse. Some
things are mechanically different, but represent no change in overall
quality to my eyes. And of course, opinion differs widely on which bits
are which, and which category is largest.

> I don`t mean for this post to cause any arguments over which
> system is better and which is worse.

Except that I think there isn`t really any other way to answer your
question. That is, IMO, the only reason to switch BR to 3rd Ed is if you
think 3rd is better than 2nd overall, so you`d like to use it instead
while still playing BR. If what you want to know is, "If I`m never going
to use it for anything but playing BR, which game system should I use?"
then I would have to say stick with 2nd Ed. You have all those books
already, and don`t have the new ones -- and as you can easily see from the
current discussions here, converting BR from 2nd Ed AD&D to any other RPG
system, even one as close to it as 3rd Ed D&D, is a major headache. It is
not a project to be entered into by anyone who doesn`t already have a very
strong feeling about which game system they would rather be using instead
of the default 2nd Ed AD&D.


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.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Romes" <Archmage@T-ONLINE.DE>
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 9:38 AM

> However there are still multi-class restrictions. Even more :-)
> e.g. not all fighers will multi-class to sorceror - simply because a
> sorceror will need 10+ CHA to cast any spell, or any wizard
> needs 10+ INT, any cleric 10+ WIS to cast the spells.

That`s not a multi-classing restriction, its a class restriction. The same
restriction applies to the starting character. If I just roll up a
character and I assign him a Wis of X and a Cha of Y, I`ll still face the
limits of the class restrictions you describe.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
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]

Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Michael Romes" <Archmage@T-ONLINE.DE>
>Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 9:38 AM
>
>>However there are still multi-class restrictions. Even more :-)
>>e.g. not all fighers will multi-class to sorceror - simply because a
>>sorceror will need 10+ CHA to cast any spell, or any wizard
>>needs 10+ INT, any cleric 10+ WIS to cast the spells.
>>
>
>That`s not a multi-classing restriction, its a class restriction. The same
>restriction applies to the starting character. If I just roll up a
>character and I assign him a Wis of X and a Cha of Y, I`ll still face the
>limits of the class restrictions you describe.
>Kenneth Gauck
>kgauck@mchsi.com
>
Right. What I meant was that a fighter normally is build around a high
STR CON score, with less in INT DEX and CHA.
So a min/maxed fighter with 18 in STR and CON will have only 8 for CHA
and while being able to multiclass to Sorceror, would never be able to
actually use the class ability of casting spells - it is not impossible,
just useless ;-)
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]

But by carefully planning his character a player could use the ability increase gained at every 4th level (something else not in 2nd ed) to aid in a useful transition for multi-classing. Again in 2nd ed a character would need a 17 in the primary attribute to "dual class" - humans couldn't "multi-class" so he wouldn't have been able to switch classes if he had min-maxed anyways, unless he was "real lucky" with his die rolls.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Romes" <Archmage@T-ONLINE.DE>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 9:09 AM

> Right. What I meant was that a fighter normally is build around
> a high STR CON score, with less in INT DEX and CHA. So
> a min/maxed fighter with 18 in STR and CON will have only 8 for
> CHA and while being able to multiclass to Sorceror, would never
> be able to actually use the class ability of casting spells - it is not
> impossible, just useless ;-)

But that only demonstrates most characters can`t be all things. I`m not
sure that`s a bad thing.

I will add that any BR character with a CHA of 8 has bigger problems than
their inabaility to become a master sorcerer.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
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]

>That is the reason I would not like to see a Rogue (for the boost of
>skills at first level)/Ranger (for the twoweaponfighting bonus at 1st
>level)/Cleric/Mage in 3E Birthright - even IF 3E allows it, Birthright
>should not to stay true to the setting.
>bye

Not to say that I disagree with you Michael, but a 3e
Rogue/Ranger/Cleric/Mage will totally suck.

If some player wants to play a character that worthless, I would be happy
to let him. As long as it made sense from a roleplaying perspective, of
course.

************************************************** **************************
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:

>>That is the reason I would not like to see a Rogue (for the boost of
>>skills at first level)/Ranger (for the twoweaponfighting bonus at 1st
>>level)/Cleric/Mage in 3E Birthright - even IF 3E allows it, Birthright
>>should not to stay true to the setting.
>>bye
>>
>
>Not to say that I disagree with you Michael, but a 3e
>Rogue/Ranger/Cleric/Mage will totally suck.
>
>If some player wants to play a character that worthless, I would be happy
>to let him. As long as it made sense from a roleplaying perspective, of
>course.
>
It depends on how you plan to use the character. I play only in PBEMs,
which mostly focus on the domain level.
A character with that classes will be able (under the 2E and Travis 3E
rules) to collect RP from everything except law holdings and the
low-level spells to charm and to boost INT would be very useful for
diplomacy if played out.
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.

[Birthright-L]

> Lord Shade wrote:
>
> a 3e Rogue/Ranger/Cleric/Mage will totally suck.
>

Spellcasting multiclasses suck. A Wizard/Cleric is a lot worse than the
other things you have suggested here. Multiclassing actually works very well
for nonspellusing classes, and adding a few levels in a nonspellusing class
to a spelluser can also be valid.

Note that spellusing classes still get skill points, BAB and hit points -
they just get fewer of them. A Cleric 12/ Fighter 10 under 2nd ed rules is
matched almost exactly by a cleric -12, fighter 1 under the new rules -
attacks are the same, all weapons can be used, and spellcasting ability is
the same.

The real loser here is the mage/cleric, or even worse, the sorcerer/wizard.
But these options were very powerful before - I think the nerfing here was
intentional.

/Carl


__________________________________________________ ___
Gå före i kön och få din sajt värderad på nolltid med Yahoo! Express
Se mer på: http://se.docs.yahoo.com/info/express/help/index.html

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by Shade

Not to say that I disagree with you Michael, but a 3e Rogue/Ranger/Cleric/Mage will totally suck.
I don't think, those a character suck, but I think he isn't this powerfull he COULD be if single classed. IMO a character reduces himself, if multiclassing (except he is already 20th level and don't uses epic rules)...

[Green Knight]

SW tries to remedy this by actually giving away MORE class benefits at
lower levels. That, and the fact that there are no level-based spell
system, makes it much more attractive to multi-class, even for a
power-gamer prespective.

-----Original Message-----
From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion
[mailto:BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM] On Behalf Of Ariadne
Sent: 14. mars 2003 16:10
To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
Subject: Re: Birthright ADnD [2#1423]

This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
You can view the entire thread at:
http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1423

Ariadne wrote:

Originally posted by Shade

Not to say that I disagree with you Michael, but a 3e
Rogue/Ranger/Cleric/Mage will totally suck.
I don`t think, those a character suck, but I think he isn`t this
powerfull he COULD be if single classed. IMO a character reduces
himself, if multiclassing (except he is already 20th level and don`t
uses epic rules)...

************************************************** **********************
****
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.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Starfox" <stephen_starfox@YAHOO.SE>
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 8:17 AM


> Multiclassing actually works very well for nonspellusing classes,
> and adding a few levels in a nonspellusing class to a spelluser
> can also be valid.

I stack all divine spellcasting levels, and seperatly, all arcane
spellcasting levels. Clerics of Ruornil and Avani can learn divine spells.
To a great extent this has elimanted the desire for multi-classing across
the arcane-divine divide.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
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 02:00 PM 3/14/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>Lord Shade wrote:
>
>>>That is the reason I would not like to see a Rogue (for the boost of
>>>skills at first level)/Ranger (for the twoweaponfighting bonus at 1st
>>>level)/Cleric/Mage in 3E Birthright - even IF 3E allows it, Birthright
>>>should not to stay true to the setting.
>>>bye
>>>
>>
>>Not to say that I disagree with you Michael, but a 3e
>>Rogue/Ranger/Cleric/Mage will totally suck.
>>
>>If some player wants to play a character that worthless, I would be happy
>>to let him. As long as it made sense from a roleplaying perspective, of
>>course.
>>
>It depends on how you plan to use the character. I play only in PBEMs,
>which mostly focus on the domain level.

I guess, but...

>A character with that classes will be able (under the 2E and Travis 3E
>rules) to collect RP from everything except law holdings and the
>low-level spells to charm and to boost INT would be very useful for
>diplomacy if played out.

...you`ll also die the first time a character of equal level challenges
you. Your +1 BAB, +1d6 SA, and 1st level cleric and wizard spells are...
uncompelling? ;)

************************************************** **************************
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 12:53 PM 3/14/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Stephen Starfox" <stephen_starfox@YAHOO.SE>
>Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 8:17 AM
>
>
>> Multiclassing actually works very well for nonspellusing classes,
>> and adding a few levels in a nonspellusing class to a spelluser
>> can also be valid.
>
>I stack all divine spellcasting levels, and seperatly, all arcane
>spellcasting levels. Clerics of Ruornil and Avani can learn divine spells.
>To a great extent this has elimanted the desire for multi-classing across
>the arcane-divine divide.

??? What are you talking about?

I`m afraid I don`t understand at all what this means, Kenneth. :o

Stack all divine spellcasting levels? Isn`t that what +1 caster level PrCs
do?

************************************************** **************************
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.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lord Shade" <lordshade@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 1:29 AM

> I`m afraid I don`t understand at all what this means, Kenneth. :o
>
> Stack all divine spellcasting levels? Isn`t that what +1 caster level
> PrCs do?

Let`s say, you are a Cleric 3/Druid 3. You are a 6th level priest of Erik,
who has aquired 3 level of Erik`s cleric class features, and 3 level of
Erik`s druid class features. You can cast Remove Blindness, Summon Nature`s
Ally III, and Prayer (for example), because as a 6th level caster of divine
spells, you have access to 3rd level spells. You would be just as powerful
as a 6th level cleric or a 6th level druid.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Mourn]

Originally posted by kgauck
Let`s say, you are a Cleric 3/Druid 3. You are a 6th level priest of Erik,
who has aquired 3 level of Erik`s cleric class features, and 3 level of
Erik`s druid class features. You can cast Remove Blindness, Summon Nature`s
Ally III, and Prayer (for example), because as a 6th level caster of divine
spells, you have access to 3rd level spells. You would be just as powerful
as a 6th level cleric or a 6th level druid.


But if you were a Cleric 5/Druid 5, you could cast Animate Dead as a 10th-level caster. Why would a druid's affinity for natural casting help you defile nature?

[Eosin the Red]

> Mourn wrote:
>
Originally posted by kgauck
> Let`s say, you are a Cleric 3/Druid 3. You are a 6th level priest of Erik, who has aquired 3 level of Erik`s cleric class features, and 3 level of Erik`s druid class features. You can cast Remove Blindness, Summon Nature`s
Ally III, and Prayer (for example), because as a 6th level caster of divine spells, you have access to 3rd level spells. You would be just as powerful as a 6th level cleric or a 6th level druid.
>
>
> But if you were a Cleric 5/Druid 5, you could cast Animate Dead as a 10th-level caster. Why would a druid`s affinity for natural casting help you defile nature?


I guess the answer is another question: Who lets their cleric/druid priest of Erik cast Animate dead?

************************************************** **************************
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.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mourn" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 5:28 PM


> But if you were a Cleric 5/Druid 5, you could cast Animate Dead
> as a 10th-level caster. Why would a druid`s affinity for natural
> casting help you defile nature?

Depends on the specific temple. Erik does not grant necromatic spells (let
alone ones with the Evil tag) to any spellcaster. Why would Erik grant such
a spell at all, cleric or druid? Kriesha, on the other hand would have no
problem with it for either clerics or druids.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Raesene Andu]

Originally posted by Eosin the Red

I guess the answer is another question: Who lets their cleric/druid priest of Erik cast Animate dead?



Exactly, I think Erik would have quite a lot to say that particular caster, and perhaps Ruornil as well. Personally, I would allow the cleric/druid to cast Animate Dead, but then the next time he goes to cast a spell, have it fail on him because Erik has withdrawn his support of the caster, thus the evil leaning caster would have to either atone for his actions to try and hook up with some other god (and waste those 5 levels of Druid).

[Mourn]

Originally posted by Eosin the Red
I guess the answer is another question: Who lets their cleric/druid priest of Erik cast Animate dead?


A DM that allows their players the freedom to perform nearly any action, but will make them pay for it.

A DM that doesn't arbitrarily say "Nope, you can't cast that spell, even though it is on your spell list."

Here's another non-Necromancy example... Druids don't get Iron Body, but a Cleric of Erik gains it as an 8th-level domain spell (of Earth). Since the druid class has no knowledge of that spell, why would its spellcasting ability aid in it? A wizard, on the other hand, has the spell, so why shouldn't a Clr18 of Erik/Wiz2 be able to cast it as an 20th-level Cleric?

[ryancaveney]

On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Mourn wrote:

> A DM that doesn`t arbitrarily say "Nope, you can`t cast that spell,
> even though it is on your spell list."

That particular spell simply shouldn`t be on the list. I know, I know,
3e did away with spheres. I think it was a terrible idea, and should
essentially be ignored in Cerilia. The priests of the Cerilian gods
originally had very distinct (and in some cases almost non-overlapping)
spell lists, so I think any conversion to any RPG system at all should
maintain that if it wants to maintain a halfway-decent model of Cerilia.


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.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Raesene Andu" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 2:49 AM

> Exactly, I think Erik would have quite a lot to say that particular
> caster, and perhaps Ruornil as well. Personally, I would allow the
> cleric/druid to cast Animate Dead, but then the next time he goes
> to cast a spell, have it fail on him because Erik has withdrawn his
> support of the caster, thus the evil leaning caster would have to
> either atone for his actions to try and hook up with some other god
> (and waste those 5 levels of Druid).

I wouldn`t allow them to cast the spell (as a priest of Erik) because I
would ask, in what sacred text of Erik did the caster see such a spell? In
what holy poem was such power and its use endorsed? Where were the
compants, prayers, and gestures learned to draw down the power of Erik for
such a purpose?

Kriesha, on the other hand ...

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
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.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mourn" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 4:07 PM


> Here`s another non-Necromancy example... Druids don`t get Iron
> Body, but a Cleric of Erik gains it as an 8th-level domain spell (of
> Earth). Since the druid class has no knowledge of that spell, why
> would its spellcasting ability aid in it? A wizard, on the other hand,
> has the spell, so why shouldn`t a Clr18 of Erik/Wiz2 be able to cast
> it as an 20th-level Cleric?

Why assume that the gods make distinctions between classes? I`d be inclined
to say that the distinction is just a mechanical meta-game question.
In-game I refer to all clerics of Erik as druids because I don`t think there
is a meaningful difference between them. The distinction between arcane
magic and divine magic is huge. One comes from gods, the other is a fabric
of nature. Knowledge of the prayers which summon the power of heaven grants
you no power to manipulate the secrets of the natural world.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Gortlock]

3rd ed made several changes that in my opinion have improved the overall system.

One was the elimination of multiclassing restrictions.

Another of my favorites is the spontaneous casting of cure spells for clerics.

3rd ed also went to a skill based system of proficiencies.

You are not the first or only person to object to 3rd edition. There are many people who still prefer the "old" 2nd ed mechanics and there are those who object to being "coerced" into spending hard earned cash on a whole new set of books.:)

I am a throw back to the 70's. I grew into "2nd ed" and modified it more or less as you indicated 3.5 has done. I never used class/level restrictions. My spell users can cast any spell they know. I even used a "mana" system for a while. The mana system was based on a pool of mana that could be used to cast spells for a certain cost per spell level and varied based on the power used to amplify the spell. If you want a good proficiency/skill system look at Runequest. I also modified my skills to reflect a Runequest based skill system.

Your last statement hit it right on the head. I think WotC made D20/3.5 D&D to generate more money. They were used to magic crack heads buying booster packs like a crack hoe buys rocks. Their D&D mini's is not actually a bad game. I seen it played a few times but the randomness of the booster packs means someone could spend thousands of dollars to get enough of the correct figures.

Bottom line is I will not waste the money on 3.5 stuff or D&D mini's. In fact I am making the line of DDM's on heavy card stock printed in color (not to scale although) for my kids, they love them.