[BIRTHRIGHT] Magic Reform

[Eosin the Red]

Hello,
I am going through the magic system in MIDNIGHT right now and it is nearly
all ocg - give me a little time and I will see how it could be worked into
BR and post a synopsis (including the OCG parts). I am not 100% comfortable
yet - having had the book for 3 days. My current conception of it right now
is that it is superior to a low magic type of setting than the base system
and that it has many elements of the Wheel of Time channeler versatility
built into it.

Eosin



----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth Gauck" <kgauck@MCHSI.COM>
To: <BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM>
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2003 11:03 PM
Subject: Magic Reform


> I`ve noticed that there is considerable interest in reform of the magic
> system. Some suggestions have been very modest (there is a
non-interference
> pact) other less so. Many settings have been very happy to provide
entirely
> new spellcasting systems with whole new spell lists. Many of these are
> elementally based, but not all of them. In a manner of speaking, the
whole
> wizard - magician situation is an early adjustment of the standard D&D
> spellcasting system, but other settings have left this behind and taken
new
> spellcasting systems way beyond BR.
>
> What should spellcasting look like in Cerilia? Here are some possible
> suggestions.
>
> 1) Spell power progression slows down after 5th to 7th caster levels.
> 1A) Spell limits might be more generous with lower level spells.
> 1B) Other arcane powers might be granted in compensation
> 1Ba) Additional Spell Focus and Spell Penetration feats
> 1Bb) Ability to develope and manipulate ley lines
> 1Bc) Abilities to perform new abilities (travel in Shadow World?)
> 2) Casting times may begin to increase for higher level spells
> 3) Required skill checks may necessitate taking levels of Expert
> 4) Additional requirements are neccesary to move beyond spell level 6
(being
> blooded being required to get beyond 2nd level.
> 5) More specialization
>
> What should be going on with Cerilian spellcasters?
>
> 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.

************************************************** **************************
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 Rahvin]

> What should spellcasting look like in Cerilia? Here are some possible
> suggestions.
>
> 1) Spell power progression slows down after 5th to 7th caster levels.
> 1A) Spell limits might be more generous with lower level spells.
> 1B) Other arcane powers might be granted in compensation
> 1Ba) Additional Spell Focus and Spell Penetration feats
> 1Bb) Ability to develope and manipulate ley lines
> 1Bc) Abilities to perform new abilities (travel in Shadow World?)
> 2) Casting times may begin to increase for higher level spells
> 3) Required skill checks may necessitate taking levels of Expert
> 4) Additional requirements are neccesary to move beyond spell level 6 (being
> blooded being required to get beyond 2nd level.
> 5) More specialization


I prefer some of Rich Baker`s work from Spells & Magic. Me and my players
are going to be testing it to see if the point values still work in 3e D&D,
but overall I don`t see why they wouldn`t. I`m only going to allow up to 10
levels in this "True Mage" class though, which means that due to spell
points, a mage will have much greater versatility but be limited only to 5th
level spells. I`m going to make similiar adjustments for Druid, Bard,
Sorcerer, and Cleric.

In Player`s Option: Spells & Magic, Rich Baker introduced new schools of
magic to reflect casting instead of magic-spell theme, so Geometer and
Alchemist specialist wizards were created in addition to Shadow and Song
specialists. New priests were added like Crusader, Monk, and Shaman, but
other than the Shaman most of these were horribly unbalanced. (The shaman
was cool, and a revamped 3e version would fit nicely in Birthright.)

Chapter 6 included the concept of spell points. At every level, you had a
certain of points. Every "level" of spell you prepare/memorize, has a spell
point cost (4 for 1st level, 6 for 2nd level, 10 for 3rd level, etc.). In
addition, there were "free magics" which doubled the cost. A 3rd level
"free magic" prepared means that you can choose which spell it is as you`re
casting it, choosing any 1st-3rd level spell you know. You can choose to
lower the cost of a spell by adding to the casting time or casting at a
lower caster level, or raise the cost to cast at a higher caster level or
even cast higher level spells than you would normally be allowed.

In addition, chapter 6 included new "types" of magic including the
Channeller, the Preserver/Defiler, the Warlock, the Alienist, the Ritual
Priest, and the Conditional Priest.

The Conditional Priest was cool, but depended on you writing a "template" of
conditions, basically saying that in some situations you`re priest can cast
spells at a higher caster level, while in others he`d have a lower caster
level. Haelyn, for example, might raise a caster level +1 during battles,
while Eleole might actually lower caster level -1 during battles. The book
recommended having 5 of each type "positive" and "negative" conditions.

The Ritual Priest was stupid and depended on using time-dependant and
gp-dependant rituals to gain spellpoints with which to cast spells. For
example, performing a 2 SP ritual to cast a 10 SP spell (3rd level) would
take 5 turns to cast that spell. Making a sacrifice (such as a magic item)
can gain a lot more SP, making the rituals faster. This was a stupid
system, as written. Decent ideas to work from, though.

The Alienist and the Warlock were similiar in theme but had different
mechanics. Everytime an Alienist memorized a spell, there was a percentage
chance that he could gain an insanity, and there was a list. The warlock,
everytime he casts a spell, there`s a chance he`ll be tainted by evil and
this basically used the corruption rules from Ravenloft (actually granting
cool benefits at first, then mixed blessings, then turning you into a
viscious monster, and finally you were an NPC).

The Preserver/Defiler worked like an arcane version of the Ritual Priest,
building up SP to cast a spell during spellcasting by taking energy from the
land. A preserver took a long time to cast a spell, but could cast more
spells. The defiler was just extremely powerful, but killed all life and
vegetation around him with each casting.

The Channeller was the variant magic system that I used that worked really
well, but made characters really powerful. Everytime the character casts a
spell, he`d become fatigued based on a chart in the book. Every time
allotment, depending on the level of fatigue, a saving throw was allowed to
recover. Spell points were gained again over time instead of per day, so
that three hours of rest might be enough to get a couple spells back. The
Channeller in my game died in a climactic battle because he was 5th level
and attempted to cast a 5th level spell ("Hold Monsters") costing most of
his SP, and risking Mortal Fatigue. He failed his save, and never awoke
again.


Ritualists, if done better, would be cool for Cerelia. The
preserver/defiler might be a cool type of elven magic. I think Warlocks and
Channellers would also have their place. The Shaman class, which summoned
spirit guides (choose either animal, nature spirit, or ancestor) to cast
spells for you or to help you prepare them, but these spirit guides often
asked favors and demanded codes of conduct. You also needed a lengthly
ritual to summon them. I highly recommend the spell point system in any
case and will be posting it soon along with my class writeup of the Mage and
possibly the Shaman. It`ll be written up in a d20Modern/ClassicallyModern
format similiar to the Scion of Vorynn class I posted earlier this week.

-Lord Rahvin

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

>I`ve noticed that there is considerable interest in reform of the magic
>system. Some suggestions have been very modest (there is a non-interference
>pact) other less so. Many settings have been very happy to provide entirely
>new spellcasting systems with whole new spell lists. Many of these are
>elementally based, but not all of them. In a manner of speaking, the whole
>wizard - magician situation is an early adjustment of the standard D&D
>spellcasting system, but other settings have left this behind and taken new
>spellcasting systems way beyond BR.
>
>What should spellcasting look like in Cerilia? Here are some possible
>suggestions.
>
>1) Spell power progression slows down after 5th to 7th caster levels.
> 1A) Spell limits might be more generous with lower level spells.
> 1B) Other arcane powers might be granted in compensation
> 1Ba) Additional Spell Focus and Spell Penetration feats
> 1Bb) Ability to develope and manipulate ley lines
> 1Bc) Abilities to perform new abilities (travel in Shadow World?)
>2) Casting times may begin to increase for higher level spells
>3) Required skill checks may necessitate taking levels of Expert
>4) Additional requirements are neccesary to move beyond spell level 6 (being
>blooded being required to get beyond 2nd level.
>5) More specialization
>What should be going on with Cerilian spellcasters?
>Kenneth Gauck
>kgauck@mchsi.com
>
The Expert class is a bad idea if it really comes to that scions are
required to take levels in a scion class.
Then we would have a Expert/Scion/Wizard - after all a wizard needs to
be a scion with a bloodline and if he also needs lots of skill points
then what will be so great about a Wizard as compared to the Magician?
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.

[kgauck]

Here is my current plan for magic in the BR setting. It combines several
things I have been trying to accomplish.

1) starting with a more narrow spell list, but coming up with a mechanism
for implementing this
2) lowering the magic level of the setting without making spellcasting
classes poor choices.
3) breaking down the barriers between class spell lists, including arcane
and divine.

So here is what I`ve done.
A) Spellcasting classes (cleric, druid, wizard, sorcerer) can not exceed
half of your total character level.
B) Alternate classes provide feats as well as new spells known (without
increasing your ability to cast new spells, they also typically have pretty
good skill points.

So, take a priest of Avani. He might take a second class (based on where
the players wants to focus the character, could be a 3-level, 5-level,
10-level, or 20-level class) that provides new spells to learn, special
feats, and a skill list that keeps the character competitive. So our priest
of Avani wants to be a ruler of holdings one day, and develop fire energy
powers. So, I whip up a fire class based on Avani (probably also based off
of something in Tome and Blood, or another supplement). It will have 6
ranks of skill points per level, d6 hit dice, clerical BAB, fortitude save,
add knowledge of spells dealing with sun, fire, and protection, add a domain
the player is interested (lets say a sun domain that immolates undead and
uses fire to purify) and a minor power that increases the character`s power
over fire, or related domains. The other class might be Aristocrat, a PrC
from any of a variety of sources or something I make the character more of a
ruler.

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.

[Birthright-L]

--- Kenneth Gauck <kgauck@MCHSI.COM> skrev: > Here is
my current plan for magic in the BR setting.
> It combines several
> things I have been trying to accomplish.
>


Is this planned to be a part of the conversion book,
or is it your private musings?

__________________________________________________ ___
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.

[destowe]

That would mean anything over a 5th level spell is not available for casting. A 6th level spell needs a 11th level caster. If you make it mandatory to dual class, that means they need to be 21st or 22nd level. Add a scion template to increase the ECL and it gets even worse.

[ryancaveney]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, destowe wrote:

> That would mean anything over a 5th level spell is not available for
> casting.

I would have said that was the *intent*, not a side effect. The concern
is that once you have even a tiny handful of people able to command such
magics, the world simply is not "low magic" anymore -- those high-level
spells are the problem being solved by this plan.

> A 6th level spell needs a 11th level caster. If you make it mandatory
> to dual class, that means they need to be 21st or 22nd level. Add a
> scion template to increase the ECL and it gets even worse.

I see no reason to cap total class level at 20, especially for the many
ancient and powerful creatures hanging around Cerilia. For example, given
that I think I probably do want the Magian and Llaeddra (but very possibly
no one else ever, including PCs) casting 9th level spells, I have no
problem at all giving each of them at least 34 total class levels. Among
other things, I think the Gorgon should get his full 25 levels of Fighter,
with no need to introduce "epic" classes, as the right way to extend the
table progression (especially for that class) is completely obvious.


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.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by ryancaveney

On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, destowe wrote:

> That would mean anything over a 5th level spell is not available for
> casting.

I would have said that was the *intent*, not a side effect. The concern
is that once you have even a tiny handful of people able to command such
magics, the world simply is not "low magic" anymore -- those high-level
spells are the problem being solved by this plan.

> A 6th level spell needs a 11th level caster. If you make it mandatory
> to dual class, that means they need to be 21st or 22nd level. Add a
> scion template to increase the ECL and it gets even worse.

I see no reason to cap total class level at 20, especially for the many
ancient and powerful creatures hanging around Cerilia. For example, given
that I think I probably do want the Magian and Llaeddra (but very possibly
no one else ever, including PCs) casting 9th level spells, I have no
problem at all giving each of them at least 34 total class levels. Among
other things, I think the Gorgon should get his full 25 levels of Fighter,
with no need to introduce "epic" classes, as the right way to extend the
table progression (especially for that class) is completely obvious.


Ryan Caveney


But the way the Epic rules are written all progression beyond 20th level is handled using epic progression. This character level, not individual class levels. A multi-classed character can be an epic character but not be epic in any one class. Part of the progression is a change in progression of BAB, saving throws, etc. It is important to "follow" those rules since they are inmportant for blanacing out of the system. Now, if using a "home-brewed" system like you do then this doesn't apply, although it will mean handling everything accordingly (monsters, NPCs, CRs, etc.). Using Epic progressin also allows for the acquisition of "epic" feats which are substantially more powerful than the "ordinary" ones.

[ryancaveney]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, irdeggman wrote:

> A multi-classed character can be an epic character but not be epic in
> any one class.

I know. I think the whole idea of "epicness" is entirely unnecessary.

> Part of the progression is a change in progression of BAB, saving
> throws, etc.

A change which I think is silly and unappealing.

> It is important to "follow" those rules since they are inmportant
> for blanacing out of the system.

I disagree completely -- I think they make things much more imbalanced.

> Now, if using a "home-brewed" system like you do then this doesn`t
> apply, although it will mean handling everything accordingly
> (monsters, NPCs, CRs, etc.).

Clearly, introduction of the "no more than 1/2 your levels in a
spellcasting class" rule (which I quite like, btw) would already make
anyone`s campaign a "home-brew", so there`s little point in not making any
other rules changes suggested by it. Personally, given the way the "epic"
stuff is handled, I think it`s much more of a rules change from the PHB
than is "just don`t cap character level at 20".

> Using Epic progressin also allows for the acquisition of "epic"
> feats which are substantially more powerful than the "ordinary"
> ones.

Some parts of it are amusing, and others are annoying, but overall I find
it awkward and generally unhelpful. Considered as a whole, I think the
official epic level rules are a bug, not a feature.


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]

My limiting spellcasting levels to no more than half of all character levels
is nothing more than my own home rules. Ryan is correct, that the very
purpose of this adjustment is to reduce the power of magic that is routine
in the campaign. Powerful magic will be ancient and DM placed. I will add
that I think 3e is designed for higher level play than previous editions.
Playing at the lowest levels means you lose out on many of the most
interesting character options. I`ve boosted the place where I plateau
character development by failing to provide consistently more dangerous
opponants every time they turn the corner. I want to see knights with more
than power attack.

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.

[Lord Rahvin]

> > I see no reason to cap total class level at 20, especially for the many
> > ancient and powerful creatures hanging around Cerilia. For example, given
> > that I think I probably do want the Magian and Llaeddra (but very possibly
> > no one else ever, including PCs) casting 9th level spells, I have no
> > problem at all giving each of them at least 34 total class levels. Among
> > other things, I think the Gorgon should get his full 25 levels of Fighter,
> > with no need to introduce "epic" classes, as the right way to extend the
> > table progression (especially for that class) is completely obvious.
> > Ryan Caveney
>
> But the way the Epic rules are written all progression beyond 20th level is handled using epic progression. This character level, not individual class levels. A multi-classed character can be an epic character but not be epic in any one class. Part of the progression is a change in progression of BAB, saving throws, etc. It is important to "follow" those rules since they are inmportant for blanacing out of the system. Now, if using a "home-brewed" system like you do then this doesn`t apply, although it will mean handling everything accordingly (monsters, NPCs, CRs, etc.). Using Epic progressin also allows for the acquisition of "epic" feats which are substantially more powerful than the "ordinary" ones.


Put the book down, Ird. Step outside the box for a sec. It`ll only be a
minute. Forget about quoting rules, and try your best to see Ryan`s comment
here. If you don`t agree with it and like the Epic rules better, that`s
fine. Say that. But he doesn`t need you to quote rules to him that he
already said he`d be in favor of disregarding. Simply extend the tables to
logical progressions and *never make the character an epic level character*.
In fact, never open the Epic Handbook. (Actually there is some cools stuff
in that book that`s not really epic, but that`s another post...) According
to Ryan, and I`m not sure I agree with this, but just so we`re all in the
same page, the Gorgon should be a 25th level fighter but not be Epic. It`s
just like having a 20th level character, but with 3 more fighter bonus
feats, 2 more standard feats, 5d10 hit dice, 10 more skill points (phoo!),
+2 Fort, +2 Refl, +2 Will, and an additional +1 to any ability score.
Ignore the "epic feats" and keep in mind that the gorgon`s not really going
to be fighting other "epic creatures" so CRs not such an issue.

-Lord Rahvin

************************************************** **************************
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 Rahvin]

> That would mean anything over a 5th level spell is not available for casting. A 6th level spell needs a 11th level caster. If you make it mandatory to dual class, that means they need to be 21st or 22nd level. Add a scion template to increase the ECL and it gets even worse.


They don`t need to be 21st level or whatever. As it is, I think 20th level
characters have absurd power, and so too do spellcasters capable of casting
5th level spells. 5th level is plenty high for most single spell casters,
and beyond that we get effects that are better off left in the discipline of
realm magic. At 5th level, you already have spells that can completely
dominate someone`s free will, clouds that kill everyone inside, render a
creature completely helpless, can send massive damage through a cone of
cold, create massively powerful illusions, move things with your mind,
teleport, animate the dead, unleash violent storms, summon walls of fire,
raise the dead back to life, smite foes with holy power, leave powerful
curses to control actions, summon elementals, or instantly slay a living
creature. Beyond that, even characters in most fantasy novels don`t weild
that kind of power and when they do they are either prevented from using it
for some reason, or else its something more closely tied to the idea of BR
realm magic.

-Lord Rahvin

************************************************** **************************
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, 10 Jun 2003, Lord Rahvin wrote:

> In fact, never open the Epic Handbook. (Actually there is some cools
> stuff in that book that`s not really epic, but that`s another post...)

And I even said I like *some* of the stuff in it, just not as a whole. =)

> According to Ryan, and I`m not sure I agree with this, but just so
> we`re all in the same page, the Gorgon should be a 25th level fighter
> but not be Epic. It`s just like having a 20th level character, but
> with 3 more fighter bonus feats, 2 more standard feats, 5d10 hit dice,
> 10 more skill points (phoo!), +2 Fort, +2 Refl, +2 Will, and an
> additional +1 to any ability score.

Yes, that`s exactly what I meant. Some of the numbers look a bit off --
e.g., I think that should be 2 fighter bonus feats (from 22nd and 24th
levels), not 3 -- but the idea is right. Gorgy has a decent Int, though,
so his skill points will go up a bit more than an "average" Ftr 25.


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.

[DanMcSorley]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Lord Rahvin wrote:
> Put the book down, Ird. Step outside the box for a sec. It`ll only be a
> minute.

Why should anyone listen to you when you open up with this comment? You
obviously consider him to be beneath you, so why bother posting? Do you
just want to instruct us? Thank you, my lord, for speaking to us from on
high.
--
Daniel McSorley

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

Originally posted by Lord Rahvin

> > I see no reason to cap total class level at 20, especially for the many
> > ancient and powerful creatures hanging around Cerilia. For example, given
> > that I think I probably do want the Magian and Llaeddra (but very possibly
> > no one else ever, including PCs) casting 9th level spells, I have no
> > problem at all giving each of them at least 34 total class levels. Among
> > other things, I think the Gorgon should get his full 25 levels of Fighter,
> > with no need to introduce "epic" classes, as the right way to extend the
> > table progression (especially for that class) is completely obvious.
> > Ryan Caveney
>
> But the way the Epic rules are written all progression beyond 20th level is handled using epic progression. This character level, not individual class levels. A multi-classed character can be an epic character but not be epic in any one class. Part of the progression is a change in progression of BAB, saving throws, etc. It is important to "follow" those rules since they are inmportant for blanacing out of the system. Now, if using a "home-brewed" system like you do then this doesn`t apply, although it will mean handling everything accordingly (monsters, NPCs, CRs, etc.). Using Epic progressin also allows for the acquisition of "epic" feats which are substantially more powerful than the "ordinary" ones.


Put the book down, Ird. Step outside the box for a sec. It`ll only be a
minute. Forget about quoting rules, and try your best to see Ryan`s comment
here. If you don`t agree with it and like the Epic rules better, that`s
fine. Say that. But he doesn`t need you to quote rules to him that he
already said he`d be in favor of disregarding. Simply extend the tables to
logical progressions and *never make the character an epic level character*.
In fact, never open the Epic Handbook. (Actually there is some cools stuff
in that book that`s not really epic, but that`s another post...) According
to Ryan, and I`m not sure I agree with this, but just so we`re all in the
same page, the Gorgon should be a 25th level fighter but not be Epic. It`s
just like having a 20th level character, but with 3 more fighter bonus
feats, 2 more standard feats, 5d10 hit dice, 10 more skill points (phoo!),
+2 Fort, +2 Refl, +2 Will, and an additional +1 to any ability score.
Ignore the "epic feats" and keep in mind that the gorgon`s not really going
to be fighting other "epic creatures" so CRs not such an issue.

-Lord Rahvin


Actually I agree with the gorgon keeping the "level" I just disagree with extrapolating the eixisting classes to match. I do think that the epic rules work and are a pretty good match with the rules dfor deities and demigods and the info in savage species. I would instead of having the big "G" continue to advance as a fighter have him advance in divine ranks as a demigod up to a lesser deity. This, IMO, is a more accurate description of the influence of his bloodline an his development.

I also recognized that there was a house rules issue here and pointed out that in my reply. But it becomes difficult to have a discussion when people are coming at the point from their own "highly developed" sets of house rules. We are not all on quite the same page when discussing things since not everyone (OK almost no one) has the same adaptations and things that one person considers understood aren't even know by another person since they hadn't seen the full set of house rules being used as a reference.

IMO, I'd rather use as much from the core materials as possible and only "tweak" things to fit vice re-write everything to suit my personal vision. This is only an opinion and everyone is more than entitled to make their own campaign any way they wish too.

[DanMcSorley]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
> Yes, that`s exactly what I meant. Some of the numbers look a bit off --
> e.g., I think that should be 2 fighter bonus feats (from 22nd and 24th
> levels), not 3 -- but the idea is right. Gorgy has a decent Int, though,
> so his skill points will go up a bit more than an "average" Ftr 25.

Ignoring the ELH is fine at "low" epic levels like this. The problems the
book was designed to solve arise at higher levels, maybe 60 or so. By
that point, your good save will be around +36, your bad ones at +18 (plus
ability modifiers). That`s an 18 point spread in your saves, and it
basically means that for something to challenge one set of characters
(say, an epic poison with a fortitude save, versus fighters), it will be
completely unsaveable for those without that good save. Similarly for
melee- if BAB progression continues normally, then either the fighter will
hit with every attack, and the rest might hit part of the time, or the
fighter will hit part of the time, and no-one without a 1/1 BAB
progression will be able to hit at all.

Thus, the epic rules, which boil down to: at odd levels, get a +1 epic
attack bonus (same as BAB, but doesn`t count for iterative attacks). At
even levels, get a +1 to all your saves. This keeps the spread down.
Spell progressions and bonus feats and abilities change a little, but not
a lot.

So a fighter will never have more than a 10 point spread in BAB over a
wizard of equivalent level. Party saves shouldn`t spread more than 6-10
points base, not accounting for ability modifiers. This enables DMs of
high level characters to have encounters which involve everyone, and not
just the one character that can do something.

At the level we`re talking about, say 25th level for the gorgon, 21st or
so for the Magian, it doesn`t really matter, particularly since these
aren`t part of an adventuring party which has to be DM`ed. Though that
might be an interesting game... The Gorgon, the Magian, and the Serpent
get tossed through an interdimensional portal and have to build trust and
find their way home... nah.
--
Daniel McSorley

************************************************** **************************
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 think part of the problem that the Epic Level Handbook tends to create is that it distorts the way people look at levels. A 17th level wizard in core D&D is bloody powerful - and he's supposed to be - yet once you introduce the epic level rules, he suddenly looks like some kind of wimp.

If you look at what PCs of any level can actually do, it's pretty epic, even below "epic" levels. Any fighter of above 10th level can reasonably expect to be able to fight an army on his own - an army of about 200 1st-level warriors is about EL 15 (though, realistically, much lower) - if you just take the theory at face value, a single 15th-level fighter has a 50/50 chance of taking down an army of 200 men on his own. I'd say that's pretty "epic." That's a basic fighter with a sword. A wizard, with his weapons of mass destruction, can achieve the same effect much earlier and with a greater degree of reliability.

Now, the reason for the epic rules being as they are is simply what Dan said - the rules are based around a d20. In most cases, when characters have high class-based modifiers, they also generally gain high ability-based modifiers (fighters have high strength, rogues high dexterity, and so on), widening the gap further. If the gap gets too wide (as it would inevitably do, given an infinite extension), then some saves become impossible to make for a fighter, while the wizard succeeds automatically - or vice versa. Makes for extremely bad play, especially given the prevalence of save or die effects. I'd imagine it'd do something like making characters die in shifts - "ok, this combat, the wizards get to shine, while the fighters die and await resurrection afterwards." Simply extending the normal rules for a few levels work ok for PCs, and for NPCs, it doesn't matter that much anyway (actually, it does - it'd produce NPCs with extreme achilles heels to some effects and immunities to others, but there are plenty of those anyway).

Finally, I'm not necessarily sold on the idea of requiring spellcasters to multiclass every other level or whatever - of course, if it works for you, more power to you. There's a few systematic implications beyond the immediately obvious that needs to be applied, though. Spells should probably add +2 DC per spell level instead, as a minimal form of compensation - for instance, the base DC for a 5th-level spell should be 10 + 10 (5x2) + at least 2 (for a 15 Int). Otherwise, pretty much everyone will make their saves, and wizards will be useless. I do think that the "real" issue here, though, is perhaps the view of the leveling issue that I mentioned earlier - if 20th level doesn't seem like so much, then 9th level spells may seem commonplace. Given the levels that are in the Birthright products, though, I think I can recall about 3-4 NPCs capable of casting 9th-level spells, given 3e rules. Not really a whole lot.

Of course, I also think that calling Birthright a "low magic" setting is entirely wrong. On the contrary, the entire setting strikes me as much more "magical" than the Forgotten Realms, for instance - or, rather, Birthright *has* magic - FR just has another science. I think, with the bloodlines, mebhaighl, the Shadow World, the presence of fey and elves and awnsheghlien, the entire setting is filled with magic - it's just that the trappings of it are substantially less common than in other settings. "Rare, but powerful magic" would perhaps seem a better way to describe the setting, given how it is described in the books. Wizards are powerful and mysterious, magic items are rare, but not necessarily weak (just look at the equipment of the premier NPCs).

If you want to change the core assumptions of the setting, by making it low or high magic, or introducing monks or psionics, that's okay by me. I do think that a better way of modeling Birthright as described in the 2e materials, though, would be to introduce a flat XP penalty on creating magic items (to make it less viable to churn out +1 swords, but not really penalize more powerful items too much) and somehow reward wizards for working in subtle or mysterious ways instead of blasting away at stuff, possibly by moving damaging spells up one or two spell levels.

[destowe]

I think my biggest objjection to the mandatory split is the already low number of high level mages.

I think HMA is listed as 16th. That is not even using 9th lvl spells.

The Sword Mage, one of the feared mages is only 10th. That is only 5th level spells. The mandatory split will lower that to Fireball class.

But one suggestion that I think will make the mandatory split better would be free domain spells at each of the mandatory levels.

A mage get 2 normal spells when leveling, and when leveling in the "domain mage" class gets 1 domain spell. That will give them an ability similar to higher level spells.

A second suggestion would be a bonus to battle magic. Give them the feat Battle Magic free at first level, make Warcraft a class skill, and give a small periodic bonus to the roll. That would make their battle magic harder to resist, but not affect their casting in dungeon settings.

[Green Knight]

Wouldn't it be far simple to reduce the spell progression of the various classes instead of requiring players to pick levels in another class?

If the wizard got new spells at levels 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25 that should cap out most PC casters at about 5-6th level spells. Other spellcasting classes need to be reworked too of course.

Give the wizard something in return for the lost spells (skill points, hd, BAB, saves, feats, or whatever). Giving him greater number of low-level spells at high level might also be a good idea as it inceases his staying power, without giving him access to the most powerful magics.

Add a short banned spell list, and there is actually not very much work on this version.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Green Knight

Wouldn't it be far simple to reduce the spell progression of the various classes instead of requiring players to pick levels in another class?

If the wizard got new spells at levels 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25 that should cap out most PC casters at about 5-6th level spells. Other spellcasting classes need to be reworked too of course.

Give the wizard something in return for the lost spells (skill points, hd, BAB, saves, feats, or whatever). Giving him greater number of low-level spells at high level might also be a good idea as it inceases his staying power, without giving him access to the most powerful magics.

Add a short banned spell list, and there is actually not very much work on this version.

That is indeed the simpliest solution and the one keeping most with 3rd ed (if that's the system being used, but regardless it would work with 2nd ed also).

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Green Knight" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 3:40 AM


> Wouldn`t it be far simple to reduce the spell progression of the various
> classes instead of requiring players to pick levels in another class?

Possibly, but the reason I went with the second class was to distinguish
spellcasters. Clerics are the most obvious. The Guilder 5/Cleric of Sera
4, the Fighter 4/Cleric of Haelyn 4, the Alchemist 6/Cleric of Avani 5,
these are all pretty clear improvements over various levels of Cleric. But
why not just different classes of cleric for each faith? Because of the
difference between the Cleric of Haelyn 4/Fighter 4, and the Cleric of
Haelyn 4/Aristocrat 4, or the Cleric of Haelyn 4/Expert 4 with learned ranks
in law and administration. If we start talking about higher level
characters we can look at Fighter 3/Cleric of Haelyn 7 /Hospitaler 4 where
the Hospitaler class is re-worked slightly to provide an extra domian of
Healing, and knoweldge of new Healing spells not on the Haelyn spell list.

In a word, it adds flexibility to design very specific kinds of classes.
Wizards may not cry out for as much flexibility, but they can certainly
benifit from the ability to specialize as an expert, alchemist, herbalist,
rogue, astronomer, aristocrat, and then take PrC`s which teach them new
spells, but don`t increase their caster level.

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: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 4:23 AM


> That is indeed the simpliest solution and the one keeping most with 3rd
> ed (if that`s the system being used, but regardless it would work with
> 2nd ed also).

I think the thing most keeping with the 3rd ed is to utilize multi-classing.
The idea of the single class spellcaster is the old school.

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.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by kgauck

----- Original Message -----
From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 4:23 AM


> That is indeed the simpliest solution and the one keeping most with 3rd
> ed (if that`s the system being used, but regardless it would work with
> 2nd ed also).

I think the thing most keeping with the 3rd ed is to utilize multi-classing.
The idea of the single class spellcaster is the old school.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com


Ahh that's the beauty of 3rd ed - there is generally "more than one way to skin the cat".

Multiclasing can definitely be used, it will lessen the advancement of a spellcaster as does any prestige class/multi-class option - but it definitely will work.

Essentially creating a "new" class from the existing ones (also allowed in the DMG) would cover the proposal to change the spell progression.:)

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 3:15 PM


> Essentially creating a "new" class from the existing ones (also allowed
> in the DMG) would cover the proposal to change the spell progression.:)

But less well, I think. Say I make a new wizard class with every other
level being an improvement in spellcasting, and the alternate levels being
somesupport wizard stuff. Then when a character wants a third class, he`s
setting his spellasting back further. The true multiclass proposal can
produce not only Wizard 8/Alchemist 8, but also Wizard 8/Alchemist 4/Rogue
4. The few levels in rogue could be taken as non-spellcasting levels
without further slowing spellcasting progression. A reworked spellcasting
class would make multi-classing even more painful than it is in the PHB.

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.

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by kgauck

I think the thing most keeping with the 3rd ed is to utilize multi-classing.
The idea of the single class spellcaster is the old school.

Yes, but requiring to multiclass is some kind of restriction. IMO the heart of the 3rd ED is to reduce restrictions of classes (that's why paladins need not to be human any more). I think it's a bad idea to force your players not to choose what they want. If they like to play a single class spellcaster (if "out" or not), let them...

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by kgauck


----- Original Message -----
From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 3:15 PM


> Essentially creating a "new" class from the existing ones (also allowed
> in the DMG) would cover the proposal to change the spell progression.:)

But less well, I think. Say I make a new wizard class with every other
level being an improvement in spellcasting, and the alternate levels being
somesupport wizard stuff. Then when a character wants a third class, he`s
setting his spellasting back further. The true multiclass proposal can
produce not only Wizard 8/Alchemist 8, but also Wizard 8/Alchemist 4/Rogue
4. The few levels in rogue could be taken as non-spellcasting levels
without further slowing spellcasting progression. A reworked spellcasting
class would make multi-classing even more painful than it is in the PHB.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com


That only applies to the spell progression. Multiclassing with a wizard forces the character to lose out on the bonus feats that a wizard gains when leveling up. Changing the spell progression will maintain this aspect while only limiting the progression of spells, which was essentially the original proposal, that is to slow down a wizard's access to high level spells. Remember that spellcasting levels don't normally stack. That is a wizard 3/sorcerer 3 still has spells cast as a 3rd level spellcaster not a 6th level. This also applies to spellcaster level when applicable to item creation and metamagic feats.

[Green Knight]

It seems the heart of the issue isn't simply reducing the power of spellcasters, but also forcing players to build diverse characters by demanding multi-classing.

If such a rule is implemented, it should be enforced equally for all characters and classes. The fighter also gets a bit broken around level 20, and could do well with some levels of expert, aristocrat or rogue.

It's an interesting idea, but one of those ideas that probably isn't desireable in all campaigns.

[Birthright-L]

The problem is, if you let them,they will. Spellcasters hate to multiclass.
And that spoils any ideas of a low-magic game that you might have.

/Carl

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ariadne" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
To: <BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM>
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 2:11 AM
Subject: Re: (BIRTHRIGHT) Magic Reform [2#1587]


> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at:
http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1587
>
> Ariadne wrote:
>
Originally posted by kgauck
>
> I think the thing most keeping with the 3rd ed is to utilize
multi-classing.
> The idea of the single class spellcaster is the old school.
>
> Yes, but requiring to multiclass is some kind of restriction. IMO the
heart of the 3rd ED is to reduce restrictions of classes (that`s why
paladins need not to be human any more). I think it`s a bad idea to force
your players not to choose what they want. If they like to play a single
class spellcaster (if "out" or not), let them...
>
>
>
************************************************** **************************
> 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.

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by Birthright-L

The problem is, if you let them,they will. Spellcasters hate to multiclass.
And that spoils any ideas of a low-magic game that you might have.

/Carl
I know, but I don't like low level spellcaster campaigns too. The Green Knight is right, that you have to restrict other classes too, not only spellcasters, if you force such things. Otherwise the game starts to become unfair. If I can't become a "normal" wizard or cleric I simply don't play one (or change the group where I can play one).

I as a spellcaster have no problems to multiclass with a prestige class... ;)

[Michael Romes]

I don´t understand most of the problems in this discussion:

A while ago many people were upset when I suggested that, like in 2E, clerics did not get access to all spells, but were restricted to a selection of "schools" or "domains". This diversification that was so fantastic in 2E Birthright was completely lost in 3E Birthright as all clerics had the same spell list.

Now even more people complain that spellcasters have to many, too high-level spells.


In most games this should not be a problem: Even the Ruins of Empire has only a handful of wizards and another handful of clerics above level 10 in Anuire - if you have a handful of wizards of level 20 which are all PC´s in your campaign then the problem is not in the rules, but in your campaign.

The low-magic setting is no problem either: Birthright is no low-magic, but a rare and high-magic setting. Wizards are supposed to be powerful (if they ever achieve high-levels). What the armys of other regents are, Wizards have in personal power

Simply raising the value of magical items to 150% or more of that given in the DMG should stop mass-production of magical items. Placing only few in treasure hoards and then mostly one-charge potions or scrolls will reduce the amount of magic also.

However requiring players to multi-class because else their character would have to much spellcasting power is ridiculous. In 2E Birthright even the possible multi/dual-class options fo the PHB were further restricted. Now in 3E Birthright you want to FORCE a player who wishes to advance as a spellcaster to multi-class?

A much better way is to require special components for all spells that are dangerous for gameplay and restrict their availability. e.g. yes, your wizard CAN memorize 5 Meteor Swarms, but you need a piece of a meteor as material component - the only known pieces are currently spread among a crater in the monster infested mountains of the Five Peaks and require an adventure of a month to get them...
bye
Michael

[irdeggman]

Good points Michael.:)

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ariadne" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 7:11 PM

> Yes, but requiring to multiclass is some kind of restriction. IMO the
> heart of the 3rd ED is to reduce restrictions of classes (that`s why
> paladins need not to be human any more). I think it`s a bad idea to
> force your players not to choose what they want. If they like to play
> a single class spellcaster (if "out" or not), let them...

Given that spellcasting power will be cut in half, how is a multi-class
requirement a restriction? Indeed it seemed incredibly liberating. I don`t
see *any* downside.

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: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 8:34 PM


> That only applies to the spell progression. Multiclassing with a wizard
> forces the character to lose out on the bonus feats that a wizard gains
> when leveling up.

The whole point of introducing classes like Alchemist, Herbalist,
Astronomer, and any other were specifically to provide all of those bonus
feats, with new spells to learn, as well as penty o`skill points. Its
better than all of those lost levels of wizard, its all of that plus some
considerable compensation for losing the rapid spell progression.

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.

[Raedwald]

The multi-class option seem rather harsh remedy. Birthright seems more geared toward low to mid level play. High level can be done but takes a great deal more preparation.

If spellcasters are too powerful, is it because they advanced too quickly? Try reducing experience. Or institute training times and costs.

Another way to limit wizards is spell selection. Make them research every spell between their automatic 2 per level, even if they have a scroll or captured spellbook to work from.

Remember the implications for spellcasters once they hit between 8th and 12th level. They really should start getting noticed in Birthright. Rivals may try and kill them. NPC's may request/demand services or magic items constructed. Oppponents will try and neutralize/delay/hamper them - stealing magic, poisoning, ambushing etc....

What is the problem being addressed?

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by kgauck

----- Original Message -----
From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 8:34 PM


> That only applies to the spell progression. Multiclassing with a wizard
> forces the character to lose out on the bonus feats that a wizard gains
> when leveling up.

The whole point of introducing classes like Alchemist, Herbalist,
Astronomer, and any other were specifically to provide all of those bonus
feats, with new spells to learn, as well as penty o`skill points. Its
better than all of those lost levels of wizard, its all of that plus some
considerable compensation for losing the rapid spell progression.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com


Again, caster levels from different spellcasting classes don't stack with regards to prerequisites for feats that require a certain spellcaster level. For example bard spellcasting levels don't stack with wizard ones even though they are both arcane casters.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Green Knight" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 1:33 AM

> If such a rule is implemented, it should be enforced equally for all
> characters and classes. The fighter also gets a bit broken around
> level 20, and could do well with some levels of expert, aristocrat
> or rogue.

Non-spellcasting classes are already multi-classed IMC. No one wants to be
a single class fighter. You could go entire sessions with a single
opportunity to do *anything*. There is too much talking with NPC`s not to
want people skills in addition to fighting skills. Plus the fact that
everyone starts with a required backround class in rogue, expert, or
aristocrat means that they`ve already gotten a push in that direction.

One of the ways you can influence players is by showing them what NPC`s look
like. All of the conversions of the NPC`s in the books started off with
fighters becoming 2/3 fighter 1/3 aristocrat. Some, like Guthrim Gaukson
became strait up Aristocrats. Take Guthrim. He is pretty clearly a
villainous character,
http://home.mchsi.com/~kgauck/taelshore/guthrim.htm
and unless the characters adopt an anti-crown politics early on, will be an
opponant in the realm. He`s an Eorl, so has his own units to protect him,
is an 8th level aristocrat and so is a decent combatant. What he has is his
55 ranks in Arisrocratic skills.
Appraise 5, Bluff 11+2, Gather Information 9, Intrigue 11, Knowledge
(Nobility) 3+8, Listen 3, Perform (Etiquette) 0+8-5, Sense Motive 11, Swim
2

You may point to the party rogue, although rogues must be careful to his
their true class in Rjurik. To be addressed in any noble court, the rogue
would need an office. Even still, most eorls will prefer to deal with the
highest ranking member of the delegation, and that is probabaly not the
party rogue. The one rogue who started out as a pure rogue decided his
roguish skills were high enough, because locks, walls to climb, and other
theify things are not particularly challenging in Rjurik lands. Orogs are
tough, so he multi-classed as a fighter.

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: "Ariadne" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 6:51 AM


> I know, but I don`t like low level spellcaster campaigns too. The
> Green Knight is right, that you have to restrict other classes too,
> not only spellcasters, if you force such things. Otherwise the game
> starts to become unfair. If I can`t become a "normal" wizard or
> cleric I simply don`t play one (or change the group where I can play
> one).

Nonsense. I could just run the game as one of many no-spellcaster allowed
games, like AEG`s Swashbuckling, or one of the heavily restricted campaigns
like Rokugan or Soveriegn Stone. The amount of magic is part of the
setting, not imposed by the core rules.

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: "Michael Romes" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 9:54 AM


> I don´t understand most of the problems in this discussion:
>
> A while ago many people were upset when I suggested that, like in
> 2E, clerics did not get access to all spells, but were restricted to a
> selection of "schools" or "domains".

Not really. The medium is much better at eliciting disagreement, rather
than agreement. Especially when "me too" posts are explicitly frowned upon.
Anything you say is likely to generate more negative responce than positive.
I suspect the list consenus is for something more like the BoP, and less
like the core PHB cleric.

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: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 3:26 PM


> Again, caster levels from different spellcasting classes don`t stack
> with regards to prerequisites for feats that require a certain spellcaster
> level. For example bard spellcasting levels don`t stack with wizard
> ones even though they are both arcane casters.

Can you explain why this is related to the topic?

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.

[geeman]

At 04:54 PM 6/15/2003 +0200, Michael Romes wrote:

>A while ago many people were upset when I suggested that, like in 2E,
>clerics did not get access to all spells, but were restricted to a
>selection of "schools" or "domains". This diversification that was so
>fantastic in 2E Birthright was completely lost in 3E Birthright as all
>clerics had the same spell list.
>
>Now even more people complain that spellcasters have to many, too
>high-level spells.

These are two different issues. Access to schools or domains equals
versatility and theme. Access to higher level spells equals powering
up. One could have characters with broad spellcasting ability (access to a
lot of spells) that weren`t necessarily all that powerful (access to high
level spells) in a way that`s viable.

>In most games this should not be a problem: Even the Ruins of Empire has
>only a handful of wizards and another handful of clerics above level 10 in
>Anuire - if you have a handful of wizards of level 20 which are all
>PC´s in your campaign then the problem is not in the rules, but in your
>campaign.

A wizard and a cleric in a party is not at all unusual. Any long lasting
campaign is going to eventually level those characters up, so the problem
is pretty much inevitable.

>The low-magic setting is no problem either: Birthright is no low-magic,
>but a rare and high-magic setting. Wizards are supposed to be powerful (if
>they ever achieve high-levels). What the armys of other regents are,
>Wizards have in personal power

Doesn`t that illustrate the problem pretty well? What armies are to other
regents wizards have in personal power.

>Simply raising the value of magical items to 150% or more of that given in
>the DMG should stop mass-production of magical items. Placing only few in
>treasure hoards and then mostly one-charge potions or scrolls will reduce
>the amount of magic also.

This is also a different issue. When it comes to magic items we really
have some very odd rules in 3e, and the BR playtest tweak is really pretty
minor. 3e`s magic item creation rules are better than 2e, but the numbers
of magic items available doesn`t have much of a connection to those
rules. Magic items exist in the charts in the DMG without any relationship
to the amount of effort that characters would have put into making
them. From what I can tell the amount and variety of such items has no
real connection to the costs and purposes for which they would be
created. Magic item dispersal in D&D is largely part of an
adventurer-centered reward system, not part of any holistic thinking on how
the ability to create such items among a populace would lead to X items of
Y power.

Regardless of that, controlling the spellcaster levels of characters needs
to be addressed first before one thinks about how many magic items are
available in a campaign since those items come from those
spellcasters. Exactly how one might gauge that production is debatable,
but if one is trying to connect them up that`s how you`d have to do it.

>However requiring players to multi-class because else their character
>would have to much spellcasting power is ridiculous. In 2E Birthright even
>the possible multi/dual-class options fo the PHB were further restricted.
>Now in 3E Birthright you want to FORCE a player who wishes to advance as a
>spellcaster to multi-class?

I don`t recall where I read it before it was suggested here, but that
method is used in another D20 world in order to scale back the power of
spellcasters. It seems to work pretty well. Given the way the spell
levels power up more dramatically than any other aspect of character class
it`s really a pretty reasonable solution--assuming one didn`t want to go to
all the effort of rewriting the entire spellcasting system, that is....

>A much better way is to require special components for all spells that are
>dangerous for gameplay and restrict their availability. e.g. yes, your
>wizard CAN memorize 5 Meteor Swarms, but you need a piece of a meteor as
>material component - the only known pieces are currently spread among a
>crater in the monster infested mountains of the Five Peaks and require an
>adventure of a month to get them...

I don`t know.... That seems like it would grow tiresome pretty quickly and
winds up being something of a "gotcha" kind of rule. If you`re going to
give a character a class ability it seems like a pretty nasty quibble to
tack on "but only with these amazingly rare components that I`m going to
highly restrict your access to" as the basis of controlling their powering up.

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.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by kgauck

----- Original Message -----
From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 3:26 PM


> Again, caster levels from different spellcasting classes don`t stack
> with regards to prerequisites for feats that require a certain spellcaster
> level. For example bard spellcasting levels don`t stack with wizard
> ones even though they are both arcane casters.

Can you explain why this is related to the topic?

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com


I was responding to your statement

"> That only applies to the spell progression. Multiclassing with a wizard
> forces the character to lose out on the bonus feats that a wizard gains
> when leveling up.

The whole point of introducing classes like Alchemist, Herbalist,
Astronomer, and any other were specifically to provide all of those bonus
feats, with new spells to learn, as well as penty o`skill points. Its
better than all of those lost levels of wizard, its all of that plus some
considerable compensation for losing the rapid spell progression.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com"



:)

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 7:03 PM


> I was responding to your statement
>
# The whole point of introducing classes like Alchemist, Herbalist,
# Astronomer, and any other were specifically to provide all of those bonus
# feats, with new spells to learn, as well as penty o`skill points. Its
# better than all of those lost levels of wizard, its all of that plus some
# considerable compensation for losing the rapid spell progression.

What is the point of making a hammer to use screws? If I specifically make
Alchemist to compensate for the fact that I am forcing wizards to begin
multi-classing, why would I specifically make them incompatable. Alchemist
or the rest don`t provide castor levels, so castor levels not stacking isn`t
a problem. Skill ranks stack, metamagic and class feats stack. And if a
class is designed to broaden spellcasting by providing new spells to learn,
it only follows that they are usable by the character for which it is
created for.

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.

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by kgauck

Nonsense. I could just run the game as one of many no-spellcaster allowed games, like AEG`s Swashbuckling, or one of the heavily restricted campaigns like Rokugan or Soveriegn Stone. The amount of magic is part of the setting, not imposed by the core rules.
Why nonsense? I thinks it's not good to FORCE your players to choose something special. If they WANT to be single class, LET them, if they want to be multiclass, so O.K. I would never force a player to choose a class they don't want to play...

[Azrai]

Welcome to Kenneth's Joke Lesson. What? No joke?

Ok, but you must be joking! ?

Seriously: You kill the spellcaster class for the Birthright setting if you do it like that.


I could just run the game as one of many no-spellcaster allowed games, like AEG`s Swashbuckling, or one of the heavily restricted campaigns like Rokugan or Soveriegn Stone. The amount of magic is part of the setting, not imposed by the core rules.

The setting you mentioned have different game mechanics with balanced character classes. Best example for an alternative magic system is IMO the Dark Sun setting. It makes no sense to cripple one character class, the only way is to modify it whithout making it weaker. By the way, Magic is a mighty tool in the Sovereign Stone Campaign....

[kgauck]

Since when did it become impossible to deviate from the standard assumptions
of D&D in forming a campaign? Why does my campaign have to satisfy anyone`s
sense of how much magic there should be other than my own? If I can attract
players in a low, or a no-magic campaign, who is anyone to say its wrong?
In 2e I largely kept the game low magic by leeping it low level. Its easy
to do this by simply not inflating CR as characters gain levels. 2e was
largly incremental. You only gained more of the same abilities as you
gained levels. 3e adds new and interesting abilities as you gain levels and
I don`t want to continue to run a low level campaign. This produces a
conundrum regarding magic. A low level campaign is by default low magic.
To allow higher levels without powerful magics, I need to make adjustments.
I think that`s well within my pervue as DM. My players are already nearly
all barbarians, fighters, and aristocrats. Interestingly, when I advertised
a campaign in which a viking-like people lived near a late medieval knightly
society people wanted to play vikings and knights, not powerful wizards.

The only people complaining aren`t playing.

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]

Gary schrieb:

> At 04:54 PM 6/15/2003 +0200, Michael Romes wrote:
>
>> A while ago many people were upset when I suggested that, like in 2E,
>> clerics did not get access to all spells, but were restricted to a
>> selection of "schools" or "domains". This diversification that
>> was so fantastic in 2E Birthright was completely lost in 3E
>> Birthright as all clerics had the same spell list.
>> Now even more people complain that spellcasters have to many, too
>> high-level spells.
>
>
> These are two different issues. Access to schools or domains equals
> versatility and theme. Access to higher level spells equals powering
> up. One could have characters with broad spellcasting ability (access
> to a lot of spells) that weren`t necessarily all that powerful (access
> to high level spells) in a way that`s viable.

Versatility is also power. To be more versatile means a caster can adapt
to more problems.
Restricting clerics for example similar as in 2E, could mean that a
priest of Haelyn might have no access to spells listing the "Knowledge"
description in the Level info, e.g. True Seeing, Knowledge 5.
A priest of Haelyn would, like in 2E not be able to cast this spell, and
be more vulnerable to invisible enemys.
It also would prevent him from ever casting the spells of higher levels
as Legend Lore, Discern Location or Foresight.

So not only versatility (less broad access to spells) and theme (priests
of different gods actually have different spells and are DIFFERENT
besides the 2 chosen domains) but also less power, as he has no access
to certain highlevel spells.

If the limit is set that a priest of a god might lose an entire domain
list of spells (like if in 2E the god gave no access to a sphere) or
only to spells up to 3rd level (=2E minor sphere) or the full list is
open to discussion.

And that all by simply saying which god grants which domains to his
followers, without new classes or forcing players to multi-class :-)

>> In most games this should not be a problem: Even the Ruins of Empire
>> has only a handful of wizards and another handful of clerics above
>> level 10 in Anuire - if you have a handful of wizards of level 20
>> which are all PC´s in your campaign then the problem is not in the
>> rules, but in your campaign.
>
> A wizard and a cleric in a party is not at all unusual. Any long
> lasting campaign is going to eventually level those characters up, so
> the problem is pretty much inevitable.


Wizards are much rarer in Birthright than in other worlds. If for every
party in Birthright a wizard is readily available, then how are they
rarer? How fast and if at all the characters level up is up to you. If
you set your campaign in the Birthright setting but use only the core
standard hack´n´slay dungeon crawl with lots of dead monsters and XP
then certainly they will level up fast and gain higher levels. However
the settings magic rarity need not change - simply have the NPC Highmage
Aelies die and one of your PC´s replace him. Same level of power as far
as I see it. The problem for you seems not to be that there are
highlevel characters, but that your players can become highlevel
characters - then simply give minimum amounts of XP to delay their
ascension for years or at least so long that they do not gain "too high"
levels for your game in the time your game still runs ;-)

(most PBEMS don´t run that long at all, so I, playing sadly only in
PBEMS may fail to see the problem)

>> The low-magic setting is no problem either: Birthright is no
>> low-magic, but a rare and high-magic setting. Wizards are supposed to
>> be powerful (if they ever achieve high-levels). What the armys of
>> other regents are, Wizards have in personal power
>
>
> Doesn`t that illustrate the problem pretty well? What armies are to
> other regents wizards have in personal power.

Yes, exactly. A wizard should be able to overcome a few units of
expendable, 1st level commoners and warriors - EVERY character of
sufficient level can do that.

However guilders (guilds), clerics (temples) or fighters (most landed
regents) gain not only RP but also GB as they rule (and in 2E the first
two get "free" actions). Wizards do gain only RP.

So the other players can use their RP to bid against the Wizard, but
additionally they can muster armies to do their bidding. The wizard
can´t hire armies as he has no gold (Alchemy is useless, as he then
loses his RP power for bidding). So the wizard needs to be personally
powerful to be able to counter the military units of other players with
his magic.

As long as he can get a draw against another player of the same
resources, the game is balanced even when the wizard can destroy an army
unit or two alone in my opinion.

>> Simply raising the value of magical items to 150% or more of that
>> given in the DMG should stop mass-production of magical items.
>> Placing only few in treasure hoards and then mostly one-charge
>> potions or scrolls will reduce the amount of magic also.
>
>
> This is also a different issue. When it comes to magic items we
> really have some very odd rules in 3e, and the BR playtest tweak is
> really pretty minor. 3e`s magic item creation rules are better than
> 2e, but the numbers of magic items available doesn`t have much of a
> connection to those rules. Magic items exist in the charts in the DMG
> without any relationship to the amount of effort that characters would
> have put into making them. From what I can tell the amount and
> variety of such items has no real connection to the costs and purposes
> for which they would be created. Magic item dispersal in D&D is
> largely part of an adventurer-centered reward system, not part of any
> holistic thinking on how the ability to create such items among a
> populace would lead to X items of Y power.

Why should it? There are so many magical items in treasure hoards as the
DM wishes his players to be able to conquer, not more, not less.

> Regardless of that, controlling the spellcaster levels of characters
> needs to be addressed first before one thinks about how many magic
> items are available in a campaign since those items come from those
> spellcasters. Exactly how one might gauge that production is
> debatable, but if one is trying to connect them up that`s how you`d
> have to do it.

Then do not connect it :-)
You try to conclude the amount and type of magical items by counting the
people able to produce them and their resources and whatnot - but this
is useless. I for my part do not even want to know how much magical
items could be realistically produced in Cerilia in a year from the
current population - I do not care about that. Important is that the
number of magical items found is approbiate to the level of magic you
want in your campagin. If you want reasons then simply assume that the
other magical items of the last centuries have been eaten by dragons...

>> However requiring players to multi-class because else their character
>> would have to much spellcasting power is ridiculous. In 2E Birthright
>> even the possible multi/dual-class options fo the PHB were further
>> restricted. Now in 3E Birthright you want to FORCE a player who
>> wishes to advance as a spellcaster to multi-class?
>
>> A much better way is to require special components for all spells
>> that are dangerous for gameplay and restrict their availability. e.g.
>> yes, your wizard CAN memorize 5 Meteor Swarms, but you need a piece
>> of a meteor as material component - the only known pieces are
>> currently spread among a crater in the monster infested mountains of
>> the Five Peaks and require an adventure of a month to get them...
>
>
> I don`t know.... That seems like it would grow tiresome pretty
> quickly and winds up being something of a "gotcha" kind of rule. If
> you`re going to give a character a class ability it seems like a
> pretty nasty quibble to tack on "but only with these amazingly rare
> components that I`m going to highly restrict your access to" as the
> basis of controlling their powering up.

It is the whole point of material components that spellcasting is not
simply memorizing and casting but also caring for resources.
If a wizard has no "Everful Component Pouch" then from 1st level the
thing he cares most about are his material components for many of his
spells, just as important as his spellbook.
bye
Michael

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

So many of you are arguing as if whole worlds are full of adventuring hero
bands. The truth of the matter, in just about any world save the Forgotten
Realms, adventurers are rare. Since they are rare, it doesn`t hurt that
there may be a powerful wizard among them.

This is even more true in Cerilia. Nearly every culture outlined in the
setting seems very much content to have their young men fight in wars and
their young women to help make more men (not a view that needs debating as I
don`t hold this opinion). Adventurers are oddities that are sometimes in
the wrong place at the right time and spoil a powerful regents plot/plan or
completely by ill fortune stumble upon the lair of some Awnsheigh; or maybe
even find the ruins of some ancient city of the Elves.

I`ve always taken this view to be honest: my players control characters that
are for the most part a very rare breed in Cerilia. How many dwarves do you
think would normally be willing to travel away from home in the company of
short-lived humans? How many elves could stand the company of humans?
Adventurers are a rare breed; simple as that. Adventurers mind you.....not
mercenaries. Even mercenaries stay in civilized lands looking for
"respectable" work as hire-swords and battle-fodder.

So it stands to reason that if one of the party becomes a powerful wizard or
cleric, then that makes them much more rare. If for some reason they reach
level 20 with seemingly no time elapsing, then that in total truth...with NO
exception...lays squarely at the feet of the Dungeon Master.

The magic is fine....leave it be.


Tony

P.S.- and as a fellow said earlier, if the players don`t mind the way he has
organized the restraint of magic in his campaign, then none of us are right
to nay-say him.....it`s his game.

__________________________________________________ _______________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 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.

[Birthright-L]

From: "Azrai" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

>
> The setting you mentioned have different game mechanics with balanced
character classes. Best example for an alternative magic system is IMO the
Dark Sun setting. It makes no sense to cripple one character class, the only
way is to modify it whithout making it weaker. By the way, Magic is a mighty
tool in the Sovereign Stone Campaign....
>

Well, so does Birthright!

And those characters would still progress, not just as fanatically
single-midedly as spellcasters usually do. Having the abilities of a second
class is not so bad.

And you are not forcing anyone to choose anything - you are merely setting
the limitations of a campaign. It`s like saying that in this world, there is
no plate mail - it sure changes the life of fighters, but it doesn`t take
away choices, really.

Not that I`m using this option personally, but I think it is good and valid.
Not that I think it is so good that it should be a rule in the conversion
document, however.

************************************************** **************************
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, 16 Jun 2003, Michael Romes wrote:

> Gary wrote:
>
> > Magic item dispersal in D&D is largely part of an
> > adventurer-centered reward system, not part of any holistic thinking
> > on how the ability to create such items among a populace would lead
> > to X items of Y power.
>
> Why should it? There are so many magical items in treasure hoards as the
> DM wishes his players to be able to conquer, not more, not less.

You say "why should it?" and I say "how could it not?" We appear to have
very different ideas about what to concentrate on as a DM. I personally
do not give a fig for adventures -- I`d really rather not run them at all
in Birthright, just domain turns. However, I am very interested in
understanding Cerilian demographics, and having some mechanism -- equally
applicable to both PCs and NPCs, because I personally see no meaningful
difference in-game -- to describe the interaction of game rules with the
sociology and economics of large-scale magic use. Those anthropological
issues are precisely the part of magic items I find by far the most
entertaining.

> Then do not connect it :-)

That appears to work for you, which is fine, but I cannot do that myself.

> You try to conclude the amount and type of magical items by counting
> the people able to produce them and their resources and whatnot

Yes, exactly. That`s the part of game-world design I enjoy most!

> I for my part do not even want to know how much magical items could be
> realistically produced in Cerilia in a year from the current
> population - I do not care about that.

And I care passionately about it. To each his own.

> Important is that the number of magical items found is approbiate to
> the level of magic you want in your campagin.

To me, that is exactly the same thing as the international magic item
economy. I want reasons that satisfy me, and reflect the kind of things I
personally like to simulate -- which means designing rules for use in a
one-player context based upon what I want their consequences to the
geopolitics of the entire game world to be.

> > I don`t know.... That seems like it would grow tiresome pretty
> > quickly and winds up being something of a "gotcha" kind of rule. If
> > you`re going to give a character a class ability it seems like a
> > pretty nasty quibble to tack on "but only with these amazingly rare
> > components that I`m going to highly restrict your access to" as the
> > basis of controlling their powering up.

Yes, I always hated spell components. IMC, I have decided that blooded
characters don`t need them but unblooded ones do -- which I abstract with
a gp cost per spell level, and occasional skill check to acquire rather
rare things. Taking the whole party on a grand adventure to get a spiffy
spell component works once, maybe twice, but is just annoying after that.


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.