Bards, paladins, rangers and battle spells [Archive]

DanMcSorley

06-06-2003, 11:42 PM

On Sat, 7 Jun 2003, Aba wrote:
> Could any of you give a reference where battle spells are specifically
> forbidden to any of the semi-spellcaster classe?

Realm spells are detailed in the Book of Magecraft and Book of
Priestcraft, and they are described as being available to wizards,
magicians, and priests (which included druids in 2nd edition). It`s not
specifically forbidden, because these other classes weren`t in the same
league at all in 2nd edition, and it was never even a question. This
would probably allow a devious rules-lawyer type munchkin to argue that
they should be castable by `semi-spellcasters`, but that kind of person
should be hit with a stick and then ignored.

By the way, the section describing battle spells is all of 4.5 pages in
the BoP, and even shorter in the Magecraft version, so it`s fairly easy to
peruse yourself.
--
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.

Raesene Andu

06-07-2003, 12:00 AM

It is mostly by the lack of any mention of realm spell casting Bard, Paladins and Ranger that this can be deduced, the original rules don't specifically state that they can't but every mention of realm spells talks about wizards and priests and never mentions that other classes. The Book of Magecraft also states that only wizards can cast realm spells (in the fundamentals of magic section).

Also in the character class chapter it states that Bard don't gain any special benefits from holdings (where the wizard class talks about realm spells).

Also in the domains chapter (pg. 35 of rulebook) it states that while sources can be controlled by character other than wizards, only wizards can cast realm spells. It states something similar for temple holdings and priests.

Battle spells are a little more debatable, as the Book of Magecraft talks about wizards and magicians when it talks about these spells. No mentions of battle spells for bards, rangers, or paladins is ever made though.

geeman

06-07-2003, 01:43 AM

At 01:11 AM 6/7/2003 +0200, Aba wrote:

> Could any of you give a reference where battle spells are specifically
> forbidden to any of the semi-spellcaster classe?

If you`re looking for a statement specifically forbidding battlespells to
other classes it`s probably not in any of the published materials. Usually
things are stated only in positive terms, so you`ll not find a statement
like, "bards, paladins and rangers are not allowed to cast
battlespells." You will, however, find positive statements that include
character classes. BoP 96 "...this chapter describes battle spells, a type
of magic that enables priests to draw from a repertoire of spells that will
enhance their role to make them a vital part of any military
campaign." Similar text is found in the BoM p96 with almost identical
wording, but with "wizards and magicians" in place of "priests." I suppose
if BR texts for bards, rangers and paladins came about the concept might
have been extended to those classes, but somehow I doubt it.

Gary

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

ConjurerDragon

06-07-2003, 09:10 AM

Daniel McSorley wrote:

>On Sat, 7 Jun 2003, Aba wrote:
>
>> Could any of you give a reference where battle spells are specifically
>>forbidden to any of the semi-spellcaster classe?
>>
Nowhere :-)
One might assume from the speech of the Paladin Burrein Wescot on p. 96
of the Book of Priestcraft, that Paladins might possibly be able to cast
battlespells as well as priests, druids, wizards and Magicians.

However semi-spellcasters would certainly not be able to cast Battle
spells before they can cast the conventional spell that resembles the
battle spell, so a low-level Paladin, Ranger or Bard casting a battle
spell is imposible.

Someone from the list suggested that Bards, instead of casting Battle
spells should rather be able to use their "Bardic Music" on the
battlefield which would IMO better fit.
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.

A_dark

06-07-2003, 10:24 AM

Ok, first of all, I am his DM and that question and the thread are to convinve me that he's right :P

Secondly the issue is not about realm spells cos I am of the same opinion as any of you that realm spells cannot be used by anyone short of a priest and a mage.

Now, let's talk about battlespells.

First of all, my understanding is that there are two kinds of battlemagic. Conventional spells with battle use (eg Fireball) and researched battle spells having a greater effect than the conventional (eg Charm Person => Charm Unit)

The difference between the two categories is that in the battle cards there are spells listed as being battle spells, like the aforementioned Fireball or the Walls etc yet only in the BoM and BoP are the newly researched spells, the expanded conventionals if you wish, mentioned.

So, let's say that we have a bard who is of sufficient level to cast the quite easy spell called Wall of Fog. Since the spell can be cast in battle, would you say that he wouldn't be allowed to cast it in battle? The cards do not specify that a mage-cast Wall of Fog is to be treated any differently than a bard-cast wall of fog. (oh, something I forgot, I am having 2nd ed in mind throughtout this text)

So let's say we have a 16th level bard who can cast quite many illusions divinations AND enchantments. Would you say that he cannot cast in a battle the spells: Massmorph, hallucinatory terrain or a programmed illusion?

I hope that so far I've managed to convince people that bards can cast battle magic, since some of the spells used in battle are the conventional spells and nothing more.

So how about him researching an actual battle spell? Is there something prohibiting him from doing so? Since he can research a normal spell for his own perusal, why should he not be allowed to research based on his Charm Person spell the Charm Unit spell.

I personally see no reason why he should not be allowed. I do not find it at all imbalancing, mainly because bards and magicians are pretty weak classes in Birthright. As for rangers and paladins, they get spells too late in their advancement, so a 13th level paladin casting a Hammer Storm spell is not something imbalancing... especially since the oponent will usually have his own spellcaster too...

To answer an argument that had been raised regarding the mentioning of only the wizard and the magician in BOM, I would like to point that the author only mentions those two when he talks about conventional spells in battleground use, but it would be IMHO silly to tell a bard that he cannot cast the wall of fog on the battleground because BOM does not specifically mention it.

So my conclusion is that the fact that the semi-spellcaster classes were not mentioned specifically is (yet another) omission from the BR designers and not an intention they had. I am willing to listen to arguments why they shouldn't cast spells, but arguments, not just personal opinions, cos everyone is of course entitled to his own opinion :) but that wouldn't make me change my mind :)

Kyrion

06-07-2003, 07:32 PM

Personally, I could see war-drums, pipes, etc, having an effect on the
battlefield. The semi-spellcasting classes should have battlefield
benefits, as well.

-Scott

************************************************** **************************
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

06-07-2003, 07:32 PM

At 12:24 PM 6/7/2003 +0200, A_dark wrote:

>Now, let`s talk about battlespells.

When it comes to magic on the battlefield I wouldn`t even include the
expansion of the magic system beyond the use of "conventional" spells that
are powerful enough to effect whole units. Battlemagic was an
ill-considered idea IMO that creates all kinds of loopholes and
problems. There are many types of conventional spells and magic items that
can have the kind of effect on the battlefield that battlemagic does, and
the 3e magic system does not make them very inaccessible, so adding to that
a whole new set of magic that gives _every_ spell in a spellcaster`s
repertoire the potential to be x200 (or so) more powerful than normal is a
bad idea.

Gary

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

Mark_Aurel

06-07-2003, 08:00 PM

When it comes to magic on the battlefield I wouldn`t even include the
expansion of the magic system beyond the use of "conventional" spells that
are powerful enough to effect whole units. Battlemagic was an
ill-considered idea IMO that creates all kinds of loopholes and
problems. There are many types of conventional spells and magic items that
can have the kind of effect on the battlefield that battlemagic does, and
the 3e magic system does not make them very inaccessible, so adding to that
a whole new set of magic that gives _every_ spell in a spellcaster`s
repertoire the potential to be x200 (or so) more powerful than normal is a
bad idea.

Gary

I agree completely. Battle magic, for the most part, simply struck me as bad filler material that 2e books were always full of. (Not saying that 3e books aren't, but at least the 3e material has a better internal consistency and balance.) The reasoning for battle magic existing also always seemed to be rather dodgy - that spellcasters would "develop" an entirely new area of magic to deal with battles - as if their spells already didn't? And then apply a sort of quasi-industrial thinking to it - "if I can create a single fireball with a handful of bat guano, imagine what I could do with a wagonload of it!"

It would've been much better if they'd developed a few new spells that dealt specifically with battles and were at appropriate spell levels - not essentially first-level versions of meteor swarm renamed "rain of magic missiles" - which, by the way, seems a very "un-Birthrightish" concept to begin with. It's like something they got from Elminster's closet.

Wizards already have their fireballs and cloudkills and whatnot that are useful battlefield artillery spells. They do not need even bigger versions of those spells just so a 5th-level wizard can take out an army on his own.

ConjurerDragon

06-07-2003, 08:28 PM

A_dark 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=1701
>A_dark wrote:
>
...

>So, let`s say that we have a bard who is of sufficient level to cast the quite easy spell called Wall of Fog. Since the spell can be cast in battle, would you say that he wouldn`t be allowed to cast it in battle? The cards do not specify that a mage-cast Wall of Fog is to be treated any differently than a bard-cast wall of fog. (oh, something I forgot, I am having 2nd ed in mind throughtout this text)
>
2E Birthright had on p. 14 of the rulebook under the Bard description
that Bards have in Birthright a limited access to magic, different than
in the 2E PHB: "...They may learn spells only from the schools of
diviniation and illusion, and they can also cast spells in the school of
enchantment/charm by using ancient elven spell songs..."

Wall of Fog is from the Evocation 2E school, so no 2E Birthright Bard
can cast it, neither as conventional spell, nor as battle spell.

>So let`s say we have a 16th level bard who can cast quite many illusions divinations AND enchantments. Would you say that he cannot cast in a battle the spells: Massmorph, hallucinatory terrain or a programmed illusion?
>
Massmorph is 2E Alteration school - not available for 2E Bards in
Birthright.
...

>I personally see no reason why he should not be allowed. I do not find it at all imbalancing, mainly because bards and magicians are pretty weak classes in Birthright. As for rangers and paladins, they get spells too late in their advancement, so a 13th level paladin casting a Hammer Storm spell is not something imbalancing... especially since the oponent will usually have his own spellcaster too...
>
Hammer Storm is IMO a battle spell converted all wrong. Normally a
battle spell should be similar to the conventional spell. But Hammer
Storm is totally different from the conventional spell Spiritual Hammer:

Hammer Storm attacks ALL units in one battlefield square - Spiritual
Hammer attacks only ONE enemy, so the battle spell should also attack
only ONE unit.

>To answer an argument that had been raised regarding the mentioning of only the wizard and the magician in BOM, I would like to point that the author only mentions those two when he talks about conventional spells in battleground use, but it would be IMHO silly to tell a bard that he cannot cast the wall of fog on the battleground because BOM does not specifically mention it.
>
A bard in 2E Birthright can nowhere cast Wall of Fog - see above.
bye
Michael Romes

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

DanMcSorley

06-07-2003, 08:28 PM

On Sat, 7 Jun 2003, Scott M. Baron wrote:
> Personally, I could see war-drums, pipes, etc, having an effect on the
> battlefield. The semi-spellcasting classes should have battlefield
> benefits, as well.

I don`t agree with this. Actually, I`d go further- battle spells are a
bad kludge, and should probably just be done away with. They were an
effort to make even low-level mages and priests a big influence on a
battlefield, even a first level wizard could cast a rain of magic missiles
down on a unit. Effectively, that 1st level spell was more powerful than
a regular area-effect spell like fireball cast by a much more powerful
wizard.

The attempt at balance was to give them a long casting time, 5 minutes
instead of the regular 1 spell/round (although a round was a minute in 2nd
edition, so it`s not that much longer). And to say "By the way, players
will want to use these in adventures as well as in battle, you should
disallow most of this, but not always." Poof, caster level restrictions
for powerful spells are pretty much meaningless. Yeah, they`re expensive,
and need a couple of apprentices and a wagon of components, but players
will come up with what`s necessary to get that stuff, and then try to
argue that they should be able to use them in adventures.

Besides, low-level spellcasters shouldn`t have a big effect on a
battlefield, any more than a low-level fighter should. You don`t see
special rules for levelled fighters to carve up a unit at a single go,
just so low-level fighter PCs can have a significant effect on a battle.
That`s rediculous. Now the Gorgon, or the High Mage Alieles, should be
able to respectively carve or blast their way through an army if they were
so inclined, and the army lacked appropriate high-level aid of its own.
Even a 10th level wizard or warrior could have a sizeable influence on a
battle, but the idea of creating a whole extra grouping of spells to
increase battlefield effectiveness is poorly conceived. If low-level
wizard regents want to have a big effect on a battle, they can do it
creatively, with low-level spells. Charm person on the enemy commander,
for example, might be a battle-winner.
--
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.

RaspK_FOG

06-07-2003, 10:37 PM

Well, my opinion about the whole system is that, it seems to me as too restricting to say: "Sorry, you cannot cast this spell!" I mean, OK, you can cast a very powerful illusion or enchantment (and, unlike in 3e, enchantment was much more important), yet you cannot cast even the humble light cantrips? Come on! It would be more realistic if they had given the bard a restriction of spell levels per school of magic, or at least type (e.g., a bard can cast all evocation/invocation spells that evoke/invoke light, but do no damage, or something like that... You see what I mean.

Kalien

06-07-2003, 10:38 PM

I also have a low opinion of battle magic for many of the same reasons already listed by others here, so I won't repeat them.

I am considering treating battle magic simply as standard magic with the addition of Circle Magic ability and the Co-Operative Magic feat. Essentially, both require a group of spellcasters co-operating together to improve one or more effects of a spell, whether it be area of effect, save DCs, range, or whatever. This allows spellcasters to crank out versions of standard spells that might have more utility on the battlefield but won't dictate (in most cases anyway) the course of the battle.

It ties in with the 2e idea that the realm wizard required a number of assistants and that battle magic took a while to cast, so flavour-wise it is consistent.

I haven't looked at it in detail yet though, so don't have anything concrete to post in terms of game mechanics.

Peter Lubke

06-08-2003, 03:57 AM

On Sat, 2003-06-07 at 20:24, A_dark 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=1701

A_dark wrote:
Ok, first of all, I am his DM and that question and the thread are to
convinve me that he`s right :P

Secondly the issue is not about realm spells cos I am of the same opinion
as any of you that realm spells cannot be used by anyone short of a priest
and a mage.

Now, let`s talk about battlespells.

First of all, my understanding is that there are two kinds of battlemagic.
Conventional spells with battle use (eg Fireball) and researched battle
spells having a greater effect than the conventional
(eg Charm Person => Charm Unit)

The difference between the two categories is that in the battle cards
there are spells listed as being battle spells, like the aforementioned
Fireball or the Walls etc yet only in the BoM and BoP are the newly
researched spells, the expanded conventionals if you wish, mentioned.

There have already been a number of replies indicating the makeshift and
poor construction of battle spells. Quite rightly so too IMO. Battle
spells do seem to have been a poorly contrived way of combining the two
categories to form a common treatment esp. w.r.t. the war cards. The
second category (that of simple spells being "powered-up") is, as far as
I can see, meant to represent control of a greater number of casters
cooperating to cast the same spell simultaneously - or nearly so.

This means that a single character, no matter how high a level, could
not cast "rain of magic missiles", or "charm unit". But it also means
that a regent that commands a sufficiently large group of low-level
casters e.g. 20 priests, could have cast "charm unit" in unit combat -
regardless of the regents own character class(es).

So, let`s say that we have a bard who is of sufficient level to cast
the quite easy spell called Wall of Fog. Since the spell can be cast
in battle, would you say that he wouldn`t be allowed to cast it in
battle? The cards do not specify that a mage-cast Wall of Fog is to
be treated any differently than a bard-cast wall of fog. (oh, something
I forgot, I am having 2nd ed in mind throughtout this text)

The issue of Cerilian bards not being able to cast "wall of fog" has
been dealt with. However, it may be that you allow it in any case (I do
if the caster is blooded of sufficient strength for example).

So let`s say we have a 16th level bard who can cast quite many
illusions divinations AND enchantments. Would you say that he cannot
cast in a battle the spells: Massmorph, hallucinatory terrain or a
programmed illusion?

Such spells are meant as powerful "battle" spells and as such should
fall into the realm of battle magic.

I hope that so far I`ve managed to convince people that bards can
cast battle magic, since some of the spells used in battle are the
conventional spells and nothing more.

So how about him researching an actual battle spell? Is there something
prohibiting him from doing so? Since he can research a normal spell for
his own perusal, why should he not be allowed to research based on his
Charm Person spell the Charm Unit spell.

I personally see no reason why he should not be allowed. I do not find
it at all imbalancing, mainly because bards and magicians are pretty
weak classes in Birthright. As for rangers and paladins, they get spells
too late in their advancement, so a 13th level paladin casting a Hammer
Storm spell is not something imbalancing... especially since the oponent
will usually have his own spellcaster too...

A paladin regent with 20 priest helpers all of 3rd level could have
"Hammer Storm" cast in battle, although he himself may or may not
actually participate in the casting.

To answer an argument that had been raised regarding the mentioning of
only the wizard and the magician in BOM, I would like to point that the
author only mentions those two when he talks about conventional spells
in battleground use, but it would be IMHO silly to tell a bard that he
cannot cast the wall of fog on the battleground because BOM does not
specifically mention it.

So my conclusion is that the fact that the semi-spellcaster classes were
not mentioned specifically is (yet another) omission from the BR designers
and not an intention they had. I am willing to listen to arguments why
they shouldn`t cast spells, but arguments, not just personal opinions,
cos everyone is of course entitled to his own opinion :) but that
wouldn`t make me change my mind :)

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

A_dark

06-08-2003, 02:05 PM

Erm, i think my point was missed because of my mistaken reference to spells that bards cannot cast.... So let me put the matter again...

Let us assume that in your campaign you allow Battle Spells. A bard can cast a programmed illusion on the battlefield producing an F result. He can do this alone, since the conventional spells used in battle require only one man.

A bard can get a couple of acolytes and helpers (who may not need be spellcasters.... my understanding is that he will do the invocation and the chanting and the helpers will manipulate the material components, read some texts and stuff, but they not need be spellcasters themselves) to cast a Battle Spell, like the Charm Unit. Even if he cannot research it himself, can he not find a mage's Battle Spell Spellbook and learn the spell from it?

Also, nobody said that the Battle Spells could be used in normal situations, due to the need to have helpers, the longer casting times etc...

Finally, I am talking about 2nd edition here and I am not interested in 3rd ed stuff, like the feat Battle Magic or anything like it :)

RaspK_FOG

06-08-2003, 10:35 PM

Well, sorry to say that, but bards were always my first characters (they have an aspect in life so very similar to my own!), but both 2e and 3e seem to take something out of them: a bard in 2e would have to be very careful, or he would be one of the most vulnerable persons in play; and sincerely, how could a shield hinder his performance, when a suit of armour or weapon could not? One of those times where mechanic went over flavour and realism...

As for 3e? Well, finally balanced out abilities concerning his music, liked the sorcerer-like way of casting spells, but hated the change in alignment! Why any non-lawful? Silly people...

Anyway, my point is that I cannot understand why should bards be unable to cast a shatter spell, but be able to cast other, powerful spells from the schools of enchantment, illusion and divination? Really now, aren't divinators a DM's worst fear?

Finally, I like the idea of Battle Magic, but it should have been worked a bit (just like with the arcane spell failure for wearing armour, as opposed to people not being able to cast spells because of wearing armour). For example, the spell time could increase geometrically as the spell effectiveness increases numerically, effectively generating a cap for the increase of effectiveness of spells!

ConjurerDragon

06-09-2003, 09:16 AM

RaspK_FOG 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=1701
>RaspK_FOG wrote:
> Well, sorry to say that, but bards were always my first characters (they have an aspect in life so very similar to my own!), but both 2e and 3e seem to take something out of them: a bard in 2e would have to be very careful, or he would be one of the most vulnerable persons in play; and sincerely, how could a shield hinder his performance, when a suit of armour or weapon could not? One of those times where mechanic went over flavour and realism...
>
Because he needs two hands for his musical intstrument?

>As for 3e? Well, finally balanced out abilities concerning his music, liked the sorcerer-like way of casting spells, but hated the change in alignment! Why any non-lawful? Silly people...
>
And makes Rjurik Bards impossible who need to be lawful according to the
Rjurik Highlands book - but one can simply assume that the setting rule
overrides the PHB.

>Anyway, my point is that I cannot understand why should bards be unable to cast a shatter spell, but be able to cast other, powerful spells from the schools of enchantment, illusion and divination? Really now, aren`t divinators a DM`s worst fear?
>
Because Birthright is unique in that not all arcane spellcasters can
cast all spells. Only blooded Mages (=True Wizards) can cast all arcane
spells, other Mages (=Magicians) and others are VERY limited in their
spellselection. Giving a Bard a wider access to arcane magic than the
unblooded Magician would be counter-intuituive.
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.

irdeggman

06-09-2003, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG

Well, sorry to say that, but bards were always my first characters (they have an aspect in life so very similar to my own!), but both 2e and 3e seem to take something out of them: a bard in 2e would have to be very careful, or he would be one of the most vulnerable persons in play; and sincerely, how could a shield hinder his performance, when a suit of armour or weapon could not? One of those times where mechanic went over flavour and realism...

As for 3e? Well, finally balanced out abilities concerning his music, liked the sorcerer-like way of casting spells, but hated the change in alignment! Why any non-lawful? Silly people...

In 2nd edition, Illusion spells specifically required a lot of elaborate gestures for somantic components - this alone would make the transition to why bards don't use shields. In 3rd ed a bard can use a shield and wear any type of armor he just suffers the arcane spell failure chance of any arcane caster. A bard just doesn't start with the applicable feats to use shields or wear anytype of armor, but can pick them up later.

In 2nd ed a bad had to have one aspect of his alignment remain neutral so the change to any non-lawful isn't that big a jump and the explanation given in the PHB makes sense for it.

Note that in 3rd ed bard spells always require a verbal component which IMO also makes a lot of sense for a music driven spell caster.

RaspK_FOG

06-10-2003, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by irdeggman
In 2nd edition, Illusion spells specifically required a lot of elaborate gestures for somantic components - this alone would make the transition to why bards don't use shields. In 3rd ed a bard can use a shield and wear any type of armor he just suffers the arcane spell failure chance of any arcane caster. A bard just doesn't start with the applicable feats to use shields or wear anytype of armor, but can pick them up later.

In 2nd ed a bad had to have one aspect of his alignment remain neutral so the change to any non-lawful isn't that big a jump and the explanation given in the PHB makes sense for it.

Note that in 3rd ed bard spells always require a verbal component which IMO also makes a lot of sense for a music driven spell caster.

While it is true that illusions need a lot of complicated gestures, the explanation behind the impossibility of wearing shield in 2e was the fact that he could not perform, aka use his music related abilities; it said nothing of his spell casting ability, which in 2e was automatically hampered by the use of armour.

As for the alignment change, I am sorry to have to point this out, but there is a big difference! The old alignments represented the possibility of being lawful (LN), while the new ones allow for extreme alignments (CG and CE).

And yes, I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that bards should always sing to cast spells. Birthright novels' bards always hummed or sung whenver they would cast a spell.

irdeggman

06-10-2003, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG

As for the alignment change, I am sorry to have to point this out, but there is a big difference! The old alignments represented the possibility of being lawful (LN), while the new ones allow for extreme alignments (CG and CE).

And also CN which is also a pretty broad extreme, LN to CN that is. As I recall the 2nd restriction was one aspect must remain neutral which would yield the folowing possibilities; LN, NG, NN, NE and CN while the 3rd ed possibilities are: NG, NN, NE, CG, CN and CE. Pretty much of a wash as far as I can see, both versions allow "extreme" alignments.

RaspK_FOG

06-11-2003, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by irdeggman
And also CN which is also a pretty broad extreme, LN to CN that is. As I recall the 2nd restriction was one aspect must remain neutral which would yield the folowing possibilities; LN, NG, NN, NE and CN while the 3rd ed possibilities are: NG, NN, NE, CG, CN and CE. Pretty much of a wash as far as I can see, both versions allow "extreme" alignments.

It seems you do not understand what I mean... If all other alignments except for TN where thought of as "extreme", then there would be no reason, for example, for druids to be able to take on the NG, LN, CN, and NE alignments!

Extreme alignments are all the alignments that have no "neutral" element, that is, the LG, CG, LE, and CE alignments.

RaspK_FOG

06-11-2003, 12:17 PM

And another thing I forgot to mention: the old-style, 2e alignment restriction represented the bards' tendencies to be more detached. All of the "extreme" alignments represented a certain attachment to an ideology or attitude that is much stronger than that of the "neutral" alignments.

Anyway, as for Battle Spells, it would be better if they were totally different spells with completely different effects. Not just pumped up versions of existing spells that require more time to cast or whatever.

Ariadne

06-11-2003, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG

Extreme alignments are all the alignments that have no "neutral" element, that is, the LG, CG, LE, and CE alignments.
That's always from the point of view. For an NG character CG or LG isn't an extreme alignment, but LN, CN, LE, NE or CE is... ;)

DanMcSorley

06-11-2003, 05:26 PM

On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, RaspK_FOG wrote:
> Anyway, as for Battle Spells, it would be better if they were totally
> different spells with completely different effects. Not just pumped up
> versions of existing spells that require more time to cast or whatever.

I`ve been pondering some battle-useful spells. There are quite a few
already- area effect damage spells, entangle, illusions, etc. But I`d
think some would have been developed specifically for battles over the
centuries.

For instance, Wall of Force is a 5th level spell. A Line of Force, as a
third or fourth level spell, which evokes an unbreakable rope-thin line of
force of length 10` per caster level, is almost useless in a dungeon, but
in a large scale battle, it would effectively prevent charges through it,
and possibly stop horses from passing it at all (a man could duck it, a
horse wouldn`t be able to go over or under if it was set at mid-chest
height).

Just flipping around the PHB, Scare would be devestating to a line of
cavalry (horses are under the HD limit), and it`s only 2nd level.
--
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.

kgauck

06-11-2003, 05:57 PM

Sean K. Reynolds has written an article "War Spells" in the new Dragon. The
whole issue is war themed - handy for BR.

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

06-11-2003, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by Ariadne

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG

Extreme alignments are all the alignments that have no "neutral" element, that is, the LG, CG, LE, and CE alignments.
That's always from the point of view. For an NG character CG or LG isn't an extreme alignment, but LN, CN, LE, NE or CE is... ;)

That's pretty much exactly where I was coming from. Extreme alignments are those that are most in opposition to each other - pretty much any lawful and any chaotic, any good and any evil, etc.

kgauck

06-11-2003, 08:37 PM

> Extreme alignments are all the alignments that have no "neutral"
> element, that is, the LG, CG, LE, and CE alignments.

* That`s always from the point of view. For an NG character CG
* or LG isn`t an extreme alignment, but LN, CN, LE, NE or CE is... ;)

# That`s pretty much exactly where I was coming from. Extreme
# alignments are those that are most in opposition to each other - pretty
# much any lawful and any chaotic, any good and any evil, etc.

We should distingush between in-character and out-of-character analysis
here. One analyis observes that the alignment chart typically has a middle
and an edge, another analysis takes a position on the chart and then notices
that some positions are nearer to it than others. These are different forms
of analysis for different purposes. When we`re discussing role-play, the
subjective analysis is the better one. When we`re discussing game
mechanics, the objective analysys is the better one.

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.

RaspK_FOG

06-11-2003, 11:33 PM

Originally posted by kgauck

> Extreme alignments are all the alignments that have no "neutral"
> element, that is, the LG, CG, LE, and CE alignments.

* That`s always from the point of view. For an NG character CG
* or LG isn`t an extreme alignment, but LN, CN, LE, NE or CE is... ;)

# That`s pretty much exactly where I was coming from. Extreme
# alignments are those that are most in opposition to each other - pretty
# much any lawful and any chaotic, any good and any evil, etc.

We should distingush between in-character and out-of-character analysis
here. One analyis observes that the alignment chart typically has a middle
and an edge, another analysis takes a position on the chart and then notices
that some positions are nearer to it than others. These are different forms
of analysis for different purposes. When we`re discussing role-play, the
subjective analysis is the better one. When we`re discussing game
mechanics, the objective analysys is the better one.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

Exactly my point! "Extreme alignments" is a game mechanics term, reffering to the alignments that recide on the far edges of the law-vs-chaos axis and the good-vs-evil axis. These are LE, CE, CG and LG.

Furtermore, I really liked what has been told (see previous posts) concerning the application of excisting themes or spells in battle. "Scare the horses" and "Line of Force" rock!

geeman

06-12-2003, 12:33 AM

I remember reading way back in the day some stuff about how the Law-Chaos
dichotomy of the alignment system could in some ways disturb the Good-Evil
aspect of alignments. That is, a character who was lawful good could not
necessarily be as good as a character who was neutral good because his
lawfulness in many ways pulled him away from goodness. A very lawful
character, for instance, would be willing to make the occasional sacrifice
of an individual lawbreaker (or accused lawbreaker) for the sake of
upholding the law (in a legal sense) itself. Legality and honor are highly
important to a lawful good person, where a neutral good person would always
look for the absolute good regardless of whether that good had a chaotic
influence or a lawful one.

In such an interpretation (which I believe was 1e--though I`d have to look
it up if anyone really wants a reference) there is no alignment that is
more extreme than any other. A character might be "more lawful" than
another but the nature of alignment itself isn`t such that the alignments
themselves exist on extremes.

In Monte Cook`s _Book of Hallowed Might_ he has a brief section about
assigning a numerical value to the alignments of characters. The all exist
on a scale from 1-9 or so with various numbers representing how much the
character embraces that alignment. A character who was L3G9, for instance,
might refuse to harm any living thing as part of his "G9" and genuinely
respect all authority figures as part of his L3. However, to be L4 or
better the character would have to be willing to see one person killed or
injured if it helps a large number of people. That starts contradicting
the G9 aspect of the character, making for a moral quandary that is not
resolvable within the scope of the G9 part of his alignment.

As an interesting extension on such a system, one could make those numbers
a "point value" rather than a simple assessment and dole them out as a
reward during play. That way characters would have to "level up" into
particular goodness/evil or law/chaotic in the same way they gain
powers. Since those aspects of alignment in D&D have in many ways actual
material effects that might make some sense, particularly in a campaign in
which alignment was to play a major part.

In effect, I think this is a much more realistic (if I can use that word
without drawing too many smirks) way of treating alignment since it
addresses some issues that many people seem to overlook or purposefully
ignore--that the perpendicular aspects of alignment are in contradiction to
one another. They do not contradict as directly as the ones that exist on
the same line, but they are influences.

Gary

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

Mark_Aurel

06-12-2003, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by geeman:
In Monte Cook`s _Book of Hallowed Might_ he has a brief section about
assigning a numerical value to the alignments of characters. The all exist
on a scale from 1-9 or so with various numbers representing how much the
character embraces that alignment. A character who was L3G9, for instance,
might refuse to harm any living thing as part of his "G9" and genuinely
respect all authority figures as part of his L3. However, to be L4 or
better the character would have to be willing to see one person killed or
injured if it helps a large number of people. That starts contradicting
the G9 aspect of the character, making for a moral quandary that is not
resolvable within the scope of the G9 part of his alignment.

I really liked the Book of Hallowed Might - and that element is one of those variant rules I want to incorporate in some form. The main downside is that it adds a bit to the bookkeeping side, the upside is that it is a way to mechanically award role-playing, beyond simply giving XP. The system also reminds me a bit of Humanity or the other paths in Vampire.

Beyond that, though, there's a couple of feats - Accolade and Adoubement, that I'd consider highly appropriate for Birthright campaigns.

Overall, top-notch D&D content which I think'd be appropriate for most campaigns.

geeman

06-12-2003, 03:09 AM

At 03:04 AM 6/12/2003 +0200, Mark Aurel wrote:

>I really liked the Book of Hallowed Might - and that element is one of
>those variant rules I want to incorporate in some form. The main downside
>is that it adds a bit to the bookkeeping side, the upside is that it is a
>way to mechanically award role-playing, beyond simply giving XP. The
>system also reminds me a bit of Humanity or the other paths in Vampire.
>
>Beyond that, though, there`s a couple of feats - Accolade and Adoubement,
>that I`d consider highly appropriate for Birthright campaigns.
>
>Overall, top-notch D&D content which I think`d be appropriate for most
>campaigns.

Yeah, it`s got some very interesting stuff in it. Particularly as to
neutral good and chaotic good paladins, the feats (as you mention) and some
of the stuff regarding new spells. The alignment section is intriguing and
makes me wonder about how it might be incorporated into a
game. Personally, I don`t like the alignment system much all by itself. I
prefer a system of allegiances rather than alignment as it is more
versatile. One could, however, extend the "point value" or "numerical
rating" system of the alignment system proposed by MC into an allegiance
system. One could be Evil(4), Ghoere(3) and Lawful(2).

Those numbers might represent the overall attitude of the character as
determined by the player, but I`m starting to like the idea that one has a
certain amount of points based on character level and they are distributed
by the player after some discussion with the DM. After accomplishing a
mission in support of a particular organization a character might level up
and point a point into his allegiance to that organization should the
player and the DM think it warranted. Those numbers might also effect
things like Diplomacy actions or other effects normally reserved for the
reputation score. At least, that`s the kind of direction I`m thinking this
stuff my go in my homebrew.

As you note it does create something of a bookkeeping issue. In general, I
don`t much worry about that kind of thing when it comes to the "non-play"
periods of the game. That is, character generation and after the
adventuring portion of play when one doles out rewards. Anything that
causes play to slow is a problem, but if it occurs during the bookends of
play then the bookkeeping isn`t such an issue.

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.

kgauck

06-12-2003, 09:29 AM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 7:00 PM

> A character who was lawful good could not necessarily be as good
> as a character who was neutral good because his lawfulness in many
> ways pulled him away from goodness.

The Star Trek RPG recomended these kinds of moral conflicts as one of the
central recuring themes of a good Trek campaign Any time you can posit
competing goods you can give meat and drink to good role-players. I see
Haelyn as a particularly ethically concerned sect (Wisdom based, law, the
possibility of LE and CG priests) and have tried to pose such dilemas to the
Haelynites in the group. Talinie as I have it is divided by various
interpretations of Haelyn, some of which hinge on questions of law and good.
The NIT is a NG temple, AFAIC compared to the more southern temples, which
are LG or LN.

> In Monte Cook`s _Book of Hallowed Might_ he has a brief section about
> assigning a numerical value to the alignments of characters. [...]
> As an interesting extension on such a system, one could make those numbers
> a "point value" rather than a simple assessment and dole them out as a
> reward during play.

I keep track of these along with the seven chivalrous traits and two
enviromental traits I track as part of my overall reputation system. When
characters meet strangers, I roll to see if they are recognized, and then at
the very least they are known by their leading trait, and possibly by
several traits. Character who are, say, lawful good are almost never both
in sufficient qualities so as to be recognized for both their lawfulness and
their goodness. The lawful qualities, honesty, faith, and duty generally
shine, or the good ones do, compassion, humility, and grace. The only
exception is a priest of Haelyn. The Anuirian knight IMC is LG, but he`s a
good 4, law 7 by Monte`s system.

If one is going to invest in a reputation system, Monte`s numbered alignment
is worth a read.

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.

odintsaq

06-12-2003, 02:20 PM

All alingments except CG are extreme (perhaps sometimes NG isn't extreme)
Odin([_]

ryancaveney

06-12-2003, 03:25 PM

On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> I keep track of these along with the seven chivalrous traits and two
> enviromental traits I track as part of my overall reputation system.

Are you by any chance playing Pendragon? =)

(Wonderful game system for everyday life, especially for regents of small
domains, or in Anuirean and Rjurik lands, but probably not a very good fit
for BR magic.)

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

06-12-2003, 06:29 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 10:16 AM

> > I keep track of these along with the seven chivalrous traits and two
> > enviromental traits I track as part of my overall reputation system.
>
> Are you by any chance playing Pendragon? =)

Nope. Never really looked at it. Star Trek had a reputation system based
on getting points for archetypal actions. Rokugan did that for d20. Then
the Dragon offered such a system for playing chivalrous characters. So, I
added a system like that which included a rating for stewardship of the land
and protection of the land. Stewardship means you use the land according to
Erik`s teachings, Protection means you protect the land from those who would
abuse the land. A close match between the reputation of the PC and the
NPC`s values can improve NPC attitude. Considerable distance is a penalty
to attitude.

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.

RaspK_FOG

06-13-2003, 12:08 AM

Well, I honestly disagree with the idea of placing alignment points. I f you do, then place them in a 1 to 9 scale of:

1 to 3 are Chaotic
4 to 6 are Neutral
7 to 9 are Lawful

and:

1 to 3 are Evil
4 to 6 are Neutral
7 to 9 are Good

or something like that. Alignments represent tendencies, not tennets! If you have paladin or other tennet bound characters (ie, samurai) in your campaign, make them follow them, or let them taste the consequences! Role-playing and its rewards cannot be ruled by mechanics. A Lawful Good character can allow a foe a fair fight, or bind and teleport the same foe to justice before being slain by the character's comrades!

Anyway, the whole alignment discussion has been introduced by my mistake, and I suggest we leave it and talk more about the original subject of the thread.

If anyone agrees, well... he/she knows what to do.

RaspK_FOG

06-13-2003, 12:12 AM

Change "tennet" to "tenet"... Sorry!

kgauck

06-13-2003, 01:26 AM

----- Original Message -----
From: "RaspK_FOG" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 7:08 PM

> Well, I honestly disagree with the idea of placing alignment points.
> Alignments represent tendencies, not tennets! If you have paladin
> or other tennet bound characters (ie, samurai) in your campaign,
> make them follow them, or let them taste the consequences!

Keep in mind that the alignment score was found in a _The Book of Hallowed
Might_, a book about tenent bound characters (clerics and paladins).

> I f you do, then place them in a 1 to 9 scale.

A scale is nothing more than a matter of preference. My own scale, for
example has no upper limit because it reflects repuation. Someone with a
humility of 12 is better known for his humility than a character with a
score of 2, but less well known than a character of -42, whose humility is
negative. The character with the score of 2 may be a more humble character,
but not as well know for that quality. Far from being a limiting quality,
its just a limited descriptive figure. Whatever the scale is invented for
should control its design.

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.

RaspK_FOG

06-13-2003, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by kgauck
A scale is nothing more than a matter of preference...

Whatever the scale is invented for should control its design.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

(My specific quotes from the previous post, made by kgauck.)

What you say is write, and I am sorry for not knowing of the book; I live in Greece, and since I am quite new in the table-top RPG (well, I knew of the backdrop, but not of the whole image of theirs), it would be next to impossible to know of all the books of 2e or 3e... Anyway, it is an interesting idea, your reputation system, but it does not seem to have anything to do with alignment. Furthermore, what I meant is that there should only be a vague outlet of what is a character's alignment tendecies, not another mechanics driven problem! Alignments were simply created to present the potential of a character for a certain set of actions.

Furthermore, we have gone far off the initial subject, and I think we should stir it back to where it was. I am partly to blame for our straing off the topic.

As it is, I simply believe that a more careful approach is given to spells, and that battle and realm spells can simply be a modified version of pre-existing spells, so that they can create a different effect, yet they also need different components or situations to work. For example, battle spells could need an ammount of time per spell level in order to cast them successfully, while realm spells would need a specific bloodline or regency cost to work.