Birthright "demihuman" Races: [Archive]

Raesene Andu

10-31-2003, 05:40 AM

Seeing you are going to be dicussing the racial traits, you may as well dicuss the latest version of them...

Halflings

Racial Abilities: Cerilian halflings have the following racial traits:
• +2 Dexterity, -2 Strength.
• Small-sized (3’6” to 4’ tall), base speed of 20 feet. As Small creatures, halflings gain a +1 size bonus to Armour Class, a +1 size bonus on attack rolls, and a +4 size bonus on Hide checks, but they must use smaller weapons than humans use, and their lifting and carrying capacities are three-quarters those of Medium-size characters.
• +2 racial bonus on Listen, Climb, Jump, and Move Silently checks.
• +2 morale bonus on saving throws vs. fear.
• +1 racial attack bonus with thrown weapons and slings.
• Shadow Sense: Halflings possess the ability to attune their vision to the shadow world. This provides them with a limited ability to sense undead, necromantic magic, powerful evil, and areas where the veil between Aebrynis and the Shadow World is thin. Exceptional halflings can take advantage of this ability and learn to enter and exit the shadow world [refer to the Shadow Walker, Shadow Guide, and Improved Shadow Guide Feats].
• [Cerilian halflings do not gain the +1 racial bonus to all saving throw gained by Player’s Handbook Halflings.]
• Automatic Language: Any, based on region. Bonus Languages: Any regional human dialect (Anuirean, Basarji, Low Brecht, High Brecht, Rjuven, or Vos).
• Favoured Class: Rogue.

Half-elves

Racial Abilities: Cerilian half-elves have the following racial traits:
• +2 Dexterity, -2 Constitution.
• Medium-size, base speed of 30 feet.
• Immunity to magic sleep spells and a +2 racial saving throw bonus against enchantment spells or effects.
• Low-light Vision: A half-elf can see twice as far as a human in starlight, torchlight, or other conditions of poor illumination.
• +2 racial saving throw bonus against disease and aging attacks.
• +1 racial bonus on Listen, Search, and Spot checks.
• Infamous reputation: Elves are infamous for pursuing campaigns against entire races, including gnolls, goblins, and even humans in many regions (including most of Anuire). Half-elves receive a -2 racial penalty to Diplomacy, a -2 racial penalty to Gather Information, and a +2 racial bonus to Intimidate in areas where they have an infamous reputation.
• Elven Blood: A half-elf can be considered an elf for many purposes, including the casting of true magic.
• [Cerilian half-elves do not gain the +2 bonus to Diplomacy and Gather Information received by Player’s Handbook half-elves.]
• Automatic Language: Sidhelien or the language of their human parent. Bonus Languages: Sidhelien, or any regional human dialect (Anuirean, Basarji, Low Brecht, High Brecht, Rjuven, or Vos).
• Favored Class: Any.

Elves

Racial Abilities: Cerilian elves have the following racial traits:
• +2 Dexterity, +2 Charisma, -2 Strength, -2 Constitution.
• Medium-size (5’6” to 6” tall); base speed of 30 feet.
• Immunity to magic sleep spells and a +2 racial saving throw bonus against enchantment effects.
• Low-light Vision: An elf can see twice as far as a human in starlight, torchlight, or other conditions of poor illumination.
• +2 racial bonus on Listen, Search, and Spot checks. [Cerilian elves do not gain the automatic search check within 5’ that standard Player’s Handbook elves receive.]
• Infamous reputation: Elves are infamous for pursuing campaigns against entire races, including gnolls, goblins, and even humans in many regions (including most of Anuire). Elves receive a -4 racial penalty to Diplomacy, a -4 racial penalty to Gather Information, and a +4 racial bonus to Intimidate in areas where they have an infamous reputation.
• Weapon Proficiency: Cerilian Elves receive Marital Weapon Proficiency with longsword, shortbow, and longbow.
• Timeless: Gifted with near immortality, elves do not suffer the ravages of time and are thus immune to aging attacks and normal (but not supernatural) disease. An adult elf’s age has no effect on her physical or mental ability scores. Elves do not need sleep, but they can become physically exhausted and must rest quietly for about as long as a human needs to sleep.
• Nature Stride: Elves may move through natural thorns, overgrown areas, heavy snow, soft sand, a treacherous mountain or similar natural terrain at their normal movement rate and without suffering damage or penalty.
• Alignment Restriction: Unpredictable and fey, Cerilian elves must follow a non-lawful alignment.
• Automatic Language: Sidhelien. Bonus Languages: Any.
• Favored Class: Sorcerer or Wizard.

Dwarves

Racial Abilities: Cerilian dwarves have the following racial traits:
• +2 Constitution, -2 Dexterity.
• Medium-size (4’ to 4’6” tall); base speed of 20 feet. However, dwarves can move this speed even when wearing medium or heavy armor or when carrying a medium or heavy load.
• Darkvision: Dwaves can see in the dark up to 60 feet. Although they can function without light, Cerilian dwarves prefer illumination, and require it to perform most fine tasks.
• Stonecunning: +2 racial bonus to notice unusual stonework; automatically attempt to search when within 10 feet of unusual stonework, trapfinding (as rogue) for stonework traps only. A dwarf can also sense their approximate depth underground.
• Stability: Dwarves gains a +4 bonus on ability checks to resist bull rush and trip when standing on firm ground.
• +2 racial bonus on saves vs. poison, spells, and spell-like effects.
• +2 dodge bonus to AC against orogs and ogres.
• +2 racial bonus to appraise and craft checks related to stone and metal objects.
• Increased Density: A dwarf's dense body provides DR 1/slashing. Dwaves suffer a -4 penalty to swim and tumble checks.
Now changed to DR 1+Con modifier/slashing.
• Automatic Language: Karamhul. Bonus Languages: Sidhelien, Orog, Ogrish, or any regional human dialect (Anuirean, Basarji, Low Brecht, High Brecht, Rjuven, or Vos).
• Favored Class: Fighter.

Humans

Racial Abilities: Cerilian humans have the following racial traits:
• No racial ability adjustments.
• Medium-size; base speed of 30 feet.
• Regional background feat. At first level, human characters receive a bonus feat selected from a list of appropriate background feats that represent the common sorts of talents people from the character’s regional background learn.
• Regional background skill and bonus skill points. Each regional area has an associated list of four skills commonly acquired by people from that regional background. Human characters receive 4 bonus skill points at first level, and an additional 1 bonus skill point at each subsequent level. These bonus skill points can only be spent on the character’s regional background skills, but these skills are always considered class skills when spending these bonus skill points.
• Bonus Languages: Any regional human dialect (Anuirean, Basarji, Low Brecht, High Brecht, Rjuven, or Vos).
• Favored Class: Any (highest level class is favored).

Anuirean
Anuirean cultural traits: The Anuireans are a stubborn, proud, and warlike people who respect social order and take great pains to maintain a demeanor appropriate to their rank and duties. Reserved and formal, Anuireans are sensitive to even slight changes in body language and mannerisms. Furthermore, the dealings and alliances of noble families are favored topics of continuous discussion throughout Anuirean lands.
Background feats: Armor Proficiency (Any), Iron Will, Mounted Combat, Negotiator, Persuasive.
Background skills: Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Knowledge (Nobility).
Automatic Language: Anuirean.

Brecht
Brecht cultural traits: The Brecht society revolves around wealth and the sea. The Brecht believe in free enterprise, sharp wits, and nimble fingers. The Brecht are a fiery and quick-witted people and often act before others have had time to consider a matter thoroughly.
Background feats: Acrobatic, Agile, Deft Hands, Negotiator, Nimble Fingers.
Background skills: Balance, Craft (Any one), Diplomacy, Profession (Any one), Sleight of Hand.
Automatic Language: Low Brecht.

Khinasi
Khinasi cultural traits: The Khinasi people are well-educated traders and merchants that know that an individual’s decorum, hospitality, and conduct are far more important than gross wealth. Unlike other cultures, the Khinasi have no fear of magic; to them it is considered the noblest of callings.
Background feats: Deceitful, Diligent, Magical Aptitude, Mounted Combat, Skill Focus.
Background skills: Diplomacy, Knowledge (Any), Ride, Spellcraft.
Automatic Language: Basarji.

Rjuirk
Rjurik cultural traits: The Rjurik are a wild and hardy people. They are taught from an early age a deep reverence and respect for Cerilia’s wilds and are notable foresters.
Background feats: Alertness, Endurance, Self Sufficient, Stealthy, Track.
Background skills: Hide, Move Silently, Spot, Survival.
Automatic Language: Rjuven

Vos
Vos cultural traits: The Vos are a strong and warlike people with a rigid code of face and honor. The Vos know what it means to fight for survival – both against their foes, and the bitter cold of their homeland.
Background feats: Athletic, Endurance, Great Fortitude, Self Sufficient, Toughness.
Background skills: Handle Animal, Intimidate, Spot, Survival.
Automatic Language: Vos.

The Jew

10-31-2003, 06:55 AM

In general it looks good, I would add to the background feats skill focus (any background skill) and 1 domain level feat related to each cultures specialties, such as conqueror for Vos or master merchant for Brecht.

irdeggman

10-31-2003, 10:57 AM

The dwarven DR was supposed to 1+Con modifer/slashing or piercing not just slashing.

The human regional background skills were supposed to always be considered class skills, not just at character creation. {The trade off for forcing them to use their human bonus feat on a regional feat}.

The posted (other thread) elven racial nature affinity was also going to be included as a variant for elves and half-elves.

Ariadne

10-31-2003, 11:43 AM

Why do Half-elves and Elves get a Diplomacy (and Gather information) PENALTY??!!!

Elves and Half-Elves are charismatic creatures, a bonus would make more sense...

Ariadne

10-31-2003, 12:04 PM

Overall a nice description.

Requiring "background" skills and feats for a human is IMO a disadvantage, no advantage. This restricts the only "bonus", a human has. Well, the human cultures are more balanced with each other now, but I would still prefer something like a +2 bonus to two skills selected by the player out of those described above and something like "Brechts prefer those feats". So most players still select the "racial" feats, but they need not. To be a human was always an advantage, because it is easer to meet the requirement for an PrC (for example). Now this advantage is gone...

If there wouldn't be that curious skill penalty for Elves/ Half-Elves, it's IMO really better to play one of these races...

ConjurerDragon

10-31-2003, 02:34 PM

Raesene Andu schrieb:

> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=2052

>

> Raesene Andu wrote:

...

> Half-elves

Racial Abilities: Cerilian half-elves have the following racial traits:

> • +2 Dexterity, -2 Constitution.

> • Medium-size, base speed of 30 feet.

> • Immunity to magic sleep spells and a +2 racial saving throw bonus against enchantment spells or effects.

> • Low-light Vision: A half-elf can see twice as far as a human in starlight, torchlight,

or other conditions of poor illumination.

A question about vision: Pn p. 133 of the PHB miss chances are given for

fighting in various degrees of light and darkness. Does Low-light Vision

mean for example that a half-elf would not suffer the 10% miss chance in

moderate darkness - if moderate darkness=starlight?

bye

Michael

DanMcSorley

10-31-2003, 04:11 PM

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Michael Romes wrote:

> A question about vision: Pn p. 133 of the PHB miss chances are given for

> fighting in various degrees of light and darkness. Does Low-light Vision

> mean for example that a half-elf would not suffer the 10% miss chance in

> moderate darkness - if moderate darkness=starlight?

Low light vision is straight from the PHB, it should work the same as the

description there. It`s probably first described under Elves in the PHB,

but you could check the index too.

--

Daniel McSorley

DanMcSorley

10-31-2003, 04:11 PM

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Ariadne wrote:

> Why do Half elves get a Diplomacy PENALTY??!!!

To make the whiney powergamers cry.

--

Daniel McSorley

irdeggman

10-31-2003, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by Ariadne@Oct 31 2003, 06:43 AM
Why do Half-elves and Elves get a Diplomacy (and Gather information) PENALTY??!!!

Elves and Half-Elves are charismatic creatures, a bonus would make more sense...
Basically because they have been at war with almost all of the other races. The wording reflects that it doesn't always apply, only in the areas where they have an infamous reputation.

In 2nd ed it specifically talked about how humans distrusted elves and treated half-elves with great suspicion referring to them as 'changelings'.

Their natural charisma would help to offset this penalty, but not the prejudice that surrounds it.

Of all the human cultures only the Vos were specifically listed as not being on a distrust/hate status with the elves. IMO this is a whole lot better than the 3.5 bonus to half-elves for these things. Why they (the 3.5 authors) didn't give that bonus to halflings instead defies most logic, halflings are almost universally 'liked' and trusted by dem-humans and humans in all settings, except for Dark Sun that is.

In exchange where they have the infamous reputation they get a bonus to intimidation, seems to work fairly well - logically that is.

Osprey

10-31-2003, 05:02 PM

Half-elves

Racial Abilities: Cerilian half-elves have the following racial traits:
• +2 Dexterity, -2 Constitution.

Although it defies the 3.x standard of +2/-2 for ability modifiers, how about giving half-elves exactly half the bonuses and penalties of elves? Meaning,
+1 Dexterity, +1 Charisma, -1 Constitution, -1 Strength.

This would help explain the edge that half-elven bards and sorcerers enjoy.

Elven Blood: A half-elf can be considered an elf for many purposes, including the casting of true magic.

I would also specifically mention the half-elven access to elven racial feats like Spellsong and Elven Artisan. This is important for half-elven bards especially.

Osprey

10-31-2003, 05:24 PM

I think the "outcast" effects on elves and half-elves are well-done. I would add to this a similar reaction penalty in areas where they are infamous.

I would add a +4 bonus for elves when resisting magical disease.

Aging attacks no longer exist except in homebrewed rules, is it necessary to mention it in the half-elven save bonuses?

Half-elven lifespan: Since the Sidhelien are immortal, shouldn't half-elves have longer lifespans than PHB half-elves? In my game, I gave them the PHB elven lifespans, except that they reached adulthood around 40-50 years (the 110 year old young adult elf from the PHB is idiotic - it's unchanged from the old AD&D rules when elves lived for 1000+ years). That seems reasonable for a half-immortal, yes?

I've also been playing with extended lifespans for persons with elven heritage. For instance, the child of a half-elf and human is basically 1/4 elven (genetic specifics aside) - not enough to grant the general 1/2-elven racial type, but enough elven blood to extend their lifespans beyond the human norm. This is partly inspired by Tolkien's idea of how elven blood extends the life of human lines even down through many generations (the Numenorians). Here's how I might break it down:

1/2-elven: Adult at 40 years, Max 350 + 4d100 years
1/4-elven (elven grandparent): Adult at 25 years, Max 150 + 5d20 years
1/8 elven (elven great-grandparent): Adult at 20 years, Max 125 + 3d20 years (as PHB 1/2-elf)
1/16, 1/32: As human, except +10 years to middle, old, and venerable age categories.
1/64 or less: "Elven Ancestry," +5 years to middle age+ categories

There's no major effect on the adventuring scale for PC's (hence no ECL adjustment necessary IMO), but it does add a neat flavor element, and allows for half-elves like the High Mage Aelies to live for centuries without the Long Life blood ability. What do you think?

teloft

10-31-2003, 06:43 PM

i View the elves to be tha natzy of the world.

Natcy: We are all equal, by you people are not part of us (comunistic among them slefe, but fasistic toward others)

Anarcy: like comunists without a central goverment or anyone thinking whats best for you.

___

Imortality.

in Tolkien there was a elf thet loved a human, and gave herself to him. and by thet act she lost her imortality, and finaly left this world to follow her love to the afterlife.

Would this be possible here?

:ph34r:

The Jew

10-31-2003, 07:13 PM

I like the modifiers to diplomacy, gather information and intimidate. One minor mechanics point, the modifiers should be circumstance, not racial. They are not innate to the elves, but apply when the elves are in the right (or wrong) geographic area due to historical circumstances.

The Jew

10-31-2003, 07:22 PM

Osprey wrote:
>I would also specifically mention the half-elven access to elven racial feats >like Spellsong and Elven Artisan. This is important for half-elven bards >especially.

This should be based upon the individual half-elfs life and so left up to the DM. If a half-elf grew up in elven lands, they probably should have access, but if they grew up in human lands and have human cultural attitudes and traits, then maybe the elves would not be willing to share these feats with the half-human.

the Falcon

10-31-2003, 08:09 PM

Reasene Andu wrote:
"Halflings [...]
• +2 Dexterity, -2 Strength. [...]
Elves [...]
• +2 Dexterity, +2 Charisma, -2 Strength, -2 Constitution."

I would like to see halflings have lower Strength score than sidhelien. After all, they are smaller, have lower Str in 2e Br too, and are considered elf-like by many to boot. So I propose +4 Dex, -4 Str for halflings.

--the Falcon

the Falcon

10-31-2003, 08:13 PM

Raesene Andu wrote:
"• Shadow Sense: Halflings possess the ability to attune their vision to the shadow world. This provides them with a limited ability to sense undead, necromantic magic, powerful evil, and areas where the veil between Aebrynis and the Shadow World is thin. [...]"

So how does it work exactly?

the Falcon

10-31-2003, 08:25 PM

Raesene Andu wrote:
"• Increased Density: A dwarf's dense body provides DR 1/slashing. Dwaves suffer a -4 penalty to swim and tumble checks.
Now changed to DR 1+Con modifier/slashing."

I don't know, this could go either way. On the one hand, having DR seems to warrent a Level Adjustment to me. On the other hand, if you're a dwarf and fighting against anyone who knows anything about dwarves, you'll just be set upon with piercing and bludgeoning attacks, totally negating your DR. It just seems to conditional to be a feature for a player character race. If and when this ability is useful kind of totally depends on the whim of the DM, rather than the wishes of the player. Also, mind you, bite attacks are piercing, slashing and bludgeoning, so against a lot of creatures who do not have the option of switching weapons it's pretty useless, too.

In short, it just doesn't seem to be worth the while. I would just leave it out and maybe change the ability adjustments to something like +2 Strength, +2 Constitution, –2 Dexterity, –2 Charisma for that extra kick.

--the Falcon

the Falcon

10-31-2003, 08:28 PM

Raesene Andu wrote:
"• Regional background feat. At first level, human characters receive a bonus feat selected from a list of appropriate background feats that represent the common sorts of talents people from the character’s regional background learn.
• Regional background skill and bonus skill points. Each regional area has an associated list of four skills commonly acquired by people from that regional background. Human characters receive 4 bonus skill points at first level, and an additional 1 bonus skill point at each subsequent level. These bonus skill points can only be spent on the character’s regional background skills, but these skills are always considered class skills when spending these bonus skill points."

So... You greatly limit the choices available to humans, robbing them of their one greatest advantage: flexibility. What is there to compensate?

geeman

10-31-2003, 08:29 PM

Osprey writes:

> Half-elven lifespan: Since the Sidhelien are immortal, shouldn`t

> half-elves have longer lifespans than PHB half-elves?

It`s difficult to really tell what influence the immortality of one parent

might have on his/er offspring. There might be some genetic relationship,

but if their immortality is somehow specifically not genetic--which in the

case of Cerilian elves it may not be since their immortality is tied to

their connection to Aebrynis--it might not affect the longevity of their

children at all. That is, if the Sidhe did not have that connection to the

land who knows how long they might live? It might be the span of a normal

human life. If that`s the case, their progeny who don`t have a connection

to the land wouldn`t have any particular increase in longevity.

Gary

geeman

10-31-2003, 08:29 PM

teloft writes:

> in Tolkien there was a elf thet loved a human, and gave herself to him. and by thet act she lost her imortality, and finaly left this world to follow her love to the afterlife.

>

> Would this be possible here?

I don`t see why not. Aside from the Tolkien connection, the immortality of

elves comes from their "planar" connection to Aebrynis, so it depends on

whether or not one thinks they can somehow sever that connection.

If elves are able to "disconnect" from the plane, what would happen? Would

they physically age, whither and grow decrepit like other mortals or would

they remain ever young and simply drop dead when they reach the age at which

they die of "old age"?

Gary

DanMcSorley

10-31-2003, 08:50 PM

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, the Falcon wrote:

> In short, it just doesn`t seem to be worth the while. I would just

> leave it out and maybe change the ability adjustments to something like

> +2 Strength, +2 Constitution, –2 Dexterity, –2 Charisma for that extra

> kick.

One of the distinguishing features of dwarves from the original material

was that blunt weapons hurt them less. It was never a question of whether

to have it, but of how to include it.

You`re right, since it is so easily circumvented, it`s not worth a LA,

making it more of a flavor text thing with a bit of mechanics to back it

up.

--

Daniel McSorley

irdeggman

10-31-2003, 09:06 PM

Originally posted by the Falcon@Oct 31 2003, 03:28 PM
Raesene Andu wrote:
"• Regional background feat. At first level, human characters receive a bonus feat selected from a list of appropriate background feats that represent the common sorts of talents people from the character’s regional background learn.
• Regional background skill and bonus skill points. Each regional area has an associated list of four skills commonly acquired by people from that regional background. Human characters receive 4 bonus skill points at first level, and an additional 1 bonus skill point at each subsequent level. These bonus skill points can only be spent on the character’s regional background skills, but these skills are always considered class skills when spending these bonus skill points."

So... You greatly limit the choices available to humans, robbing them of their one greatest advantage: flexibility. What is there to compensate?
If you check my additions then you can see that the regional skills are always to be considered class skills. That gives them a few more than they would normally have based on whatever class they have at the time.

There was a lot of discussion previously about following the Wheel of Time system for background feats and skills and those comments were taken into account when this was put together.

Personally I'd rather see each human race be given a specific favored class; Anuirean - fighter, Vos - barbarian, Brecht - rogue, Khinasi - wizard/magician, Rjurick - ranger. But this seemed to be a decent compromise that captured the regional flavor of the campaign. Remember that in Birthright there was never a common human language and that each human race had different ability modifiers in 2nd ed. These ability modifiers couldn't be carried over into 3rd ed without doubling the ones that the demi-humans received - for example dwarves would have to gain a +4 Con, -4 Dex to keep them in the proper perspective with Vos (+2 Con) or Anuireans (-2 Dex) if the humans got ability modifiers.

Raesene Andu

10-31-2003, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by Osprey@Nov 1 2003, 02:54 AM
Half-elven lifespan: Since the Sidhelien are immortal, shouldn't half-elves have longer lifespans than PHB half-elves? In my game, I gave them the PHB elven lifespans, except that they reached adulthood around 40-50 years (the 110 year old young adult elf from the PHB is idiotic - it's unchanged from the old AD&D rules when elves lived for 1000+ years). That seems reasonable for a half-immortal, yes?
I have always run with the rule that half-elves are immortal when they live within an elven forest, but mortal (and thus age like a human) in human and other lands.

irdeggman

10-31-2003, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by the Falcon@Oct 31 2003, 03:09 PM
Reasene Andu wrote:
"Halflings [...]
• +2 Dexterity, -2 Strength. [...]
Elves [...]
• +2 Dexterity, +2 Charisma, -2 Strength, -2 Constitution."

I would like to see halflings have lower Strength score than sidhelien. After all, they are smaller, have lower Str in 2e Br too, and are considered elf-like by many to boot. So I propose +4 Dex, -4 Str for halflings.

--the Falcon
Halflings are smaller but not more frail than elves. They in fact don't have a Con loss so in many ways they are sturdier than elves.

teloft

10-31-2003, 10:21 PM

a pure breed.

of the races of humans.. how about giving them something like (+1) (-1) and there is only a sertan % of a race thet is of pure bread. then a player can figure it out for him selfe whether he is of pure breed or not.

commoners in border regions are rearly of pure breed, unless the family has reacently immigraited.

:ph34r:

RaspK_FOG

10-31-2003, 10:22 PM

I liked Ospreys notes on half-elven and elven aging, and really have to agree: there are no more aging attacks, so it seems redundant to put a game effect in instead of a flavour-full note somewhere over there... Anyway, my two cents worth of notes is that I really find painful the half-elven racial traits... While they are most interesting, and they certainly reflect the style of Birthright, they leave me with one thought prevalent in mind: they suffer! They have a lot more penalties than what they get in return. All in all, it seems that they should be the first race with a negative level adjustment... :D

Really now, any ideas on that?

teloft

10-31-2003, 10:41 PM

I realy like the negative lv adjustment :)

:ph34r:

lets implement thet, then I can use it on kobolts in my other group

:ph34r:

the Falcon

10-31-2003, 11:06 PM

irdeggman wrote:
"If you check my additions then you can see that the regional skills are always to be considered class skills. That gives them a few more than they would normally have based on whatever class they have at the time."

Ah, I must've missed that. My bad. Question though: all of them are always considered class skills? Isn't that a bit too much compensation? Why not just say they can pick two of them to be persistent class skills?

"Personally I'd rather see each human race be given a specific favored class; Anuirean - fighter, Vos - barbarian, Brecht - rogue, Khinasi - wizard/magician, Rjurick - ranger."

This choice in itself shouldn't pose a problem, either. As long as you offer something to make up for it.

Ariadne

11-01-2003, 02:07 AM

Originally posted by DanMcSorley@Oct 31 2003, 05:11 PM
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Ariadne wrote:

> Why do Half elves get a Diplomacy PENALTY??!!!

To make the whiney powergamers cry.

--

Daniel McSorley

Not everybody playes regents, so not everybody actually NEEDS diplomacy (and Gather Information I have never seen to be important at all). But it's still my opinion: Elves are charismatic, that's why a bonus, no penalty.

If you prefer humans, do it :P

Raesene Andu

11-01-2003, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by irdeggman@Oct 31 2003, 08:27 PM
The dwarven DR was supposed to 1+Con modifer/slashing or piercing not just slashing.

The human regional background skills were supposed to always be considered class skills, not just at character creation. {The trade off for forcing them to use their human bonus feat on a regional feat}.

The posted (other thread) elven racial nature affinity was also going to be included as a variant for elves and half-elves.
I've updated the DR and class skills bit on the latest draft, I don't remember seeing the elven racial nature affinity rules though, can you send them to me, either post them here, or on the developer boards. I wasn't really following that thread (the whole elves and nature thing got too much for me after a while :)

irdeggman

11-01-2003, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by Ariadne+Oct 31 2003, 09:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ariadne @ Oct 31 2003, 09:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--DanMcSorley@Oct 31 2003, 05:11 PM
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Ariadne wrote:

> Why do Half elves get a Diplomacy PENALTY??!!!

To make the whiney powergamers cry.

--

Daniel McSorley

Not everybody playes regents, so not everybody actually NEEDS diplomacy (and Gather Information I have never seen to be important at all). But it's still my opinion: Elves are charismatic, that's why a bonus, no penalty.

If you prefer humans, do it :P [/b][/quote]
Ariadne,
I think you are missing something here. Elves are charismatic and will end up with a natural ability modifier because of this. The penalty (which should be a circumstance one as pointed out earlier) is a reflection of prejudice against them as a race.

In all of the 2nd ed Birthright literature there is a semi-hatred between humans and elves (thus the circumstance penalty to the skill checks mentioned). Elves are often spoken of as being able to charm others (thus the Cha modifier for non-skill application, specifically for spells (as a bard or sorcerer - two Cha based spell casters).

Being charismatic and having to suffer a racial prejudice on some skill checks are not contradictory.

Azrai

11-01-2003, 04:22 PM

I would drop "Infamous Rep." ability for Half-Elves.

To make the whiney powergamers cry

Not very funny at all ;)

the Falcon

11-01-2003, 04:33 PM

irdeggman wrote:
"Halflings are smaller but not more frail than elves. They in fact don't have a Con loss so in many ways they are sturdier than elves. "
Still, halflings are twice as small as elves. What sense does it make for them to be just as strong?

Osprey

11-01-2003, 06:15 PM

Still, halflings are twice as small as elves. What sense does it make for them to be just as strong?

I think their differences in density and compactness might account for some of that.

On the other hand, elves' strength penalties are there to balance them mechanically more than anything...because they didn't want to make them a higher ECL template!

If I had my way, elves would be at least +1 ECL, and be a superior race to humans in more ways than they are now...

I wouldn't give them ability penalties at all...I think thin and lithe appearance doesn't have to make them any more frail than humans, being magical creatures tied to the mebhaighal and fae-ish. They'd be closer to the Tolkien derivation that way - without the ability penalties.

Plus they'd get regeneration in high-source areas, as detailed in "A Variant for the Sidhe."

Osprey

11-01-2003, 06:47 PM

Not everybody playes regents, so not everybody actually NEEDS diplomacy (and Gather Information I have never seen to be important at all). But it's still my opinion: Elves are charismatic, that's why a bonus, no penalty.

Gather Information not important?!? It's the key skill for Espionage domain actions for one thing. That's important for regents and lieutenant spies or spymasters. Plus I use it all the time on an adventure level - that's often how the PC's begin investigations, gather rumors in court settings, etc., etc. I find it a preeminent skill if you're playing with any sort of intrigue, mystery, political framework, or social at all.

If adventures are strictly dungeon crawling, then it's less useful, but even then it can be used to find rumors about the dungeon, who's paying bounties, etc.

There should always be a use for Gather Info, otherwise you're ignoring a huge social aspect of the RPG, which is a damned shame IMO.

Osprey

11-01-2003, 06:51 PM

I will repeat an earlier post for emphasis: the reputation modifiers are appropriate, but I still say half-elves should get a Charisma bonus (+1 Dex/+1 Cha/-1 Str/-1 Con). Why would they keep the Dex bonus of their elven lineage but have no Cha effects? It simply doesn't make sense! If they're one-half elven, then make them half-elven!

The Jew

11-01-2003, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by Azrai@Nov 1 2003, 05:22 PM
I would drop "Infamous Rep." ability for Half-Elves.

To make the whiney powergamers cry

Not very funny at all ;)
Apparently some people have a different sense of humor than you. :D :lol: :)

I agree with the infamous rep. for half-elves, although it should be more flexible. If a half-elf walks into a random town where they hate elfs, the towns people will wonder which race the half-elf has its loyalties to, i.e. they are going to distrust him, but not as much as if an elf appeared. If the half-elf shows himself to be loyal to humans, then that penalty should go away, loyal to his elven ancestry then the modifier should increase to +4, if he shows mixed loyalties then it should remain the same.

RaspK_FOG

11-01-2003, 10:41 PM

Well, seeing as what Osprey has proposed so far, I will stick with his opinion (which is mine as well): make the Sidhelien more powerful - ECL +1 at least (odd racial ability adjustments are not a good idea, though; they can be nullified by applying penalties to numbers that will not thus give lower modifiers, and by applying bonuses to numbers that will thus give higher modifiers).

As for half-elves, I have an interesting idea in mind: seeing as they have so many negatives, I believe that giving them the following ability adjustment wouldn't be half bad: +2 Dexterity, +2 Charisma, -2 Constitution. It seems fine to me...

As for the Nature Magic Affinity racial trait, here it is (this is quoted, but I can't remember whom do I quote):

After working on this I've come up with the following using the 3.5 PHB as a basis.

Elven racial abilities:
Variant: Elven nature magic familiarity - Due to their strong ties to the land of Cerilia elves add the following spells to any arcane spellcaster list they may have at the equivalent spell level listed. Elves follow the rules for learning and casting these spells for the spellcasting class that they apply. These spells would be cast as arcane spells.
0-Level
Create Water

1st-Level
Calm Animals -
Charm Animal -
Detect Snares and Pits -
Entangle -
Goodberry -
Hide from Animals -
Longstrider – I’d add it even though it doesn’t really have a nature theme, it does fit in with the elven descriptions
Magic Fang -
Magic Stone -
Pass without Trace -
Shillelagh -

2nd-Level
Animal Messenger -
Barkskin -
Hold Animal -
Reduce Animal -
Soften Earth and Stone -
Tree Shape -
Warp Wood -
Wood Shape -

3rd-Level
Diminish Plants -
Dominate Animal -
Magic Fang, Greater -
Meld into Stone -
Plant Growth -
Quench -
Snare -
Spike Growth –
Wind Walk -

4th-Level
Air Walk
Antiplant Shell -
Command Plants -
Giant Vermin -
Spike Stones -

5th-Level
Awaken -
Commune with Nature -
Control Winds -
Tree Stride -
Wall of Thorns -

6th-Level
Ironwood -
Liveoak -
Repel Wood
Spellstaff -
Stone Tell -
Transport via Plants -

7th-Level
Animate Plants -
Changestaff -
Transmute Metal to Wood -
Wind Walk -

8th-Level
Animal Shapes -
Control Plants -
Repel Metal or Stone -

9th-Level
Shambler -

Druid spells not added to the list of elven racial familiarity (and why)

0-Level
Cure Minor Wounds – Don’t include, it doesn’t really have a nature theme
Detect Magic – Don’t include, it’s on the Brd and Sor/Wiz lists already
Detect Poison – Don’t include, it’s on the Brd and Sor/Wiz lists already
Flare – Don’t include, it’s on the Brd and Sor/Wiz lists already
Guidance – Don’t include, it doesn’t really have a nature theme
Know Direction – Don’t include, it’s already on the Brd list
Light - Don’t include, it’s on the Brd and Sor/Wiz lists already
Mending - Don’t include, it’s on the Brd and Sor/Wiz lists already
Purify Food and Drink – Don’t include, it doesn’t really have a nature theme
Read Magic - Don’t include, it’s on the Brd and Sor/Wiz lists already
Resistance - Don’t include, it’s on the Brd and Sor/Wiz lists already
Virtue – Don’t include, it doesn’t really have a nature theme

1st-Level
Cure Light Wounds – Don’t include, it doesn’t really have a nature theme
Endure Elements – Don’t include, it’s already on the Sor/Wiz list already
Faerie Fire – Don’t include, it’s an evocation spell
Jump - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Obscuring Mist - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Produce Flame – Don’t include, it’s an evocation spell and a fire one
Speak with Animals - Don’t include, it’s on the Brd list already
Summon Nature’s Ally I – Don’t include, it’s a summoning spell

2nd-Level
Animal Trance - Don’t include, it’s on the Brd list already
Bear’s Endurance - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Cat’s Grace - Don’t include, it’s on the Brd and Sor/Wiz lists already
Delay Poison - Don’t include, it’s on the Brd list already
Fire Trap - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already and a fire spell
Flame Blade – Don’t include it’s an evocation and fire spell
Flaming Sphere - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already, is an evocation and fire spell
Fog Cloud - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Gust of Wind - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already and is an evocation
Heat Metal – Don’t add it’s a fire spell
Owl’s Wisdom - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Resist Energy - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Restoration, Lesser – Don’t include it’s not really a nature theme
Spider Climb - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Summon Nature’s Ally II – Don’t include it’s a summoning spell
Summon Swarm – Don’t include it’s a summoning spell

3rd-Level
Call Lightning – Don’t include it’s an evocation spell
Contagion - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already and is a necromancy spell
Cure Moderate Wounds – Don’t include it’s not really a nature theme
Daylight - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already and is an evocation spell
Neutralize Poison - Don’t include, it’s on the Brd list already
Poison – Don’t include it’s a necromancy spell
Protection from Energy - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Remove Disease – Don’t include it’s not really a nature theme
Sleet Storm - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Speak with Plants - Don’t include, it’s on the Brd list already
Stone Shape - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Summon Nature’s Ally III – Don’t include it’s a summoning spell
Water Breathing - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already

4th-Level
Blight - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Control Water - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Cure Serious Wounds – Don’t include it’s not really a nature theme
Dispel Magic - Don’t include, it’s on the Brd and Sor/Wiz lists already
Flame Strike – Don’t include it’s an evocation and fire spell
Freedom of Movement - Don’t include, it’s on the Brd list already
Ice Storm - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already and is an evocation spell
Reincarnate – Don’t include it’s not really a nature theme
Repel Vermin - Don’t include, it’s on the Brd list already
Rusting Grasp – Don’t include it’s not really a nature theme
Scrying - Don’t include, it’s on the Brd and Sor/Wiz lists already
Summon Nature’s Ally IV - Don’t include it’s a summoning spell

5th-Level
Animal Growth - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Atonement – Don’t add it doesn’t really have a nature theme
Baleful Polymorph - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Call Lightning Storm – Don’t include it’s an evocation spell
Cure Critical Wounds – Don’t include it’s not really a nature theme
Death Ward – Don’t add it’s a necromancy spell
Hallow – Don’t add it doesn’t have a nature theme and is an evocation spell
Insect Plague – Don’t add it’s a summoning spell
Stoneskin - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Summon Nature’s Ally V - Don’t include it’s a summoning spell
Transmute Mud to Rock - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Transmute Rock to Mud - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Unhallow – Don’t add it doesn’t have a nature theme and is an evocation spell
Wall of Fire - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already and is an evocation and fire spell

6th-Level
Antilife Shell – Don’t add it’s not really a nature theme
Bear’s Endurance, Mass - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Bull’s Strength, Mass - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Cat’s Grace, Mass - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Cure Light Wounds, Mass – Don’t include it’s not really a nature theme
Dispel Magic, Greater - Don’t include, it’s on the Brd and Sor/Wiz lists already
Find the Path - Don’t include, it’s on the Brd list already
Fire Seeds – Don’t add it’s not really a nature theme and is a fire spell
Move Earth - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Owl’s Wisdom, Mass - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Summon Nature’s Ally VI - Don’t include it’s a summoning spell
Wall of Stone - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already

7th-Level
Control Weather - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Creeping Doom – Don’t add it’s a summoning spell
Cure Moderate Wounds, Mass – Don’t include it’s not really a nature theme
Fire Storm – Don’t add it’s an evocation and fire spell
Heal – Don’t include it not really a nature theme
Scrying, Greater - Don’t include, it’s on the Brd and Sor/Wiz lists already
Summon Nature’s Ally VII - Don’t include it’s a summoning spell
Sunbeam – Don’t add it’s an evocation spell
True Seeing - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already

8th-Level
Cure Serious Wounds, Mass – Don’t include it’s not really a nature theme
Earthquake – Don’t add it’s an evocation spell
Finger of Death - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already and is a necromancy spell
Reverse Gravity - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Summon Nature’s Ally VIII - Don’t include it’s a summoning spell
Sunburst – Don’t add it’s an evocation spell
Whirlwind – Don’t add it’s an evocation spell
Word of Recall – Don’t add it’s not really a nature spell

9th-Level
Antipathy - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Cure Critical Wounds, Mass – Don’t include it’s not really a nature theme
Elemental Swarm – Don’t add it’s a summoning spell
Foresight - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Regenerate – Don’t add it’s not really a nature spell
Shapechange – Don’t add it’s not really a nature theme
Storm of Vengeance – Don’t add it’s a summoning spell
Summon Nature’s Ally IX - Don’t include it’s a summoning spell
Sympathy – Don’t add it’s not really a nature theme

teloft

11-01-2003, 11:36 PM

the modifyer sould stikk.

also you can earn this modifyer if you have a untastefull rule, even your court could gain the infamus rep, and all thet speak in its name.

kgauck

11-02-2003, 03:24 AM

----- Original Message -----

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

Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 12:47 PM

> Gather Information not important?!? It`s the key skill for

> Espionage domain actions for one thing. That`s important for regents

> and lieutenant spies or spymasters. Plus I use it all the time on an

> adventure level - that`s often how the PC`s begin investigations, gather

> rumors in court settings, etc., etc. I find it a preeminent skill if

you`re

> playing with any sort of intrigue, mystery, political framework, or social

> at all.

I agree, it is a critical skill. Without Gather Information, no one knows

anything. Any information someone managed to figure out on their own would

die with them. Because we can use Gather Information untrained, we can

actually know a lot about stuff that is neither esoteric nor secret. To

learn the poorly remembered or the intentionally hidden, we need Gather

Information.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

The Jew

11-03-2003, 12:11 AM

anyone have any ideas for orogs or goblins. It would be useful to include them in this section since they are playable regents.

The Jew

11-03-2003, 03:37 AM

don't be too harsh, I just made it up over the last 15 minutes.

Orogs
*+2 Strength, +2 Intelligence, -2 Dexterity, -2 Charisma
*Darkvision 60 ft.
*Medium Size, base speed 30. Armour counted as one category lighter for movement penalties.
*+2 racial bonus against fear or fear-like effects.
*+2 racial damage bonus against dwarves.
*+2 racial bonus for warcraft, always considered a class skill.
*Highly structured society, united in service to their god and their drive to destroy all dwarves. Orogs must follow a non-chaotic alignment.
*favored class: fighter

Osprey

11-03-2003, 06:48 AM

So, um, were you planning on this being a +ECL template or something?

Personally, I have a number of hangups...+2 Intelligence, +2 Warcraft? Why haven't orogs taken over the world yet? They don't lack for numbers/reproduction, that's for sure...

Here's the stats straight out of the BRCS, with only a few minor adjustments to conform to standard race templates. This is assuming the BRCS stats are for a 1st level warrior orog, whereas these are for a 2 HD humanoid.

Orogs, a +3 ECL template:
Medium-sized Humanoids
Base 2d8 HD (+1 Base Attack, +3 Fortitude)
+6 Str, +2 Con, -2 Cha
+2 racial bonus to Warcraft checks
60' Darkvision
Light Sensitivity: -1 to attack rolls in bright light (such as a daylight spell) or sunlight

The Jew

11-03-2003, 06:24 PM

The Orogs racial characteristics in the BRCS are ludriciusly weak for a +3 ECL and not that interesting. Taking into consideration what you said Ospery and the BRCS version, here is an update on my creation.

Orogs

+1 ECL

*+4 Strength, +2 Constitution, -2 Dexterity, -2 Charisma
*Darkvision 60 ft.
*Medium Size, base speed 30. Armour counted as one category lighter for movement penalties.
*+2 racial bonus against fear or fear-like effects.
*+2 racial damage bonus against dwarves.
*+2 racial bonus for warcraft, always considered a class skill.
*-2 racial penalty to all checks while in sunlight
*Usually of an evil alignment
*favored class: fighter

Mark_Aurel

11-03-2003, 07:28 PM

The Orogs racial characteristics in the BRCS are ludriciusly[sic] weak for a +3 ECL and not that interesting. Taking into consideration what you said Ospery[sic] and the BRCS version, here is an update on my creation.

Ludicrously weak? It has two levels and a +1 level adjustment. For that, you get a +6 bonus on Strength and +2 on Constitution. Not really what I'd consider 'weak' and definitely not 'ludicrously' so.

Put it another way - human fighter 4 vs orog fighter 1

HD 4d10, melee attack +4 base

HD 2d8+1d10+3, melee attack +2 base +3 strength, +3 damage bonus over the human given equal ability scores

Is that 'weak?' The only reason it's just a +1 level adjustment, and not more, is that the two orog levels by themselves are weaker than standard character class levels.

As for the 'interesting' part, that is another aspect entirely - they do lack flavor, just like any other 'standard' humanoid. Adding one or two appropriate and flavorful bonuses might be a good idea, but that would probably push their level adjustment up a bit.

Green Knight

11-03-2003, 07:59 PM

Mark_Aurel

11-03-2003, 08:13 PM

What is the reason for limiting non-standard races by giving them racial
hit dice? I don`t see the point. Both bugbeard, gnolls, and orogs would
do better starting at 1st level classed characters. For once FR has
produced something worthwile in the Races of Faerun - here they stay
away from racial hit dice to a certain degree. I like it better that
way.

Yes - and dolphins would do better if they had hands, and cats and monkies would do better if they could speak like humans. Whether they would 'do better' like that is really irrelevant as to determining what they actually are and can do.

Races of Faerun doesn't 'stay away from racial hit dice' - it's just that the great majority of races detailed therein do not have racial hit dice, generally because it deals with umpteen subraces of the standard races. When it comes to races like aaracokra, or tanarukks or bugbears (hmmm - might bugbears be somewhat similar to ... orogs?), they use racial hit dice as liberally as anyone.

kgauck

11-03-2003, 08:19 PM

----- Original Message -----

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

Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 1:28 PM

> As for the `interesting` part, that is another aspect entirely - they do

> lack flavor, just like any other `standard` humanoid. Adding one or two

> appropriate and flavorful bonuses might be a good idea, but that would

> probably push their level adjustment up a bit.

One can probabaly avoid pushing their level adjustment up a bit, and make

things a bit more interesting by matching a bonus with a penalty.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

The Jew

11-03-2003, 08:25 PM

Ludicrously weak? It has two levels and a +1 level adjustment. For that, you get a +6 bonus on Strength and +2 on Constitution. Not really what I'd consider 'weak' and definitely not 'ludicrously' so.

Put it another way - human fighter 4 vs orog fighter 1

HD 4d10, melee attack +4 base

HD 2d8+1d10+3, melee attack +2 base +3 strength, +3 damage bonus over the human given equal ability scores

If you put it that way then it is not ludicrously weak, but that is only because you ignored so many benefits the human would have. 3 extra feats (2 from fighter, 1 from race). The Orog has -2 to charisma, which if you were playing in a high role play or domain level game would hurt. The human also recieves an extra 12 skill points and greater flexibility in choosing where they go. The orog recieves a +2 to warcraft, but has a -1 to attacks in sunlight.

Mark_Aurel

11-03-2003, 08:42 PM

If you put it that way then it is not ludicrously weak, but that is only because you ignored so many benefits the human would have. 3 extra feats (2 from fighter, 1 from race). The Orog has -2 to charisma, which if you were playing in a high role play or domain level game would hurt. The human also recieves an extra 12 skill points and greater flexibility in choosing where they go. The orog recieves a +2 to warcraft, but has a -1 to attacks in sunlight.

Ah, yes. Of course the human fighter would be way ahead on feats. The orog fighter'd have 3 total. The human'd have 6. So, let's see.

The orog essentially has +1 on melee attacks and +3 on melee damage over the human. The human can partially equalize that by spending two feats - weapon focus & specialization (having a strength bonus is still much more versatile, of course). So - that's one feat for +1 to melee damage, essentially, for a tank fighter. With that, you haven't even started addressing the long-term benefits - the orog's Constitution bonus in particular will secure him more hit points than the human at higher levels.

Getting more skill points is one thing - however, again, the orog's ability score bonuses secure him big bonuses on several skills over a human - jump, climb, even concentration. Not quite sure where you are getting 12 skill points from, either. The orog has three levels, the human has four - which means the human gets 2 more skill points, plus whatever intelligence bonus (assume 0 for a fighter, heh), plus 7 more for being a human - that's 9. Then, there's also the charisma penalty, and the racial bonus on warcraft. Overall, the human comes out ahead, though the orog'll still excel at some things better than humans.

Finally, the sunlight penalty is quite significant, and helps balance things out a bit. Of course, there's always darkvision as the flip side of the coin to that again.

The Jew

11-03-2003, 08:59 PM

you're convincing me, I would drop the ludicrously adverb. The 4th level human has 26.5 hp on average, the Orog 22 hp (assuming that their maxed hd is the d10), that more than makes up for the +2 con, especially in the low-level setting that birthright is. The human is also ahead by one in hd, so already achieved the +1 to an ability and is closer to the next feat.

On a slightly different topic, what is your opinion of my revised version.

Green Knight

11-03-2003, 09:23 PM

That was a REALLY insightful comment. I`m glad you`re here to tell me

these things. They use racial hit dice for races that have already been

published as monsters - they apparently didn`t want to change any

published material.

But you missed the point entirely. Perhaps it was the wording "would do

better..." that tripped you; I wasn`t speaking in terms of combat

prowess or ECL comparisons? Or was it the reference to a FR product?

I was merely commenting the fact that I can`t see the reason why the

non-standard races should have racial levels, when the standard races

have none. What is it with Cerilia that makes gnolls have racial hit

dice, while the sidhe and the dwarves do not? I fail to see the logic

behind this; IMO either every race (at least the recognizably humanoid

ones and those directly comparable) has racial hit dice or none do.

But maybe I didn`t get it right, since apparently orogs have about as

much in common with dwarves as humans do fish, cats or monkeys...

Btw: Bugbears might be similar to huge goblins as per BR Cardsheet No 8.

Orogs are just similar to orogs.

...and yeah, I did get ticked of...

-----Original Message-----

From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion

[mailto:BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM] On Behalf Of Mark_Aurel

Sent: 3. november 2003 21:14

To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM

Subject: Re: Birthright "demihuman" Races: [36#2052]

This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

You can view the entire thread at:

http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=2052

Mark_Aurel wrote:

What is the reason for limiting non-standard races by giving

them racial

hit dice? I don`t see the point. Both bugbeard, gnolls, and orogs would

do better starting at 1st level classed characters. For once FR has

produced something worthwile in the Races of Faerun - here they stay

away from racial hit dice to a certain degree. I like it better that

way.

Yes - and dolphins would do better if they had hands, and cats and

monkies would do better if they could speak like humans. Whether they

would `do better` like that is really irrelevant as to determining what

they actually are and can do.

Races of Faerun doesn`t `stay away from racial hit dice` - it`s just

that the great majority of races detailed therein do not have racial hit

dice, generally because it deals with umpteen subraces of the standard

races. When it comes to races like aaracokra, or tanarukks or bugbears

(hmmm - might bugbears be somewhat similar to ... orogs?), they use

racial hit dice as liberally as anyone.

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

****

Birthright-l Archives:

http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html

kgauck

11-03-2003, 10:00 PM

----- Original Message -----

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

Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 2:59 PM

> I was merely commenting the fact that I can`t see the reason why the

> non-standard races should have racial levels, when the standard races

> have none. What is it with Cerilia that makes gnolls have racial hit

> dice, while the sidhe and the dwarves do not? I fail to see the logic

> behind this; IMO either every race (at least the recognizably humanoid

> ones and those directly comparable) has racial hit dice or none do.

Racial hit dice (and with it the racial class design) suggest that there is

a specific orog (or goblin, or gnoll) class. A program of skills and class

features of advancement. What strikes me as most important, is whether the

class design for any given orog, goblin, or gnoll design is accounted a

competative per level comparrison with those humans, elves, and dwarves.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

Mark_Aurel

11-03-2003, 10:29 PM

I was merely commenting the fact that I can`t see the reason why the
non-standard races should have racial levels, when the standard races
have none. What is it with Cerilia that makes gnolls have racial hit
dice, while the sidhe and the dwarves do not? I fail to see the logic
behind this; IMO either every race (at least the recognizably humanoid
ones and those directly comparable) has racial hit dice or none do.

It's a measure of toughness. Elephants don't just have higher Con scores than humans (in fact, they don't necessarily have that) - they have more HD as well. Orogs are tougher and stronger than humans. As are gnolls. Having a higher Con score and racial HD are measures of toughness that work out differently. Racial HD makes the creature in question tougher at the base level than a Con bonus does; a Con bonus is better for high-level characters, however.

It's not Cerilia that's the cause, either - in fact, in all D&D worlds that I know of, gnolls have two HD, while dwarves and elves have only one. You can argue the logic of that with the creators of D&D. Here, you can argue why Birthright should break with that pattern and be different from the baseline - which I don't think you have yet - you've stated that you don't see the reason for it being so, that you think the races in question would be 'better off' without racial HD, and that Races of Faerun had some races without racial HD.

Racial HD is simply a mechanical tool to describe the differences between various races - some races simply are bigger and more powerful. Just like some races have higher Strength or bigger teeth, or some can fly. That was the point. It seems so obvious, however, that I wonder whether I missed your actual point or question.

The Jew

11-03-2003, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by kgauck@Nov 3 2003, 05:00 PM

Racial hit dice (and with it the racial class design) suggest that there is

a specific orog (or goblin, or gnoll) class. A program of skills and class

features of advancement. What strikes me as most important, is whether the

class design for any given orog, goblin, or gnoll design is accounted a

competative per level comparrison with those humans, elves, and dwarves.

The race and the racial class should be seperated. It will allow for easier comparision and more flexible character creation should anyone choose to play an orog or goblin.

Green Knight

11-03-2003, 11:07 PM

But exactly how does the life of a goblin growing up in the back woods

of Thurazor differ from that of a human homesteader from Dhoesone or an

elf from Tuarhievel? I`m at a loss to give a consistent explanation if

one is to have racial hit dice and not the other.

I`m not favoring either solution, as long as it is consistent...

-----Original Message-----

From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion

[mailto:BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM] On Behalf Of Kenneth Gauck

Sent: 3. november 2003 22:43

To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM

Subject: Re: Birthright "demihuman" Races: [36#2052]

----- Original Message -----

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

Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 2:59 PM

> I was merely commenting the fact that I can`t see the reason why the

> non-standard races should have racial levels, when the standard races

> have none. What is it with Cerilia that makes gnolls have racial hit

> dice, while the sidhe and the dwarves do not? I fail to see the logic

> behind this; IMO either every race (at least the recognizably humanoid

> ones and those directly comparable) has racial hit dice or none do.

Racial hit dice (and with it the racial class design) suggest that there

is

a specific orog (or goblin, or gnoll) class. A program of skills and

class

features of advancement. What strikes me as most important, is whether

the

class design for any given orog, goblin, or gnoll design is accounted a

competative per level comparrison with those humans, elves, and dwarves.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

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

****

Birthright-l Archives:

http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html

Green Knight

11-03-2003, 11:07 PM

And by consequence, Cerilian dwarves are not tough? Or is their

toughness measured in class levels instead? Orogs get tough because they

fight with their own and with the dwarves. Dwarves get tough fighting

orogs. One gets racial hit dice and the other gets class levels. Why

don`t orogs level up as fighters or warriors instead, like dwarves do?

Besides the (IMO) obvious logical flaw here, there other game-mechanical

concerns too. In particular, there is a significant problem with skill

points. Hmm, my gnoll has 2 skill points per hit dice, while a ranger

has 6. Combine that with a gnoll`s -2 to INT and you get a gnoll ranger

with almost no skill points compared to a ranger from a race w/o racial

hit dice. It`s not insurmountable, but it’s an issue that should be

addressed.

I think racial hit dice is either 1) a sad anachronism from previous

versions of Dungeons & Dragons 2) an interesting way of portraying

racial background traits. Let`s go with one or the other - either they

go out with the garbage or we make up racial hit dice for everyone.

-----Original Message-----

From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion

[mailto:BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM] On Behalf Of Mark_Aurel

Sent: 3. november 2003 23:29

To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM

Subject: Re: Birthright "demihuman" Races: [36#2052]

This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

You can view the entire thread at:

http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=2052

Mark_Aurel wrote:

I was merely commenting the fact that I can`t see the reason

why the

non-standard races should have racial levels, when the standard races

have none. What is it with Cerilia that makes gnolls have racial hit

dice, while the sidhe and the dwarves do not? I fail to see the logic

behind this; IMO either every race (at least the recognizably humanoid

ones and those directly comparable) has racial hit dice or none

do.

It`s a measure of toughness. Elephants don`t just have higher Con

scores than humans (in fact, they don`t necessarily have that) - they

have more HD as well. Orogs are tougher and stronger than humans. As are

gnolls. Having a higher Con score and racial HD are measures of

toughness that work out differently. Racial HD makes the creature in

question tougher at the base level than a Con bonus does; a Con bonus is

better for high-level characters, however.

It`s not Cerilia that`s the cause, either - in fact, in all D&D

worlds that I know of, gnolls have two HD, while dwarves and elves have

only one. You can argue the logic of that with the creators of D&D.

Here, you can argue why Birthright should break with that pattern and be

different from the baseline - which I don`t think you have yet - you`ve

stated that you don`t see the reason for it being so, that you think the

races in question would be `better off` without racial HD, and that

Races of Faerun had some races without racial HD.

Racial HD is simply a mechanical tool to describe the differences

between various races - some races simply are bigger and more powerful.

Just like some races have higher Strength or bigger teeth, or some can

fly. That was the point. It seems so obvious, however, that I wonder

whether I missed your actual point or question.

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

****

Birthright-l Archives:

http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html

Mark_Aurel

11-03-2003, 11:33 PM

Mark_Aurel

11-03-2003, 11:43 PM

geeman

11-04-2003, 12:27 AM

In the long run, I think the solution is that _everyone_ should have racial

hit dice/levels. Monte Cooke`s recent article about racial levels for

standard, 1HD PC races shows how this can be done. I`ve typed up tables

for BR`s human races (but extended them out to 6th level rather than 3rd)

but have yet to tackle the "demi-human" and "humanoid"

species. Essentially, the idea is an extension on the thinking of Savage

Species in which ECL is broken down into character levels, and then levels

beyond that point at which an "average" member of the race is represented

are included. As a kind of standard for differentiating between character

classes, the racial levels presented also have their own set of ability

score increases, which I think is a nice way of breaking up when/how/what

abilities might increase if one were trying to convey a character being

"more orog" than the next character.

Gary

geeman

11-04-2003, 12:27 AM

At 11:46 PM 11/3/2003 +0100, The Jew wrote:

> The race and the racial class should be seperated. It will allow for

> easier comparision and more flexible character creation should anyone

> choose to play an orog or goblin.

If one has a racial class does one still need a race template? The

template exists as one of the levels on the racial class, so one can just

describe the character as being at that stage of development.

Gary

Green Knight

11-04-2003, 12:27 AM

Well, what about a huge one? Or an elite?

It`s a good point actually. Why do some members of the goblin species

have racial hit dice, while others do not? Well, huge goblins certainly

ARE tougher than common goblins. But that really doesn`t help much. Are

they tougher in terms of goblin racial hit dice (do elite and huge

goblins even have the same racial hit dice?) or do the huge ones have 3

warrior levels, while the elites have 2, and the commons 1? Or do for

some reason the elites have 2 elite goblin hit dice, the huge goblin

have 3 huge goblin hit dice, while the common goblin is a warrior 1?

Let spell it together i-n-c-o-n-s-i-s-t-e-n-c-y

-----Original Message-----

From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion

[mailto:BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM] On Behalf Of Mark_Aurel

Sent: 4. november 2003 00:33

To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM

Subject: Re: Birthright "demihuman" Races: [36#2052]

This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

You can view the entire thread at:

http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=2052

Mark_Aurel wrote:

But exactly how does the life of a goblin growing up in the

back woods

of Thurazor differ from that of a human homesteader from Dhoesone or an

elf from Tuarhievel? I`m at a loss to give a consistent explanation if

one is to have racial hit dice and not the other.

I`m not favoring either solution, as long as it is

consistent...

A common goblin doesn`t have racial HD.

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

****

Birthright-l Archives:

http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html

Green Knight

11-04-2003, 12:27 AM

I think a commoner goblin is OK, but that`s just me.

Goblins could certainly be experts or warriors, couldn`t they?

-----Original Message-----

From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion

[mailto:BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM] On Behalf Of Kenneth Gauck

Sent: 4. november 2003 00:36

To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM

Subject: Re: Birthright "demihuman" Races: [36#2052]

----- Original Message -----

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

Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 4:41 PM

> But exactly how does the life of a goblin growing up in the back

> woods of Thurazor differ from that of a human homesteader from

> Dhoesone or an elf from Tuarhievel? I`m at a loss to give a

> consistent explanation if one is to have racial hit dice and not the

> other.

Humans have the commoner class. I have no problem with fighter 3

goblins,

but I don`t think there is a commoner equivilent in goblin society. The

default goblin is more of a raider/hunter. What do you do with goblins

who

are not advancing in adventuring classes? What do they look like?

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

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

****

Birthright-l Archives:

http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html

Green Knight

11-04-2003, 12:27 AM

The orog is tough, and also get the Con bonus...who is to say that the

way a dwarf is tough differs from he way an orog is tough? The problem

is that the division is entirely artificial. Sorry, buy quoting

elephants, dolphins and whatnot won`t make that go away.

Let just agree that Cerilian humanoids are generally a step up from

their more common "monster" counterparts in other settings? I think they

should be treated on an equally footing.

IMO the question should be: "Why do we want orogs to have racial hit

dice".

a) If the answer is; because they always had, because they`re tough or

some other such nonsense, they its time we rethink it.

b) If the answer is; "it contributes greatly to the flexibility and

enjoyment of playing orog characters", then by all means keep it.

I think the answer is a) and its time to rethink racial hit dice (not

necessarily do away with them, but rethink them).

-----Original Message-----

From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion

[mailto:BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM] On Behalf Of Mark_Aurel

Sent: 4. november 2003 00:44

To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM

Subject: Re: Birthright "demihuman" Races: [36#2052]

This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

You can view the entire thread at:

http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=2052

Mark_Aurel wrote:

And by consequence, Cerilian dwarves are not tough? Or is their

toughness measured in class levels instead? Orogs get tough because

they

fight with their own and with the dwarves. Dwarves get tough fighting

orogs. One gets racial hit dice and the other gets class levels. Why

don`t orogs level up as fighters or warriors instead, like dwarves do?

s

Besides the (IMO) obvious logical flaw here, there other

game-mechanical

concerns too. In particular, there is a significant problem with skill

points. Hmm, my gnoll has 2 skill points per hit dice, while a ranger

has 6. Combine that with a gnoll`s -2 to INT and you get a gnoll ranger

with almost no skill points compared to a ranger from a race w/o racial

hit dice. It`s not insurmountable, but it?s an issue that should be

addressed.

I think racial hit dice is either 1) a sad anachronism from previous

versions of Dungeons & Dragons 2) an interesting way of portraying

racial background traits. Let`s go with one or the other - either they

go out with the garbage or we make up racial hit dice for

everyone.

A dwarf is tough. He gets a Con bonus, and he takes less damage from

blunt weapons. A dwarf isn`t tougher than a human the same way an

elephant or a horse is, or many other animals are, however. When we`re

talking about fantasy races, they generally differ in more ways than the

color of their skin. Some really are inferior. Some are superior. When

humanoids have racial HD, it doesn`t reflect learning or experience - it

reflects the fact that they are physically more powerful. A 1st-level

ogre fighter isn`t any more experienced than a 1st-level orog fighter,

who isn`t any more experienced than a 1st-level human fighter, who isn`t

any more experienced than a 1st-level gnoll ranger or fighter or

whatever. Most of these are more _powerful_ than the human, however -

hence they have a higher character level. Their experience level is the

same, however. It`s just that character (power) level is the sum of

experience (class) level and racial levels + level adjustment.

A 1st-level gnoll ranger isn`t that far behind a 1st-level human one,

but should drop off fairly quickly after that. Gnolls aren`t necessarily

rapid learners like humans are, after all.

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

****

Birthright-l Archives:

http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html

kgauck

11-04-2003, 12:27 AM

----- Original Message -----

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

Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 4:41 PM

> But exactly how does the life of a goblin growing up in the back

> woods of Thurazor differ from that of a human homesteader from

> Dhoesone or an elf from Tuarhievel? I`m at a loss to give a

> consistent explanation if one is to have racial hit dice and not the

> other.

Humans have the commoner class. I have no problem with fighter 3 goblins,

but I don`t think there is a commoner equivilent in goblin society. The

default goblin is more of a raider/hunter. What do you do with goblins who

are not advancing in adventuring classes? What do they look like?

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

kgauck

11-04-2003, 12:27 AM

----- Original Message -----

From: "The Jew" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 4:46 PM

> The race and the racial class should be seperated. It will allow for

> easier comparision and more flexible character creation should anyone

> choose to play an orog or goblin.

Agreed.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

Mark_Aurel

11-04-2003, 12:31 AM

geeman

11-04-2003, 01:07 AM

At 05:35 PM 11/3/2003 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>Humans have the commoner class. I have no problem with fighter 3 goblins,

>but I don`t think there is a commoner equivilent in goblin society. The

>default goblin is more of a raider/hunter. What do you do with goblins who

>are not advancing in adventuring classes? What do they look like?

I like the idea of a commoner in goblin society.... At least, it makes

sense to me that any "civilized" race would have that same component in it,

and speaking from a game mechanical/campaign theme POV it makes sense too

in that a goblin raised in circumstances similar to that of a human peasant

(but amongst fellow goblins) might have a similar progression. Also,

there`s nothing in the DMG to indicate that ONLY humans have access to that

class.

If one wanted to maintain parity with the 3e/3.5 version of the commoner

NPC class it wouldn`t be particularly difficult since commoners have the

minimum progression in everything. It might be a nice tweak to give goblin

commoners access to hide and move silently rather than ride and handle

animal to reflect their tendency--at the peasant level--to hunt (steal) and

butcher animals rather than domesticate and ride them....

In the case of a goblin racial class, however, there would need be a few

particulars, but it might look like this:

Goblin

Hit Dice: d8

BAB: Medium

Fortitude: Slow

Reflex: Fast

Will: Slow

Skill Points: 4

Class skills:

Weapons: Goblins are proficient with all simple and martial weapons.

Armor: Goblins are proficient with light and medium armor and with shields.

Special Abilities

1: Goblin Skill Bonus

2: Bonus Feat

3: Dexterity Increase

4: Goblin Skill Bonus

5: Bonus Feat

6: Dexterity Increase

Goblin Skill Bonus: Goblins gain a +2 racial bonus to Hide and Move

Silently checks. This bonus increases to +4 at 4th level.

Bonus Feat: Goblins may choose from the following list of feats;

Alertness, Dodge, Mobility, Improved Initiative, Mounted Combat, Quick Draw.

Dexterity Bonus: At 3rd level and again at 6th level a goblin receives a

+2 increase to dexterity. This is a permanent increase similar to the

ability score increase gained every four levels.

Gary

Green Knight

11-04-2003, 01:07 AM

If one were to keep racial hit dice/levels the Monte Cook is definitely

a good source.

IMO the key to using such racial classes is to allow free multiclassing

from them. Even if "human" has 3 (or 6 or whatever) levels, you could

take just one level and start picking other classes. Later, you could

pick more human levels, conceptually playing on you race`s strengths

(becoming more "racy" if you will) rather than your adventuring class`

abilities.

Orogs might also have 3 (or 6 or whatever levels) and could freely

multiclass. It is, however, quite feasible to add a flavor text stating

that most orogs only advance in their racial class, not having the same

incentive to diversify as humans do (for instance).

-----Original Message-----

From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion

[mailto:BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM] On Behalf Of Gary

Sent: 4. november 2003 01:00

To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM

Subject: Re: Birthright "demihuman" Races: [36#2052]

In the long run, I think the solution is that _everyone_ should have

racial

hit dice/levels. Monte Cooke`s recent article about racial levels for

standard, 1HD PC races shows how this can be done. I`ve typed up tables

for BR`s human races (but extended them out to 6th level rather than

3rd)

but have yet to tackle the "demi-human" and "humanoid"

species. Essentially, the idea is an extension on the thinking of

Savage

Species in which ECL is broken down into character levels, and then

levels

beyond that point at which an "average" member of the race is

represented

are included. As a kind of standard for differentiating between

character

classes, the racial levels presented also have their own set of ability

score increases, which I think is a nice way of breaking up

when/how/what

abilities might increase if one were trying to convey a character being

"more orog" than the next character.

Gary

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

****

Birthright-l Archives:

http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html

geeman

11-04-2003, 01:21 AM

At 01:31 AM 11/4/2003 +0100, Mark_Aurel wrote:

>
Well, what about a huge one? Or an elite?

>

> It`s a good point actually. Why do some members of the goblin species

> have racial hit dice, while others do not? Well, huge goblins certainly

> ARE tougher than common goblins. But that really doesn`t help much. Are

> they tougher in terms of goblin racial hit dice (do elite and huge

> goblins even have the same racial hit dice?) or do the huge ones have 3

> warrior levels, while the elites have 2, and the commons 1? Or do for

> some reason the elites have 2 elite goblin hit dice, the huge goblin

> have 3 huge goblin hit dice, while the common goblin is a warrior 1?

>

> Let spell it together i-n-c-o-n-s-i-s-t-e-n-c-y

>

> Given the way they are described, it sounds like a genetic thing. Common

> goblins are rather small - and huge ones are - huge. They might be

> different species with the ability to interbreed, producing `elites` or

> somesuch - like horses and mules.

When it comes to the progression of various races into types that have a

set of "elites" and "huge" or whatever categories, it seems like a system

of racial levels is extremely apt. One might even describe that as the

very process of reflecting racial levels (interbreeding to produce

`elites`) in that characters who take on those levels are, effectively,

"better" members of their race than others who do not.

If one really wanted to make a demonstrably different system for those who

are simply genetically different from other members of the same race then I

think it would be better to have optional racial special abilities for

those race descriptions. "Tracks" or "trees" of special abilities in which

the abilities gained are a progression. That way the concept can still be

employed, the races more easily tweaked to EL and all under the racial

level system.

For goblins one could have a tweak to their special ability list. Using

the one I posted before it might be changed to:

1: Goblin Skill Bonus

2: Bonus Feat or size increase

3: Dexterity Increase

4: Goblin Skill Bonus

5: Bonus Feat or size increase

6: Dexterity Increase

In the MM, of course, size increases also have ability score changes, but

I`ve found those to be the best bargain in the game when it comes to

throwing off the CR system, and generally the seem to be ignored for races

that might be used as PCs.

Gary

geeman

11-04-2003, 01:21 AM

At 01:37 AM 11/4/2003 +0100, Bjeorn wrote:

>If one were to keep racial hit dice/levels the Monte Cook is definitely

>a good source.

>

>IMO the key to using such racial classes is to allow free multiclassing

>from them. Even if "human" has 3 (or 6 or whatever) levels, you could

>take just one level and start picking other classes. Later, you could

>pick more human levels, conceptually playing on you race`s strengths

>(becoming more "racy" if you will) rather than your adventuring class`

>abilities.

Quite right, free multi-classing to those racial levels is a must. In

fact, I rather suspect that free multi-classing is going to be the standard

of D&D/D20 products in the future; the mechanics of when/where/how the XP

penalties kick in just don`t really make a whole lot of sense as written,

and in general the system seems to be going with a much more "free for all"

way of portraying characters. The XP penalties for characters right now

seem to be in contradiction to that emphasis. We`ll see. (They did remove

the free multi-classing into prestige classes in 3.5, so it`s possible

they`ll go another direction.) In particular game worlds (like BR) certain

races can still simply be restricted from particular classes. In many ways

I think that is the simpler and more sensible solution.

Gary

geeman

11-04-2003, 01:53 AM

At 11:57 PM 11/3/2003 +0100, Mark_Aurel wrote:

>I think racial hit dice is either 1) a sad anachronism from previous

>versions of Dungeons & Dragons 2) an interesting way of portraying

>racial background traits. Let`s go with one or the other - either they

>go out with the garbage or we make up racial hit dice for everyone.

While I generally agree with the above assessment, I think it might be

prudent to include a third category. Some characters at the stage of their

maturation are simply bigger, stronger, faster, etc. than others. For the

vast majority of characters this is not the case, or rather we are able to

break up their period of maturation into a set of character levels a la

Savage Species, but if we imagine races that have a brief or long period of

maturation then it makes some sense to tie their racial components to a

mechanic not directly related to XP. That is, if one were to play a dragon

(whose racial stats come by and large from aging) then one might not want

to reflect that process as part of a system of racial levels since a

particularly experienced dragon is not going to be larger, stronger, etc.

than one of the same age category but less experience. Similarly, some

creatures might go through an abrupt period of adolescence, changing from

relatively helpless "children" to their full adult stage in a very brief

period. For such characters it might not be sensible to try to reflect the

process of their maturation in racial levels. Very few people are going to

take on dragon PCs other than the DM, and the number of characters that go

through a pupae stage and arrive on the scene at an instantaneous stage of

full growth will probably be similarly slight, but in certain cases it may

be prudent to tie racial levels to something other than experience in order

to avoid characters reaching what was meant to reflect a stage of physical

aging/maturation rather than something that can be more closely associated

with an experience-based system of "growing up."

Gary

kgauck

11-04-2003, 01:53 AM

----- Original Message -----

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

Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 6:09 PM

> I think a commoner goblin is OK, but that`s just me.

>

> Goblins could certainly be experts or warriors, couldn`t they?

Certainly. But follow this approach. When I look at goblins, I see

ambushers with good skill ratings in Hide, Listen, Move Silently, and Spot,

and the Alertness feat, and a racial bonus to Move Silently. Those

exceptional goblins who represent the peers of the PC`s (rather than the

peers of their soldiers and farmers) are typically rogues or fighter rogues.

But when I wish to lay out the average hobgoblin, I can give him warrior

levels, and give his leaders fighter levels. When I lay out the goblin

leader, I can happily ply on the rogue levels, but his lackies need an NPC

version of the rogue (in the goblin style) just as fighters have an NPC

version (the warrior). The goblin class allows me to build a sneaky,

raiding, ambushing, looting goblin soldiery without all the Sneak Attack,

Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, and high skill points in so wide a range of skills.

Further more, I have no problem calling it the Bandit class and using it as

an NPC class for humans too. Its just that I need to do something with

these every-day goblins, and I based this class off of what a goblin class

must look like based on the MM`s description of goblins. This problem is

less acute for hobgoblins because of the warrior class, the rest of the

this-is-not-a-typical-warrior stuff can be handled in the hobgoblin

template.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

irdeggman

11-04-2003, 01:56 AM

Cerilian goblins comprise the whole gambit of goblinoids.

Common equal MM goblin
Elite equal hobgoblin
Huge equal bugbear

Why are there 3 different types of goblins? The same reason that in BR there are 5 different types of humans. Do they interbreed? I can't think of a reason why they couldn't, it just hasn't really been explored.

Monster levels are only in effect for the ECL levels (more appropriately called level adjustment now), while the HD are just added without levels, but contribute to the monster's effective level just as if they were normal class levels - for every 3 HD a monster gains a bonus feat like characters do. In Savage Species the monster HD are usually added at a single class level.

3.5 has basically restructed all monsters to follow a class progression based on HD. This allows gaining of feats, skill points, etc. Almost all monster abilities are described in terms of feats now, well at least the attack forms.

Osprey

11-04-2003, 02:10 AM

Hmm, I'm having difficulty with the direction all of this is going.

The #1 problem, as I see it, is character level vs. hit dice.

Hit Dice worked fine for creatures who were bigger and tougher than humans and demi-humans. So long as they remained indicative of Challenge Rating, not character level.

However, once we start equating these monster levels to character levels, we've got a HUGE inconsistency problem, because the monster templates (humanoid, outsider, beast, etc.) were never designed to be balanced the way character classes are! It seems obvious to me that a 6 HD Outsider and a 6 HD Humanoid will have different CR's, because they'll have vastly different HP's, saves, base attack, and skills based on racial advantages and disadvantages. Now why would both be considered 6th level characters? That's what Savage Species would have us believe...but it doesn't balance out in the slightest.

Big Problem #2: Monster levels cost just as much XP as class levels. This is where things get broken, IMO. (Bear with me...)

The point of genetic differences is that creatures are born unequally. Let us take the BR goblin example.

Common, Elite, and Huge goblins were based on Goblins, Hobgoblins, and Bugbears respectively. In fact, they're physically supposed to be the same or nearly so, with the main differences being social ones (they tend to intermix more freely). This is all right out of original BR setting.

Mechanics aside (I'll get to that), what these genetic distinctions mean is that when the different types reach the start of adulthood (let's say 15 years for goblins), they're are of distinctly different size and each has certain tendencies toward various advantages and disadvantages. Lesser goblins are more agile but rather weak and socially unimpressive (a good candidate for -ECL creatures if there is one!). Elite goblins are strong, smart, and tough, and tend to be the best all-arounders (and the ones I assume to usually be regents of more civilized realms). Huge goblins are REALLY strong, big, quick, but not too bright or sociable. These things being the differences, a 15 year old goblin should have exactly 0 xp as compared to a 1st level starting human character. They have reached the same level of maturity, experience, and readiness for an adult life.

The same is true for our earlier BRCS Orog example. A 2 HD [humanoid] Orog +1 character level of choice (fighter being the favored class) should represent the "baseline" typical orog - just like a 1st level human of a chosen class is a baseline typical human. The point is that this baseline orog is far bigger and tougher than the equivalent human. 2d8+[2xCON modifier] HP tougher! And sorry, Green Knight, but he's tougher than the equivalent Dwarf too, no doubt in part because he's just bigger. Both have the same CON bonus, dwarves even get the DR vs. bludgeoning, but the young orog vs. the young dwarf will take more general punishment than the dwarf. Is that really a bad world dynamic?

But they aren't equal...to make them equal is to blatantly ignore the gentic differences of the various [sub]species of goblins, and orogs, ogres, etc. All for the sake of balanced character progression for monster characters...*sigh.*

This is where Savage Species simply breaks down...it pretends that all monsters are born equal, which is ludicrous.

This is also why I tend to dissuade players from playing monster races in my own games...never mind the alien perspective that is a real stretch for most human roleplayers (if you're playing with any other sorts of players, do tell!).

If you're planning to add Racial Levels for all the humans and deni-humans, you might as well throw out the NPC classes right now, because that's what they were made for in the first place. Monster levels (the original HD-based "levels" from the MM) were created to represent generic advancement by racial type. I find them silly for intelligent races...goblins, orogs, gnolls, etc. should advance by character class like anyone else, not racial levels. Which IS how the MM sets things up, but Savage Species unmakes all of that.

On a side note, I've always assumed that most male tribal goblins were warriors as the most common default class, while females are probably commoners (unless your version of Cerilia has goblin women as common as males in the fighting ranks of the goblin tribes - whatever floats your boat!). The warlike nature of goblins is alluded to in many places in the MM and in the BR material, so warrior makes sense for the tribes. Civilized realms (Thurazor, et al.) would have more specialization of labor, of course, which means more fighters instead of warriors, experts for tradesmen and professionals, and commoners for the grunt labor force - much like human society.

-Osprey

Osprey

11-04-2003, 02:18 AM

Further more, I have no problem calling it the Bandit class and using it as
an NPC class for humans too. Its just that I need to do something with
these every-day goblins, and I based this class off of what a goblin class
must look like based on the MM`s description of goblins. This problem is
less acute for hobgoblins because of the warrior class, the rest of the
this-is-not-a-typical-warrior stuff can be handled in the hobgoblin
template.

I agree with your thinking on needing more NPC classes for other races and their cultural tendencies...I think making that Bandit class would be a smarter way to go about it, as it becomes much more adaptable to the larger world. Or just call it "Goblin Commoner" or something, or "Tribal Goblin." Just something a little less generic than "Goblin." It's just too broad, IMO. Then tweak it a little to make it specific to other, similar races and cultures.

-Osprey

Mark_Aurel

11-04-2003, 03:09 AM

a) If the answer is; because they always had, because they`re tough or
some other such nonsense, they its time we rethink it.

B) If the answer is; "it contributes greatly to the flexibility and
enjoyment of playing orog characters", then by all means keep it.

I think the answer is a) and its time to rethink racial hit dice (not
necessarily do away with them, but rethink them).

So, essentially - differentiation of races by way of mechanics is nonsense? I'll try and rephrase a bit.

Hit Dice (and by extension, hit points) can be said to measure overall resistance to damage. Bigger creatures have more hit points, by virtue of their mass. Characters of higher level have more hit points, by virtue of experience at minimizing damage, sheer heroic luck, grit and determination, or whatever. Some creatures might have more hit points simply because of their body configuration or the way their organs work, making them hard to hurt - like oozes or constructs. There are many reasons why some creatures have more HD. In some cases, especially Undead or extraplanar ones, a disprortionately high amount of HD when compared to their size can even be attributed to magic.

Constitution is a measure of fitness and health. Creatures with high Con scores have a high degree of resistance to poison, disease and so on - they are also tougher all around for their general size and power than other creatures of the same type and size. Creatures that don't have a health don't have a Con score either - they can still have quite a lot of hp, however.

So - why do orogs have more HD than humans? It's because they're tougher. They have a high Con score because they also are pretty hardy otherwise. Having 'racial HD' has nothing to do with 'experience' or 'class levels' - except when that aspect interacts with adventurers. It's a matter of mechanically representing the toughness of orogs properly. They are built different than humans. They are much stronger. Probably more dense. One would surmise, heavier overall. They are a completely different species. Given their great strength, gorillas come to mind - gorillas aren't necessarily larger than humans, but they're definitely stronger. When orogs have a huge strength bonus, it's not because they have fitness studios and work out really hard. It's because of a basic genetic advantage over humans in this area. Their racial HD stems from this very same thing. It's because that's the way the D&D system represents toughness. The BRCS isn't going to fundamentally change that.

If you want to make orogs less tough, that's fine by me - conceptually, though, they generally seem to be meant to be significantly tougher than humans or even dwarves. 'Rethinking' the way this is represented would require changing the system on some fundamental level.

I think you're very much on the wrong track when you talk about 'equality' - what exactly you mean isn't entirely clear, but it seems a very misplaced word to bring to the table here.

As for your item B) - orogs aren't really included as PCs in BR. You can choose to play them in your campaign, but they were omitted from the PC Races section for a reason. Of course, the same reason could easily be applied to the Sidhelien, but c'est la vie.

As for i-n-c-o-n-s-i-s-t-e-n-c-y, I agree to an extent. One of my house rules in 2e reasonably late before 3e came out was that all PCs start with an extra d6 HD - the 'racial base,' if you like. Worked wonders for wizards. The inconsistency I see in 3e, however, is the way that 1-HD races can swap their racial HD for a class level HD, while creatures with more than 1 HD are stuck with all their HD. The inconsistency is NOT that huge goblins have more HD than common ones, or that orogs have more HD than humans - that is a trait of their race, and calling it inconsistent is IMO similar to saying that it's inconsistent that gorillas are stronger than humans.

Green Knight

11-04-2003, 07:33 AM

Or you could go with expert, who gives you all those skills and more. Indeed their lower hit dice and BAB progression might make sense for sneaky goblins. It does in my campaigns - goblin skirmishers and the like are Expert 1s.

>

> Fra: Kenneth Gauck <kgauck@MCHSI.COM>

> Dato: 2003/11/04 Tue AM 02:36:03 CET

> Til: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM

> Emne: Re: Birthright "demihuman" Races: [36#2052]

>

> ----- Original Message -----

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

> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 6:09 PM

>

>

> > I think a commoner goblin is OK, but that`s just me.

> >

> > Goblins could certainly be experts or warriors, couldn`t they?

>

> Certainly. But follow this approach. When I look at goblins, I see

> ambushers with good skill ratings in Hide, Listen, Move Silently, and Spot,

> and the Alertness feat, and a racial bonus to Move Silently. Those

> exceptional goblins who represent the peers of the PC`s (rather than the

> peers of their soldiers and farmers) are typically rogues or fighter rogues.

> But when I wish to lay out the average hobgoblin, I can give him warrior

> levels, and give his leaders fighter levels. When I lay out the goblin

> leader, I can happily ply on the rogue levels, but his lackies need an NPC

> version of the rogue (in the goblin style) just as fighters have an NPC

> version (the warrior). The goblin class allows me to build a sneaky,

> raiding, ambushing, looting goblin soldiery without all the Sneak Attack,

> Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, and high skill points in so wide a range of skills.

>

> Further more, I have no problem calling it the Bandit class and using it as

> an NPC class for humans too. Its just that I need to do something with

> these every-day goblins, and I based this class off of what a goblin class

> must look like based on the MM`s description of goblins. This problem is

> less acute for hobgoblins because of the warrior class, the rest of the

> this-is-not-a-typical-warrior stuff can be handled in the hobgoblin

> template.

>

> Kenneth Gauck

> kgauck@mchsi.com

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

Cheers

Bjørn

-------------------------------------------------

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

-------------------------------------------------

Green Knight

11-04-2003, 07:49 AM

Elite goblins have 2HD (putting them on par with gnolls), so they are similar but not identical to MC goblins.

I`d say that should carry over to 3E as well, don`t you think?

Common goblins - 1HD, similar to goblins

Elite goblins - 2HD, smilar to hobgoblins

Huge goblins - 3HD, similar to bugbears

>

> Fra: irdeggman <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

> Dato: 2003/11/04 Tue AM 02:56:48 CET

> Til: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM

> Emne: Re: Birthright "demihuman" Races: [36#2052]

>

> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=2052

>

> irdeggman wrote:

> Cerilian goblins comprise the whole gambit of goblinoids.

>

> Common equal MM goblin

> Elite equal hobgoblin

> Huge equal bugbear

>

> Why are there 3 different types of goblins? The same reason that in BR there are 5 different types of humans. Do they interbreed? I can`t think of a reason why they couldn`t, it just hasn`t really been explored.

>

> Monster levels are only in effect for the ECL levels (more appropriately called level adjustment now), while the HD are just added without levels, but contribute to the monster`s effective level just as if they were normal class levels - for every 3 HD a monster gains a bonus feat like characters do. In Savage Species the monster HD are usually added at a single class level.

>

> 3.5 has basically restructed all monsters to follow a class progression based on HD. This allows gaining of feats, skill points, etc. Almost all monster abilities are described in terms of feats now, well at least the attack forms.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

Cheers

Bjørn

-------------------------------------------------

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

-------------------------------------------------

geeman

11-04-2003, 08:49 AM

At 07:36 PM 11/3/2003 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>I based this class off of what a goblin class must look like based on the

>MM`s description of goblins.

What are the class features of this class? HD, BAB, saves, special

abilities, skill points, class skills, etc.

Gary

geeman

11-04-2003, 12:27 PM

At 03:10 AM 11/4/2003 +0100, Osprey wrote:

> However, once we start equating these monster levels to character

> levels, we`ve got a HUGE inconsistency problem, because the monster

> templates (humanoid, outsider, beast, etc.) were never designed to be

> balanced the way character classes are! It seems obvious to me that

> a 6 HD Outsider and a 6 HD Humanoid will have different CR`s, because

> they`ll have vastly different HP`s, saves, base attack, and skills based

> on racial advantages and disadvantages. Now why would both be considered

> 6th level characters? That`s what Savage Species would have us

> believe...but it doesn`t balance out in the slightest.

I would generally agree with this, but I think it`s a far too generalized

to really have any meaning for our purposes here. We`re just talking about

orogs, and the occasional other race. Breaking them up into character

levels isn`t that formidable a thing to do, and the results needn`t be any

more unbalanced than any other character class comparison.

>A 2 HD [humanoid] Orog +1 character level of choice (fighter being the

>favored class) should represent the "baseline" typical orog

>warrior - just like a 1st level human of a chosen class is a baseline

>typical human. The point is that this baseline orog is far bigger and

>tougher than the equivalent human. 2d8+[2xCON modifier] tougher! And

>sorry, Green Knight, but he`s tougher than the equivalent Dwarf too, no

>doubt in part because he`s just bigger. Both have the same CON bonus,

>dwarves even get the DR vs. bludgeoning, but the young orog vs. the young

>dwarf will take more general punishment than the dwarf. Is that really a

>bad world dynamic?

>

> But they aren`t equal...to make them equal is to blatantly ignore the

> gentic differences of the various [sub]species of goblins. All for the

> sake of balanced character progression for monster characters...*sigh.*

>

> This is where Savage Species simply breaks down...it pretends that all

> monsters are born equal, which is ludicrous.

OK, well, first of all it`s not really Savage Species that makes that

assessment. It`s D&D. It strikes me as missing the point here to suggest

that blatantly ignoring the genetic differences in certain subspecies of

goblins as being ludicrous, yet not finding that same silliness in the rest

of the game is very inconsistent. Goblins becoming stronger than other

goblins or even orogs, ogres, trolls or gnolls is no more an issue than a

human going toe to toe with a dragon. No one seems to object to the

latter, despite how unrealistic it might be, yet when the exact same

concepts are applied to non-standard PC races the situation is ludicrous.

Second, where I think the above also missed the point is not that SS

assumes all monsters are born equal. It doesn`t. It clearly gives some a

greater potential than others and, hence, more racial levels. What it does

assume is that all _characters_ are born equal. Some species may have a

greater potential as part of their overall development than others, but the

point is not that all characters are equal, but that all characters can

start at the same point. That point may represent a substantially earlier

point in one of the character`s racial development than it would for

another (a troll youth vs. a goblin adult) but that`s entirely the

point. One can then not only play those characters through their

development, but the DM can also put them up against PCs at whatever stage

of development best suits the EL of the situation.

Having said that, it`s important to note that SS is not a perfect text. It

is a very innovative one, and can be used as an example of how this kind of

thing might be done. Most of the faults of that text are based on certain

3e issues--and those are mostly connected to the assumption that

CR=character level which is not necessarily true. However, that doesn`t

mean it doesn`t give us a good starting point from which to create racial

levels for BR characters.

>A 2 HD [humanoid] Orog +1 character level of choice (fighter being the

>favored class) should represent the "baseline" typical orog

>warrior - just like a 1st level human of a chosen class is a baseline

>typical human. The point is that this baseline orog is far bigger and

>tougher than the equivalent human.

They still would be. One could just note that in the racial

description. "Most orog soldiers hare 2HD (orog 2) monsters." Having

racial levels that start at level 1 just means PCs can start at that point

or the DM can make up NPCs that do should he want to, not that all orogs

must start at that point as part of an overall demographic.

> If you`re planning to add Racial Levels for all the humans and

> deni-humans, you might as well throw out the NPC classes right now,

> because that`s what they were made for in the first place.

I disagree that NPC classes had the position of reflecting race levels in

the first place. I don`t see much connection between the two concepts. In

fact, as far as classes go their are pretty nearly opposites. The NPC

classes are about as generic as could be, while racial levels are almost by

definition as specific as could be.

Aside from that, however, either can and should be available if the DM

wants. It`s easily plausible that for some characters racial levels might

make sense, while for others NPC classes might be more appropriate. It

needn`t be one or the other.

Gary

irdeggman

11-04-2003, 01:12 PM

Using the table from Savage Species (and the 3.5 MM)

Goblin – (BR common goblin) -2 Str, +2 Dex, -2 Cha, small size, speed 30, darkvision 60 ft, +4 racial bonus to MS and Ride checks.
HD 1d8, level adjustment +0, Starting ECL 1

Hobgoblin – (BR Elite goblin) +2 Dex, +2 Con, Medium size, speed 30, darkvision 60 ft, +4 racial bonus to MS checks.
HD 1d8, level adjustment +1, Starting ECL 2

Bugbear (BR huge goblin) - +4 Str, +2 Dex, +2 Con, -2 Cha, Medium size, speed 30, darkvision 60 ft, racial skills (6 x (2 + Int modifier) class skills are climb, Hide, Listen, MS, Search and Spot, racial feats – 2 feats, +3 natural armor bonus, +4 racial bonus to MS checks
HD 3d8, level adjustment +1, Starting ECL 4

Where ECL is the effective character level accounting for all the level adjustments and HD that the creature has. The level adjustments are based on the other special qualities of the race, other than HD, such as an imbalanced ability modifier.

Something to remember is that all of this is based on using these races as playable characters and not straight monsters. The rules are different for playable characters and for NPCs or monsters (everything else).

In 3.5 none of the goblinoids suffer penalties due to bright light.

kgauck

11-04-2003, 01:30 PM

----- Original Message -----

From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>

Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 2:43 AM

> What are the class features of this class? HD, BAB, saves, special

> abilities, skill points, class skills, etc.

HD d8

BAB as a Rogue

Saves, improved Fort

Skill points 4

Class Skills: Bluff, Climb, Craft, Gather Information, Hide, Innuendo,

Intimidate, Intuit Direction, Jump, Listen, Move Silently, Pick Pocket,

Search, Spot, Swim, Tumble, Use Rope, Wilderness Lore

Weapons and Armor, all martial, light & medium weapons, shields

no special abilities, this class should be a roguish equivilent of warrior.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

geeman

11-04-2003, 02:43 PM

At 07:02 AM 11/4/2003 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> > What are the class features of this class? HD, BAB, saves, special

> > abilities, skill points, class skills, etc.

>

>HD d8

>BAB as a Rogue

>Saves, improved Fort

>Skill points 4

>Class Skills: Bluff, Climb, Craft, Gather Information, Hide, Innuendo,

>Intimidate, Intuit Direction, Jump, Listen, Move Silently, Pick Pocket,

>Search, Spot, Swim, Tumble, Use Rope, Wilderness Lore

>Weapons and Armor, all martial, light & medium weapons, shields

>no special abilities, this class should be a roguish equivilent of warrior.

Interesting. A couple questions/comments:

1. Why the best Fort save rather than Reflex?

2. In 3.5 Innuendo has been rolled into Bluff and Intuit Direction has been

rolled into Wilderness Lore (which is now call "Survival"). In fact, all

you need is 5 ranks in Survival and you automatically can determine north

in relation to yourself. BTW, Read Lips is now a Spot check. (If only we

could get them to combine Hide/Move Silently, Spot/Listen, Disable

Device/Open Lock, etc.)

3. You probably went the d8 HD rather than d6 to make it more in line with

the goblin, but if it`s truly meant to be the roguish equivalent of the

warrior it should probably be d6 (or that bit of descriptive text should be

dropped.)

One of the things I`ve always missed since 1e is the assassin PC

class. Also, the skip between d6 and d10 HD always struck me as something

of a gap between fighting and "thieving" classes. A happy medium is

sensible for that. Something like this bandit class, with some special

abilities, might satisfy both of these issues.

Gary

DanMcSorley

11-04-2003, 08:55 PM

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Gary wrote:

> 2. In 3.5 Innuendo has been rolled into Bluff and Intuit Direction has been

> rolled into Wilderness Lore (which is now call "Survival"). In fact, all

> you need is 5 ranks in Survival and you automatically can determine north

> in relation to yourself. BTW, Read Lips is now a Spot check. (If only we

> could get them to combine Hide/Move Silently, Spot/Listen, Disable

> Device/Open Lock, etc.)

I was working hard on this same train of thought a couple of weeks ago.

To the point that I was trying to come up with a skill grid showing which

skills should be related in ranks, and just use a different ability

modifier. http://mcsorley.pair.com/skills.html I figured I could combine

some skills, make attack and defense into skills too, and end up with a

better version of D&D for D&D :)

I was convinced otherwise, after working on it a bit.

Think of it this way: the skill point system in D&D is a point buy system

for abilities. In other point buy systems, the better abilities cost

more. Rather than making the system more complex, with varying costs for

each skill (whereas now there`s just class and cross-class), they tried to

break it down to where each skill was about equally useful, and cost equal

points. Obviously, they didn`t completely succeed, and dumped some of the

more useless skills in 3.5. (For some reason, Use Rope stuck around, I

still don`t get that one.)

If there were a Sneak skill, it would be extraordinarily useful, combining

Move Silently and Hide. It would have to either cost more, or it would be

so much more cost-effective than all the other skills that everyone would

have it. Similarly for the hypothetical Observe skill (Spot+Listen) and

Twiddle Mechanical Thingies (OL + DD) skill.

Rather than making those skills cost two points/rank, they just split them

into two skills. Simplicity itself, but it`s a subtlety that people often

miss.

This is the same reason, I think, that BAB survived into 3e as a separate

entity from skills. If it were a skill, it would be too good, everyone

would take it, and max it out all the time. There are still some overly

good skills in 3e/3.5, Tumble being the most egrarious (and that can be

fixed by upping the DCs), but overall I think they way they split stuff up

worked pretty well.

Compare 3e to other games:

Mutants and Masterminds is D&D done point-buy. That game charges 3 points

for every rank in BAB, and 1 point for every skill rank. Many people

discount skills to 2 ranks/point or 3 ranks/point. That`s how much more

valuable fighting skills typically are, or are perceived to be anyway.

In white-wolf WoD games, all skills cost the same amount, and if your game

features combat much at all, the skill points tend to quickly cluster into

a few extremely valuable skills, such as Firearms, Brawl, Melee, Dodge,

and sometimes Stealth, because they`re that much more useful than other

skills. My saturday group has been playing a Hunter game for about a

month, none of us have ever played much World of Darkness before, and I

can already see people figuring that out.

WoD also overvalues Dexterity, it`s used for both attack and defense,

where in D&D it`s only used for Defense unless you get Weapon Finesse.

It may make sense in people`s minds for Dex to be used for attack, but a

starting-out character with a two or three-dot higher Dex is rediculously

more powerful than the others, and it cost him next to nothing to get

there. But that`s another rant.

--

Daniel McSorley

geeman

11-05-2003, 09:43 AM

At 03:29 PM 11/4/2003 -0500, Daniel McSorley wrote:

>(For some reason, Use Rope stuck around, I still don`t get that one.)

Beats me.... Decipher Script is another one that could probably get rolled

into a Knowledge skill also without too much difficulty. If it were based

more on the nature of the script (arcane, religious, etc.) then it could

just be part of the general skill description rather than it`s own skill,

exactly the same way they rolled the aforementioned skills into

others. I`m still not sure why we still have Knowledge, nature and

Wilderness Lore (Survival). They did go to some effort to differentiate

them, but I still don`t think both are necessary. They did make some other

changes that are pretty astute IMO. I guess too many changes would have

bumped up the 3.5 decimal place to .6 or .8 or so.

>If there were a Sneak skill, it would be extraordinarily useful, combining

>Move Silently and Hide. It would have to either cost more, or it would be

>so much more cost-effective than all the other skills that everyone would

>have it. Similarly for the hypothetical Observe skill (Spot+Listen) and

>Twiddle Mechanical Thingies (OL + DD) skill.

I was a little surprised to find that kind of thing didn`t happen

IMC. Combining those two skills was one of the smoother transitions.

What wound up happening is that the problem was solved with the existing

class and cross class skill rules, along with the function of key

abilities. For those reasons, not everybody takes ranks in those skills,

despite the increased utility. That`s quite possibly because I`ve included

other new skills and combined some of the existing D&D skills as well as

part of an overall change in the system, but I don`t think so. I think it

has more to do with the fundamental nature of the way ability scores still

interact with skills and cross-class skills cost more. Wizards still don`t

tend to take Sneak because it`s still dex based, and they don`t always have

the best dex scores, and because it`s a cross-class skill for them. Also,

because those skills are cross class for many classes players don`t tend to

make characters who spend ranks in them, and as DM I find myself not doing

so either. If I want a character talented in Sneak or Spot (after calling

my combined Spot/Listen skill Observe for a while I`m back to more familiar

vocabulary since that seems to make people more comfortable) then I wind up

taking levels in a class that has them as a class skill, and I do that for

reasons that I`m pretty sure are the same for the players.

What winds up happening in 3e is that most characters wind up spending

skill points on both Move Silently and Hide, turning what I use as one

skill into a sort double cost skill, and then put on top of that the class

skill/cross class skill distinction, creating a kind of quadruple cost

system. In order to address that the class system gave rogues a lot of

skill points. Not every character, of course, spends skill points on both

skills, but it is very common. There`s no real difference between the

actual use of those skills in play (one character tries to avoid detection,

another tries to detect) and I found having two skills for that one

function winds up bogging things down a bit in that there are multiple

checks being made for what amounts to the same activity, so combining them

worked out.

Gary

irdeggman

11-05-2003, 10:29 AM

Actually Gary wizards tend to have a pretty high Dex score. Second only to rogues/bards and rangers. This is because they usually don't wear any armor or nothing heavier than a light one (Arcane spell failure) and rely on missile weapons, also the ranged attack spells use the Dex mod for attacks. Str and Cha (for wizards but not sorcerers) tend to be the lowest ability scores, while Str and Wis tend to be the lowest for sorcerers. Both classes tend to maintain at least an average Con score (HP and concentration checks). All this is based on my observations of games I've been in, so it is of course not scientific or based on data collected.

IMO the core reason not to combine MS and Hide into one skill is that it puts them squarely into the hands of the classes with the most skill points per level (rogue, bard and ranger) for which they are also class skills. These two things combined pretty much keeps the sneaking around focused around the classes that it has historically been associated with.

geeman

11-05-2003, 01:18 PM

At 11:29 AM 11/5/2003 +0100, irdeggman wrote:

> Actually Gary wizards tend to have a pretty high Dex score. Second only

> to rogues/bards and rangers. This is because they usually don`t wear any

> armor or nothing heavier than a light one (Arcane spell failure) and rely

> on missile weapons, also the ranged attack spells use the Dex mod for attacks.

OK, fair enough. If one uses the sample characters in the DMG as one`s

guide wizards put their second highest score into dex (as do barbarians and

druids.) The point, however, is not what scores are best for which

character class, but what skills the characters of different classes take

and why, as relates to the utility of the 3e/3.5 skills. What I said was,

"Wizards still don`t tend to take Sneak because it`s still dex based, and

they don`t always have the best dex scores, and because it`s a cross-class

skill for them." What I`m driving at is that even if wizards have

relatively good dex scores (if one assumes stats similar to the standard

array, which isn`t necessarily how people go) wizards don`t tend to put

skill points into Hide or Move Silently. I`m sure there are people out

there who play stealthy wizards, but it`s not a very common thing to do

because characters don`t always distribute their ability scores the way the

DMG distributes the scores for the standard array, and because those skills

are cross class for wizards.

>IMO the core reason not to combine MS and Hide into one skill is that it

>puts them squarely into the hands of the classes with the most skill

>points per level (rogue, bard and ranger) for which they are also class

>skills. These two things combined pretty much keeps the sneaking around

>focused around the classes that it has historically been associated with.

It still would be if one made it a single skill. At least, it still works

that way IMC after combining them for the reasons already noted.

Move Silently and Hide have been two different skills (or abilities) since

way back in early editions of D&D, all the way back to when thief`s

abilities were determined by a percentile dice roll rather than an overall

skill system. In many respects the 3e designers seem to have taken a lot

of cues from those earlier editions, even things that didn`t rise to the

level of being considered a "sacred cow" of the system, and the two skills

for sneaking (which made for two skills to oppose sneaking) looks like one

of those not-quite-sacred-cow things that made its way into the new edition.

In coming up with the 3e skills the designers appear to have looked at

things from the skill side of things. That is, they came up with a basic

skill system, then translated earlier game mechanics into that, then

included a task resolution system. In the case of the thief/rogue, they

went with turning most of his abilities into skills, and they did that

pretty directly. While I think those things are best expressed as skills,

I think it`s a good idea to now streamline the process a bit.

All the DCs and specific applications of the skills look like they are

attached retroactively after making up skills (or just deciding on what

skills to have) based on some things that have existed in the game for a

few decades. Changes to the skill system seem to really flip people out

unless they accompany a whole new edition or campaign specific D20 product,

so they rarely include new skills. Instead, they do things like sections

for "New Uses for Old Skills" in later supplements. I suspect that`s

because that`s how the skill system was originally written. They wrote up

the skills based on 2e (or earlier) dynamics and then assigned uses in

retrospect. For instance, Innuendo got written up because of the Thieves`

Cant ability.

Other systems appear to have come up with their skills by taking a look at

tasks that might be performed by PCs and then basing skills on that, and

there are very few that have two separate skills for being stealthy--and

none that I know of that then have two skills to detect those two sneaky ones.

As an experiment, I`d encourage everyone to try it out. Combine the

following skills:

Hide/Move Silently

Spot/Listen

Knowledge, nature/Wilderness Lore

Disable Device/Open Lock

Reduce the rogue`s skill points to 6/level. Playtest it for a while and

see if you really notice that much of a difference--or even an improvement.

Gary

Osprey

11-05-2003, 03:02 PM

If you're going to be using Sneak, Observe, Nature Lore (?), and
(?)Mechanical Devices(?) (Open Lock/Disable Device), you'd best reduce the skill points of 3.5 Rangers and maybe bards back to 4 base skill points per level. These were also upped to accomodate those splits, IMO.

ConjurerDragon

11-05-2003, 05:27 PM

Gary schrieb:

> At 11:29 AM 11/5/2003 +0100, irdeggman wrote:

...

> skill points into Hide or Move Silently. I`m sure there are people out

> there who play stealthy wizards, but it`s not a very common thing to do

> because characters don`t always distribute their ability scores the way the

> DMG distributes the scores for the standard array, and because those skills

> are cross class for wizards.

And because they are wizards and can, after research, use for example

"Cat´s Grace" or for stealth "Invisibility". Why hide when invisible

(except of course if some magic user uses True Seeing, in that case

hiding behind a mundane curtain is better).

Why spend buy points on DEX if you can raise your DEX temporarily when

needed with a spell? Or spend lots of skill points for Hide?

bye

Michael

geeman

11-05-2003, 06:30 PM

At 05:39 PM 11/5/2003 +0100, Michael Romes wrote:

>>I`m sure there are people out there who play stealthy wizards, but it`s

>>not a very common thing to do because characters don`t always distribute

>>their ability scores the way the DMG distributes the scores for the

>>standard array, and because those skills are cross class for wizards.

>

>Why spend buy points on DEX if you can raise your DEX temporarily when

>needed with a spell? Or spend lots of skill points for Hide?

True. The magic system provides the exception to all rules, particularly

when it comes to balancing the nuances of character classes in the skill

system.

Gary

Osprey

11-06-2003, 05:52 AM

Move Silently is still important for Invisible characters.

Stealthy wizards should multiclass as Rogues or Rangers.

Or just play a Bard.

Best, play a wizard/rogue who becomes an Arcane Trickster...then you get the best of both worlds. :)

irdeggman

11-06-2003, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by geeman@Nov 5 2003, 08:18 AM
As an experiment, I`d encourage everyone to try it out. Combine the

following skills:

Hide/Move Silently

Spot/Listen

Knowledge, nature/Wilderness Lore

Disable Device/Open Lock

Reduce the rogue`s skill points to 6/level. Playtest it for a while and

see if you really notice that much of a difference--or even an improvement.

Gary

So how would things like silence or darkness affect the Observe skill (Spot/Listen)? With separate skills, these modifiers (both magical and situational) have different effects.

You have also combined a skill that no longer exists in 3.5 (Wilderness Lore). It is now Knowledge, nature and survival (two previously existing skills) both of which have their own specific applications other than the former track feat. If you are trying to combine the 3.5 skills Knowledge, nature and survival then you are mixing skills with different relevent abilities Knowledge - Int, Survival - Wis, how would one decidee what is the relevant ability in this case.

Spot is a skill that is normally a reflexive check. It is used in almost all cases to get the feel for something not being right, e.g., to avoid being surprised, to get a hint of something out of the ordinary. It is never used to find something specific - that is the main difference betwen it and the Search skill.

Listen can be used in both cases. That is it can be used reflexively or actively. When checking to see if one can hear a vague noise in the distance or when one is listening at a door to hear what is happening on the other side.

Changing one class' skill points without adjusting the others leads to imbalance. It might not be obvious yet due to the situation in your campaign, but it is still there. As Osprey pointed out ranger and bard skill points should also be adjusted - probably barbarian and druid's too since all of them have relevent skills that have been combined.

Also what about racial modifiers to one skill, like gnomes and halflings' bonus to listen due to their good hearing? They don't really get any bonuses to spot, IMO their are both relatively easily distracted races and so don't really spend a lot of time just observing things.

Making a slight adjustment to the core rules usually has a domino effect on other things. While these changes might on the surface appear to be small, the mechanic effects are relatively large in scope. Whether or not people want to admit it the 3.5 rules are really pretty well written as far as interrelations in the game mechanics.

irdeggman

11-06-2003, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by ConjurerDragon@Nov 5 2003, 12:27 PM
G
And because they are wizards and can, after research, use for example

"Cat´s Grace" or for stealth "Invisibility". Why hide when invisible

(except of course if some magic user uses True Seeing, in that case

hiding behind a mundane curtain is better).

Why spend buy points on DEX if you can raise your DEX temporarily when

needed with a spell? Or spend lots of skill points for Hide?

bye

Michael

Well, in 3.5 Cat's Grace was lowered in effect from 10 min/level to 1 min/level. A good change IMO since it now makes it more of a situational spell rather than a cast and forget it one.

Wizard's would have to dedicate a spell slot to Cat's grace in order to use it and then would have to give up on a different 2nd level spell to use. Depending on the theme of the character this may or may not be a god thing. A 'stealthy' wizard would of course probably still memorize Cat's Grace thematically.

And the wizard would have to cast Cat's grace before gaining the benfits of any increased Dex, ranged attack spells, AC, reflex save, etc. This could cause problems.

By not using actual ability increases the character would be ineligible for Dex based feats - like dodge or two weapon fighting. True not many wizards would be taking these, although a stealthy one might seriously consider either one as thematically worthwhile.

geeman

11-06-2003, 01:57 PM

At 11:14 AM 11/6/2003 +0100, irdeggman wrote:

> So how would things like silence or darkness affect the Observe skill

> (Spot/Listen)? With separate skills, these modifiers (both magical and

> situational) have different effects.

Most of the modifiers for the two skills are actually very similar or

identical (each 10` distance is -1 to both Spot and Listen checks) or they

really _should_ be identical. That is, the size modifiers for Hide should

and can apply to Sneak even though the 3e/3.5 Move Silently skill has no

such modifiers in the skill description. (Exactly why 3e/3.5 doesn`t make

it harder for an elephant to move silently through the forest than a fox

simply by virtue of their respective sizes is anyone`s guess....) On those

occasions when the modifiers aren`t identical one can still decide which

modifiers apply to a particular situation without too much difficulty. In

fact, it`s usually pretty obvious which should apply, when and why. In

most cases the modifiers really can be used to apply to the same check

without any modification, with them stacking or not depending on the type

of modifier they are, per normal.

Were there any modifiers to one skill or the other in particular that you

were thinking of?

> You have also combined a skill that no longer exists in 3.5 (Wilderness

> Lore). It is now Knowledge, nature and survival (two previously existing

> skills) both of which have their own specific applications other than the

> former track feat. If you are trying to combine the 3.5 skills Knowledge,

> nature and survival then you are mixing skills with different relevent

> abilities Knowledge - Int, Survival - Wis, how would one decidee what is

> the relevant ability in this case.

I`d suggest wisdom, but it depends on which one you`d prefer to use as the

basis of the skill. I use wisdom rather than intelligence, but I make that

skill part of an overall "Lore" skill that works much the way knowledge

does. There`s Urban Lore, Wilderness Lore, etc. Knowledge is pretty much

information alone, while Lore is knowledge and the application of that

knowledge. (Science vs. engineering, if you will.) In the absence of that

kind of new skill either intelligence or wisdom would work fine.

>Spot is a skill that is normally a reflexive check. It is used in almost

>all cases to get the feel for something not being right, e.g., to avoid

>being surprised, to get a hint of something out of the ordinary. It is

>never used to find something specific - that is the main difference betwen

>it and the Search skill.

>

> Listen can be used in both cases. That is it can be used reflexively or

> actively. When checking to see if one can hear a vague noise in the

> distance or when one is listening at a door to hear what is happening on

> the other side.

I haven`t found Spot and Listen to be particularly reflexive or active. At

least, it seems like players instigate their PCs actively using those

skills fairly often, and I call for them to make them "reflexively" quite a

lot too, so I don`t know that the categorization is really all that

apt.... Regardless of that, however, if you combine Listen and Spot into a

single skill (I still call it "spot" for the sake of simplicity) I think

you`ll find you can still use it both actively and reflexively without any

difficulty. In actual play I think most people will find this isn`t an issue.

>Changing one class` skill points without adjusting the others leads to

>imbalance. It might not be obvious yet due to the situation in your

>campaign, but it is still there. As Osprey pointed out ranger and bard

>skill points should also be adjusted - probably barbarian and druid`s too

>since all of them have relevent skills that have been combined.

You could try that. Its not really necessary in this particular case for

reasons having to do with the overall access of character classes to the

3e/3.5 skill system and the nature of the skills in question, but I`ll not

bore anyone with those numbers or analysis--it is, however, why I picked

the skills I did.... Just as an experiment, try it like I suggested and

see if you really think skill points need to be changed.

>Also what about racial modifiers to one skill, like gnomes and halflings`

>bonus to listen due to their good hearing? They don`t really get any

>bonuses to spot, IMO their are both relatively easily distracted races and

>so don`t really spend a lot of time just observing things.

I wouldn`t put too much significance into the word "observe" in this

case. (I used the word "Seduction" to describe a new skill write up a

while back--imagine the semantic morass that created.... I changed it to

"Tempt" and that seemed to solve the problem.) Just give them the racial

bonus to the combined skill and it should work fine. It`s not any more of

a bonus than one of the +2 to two skills feats that are common in D&D/D20.

>Making a slight adjustment to the core rules usually has a domino effect

>on other things. While these changes might on the surface appear to be

>small, the mechanic effects are relatively large in scope. Whether or not

>people want to admit it the 3.5 rules are really pretty well written as

>far as interrelations in the game mechanics.

In my experience the rules are more resilient than often seems to be the

assumption. Tweaking can have a domino effect, but this is really a pretty

minor change and things as small as this only rarely lead to the kind of

problems that have an affect on actual play. 3.5 is definitely an

improvement on 3e, which was definitely an improvement on 2e, but 3.5 is

not a spectacular improvement, and a few changes are still in order. If

you actually give this a try I`m very confident you`ll find it a pretty

simple change. I`ve gone several steps further than this (rather

innocuous) change and had no such problems.

Gary

Green Knight

11-06-2003, 04:04 PM

Then we agree to a certain extent it would seem?

I`m not against orogs having and average ECL higher than humans, I`m

just saying that either the orog does away with his racial hit dice;

becoming a Warrior 3 in the process (for instance) while the human

remains a Warrior 1. Either that, or the Orog is a Orog 3 and the Human

a Human 1 (or perhaps Orog 3/Warrior 1 vs. Human 1/Warrior 1).

-----Original Message-----

From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion

[mailto:BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM] On Behalf Of Mark_Aurel

Sent: 4. november 2003 04:10

To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM

Subject: Re: Birthright "demihuman" Races: [36#2052]

This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

You can view the entire thread at:

http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=2052

Mark_Aurel wrote:

a) If the answer is; because they always had, because they`re

tough or

some other such nonsense, they its time we rethink it.

B) If the answer is; "it contributes greatly to the flexibility

and

enjoyment of playing orog characters", then by all means keep it.

I think the answer is a) and its time to rethink racial hit dice (not

necessarily do away with them, but rethink them).

So, essentially - differentiation of races by way of mechanics is

nonsense? I`ll try and rephrase a bit.

Hit Dice (and by extension, hit points) can be said to measure overall

resistance to damage. Bigger creatures have more hit points, by virtue

of their mass. Characters of higher level have more hit points, by

virtue of experience at minimizing damage, sheer heroic luck, grit and

determination, or whatever. Some creatures might have more hit points

simply because of their body configuration or the way their organs work,

making them hard to hurt - like oozes or constructs. There are many

reasons why some creatures have more HD. In some cases, especially

Undead or extraplanar ones, a disprortionately high amount of HD when

compared to their size can even be attributed to magic.

Constitution is a measure of fitness and health. Creatures with high

Con scores have a high degree of resistance to poison, disease and so on

- they are also tougher all around for their general size and power than

other creatures of the same type and size. Creatures that don`t have a

health don`t have a Con score either - they can still have quite a lot

of hp, however.

So - why do orogs have more HD than humans? It`s because they`re

tougher. They have a high Con score because they also are pretty hardy

otherwise. Having `racial HD` has nothing to do with `experience` or

`class levels` - except when that aspect interacts with adventurers.

It`s a matter of mechanically representing the toughness of orogs

properly. They are built different than humans. They are much stronger.

Probably more dense. One would surmise, heavier overall. They are a

completely different species. Given their great strength, gorillas come

to mind - gorillas aren`t necessarily larger than humans, but they`re

definitely stronger. When orogs have a huge strength bonus, it`s not

because they have fitness studios and work out really hard. It`s because

of a basic genetic advantage over humans in this area. Their racial HD

stems from this very same thing. It`s because that`s the way the D&D

system represents toughness. The BRCS isn`t going to fundamentally

change that.

If you want to make orogs less tough, that`s fine by me - conceptually,

though, they generally seem to be meant to be significantly tougher than

humans or even dwarves. `Rethinking` the way this is represented would

require changing the system on some fundamental level.

I think you`re very much on the wrong track when you talk about

`equality` - what exactly you mean isn`t entirely clear, but it seems a

very misplaced word to bring to the table here.

As for your item B) - orogs aren`t really included as PCs in BR. You

can choose to play them in your campaign, but they were omitted from the

PC Races section for a reason. Of course, the same reason could easily

be applied to the Sidhelien, but c`est la vie.

As for i-n-c-o-n-s-i-s-t-e-n-c-y, I agree to an extent. One of my house

rules in 2e reasonably late before 3e came out was that all PCs start

with an extra d6 HD - the `racial base,` if you like. Worked wonders for

wizards. The inconsistency I see in 3e, however, is the way that 1-HD

races can swap their racial HD for a class level HD, while creatures

with more than 1 HD are stuck with all their HD. The inconsistency is

NOT that huge goblins have more HD than common ones, or that orogs have

more HD than humans - that is a trait of their race, and calling it

inconsistent is IMO similar to saying that it`s inconsistent that

gorillas are stronger than humans.

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

****

Birthright-l Archives:

http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html

ConjurerDragon

11-06-2003, 06:09 PM

Osprey schrieb:

> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=2052

>

> Osprey wrote:

> Move Silently is still important for Invisible characters.

> Stealthy wizards should multiclass as Rogues or Rangers.

> Or just play a Bard.

> Best, play a wizard/rogue who becomes an Arcane Trickster...then you get the best of both worlds. :)

Invisibility + Silence = Hide + Move Silently without spending a single

skill point in cross-class-skills.

bye

Michael

Osprey

11-06-2003, 10:43 PM

Invisibility + Silence = Hide + Move Silently without spending a single
skill point in cross-class-skills.
bye
Michael

True, just spending 2 spell slots every time you cast them instead. A fair trade, IMO...the real difference is that the skills are permanent and reusable...boost them with a few minor magic items, and a good rogue (or ranger or bard) can be nigh-undetectable in most circumstances...again and again and again. But to each their own! :)

-Osprey

teloft

11-07-2003, 09:49 AM

Silence has an efect around you. so sneeking upon somone speking, or past somone talking. and thay are sure to nitice thet theres something out of place when thay cant speak.

And you radiade magic for thows able to sence magic, you could as well wear a ligthspell on your torso.

:ph34r:

ConjurerDragon

11-07-2003, 06:21 PM

teloft schrieb:

> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=2052

>

> teloft wrote:

> Silence has an efect around you. so sneeking upon somone speking, or past somone talking.

and thay are sure to nitice thet theres something out of place when

thay cant speak.

> And you radiade magic for thows able to sence magic, you could as well wear a ligthspell on

your torso.

Right, I forgot the changes in 3E - I rememberd the 2E silence which

only affected you and where there was a different "Silence 10´ radius"

which was similar to the new 3E version of Silence.

bye

Michael

RaspK_FOG

11-07-2003, 11:26 PM

I believe this discussion should move on in a new thread, as it is highly out of context with this particular thread, but this is secondary to me now... Instead, I will try to defend a few inconsistencies I've noticed within the thread:

Use Rope is one of those strange skills that seems too odd to keep, but has a very apparent reason to be there; those of you who know how to use a length of rope effectively, it is more obvious, but you have all heard of nautical knots and such stuff... Anyway, the skill is not like tying your shoe-laces, and I think it is a logical thing to keep.
Survival was the skill that substituted Wilderness Lore even from 3e (!), making its appearance in Savage Species and other such products (Races of Faerun also had Survival instead of Wilderness Lore, something which confused for a little while until I noticed how it was used, and then things became clear in 3.5e and Savage Species).
Heal is, in my opinion, the most redudant skill of them all! Since they came up with rules to make most Profession and Knowledge skills more than they already were (read supplements from WotC if you do not know what I spek of), I suppose that making it a Profession (healer) skill could be a fine adjustment...
Profession (herbalist) should become able to produce some of the alchemical products able to be produced by Craft (alchemy), maybe with a higher DC. Oh well...
Have you ever trued to see the difference of moving silently and hiding? Done both at the same time? Consider the differences and difficulties, and then tell me if it is logical to make them into one skill!
Bards, for example, get Listen as a class skill but not Spot; the opposite does not apply, however, to Spot: those classes that have it as a class skill do have Listen as a class skill as well. Most people detect ruses by sound, not sight. It is only the real survivors with the best reflexes (not the save, OK?) that get Spot as a class skill.
Knowledge (nature) and Survival? Don't misunderstand what I am going to say, but I found that ludicrous! Saving your butt and knowing the scientific name of this or that bird are very different things... Like the part in Lord of the Rings, where Gandalf scolds the Loremaster in the scene where Eowin, Faramir, and Meriadoc all are ill with the chill of the Nazgul, saying: "Then get someone with less lore (referring to the man's knowledge of names of herbs and their botanical classification) and more wisdom (referring to the elder people who had some athelas for their illnesses)!"
Decipher Script has nothing to do with Knowledge directly; giving, though, a +2 synergy bonus for texts which are directly connected to the aforementioned kinds of Knowledge (like a +2 synergy bonus on Dexipher Sript checks concerning texts related to an appropriate Knowledge skill to which you have at least 5 ranks) is a very good idea in my opinion (being my own ^_^.
Ability boosting spells (the good old Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace, and (Bear's) Endurance, along with the newer Fox's Cunning, Owl's Wisdom, and Eagle's Splendor) were all lasting 1 hour/level in 3e; thankfully, they cut them down, but I prefer them to be 10 minutes/level for my campaign. The 1 minute/level idea of 3.5e, while minimising the benefits of these spells (which were evened out by giving a solid +4 now), increased their effectiveness in combat and made any other use almost obsolete!
Yep, the area silence always had a cool side-effect! :P
As for the World of Darkness, it has both awesome and ridiculous points; like the all powerful 1 (which accounts to a botch 10% of the time!), while 0s are not as powerful as 1s... For that reason, in our campaigns, not only does an 0 account for one success, it also cannot be taken out by an 1. Effectively, 0s are like a point Willpower spent for one success.
The worst point of the WoD is that it is so vague it gets fussy! :angry:

kgauck

11-08-2003, 12:53 AM

----- Original Message -----

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

Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 5:26 PM

> Heal is, in my opinion, the most redudant skill of them all; Since

> they came up with rules to make most Profession and Knowledge,

> I suppose that making it a Profession (healer) skill could be a fine

> adjustment...

I think the reason that we should be wary about making everything a

knowledge, craft, or profession skill is that some classes have access to

all of one or more of those skill groups. Of the Professions, everyone

except Fighters and Barbarians gets access to all Profession skills. Heal

had been limited to those who cast divine spells.

> Profession (herbalist) should become able to produce some of the

> alchemical products able to be produced by Craft (alchemy), maybe

> with a higher DC. Oh well...

Herbalists deal with organic substances, alchemists with inorganic

substances. I prefer that all game effects which one can produce, the other

can produce by different means. The alchemist uses calx of daurite, the

herbalist uses thistle root extract, both achieve the same end.

> Have you ever trued to see the difference of moving silently and hiding?

> Done both at the same time? Consider the differences and difficulties, and

> then tell me if it is logical to make them into one skill

The real question here is this: should skill represent game effects (I am

concealed) or should they reflect how things are done.

> Knowledge (nature) and Survival? I found that ludicrous. Saving your

> butt and knowing the scientific name of this or that bird are very

different

> things

Some will argue that knowing things but being unable to practically apply

knowledge is a uselss skill. Certainly it is useless in the sense of being

unable to produce a practical result, but it is useful in reflecting that

some characters know about things but cannot do things. For example, many

rulers might have Knowedge (Art) but have no Craft skills, because they are

observers of art, not producers of it. If a player or DM is inclined to

represent extensive, but impractical knowledge they will see a value in the

knowledge skills that parallel practical skills. No doubt they will see the

value in combinations of practical skills and knowledge, and seek to

represent that. The survivalist may know how to select and gather edible

fickleberries. The herbalist may know how to prepare a poltice using

fickleberries. The scholar may know that three types of birds eat the

fickleberry here and the hardleberry in the Anuirean heartlands. The

problem with practical knowledge is that it often deals with the immediate

here and now, and pays little attention to what it cannot apply. What

berries might make a useful substitute in another location is of no use to

someone who as never been and does not plan to go to that location. Some

will chose to reflect this problem in the game, others will be content to

ignore it.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

RaspK_FOG

11-08-2003, 01:17 AM

Well, you got most out of Survival vs. Knowledge (nature), but you still went too far when you said it was useless in practical application... The difference is that Aragorn, for example, knew how to use the herb to help someone (Heal, the equivalent of Survival here), and the loremaster knew its many names but not of its true healing attribute against the taint of Shadow (Knowledge [nature]). Still, he might as well have failed his skill check :lol: .

Mourn

11-08-2003, 03:00 AM

Survival was the skill that substituted Wilderness Lore even from 3e (!), making its appearance in Savage Species and other such products (Races of Faerun also had Survival instead of Wilderness Lore, something which confused for a little while until I noticed how it was used, and then things became clear in 3.5e and Savage Species).

Survival = Wilderness Lore + New Name.

Heal is, in my opinion, the most redudant skill of them all! Since they came up with rules to make most Profession and Knowledge skills more than they already were (read supplements from WotC if you do not know what I spek of), I suppose that making it a Profession (healer) skill could be a fine adjustment...

However, there is no system for the various Profession and Knowledge skills to do anything other than make some money or identify a creature and its strengths/weaknesses.

Yeah, Heal could merely be a Profession (healer), just as Survival/Wilderness Lore could just be Profession (hunter) or something... they stated that back when they came out with 3rd Edition, but they made it a separate skill because they wanted to spell out specific things that you can do with the skill, since they were leaving Knowledge and Profession skills vague.

Have you ever trued to see the difference of moving silently and hiding? Done both at the same time? Consider the differences and difficulties, and then tell me if it is logical to make them into one skill!

So, you're telling me that my ability to silently walk up to anyone without them hearing me is the same as my inability to hide myself in any effective manner? I don't think so, buddy. I can sneak around like a superninja, but I can't hide worth a damn... they are two very different, but connected skills.

Knowledge (nature) and Survival? Don't misunderstand what I am going to say, but I found that ludicrous! Saving your butt and knowing the scientific name of this or that bird are very different things... Like the part in Lord of the Rings, where Gandalf scolds the Loremaster in the scene where Eowin, Faramir, and Meriadoc all are ill with the chill of the Nazgul, saying: "Then get someone with less lore (referring to the man's knowledge of names of herbs and their botanical classification) and more wisdom (referring to the elder people who had some athelas for their illnesses)!"

Ummmm... I don't really see your problem here. Obviously, they were using Knowledge (nature), which is Intelligence based, instead of Heal, which is Wisdom based. What does this have to do with Knowledge (nature), which is all kinds of knowledge of plants and animals, adding a bonus to Survival checks, which represent hunting, gathering, navigation through wilderness... all of which deal with plants and animals. The synergy bonus is very fitting.

Ability boosting spells (the good old Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace, and (Bear's) Endurance, along with the newer Fox's Cunning, Owl's Wisdom, and Eagle's Splendor) were all lasting 1 hour/level in 3e; thankfully, they cut them down, but I prefer them to be 10 minutes/level for my campaign. The 1 minute/level idea of 3.5e, while minimising the benefits of these spells (which were evened out by giving a solid +4 now), increased their effectiveness in combat and made any other use almost obsolete!

Which is the purpose of the spells... you boost your Strength or spellcasting ability score for combat purposes... if you're interested in things like Diplomacy, you'd probably want to go with something that boosted your skill check by a significant amount (like a Diplomacy-based version of the jump spell), not merely getting a +2 bonus on the check.

As for the World of Darkness, it has both awesome and ridiculous points; like the all powerful 1 (which accounts to a botch 10% of the time!), while 0s are not as powerful as 1s... For that reason, in our campaigns, not only does an 0 account for one success, it also cannot be taken out by an 1. Effectively, 0s are like a point Willpower spent for one success.

Wow, you're playing a version of WoD over 5 years old... amazing. Starting with Trinity, and later incorporated into the WoD Revised lines, 1s no longer removed successes. If no successes were rolled, and any of the dice came up as a 1, then it was a botch. So, if you roll two 1s and three successes, you still have three successes.

The worst point of the WoD is that it is so vague it gets fussy!

Well, it's called the Storyteller System for a reason... the mechanics are as minimal and malleable and possible, so that they don't need to map out every eventual action that a person would attempt, like D&D. That's why the books contain a huge amount more story and setting than mechanics.

geeman

11-08-2003, 12:51 PM

At 06:29 PM 11/7/2003 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> > Profession (herbalist) should become able to produce some of the

> > alchemical products able to be produced by Craft (alchemy), maybe

> > with a higher DC. Oh well...

>

>Herbalists deal with organic substances, alchemists with inorganic

>substances. I prefer that all game effects which one can produce, the other

>can produce by different means. The alchemist uses calx of daurite, the

>herbalist uses thistle root extract, both achieve the same end.

That`s a valid reason to break up a pair of skills. In general, one

needn`t have two skills if one does, essentially, the same thing with them,

but if one has campaign theme reasons for splitting them up that`s all the

justification one needs. Take, for example, the Pilot skill in the Star

Wars D20 text. In that text Pilot works on boats, grav vehicles, tracked

vehicles, legged vehicles, wheeled vehicles, starships (with some

modifications) and just about anything that one can drive. In Star Wars

that makes sense because it`s a kind of gonzo fantasy/sci-fi setting in

which technology and characters interact seamlessly. In other D20 campaign

settings one might want to have a Drive skill for ground cars a Pilot skill

for aircraft, a Boating skill for watercraft and yet another for

spaceships. One might even want to break up those skills further into

specific categories. Drive; cars, trucks, tanks, motorcycles and Pilot;

small planes, helicopters, jetliners, etc. In D20 Modern, for instance,

there are more skills to handle operating vehicles than in Star Wars

because it better suits that particular setting`s dynamics. If one were to

play in a campaign using D20 Modern classes and rules, but that had a sort

of cartoonish/comic book quality a la Star Wars in which characters are

able to operate just about any vehicle without too much qualification it

would make sense to combine them.

3e/3.5 does this kind of thing in several places. In fact, 3e did it more

and 3.5 has now gone with several more generalist interpretations of

several things that used to be skills. If one really emphasized Innuendo

as something that went on a lot in a campaign (if one were playing "Mafia

D20" or something like that) then it would still make sense to have it be a

separate skill. The 3.5 authors have decided it doesn`t support the

fantasy RPG that D&D is meant to portray, so they`ve dropped it.

The thing is, people tend to use what amounts to a campaign theme argument

for two skills Sneak (Hide and Move Silently) and two skills for the

opposing skill (Spot and Listen) but in practise there`s very little

connection to campaign themes. That is, the specific processes of

listening and looking are not tied to the concepts of fantasy

role-playing. The reality is that combining the two skills will work

perfectly fine. All I`m suggesting is that people experiment with it and

see if their campaigns really need four skills where two would work. Just

try it and see what happens. Trust me, it`s not going to throw off

balance, send the theme of the campaign spinning off out of control or

otherwise ruin your game. It hasn`t had that effect IMC nor in the play of

thousands of other gamers who play RPGs that don`t use four skills to

reflect those two things. In fact, in a fantasy based campaign like BR (or

any other D&D setting, really) one might find it doesn`t have any negative

consequences at all, and reducing the skills to more general descriptions

might actually wind up being an aid to role-playing.

I make the same suggestion for Wilderness Lore (Survival) and Knowledge,

nature. Just try combining them and see what happens.

> > Have you ever trued to see the difference of moving silently and hiding?

> > Done both at the same time? Consider the differences and difficulties, and

> > then tell me if it is logical to make them into one skill

>

>The real question here is this: should skill represent game effects (I am

>concealed) or should they reflect how things are done.

There are a couple of other things that should probably be considered

too. Most often (not always, of course, but often enough that it`s

something of a standard) characters who have one skill also have the

other. Barbarians and bards are the only classes that have Listen but not

Spot. It`s been argued that that is the result of purposeful use of the

skill system, and has great significance game mechanically, thematically,

etc. I think that`s an over-statement and an argument made after the fact

to justify the existing rules set. There`s no real logical reason why

barbarians and bards shouldn`t have Spot. They aren`t particularly less

observant than druids, rangers or rogues. In fact, they have thematic and

game mechanical connections to those classes. Making Spot a cross-class

skill for bards and barbarians is completely arbitrary. Sure, one can come

up with post hoc justifications for the situation, but those justifications

are pretty meaningless if examined objectively. Spot isn`t thematically or

game mechanically counter to the concept of barbarians or bards any more

than Swim is counter to the concepts of goodness, justice and fair play is

for paladins.

So why don`t barbarians and bards have Spot, and why don`t paladins have

Swim as class skills? Well, it`s not for reasons of balance or theme,

particularly. It has more to do with pre-3e rules regarding how those

character classes worked rather than anything to do with post-3e issues

that are often touted as the reasoning behind those decisions. In fact,

I`m confident that there really was very little reasoning that went into

those decisions. It was simply a continuation of some very old ideas, some

of which don`t really make a lot of sense in the updated version of the rules.

What`s more important, however, is that we not let those 3e/3.5 decisions

take control over BR dynamics. In BR we should go ahead and give a paladin

of Nesirie Swim as a class skill despite the 3e/3.5 making that a cross

class skill for its more generalist paladin class. While we`re at it

paladins of Cuirecaen might have Intimidate rather than Diplomacy as a

class skill. Those are campaign based decisions for the skill system that

make sense.

Gary

irdeggman

11-08-2003, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by geeman@Nov 8 2003, 07:51 AM

What`s more important, however, is that we not let those 3e/3.5 decisions

take control over BR dynamics. In BR we should go ahead and give a paladin

of Nesirie Swim as a class skill despite the 3e/3.5 making that a cross

class skill for its more generalist paladin class. While we`re at it

paladins of Cuirecaen might have Intimidate rather than Diplomacy as a

class skill. Those are campaign based decisions for the skill system that

make sense.

Gary

Ahhh finally something that ties this whole lengthy discussion into into BR and is not just a complaint over the core rule set.

And the original thread topic was demi-human races and not skills/feats and training or combining them. Talk about thread hijacking. ;)

geeman

11-08-2003, 03:44 PM

At 02:17 AM 11/8/2003 +0100, RaspK_FOG wrote:

> Well, you got most out of Survival vs. Knowledge (nature), but you

> still went too far when you said it was useless in practical

> application... The difference is that Aragorn, for example, knew how to

> use the herb to help someone (Heal, the equivalent of Survival here), and

> the loremaster knew its many names but not of its true healing attribute

> against the taint of Shadow (Knowledge [nature]). Still, he might as well

> have failed his skill check :lol: .

Rather than the difference between two skills I think that may have been

more like the difference between what would be in D&D the Healing skill and

healing magic. As in, "This wound is beyond my skill... he needs elven

(magical) healing."

In the case of Wilderness Lore (Survival) and Knowledge, Nature there are a

few differences, but what I`m getting at is that in the absence of a

particularly scholarly campaign setting there`s no need to have two skills

for what amounts to the same function. Sometimes I even see specific tasks

described as using either of these skills, which is a pretty good

indication that they could be combined without too much difficulty.

Gary

geeman

11-08-2003, 04:10 PM

At 03:15 PM 11/8/2003 +0100, irdeggman wrote:

> Ahhh finally something that ties this whole lengthy discussion into into

> BR and is not just a complaint over the core rule set.

Eventually all things come back around to BR.... :)

Gary

The Jew

11-08-2003, 09:44 PM

The real question here is this: should skill represent game effects (I am
concealed) or should they reflect how things are done.

There is another question, game balance. Just as feats should be somewhat balanced in their benefits so should skills. Innuendo and read lips were skills that could be used in so few situations, that they were simply not worth puting scarce skill points into. Hide, move silently, spot and listen are some of the most widely used skills. They are some of the most frequently chosen skills for classes that have them on their list. combinging these skills would create uberskills. Creating skills that any sane person would always take is the wrong way to go. Just like combining the feats weapon focus and weapon specialization would be a mistake.

kgauck

11-08-2003, 11:03 PM

----- Original Message -----

From: "The Jew" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2003 3:44 PM

> There is another question, game balance. Just as feats should be

> somewhat balanced in their benefits so should skills. Innuendo and

> read lips were skills that could be used in so few situations, that they

> were simply not worth puting scarce skill points into.

That`s not a balance issue, its a player choice issue. There is no

compelling argument that skills should be balanced so that a few esoteric

activities must be represented by broader skills. As I have posted earlier,

a case for simplicity can be made. If a player feels a particular skill is

not worth the skill points, they won`t purchase them (be it innuendo, ride,

administrate, or use rope). Those of us who are more concerned with how

things are done than the ultimate ends of the skill prefer that difficult

activities, like learning a thieves cant (Inneuendo) require specific

inventments.

> Hide, move silently, spot and listen are some of the most widely

> used skills. They are some of the most frequently chosen skills for

> classes that have them on their list. combinging these skills would

> create uberskills. Creating skills that any sane person would always

> take is the wrong way to go. Just like combining the feats weapon

> focus and weapon specialization would be a mistake.

There are ways to use DC`s to make such combination skills, such as Hide and

Observe less overwhelming. Focusing on competative skill checks is one way.

Perhaps Gary will share some of the other techniques he uses to keep the

purchase of these skills a no-brainer.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

RaspK_FOG

11-09-2003, 12:29 AM

First of all, Mourn, I pretty much know that Wilderness Lore was substituted by Survival; there was really only a change of name and clarification of game mechanics...

Secondly, WotC has given uses for Craft, Knowledge, and Profession skills other than the standard ones; check out their individual suplemental products for more information on the matter.

Third thing to say, you got it all wrong: I am saying the same thing you are saying, that hiding and moving silently are two separate and different things.

I still think that Knowledge (nature) and Survival are two very different things, and, believe me, even the scholar will be extremely useful from time to time... Knowing whether a thing is foreign to an area or not can be more helpful than you think, and this is not the only reason for scholars to be there, if you ask me.

A classic use of ability boosting spells (more specifically, endurance) was to have it cast on the victim of a poisoning... A 2nd-level spell that is always useful and could save a friend from vampires, poisoning, etc. until next day, because the cleric has no other neutralise poison/heal spells left, was always useful for players (and dreadful for DMs)...

WoD? Yeah, I know I am playing an older version, but you have to see it my way: I live in Greece, have little money to spend, and often buy books cooperatively with my best friend. I have read through the newest edition of Vampire and few other things from the newest versions, and find many of them ridiculous (like the current abundance of vampires; all of a sudden, nontheless)! I always hated the way WW took care of things, which embarassingly reminds of the way Mongoose Publishing acts: every creature is superbly powerful from one kind's point of view or another, but fails misserable from all the others. For example, the typical strong werewolf is weaker than the kind presented in Vampire: the Masquerade!
Another point against WoD: well, general dice rules could be post on the Internet; I don't have the money to buy all of WoD products (many times more than D&D products!), and most of their games are not that interesting to me... Engel d20, from SSS, was the worst transfer from a d10 system to d20! It was merely awful! Who would take the warrior if he can take the fighter?!?

Anyway, as for the other matter that came up, I agreed: this thread has gone awry, and I ask that we get back to where we were, OK? Thank you...

geeman

11-10-2003, 05:01 PM

At 04:43 PM 11/8/2003 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>Perhaps Gary will share some of the other techniques he uses to keep the

>purchase of these skills a no-brainer.

Thanks for asking. I`m going to try to get to this in more detail today or

tomorrow, and I`ll put it in another thread since we`ve drifted a bit from

the original "demi-human" subject of this particular thread.

The short answer, however, is to make more modifications to the skills

available, combining where appropriate and splitting up where necessary in

order to suit the number of skills available to suit the needs of the

campaign and the style of the DM/players. That is, split up Diplomacy into

two or more skills if one winds up using that skill with too much

zeal. (Diplomacy is in many ways the 3e/3.5 social uberskill.) Or one can

combine existing skills that see little use, the way they`ve done in 3.5

with Read Lips, Innuendo and Intuit Direction. It doesn`t really take much

effort to balance the skills against one another if one has a method for

doing so.

Gary

kgauck

11-10-2003, 10:55 PM

----- Original Message -----

From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>

Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 4:45 AM

> Diplomacy is in many ways the 3e/3.5 social uberskill.

Very much agree. At least in political games. I use Diplomacy only for

communication between realms. I use Bargain for communication between two

people (or small numbers). And Oratory for communication by one person to a

large number of listeners.

Diplomacy - Henry V addresses Montjoy and rejects the Dauphin`s offer of

some duchies in exchange for renouncing the French Crown. Henry as the

state.

Oratory - Henry V gives his St Crispan`s Day speech to his army before the

battle of Agincourt. Henry as a leader

Bargain - Henry attempts to woo Katherine de Valois. Henry as a person.

Bluff - Henry asks Cambridge, Scrope, and Grey about the conduct of the war,

pardons the drunk, and then presents commissions to the three conspiritors.

Henry lies.

Intimidation- Henry demands a confession from Cambridge, Scrope, and Grey.

Henry threatens.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

RaspK_FOG

11-16-2003, 05:34 PM

Allow me to remind you of something:

This is not a Skill discussion thread!

Now that this misunderstanding has hopefully been cleared up, can we, please, move on? Thank you...

Anyway, the initial subject waaass: Racial Traits! Now, with a little tiny bit of spice for Sidhelien from my part:

Make the Sidhelien Favoured Class Sorcerer instead of Wizard: many have argued that Sidhelien would be best represented by Sorcerers, is a nice idea for giving a reason for Sorcerers to pop up in Cerilia in the fist place, and really limits their powers (for those of you arguing that nth-level Sidhelien would rule the world)...
Add the usual Nature Magic Affinity thingy.
Specify that Bards get the Nature spells they got from 3e (like gust of wing, wind wall, control water, control weather, etc.)
All these for Sidhelien only; thank you.
Oh, maybe give them more of an edge in other abilities too (aging has become quite an issue).
Why not give them this tiny bit of extra: Sidhelien can restore their ability to cast spells faster: instead of needing to rest for 8 hours and having all spell slots cast within the last 8 hours before they restudied their spells for the day being kept from them for that day, change the above instances of "eight hours" to "4 hours".

Osprey

11-17-2003, 04:11 PM

I would make Sidhelien preferred class: Sorcerer or Bard. Seeing as how they invented magic by music, it seems a shame to not include the Bard as a favored class for them, and it follows the same principles as sorcerers for spellcasting.

I wouldn't change the 8 hour requirement for renewing spells: this makes too drastic an alteration in basic mechanics, and the Sidhe are already exceptions to enough rules, IMO. That amount of time could be interpreted however you like, though: it takes that amount of time for the mebhaighal to replenish their magical resovoir, for instance.

irdeggman

11-18-2003, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by Osprey@Nov 17 2003, 11:11 AM
I would make Sidhelien preferred class: Sorcerer or Bard. Seeing as how they invented magic by music, it seems a shame to not include the Bard as a favored class for them, and it follows the same principles as sorcerers for spellcasting.

I wouldn't change the 8 hour requirement for renewing spells: this makes too drastic an alteration in basic mechanics, and the Sidhe are already exceptions to enough rules, IMO. That amount of time could be interpreted however you like, though: it takes that amount of time for the mebhaighal to replenish their magical resovoir, for instance.
One possible problem with not including wizard as favored class for elves is the fact that is the class that most favors creating magic items. In the BR materials most of the major magic items were in some way or another created by elves.

It might be best to just say elves have a favored class of any arcane spellcaster class. IMO it should be only one class per character though, not "all arcane spellcasting classes". Basically a character would have a theme for how he progressed and would focus around that favored path. Entertainers/storytellers (Bards), natural spellcaster with next to no studying (sorcerer) and the dedicated researcher who creates items (wizards).

I agree with not changing the core requirement of 8 hrs of rest - note this isn't necessarily sleep (and elves in 3rd/3.5 ed don't sleep either).

Osprey

11-18-2003, 03:08 PM

One possible problem with not including wizard as favored class for elves is the fact that is the class that most favors creating magic items. In the BR materials most of the major magic items were in some way or another created by elves.

It might be best to just say elves have a favored class of any arcane spellcaster class. IMO it should be only one class per character though, not "all arcane spellcasting classes". Basically a character would have a theme for how he progressed and would focus around that favored path. Entertainers/storytellers (Bards), natural spellcaster with next to no studying (sorcerer) and the dedicated researcher who creates items (wizards).

That works fine by me. Sorcerers are definitely at a disadvantage when it comes to magic item creation, and it seems so much more pointless for them to do so when they can use the spells they know so many times per day...and if you live forever, it's not like you're making items to preserve your powers for generations to come! That leaves artificing for altruistic reasons, which could account for some of the items made, but all of them?

I agree...say elves' favored classs is any one arcane spellcasting class, and leave it at that.

RaspK_FOG

11-18-2003, 09:34 PM

OK, here it goes:

I liked the "Any one arcane spell-casting class", but let me make it a bit more detailed:
Favoured Class: Bard, Sorcerer, or Wizard. Sidhelien must choose which of the three they take as their favoured class at the time they acquire their first level in any of these classes, and may not change afterwards. Levels from their favoured class are not taken into account when determining XP penalties... (etc.)
P.S.: I haven't proposed bards as well, for many people out there seem to consider them to be funky, little dolts that are of no interest, when I think the opposite.

RaspK_FOG

12-10-2003, 08:31 AM

I think this thread should go on, not stop dead in its tracks, but this needs new ideas... Anyone have to say something? If not, I would like to remind all of a major position a lot of people have: making elves into something more "elvish-like" and boost them up accordingly, reasonably giving them an appropriate level adjustment... +1 has been considered to be pretty much OK by many people, but the changes are something that many have discussed but few have really come to a decision of.

geeman

12-10-2003, 03:00 PM

The "domain rules" information that has come out in Dragon has been pretty

mediocre IMO, but I`m going to reserve judgement on their update to the BR

bloodline system until I see it. I am very curious how they "Rule X" the

issue. Feats, character classes, etc.

One way or another, I`m curious if this is the kind of thing that will get

incorporated into the BRCS? It being official and all....

Gary

RaspK_FOG

12-10-2003, 10:34 PM

I don't know what might have happened that would allow Paizo Publications (that's the name of the company, if my memory palys no tricks to me) to make any official suggestions concerning Birthright: as far as I know, WotC has given up on any and all material that she has a thing to say about, most importantly the Dark Sun and Birthright campaign settings, which were both given to fansites to work upon.

I understand that Paizo has nothing to do with things not in the hands of WotC, but with those ones it truly has the right to publish official stuff... So, I can really see no way she could officially publish anything truly "official" about Birthright!

P.S.: One note, for those of you who know greek: isn't Paizo suspiously a lot like paizo (transcripting from the greek to the roman alphabet - pronounced as PE-zo), the word that means "to play"?

DanMcSorley

12-11-2003, 03:26 AM

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, RaspK_FOG wrote:

> I don`t know what might have happened that would allow Paizo

> Publications (that`s the name of the company, if my memory palys no

> tricks to me) to make any official suggestions concerning Birthright: as

> far as I know, WotC has given up on any and all material that she has a

> thing to say about, most importantly the Dark Sun and Birthright

> campaign settings, which were both given to fansites to work upon.

No, the rights to the setting weren`t given to the fansite, permission to

write 3.* material for them was. Wizards owns the rights for 95 years or

whenever the copyright expires. If they wanted to yank permission from

br.net tomorrow and publish their own new birthright books, I`d cheer out

loud, but it`s not going to happen, the setting was losing money for them

when they were publishing it.

> I understand that Paizo has nothing to do with things not in the hands

> of WotC, but with those ones it truly has the right to publish official

> stuff... So, I can really see no way she could officially publish

> anything truly "official" about Birthright!

Don`t worry about it. Seriously. On the cover of Dungeon and Dragon

mags, it says something like "100% official Dungeons and Dragons Content".

It`s marketing, it doesn`t mean we can`t write whatever we want, or use

whatever we want, don`t get your panties in a bunch over this :)

--

Daniel McSorley

Eosin the Red

12-11-2003, 03:26 AM

> P.S.: One note, for those of you who know greek: isn`t Paizo suspiously a

lot like paizo (transcripting from the greek to the roman alphabet -

pronounced as PE-zo), the word that means "to play"?

That is exactly what it means.

A little OT; I am amazed that people are surprised by this. I am sure that

if you dig around you will find at least two posts by me indicating that

just exactly this type of thing could/would happen without re-publication of

the setting. Piazo is ***most likely*** allowed to write about any property

owned by WotC at their leisure.

I just hope the article was done by someone who at least understood where

bloodlines come from :) Since the **Official** blood powers of 3.5 do not

include a power score I have the feeling that it is much less of an article

about Birthright and much more an article to cover a slot in the "classics"

issue. Maybe some of us (me included) should be more proactive with

submitting stuff to Piazo?

Eosin

irdeggman

12-11-2003, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by DanMcSorley@Dec 10 2003, 10:26 PM
Don`t worry about it. Seriously. On the cover of Dungeon and Dragon

mags, it says something like "100% official Dungeons and Dragons Content".

It`s marketing, it doesn`t mean we can`t write whatever we want, or use

whatever we want, don`t get your panties in a bunch over this :)

--

Daniel McSorley

Unfortunately Piazo has been pretty consistent in using OGL and in not using OGL when they don't want to. If they list the article as OGL, then we can indeed use it anyway we see fit - if not then it is copyrighted and we can't. That is my major problem. But I haven't seen the issue yet, even though I subscribe I seem to receive it kind of late.

Ming I

01-06-2004, 06:00 AM

In the 2nd edition BR Rulebook Elven characters received a bonus to Intelligence, in the 3e playtest guide, they receive a bonus to Charisma. I'm a little puzzled by the change. Could someone explain it to me?

Also shouldn't the modifiers for Dwarves and Halflings be:

+4 Con, -4 Dex and +2 Dex, +2 Wis, -4 Str

respectively?

Just some musings from an insomniac's mind.

irdeggman

01-06-2004, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by Ming I@Jan 6 2004, 01:00 AM
In the 2nd edition BR Rulebook Elven characters received a bonus to Intelligence, in the 3e playtest guide, they receive a bonus to Charisma. I'm a little puzzled by the change. Could someone explain it to me?

Also shouldn't the modifiers for Dwarves and Halflings be:

+4 Con, -4 Dex and +2 Dex, +2 Wis, -4 Str

respectively?

Just some musings from an insomniac's mind.
The racial ability modifiers for humans was 'dropped' in the BRCS in lieu of more regional application of skills and feats and some other things. This dropped the reason for having to double the dwarves (and other dem-humans') 2nd ed racial ability modifiers.

For example, if Rjurik don't receive a +2 to Con then dwarves don't need to have the +4 that would put them hardier than the humans.

And if halflings don't need a -4 to strength then they only need one racial ability +2 gain.

+4 modifiers generally cause much more extreme results so it was something that in general wasn't really liked on the boards over the years.

The reason for the change in elves' racial ability modifier was that all of the BR literature portrayed them as having unearthly beauty which was never captured in the 2nd ed BR rules. With the incorporation of the sorcerer arcane casting class having a higher charisma benefits them as spell casters - which is also pretty consistent with the setting theme.

The proposed revised racial sections for the BRCS (next rev) were posted by Ian on one of the other threads so you can check them out to see where they are going. Make sure to expand the view posts beyond the past 30 days though.

I hope that helps.

Ming I

01-21-2004, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by irdeggman@Jan 6 2004, 11:36 AM

The racial ability modifiers for humans was 'dropped' in the BRCS in lieu of more regional application of skills and feats and some other things. This dropped the reason for having to double the dwarves (and other dem-humans') 2nd ed racial ability modifiers.

For example, if Rjurik don't receive a +2 to Con then dwarves don't need to have the +4 that would put them hardier than the humans.

And if halflings don't need a -4 to strength then they only need one racial ability +2 gain.

+4 modifiers generally cause much more extreme results so it was something that in general wasn't really liked on the boards over the years.

The reason for the change in elves' racial ability modifier was that all of the BR literature portrayed them as having unearthly beauty which was never captured in the 2nd ed BR rules. With the incorporation of the sorcerer arcane casting class having a higher charisma benefits them as spell casters - which is also pretty consistent with the setting theme.

The proposed revised racial sections for the BRCS (next rev) were posted by Ian on one of the other threads so you can check them out to see where they are going. Make sure to expand the view posts beyond the past 30 days though.

I hope that helps.
Let me first say that I appreciate all the hard work that went into the BRCS 3/3.5e conversion, I just haven’t been brought around to the designers' ways of thinking, so I have a lot of questions. :)

Why would humans be used as the standard for other races ability modifiers?

If no one was terribly upset with humans having ability modifiers in 2nd edition, why would it matter in 3/3.5e?

Although humans would get the ability modifiers, an extra feat, and extra skill points, they still wouldn’t get the myriad other things that the demi-human races get, so balance is more or less maintained. The regional bonuses (skills, feats, etc.) are cool though and I think they should be kept rather than discarded.

But that’s just me…I could be wrong. ;)

irdeggman

01-21-2004, 01:53 AM

Why would humans be used as the standard for other races ability modifiers?

Hmm. . . because humans are the standard for other races in D&D, whether or not it was 2nd ed or is 3/3.5, humans are the standard used for other races.

If no one was terribly upset with humans having ability modifiers in 2nd edition, why would it matter in 3/3.5e?

Basically because the 'rules' for ability modifers in 3/3.5 is to use multiples of 2. When this is used, the 2nd ed human ability modifiers result in +2/-2, which as I pointed out earlier yields +4/-4 for the demi-humans because it is important to maintain the ratio of ability modifiers between the two - that is Dwarves are less dextrous than Anuireans, Dwarves are hardier than Rjurick, Elves and halflings are more dextrous than Brecht, etc.

Although humans would get the ability modifiers, an extra feat, and extra skill points, they still wouldn’t get the myriad other things that the demi-human races get, so balance is more or less maintained. The regional bonuses (skills, feats, etc.) are cool though and I think they should be kept rather than discarded.

Too many benefits yield a level adjustment and that is also an important consideration. It was pretty tough to maintain the 2nd ed racial characteristics of the demi-humans without giving them level adjustments. The dwarves are particularly close to getting a level adjustment with their damage reduction.

But that’s just me…I could be wrong.

You aren't wrong, just looking at things differently than others are. You are still free to adapt your campaign in any way you desire.

Ming I

01-21-2004, 10:24 AM

Basically because the 'rules' for ability modifers in 3/3.5 is to use multiples of 2. When this is used, the 2nd ed human ability modifiers result in +2/-2, which as I pointed out earlier yields +4/-4 for the demi-humans because it is important to maintain the ratio of ability modifiers between the two - that is Dwarves are less dextrous than Anuireans, Dwarves are hardier than Rjurick, Elves and halflings are more dextrous than Brecht, etc.

But using a similar argument Halflings are physically weaker than Elves in Cerilia (or at least they were in 2nd edition) so getting rid of human ability score modifiers, but ignoring this fact, really isn't finding a solution to the problem.

In the end, I guess it's the old battle of flavor vs. mechanics. In 2nd edition an Anuirean was as dextrous as an Elf, or Halfling, but both the Halfling and the Elf had many other racial bonuses to compensate for that fact. For the 3/3.5 conversion human ability score modifiers have been dropped for regional feats/bonuses. I say keep them both. There have been other d20 Campaign Settings that give both humans and demi-humans ability score modifiers, so it isn't as though it's never been attempted before. Both the Midnight CS (from Fantasy Flight Games) and the Sovereign Stone CS (from Sovereign Press) offer this feature.

Too many benefits yield a level adjustment and that is also an important consideration. It was pretty tough to maintain the 2nd ed racial characteristics of the demi-humans without giving them level adjustments. The dwarves are particularly close to getting a level adjustment with their damage reduction.

I can't argue with you there, too many benefits should yield a level adjustment. Humans, Half-Elves and Halflings shouldn't be affected (especially since now Halflings don't just get the Dimension Door and Shadow Walk abilities).

Elves should probably be +1 Level since they are getting the equivalent of Timeless Body, Purity of Body, and an Improved Woodland Stride (all at 1st level) and only losing their ability to detect secret doors. If Elves were to get the following ability modifiers: +2 Dex, -2 Con, +2 Int, +2 Cha (yes, just like Drow) and the land-tied regeneration ability that I saw in another thread, then I would definitely suggest increasing their effective level by 2.

Dwarves would probably also require +1 Level due to the fact that they could have significant (if easily overcome) damage reduction, depending on their Con modifier.

Just my take on it. Your mileage may vary. :lol:

Osprey

01-22-2004, 01:19 AM

Elves should probably be +1 Level since they are getting the equivalent of Timeless Body, Purity of Body, and an Improved Woodland Stride (all at 1st level) and only losing their ability to detect secret doors. If Elves were to get the following ability modifiers: +2 Dex, -2 Con, +2 Int, +2 Cha (yes, just like Drow) and the land-tied regeneration ability that I saw in another thread, then I would definitely suggest increasing their effective level by 2.

I like these ability modifers better - dropping the Strength penalty seems appropriate based on the elves' description (I've always imagined them as thin but strong rather than thin and weak). Also, giving them +2 Int starts to reflect wizards as a racially favored class amongst an immortal race. However, +2 ECL is a pretty big level adjestment, so I think I would take it just a small step further - probably by dropping the Constitution penalty altogether. In general, I think any race tied to nature (especially if we are adding in regenerative qualities) would tend toward resilience and strong life force (since Con affects both hit points and Fortitude saves). With a net +6 Ability Modifiers and a few cool racial traits (as mentioned above), I think we're now in the right ballpark for +2 ECL.

-Osprey

RaspK_FOG

01-22-2004, 01:32 AM

I think I like that motif a lot! ;)

RaspK_FOG

01-27-2004, 12:42 AM

Ming I

01-28-2004, 07:28 AM

Something I figured out abou the dwarven damage reduction and which I wanted to share with you...

There is this motif of saying that, when an ability score would grant a certain effect (without adding any other bonus), if the ability modifier is lower than +1, it still counts as if it were +1. So, my suggestion for the damage reduction entry of dwarves would be something like this:

Damage Reduction (Ex): Cerilian dwarves receive a damaged reduction rating equal to their Constitution bonus (minimum 1) which can be bypassed by piercing or slashing weapons.

While I think this solution is very creative, why wouldn't you just assign a number for the damage reduction regardless of the individual character's constitution? 3.5 really seems to cut down on the variability of spells or abilities. Isn't it a good idea to do the same when trying to make things 3.5 compatible?

I'd suggest the dwarven entry for damage reduction look like this:

Damage Reduction (Ex): Cerilian Dwarves are naturally resistant to bludgeoning or crushing blows receiving:

damage reduction 5/slashing or piercing

This is just a suggestion and I believe the current phrasing for the dwarves damage reduction ability.

irdeggman

01-28-2004, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Jan 26 2004, 07:42 PM
Something I figured out abou the dwarven damage reduction and which I wanted to share with you...

There is this motif of saying that, when an ability score would grant a certain effect (without adding any other bonus), if the ability modifier is lower than +1, it still counts as if it were +1. So, my suggestion for the damage reduction entry of dwarves would be something like this:

Damage Reduction (Ex): Cerilian dwarves receive a damaged reduction rating equal to their Constitution bonus (minimum 1) which can be bypassed by piercing or slashing weapons.
What/from where is this motif based on? Most things in 3/3.5 are rounded down and not up.

Following this train an ability score of 10 would yield a +1 to applicable skill checks. Sounds like a dangerous path to go down to me.

Athos69

01-28-2004, 02:18 PM

My take on Dwarven DR, is to take what they were in 2E (1/2 damage from bludgeoning), look for a parallel (skeletons - 1/2 damage from non-bludgeoning) and apply the same treatment that they got in 3E: DR5/ bludgeoning.

Thus if you follow the logic, Dwarves should get DR 5 / Piercing or Slashing.

irdeggman

01-28-2004, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by Athos69@Jan 28 2004, 09:18 AM
My take on Dwarven DR, is to take what they were in 2E (1/2 damage from bludgeoning), look for a parallel (skeletons - 1/2 damage from non-bludgeoning) and apply the same treatment that they got in 3E: DR5/ bludgeoning.

Thus if you follow the logic, Dwarves should get DR 5 / Piercing or Slashing.
I don't know how to address these kinds of comments from newer posters. You (plural) deserve to have the comments/questions addressed if only so that you know you are being heard. The problem is that almost all of the suggestions made have been discussed heavily for several months now. Remember that the BRCS-playtest was issued last February, so many people have been going over it with fine toothed combs since that time. It just becomes very tedious to refer to previous discussions concerning these types of issues.

The 'revised' racial sections, which were posted in piecemeal by Ian (I previously posted concerning this) originally had dwarven DR 3/slashing or piercing. This number was chosen to 'avoid' a threshold for a level adjustment. The subsequent discussion by many members of the mailing list and boards resulted in the 'present' form of DR 1 + Con modifier.

One of the major reasons to avoid having level adjusted races is for balance between players. Forget counting in NPCs in the process. If demi-human races have a level adjustment then humans (or non- level adjusted races) would 'have' to start at higher levels to avoid having players feel cheated in the process. Now, BR is generally a low to mid-level campaign setting, by that I mean that most characters have a peak level of around 15 or so, with the exception of some of the awnshegh. If level adjusted races are the path chosen eventually then they will need to have racial levels (ala savage species) to allow for play in a 1st level campaign (the default norm). The problem with this is that when the 3.5 core books came out WotC avoided this, and I have no idea why. They just presented level adjusted races in the DMG without addressing racial levels, which was something that they 'created' in Savage Species - which was supposed to 3.5 forward compatable.

At the WotC web site they have, however been creating level based formats for all of the level adjusted templates in the MM.

kgauck

01-28-2004, 06:23 PM

----- Original Message -----

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

Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 10:41 AM

> It just becomes very tedious to refer to previous discussions concerning

> these types of issues.

Its also tedious to see the same topics come up again and again, and the

same (or similar) answers being provided. I must imagine its tedious to

write these kinds of replies as well.

Isn`t this the job a faq does so well?

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

Athos69

01-28-2004, 08:59 PM

I'm terribly sorry for the tedium, Kenneth. I'll just shut up now and let the Gods of Birthright decide what is best for us lowly peons..

geeman

01-28-2004, 09:59 PM

At 11:31 AM 1/28/2004 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>Its also tedious to see the same topics come up again and again, and the

>same (or similar) answers being provided. I must imagine its tedious to

>write these kinds of replies as well.

>

>Isn`t this the job a faq does so well?

You`d think so, but it turns out not. Some of the recurrent issues can

annoy the BR veterans (the Gorgon`s wizard levels, elven druids, Cerilian

monks, etc.) but I spent a few days compiling a FAQ page to address those

things and I quickly found that any document that was going to deal with

them comprehensively and objectively quickly becomes so large that it is

pretty much useless as a quick reference work, and that it wouldn`t be any

more efficient to refer people to section five, part A, paragraph 3 of the

FAQ than it is to refer to a previous discussion in the archives of the

list or the message boards.

If anyone would care to take a shot at it I`d be more than happy to have a

look. In the long run, however, I think such a thing becomes a third

little archive and just winds up being a point of discussion for rehashing

those topics rather than anything that actually spares the old timers or

informs the newbies. It may cut down on the number of posts that start off

with "Are there gnomes in Cerilia?" but they will just shift into "It says

in the `Old Topic FAQ` that there are officially no gnomes in BR, but I

think there should be..." posts.

Gary

kgauck

01-28-2004, 09:59 PM

Writing a new FAQ doesn`t strike me as a good investment. Knowing where

these issues were covered in the past in the archive does.

I would imagine a page with the common questions, and links to the place

where these things are discussed.

Re-writing things is old school, we should embrace links in this regard and

answer questions via links, not a fresh re-right.

Otherwise, what is the point of archives?

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

geeman

01-28-2004, 09:59 PM

At 01:38 PM 1/28/2004 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>I would imagine a page with the common questions, and links to the place

>where these things are discussed.

That might be more productive. If someone wants to put a page like that

together we can give it a try. I am a bit concerned that it could turn

into justification for crotchety "this has been talked to death--go read

the archives" posts, but as long as it remains a productive use of time and

resources, not something the old hands point to as a means of discounting

the posts of newer folks, then I think we could experiment with it.

Gary

RaspK_FOG

01-28-2004, 10:31 PM

I am sorry if all of this caused such a fuss... Now, to address some of the issues raised:
Others have already answered (more thoroughly than I ever could) why dwarves have this form of damage reduction (1+Con/piercing or slashing).
As to the motif I suggested, there are some cases where an ability or class feature works based on an ability bonus. If that ability's modifier so happens to be less than +1, then it is assumed to be +1 for the use of this ability. Abilities and/or class features that work this way are solely based on that bonus, and thus grant this phantom bonus if it does not exist, so that they may operate... I have to admit I cannot find a suitable example right now, but I am sure I have seen this.
One last thing, so that it could be made clear: I had made another suggestion, but I do not remember if that was what was kept. Back then, I suggested that only the permanent bonus to Constitution should count, that is, only the initial Constitution score + 2 racial bonus + ability adjustments + inherent bonus (- any Constitution damage or drain) part of the total Constitution score.

irdeggman

01-28-2004, 10:34 PM

I agree with Gary and Kenneth. The point being not to dissuade discussion but to instead give those not familiar with the previous posts the chance to read them before presenting any new takes on the subject. The 'old' disscussions might give the newer poster something else to think about and change their mind, solidify their opinion or lead them to another variation on the topic.

I, unfortunately don't have the time at present - nor the skill with boards and such to attempt this, but definitely welcome anyone that may. I'm pretty sure that Arjan could put together some way to more easily find topic sheets like this on the board.

This is one huge disadvantage for those that rely on the mail server only - it is very difficult to find archive information - and they might not even be aware that te topic was ever brought up before.

Athos69, I hope you take this in the light it was intended not as a personal slam. Kenneth (based on history) didn't mean to sound condescending - he was just trying to emphasize a point that there has to be a way to save newbies time in finding out what was discussed (and what the discussion contained) previously. I only wanted to point this out in my reply and maybe set up things in the future if I (or someone else) doesn't respond to a post that was covered in prior detail without seeming to be rude.

Here is a link to a recent post that seems to reflect the sense of rudeness if posts are not responded to. I beleive that no one is intentionally trying to be rude. :D

Ming I

01-29-2004, 07:08 AM

What would be helpful is a summary of what has gone on in a thread, which isn't the same as links to archives. It would be great to see the original post (that starts the thread), and then one immediately after summarizing changes to this original idea and what the current state is. This would be the responsibility of whomever opened the topic for discussion (since obviously they would be interested enough to keep checking the progress of it). One thing that makes it hard for me, a newbie, is having to go through 5-8 pages where a lot of talking is going on, but maybe not all of it is actually relevant to the thread. That and the fact that sometimes it really doesn't look as though any definite opinion has been reached, just people saying "That's a cool idea", or something like that.

This is completely the wrong place for this tangent but answering here seemed better than starting another thread.

Birthright-L

01-29-2004, 08:44 AM

> This is one huge disadvantage for those that rely on the mail server

> only - it is very difficult to find archive information - and they

> might not even be aware that te topic was ever brought up before.

Have you seen the wotc archives? I`d start there if iyou wanted to make

this `directory of past threads` (for lack of a better name). You can

use the archive`s search engine to find stuff by subject, key word,

author, date, or any combination thereof. If you search for "Hit

Dice:", you get a list of all those awnsheighlein Gary`s been sending to

us. In the boards, you`d have to go through them one thread at a time.

Both mediums have advantages and disadvantages, but for this project it

would be better to use the archives to find the appropriate threads, and

post the forum links once you have the threads so people can see the

whole conversation sequentially.

--Lord Rahvin

geeman

01-29-2004, 08:44 AM

At 02:59 PM 1/28/2004 -0800, Lord Rahvin wrote:

>Have you seen the wotc archives? I`d start there if iyou wanted to make

>this `directory of past threads` (for lack of a better name). You can

>use the archive`s search engine to find stuff by subject, key word,

>author, date, or any combination thereof.

In addition to the search function, the birthright-l archives have buttons

for responding to posts, forwarding them, etc. and they are for all intents

and purposes a message board with a different style and format from the

birthright.net boards. They load a little faster because there aren`t all

the graphics and icons of the birthright.net message boards, though one

loses any HTML formatting and some readability of the posts what with all

the weirdness involved in different posting formats.

>If you search for "Hit Dice:", you get a list of all those awnsheighlein

>Gary`s been sending to

>us.

Speaking of which, my next awnshegh, the Sandman, has been brought up

recently. My plan was to post him this week, but I realized that I want to

revise his background story a bit and relocate him, so it`s going to be a

little bit before he gets posted.

Gary

Trithemius

01-29-2004, 08:44 AM

Gary:

<snip! - re: FAQs>

Wiki do a good job of this sort of thing. They make a great system for

a "multiuser design document" too.

--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

-----------------------------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

-----------------------------------------------------

- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.

Trithemius

01-29-2004, 08:44 AM

Gary:

> ...though one loses any HTML formatting and some readability

> of the posts what with all the weirdness involved in different

> posting formats.

HTML formatting is the devil. What`s wrong with good old boring text? :)

--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

-----------------------------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

-----------------------------------------------------

- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.

geeman

01-29-2004, 08:44 AM

At 05:19 PM 1/29/2004 +1300, John Machin wrote:

>HTML formatting is the devil. What`s wrong with good old boring text? :)

<irony>Aw, it`s not so bad. It has its uses.</irony>

Gary

Trithemius

01-29-2004, 02:00 PM

Gary:

> <irony>Aw, it`s not so bad. It has its uses.</irony>

*zing!*

--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

-----------------------------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

-----------------------------------------------------

- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.

Ming I

01-29-2004, 08:48 PM

After reading the responses to my proposed Sidhelien racial changes it really made me think about what it means to be "tied to the land of Cerilia". Here is my new concept of the Cerilian Elf:

Racial Abilities: Cerilian Elves have the following racial traits +2 Dexterity, +2 Intelligence, +2 Charisma, -2 Constitution
Medium-size: As medium-size creatures, elves have no special bonuses or penalties due to their size.
Elven base speed is 30 feet.
Immunity to magic sleep spells and effects, and a +2 racial saving throw bonus against Enchantment spells or effects
Any creature using the Sense Motive skill against an elf must add +4 to the DC of the check due to the unfathomable nature of the elven mind.
Low-Light Vision: Elves can see twice as far as a human in starlight, moonlight, torchlight, and similar conditions of poor illumination. They retain the ability to distinguish color and detail under those conditions.
+2 racial bonus on Knowledge (nature), Listen, Spot, and Survival checks. These skills are also considered Class skills for an elven character.
Ageless: Cerilian elves are immortal and as such do not experience any of the benefits or penalties of aging.
Purity of Body: Cerilian elves are immune to mundane (but not magical) diseases.
Nature's Stride: Elves are unhampered by natural obstructions or natural terrain surface conditions.
Trackless Step: Cerilian elves leave no trail in natural surroundings and cannot be tracked. Cerilian elves can choose to leave a trail, if so desired.
Weapon Proficiency: Cerilian elves receive Marital Weapon Proficiency with longsword,shortbow, longbow, composite shortbow, and composite longbow.
Fey: Cerilian elves are Fey, not humanoids.
Automatic Language: Sidhelien. Bonus Languages: Any
Favored Class: Any Arcane Spellcaster
This ties an elven character to nature without needing to create or give them access to a grouping of nature-type spells.

Though it is true that they have an overall bonus of +4 in abilities, and an increased number of traits, Elves, who are not Bards or Rangers, have no access to magical healing until they reach 13th level as a wizard, when they could cast Limited Wish to mirror the effects of any spells 5th level or lower. I would even go so far as to suggest: altering the Ranger class so that it didn't use spells in the BRCS, and removing the cure, and remove disease spells from the Bard List.

My sincere apologies if my ideas are just a rehash of previous posts.

graham anderson

02-23-2004, 05:19 PM

i never liked humans getting bonus skill points and feats and in any game i run they dont and if players argue then any elf or dwarf will get a bonus.

An elf that has had 100 years to practice is simply better than a human and knows more it is stupid to have it any other way.

human advantages are cultural , most of the nations are human and humans have better relations with most races.

in my game elves get even bigger negatives to relations in most places and are frequently attacked on site by mobs. Humans however can even enter meny goblin lands without being killed and gain bonuses on meny encounters.

a game is supposed to be about roleplaying and not about how powerfull a human is in a fight i would like to know what other people think about this.

also elves in the original used katana like blades which you could represented as a two handed weapon that if you take a exotic weapon specialization can be used in one hand. 1d10 19-20 x2.

RaspK_FOG

03-03-2004, 12:50 AM

I wanted to inform you I found a suitable example of the "phantom +1 ability bonus" motif I earlier mentioned: a paladin's Divine Grace ability grants him a bonus on all his saving throws equal to his Charisma bonus (minimum +1). Another example, though not a very valid one, is that however low a Consitution score you have, you can never have less hit points than your hit dice if unharmed.

Ming I

03-03-2004, 02:11 AM

RaspK_FOG posted on Mar 3 2004 at 01:50 AM:

*
I wanted to inform you I found a suitable example of the "phantom +1 ability bonus" motif I earlier mentioned: a paladin's Divine Grace ability grants him a bonus on all his saving throws equal to his Charisma bonus (minimum +1). Another example, though not a very valid one, is that however low a Consitution score you have, you can never have less hit points than your hit dice if unharmed.

Actually the 3.5 version of Divine Grace states this:

At 2nd level, a paladin gains a bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws.

There's no mention of a minimum, but the wording suggests that no penalty is applied, only a bonus.

Are you trying to show that there is a precedence for the <ability equation>, minimum +1 example recently suggested for Dwarven damage resistance?

RaspK_FOG

03-03-2004, 02:32 AM

Originally posted by Ming I@Mar 3 2004, 05:11 AM
Actually the 3.5 version of Divine Grace states this:

At 2nd level, a paladin gains a bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws.

There's no mention of a minimum, but the wording suggests that no penalty is applied, only a bonus.

Are you trying to show that there is a precedence for the <ability equation>, minimum +1 example recently suggested for Dwarven damage resistance?
Me? Of course I am fine... in fact, I am more than just fine! And paladins smite cheese, clerics turn down chicks due to vows of celibacy and chastity, bards dress in fine barding, barbarians need regular visits at the barber's... Hey, what's with the long-sleeved, buckled, white blouse? He- Hey! Umph!!!

[Thus ends the reign of another mad role-player who got so mixed up he spread peanut-butter on his pizza and put mayonese on his deserts; alas, it is over... :blink: ]

RaspK_FOG

03-20-2004, 11:11 PM

I finally found some such examples as the ones mentioned earlier, but now I have another issue to point out...

Many people throughout the site have presented variant, level-adjusted Sidhelien, most of wich are mostly the same (you know what I mean, so you understand that no offence is meant by what I write here). My point is that I think it would interesting to finally see whether or not the community really agrees with one particular thing:

Should really Sidhelien be as they now are and not have an adjustment?

I would like to ask you first in regard to the acceptability of such an endeavour (running a poll, that is), as well as the format of such a poll, should it exist. I suggest a: "A) No! B) Yes, as a variant... C) Yes." style.

Ming I

03-21-2004, 12:32 AM

I think the answer to this question totally depends on how "balanced" you think the race is, and what factors you are using to balance them.

What factors of the elven race are you comparing, and what are you comparing them to?

RaspK_FOG

03-21-2004, 08:25 PM

I am referring to the revised 1st chapter... I know, I am rather late in making such a suggestion, but as they say "better late than never".

Ming I

03-22-2004, 05:03 AM

Ah, that explains everything. ;P

The version of the Sidhelien that is given in the revised Chapter 1 requires no level adjustment.

RaspK_FOG

03-23-2004, 06:31 AM

Let me make this clear:

The revised 1st Chapter presents us with a non-adjusted Sidhelien without too many abilities. However, many people have presented various elves that are far more powerful and received one kind of feedback or another, but always got a level adjustment.

The point is, whether or not you like the idea of running a poll to include a variant in which Sidhelien are pushed up a little for an appropriate level adjustment.

kgauck

03-23-2004, 08:40 AM

> The point is, whether or not you like the idea of running a poll

> to include a variant in which Sidhelien are pushed up a little for

> an appropriate level adjustment.

Actually, I am tempted to suggest an elf class. This would allow an ECL 0

elf with the possibility of getting some serious elf going in a 3 level

class providing more and more elfin might.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

geeman

03-23-2004, 09:20 AM

At 02:30 AM 3/23/2004 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>I am tempted to suggest an elf class. This would allow an ECL 0 elf with

>the possibility of getting some serious elf going in a 3 level class

>providing more and more elfin might.

I`ve written up racial levels up to 6th for the various Cerilian

humans. Using racial levels for the Sidhe is a bit trickier in that they

aren`t as simple as standard D&D elves which, after all, use a pretty basic

template--the same might be said for orogs. I`ll fiddle around with it in

the next couple of days and post something (or just send the file to Arjan

and ask him to put it up in the BR.net download section.)

Gary

irdeggman

03-23-2004, 11:09 AM

Gary,
Have you checked out the Savage Progressions thread at the Wizards site?

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sp/20040213a

They have basically been creating class levels for the ECL templated monsters in the monster manual and have just added the ECL races from the DMG (e.g., drow).

6 levels for humans seems a bit much to me, just off the cuff.

The big thing about making variants for the demi-human (and possible human) races in BR is exactly what should be included? Once those things are 'decided', determining a level adjustment is made a little easier and then the process should be to create racial levels (which function like class levels), which is now the standard at WotC. Well, that is my opinion anyway.

Unfortuneately the present poll system isn't conducive to use a weighted type of format or for making multiple choices to determine which abilities/traits people want in Cerilian elves or other races for that matter.

geeman

03-23-2004, 05:40 PM

At 12:09 PM 3/23/2004 +0100, irdeggman wrote:

>Gary,

> Have you checked out the Savage Progressions thread at the Wizards site?

>

>

>http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sp/20040213a

>

> They have basically been creating class levels for the ECL templated

> monsters in the monster manual and have just added the ECL races from the

> DMG (e.g., drow).

I hadn`t seen that. Thanks for the link... very interesting. SS for 1-3

ECL races. Monte Cook`s racial level stuff is an extension of SS,

really. SS allows characters to take levels in various classes while MC`s

racial levels allows them to take levels in classes beyond what the ECL of

that template would be--in the case of the racial levels beyond 0.

> 6 levels for humans seems a bit much to, just off the cuff.

Yeah, I wrote 6 levels up mostly an experiment to see how it might

work. The racial classes that Monte Cook wrote up only went to 3 levels,

but I thought I`d double that just to see what happened. Essentially, I

don`t think it`s all that different. I mean, if one buys into being a 3rd

level human than being a 6th level human isn`t that much more of a

leap. Since most of the racial levels mimic a character class in most ways

the idea can be viewed as a 3e/3.5/SS version of the original D&D system in

which characters leveled up as elves (or fighters, magic users, etc.)

> The big thing about making variants for the demi-human (and possible

> human) races in BR is exactly what should be included? Once those things

> are `decided`, determining a level adjustment is made a little easier and

> then the process should be to create racial levels (which function like

> class levels), which is now the standard at WotC. Well, that is my

> opinion anyway.

You`re right. Some of them are pretty obvious, though. Elves are

inherently magical, so that race should get +1 spellcaster level in

addition to the occasional magical ability (Pass Without Trace.) For the

most part, one can pick appropriate skills or feats for most of the human

races and that seems to make sense.

>Unfortuneately the present poll system isn`t conducive to use a weighted

>type of format or for making multiple choices to determine which

>abilities/traits people want in Cerilian elves or other races for that matter.

Well, we`ll just have to do it the old fashioned way then and hack it all

out in email.... ;)

Gary

Osprey

03-24-2004, 01:48 AM

A smoother-fitting racial level format for the Sidhelien would, IMO, be based on using most or all of the current racial abilities presented in Ch. 1 being a 0-level elf. That way, any game could use the basic elf, while "more elven" elves could have additional racial levels that incorporate extended features of the race. This allows for a seamless variant rather than one that requires rearrangement of the basic rule system. A few possibilities/suggestions for level 1-3 for the Sidhelien (some of these referring to previous ideas onother threads), in no particular order at the moment:

1. Negation of (-2) ability penalties, such as for Constitution and maybe Strength

2. +2 Intelligence ("big thinking" of an immortal race), maybe +2 Wisdom (highly perceptive of their surroundings, difficult to mentally subvert/penetrate, inscrutable)

3. Racial levels stacking with existing arcane caster levels, perhaps as described in the Scions of Vorynn variant I presented earlier if this needs to be "not too powerful"(adds to spell potency/penetration, not to spells per day or spells known).

4. Slow Regeneration (hp per hour) in high-source areas, as first presented in "A Variant for the Sidhe". At higher elf levels, this could become Fast Healing or Fast Regeneration in source-rich areas (hp per round). I'm still a big fan of this idea, as it is "flavour rich" and distinctly non-human in a way that is directly tied to the mebhaighal - a theme that would do well to be emphasized on a personal level for the Sidhelien.

5. Druid/ranger-like special abilities, such as Gary mentioned (Pass without Trace, Woodland Stride, Trackless Step, etc.) - which ones would come at what levels (0-3) is still up for debate.

6. Good skill points, strong Will and Reflex saves???

Problems here are as ever...too much is appropriate for our immortals...because in reality, life isn't fair, and one-on-one the Sidhe would just be better at most things...least that's my opinion. IMC, the SIdhe just have a lot of high-level characters around - period. They just don't have large populations.

But maybe some of the above things could still be picked and chosen from to make a D&D-compatible "balanced" class.

Osprey