Slightly OT: Other low-magic settings

[Azulthar]

This is slightly off-topic, because it doesn't directly involve Birthright, but what other low-magic settings are there for (A)D&D? I could only come up with Birthright...and that's about it. Greyhawk isn't overly high-magic, but I wouldn't call it low-magic either. Planescape, Spelljammer, Forgotten Realms, Mystara...they're all high-magic. Heck, whole 3rd edition D&D seems high-magic and high-fantasy to me...

Isn't it odd that D&D currently has no setting that appeals to fans of old-school, LotR-like, low-magic settings? Is that fanbase such a minority?

- Azulthar

[irdeggman]

Dark Sun was a lower magic item setting. But this was replaced by psionically enchanted ones.

[geeman]

At 12:26 PM 7/9/2004 +0200, Azulthar wrote:



>Isn`t it odd that D&D currently has no setting that appeals to fans of

>old-school, LotR-like, low-magic settings? Is that fanbase such a minority?



I can`t think if any, honestly.... I think it`s even a little debatable

whether BR is low-magic per se. It is by comparison to other D&D settings,

certainly, but if one were to compare it to non-D&D campaigns/rules or even

fantasy literature then its pretty high magic/fantasy in several aspects.



In all honesty, when I`m looking to play something that is truly low magic

I don`t turn to D&D. The rules themselves are (as you note regarding 3e)

more geared towards high magic settings. The use of 3e/D20 to portray less

magical environments (D20 Modern, Traveller, even some of the superhero D20

rules) are rather shaky IMO. Don`t get me wrong, one can certainly enjoy

playing them, but I don`t know if they are particularly apt as a basic game

mechanic for other settings. When it gets right down to it 3e/D20 uses a

fairly limited set of game mechanics (task resolution based on 20-sided

dice, level based character progression) that are dubious in other

circumstances. From what I can tell the balance of the system is based on

a relatively short "window" of scale. That scale is a bit broader,

probably, than the +/- 4 character levels suggested by the 3e encounter

design rules in the DMG, but not very much broader. Things get even dicier

at the epic level.



All that aside, the magic system really is at the heart of D&D. It`s the

aspect of the game that is largest in the core texts and most elaborated

upon throughout all of gaming. It`s stilted, sometimes nonsensical and

even goofy in many regards, yet it has a certain inexplicable

appeal. Maybe it`s position early in gaming is responsible? Maybe its

just too big to ignore? I don`t know. Despite the fact that one really

should know better its still something people want to use... like the

embrace of an abusive parent....



Gary

[RaspK_FOG]

Originally posted by "At 09:30 PM 10/9/2004@ Gary wrote:"
Despite the fact that one really should know better its still something people want to use... like the embrace of an abusive parent....

How true that may be...

[Dalan]

I'd say that considering the free magical item at the start of play makes BR a higher magic setting than many other campaign worlds.

[tcharazazel]

Thats only for regents though, not for all characters, as it is a family heirloom.

[soudhadies]

Thats only for regents though, not for all characters, as it is a family heirloom.


Plus, if that is the only magical item they get for five or six levels, then it is still low magic (and they'll tresure that one item all the more).

[anacreon]

To a certain degree Dragonlance can be played as a low-magic campaign, especially in certain periods of Krynn's history.

[irdeggman]

And in 2nd ed a non-blooded character gained a 10% exp bonus. You had to be blooded to be a regent. And you had to be a regent to gain the starting magic item (or bonus equipment - it was the player's choice) and bonus 10 hit points, scion that weren't regents did not gain these things.

[Don E]

I generally agree with Gary that Birthright is not really a low-magic world. Rather it is rare-magic, where it is far between but very powerful when encoutnered.

As vary similar game would be Midnight by Fantasy Flight Games. It has a very tolkienesque feeling to its dark world, and some have even said it can be played as middle earth where Sauron actually won. Magic is rarer in that game as well, but can also be very powerful.

A new game that I have great hopes for is the upcoming A Song of Fire and Ice game based on the books with the same name by George R R Martin. The story has a very low magic world, and I can only hope they manage to convey this in an interesting and playable way with the D20 mechanics.

[epicsoul]

I generally agree with Gary that Birthright is not really a low-magic world. Rather it is rare-magic, where it is far between but very powerful when encoutnered

Right on. I don't think anyone could deny that Aelies or the Magian is powerful. But they are RARE. Less than 200 practitioners of true magic... so having a wizard/sorceror in the party should be extremely rare. Whenever I would hear of a BR campaign where the king hires on a wizard who began fireballing the opposing fleet/army, I made sure to avoid that DM.

I even went one step farther, with my campaigns; I limit the amount of Divine Magic as well. If there are less than 200 true wizards, then I followed that there would be less than 1000 "true" priests (spellcasters).

Here was my argument. Yes, historically, having divine magic was what allowed humans to hold their own against the Sidhe. And maybe it was they were more common back then. But these are the New Gods. And, whatever else, they are younger, weaker. In fact, if any of you remember it, there was a game supplement put out WAY long ago (we are talking pre-M:TG era here) by WOTC called Primal Order... rules for Gods, a generic system, written by none other than Peter Adkison. I highly recommend this supplement, as it fits right in to the BR setting. The older a god is, the more powerful they are... and also, the more followers, the more temples they have, this also determines their strength. There is rules for children of deities, and planar conquest, amongst others (something both Azrai and/or The Cold Rider may know something of). Without these bases of support, with so many deities struggling for dominance, it also justifies the squabbling that happens amongst deities... and what REALLY happens when your adventurers destroy that temple.

...It also solved neatly the problem I had with players trying to slay gods, having read the Deities & Demigods book... "I know their stats, so Zeus can't possibly take more than 400 hp, except on his home plane...". With Primal, you seriously upgrade the deities.

I digress. Fact is, magic is rare... but can still be powerful. And as for the argument that everyone gets an heirloom... well, yeah. But having something more than +2 or 3 equivalent would be bad. Any DM should, and would, control that. Otherwise, see my first paragraph for my views on a BR campaign that doesn't control the magic.

As to the topic start: I can't think of ANY other world developed that is/was magic low. And I agree that 3.0/3.5 is magic High.

[irdeggman]

I even went one step farther, with my campaigns; I limit the amount of Divine Magic as well. If there are less than 200 true wizards, then I followed that there would be less than 1000 "true" priests (spellcasters).

The Book of Priestcraft backs this assumption up, at least intuitively, by giving the breakdown of temples and talking about the fact that most 'priests' aren't spellcasters.



I digress. Fact is, magic is rare... but can still be powerful. And as for the argument that everyone gets an heirloom... well, yeah. But having something more than +2 or 3 equivalent would be bad. Any DM should, and would, control that. Otherwise, see my first paragraph for my views on a BR campaign that doesn't control the magic.

Check out the Book of Regency pgs 99-101. In 2nd ed terms the items were limited to; armor - XP value of 1500 or less, magical adjustment of +2, weapons with XP value of 1500 or less, +2 magical adjustment - although there may be other properties)


As to the topic start: I can't think of ANY other world developed that is/was magic low. And I agree that 3.0/3.5 is magic High

I already mentioned Dark Sun. Something else to note in Dark Sun is that magic (arcane) users are 'hated' since they caused the fall of the planet. Defilers are hunted down and preservers must remain in hiding to avoid being hunted down. So I guess Dark Sun is really a low magic world when played the way it was written. And bards can't cast spells in that setting, they create and use poisons instead.

[Azrai]

"Kingdoms of Kalamar" is a low-magic and middle-age related setting.

[soudhadies]

A while back I did a calculation for someone on the relative frequency of true spell casters. Bascially, I went about this by assuming that the relative frequency of Sorcerors and Wizards would be the same as it was in standard D&D worlds, only restricted to the much smaller subset of blooded individuals (0.1% according to sources).

I took the maximum possible population of Wiz/Sorcs in a metropolis of 25,000 and calculated them to be roughly 0.5% of the population. That would be roughly one wizard for every 125 blooded individuals. However, since there is one one blooded individual for every thousand unblooded individuals, you end up with one wizard for every 125,000 people. So a realm like Medoere, for example, with a population of roughly 21,000 people would be lucky to have even one true caster (and having a court realm wizard is a coup on their part).

Furthermore, because of the way the level pyramind is structured, (with one high level character at the top, and then doubling every time you go down to half that level), a little over half of the true caster population would be 1st level, and the vast majority would be first through third level. So the levels of power required to create more powerful magical items would only appear in about the top 10% of the wizardly population (with truly powerful magical in tems coming from the top 1% or so), or about one every 1.25 million people or so for decent items, and 12.5 million people for good ones. Of course there would be variations in this distribution. There would be more true casters at the Imperial College of Sorcery, for example, and fewer in Rzhlev.

[geeman]

At 08:33 PM 7/12/2004 +0200, Bearcat wrote:



>That would be roughly one wizard for every 125 blooded individuals.



I think the number of wizards amongst the blooded population would be

higher than that. In fact, I don`t see why that number wouldn`t be as high

(and maybe) higher than one in ten. One in six might even been

reasonable... though 1/10 does make for easier math. That would make for

wizards representing 1 in 10,000 of the Cerilian population.



Gary

[soudhadies]

I think the number of wizards amongst the blooded population would be
higher than that. In fact, I don`t see why that number wouldn`t be as high
(and maybe) higher than one in ten. One in six might even been
reasonable... though 1/10 does make for easier math. That would make for
wizards representing 1 in 10,000 of the Cerilian population.


I would have to disagree with you on that. I think that a disproportional number of Blooded folk don't neccessarily have player character classes. Most of them in the civilized realms would be aristocrats, while most of them in Rjurik and Vos lands would be warriors, experts and such would fill in a lot of the ranks as well. Optimistically, at least half of blooded people would have player classes. Of these the majority would be rogues and fighter-types, followed by cleric-types and finally arcanists. The proportion would of course vary by region depending on preferences. It seems to me that the proportions presented in the DMG would still be applicable.

[RaspK_FOG]

I will have to disagree as well, but for the contrary: while it is only reasonable that there will be blooded NPC-classed people, it is a proportionally greater chance that blooded people will be of PC classes. The reason is simple: NPC classes mostly fill the role of non-specialised/-trained versions of PC classes, with the important exception of the aristocrat (which only applies on non-BR/-WoT campaigns, since both of them have a noble class) and the adept, which is closer to a witch class than the cleric, the druid, or the mage (and that last term hardly even suits the adept)!
Blooded people generally have a greater chance of survival and recognition amongst their society due to their abilities. True, some of them don't really have as high a chance, but consider the situation. A blooded male Vos will probably be a barbarian (or even a fighter), while a blooded female Khinasi will probably become a wizard. It is not a matter of being an NPC but a matter of coincidental situations: if you are born with a sharp mind and the power of the gods to feel and shape the energy of the land, wouldn't you either become a wizard or get killed by another for your blood? Thus, a blooded NPC either gains strength or gets killed!

[soudhadies]

Thus, a blooded NPC either gains strength or gets killed!


First of all, bloodtheft is a serious crime and receives the most severe sanctions in a civilized society as is possible. The people who make the laws, on a realm and a provicial scale (manorial law) are blooded, and the laws they make will naturally be designed to protect them. Anyone who tries it is likely to meet a very grisly and public death.

Secondly, Bloodtheft does not occur in a bubble. Blooded individuals belong to very structured familis built over centuries of alliance and mutual interest and loyalties. Murdering one family member for his bloodline is liable to make many very powerful and influential and very determined enemies in one fell swoop. So for example, a ruler "harvesting" the bloodlines of his nobles (something that would not be affected by the first point I made), is very likely to meet instant rebellion.

Finally, there is a distinction between personal power and political and social power. You don't need to have 20 levels to be able to ward off potential assassins. All you need is one or more seriously buff bodyguards to kick the snot out of anyone who tries anything funny.



NPC classes mostly fill the role of non-specialised/-trained versions of PC classes, with the important exception of the aristocrat (which only applies on non-BR/-WoT campaigns, since both of them have a noble class) and the adept, which is closer to a witch class than the cleric, the druid, or the mage (and that last term hardly even suits the adept)!


The BRCS makes the point that only the individuals groomed for responsibility gains the Noble Class. Other members of the aristocracy become aristocrats. Having a bloodline does not mean an instant PC class. Blooded individuals can be just as lazy, unmotivated, or merely untrained as unblooded individuals. They are significant because of their bloodlines, but classes are very significant for blooded and unblooded individuals alike.

[Magian]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Jul 12 2004, 06:45 PM
It is not a matter of being an NPC but a matter of coincidental situations: if you are born with a sharp mind and the power of the gods to feel and shape the energy of the land, wouldn't you either become a wizard or get killed by another for your blood? Thus, a blooded NPC either gains strength or gets killed!
I follow you up to this point. I agree with a person becoming a wizard is largely due to circumstance, however I think you are presenting a false dilemma. Cut and dry given the choices you present yes it is more tasty to become a wizard than die. Yet it is not a necessary condition of the situation at large given the scale of the topic.

Also though I am unsure of your intended meaning of the use of the word "strength" but I assume you are making an appeal to the "survival of the fittest" argument. It does not follow as necessary that survival is guaranteed to the fittest of beings. For example (e.g.) the strongest and fittest bear walks along a mountain side and is crushed by a falling rock. As a result of this the bear dies. This is a clear case to counter the survival of the fittest argument. Also this case can be similar to many common occurances over a being's entire life, because as the saying goes "accidents do happen."

In fact there is an argument that counters this one saying, "the meek shall inheret the earth." This could be interpreted given the context of the discussion that if you gain in strength your chances of survival are less. Many reasons can justify this outlook (e.g. strength makes you the subject of envy by others). Along with this though applies my circumstantial accident clause giving both the strong and meek a similar if not equal chance of survival.

Therefore in the scope of the game I think it is up to the DM to choose the frequency if any that he/she wants for their campaign. It can easily be justified by them for whatever reasons they so choose. An agreement of such a frequency amongst us is quite unecessary but I do appreciate and enjoy seeing other's ideas on this topic.

[geeman]

At 11:07 PM 7/12/2004 +0200, Bearcat wrote:



>------------ QUOTE ----------

>I think the number of wizards amongst the blooded population would

>behigher than that. In fact, I don`t see why that number wouldn`t be as

>high(and maybe) higher than one in ten. One in six might even

>beenreasonable... though 1/10 does make for easier math.

>-----------------------------

>

>I would have to disagree with you on that. I think that a disproportional

>number of Blooded folk don`t neccessarily have player character classes.

>Most of them in the civilized realms would be aristocrats, while most of

>them in Rjurik and Vos lands would be warriors, experts and such would

>fill in a lot of the ranks as well. Optimistically, at least half of

>blooded people would have player classes. Of these the majority would be

>rogues and fighter-types, followed by cleric-types and finally arcanists.

>The proportion would of course vary by region depending on preferences. It

>seems to me that the proportions presented in the DMG would still be

>applicable.



I like it when the game mechanics and the realities of things like the dice

are actually supported by the way the campaign setting is laid out and vice

versa and, in that context, I think all blooded characters have levels in

PC classes for two primary reasons. First, scions tend to be of noble

family and background that would lead to the education, training, social

access to the kinds of things that should give one access to PC

classes. The scion with levels in an NPC class should be as rare as the

commoner with one of the knightly prestige class levels. Even were that

not the case, the second major reason is that having the blood of the gods

should at least elevate one to the standard, PC character classes. It`s

the kind of thing that would bump a person from that warrior d8 HD to the

fighter d10 HD (plus bonus feats.) If for no other reason than otherwise

we have the potential oddness of a 3e scion with levels in the NPC commoner

class.



Within the blooded population there are effectively no restrictions upon

character class choice, with the exception (possibly) of paladins and

druids. There would be no lower a percentage of wixards in the blooded

population than there would be amongst the adventuring population of other

D&D setting. In fact, I`d argue that the rarity of the class would make it

more attractive than some of the others since it would have a

distinction. True magic would be directly associated with being blooded

and being blooded with having power. In any case, if the distribution of

ability scores is random then 1/6th of those characters will have

intelligence as their primary score and would be most likely to take the

wizard class. Not every blooded character with a high intelligence score

would take levels as a wizard, but the reverse is also that case. There

could be wizards of various stripes (charismatic ones, dexterous ones,

etc.) but just as the weak, intelligent fighter is a rare thing the strong,

hardy wizard would be as well.



In the particular cultures the lower percentage of wizards that would exist

in Rjurik and Vos lands due to the cultural attitudes of the people in

those regions would be offset by the higher percentage that would exist in

the other human cultures. In fact, one could pair them up pretty evenly

against one another in respect to their attitudes towards magic. The Vos

hatred/distrust of magic opposes the way the Khinasi embrace it, and the

Brecht middling, economic/social support of it opposes the Rjurik

generalized dislike. Anuireans are right about there in the middle. It

should be noted, however, that the Khinasi and Brecht, who each have a more

"enlightened" view towards magic, also represent larger populations than do

the Vos or the Rjurik, so the overall percentage of wizards would,

therefore, edge up higher than would be an "average" distribution.



I am curious, however, what the 1 wizard for 125 scions is based on? It

seems a little specific to be an estimate....



Gary

[soudhadies]

I am curious, however, what the 1 wizard for 125 scions is based on?


Actually I see that it wasn't altogether acurate math (I got confused when transfering some numbers from my email).

I will admit that it was based on the 3.0 DMG, but I'm pretty sure that it wasn't changed. I used the methods of determining the number of individuals in a class in a city.

Here was my original calculation: Max level 10, 1 10th, 2 8th, 4 6th, 8 4th, 16 2nd, 32 1st = 63 total wiz and sorcerors together = 126. 126 /25,000 = 0.504% which would actually be 1 wizard/sorceror for about every 200 people.

However, rereading the section of the DMG tells me that I went about it wrong. I double the number every time I halve the level (not when I go down two levels). The maximum possible level of wizard in a metropolis is 1d4+6 = 10, that means there is one 10th level, 2 5th level, 4 3rd level, and 8 1st level. The total then, is 15 wizards. Total maximal Wizard and Sorceror population is 30. Minimum population for the Metropolis (I used it because it provides the largest sample of people) is 25,000 people. 30 / 25,000 = 0.12%. This means 12 per 10,000 or one for every 833-1/3 people.

[Don E]

Originally posted by Bearcat@Jul 12 2004, 07:33 PM
I took the maximum possible population of Wiz/Sorcs in a metropolis of 25,000 and calculated them to be roughly 0.5% of the population. That would be roughly one wizard for every 125 blooded individuals. However, since there is one one blooded individual for every thousand unblooded individuals, you end up with one wizard for every 125,000 people. So a realm like Medoere, for example, with a population of roughly 21,000 people would be lucky to have even one true caster (and having a court realm wizard is a coup on their part).

If 0.5% of all blooded people are wizads, shouldn't that be one out of 200 instead?
[Edit: Sorry Bearcat, I wrote that reply at the same time as you :)]

Personally I have a problem with the whole 0.1% 'rule'. If one assumes medoere have 21,00 inhabitants there is hardly enough blooded individuals to make up much of a noble social class. 21 scions would harldy make up 2 families, which I find too low both from a campaign perspecitve and on the issue of actual marriage politics etc. I know this is a sore point reagarding BR, but that's just my 2 cp.

Slightly realted, what is the total number of people in Anuire if one add up the averge population from all the provinces? I believe somebody have done this already for one or more PBeMs.

[soudhadies]

A quick runthrough of RoE with a calculator comes up with about 1.8-1.9 million people (I noticed a couiple of times that I was careless, but didn't want to start over). This includes the elven, dwarven and awnsheghlien domains.

[Don E]

Originally posted by Bearcat@Jul 13 2004, 05:35 AM
A quick runthrough of RoE with a calculator comes up with about 1.8-1.9 million people (I noticed a couiple of times that I was careless, but didn't want to start over). This includes the elven, dwarven and awnsheghlien domains.
So using the ballpark figure of 1.5 million humans in Anuire, we get 1,500 blooded individuals. 12 out of 10,000 would then give us about 2 true wizards in Anuire. Even if one adjust this number up relative to the Vos and Rjurik one still get a very low number. Compared to the writeup of the College of Sorcery in BoM I find a big discrepancy. (I'm not saying this would be a bad thing, as I personally find the CoS to imply far more true wizards than the rest of the campaign material does.)

The solution I would use is to drop the 200 true wizards 'rule', and rather bump the number up. I have based this on the realtive gain one would get for training wizards, and on the need for a larger wizard population to actually sustain the number of wizards we know from the published material (there have to be some lower level wizards around to take up the reins as the more famous ones die).

[epicsoul]

Have to disagree still. By quick glance, there is about 3 to 4 dozen source holding spellcasters throughout Cerilia. That leaves about 160 or so non-source holders, if you go by the 200 rule. And amongst those, most would be trying to get to be a source holder. BUT, for one thing:

Anyone realize how EXPENSIVE it is to be a wizard? Sorcerors are way favoured, but let's ignore them for a moment (BR was not a campaign built with 'em in mind)
Spell research, even of those 1st level spells, is costly! And while researching, you can't work. And you still have to make living expenses.

Putting a wizard through school, then trying to get them up to any kind of power level of use is beyond the means of many KINGDOMS. It is a major, long term investment that may never pay off. And, if you actually want them to become even more useful by becoming a source holder, you are going to have to lend them RPs, because, let's face it, none of the wizards around suffer young upstarts easily. The established wizard is going to squish the guy down who has the one level 1 source. So, now you have to keep pumping GB and RP into a wizard that still might not make it. Or, let's say you want a battle wizard... in strict game terms, fact is, you have now created a BIG target. As the bad guy, I am going to be flinging lots of thieves with sneak attacks out to take out that low hp wizard. In terms of the campaign: I am sending assasins to take out your big cannon before war starts.

Why can't there be a lot of MAGICIANS around, instead? Take the case of Rogr Aglondier: a human magician, commoner, who became a true wizard once the old Aglondiers died off. Lesser magic, sure. But, when wizards die (at least, human ones), perhaps they choose non-blooded apprentices as heirs.

And, if anyone hasn't noticed, a goodly percentage of wizards seem to have long life bloodpower, or are elven... they have been in power for a good length of time. Just off the top of my head: the Gorgon, Rhuobhe, Aelies, Peak Mage (the Drake), probably the Eyeless One, the Dhoesones, Isaelie... and then the family lines: the Aglondiers, the Khoriens, and (kinda) The Three Brother Mages. And that is just Anuire, let alone the rest. So, there isn't a lot of need for new mages to sustain the amount of wizards.

Book of Magecraft did a disservice, but not a big one; why wouldn't LOTS of the people at the CoS be magicians, not true wizards? And, as a further note, just going by player's secrets books, many lesser noble families DON'T have bloodlines.

IMO, it IS a coup to have a court wizard that happens to be a true wizard, let alone a source holder. These are powers, some of them OLD powers. Most realms lack them, I figure.

[Don E]

Originally posted by epicsoul@Jul 13 2004, 08:55 PM
Why can't there be a lot of MAGICIANS around, instead? Take the case of Rogr Aglondier: a human magician, commoner, who became a true wizard once the old Aglondiers died off. Lesser magic, sure. But, when wizards die (at least, human ones), perhaps they choose non-blooded apprentices as heirs.

Which make for an interesting situation in itself. Either the writers of BR made a huge blunder in giving Aglondier a non-blooded heir, or they assumed Aglondier made one himself. The latter is hardly a good solution, as wizards are rarely known for being that stupid. When Rogr is to take over Ilien looses their single advantage that have kept then independent for so long, true magic and, hence, realm magic. It is only a matter of outlasting Moeran, and Roesone or Diemed will be hammering on the doors rather quickly.


Book of Magecraft did a disservice, but not a big one; why wouldn't LOTS of the people at the CoS be magicians, not true wizards? And, as a further note, just going by player's secrets books, many lesser noble families DON'T have bloodlines.

Which I think is another problematic issue. If one allows for a nonblooded nobles one are faced with two possibilites. Either they would have intermarried with blooded families a long time ago and gained bloodlines, although diluted, themselves. Otherwise one have a entirely different social strata which shouldn't be considered noble at all. In a world where nobility is quantifiable through a measure of how strong a bloodline is I find it hard to believe there would exist such an institution. The true nobility might grant titles and posts to nonblooded people, but they would hardly be considered part of the nobility themselves.

[soudhadies]

Which make for an interesting situation in itself. Either the writers of BR made a huge blunder in giving Aglondier a non-blooded heir, or they assumed Aglondier made one himself. The latter is hardly a good solution, as wizards are rarely known for being that stupid. When Rogr is to take over Ilien looses their single advantage that have kept then independent for so long, true magic and, hence, realm magic. It is only a matter of outlasting Moeran, and Roesone or Diemed will be hammering on the doors rather quickly.


Rogr Aglondier gained the ability to cast true and realm magic when he was invested with the Aglondier bloodline. I think Moeran Aglondier made a very good decision in investing a spellcaster heir, even though originally unblooded, because that means that precisely because it guaranteed Iliens continued independence through realm magic.



Which I think is another problematic issue. If one allows for a nonblooded nobles one are faced with two possibilites. Either they would have intermarried with blooded families a long time ago and gained bloodlines, although diluted, themselves. Otherwise one have a entirely different social strata which shouldn't be considered noble at all. In a world where nobility is quantifiable through a measure of how strong a bloodline is I find it hard to believe there would exist such an institution. The true nobility might grant titles and posts to nonblooded people, but they would hardly be considered part of the nobility themselves.


As long as the title, post and lands are heriditary, the non-blooded person is functionally a noble. Certainly blooded nobles wouldn't in normal circumstances consider marrying into that noble family in normal circumstances, but that doesn't mean they aren't noble.

Take Khinasi for example: We have the tamounzada high nobility, where you'll find the realm's strongest bloodlines, and the ajazada, or minor nobility (named families), who are made up mostly of unblooded families with some minor lines making up the most famous and prosperous members of the class.

Even in Anuire, you can divide major landholders from minor landholders based on feudalism. The realm regent has major vassals (typically one family per province), who will in turn alott land to smaller vassals, who will have in turn smaller vassals down to the level of knights who will generally be allotted a single manor (typically a few hundred acres in size). Major landholders (those with many, many manors) will typically come from blooded families (although this isn't guaranteed, as great services to the realm may result in major land grants), while the lower levels of the gentry will generally not be blooded.

[Ksaturn]

(off topic - removed)

[Don E]

Originally posted by Bearcat@Jul 14 2004, 06:03 AM
Rogr Aglondier gained the ability to cast true and realm magic when he was invested with the Aglondier bloodline. I think Moeran Aglondier made a very good decision in investing a spellcaster heir, even though originally unblooded, because that means that precisely because it guaranteed Iliens continued independence through realm magic.
IMO the Book of Magecraft is quite clear on this subject. If Rogr was unblooded he must have trained as a magician while the apprentice of Moeran. Listing him as a wizard in the Player's Secrets of Ilien not only contradicts BoM, but one of the most fundamental issues reagarding magic users in BR. BoM is also quite clear on the topic that when one has started to train as a magician one has basically given up on controlling sources. One can be a regent, but not cast realm spells.

I agree that it would be a good idea to designate a spellcasting heir, more or less the only reasonable course of action as I see it. The problem is that a non-blooded magician cannot control sources even if he gains a bloodline later.

As an aside I can mention that I have played with people who have allowed to swap magician levels for wizard levels at an XP loss, but I hardly think this is a suitable solution for the BRCS. Especially if the new magician gain other class abilities this would cause some trouble.

[Raesene Andu]

Of course, realm spells are very different from standard magic. A magician who gains a bloodline can still learn and cast realm spells without becoming a wizard as it is a completely new branch of magic. So Rogr would still need to meet all the requirements of each realm spell and would have to research it as a wizard would, but he is not prevented from learning the spells because he is a magician.

[Don E]

Originally posted by Raesene Andu@Jul 20 2004, 08:49 AM
Of course, realm spells are very different from standard magic. A magician who gains a bloodline can still learn and cast realm spells without becoming a wizard as it is a completely new branch of magic. So Rogr would still need to meet all the requirements of each realm spell and would have to research it as a wizard would, but he is not prevented from learning the spells because he is a magician.
Even if Rogr got a bloodline he would still be restricted to lesser magic. As I read the rules only blooded wizards (sorcerers were not included in 2ed) with sources can cast realm magic. Personally I don't like the association with some realm spells with lesser magic on the basis that they are of low enough level or the correct school.
It is fine if you like playing with that house rule, but I personally don't think it fits the BR setting.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Don E@Jul 20 2004, 02:18 AM
As an aside I can mention that I have played with people who have allowed to swap magician levels for wizard levels at an XP loss, but I hardly think this is a suitable solution for the BRCS. Especially if the new magician gain other class abilities this would cause some trouble.
Not really an issue with the BRCS. Since except for a few restrictions, like race/culture and only one deity worshipped at a time any combination of classes is possible for multiclassing. That is a scion could be a magician and wizard multiclass. It is the 3.5 way of doing things. In 3.5 combinations like a wizard/sorcerer are possible (why one would want to play a charactet that way I wouldn't know, but it could be done).

The core mechanic reason for a character not being a magician and a wizard in 2nd ed was that in second ed a character was limited to one choice from each category of classes (that is one warrior, one priest, one rogue, one magic user, etc.) So a character could be a fighter/magician/priest of Haelyn but couldn't be a fighter/paladin of Haelyn/priest of Haelyn.

The main reason wasn't the 'explaination' given in the BoM (or BRRB for that matter) but the core rules used as the base for all of 2nd ed. Besides there were numerous exceptions to just about every rule written in the BRRB. For one only non-blooded humans could be magicians, well goblins were also allowed to be magicians. The chamberlain was listed as a wizard (diviner) while wizards were likewise forbidden from specializing in divination or illusion. And the list just goes on. . .(like Rogr for instance).

[ConjurerDragon]

Don E 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=2&t=2736

>

> Don E wrote:

> QUOTE (Raesene Andu @ Jul 20 2004, 08:49 AM) Of course, realm spells are very different from standard magic. A magician who gains a bloodline can still learn and cast realm spells without becoming a wizard as it is a completely new branch of magic. So Rogr would still need to meet all the requirements of each realm spell and would have to research it as a wizard would, but he is not prevented from learning the spells because he is a magician.

>-----------------------------

>

> Even if Rogr got a bloodline he would still be restricted to lesser magic. As I read the rules only blooded wizards (sorcerers were not included in 2ed) with sources can cast realm magic. Personally I don`t like the association with some realm spells with lesser magic on the basis that they are of low enough level or the correct school.It is fine if you like playing with that house rule, but I personally don`t think it fits the BR setting.

>

My understanding was (for 2E) that Rogr trained as a Magician - he had

no other choice as he had no bloodline. Later he gained the bloodline.

He still is a Magician and is still limited to the spell list of the

Magician but due to his bloodline he is able to cast realm spells and

control sources. The restriction he still had would be that his realm

spells would be all only Illusions, Divinations or only 1st and 2nd

level spells of other schools.

That he can own sources should be out of question, as even a fighter can

own sources he somehow inherited, just not do anything with them except

allow others to use them.

bye

Michael

[Don E]

I agree with Duane here and say that this is one of those times the writer (and editor) really didn't help the situation. Depending on how one read the BoM or PS of Ilien there are a couple of possible conculsions. Following what the BoM say, he should not be able to use any sources or realm spells, no matter what school, as he have chosen the path of the magician. From what the PS of Ilien say he must have been able to train as a wizard despite no bloodline. Either way there is a problem rules vs. background info.

While he in a 3e environment could mulitclass into a wizard, I find this option to work so poorly that I would not use it IMC. Have anybody made a writeup on him for the Atlas? If so is he a Magician/Wizard there?

As I see it the option of allowing Magicians to have sources should have resulted in there being some actualt magician source holders in the game.

[epicsoul]

I always felt that it was a special circumstance: that once he became blooded, he "lost" his old magician class, and became a true wizard.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by epicsoul@Jul 23 2004, 06:09 PM
I always felt that it was a special circumstance: that once he became blooded, he "lost" his old magician class, and became a true wizard.
IMO that is how most people 'interpreted' or handled this on a house-rules level in 2nd ed. Not an issue if using 3.0/3.5 rules though.

[geeman]

At 03:59 PM 7/24/2004 +0200, irdeggman wrote:



>>I always felt that it was a special circumstance: that once he became

>>blooded, he "lost" his old magician class, and became a true wizard.

>

>IMO that is how most people `interpreted` or handled this on a house-rules

>level in 2nd ed. Not an issue if using 3.0/3.5 rules though.



It`s probably sensible to note that Rogr was also one of the very first

playtest characters. The system itself may not have been entirely worked

out then (and in this regard, of course, it still really hasn`t been) let

alone the nuances of that system.... He might even have started out as a

1st level character and the version we see is the one that got levelled up.



In that context, he is certainly a bit old to have started out as a 1st

level PC, but there`s no reason why he couldn`t have begun his training as

a magician (which according to some of the original materials can take

years) as a sort of hobby or academic interest, but not seriously enough to

actually qualify as having a level in the class until he was gifted with a

bloodline, at which point his studies became more serious and he went the

wizardly route instead.



I`ve always like the interpretation that one of the things that

differentiates between characters with levels in NPC classes and those with

PC levels is the blood of the gods. Commoners can, of course, take levels

in the PC classes, but they represent a relatively small percentage of the

overall population. Having the blood of the gods qualifies all scions to

take levels in the PC classes. In Rogr`s case he might have been a

magician by training but not have actually taken that first level in the

class until after he got his bloodline. Up until that point he was what

would be called in 2e a 0-level character.



In order to portray this kind of thing in a 3e conversion he might be given

wizard levels and one or both of his starting feats might be dedicated to

something that makes him look a bit more like a magician; a weapon

proficiency, for instance.



Gary

[RaspK_FOG]

I would like to address this issue here...

In 2e, there seemed to be a lot of "converted" characters, especially in FR. While I do not agree with how they handled the whole issue (for example, Elminster is a hell of a power-gamer's dream!), I believe that, given the chance, a former magician might be intrigued into "converting" to a wizard.

This could be handled in two very different ways: The first one, create a conversion system, which allows for a character to trade in magician levels to wizard levels. IMO, if this is done, the character can no longer take magician levels, since his goal is to become a mage of greater arcane power, and, while keeping proficiencies and skill ranks, he trades in level after level of magician for wizard levels. The progress should be noted down, recording his old magician level and any wizard levels he has achieved, and then spending at least 1 week and 1 GB per level traded in. For example, a 7th-level magician wants to become a wizard; he records his former magician level and starts the process; after 1 week and spending 1 GB, he becomes a 1st-level wizard/6th-level magician; if he spends another 2 weeks and 2 GB, he becomes a 2nd-level wizard/5th-level magician; and so on.
The other method allows for magician and wizard levels to stack for spells they have in common. For example, light and weird appears on the spell lists of both, so a 5th-level magician/12th-level wizard might have access to both of these spells, but not to meteor swarm!

I prefer the second method but, hey, others might like the first one!

[destowe]

There are already a few examples of cases like this.

Paladin-Blackguard from the core rules

Samurai-Kensai from the complete warrior.

A write-up similar to that should only be a few paragraphs.

I have to look at this a little closer, but having trouble with the different skill points. Perhaps 'freezing' advancment in skills until character level increases? Saying they are concentrating on the greater magic and neglecting the mundane skills could be an explaination.

[Osprey]

How about paying an XP cost for each level converted, perhaps 10% of the normal XP cost per level or so? Just an idea off the top of my head.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Osprey@Aug 3 2004, 10:59 PM
How about paying an XP cost for each level converted, perhaps 10% of the normal XP cost per level or so? Just an idea off the top of my head.
10%? A very 2nd ed number.

I would either use a LA or a 20% penalty. Pretty much the 2 3.5 standards when talking about leveling characters. Neither of which I think is necessary. I personally don't see why a character can't be a magician/wizard anyway. Assuming this is a 3.5 discussion and not a 2nd ed one 2nd end is totally broke in any examples used, by the way. Since 2nd ed was never consistent about anything like this - NPS were all treated as individuals and had different rules apply to them then did PCs. Hence no logic to be used in anything.

Not your comment Osprey but,

As far as D&D with examples of converting previous levels. I think there are some definite differences here.

The paladin-blackguard issue for one. This is based on paladins having to be good. Since a paladin loses all of his paladin abilities when he becomes evil (a prerequsite for blackguard) what this prestige class did was to 'restore' some of those lost abilities in an evil way. If you note the explanation is for levels of fallen paladin (which is a paladin who has lost his abilities by becoming evil and not a separate class). The character did not lose any hit points or previously learned skills or feats when he became a fallen paladin.

The Samurai- Kensai issue I don't see the corellary you are making. Unless I've missed something, there is nothing in the CW Kensai that refers to converting levels only that a Samurai can continue to advance as a Samurai if he take any levels in Kensai.

[Osprey]

10%? A very 2nd ed number.

I would either use a LA or a 20% penalty. Pretty much the 2 3.5 standards when talking about leveling characters. Neither of which I think is necessary. I personally don't see why a character can't be a magician/wizard anyway. Assuming this is a 3.5 discussion and not a 2nd ed one 2nd end is totally broke in any examples used, by the way. Since 2nd ed was never consistent about anything like this - NPS were all treated as individuals and had different rules apply to them then did PCs. Hence no logic to be used in anything.

Heh heh, sore point? :P

There is one place I can think of a 10% xp penalty applied: the death of a wizard's familiar. This burns 100 xp per mage level, which is exactly 10% of the character's current level XP requirement. Not that they'll out and say it or anything. ;)

I personally think a magician/wizard is going to be incredibly weak for their level, that would be my main reason as a DM for allowing a conversion from magician to wizard. Much like a sorcerer/wizard, too spread out when they should be specialized, which means they can't stay competitive with equal-level characters or monsters and are going to have a rough time of it. Plus I think the idea of an unblooded magician being able to apply his experience to becoming a wizard once he becomes blooded also makes a certain amount of sense - just not on a 1-for-1 xp basis.

[RaspK_FOG]

I offered a second choice, which I happen to prefer as well: that of allowing magician levels to stack when it comes to some spells.


This needs a little work. Suppose you have a 7th-level magician who "acquires" a bloodline and reaches the 3rd level as a wizard, alright? Now, here's the deal:

Under my idea of preference (the second one I provided), he would be able to cast 4 0-level spells, 2 1st-level spells, and 1 2nd-level spell as a 3rd level wizard, plus 5 0-level spells, 5 1st-level spells, 4 2nd-level spells, 3 3rd-level spells, and 2 4th-level spells as a 7th-level magician; all of this is typical, right? However, if any of his spells appears on both the magician and the wizard spell list, he casts it as a 10th-level caster for all purposes.

In this way, he does not get a 10th caster level fireball, but all of his magician/wizard spells are cast at the 10th caster level!

[irdeggman]

RaspK,
The problem with stacking levels like this is that the two classes won't necessarily (and most likely won't) hit the spells at the same level. Like sorcerer and wizard the two classes hit spells at different levels. Wiz gets 3rd level spells at 5th level Sorcerer gets them at 6th. And the spells might not be of the same spell level for each class - much talk about lowering the spell level of Div and Ill for magicians.


If either of these are done then there is a huge hole in the system just waiting for min-maxers and rules lawyers to take advantage of.

[RaspK_FOG]

DMs are always responsible for keeping their players in line: one cannot take care of everything, can one?

As for spell levels, spell effects always take caster level in mind, so don't fret it too much. I mean, this only enhances game- and roleplay, right? Or one could make up a new feat:

Arcanist
Your studies on what is eldritch has allowed you to grab the reigns of the power you hold within.
Prerequisites: Knowledge (arcana) 12 ranks, Spellcraft 12 ranks, 5th-level wizard, 1st-level magician
Benefit: Any magician spells you prepare that appear on the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list are cast with a caster level equal to the sum of your magician and wizard class levels for all purposes.
Normal: Magician and wizard levels do not stack for the purposes of spellcasting.
Special: A wizard may take this feat as a bonus feat at any 5th class level as if it were an item creation or metamagic feat.

[irdeggman]

Here is my point Rasp,


A magician gets a 4th level Illusion spell at say 5th level. The wizard gets it at 7th level.

The character is a 5th magician/3rd wizard.

He can now cast that magician spell as if he was an 8th level caster, even though he couldn't cast it as a wizard. The stacking doesn't make sense unless he can cast the spell as either class first. Maybe reprasing it to a wizard spell he is able to cast might help on this issue.

[RaspK_FOG]

Your idea seems just fine to me. How about this as well: that he has to both have deciphered/recorded/[whatever] it and be able to cast?