Chap 1 revision (7-04)

[irdeggman]

All right I think I've gotten everything in here now, except for the magician class.

What I'd like to do is have everyone look this over and comment on this thread. I'll close the other related ones, so everyone is talking about the same thing.

We'll keep discussion of the magician class on its own thread for now.

In a couple of week I want to try to get to a series of partial sanctioning votes on this chapter. One for races, classes (except for magician), skills and feats, and equipment.

Here is the word version, I'll post the pdf one after I get home today.

[irdeggman]

Here is the pdf version.

[Athos69]

Comments

Skills:
I like how each specific use of the skill is set out as a seperate paragraph, and faced in italics. It makes it stand out when one is quickly looking for info.

Perhaps we should include a reference table in the chapter for which skills give synergy bonuses to other skills, as on page 66 of the PHB 3.5 (Table 4-5: Skill Synergies). Also, we may want to consider yet another table summarizing all of the potential bonuses to Domain Actions as a quick reference.

Lead: "Your skill allows you to sway public opinion with your inspiring rhetoric. You may attempt to perform agitate as a free action by making a small number of speeches and inspiring the masses. You do not need to have a holding in the province (or provinces) in which you perform the agitate action, but you must be physically present." There are no 'free' actions in the domain level of play. Is this a Court or a Character action?

Feats:
Only a few questions and suggestions here.

Dwarven Artisan: Since the 'Master' level feats require 9 ranks, should this not also be dropped to 9?

Elven Artisan: Only 1 rank in any Craft skill as a prerequisite? I'm assuming this was a typo and supposed to be 10. If so, same comment about Dwarven Artisan.

Leadership: "The total GB muster value of the units in a military cohort may never exceed the cohort level appropriate for your leadership score." I would rewrite this as "The total GB muster value of the units in a military cohort may never exceed the cohort level appropriate for your leadership score and character level." This removes abiguity for characters who have high leadership scores and low character levels.

Equpment:

Table 1-9: Melee Weapon Availability: I believe that we had intended to include the Dwarven Urgosh in this list.

Table 1-11: Armour Availability: missing shading on alternate lines in the PDF version, but has shaded line on first line.

Overall:
I would change the reference number of Table 1-1, and move it to a position within the Feats section -- it always looked awkward to have it in at the beginning of the chapter, when most referencing to it would be done from the Feats section.

[irdeggman]

Good comments.


Perhaps we should include a reference table in the chapter for which skills give synergy bonuses to other skills, as on page 66 of the PHB 3.5 (Table 4-5: Skill Synergies). Also, we may want to consider yet another table summarizing all of the potential bonuses to Domain Actions as a quick reference.

Arghh, you're killing me. Good point though

Lead: "Your skill allows you to sway public opinion with your inspiring rhetoric. You may attempt to perform agitate as a free action by making a small number of speeches and inspiring the masses. You do not need to have a holding in the province (or provinces) in which you perform the agitate action, but you must be physically present." There are no 'free' actions in the domain level of play. Is this a Court or a Character action?

Actually this was intended to be a free action performed as part of another action not a separate action, i.e., not taking up a character or court action in itself. Probably needs some clarification.

Dwarven Artisan: Since the 'Master' level feats require 9 ranks, should this not also be dropped to 9?

Elven Artisan: Only 1 rank in any Craft skill as a prerequisite? I'm assuming this was a typo and supposed to be 10. If so, same comment about Dwarven Artisan.

Again good comment

Leadership: "The total GB muster value of the units in a military cohort may never exceed the cohort level appropriate for your leadership score." I would rewrite this as "The total GB muster value of the units in a military cohort may never exceed the cohort level appropriate for your leadership score and character level." This removes abiguity for characters who have high leadership scores and low character levels.

Actually the character level was removed from this for a reason. There are variants that could be used (see Chap 8) that allow a higher application of with regard to character level. But I can change this if people feel it is better to use the level must be less than the character from the the Leadership feat. Feedback from the masses please.


Table 1-9: Melee Weapon Availability: I believe that we had intended to include the Dwarven Urgosh in this list.

Aha got you. It is item 4 on the list already

Table 1-11: Armour Availability: missing shading on alternate lines in the PDF version, but has shaded line on first line.

good point


Overall:
I would change the reference number of Table 1-1, and move it to a position within the Feats section -- it always looked awkward to have it in at the beginning of the chapter, when most referencing to it would be done from the Feats section

Let's see what others want, before I start to move things around too much.

Thanks for the comments and promptness of them.

[Osprey]

Actually the character level was removed from this for a reason. There are variants that could be used (see Chap 8) that allow a higher application of with regard to character level. But I can change this if people feel it is better to use the level must be less than the character from the the Leadership feat. Feedback from the masses please.


I like military cohorts being specifically dependent on Leadership score rather than level. Units vs. henchmen are 2 very different animals, and don't need to be treated identically. This allows those with high Charisma (like high-level nobles), Great Leader, and the like to attract large numbers of loyal troops, which seems appropriate for BR.

Osprey

[Athos69]

Thanks Duane. I'm not trying to kill you -- just doing what I do best and proofreading what I see. :)
Leadership: "The total GB muster value of the units in a military cohort may never exceed the cohort level appropriate for your leadership score." I would rewrite this as "The total GB muster value of the units in a military cohort may never exceed the cohort level appropriate for your leadership score and character level." This removes abiguity for characters who have high leadership scores and low character levels.

Actually the character level was removed from this for a reason. There are variants that could be used (see Chap 8) that allow a higher application of with regard to character level. But I can change this if people feel it is better to use the level must be less than the character from the the Leadership feat. Feedback from the masses please.

I must have missed that set of commentary then. I retract my original comment on this point, but would like to make another.

There should also be a short paragraph then outlining which modifiers apply in the Birthright world (p. 106, DMG 3.5). For example, does a landed Regent automatically get the Great Renown modifier? Do Blooded Scions automatically get the Special Power modifier, or is this to be completely ignored in favour of the Leadership score bonuses presented in the Scion Class (Chapter 2 Sanctioned)?

Table 1-9: Melee Weapon Availability: I believe that we had intended to include the Dwarven Urgosh in this list.

Aha got you. It is item 4 on the list already

But by adding the Dwarven Waraxe and Dwarven Urgosh to the table, you now have 2 entries of Dwarven Waraxe. (The second one is listed as Waraxe, Dwarven.) I would favour the usage of 'Urgosh, Dwarven', to match the PHB.

Thanks for the comments and promptness of them.

My pleasure to assist, Duane. Kinda Ironic that I had just managed to get back online after an entire weekend off, and had my commentary ready to go in an hour... :)

[Osprey]

Found a major typo:

Master Diplomat [General]
You are a master of diplomacy.
Regions: Anuire, Brechtür, Khinasi
Prerequisites: Diplomacy 9 ranks
Benefits: You gain a +2 bonus to Appraise and Profession (Merchant) skill checks, and a +2 bonus to any domain actions related to trade and finance. These include Create and Contest Trade Routes, and Create, Contest, and Rule Guild Holdings.


Somehow the description for Master Merchant got mixed in here. Should be:

Master Diplomat
Regions: Anuire, Brechtur, Khinasi
Prerequisites: Diplomacy 9 ranks
Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Diplomacy skill checks, and to all Diplomacy-based domain actions. These include Diplomacy, Create Trade Route, Contest Trade Route, and Create, Contest, and Rule Temple Holdings.


Osprey

[Athos69]

Damn Osprey, I missed that one. Looks like I'll have to go back and comb through it looking for other mixups again....

Good catch!

[irdeggman]

Thanks Duane. I'm not trying to kill you --

No, I think you are all out to get me. (Leans over shoulder) "What's that? Yes, they are all wicked and vile creatures. We should destroy them" :lol:


There should also be a short paragraph then outlining which modifiers apply in the Birthright world (p. 106, DMG 3.5). For example, does a landed Regent automatically get the Great Renown modifier? Do Blooded Scions automatically get the Special Power modifier, or is this to be completely ignored in favour of the Leadership score bonuses presented in the Scion Class (Chapter 2 Sanctioned)?


I thought about that (listing which ones in the DMG apply and when) but decided that would be too cumbersome and restricting for the DM. The modifiers in the DMG are all subjective (as viewed by the particular cohort being recruited) and hence are governed by the DM (and should be). The modifers listed in Chap 2 and for the noble class and great leader feat are all 'extra' bonuses that are due to those things andhave no subjectivity associated with them at all.

Chap 8 gives some examples of things that can be used under the various variants pertaining to leadership and cohorts (or Lts).

[Athos69]

OK :) a few more things then...

Page 9: Bards.

The paragraphs are all a bit shattered... ...are members of one of these colleges. By tradition, members of bardic colleges are free to come and go from human lands as they please. Colleges insure this
The bards of Cerilia are practitioners of lesser arcane magic. Their arcane lore is not based upon the...

The missing lines are at the top of the next column both above and bleow Table 1-1.

Paladins of Moradin:
I would move the summoning of a small elemental into the main description as opposed to having it as a variant. Dwarves do not have Cavalry, so having a mount would not fit in the Dwarven culture.

Knowledge:
Were we not going to be using K/Regional and K/Local, as well as differentiating between them in the scope?

Elven Voice:
Is 1 rank of Perform (singing) really the only skill prerequsite? I should think that it would be higher.

Master Merchant:
Add "These include Create and Contest Trade Routes, and Create, Contest, and Rule Guild Holdings." to the end of the description.

Master of the Arcane:
"You are a master of arcane trade and merchandise." doesn't make sense. I would rewrite it as: "You are known for your vast knowledge of matters arcane."

Spellsong Mastery:
If Perform (singing) is a prerequsite of Elven Voice, and Elven Voice is a prerequsite of this feat, unless this has a higher skill requirement, we don't newed to list the skill as a prerequisite for this feat.

Wilderness Savant:
I'd alter the description slightly to: "Your knowledge of flora, fauna, rock and stream puts many druids to shame." This would emphasize the fact that the Feat is knowledge based, as opposed to exerting your influence over nature.

Vos Warspear:
"The cruel barbs of this spear are designed to embed deeply in flesh, causing the Vos war spear to inflict cruel hits." doesn't scan well -- I think it's the repetition of the word cruel. I'd change the first instance of that word to 'backwards-pointing' to not only give a physical description, but to also explain why the hits (and wounds) are cruel.

There -- That's me ging through with a fine-toothed comb. I did not touch the Magician or Noble sections, since the Magician is still being worked on, and the Noble is complete and pretty much vetted already.

[Osprey]

While I'm loath to bring it up again, I really need to say something before biting my tongue and kicking myself for not mentioning it when I had the chance. It's about the new Noble class, something I realize has not really been commented on much at all since you [Duane] wrote it up.

The Scholar path: this looks more like Arcane Sage than mundane scholar. Almost every bonus feat is more applicable to mages than to nobles. A straight Noble Scholar wouldn't know what to take for bonus feats if he wasn't an arcane spellcaster. The only feats here that are not arcane magic based (directly) are Diligent (and Decipher Script isn't even a Noble class skill), Investigator, and Self Sufficient.

What about Skill Focus? This would have been my default choice for a Scholar bonus feat. Another good one is Hobby (this is from another D20 game, I know, but it's simple: choose any one non-class skill to become a permanent class skill). Erudition (Erudite? I forget the proper name atm) from the BRCS would've been perfect too, but alas, it is stricken from the revised feats now. Sadness.

By contrast, it seems like any good regent Noble would be a Guilder if he knew what was good for him, seeing as how they get all of the practical Master-type feats that aid in domain actions. I'm not sure I like this kind of lopsided emphasis that "guilder nobles are the best rulers." All 3 types of nobles are supposed to be born and bred to rule, right? Shouldn't each path thus reflect 3 kinds of rulership? Scholarly nobles are well-suited to be source regents, is that the idea? Did you have the Khinasi and Calidhe Dossiere in mind here, perhaps?

OK, done ranting. There's more stuff I want to comment on, but getting too tired to pick through it and articulate it all right now.

Osprey

[irdeggman]

While I'm loath to bring it up again, I really need to say something before biting my tongue and kicking myself for not mentioning it when I had the chance. It's about the new Noble class, something I realize has not really been commented on much at all since you [Duane] wrote it up.

Better late than never, but since you mentioned kicking yourself. . . .

The Scholar path: this looks more like Arcane Sage than mundane scholar. Almost every bonus feat is more applicable to mages than to nobles. A straight Noble Scholar wouldn't know what to take for bonus feats if he wasn't an arcane spellcaster. The only feats here that are not arcane magic based (directly) are Diligent (and Decipher Script isn't even a Noble class skill), Investigator, and Self Sufficient.

Several feats work for both divine and arcane casters, like escew materials even though they work better for arcane casters they are applicable to both. Magical apptitude works equally well for arcane and divine casters (spellcraft checks are used for counterspelling). Spell Focus also applies equally well to both divine and arcane casters.


What about Skill Focus? This would have been my default choice for a Scholar bonus feat.

The only problem is that skill focus reflects a knack for a skill (i.e., natural ability) and not the result of study. I really hate how WotC worded that feat, otherwise I would have included it right off the top.

Another good one is Hobby (this is from another D20 game, I know, but it's simple: choose any one non-class skill to become a permanent class skill).

There are other games that have this as a class ability. I don't see the reason to add a feat just to balance out a class.

By contrast, it seems like any good regent Noble would be a Guilder if he knew what was good for him, seeing as how they get all of the practical Master-type feats that aid in domain actions. I'm not sure I like this kind of lopsided emphasis that "guilder nobles are the best rulers." All 3 types of nobles are supposed to be born and bred to rule, right? Shouldn't each path thus reflect 3 kinds of rulership? Scholarly nobles are well-suited to be source regents, is that the idea? Did you have the Khinasi and Calidhe Dossiere in mind here, perhaps?

This basically reflects how the master feats are stacked in favor of guilders, if looked at objectively.

The concept was for the scholar to be best used for source and temple regents, but there aren't a lot of feats that work real well for temple regents. Closest seemed to be the master of arcane and wilderness savant (used for druids).


I wanted to 'balance' out access to the master feats between the paths which is why they ended up the way they did. Again, they can be changed.

[Osprey]

The only problem is that skill focus reflects a knack for a skill (i.e., natural ability) and not the result of study. I really hate how WotC worded that feat, otherwise I would have included it right off the top.

I would assume Scholars do have aptitudes for certain skills, particularly Knowledge skills, otherwise why would they have chosen such an academic path? Also, don't let something as nitpicky as WOTC's wording in a feat stop you from putting it in the list. Skill Focus is what it is: focus in a single skill. It is a crime not to include this in the Scholar's list of bonus feats.

How about Master Diplomat then? Diplomacy, while social, also relies upon being well-educated and refined. This seems to me to suiit a scholar well, and will also benefit the temple regents who take this path, something you mentioned was lacking. Personally, I like the oncept of a scholarly noble playing family diplomat, whether he's a regent or not.

This basically reflects how the master feats are stacked in favor of guilders, if looked at objectively

What I think is more reflected is that by sticking mostly to the core rules, we are limited to feats that are useful on an adventure level, plus any we've added for BR. This, of course, is bound to leave the scholarly types a bit under-represented. Ce la vi.

[RaspK_FOG]

I have an idea regarding the Noble: we could patch it up in a way similar to domains that grant class skills!

For example, a Noble Sage might get only gain an extra skill point (or what other number we find suits them best without upsetting balance) at each class level which can only be applied on any Knowledge skill; if the number of special skill points thus granted is greater than 1, it should be divisible amongst any number of Knowledge skills.

Furthermore, a Sage Noble might choose a few class skills from a special list. For example, a Noble Guilder or Sage might choose Decipher Script as a class skill.

Furthermore, another idea would be something like the bard's Bardic Knowledge, called Sage's Lore, Sagely Knowledge, or whatever.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Jul 21 2004, 06:05 PM
I have an idea regarding the Noble: we could patch it up in a way similar to domains that grant class skills!

For example, a Noble Sage might get only gain an extra skill point (or what other number we find suits them best without upsetting balance) at each class level which can only be applied on any Knowledge skill; if the number of special skill points thus granted is greater than 1, it should be divisible amongst any number of Knowledge skills.

Furthermore, a Sage Noble might choose a few class skills from a special list. For example, a Noble Guilder or Sage might choose Decipher Script as a class skill.

Furthermore, another idea would be something like the bard's Bardic Knowledge, called Sage's Lore, Sagely Knowledge, or whatever.
I don't know. This seems to make them 3 separate classes instead of different paths to me. Maybe if you write your comment in a different way and be more specific I'd understand better.

Remember that nobles already get a high number of skill points per level as a class, messing with this by having the scholar path get more seems counter intuitive to me.

[irdeggman]

More comments?

I really want to start the 'final' (hopefully) rewrite of this chapter so we can move on to the votes and I can start my sabbatical.

[Athos69]

OK Duane, you asked for it! ;)

You already have my comments on the skills and feats sections, as well as the equipment area.

The races section looks fine. Any comment about my proposal to make the earth elemental standard to all Paladins of Moradin? (since they don't operate cavalry at all)

Noble (Sage path): We need to focus more on knowledge and diplomacy, instead of arcane / divine draining. I would suggest a tweaking of the bonus feat list to include Master Diplomat, Regent Focus, Skill Focus. Failing that, allow the sub-class the ability to make Knowledge checks untrained.

Uh bud-ip bud-ip bud-ip That's all folks!

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Athos69@Jul 24 2004, 01:40 PM

The races section looks fine. Any comment about my proposal to make the earth elemental standard to all Paladins of Moradin? (since they don't operate cavalry at all)

I though about that up front, but decided against it in the PHB default system. The reasoning being that there are subteranean mounts that could be used and the 'new' way a paladin 'calls' his mount has it appear suddenly and disappear just as quickly (i.e., it is a magical creature). Technically the 'core' paladin of Nesirie should likewise have a mount {I'll change that one to match when I rewrite the chapter before going to a vote for consistency}.

Just because dwarves don't have cavalry (as units in BR) doesn't really have any bearing on a dwarven paladin's special mount. It is a 'gift' from his god, and if he is the only one with one then it is even more special.

I'm going to add the other feats to the scholarly noble. I don't like making/allowing untrained Int - based skill checks as a rule. It just doesn't make sense as a broad ruling that is - for specific cases and situations it would, but that is a DM call.

[geeman]

I still think the solution to the Paladin of Moradin class is to eliminate

it and allow BR dwarves to freely multi-class between the fighter and

cleric classes. It`s more in keeping with the original BR method of

portraying that race, and doesn`t require tweaking the 3e/3.5 paladin class

in a way that differs overmuch from the more reasonable variations of that

class for the human deities.



Gary

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by geeman@Jul 24 2004, 06:40 PM
I still think the solution to the Paladin of Moradin class is to eliminate

it and allow BR dwarves to freely multi-class between the fighter and

cleric classes. It`s more in keeping with the original BR method of

portraying that race, and doesn`t require tweaking the 3e/3.5 paladin class

in a way that differs overmuch from the more reasonable variations of that

class for the human deities.



Gary


Isn't that freely multiclass combo already allowed by both the BRCS and the core rules?

Fighter is the favored class of dwarves, which means that it doesn't count when figuring out multiclass penalties.

And I know this is based on your use of paladins as a prestige class vice a core class. {Something you've espoused repeatedly.}

IIRC you have also taken the stance that paladins of Moradin shouldn't be allowed in the BRCS anyway.

[Ariadne]

First: Nice write up. The humans are made really great now, als well as dwarves and halflings. Well, the elves have a bit hard ablility adjustments.

I refer to the paladins of Avani. Making them lawful neutral and substituting smite evil to smite chaos would seriously change the “Ariya” setting where a LAWFUL GOOD paladin of Avani MUST be regent. It would force a complete change of the “Ariya” setting (or a house rule again) because of this. Players who played in that setting for years and years, will not be that amoused about this…

Maybe, it can be changed to a variant, that paladins of the Ariyan Temple of Avani still must be lawful good with all PHB abilities, while paladins of all other sects must be lawful neutral. This would stop causing troubles with existing settings. If I remember right, no other setting causes troubles of paladin alignments (regardless of deity), so IMO only the paladins of the Ariyan Temple of Avani should be changed in this manner…

The other write ups of paladins are really well succeeded.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Ariadne@Jul 25 2004, 11:35 AM

I refer to the paladins of Avani. Making them lawful neutral and substituting smite evil to smite chaos would seriously change the “Ariya” setting where a LAWFUL GOOD paladin of Avani MUST be regent. It would force a complete change of the “Ariya” setting (or a house rule again) because of this. Players who played in that setting for years and years, will not be that amoused about this…

Maybe, it can be changed to a variant, that paladins of the Ariyan Temple of Avani still must be lawful good with all PHB abilities, while paladins of all other sects must be lawful neutral. This would stop causing troubles with existing settings. If I remember right, no other setting causes troubles of paladin alignments (regardless of deity), so IMO only the paladins of the Ariyan Temple of Avani should be changed in this manner…


Sorry, Ariadne but the poll results clearly showed that people wanted the paladin alignments to match their deity. So it is not a variant and is one of those things that just won't work having a variant for it. It is an all-or-nothing type of thing.

Personally I preferred having their alignments per the the 2nd ed material, but the votes came in otherwise.

I guess the Atlas group will have to make the necessary adjustments to match.

What specifically in the PS of Ariya would require the paladin-prince to be lawful good? I don't recall reading anything specific about the Ariyan Temple of Avani that leads to it having to be a lawful good one, in fact most of the descriptions apply to lawful neutral as equally as they do to lawful good.

[geeman]

At 01:32 PM 7/25/2004 +0200, irdeggman wrote:



>>I still think the solution to the Paladin of Moradin class is to

>>eliminate
it and allow BR dwarves to freely multi-class between the

>>fighter and
cleric classes. It`s more in keeping with the original

>>BR method of
portraying that race, and doesn`t require tweaking the

>>3e/3.5 paladin class
in a way that differs overmuch from the more

>>reasonable variations of that
class for the human deities.

>

>Isn`t that freely multiclass combo already allowed by both the BRCS and

>the core rules?Fighter is the favored class of dwarves, which means that

>it doesn`t count when figuring out multiclass penalties.And I know this is

>based on your use of paladins as a prestige class vice a core class.

>{Something you`ve espoused repeatedly.}IIRC you have also taken the stance

>that paladins of Moradin shouldn`t be allowed in the BRCS anyway.



Yes, I`ve repeatedly said that there should be no paladins of Moradin in

the BRCS and that`s still what I`m saying. IMO, human paladins should be a

prestige class, but that`s pretty much unrelated to whether BR dwarves

should have them in the first place. There should be no dwarven paladins

at all or, rather, a "holy warrior" prestige class of dwarves should have

only an incidental connection to paladins AND that class should be a

prestige class. The dwarven take on warriors and religion should be

handled by allowing them to freely multi-class as BOTH fighters and

clerics. The class combo is still possible, of course, with dwarves having

fighter as their favored class, but allowing them to freely take levels in

both classes better describes the emphasis of that race without trying to

put it into the conventions of the paladin character class, which is in

more than one respect an odd fit.



Gary

[Athos69]

First off Gary, I've always been an advocate for Dwarven rights... Well, I have a soft spot in my heart for them at least, so whatever I say on the topic will have some bias. :)

Are you saying that we should specifically state in the BRCS that one of the Core setting rules and philosophies -- that of the freedom for any core race to be any core class -- is now null and void? It seems to be a very radical departure from the entire spirit of 3.0/3.5 to be taking.

If we do eventually take this tack, could we add War to Moradin's portfolio, to allow for access to the Warpriest PrCl? (or at least write a Moradin-specific Battlepriest PrCl for the atlas?) I'd be willing to try my hand at such a PrCl, but don't have any experience with such things. I doubt I'd get the right balance without 10 revisions. :)

[RaspK_FOG]

All other things aside, I believe that having dwarves have both the cleric and fighter class as their favoured ones is too much!

One thing most people do not immediately realise is that having fighter as your racially favoured class allows you to built a character with many levels in a spell-casting class and maybe another class and only few levels as a fighter; such a combination can actually be very deadly!

[geeman]

At 08:22 PM 7/25/2004 +0200, irdeggman wrote:



>Sorry, Ariadne but the poll results clearly showed that people wanted the

>paladin alignments to match their deity. So it is not a variant and is one

>of those things that just won`t work having a variant for it. It is an

>all-or-nothing type of thing.



One could have a little text saying that paladins of Avani are lawful good

or lawful evil, and a general comment that lawful neutral paladins

smite/protect against chaos while lawful good ones smite evil.



Gary

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by geeman@Jul 25 2004, 04:20 PM
One could have a little text saying that paladins of Avani are lawful good

or lawful evil, and a general comment that lawful neutral paladins

smite/protect against chaos while lawful good ones smite evil.



Gary


Sorry, again I refer to the poll that was conducted.

Anything other is basically saying that the what the majority voted on was incorrect and is being ignored.

If anyone wants to do something else in their campaign they most certainly can, it is a core principal of D&D that house rules rule.

Here is the link to the poll:
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2515

The clear majority (9 to 4) wanted paladins to have the same alignment as their god.

[Athos69]

Here, here Duane!

[Athos69]

So... does anyone want a Battlepriest of Moradin PrCl? I'll be basing it on the Warpriest PrCl, with a few uniquely Karamhul twists, such as granting War as a 3rd Domain, and maybe a few Elemental Earth aspects...

[geeman]

At 10:12 PM 7/25/2004 +0200, Athos69 wrote:



>First off Gary, I`ve always been an advocate for Dwarven rights... Well,

>I have a soft spot in my heart for them at least, so whatever I say on the

>topic will have some bias. :)Are you saying that we should specifically

>state in the BRCS that one of the Core setting rules and philosophies --

>that of the freedom for any core race to be any core class -- is now null

>and void?



Yes, yes, yes, a thousand times yes. :) That`s exactly the point of coming

up with campaign material, the specifics of which supercede the core

rules. I`ve argued that so many times, honestly, I should summarize it and

set up a hotkey.... "Press the Control-Alt-Campaign button to portray

campaign specific materials that override core rules."



In this particular case, however, I`d suggest that it`s not really a matter

of restricting dwarves so much as it is a matter of portraying that race in

a way that is unique to the setting. The paladin character class is not

IMO a very good representation of the dwarven race`s theology or

emphasis. That`s not to say they couldn`t have their own "holy warrior"

class, but the paladin in the 3e rules isn`t very apt. The special

abilities are just too... well, human. The warhorse is the most obvious

thing, and replacing that by summoning an earth elemental or any of the

other things that have been suggested just don`t seem to work. The spell

list of paladins also has some things that seem odd for a dwarf to cast,

and one or two of the other special abilities don`t seem particular

sensible either.



>It seems to be a very radical departure from the entire spirit of 3.0/3.5

>to be taking.



I`d draw a comparison to restricting true magic to scions or Cerilian elves

in that regard. While that is a more obvious departure than changes to the

paladin class by race for the campaign setting, it does violate the

so-called "spirit" of 3e/3.5, doesn`t it? (I`m not really sure there`s any

such thing as a "spirit" of 3e/3.5 but I`ll assume there is for now.) Why

keep the restriction on true magic users in a 3e conversion? Because it`s

campaign specific material that expresses the dynamics of the

setting. 3e/3.5 allows for much more options than 2e did, campaign

materials do not. More accurately, they create their own systems of

options that do not exist in the core materials while placing other

restrictions on those options that exist in the core materials. Taking all

the dynamics of 3e/3.5 and putting them into the BRCS is like taking the BR

bloodline system and making it core material.



Birthright in particular has paladins that differed from the 2e campaign

materials in ways that, frankly, got this exact same argument from people

who thought the 2e D&D rules should take precedence over the campaign

materials, along with several other campaign-specific issues. Some of

these things are much more easily recognized, the most consistently and

annoying (to the BR old timers) that still come up would be gnomes and

monks. They are in the core materials, so why not include them in

Birthright? Well, because they aren`t part of the original BR materials

and there are campaign specific reasons for that. Paladins of Moradin are

less obvious, but they were a perfectly valid option for the original

Birthright campaign materials should it have been something that expressed

a particular theme of that campaign-specific race. BR`s system of paladins

varied significantly from that of 2e, and in ways that made many 2e fans

cringe. Paladins of Moradin would not have been a particularly dramatic

departure from the core rules for BR, especially when compared to other

things that were changed in the setting. They do not necessarily fit with

the BR dwarven race, however, so they aren`t included, and shouldn`t be

included in a conversion to 3e/3.5 for the same reasons they weren`t there

in the first place.



More than many other settings has restrictions on things like race and

character class. Some of those things are 2e holdovers (I wouldn`t have

things like level limits or prevent



>If we do eventually take this tack, could we add War to Moradin`s

>portfolio, to allow for access to the Warpriest PrCl? (or at least write

>a Moradin-specific Battlepriest PrCl for the atlas?) I`d be willing to

>try my hand at such a PrCl, but don`t have any experience with such

>things. I doubt I`d get the right balance without 10 revisions. :)



I think either or both of those would be good solutions to the BR dwarf

class issue--though as you note it might require a little tweaking to make

it appropriate for BR (not unlike the dwarf/paladin issue itself....) I

have yet to see a prestige class that I thought fit perfectly into

BR. They all seem to require a little tweaking to make them work, so

there`s probably a little twist or two to the Battlepriest that should be

done mostly in regards to how its powers might effect units on the scale of

BR companies, for instance.



Gary

[geeman]

At 12:13 AM 7/26/2004 +0200, irdeggman wrote:



>>One could have a little text saying that paladins of Avani are lawful

>>good
or lawful evil, and a general comment that lawful neutral

>>paladins
smite/protect against chaos while lawful good ones smite evil.

>

>Sorry, again I refer to the poll that was conducted.Anything other is

>basically saying that the what the majority voted on was incorrect and is

>being ignored.If anyone wants to do something else in their campaign they

>most certainly can, it is a core principal of D&D that house rules rule.



I don`t recall, was it actually an option to have paladin`s choose from two

or three alignments that could be appropriate to their particular god with

the specifics of their alignment choice determining the emphasis of their

special abilities in that poll?



In any case, my point above was not what the polls results were, but that

the statement that there was no other way of doing it is incorrect. It

could really be done very easily.



Gary

[Ridder]

I'm wondering a little about the Paladin of Nesirie class. Access to the Sea domain, as a character ability, should probably go with the list of character abilities instead of up in the class summary. (Though the similarity of water affinity to the Sea domain power is enough to make me wonder whether that was meant to be replaced.) Smite evil 3/day was also left off the table at 10th level.

Mostly, though, I wonder why a character would take more than a few paladin levels when she can freely multiclass as a cleric. Clerics get better saves overall, and superior spellcasting seems to outweigh minor improvements in paladin abilities (smite evil, lay on hands, remove disease, water affinity, and eventually freedom of movement - the last three largely reproducing spell effects themselves).
The section on Nesirie in BRCS-playtest seemed to indicate that her paladins were more martial than her clerics. Even if people think it requires adjusting something else for balance between the paladin classes, I think it makes more sense for paladins of Nesirie to have the fighter BAB.

[RaspK_FOG]

The variants are meant to overrule the free-multiclassing options "standard" BRCS paladins have; in other words, a paladin of Cuiraécen can multiclass as a fighter or, if your DM prefers this, cannot cast spells or turn undead but gains bonus fighter feats at various levels, counting his paladin levels as fighter levels. To put it even simpler, it's either this or that. The same applies to all 4 "human" paladin classes.

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by irdeggman@Jul 25 2004, 07:22 PM
What specifically in the PS of Ariya would require the paladin-prince to be lawful good? I don't recall reading anything specific about the Ariyan Temple of Avani that leads to it having to be a lawful good one, in fact most of the descriptions apply to lawful neutral as equally as they do to lawful good.
If I recall it right, the prince of Ariya might be a cleric or paladin of Avani, but he/ she must be lawful good...

Edit: I still think, making the prince of Ariya lawful neutral violates this explicite setting. Rewriting Ariya as one of the Atlas member with lawful neutral rather than lawful good will cause more than a tear. I'm still of the opinion, for Ariya should be chreated an exception to not rewriting it this drastically...

Oh, and I can't recall that poll either... May you give the link?

[Ridder]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Jul 26 2004, 12:58 AM
The variants are meant to overrule the free-multiclassing options "standard" BRCS paladins have; in other words, a paladin of Cuiraécen can multiclass as a fighter or, if your DM prefers this, cannot cast spells or turn undead but gains bonus fighter feats at various levels, counting his paladin levels as fighter levels. To put it even simpler, it's either this or that. The same applies to all 4 "human" paladin classes.
Ah, right. That does help some.

[irdeggman]

If I recall it right, the prince of Ariya might be a cleric or paladin of Avani, but he/ she must be lawful good...

Please, something more specific would be useful here. I think this is based on the 2nd ed BR requirement that paladins of Avani be LG and not on something specific to the domains in question. Looking through the PS (albeit quickly) I couldn't find any such reference. I think this may be a case of 'we've always done it that way' and hence the actual written requirement has been confused with what has been the norm for playing over the years.

Edit: I still think, making the prince of Ariya lawful neutral violates this explicite setting. Rewriting Ariya as one of the Atlas member with lawful neutral rather than lawful good will cause more than a tear. I'm still of the opinion, for Ariya should be chreated an exception to not rewriting it this drastically...

Unfortuneately that is not a reason or else I wouldn't have done the massive rewriting I've done with Chap 1 and Chap 2. :(

Oh, and I can't recall that poll either... May you give the link?

I included it in my post above.

[RaspK_FOG]

Err... I would like to address an issue here.

A rather sensitive matter, really.

It seems that many people (and I mean MANY) show up every day and point out that they do not like what they see coming up in the BRCS. It is common in such occassions to point these people to polls already run (for more than a couple of weeks at least if I am not mistaken) and tell them that it has already been decided.

It is also common for these protestants (no offence meant) to say that they have not noticed the poll, do not recall it, or disagree with the results, "especially since so few people out of all of us participated!"

In the end, this makes no sense.

I don't mean to offend anyone here, but this has started coming up more and more often. Additionally, I realised that members from as far back as 2002 have not made one single post!

What does this lead the community, and especially the BRCS team, to do? Can we and, above all, they satisfy the demands of us all?

I think not. And it's high time we realise this.

The BRCS revision team has a goal of producing (I have to use this word, however insulting may it seem to some, because it is the only one with such a meaning so deeply enamouring it :huh: ) a revision that will satisfy most of the community members with no or minimal house-ruling taking place afterwards and as little as possible for the rest of the community; if not, it would at least be best to manage and produce an end result that most nearly matches the mean of all these approaches to this one campaign setting.

In other words, they have one hell of work to do here!

Our quarelling over why these polls do not satisfy us can only result in one thing: the reduction of any speed we have managed to reach! It is only natural that not all of us will like EVERY SINGLE aspect of the revision; it is only natural that most of us will use at least one variant provided within the BRCS, or one of our own (house rules).

So, why disagree with something already decided, by however small a part of the community, in order to see if the community will say the same thing once again? It won't matter in the end, for I have been part of various commitees during various polls and stuff: they will either vote the same thing, since it is only logical that those who do care will vote again, or, if we are made to vote TOO MANY TIMES, we will answer dishonestly in order to finish this up!

I have seen this happen in the past. Please, do NOT cry over spilt milk!

[Athos69]

I agree RaspK, and at the very definate risk of sounding like an arrogant jerk...

We should listen to the masses, but should not be beholdent to try to satisfy them all. If they want us to change our minds about something, or make comments about how soemthing does not work, I welcome them to "put their money where their mouth is". Anyone can naysay or cut ideas to ribbons, but unitil they present a proposal that they have tapped up and presented to us, I don't feel that they really have a voice.

Please note, that until a few months ago, *I* was one of the unwashed masses, but I have made proposals and presentations....

[geeman]

I certainly agree that it is not enough to simply complain about some

aspect or other of the proposed text. A good critique includes one or more

alternates, and it`s worth noting that that is the most legitimate way to

present just about any criticism. On some occasions, however, I think

there is an implicit "this should be dropped" solution being suggested by

many such comments. That is especially the case when some of the

complaints are in regards to things that smack of house rules or that are,

essentially, tangentially related to the original setting material. It

would be silly, for instance, for me to present an alternative to paladins

of Moradin when I think the solution is that it should just be deleted from

the BRCS.



I`ve written a LOT of stuff for the BR community over the years and, on the

whole, I`ve found that it is met with a lot of very good commentary,

sometimes mediocre commentary, and occasionally really bad

commentary. However, in my experience even when I haven`t agreed with the

alternatives or the critiques themselves, I often derive something from

them that effects another aspect of the game, and there winds up being a

positive overall effect in the end--even from some of the really bad

criticisms. As such, I think it is reasonable to ask that those proposed

alternatives be given the same consideration that is being asked for

here. Sometimes proposals are discounted so quickly and forcefully that

it`s hard to see how they could possibly have been given much

consideration. In light of the fact that the nature of how they are

presented means they are almost by definition the very first draft of those

ideas, a little reflection is almost always warranted. In that respect

what is good for the goose is good for the gander. (Hmm. Maybe those

should be my next two awnsheghlien write ups....)



Gary

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by irdeggman@Jul 26 2004, 11:13 AM
Please, something more specific would be useful here. I think this is based on the 2nd ed BR requirement that paladins of Avani be LG and not on something specific to the domains in question. Looking through the PS (albeit quickly) I couldn't find any such reference. I think this may be a case of 'we've always done it that way' and hence the actual written requirement has been confused with what has been the norm for playing over the years.
I would, if I could, but my Ariya setting is borrowed away in the moment :( I'll look it up as soon as possible...

Unfortuneately that is not a reason or else I wouldn't have done the massive rewriting I've done with Chap 1 and Chap 2. :(
Yeah, I know, what you mean... ;)

Oh, and I can't recall that poll either... May you give the link?

I included it in my post above.
Uhmmm... Should have read better, sorry...

[RaspK_FOG]

First of all, I didn't mean to be rude or anything; I just mean to say that we have to let some things go by and act upon them on a more personalised level (i.e. house rule: no dwarven paladins, paladins are a prestige class available only to humans).

The reason IMHO that the BRCS should have dwarven paladins is that it's the only race that might consider having any paladins; by definition, no Sidhelien can become a paladin (they must have a non-lawful alignment, and they do not worship any deities, plus only typical racial worshippers may become "priests" of a deity), and halflings do not have the mindset to become paladins.

People point to the fact that BR did not have any dwarven paladins; I am not sure about this, but I think the only setting that actually might have had any non-human paladins was FR, which was far from the typical D&D setting class-and-level-allowed-to-races-wise, not to mention I think not even FR had any non-human paladins! I am not sure, though, right now, since this is the only setting that has gotten me so seriously confused (too many issues from 2e to 3e)!

[irdeggman]

RaspK_FOG,

In 2nd ed paladins were a human exclusive class. There were no 2nd ed TSR settings that had non-human paladins including FR (or any sub section of it, e.g., Mastica, etc.)

[irdeggman]

OK I think I've got all of the comments incorporated nto Chap 1.

I'm going to start a sanctioning poll for the races section, since there were no coments on the latest version. :rolleyes:

Here is the pdf version.

[irdeggman]

Here's the Word version.

[Osprey]

There's another little piece of errata I noticed in the latest revision: the Master Administrator feat says the normal domain maintenance check is DC 10+ seasonal maintenance. The skill says it is DC 15 + seasonal maintenance.

I strongly recommend changing the skill to match the feat, i.e. DC 10 + seasonal maintenance.

Luckily, this is a dead easy fix. :)

That's about the only thing I found editing-wise in my first read through. Lookin' good, Duane!

Osprey

[Athos69]

I like it, and am surprised to see so many of my suggessted fixes in there. :)

I do, however have a few things to point out...

Elven Artisan: Should probably list "any agical item creation feat" as a prerequisite for completelness sake.

Leadership: It still looks like the maximum GB value of a military cohort cannot exceed the character level. Perhaps a short example would be in order if we are going to be allowing that value to exceed the normal maximum of a cohort's level as per the DMG.

Table 1-12: Armour Availability: Banded mail lists a race as 'Or'. I'm assuming that it means Orog, but there is no Orog designaton found in the text on page 30.

That's all I have to point out -- good work Duane!

-Mike

[Athos69]

Originally posted by irdeggman@Jul 27 2004, 05:37 PM
RaspK_FOG,

In 2nd ed paladins were a human exclusive class. There were no 2nd ed TSR settings that had non-human paladins including FR (or any sub section of it, e.g., Mastica, etc.)
There was only one special case in FR for non-hunman paladins during the 2nd Ed years -- Saurials, and i think they did that because of some silly novel...

[Athos69]

Originally posted by geeman@Jul 27 2004, 02:00 AM
I certainly agree that it is not enough to simply complain about some aspect or other of the proposed text. A good critique includes one or more alternates, and it`s worth noting that that is the most legitimate way to present just about any criticism. On some occasions, however, I think there is an implicit "this should be dropped" solution being suggested by many such comments. That is especially the case when some of the complaints are in regards to things that smack of house rules or that are, essentially, tangentially related to the original setting material. It would be silly, for instance, for me to present an alternative to paladins of Moradin when I think the solution is that it should just be deleted from the BRCS.

I`ve written a LOT of stuff for the BR community over the years and, on the whole, I`ve found that it is met with a lot of very good commentary, sometimes mediocre commentary, and occasionally really bad commentary. However, in my experience even when I haven`t agreed with the alternatives or the critiques themselves, I often derive something from them that effects another aspect of the game, and there winds up being a
positive overall effect in the end--even from some of the really bad criticisms. As such, I think it is reasonable to ask that those proposed alternatives be given the same consideration that is being asked for here. Sometimes proposals are discounted so quickly and forcefully that it`s hard to see how they could possibly have been given much consideration. In light of the fact that the nature of how they are presented means they are almost by definition the very first draft of those ideas, a little reflection is almost always warranted. In that respect what is good for the goose is good for the gander. (Hmm. Maybe those should be my next two awnsheghlien write ups....)

Gary
Gary...

Don't get me wrong. You do produce, and in the case of saying that something should be deleted, you present cogent arguments to support your case. I was ranitng about people who don't do a damn thing, save to naysay anything that we do here because it isn't how *they* do things at home...

All things in consideration and healthy debate.... :)

-Mike

[Don E]

I would suggest changing the regional feats system to match the update done in the Plyaer's Guide to Faerun. Instead of the characters having the opportunity of taking many relatively unappealing feats, they can now choose to take one quite good feat. This will encourage players to actually choose the regional feats and give the diversity one would hope for.

[RaspK_FOG]

Originally posted by Athos69+Jul 28 2004, 07:47 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Athos69 @ Jul 28 2004, 07:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-irdeggman@Jul 27 2004, 05:37 PM
RaspK_FOG,

In 2nd ed paladins were a human exclusive class. There were no 2nd ed TSR settings that had non-human paladins including FR (or any sub section of it, e.g., Mastica, etc.)
There was only one special case in FR for non-hunman paladins during the 2nd Ed years -- Saurials, and i think they did that because of some silly novel... [/b][/quote]
Both comments are actually true... As I mentioned, even I was not sure, but I thought even FR had not (non-saurial) non-human paladins. So, the whole thing regarding dwarves and paladins is a bit of a core-over-campaign-material issue: while having only one deity granting access to druidic powers (along with nature when it came to the Sie) was acceptable in 2e, non-human paladins was not.

As for the saurials and Finder Wyvernspur, the only novel worth reading was "Finder's Bane" (pun OBVIOUSLY intented), which happens to have a few thematic errors as well... Like a certain paladin trembling in terror at some point! :angry:

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Don E@Jul 28 2004, 12:01 AM
I would suggest changing the regional feats system to match the update done in the Plyaer's Guide to Faerun. Instead of the characters having the opportunity of taking many relatively unappealing feats, they can now choose to take one quite good feat. This will encourage players to actually choose the regional feats and give the diversity one would hope for.
The regional feats concept was based on the Wheel of Time set.

I don't have the book you are referring to, but if it is the player gets to choose a feat (not from a prescribed list) - I stongly disagree.

Remember that PCs aren't restricted to having to choose from the regional feat list, only non-heroic characters (i.e., NPCs and then only lesser NPCs {the ones that aren't heroic}). So essentially this is really a moot point.

[Don E]

Originally posted by irdeggman@Jul 28 2004, 10:19 AM
I don't have the book you are referring to, but if it is the player gets to choose a feat (not from a prescribed list) - I stongly disagree.
Yes the character gets to choose a feat (when don't they?) from a list available for each region. Each character can only have one regional feat, and it must be taken at 1st level to describe the characters background.

It is my experience that very few characters take any regional feats, as the generally are of the less useful ones from amongst the large number of feats available. To encourage some diversity between the characters the regional feats have generally been improved slightly. The net result is does nto ruin the game, but does IMO ensure that the various characters do have some more 'flavour'.

Remember that PCs aren't restricted to having to choose from the regional feat list, only non-heroic characters (i.e., NPCs and then only lesser NPCs {the ones that aren't heroic}). So essentially this is really a moot point.
I am unsure that you are referring to here, and I think it might not be part of the regional feat desription as presented. Are you saying a Dieman farmer (not being heroic) must choose one of the feats from the common list he is not only loosing focus on his job as a farmer, but he is also fored to take a feat that IMO is not really fitting to the character described.

[RaspK_FOG]

I think you misunderstood the whole thing here...

Regional feats under the BRCS don't work like FR: if a character is a PC or important NPC, he can choose any feat he likes at 1st level, while lesser NPCs (non-elite characters, that is) must choose from a... which the word? Disparate? Can't remember... Anyway, he must choose from a list of feats that fit his culture. The feats thus denoted do not seem not-fitting with most characters.

[Don E]

I don't think I've misunderstood the whole thing here, but I have so far failed to find any mention in the text of non-heroic characters being forced to take one of the 'Common feats'. While an interesting concept I think Skill Focus should be added to all regions.

The second part of the regional feats, the restricted ones, appear to work in a similar way to other games having regional feats in that they are restricted to characters from a certain area. To encourage players building some regional characteristics into their characters my suggestion was to follow the pattern set by the updated forgotten realms material.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Don E@Jul 29 2004, 03:33 AM
I don't think I've misunderstood the whole thing here, but I have so far failed to find any mention in the text of non-heroic characters being forced to take one of the 'Common feats'. While an interesting concept I think Skill Focus should be added to all regions.

The second part of the regional feats, the restricted ones, appear to work in a similar way to other games having regional feats in that they are restricted to characters from a certain area. To encourage players building some regional characteristics into their characters my suggestion was to follow the pattern set by the updated forgotten realms material.
Here is the text in question, under human racial abilities.


• Bonus feat. At first level, human characters receive an extra feat. Non-elite characters may only take a feat common in their region (as listed in Table 1-6: Common feats by region). Elite characters (such as player characters) may take any feat for which they are eligible.

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by Athos69@Jul 28 2004, 05:50 AM
Gary...

Don't get me wrong. You do produce, and in the case of saying that something should be deleted, you present cogent arguments to support your case. I was ranitng about people who don't do a damn thing, save to naysay anything that we do here because it isn't how *they* do things at home...

All things in consideration and healthy debate.... :)

-Mike
Maybe I get you wrong now, but now I’m realy offended. I’ve produced several stuff for that community and only, because *some* don’t read it, it doesn’t mean, it doesn’t exist. “I was ranitng about people who don't do a damn thing“ you can do if you want, but please do it with people you know that they realy do nothing! And yes, I got several comments on my write ups in the past, many good ones and some really bad ones. Trust my, I know, how frustrating comments like “generally awful” or “simply let it be” are. A good comment always includes the part of the write up and a suggenstion, how to change it. Sorry, but I can’t see something like “naysay(ing) anything that we do here because it isn't how *they* do things at home”! I added a comment and a suggestion, not more and not less. So please be so kind and stop exclucing me from “we”, thanks!

Sorry for being off topic...

[Don E]

Originally posted by irdeggman@Jul 29 2004, 09:55 AM
Here is the text in question, under human racial abilities.
Thanks. Personally I don't think it is necessary to put in rules like this that are effectively DM only, and will be disregarded whenever other feats seem more applicable. That said i assume the rule is here to stay, in which case a reference back to this should perhaps be included in the paragraph where the common feats are presented.

Any comment on the other issue of regional feats I suggested?

[RaspK_FOG]

First of all, I don't think this should ever be taken like this: some rules in all campaign settings are more or only important to the DM, and it is a shame to put rules regarding things like feats in the Atlas, don't you think?

As for the way regional feats should be handled if we had in mind a more-powerful 1st-level only feat, like in FR, I think it should be no more powerful than any other 1st-level only feat. Having a prerequisite like "anuirean human" or "dwarf" really is not the problem, since such feats can be taken on higher levels as well; what really matters is that they must be taken during character creation (that is, at 1st character level) and thus are restricted by themselves. However, just as I have only now mentioned, them being regional feats shouldn't really be the reason for them being more powerful...

Another thing - the chapter has an error I only now noticed ( <_< ):
Spellsong Mastery [Metamagic, Racial]
You are a master in the art of the ancient Sidhelien spellsong.
Prerequisites: Elf, Elven Voice, Still Spell, Perform (Singing) 1 rank, Cha 13+
Benefits: You may cast any prepared arcane spell without using somatic components by increasing the verbal components. Thus, spellsongs are not subject
to arcane spell failure. Spells cast using spellsong are cast at their normal level but take more time to cast. If the spell's normal casting time is 1 action, casting
the spell as a spellsong requires 1 full round casting time. For spells with a longer casting time, it takes an extra full-round action to cast the spell.

The feat is not a metamagic feat: metamagic feats must either be used when a spell is being prepared or when a spell is spontaneously cast. Since the feat affects only prepared spells and does not increase the spell level it should not be a problem to say that this is not a metamagic feat but works like, blah-blah... you get my point.
Also, the feat description is wrong: you do not increase the number of verbal components, you simply change the spell so that it has a very complex one.
And a last thing: the feat should point out that spell level has an effective increase of 0 (typical rulings under 3e but mostly under 3.5e) and that rules for application of metamagically enhanced spontaneously cast spells apply in regard to casting time.

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Jul 30 2004, 08:48 AM
First of all, I don't think this should ever be taken like this: some rules in all campaign settings are more or only important to the DM, and it is a shame to put rules regarding things like feats in the Atlas, don't you think?

I've thought of my comment indded until now and because orders only belong into the atlas, not in the core rules I think it is OK as it is. A change only can be mentioned in the Atlas part of Ariya. Then I have enough time to get my book back find that text part anyway ;)

[irdeggman]

Thanks. Personally I don't think it is necessary to put in rules like this that are effectively DM only, and will be disregarded whenever other feats seem more applicable. That said i assume the rule is here to stay, in which case a reference back to this should perhaps be included in the paragraph where the common feats are presented.

No, putting under the feats section is cumbersome and unnecessary. Even DMs when building an NPC follow the same building rules as players. First step is ability score, then race, then class, then skills and feats.


Any comment on the other issue of regional feats I suggested?

Until RaspK responded above - no one else has made that comment. I am not going to change something (non editorial) based upon one person's comment. So as it stands, and this subject (that is regional/cultural skills and feats) has been discussed at length in the past.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Jul 30 2004, 02:48 AM

Another thing - the chapter has an error I only now noticed ( <_< ):
Spellsong Mastery [Metamagic, Racial]
You are a master in the art of the ancient Sidhelien spellsong.
Prerequisites: Elf, Elven Voice, Still Spell, Perform (Singing) 1 rank, Cha 13+
Benefits: You may cast any prepared arcane spell without using somatic components by increasing the verbal components. Thus, spellsongs are not subject
to arcane spell failure. Spells cast using spellsong are cast at their normal level but take more time to cast. If the spell's normal casting time is 1 action, casting
the spell as a spellsong requires 1 full round casting time. For spells with a longer casting time, it takes an extra full-round action to cast the spell.

The feat is not a metamagic feat: metamagic feats must either be used when a spell is being prepared or when a spell is spontaneously cast. Since the feat affects only prepared spells and does not increase the spell level it should not be a problem to say that this is not a metamagic feat but works like, blah-blah... you get my point.
Also, the feat description is wrong: you do not increase the number of verbal components, you simply change the spell so that it has a very complex one.
And a last thing: the feat should point out that spell level has an effective increase of 0 (typical rulings under 3e but mostly under 3.5e) and that rules for application of metamagically enhanced spontaneously cast spells apply in regard to casting time.
Actually it does fall under the definition of a metamagic feat.

Metamagic feats (PHB pg 88)
As a spellcaster’s knowledge of magic grows, she can learn to cast spells in ways slightly different from the ways in which the spells were originally designed or learned.. . . .Preparing and casting spells in such a way is harder than normal but, thanks to metamagic feats, at least it is possible.


Sorcerers and Bards (PHB pg 88)
Sorcerers and bards choose spells as they cast them. They can choose when they cast their spells whether to apply their metamagic feats to improve them. As with other spellcasters, the improved spell uses up a higher-level spell slot. But because the sorcerer or bard has not prepared the spell in a metamagic form in advance, he must also take more time to cast a metamagic spell (one enhanced by a metamagic feat) than he does to cast a regular spell. If the spell’s normal casting time is 1 action, casting a metamagic version is a full-round action for a sorcerer or bard. (This isn’t the same as a 1 round casting time, as described under Casting a Spell, page 143.) For a spell with a longer casting time, it takes an extra full-round action to cast the spell.

Now not all metamagic feats are useable by all spellcasting classes. For instance a bard can never have the Silent Spell metamagic feat since all bard spells have a verbal component. So spontaneous casters cannot use this feat. They would instead have to resolve to the Still Spell feat instead.

The feat table in the PHB doesn't list the level adjustment necessary for individual metamagic feats.


As written what this feat does is 'require' an arcane caster, who memorizes spells, to 'prepare' a spell in this fashion. What this means is that the same spell can be 'prepared' in two different versions. One standard (quicker casting time, but arcane spell failure chance) and a slower casting version that doesn't have an arcane spell failure chance.

Having said that, if people want this feat reworded or changed no is the time. See comment above about not changing things (non-editorial) based ona sngle person's comments.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Jul 30 2004, 02:48 AM
First of all, I don't think this should ever be taken like this: some rules in all campaign settings are more or only important to the DM, and it is a shame to put rules regarding things like feats in the Atlas, don't you think?

Maybe I missed where this comment came from, but I agree feats should be in the core rules (i.e., the BRCS) not the Atlas. The Atlas should have prestige classes, since they are regionally or culturally focused. When the Atlas comes out - they can make suggestions for new feats, etc. Then they can be added or not to a future revision to the BRCS.

But right now the Atlas preparers really need something that can be used to prepare any major NPCs they are presenting (i.e., rules for character preparation) or else they will have built-in mandatory revisions to match the core rules.

[Ridder]

Originally posted by irdeggman@Jul 30 2004, 11:06 AM

As written what this feat does is 'require' an arcane caster, who memorizes spells, to 'prepare' a spell in this fashion. What this means is that the same spell can be 'prepared' in two different versions. One standard (quicker casting time, but arcane spell failure chance) and a slower casting version that doesn't have an arcane spell failure chance.

Having said that, if people want this feat reworded or changed no is the time. See comment above about not changing things (non-editorial) based ona sngle person's comments.
I understand the intent now that you've explained, but it's not clear from the feat text itself - the first sentence really does look like you can take any previously prepared spell and apply Spellsong Mastery spontaneously.

If you wanted to clarify, you could just have something like (trying to imitate the Still Spell description):

Benefits: A spellsong can be cast with no somatic components. Spells cast using spellsong are cast at their normal level but take more time to cast. If the spell's normal casting time is 1 action, casting the spell as a spellsong requires 1 full round casting time. For spells with a longer casting time, it takes an extra full-round action to cast the spell. A spellsong uses up a spell slot the same level as the spell's actual level.

[Osprey]

I had always assumed that Spellsong WAS used by bards as a kind of superior Still Spell. I never had a problem with this because it was limited to elves, representing one of their racial advnatages in arcane magic. Thus, I'm in favor of dropping the requirement that it only applies to prepared spells (as bards and sorcerers can't "prepare" spells as far as I know), and letting Spellsong be usable by any elven arcane spellcaster. I very much want elven bards to have access to this kind of power, where they weave their magic with only the melodies of their music.

Osprey

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Osprey@Jul 30 2004, 08:51 AM
I had always assumed that Spellsong WAS used by bards as a kind of superior Still Spell. I never had a problem with this because it was limited to elves, representing one of their racial advnatages in arcane magic. Thus, I'm in favor of dropping the requirement that it only applies to prepared spells (as bards and sorcerers can't "prepare" spells as far as I know), and letting Spellsong be usable by any elven arcane spellcaster. I very much want elven bards to have access to this kind of power, where they weave their magic with only the melodies of their music.

Osprey
The problem with this is how do you handle it? I mean the elven bards aleady have access to Still Spell (which is the feat for this purpose if spontaneously casting). The Spellsong feat makes the time casting requirement equivalent to what a spontaneous caster has to use in order to take advantage of a metamagic feat.

Doubling the casting time again, just doesn't work. How do you double a full round casting time, etc. without making the feat totally useless? I mean an elven bard trying to do this would then end up spending rounds in order to cast a 1 action spell. Never happen, IMO.

Remember that this feat shouldn't be more powerful than other ones. Dropping the prepared spell requirement makes it grant the same effects as Still Spell without the spell slot adjustment, i.e., it becomes a more powerful feat.

[Osprey]

The problem with this is how do you handle it? I mean the elven bards aleady have access to Still Spell (which is the feat for this purpose if spontaneously casting). The Spellsong feat makes the time casting requirement equivalent to what a spontaneous caster has to use in order to take advantage of a metamagic feat.

Doubling the casting time again, just doesn't work. How do you double a full round casting time, etc. without making the feat totally useless? I mean an elven bard trying to do this would then end up spending rounds in order to cast a 1 action spell. Never happen, IMO.

Remember that this feat shouldn't be more powerful than other ones. Dropping the prepared spell requirement makes it grant the same effects as Still Spell without the spell slot adjustment, i.e., it becomes a more powerful feat.

Simple. Let it be superior to Still Spell. How (and keep it balanced)?

Add Still Spell as a requirement, in addition to Perfrom (Sing) and being elven. With a prerequisite feat, it becomes acceptable to create 'superior' feats, much like Greater versions of feats (weapon focus, spell focus, weapon specialization, etc.). After all, Spellsong Mastery is basically like a one-step better version of Still Spell, right?

Osprey

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Osprey@Jul 30 2004, 05:06 PM
Simple. Let it be superior to Still Spell. How (and keep it balanced)?

Add Still Spell as a requirement, in addition to Perfrom (Sing) and being elven. With a prerequisite feat, it becomes acceptable to create 'superior' feats, much like Greater versions of feats (weapon focus, spell focus, weapon specialization, etc.). After all, Spellsong Mastery is basically like a one-step better version of Still Spell, right?

Osprey
So with this feat then the level adjustment of spells using Still Spell would be dropped?

Somehow it doesn't seem right to me. Even the greater feats only add pluses to the feats they enhance. This one drops the spell slot adjustment.

Let's see/hear what others think about this. Comments?

[RaspK_FOG]

OK, let me see... Bards cast spells without arcane spell failure chance for wearing light armour as a result of simplified somatic components for their spells (as described in PHB 3.5e).
Spellsong Mastery allows one to cast a spell with no somatic component if he adds verbal components.
Still Spell does the same for an increase in the spell level insteaf od an increased casting time.
By all means, I think there is an inherent flaw here: as I earlier mentioned, one cannot add more components of the same kind, one simply makes an existing one more complex...

So, my first idea is that the spell increases the casting time only if the spell already has a verbal component, otherwise it adds one to the spell's components.

I do not think such a feat should have Still Spell as a prerequisite, since they do the same thing in a completely different way.

Furthermore, sorcerers would not gain or lose a lot by such a feat, but bards would gain a lot, since you do not always care whether some spells you cast take more time. However, since ALL bardic spells have a verbal component, it is obvious that such a spell would take 2 rounds and 1 full-round action to cast!

[irdeggman]

Let’s see if I have all the comments on skills/feats equip that need ‘fixing’.

Let me know if I’ve missed something.

1. There's another little piece of errata I noticed in the latest revision: the Master Administrator feat says the normal domain maintenance check is DC 10+ seasonal maintenance. The skill says it is DC 15 + seasonal maintenance.

I strongly recommend changing the skill to match the feat, i.e. DC 10 + seasonal maintenance.

Consider this one done. Skill to match the feat.


Elven Artisan: Should probably list "any agical item creation feat" as a prerequisite for completelness sake.

Consider this one done.

Leadership: It still looks like the maximum GB value of a military cohort cannot exceed the character level. Perhaps a short example would be in order if we are going to be allowing that value to exceed the normal maximum of a cohort's level as per the DMG.

Instead of in Chap 1, I’m adding words to better describe cohorts in Chap 8. There are other places in the BRCS that refer to Chap 8 for description/more details on cohorts in BR.


Table 1-12: Armour Availability: Banded mail lists a race as 'Or'. I'm assuming that it means Orog, but there is no Orog designaton found in the text on page 30.

Yes that is what it was supposed to be. Consider it done.


Spellsong Mastery.

There are 2 different things being talked about here (by only 1 person on each side so I can’t gauge what is the general consensus. Other people please chime in here, otherwise the only thin I’m going to do before calling for a vote is clearly specify that a spell must be memorized as a Spell Song version of the spell (i.e., no somatic comp but longer casting time).

[RaspK_FOG]

OK, here's the deal: I remembered there is a somewhat similar feat in Races of Faerûn, so I checked it out. Here it is:
Talfirian Song[General]
You can use the power of your bardic music to enhance your Illusion spells.
Prerequisite: Bardic music class feature, Heighten Spell, Tethyrian human.
Benefit: By expending uses of your bardic music, you can heighten your illusion spells. [...]

Effectively, and while this feat is vastly different from Spellsong Mastery, it addresses the issue Osprey put forward pretty well: there has been, in fact, a form of "improved" or "greater" version of a common metamagic feat which works around the increase of spell level.

I believe the best way to work this out is something like that:
Spellsong Mastery[General]
Prerequisite: As is, plus: Still Spell
Benefit: Spells you cast that are affected by Still Spell do not suffer a spell level increase, but become more complicated, requiring you to sing. If the spell does not have a verbal component, you cast it as if it had one. If the spell does have a verbal component, the spell's casting time changes to 1 full round if it was less than 1 full round action; otherwise increase its casting time to the same time (with a minimum of 1 round) plus 1 full round action.
Special: Bards do not suffer the increase of time needed to cast the spell for having a verbal component, since all bard spell are sung and bards are acquainted with such complexity in their casting of spells.

NOTE: The special part could be changed to reflect the same effect for spells that if cast by a non-bard do not have a verbal component. For example, hypnotic pattern does not have a verbal component, but bard's cast it with a verbal component nonetheless; it would be such spells that bards don't cast with increased casting times, or whatever: you be the judges of this.

[Osprey]

That's cool, Rasp. However, since it is a metamagic feat, don't you think bards should still need a full round to cast the spell? It's still superior to Still Spell (which also requires a full round to cast spells that normally require 1 action), as it has no level increase. So a slight trade-off in needing a bit more time seems appropriate, even for bards.

[irdeggman]

I agree with Osprey it should function like a bard would have if using a metamagic feat on a spell he is casting. Pretty much the identical rules from the PHB on it.

Also note that bards can still cast spells when wearing heavier armor, they just suffer the arcane spell failure chance - so right out excluding bards comes out wrong. It depends on the circumstance.

[RaspK_FOG]

It seems you forgot something here: all bard spells have a verbal component by definition, and since bards will rarely use the feat as a means of negating arcane spell failure chance, since wearing light armour suits them better, it would be a hell for any any bard, casting a spell this way - not only would the spell's casting time increase for being enhanced by a metamagic feat, it would also be further lengthened by the use of this feat; IMHO, that makes the spell simply useless for bards. There has been an alternative provided, though, that makes the feat work the same for all spellcasters, so you could choose which you prefer out of the two, right?

Also, since you seem to not have noticed this, the feat is not a [Metamagic] one, but a [General] one instead, since it changes the way Still Spell works. The wording should change, though; add the following phrase at the end of the first sentence of the Benefit part: ", at your will."

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Aug 5 2004, 03:13 AM
It seems you forgot something here: all bard spells have a verbal component by definition, and since bards will rarely use the feat as a means of negating arcane spell failure chance, since wearing light armour suits them better, it would be a hell for any any bard, casting a spell this way - not only would the spell's casting time increase for being enhanced by a metamagic feat, it would also be further lengthened by the use of this feat; IMHO, that makes the spell simply useless for bards. There has been an alternative provided, though, that makes the feat work the same for all spellcasters, so you could choose which you prefer out of the two, right?

Also, since you seem to not have noticed this, the feat is not a [Metamagic] one, but a [General] one instead, since it changes the way Still Spell works. The wording should change, though; add the following phrase at the end of the first sentence of the Benefit part: ", at your will."
A few of things.

1. It is a metamagic feat.

Metamagic feats (PHB pg 88)
As a spellcaster’s knowledge of magic grows, she can learn to cast spells in ways slightly different from the ways in which the spells were originally designed or learned.. . . .Preparing and casting spells in such a way is harder than normal but, thanks to metamagic feats, at least it is possible.

As it clearly falls under that definition.

2. Then just state that this feat is not allowed for bards since it doesn't accomplish anything for them. Being written as a "General Feat", there is no extended casting time involved and it specifically states that bards don't suffer the extended casting time due to their all their spells being sung.

3. Bard spells are not required to be sung, only have a verbal component. This can be singing, spoken, recitation (another spoken form), oratory (agaqin another spoken form), etc.

It is wrong to require bard spells to be sung only. IMO the description term Spellsong refers to how the spell 'sounds' it doesn't have to be sung, but there is a lyrical quality to even spoken spells when this is used.

Also only the enchantment spells were acredited to spellsong for 2nd ed BR bards.


4. The way this feat is written a bard can cast a spell, using this general feat, in full plate armor without any extended casting time nor suffering the arcane spell failure chance (note this is now because the somatic components are swapped for verbal ones). So why wouldn't a bard take this feat and wear plate armor since it doesn't affect his spellcasting at all?

[RaspK_FOG]

1. It is a metamagic feat.

Metamagic feats (PHB pg 88)
As a spellcaster’s knowledge of magic grows, she can learn to cast spells in ways slightly different from the ways in which the spells were originally designed or learned.. . . .Preparing and casting spells in such a way is harder than normal but, thanks to metamagic feats, at least it is possible.

As it clearly falls under that definition.

Sorry, Irdeggman: the feat changes the way Still Spell works for the caster; there is precedence to this, so I won't make a fuss over it. Again, reread the feat description.

2. Then just state that this feat is not allowed for bards since it doesn't accomplish anything for them. Being written as a "General Feat", there is no extended casting time involved and it specifically states that bards don't suffer the extended casting time due to their all their spells being sung.

Your statement is confusing here: if it accomplishes nothing, then how does it affect them later on (comment No.4)? Please clarify.

However, for compliteness sake, I repeat that this feat changes how the caster can make use of the Still Spell feat. Effectively, it allows him to use Still Spell by adding a verbal component or extending the casting time of a spell which already has one without increasing the spell level, something critical to the bard who has so few spell levels and gets access to them slower.

3. Bard spells are not required to be sung, only have a verbal component. This can be singing, spoken, recitation (another spoken form), oratory (agaqin another spoken form), etc.

It is wrong to require bard spells to be sung only. IMO the description term Spellsong refers to how the spell 'sounds' it doesn't have to be sung, but there is a lyrical quality to even spoken spells when this is used.

Also only the enchantment spells were acredited to spellsong for 2nd ed BR bards.

Again there is confusion on that matter, but not between the two of us this time: most novels present bards as rhyming, singing, or chanting their spells, unlike other spellcasters who either command what the want to take effect through the use of words of power (pun intented; arcane spellcasters), or offer prayers and chants to their gods or worshipped ennoia (divine spellcasters).

4. The way this feat is written a bard can cast a spell, using this general feat, in full plate armor without any extended casting time nor suffering the arcane spell failure chance (note this is now because the somatic components are swapped for verbal ones). So why wouldn't a bard take this feat and wear plate armor since it doesn't affect his spellcasting at all?

To put things straight: the feat was more or less a variation on Still Spell. Thus I changed the feat's form from that of a metamagic feat to a feat that allows another feat which is metamagic to work in another way. Consider my method non-broken: that feat I mentioned, Talfirian Song, doesn't do the same thing, so a bard using that feat actually Heightens his spells with no increase in his casting time! And since Extra Music is a feat away, all the better for him, huh?

What I offer is that bards either do not cast the spell with a twice increased casting time BY DEFAULT or that they cast any spell the sorcerer would not cast with a twice increased casting time without a twice increased casting time.

Confused yet? To make things simple, Still Spell affects the spell, and the latter has its casting time increased for spontaneous casters, right?

Now, here's the tricky part: while not all Sor/Wiz and whatnot spells have a verbal component, and thus won't suffer from an increase in their casting times, ALL bard spell have a verbal component and thus ALL of them suffer an EXTRA increase in their casting time.

What I offer are 2 options: bards do not get the casting time of their spell's affected by use of Spellsong Mastery, retaining any increase to the casting time from Still Spell, or
bard spells that do not have a verbal component in their descriptions do not suffer the extra increase in their casting time, just as if they were cast by a non-bard.

I will wait for your comments.

[Osprey]

Rasp, I think your first option pretty much hits what I at least have been aiming for, however, I think you're worrying WAY WAY WAY too much about nitpicky little details like is it metamagic or not. How much does it actually matter?

It's not how you classify the feat, it's how you describe its effects that really matter. If D&D were really a scientifically accurate magic system whose metaphysics were measurable and clearly defined, this would be an issue. As it is, all we really care about here is:
"How does Spellsong Mastery affect a character?"

Now, that being said, I vouch that it IS metamagic, and it IS essentially an improved version of Still Spell that does not cause a level increase. So its effects replace Still Spell. The tradeoff is that this requires the spell be performed as a song. If the feat is treated as the still spell feat, then casting times will be accounted for in pre-existing mechanics.


Now, some roleplaying points I'd like to make:

If the main reason to take this feat is so bards can wear big heavy suits of armor and cast spells without penalty, I suggest we drop it right now. This is NOT why I would want such a feat in the game. There are, however, some cases of Sidhelien warrior bards where I could imagine them wearing mithril plate and singing songs of battle while they fight (defensively, of course, while spellcasting ;) ).

The primary use of Spellsong that I have used IMC is that when bardic spells can be performed purely as songs, the magic itself becomes much more subtle and interwoven with the music. This is the story effect of Spellsong that I love, where the elven song has real power without the need for strange gestures and odd pieces of rare substances.

This also allows a bard to play an accompanying instrument, like a lute or harp, while singing a song of magic, another little advantage that makes the Spellsong Masters particularly impressive.

[graham anderson]

The affect is very similar to some of the abilitys from the dragonlance book for the wizards of high sorcery. which enables effects like enlarge without the heigher spell slot being used.

Only elves can master spellsong anyone else can only gain a rudimentary knowledge of it.

I don't see any problem with this.

[irdeggman]

Let's try this one.

Spellsong Mastery [Racial, metamagic]
Prerequisite: Elven Voice, Still Spell
Benefit: You may cast any arcane spell without using somatic components by increasing the verbal components or adding verbal components to spells that don’t normally have them. Thus, spellsongs are not subject to arcane spell failure. Spells cast using spellsong are cast at their normal level but take more time to cast. If the spell's normal casting time is 1 action, casting the spell as a spellsong requires 1 full round casting time. For spells with a longer casting time, it takes an extra full-round action to cast the spell. For spontaneous casters this feat uses a spell slot 1 level higher than the normal spell.


Note that since it is a metamagic feat there is always an increased casting time for spontaneous casters. Now applying more than one feat does not increase the casting time. So a spontaneous caster using enlarge and maximize spell metamagic feats still only increases the casting time as if a single metamagic feat was being used.

Since the normal effect is to increase the casting time it only makes sense that spontaneous casters have to use a spell slot 1 level higher for this. An even trade off.

This feat allows an effect similar to that of the Still Spell on any spell. A wizard would have to use a longer casting time to cast a spell with this feat as well as memorizing it as a meta-magiced version of the spell (standard for any metamagic feat).

In essence what this feat becomes is an enhanced Still Spell. This is really all right. The feat has 2 feats that are prerequisites - hence the earliest an elf wizard could gain it is 5th level, while the earliest an elven bard could get it is 6th level. Elves don't get a bonus feat at first level like humans do. So powerwise this is actually pretty balanced.

What this write up does is to add a level to the spell for spontaneous casters since the casting time is already increased.

IMO we shouldn't be mentioning bards any differently here - it only mucks things up.

[irdeggman]

By the way it is important to make this a metamagic spell because of the mechanics involved.

RaspK, the example you gave of a general feat from FR isn't the same. The feat uses a bards bardic music attempts. This is like the divine feats that require uses of turn attempts to gain an enhancement to something. They are very different things. They are not spell feats, especially since they are limited to spell caster types. Metamagic feats are restricted to only certain spellcaster types (i.e., classes).

[graham anderson]

I like the new spellsong mastery I think it should work well and won't be over powered.

[RaspK_FOG]

Allow me to say a few things on the matter: I see no reason for a sorcerer or bard to use this feat: Still Spell already increases the spell's level by 1, so why use this? Completely no reason, if you ask me.
No, metamagic feats are applied one after the other; this means that first you take into account one feat, calculate any changes, and proceed. Thus, an Empowered Maximised Fireball has its level increased by 2 from Empower Spell and the damage it would deal increased by 50%, then it has its current level increased by an additional 3 levels and the damage it would deal maximised as if you rolled the highest possible number on all dice. This works with casting time as well: first, a metamagic feat is applied and the spell has its casting time increased, then another metamagic feat is applied and the spell's casting time is even more increased, etc.
The feat is particularly penalising to bards, that why I proposed a variation. Furthermore, I really see no reason a bard would go around in heavy armour; have you ever played a bard? That is the least efficient way to run him!
I also proposed the difference between spells with and without verbal components because the feat does not make much sense otherwise: is it as easy to complicate something in a working manner as to make something new?

Also, from a clear standpoint, any feat that affects the way a spell works is a metamagic feat. However, if a feat affects how another feat works, this makes it a general feat.

Still, I understand why one would make this one a metamagic feat.

[Osprey]

I see no reason for a sorcerer or bard to use this feat: Still Spell already increases the spell's level by 1, so why use this? Completely no reason, if you ask me.


I couldn't agree more. The main advantage as I saw it was to cast a Still Spell without raising the level.

Raising the spell by one level vs. lowering the casting time by one round, is NOT an even trade-off IMO. I fail to understand why a bard would ever take this feat - for the very specialized effect of being able to stack a second metamagic effect (at even higher levels) all in a single round? No thanks. Bards get spell levels so infrequently as to make this nearly useless. And as I see things, Bards should be the primary users of spellsong.

I'm still confused as to what the problem is with allowing this feat to be an enhanced version of Still Spell, one that doesn't add +1 to the spell level. Is this thought to be too powerful? What's the deal here?

[Osprey]

Irdeggman,

While working on the Noble, I ran across some little pieces of editing I think should happen to Ch 1, that being the Regional Arms feats.

Specifically: Regional Elite Arms Focus requires +3 BAB and Regional Arms Training as a prerequisite feat.

Shouldn't this really read "Proficiency with all standard and elite weapons of the chosen cultural region." This in addition to the +3 BAB requirement.

This way those already proficient with these weapons don't need to take the Regional Arms Training feat, which is useless for certain classes (like Fighters and Nobles). Also, having that feat doesn't at all guarantee proficiency with the elite weapons of a given region.

Osprey

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Osprey@Aug 5 2004, 10:42 PM

I'm still confused as to what the problem is with allowing this feat to be an enhanced version of Still Spell, one that doesn't add +1 to the spell level. Is this thought to be too powerful? What's the deal here?
Yes.

Because there is no penalty for attempting this for spontaneous casters.

Now if it is written as an improved Still Spell then essentially it is like using 2 metamagic feats at the same time, which can work for spontaneous casters.

Sorry RaspK_Fog but you are mistaken about how using multiple metamagic feats stack for casters.

PHB pg 88 "Multiple Metamagic Fets on a Spell: A spellcaster can apply multiple metamagic feats to a single spell. Changes to its level are cumulative.”

There is nothing mentioned about the casting time. Remember the increased casting time for spontaneous spells is due to using any metamagic feat on a spell that wasn’t previously prepared it has nothing to do with the type of spell. Which is why Quicken Spell can’t be used by spontaneous casters unless one of the options (from other WotC books) is used on preparing spells for spontaneous casters.

There are feats that allow a spontaneous caster to cast a spell 'prepared' which would allow skipping the casting time increase, but not in the core books. There is one in Tome and Blood and the FRCS.

Perhaps phrasing the feat to say any spell cast as a Still Spell has the spell level increase reduced in exchange for an increased casting time by. .. . . .{words on verbal components}.

Now what happens is that a caster who uses prepared spells doesn't suffer the level increased because of the increased casting time and a spontaneous caster is using 2 metamagic feats at once and hence suffers the increased casting time for applying any metamagic feat. So both casters use the spell the same.

[Osprey]

So it sounds like you're figuring out a way for this to work as I had suggested: as an improved version of Still Spell that works the same for all arcane spellcasters.

As for being too powerful: remember that the character is taking TWO feats to gain this ability, and as you pointed out non-humans couldn't do it until higher levels either. I wouldn't say that's too powerful. The actual game effects of Still Spell aren't ridiculously powerful: one still can't say, attack and cast spells at the same time. Heck, since casting is guaranteed to be at least one full round, one can't even move more than 5' while casting the spell (why someone couldn't walk and sing a magical song or chant a metamagicked spell at the same time is beyond me, but that's D&D "balance" for ya).

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Osprey@Aug 6 2004, 11:34 AM
So it sounds like you're figuring out a way for this to work as I had suggested: as an improved version of Still Spell that works the same for all arcane spellcasters.


Trying, but it still doesn't quite feel right to me. Still trying to work this through though.

[Osprey]

Well, I find the fine-detailed mechanics of it a little frustrating too, but remember: we're not making a new version of an existing feat, we're making a unique feat for the Sidhelien in Cerilia. So even if it's totally unprecedented, just take a step back and ask yourself: is this a truly unbalancing feat? So far, I haven't seen any evidence to say that it is.

If it's reasonably balanced for an advanced feat, then the specific nomenclature, like is it metamagic or a general feat, is mostly semantics. At this point I'd call it metamagic and say that it acts like Still Spell but supercedes the effects of that feat (meaning only one metamagic feat is being applied here). The reason I'd call it metamagic is so that it falls under the category of magical or metamagic feats for the sake of those classes that get these as bonus feats.

Remember, we are talking about Masters of Spellsong. As soon as I hear that name, I expect something impressive. The ability to efficiently weave magic into song fits that bill pretty well. Efficient meaning no extra power (spell level) must be conjured to do this, only a cunning use of song.

Hey...here's a thought. Why not require a Perform (Sing) check to successfully weave a spellsong? Much like a parallel to casting defensively, DC 15+Spell Level.

Would that help justify the advantages of the feat? Certainly I think it adds a cool thematic element that requires the Spellsong Master to be truly good at their music, not just be able to sing on key. This effect would obviously favor bards, which I think is entirely appropriate for the feat and the ideas behind it. If your magic is woven through music, don't you think that would require some intricate musical abilities?

Osprey

[RaspK_FOG]

OK, answering back: I guess you are right: multiple metamagic feats do not further increase the casting time. My mistake there.
Here's the deal (come to think of it, I have used this phrase a lot in my last posts): under the current wording I use, there are two mechanically different but otherwise working versions: Spellsong Mastery being a [Metamagic] feat which provides the same benefit as Still Spell for a different cost, or
Spellsong Mastery as a [General] feat that changes the way an existent [Metamagic] feat works. I have to agree that this choice may be objectionable, but Eschew Materials is a [General] feat under 3.5e for the same reason: so that wizards and divine spellcasters have to prepare EVERY SINGLE spell they have with it (sounds stupid, doesn't it?) and so that sorcerers and bards don't take the casting time increase.

Now, not only do I agree with Osprey, but I have to say something more: I NEVER suggested they eventually DON'T use a metamagic feat; what I meant is that there was no reason to use 2 of them for the aforementioned mistake of mine, not to mention I still see no reason to use two of them anyway...

This could be accomplished in the following manner (only benefit mentioned here):
Spellsong Mastery [Metamagic, Racial]
Benefit: A spellsung spell can be cast with no somatic components. Spells without somatic components are not affected. A spellsung spell either gets a verbal component in case it did not have one or has its casting time increased; if the spell's normal casting time is 1 action, casting such a spellsung spell is a full-round action; for a spell with a longer casting time, it takes an additional full-round action to cast.

Now here's the tricky part again: Perform checks penalise other characters but make things easier for a bard.
Bards are already penalised, since ALL of their spells have a verbal component per se!

Any ideas now?

[Osprey]

I would simplify this, Rasp, such that with this feat any Spellsong (I would use this term rather than "spellsung spell;" sung isn't a word in English as far as I know) requires a full-round action to cast unless its casting time is one full round or more, in which case it requires an additional full-round action to complete the spell.

Sound good? This way it still acts like a normal (spontaneous) metamagic feat, albeit one without a level adjustment.

If this feat favors bards over other classes, I don't see this as even the tiniest bit problematic. It's Spell Song - magic through music should darned well be the specialty of bards anyways.

I still think the Perform check is an awesome balancing requirement and thematic element. I just can't stomach the idea of bad musicians being Spellsong Masters.

If the Perform check is too problematic, my alternative would be to require 9 ranks in Perform (Sing) plus elven blood and Still Spell, equating it with our Master-level requirements for the other BR feats. This would make it 6th level minimum as a feat, further justifying its improved features over Still Spell.

[RaspK_FOG]

As it has already been pointed out, most elves wouldn't be able to get it before 6th-level anyway, so why not do that? Good for you to point it out, Osprey!

On the other hand, doesn't this make the feat inaccessible to wizards and sorcerers before 15th-level? Either way, I don't see why can't Perform be a racial class skill for elves as well... but you see where this ends up! I am granting Sidhelien Perform as a class skill in my campaigns anyway.

As for "sung", the verb "to sing" has the following forms: "To sing" ("'To sing or not to sing?' That is the question..."),
"Sing" ("I like singing."),
"Sang", in the past tense ("I sang a song the other day."), or
"Sung", the past participle ("This song has been sung many times in the past.").
The pronounciation difference here is that "sang" has lighter sound than "sung", which is deeper.

[Athos69]

*grin*

Trust a Greek to give English lessons! :)

Rasp, have you played in many PBeM campaigns?

[RaspK_FOG]

Not really; I can't trust that I would feel fine with it. Even worse, I quite recently lost my ENTIRE email, which really makes me sad since I may well never find some of various addresses I had kept only as past mail, not to mention the issue of things I would simply like to keep, you know, like it was regular mail... :(

However, I only now realised the ludicrocity of my earlier comment: can you possibly spellsing anything else other than a spell? :lol: The most proper wording would be: "A sung spell..."

[Osprey]

As for "sung", the verb "to sing" has the following forms:
"To sing" ("'To sing or not to sin