Chap 1 for discussion

[irdeggman]

Here is the most up-to-date version of Chap 1.

Sorry Osprey, but I just couldn't wait any longer for feedback - it is time to get something done, IMO.


Alright everything in here except for the noble class, skills, feats and equipment has been sanctioned already. So let's focus on those, although any editorial comments are welcome.

While revising the chapter I noticed something that needed to be fixed so I did. The elite dwarf feats listed exotic weapon - well that jst doesn't sem to make sense anymore since the dwarven weapons that it would have applied to are now martial weapons for dwarves so I chenged it.

I redid the feats to reflect what I thought was the general consensus on them - although we haven't voted on them yet.



Here is the pdf version.

[irdeggman]

Here is the word version.

[graham anderson]

Good I will have a look threw this.

There still doesn't seem to be that many people here are they still having trouble getting to the site have they just not checked back to see if they can get on.

[RaspK_FOG]

Editing notes:
- space paragraphs out more; especially those that change the topic
- the humane bonus should read "on [______] saves" not "to".
- pg 23, 2nd column: the listing of cross-class skill for "Admin." should be "cc"
- pg 27, Discipline: "Fortitude and Will"
- pg 29, Northener: change "You gain a +1 bonus on all Fortitude saves. You gain an additional +4 bonus on all Fortitude saves to resist subdual damage from cold and exposure). You must suffer subdual damage equal to at least one quarter of your current hit points before becoming fatigued from frostbite or hypothermia." to "You gain a +1 bonus on all Fortitude saves and an additional +4 bonus on Fortitude saves to avoid taking nonlethal damage from exposure to cold weather. You only get fatigued by nonlethal damage from exposure to cold weather if that nonlethal damage equals at least one quarter of your hit points."
- pg 30, Plainsrider: "Wild Empathy, Handle Animal, Heal, and Ride"
- pg 30, Regional Arms Focus: "Region: Any"; "Special" line explains it.
- pg 30, Regional Arms Training: change to reflect format of Regional Arms Focus
- pg 30, other "Regional [____]" feats: as above.
- pg 31, Spellsong Mastery: avoid using caps for metamagicked spell names

Rulings notes:
- pg 28, Hardiness: do your bonus hp increase if your Con bonus increases?
- pg 30, Shadow Magic: maybe lower the bonus on save DCs for (Shadow) spells to +2 instead of +3? I don't know...

[irdeggman]

Thanks RaspKFog,



Rulings notes:
- pg 28, Hardiness: do your bonus hp increase if your Con bonus increases?

No it is a one time gain (at the point of taking the feat) as are any of the other feats (PHB) that give a hit point gain.

[RaspK_FOG]

Thanks for the clarification; it was the most logical explanation, just wanted to check it out since there is no cross-reference (the one feat in the PHB I recall giving you a hit point boost is Toughness, which always gives you 3 additional hit points).

[RaspK_FOG]

Thanks for the clarification; it was the most logical explanation, just wanted to check it out since there is no cross-reference (the one feat in the PHB I recall giving you a hit point boost is Toughness, which always gives you 3 additional hit points).

[Danip]

Just a few typos:
p8 under Character Classes
"to more accurately their roles" needs the word reflect.
p21 in Noble class influence
"monetary assets is considered a simple favor when
done in person that is the noble is physically present
in his home province when this action is attempted." needs , ; or () to fix grammar.
p31 Shadow Walker feat
"winter nights. The risks of entering the shadow world
are many, and this feat should be with exceptional
care. The Shadow World is fraught with danger," needs word 'used' after 'be'.

Cheerio!

[hazard]

One question in table 1-3 for Vos and Rjurik rogues Survival is region skill but it in not rouge class skill???

[RaspK_FOG]

Rjurik and Vos characters get the Survival skill as a racial class skill.

[The Jew]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Dec 3 2004, 09:05 PM
Rjurik and Vos characters get the Survival skill as a racial class skill.
It still does not make sense, since it is not a rogue skill even if it is common within their region. None of the other cultural groups use non rogue skills which are on their racial list.

In 3.5 all knowledge skills provide a +2 to something. Such a bonus needs to be designated for Bloodlore.

What about changing Knowledge-planes to Shadow World?

[irdeggman]

The Jew, Good points all.


It still does not make sense, since it is not a rogue skill even if it is common within their region. None of the other cultural groups use non rogue skills which are on their racial list.

What about Swim or Climb instead for Rjurik? Which seems best?

Vos are much harder, perhaps Rope Use or Climb? Which seems best?



In 3.5 all knowledge skills provide a +2 to something. Such a bonus needs to be designated for Bloodlore.


Any suggestions here? I'm drawing blanks as to what skill would fit the pattern here.


What about changing Knowledge-planes to Shadow World?


I wouldn't swap out the two since knowledge (planes) is a class skill for clerics and I can't see a reason why that class shold an advantage in learning this. Maybe instead adding it as a suggested new skill with the synergy bonus for survival checks in the Shadow World like knowledge (planes).

[The Jew]

Knowledge (nature ) should be added to the Sorcerer skill list, since it is the skill involved with source holdings.

Right now the Elite armor for Vos is Banded mail. The largest concentration of Barbarians is within vos, and I assume most Vos warriors are Barbarians. Barbarians do not get heavy armour proficiency and lose fast movement while wearing it. Why not make a medium or light armour the Elite armour. I would suggest either chainmail or chain shirt, which are commonly found in the region.

[Hrandal]

Regarding Knowledge (Bloodlore)

Maybe a +2 bonus on Knowledge (Arcana) and Spellcraft checks when dealing with Blooded items?, or magical items that effect Blood?

I don't know what the current rules on using Det Magic on a Blood item are, but this might let you sense Blood as a magical school equivalent?

[The Jew]

What about a +2 to the DC of blood powers, or a +2 to saving throws against blood powers?

[RaspK_FOG]

Too much: it's like getting a +2 on saving throws of spells you cast for having 5+ what ranks in Spellcraft.

[tcharazazel]

I agree +2 is a bit much would have to also have the bloodpower to make it equivalent to the spell caster idea.

What about +1 to DC and saves? Just a little edge from knowing the general history and types of blood powers. Though of course the DM could say that they would need to make a check to see if they might have heard about some of the more rare ones (they don't have) and thus gain a bonus against them.

[The Jew]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Dec 8 2004, 04:46 AM
Too much: it's like getting a +2 on saving throws of spells you cast for having 5+ what ranks in Spellcraft.
I would say that is an exageration. The number of times a typical player would use a blood power involving a saving throw is dramatically less then the number of times a spellcaster uses a spell with a saving throw. That is what evens it out. It is more comparable to the +2 that clerics/paladins get on turning undead for having 5 ranks in Know religion.

[irdeggman]

I can't think of any logical reason to join a knowledge skill to the DC of a blood ability. It just doesn't fit the pattern for other knowledge skills -and I think there is already a feat for that.

Perhaps a +2 (at 5 ranks of course) to any Spot check made to recognize athe use of a blood ability. Seems like a better fit to me.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Hrandal@Dec 7 2004, 05:33 AM
I don't know what the current rules on using Det Magic on a Blood item are, but this might let you sense Blood as a magical school equivalent?
Creating a new school to cover blood abilities is to me simply the wrong way to go. I've had this argument with Gary many, many times but have yet to give in. There are exactly 8 schools of magic (plus universal, which is everything else). This is a fundamental precept of the D&D magic system. Another one is that a spell falls into only 1 school of magic and no more.

Blood abilites that grant effects as a spell fall into the same category. IIRC spell-like abilites also follow the schools they emulate, so the ability would be detected as the school of the spell it emulates.

[irdeggman]

Let's see we've gotten several editorial comments, some comments on skills and on classes that have already been sanctioned (not that I off hand disagree with addding knowledge (nature) to the sorcerer skill list, but this really should have popped up earlier - oh well better late than never).

Are there any comments on the noble class? That was the single hard spot with this chapter before and so far no one has said anything about it.

[RaspK_FOG]

Well, the noble has always been the black spot of this chapter...

In my opinion, the Noble currently seems like a shopping catalog: each level line has a full reading length (which means you get a special class feature or increase the potential of a class feature you already have every level)!

Though this is not really bad, what I think the noble suffers from is a lack of proper understanding of what the noble should do. We have run these polls that would help a lot on the matter, and I now think, Irdeggman, that we should not simply sanction the version one man builds, however good it is, but work together based on what we already have in our hands: the results of those same polls we voted on.

(And, yes, my comment about the +2 on DCs was about the lack of any link between the two; sorry, The Jew, but that's how it looks to me!)

[Osprey]

Let's see we've gotten several editorial comments, some comments on skills and on classes that have already been sanctioned (not that I off hand disagree with addding knowledge (nature) to the sorcerer skill list, but this really should have popped up earlier - oh well better late than never).

Actually, it did come up some time ago when we were discussing key skills for domain actions- I think I (and probably others) just assumed this addition would carry over into Chapter 1. I would expect that even after the chapter is fully sanctioned, we may need to go back and tweak a few things like this as the other chapters take on more definite form. That's just the nature of the beast - the document as a whole must be consistent, which is always difficult when trying to look at each chapter individually.

Knowledge (Shadow World) should definitely be listed as a new and important skill for the BR setting. I think 5+ ranks in K/Arcana should grant a skill synergy to this skill - the two are intimately related. K/Shadow World should include understandings of both the nature of the realm itself, and knowledge of some of its native denizens (like the Seelie, shades, the Wild Hunt, etc.).

More later, must get to work.

Osprey

[Osprey]

Concerning the Noble:

For the most part, I think the class looks pretty good. While there are a lot of level-based class abilities, I think this is necessary (in terms of game balance) to make the class on par with other classes, and it gives a great deal of distinct flavor to the class. Rasp, if you wanted to see a "cleaner" list, all you have to do is take away all of the level-based improvements on existing abilities - these are what take up most of the upper-level slots.

I do have a few comments, though.

Inspiring Leader (Ex):* When a noble appears on the field and presents himself as a leader, it inspires himself and his followers, soldiers, hirelings, or other loyal subjects who can see and hear him. At 4th level, the noble and those that look to him for guidance (such as his employees, followers, or sworn subjects) gain a +1 morale bonus. This bonus can apply in one of the following methods (noble’s choice):
· A +1 bonus to attack, weapon damage rolls and Will saving throws against fear and mind-influencing enchantments (such as charm person).
· A +1 to Search, Spot, Listen checks and Reflex saving throws.
· A +2 bonus to Spellcraft checks and all saving throws versus spells and spell-like effects.
Presenting himself is a free action but entails standing tall and proud along with shouting (or forcefully giving) directions, and the bonuses last a number of rounds equal to the noble’s Charisma modifier. This ability may be used a number of times per day equal to the noble’s Charisma modifier.


I would simplify this by dropping the last 2 choices for effects, and just add a +1 morale bonus to all skill checks, making it the same effect as inspire loyalty but w/ shorter duration. The skill bonuses seem rather odd - I wouldn't assume, for example, that most Anuirean nobles are particularly adept at aiding Spellcraft checks or in inspiring rather impressive resilience to magic. The bonus to mind-affecting magic, however, makes a lot of sense for a morale bonus, and a general +1 morale bonus to skill checks could cover Spellcraft, Spot, Listen, Search, or any other action-oriented skill (while non-action skills probably wouldn't benefit anyways due to the short duration of the effect; DM's can arbitrate this case-by-case).

I also think that inspiring one's allies should be a standard action, much like a bard singing a song to grant similar effects. This forces the noble to choose between taking either a direct (active) role in the action, or exhorting greater efforts fromhis allies. It is the same for bards singing songs or spellcasters casting support spells, why make it different for nobles using a class ability? It is a classic dilemma for leaders on the battlefield, too (on a larger scale): Does he lead the charge personally, or does he direct the action from behind? Leading the charge is more inspiring and makes that unit more effective, but leading from behind allows him to better coordinate his forces as a whole.


My second comment regards the increasing Leadership bonuses: a higher-level Noble's Leadership score will likely cap off at "25+" well before 20th level, especially if said character is a blooded regent. A high level Noble is almost guaranteed to have high Charisma (especially with the Presence class ability) and will probably have many of the conditional modifiers (special powers, great prestige, stronghold/base of operations).

While the effect is definitely advantageous for mid-level characters, it might be prudent to simply keep Leadership as a bonus feat at 3rd level but drop the higher level bonuses. This will help unclutter the class abilities somewhat, and also encourage characters to improve their CHA scores and take feats like Great Leader if they want to increase their Leadership score more rapidly.

Same goes for Coordinate: drop the higher-level improvements. This I've said before: higher bonuses get very broken because they are multiplied by the number of people aiding in the task. Also, dropping these higher bonuses will unclutter the list even more.

Since most of the other class abilities continue to improve with class levels, I don't think you need to worry about the class lacking high-end desirability/power. Bonus feats, favored regions, resources, inspire loyalty, and presence all continue to improve at higher levels: more than enough to make the class attractive through all 20 levels of progression.

[edit] Inspire Loyalty should use a Lead check rather than Diplomacy. If we're including the Lead skill in the BR setting, this certainly seems like a quintessential use of the skill. Inspiring crowds (esp. troops on a battlefield) should be the forte of the Lead specialist, while negotiations and etiquette should be the purview of the diplomat. It's important to distinguish these two, otherwise they overlap so much that having 2 seperate skills seems rather redundant and superficial.

Otherwise, the class looks good: more balanced, attractive, and distinct than most other versions we've tried out.

Osprey

[RaspK_FOG]

It is indeed, a much cleaner and balanced version. It just feels, though, that he is a powerhouse; till I run a serious playtest, though, I won't be sure...

[Osprey]

It is indeed, a much cleaner and balanced version. It just feels, though, that he is a powerhouse; till I run a serious playtest, though, I won't be sure...

Having playtested a few earlier versions of the Noble myself (of which the second version was much like our current iteration but with a high BAB), I'd expect you'll get mixed results. On an adventure scale I expect you'll find that the Noble is somewhat moderate to low power; med BAB, med (d8) HD, decent weapons and armor starting out. At higher levels the adventuring power-gap will become much more apparent as other classes keep gaining new levels of spells, bonus feats, and useful class abilities. The Noble's class abilities, otoh, tend to favor him in social situations w/ other nobility, and leading troops on the battlefield. A few (very few) bonus feats might help bring him up to speed, but then again most regent PC's will probably choose regent-type feats rather than adventuring feats.

The real balancer, of course, is the Noble's cohorts and bodyguards that might join him in adventures - but then, this has always been an issue for PC regents in the Birthright setting, right from 1st level.

Net result? Strong social character, strong leader, and especially at higher levels, a strong ruler/regent - which is pretty much what the class was designed for according to the polls. However, as an adventurer the noble will be decent at low levels tapering to mediocre at high levels unless a good number of feats go into combat/adventure stuff instead of rulership - and this has its own price for a regent. His one saving grace as high-level adventurer may be his Inspire Loyalty class feature, allowing him to fulfill a basic bardic sort of support role in the group (especially at higher levels, when the bonuses increase).

[Michael Lloric]

[FONT=Optima][SIZE=7][COLOR=blue]

I haven't been to the site in so long, I had forgotten my username and password. The last time I was on, this was a 2E site only. Having just read the 3.0 version, and now the 3.5 first chapter, I am rather impressed with the quality of work being done. I need more time to digest it before I start making suggestions, but so far you have worked out a product solid enough I will be considering running a Birthright campaign off this material.

Kudos and coffee to all for a fantastic job, and I hope to be posting more soon to try to lend an eye/hand/pen/keyboard/ect.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Michael Lloric@Dec 9 2004, 02:42 PM
Kudos and coffee to all for a fantastic job, and I hope to be posting more soon to try to lend an eye/hand/pen/keyboard/ect.
Welcome back,


I like a good latte myself. :lol:

Make sure you use the 3.5 Chap 2 info also. Check the FAQ pinned thread for the links.

[irdeggman]

We have run these polls that would help a lot on the matter, and I now think, Irdeggman, that we should not simply sanction the version one man builds, however good it is, but work together based on what we already have in our hands: the results of those same polls we voted on.

That was my plan all along - I just wanted to nudge people into thinking about it and start some concrete discussion, keeping in mind the results of the polls run.

I never intended this to be a "here it is , time to vote or else" type of thing.

But we do need to move forward so we can concentrate on the remaining chapters.



Knowledge (Shadow World) should definitely be listed as a new and important skill for the BR setting. I think 5+ ranks in K/Arcana should grant a skill synergy to this skill - the two are intimately related. K/Shadow World should include understandings of both the nature of the realm itself, and knowledge of some of its native denizens (like the Seelie, shades, the Wild Hunt, etc.).

Hmm, I have a problem with a knowledge skill providing skill synergy to another knowledge skill (even though we did that with the knowledge local and region skills).

I'm not all that certain the ie between the shadow world and arcana is as strong as you imply. There is a strong tie between the SW and illusion (i.e., the seeming) but as far as things like evocations and the like - it doesn't look that strong to me.
I was thinking that K/SW would provide a bonus to any survival checks made in the SW, like K/N does normally. Pattern fits much more logically to me. This also translates into knowledge of the flora and fauna (much like K/N). I would say that K/N is in fact useless in the SW since it is completly different and defies the "normal" laws of nature. Probably simplified by stating that K/SW replaces K/N in relation to the SW.

[RaspK_FOG]

Originally posted by irdeggman@Dec 10 2004, 12:46 AM
That was my plan all along - I just wanted to nudge people into thinking about it and start some concrete discussion, keeping in mind the results of the polls run.

I was thinking that K/SW would provide a bonus to any survival checks made in the SW, like K/N does normally. Pattern fits much more logically to me. This also translates into knowledge of the flora and fauna (much like K/N). I would say that K/N is in fact useless in the SW since it is completly different and defies the "normal" laws of nature. Probably simplified by stating that K/SW replaces K/N in relation to the SW.
I understand what you mean regarding the nudge perfectly.

I also agree with you on the Knowledge (Shadow World) issue: we could specifically state in the skill description (which does not deviate from 3.5e rules, as it is campaign material) that 5 or more ranks in Knowledge (nature) grant a +2 bonus on Survival checks made while on Aebrynis and that Knowledge (Shadow World) grants a +2 bonus on Survival checks made while on the Shadow World.

[The Jew]

The fighter class needs to be altered for the previously discussed addition of feats to the figher bonus list. Military genius, great leader and the respective regent focuses.

[RaspK_FOG]

Indeed; I missed that...

Regarding the change of Rjurik and Vos rogue skills (in place of Survival) I believe Climb is best for both of them.

[Osprey]

The fighter class needs to be altered for the previously discussed addition of feats to the figher bonus list. Military genius, great leader and the respective regent focuses.

I agree that Military Genius and Great Leader should be added to the fighter's bous feats, as well as the regional arms feats. However, I don't think Regent Focus is appropriate for any bonus feat list except the noble's. Non-Noble PC's can always take these as normal feats, but I don't see them as the special purview of the fighter class. Combat and military feats are what the fighter bonus feats should be all about - period.

Not that I have strong feelings on the matter or anything. :rolleyes:

[Angelbialaska]

I would personally keep any regent feats off the fighter list. The fighter is specialized in combat, not in leading. We don't have Leadership on the fighter list either, so if the fighter isn't particularly focused on leadership, then why would the Great leader be added or why would the character be brilliant to lead large groups into battle? And I don't see Regent Focus as a possibility at all.

I'd say that if the fighter wants those feats, let them use their hard-earned feat every third level like everyone else.

[The Jew]

My bad, I meant skill focus not regent focus for lead and warcraft.

[The Jew]

Originally posted by Angelbialaska@Dec 10 2004, 05:53 AM
I would personally keep any regent feats off the fighter list. The fighter is specialized in combat, not in leading. We don't have Leadership on the fighter list either, so if the fighter isn't particularly focused on leadership, then why would the Great leader be added or why would the character be brilliant to lead large groups into battle? And I don't see Regent Focus as a possibility at all.

I'd say that if the fighter wants those feats, let them use their hard-earned feat every third level like everyone else.
As the fighter is defined now, I would agree with you. Originally their were many who wanted both a courtier type noble and a military leader noble class. Once the military noble was nixed due to lack of consencus I suggested that we alter the fighter class to make him warrior/military leader. This way he retains his original role but a noble could multi-class with fighter to make a general while a commoner could take fighter to make a warlord or mercenary captain. It is a change of focus for the fighter, but I think a neccesary on given the lack of any other military leader class.

[irdeggman]

Hmm let's see in the current version Table 1-9 lists the following feats as eligible for fighters using their fighter bonus feats (see the footnote on the table, the same format as used in the 3.5 PHB vice listing all of the feats in the class description (like was done in 3.0)):

Conquerer, Great Leader, Military Genius, Regional Arms Training, Regional Arms Focus and Regional Elite Arms Training.

This is a pretty good amount of additions to their list.

I have problems with adding skill focus-lead though. It just doesn't seem right to add a single type of skill focus to a list. What I mean is that you either get skill focus as a bonus feat or not. It is really not that huge a thing to not add it to the fighter list since fighters still get their every 3rd level character feat also. It is important to keep in mind for perspective that in order for a wizard to acquire all of the item creation feats prior to 20th level he must use his every one of his 3rd level character feats as well.

I think by adding the feats I did the overall feel of what was asked for is maintained without making the the class a noble-warrior class.

And yes Conquerer is still a regional feat but it sure seemed like a great fit even if it is only applicable to those regions.

As far as adding the regional arms feats - the question could be asked since a fighter is already proficient in all common and martial weapons what is the point? While the regional arms training is pretty much already covered, the regional arms focus is not and the regional elite arms training frequently includes weapons that are normally exotic. So basically there are 4 new feats that have legitimate uses (conquerer, great leader, military genius, and regional arms focus) the other two are probably not worth listing and could just as easily be dropped without any adverse effects.

[irdeggman]

As far as the noble goes with class abilities gaining something at every level but most of them being just an increase in an existing ability - let's take a look at some other core classes.

The barbarian gains something at every level also and almost all of those are just increases in one of his basic handful of abilities,

most of the bard's abilities are just increases in his basic ones - and while he doesn't gain an ability at every level he does gain spells,

the druid gains something at every level (except 17th and 19th) and most of those are just increases in wild shape,

the monk gains something at every level and some of those are pretty powerful abilities,

the rogue gets something at almost every level with almost all of those just being incremental increases in basic abilities.

[The Jew]

Well, I guess I missed that :unsure: . You can just sort of ignore my recent posts. I do think it would be appropriate to add skill focus lead and warcraft, but not really enough to fight over it.

[RaspK_FOG]

OK, got it Irdeggman: that put me in my place rather nicely, I might add...

Furthermore, I made a little run through the class and seems to be working fine.

[irdeggman]

The Jew,

I agree any fighter who wanted to be a leader/regent of any sorts would definitely take skill focus-lead and skill focus-warcraft.


So far we have one opinion voiced as using climb as a replacment for survival on the rogue skills list for Vos and Rjurik. Any more opinion? I really don't want to start too much tweaking just based on one specific feedback/suggestion (including my own).

In a similar vein Osprey had some suggestions on toning down the additional benefits of the noble.

I'll start working on the editorials later today.

[graham anderson]

I would have thought trapmaking would have fit better for rjurik and vos why would they be experts at climbing.

[Raesene Andu]

Climb is useful for more than just climbing in someone's window. Giving the wild nature of both Rjurik and Vosgaard, I'd say climb was useful for rogues from those lands. Survival is also useful though, given the nasty landscape. So it trapmaking (snares for poachers)

Well, I can't decided... :)

[Osprey]

I have no problem with Survival remaining on the lists, since it is a regional class skill for any humans from those regions. But Climb is a pretty good second choice, too. Either choice seems appropriate to me.

[RaspK_FOG]

I am OK with Survival as well, but Hazard has a point; in any case, Climb makes a lot of sense...

(And trapmaking is a Craft skill.)

[graham anderson]

Yes trapmaking is a craft skill what is your point what does it matter to the discussion. I think trapmaking is far more appropriate to tribal , wilderness cultures like the vos and rjurik than climb which I cannot see any good reason they would develop particular skill in it indeed I would have though that climb was more appropriate in large cities so khinasi, brechtur , anuire would be more likely to have it. That is just me opinion but why do people think that they should get climb.

[Raesene Andu]

As I said there is more to climb that just climbing into someone's window. There is also climbing trees and mountainsides, both important wilderness skills. The climb skill would be at least as useful to a tribal rogue as a city one.

[RaspK_FOG]

Thank you, Raesene; in fact, it is in wilderness that Climb kicks in the most!

Allow me to portray this in other words: You climb up a wall; low repeatition, high DC occurence (unless you use a grappling hook, pitons or neko-de [or their equivalent in non-oriental settings], and so on).
Climb up a cliff or tree; high repeatition, low DC occurence.
The problem is that the latter case will waste your material and physical (lack of fatigue/exhaustion) resources sooner than the former, which makes it even more dangerous in the long run.

Maybe my prejudice has to do with a high fatality-rated campaign I left a few months ago: the DM was as bad as to make me roll a Climb check AFTER I cast a Spider Climb spell (I even had to look for the damn spider to gulp down!)...

Talk about dangers of the wild :rolleyes:

[graham anderson]

It is an evergreen forest though net nearly as good for climbing as the tree's in the south. As for mountains yes but how many mountains are there and in how many realms, not very many. I don't like climb my self so

How about balance both the vos and rjurik realm's are very cold and covered in ice and snow for much of the year. The rogue is far more sure footed on ice due to practice.

[Bokey]

I think the survival skill makes the most sense. They have to survive in there particular environment on a daily basis. They only have to climb mountains if the passes are clogged, or tree if they get lost. Assuming that they wander the earth like the Rjuven are known to do, this could happen, but in each clan there would probably be 1-2 "scouts" that did most of this climbing. Everybody would have to know how to protect themselves from the weather, where to look for food in the frozen wasteland, etc.

I know survival doesn't fit the mold, but it makes the most logical sense; well, at least to me.

[The Jew]

How about a revamping of Dwarven artisan. Currently the bonus to armour is + %50 hp. I have only only been in a few campaigns where an armours hp matter. I think a +1 AC would be a more comparable bonus to the +1 to hit that a masterwork weapon recieves or additional +1 to damage that a superior masterwork weapon recieves.

Maybe all superior masterwork items could recieve the + %50 to hp.

[Osprey]

What makes he most sense is that Rangers and Barbarians are doing most of this (scouting) stuff in Rjurik and Vosgaard. Who would ever send a Rogue scouting in the wilderness when they have a Ranger to do the job? The main advantage of rogues over rangers is their specialty in detecting and disarming traps, and their mastery of the ambush (sneak attack). Useful in certain situations, but a poor substitute for an expert tracker and hunter in the general scouting role.

I think perhaps this little nitpicky issue (Survival, Climb, etc. as regional rogue skill) is part of something a bit bigger: the rogue's role as defined for the Rjurik and Vos. Currently they are named as typically filling scout roles for their people. But since the Ranger class is already the preeminent scout class, this creates something of a problem for the rogue, who is almost guaranteeed to be second-rate in comparison.

The net result, using the current setup, is that Rjurik and Vos rogues would end up being very uncommon if they only tried to be scouts, because the rangers would keep on out-competing them for the scouting jobs. Survival and Tracking (what the ranger is all about) really are some core skills for any scout's job description.

No, I think rogues need a more distinct role than "scout" among the Rjurik and Vos. Here's where I'd be curious to hear other folks' ideas for what some "typical" rogues would be doing in these lands. Below are some of my own ideas on the matter:

Vosgaard: I'd expect most rogues are women. Sneaking, backstabbing, and social manipulation (the rogue's specialties) are very much the province of Kreisha, not Belinik, and nearly all Vos cultural roles seem to follow these two male/female "deities-as-role models." I imagine rogue is a common [multi]class choice for some priestesses and many female devotees of Kreisha, and I'd expect there are a few dedicated assassins working for the temples as well.

I throw this out there because it completely redefines the rogue's role in Vos society, and grants them a much more social role - something the Vos culture defeinitely needs fleshed out for the BR setting. Move away from 2D, cookie cutter "barbarian" culture, flesh out social and cultural complexities, texture, diversity.

Rjurik: In Norse mythology and sagas, Loki stands as the archetype of rogues: the sometimes-malicious fiery trickster. In Norse sagas, roguish characters are rare, but the closest thing I can think of are the "bad neighbor" types: men who are lazy, two-faced, cunning...they don't get much respect, but they do sometimes get what they want, usually at their rivals' expense.

In Gaelic folklore, roguish characters are more respectable - cunning, trickery, and wits are valuable hero traits for certain characters (notably Finn MacCool, or Fionn mac Cumhaill in Gaelic; also Prince Gwydion in the Welsh 'Mabinogion' is another good roguish hero).

Putting all of this together, I'd expect that rogues aren't all that common in Rjurik society, but those that are tend to be trickster-types: people who rely mainly on wit, cunning, and deception to get the job done. Now these could still be woodsy-type characters, but given how prevalent rangers are among the Rjurik, I would look for an alternative to the scout role - namely, the "Rogue as Trickster". Given the gruff, straightforward mien typical of the Rjurik, the rogue should play not another variety of this, but the counter-role to the norm, the Fool. If we're treating PC's as potential heroes, then here is a role where a PC Rjurik rogue could really shine, rather than always being in the shadow of the rangers.


So putting all of this together, here's the regional rogue skills I would propose for these re-defined roles:

Rjurik: Bluff, Craft (Trapmaking), Disguise, Hide, Move Silently

Vos: Bluff, Gather Information, Intimidate, Sense Motive


I apologize in advance for a proposal that could create lots more work for Chapter 1 and the Atlas. But I think (from a perspective outside the box) these are far more interesting, culturally accurate, and socially complementary roles for rogues than the wannabe ranger scout role.

Even if we don't adopt any of this for the BRCS, I hope they provide some interesting alternatives for DM's and players in these settings.

Osprey

[Osprey]

How about a revamping of Dwarven artisan. Currently the bonus to armour is + %50 hp. I have only only been in a few campaigns where an armours hp matter. I think a +1 AC would be a more comparable bonus to the +1 to hit that a masterwork weapon recieves or additional +1 to damage that a superior masterwork weapon recieves.

Maybe all superior masterwork items could recieve the + %50 to hp.

Agreed. While it's logical, it lacks much 'oomph' for real game effect. +1 AC is a much more direct and desirable benefit, but is hardly over-powered for a racial specialty feat. If dwarves can make armor and weapons that anyone would want, it only enhances the "dwarves as master craftsmen" theme.

Other possible effects are a total of -2 to the armor check penalty and +1 to max Dex (superior balance and efficient construction would grant this sort of effect) - but since this seems to be more the province of elven mithril, I'd say the +1 AC bonus is better in representing the dwarven theme of "strong, sturdy, and superior" to any normal or even masterwork armor.

[Hrandal]

Since dwarves find it no harder to move under encumbrance, you might even want to increase the weight of dwarven items slightly to compensate.

[The Jew]

Originally posted by Hrandal@Dec 13 2004, 01:18 PM
Since dwarves find it no harder to move under encumbrance, you might even want to increase the weight of dwarven items slightly to compensate.
But this requires a feat to be able to make the improvements. It also makes sense since Dwarves are always so much better craftsmen in fantasy literature. I don't see it so much as thicker armour, but armour where the different pieces that fit together have less space in between.

I will admit that I am biased though, as I am playing a dwarven smith with the feat at the moment.

[Hrandal]

All I'm saying is that dwarves have different tolerances for armour than humans - what they might consider and acceptable armour weight would probably be a lot more dense than what a human would find acceptable.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember reading that tournament armour was about 50% heavier than standard plate armour because it would have been unwearable for even most knights for more than a few minutes of activity at any one time.

[irdeggman]

I don't really have a problem with survival as a common vos and rjurik rogue skill. Making it a common skill doesn't place any restrictions on the character one way or another. There is nothing that "requires" any rogue from that region to have any ranks in those skills. There is a benefit if the regional rogue training feat is taken, but again that really has no restriction on a rogue.

Unless I get a lot of voiced opinions on changing the common rogue skills I'm not going to do it. It was in the class section (not skills) and was "sanctioned", so I'm assuming that those who voted for sanctioning liked it.

Note that rogues should be rare in both vosgaard and the rjurik highlands just because of the cultures there. Rogues, while not thieves (ala 2nd ed) are still commonly seen as a selfish class (my personal opinion not truely backed by text but still makes sense and serves as a tie to the 2nd ed thief/merchant prince concept) due to how their skills stack. While rangers are loners, rogues tend to be out for what they can get. They do make exceptionally good business people (sort of goes hand-in-hand with that selfish thing) and are very good at taking what doesn't belong to them (that thief thing).

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by The Jew@Dec 13 2004, 11:26 AM
How about a revamping of Dwarven artisan. Currently the bonus to armour is + %50 hp. I have only only been in a few campaigns where an armours hp matter. I think a +1 AC would be a more comparable bonus to the +1 to hit that a masterwork weapon recieves or additional +1 to damage that a superior masterwork weapon recieves.

Maybe all superior masterwork items could recieve the + %50 to hp.
Which point are you trying to make here?


Items made via the dwarven artisan feat are "superior masterwork items".

I don't really have a problem with changing the +hp to +1 to AC. It does fit with the what the dwarven artisan feat does to weapons, as long as we add the same caveat to it, "this +1 doesn't stack with any enchancement bonus the item may have".

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by The Jew+Dec 13 2004, 12:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (The Jew &#064; Dec 13 2004, 12:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Hrandal@Dec 13 2004, 01:18 PM
Since dwarves find it no harder to move under encumbrance, you might even want to increase the weight of dwarven items slightly to compensate.
But this requires a feat to be able to make the improvements. It also makes sense since Dwarves are always so much better craftsmen in fantasy literature. I don&#39;t see it so much as thicker armour, but armour where the different pieces that fit together have less space in between.

I will admit that I am biased though, as I am playing a dwarven smith with the feat at the moment. [/b][/quote]
The historical dwarven artisan (2nd ed) {gosh image referring to 2nd ed as historical B) } had dwarven items weighing more than others. While this hinged concept would be necessary to make the items maintain functionability, the intricate hinges and thinner material/workmanship was typically reserved for races with a finer hand (i.e., elves).

Also note that this isn&#39;t an improvment on a masterwork item - it is a superior masterwork item. That is to say when made it is made better than a normal masterwork item. You can&#39;t make a masterwork item better, it can only be originally created that way. Only via placing enchantments on an item can it be made better, but it is really not crafted better.

[The Jew]

Would a %10 increase do? What was the increase in 2nd ed?


Originally posted by jrdeggman
{gosh image referring to 2nd ed as historical }

Don&#39;t worry Jrdeggman, that is just a sign that you are getting old :P

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by The Jew+Dec 13 2004, 07:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (The Jew @ Dec 13 2004, 07:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Would a %10 increase do? What was the increase in 2nd ed?

<!--QuoteBegin-jrdeggman
{gosh image referring to 2nd ed as historical* }

Don&#39;t worry Jrdeggman, that is just a sign that you are getting old :P [/b][/quote]
IIRC in 2nd ed dwarven full plate (for example) weighed 50% more.

They say that memory is the 2nd thing to go I&#39;ve forgotten what the first was. :unsure: