Adjudicating Magicians and Specialization Using Pathfinder.

[Birthright-L]

In the Pathfinder rules (which are really a kind of D&D 3.6 or 3.7)
the rules for wizard specialization are changed. Specialists still
get a bonus spell per level, but they aren`t entirely barred from
their opposition school(s). Rather, memorizing a spell from their
opposition school requires two spell slots rather than one, "paying"
for the bonus spell. There are a few other ancillary benefits of
specialization along with related penalties, but those don`t really
concern us overly for BR purposes.

In BR, of course, we have magicians who are usually portrayed as
"specialist" illusionists and/or diviners in 3e+ terms. They got a
few additional benefits in 2e, though, given the fact that opposition
schools were everything but illusions, divinations and, I guess,
universal spells.

So, two questions:

1. For blooded wizards, would you use the Pathfinder version of
specialization in a BR campaign, or require an older 3e interpretation?

2. Given that specialization is a bit more relaxed in Pathfinder, do
you think Magicians should be given additional capabilities if using
the Pathfinder version of specialization?

Gary

[AndrewTall]

As a note, Magican's spell selection was only limited for L3 and above spells from recollection - given the low numbers of magicians over L5 that's a fairly insignificant restriction in practice.

My perspective is that thematically - if not mechanically - the magician was not at all like a specialist, they lacked the raw power to safely use other magics, they didn't focus heavily on divinations/illusion and thus lose skill elsewhere, they simply weren't capable of other magic (the chamberlain aside) so the restriction could be justifiably continued in my view.

[Birthright-L]

At 01:13 PM 9/11/2012, AndrewTall wrote:

>As a note, Magican`s spell selection was only limited for L3 and
>above spells from recollection - given the low numbers of magicians
>over L5 that`s a fairly insignificant restriction in practice.

Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.

>My perspective is that thematically - if not mechanically - the
>magician was not at all like a specialist, they lacked the raw power
>to safely use other magics, they didn`t focus heavily on
>divinations/illusion and thus lose skill elsewhere, they simply
>weren`t capable of other magic (the chamberlain aside) so the
>restriction could be justifiably continued in my view.

It`s been a while since I read it, but doesn`t the 3e update treat
magicians as specialists? I had always thought so, though I have my
own interpretation, so I could easily be getting them confused. In
any case, wouldn`t someone interested in magic but limited in its use
specialize in those aspects that s/he could employ? Magicians would
be wizards if they had a bloodline. They aren`t like rangers or
paladins (or other classes) for whom spellcasting is a sort of
ancillary benefit.

Anyway, I`m not suggesting that they gain access to spells other than
illusion and divination using Pathfinder. I wouldn`t want to change
something so fundamental to the setting. Rather, I wonder if there
should be additional benefits of being a magician to compensate for
the greater access of (blooded) specialist wizards in BR.

I ask because when playing a specialist (enchanter) in another
campaign under 3.5 rules that later switched to Pathfinder, I found
my character MUCH more capable than he had been before. Not
necessarily much more useful in spellcasting, but the restriction on
even USING magic items that come from one of his formerly "forbidden"
schools of magic had been lifted, so things like necromancy were
suddenly available. Seemingly small things (a scroll of False Life
that gives d10+level hp, for instance) actually can make a pretty big
difference for a wizard.

Given that magicians remain barred from any (L3+ spells) of other
schools than illusion and divination, I wonder if that merits an
additional class feature, number of bonus feats, or some other
benefit to compensate.

Gary

[Birthright-L]

Which reminds me....

The restriction on necromancy for Khinasi wizards is also a pretty
serious issue. Effectively, that gives Khinasi wizards a penalty
that compares to that of specialists....

Should having to take the Five Oaths give a benefit to the
character? An extra feat, perhaps? A limited specialization
effect? Maybe a +1 CL in a school of magic?

Gary

[AndrewTall]

It`s been a while since I read it, but doesn`t the 3e update treat magicians as specialists?

I answered based on 2e first time, sorry, having looked it up, the BRCS looks to be similar to 2e with spell list based on divination, illusion and low level healing with a comment to allow some chamrs.


Anyway, I`m not suggesting that they gain access to spells other than illusion and divination using Pathfinder. I wouldn`t want to change something so fundamental to the setting. Rather, I wonder if there should be additional benefits of being a magician to compensate for the greater access of (blooded) specialist wizards in BR.

I'd add charms because it fits the low power magician approach, keeps the blood 'n' thunder for true wizards, while allowing the steroetypical witches with their power to warp men's minds and suchlike. Even with a third school Magicians are much more restricted than regular specialists, so some benefit it needed - I'd go for more skills and add an ability to use forbidden school items like you suggest (the power isn't coming from the magician afterall).



Should having to take the Five Oaths give a benefit to the character? An extra feat, perhaps? A limited specialization effect? Maybe a +1 CL in a school of magic?
Gary

The problem here in my view is a social gain vs a mechanical penalty which simply doesn't work despite good intentions.

In my view the 5 oaths could be seen in two ways:

1.Purely social: publicly keep the oath = social gains, much like preserving/defiling in the darksun books (where the sorceress dips into defiling when she "needs to" but gets in trouble when this is found out).

2. Purely mechanical, the oath-maker really can't use necromancy, in exchange they should then have a mechanical benefit.

One mechanical cost/benefit exchange could be a ban on negative necromancy in exchange for enhanced access to positive necromancy (clerical healing) to put the ban on the socially unacceptable stuff like bothering the dead where it belongs (Mrs Cake's views notwithstanding) and highlight the godly blessing in the oath.

[The incredible, edible Phil]

I answered based on 2e first time, sorry, having looked it up, the BRCS looks to be similar to 2e with spell list based on divination, illusion and low level healing with a comment to allow some chamrs.



I'd add charms because it fits the low power magician approach, keeps the blood 'n' thunder for true wizards, while allowing the steroetypical witches with their power to warp men's minds and suchlike. Even with a third school Magicians are much more restricted than regular specialists, so some benefit it needed - I'd go for more skills and add an ability to use forbidden school items like you suggest (the power isn't coming from the magician afterall).



The problem here in my view is a social gain vs a mechanical penalty which simply doesn't work despite good intentions.

In my view the 5 oaths could be seen in two ways:

1.Purely social: publicly keep the oath = social gains, much like preserving/defiling in the darksun books (where the sorceress dips into defiling when she "needs to" but gets in trouble when this is found out).

2. Purely mechanical, the oath-maker really can't use necromancy, in exchange they should then have a mechanical benefit.

One mechanical cost/benefit exchange could be a ban on negative necromancy in exchange for enhanced access to positive necromancy (clerical healing) to put the ban on the socially unacceptable stuff like bothering the dead where it belongs (Mrs Cake's views notwithstanding) and highlight the godly blessing in the oath.


From a mechanical perspective, I think players could have the option at character creation of A) Not abiding by the Oath and cast Necromancy as they wish but limit themselves in RP, or B) impose upon themselves a limitation to bar the school outright and if they do so they get a minor benefit which applies only to wizards that do not bar the school outright as a specialist. I think a bonus to spellcraft to Identify necromantic uses or a bonus to dispelling/counterspelling necromantic effects.

[Green Knight]

Magicians are not specialists. They are an alternate spellcasting class with it's own spell list. Mainly illusion/divination, but a smattering of other stuff.

If they are to be a PC playable the class needs enough other abilities to make it worthwhile. Otherwise it's an NPC class.

[Aurel]

I would make Magicians into an Archetype where they are pick Illusion and Divination as specialty schools but in turn are barred from all other schools. They also get 2 additional bonus spells instead of one that can be used on either Illusion spells and Divination spells.

As for Khinasi you could have a feat:

Signer of the Five Oaths: Upon recieving this feat the PC would gain a geas type effect where so long as he does not violate the five oaths he recieves a +1 CL Bonus to a Spell School of his choice. Violating the Five Oaths would render the feat useless until the wizards undergoes an Atonement.

[Michael Romes]

...
I'd add charms because it fits the low power magician approach, keeps the blood 'n' thunder for true wizards, while allowing the steroetypical witches with their power to warp men's minds and suchlike. Even with a third school Magicians are much more restricted than regular specialists, so some benefit it needed - I'd go for more skills and add an ability to use forbidden school items like you suggest (the power isn't coming from the magician afterall).

Are Magicians much more restricted than comparable - not regular - specialists?
In 2E I saw Magicians as double specialized in Divination and Illusion + access up to L2 of the other schools + some minor stuff.

Comparable would not be the normal specialist Mage who specialized in one and shuns another school, but something like the Red Wizard of Thay who also shuns more than one school.

[AndrewTall]

In 2e magicians were only able to access 2 schools for spells above 3rd level, so whereas a normal specialist lost 1 school, the magician lost 6...

[Michael Romes]

In 2e magicians were only able to access 2 schools for spells above 3rd level, so whereas a normal specialist lost 1 school, the magician lost 6...

I wrote "comparable specialist". A Mage specialized in one school is not comparable to the 2E Magician who specializes in two schools (Illusion/Divination). A double specialized Wizard would be closer to the Magician.
That is why I mentioned the Red Wizard of Thay as an comparable example of more limits with more power in specialization than the normal specialist.

And while a 2E specialist Wizard who specialize twice would lose 2 (or 3 or 4 depending on choice as e.g. an invoker lost Enchantment and Charm) complete schools of magic, the Magician retains up to level 2 of all schools. That sounds not great in all other D&D settings where magic is plenty and characters raise to high levels soon. But in Birthright where most of the population has no PC classes at all and most Magicians are lowlevel it is nice to have.

[Fizz]

Indeed. Magicians could only cast Lesser Magic, not True Magic. Lesser magic was all illusion and divination spells, and 1st-2nd level spells of the other schools.

-Fizz

[Michael Romes]

Indeed. Magicians could only cast Lesser Magic, not True Magic. Lesser magic was all illusion and divination spells, and 1st-3rd level spells of the other schools.

-Fizz

If you mean 2E then only level 1 and 2 spells of the other schools. The marking spells of the other schools (e.g. Fireball) that become available at 3rd level were already barred to the 2E Magician.

[Fizz]

If you mean 2E then only level 1 and 2 spells of the other schools. The marking spells of the other schools (e.g. Fireball) that become available at 3rd level were already barred to the 2E Magician.

Yes, 2nd. Typo. Starting writing "less than 3rd" and then shifted.

-Fizz

[Fizz]

And while a 2E specialist Wizard who specialize twice would lose 2 (or 3 or 4 depending on choice as e.g. an invoker lost Enchantment and Charm)

To clarify, in 2E the only specialist that lost 3 schools was the illusionist, who could not cast necromancy, invocation, abjuration spells. Invokers lost enchantment and conjuration.

Also of note, 2nd Ed magicians did gain a few other advantages over true mages. Magicians could acquire proficiencies from the rogue group, in addition to the wizard and general groups. As well, magicians had a better selection of weapons than a mage.

So comparing the true mage to magician isn't just a matter of available schools.

-Fizz

[Michael Romes]

To clarify, in 2E the only specialist that lost 3 schools was the illusionist, who could not cast necromancy, invocation, abjuration spells. Invokers lost enchantment and conjuration.

Also of note, 2nd Ed magicians did gain a few other advantages over true mages. Magicians could acquire proficiencies from the rogue group, in addition to the wizard and general groups. As well, magicians had a better selection of weapons than a mage.

So comparing the true mage to magician isn't just a matter of available schools.

-Fizz

You are right, of course not. A magician has something besides spellcasting.

However the reason I brought up a twice specialized Wizard in comparison was that some find the Magician too weak and wanted to add the whole school of Charming to them in addition to Illusion and Divination. And for that reason I argued regarding spell selection that you can´t compare a generalist Wizard or even a specialized Wizard (e.g. Invoker) to a Magician, but that for a fitting comparison of available spells a twice specialized Wizard would be closer.

If anything then the weapon and armour proficiencies that the Magician receives and the "no true Wizard" restrictions that the Bard has to adhere too, would to me rather mean that the Bard should retain his usual spells fromt he school of Charming instead of losing those of level 3+ to make both classes more different from each other.

[Fizz]

However the reason I brought up a twice specialized Wizard in comparison was that some find the Magician too weak and wanted to add the whole school of Charming to them in addition to Illusion and Divination. And for that reason I argued regarding spell selection that you can´t compare a generalist Wizard or even a specialized Wizard (e.g. Invoker) to a Magician, but that for a fitting comparison of available spells a twice specialized Wizard would be closer.

If anything then the weapon and armour proficiencies that the Magician receives and the "no true Wizard" restrictions that the Bard has to adhere too, would to me rather mean that the Bard should retain his usual spells fromt he school of Charming instead of losing those of level 3+ to make both classes more different from each other.

I don't think the magician gets any armour benefits over a wizard (not in 2nd Ed anyways). I think they still can't wear armour, but just have a few more weapons available to them.

Maybe it's just some OCD talking (heh), but one things that bugged (bugs?) me in the original rules are the multiple justifications required. For example, illusion and divination comprise Lesser Magic, but bards can cast enchantment spells. This is explained by saying they use the elven spellsong technique, but it's still magic yet neither True Magic nor Lesser seemingly. So it always felt like exception upon exception to justify class aiblities, when the simpler solution would have been to tweak the classes. (Similarly, druids get their magic from Erik, even though mebhaigl comes from the land / nature, but rangers don't need Erik, etc etc.)

In that light, i don't mind enchantment being made part of Lesser Magic. Lesser Magic is meant to be more subtle, not flashy or overtly destructive, so enchantment fits. This way bards are lesser spellcasters without any extra justification for their spells needed.

I don't think magicians are underpowered, but i don't think adding enchantment as part of Lesser Magic breaks anything either. Magicians still cast the same number of spells per day, it just makes them a bit more flexible. It's not like you're giving them new damage potential with fireballs or summoned monsters or anything like that (which would also ruin the entire feel of the class).


-Fizz

[Michael Romes]

I don't think the magician gets any armour benefits over a wizard (not in 2nd Ed anyways). I think they still can't wear armour, but just have a few more weapons available to them.

You´re right. I prefer 2E but still remember parts of the 3E BRCS sometimes.
In 2E they got more weapons and access to the Rogue, Wizard and General Non-Weapon-Proficiencies.



Maybe it's just some OCD talking (heh), but one things that bugged (bugs?) me in the original rules are the multiple justifications required. For example, illusion and divination comprise Lesser Magic, but bards can cast enchantment spells. This is explained by saying they use the elven spellsong technique, but it's still magic yet neither True Magic nor Lesser seemingly. So it always felt like exception upon exception to justify class aiblities, when the simpler solution would have been to tweak the classes. (Similarly, druids get their magic from Erik, even though mebhaigl comes from the land / nature, but rangers don't need Erik, etc etc.)

Wasn´t the 2E Cerilian Druid not just a specialty priests of Aeric? That is something I liked more in 2E than in 3E, too. Priests who are different from each other not only by adding some domain spells, but who actually have to resemble their deity by having Major and minor spheres of access to spells which in turn limited their access to priest realm spells so that no single priest could cast them all.



In that light, i don't mind enchantment being made part of Lesser Magic. Lesser Magic is meant to be more subtle, not flashy or overtly destructive, so enchantment fits. This way bards are lesser spellcasters without any extra justification for their spells needed.

I don't think magicians are underpowered, but i don't think adding enchantment as part of Lesser Magic breaks anything either. Magicians still cast the same number of spells per day, it just makes them a bit more flexible. It's not like you're giving them new damage potential with fireballs or summoned monsters or anything like that (which would also ruin the entire feel of the class).

The 2E Magician already has access to level 0 to 2 of Enchantments without any change, just like to any other school.
More Enchantment (Dominate? Shadowwalk?) and he again becomes to similar to the "elven spellsong" Bard and risks to join being shunned in Khinasi lands as the Bard and to intrude on the territory of the True Wizard.

[Fizz]

Wasn´t the 2E Cerilian Druid not just a specialty priests of Aeric? That is something I liked more in 2E than in 3E, too. Priests who are different from each other not only by adding some domain spells, but who actually have to resemble their deity by having Major and minor spheres of access to spells which in turn limited their access to priest realm spells so that no single priest could cast them all.

Yeah, 2nd Ed had specialty priests, and druids were presented as an example of a specialty priest. I liked this system as well, except for how the spell spheres were defined; they were pretty sloppy in some cases, and could result in some non-sensical spells being available to certain faiths.

However, druids had a lot of extras in comparison to other specialty priests. And in Birthright, they had all regular druid abilities from the PH, PLUS they had hide in shadows, move silently and animal empathy as a ranger 3 levels higher!

In other games (such as 3E, C&C) i've never liked the idea of a class being unique to one faith. To me, druids are the less organize, more primal type of priest. So in my games, druids can be priests by Erik, Ruornil, or Kriesha, with each faith having a few tweaks in the same way a cleric does.


The 2E Magician already has access to level 0 to 2 of Enchantments without any change, just like to any other school.
More Enchantment (Dominate? Shadowwalk?) and he again becomes to similar to the "elven spellsong" Bard and risks to join being shunned in Khinasi lands as the Bard and to intrude on the territory of the True Wizard.

In 2nd Ed, the Cerilian bard could only cast illusion, divination and enchantment (not any spell from any other school of any level). I understand the desire to keep them unique, but the inconsistencies in magic always bugged me.

In the description of the wizard class, the Birthright rulebook says there are three types of magic: lesser, true, and realm. So all magic should fit into one of those. So if a non-blooded human bard can cast a high level enchantment spell, it must be lesser magic. And then a magician should be able to cast it as well. The casting method (elven spellsong) still ultimately channels mebhaigl, so why can't a magician use his own casting method to channel it into the same effect?

So the 2nd Ed rule for bards felt like a kludge to me. Your mileage may vary, of course. :)


-Fizz

[Sorontar]

One thing that always made things different between how BR handled magic and clerical specialties was the fact that while one clerical faith may have specialties in which domains it covered, each temple had different approaches to that faith. The PC or NPC then had a different interpretation of that approach. This was true even for druids of Eric. Those in the Emerald Spire were very much community-based, getting back to nature types, but the Oaken Grove were more outward thinking and concerned about society working with nature to benefit all. They might have had access to the same spell lists, but how they would approach using them would be different.

Magicians and Mage Specialisations didn't have the same ideological leanings. I don't remember anything about magical colleges except the big one in the City of Anuire, and it didn't certainly enforce any beliefs or practises on its students or graduates.

Sorontar