PDA

View Full Version : Magician Spell List



EstebanDragonwing
06-08-2007, 12:13 PM
Is there a full spell list available for the Magician Class? The Wiki only shows spells up to 1st level.

cccpxepoj
06-08-2007, 12:42 PM
i think that birthright D20 rulebook have the complete magician spell list

irdeggman
06-08-2007, 03:27 PM
Here is the list for the BRCS.

Not included in the magic chapter yet and some spells need a detailed write-up.

EstebanDragonwing
06-08-2007, 05:03 PM
Thanks for the information there. Now I know why I couldn't find it on the Wiki

AndrewTall
06-08-2007, 07:20 PM
Thanks for the information there. Now I know why I couldn't find it on the Wiki

Well if you want to put it up....

I made the spell index purely as a starter for people to hang their stuff from - similarly for the tips pages, etc.

EstebanDragonwing
06-09-2007, 08:06 AM
I read through that word file and compared it to the level 1 spells on the Wiki and the word file seems less then complete. At the moment I am setting up a game and writing my own setting, but I'll try to have a look at a full spell list for the magician.

irdeggman
06-09-2007, 03:14 PM
I read through that word file and compared it to the level 1 spells on the Wiki and the word file seems less then complete. At the moment I am setting up a game and writing my own setting, but I'll try to have a look at a full spell list for the magician.


The Word document is the "Official" list. It was sanctioned at the same time as the class was via Chap 1.

The wiki is in error here.

There was a conscious decision to not include the "cure" spells from the magician list (even though they are on the bard's list) - that is the one that quickly jumps at me.

AndrewTall
06-09-2007, 06:49 PM
The Word document is the "Official" list. It was sanctioned at the same time as the class was via Chap 1.

The wiki is in error here.

There was a conscious decision to not include the "cure" spells from the magician list (even though they are on the bard's list) - that is the one that quickly jumps at me.

Whoever did the page probably had the old list... The good thing about a wiki is that pages can be easy edited... I'd keep the list with cure spells as an alternate page though - it's consistent with other low magic users and a very useful addition to the magician list which could permit hedge wizards to get by - everyone needs healing from time to time and it can engender strong loyalties...

irdeggman
06-09-2007, 08:37 PM
Whoever did the page probably had the old list... The good thing about a wiki is that pages can be easy edited... I'd keep the list with cure spells as an alternate page though - it's consistent with other low magic users and a very useful addition to the magician list which could permit hedge wizards to get by - everyone needs healing from time to time and it can engender strong loyalties...

Yes but bards have cure spells on their lists as well as the NPC adept class.

Many people had problems with bards (an arcane caster) having cure spells at all (hence the sidebar in the BRCS about dropping the cure spells).

Personnaly I think there are plenty of options already out there for cure spells with existing classes (clerics, druids, bards, rangers, paladins, adepts - for NPC) and the blood ability (healing).

And that doesn't count options in newer products or home-brew classes themselves.

kgauck
06-09-2007, 09:15 PM
Divine bards devoted to Cuiraecen, Laerme, or Erik makes more sense, since it fits the setting better, and doesn't require a change in the class design.

Sticking with bard-as-arcanist, serves very little purpose.

ryancaveney
06-10-2007, 02:24 AM
Divine bards devoted to Cuiraecen, Laerme, or Erik makes more sense, since it fits the setting better, and doesn't require a change in the class design.

What about Sidhelien or half-elven, non-divine bards? Do you think they have a place?

kgauck
06-10-2007, 03:59 AM
I believe in as many class designs as the DM is willing to put up with. Because of the setting, I would tinker more with sidhe and arcane bards. I would make sidhe bards comform to the standard healing pattern I use for regular elves. If elves can cast healing spells, I see no reason to nerf bards. If elves cannot cast healing spells, then sidhe bards don't get them either.

Arcane bards, I think, would use the magician spell list and the bard's normal progression for learning and casting spells. Bards, it would seem to be, do not cast true magic, but would cast lesser magic.

The nice thing about divine bards, is that, AFAIC, you can play they right off the shelf, no tweaking needed to the class. Some context and fluff can be helpful, though the Rjurik book gives all this for skalds. I would also call bards of Cuiraecen "heralds" and call bards of Laerme "minstrals" or "troubadours".

RaspK_FOG
06-10-2007, 05:56 AM
To be honest with you, I'm rather partial to fitting the bill to what the setting is before thinking of what fits the bill itself. For example, an important issue with the 2e setting is that, for example, dwarves are "non magical;" one wonders how much that decision was setting-specific or simply adopting the (A)D&D norm of dwarves that cannot cast spells.

Likewise, bards normally cast wizardly spells in 2e, and you will notice that the bards of Cerilia drastically differ from 3e bards in an important number of ways: first of all, their spellcasting, and secondly, their alignment. The Cerilian bard alignment restriction is an important aspect, but one I paid little hid to until recently, when I truly noticed how this difference works out, since Cerilian bards are prone to point at a problem rather than try to solve it.

Additional issues arise when converting to 3e, but the question remains: what do we strive for?

In my personal games, I assure you, there will be no differenciation between priests of Erik and druids; they will be as shown in 2e, or as close as I can conform them to. Clearly, there is need for me to work a lot on this, and I want to contribute more efficiently with other aspects of this project, so this will have to wait. :P

AndrewTall
06-10-2007, 10:53 AM
Divine bards devoted to Cuiraecen, Laerme, or Erik makes more sense, since it fits the setting better, and doesn't require a change in the class design.

Sticking with bard-as-arcanist, serves very little purpose.

Certainly works in Rjurik - indeed almost is demanded by the setting. Laerme should surely be a patron of bards elsewhere as well. I think bards were arcanists originally to give them illusion spells and other 'entertainment magic' - would you remove that aspect or make a blended spell list?

Personally I'm thinking of a more radical approach of merging all the spell lists, then chucking out some of the blood and thunder spells for all (let fighters do the fighting), then allow lesser mages (priests, magicians and bards) get divinations, charms, illusions, minor healing and mending, and leave the rest to true mages. You lose the cleric class, but can have a similar role for a magician/fighter combo - the rest is just roleplaying. I'll have to think about the resulting spell lists and converting spell caster levels into granted powers in practice...

ShadowMoon
06-10-2007, 11:14 AM
Bardic Colleges were established by Elves, to learn from Humans and to teach Humans ways of the Sidhe.

Since Elves cannot cast Divine magic, bardic magic must be Arcane. It is possible that Humans could develop Divine magic Bard (like Rjuven Skald, which is a Prestige Class in my campaign), but still in its core Bard is an Arcane spellcaster.

In regard of healing magic, it is ridiculous that a Wizard can Shapechange and heal with it, use Wish to emulate Divine spells, but cannot research simple healing spells. I know its a game balance, but still, magic is magic. In my campaign Wizards can heal, and all Wizards start as Magicians, but through experience they advance and learn greater Magic and True Magic, if they have what it takes (bloodline, talent, will, etc.)

irdeggman
06-10-2007, 05:11 PM
Bardic Colleges were established by Elves, to learn from Humans and to teach Humans ways of the Sidhe.

Since Elves cannot cast Divine magic, bardic magic must be Arcane. It is possible that Humans could develop Divine magic Bard (like Rjuven Skald, which is a Prestige Class in my campaign), but still in its core Bard is an Arcane spellcaster.

Actually elves can cast divine spells. As a ranger, they just can't cast any deity inspired ones.


In regard of healing magic, it is ridiculous that a Wizard can Shapechange and heal with it, use Wish to emulate Divine spells, but cannot research simple healing spells. I know its a game balance, but still, magic is magic. In my campaign Wizards can heal, and all Wizards start as Magicians, but through experience they advance and learn greater Magic and True Magic, if they have what it takes (bloodline, talent, will, etc.)

This is an issue/opinion that pertains to the "core" D&D systeme itself and nothing that the BR setting itself calls out.

Now the ramifications for doing this in a BR setting are real dramatic. Since the elves "lost" the war against humans due to clerical magic (e.g., healing) allowing wizards to be able to duplicate divine spells via research would have allowed the elves to have mastery over all types of magic and thus they would not have lost the war.

kgauck
06-10-2007, 05:39 PM
Back in 2nd edition when the idea of non-diety inspired divine magic was addressed by forces, the list was very hostile to forces. The setting, it was explained, didn't support forces, only dieties. So where, precisely, does this non-diety inspired divine power come from?

I suspect this is just a post hoc explaination for the fact that the PHB describes the ranger as a divine spellcaster. Elves, as profoundly rejecting the divine, ought to have arcane rangers.

EstebanDragonwing
06-10-2007, 08:19 PM
Personally I'm thinking of a more radical approach of merging all the spell lists, then chucking out some of the blood and thunder spells for all (let fighters do the fighting), then allow lesser mages (priests, magicians and bards) get divinations, charms, illusions, minor healing and mending, and leave the rest to true mages. You lose the cleric class, but can have a similar role for a magician/fighter combo - the rest is just roleplaying. I'll have to think about the resulting spell lists and converting spell caster levels into granted powers in practice...

This is an idea I have been toying around with myself. Currently I am documenting a setting of my own and at the moment the current consensus is to chuck all Divine caster classes (get rid of clerics and druids and use the non-spell variants for rangers and paladins. Also allow the shape shift ranger to compensate for the druid), then don't use the division between divine and arcane magic.

The bard will be completely rewritten so it won't have any spell casting at all (making the bard what it should be, a bard that sings,tells stories and entertains. If the bard wants illusions he can take a few levels of wizard).

The only classes left will be the magician, sorcerer and wizard. All three spell lists will be rebuild and the wizard will be rewritten so more specialization is possible (for example, able to drop the familiar or scribe scroll to use elemental channeling (turn/rebuke undead (negative/positive energy), fire-, water-, earth- or air energy) and able to specialize in a domain instead of a school).

A variant on this that I am looking at is allowing players to choose which attribute to use for casting (Wis, Int or Cha).

AndrewTall
06-10-2007, 09:39 PM
A variant on this that I am looking at is allowing players to choose which attribute to use for casting (Wis, Int or Cha).

Are you instinctive (mostly granted powers with a few spells), wise (knowing a field of magic by rote) or simply able to bend magic to your will in the form desired?

The change means that priest becomes a title - so a temple may have a spellcaster who channels the faith into miracles, or a warrior who is divinely inspired, etc without a specific class for the role of 'priest' - you just mix and match from the base of fighter/rogue/mage to get the mix of combat ability, skills and spell power that you want.

I was toying with an approach of:

Magician: Standard BR, but with the healing at low level - hedge wizards, common priests and the like without a bloodline. Useful for potions and the like but not part of the fireball brigade. By far the most common spell caster outside elven lands.

Wizard: Knows 'book' spells only, so a role based on rote learning with a consequent distrust of those with a more flexible approach - popular in the churches. Can sacrifice spell levels for 'granted powers' such as lay on hands, turn undead, etc, and probably relatively select spell selection - say wizard plus a choice of one or two schools. Reasonable skill points as they need knowledge skills, diplomacy, etc, etc.

Sorcerer: An instinctive understanding natural to elves and suchlike, able to cast any magic on offer - I'd have a hybrid of wizard and sorcerer - a select number of spells known very well (i.e. standard sorcerer approach) a wider number known reasonably well (needing spell slots, but can be sacrificed for one of the 'sorcerer' spells, and a library of spells that can be studied over a few days and then cast if required - giving flexibility without 'to hand power' that could be problematic. As an elven, and possibly Lost staple this would probably be considered tainted by Azrai by the churches of course... To balance out the class I'd have the traditional pitiful hd, ac, etc, etc and add low skills.

I'd advise taking a flamethrower to area effect spells and 'omni role' spells - buffing spells for other PC's are fine as by their nature they encourage party co-operation, healing is actually a nil power - it avoids party down time, bad feelings over an unlucky role crippling a PC - it doesn't actually increase the power of the spell-caster in game play although it has a substantial role play effect. Anything that protects/shields the caster should probably be a no-no - the party should do that and such spells discourage caution amongst mages...

ShadowMoon
06-11-2007, 01:13 AM
Elves lost not because Divine magic can heal, but because human gods dampened Sidhelien magic capability altogether.

And in my campaign Rangers are not Divine casters, firstly I use Scouts instead of Rangers, so by default they don't have magic capabilities at all. But they can learn to use Druidic magic, and thats Primordial magic (inspired by brilliant Green Knight's RoE BR PBeM).

Its like this in basics:

Magician and Bard: Lesser Arcane Magic
Wizard: Greater Arcane Magic
Paladin: Lesser Divine Magic
Priest: Greater Divine Magic
Ranger: Lesser Primordial Magic
Druid: Greater Primordial Magic

Arcane < Divine < Primordial

...

Edit: Note = In my campaign Magician and Wizard are same class, difference is later because if blooded one could learn greater Arcane and advance like a True Wizard, non-blooded is stuck with lesser Arcane. Paladins are Prestige Classes. Rangers are Scouts, a non-spellcasting variant that can learn the misteries of druidic lore.

ryancaveney
06-11-2007, 03:46 AM
chuck all Divine caster classes (get rid of clerics and druids and use the non-spell variants for rangers and paladins. Also allow the shape shift ranger to compensate for the druid), then don't use the division between divine and arcane magic. The bard will be completely rewritten so it won't have any spell casting at all (making the bard what it should be, a bard that sings,tells stories and entertains. If the bard wants illusions he can take a few levels of wizard).

This is the approach I have long used myself. In fact, I go even further: IMC, rangers are fighter/rogues, and paladins, priests and bards are all some combination of fighter, rogue and magician or wizard; I also enthusiastically employ the "no more than half your levels in spellcasting classes" rule. I have utterly abandoned the arcane/divine distinction, but I have greatly reinforced the blooded/unblooded distinction, which I think makes my system an even better model of what I think Birthright represents. In my system, there is much more difference between a blooded priest and an unblooded one than between a blooded priest and a blooded wizard, which I think enhances the theme of the setting even more.

Blooded casters cast spontaneously; unblooded must memorize in advance. Blooded casters don't need material components for any spell; unblooded need them for every spell. Blooded casters determine bonus spells, max spell level castable and save DC from the higher of Int and Wis; unblooded casters determine them from the lower of Int and Wis minus two. Bloodline score divided by ten and rounded down gives an extra caster level of effect and point of save DC, as does every level of source the caster holds in the province. Regent wizards can also spend RP instead of xp any time they are required (by spell or for magic item creation); my feelings on best ratio vary, but I generally favor 1 RP to 100 xp.


The only classes left will be the magician, sorcerer and wizard. All three spell lists will be rebuild and the wizard will be rewritten so more specialization is possible (for example, able to drop the familiar or scribe scroll to use elemental channeling (turn/rebuke undead (negative/positive energy), fire-, water-, earth- or air energy) and able to specialize in a domain instead of a school).

In my model, blooded casters are capable of learning any spell at all (assuming I haven't banned it from the campaign), but unblooded casters can only learn those allowed to 2e wizards specializing in both divination and illusion: that is, only Divination, Enchantment, Illusion and Transmutation; Conjuration, Necromancy, Evocation and Abjuration are barred to them utterly. Blooded priests could learn the whole PHB, but they don't: each religion has a standard spellbook, which consists of those things they were allowed under 2e rules. Turning is also a spell, researchable by wizards if they desire, and taught by some religions; actually, it's three spells, because Turn Undead is Abjuration, Destroy Undead is Evocation, and Command Undead is Necromancy (so NO unblooded priests can learn any of them). All priests are taught all of those spells of their sect which they can learn, but all of the religious spellbooks were essentially set in stone centuries ago; only in temples of Ruornil, and to a lesser extent Avani, is any magical research conducted by priests -- in which case they do it exactly as wizards do. In fact, IMC, many wizards are descended (in a master-to-apprentice sense) from priests who left the temples of Ruornil a millenium ago in order to spread the study of magic for its own sake rather than as part of a religion.

Where do Sidhelien fit into this, you ask? IMC, the 3e PHB Druid class is precisely the Sidhelien racial class. Some of the powers are reordered; for example, in 2e BR, all Sidhelien had Trackless Step, so I moved it from Druid 3 to Druid 1, while moving Animal Companion to 3rd. They are not restricted to the druid spell list, but many of them mainly choose to cast things from it. This class is not open to any other race, including half-elves, though half-elves still count as blooded for spellcasting purposes (but they don't get additional bonuses to DC, etc. unless they have an actual bloodline of their own). Druid (or Sidhe, as I now call it) is also a spellcasting class, and I don't want all elves to be identical, so they can also take at most half their levels from it -- unless they are blooded, in which case they may be half-Druid and half-Wizard if they wish (like Laeddra and Siebharrin), but are not required to be (like Rhuandice Tuarlacheim).


Ryan

ryancaveney
06-11-2007, 03:48 AM
Elves lost not because Divine magic can heal, but because human gods dampened Sidhelien magic capability altogether.

I concur. I also think the human gods intervened directly, fighting side-by-side with their tribes in (powerfully spellcasting) avatar form.


Ryan

EstebanDragonwing
06-11-2007, 06:21 AM
Blooded casters cast spontaneously; unblooded must memorize in advance. Blooded casters don't need material components for any spell; unblooded need them for every spell. Blooded casters determine bonus spells, max spell level castable and save DC from the higher of Int and Wis; unblooded casters determine them from the lower of Int and Wis minus two. Bloodline score divided by ten and rounded down gives an extra caster level of effect and point of save DC, as does every level of source the caster holds in the province. Regent wizards can also spend RP instead of xp any time they are required (by spell or for magic item creation); my feelings on best ratio vary, but I generally favor 1 RP to 100 xp.

My personal setting has a distinct low magic feeling and I am limiting caster even further. Any spellcaster that is not blooded must pay 1 regency per level of the spell cast every time they cast a spell (note, this is -any- spell, not realm spells). Only 0th level spells can be cast for free. In this I am using the variant rule that non-blooded characters can use their level as their blood score. Needles to say that this makes spell casters extremely rare.

Also, I use a regency cost for any XP costs as well. I am using the following formula: 1RP = 1XP * Character Level * 5
(In fact, I have removed XP from my campaign entirely. If you need to expend XP you -must- use RP. I simply tell my players when they go up a level. I hated the level system anyway in any case.)

cccpxepoj
06-11-2007, 09:12 AM
My personal setting has a distinct low magic feeling and I am limiting caster even further. Any spellcaster that is not blooded must pay 1 regency per level of the spell cast every time they cast a spell (note, this is -any- spell, not realm spells). Only 0th level spells can be cast for free. In this I am using the variant rule that non-blooded characters can use their level as their blood score. Needles to say that this makes spell casters extremely rare.

Also, I use a regency cost for any XP costs as well. I am using the following formula: 1RP = 1XP * Character Level * 5
(In fact, I have removed XP from my campaign entirely. If you need to expend XP you -must- use RP. I simply tell my players when they go up a level. I hated the level system anyway in any case.)

if you have a low level priest of some temple who is brewing potions for some military campain etc,etc.. Haw does he earn RP to brew it ?

EstebanDragonwing
06-11-2007, 09:21 AM
if you have a low level priest of some temple who is brewing potions for some military campain etc,etc.. Haw does he earn RP to brew it ?

He doesn't. First off, priests in my setting are just that, priests... no magic at all. A military campaign will have normal doctors and surgeons with the Heal skill. Magic healing is reserved for the very rich and important.

Now, in case someone absolutely wants to be a priest that brews potions he will have to take the Wizard Class with the Brew Potion feat. Then that priest either needs to become a regent to get the RP to actually make the potions, or (and this is the best way to go about it, especially if that priest is not blooded) the priest must seek a regent patron that will give him regency through a vassalage ritual (an unusual way to use a vassalage, but there is no reason why a master can't use it to give subordinates RP for specific tasks or as a high form of payment for services).

Of course, if the priest in question isn't blooded he must also spend RP in my setting to even cast the spells for the potion... which will make it a very expensive endeavor.

In short, if you want to have magic of any shape or form you need to be either very rich or very important.

irdeggman
06-11-2007, 09:57 AM
Back in 2nd edition when the idea of non-diety inspired divine magic was addressed by forces, the list was very hostile to forces. The setting, it was explained, didn't support forces, only dieties. So where, precisely, does this non-diety inspired divine power come from?

I suspect this is just a post hoc explaination for the fact that the PHB describes the ranger as a divine spellcaster. Elves, as profoundly rejecting the divine, ought to have arcane rangers.


Because in 2nd ed ranger and paladin spells weren't classifed as "divine" and wizard spells weren't classified as "arcane" - those were terms introduced widely in 3.0.

In 3.x rangers and druids can get their spellcasting directly from nature or from deities.

The Sie (the pregenerator for the elves) could cast all clerical and wizardly magic. When they split to form the elves and faeries this magic was split. The elves retained mastery of wizardly magic and the faeries retained mastery of clerical magic. This, IMO, also provides an important tie. The elves still retain some "divine" casting ability due to this ancient tie and can do so via thheir connection to the land itself and the forces of nature. While, IMO, the faeires should have a lot of druidic magic - no deities but nature itself. Now one could interpret this elven tie to the land/nature as a connection to Mebhail and thus "arcane" in nature, but IMO this really would muck up a lot of game mechanics where unnecessary. Arcane rangers would have ASF when casting spells and a lot of other things that would go along with separating the spells (like arcane ranger scrolls instead of divine ones).

In 2nd ed you had:

clerical magic and wizardly magic.

irdeggman
06-11-2007, 10:08 AM
Elves lost not because Divine magic can heal, but because human gods dampened Sidhelien magic capability altogether.



This is not per cannon.

The cannon reads they lost due to "preistly magic" something new to them.

There is no writing alluding to deity intervention here. IMO this would dilute the signficance of Deismaar if they did.

kgauck
06-11-2007, 10:58 AM
In 3.x rangers and druids can get their spellcasting directly from nature or from deities.But we're not talking 3.x, we're talking about the BR setting, which adds additional restrictions. D&D can be played for settings with all kinds of cosmologies. BR has a specific cosmology.
Rangers cast divine spells because they are the chosen of Erik. Other kinds of rangers who cast arcane spells do so because of their connection to the land, the other source of magical power.

ShadowMoon
06-11-2007, 12:08 PM
This is not per cannon.

The cannon reads they lost due to "preistly magic" something new to them.

There is no writing alluding to deity intervention here. IMO this would dilute the signficance of Deismaar if they did.

Also a cannon...

Taken from Atlas of Cerilia (AD&D Birthright):

... the old gods favored humans to such extent that elves found themselves practically powerless.

irdeggman
06-11-2007, 01:31 PM
But we're not talking 3.x, we're talking about the BR setting, which adds additional restrictions. D&D can be played for settings with all kinds of cosmologies. BR has a specific cosmology.
Rangers cast divine spells because they are the chosen of Erik. Other kinds of rangers who cast arcane spells do so because of their connection to the land, the other source of magical power.

Nothing in the setting makes rangers "the chosen of Erik".

This can be done as a table rule or game specific way of looking at things - but nothing in the setting rules/background itself has such equivalency.

In fact (IIRC) in 2nd ed rangers could likewise draw power from deities of nature or from nature itself.

cccpxepoj
06-11-2007, 03:04 PM
if druids and rangers can draw their power from "nature itself" then what Erik represents, the mighty god of acorns an leafs:p ??????
or he is giving them power even they do not acknowledge him as their god.

irdeggman
06-11-2007, 03:52 PM
if druids and rangers can draw their power from "nature itself" then what Erik represents, the mighty god of acorns an leafs:p ??????
or he is giving them power even they do not acknowledge him as their god.


First off druids can draw power from nature itself or a god of nature.

PHB pg 33


Religion:

A druid reveres nature above all. She gains her magical




power either from the force of nature itself or from a nature deity.


The typical druid pursues a mystic spirituality of transcendent union

with nature rather than devoting herself to a divine entity. Still,
some druids revere or at least respect either Obad-Hai (god of
nature) or Ehlonna (goddess of the woodlands).







And (I was mistaken per the 3.5 PHB)

Rangers draw their spell power directly from nature itself

PHB 46




Religion:
Though a ranger gains his divine spells from the power of nature, he like anyone else may worship a chosen deity. Ehlonna (goddess of the woodlands) and Obad-Hai (god of nature) are the most common deities revered by, though some prefer more martial deities.






Now this dicotemy in the PHB (generic rules) does not cause a conflict with the BR setting specific ones, IMO.


Druids (in BR) draw their power from Erik (thus eliminating the option of directly from nature) and rangers draw theirs directly from nature (thus allowing elves to cast divine spells without worhipping a deity).


Rjurik rangers can still (and will) pay homage to Erik, but do not draw their spells from him.

irdeggman
06-11-2007, 04:01 PM
Also a cannon...

Taken from Atlas of Cerilia (AD&D Birthright):

... the old gods favored humans to such extent that elves found themselves practically powerless.

Let's look at the full text of the paragraph in question:
I think it helps provide perspective as to what is being referred to here (that is it was the priests who made the difference with their magic and not the gods themselves). Now in PS of Tuarhievel it talks about the overwhelming numbers of humans which leads one to believe it had a lot to do with numbers (and possibly the priestly magic being the difference).


Atlas pg 6 (complete sectional quote for use of context):

“Still, the elves were pushed back year after year because of an element they had never encountered – priestly magic. The elves could easily call upon the forces inherent in wood and water, field and air, but had never worshipped deities – and thus, could not even begin to understand this new source of power. The human priests were the deciding factor against the elves’ expertise in magic and combat, the old gods favored humans to such an extent that the elves found themselves practically powerless.”

ShadowMoon
06-11-2007, 04:15 PM
I support the idea that nature gives power to druids and rangers, but if You quote PHB, then You have to agree with Priests not serving a deity...


Regarding PS Tuarhievel; I'll give it a look today, its been a while. And even then, Atlas points that gods openly favored humans, so it is obvious that it was not usual divine magic at work, maybe maximized effect, etc...


...

cccpxepoj
06-11-2007, 04:44 PM
First off druids can draw power from nature itself or a god of nature.

PHB pg 33



And (I was mistaken per the 3.5 PHB)

Rangers draw their spell power directly from nature itself

PHB 46




Now this dicotemy in the PHB (generic rules) does not cause a conflict with the BR setting specific ones, IMO.


Druids (in BR) draw their power from Erik (thus eliminating the option of directly from nature) and rangers draw theirs directly from nature (thus allowing elves to cast divine spells without worhipping a deity).


Rjurik rangers can still (and will) pay homage to Erik, but do not draw their spells from him.






a lot of things in cerilia is different then in the standard D'n'D, but that is a standard question if the nature itself can provide power to its followers, than why no one pray to nature and why we have human god representing it.
If Erik is not nature, what is nature, and what is druidic magic ?
Power of the land, then what is arcane magic ?
Or maybe i am mistaking maybe the Erik is just a god of Rjuric,forests & tundra

irdeggman
06-11-2007, 04:53 PM
I support the idea that nature gives power to druids and rangers, but if You quote PHB, then You have to agree with Priests not serving a deity...

I qooted the PHB to point out the generic rules and then I followed up with the how the setting specific ones would work.

So no, for the BR setting I do not have to agree that priests (and paladins for that matter) can not folow a deity.

The PHB allows for both - the setting has specified a restriction. They are not in conflict the generic rules allow for the setting to have its "restrictions".


Regarding PS Tuarhievel; I'll give it a look today, its been a while. And even then, Atlas points that gods openly favored humans, so it is obvious that it was not usual divine magic at work, maybe maximized effect, etc...

...

Maybe, maybe not.

The fact that the elves had no clerical magic at all is a rather large difference,

If they were limited to some rangers (again, not the favored class of elves). In 2nd ed elves were limited to 12th level rangers and 9th level bards (with the potential for higher levels due to better ability scores). But that still gave them access to very few ranger spells, rangers didn't get spells until somewhere areound 4th (or 5th I can't recall exactly the number in 2nd ed) and their spells were of lesser power than were cleric/priest ones were.

2nd ed bards had no healing magics - in BR they were limited to Illusion, Divination and Enchantment spells period.

So very little (to no) healing magics available. Very little (to no) buff magics available. Bless, Aid and Prayer were not wizard spells in 2nd ed so bards couldn't have cast them in any setting.

Elves would have shunned the larger area damaging spells like fireball due to the potential to harm the forest, while lightning bolt might work it is still much less effective against armies. And the charm spellls, while real usefull tend to only affect small numbers that are bunched up and close to the caster.

irdeggman
06-11-2007, 04:58 PM
a lot of things in cerilia is different then in the standard D'n'D, but that is a standard question if the nature itself can provide power to its followers, than why no one pray to nature and why we have human god representing it.
If Erik is not nature, what is nature, and what is druidic magic ?
Power of the land, then what is arcane magic ?
Or maybe i am mistaking maybe the Erik is just a god of Rjuric,forests & tundra


You are only going to confuse yourself by over analyzing this.

Rangers get their power directly from nature (no god required).

Druids can (and could IIRC) get their power from nature or a deity of nature.

In BR things are indeed different. All druids are priests of Erik (hence no direct from nature powers there).

Rangers do not require the intervention of a deity to grant them their spells. This is consistent with BR as a setting, It allows elven rangers as well as human ones and rangers in areas where Erik is not real influential.

irdeggman
06-11-2007, 05:25 PM
If Erik is not nature, what is nature, and what is druidic magic ?


This might be the source of the confusion.

The deity of nature is not the same thing as nature itself.

In general, nature is a larger force and a nature deity is usually relegated to oversight, protection and nurturing of nature. Not the actual forces of nature.

This is why in a generic setting there are nature deities and druids and rangers who do not get their powers from the deity.

In most settings druids get their spells from nature directly without the intervention of a nature deity.