Bards (version by: KGauck)

[Magnus Argent]

Discussion thread for User:KGauck/Bards (http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php/User:KGauck/Bards).

I REALLY like this! I've always felt that the 3rd/3.5th edition bard is a poor fit with the Birthright campaign setting since bardic magic supposedly originated with the sidhe and the sidhe do not have access to healing magic. This is a great example of compromise between staying true to the setting and staying true to the core rules.

It also helps to affirm some of the divine relationships. Perhaps Avani gifted her husband and daughter with knowledge of bardcraft and Laerme passed the knowledge along to Curiaecen (possibly the cause of the rumors that romantically link the pair of younger gods)? I could also see Eloele stealing this knowledge and using it to create a fourth type of bard: the spy.

[ShadowMoon]

You could make Bards having choice on first level to tap Arcane or Divine sources for their spells. Something like Divine Inspiration and Arcane Invocation... One choice excludes the other, and affect Feats and Class Abilities later, maybe even Spell Selection...
In addition You could create Focuses (Domain-like Spells and Powers), that Bards selects (only one by default) and add it to their repertoire, to depict their College, Inspiration, and/or Philosophy; thus differencing them even more...

Specialist Bards, like Erik's Skald or Laerme's Muse, or Karamhul War Chanter, could be (and should be IMHO) Prestige Classes...

Example:

Divine Inspiration Bards:
Skald (Erik) + Focus: Weather
Muse (Laerme) + Focus: Fire
War Chanter (Moradin) + Focus: War
Doom Cryer (Kriesha) + Focus: Winter

Arcane Invocation Bards:
Spell Singer (Sidhe) + Focus: Plants
Mystic Orator + Focus: Protection
Shadow Dancer + Focus: Darkness
Lore Keeper + Focus: Knowledge

[RaspK_FOG]

To me, I am sorry to say, that's even worse: that way, you serve neither edition nor original material. Don't misunderstand me, but I've found KGauck doing that a little too often, and I disapprove of that logic to some extent.

The only change I mean to make from the BRCS is that I strongly believe that bards should retain a smidge of their old aspects; thus, bards in any of my BR campaigns are sure to be of any neutral alignment (i.e. NG, LN, N, CN, or NE alignment; the non-extreme alignments), lose access to healing spells, and have a number of their 3e spells restored (namely, all +4 to an ability score ones, Gust of Wind and a tad others).

Also note that bards learned only their enchantments from the elves, which is the reason they normally excel in this field. :P

[geeman]

At 07:14 AM 10/10/2007, RaspK_FOG wrote:

>The only change I mean to make from the BRCS is that I strongly believe that bards should retain a smidge of their old aspects; thus, bards in any of >my BR campaigns are sure to be of any neutral alignment (i.e. NG, LN, N, CN, or NE alignment; the non-extreme alignments), lose access to healing >spells, and have a number of their 3e spells restored (namely, all +4 to an ability score ones, Gust of Wind and a tad others).

One of the things I find the most entertaining in an RPG is when the semantics and vocabulary actually mesh with the game mechanics. In 3e there are very few of the alignment restrictions you`re espousing, but that doesn`t mean we can`t still have 3e variants that work as a nod to the old version of the game and also recognize BR setting material dynamics. Here`s a suggestion for how one might want to interpret such a thing:

In BR we have several different types of characters who would take levels in the D&D bard class. However, there are demonstrable differences between characters based on the BR background materials and cultural differences. Rjurik bards, for instance, are probably the closest to the original D&D bard, but even amongst the more Celtic/druidic rubric of that culture there are campaign specific reasons to make up a variant. Anuirean, Khinasi, Brecht and the rare Vos bard would all be different. In BR, the bardic magics came about through emulation of the Sidhe take on such things, so that`s a factor as well. It`s cool when those differences aren`t just in the flavour text of the materials; they should be portrayed game mechanically too.

Fortunately, there already exists descriptive material for how to switch out a class feature here and there in order to customize a class, and some version of that is the most efficient way of going about such campaign specific differences. After all, the differences between an Anuirean and a Brecht bard are in kith not in kind. So, in order to reflect the differences between one type of bard and another one should make a few changes to the class and call the new variant something slightly different.

In particular, the alignment restrictions noted above for 2e bards might still exist in a 3e ( and 4e, presumably) version of BR by keeping that requirement but only for elven and Rjurik bards. Elven bards might be called 'True Bards' and get some sort of ability related to their role as teachers and historians. Rjurik 'skalds' also have the alignment restriction, and gain diplomatic skill bonuses or something related to druids/priests of Erik as their theme is more directly Celtic and specifically describes their role in Rjurik society as heralds, negotiators, etc. A Vos bard might be called 'Warsinger' and have more violent abilities. Etc.

That way one can maintain both a nod to the old style bard, which really is in many ways endorsed by certain aspects of the campaign materials, and have a more versatile and descriptive game mechanic.

Gary

[RaspK_FOG]

I kind of ommitted the other bardic issues because I found those to be explicitly implied; i.e. skalds are lawful, Sidhelien (not Sidhe :P) bards are non-lawful, etc.

Would I care to make any changes to their spellcasting? Well, elven bards would get the nature spells, no questions asked, and the Rjurik would get a couple lawful-ish or Rjurik-related spells, but that's it.

[kgauck]

I adopted the divine bard because I think it is the best expression of the original material using the current edition. I can certainly appreciate that everyone will not find this approach to their taste, but that's what a house rules page is for. Others may choose to emphisize other aspects of the original materials, but for my time and effort, this is the best approach for the original materials.

[RaspK_FOG]

I can appreciate where you come from, but I don't believe you are doing the current edition any particular favour in and of itself; I'm reminded of the Dragon articles where bards have spells in Dark Sun and such stuff...

People tend to forget that this edition of D&D (3rd Edition and Revised 3rd Edition) are only particularly using the d20 Core Mechanic, a number of rules that have been refined from their original form or rewritten from scratch for this version, plus a number of variations of all-time classics and sacred cows.

However, it would never do any particular disservice to the edition if you made a variant of the bard; we just generally avoid that sort of action for two reasons: for the sake of simplicity and for the sake of consistency.

[Thelandrin]

Well, I'm with you, Rasp, on the matter of bards not being healers. It completely violates the ancient meme that healing is divine magic and expressly granted by the gods. In my games, I restrict all sonic magic (except Word of... or similar spells) to bards and remove all their healing magic.

[Magnus Argent]

I can appreciate where you come from, but I don't believe you are doing the current edition any particular favour in and of itself; I'm reminded of the Dragon articles where bards have spells in Dark Sun and such stuff...

People tend to forget that this edition of D&D (3rd Edition and Revised 3rd Edition) are only particularly using the d20 Core Mechanic, a number of rules that have been refined from their original form or rewritten from scratch for this version, plus a number of variations of all-time classics and sacred cows.

However, it would never do any particular disservice to the edition if you made a variant of the bard; we just generally avoid that sort of action for two reasons: for the sake of simplicity and for the sake of consistency.

I don't see how it does a disservice to the rule set. I would point out that the Eberron setting -- the first (and only) campaign setting created specifically for the 3.5th edition (by WOTC no less) -- created a base character class that infuses items with magic that is neither arcane nor divine. I don't think you give the rule set enough credit. It is robust enough to weather changes far greater than this one tweak.

And, as KGauck pointed out, this thread is in reference to an article posted in his house rule section. I would certainly love to see the house rules you use for your campaigns and the logic that went into them. Maybe you should create your own wiki section for you to use to showcase them? If you need help setting it up, PM me and I'd be more than happy to assist.

[kgauck]

Bards have healing spells. Heralds would naturally have Cuiraecen as patron, and if we were to build one from scratch, they would look very much like bards. So much so, that I really don't see a reason not to just use the standard bard. Likewise with Laerme. There is the issue that the class description of bards says that the first bards were elves, and founded the bardic tradition. But this was prior to Cuiraecen (and Laerme), who seems now to be the patron of heralds and diplomats. Perhaps in the past human bards were arcanists, in the sidhe tradition, and labored with lessor magic limitations. Of course the Rjuven, and later the Rjurik, seem to have always have skalds, so once we have the appearance of Cuiraecen, I have little doubt that heralds and diplomats swiftly abandon the limitations of lessor magic for the advantages of divine magic, including healing and a full spell list. Once Laerme appeared, there would be no bards still clinging to the arcane tradition, except the elves themselves, since they would have full access to true magic and would not have access to divine magic in any event.

If one continues to insist on arcane bards, one has two issues to resolve; lessor magic and healing spells. Unblooded bards should not be casting spells that a magician could not cast. Overlooking this issue is not being authentic to the source of arcane magic and the problems of who can wield it. The original material simply overlooked this problem. Ditching healing spells makes the bard less attractive, and there are some who regard the class as too weak already. So selling this class to players familiar with 3e+ without healing is a pretty tough sell.

Instead, just making them divine allows you to keep the class as written, because all that changes is the selection of one of three patrons best suited to the way you want to play your bard.

So that a divine bard eliminates the need for special exemplar classes for these gods, since it would already be a bard varient, it explains healing magic and sets aside the problems of lessor magic that an arcanist bard should have to deal with, and finally it allows the class to be used as written.

[irdeggman]

If one continues to insist on arcane bards, one has two issues to resolve; lessor magic and healing spells. Unblooded bards should not be casting spells that a magician could not cast. Overlooking this issue is not being authentic to the source of arcane magic and the problems of who can wield it. The original material simply overlooked this problem. Ditching healing spells makes the bard less attractive, and there are some who regard the class as too weak already. So selling this class to players familiar with 3e+ without healing is a pretty tough sell.


Hmm why does this need to be something to be "resolved"?

I see this in the same vein as why BR elves could always have been rangers (and cast divine spells - using 3.5 terminology) but couldn't be priests.

It is part of the behind the scenes campaign definition material.


Even in 2nd ed BR bards were different than magicians and had a different spell list.

2nd ed BR bards could cast all spells from the enchantment/charm school while magicians were limited to 2nd and lower level spells.

So there was always a built in distinction.

Personally I have never liked that 3.5 bards get cure spells but I find that the class has become so much more focused along what I always felt it should be rather than the standard 2nd ed spell casting machines (fireball chucking bards always seemed out of place to me) that I can overlook this one small annoyance.

Remember that there are a lot of bard only spells in the "newer" books so they gains some wide difference over wizards/sorcerers and even in the core only spells there are several that they get a lower level.

I also find that the ones who think that 3.5 bards are too weak are those that run a primary combat heavy game. Those that run a more interactive one find that bards are just right in that aspect and much better than the other classes at what they do best.

[kgauck]

Hmm why does this need to be something to be "resolved"?

You don't. You can simply overlook the problem, as I said. If you apply that principle broadly you need never create house rules at all.

AFAIC, the fact that they never address the divine source of ranger spells (instead of more obviously making sidhe rangers arcanists) is just an example of making the same mistake twice. Its not an resolution of the bard's problem. Indeed they tend to cause more problems without solving the original problem. Why can bards gain access to spells that magicians can't? Magicians are limted because of their inability to use true magic without blood. Why can bards access these spells? Can they use true magic, or is there a new kind of magic? What divine source gives elf rangers their spells?

Simply overlooking these questions works for players who are more interested in playing the game and less interested in understanding the game world. To players who want to understand the game world, suggesting that we simply overlook the issue is like asking us to ignore the man behind the curtain.

[irdeggman]

AFAIC, the fact that they never address the divine source of ranger spells (instead of more obviously making sidhe rangers arcanists) is just an example of making the same mistake twice. Its not an resolution of the bard's problem. Indeed they tend to cause more problems without solving the original problem. Why can bards gain access to spells that magicians can't? Magicians are limted because of their inability to use true magic without blood. Why can bards access these spells? Can they use true magic, or is there a new kind of magic? What divine source gives elf rangers their spells?



Rangers can get their spells directly from nature (as it says they can in the 2nd ed and 3.5 PHBs)

Druids can get their power either directly from nature or from a nature deity (as it says in the 2nd ed and 3.5 PHB).

In BR rangers get their spells directly from nature (thus the reason why elves can cast ranger spells). This could be a remnant from their Sie heritage. {No need to make it arcane at all IMO.}

In BR druids get their spells from a nature deity.

In 2nd ed why were unblooded bards capable of casting spells that magicians weren't? IIRC in 2nd ed magicians couldn't be blooded. No simple answer to this one since it really doesn't have anything to do with cure spells since the "issue" stretched back into 2nd ed where no bard could cast cure spells.

[kgauck]

Rangers can get their spells directly from nature (as it says they can in the 2nd ed and 3.5 PHBs) Nature is a force. Forces were not sources of spells in BR. There is no "nature" that grants spells. Nature is represented either by mebhaighl or by Erik. There is no third way. If there were then sidhe druids would be possible in some form.


This could be a remnant from their Sie heritage. {No need to make it arcane at all IMO. This opens up a gigantic can of worms. Bloodspawn suggests a clear and unambiguous division between sie and sidhe. Allowing some cross influence begs all kinds of questions about what other crossovers exist. [/QUOTE]

The fact that we're no on and on about rangers, druids, and the split of the elves just goes to show how bad these solutions are from the point of view of clear principles. My solution is very clear. There are no exceptions. Elves control mebhaighl, no divine magic, ever. Humans can't control mebhaighl unless they are blooded, ever. There are no clever dodges to get a hold of spells barred from magicians by being a bard (a rogue sub-class). A 2e bard got 3rd level spells at 7th level, and presumably could take spells beyond illusion or divination. How is this? Why can a dabbler who learns by happenstance get spells barred from magicians whose class is focused on the study of the magical arts?

If bards can't cast true magic, and they aren't limited to divination and illusion, then they must be divine casters. The fact that 3e added healing spells just adds weight to this interpretation. But foremost, Cuiraecen is a patron of heralds and would have a bard type specalist anyway. Laerme would have an artsy performer anyway. Erik already has skalds. Why have a seperate bard class limited to lesser magic, and then make all these bard varients? Just call bards divine spellcasters, identify patrons as Erik, Cuiraecen, and Laerme, and you have an elegant fix that allows the bard class to be played right out of the book with no changes (other than the presumed source of the spells, a role play issue at best, possibily even just a cosmological issue). Other solutions require exceptions or alterations to the class as written. The worst fix from my point of view is the one that opens up possibilities that normal BR categories by bypassed by players who goes looking for answers. If good answers don't already describe what is possible and what is not, you'll end up with a mighty case of DM's remorse.

[AndrewTall]

While liking the harmonisation of bards and magicians, to the point of giving magicians access to charms, I note that giving both classes very minor healing spells (L1 or L2 band-aid's) while infiringing the divine:arcane split does spread healing out a lot more but still keeps all the real healing (cure blindness, diesease, etc, etc) in the hands of the gods...

I note that as written elves have no healing - which is pretty important for a race of immortals. I'd hope this was considered by the designers but there aren't a lot of elves and at realm-level healing is irrelevant game-wise.

I'd wonder if elves - only - could get clerical spells directly from nature, possibly with maxiumum spell level = source potential in the province. That would give elves standard druids and rangers without them needing gods. They would have very little priestly magic outside their forests - but that's no bad thing and encourages the view by outsiders that they are godless - when the elves attend the big diplomacy shin-dig their druids have no magic, therefore clearly are not 'real' priests...

[RaspK_FOG]

Let me be clear, for my point seems not able to come across:

You are making a mental leap; instead of considering the simplest of changes (i.e. slightly changing the spell list, which I find a most interesting aspect when it comes to spellcasters), you prefer to create a unique infrastructure regarding bards.

Note that paladins of Cuiraécen don't have spells; funny that, isn't it?

[ShadowMoon]

In my campaign I let Arcane casters to heal same as Divine ones. Because it's silly that a Mage can heal via Polymorph, or replicate Divine Spells via Wish/Limited Wish Spells, but cannot research simple spells like Cure Light Wounds... And I agree with kgauck's idea, and use it similarly in my campaign, that Sidhe cannot ever use Divine power. Sidhe in my campaign have Druids and Rangers, but they use Primordial Power (great concept made by Green Knight in RoE PBeM), but if someone doesn't like to add new type of power in their game one can still decide they use Arcane Power instead. And I agree with kgauck that it is somewhat strange that Bard (rogue class) can use more complex spells than Magician (mage class). So to fix that I'll probably change Bard's Spell list to match Magician's in my campaign. Other alternative is to add prerequisites for a Bard to be blooded or of eleven blood, which is not really in BR spirit.

[kgauck]

instead of considering the simplest of changes, you prefer to create a unique infrastructure regarding bards.

I find changing the spell list a more substantial change than simply ruling that bards are divine.

[RaspK_FOG]

Sigh... The problem here is that you don't see, me thinks, the real issue...

Your problem starts, as far as I can tell, at healer bards. Sure, that is an issue. Then again, they get only 5 spells that heal in the core rulebook: cure light/moderate/serious/critical wounds, and mass cure light wounds. Frankly, establishing a more thematically-tightly-fit spell list is a much less substantial change... especially if you understand that you are ignoring the generic, non-setting-related, entirely vanilla rules found in the core rulebook instead of the setting itself!

I understand that for some people that way is simpler, but it does a disservice to the setting in the sense of logical backflips; instead of fixing the unrelated issue of a class having an ability that it did not have in the past, and which is not so much needed for that class to actually operate, as healing is but a tertiary aspect of the bard, and that mostly through using a wand or staff due to having the needed spells (say hello to Mr. Use Magic Device), and certainly not a central aspect of the theme of the class, isn't it a bit counterintuitive to go back down the track, change the theme, and accept the mechanic as is?

Frankly, if any of you have seen such obscene material as that published by some companies (bamboo elves for oriental settings, elves, dwarves, and half-orcs in ancient Greece, etc.), you might have felt as I have... Seriously, setting should always take precedence, especially since the mechanics are way more maleable in the end (anyone who has ever worked on writing can assure you that changing one aspect means changing another aspect, and another aspect, and another aspect ad nauseum)...

[AndrewTall]

I have no problem with just pruning the spell list of the bard to cut out healing, charms etc - as you say its easy just to say they have the same spell access as a magician after all but I'm not sure how much that will impact the strength of the class - I haven't played/DM'd one in 3e.

I'm probably missing the issue with swapping them from arcane to divine casting to keep the spells as per the vanilla PHb bard. I don't draw much the distinction in my own stuff between the two so it sounded like a simple way to keep their healing and stuff for people who do distinguish and felt that minor healing and charms were important.

Bamboo elves? Crunchy and prone to splintering?

[RaspK_FOG]

That would be an interesting interpretation of the whole concept of bamboo elves... :D

As for bards, you are missing a specific aspect of the whole issue; bards learn a unique aspect of magic that they guard a lot: spellsinging. Enchantments cast by bards are, for all terms and purposes, sung, not cast. It's only healing anyone should have a problem with, thematically.

[kgauck]

I find spellsong daft, the last thing worth preserving and better off forgotten.

I would have expected that the several posts arguing against irdeggman's suggestion would have established that I understand, "changing one aspect means changing another aspect, and another aspect, and another."

Of course "setting should always take precedence." That's the basis of my argument here - the god of heraldry and art will have divine bards, the rest is gravy. If you're such a stickler for setting as you say you are, how can you justify arcane skalds among the Rjurik, when its plain they are hostile to arcane magic? You can argue that this is spellsong and sidhe derived, but the Rjurik have no love of the sidhe either, so that's pretty weak. Further, I am a partisan of Ryan Caveney's half-elf as changeling, so people practicing expeclictly elf-magic should be expected to be preparing humans for the conquest of the elves. You can argue that they are "our arcanists," but then why not just say the same about "our wizards". Indeed it makes much more sense to say that skalds are members of Erik's priesthood, that their spellcasting stacks with druids, and that they are totally integrated as druids.

Finally, don't mistake disagreement for a failure to understand your argument. I'm much more interested in developing religion than I am the archaic elf-human cultural exchange.

[RaspK_FOG]

I can only say one thing in these regards: with some of what you say, I agree, with others I don't; but I don't see "Birthright" taking precedence, but a variation of it instead. Not that I have anything with it, if that's what you want, but I don't see that as any simpler.

[kgauck]

Birthright in actual play is always going to be subject to the various perspectives of the players involved and can only be authentic when its left on the page. Players will interpret BR in terms of the game the want to play. A big game with the Gorgon as the central enemy, based on reunifying Anuire is going to be a different game from one where one PC is regent of the IHH and the other PC's are his closest advisers. Not only because the two campaigns have different interests and emphasis, because to that extent both can inhabit BR in different ways, but moreso because players in those two different games will draw on different sets of literary and historical models. The BR texts are so brief, they construct little more than a framework with very little filled in beyond a core framework. Someone steeped in Tolkien will read the words on the BR pages much different from someone steeped in Arthur or some other source. I mean to go beyond a sense that they will fill in gaps differently, I mean to say they will read the words on the page differently. When you see the word "noble" do you think of a Roman style noble who might be a priest, landowner, merchant, soldier, or politician, or do you mean a 19th century noble who has no social or political purpose and spends his time in idle activities of privilege and wealth, or a 13th century Anglo-French noble, who is distinct from and sometimes at odds with merchants and priests? What you bring to the page is going to ultimately be much more significant than what is on the page.

I'd like to see what is on the page remain key, but I also acknowledge that people whom I respect (say Ryan Caveney or John Machin) are going to read the same materials significantly differently than I do.

[Thelandrin]

This is a fascinating debate, but please let's not have people second-guessing each other what they do or not understand.

[RaspK_FOG]

You are correct, and I should apologise for that; I am really very sorry, KGauck. Last year has been rougher than I care to admit to myself and I am more tense than I should; I beg your pardon for my attitude. :(

[Sorontar]

Remember that BR is set up with a lot of specialists. There is no generic paladin or druid. They are all restricted to certain churches and have skill and weapon preferences etc according to the church. The priest is always a specialist. Even the magician is a specialist arcane spellcaster. So the nature of the BR bard need not match that of a generic bard. I like the idea of it having different purposes according to different divine patrons.

As to what the specialisations should be, I don't know but I too would prefer the setting to rule them, rather than forcing them to stay in the generic form.

If you want background to how they got the skills, how about elven bards having their own specialisation? They can have an arcane spell list and all the church/human bards can have divine lists.The humans didn't "learn" explicitly from the elves for elven music is "out of this world"/etheral, but they did learn how to interweave sound with reality and with the support of their divine patrons, they created their own bardic spells. Being blooded could allow a bard to learn the elven tunes, but they would lose access to the divine bardic spells. For this reason, most blooded bards stick to the church hymns.

This way, the elves can be prevented from having access to the healing spells, but some human bardic specialisations do have them, and you can still further restrict what spells any bard can use within different churches and add some as well.

Apologies if this has been suggested before.... memory like sieve.

Sorontar.

[Lee]

I initially did not like the idea of divine-casting bards, as it alters
"Rules As Written." However, the rationale put forward here, appeals to me
somewhat, at least for Erik/Laerme bards. If one could write divine-casting bards
for them, and arcane-casting bards for sidhe and some humans who learned
from them, that would be neat.

Just my 2 coppers,
Lee.



************************************** See what`s new at http://www.aol.com

[Pauper]

Greetings,

did you never read the SRD? I have a legal version for download at www.esnips.com/web/pietroschekswebresearch/

The divine bard is defined among unearthed arcana "Core class variants". The cloistered cleric and druidic avenger might be to your liking just as well (and if you would have read my PDFs you would all long know) ;o)

The horrible number of mistakes in the PDF made it a bit difficult... I mentioned before, standard character classes get comparably few feats. Couldn`t one make a rule that all five levels one gets a cultural feat (independent of class, to suit atmosphere mostly)?

Some days ago I contemplated if a half-elf magician or half-elf bard would be a more suiting figure for "generic Birthright". Both have unique benefits, yet outside of D&D the Bard is often perceived as a weak mix, here you discuss herald...

Delete standard D&D classes and make unique ones for Birthright completely?

Example:
Wilderness Lore is a knowledge, yet as game gudie I wouldn`t even ask those who spend decades in Rjurik or Vosgaard, if they can surivive the standard environmental threats.

Bard again. Spellsong. I know only that it exists, spin a mini-tale to make readers and players understand?

Sorry, opinion but not much to offer here spontaneously.

[irdeggman]

Greetings,

did you never read the SRD? I have a legal version for download at www.esnips.com/web/pietroschekswebresearch/ (http://www.esnips.com/web/pietroschekswebresearch/)

The divine bard is defined among unearthed arcana "Core class variants". The cloistered cleric and druidic avenger might be to your liking just as well (and if you would have read my PDFs you would all long know) ;o)

But not the "official" SRD from WotC.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35

Far too many people choose to combine things that are OGC into a single source and call it "the SRD" which is not true. I have also noticed a propensity for people to add their own interpretation to the text contained in the "offical" SRD.


The horrible number of mistakes in the PDF made it a bit difficult... I mentioned before, standard character classes get comparably few feats. Couldn`t one make a rule that all five levels one gets a cultural feat (independent of class, to suit atmosphere mostly)?

Wilderness Lore is a knowledge, yet as game gudie I wouldn`t even ask those who spend decades in Rjurik or Vosgaard, if they can surivive the standard environmental threats.

All 5 levels of what or did you mean at every 5th level?

Atmosphere - Like in the sanctioned version of Chap 1 of the BRCs which has survival as a class skill for both Vos and Rjurik and various saving throw bonuses to the human cultures? Never underestimate the power granted by always treating a skill as a class skill . That entails only costing 1 sp per rank and having a max rank limit of level + 3 (instead of 1/2 of that).

Wilderness Lore doesn't exist as a skill anymore (in 3.5 - which is what UA is written per) - it is Knowledge (Nature) and doesn't have to do with surviving in the wild (except as source of a bonus due to synergy) that is the function of the survival skill, as well as tracking.


Difference in the two (my example):
Knowledge (nature) - "many parts of a pine tree are edible"
Survival - "knowing where to find the edible pine tree and prepare it to eat"

[Thelandrin]

Difference in the two (my example):
Knowledge (nature) - "many parts of a pine tree are edible"
Survival - "knowing where to find the edible pine tree and prepare it to eat"
Chances are, Duane, that if your survival skills tell you how to prepare edile parts of pine trees, you already know that some pine tree parts are edible! :)

Knowledge: Nature is generally used for identifying natural or sylvan creatures, maybe identifying particularly druidic magic or sites (I'd grant bonuses to Arcana in this case) or maybe predicting the weather.

Survival is pretty much everything else connected with the rugged lifestyle, including tracking, as you said. (Wilderness Lore simply changed names to Survival and incorporated Intuit Direction, whilst Knowledge: Nature was expanded).

[RaspK_FOG]

Actually, that is not exactly the case.

Survival would tell you what plants which creatures should be eating or avoid eating without any further ado, whereas Knowledge (nature) would say, for instance, that plants of the genus Solanum have various toxins mostly in their fruit, particularly the non-mature ones; likewise, a person with Survival would not mind a bumblebee buzzing around him and would probably inform you that it's a precious, cute, fuzzy insect that resembles a big, fat bee, but a person with Knowledge (nature) could inform you that it's a close relative of the bee, of the genus Bombus, that rarely if ever stings anyone, is very peaceful, and extremely useful, since it pollinates many more flowers compared to a bee.

However, whereas the latter has a way deeper knowledge of nature, that does not mean he has any practical understanding of said knowledge; in other words, he may know that clouds can warn one of precipitation, but the first person to warn you of incoming rain is the one who knows how to read the clouds and understands by the way the birds are flying that a rain is coming.

The problem, realistically speaking, is that it's nearly impossible to lack ranks in either skill if you have more than a few in the other, since they are practically overlapping; the only classes that don't get both but have one of them are the barbarian (that's the brute for you; no booky knowledge) and the bard and wizard (the bard is so-so, but imagine the wizard kiddies roasting marshmallows with cantrips out in the woods, showing their budges; I am not pulling anyone's legs, just had a funny mental image in mind :D).