Presitige Classes for Regents

[Crumbiness]

Does anyone have any ideas for a presitge class for a Regent?

It seems like there could be some sort of ruling prestige class but me and my player who wants to look into it are having a hard time getting started on designing one so I was hoping someone had started one.

Also, anyone have any good prestige class ideas for BR Halflings?

Thanks

[geeman]

At 08:38 PM 10/7/2002 +0200, Crumbiness wrote:

>Does anyone have any ideas for a presitge class for a Regent?
>
>It seems like there could be some sort of ruling prestige class but me and
>my player who wants to look into it are having a hard time getting started
>on designing one so I was hoping someone had started one.

I haven`t actually come up with prestige classes, but I`ve been giving the
idea some thought recently, and here`s the direction I`m going. I think
there should be one for each type of holding. "Lord Sheriff" for law
holdings, "Master Guilder" for guilds, "Source Adept" for sources. Temples
might be a little different since it`s easy to imagine prestige classes for
each particular faith, but if you wanted to go with a more general group of
BR prestige classes "Grand Patriarch/Matriarch" might be a good name/base
concept. There`s no practical limit to the number and type of prestige
classes, of course, so there`s no reason why you couldn`t have both
holding-based prestige classes in addition to prestige classes for
particular faiths, but I think you`d find so many prestige classes muddies
up the campaign rather than helps define the differences between
characters. YMMV.

Possible powers for holding-based prestige classes might be:

1. The ability to collect more RP than their bloodline would normally
allow. A Master Guilder with a BSS of 20, for example, might be able to
collect 1 additional RP per level s/he had in the prestige class. This is
somewhat of a departure from both the prestige class concept and the "core"
BR rules, but not such a departure that I think it will really screw things
up terribly. There are a few cases where RP generation increases through
means other than bloodline strength score, so a few points based on levels
in a prestige class won`t mean the end of the world or anything.

2. Additional GB from holdings. I haven`t exactly figured out how I want
to do this one, but I`ve been thinking of a few changes lately to the
income tables in BR and this particular class ability would fit into those
changes. The income changes that I`m talking about are a pretty
significant change from the standard BR system, however, so going into them
is probably too much to cover here. You could just tack on a few GB/level
or use a slightly larger die than those in the Rulebook to replicate this
power.

3. Reputation score. IMO, BR desperately needs a reputation score. More
so than just about any other campaign setting. Prestige classes like those
described above should have good modifiers to the reputation score.

4. You could assign HD, BAB, saving throws, spells, etc. based on the
character classes that get their RP from the particular holdings.

I would avoid adventure level "powers" like those of many other prestige
classes. Instead, the prestige classes should bridge the adventure level
of play with the domain level and the "powers" gained should be those that
are typical of that bridge already; greater access to wealth, more
influence among the population, etc. but with even more emphasis through
the prestige class powers.

>Also, anyone have any good prestige class ideas for BR Halflings?

Again, I haven`t got the prestige class written up because it hasn`t been
an issue IMC, but there should be a few BR prestige classes having to do
with characters who make forays into the SW. "Shadow Scout" or something
like that.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Raesene Andu]

Personally, I don't like the idea. Being a regent is like already having an extra prestige class, I don't think there is any need to confuse the issue.

Of course, I just dislike prestige classes all round at the moment. I understand the idea, but it seems to me there is a glut of them starting to appear. If you look at any BR resource site on the net they always seem to have one or two submissions in the magic items, spells, etc sections and then ten or more prestige classes.

[Mark_Aurel]

I think perhaps an essential point here is being missed, and that is the purpose of prestige classes - they are meant to fill a role of some kind in the campaign world, as well as provide some form of mechanical differentiation from the regular classes, offering abilities that are otherwise not available, often within the context of some organization or group.

The essential problem with adding prestige classes for regents would be the lack of an organization or group within which the regent would function; this means, for instance, that having a "Lord Sheriff" or "Master Guilder" class is not really such a good idea - there is simply no in-game reason for such a class to exist. What is being discussed, then, is instead a purely mechanical concept in order to boost certain character aspects.

Mechanically, the following options would fit better with the 3e rules:

1) You make feats that affect specific areas of domain rulership; these feats should be fairly broad and powerful in order to be attractive. Feats can easily fulfill mechanical ideas of superior regents.

2) You make the regent the top of the hierarchy in an existing prestige class, and add some possible domain-level benefit there. I.e. you make a separate "Knight of the Holy Order of Haelyn's Aegis" class, and give the regent of that domain specific abilities if he takes that class, which are, of course, lost if he loses the domain, or "falls from grace." This is far from a viable option for most domains, but for some with a clear organizational profile or specific organizations, it may be.

3) You make a specific prestige class for the regent of a single domain only. This should certainly be rare, but not unheard of. The Count of Danigau, for instance, sounds like a candidate for such a position of hereditary training.

Finally, remember the Golden Rule of 3e - don't invent a new rule unless you have to. Of course, WotC themselves are stretching that idea, and so are everyone else - "our books must have crunch!" A Guilder, as they were in 2e, for instance, is really a perfect example of the Expert NPC class in 3e - there was really nothing especially "prestigious" about them, simply an appellation for Brecht merchants.

I happen to think there are too few prestige classes; or, rather, too few GOOD prestige classes. Most of the published ones are either unoriginal, unbalanced, or just plain boring. If there's a glut of anything, it's bad or mediocre material. Much of what you will find on the internet also falls in this trap, unfortunately.

[geeman]

At 01:57 AM 10/8/2002 +0200, Mark_Aurel wrote:

>The essential problem with adding prestige classes for regents would be
>the lack of an organization or group within which the regent would
>function; this means, for instance, that having a "Lord Sheriff" or
>"Master Guilder" class is not really such a good idea - there is simply no
>in-game reason for such a class to exist. What is being discussed, then,
>is instead a purely mechanical concept in order to boost certain character
>aspects.

There isn`t really a requirement in the prestige class concept that they be
based on some organization or group. Granted, many of the ones presented
in the core materials and supplements are described as being based on
campaign specific organizations, but I`d suggest that that is part of the
problem with the way prestige classes are being written up. It`s the
reason why they are so prolific, and why the vast majority of them aren`t
usable for most folks without at least some revision. Any organization
with 6+ members seems to get its own prestige class, and those prestige
classes often are tweaked towards a (sometimes goofy) role in a campaign
world. When such prestige classes are presented as part of a campaign
setting that`s all well and good, but because so many prestige classes have
been presented in the core rules they often get used in campaigns for which
they aren`t suited, despite the guidelines in the DMG that suggest that`s
exactly what they aren`t supposed to be used for.

IMO there should be two kinds of prestige classes. "General" prestige
classes that represent more powerful versions of existing character
classes. The ones that would qualify for this category would be ones like
the Assassin, the Dwarven Defender--and a version of the Blackguard that
wasn`t so closely premised on the fallen paladin concept since paladins
really ought to be included in that list. Other prestige classes that
should exist in such a list are things like an Elementalist. Then there
should be "campaign specific" prestige classes, but even those prestige
classes should be general enough that they could be used in other campaign
settings without too much trouble. Things like the holding-regent based
prestige classes would be campaign specific to BR. If one used a system of
BR-like domain rules in a non-BR campaign, however, the concept could be
easily `ported.

Four prestige classes based on holding regents looks like a problem in the
scope of the endless number of prestige classes presented for 3e, but in
this case I think they would be useful to the campaign setting and rules,
so I generally support the idea.

>1) You make feats that affect specific areas of domain rulership; these
>feats should be fairly broad and powerful in order to be attractive. Feats
>can easily fulfill mechanical ideas of superior regents.

Generally, I agree that many of the prestige class special abilities would
be better described as feats, but when it comes to events at the domain
level I wouldn`t use feats, personally. Feats should have adventure level
effects, or at least personal effects. Those feats that have extended into
groups (like the Leadership feat) are almost always disastrous failures IMO.

Also, opinions vary quite a bit on the role that character class should
play in RP collection in BR. Some folks limit RP collection to a "primary"
class, others allow unrestricted RP collection without restriction to
multi-classed characters, still more do away entirely with the character
class restrictions on RP collection, or some variants in between those
standards. Unless you prefer some variation on the last option (no
restriction to RP collection by character class) using feats to influence
domain rulership will cross over into the role of character class at the
domain level since feats are available to anyone who meets the
requirements, regardless of their class.

>2) You make the regent the top of the hierarchy in an existing prestige
>class, and add some possible domain-level benefit there. I.e. you make a
>separate "Knight of the Holy Order of Haelyn`s Aegis" class, and give the
>regent of that domain specific abilities if he takes that class, which
>are, of course, lost if he loses the domain, or "falls from grace." This
>is far from a viable option for most domains, but for some with a clear
>organizational profile or specific organizations, it may be.

If your objection is to the number of prestige classes available then I
think this would be the exactly opposite way to go. Not only would you
have to write up fifty or eighty prestige classes, but those prestige
classes would then be available to a very small number of
individuals. Rulers, former rulers, lieutenants and maybe a few key
individuals.

I`m also not a real big fan of the "off the path" mechanic used for
paladins and monks, so extended that to a potentially endless list of
prestige classes isn`t the way I`d go.

>3) You make a specific prestige class for the regent of a single domain
>only. This should certainly be rare, but not unheard of. The Count of
>Danigau, for instance, sounds like a candidate for such a position of
>hereditary training.

Hereditary training isn`t normally what prestige classes are meant to
represent, since such training would be the kind of thing that occurs
before a character reaches the 6th-8th level range of most prestige
classes. Hereditary training would be something that would begin before a
character even reached 1st level, wouldn`t it? A system of background
feats, or beginning characters at higher than 1st level might be a better
way to reflect that kind of training.

>A Guilder, as they were in 2e, for instance, is really a perfect example
>of the Expert NPC class in 3e - there was really nothing especially
>"prestigious" about them, simply an appellation for Brecht merchants.

Guilder should, I think, be a core BR class available at 1st level with a
more mercantile emphasis than other classes. There could still be,
however, a prestige class "Master Guilder" that represented a person
focusing on the leadership aspects of running a domain of guild holdings.

>I happen to think there are too few prestige classes; or, rather, too few
>GOOD prestige classes. Most of the published ones are either unoriginal,
>unbalanced, or just plain boring. If there`s a glut of anything, it`s bad
>or mediocre material. Much of what you will find on the internet also
>falls in this trap, unfortunately.

I`d certainly agree with that. The campaign specific nature of many of the
prestige classes makes them unusable in most campaigns without some
rewriting, and quite a few of them would seem to require a campaign setting
devised in order to support them, when the concept of prestige classes is
supposedly meant to support campaign settings. Sometimes prestige classes
don`t need a whole lot of tweaking to fit into other campaigns, but more
often than not they can`t be just plopped down into another campaign world
as is.

Also, there doesn`t seem to be any real effort at balancing prestige
classes. They have a few rough guidelines having to do with requirements,
but many prestige classes are more powerful than others despite those
guidelines. In fact, the prestige classes seem to be getting more powerful
in later supplements, leading me to suspect there will one day be a
super-powerful, all-encompassing ultra-prestige class presented one day....

I`m curious what folks in the BR community feel are appropriate 3e prestige
classes to BR? Which would you guys use? What kinds of prestige classes
should there be?

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Gary wrote:
> Also, there doesn`t seem to be any real effort at balancing prestige
> classes. They have a few rough guidelines having to do with requirements,
> but many prestige classes are more powerful than others despite those
> guidelines. In fact, the prestige classes seem to be getting more powerful
> in later supplements, leading me to suspect there will one day be a
> super-powerful, all-encompassing ultra-prestige class presented one day....

Which is why they should just be done away with completely. They`re
escalating, and one day soon, they`ll attain sentience and take over the
internet, and then the world.

> I`m curious what folks in the BR community feel are appropriate 3e prestige
> classes to BR? Which would you guys use? What kinds of prestige classes
> should there be?

None. Prestige classes are broken as they are commonly used now. The
only one I would even think of allowing would be Paladin (hehehe).
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

There absolutly has to be a glut of PrC`s. If they represent special
organizations specific to a campaign, there need to be half dozen for every
style of campiagn. Its a buffet of PrC`s and we are intended only to use a
tiny fraction. We pick and choose here and there, and leave the rest for
someone else. I have been able to produce nearly all the kinds of
characters I have wanted by judicious multi-classing. I have only used
something like three PrC`s thus far.

Heidrek Bern is a 2nd level Aristocrat/6th level Fighter/3rd level
Warmaster. (Bern is lord of Uleåborg, High Marshal of the Armies of
Stjordvik.)
Axel Ovtrup is a 5th level Rogue/1st level Assassin (Axel is the lord of
Halmstad in the province of Hollenvik.)
Euric Aelis is a 5th level Cleric/3rd level Master of the Forest (Euric is
the Archdruid of Cariele.)

I`m glad the whole collection is there, but AFAIC, its for the whole
community, and I`m only gonna want a fraction of what D&D can be for my
games.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Mark_Aurel]

There isn`t really a requirement in the prestige class concept that they be
based on some organization or group. Granted, many of the ones presented
in the core materials and supplements are described as being based on
campaign specific organizations, but I`d suggest that that is part of the
problem with the way prestige classes are being written up. It`s the
reason why they are so prolific, and why the vast majority of them aren`t
usable for most folks without at least some revision.

No, the reason they are so prolific is because they make for nice filler material. Of course, as the concept of prestige classes is built with the idea that they should be campaign specific, rather than generic, in mind, you'll need to do some work to adapt most of them. Noq, there isn't strictly an organizational requirement tied to prestige classes, but they should be anchored in the game world; the four examples given are fairly encompassing: Racial distinction, cultural distinction, religious order and guild or group membership. I suppose you could also include a category of event-based ones; i.e. the acolyte of the skin, the blood magus, or the eldritch master are tied to events that give them their powers.

In all these cases, however, it is still clear that prestige classes are world-specific. Now, organizations is generally one of the easiest things to tie prestige classes to - knightly or religious orders, wizard's colleges or groups, etc. Birthright has probably more organizations than any other campaign world TSR ever made; however, the organizations in Birthright are mainly political in nature, and most aren't even fleshed out to any significant degree; certainly not enough to base prestige classes upon them. Only a very small number of the organizations or domains that abound in BR should have prestige classes tied to them. In a lot of cases, existing classes can be adapted with relative ease. Shadowdancers would fit well with certain of Eloéle's temples. Assassins would fit well into the Society of the Serpent. Dwarven defenders are probably found in the greatest numbers ín Baruk-Azhik.


IMO there should be two kinds of prestige classes. "General" prestige
classes that represent more powerful versions of existing character
classes.

Taken on its own, this is a profoundly untrue statement; prestige classes don't exist to be strictly better versions of existing classes. However, in the context of the examples you used, I think the point is more that prestige classes specialize more in certain areas than regular classes do. Assassins are better at killing people than rogues, but lack the many skill points, or the high-level abilities of the latter. Dwarven defenders are superior melee fighters, but they don't make as good archers or mobility type combatants as fighters. They are not, however, strictly better - simply more specialized.


Hereditary training isn`t normally what prestige classes are meant to
represent, since such training would be the kind of thing that occurs
before a character reaches the 6th-8th level range of most prestige
classes. Hereditary training would be something that would begin before a
character even reached 1st level, wouldn`t it? A system of background
feats, or beginning characters at higher than 1st level might be a better
way to reflect that kind of training.


Not necessarily. Remember, I threw this idea forth as a better way to address the "regent prestige class" issue than simply assuming there are "merchant princes," "super sheriffs" and the like. The point in this case would likely be that the character must work hard to aspire to be that which his ancestors has been before him, thus fulfilling the requirement of it being a prestige class, and also making sense in terms of it having regency-related capabilities. Not a "club," or group, but a hereditary position. The idea has merit, I believe, but not necessarily on a universal level or scale - there might be a few domains in Cerilia for which the idea would work, though. Note also that this suggestion was labeled as #3 for a reason - it is the most far-fetched, but still better than "hey, I took a few feats and skills, and now I'm going to be a cleric/über-bureaucrat!"

Simply having a function and a set of cool class abilities isn't enough to make a prestige class - it has to have a real fundament or anchor in the game world. There are always exceptions, of course - but simply creating a category of "superior regent" prestige classes does not strike me as a good or compelling exception. Feats is probably the better solution, all things considered.

[geeman]

At 05:43 AM 10/8/2002 +0200, Mark_Aurel wrote:

>
There isn`t really a requirement in the prestige class concept
> that they be
>based on some organization or group. Granted, many of the ones presented
>in the core materials and supplements are described as being based on
>campaign specific organizations, but I`d suggest that that is part of the
>problem with the way prestige classes are being written up. It`s the
>reason why they are so prolific, and why the vast majority of them aren`t
>usable for most folks without at least some revision.
>
>No, the reason they are so prolific is because they make for nice filler
>material.

Sure, they are used as filler material, but that`s not what I`m getting
at. What I`m saying is that the prestige class concept is assumed to be
based on particular organizations in particular campaign settings. Because
there`s no limit to the number of such organizations and campaigns possible
that assumption means there is no reason why there shouldn`t be a similarly
endless number of prestige classes to express them. Without that
assumption they`d have to find something else to fill pages with. If we do
away with that assumption and design prestige classes for BR without tying
them to particular organizations we can come up with much more general and
flexible ones that would be available in (most) campaign worlds, and where
warranted they can be adapted to the BR. In the long run that`ll make for
a more useful system of prestige classes since the variations will mostly
wind up being described amongst the "general" versions and one need only
make a few changes here and there to make them more campaign specific.

>
IMO there should be two kinds of prestige classes. "General" prestige
>classes that represent more powerful versions of existing character
>classes.
>
>Taken on its own, this is a profoundly untrue statement; prestige classes
>don`t exist to be strictly better versions of existing classes. [Snip
>Examples] They are not, however, strictly better - simply more specialized.

Profoundly untrue? That`s a bit of an overstatement.... Aside from it
being an opinion, it would be a pretty sensible way to write core
materials. Prestige classes that are as general as possible and applicable
to as many campaigns as possible would be a lot more useful than the rather
scattergun approach to prestige classes that most of the core materials has
employed. Articulating two categories of prestige classes would help
considerably, and deal with most of the objections you`ve raised to the
concept.

Also, I never said that they were meant to be better versions of existing
classes, but since you brought it up that actually is what they are meant
to be; better and more directed versions of existing classes. It says so
pretty definitively in the DMG "A character with a prestige class is more
specialized yet perhaps slightly better than one without one." That
doesn`t necessarily mean they are simply more powerful versions of existing
classes as in a particular prestige class is Fighter + X powers, but they
do represent a powering up from the existing classes.

One could certainly take issue with whether or not they should work that
way, but it`s one of the specifically professed goals of the prestige class
concept.

>Simply having a function and a set of cool class abilities isn`t enough to
>make a prestige class - it has to have a real fundament or anchor in the
>game world.

That`s another drastic overstatement. Prestige classes are just meant to
be a fun (and relatively simple) way of determining class abilities in
association with campaign flavor issues. They needn`t (and many aren`t) so
directly linked to a particular campaign setting that they couldn`t be used
as a general concept that would apply to most campaigns. The DMG says that
prestige classes "set characters in the milieu and put them in the context
of the world." That`s a far cry from saying prestige classes must all be
anchored in the game world. There are several prestige classes that could
accomplish that goal in a broad range of campaign settings. If you remove
the (largely unnecessary) organization material from them, other prestige
classes can be similarly generalized.

>There are always exceptions, of course - but simply creating a category of
>"superior regent" prestige classes does not strike me as a good or
>compelling exception. Feats is probably the better solution, all things
>considered.

How are you picturing using feats in place of prestige classes? Maybe if
you gave me some examples I`d be better able to see what you mean. Given
the way feats work at present, however, I don`t think using a set of
"domain level feats" would be a good way to go, but I don`t know what kind
of direction you`re thinking of here, so maybe some examples would
help. How specifically are you seeing feats take the place of prestige
classes in the particular situation?

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 10:44 PM 10/7/2002 -0700, I wrote:

>Also, I never said that they were meant to be better versions of existing
>classes

No, wait. I did say that. Oh, well, it`s still true.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Ariadne]

Orginally posted by geeman

>Also, I never said that they were meant to be better versions of existing classes

No, wait. I did say that. Oh, well, it`s still true.
If existing prestige classes are boring for you, you choose a prestige class. PrC's aren't only more powerful version of an existing class, they're a specialisation (and the exit for boredom).

But a PrC for regents? If the regent has a character class, choose a PrC for his class. (If he is a follower of Haelyn with some spellcaster levels, choose Lawbringer)

Halflings? If your Halfling is a rogue with sorcerer levels choose the arcane trickster. Otherwise I dont know...

[Birthright-L]

> I`m curious what folks in the BR community feel are
appropriate 3e prestige classes to BR? Which would
you guys use? What kinds of prestige classes should
there be? <

> Gary

I am one of those folk who like the concept of
prestige classes, but feel that they are a tad
overused and/or misunderstood. That said, I appreciate
the plethora of those that already exist. That is
because I like looking them over and seeing what the
playing group can come up with if we decide to try to
craft some sort of prestige class.
I think that most prestige classes would need
some degree of rework to fit into any campaign world.
BR is one that would require a bit more than normal,
considering its special nature (especially with
regards to its various `levels` of play, (i.e.,
individual, group, and realm). As someone else pointed
out, the NPC classes listed in the DMG can fulfill
most potential roles very well.
From the DMG, I think the Assassin, Loremaster,
and Shadowdancer prestige classes can fit in nicely
with regards to a typical BR campaign. Some tweaking
would be probable, but nothing major (so it strikes
me, anyway).
Once we move away from the DMG, I think the
rework level will be much higher, simply because
taking an already established prestige class and
fitting it into a BR campaign will require some
changes, at the least (this is true of any campaign
outside of the one that it has been created for).
Prestige classes strike me as being `custom-fit`
creations, so to speak.
There are exceptions of course, such as the Fist
of Hextor from the Sword & Fist book. A decent one for
the humanoids methinks, and requiring little rework to
fit in snugly.
Speaking for myself, BR has always been
problematic for me with regards to D&D characters.
This is because it tries to have rules for both the
small-scale and large-scale campaigns. Sometimes, the
two do not mesh well. Prestige classes sort of falls
into this situation for my group. we have yet to come
up with a workable solution, but we are having fun
trying. ;)

Darkke


=====
`Dark clouds are upon us. A storm is coming, and I intend to ride the thunder.`

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Mark_Aurel]

What I`m saying is that the prestige class concept is assumed to be
based on particular organizations in particular campaign settings. Because
there`s no limit to the number of such organizations and campaigns possible
that assumption means there is no reason why there shouldn`t be a similarly
endless number of prestige classes to express them.

The thing is, only certain organizations, or types thereof, warrant prestige classes. In BR, strictly speaking, pretty much every domain can be considered an organization - however, only a very few of those have enough character or flavor to tie a prestige class to them. We don't need "guild member type 1" and "guild member type 2" prestige classes.


Articulating two categories of prestige classes would help
considerably, and deal with most of the objections you`ve raised to the
concept.

I don't really have any objections to the concept of prestige classes. I have some objections to the way the concept is being treated.


Also, I never said that they were meant to be better versions of existing
classes, but since you brought it up that actually is what they are meant
to be; better and more directed versions of existing classes. It says so
pretty definitively in the DMG "A character with a prestige class is more
specialized yet perhaps slightly better than one without one."

Now you are being unnecessarily argumentative; I already stated that prestige classes are supposed to be more specialized, but not strictly better. The quote you used from the DMG is also out of context, when read solely on its own. The DMG also goes in-depth about how to balance prestige classes with requirements, and advice in both the DMG, and given in Dragon and elsewhere by Monte Cook expounds upon this idea. If you do not consider the requirements involved, prestige classes can be considered to be "better." I do, however, tend to consider the requirements as an essential part of the concept, and thus, prestige classes aren't really stronger than the regular classes - just more specialized.


The DMG says that
prestige classes "set characters in the milieu and put them in the context
of the world." That`s a far cry from saying prestige classes must all be
anchored in the game world.

I fail to see the difference here. "Put them in the context of the world" and "anchored in the game world" sounds pretty synonymous to me. To use an example, I don't think that blade dancers, from OA, would be appropriate for Anuire, according to either statement.


How are you picturing using feats in place of prestige classes?

Okay.

Bismarck-wannabe [General]
You are good at playing domains against each other.
Benefit: You gain a +4 bonus on Diplomacy domain actions.

Orator of the Old School [General]
You are good at rousing the public.
Benefit: You gain a +4 bonus on Agitate domain actions.

Scrooging [General]
You are good at keeping wages low.
Benefit: You reduce your domain maintenance costs by 25%.

Maybe a bigger bonus would be in order to make the feats more attractive, or making them a bit more generally applicable, but that's the idea of it.

I think your idea about writing prestige classes would reduce them a bit, to being simple power-ups in no real context. Of course, that can be a valid way to design something - think of a cool ability, then tie it to something in the game world. However, separating the prestige classes being written from their organizational or in-world basis would probably just exaggerate the problems that are already becoming apparent - that prestige classes are becoming more powerful with successive products. The organizational ties that most prestige classes in the core books have are slight enough that you can use them as written for the most part - if they are appropriate. Most aren't, and you shouldn't expect them to be, as they are supposed to catch the length and width of campaign types. For campaigns of a less exact flavor and more of the "pulp dungeon crawl" standard, like Greyhawk, most, if not all, prestige classes will fit in easily. For Birthright, this is trickier. What we need isn't that they write the core books in a different way, but that we have a pool of standardized BR prestige classes to draw from.

[Eosin the Red]

---- Original Message -----
From: "Mark_Aurel" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
To: <BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM>
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 9:32 AM
Subject: Re: Presitige Classes for Regents [2#1017]

~~~What we need isn`t that they write the core books in a different way, but
that we have a pool of standardized BR prestige classes to draw from.~~~


Exactly. Too many people think everything has to be available or worse,
used. A very specific list of PrCs and the organizions/groups/things/events
that they are tied too is IMO the best way to go. There are so many now days
that it is also easy to be choosy and try to find the better balanced ones.
That might be a good project

****starts looking for books with PrCs in them*****

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Lee]

I`ve already got a long and growing list of PrC`s from Dragon and the few
3e "brown books" I have, annotated as to if and how I would use them in my
game. The vast majority are rejected, mostly because I don`t see them as
BR-ish (ninja wannabes are automatic rejects, but that may be just me 8-P).
There is another pile labelled "OK if they have an organization behind them,"
which I haven`t bothered to flesh out yet.
When I first heard of the concept, I thought they would all be tied to
campaign-specific groups, like 2nd ed FR specialty priests, but I have been
disappointed. I wish they were, and I will strive IMC to make it so. Where
else do all of these cool abilities come from?

As a thought for the BRCS, Doom`s current conversion has wizard as a
standard class, and magician as a PrC for higher-level non-blooded arcane
casters. If I could suggest a radical change, how about magician as the
standard, and wizard as the PrC, open only to sidhe and blooded humans?

Lee.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Grimwell]

Prestige Classes are one of the most abused options in 3E. This dicussion shows that there is not a clear consensus amongst the readers of the DMG as to exactly what they are and how one should design one. How do we balance this?

We go to the person who laid those rules out (as suggested) and read his clarifications. Monte Cook did a two part breakdown on PrC's last year and gave solid examples of how one should go about wrestling this bear. As PrC's are his baby (he put them in the DMG) he's a very solid rock to anchor this debate to...

(if you don't follow and read these links, please don't spend the energy responding to me specifically.)

Part One (http://www.montecook.com/arch_dmonly9.html)

Part Two (http://www.montecook.com/arch_dmonly10.html)

Monte has a lot to say on the subject, and he clarifies some issues debated within this thread.

What is the design intention for PrC's?


The original design intention behind them was to allow DMs to create campaign-specific, exclusive roles and positions as classes. These special roles offer abilities and powers otherwise inaccessible to PCs and focus characters in specific, interesting directions.

The key there -- the one that's now often missing -- is that these are supposed to be DM-created tools, to lend specificity and actual mechanics to the details of your world.

More good quotes as to why one should develop a PrC:


There are four basic reasons why you should create prestige classes for your campaign.

1. To Develop an Organization.

2. To Develop a Race or Culture.

3. To Satisfy Players.

4. To Make Otherwise Poor Options Acceptable.

Finally, I'll quote another guideline from Monte:


Choose the Specific Over the General
No-----------------Yes
Holy Warrior------Champion of Pelor
City Guardsman--Greyhawk Watchman
Martial Disciple---Order of the Fist Disciple
Woodsman-------Darkwater Pass Tracker

While you really should read what Monte has to say in his extended writing on the subject (it's not really that long and gives great insight) this information (from the horses mouth) goes against making PrC's that are more general and easy to insert into other games. If you are designing a PrC for BR, design a PrC for BR and let the Realms and Kalamar be damned! :)

Should there be a PrC for each type of regent? I think that's too general and vanilla even within the context of Birthright. That does not mean that there should not be PrC's that lend themselves nicely to regents, not in the least, but there should be more flavor to tie them tightly to BR.

Don't make a generic PrC for "Guilders" who hold the Guild holdings. The vastness of the cultures within BR make this too generic to accurately represent each culture. Instead you can design one for "Merchant Prince" with a requirement of Brecht to qualify for the Prc; back it up with "Khinasi Smuggler" for the likes of El-hadid and you can put the spin of the SE ends of Cerilia into a PrC for the Khinasi.

Then go further and escape the notion of the regents and grab the flavor that is the heart of BR and make PrC's to make it shine. "Pureblood" a PrC for Masatean people who descend from the last of their people (thus mostly found in the Serpent's domain).

"Imperial Dragoon" - Anuirean heavy calvary. Once at the forefront of Anuirean armies, ever fighting to extend the reach of the Emperor, now a scattered group who can be elevated by any landed regent in Anuire (though only the most powerful dare to openly grant this titile least they draw the ire of their neighbors). Requirement: An Anuirean nobleman must grant this title and the privledges that come with it (defend the Empire, or rebuild it in the modern day).

Having focused PrC's that are custom made for BR is a very good thing. It's something that I assume is being done behind the doors of this secret project. If it's not, I'll issue some after the project is made public (I'd rather match the official conversion than try to guess at it).

When you look at the glut of PrC's on the market, try to remember what it was like when BR first came out for 2E. There were scores of kits to be found and all kinds of spells and races and options. 2E was beginning to become too unwieldly because of all the options out there.

What did the BR design team do? They looked at those options, picked the ones that fit the setting, and cast the rest to the side with the caveat that individual DM's can do whatever they want. No Psionics in BR. Most kits were invalid. As were a great deal of spells (when you eliminate all the secondary products). They took the setting, matched it to the 2E core, added in a few of the existing options and then made some of their own specific to the setting.

When they were done they had a work of beauty. Birthright was a very complete campaign that had a pulse and a mood. It has always been easy for me to see something and decide that it did or did not fit in with BR, because the campaign is not about every option, it's about culture and regionalism, and theme, and story, and so much more. Which is why it was an instant draw to this old and wordy gamer.

[Mark_Aurel]

Very good post, Grimwell, and my point exactly - prestige classes are meant to be specific, not generic. Birthright has a lot of different things going for it in terms of prestige classes, though perhaps not as much as, say, the Forgotten Realms. Some aspects of BR are practically screaming for it - in other cases, you'll need to retrofit it a bit.

Overall, I think you'd be pleased to see how the prestige classes are being handled in the BRCS.

[Eosin the Red]

Nicely done. I agree with nearly every word (not to be a me too). I would
only add that I prefer adapting published PrCs ~ my experience tells me that
75% of the time, publishers overdo it. When we get into the fan stuff (my
mail box is half-full of broken Prcs submitted to my website) the numbers
slide from bad to abysmal. I have had to revise nearly everyone I have
created to balance them, and even Monte has some stinkers out there.
Freewheeling PrCs is just plain hard.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Grimwell" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
To: <BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM>
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: Presitige Classes for Regents [2#1017]


> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at:
http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1017
>
> Grimwell wrote:
> Prestige Classes are one of the most abused options in 3E. This dicussion
shows that there is not a clear consensus amongst the readers of the DMG as
to exactly what they are and how one should design one. How do we balance
this?
>
> We go to the person who laid those rules out (as suggested) and read his
clarifications. Monte Cook did a two part breakdown on PrC`s last year and
gave solid examples of how one should go about wrestling this bear. As PrC`s
are his baby (he put them in the DMG) he`s a very solid rock to anchor this
debate to...
>
> (if you don`t follow and read these links, please don`t spend the energy
responding to me specifically.)
>
> Part One (http://www.montecook.com/arch_dmonly9.html)
>
> Part Two (http://www.montecook.com/arch_dmonly10.html)
>
> Monte has a lot to say on the subject, and he clarifies some issues
debated within this thread.
>
> What is the design intention for PrC`s?
>

> The original design intention behind them was to allow DMs to create
campaign-specific, exclusive roles and positions as classes. These special
roles offer abilities and powers otherwise inaccessible to PCs and focus
characters in specific, interesting directions.
>
> The key there -- the one that`s now often missing -- is that these are
supposed to be DM-created tools, to lend specificity and actual mechanics to
the details of your world.
>
> More good quotes as to why one should develop a PrC:
>

> There are four basic reasons why you should create prestige classes for
your campaign.
>
> 1. To Develop an Organization.
>
> 2. To Develop a Race or Culture.
>
> 3. To Satisfy Players.
>
> 4. To Make Otherwise Poor Options Acceptable.
>
> Finally, I`ll quote another guideline from Monte:
>

> Choose the Specific Over the General
> No Yes
> Holy Warrior Champion of Pelor
> City Guardsman Greyhawk Watchman
> Martial Disciple Order of the Fist Disciple
> Woodsman Darkwater Pass Tracker
>
> While you really should read what Monte has to say in his extended writing
on the subject (it`s not really that long and gives great insight) this
information (from the horses mouth) goes against making PrC`s that are more
general and easy to insert into other games. If you are designing a PrC for
BR, design a PrC for BR and let the Realms and Kalamar be damned! :)
>
> Should there be a PrC for each type of regent? I think that`s too general
and vanilla even within the context of Birthright. That does not mean that
there should not be PrC`s that lend themselves nicely to regents, not in the
least, but there should be more flavor to tie them tightly to BR.
>
> Don`t make a generic PrC for "Guilders" who hold the Guild holdings. The
vastness of the cultures within BR make this too generic to accurately
represent each culture. Instead you can design one for "Merchant Prince"
with a requirement of Brecht to qualify for the Prc; back it up with
"Khinasi Smuggler" for the likes of El-hadid and you can put the spin of the
SE ends of Cerilia into a PrC for the Khinasi.
>
> Then go further and escape the notion of the regents and grab the flavor
that is the heart of BR and make PrC`s to make it shine. "Pureblood" a PrC
for Masatean people who descend from the last of their people (thus mostly
found in the Serpent`s domain).
>
> "Imperial Dragoon" - Anuirean heavy calvary. Once at the forefront of
Anuirean armies, ever fighting to extend the reach of the Emperor, now a
scattered group who can be elevated by any landed regent in Anuire (though
only the most powerful dare to openly grant this titile least they draw the
ire of their neighbors). Requirement: An Anuirean nobleman must grant this
title and the privledges that come with it (defend the Empire, or rebuild it
in the modern day).
>
> Having focused PrC`s that are custom made for BR is a very good thing.
It`s something that I assume is being done behind the doors of this secret
project. If it`s not, I`ll issue some after the project is made public (I`d
rather match the official conversion than try to guess at it).
>
> When you look at the glut of PrC`s on the market, try to remember what it
was like when BR first came out for 2E. There were scores of kits to be
found and all kinds of spells and races and options. 2E was beginning to
become too unwieldly because of all the options out there.
>
> What did the BR design team do? They looked at those options, picked the
ones that fit the setting, and cast the rest to the side with the caveat
that individual DM`s can do whatever they want. No Psionics in BR. Most kits
were invalid. As were a great deal of spells (when you eliminate all the
secondary products). They took the setting, matched it to the 2E core, added
in a few of the existing options and then made some of their own specific to
the setting.
>
> When they were done they had a work of beauty. Birthright was a very
complete campaign that had a pulse and a mood. It has always been easy for
me to see something and decide that it did or did not fit in with BR,
because the campaign is not about every option, it`s about culture and
regionalism, and theme, and story, and so much more. Which is why it was an
instant draw to this old and wordy gamer.
>
>
************************************************** **************************
> The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
> Birthright-l Archives:
http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
> To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
> with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
>

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

Most kinds of characters can be achived by careful selection of feats,
skills, and multiclassing. For generic concepts, just adding a few classes
(guilder, knight, archer, &c) will handle the kind of basic stats you might
find everywhere. PrC`s involve specialized training, IMO. Training not
found at the local hall. Training only available from the organization.
Only in the Heraldric Colleges of Cuiraécen do characters learn how to
ignore magical silence. While they could just teach anyone who wandered by,
they don`t do that. They teach the secrets of heraldric excellence to their
best, most committed heralds.

Part of the connection, which I think essential, between PrC`s and
organizations is the fact that organizations have secret knowledge,
techniques, and training which they reveal only to those who they believe
will advance the interests of the organization.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Elton Robb]

Well, having designed one PrC based on the _Battle Magic_ supplement by Mongoose Publishing, I can safely say something about the book's PrCs and their suitability.

Don't let the PCs use them. They are much too restrictive to be used as a PC PrC. Here's the reason. Although it's super cool to blast your enemies away with successive spells, and new spells which produces streams and spiraled effects, what makes the PrCs bad is this.

Ex-Battle Mages and Ex-Eldritch Warriors: After taking a level of either of these two classes, the character has changed the way he views magic forever. The character may never gain another level in any arcane spellcasting class.

Thus, as you can see, it restricts the PC's options in progress.

Elton Robb

[Trithemius]

Elton Robb:
> Thus, as you can see, it restricts the PC`s options in progress.

So?

If players choose to sacrifice versatility for specific powers then I
would allow them. They should realise what they are doing though. I`m of
the opinion that all PCs who work towards a PrC work towards
specialisation in some way. The ones that aren`t doing this, don`t take
PrCs.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 04:32 PM 10/8/2002 +0200, Mark_Aurel wrote:

>
What I`m saying is that the prestige class concept is assumed to be
>based on particular organizations in particular campaign settings. Because
>there`s no limit to the number of such organizations and campaigns possible
>that assumption means there is no reason why there shouldn`t be a similarly
>endless number of prestige classes to express them.
>
>The thing is, only certain organizations, or types thereof, warrant
>prestige classes. In BR, strictly speaking, pretty much every domain can
>be considered an organization - however, only a very few of those have
>enough character or flavor to tie a prestige class to them. We don`t need
>"guild member type 1" and "guild member type 2" prestige classes.

I think we`re basically in agreement here. There have been several
objections to the way prestige classes have been presented in the core
materials and supplements. I agree with those objections. What I`m saying
is that at the root of many of those objections are some fundamental ideas
behind the prestige class concept that have led to the problems with how
the concept of prestige classes has developed. To wit: that prestige
classes are organization based.

In fact, for BR players there`s probably an even better illustration of the
point. Most of the organizations behind the prestige classes in the
published materials don`t rise to the domain level. They are usually
adventure level, role-playing effects. One could assign some sort of
holding or two to them, but more often than not a small BR domain is going
to represent a much more influential organization than the organizations
that inspire the average prestige class. It wouldn`t take much effort then
to conclude that every BR domain should have its own prestige classes,
maybe even two or three each. Most temple domains could have at least
three classes associated with it; a knightly one, a monk-brother one, a
patriarchal/matriarchal leader. In effect, that`s what`s been going on
with the plethora of prestige classes that have been coming out. Because
so little is needed to inspire them we get them by the truckload.

>Now you are being unnecessarily argumentative; I already stated that
>prestige classes are supposed to be more specialized, but not strictly better.

They are strictly better. Sorry, if that comes out sounding more
argumentative than saying that statement is profoundly untrue, but the
concept of prestige classes really is meant to create more powerful
characters, not ones that are just more specialized. It says as much in
the DMG and in a few other places that discuss the concept. Please note,
however, that I`m not saying that`s a good thing. I don`t think prestige
classes should necessarily power up the way they are often presented. In
fact, that powering up is one of the problems with how the prestige class
concept gets implemented.

>The quote you used from the DMG is also out of context, when read solely
>on its own.

If more of the context is necessary then here`s the paragraph in its entirety:

"Assassins and Loremasters are among the many types of prestige
classes. Characters who qualify can choose a prestige class as a
multi-class to pick up as they advance in level. Taking a prestige class
does not incur the experience point penalties normally associated with
multiclassing. Prestige classes allow DMs to create campaign-specific,
exclusive roles and positions as classes. These special roles offer
abilities and powers otherwise inaccessible to PCs and focus them in
specific, interesting directions. A character with a prestige class is
more specialized yet perhaps slightly better than one without one."

The next paragraph is about how the DM can choose to include prestige
classes or not.

That reads to me pretty much like what I said it meant. How is the last
sentence`s meaning altered by the context?

But let`s ignore that quote for a moment. Prestige classes still represent
a powering up process from the core classes. Even a casual analysis of
their class features will reveal that that`s the case, and the more
analysis you subject to the existing prestige class descriptions the more
obvious this powering up process is. It`s also obvious that prestige
classes aren`t written with much of a concept of balance in place. The
powers given to them and utility of their abilities vary pretty wildly
without much balancing involved.

You could certainly argue that prestige classes should not be more powerful
versions of the core classes and you wouldn`t get much debate from me. The
point I`m trying to convey here isn`t what prestige classes should be, but
what they are intended to be by the game designers and how some fundamental
decisions made during that design process led to what we have now.

>The DMG also goes in-depth about how to balance prestige classes with
>requirements, and advice in both the DMG, and given in Dragon and
>elsewhere by Monte Cook expounds upon this idea. If you do not consider
>the requirements involved, prestige classes can be considered to be
>"better." I do, however, tend to consider the requirements as an essential
>part of the concept, and thus, prestige classes aren`t really stronger
>than the regular classes - just more specialized.
>
>
The DMG says that
>prestige classes "set characters in the milieu and put them in the context
>of the world." That`s a far cry from saying prestige classes must all be
>anchored in the game world.
>
>I fail to see the difference here. "Put them in the context of the world"
>and "anchored in the game world" sounds pretty synonymous to me. To use an
>example, I don`t think that blade dancers, from OA, would be appropriate
>for Anuire, according to either statement.

The difference would be that putting them in the context of the game world
is a much more general statement. A "Cavalier" is in the context of his
game world, and can be reflected using a prestige class that is simply
called "Cavalier" and uses a general power progression. "Anchored in the
game world" would be campaign-specific. "Knight of the Great Kingdom" is
specific to the Greyhawk campaign setting where the Great Kingdom is located.

>
How are you picturing using feats in place of prestige classes?
>
>Okay.

I`m going to go ahead and address the specifics here and then the concept
of using domain level feats afterwards.

>Bismarck-wannabe [General]
>You are good at playing domains against each other.
>Benefit: You gain a +4 bonus on Diplomacy domain actions.

It`s probably not a good idea to have feats that are demonstrably more
powerful than similar feats. In this particular case, there are already
feats like Skill Focus (or Skill Emphasis) that grant a +2 (or +3) bonus to
a particular skill. There are also skills that grant +2 to two different
skills. If one wants to increase the power of those particular skills then
that`d be fine, but I don`t think having a single feat that grants a bonus
that`s as much as twice that of the standard for feats is the way to go.

>Orator of the Old School [General]
>You are good at rousing the public.
>Benefit: You gain a +4 bonus on Agitate domain actions.
>
>Scrooging [General]
>You are good at keeping wages low.
>Benefit: You reduce your domain maintenance costs by 25%.

I kind of like these two. Personally, I prefer to go with skills as
modifiers on the success for the DC of a domain action, and instead of
making the 2e Administration NWP a feat I`ve similarly made it a skill, but
these seem like appropriate things for a regent to have as an ability.

>Maybe a bigger bonus would be in order to make the feats more attractive,
>or making them a bit more generally applicable, but that`s the idea of it.

The examples of powers that I listed before for a holding regent prestige
classes listed things like increased RP production. That`s the kind of
thing I would make a prestige class rather than a feat. Many of the class
features of existing prestige classes could (and I think should) be feats,
but when it comes to very specific kinds of things (like that increased RP
collection) then I think a prestige class is actually a better option.

>What we need isn`t that they write the core books in a different way, but
>that we have a pool of standardized BR prestige classes to draw from.

If we write the core books in a different way we could have a method for
standardizing BR (or any campaign`s) prestige classes. You could *try* to
go out and create a pool of standardized BR prestige classes, but without a
few fundamental changes to the concept of prestige classes itself, however,
you`ll probably just wind up making the same mistakes in the BR prestige
classes that you`ve complained about in regards to prestige classes in general.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Elton Robb" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 3:42 PM


> Although it`s super cool to blast your enemies away with successive
> spells, and new spells which produces streams and spiraled effects,
> what makes the PrCs bad is [that] After taking a level of either of
> [Battle Mage or Eldritch Warrior], the character has changed the way
> he views magic forever.

PrC`s that forever change the way characters do things are a league apart
from most PrC`s. I would concur that this is a risky area. Balance and
flavor are key issues here, and a PrC like this would need to be playtested
before being incorportated into a BR campaign. If, on the other hand, we`re
talking about a PrC like Knight of the Chalice from DotF, fighting Shadow
world baddies (other than undead) in the name of Avani (Knight of the Solar
Chalice) that`s more of just a specialization rather than a fundamental
change, and is less likely to cause trouble in a campaign.

Presumably someone who wanted to join the Knights of the Solar Chalice has
reason to believe that some heavy gaming will take place in the Shadow
World, or else this specialization doesn`t make sense.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Mark_Aurel]

One could assign some sort of
holding or two to them, but more often than not a small BR domain is going
to represent a much more influential organization than the organizations
that inspire the average prestige class. It wouldn`t take much effort then
to conclude that every BR domain should have its own prestige classes,
maybe even two or three each. Most temple domains could have at least
three classes associated with it; a knightly one, a monk-brother one, a
patriarchal/matriarchal leader.

Not really true. The organizations in most other campaign worlds to which prestige classes are attached are not necessarily less influential because of the scope in which they are presented; if those other worlds had used a set of domain rules, those organizations would probably be the equal of fairly big domains in BR. Next, the primary reason for attaching prestige classes to those very same organizations is their nature - most tend to have some ideological or iconological point of reference; the vast majority of Birthright domains are simply political in nature.


They are strictly better. Sorry, if that comes out sounding more
argumentative than saying that statement is profoundly untrue, but the
concept of prestige classes really is meant to create more powerful
characters, not ones that are just more specialized. It says as much in
the DMG and in a few other places that discuss the concept.

No. In order to play your game a little, Quote Wars, let's examine the statement you're probably referring to - "A prestige class should be at least as beneficial and powerful as a normal character class, and - if the requirements are high - it might even be more powerful." Fine. That means that prestige classes are not supposed to be weaker than regular PC classes. Next, it means that they _can_ be more powerful, but under certain circumstances, not that they _are_ supposed to be. To put it in the context of what Monte Cook has said, you should balance prestige classes with the earliest entry class in mind; i.e. if a ranger can qualify for one at 5th level, the 1st level of the prestige class should be as good as a 6th level in ranger, which is necessarily better than a 1st level in any regular class. They are not, however, meant to be better in any capacity. Stating that as a fact about the way they are _supposed_ to be designed is ignorant of how Monte Cook has expounded upon good prestige class design in other arenas than the DMG. However, it does point to an actual problem with certain prestige classes - that they are being designed as strictly better, without sufficient requirements to go along. That is the problem at hand. The fact that people aren't designing prestige classes as intended, but rather going more and more generic, more and more power-upish. What you're suggesting for prestige classes sounds like a major mistake, and is precisely one of the things I know Monte once ranted about on his forums. This isn't about "fundemental decisions" by the game designers - it's about poor legwork by a lot of the designers of supplementary products, especially much of the d20 crowd.


The difference would be that putting them in the context of the game world
is a much more general statement. A "Cavalier" is in the context of his
game world, and can be reflected using a prestige class that is simply
called "Cavalier" and uses a general power progression. "Anchored in the
game world" would be campaign-specific. "Knight of the Great Kingdom" is
specific to the Greyhawk campaign setting where the Great Kingdom is located.


Cavaliers are clearly a cultural distinction-based prestige class, though perhaps at the borderline of how exacting a prestige class should be. You can very clearly "anchor" a cavalier prestige class in a French chivalry setting, but you can't "anchor" it in a Mongol world. Clear yet? You could, perhaps, change its name and some of the abilities, and do so, though, but that'd be a lot of work.


It`s probably not a good idea to have feats that are demonstrably more
powerful than similar feats. In this particular case, there are already
feats like Skill Focus (or Skill Emphasis) that grant a +2 (or +3) bonus to
a particular skill. There are also skills that grant +2 to two different
skills. If one wants to increase the power of those particular skills then
that`d be fine, but I don`t think having a single feat that grants a bonus
that`s as much as twice that of the standard for feats is the way to go.

Yes it is. Read the article on good feat design by Jonathan Tweet and Sean K Reynolds in Dragon #275. Or just look at the PHB. Feats with a more limited applicability are generally more powerful in their area than broader, or more commonly used feats. Gaining a +4 bonus to a single type of domain action isn't such a biggy compared to getting a +2 bonus on a single skill; most characters will tend to make many more skill checks than domain action checks. Further, you must also put the modifier in the context of the domain action itself. In this case, the domain action is generally rolled at a fairly high modifier already, due to the RPs being spent, thus making +2 be of less impact, but a +4 modifier would be more significant. Examples of this from the PHB would be the Combat Casting feat (like Skill Focus [Concentration], but more limited) or Endurance.


If we write the core books in a different way we could have a method for
standardizing BR (or any campaign`s) prestige classes. You could *try* to
go out and create a pool of standardized BR prestige classes, but without a
few fundamental changes to the concept of prestige classes itself, however,
you`ll probably just wind up making the same mistakes in the BR prestige
classes that you`ve complained about in regards to prestige classes in general.


That they are poorly written "power-ups?" I think I have the balance aspect pretty firmly in hand.

[Eosin the Red]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
To: <BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM>
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 6:16 PM
Subject: Re: Presitige Classes for Regents [2#1017]

Gary wrote in response to a proposed domain feat:

~~~~~It`s probably not a good idea to have feats that are demonstrably more
powerful than similar feats. In this particular case, there are already
feats like Skill Focus (or Skill Emphasis) that grant a +2 (or +3) bonus to
a particular skill. There are also skills that grant +2 to two different
skills. If one wants to increase the power of those particular skills then
that`d be fine, but I don`t think having a single feat that grants a bonus
that`s as much as twice that of the standard for feats is the way to go.~~~~


We see exactly this kind of feat in the PHB - Concentration. Limited utility
means bigger bonus. +4 is the standard. Seems spot on to me?

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 08:26 PM 10/8/2002 -0500, Eosin the Red wrote:

>We see exactly this kind of feat in the PHB - Concentration. Limited
>utility means bigger bonus. +4 is the standard. Seems spot on to me?

I misread the original version of the feat being presented. What I was
objecting to was a +4 on Diplomacy skill checks, but what you meant was +4
on Diplomacy domain actions. I withdraw the objection.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 6:16 PM

> >Bismarck-wannabe [General]
> >You are good at playing domains against each other.
> >Benefit: You gain a +4 bonus on Diplomacy domain actions.
>
> It`s probably not a good idea to have feats that are demonstrably more
> powerful than similar feats. In this particular case, there are already
> feats like Skill Focus (or Skill Emphasis) that grant a +2 (or +3) bonus
to
> a particular skill. There are also skills that grant +2 to two different
> skills.

But this skill effects domain actions, and you can bid GB and RP to
influence, all of which dilutes the effect of such a feat. The action`s
description refers to modifiers of +2 to +8, so its reasonable to assume
that the margin for normal modifiers is higher here. YMMV.

One might also assume this feat grants a fixed +4 bonus, rather that using a
skill check to determine a modifier. In that regard its more like those
abilities which allow you to take 10.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 6:16 PM

> It wouldn`t take much effort then to conclude that every BR domain
> should have its own prestige classes, maybe even two or three each.
> Most temple domains could have at least three classes associated
> with it; a knightly one, a monk-brother one, a patriarchal/matriarchal

While that is one way to go, its just as easy to just think in terms of
ideal types. Knights might strive to collect a list of feats and skills
identified as valued by knights of the specific temple. So, just selecting
feats and skills, and multiclassing where appropriate, works just as well as
using a PrC, and probably better. What the PrC can do that others can`t is
gain access to non-standard abilities. If everyone could take them, they`re
standard.

> The concept of prestige classes really is meant to create more powerful
> characters, not ones that are just more specialized. It says as much in
> the DMG and in a few other places that discuss the concept.

I really don`t buy this. As a specialized character, they`re often more
powerful when in the element they intended. If you pick a niche to exploit,
your specialization does make you more powerful within that niche, but less
powerful outside it. Gaining special powers to combat powerful Shadow World
creatures doesn`t mean you are as poweful as a standard character doing
things unrelated to the SW. You`re often less powerful, because of the
investment in SW prowess.
The Consecrated Harrier is great for hunting a church assigned target, but
for every encounter that doesn`t take place with a church assigned target,
you`re left with abilities that mirror 1st level spells, the emotion
spell-like ability, and a fighter`s BAB progression. On the other hand,
against a church-assigned target, its a powerful class with abilities at
every level. That`s specialization.

Of course, some PrC`s are poorly designed. Many tend to be too well
rounded. PrC`s should have design focus.

> Prestige classes [...] represent a powering up process from the
> core classes. Even a casual analysis of their class features will
> reveal that that`s the case, and the more analysis you subject to
> the existing prestige class descriptions the more obvious this
> powering up process is.

I`m not sure that is true either. When making comparisons of character
level, characters who didn`t take a PrC begin to get access to poweful upper
level feats, spells, or special abilities. So, powerful characters are
being compared.

> It`s also obvious that prestige classes aren`t written with much of a
> concept of balance in place. The powers given to them and utility
> of their abilities vary pretty wildly without much balancing involved.

One must really know how much the campaign caters to the skills of the PrC
before assessing the relative values of the characters. The assassin who
spends all of his time assassinating his ruler`s enemies is more powerful
than the assassin who is an adventuring party`s rogue and also happens
assassinates people every once in a while.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Grimwell]

Orginally posted by geeman
If we write the core books in a different way we could have a method for standardizing BR (or any campaign`s) prestige classes. You could *try* to go out and create a pool of standardized BR prestige classes, but without a few fundamental changes to the concept of prestige classes itself, however, you`ll probably just wind up making the same mistakes in the BR prestige classes that you`ve complained about in regards to prestige classes in general.


I object to your basic notion, which as been summised within this paragraph. Distill it further down to:

"If we write the core books in a different way..."
and
"...without a few fundamental changes to the concept of prestige classes itself,"

This paragraph, and those two lines, were my moment of clarity. They render the debate to this point null and void. You are not debating how to make PrC's from within the established rules and concepts, rather you are purposing that those very rules be modified to allow for a different approach to PrC's in their entirety. Correct me if I read you wrong.

You have dissatisfaction with the established system and mechanics for design and propose that we design a new one for BR 3E? Assuming that is correct, I object.

The BR 3E conversion process being held here is well under way at this point. It's nearer to completion than it is to inception from the indication the team has given. As such it is likely to be a bit late in the day to introduce the notion of a new system to the game. Further, while this is a conversion of the campaign world to the core 3E rules, it is not the introduction of something so radical that it should be far removed from the core of D&D.

This is not Star Wars, Cuthulu, or even Wheel of Time. Birthright has already been proven that it can fit within the basic frameworks of D&D, as it was designed with that intent from it's inception as a campaign setting.

Changing a fundamental rule: How and why PrC's are made, would be a strong step toward making BR a seriously non-standard setting.

Quite personally I would like to see the setting have greater appeal and a return to general retail production. It is my hope that the design team of this conversion has kept this in mind (that we'd like to see the setting have a fan renissance) in their design and have not radically changed the core of the game itself; and have instead focused on folding BR into that core and only creating systems where they are desperately needed and not covered by the core books (bloodlines and domains).

After their work is released for our general consumption, I might object to entire sections of their decision and work. At which point I will home rule it and perhaps share that home rule on the web. Until I see their work I am not going to poke in the dark with my own home rules and hope that I hit it.

Don't be offended though. Now that I know what you are getting at I'm fine with saying "I disagree" and leaving it at that. You are not wrong for wanting that change, in fact I agree with your basic principle: I would have preferred that the rules for PrC creation were more clear and useful, but I don't think BR is the place to fix that...

Now I'm going to go find me a ([_]

[geeman]

At 04:20 PM 10/9/2002 +0200, Grimwell wrote:

>
Orginally posted by geeman
>If we write the core books in a different way we could have a method for
>standardizing BR (or any campaign`s) prestige classes. You could *try* to
>go out and create a pool of standardized BR prestige classes, but without
>a few fundamental changes to the concept of prestige classes itself,
>however, you`ll probably just wind up making the same mistakes in the BR
>prestige classes that you`ve complained about in regards to prestige
>classes in general.
>
>
>I object to your basic notion, which as been summised within this
>paragraph. Distill it further down to:
>
>"If we write the core books in a different way..."
>and
>"...without a few fundamental changes to the concept of prestige classes
>itself,"
>
>This paragraph, and those two lines, were my moment of clarity. They
>render the debate to this point null and void. You are not debating how to
>make PrC`s from within the established rules and concepts, rather
>you are purposing that those very rules be modified to allow for a
>different approach to PrC`s in their entirety. Correct me if I read you wrong.

All I`m really suggesting is that we shouldn`t devise prestige classes with
the highly subjective (and, indeed, essentially endless) idea that they
should be organization-based as part of any larger work. A set of more
general prestige classes that could be used by anyone who wanted to pick up
the game would be more useful, and they could still customize them for
particular organizations if they wanted. It would actually address what I
think is really at the core of your objection to such a concept. That is,
a less loose set of assumptions when designing prestige classes will make
them more useful to the D&D community as a whole. BR prestige classes
designed with the same concept in mind will be similarly useful to a
greater percentage of people who want to play using the setting.

There`s a very large group of people (including a few writers for WotC) who
read the color text in the DMG describing what prestige classes were meant
to be used for, saw the "organization-based" loophole and went nuts,
designing weird, highly specialized prestige classes of very little use to
anyone. Now, we get two, three or a dozen in any issue of Dragon. They
aren`t necessarily a bad read, and a few examples of that kind of thing can
be useful to a DM so that he can come up with his own highly subjective,
campaign based prestige classes if he wants to, but the glut of prestige
classes that have come out--and I think the ones people find the least
useful--are mostly the result of the organization-based section of the
concept behind the prestige class.

>You have dissatisfaction with the established system and mechanics for
>design and propose that we design a new one for BR 3E? Assuming that is
>correct, I object.

I haven`t raised the issue of the mechanics of prestige classes
actually. The "organization-based" condition in the prestige class concept
doesn`t really rise to the level of "a mechanic" IMO. It`s just the color
commentary that created the free-for-all of prestige classes that somehow
get presented as part of the core materials.

But since you mentioned it I actually do object to the mechanics for design
of prestige classes. If for no other reason than because I haven`t really
located any. Oh, there have been essays written on how to design a
prestige class, but essentially even those articles propose that they be
designed in what is still an ad hoc manner. There are no real mechanics
for designing a prestige class. What I mean is a system of rating class
features and balancing them against one another. That is, the BAB
progression of a fighter (+1 per level) might be rating 5, while that of a
cleric was rated at 3 and that of a wizard rated 1. Similar values could
be assigned to saving throw progressions, hit dice, etc. Special
abilities, of course, are hard to assign a value to, but I`ve been fiddling
around with this stuff lately and I`ve got a few ideas on how to do
it. (It`s rather a lot to get into in a post, however, so when I`ve got it
scribbled up into a document maybe I can put it up on the net
someplace.) With such a system prestige classes (and the core classes, for
that matter) could be designed with some internal consistency.

The closest thing we`ve got is the suggestion that we look at the core
classes for guidelines and make prestige classes slightly powered up
versions of the special abilities of core classes and add some prereqs to
balance that out. The problem with that, unfortunately, is that the core
classes weren`t designed with anything like a mechanic. There were changes
to the mechanics of 3e, of course, but character classes weren`t it. They
are translations of the pre-3e character classes with not a lot of real
effort at balancing class abilities. Class abilities aren`t quantified in
any way that I`ve ever seen, and the same lack of an objective standard is
continued into the prestige class concept.

Monte Cook`s article on creating prestige classes presents some good ideas,
but it`s far from a game mechanic. His suggestion, for instance, that
prestige class requirements be sensible is certainly a good one... but it`s
also not really a "mechanic" in the sense that it gives us anything to work
with more than a suggestion to make things explicable and to understand the
actual mechanics behind those prereqs.

>The BR 3E conversion process being held here is well under way at this
>point. It`s nearer to completion than it is to inception from the
>indication the team has given. As such it is likely to be a bit late in
>the day to introduce the notion of a new system to the game. Further,
>while this is a conversion of the campaign world to the core 3E rules, it
>is not the introduction of something so radical that it should be far
>removed from the core of D&D.

I certainly appreciate the efforts of the BR 3e design team, but if the
game hadn`t been changed they wouldn`t be doing the work they are doing,
and the game will continue to change during and after they complete their
work. When 4e comes out then they`ll no doubt have to make revisions
again. But the point in the whole D20 concept is that additional material
coming in from various sources can influence the main product.

Also, what I`ve been suggesting is not all that radical a separation from
the core D&D rules. Creating prestige classes that are more generally
useful to as many folks as possible is just a good way of designing them is
all. It doesn`t change anything about how prestige classes are created.

>This is not Star Wars, Cuthulu, or even Wheel of Time. Birthright has
>already been proven that it can fit within the basic frameworks of D&D, as
>it was designed with that intent from it`s inception as a campaign setting.
>
>Changing a fundamental rule: How and why PrC`s are made, would be a strong
>step toward making BR a seriously non-standard setting.
>
>Quite personally I would like to see the setting have greater appeal and a
>return to general retail production. It is my hope that the design team of
>this conversion has kept this in mind (that we`d like to see the setting
>have a fan renissance) in their design and have not radically changed the
>core of the game itself; and have instead focused on folding BR into that
>core and only creating systems where they are desperately needed and not
>covered by the core books (bloodlines and domains).

This is a pretty much one version of the standard objections raised by
people who want to maintain some sort of BR status quo with 3e. The fear
apparently is that if updated BR material comes out that is different from
the core books then people either won`t be able to handle it or will find
any changes so upsetting that they`ll cast it aside and go play in Cormyr.

If I might frame the argument thus, the question is really whether a BR
update should be BR 3e or BR D20. I`d suggest that there really is no such
thing as D&D 3e per se. The majority of my objections to 3e can be
summarized by describing it as what it _really_ is... "Forgotten Realms
D20." D20 is what 3e should have been in the first place, but instead they
went with a marketing concept in which they promoted a "core" campaign
setting and mixed it right on into the core rules. Because 3e has so much
FR (and some Greyhawk) influence many of the core rules are, in fact,
campaign specific. The examples are too many to really list, but if you
excise the Forgotten Realms influenced stuff from the core books there`s an
awful lot that gets altered. This goes right down into the core classes,
many aspects of which have a distinct FR flavor, and it`s certainly the
case when it comes to prestige classes. An awful lot of prestige classes
are campaign specific.

Personally, I think we should go for Birthright D20 not Birthright 3e. If
it looks as radically different from D&D 3e as the Wheel of Time, Cthulhu
or Star Wars texts I think that`s as much a positive as a negative. I
don`t personally think those non-standard D20 settings are so drastic a
departure from the core rules as to cause a problem. I don`t have a lot of
marketing data on how many people play those D20 settings, but even if a BR
D20 system does come out the differences will not be so great as to make
the setting somehow less commercial.

When it comes to this particular change, however, it`s really pretty
innocuous. "Let`s not design prestige classes that are
organization-based." It`s not something that`s going to make BR a
non-standard setting. It could still be BR 3e rather than BR D20.

>After their work is released for our general consumption, I might object
>to entire sections of their decision and work. At which point I will home
>rule it and perhaps share that home rule on the web. Until I see their
>work I am not going to poke in the dark with my own home rules and hope
>that I hit it.
>
>Don`t be offended though. Now that I know what you are getting at I`m fine
>with saying "I disagree" and leaving it at that. You are not wrong for
>wanting that change, in fact I agree with your basic principle: I would
>have preferred that the rules for PrC creation were more clear and useful,
>but I don`t think BR is the place to fix that...

Where better? Essentially, the only change I`m suggesting should be
adopted in creating BR prestige classes is that we should not make them
organization-based. That`s it. It`s not a terribly radical change. It
just means we won`t wind up with a "Patriarch of the Orthodox Imperial
Temple" prestige class along with a "Patriarch of the Northern Imperial
Temple" prestige class and a "Patriarch of the Western Imperial Temple"
prestige class. Using the assumptions presented in the DMG it isn`t very
difficult to justify that.

Would I like to see a more articulated and mechanic way of creating
prestige classes? Absolutely. I haven`t presented any of that material,
however, and would anticipate many people objecting to that. This
particular issue is pretty benign, though.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Mark_Aurel]

But since you mentioned it I actually do object to the mechanics for design
of prestige classes. If for no other reason than because I haven`t really
located any. Oh, there have been essays written on how to design a
prestige class, but essentially even those articles propose that they be
designed in what is still an ad hoc manner. There are no real mechanics
for designing a prestige class.

That's the point. One of the stated purposes of prestige classes is to serve as a platform for giving PCs powers that aren't otherwise available. Further, the mechanics you're suggesting sounds like a good way to create broken classes or characters. I've seen similar attempts before, and they tend to end up with amusing results. 3e D&D itself can't be broken down to a huge formula like some people seem to think; it wasn't made that way. It is internally balanced pretty well, though, but the balance is also pretty circumstantial. If you do something that's popular among BRers, as near as I can tell, and "lower the magic level," you'll end up crippling fighters and rogues.


If I might frame the argument thus, the question is really whether a BR
update should be BR 3e or BR D20. I`d suggest that there really is no such
thing as D&D 3e per se. The majority of my objections to 3e can be
summarized by describing it as what it _really_ is... "Forgotten Realms
D20." D20 is what 3e should have been in the first place, but instead they
went with a marketing concept in which they promoted a "core" campaign
setting and mixed it right on into the core rules. Because 3e has so much
FR (and some Greyhawk) influence many of the core rules are, in fact,
campaign specific. The examples are too many to really list, but if you
excise the Forgotten Realms influenced stuff from the core books there`s an
awful lot that gets altered. This goes right down into the core classes,
many aspects of which have a distinct FR flavor, and it`s certainly the
case when it comes to prestige classes.

What, exactly, are you referring to? Let's look a bit at our history, shall we? What was first? The Realms or D&D? Obviously, D&D, for which FR is a campaign setting. So, FR gets shaped by the rules of the game. Had it been a purely literary world, it might've been different. The point here is - at its heart, FR is a _D&D_ world. A big and detailed one. Now, in 2e, you got Birthright, which, IMNSHO, was a much better world. Did it change any of the core rules of 2e? No. BR, too, was a D&D world. You certainly have interesting additions and world-specific rules - but, overall, less radical ones than were probably found in most campaigns. Al-Qadim, FR, Dark Sun - they all had some pretty different magic systems. BR didn't. What BR did was add more interesting _flavor_ to it. In terms of mechanics, BR is as good a D&D world as either FR or Greyhawk. All three worlds share the thing in common that they were built with, and for, a set of D&D rules.

That's pretty different from, say, the Wheel of Time, or Conan - either exists as literary works on their own, with no connection to games mechanics - the mechanics get adapted to the world instead. Thus, you see more radical departures from standard D&D. For Birthright, however, this really seems pointless, since, Birthright, at its heart, is a _D&D world_, as much as it is a vision of its own. The really important aspect, that sets it apart from other D&D worlds, isn't game mechanics - it's the flavor.

As for your thoughts on 3e being "FR" in nature - no, I don't think so. It's a rules system, first and foremost. They use examples from Greyhawk to breathe some life into the rules, without really going into that world. I haven't seen any indications of 3e's inherent "FR-ness" anywhere, really. I might venture a guess that's a common complaint - the treasure level. Yeah, 3e plays at a lower magic level than previous editions - isn't that good for BR players?


An awful lot of prestige classes
are campaign specific.


*rolls eyes* ,,, and the point being?


Where better? Essentially, the only change I`m suggesting should be
adopted in creating BR prestige classes is that we should not make them
organization-based. That`s it. It`s not a terribly radical change. It
just means we won`t wind up with a "Patriarch of the Orthodox Imperial
Temple" prestige class along with a "Patriarch of the Northern Imperial
Temple" prestige class and a "Patriarch of the Western Imperial Temple"
prestige class. Using the assumptions presented in the DMG it isn`t very
difficult to justify that.


You seem to be missing the point a bit. There's no inherent reason why _every_ "organization" needs to have a prestige class - that wouldn't make prestige classes very "prestigious." If you can point to a deep line of separation, an idea or concept that sets an organization apart somewhat, then you might have something. Now, in the BR rules as written, many domains have character, certainly - but not necessarily sufficient enough to sponsor a prestige class, let alone many. The more prestige classes you make, the less interesting each of them become, while the concept itself becomes ever more irrelevant and uninteresting.

In the end, making a bunch of "generic" prestige classes would only serve to make the concept pointless. You'd probably be better off making a bunch of new feats, or just new standard classes. What you want to do, will only hollow out the concept, and really leave it pointless.

[geeman]

At 03:01 AM 10/10/2002 +0200, Mark_Aurel wrote:

>
But since you mentioned it I actually do object to the mechanics
> for design of prestige classes. If for no other reason than because I
> haven`t really located any. Oh, there have been essays written on how to
> design a prestige class, but essentially even those articles propose that
> they be designed in what is still an ad hoc manner. There are no real
> mechanics for designing a prestige class.
>
>That`s the point.

No mechanics is the point? Ad hoc character classes is the point? This
sounds like some sort of bad Zen koan; the rules of no rules.

>One of the stated purposes of prestige classes is to serve as a platform
>for giving PCs powers that aren`t otherwise available.

How`s that purpose served by designing them using only ad hoc
guidelines? Wouldn`t it make more sense to have some way of rating special
abilities and other class features to create prestige classes that have
some sort of actual balance?

>Further, the mechanics you`re suggesting sounds like a good way to create
>broken classes or characters. I`ve seen similar attempts before, and they
>tend to end up with amusing results. 3e D&D itself can`t be broken down to
>a huge formula like some people seem to think; it wasn`t made that way. It
>is internally balanced pretty well, though, but the balance is also pretty
>circumstantial. If you do something that`s popular among BRers, as near as
>I can tell, and "lower the magic level," you`ll end up crippling fighters
>and rogues.

From time to time people get so wrapped up in their objections to new
ideas that they actually suggest that tweaks are going to cripple character
classes, break character classes, etc. All I can tell you is that I`ve
never seen that happen even with far more extreme changes than the ones
I`ve suggested here. The rules simply aren`t so brittle as to be broken
that easily. Nothing I`ve suggested has been any more radical than you
could find in several issues of Dragon, and much less radical than you`d
find in any particular supplement, D20 product or issue of Polyhedron.

Also, I have to note that the rhetoric you`re using is so extreme as to
make it hard to sift through and find the actual points you`re trying to
make, and winds up being counterproductive to your argument. For instance,
you assert above that one can`t create a system of balancing character
classes by assigning point values to the various class
features. Attempting to do that is "a good way to create broken classes or
characters." In fact, D&D can be broken down into such a formula. I`ve
done it. Other people have done it. D&D game designers have done it in
various texts before 3e came around. Other RPGs do it all the time. Not
only does it work, but doing so illustrates how D&D characters aren`t
actually balanced as you`ve suggested. Now, you can frame your objection
with phrases like "you`ll end up crippling fighters and rogues" but I can
assure you that such comments not only fly in the face of the experience of
people who have used such systems, but betray the weakness of your
argument. A point based character class design system would not cripple
fighters and rogues. The assertion just doesn`t stand up in the objective
light of reality.

In any case, what are you basing your assertion that the D&D 3e core
classes are "internally balanced pretty well" on? Since you seem to have
so little interest in assigning values to them and, in fact, think that
kind of thing is probably going break character classes how do you come to
that conclusion? Is it the product of any sort of objective analysis or is
it just an impression? It sounds like an ad hoc assertion based on ad hoc
interpretation of the purpose behind character classes that were developed
on an ad hoc basis. Is there actually some rhyme and reason to it?

>
The majority of my objections to 3e can be summarized by describing
>it as what it _really_ is... "Forgotten Realms D20."
>
>What, exactly, are you referring to? Let`s look a bit at our history,
>shall we? What was first? The Realms or D&D? Obviously, D&D, for which FR
>is a campaign setting. So, FR gets shaped by the rules of the game.

When 3e came out WotC said that they were adopting FR as "the core setting"
for the game, and cited their marketing/sales figures as the reasoning
behind that decision. Most campaign settings are not profitable enough for
them to support (we must count BR, I`m afraid, as one of those) while core
rules are, so at that time they decided to focus on a single campaign
setting. Since FR was their most popular (read: best selling) they went
with that. I`m sure many folks could point you to references for this that
might still be on the Internet.

How did that influence 3e? I guess the easiest way of illustrating the
point is to take a look at the D20 rules presented in later texts and just
look at how many of them differ from the core rules. Many of the basic
ideas of 3e have a decidedly FR feel to them. I would even attribute the
rate of XP awards to the flavor of the FR campaign setting. FR was based
on many 2e assumptions, of course, but if they hadn`t been trying to
continue those assumptions by based 3e on FR then they could have done away
with many of the issues that make 3e different from D20, and we could
dispense with the arguments about how changing little things like having
non-lawful good paladins (which was even done in the 2e version of BR)
disagrees with D&D 3e.

>Had it been a purely literary world, it might`ve been different. The point
>here is - at its heart, FR is a _D&D_ world. A big and detailed one. Now,
>in 2e, you got Birthright, which, IMNSHO, was a much better world. Did it
>change any of the core rules of 2e? No. BR, too, was a D&D world. You
>certainly have interesting additions and world-specific rules - but,
>overall, less radical ones than were probably found in most campaigns.
>Al-Qadim, FR, Dark Sun - they all had some pretty different magic systems.
>BR didn`t. What BR did was add more interesting _flavor_ to it. In terms
>of mechanics, BR is as good a D&D world as either FR or Greyhawk. All
>three worlds share the thing in common that they were built with, and for,
>a set of D&D rules.

I can`t really disagree with the facts and opinions of that assessment. In
fact, I`d go a step or two further in certain cases. BR is IMO an outright
better campaign world than FR or GH, and not only did other campaign
settings like Al-Qadim and DS did have different magic systems (though FR`s
wasn`t very different) but those magic systems were superior to D&D`s core
system.

I do, however, disagree with some of your conclusions for a couple of
reasons. First, because BR was developed after 2e it wasn`t really
possible for BR to influence 2e without a rerelease of the 2e core books,
and unfortunately, BR never took off in a way that would have made WotC
decide it should be a significant influence on 3e. (More`s the pity.) D&D
3e was developed after FR, and many FR paradigms were incorporated into the
3e core rules. This isn`t any secret. They came right out and said they
what they were going to do that. Second, I disagree that what BR did was
take D&D and add more interesting flavor to it. BR represents a pretty
serious departure from D&D. It contains a whole new system of rules and
play at an entirely new level. BR should be at least as different from 3e
as WoT is, and I think quite a bit more. Not only should we do away with
the FRish influences on 3e for a BR adaptation, but the differences between
BR and 3e are significant enough to justify it being it`s own D20 product.

>That`s pretty different from, say, the Wheel of Time, or Conan - either
>exists as literary works on their own, with no connection to games
>mechanics - the mechanics get adapted to the world instead. Thus, you see
>more radical departures from standard D&D. For Birthright, however, this
>really seems pointless, since, Birthright, at its heart, is a _D&D world_,
>as much as it is a vision of its own. The really important aspect, that
>sets it apart from other D&D worlds, isn`t game mechanics - it`s the flavor.

Birthright is "a D&D world" because it came out before 3e/D20. If it were
written after the 3e/D20 I have little doubt it would look substantially
different from how it does now, and why shouldn`t it? The magic system
should be radically different from that of 3e/FR. Part of the basis of BR
is difference between "low" and "high" magic. The domain level is
drastically different than anything that exists in any other D&D
product. Characters have semi-divine powers.0

>As for your thoughts on 3e being "FR" in nature - no, I don`t think
>so. It`s a rules system, first and foremost. They use examples from
>Greyhawk to breathe some life into the rules, without really going into
>that world. I haven`t seen any indications of 3e`s inherent "FR-ness"
>anywhere, really.

Really? Wow. I find that assertion amazing. FR`s influence on the 3e
core rules seems to obvious to me that I`m surprised anyone could even try
to deny it let alone go so far as to say that it`s not there at all.

>I might venture a guess that`s a common complaint - the treasure level.
>Yeah, 3e plays at a lower magic level than previous editions - isn`t that
>good for BR players?

The treasure level of 3e is lower than previous editions? How do you figure?

>
An awful lot of prestige classes are campaign specific.
>
>*rolls eyes* ,,, and the point being?

*blinks* Was that not clear? The point being that campaign specific
prestige classes are less useful to the D&D community as a whole. That`s
not the kind of thing that should go into core materials where one should
be attempting to create products as useful as possible to as many readers
as possible. Similarly, organization-specific prestige classes are less
useful to a particular DM/player of a campaign setting because those
prestige classes will not be useful to the population that plays that
setting as a whole. Prestige classes designed with a more general emphasis
would be more useful to a larger percentage of D&D players since they could
then be tweaked to make them more campaign specific. More general BR
prestige classes in the same way be more useful to the BR community as a
whole because they could also be tweaked by DMs to fit into particular
organizations.

>In the end, making a bunch of "generic" prestige classes would only serve
>to make the concept pointless. You`d probably be better off making a bunch
>of new feats, or just new standard classes. What you want to do, will only
>hollow out the concept, and really leave it pointless.

Designing prestige classes without basing them on particular organizations
will hollow out the concept and leave it pointless? There already are lots
of generic prestige classes. The Church Inquisitor is a generic prestige
class. You could use it in just about any pre-modern campaign
setting. Most of the prestige classes in the DMG are generic (maybe not
the Shadowdancer or the racially based ones.) We could easily compile a
list of generic prestige classes.... In fact, here`s a link to a past
thread on the subject in the BR-l archives:
http://oracle.wizards.com/scripts/wa.exe?A...D=0&H=0&O=T&T=1 (http://oracle.wizards.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0107D&L=birthright-l&P=R5559&D=0&H=0&O=T&T=1)

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Mark_Aurel]

No mechanics is the point? Ad hoc character classes is the point? This
sounds like some sort of bad Zen koan; the rules of no rules.

You could call it shish kebab for all I care; it's the stated law for how to balance them - basically, "try to not make it look any stronger on paper than existing classes, and then playtest it a bit."


How`s that purpose served by designing them using only ad hoc
guidelines? Wouldn`t it make more sense to have some way of rating special
abilities and other class features to create prestige classes that have
some sort of actual balance?

Balance isn't obtained by some magic formula. The way the 3e rules were balanced was by first putting them together, then massively playtesting them, and changing them to fit experience. Rating special abilities isn't possible under the D&D rules - you need to consider that a given ability may have different levels of power in different situations, and thus, any system where you try to assign a simple rating to everything is doomed to fail. If you assign a more complex rating, you'll wind up with a monstrously unwieldy system that would probably take a lifetime to do. You could likely do a system that approaches some semblance of balance, but it'd require some "common sense" and ability to interpret it anyway, which is basically just what is being done anyway.


A point based character class design system would not cripple
fighters and rogues. The assertion just doesn`t stand up in the objective
light of reality.

Read what I said again. It was actually a digression - what would cripple fighters and rogues isn't the magic "point based character class design system" that comes up every so often, but reducing the magic level.


Blah, blah, yadda, yadda about 3e and FR

Nothing you say is really making any sense - you make vague references to "well, everyone can see it" and the like, the only evidence you offer, however, is based upon XP. Now, what the designers have stated about XP is basically that they did market research about it - and based the XP progression more closely on how long the average campaign lasts. Unlike previous versions of the game, the XP progression actually makes sense now, both internally, in terms of math, and in terms of playing time versus in-game progression. I.e. the average campaign lasts roughly 1.5 years, according to WotC's findings, thus the XP progression was adjusted to reflect that average. It is _very_ easy to slow that down or speed it up, of course. And, incidentally, it has _nothing_ to do with "FR." It might have something to do with Diablo on some level, though.


In any case, what are you basing your assertion that the D&D 3e core
classes are "internally balanced pretty well" on? Since you seem to have
so little interest in assigning values to them and, in fact, think that
kind of thing is probably going break character classes how do you come to
that conclusion?

Beep. Does not compute. You're chaining one thing to another, when they aren't strictly related. I didn't mean to say that you can't examine class balance mathemathically; what is the point is rather that you can't do it the other way around - you can't create a system to reliably build balanced classes mathemathically. I hope you understand the difference, especially in the context of what I've previously stated. You can design, analyze, playtest - but, in the final analysis, you can't accurately create a system for _creating_ character classes in a purely mechanical fashion.


Second, I disagree that what BR did was
take D&D and add more interesting flavor to it. BR represents a pretty
serious departure from D&D. It contains a whole new system of rules and
play at an entirely new level.

I don't think anyone disagreed with that. The point, though, remains - BR didn't touch the character, combat or magic rules substantially at all - it simply added lots of flavor material. BR _added_ things to the core system, but it wasn't substantially _different_. Magic was still Vancian, longswords still did 1d8 damage, clerics still cast healing magic and wizards fireballs, and rogues stole stuff. The fact that BR introduced mechanics to deal with issues not found in other worlds does not make BR less D&Dish at heart.


Really? Wow. I find that assertion amazing. FR`s influence on the 3e
core rules seems to obvious to me that I`m surprised anyone could even try
to deny it let alone go so far as to say that it`s not there at all.


Substantiate. I could say that BR has had a substantial influence on the 3e rules - really. Just look at all the little things, such as Elves with low-light vision and strange sleeping habits, the Diplomacy skill, crossbows - and, not least, the Bard spell list. Surely that falls a lot closer to the BR version than anything else published before 3e, right? Based on those pieces, brushing everything else aside, I'd quickly assess that 3e is indeed too strongly influenced by BR. Or, I could just accept that it's a rules set that is _D&D_ at heart, nothing else. And that there were a lot of D&D worlds published, and that BR is as much one of them as any of the others. What's the difference between a Birthright fighter and a Forgotten Realms fighter? If you look at wizards, there are some differences, but that's more of a flavor thing than a mechanical difference - a special requirement to qualify, making wizards feel "rarer."


BR is IMO an outright
better campaign world than FR or GH

I agree. Go us!


The treasure level of 3e is lower than previous editions? How do you figure?

Simple. A 9th-level character in 2e would likely have lots more treasure than a 9th-level character in 3e. Thus, the treasure level in 2e was a lot higher. Of course, that blatantly ignores the concept of how XP progression works in the different editions, and that it'd take about five years to get to 9th level in 2e. The point, though, remains - level by level, 3e characters will have less valuables than their compatriots in previous editions. Furthermore, previous editions did not have a "wealth by level" chart. I think it's this, more than anything else, that revolts so many people, and makes them think the magic level has been "raised." It has actually decreased, if you judge by level. Session by session, it's probably about the same, or slightly higher. I think that having a wealth by level chart is a very good improvement - it lets you tell what's Monty Haul and not pretty easily (as if you couldn't already). It's also another tool which you can use to set the flavor of a campaign, and you have some numbers to do so by. A 9th-level character in 3e has 36,000 gp to buy equipment for. A 9th-level character in previous editions could acquire a castle of his own, and probably owned magic items worth lots more than 36,000 combined. It's not the magic level that's increased, it's the experience you earn per encounter, and thus the speed at which you gain more powerful items. If you simply divided all rewards by the same number (easy thing to do), to get the rough experience progression of previous editions, you'd probably end up with a much lower level of magic at 9th level, just to keep that point of reference. Further, with the introduction of a stricter hierarchy of items, you simply won't find too powerful, disruptive items in the hands of PCs by using the default tables.


Prestige classes designed with a more general emphasis
would be more useful to a larger percentage of D&D players since they could
then be tweaked to make them more campaign specific.

Most classes are fairly easy to adapt as they are. You can't expect them ALL to be so; 25% is a good number, considering the purpose.


Designing prestige classes without basing them on particular organizations
will hollow out the concept and leave it pointless?

Yes. Read what Monte wrote again. "City Guardsman - Greyhawk Watchman." If, as you seem to want, WotC published a bunch of "City Guardsmen," "Super-Sheriffs" and "Power Patriarchs," you'd really depart a lot from what the concept is all about. I don't really see how anything would change by publishing unanchored reams of stats - it wouldn't be any easier to adapt them, and they'd likely be a whole lot blander, which would remove another part of the justification for them. I really don't see what the problem is in adapting a good chunk of the prestige classes we have now - you can't expect to see a Ninja of the Crescent Moon next to a Cavalier, unless you just rename the Ninja to the Sisterhood of Eloéle or you're running a really pulp-style campaign.

[Starfox]

Gary <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET> wrote at 02-10-10 05.03:

> FR`s influence on the 3e core rules seems to obvious to me that I`m surprised
> anyone could even try to deny it let alone go so far as to say that it`s not
> there at all.

I think you will have to rovide some examples here, because this is not at
all obvious to me.

The only example I can think of is the dual-weapon fightig of the ranger.
Sure, this is annoying enough...

FR has an entire new set of metamagica spells, for example (spells that
affect other spells). Almost none of these made it into DnD. Nor did the
concepts of gnome artificers or of a zillion dieties for all occassions. In
fact, in standard DnD, a cleric need not even have a patron, while in FR,
every divine spellcaster must have one. So I feel that DnD and FR are quite
distinct.

The setting that was included in the core books was Greyhawk - but even that
was basically only is the set of example religions.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Onwen Agelmore]

Take a look at the legendary class I posted (True King)

[Birthright-L]

On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Mark_Aurel wrote:

> Gary wrote:
> > No mechanics is the point? Ad hoc character classes is the point?
> > This sounds like some sort of bad Zen koan; the rules of no rules.
>
> You could call it shish kebab for all I care; it`s the stated law for
> how to balance them - basically, "try to not make it look any stronger
> on paper than existing classes, and then playtest it a bit."

I agree with Gary. This may be the law, but it is fairly useless without
any regulations to aid in implementing it. I don`t see why you object to
having some numerical system expressly for the purpose of making it easier
to follow this "law". As he said, it`s been done several times before in
official D&D products, and in many other game systems -- I don`t
understand why the idea of having a straightforward way to quickly test if
something is roughly somewhat balanced should upset you so much. I would
like to follow that law, but I would also like a tool to help me do so.

The statement you quote, without any mechanics to support it, is just as
useful for making a balanced and playable character class as making the
entirety of the rules on combat consist of the statement, "Make up a way
to see who hits whom and how hard. It should be fair," would be for
making a balanced and playable combat system. Numbers help.

> > How`s that purpose served by designing them using only ad hoc
> > guidelines? Wouldn`t it make more sense to have some way of rating
> > special abilities and other class features to create prestige classes
> > that have some sort of actual balance?
>
> Balance isn`t obtained by some magic formula.

It sure would be a lot easier with that formula in hand. Sure, it would
never be perfect, but neither is "try to not make it look any stronger on
paper than existing classes." Personally, some formula -- nearly any
formula -- seems to me to be a lot more perfect than that.

> The way the 3e rules were balanced was by first putting them together,
> then massively playtesting them, and changing them to fit experience.

And that is precisely the way a system of ability rating numbers should be
designed. Indeed, a really good system, which I have never seen any game
attempt to implement, would consider second-order interaction effects:
since some abilities make others more or less powerful, then if you have
both you should pay the costs for each one separately, and the additional
cost (possibly negative) of the pair-as-a-unit. This is probably much too
time-consuming to do for every pair of possible abilities, but it doesn`t
seem too hard to look for a few of these synergies (as 3e calls them in
the skills system) and account for them appropriately.

There is also this problem -- you seem to believe the 3e rules are well
balanced as they stand. I disagree, and I think Gary and many others do,
too. I think at least part of your objection to a numerical system is
that it could be applied to the existing classes, where it would show that
they are not actually very well balanced against each other after all.

> Rating special abilities isn`t possible under the D&D rules - you need
> to consider that a given ability may have different levels of power in
> different situations, and thus, any system where you try to assign a
> simple rating to everything is doomed to fail.

And therefore the system of character levels in general is doomed to fail.
D&D *does* rate special abilities to a certain extent -- I fail to see why
you are so worried about expanding that system and trying to make it more
coherent and self-consistent.

> If you assign a more complex rating, you`ll wind up with a monstrously
> unwieldy system that would probably take a lifetime to do.

But it would take a lot *less* of a lifetime than exhaustive playtesting
would! That`s what I`m really after -- I want people to be able to
produce classes that are relatively well balanced without needing to spend
years getting hundreds of people to playtest. I want the knowledge gained
in that part of the work which has already been done -- namely how
different abilities interact in different settings, and how relatively
useful they turn out to be -- to be made available to everyone who wants
to design their own class. I think that can most efficiently be
accomplished by providing a numerical rating scale, even one that has
"APPROXIMATELY" stamped across it in letters twelve feet high.

> You could likely do a system that approaches some semblance of
> balance, but it`d require some "common sense" and ability to interpret
> it anyway, which is basically just what is being done anyway.

Yes, it would. But I think it would make the different interpretations
less different than they are now. Numbers make things clearer and more
uniform, which is exactly what we want if balance is the goal.

> Beep. Does not compute. You`re chaining one thing to another, when
> they aren`t strictly related. I didn`t mean to say that you can`t
> examine class balance mathemathically; what is the point is rather
> that you can`t do it the other way around - you can`t create a system
> to reliably build balanced classes mathemathically. I hope you
> understand the difference, especially in the context of what I`ve
> previously stated. You can design, analyze, playtest - but, in the
> final analysis, you can`t accurately create a system for _creating_
> character classes in a purely mechanical fashion.

You can`t make it perfect, but you can make it better than it is now!
Don`t make the perfect the enemy of the good. A mathematical system to
assist in the balancing of classes is one of many things that *helps*
people to design character classes more easily. It is not the only thing,
but it should not be prevented from helping a little just because it can`t
do the whole job itself.

> Yes. Read what Monte wrote again. "City Guardsman - Greyhawk
> Watchman." If, as you seem to want, WotC published a bunch of "City
> Guardsmen," "Super-Sheriffs" and "Power Patriarchs," you`d really
> depart a lot from what the concept is all about.

OK, heresy time. Just because Monte wrote it doesn`t mean it`s the best
way to think about it. It might be, but "founders` intent" does not equal
truth. This is not consitutional law, this is figuring out what works
best in a gaming group. "What the concept is all about", to me, is a way
to make characters more powerful per XP than they would otherwise have
been. You can argue that that`s not what it was supposed to be, but
that`s clearly how it has been used in the vast majority of the more than
a hundred PrC descriptions I`ve read. That`s the other problem -- there
are just too damn many of the things! I like the idea that PrCs can
provide greater variety and versatility, to get away from the, "Ho-hum,
it`s just another 5th-level fighter, who is exactly the same as every
other 5th-level fighter we`ve ever met" syndrome, but I think a table for
picking abilities with points would make the idea much easier to
implement: there would be less need to paw through every single supplement
ever published in search of the one thing you want.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Grimwell]

I keep typing long posts and deleting them before posting.

I'll try to be brief:

You make a system where abilities have values and I'll show you a horde of gamers salivating over the chance to build a 'custom' PrC with your 'balanced' system. Each of them will come up with nightmare level abuses of the system pointing out all the flaws in yoru design. Flaws that would not matter if the person designing the PrC was made to fit a campaign.

Rules, once codified and delinated, make lovely targets for abuse.

Do as you will for your game :) I know I will.

[Mark_Aurel]

Oh, goodness, these posts are getting too long. I'll try to be brief.


"Make up a way
to see who hits whom and how hard. It should be fair," would be for
making a balanced and playable combat system. Numbers help.

But the thing is, numbers don't tell the whole story in this case. In combat, it's fairly easy. The 3e combat system is excellent - it flows fast, and yet it still retains a far superior number of options and "realism mechanics" than previous incarnations. A 1d8 weapon does, on average 4.725 damage per hit, yes? That's easy to calculate; the circumstances are always the same.

Now, as for the class balance thing - I'll share one of those anecdote things first. I play a lot of computer games, RTS amongst them - games like Age of Empires, Warcraft, Empire Earth. In some elements, these games are similar to computerized RPGs - you have units - "characters" - with different attributes. They can be mathemathically balanced pretty well, because all the units function under a limited set of variables, and the number of other unit types they can potentially interact with is limited. For RPGs of the pen and paper type, neither of these statements hold true. Only if you reduce D&D to the base level of Diablo could you create a mathemathically balanced system, and even then, it would be easy to abuse.

Next, let's look at the existing subsystems - table II-8-40, for instance. This table isn't a bad idea as a guideline; however, it must also be used in conjunction with common sense - in some cases, a spell will be worth far more under certain circumstances. Being able to cast magic missile at will is probably more useful than detect secret doors. Boots of striding and springing is an excellent example of an oft-abused object, created by a "system." The table requires massive input of DM tweaking to really work.

With classes, the number of variables shoots up so high compared to this, that you can't really assemble a remotely sensible working system for it. It'd be a haven for widespread abuse, a LOT more than II-8-40. There are many problems with it - it would, in all likelihood, hold the potential to produce severely unbalanced characters, and lend them an air of legitimacy, due to the "rules support" they have. I think that's one of the single biggest reasons for not assembling such a system for the DMG, even a rough one.

There have been attempts at such systems before. The best attempt, I saw over at ENWorld, a year or so back - it had huge tables, inputted with every value in the book, each given a mathemathical value of some kind. The funny part of it was that wizards came out looking like the weakest class, whereas monks looked the strongest. Now, simply looking at the number of class abilities, monks have the most. Looking at what actually happens in-game, though, I'd probably rather have a wizard for utility in a party than a monk. The bottom line is, by forcing a mathemathical system where there was none as a basis, you made the rules look imbalanced in areas they were not.

I'll assert the following:

1) Any point-based class-creation engine will likely be abusable, even highly so;
2) Any point-based class-creation engine cannot possibly be used to take into account every circumstance which may arise, especially in various game worlds;
3) Thus, any point-based class-creation engine will be useless for what it was intended for at first, and the original system, which uses strict DM rule, is better, for all purposes;
4) Any effort that goes into creating such a system is probably wasted, better spent actually creating something of direct utility for your game - prestige classes you'll want to use.


OK, heresy time. Just because Monte wrote it doesn`t mean it`s the best
way to think about it.

Must be good to be a heretic. Rebelling and all that. It's always cool to go against the authorities; shows how different you are and how much of an individual thinker you are. Now, what I said had everything to do with what the concept is all about, to begin with, and nothing to do with how poor game designers are abusing it like a poor woman gets abused in the slum.

Ok, so brevity is currently beyond my abilities.

[Birthright-L]

On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Grimwell wrote:

> You make a system where abilities have values and I`ll show you a
> horde of gamers salivating over the chance to build a `custom` PrC
> with your `balanced` system. Each of them will come up with nightmare
> level abuses of the system pointing out all the flaws in yoru design.

Exactly! And then you fix it, and thank them! The much-derided "rules
lawyers" are a great boon in designing any rules system, because they
point out those places where the rules most need improvement. This is
supposed to be a feedback process, and people who carefully sift the rules
looking for weak spots make it much more efficient.

I also fail to see how this is worse than the current system, where there
are no rules to violate, so literally anything goes.

> Flaws that would not matter if the person designing the PrC was made
> to fit a campaign.

I disagree. I consider most of the published PrCs to be "nightmare
abuses" of what Marc Aurel described as "the law": "try to not make it
look any stronger on paper than existing classes." And whether or not a
class is designed to fit a campaign has no bearing on whether it happens
to be balanced. Yes, it may change the target of what it is supposed to
be balanced with, but not whether or not it actually is balanced.

> Rules, once codified and delinated, make lovely targets for abuse.

But without codification, you simply cannot tell what is or isn`t abuse.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Mark_Aurel wrote:

> But the thing is, numbers don`t tell the whole story in this case.

The right set of numbers could. D&D is nothing more than a huge pile of
numbers, to be used for certain purposes. Yes, even discounting luck,
creative people can get different results from the same input parameters,
but in the end it`s all just numbers. The roleplaying and storytelling
and camaraderie and anything else other than numbers is not part of D&D
per se -- it is equally characteristic of any other roleplaying game, and
a great many things that are not RPGs. The only thing that makes an RPG
an RPG is a specific, if somewhat large, set of numbers.

> A 1d8 weapon does, on average 4.725 damage per hit, yes? That`s easy
> to calculate; the circumstances are always the same.

4.5, actually. The more interesting calculation is damage per swing,
which depends on attacker BAB and target AC (and criticals), and is
therefore very situation-dependent; however, it is also more useful to
know when trying to decide which weapon to use against a particular foe --
the one that does more damage, or the one you have Weapon Focus with?
This also appears in the magic weapon design tables -- is "keen" really
the power equivalent of another +2 to hit? Well, that depends not only on
the base weapon`s damage, threat range, and critical multiplier, but also
on the wielder`s chance of actually hitting a typical opponent. If most
of the baddies in the campaign have +2/30 damage reduction or are immune
to criticals, a +1 keen weapon is useless compared to a plain +3 one; and
there are situations where the reverse is nearly true.

But the real point is this: just because these calculations take some
thought and include assumptions doesn`t make them bad -- in fact, by
forcing the user to explicitly state their assumptions and allowing all
parties concerned to see the effects of those assumptions, it becomes
easier for beleaguered DMs to actually make the rulings required of them.

> Only if you reduce D&D to the base level of Diablo could you create a
> mathemathically balanced system,

And since there is no balance that is not mathematical, or at least
statistical, all discussions of balance in D&D therefore must restrict the
discussion to certain situations. Whatever attempt was made to balance
the core classes, was done with some sort of campaign style in mind -- in
particular, it seems, a stereotypical dungeon crawl. They may therefore
be not at all balanced when considering the differential performance of
the classes in a fundamentally different setting, such as regents in
Birthright, for example. Yes, you might have to use different numbers
depending on whether you were doing an adventuring-only campaign or a
domain-turns-only campaign, but that`s a refinement to the system that
could be well worth doing for all the classes, not just PrCs.

> Next, let`s look at the existing subsystems - table II-8-40, for
> instance. This table isn`t a bad idea as a guideline; however, it must
> also be used in conjunction with common sense

So what`s wrong with asking for a guideline table for a different kind of
design? I see no essential difference between trying to balance magic
items and trying to balance prestige classes.

> Being able to cast magic missile at will is probably more useful than
> detect secret doors.

Yes -- which means the problem is in the way the table assigns numbers.
Spell level alone is a very poor indicator of the utility of a given
spell, which perhaps means that the core need is for spells and spell
levels themselves to be redesigned.

> The table requires massive input of DM tweaking to really work.

Then turn the input into a revised and expanded table, and publish that.

> it would, in all likelihood, hold the potential to produce severely
> unbalanced characters, and lend them an air of legitimacy, due to the
> "rules support" they have.

Indeed it would. But at present, in the absence of any kind of
comparative rating system, all PrCs have exactly equal claims to
legitimacy, whether or not they are in any way reasonably designed.
It`s a question of tradeoffs -- a numerical formula both solves old
problems and creates new ones. I think it`s worth it, you don`t.

> The funny part of it was that wizards came out looking like the
> weakest class, whereas monks looked the strongest.

Then the specific numbers in the tables need to be improved. It doesn`t
prove that the mere use of number tables at all is inherently bad.

Unless, of course, they were designed to be balanced for a game world in
which most of the opponents a typical party encounters have high spell
resistance and are immune to most metal weapons, in which case wizards
really are weakest and monks strongest.

> 1) Any point-based class-creation engine will likely be abusable, even
> highly so;

Yes; but no more so, and I think much less so, than the nonexistent engine
we currently have.

> 2) Any point-based class-creation engine cannot possibly be used to
> take into account every circumstance which may arise, especially in
> various game worlds;

Yes; neither can any amount of playtesting. The best anyone can hope for,
with explicit numbers or without, is "it seems to us that in most of the
situations we`ve considered, X is better than Y." It is also the case
that, since in the end all differences between classes are in fact
expressed as numbers, all balancing decisions, even those made by those
people who don`t think they are using a numerical table, really are using
numbers at a fundamental level, even if only implicitly. In order to
balance, for example, monk open-hand attack damage per level vs. sorcerer
spell progression, or any of the other scores of tables in the PHB filled
with nothing but numbers, someone at some point had to say something like
"I think 4d4 per strike *is about equivalent to* -- or *is fair with
respect to* -- 3 fireballs", which is using a numerical table without
actually writing it down.

> 3) Thus, any point-based class-creation engine will be useless for
> what it was intended for at first, and the original system, which uses
> strict DM rule, is better, for all purposes;

Does not follow. You have listed the flaws of the system I favor while
glossing over those of the system you favor. What you are saying is that
you refuse to give hardworking DMs any assistance in the peformance of
their multitudinous and ever-expanding duties, and revile anyone who tries
to give them one small tool to maybe help them out a little sometimes.

> 4) Any effort that goes into creating such a system is probably
> wasted, better spent actually creating something of direct utility for
> your game - prestige classes you`ll want to use.

But I don`t want to use any that I don`t think are balanced, so if we`re
discussing what`s best for my personal game, the answer to me obviously is
that I ought to make just such a system, and then redesign every class to
be consistent with it, because it will be of direct utility.

> Must be good to be a heretic. Rebelling and all that. It`s always cool
> to go against the authorities; shows how different you are and how
> much of an individual thinker you are.

Must be good to be an unthinking automaton, and mindlessly parrot whatever
the holy dogma says; it`s always cool to be a well-greased cog in the
machine that devours both reason and creativity.

Perhaps I shouldn`t have said that, but then neither should you have said
what you did. I would like to think they now cancel out.

> Now, what I said had everything to do with what the concept is all about,

Listen to me again: just because Monte Cook said that`s what he thinks the
concept is about, has little or no bearing on whether any of the many
prestige classes that have actually been published which were not
personally designed by him paid any attention to what he wanted them to
be. It is at least as valid to take the view that the definition of the
concept as currently practiced -- which is all that matters to someone who
wants to use those prestige classes that actually exist, as opposed to
those which might have existed in a perfect world where every game
designer agreed on what they were supposed to be like -- is that which is
expressed as some set of common features of all existing prestige classes;
from what I have read, that commonality is basically, "more powerful than
core classes and with fewer levels of advancement, but you can`t take them
until you have fulfilled some prerequisites."

Furthermore, even if every prestige class ever published had followed what
you interpret Mr. Cook`s design philosophy to be, it still would not
follow that said philosophy was the best possible way the concept of
"prestige class" as a category could have been designed. Saying "this is
the way it is" has no bearing on whether that way is good or bad, even
irrespective of whether or not that statement is correct. Everything is
always up for discussion and re-evaluation, which is the stated purpose of
this list.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Mark_Aurel]

4.5, actually. The more interesting calculation is damage per swing,
which depends on attacker BAB and target AC (and criticals),

No, it's 4.725. You're forgetting that the standard critical range for a weapon with no stated critical range is 20/x2. With a weapon like that, the chance for scoring a critical hit is generally 5%, no? So, you inflict an average of 4.5x1.05 damage. Might be on to something about variables here...


Yes -- which means the problem is in the way the table assigns numbers.
Spell level alone is a very poor indicator of the utility of a given
spell, which perhaps means that the core need is for spells and spell
levels themselves to be redesigned.

The problem is that the table, and the system itself, can never account for every possible circumstance without spelling them out. The spell levels work fine as a balancing mechanic - per casting. I.e. some spells have a weaker effect, but longer duration. This does not translate well into a system where you apply these spells to items that grant repeated castings; each additional casting allowed will simply make the spells that have a normally shorter duration stronger. I.e. casting a Tenser's floating disk once may have the same utility as casting a magic missile, possibly greater; being able to cast either spell 10/day, though, goes far in favor of the latter. There are other variables to consider, too - so many, in fact, that you're soon back to the common sense stage. To go to Monte Cook again (I know you think I'm a big fanboy and all that, as you implied in your first post here), I believe he's stated some regret with actually putting that table in the book as it is.


Then turn the input into a revised and expanded table, and publish that.

That'd grow unwieldy fast, no? You'd end up overlooking little things that make big differences for balance, like, say, the critical multiplier for a 1d8 damage weapon.


Does not follow. You have listed the flaws of the system I favor while
glossing over those of the system you favor. What you are saying is that
you refuse to give hardworking DMs any assistance in the peformance of
their multitudinous and ever-expanding duties, and revile anyone who tries
to give them one small tool to maybe help them out a little sometimes.


No. You have a very good tool to use, in the six example classes from the DMG, and the classes in the PHB. Going from there isn't hard. It's a much better tool to use than to read some abstract tables; you might say that you'll want both, but the effort required to compile a good table thing is simply too much - what of all the abilities that people invent that aren't on the tables? That's also part of the purpose of prestige classes; to give unique abilities.

[kgauck]

On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Mark_Aurel wrote:

> But the thing is, numbers don`t tell the whole story in this case.

I`m going to reveal myself as a true Pythagorean, but AFAIC everything can
be represented by numbers. If we can derive the true numbers which
represent a thing, we can describe it better with numbers that with words.
Some things are easy to measure. Other things are hard, but as Ryan has
pointed out, an educated guess is better than shot in the dark.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark_Aurel" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 4:47 PM


> I.e. casting a Tenser`s floating disk once may have the same utility as
> casting a magic missile, possibly greater; being able to cast either spell
> 10/day, though, goes far in favor of the latter. There are other variables
> to consider, too.

Actually not with a tiny tweak. I use a spell energy system based on points
(pretty numbers) and it basically costs 2 points taken to the power of the
spell level. Cantrips cost 1 point. 5th level wizards get 26 points with
which to cast, so could cast Magic Missile 13 times. However, because I use
the points system, I do not use caster level to effect spell power. Magic
missile produces one single missile. If you want the three missiles PHB
wizards expect, you need to cast it as a 3rd level spell, and pay 8 points.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Mark_Aurel wrote:
> No, it`s 4.725. You`re forgetting that the standard critical range for
> a weapon with no stated critical range is 20/x2. With a weapon like
> that, the chance for scoring a critical hit is generally 5%, no? So,
> you inflict an average of 4.5x1.05 damage.

Damage per swing is not so easily calculable, because the chance of
critical hit is not 5%- rolling a 20 gives you a threat, the chance of
critical is based on AC because you have to roll a second hit.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Mark_Aurel]

Damage per swing is not so easily calculable, because the chance of
critical hit is not 5%- rolling a 20 gives you a threat, the chance of
critical is based on AC because you have to roll a second hit.


Oh, really? Let's use some examples to illustrate how it works:

You hit on 11+, yielding a 50% chance to hit. You threaten criticals on 20. So, one out of 10 hits will threaten a critical. Out of the threats, 50% will yield a critical. So, 5%.

You hit only on 20, yielding a 5% chance to hit. If you hit, it threatens a critical. Only 5% of the hits are criticals.

You hit on 19 or more, yielding a 10% chance to hit. Out of all hits, 50% are threats; however, only 10% of all threats score criticals.

You can't miss. Any 20, 5% of all rolls, yields a critical hit.

This is because you always have a 5% chance to score a threat; however, your chance of fulfilling on that threat is only equal to your chance of hitting in the first place, meaning that 5% of all hits will be criticals, with a threat range of 20. Since we're only counting hits for the purpose of calculating the total average damage die value, you need to add 5% for a 20/x2 critical. For greater threat ranges and crit modifiers, the same rule applies in general; i.e. 19-20/x2 and 20/x3 add an average of 10% to damage; however, for greater threat ranges, the percentage added can only ever be as large as your chance to hit; i.e. if you can only hit on a 20, threatening on a 19 won't help, whereas a x3 critical will. This yields a slight advantage to larger multipliers, which is more than compensated by the fact that they will sometimes yield overkills, essentially wasting damage points.

[geeman]

At 01:51 AM 10/11/2002 +0200, Mark_Aurel wrote:

>
Damage per swing is not so easily calculable, because the chance of
>critical hit is not 5%- rolling a 20 gives you a threat, the chance of
>critical is based on AC because you have to roll a second hit.
>
>
>Oh, really? Let`s use some examples to illustrate how it works: [snip the
>actual works]

Extend the same logic into a system of character class features and you`ve
got the kind of system you seem so sure can`t work, won`t help and
shouldn`t be done. Would you thereby create a perfect system to develop
character classes, immune to abuse and misinterpretation? Of course
not. No system of guidelines--whether it is related to character class
development or any other aspect of an RPG--is going to going to be
bulletproof. Individuals applying that system are still going to have to
make a lot of judgement calls and estimations. However, using the present
"system" judgement calls and estimations are all there is. Prestige
classes (and the core classes too, really) are developed entirely based on
judgement calls and estimations.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, Mark_Aurel wrote:
> You can`t miss. Any 20, 5% of all rolls, yields a critical hit.

Hmm, that`s interesting. I guess I was thinking 5% of swings, maybe.
Then, if you hit on 11+, you`d only critical 2.5% of the time (or so).
But you`re right, hitwise it works out. Neat.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Mark_Aurel]

Prestige
classes (and the core classes too, really) are developed entirely based on
judgement calls and estimations.


Bingo. There's nothing wrong with that, but it is a good reason for why you can't apply a formula to it and solve it.

[geeman]

At 03:18 AM 10/11/2002 +0200, Mark_Aurel wrote:

>
Prestige classes (and the core classes too, really) are developed
> entirely based on judgement calls and estimations.
>
>
>Bingo. There`s nothing wrong with that, but it is a good reason for why
>you can`t apply a formula to it and solve it.

Why`s that?

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Mark_Aurel]

Why`s that?


Why, that's as obvious as FR's influence everywhere.

If it wasn't based on a formula in the first place, and there's no reason or rhyme to it, you'll end up with the gaming equivalent of a Heisenberg relation.


No system of guidelines--whether it is related to character class
development or any other aspect of an RPG--is going to going to be
bulletproof.

Ah, then we are basically in agreement over this aspect, and we're arguing over the gold at the end of the rainbow. But if you think this, why go to all the trouble of assembling the system at all? Like I said before, your time is probably better spent on actually making classes under the guidelines we have, rather than trying to make new ones. Assembling a system of the type you want is not something I'd consider even remotely cost-effective.

[geeman]

Mark_Aurel: Do you have an email address off the birthright.net message
boards? I think it`s time to take some of these issues of the boards/list.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

I can be reached off the list/boards at geeman@softhome.net.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Starfox]

I have tried out the various published point systems for PrC generation.
And, let me say, they suck if you use them the wrong way.

You must start out using Mark_Aurel`s way - design the class using gut
feeling. Then you can use one of the point methods, and try to see if your
calculations are way off. But no more.

If you start with the points and add class features based on that, you are
sure to get a seriously skewered class - especially if you make the class on
demand, to fulfill someone`s expectations.

Some classes might seem overpowered on paper or by the points, but work
great in play. Others seem balanced by points, but are obviously broken even
on a casual read.

So, for the record, I`m with Mark_Aurel here. That does not mean the point
systems are worthless - but your final call should be based on judgement,
not on numbers.

/Carl

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Grimwell]

Exactly! And then you fix it, and thank them! The much-derided "rules lawyers" are a great boon in designing any rules system, because they point out those places where the rules most need improvement. This is supposed to be a feedback process, and people who carefully sift the rules
looking for weak spots make it much more efficient.

I also fail to see how this is worse than the current system, where there are no rules to violate, so literally anything goes.


This is worse than the current system because anything does not go. The DM has Rule 0 to answer the broken parts with. Give a system out to replace the current ambiguity and you make it harder to Rule 0 and give the rules lawyers much more to work with.

I have a friend who is a rules lawyer. He made a PrC for item creation that gave the abiliity to make artifacts at PrC L10. I told him that this was horridly broken as artifacts are clearly stated as beyond PC ability in the DMG. He came at me with all the ambiguities you guys raise about the PrC design system.

He asked me to codify it, and whenver I talked in vague terms of what that would mean he would show me the break points in an honest attempt to show me where it would not work.

End result: I gave no such system. When you compare a PrC against the whole of D&D and the notes we have on PrC design, the most flagrant abuses stand out. The game has a clear undercurrent of what was intended and how it should be balanced. Taking that 'whole game' view has never failed me in great ways. Yes, some things introduced required a little tweaking, but they did not damage the entire game when they were broken, because I can see the entire game and catch things that are going to cause gaping holes in the rules and campaigns integrity.

Creating the perfect set of rules for an RPG that is supposed to cover a great deal of arbitrary ideas is as possible as creating a complex program that is bug free: You can't.

[Mark_Aurel]

Gary, if you want to get in touch, I can be reached at m_aurel_pod@hotmail.com - that is also my MSN Messenger address. I also use ICQ, at 64772330. Just check my profile at the boards.

I think Starfox/Carl's and Grimwell's latest posts really illustrated exactly what I've been meaning to convey here; not that mathemathical analysis is worthless, but that it should be done to tweak a design, rather than create one, and that simply picking numbers off a table will lead to abuse or not be any better balanced than if you hadn't used a table.

[Lord Rahvin]

the late reply.
In the "prestige class" discussion, Mark and Gary got into it a little and
though the discussion got back on topic (sort of), one of its little
tangents struck me as important enough to comment on.

Gary introduced two terms into this discussion, but didn`t really define
them: "Birthright 3E" and "Birthright d20". Since I, too, have been using
these terms (also without defining them), I thought it was important that I
gave my views on the difference between these. (I would change the name of
this thread to "Birthright: 3e/d20", but I`m not sure if that`ll mess up
things on the BR boards.)

Below, in the quoted areas, Mark describes what I attribute to be the
"Birthright 3E" philosophy. I try, as best I can at 2am, to explain the
purpose and agenda of the "Birthright d20" philosophy.

Please note that none of my comments really reflect the way prestige classes
should be handled, nor does it represent, in any way, any opinion regarding
the allegedly-official BRCS electronic product.

--
If you do something that`s popular among BRers, as near as I can tell, and
"lower the magic level," you`ll end up crippling fighters and rogues.
--

I`d like to think that`s not necessarily true.
Surely, if we "lower the magic level", we could compensate characters in
other ways, right? If we could do that, I think we`d be getting closer to
my idea of a Birthright game rather than a D&D game. Just a side note. Any
ideas for how to do this?


---
> Now, in 2e, you got Birthright, which, IMNSHO, was a much better world. Did it change any of the core rules of 2e? No. BR, too, was a D&D world. You certainly have interesting additions and world-specific rules - but, overall, less radical ones than were probably found in most campaigns. Al-Qadim, FR, Dark Sun - they all had some pretty different magic systems. BR didn`t. What BR did was add more interesting _flavor_ to it.
---

I think this description of yours highlights a very important point in this
discussion. (more below)

---
> That`s pretty different from, say, the Wheel of Time, or Conan - either exists as literary works on their own, with no connection to games mechanics - the mechanics get adapted to the world instead. Thus, you see more radical departures from standard D&D.
---

The source of the conflict.
It`s kind of ironic that Gary had introduced the terms Birthright d20 and
Birthright 3E into the discussion, but I think you`ve defined the difference
pretty well.

Birthright was, at some point, largely a D&D world. Hence: the desire to
convert it to the new edition of D&D by having "Birthright 3E". There are
differences between any two people`s descriptions of what this exactly is,
but it generally has fighters and rogues, Mounted Combat and Whirlwind
Attack feats, and fifth level blooded wizards often throw a fireball or two.
People seeking Birthright 3E generally feel they have a good (or decent)
rules set with which to play in an interesting campaign world.

But as you say, if it was a literary world, it could be different. And for
many people it is different, literary world or not. Many people on and off
this list have played this game for many years and take it very seriously;
they have tinkered with various alterations and interpretations. Many very
abstract arguments and debates have raged, not only about rules, but about
the specifics of the campaign world in detail. Discussions, arguments,
research, flame-wars, and even, god-forbid, compromises have been conducted
as to the agenda and membership of various organizations, the nature of the
Shadow World, the exact census population of Cerelia, methods to implement
new or specialized holdings, and the specific in-game effects that show when
Regency is at work. Even now, huge stores of data are being fabricated to
explain the particular history and niche of the dreaded Squeagle since its
appearance after the Deismaar explosion. The Player`s Secrets books have
provided excuses for people to develop detailed histories, political
analysis, intricate NPC and family records all pertaining to a single
specific realm within the world; sometimes just to a single province or even
a single family.

If, as you say, Birthright is largely all about flavor and not about massive
amounts of world-specific system-altering rules, then it`s not just a D&D
world. It carries with it as much of the *flavor* of Wheel of Time or
Conan. The primary difference is that the flavor isn`t recorded per se, in
a story or a legend it`s lived. Just as PCs work together to make up the
overall story of a campaign, the members of this community, purposefully or
not, benign and cooperative or not, work together to develop, expand, and
change the flavor of the overall world. Since we rarely reach agreements on
such things, the effect is not recorded, just as campaigns are often
unrecorded -- because the development happens through interaction.

Okay, that was an odd analogy. I won`t use it again, I promise.

The point is that when you convert a literary world, like Wheel of Time, to
a d20 game, it`s not the story that you`re necessarily converting. It`s the
flavor. The flavor of a campaign is based as much on the story-basis of its
play, as the mindset of its players, and as the players interact with the
story via the rules of the game.

Now, for many people, myself included, the D&D ruleset carries with it a
flavor that doesn`t necessarily coincide with the flavor of how a Birthright
game should be run. Whether it`s FR-ish or D&D-ish or whatever isn`t the
issue. The problem doesn`t have anything to do, necessarily, with what any
specific text in the BR rulebook says on any given subject. It`s just that
the kind of game that BR lends itself to playing is not a game these people
feel comfortable playing with the Third Edition rules as they are. To be
honest, many of these people were dissatisfied with the 2e rules and
actively sought to change them.

There are some primary differences between then and now:

* Much time has passed. Trial and error and all that good stuff. The
more time passes, the more people develop their own styles and flavors, and
the more they desire a game in which both the campaign flavor and their
individual styles can more accurately be represented.
* There are more people now. We can communicate better. We can chronicle
our works. Soon we may have a newer generation of BRers updating all the
old custom BR domain actions and stuff. We are in a better position to
establish common themes, and get genuine articles, posts, and criticism on
them.
* The d20 system of course. On its own, the whole OGL gives us a creative
license (quite literally) to "come up with stuff". Just about every player
of D&D wants to come up with new feats, skills, and prestige classes to
augment and customize the system, whereas in 2e, all we really saw were new
kits, weapons, and spells. We also have a larger body of other people`s
work in which to draw from, not just D&D.
* This one represents, even more so than the rest of this post, my
personal opinion: 3e is just better than 2e. I consider myself a tinker,
but I don`t want to tweak something that I don`t like. This is a huge
incentive to start changing things, and get a ruleset closer to what I feel
is the "Birthright flavor" -- which is a combination of the text of the BR
books, the discussions on this list, the types of campaigns I play, and the
types of campaigns/adventures I hear about other people playing.


If Birthright carries with it a flavor of its own, and doesn`t radically
rely on massive changes to the rules system, then we can theoretically
change pretty much anything, right? It was made to be a D&D world, but if
converting Birthright is all about carrying over its flavor, then it stands
on its own pretty well, without any specific connection to game mechanics --
the mechanics can get adapted to the world instead.

In a Birthright 3E, some or all of the assumptions of D&D get transported
into our Birthright campaign. But, if we model an all-new ruleset (or at
least as new as we need it to be), with no particular loyalty to the flavor
of the "old" rules, then we can model Birthright better, because we`ll have
better rules to do so. Of course, no one yet knows what this rule system
would look like. It doesn`t even have to be a single rules system.

------------------------------------
In conclusion:

When I use the term Birthright d20, I`m not talking about any particular
product or any specific product type. I could be talking about something
not unlike Wheel of Time, I suppose. On the other hand, John (at least) has
been using the Ars Magica system for awhile to play in his Birthright games.
I`ll soon be using d20 Modern to run my Birthright games -- it may require
some conversion, but overall I think it`ll be a better base-set of rules for
the BR flavor and my personal campaign style. Birthright is not a D&D
world, whatever its history may have been.

When I ask for help or offer suggestions for "Birthright d20", I`m not
talking about a particular ruleset, so much as I am a particular philosophy
of designing rules -- one that advocates customization, change,
experimentation, and growth to define and represent the flavor of a
particular campaign world. I`m sometimes looking for things to define the
world, other times I`m looking for internal checks and balances. Other
times I`m trying to redefine things or experiment -- such as my question
above about alternatives to high-magic. In Birthright 3E, lowering the
magic level -- altering it in any way -- will cripple the system needlessly,
but in Birthright d20, both additional rules and changes in the campaign
style compensate for these decisions. For example, addition of d20 Modern`s
Action Points may help offset the low magic thing. Maybe not. I`m willing
to give it a try, because to me, abstract resources of luck and ingenuity
that can effect the probability of combat, saves, and other important game
mechanics suits the Birthright flavor a lot better than gobs of magical
cloaks and swords and toe rings... and rewards of Action Points
representing divine fate seem to work for the Blooded in ways that handing
out thousands of gold pieces just doesn`t. It`s not perfect, and there`ll
be lots of other changes, but I think the game will be better for it.


-Lord Rahvin
LordRahvin@softhome.net

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 11:56 PM 10/11/2002 -0600, Lord Rahvin wrote:

>Gary introduced two terms into this discussion, but didn`t really define
>them: "Birthright 3E" and "Birthright d20".

Here`s how I think I`d try to define those terms:

Birthright 3e: an interpretation of the BR materials that is as close to
the standard 3e rules as possible. Such materials would be no more
different from 3e than the original Birthright materials were from 2e. In
a few ways they might be closer. (The Black Strike fighting style, for
instance, might be eliminated from a Birthright 3e rewrite as anything more
than a description of the standard Ambidexterity/Two-Weapon Fighting feats.)

Birthright D20: An interpretation of the BR setting that is less concerned
with 3e`s particulars. Such a work would embrace the versatilities of D20
concepts and apply them to various BR issues.

The original BR rules had quite a few things that were a pretty significant
departure from 2e. If one introduced the concept of battlespells in a
non-BR campaign, for instance, most folks would probably agree that that
was a big change. In several other ways the BR setting was a much more
significant departure from 2e than any other campaign setting. Even a 3e
Birthright using the definition above would probably be different enough
from the standard 3e rules that an update of another campaign setting
(Ravenloft 3e or even Dark Sun 3e) might be less of a departure. Point
being that the distinction is a bit vague.

When 3e first came out I felt Birthright 3e would be the way to go, but
after becoming more familiar with 3e and D20 I now lean much more to a
Birthright D20 approach. It`s more important to reflect the Birthright
setting in a way that portrays the uniqueness of the setting than it is to
relate the rules to 3e.

Another reason I`d go with Birthright D20 is because I still think that in
many ways 3e has a FR/GH influence that interferes with it`s use in other
campaign worlds, an influence that I described as making 3e really
"Forgotten Realms D20." A couple of folks have asked me to elucidate that
POV and I haven`t forgotten or skipped it. It`s not exactly the kind of
thing that has specific page references, however. It`s more esoteric than
that, so requires a little effort. I should get to it in the next week or so.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Mark_Aurel]

This is an interesting sidetrack, but should probably be taken to a new thread. I'll create one.

[ConjurerDragon]

Hello!

> At 11:56 PM 10/11/2002 -0600, Lord Rahvin wrote:
> Birthright 3e: an interpretation of the BR materials that is as close to
> the standard 3e rules as possible. Such materials would be no more
> different from 3e than the original Birthright materials were from
> 2e. In
> a few ways they might be closer. (The Black Strike fighting style, for
> instance, might be eliminated from a Birthright 3e rewrite as anything
> more
> than a description of the standard Ambidexterity/Two-Weapon Fighting
> feats.)

The 2E Blackstrike Fencing actually gave a bonus to AC - thus balancing
the problem that an heavily armoured Anuirean would always slaughter a
lightly armoured Brecht.

Even a brecht Guilder or Rogue could after some time collect the neede
proficiencys to use Black Strike Fencing.

Now in the 3E manual of Travis Doom one needs 8 feats. If 1 is the human
racial feat, you still need 7 to be a "Master of Blackstrike-Fencing". 7
feats are not much for a fighter, but very much for e.g. a rogue. Even
the normal DMG Aristrocrat would have to wait long before being a
blackstrike master (the 3E manual Aristrocrat earlier).

So while 2E Black Strike was not only a way to balance lightly armoured
Brecht fighters vs. heavily armoured Anuirean fighter, it also gave the
same bonus to brecht rogues who learned the technique.

In 3E fighters and the 3E Travis Aristrocrat will be able to learn
blackstrike early. Rogues will be (please correct me if I´m wrong) level
18? before mastering blackstrike...

And what is worse: Blackstrike Fencing is actually nothing anymore.
Anyone who learned all these 8 feats can do exactly the same as anyone
else with these 8 feats - there is no special Brecht Black Strike
Fencing anymore.
bye
Michael

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Raesene Andu]

The Black Strike in the BRCS will not the same as the one presented in Travis Doom's conversion manual though. Just having a quick look at it, and assuming they took the prerequisite feats...
A fighter would could access the feat at level 3 (or 4 when gets next feat)
A rogue at level 4 (actually at 6 when he gets his next feat)
A wizard at level 6 (having taken martial weapon proficiency in rapier as one of his earlier feats, plus other prequisite feats).

So it is not difficult for a member of any class to access the feat as it will be presented in the BRCS.

[Lord Rahvin]

> The 2E Blackstrike Fencing actually gave a bonus to AC - thus balancing
> the problem that an heavily armoured Anuirean would always slaughter a
> lightly armoured Brecht.

Okay, I don`t know anything about Blackstrike Fencing, but why`s it a big
issue? If anything, I thought this was one of the things that 3E handled
quite nicely. Blackstrike Fencing was meant to balance the poorly defended
unarmored duelists with the heavily armored knights that championed 2e.
With feats like Dodge, Mobility, and most importantly Weapon Finesse, along
with the the way dex bonuses to AC work, I just don`t see a need for
Blackstrike Fencing, either as a feat or anything else.

I mean, you could do it. Sure. But I don`t really see that much point. I
like the way feats reflect particular fighting styles, without having to
actually write up the fighting style as an actual game mechanic.

It seems to me a Brecht duelist no longer needs the Blackstrike Feat to be
inherently balanced with the Anuirean knights. Indeed, in 3e, I think a
duelist is actually pretty fun to play, and we haven`t even talked about
those pesky rogue abilities yet...

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lord Rahvin" <lordrahvin@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 10:06 PM


> It seems to me a Brecht duelist no longer needs the Blackstrike Feat to
> be inherently balanced with the Anuirean knights. Indeed, in 3e, I think
> a duelist is actually pretty fun to play, and we haven`t even talked about
> those pesky rogue abilities yet...

That may be true, but having Brecht fighting styles to distinguish Brecht
fencing from Anuirean fencing still makes sense. And, national combat
styles are fun.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 11:49 PM 10/12/2002 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> > It seems to me a Brecht duelist no longer needs the Blackstrike Feat to
> > be inherently balanced with the Anuirean knights. Indeed, in 3e, I think
> > a duelist is actually pretty fun to play, and we haven`t even talked about
> > those pesky rogue abilities yet...
>
>That may be true, but having Brecht fighting styles to distinguish Brecht
>fencing from Anuirean fencing still makes sense. And, national combat
>styles are fun.

You could do that by making the Duelist prestige class exclusive to the
Brecht and have another prestige class to represent the Anuirean "sabre"
styles (or more likely just restrict a few of the knightly prestige classes
and variants to Anuireans.)

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

Hello!

Raesene Andu wrote:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1017
>Raesene Andu wrote:
> The Black Strike in the BRCS will not the same as the one presented in Travis Doom`s conversion manual though. Just having a quick look at it, and assuming they took the prerequisite feats...
>A fighter would could access the feat at level 3 (or 4 when gets next feat)
>
Mmmh, Travis 3E manual listed Improved Two Weapon Fighting as condition
to master Blackstrike.
Improved Two-Weapon-Fighting lists a BAB of 9 as prerequisite.

From the BAB alone, a fighter could not be a master of black strike
before level 7 (is BAB added? the level 7 fighter has BAB of +7/+2, is
this enough, or need he be level 9 for +9/+4?)

>A rogue at level 4 (actually at 6 when he gets his next feat)
>
A human rogue? You included the racial bonus feat in this?
What about the BAB +9 of Improved Two-Weapon-Fighting - that would
require the rogue to be at least level 10 (+7/+2) or even 12 +9/+4).

>A wizard at level 6 (having taken martial weapon proficiency in rapier as one of his earlier feats, plus other prequisite feats).
>
A wizards has BAB 9 for Improved Two-Weapon-Fighting not before level 14
(+7/+2) or even 18 (+9/+4).

>So it is not difficult for a member of any class to access the feat as it will be presented in the BRCS.
>
If Improved-Two-Weapon-Fighting is a prerequisite, then it will be
difficult or better will take very, very long.
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

I have no objection at all to organization based PrC`s, but I do see other
alternatives which I am finding more comfortable. Some might regard this as
broadening the definition of organization, but I`d prefer to think of an
organization as group which has a selected membership and passes on secret
lore in the form of a PrC. The Daggersleague in Mueden, or the Sisters of
the Veil are clearly organizations. I mean to suggest networks of social
organization which impy considerable flows of information without
neccesarily constraining a character to a single PrC. For example, being a
jarl means you have access to closed door actions, recieve opportunities,
and have contacts that others cannot aquire without being recognized as a
noble in Rjurik society. For my own sense of things, jarls are free to join
three PrC`s without having to seek out special training, tutors, or a dojo.
These include the Warmaster (S&F), the Einar (a revised Weapon Master, S&F),
and Vili (a courtly politician, Rjurik style). Here I`ve used culture
(Rjurik) and social class (noble) as constraints. Character class is
notably not a constraint, since I`ve watered down the class based
requirements for nobles. A druidic warmaster, for instance, needs a +7 BAB,
5 ranks of Diplomacy, and the Leadership feat. I have no problem what so
ever with such a character. It seems quite fitting.

Looking to other kinds of social networks, beyond organizations, seem to be
another fruitful source of PrC`s.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[irdeggman]

BAB is cumulative, but +7/+2 is a BAB of +7. The +2 is for secondary attacks and is based upon the base attack bonus.