Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 84

Thread: No monks?

  1. #41
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Maybe I'm missing something here - the d20 rules presented say that elves can be sorcerers, not that they prefer to be. It also says that their favored class is any arcane casting class vice wizard from the core rules.

    I haven't really heard anyone say that elves shouldn't be allowed to be sorcerers just why they don't think they would or that they would be wizard instead. So the bottom line is what is the point? Where should the BRCS rules go in this area? Suggetions?:)
    Duane Eggert

  2. #42
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    388
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, irdeggman wrote:
    > Maybe I`m missing something here - the d20 rules presented say that
    > elves can be sorcerers, not that they prefer to be. It also says that
    > their favored class is any arcane casting class vice wizard from the
    > core rules.
    >
    > I haven`t really heard anyone say that elves shouldn`t be allowed to
    > be sorcerers just why they don`t think they would or that they would
    > be wizard instead. So the bottom line is what is the point? Where
    > should the BRCS rules go in this area? Suggetions?:)

    I wouldn`t extend favored class status to all arcane sorcerors.
    Especially not magicians, which are a class originally human. 3e standard
    is wizard, so maybe wizard or sorceror, whichever is higher, for elves.
    --
    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.

  3. #43
    Senior Member blitzmacher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    el paso
    Posts
    250
    Downloads
    24
    Uploads
    0
    On the monk issue.

    I agree that monks are not a part of Cerilia as is, but they may be in part of the rest of the Aberynis. Which may be something to put in the one day to be made Atlas.

    There may also be some uses of the in Cerilia as well, but more as campaign type hooks. Such as a fighter law regent who gives up the slaying with the sword to find a more spiritual path, and learns less lethal means of combat, and teaches them to others. Or a lower class Khinasi that are not allowed weapons, and are inspired by Avani, decide to start their own type of training and monastry. Either way I would use the monk class as a prestige class, and have the characters start out as fighters choosing all the unarmed type feats. I'd also have the class use the law system, not the temple one.
    Cattle die and kinsmen die,
    thyself too soon must die,
    but one thing never, I ween, will die, --
    fair fame of one who has earned.
    HAVAMAL

  4. #44
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Ithaca NY
    Posts
    12
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Just thought I'd add my voice to the list of those who approve of the d20 team's decision to not include the monk.

    I don't want to ponder the reasons for including the monk class in 3E at all, and I would certainly not want to stop anyone from introducing them in their campaign. However, having said that... They are overwhelmingly oriental, they in no way whatsoever resemble medieval monks of the Franciscan or Benedictine orders, and seem in general contrary to the flavour of Birthright.

    I agree wholeheartedly that medieval monks may exist in Cerilia. I've been toying with the idea of running a more european type of campaign (with only one God, and an influential church permeating people's lives), and for that I am certainly going to include orders of monks. However, these will be more likely to be Experts, or cloistered clerics than anything else. So while they are certainly going to be there, if only because monastaries make such wonderful settings full of atmosphere, symbolism and possibilities for excellent roleplaying opportunities, I would never consider having these monks running around wielding kamas, or nunchaku, or anything like that.

    It's not that I don't think that eastern philosophy is interesting, or worthwhile to represent in a game, but I am something of a purist. And so based on that, I'd much rather run a game which is purer medieval, rather than one which, like FR, attempts to incorporate _everything_.
    Now, before anyone tells me that Birthright isn't remotely close to being a true representation of medieval Europe, I will say that I am obviously aware of that. If anything, my campaign setting leans in the direction of making it more so, rather than less so, and so may strike some people as unorthodox in that sense.

    But in any case, for something that should be of broad use, and as close to Canon as we are going to have for BR, I think that monks (and ninja and samurai and katana) and native American shamen and warriors, and African warrior cultures (e.g. Masai), Indian maharajahs, and Polynesian were-sharks, do not belong in the Birthright setting of Cerilia. If they exist elsewhere on the Aberynis, that may be all well and good. But personally, the main dissatisfaction I have with the Birthright game I'm a player in at the moment is that it is trying to turn Birthright into FR. We seem to be overrun with flying castles, magical swords and armor, invading demon-hordes from Aduria, encounters with special emissaries of the Gods, and most recently the appearance of a Chinese Empire far to the east.
    While all of this is, in and of itself, possibly interesting and entertaining, it is certainly not what I would be striving for in a Birthright setting.

    As for having fighters finding a more spiritual path... This was pretty common in Europe as well. Orders like the Poor Knights of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon (aka the Templars) and the Hospitallers are examples of exactly that kind of behaviour. They also turned out to be among the most kick-ass soldiers around, but that was partly because they severed their ties with the secular world, and spent all their time practicing fighting. Alternately, for the more pacifist-minded noble, one could always become a contemplative monk upon reaching old age. Or if not actually taking vows, at least retire to a monastery and be cared for there, in return for turning over some amount of land to the order.

    So that was a long-winded way of saying that I am pleased that monks aren't present in any of the published work so far. And I sincerely hope that the team doesn't succumb to the pressure of people wanting the monk to be included.

    Elrostar

  5. #45
    Senior Member blitzmacher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    el paso
    Posts
    250
    Downloads
    24
    Uploads
    0
    There were Psionics in 2e, but not in BR.
    There are Psionics in 3e, but not in BR.
    There were no sorcerers in 2e PHB, but there are in 3e PHB, and the new BR.
    There were no monks in 2e PHB, but there are in 3e PHB, and not the new BR.
    Is this an update to make BR 3e?
    Cattle die and kinsmen die,
    thyself too soon must die,
    but one thing never, I ween, will die, --
    fair fame of one who has earned.
    HAVAMAL

  6. #46
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    USA.
    Posts
    626
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 07:17:06PM +0100, blitzmacher wrote:
    > blitzmacher wrote:
    > There were Psionics in 2e, but not in BR.
    > There are Psionics in 3e, but not in BR.
    > There were no sorcerers in 2e PHB, but there are in 3e PHB, and the new BR.
    > There were no monks in 2e PHB, but there are in 3e PHB, and not the new BR.
    > Is this an update to make BR 3e?

    I don`t understand the question. ;)
    The team has tried to incorporate all the "new" things in 3e that are
    compatable with the BR setting while recommending against the "new"
    things in 3e that are not compatable with the setting. Oftentimes
    these decisions are easy (based on the 2e design decisions to exclude
    monks, psionics, some kits, etc). In some cases the correct decision
    is less obvious (bard spell lists, etc).

    - Doom

    ************************************************** **************************
    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.

  7. #47
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    At 07:17 PM 2/8/2003 +0100, blitzmacher wrote:

    >There were Psionics in 2e, but not in BR.
    >There are Psionics in 3e, but not in BR.
    >There were no sorcerers in 2e PHB, but there are in 3e PHB, and the new BR.
    >There were no monks in 2e PHB, but there are in 3e PHB, and not the new BR.
    >Is this an update to make BR 3e?

    I hope it isn`t. If you take another look at the title it`s called
    "Birthright D20" not "Birthright 3e." 3e is really, IMO, largely developed
    to support WotC`s core campaign settings--Forgotten Realms and to a certain
    extent Greyhawk. Much campaign material is right in the core
    books. Essentially, you can`t make BR a 3e product without making it also
    look more like those campaign setting--a cataclysmic error. Many aspects
    of BR already resemble those settings too closely because it was developed
    under the 2e rules which were in many ways those that were developed for
    GH/FR. The powers of paladins, the magic system, the character classes
    available, and several other aspects of the setting are all incorporated
    right into the setting already, when if it were developed without those
    influences BR may have looked even more different from FR or GH than it
    already does.

    D20 on the other hand is the rules set with the campaign materials stripped
    away so that alternate campaign settings can developed based on those
    rules, and if you take a look at the campaign settings that are produced
    since 3e was released and the D20 label created most of them are described
    as D20 rather than 3e because that differentiates them from FR and
    GH. (Well, there are also licensing reasons too, apparently.)

    One could certainly play BR and make it look more like FR or GH by
    including psionics, gnomes, monks, etc. You could even throw in Elminster
    if you want. Keeping those things out of a D20 update of the setting,
    however, is a good idea.

    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.

  8. #48
    Senior Member blitzmacher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    el paso
    Posts
    250
    Downloads
    24
    Uploads
    0
    The point is that the monk, like the sorcerer, is a new character class in D20(or 3e) or whatever else you want to call it, and did not exist when BR was originally created. It is something that could work very well in BR, especially in Khinasi which is loosely based on middle eastern culture. The same culture based area where the monklike philosophy originated in our own world.
    Cattle die and kinsmen die,
    thyself too soon must die,
    but one thing never, I ween, will die, --
    fair fame of one who has earned.
    HAVAMAL

  9. #49
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    At 10:10 PM 2/8/2003 +0100, blitzmacher wrote:

    >The point is that the monk, like the sorcerer, is a new character class in
    >D20(or 3e) or whatever else you want to call it, and did not exist when BR
    >was originally created. It is something that could work very well in BR,
    >especially in Khinasi which is loosely based on middle eastern culture.
    >The same culture based area where the monklike philosophy originated in
    >our own world.

    What aspects of the Khinasi do you see as parallel to the monk-like
    philosophies of the modern world that led to the martial arts based version
    of the monk?

    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.

  10. #50
    Senior Member blitzmacher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    el paso
    Posts
    250
    Downloads
    24
    Uploads
    0
    How about the mainstream Khinasi worship of Avani. Avani's whole dogma would be perfect for a monk. Lawful neutral, symbol setting sun, domains of knowledge, reason, sun, magic, law. The belief that the sun shines forth her divine essence, Like QiGong, a form of meditation, where light plays a good part in it. Where knowledge should be gathered and access to it should be earned through determined dedication, discipline and self control. Striving to seek wisdom and understanding. Seems similar enough to me.
    Cattle die and kinsmen die,
    thyself too soon must die,
    but one thing never, I ween, will die, --
    fair fame of one who has earned.
    HAVAMAL

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.