There is a lot of stuff in this section that I liked and some stuff I
disagree with. I`ll cover what I liked first.

Barbarian - this is good explanation.

Bard - O_o cover this in more detail later.

Cleric - Like much of the classes section, I really like the wording here.
"Only in elven realms are clerics a rarity. The elves have been adamant
in their refusal to worship human gods and refuse to allow
humans to proselytize human religious ideologies within their
realms" and "Elves cannot advance as clerics except under the most unusual
of circumstances" is great. Basically what this conveys, at least to me, is
that "we very strongly suggest you don`t allow elves to be clerics because
it doesn`t fit the feel of the setting, but this is 3e after all, and you
are the DM, and if you want to do it, go ahead."

Druid - I am glad the BRCS team resisted the temptation of many to
house-rule allowing elves to be druids. Like the cleric section, I am very
pleased with the wording here. "Although elves have a profound link with
nature that makes
them particularly fine rangers, the powers of a druid are be-yond
their ken. The elves are adamant in their refusal to wor-ship
human gods (including Erik) and thus cannot advance as
druids except under the most unusual of circumstances." Well said. I also
like the suggestion of cleric/druids; while totally weak and worthless from
a power perspective, it makes a lot of sense RP-wise, especially for
members of the Oaken Grove of Erik for example, as opposed to members of
the Emerald Spire who would be pure druids.

While this isn`t important, don`t forget that there are a significant
number of druids in Brechtur. IIRC there are more temples of Erik in
Brechtur than in Vosgaard and Anuire put together.

Fighter - good.

Monk - Bravo! This has already been discussed extensively on the BR list,
but I`m glad that the "official" doc states in no uncertain terms that
Asian-style, ki shouting, karate-master Monks don`t belong in Cerilia.

Paladin - Good call on allowing dwarven paladins of Moradin. In 2e I always
thought it was unfair that elves could be rangers but dwarves couldn`t have

I like how the issue of allowing Cuiraecen`s paladins to specialize in a
weapon was handled by encouraging them to freely multiclass as fighters.
IMO it would have been very unbalancing to not only allow the paladins to
be CG, but to also be able to pick up Weapon Spec as a feat.

Next point - this is not a gripe with the BRCS doc, but with D&D in
general. I think the conversion of Nesirie`s paladins is true to the
original setting. <rant> BUT, WTF is up with every setting having classes
allowed only to women?!?! This sort of reverse sexism is bullsh*t. Granted,
nobody would want to be a paladin of Nesirie anyway, but why does every
setting have a class or two for women only but never a class for men only?
The only class/feat/PrC/proficiency I have ever seen in any edition of D&D
that was exclusively male is the Eunuch Warlock from OA (and this requires
you to get your nuts cut so arguably you`re not even a man anymore). The
examples of women-only classes are abundant (all of the Amazon kits, drow
female clerics getting extra spell-like powers in 2e, Hathran from FR, CBoD
Hearthguards). </rant>

BR does a nice job with male priests of Belinik and female priestesses of
Kriesha. In this case at least each gender gets something.

Ranger - I like how this is handled, especially with regard to elves being
able to access some divine magic as high level rangers. By suggesting it is
force of will and knowledge rather than divine power, it makes it OK for
elves to be rangers without having major alterations to the class. I also
like how the BRCS doc makes a distinction between ranger magic and druid
magic, saying that they are similar but druid magic is more powerful thanks
to the assistance of a deity. In a low-level setting like BR, few
characters are going to get to high ranger levels anyway, so the impact of
elven rangers using "cleric" spells should be minimal.

Rogue - description is ok. I`m not sure that the "regional rogue skills" is
necessary. More on this when I get to the feats.

Sorcerer/Wizard - I like how this is handled by lumping both Sorc and
Wizard into the same class and drawing no "official" distinction between
the two. This allows DMs to deal with these classes however they want in
their own campaigns. I also like the "implied suggestion" of allowing elves
as sorcerers. Richard Malena (he used to be active on the BR list and in
PBeMs) and I have talked about this in great detail. For instance, in his
campaign sorcerers don`t exist, whereas in my BR campaign only races that
have a natural ability to use magic (elves, dragons, giants) can be
sorcerers, whereas races that gain the ability to use magic thanks to a
bloodline (humans, goblins) have to work hard and study for it through the
wizard`s path.

I think the issue of dwarven mages is handled very elegantly in a fashion
similar to elf clerics/druids. Basically it suggests that "they don`t
exist, but after all this is 3e, and if you want to allow a dwarven mage in
your own campaign, by all means go for it. But don`t ever expect to see a
dwarven mage in any official product."

Now I noticed that halfling wizards are not mentioned. I asked about this
on the list a few days ago and got a lot of useful advice and suggestions -
I have decided to allow Ilien`s player to be a halfling shadowmage in my
campaign, and it is working out great. I`d like to see a little bit of text
that suggests that "nobody has ever heard of a halfling mage, but it is
theorized that a blooded halfling might be able to become a wizard by
accessing the power of the Shadow World." I think many people may disagree
here, but I think a bit of text like this would be harmless.

Magician - I take exception to several things with this class, which I`ll
address in a later post.

Noble - ditto.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage:
Birthright-l Archives:
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.