BRCS Chapter 1 - Feats

[DanMcSorley]

On Sun, 9 Feb 2003, Ariadne wrote:
> IMO "shadow magic" should be restricted for Khinasi (because of the
> five oaths). They would rather hunt down a spellcaster who cooperates
> with the shadow world and casts necromancy spells. The feat in general
> is good, I think.

It shouldn`t be restricted by culture, because that would prevent there
being rogue Khinasi wizards who worked with shadow. The five oaths are a
roleplaying thing, and if a Khinasi wanted to take this feat and then try
to avoid the 5 oath nazis, I`d certainly let him.
--
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.

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by DanMcSorley

It shouldn`t be restricted by culture, because that would prevent there being rogue Khinasi wizards who worked with shadow. The five oaths are a roleplaying thing, and if a Khinasi wanted to take this feat and then try to avoid the 5 oath nazis, I`d certainly let him.

Maybe, but he should be automaticaly marked as a renegate, if the Khinasi wizard takes it. So it should be somehow restricted...

[Mark_Aurel]

Maybe, but he should be automaticaly marked as a renegate, if the Khinasi wizard takes it. So it should be somehow restricted...

That's actually a perfect example of a role-playing restriction, and is up to the individual DM's campaign. I think a renegade Khinasi wizard and his conflict with other Khinasi wizards would make for an interesting campaign angle. However, I think that making a note of this in a section on game mechanics would be going too far - I'm sure there are other feats and even skills and spells that would warrant similar commentary or restrictions; this would be quite beyond the scope of this work, and place unnecessary restrictions on characters. I also think that absolutely, utterly, under no circumstances, should a game mechanical benefit be balanced by a role-playing disadvantage. That can be done in individual campaigns, but to base a rules set on it, is a recipe for abuse.

[DanMcSorley]

On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Ariadne wrote:
> Maybe, but he should be automaticaly marked as a renegate, if the
> Khinasi wizard takes it. So it should be somehow restricted...

No. That`s a roleplaying thing. And there`s no such thing as
`automatically marked`, the 5 oath police would have to find out he`d been
experimenting with the shadow world before there would be any action at
all. Leave the cultural nonsense out of the feat.
--
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.

[DanMcSorley]

On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Ariadne wrote:
> Maybe, but he should be automaticaly marked as a renegate, if the
> Khinasi wizard takes it. So it should be somehow restricted...

No. That`s a roleplaying thing. And there`s no such thing as
`automatically marked`, the 5 oath police would have to find out he`d been
experimenting with the shadow world before there would be any action at
all. Leave the cultural nonsense out of the feat.
--
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.

[Shade]

>>Using these guidelines, here are my thoughts on the BRCS feats:
>>Arcane Sanctum - this is really freaking cool :) The wording needs to be a
>>bit more clear. I`d actually up this in power a bit, making the +1 DC work
>>in an entire province rather than a number of miles based on source level.
>>In any case it is still far weaker than Spellcasting Prodigy, but still a
>>good feat. I`d also change the requirement from Bld 13+ to "must control a
>>source (1) in the province where the sanctum is located" or somesuch.
>>
>Arcane Sanctum is a very strong feat. A similar feat is "Sanctum spell"
>Metamagic feat from Tome&Blood - and this feat raises your effective
>spell level by one if cast in your sanctum (which is only 10 foot/level)
>but if not cast in the sanctum you have -1 spelllevel!
>
>Arcane Sanctum only gives the bonus without the penalty, and the
>"Sanctum" is much larger as it is in miles, not feet.

The problem here is that WOTC`s own feats aren`t balanced relative to each
other. In a case like this, we have to make a judgment call using our own
common sense.

Granted, Arcane Sanctum is way stronger than Sanctum Spell, but Sanctum
Spell downright sucks. It`s one of the worst feats in the game. Try
comparing Arcane Sanctum to Spellcasting Prodigy - the latter increases the
DCs of ALL your spells by 1, whereas Arcane Sanctum only does it in a
limited area. Now which feat is underpowered?

My hunch is that Arcane Sanctum is probably ok, because it lies somewhere
in the middle ground. Spellcasting Prodigy is generally considered too
strong, whereas Sanctum Spell is too weak. Arcane Sanctum falls somewhere
in the middle - if you consider Spellcasting Prodigy and Sanctum Spell to
be the extremes of what should be allowed, then Arcane Sanctum is
definitely balanced.

>>Battle Caster - good feat. The skill requirement should be removed - feats
>>never have skill requirements.
>>
>In my opinion it is too restrictive.
>1) To cast Battle Spells you have to have a military unit that has
>special training which restricts the use of Battle Magic or else you can
>do nothing with that feat.
>2) Batle Magic is not nearly as devastating as the 2E Books of Magecraft
>and Priestcraft made it, not even as the standard spells (Fireball,
>Lightnign Bolt) as described on the warcards.
>3) Caster Level 5+ would prevent regents like Rogr Aglondier (Illien) or
>Harald Khorien (Taeghas) to be able to go on the battlefield as battle
>casters.
>4) The addition of the Warcraft skill which is a cross-class skill for
>all casters as requirement (Cleric, Sorceror, Wizard) makes no sense in
>my opinion - if a wizard knows to cast a Fireball and that it has a
>certain range and can affect a certain area, then why should he know
>military matters to cast it?. The USE of the Warcraft skill for a skill
>check to see how good the effect of the spell is is even stranger in my
>opinion - if you want Battle Magic to be difficult and sometimes not to
>work, then require a Spellcraft check.

I don`t really know how to balance battle magic. I agree that the skill
level requirement should be taken out - as many pointed out, the Mounted
Combat feat requires Ride ranks, but feats that require skill ranks are the
exception rather than the norm.

The core 3e rules only have 1 feat that requires skill ranks, why does
every other feat in the BRCS doc require skill ranks?

As for battle magic, I didn`t get the Book of Magecraft until I stopped
playing so I know very little about its use in the game. I always thought
it was way overpowered - my understanding is that a level 1 magician could
use rain of magic missiles and start wiping out enemy units. That seems too
strong to me.

>>Dwarven Artisan - this is really shady. wtf is a superior masterwork item?
>>As far as I know `superior masterwork items` are not mentioned in the DMG
>>and are not intrinsic to the flavor of Birthright. I think this feat should
>>be removed entirely.
>>
>I do not concur here. Dwarves are certainly masters of stoneworking,
>just like elves are of woodworking.
>Masterwork Items are certainly found more often in a world where magic
>items or equipment is rarer.
>
>To have Artisans of Dwarves or Elves BOTH produce non-magic superior
>masterwork items sounds good.
>Elven Mandolins or flutes would be highly praised, Dwarven Masons -->
>remember the fortress in Binsada? would be highly sought...

I have no problem with masterwork items. I have a problem with Superior
Masterwork Items, which is a mechanic we`ve invented out of thin air that
has no basis either in the core 3e rules or the original 2e BR setting.

How about we do this? Keep the Dwarven Artisan feat, but say that it lets
you create some exotic weapons like Mercurial Greatswords. The Merc GS is
too weird for the human cultures to use, but it kind of makes sense that
certain dwarven smiths might, thanks to advanced knowledge of metallurgy,
know how to construct one.

Another option is to change the feat to Moraksorr Artisan and allow
characters with this feat to forge items made out of that rare metal, which
would otherwise be impossible. Such items would effectively be `superior
masterwork items` (although I think that terminology should be avoided
because of munchkin overtones.. "Yeah, I get the extra +6 because it is a
Superior Enhancement Bonus, which stacks with a Normal Enhancement Bonus").

>The Feat Elven Artisan which allows the production of magic items at a
>discount of 25% is too strong.
>The "Arcane Craftsman" character concept from the "Quintessential
>Wizard" from Mongoose Publishing allows to take the Craft Wondrous Item
>at first level (not for free, you have to spend a feat to get it, only
>you may take it at first level despite the normal restriction) and only
>a 10% discount for not having the Scribe Scroll feat for free (which is
>only a restriction for wizards) and for having to spend at least 1 skill
>poin in a craft pertinent to the productino of magical items.

Hmm. Discounting 3rd party stuff for the moment, I compared Elven Artisan
to the feat Magical Artisan from FRCS, which gives a 25% discount on a
specific item creation feat.

Regardless of the numbers, I think this feat should be excluded from BR in
order to preserve the rare-magic feel of the setting.

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

[Shade]

>Some clarifications and thought process explanations;
>
>

Battle Caster - good feat. The skill requirement should be removed
- feats
>never have skill requirements.
>

>
>Mounted Combat. Other feats expand upon what is possible to do with a
skill; Track - Wilderness Lore, for instance.

Hmm, I forgot about Mounted Combat.. but my basic point remains unchanged.
Using skill requirements for feats is the exception rather than the rule.
Is mounted combat the only feat that has a REQUIREMENT of a skill in order
for you to get it? That`s probably like less than 1% of all the feats WOTC
has published. What percentage of the feats we put in the BRCS have skill
requirements?


>Black Strike has some prerequisites that makes it more of an end-chain
feat than a starting feat. The feat`s benefit is primarily comparable to
the benefit of a large shield; +2 to AC. I`ve actually wondered if this
feat was weak, myself.

Blackstrike has 2 prereq feats and OHP has 2 prereq feats. I agree that OHP
is probably weak.. but at the same time, I have a problem with making a
feat that EXACTLY duplicates what another feat does, AND gives some
additional bonuses. It`s fine if you want to make Blackstrike stronger in
practice than OHP, but at least make it different in some way.

>

Erudition - this feat is clearly overpowered as it makes Education
>obsolete. Make it identical to Education to balance it. (I guess we cannot
>reprint Education because of OGL concerns.)

>
>Does it really? It grants less immediate benefit; what it does is reward
characters who spend more feats on skill focus (knowledge: whatever).
Education, on the other hand, grants +1 to two knowledge skills by itself.

Hmm, that`s true. Leave Erudition as is, then :)

>

Great Leader - I don`t know what gets a synergy bonus to Lead, but
my hunch
>is that this feat is slightly overpowered.

>
>The reference to a synergy bonus is an error; what it does is grant a +2
bonus to Lead and domain actions keyed to that skill - primarily Agitate.

I think I really need to read the section on domain rules before I keep
commenting on this sort of stuff, since I have no idea what you`re talking
about. :)

>

Hardiness - this feat is REALLY shady. Anything that flat out
doubles the
>effect of something else is just waiting to be abused.

>
>This addresses one point of the design process here - the feats in the
BRCS were designed considering core feats primarily, not feats from
splatbooks and independent d20 publishers (it`d be nuts to try and survey
all of that).

Hehe, that`s what the rest of us on the listserv are for :) This is a first
draft; of course it won`t be perfect.

>Anyway, the original benefit of this feat was different: It granted double
the constitution bonus to hit points at first level, and +1 bonus hit point
every time each of the other mentioned feats was taken.

I very strongly suggest that the feat be returned to the original benefit.
The original is almost exactly balanced vs the FR feat Mind over Body,
which is a really cool feat IMO (even though it`s not particularly useful).

Trust me, you want to avoid flat-out doubling at any cost. It is just ripe
for abuse.

>

Master Merchant - This feat is slightly overpowered, as it is equal
to a
>standard feat (+2 to 2 skills) but gives an additional benefit at the
>domain level of play. Possibly reduce the skill bonuses to +1.

>
>This, and the other "master" feats, as well as the "great leader" feat
were intended to support the domain level of play; note that this
particular feat has more stringent prerequisites than the others.

I need to read the domain rules. :o

>

Regent Focus - This feat could potentially be really strong. Think
about if
>you used Regent Focus (contest). This could have the effect of saving you
>dozens of RP every season.. regardless of whether this feat makes it into
>the final document, I know I would not allow it in my campaign as I feel it
>gives too much of an advantage, and almost becomes a must-have feat.
>

>
>This feat was balanced with its limited versatility in mind - if you spend
every action contesting, that`s 12 RP saved per season - I guess it really
depends on how common contest actions are in your campaign; you`d also
need to consider the change in the contest action itself, I think, to get
the full picture on that. The feat was originally part of a pyramid as
well; statesmanship - master a/d/m - regent focus. Also note that this feat
is very depedent on your campaign. In a PBEM-style environment, where
domain-level interaction is 99% of the game, it is certainly too strong.
The feat, however, is balanced for a normal campaign, with a distribution
between adventure and domain-level play.

I dunno.. I don`t really support any feat that lets you economize on RPs or
GB. To me the value of 1 RP far exceeds the value of a +1 to hit, for
example. YMMV, though.. but I`d like to see this playtested extensively
before it`s included.

>

Shadow Magic - Nice concept, but the feat is slightly overpowered.
+1 DC
>for Illusion and Necromancy would be balanced, but the extra +2 to Illusion
>(Shadow) is too much.

>
>I`m not quite sure - spell focus provides a larger bonus in a single
area; even though this feat totals up to more than spell focus does, I`m
not quite sure it`s stronger - i.e. consider skill emphasis (+3) vs
alertness (+2/+2). Actually a bad example, but I don`t really think this
feat would make it to a must-have list - I`d put it on a "strong feats"
list, but it doesn`t supplant existing feats. I`d use the excuse of "not
all feats are perfectly equal" and mutter something about skill focus, but
I`ll definitely keep what you`ve said in mind.

That`s certainly one way to look at it. However, in this case it`s very
easy to see if the feat is balanced or not, and it`s clear that it isn`t.
When we have a clear-cut case in front of us, why not take the easy way out?

I agree with you that the feat doesn`t make it to a must-have list, but at
the same time, there`s almost no reason to take Spell Focus: Illusion when
you can take Shadow Magic.

Shadow Magic (even a toned down version with +1 to Ill/Nec) is dangerous by
itself, because there`s nothing to say it doesn`t stack with SF: Ill/Nec or
GSF: Ill/Nec. To me adding an additional +2, even to a very limited
selection of spells, is very dangerous as it allows you to amass a +7 DC
with feats alone. I`d rather that +7 cost 4 feats as opposed to 3.

************************************************** **************************
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]

Lord Shade wrote:

>The problem here is that WOTC`s own feats aren`t balanced relative to each
>other. In a case like this, we have to make a judgment call using our own
>common sense.
>Granted, Arcane Sanctum is way stronger than Sanctum Spell, but Sanctum
>Spell downright sucks. It`s one of the worst feats in the game. Try
>comparing Arcane Sanctum to Spellcasting Prodigy - the latter increases the
>DCs of ALL your spells by 1, whereas Arcane Sanctum only does it in a
>limited area. Now which feat is underpowered?
>
I do not own the book in which Spellcasting Prodigy is described - which
book is it an had this feat perhaps restrictions that Sanctum Spell had not?

>>In my opinion it is too restrictive.
>>1) To cast Battle Spells you have to have a military unit that has
>>special training which restricts the use of Battle Magic or else you can
>>do nothing with that feat.
>>2) Batle Magic is not nearly as devastating as the 2E Books of Magecraft
>>and Priestcraft made it, not even as the standard spells (Fireball,
>>Lightnign Bolt) as described on the warcards.
>>3) Caster Level 5+ would prevent regents like Rogr Aglondier (Illien) or
>>Harald Khorien (Taeghas) to be able to go on the battlefield as battle
>>casters.
>>4) The addition of the Warcraft skill which is a cross-class skill for
>>all casters as requirement (Cleric, Sorceror, Wizard) makes no sense in
>>my opinion - if a wizard knows to cast a Fireball and that it has a
>>certain range and can affect a certain area, then why should he know
>>military matters to cast it?. The USE of the Warcraft skill for a skill
>>check to see how good the effect of the spell is is even stranger in my
>>opinion - if you want Battle Magic to be difficult and sometimes not to
>>work, then require a Spellcraft check.
>>
>As for battle magic, I didn`t get the Book of Magecraft until I stopped
>playing so I know very little about its use in the game. I always thought
>it was way overpowered - my understanding is that a level 1 magician could
>use rain of magic missiles and start wiping out enemy units. That seems too
>strong to me.
>
A level 1 Magician in 3E could without INT modifier memorize 2 level 1
spells and so 2 "Rain of Magic Missililes".
However Magic Missile and it´s battle magic counterparts power are very
dependant on character level. A 1st level character gets only 1 Missile
and the second at 3rd caster level (3E).

The battle Magic version (2E Book of Magecraft) was even more limited as
it gave the caster only 1missile for 6 levels.

So a 1-5th level caster could do 1 H result to 1 unit. A 6th level
caster 2 H results to one unit or 1 H to two units - firing this spell
into a melee had the chance of friendly fire hitting the casters friends.

I do not find that overpowering. An arcane caster inflicting 1 H result
to an enemy in a whole battle which could take several turns with large
armys? He could only wipe out e.g. scouts as they only can take 1 H and
are gone. Most others will stay alive and keep fighting.

>Another option is to change the feat to Moraksorr Artisan and allow
>characters with this feat to forge items made out of that rare metal, which
>would otherwise be impossible. Such items would effectively be `superior
>masterwork items` (although I think that terminology should be avoided
>because of munchkin overtones.. "Yeah, I get the extra +6 because it is a
>Superior Enhancement Bonus, which stacks with a Normal Enhancement Bonus").
>
Sounds good. Mithril and Mordaskorr for Elven/Dwarven artisans and
perhaps a better chance to create the Masterwork Item.

>>The Feat Elven Artisan which allows the production of magic items at a
>>discount of 25% is too strong.
>>The "Arcane Craftsman" character concept from the "Quintessential
>>Wizard" from Mongoose Publishing allows to take the Craft Wondrous Item
>>at first level (not for free, you have to spend a feat to get it, only
>>you may take it at first level despite the normal restriction) and only
>>a 10% discount for not having the Scribe Scroll feat for free (which is
>>only a restriction for wizards) and for having to spend at least 1 skill
>>poin in a craft pertinent to the productino of magical items.
>>
>
>Hmm. Discounting 3rd party stuff for the moment, I compared Elven Artisan
>to the feat Magical Artisan from FRCS, which gives a 25% discount on a
>specific item creation feat.
>
There are no forgotten realms ;-)
(however if you want to use this for a comparison, then it should be
clear that 25% are only worth discussing in a world where magic is not rare)

>Regardless of the numbers, I think this feat should be excluded from BR in
>order to preserve the rare-magic feel of the setting.
>
Right! Elves can certainly can create wonderful items
(Masterwork/Mithril) and a feat for that matching a dwarven
(Masterwork/Mordaskorr) artisan would be fine, IMO.
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.

[Lord Rahvin]

> Regardless of the numbers, I think this feat should be excluded from BR in
> order to preserve the rare-magic feel of the setting.

Personally, I think any feats that help to specialize spellcasters adds to
the flavor of a low-magic setting. Birthright isn`t really "low-magic",
it`s just that magic is rare. Because magic is still powerful, and indeed
even far more advanced than some other settings (blood abilities, "blooded
items", battle magic, realm magic), I think it would help the flavor a lot
of each wizard/caster was different and highly specialized. Thus, adding
any feats that further specialize a wizard really adds to the idea that
magical power is individual, rather than based on the idea of a community of
magic-users passing on their secrets through academies and such.

Though not really based out of 2e material, having a lot of "arcane feats"
would, I believe, really add to the flavor of this kind of powerful/rare
magic feel and also would give a basis for wizards of different geographic
areas to be dramatically different from each other.

There`s a lot of mention of court mages, a swamp mage, etc. in the books,
and it would be nice if there were actually specializations which warranted
these titles.

As a side effect of this philosophy, I don`t think I`m going to allow
non-specialized wizards in my BR campaigns, just as it doesn`t have
non-specialized clerics.

-Lord Rahvin

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

[Green Knight]

Michael Romes wrote:

>I do not own the book in which Spellcasting Prodigy is described -
which
>book is it an had this feat perhaps restrictions that Sanctum Spell had
not?

Make a wild guess...and yes, it IS the FRCS...

The only catch is that you must take the feat at 1st lvl (why you would
not do that is beyond me). It ups your primary spellcasting ab by 2;
giving your spells +1 DC and a bonus spell slot.

This might easily give the munchkin human enchanter +2 1st lvl bonus
spells at caster lvl 1. That is four spells in all, a mix of charm
person, hypnotism, and sleep. DC (with spell focus) is 18 for those 1st
lvl spells. Not bad at all...

Such notables as Halaster and the Simbul have it (but not Elminster or
the Blackstaff guy). Question is; can your spellcaster afford to be
without it?

Oh no, I really DO belong with the FRCS not the BRCS...

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