Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34
  1. #21
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
    Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 11:36 AM

    > As always, what exactly to do with Brenna is the hardest problem.

    There have been number-based wizards out there. Numerancy might be the way
    to go.

    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.

  2. #22
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Michael Romes" <Archmage@T-ONLINE.DE>
    Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 1:10 PM

    > Maybe they have a closer relation with trees (and I hope you
    > don´t mean that in the sense Robinson Crusoe did ;-))
    > but they do not cast divine spells as they do not worship gods.

    Easily solved by making the druid an arcane spellcaster and his spell list
    arcane.

    Personally I prefer the sidhe to be elementalists who are able to draw from
    the druidical spell list very liberally.

    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.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Malden, MA
    Posts
    761
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    On Mon, 21 Apr 2003, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

    > Easily solved by making the druid an arcane spellcaster and his spell
    > list arcane. Personally I prefer the sidhe to be elementalists who
    > are able to draw from the druidical spell list very liberally.

    Sounds fine. Pretty much it`s all the same to me terminologically, just
    so long as the Sidhelien maintain the proper areas of interest -- namely
    living things, raw natural elements, charm and illusion.


    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.

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    883
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Ryan B. Caveney wrote:

    >On Mon, 21 Apr 2003, Michael Romes wrote:
    >
    >>In the 3E draft as far as I understand the battlefield is still as
    >>small as in 2E (3X5) but now no stacking is allowed. This means every
    >>battle will be only a minor skirmish with most of the army in reserve
    >>when two large armies meet. In addition archers will be vulnerable
    >>and pikemen useless - archers can`t fire OVER pikemen as archers still
    >>can shoot only into the next square and pikemen can`t jump in front of
    >>the archers when the enemy`s cavalry charge arrives...
    >>
    >That`s exactly why in my personal homebrew modification of the war card
    >rules, when I reduced the stacking limit to just one I also greatly
    >increased the size of the battlefield (roughly 20x30 is the smallest I
    >ever use, and for battles with lots of units I just use progressively
    >bigger maps) and roughly tripled all ranges and movements: I essentially
    >take the old battlemap space to be a 3x3 group of spaces on my map (I
    >actually use hexes, so each old-style battlemap space converts roughly to
    >a 7-hex "circle" of radius one). This also allows me to introduce some
    >finer-scale differences: for example, pikemen in my system now properly
    >move even slower than all other heavy infantry, and thrown missile weapons
    >have a much shorter range than fired ones.
    >Ryan Caveney
    >
    This sounds good to me. So Archers can hide behind Pikemen and fire over
    them, so that a general can again use both firepower and defence
    combined :-)

    If no stacking is allowed at all, that should be included in the draft
    0.5 or whatever, at least as a variant.
    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.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    474
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    On Tue, 2003-04-22 at 14:13, Michael Romes wrote:
    Ryan B. Caveney wrote:

    >On Mon, 21 Apr 2003, Michael Romes wrote:
    >
    >>In the 3E draft as far as I understand the battlefield is still as
    >>small as in 2E (3X5) but now no stacking is allowed. This means every
    >>battle will be only a minor skirmish with most of the army in reserve
    >>when two large armies meet. In addition archers will be vulnerable
    >>and pikemen useless - archers can`t fire OVER pikemen as archers still
    >>can shoot only into the next square and pikemen can`t jump in front of
    >>the archers when the enemy`s cavalry charge arrives...
    >>
    Yeah - unlimited stacking sucks. One per square sucks too.

    >That`s exactly why in my personal homebrew modification of the war card
    >rules, when I reduced the stacking limit to just one I also greatly
    >increased the size of the battlefield (roughly 20x30 is the smallest I
    >ever use, and for battles with lots of units I just use progressively
    >bigger maps) and roughly tripled all ranges and movements: I essentially
    >take the old battlemap space to be a 3x3 group of spaces on my map (I
    >actually use hexes, so each old-style battlemap space converts roughly to
    >a 7-hex "circle" of radius one). This also allows me to introduce some
    >finer-scale differences: for example, pikemen in my system now properly
    >move even slower than all other heavy infantry, and thrown missile weapons
    >have a much shorter range than fired ones.
    >Ryan Caveney
    >
    This sounds good to me. So Archers can hide behind Pikemen and fire over
    them, so that a general can again use both firepower and defence
    combined :-)

    Ryan,
    Does that include crossbows?

    e.g. (from original D&D mass combat rules)
    "Indirect Fire: Slingers, and archers (but not troops armed with
    crossbows) may arch fire over the heads of intervening troops or other
    obstacles not above 10 scale feet in height. The intervening object(s)
    must be at least 3"(30 yards) distant from the missile troops and at
    least the same distance from the target. Indirect fire reduces the range
    of the firing unit by 25%, all such fire is considered to be at long
    range, and any overhead cover will negate the effects, i.e. trees,
    roofs, etc make indirect fire impossible."

    Elevated terrain, such as archers on hilltops or hillsides can also arch
    fire (as well as firing with greater effectiveness).

    --
    I only allowed two warcards to stack together, one under (behind) the
    other. Morale and missile hits applied to both units equally (exception:
    skirmishers failing morale), but a pike/archer combination has missile
    capability and defense against cavalry. The stack must begin and end the
    move stacked to be treated as a combined unit. Only 4 stacks, or 8 cards
    to a battlefield - never had any battle greater than that, but would
    have resolved it as two or more separate battles. Not very sophisticated
    I know. Mounted units in a pair could move to the back, declining
    engagement - or to the front, intercepting advancing units. My players
    aren`t war-gamers - got to keep it simple. I applied terrain to more
    than one square of the battlefield (but all terrain is the same type).

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

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Malden, MA
    Posts
    761
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, Peter Lubke wrote:

    > Does that include crossbows?

    Crossbows also have increased range (scaled up along with the other ranges
    and movement rates), but I agree they are not eligible for indirect fire.

    > I only allowed two warcards to stack together, one under (behind) the
    > other. Morale and missile hits applied to both units equally
    > (exception: skirmishers failing morale), but a pike/archer combination
    > has missile capability and defense against cavalry.

    Interesting. Not a bad first approximation.

    > Mounted units in a pair could move to the back, declining
    > engagement - or to the front, intercepting advancing units.

    So you allow mounted units to move through allied units? That sounds
    like a disaster waiting to happen, unit-cohesion-wise. Not the sort
    of thing non-professional armies can manage safely.

    > My players aren`t war-gamers - got to keep it simple.

    Yeah, I sometimes have to run both sides -- but then, if the generals on
    both sides happen to be NPCs (e.g., one is realm-ruler ally of the PC
    temple regent, and the other is a major villain), that`s the DM`s job
    anyway. However, since the system I`ve used in play (not the far more
    detailed one I continue to tinker with for my own amusement) is basically
    just war card mechanics on a much bigger map, I`ve found it easier for
    players to see what`s going on, and seems nicely "more realistic" (and
    more fun to command big armies) without really being any more complicated.


    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.

  7. #27
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    18
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Guys, one more question to add to the pot...

    When we were playing, the elven regent of the Erebbanien took over the southernmost province of Roesone, Abbatuor. (Elf King- "Its my forest, damnit!")
    Then we ran into a problem with investiture. Basically, the elf regent needed to do an investiture to take control of the occupied province. How would one do that, being as he is an elf? We weren't sure.

    Oh, and Ryan, your war examples look good. I'll look into modifying those using your guidelines. If you've got more, please post 'em! :)

    Charlie

  8. #28
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    388
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, Landen_Haesri wrote:
    > Then we ran into a problem with investiture. Basically, the elf regent
    > needed to do an investiture to take control of the occupied province.
    > How would one do that, being as he is an elf? We weren`t sure.

    I believe that according to the book of priestcraft, elves do it without
    priests. Spend the GB and RP as though he were doing a normal investiture
    ceremony, and presto it works.
    --
    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.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    474
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    On Wed, 2003-04-23 at 06:15, daniel mcsorley wrote:
    On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, Landen_Haesri wrote:
    > Then we ran into a problem with investiture. Basically, the elf regent
    > needed to do an investiture to take control of the occupied province.
    > How would one do that, being as he is an elf? We weren`t sure.

    I believe that according to the book of priestcraft, elves do it without
    priests.

    Lets make it a bumper sticker.

    ************************************************** **************************
    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. #30
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    18
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Guys~

    Thanks for the information from everyone. You guys are a great reference source for puny ole' me. Here's how everything fares:

    I've changed all of Aerenwe's sources back up to their full potential. That leaves some provinces as plains; elves *do* live in areas other than forests, right? Hmm. The wizard isn't getting the free sources; the elf king created a lieutenant whom we decided was allowed the sources that were freed up.

    The dwarf (being a stubborn dwarf) decided to stay a dwarf. He still wants to be loyal to Baruk-Azhik (?), though, so we're trying to find a way for him to be all that at once. He also said he would be happy leading from behind the queen's daughter, using her as a front for the people. (BTW, the dwarf worships Moradin but respects Haelyn's temples as the High Priest and him are staunch allies). He still has his personal guard of 12 dwarven crossbowmen, however. They just won't leave.

    The halfling high priest of Haelyn decided he wanted to be human instead. The turning point? "Well, if my girlfriend is drawing all of our characters, I don't want to be short." So now all the Haelyn's temples are happy.

    The wizard is happy where she's at and, having gotten my email about that variation of Mass Destruction realm spell, is spending the next year or so in her laboratory for the new "Tsunami"-type Destructo spell. As DM, I'm paranoid. So are the other kings :)

    Everything else is falling into place as I start up this PBeM as well. Of course, this adds for even more questions and problems, but I'll solve them as they come up.

    Now, has anyone here used the spellcasting variations in Player's Option: Spells and Magic? I was intrigued by the Conditional magic for priests; was looking at the Preserver/Defiler option for mages. If a person who reads this has experience with these type of magical modifications, please let me know how they ran. Each are an interesting perspective of magic; the gods so close to their people that the position one is in affects the magical power one can harness, and with mages it seems natural that their magical energies come directly from the life around them. Is this too much? The players are interested in the changes too. Just wondering.

    Again, thanks for the information. You guys are great.

    Ciao!

    Charlie

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.