[BIRTHRIGHT] Magic Reform

[irdeggman]

Good points Michael.:)

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ariadne" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 7:11 PM

> Yes, but requiring to multiclass is some kind of restriction. IMO the
> heart of the 3rd ED is to reduce restrictions of classes (that`s why
> paladins need not to be human any more). I think it`s a bad idea to
> force your players not to choose what they want. If they like to play
> a single class spellcaster (if "out" or not), let them...

Given that spellcasting power will be cut in half, how is a multi-class
requirement a restriction? Indeed it seemed incredibly liberating. I don`t
see *any* downside.

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: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 8:34 PM


> That only applies to the spell progression. Multiclassing with a wizard
> forces the character to lose out on the bonus feats that a wizard gains
> when leveling up.

The whole point of introducing classes like Alchemist, Herbalist,
Astronomer, and any other were specifically to provide all of those bonus
feats, with new spells to learn, as well as penty o`skill points. Its
better than all of those lost levels of wizard, its all of that plus some
considerable compensation for losing the rapid spell progression.

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.

[Raedwald]

The multi-class option seem rather harsh remedy. Birthright seems more geared toward low to mid level play. High level can be done but takes a great deal more preparation.

If spellcasters are too powerful, is it because they advanced too quickly? Try reducing experience. Or institute training times and costs.

Another way to limit wizards is spell selection. Make them research every spell between their automatic 2 per level, even if they have a scroll or captured spellbook to work from.

Remember the implications for spellcasters once they hit between 8th and 12th level. They really should start getting noticed in Birthright. Rivals may try and kill them. NPC's may request/demand services or magic items constructed. Oppponents will try and neutralize/delay/hamper them - stealing magic, poisoning, ambushing etc....

What is the problem being addressed?

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by kgauck

----- Original Message -----
From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 8:34 PM


> That only applies to the spell progression. Multiclassing with a wizard
> forces the character to lose out on the bonus feats that a wizard gains
> when leveling up.

The whole point of introducing classes like Alchemist, Herbalist,
Astronomer, and any other were specifically to provide all of those bonus
feats, with new spells to learn, as well as penty o`skill points. Its
better than all of those lost levels of wizard, its all of that plus some
considerable compensation for losing the rapid spell progression.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

Again, caster levels from different spellcasting classes don't stack with regards to prerequisites for feats that require a certain spellcaster level. For example bard spellcasting levels don't stack with wizard ones even though they are both arcane casters.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Green Knight" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 1:33 AM

> If such a rule is implemented, it should be enforced equally for all
> characters and classes. The fighter also gets a bit broken around
> level 20, and could do well with some levels of expert, aristocrat
> or rogue.

Non-spellcasting classes are already multi-classed IMC. No one wants to be
a single class fighter. You could go entire sessions with a single
opportunity to do *anything*. There is too much talking with NPC`s not to
want people skills in addition to fighting skills. Plus the fact that
everyone starts with a required backround class in rogue, expert, or
aristocrat means that they`ve already gotten a push in that direction.

One of the ways you can influence players is by showing them what NPC`s look
like. All of the conversions of the NPC`s in the books started off with
fighters becoming 2/3 fighter 1/3 aristocrat. Some, like Guthrim Gaukson
became strait up Aristocrats. Take Guthrim. He is pretty clearly a
villainous character,
http://home.mchsi.com/~kgauck/taelshore/guthrim.htm
and unless the characters adopt an anti-crown politics early on, will be an
opponant in the realm. He`s an Eorl, so has his own units to protect him,
is an 8th level aristocrat and so is a decent combatant. What he has is his
55 ranks in Arisrocratic skills.
Appraise 5, Bluff 11+2, Gather Information 9, Intrigue 11, Knowledge
(Nobility) 3+8, Listen 3, Perform (Etiquette) 0+8-5, Sense Motive 11, Swim
2

You may point to the party rogue, although rogues must be careful to his
their true class in Rjurik. To be addressed in any noble court, the rogue
would need an office. Even still, most eorls will prefer to deal with the
highest ranking member of the delegation, and that is probabaly not the
party rogue. The one rogue who started out as a pure rogue decided his
roguish skills were high enough, because locks, walls to climb, and other
theify things are not particularly challenging in Rjurik lands. Orogs are
tough, so he multi-classed as a fighter.

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: "Ariadne" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 6:51 AM


> I know, but I don`t like low level spellcaster campaigns too. The
> Green Knight is right, that you have to restrict other classes too,
> not only spellcasters, if you force such things. Otherwise the game
> starts to become unfair. If I can`t become a "normal" wizard or
> cleric I simply don`t play one (or change the group where I can play
> one).

Nonsense. I could just run the game as one of many no-spellcaster allowed
games, like AEG`s Swashbuckling, or one of the heavily restricted campaigns
like Rokugan or Soveriegn Stone. The amount of magic is part of the
setting, not imposed by the core rules.

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: "Michael Romes" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 9:54 AM


> I don´t understand most of the problems in this discussion:
>
> A while ago many people were upset when I suggested that, like in
> 2E, clerics did not get access to all spells, but were restricted to a
> selection of "schools" or "domains".

Not really. The medium is much better at eliciting disagreement, rather
than agreement. Especially when "me too" posts are explicitly frowned upon.
Anything you say is likely to generate more negative responce than positive.
I suspect the list consenus is for something more like the BoP, and less
like the core PHB cleric.

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: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 3:26 PM


> Again, caster levels from different spellcasting classes don`t stack
> with regards to prerequisites for feats that require a certain spellcaster
> level. For example bard spellcasting levels don`t stack with wizard
> ones even though they are both arcane casters.

Can you explain why this is related to the topic?

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 04:54 PM 6/15/2003 +0200, Michael Romes wrote:

>A while ago many people were upset when I suggested that, like in 2E,
>clerics did not get access to all spells, but were restricted to a
>selection of "schools" or "domains". This diversification that was so
>fantastic in 2E Birthright was completely lost in 3E Birthright as all
>clerics had the same spell list.
>
>Now even more people complain that spellcasters have to many, too
>high-level spells.

These are two different issues. Access to schools or domains equals
versatility and theme. Access to higher level spells equals powering
up. One could have characters with broad spellcasting ability (access to a
lot of spells) that weren`t necessarily all that powerful (access to high
level spells) in a way that`s viable.

>In most games this should not be a problem: Even the Ruins of Empire has
>only a handful of wizards and another handful of clerics above level 10 in
>Anuire - if you have a handful of wizards of level 20 which are all
>PC´s in your campaign then the problem is not in the rules, but in your
>campaign.

A wizard and a cleric in a party is not at all unusual. Any long lasting
campaign is going to eventually level those characters up, so the problem
is pretty much inevitable.

>The low-magic setting is no problem either: Birthright is no low-magic,
>but a rare and high-magic setting. Wizards are supposed to be powerful (if
>they ever achieve high-levels). What the armys of other regents are,
>Wizards have in personal power

Doesn`t that illustrate the problem pretty well? What armies are to other
regents wizards have in personal power.

>Simply raising the value of magical items to 150% or more of that given in
>the DMG should stop mass-production of magical items. Placing only few in
>treasure hoards and then mostly one-charge potions or scrolls will reduce
>the amount of magic also.

This is also a different issue. When it comes to magic items we really
have some very odd rules in 3e, and the BR playtest tweak is really pretty
minor. 3e`s magic item creation rules are better than 2e, but the numbers
of magic items available doesn`t have much of a connection to those
rules. Magic items exist in the charts in the DMG without any relationship
to the amount of effort that characters would have put into making
them. From what I can tell the amount and variety of such items has no
real connection to the costs and purposes for which they would be
created. Magic item dispersal in D&D is largely part of an
adventurer-centered reward system, not part of any holistic thinking on how
the ability to create such items among a populace would lead to X items of
Y power.

Regardless of that, controlling the spellcaster levels of characters needs
to be addressed first before one thinks about how many magic items are
available in a campaign since those items come from those
spellcasters. Exactly how one might gauge that production is debatable,
but if one is trying to connect them up that`s how you`d have to do it.

>However requiring players to multi-class because else their character
>would have to much spellcasting power is ridiculous. In 2E Birthright even
>the possible multi/dual-class options fo the PHB were further restricted.
>Now in 3E Birthright you want to FORCE a player who wishes to advance as a
>spellcaster to multi-class?

I don`t recall where I read it before it was suggested here, but that
method is used in another D20 world in order to scale back the power of
spellcasters. It seems to work pretty well. Given the way the spell
levels power up more dramatically than any other aspect of character class
it`s really a pretty reasonable solution--assuming one didn`t want to go to
all the effort of rewriting the entire spellcasting system, that is....

>A much better way is to require special components for all spells that are
>dangerous for gameplay and restrict their availability. e.g. yes, your
>wizard CAN memorize 5 Meteor Swarms, but you need a piece of a meteor as
>material component - the only known pieces are currently spread among a
>crater in the monster infested mountains of the Five Peaks and require an
>adventure of a month to get them...

I don`t know.... That seems like it would grow tiresome pretty quickly and
winds up being something of a "gotcha" kind of rule. If you`re going to
give a character a class ability it seems like a pretty nasty quibble to
tack on "but only with these amazingly rare components that I`m going to
highly restrict your access to" as the basis of controlling their powering up.

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.