Page 19 of 21 FirstFirst ... 915161718192021 LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 202
  1. #181
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    Ariadne wrote:



    >
    Originally posted by Irdeggman

    > Don`t go that way. Minor and major access was purely a 2nd ed

    > thing.[...] Using the simplified format you`ve talked about would render

    > a very poor quality product that I would be loath to include in the BRCS

    > for quality control purposes that is.
    >

    > Yes, my opinion is exactly the same.



    Not to put too fine a point on this, but that`s not the way spells were

    noted in the BRCS.... The magician`s spell list followed the 3e PHB

    annotated spell list format in the Playtest document, but the domains for

    3e BR clerics didn`t. The bonus spells for domains are simply listed by

    level in two columns. No one has mentioned it in context of the Playtest

    document, and some of the grammatical/formatting responses have been pretty

    detailed, which makes be doubt that the annotated spell list would reduce

    product quality as badly as has been suggested. If it were such a

    necessity to list spells that way shouldn`t it have come up by now as a

    critique of the design team`s work?



    In all honesty, I don`t think an annotated spell list is a particularly

    necessary thing. There are dozens of non-annotated spell lists in other 3e

    texts (even the core texts) and I`ve never heard a complaint about them

    yet. Rather, the only time I`ve ever heard that format being made an issue

    is here... and (too fine a point coming up again) in the context of general

    opposition to the idea of specialty priests/spheres to begin with, so the

    need to have annotated spell lists in this case rings somewhat

    hollow. It`s fine if one has the room, but if space is at issue then

    people seem perfectly capable of looking up spells from a simple list of

    them without any trouble. At least, they`ve managed to do so in what must

    be hundreds of D20 texts, Dragon articles, 3e D&D supplements, etc.



    I should also note that in more than a few cases the annotation on

    annotated spell lists are... well, somewhat less than useful. For example:

    "Wall of Force. Wall is immune to damage." "True Seeing. See all things as

    they really are." "Find the Path. Shows most direct way to a

    location." Not exactly the most earth shattering revelations in those

    summaries.... Others, of course, are more helpful, but as a way of listing

    spells its pretty wasteful of space considering the amount of information

    related. A page number reference to the full spell description would

    probably be a better method, but I don`t think an annotation is necessary

    at all since 3e (finally!) listed spells in alphabetical order with

    descriptive text noting the class and level information in the spell

    description.



    Gary

  2. #182
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    99
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Osprey, you're still wrong about the metamagic application and the kind of action it requires.

    Metamagic application to a spontaneous spell makes it a full-round action, not a casting time of 1 round. It's a subtle distinction, but an important one.

    A sorcerer throwing a metamagic'd fireball only casts it as a full-round action, not as a 1 round spell.

    From the 3.5 PHB, page 88 (Metamagic Feats):

    "If the spell's normal casting time is 1 action, casting a metamagic version is a full-round action for a sorcerer or bard. (This isn't the same as a 1-round casting time, as described under Cast a Spell, page 143.)"

    So, a spontaneous casting cleric could throw out an Empowered cure spell as a full-round action, not a 1 round casting time spell. Therefore, he'd only be vulnerable to disruption during his turn... not for the full round.
    I walk this fine thread...

    Mourn

  3. #183
    Senior Member RaspK_FOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Moschato, Athens, Greece
    Posts
    1,128
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    Well, I for one have read the spell lists of core prestige classes like the blackguard or the assassin; in fact, the only time it got a bit clogged up was only this day that I started writing up (and almost finished; needs some finetuning) the spell list for the Elementalist prestige class I am designing, and the only problem was derived from the fact that it has 9 levels of spells, many of them normally allowed to none other but druids or clerics.

    Anyway, I believe that prestige classes are not an option for the exact same reason pointed out above: they are free to choose or leave them be, and we want to achieve flavour here!

    Anyway, I do think that clerics are more balanced than in 2e, and they certainly are more enjoyable! If, in fact, we get clerical festivity-and-other-trivia cycles as I have said earlier on in the Atlas, I would really love it!

    And yes, I am more toward a more specialised spontaneous casting thingy, but this should not be taken too far.

    And yes - thank thee, my lord, finally a person with the same ideals as I! - dearly yes, I TOO want to see reverent-father priests and warring clerics aside, without resorting to Xth level Cleric/Yth level [Aristocrat or Adept or Expert or Whatever]!!!



    All in all, I believe that the Foci concept was best. If that is combined with 2 classes, instead of one, the standard cleric and the priest, that would be, in my opinion, the best.

    As a suggestion, the cleric should get fewer spells (up to 6th-level, like the bard), and the priest should be able to pick the same weapons a wizard can, cast up to 9th-level spells, and, while able to cast spells in armour with no hindrance, be proficient only with light armour (and maybe light shields and the buckler).

  4. #184
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by Osprey@Sep 12 2003, 11:20 AM
    There is no actual rule (that I am aware of) that says you can only take prestige classes at 6th-8th levels. The level at which a prestige class is available is based on the prerequisites.

    Osprey
    Actually there is a rule now. pg 197 of the 3.5 DMG "When you design a prestige class, make sure that characters must be at least 5th level before they can meet the entry requirements."
    Duane Eggert

  5. #185
    Senior Member RaspK_FOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Moschato, Athens, Greece
    Posts
    1,128
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    FEH! That sounds just like the suggestion of not using Ability scores as requirements, when Feats can ask of you to have a minimum ability score, and still be one of the most common requirements of Prestige Classes!

    Sniff! And I thought I had the perfect idea for the Nature Arcane Spell-casting elf! That was a bad point!

  6. #186
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,475
    Downloads
    34
    Uploads
    8
    Osprey, you're still wrong about the metamagic application and the kind of action it requires.

    Metamagic application to a spontaneous spell makes it a full-round action, not a casting time of 1 round. It's a subtle distinction, but an important one.

    A sorcerer throwing a metamagic'd fireball only casts it as a full-round action, not as a 1 round spell.

    From the 3.5 PHB, page 88 (Metamagic Feats):

    "If the spell's normal casting time is 1 action, casting a metamagic version is a full-round action for a sorcerer or bard. (This isn't the same as a 1-round casting time, as described under Cast a Spell, page 143.)"

    So, a spontaneous casting cleric could throw out an Empowered cure spell as a full-round action, not a 1 round casting time spell. Therefore, he'd only be vulnerable to disruption during his turn... not for the full round.
    3.0 PHB (I don't own the 3.5, so this is what I'm going on), p. 125 Magic Actions in Combat)

    Under Casting Time: "A few spells have a casting time of 1 full round or longer. A spell that takes 1 full round to cast is a full-round action, and it comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed." [italics are mine]

    The last paragraph then elaborates on the need to maintain concentration until the spell is complete.
    Osprey

  7. #187
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    99
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by Osprey@Sep 12 2003, 07:14 PM
    3.0 PHB (I don't own the 3.5, so this is what I'm going on), p. 125 Magic Actions in Combat)

    Under Casting Time: "A few spells have a casting time of 1 full round or longer. A spell that takes 1 full round to cast is a full-round action, and it comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed." [italics are mine]

    The last paragraph then elaborates on the need to maintain concentration until the spell is complete.
    Osprey
    From the 3.0 SRD:

    "Some spellcasters choose spells as they cast them. They can choose when they cast their spells whether to use metamagic feats to improve them. As with other spellcasters, the improved spell uses up a higher-level spell slot. If its normal casting time is 1 action, casting a metamagic spell is a full-round action for a spellcaster that chooses spells as they cast them. For spells with a longer casting time, it takes an extra full-round action to cast the spell.

    Spontaneous Casting and Metamagic Feats: Clerics spontaneously casting cure or inflict spells can cast metamagic versions of them. Casting a 1-action metamagic spell spontaneously is a full-round action, and spells with longer casting times take an extra full-round action to cast."

    A full-round action, not a 1 round casting time. There is a difference.

    A full attack action is a full-round action. Casting a metamagic'd spell whose original casting time is 1 action is a full-round action. It does not increase the casting time to 1 round, however.

    And as for my first quote being 3.5... D&D is currently in version 3.5, and WotC has made it very clear that any of their intellectual property that is being written by 3rd party sources must be compatible with the most current version of D&D. Which is why the Dragonlance Campaign Setting is 3.5, that is why Ravenloft is being updated to 3.5 (even though there already was a 3.0 book). Therefore the BRCS will undoubtedly be required to support 3.5 rules.
    I walk this fine thread...

    Mourn

  8. #188
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,475
    Downloads
    34
    Uploads
    8
    Mourn,

    OK, I'm getting tired of belaboring this point, but I thought my last quote made it pretty clear that a full-round action when casting spells takes 1 full round. It is not the same as a normal full-round action. I don't know which book SRD is, but it only repeats what I've read in the Players' Handbook, and it's not a core rulebook anyways. Besides, if you want to stand on the 3.5 pulpit and preach rules, then I suggest you quote from there. Unless they actually changed the rules on casting time (and I suggest you thouroughly check the Combat section concerning spells), then I'm pretty certain it does take 1 whole round to complete any spell whose casting time becomes a full-round action.

    This is my last post on the issue. You may remain adamant on your interpretation, and I have yielded where I recognized my error concerning clerics and spontaneous cure/inflict spells. In truth, I simply prefer my interpretation of the rules that limit spontaneous casting and sorcerers/bards not having such an easy time with metamagic (giving up a 30' move to cast a spell isn't much of a sacrifice or risk on its own).

    At some point I'll get a hold of the 3.5 PHB and see if the rules have changed at all concerning this. As for the BRCS, it really doesn't make much difference: they don't need to publish rules on casting times anyways unless they're changing something. And it's up to any individual player/DM to decide if they want to adopt 3.5 or not. I for one prefer not to be a slave of the industry, and will take what I like and tweak what I don't to have what I consider to be the best possible version of D&D. And if I believe those are good ideas, especially concerning BR, I'll post them here.

    Osprey

  9. #189
    Senior Member RaspK_FOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Moschato, Athens, Greece
    Posts
    1,128
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    Mourn, I think that Osprey is right on this... Full-round spells mean that you cast the spell for the full round, and the spell takes place at the beginning of your turn on the next round. If the PHB says so, it seems you must be doing something else up until your turn on the next round...

  10. #190
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I don't know which book SRD is, but it only repeats what I've read in the Players' Handbook, and it's not a core rulebook anyways.
    First off, the SRD is the System Resource Document... the D&D rules stripped of all flavor text for use in 3rd party supplements. Its as CORE as it gets.

    Second, all language about a spontaneous metamagiced spell taking effect at the beginning of your next turn has been stricken from the 3.5 Player's Handbook and the 3.5 SRD so casting a spontaneous metamagic spell is a normal full-round action and thus takes effect immediately (just as damage from a full attack action takes effect immediately).

    Third, this distinction was clarified in a number of erratas long before 3.5 came along so its not like this "change" is that controversal anyway.

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.