Variant Rules For The Brcs

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "RaspK_FOG" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 7:36 PM





> Well, as for multi-classing, no cleric should never be able to

> multi-class with another class if that other one has a vastly different

> attitude than the cleric`s church. For example, a cleric of any

> church that emphasises on arcane magic (for example, the church of

> Avani or Ruornil) should also be able to be wizards, sorcerers,

> magicians, even bards, but not rogues, fighters, and especially

> barbarians&#33;



What about either of these gods in inconsistant with rogues, fighters, or

barbarians? Ruornil, as god the secrets and the night, is half of the

aspect of Eloele. A spy who stole secrets by moonlight might well be a

cleric/rogue. The scout who raids at dawn might be a cleric/rogue dedicated

to Avani. Khinasi troops are typically light and fast, and that suggests a

rogue as much as a fighter. Avani would smile on the many skills aquired by

a rogue. Fighting the shadow is best done by fighter/clerics of both gods,

though more so of the followers of Ruornol who are less likely to organize.

Barbarians can`t worship son or moon?



The god influences how to class is played, the class doesn`t determine which

god is worshiped.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[geeman]

At 08:24 PM 8/28/2003 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:



> > would it be possible to break up the divine spells by their

> > associated schools and listing them into spell lists for divine

> > spellcasters in the same manner that they are used for arcane

> > spellcasters?

>

>Why not use the 2e lists for this? The conversion really isn`t that hard,

>and they were broken up by sphere.

>

>I converted from 3e directly, but I did so with Excel, so I can mix and

>match spell lists with ease.



From those sheets does it look like a practical solution to a 3e version

of the 2e priest system of BR? That is, can one just give access to the

schools of magic for divine spells to the various priests of the Cerilian

gods in a way that corresponds more to their character and emphasis?



Gary

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>

Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 11:06 AM





> From those sheets does it look like a practical solution to a 3e version

> of the 2e priest system of BR? That is, can one just give access to the

> schools of magic for divine spells to the various priests of the Cerilian

> gods in a way that corresponds more to their character and emphasis?



Absolutly. I transcribed the spell list into Excel, assigned up to two

spheres to each spell. When I want a god to have a Healing sphere, I can

cut and past all healing spells into their spell list. I use Excell to

reorganize the spell list by spell name, and eliminate any duplicates.

(Because a spell might occupy two spheres.)



I used this system to create the spell lists I put up on class descriptions

at http://home.mchsi.com/~kgauck/taelshore/divine.htm



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[RaspK_FOG]

Kenneth, I have to disagree with you on some points.

First of all, even though Barbarians may actually worship the sun or moon part of their portfolio, Avani and Ruornil are not closer to the their concepts about life than Orus-Re&#33; especially with their pathos concerning magic.

I could agree with you on the cleric/rogue-of-Ruornil part, if the clerics used this knowledge only to their advantage. Instead, the clergy of Ruornil is more of the get-reveal-and-store-hidden-truth kind than the get-store-and-use-hidden-truth, more of a delanation to the rogue figure.

Furthermore, none said that fighters or rangers are not faithful people. In fact, and especially with the new rules for rangers, they fit the role you gave better than rogues&#33;

And clerics never had a problem with handling a fight, had they? Not to mention paladins...

Finally, that&#39;s why I believe that a priest class with different sub-classes based on templates is more appropriate than the always battle-ready kind of priest we are presented with all the time&#33;

[irdeggman]

Alright let&#39;s take a step back and look at the basis for the arguments about priests maintaining the spheres of old. I believe that this really has nothing to do with Birthright but instead is an issue people have with the way the 3/3.5 rules work for clerics.

If this is as I suspect an issue with the mechanic then it really has nothing to do with the setting. This would be parallel to having an opinion on whether or not the BAB are really appropriate and that sorcerers should progress faster than it states in the rules or that classes should have a defense adjustment instead of a Armor Class.

While I think that making some sort of 2nd ed like spell lists for clerics is an interesting variant idea it doesn&#39;t really belong in a product that is supposed to be in line with 3/3.5.

As an example - look at what the folks at Athas.org have done with their cleric issue. In Dark Sun all "divine" casters gained spells based on the elements. Every spell (except for a few that were excluded from the campaing setting) were classified as belonging to one of the elementeal spheres (Fire, Earth, Water, Air or Cosmos {the generic one for most everything else}). THere were also 4 paraelemental spheres, but that really isn&#39;t important for this argument. All of the clerics had major access to one elemental sphere and minor to Cosmos. Druids had major to Cosmos and minor to one elemental sphere. All of the healing and resurrection type spells were in Cosmos. So in 2nd ed Dark Sun priests could not rais a character from the dead and only Druids could do that - along with the higher level curing spells.

Well when they put together their 3/3.5 version they went to the standard cleric lists. So now all clerics can Raise Dead and Druids can&#39;t cast Resurrection. They did add Raise Dead to the Druid list to maintain some consistency from 2nd ed.

The point I&#39;m trying to make here - is that for a setting that has a much stronger clerical spell restriction basis (i.e., Dark Sun) the 3/3.5 version has done away with it. They did create new domains to add more "feel" but the curing/raise dead spells still fall on the basic spell list. So why should we treat Birthright (at the core) as being any more restrictive?

[ryancaveney]

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, irdeggman wrote:



> While I think that making some sort of 2nd ed like spell lists for

> clerics is an interesting variant idea it doesn`t really belong in a

> product that is supposed to be in line with 3/3.5.



And here we have the same old argument again: when Birthright differs from

3e, which is to be changed? I and others think the rules should be

changed to adapt to the setting, and you and others think the setting

should be changed to adapt to the new rules.



> So in 2nd ed Dark Sun priests could not rais a character from the dead

> and only Druids could do that - along with the higher level curing

> spells. Well when they put together their 3/3.5 version they went to

> the standard cleric lists. So now all clerics can Raise Dead and

> Druids can`t cast Resurrection.



I think this is a terribly sad gutting of what was once a fine setting.

This is exactly what I most do not want 3e to do to BR.



> So why should we treat Birthright (at the core) as being any more

> restrictive?



Because they made the wrong decision. We should not make the same

mistake.





Ryan Caveney

[Mark_Aurel]

And here we have the same old argument again: when Birthright differs from
3e, which is to be changed? I and others think the rules should be
changed to adapt to the setting, and you and others think the setting
should be changed to adapt to the new rules.

It goes deeper than that - the question you should ask before talking about setting vs rules is what was setting and what was rules in the 2e depiction? Specialty priests, after all, was a 2e rule, not a Birthright setting specific thing - should we really strive to sneak a 2e rule like that into a 3e game? Where exactly do you draw that line? Birthright, like any setting, can be rendered in many different game systems - in converting between them, I don&#39;t think one should look at the specifics of the subsystems involved, but rather what they&#39;re intended to represent and how to best implement it in the system you&#39;re converting to.

IOW - do: "Priests of Ruornil have magical abilities and are weak in combat;" do not: "Priests of Ruornil gain one level as a magician for every two levels of priest." Levels may not be present in all game systems, and they may not necessarily mean the same even if they are - the same goes for a host of other things. Trying to implement "one level per two" in Storyteller wouldn&#39;t get you very far.

You can&#39;t hold up a certain rule and call it "setting" - the "setting" is the history of the world, its flavor and unique feel, not the specifics of the mechanics involved. Specialty priests were a specific mechanic, as is any other detail of the system; often, or even usually, such details aren&#39;t directly transferrable, though the same flavor can usually be implemented in various different game systems without too much effort.

Now, when trying to implement something in a different game system, the first thing to look for, IMO, is how similar things are done in that system, rather than how it was done in the system you&#39;re converting from - if you liked that system better anyway, keep playing that.

On a more practical level, I think there are several viable ways of implementing the specialty priesthoods in 3e:

1) Use the standard rules, with clerics - invoking multiclassing and skill, feat and spell selection to get the proper flavor of character. Priest of Belinik? Cleric/Barbarian sounds somewhat appropriate. Priest of Ruornil? Cleric with some magician levels. Add in some Prestige Classes for added variety and solving problems that you couldn&#39;t with normal mechanics (Mystic Theurge for Clerics of Ruornil sounds good).

2) You could just redefine spell lists and stuff, as has been suggested before, grouping spell access by schools and descriptors.

3) You could go all the way and define a bunch of new narrowly useful classes, each with their own spell list. I&#39;d find this an interesting variant personally, though obviously it has some serious flaws. It involves a lot of work. It means making a character at 1st level becomes a bit more complicated, as your most basic choice (your class) becomes a more involved one. I t raises some consistency issues - shouldn&#39;t there be more variant full classes like these? I can easily see a separate Brecht fighter class, for instance, with good Reflex saves, a different set of feats to choose from, perhaps different class skills - and a bunch of other fighter variant classes like that. Same thing goes for all the other classes. Of course, differences like those weren&#39;t mechanically shown in 2e - because they couldn&#39;t be shown very well - the flavor difference between the various types was very much there, however. Now, do we override this element of the setting too in favor of just having a single fighter class?

Yes. When it comes right down to it, designing rules just for the sake of rules becomes a bit trite - if the rule itself is pointless, what&#39;s the point? If what you want can be done well enough with existing rules and placing voluntary restrictions on your character, there&#39;s no point in making up a new one, is there?

There are many more ways to implement more variable clerics than those above if you so choose, of course. It&#39;s not really against the rules to make up new classes to fill niches - like the Noble - however, if you&#39;re going to argue that you can&#39;t do the things you could with specialty priests in 2e with the current set of 3e rules, I&#39;d like to see some examples of specific instances, rather than a more generic desire for rules that are more &#39;perfect&#39; or just to suit your personal tastes - I&#39;d like to see the exactly what the system is missing out on by not having specialty priests. If you do point out something that can&#39;t reliably be done mechanically in one way or another with existing rules, I&#39;m sure we can work it out.

I&#39;d also be interested to see your renditions of the specialty priests, if you have any, of course - I like seeing stuff like that, if it&#39;s well done.

[RaspK_FOG]

I have not yet checked the Dragonlance Campaign Setting for 3.5 to its full extent; when I do, I am going to put more info on this, but as far as I have seen, and while this is a D&D 3.5 CS, it still has different classes and variants of existing classes, which gives us an opening to interpret the cleric issue as we like, in the end.

I truly would like to see a different cleric for Birthright, however might he be, as long as he better than the current, broken, and insipid version we have at hand.

[ryancaveney]

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, Mark_Aurel wrote:



> It goes deeper than that - the question you should ask before talking

> about setting vs rules is what was setting and what was rules in the

> 2e depiction?



I agree.



> Birthright, like any setting, can be rendered in many different game

> systems - in converting between them, I don`t think one should look at

> the specifics of the subsystems involved, but rather what they`re

> intended to represent and how to best implement it in the system

> you`re converting to.



I agree.



> IOW - do: "Priests of Ruornil have magical abilities and are weak in

> combat;" do not: "Priests of Ruornil gain one level as a magician for

> every two levels of priest." Levels may not be present in all game

> systems, and they may not necessarily mean the same even if they are -

> the same goes for a host of other things.



I agree.



> You can`t hold up a certain rule and call it "setting" - the "setting"

> is the history of the world, its flavor and unique feel, not the

> specifics of the mechanics involved.



In theory, yes. In practice, it can be very difficult indeed to pull

these things apart -- they are usually not at all clearly marked as

definitely one or the other. This issue is very much in focus in one of

my other favorite FRPG worlds, Glorantha. It is still in the process of

converting between two totally different styles of standard rules

mechanics, and it is still very unclear to many fans what exactly is

Gloranthan reality and what was just RuneQuest rules artifacts. At least

there, the creator is still around to tell us what he really means, but

then he also frequently changes his mind and contradicts things he

previously said, so it is not necessarily that helpful. =)



One recent thread where this popped up and remains unresolved is with

respect to elven healing magic. "Elves do not worship gods" is a pretty

unassailable feature of the BR setting. However, there are deep divisions

in the community over whether "elves can`t cast healing spells" is an

accidental rules-only consequence of that, or a setting design element in

its own right. We really just can`t tell, so personal preference reigns.



With respect to specialty priests, what I would claim is the rules-free

setting truth is "priests of different religions cast very different kinds

of magic. Many pairs of religions have almost no overlapping magics."

This is a feature which cannot be implemented in straight-out-of-the-PHB

3e. Therefore, to keep true to the flavor of the setting, we need to

change the 3e cleric rules from their default setting in some way which

makes the religions more thoroughly different.



> if you liked that system better anyway, keep playing that.



Oh, I am -- but I`m also trying to help make the BRCS the best

continuation of my beloved Birthright it can be.



> 1) Use the standard rules, with clerics - invoking multiclassing and

> skill, feat and spell selection to get the proper flavor of character.

> Priest of Belinik? Cleric/Barbarian sounds somewhat appropriate.

> Priest of Ruornil? Cleric with some magician levels.



Yes, multiclassing could work very well, if it weren`t for the fact that

no spellcaster who understands the rules should ever decide to do it

unless forced at gunpoint. =)



> 2) You could just redefine spell lists and stuff, as has been

> suggested before, grouping spell access by schools and descriptors.



That would be the least we should do.



> shouldn`t there be more variant full classes like these? I can easily

> see a separate Brecht fighter class, for instance, with good Reflex

> saves, a different set of feats to choose from, perhaps different

> class skills - and a bunch of other fighter variant classes like that.



Oh, I very much like this approach as well. In part, the problem is that

3e`s base classes are actually already too narrow in some ways -- this

kind of thing seems like it is much better handled by the very generic yet

very greatly tailorable base classes of D20 Modern.



> Same thing goes for all the other classes. Of course, differences like

> those weren`t mechanically shown in 2e - because they couldn`t be

> shown very well



The single best thing 3e does for BR is provide the NPC classes, so all

those "0-level" human advisor / courtier / lieutenant types can now become

nicely-leveled Aristocrats and Experts.



> If what you want can be done well enough with existing rules and

> placing voluntary restrictions on your character, there`s no point in

> making up a new one, is there?



If it can be done well enough with existing rules, yes. I think showing

the differences between religions cannot be done well enough with vanilla

3e. I don`t really buy the "voluntary" restrictions part -- does that

mean we should simply say that it would be nice if unblooded characters

would refrain from becoming wizards, but we won`t do anything in the rules

to stop them? That it would be nice if a cleric would avoid claiming to

be a worshipper of Pelor or St. Cuthbert or Olidamarra, but we won`t do

anything in the rules to stop them? No, if the setting has certain

properties, the rules, not merely guidelines, should reflect that. After

all, even the most stridently proclaimed rule is only a guideline in the

end, so anything labeled a guideline will probably be mostly ignored.



> I`d like to see the exactly what the system is missing out on

> by not having specialty priests.



The big thing is that all 3e clerics are far too much alike. What I most

want is for no two religions to have spell lists with more than 50%

overlap. If we can get it down to just 25% overlap, that would be ideal.



As for making BAB, HD, saves, etc. different, I think that can be done

with multiclassing, but it ought to be *required* multiclassing. That is,

I would use a rule that says you can have no more levels of cleric of a

particular god than you have levels of one other particular class,

depending on religion. That is, for example, you could have no more

levels of Cleric of Belinik than you have levels of Barbarian, no more

levels of Cleric of Cuiraecen than levels of Fighter, no more levels of

Cleric of Eloele than levels of Rogue, and so on. Exactly which class you

need to get levels of a Cleric of Foo would be up for some discussion (in

particular, I think Haelyn should require Aristocrat, but some might not

like the consequence that there could be no commoner priests of his faith;

and what the heck would Nesirie multiclass with?), but I think the general

idea is quite sound.





Ryan Caveney

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Mark_Aurel" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 4:47 PM





> Specialty priests, after all, was a 2e rule, not a Birthright setting

specific

> thing - should we really strive to sneak a 2e rule like that into a 3e

game?



This wasn`t a rule. It was a concept of how to portray priets which was

supported by rules. As a concept it was a good concept, and made the BR

world more interesting. In many ways 3e reduced the significance of

different priesthoods while increasing the ability to specialize in all the

other classes.



> It raises some consistency issues -



Between what and what? This has false analogy all over it.



> shouldn`t there be more variant full classes like these? I can easily

> see a separate Brecht fighter class, for instance, with good Reflex

> saves, a different set of feats to choose from, perhaps different

> class skills - and a bunch of other fighter variant classes like that.



This doesn`t follow. Standard PHB clerics have powers that should be denied

to specific mythos. Brecht fighters built on the PHB don`t have powers that

ought not have. Certainly I can build a fighter of Brecht heritage that

looks more Anuirean, Khinasi, &c than Brecht, but that is not a problem.

There is a barrier between a priestess of Krisha looking like a priestess of

Laerme. Its the divine order. The PHB cleric doesn`t support that barrier

with rules. There is no reason Albrecht the Herr can`t learn to fight like

Gawain of Roesone. He may need to seek out special trainers, but he can

learn to do it. As for keeping a clear path for specific fighter types,

just make a list of suggested feats. These feats are ubiquitous or nearly

so in a givin location and training in the cultural tradition is easy and

encouraged. But training outside is not impossible. Especially as much a

characters move around. Why, if Albrecht lives in Roesone, should be even

be able to learn Brecht feats? From who is he gaining this training? He sh

ould look more and more like Gawain.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com