Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 45
  1. #31
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    27
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I think that a special unit would have very few of its members that were actually part of the Prestige Class that group would have. As an example I have a fellow player that calls his special unit the Fists of Roesone, he being the Baron of Roesone. Only the captains and perhaps some very important individuals with in the unit would have a few levels in the Fists of Roesone prestige class. The point is really that most people within a unit would be members of the club but not nessecarily the people that epitomize what being part of that group means.
    The Former Osric Ilien
    -Blooood!

  2. #32
    Senior Member RaspK_FOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Moschato, Athens, Greece
    Posts
    1,128
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    This does not apply to all of prestige classes: the concept of making such "club specific" PrCls is to give the extra piece of edge such role-playing issues can; the Red Wizards (of Thay, mind you ) is an excellent example.

  3. #33
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    949
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Anyway, as for the Mystic Theurge, you forgot something very important: a 5th-level Cleric/5th-level Wizard/10th-level Mystic Theurge would not be able to cast 9th level spells of any kind! Furthermore, the less restrictive Sorcerer variant will not be able to cast even 8th-level arcane spells!
    If you go that way, sure. I think the best way to optimize a Mystic Theurge is probably to go 3/7/10 - yielding 9th-level spells at 20th level.
    Jan E. Juvstad.

  4. #34
    Senior Member RaspK_FOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Moschato, Athens, Greece
    Posts
    1,128
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    I agree with you; I just had to mention the fact that you can't be the super-caster anyway... It sure allows you to keep quite the option: Versatility, or Power?

    (I&#39;d rather have a 13th-caster-level Cleric/17th-caster-level Wizard than the other sides; :P . In any case, choosing a Sorcerer occupation would give give you a Clerical edge, but problematic spellcasting and level progression; <_< .)

  5. #35
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,475
    Downloads
    34
    Uploads
    8

    I agree with you; I just had to mention the fact that you can&#39;t be the super-caster anyway... It sure allows you to keep quite the option: Versatility, or Power?

    (I&#39;d rather have a 13th-caster-level Cleric/17th-caster-level Wizard than the other sides;* . In any case, choosing a Sorcerer occupation would give give you a Clerical edge, but problematic spellcasting and level progression;* .)
    And it&#39;s quite in line with the D&D mechanical philosophy: specialization and that "little extra edge" of specialized high power (such as comes from playing a single-class spellcaster) comes at a premium price. Consider that it is considered worthwhile to dedicate an entire feat to get +1 to attack only with a single weapon [this being the Weapon Focus feat, of course]&#33; Why? Because fighters already get maxed out base attack values and tend to have high strength.

    So it&#39;s not such a different concept that the creators/designers of 3.5 D&D think that it&#39;s a fair trade to gain a great deal of diversity in spellcasting while losing a level or two of spell power and several less spells per day of that type.

    Try it out; give it a fair run with some playtesting, and see if it&#39;s really as ridiculous as it might at first seem. Then give an opinion on it.

    Later&#33;
    Osprey

    PS - Besides, if you only have a small party of PC&#39;s, you might find it pretty darn convenient to have a mystic theurge if he&#39;s the only dedicated spellcaster in the group&#33; "Whew&#33; Good thing the wizard decided to dedicate his path to Ruornil, otherwise we&#39;d have been dead a long time ago&#33;"

    Not an unreasonable quote from a party without a cleric, methinks. This is a problem I run into frequently in D&D; for some reason most people just don&#39;t like to play clerics/priests nowadays; the world is too religiously apathetic, I guess, or maybe it&#39;s just in the gamer circles that there&#39;s a real stigma attached to religion - probably because of all the born-again crusaders telling us how D&D leads us into devil worship&#33; I know I got my share back in my grade school days&#33; Yech&#33; :P

  6. #36
    Senior Member RaspK_FOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Moschato, Athens, Greece
    Posts
    1,128
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    :lol: I understand what you mean; the party I now run as a favour to my best friend (he ran it some time ago, but had to go to another town due to his studies) has a 10th-level ranger, a 7th-level wizard/1st-level fighter/2nd-level Eldritch Knight, an 11th-level monk, and a 10th-level psychic warrior, and now has a 10th-level rogue as well...

    As for how I find it, it certainly is not ridiculous: I find it a strange and interesting idea, but it certainly can be overpowering. Add to that the fact that most people are very annoyed by D&D&#39;s favour towards battle, and you have it: another accuse of D&D and power-playing... *Sigh*

  7. #37
    Kzintosh
    Guest
    Hi There&#33; I just joined this forum. I&#39;ve only recently come to enjoy Birthright...it&#39;s a wonder it took this long for me to truly appreciate the depth and flavor of the setting. Magnificent&#33; I&#39;m not much of a D&D player...I&#39;d rather use some other systems. However, I appreciate a 3rd edition version of Birthright (so I may placate all my player chums who seem a wee bit fixated on 3E :P ). Personally, I much prefer the low-level feel. This is a classic thread in any campaign...low versus high. Birthright, in my opinion, best presents a campaign for the "common man"...not some mighty thewed warrior-king that fairly glows like a Christmas tree during a detect magic, slaying dragons with the strength of his ale-laden breathe alone. Munchkinism at it&#39;s finest But then again, someone could argue why even present the blood enemies if you aren&#39;t meant to overthrow them (to which I would answer...they aren&#39;t B) ). Of course the best thing is to simply leave it to the DM to tailor the campaign to their desired style. It&#39;s all about the players, really. I&#39;m in the process of prinint out the 3E test version. Don&#39;t know if I&#39;ll be able to play test it anytime soon, but I&#39;ll look for the opportunity as it presents itself. I look forward to more. Keep up the great work, all of you&#33;

  8. #38
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    ----- Original Message -----

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

    Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 7:26 PM



    > Birthright, in my opinion, best presents a campaign for the "common

    > man" ...not some mighty thewed warrior-king that fairly glows like a

    > Christmas tree during a detect magic, slaying dragons with the strength

    > of his ale-laden breathe alone. Munchkinism at it`s finest ;)



    I rather think BR is the reverse of this. BR is /the/ setting for the

    hero-king (the name of a suppliment, BTW) who by favor of heaven acomplishes

    what would be impossible to mere mortals. It is the most Homeric of

    settings in this regard. The common man has even less hope of greatness in

    BR, for greatness is limited to the blooded, the divinely favored. What

    most campaigns lack is some explanation for why this mope killed the dragon

    and won the kingdom (other then the fact that he was run a player). Only

    Arthur can pull the sword from the stone because it is his birthright. No

    one else need apply. A hundred thousand common men acting in unison are

    insufficient to stop the king once his birthright is claimed. Far from

    being the setting of the common man, this is the aristocratic setting par

    excellance.



    Kenneth Gauck

    kgauck@mchsi.com

  9. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    474
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    ----- Original Message -----

    From: "Kenneth Gauck" <kgauck@MCHSI.COM>

    To: <BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM>

    Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 1:15 PM

    Subject: Re: Prestige Classes [36#2057]





    > ----- Original Message -----

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

    > Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 7:26 PM

    >

    > > Birthright, in my opinion, best presents a campaign for the "common

    > > man" ...not some mighty thewed warrior-king that fairly glows like a

    > > Christmas tree during a detect magic, slaying dragons with the strength

    > > of his ale-laden breathe alone. Munchkinism at it`s finest ;)

    >

    > I rather think BR is the reverse of this. BR is /the/ setting for the

    > hero-king (the name of a suppliment, BTW) who by favor of heaven

    acomplishes

    > what would be impossible to mere mortals. It is the most Homeric of

    > settings in this regard. The common man has even less hope of greatness

    in

    > BR, for greatness is limited to the blooded, the divinely favored. What

    > most campaigns lack is some explanation for why this mope killed the

    dragon

    > and won the kingdom (other then the fact that he was run a player). Only

    > Arthur can pull the sword from the stone because it is his birthright. No

    > one else need apply. A hundred thousand common men acting in unison are

    > insufficient to stop the king once his birthright is claimed. Far from

    > being the setting of the common man, this is the aristocratic setting par

    > excellance.





    Well, I tend to disagree with KG and agree with Kzintosh. I don`t think that

    was the intention of the original framers at all.

    There may be some debate on what is meant by "common" however.



    In my opinion a scion may be a commoner, i.e. not a born aristocrat. In fact

    I reject totally the idea that a blooded birthright is the accepted normal

    due to one born to a scion. Of course, I do not disallow a scion to pass

    his bloodline to an heir - thus a child may come into their birthright (i.e.

    a bloodline) upon investiture or death of a parent. Investiture tends to

    create generations of blooded scions - but mostly one at a time. While most

    new scions (99%) are in fact born to non-scion parents.



    Having said that though, a born scion *is* a hero-king (or

    hero-king-in-witing), and will more easily accomplish great deeds (to the

    building of a domain or realm) than an unblooded character. For even a lowly

    commoner may be divinely favored - while a young prince is more likely to be

    parentally favored (early investiture - i.e. pre-death).



    However, denying genetic bloodlines is not a majority viewpoint. (`specially

    with those who want a powerful campaigns - i.e. most 3e+ players).



    Some issues that denying genetic hereditary bloodlines help with:

    (i) bloodline creep - slow and steady increase in total bloodline in

    Cerilia; total bloodline remains staedy

    (ii) lack of dynamic variety in newly born scions - no Alexanders or

    Attilas; the Roele bloodline could be found at any time (makes for good

    plotlines, e.g. the Dragon reborn)

    (iii) breeding programs - to produce a "great bloodline", leave this to the

    divine; this never worked in real-life and tended to backfire.

    (iv) bloodline harvest - (partially) Without predetermined results, the

    first a potentially harvester learns of a blooded character will be when

    they are powerful enough to defend themselves.

  10. #40
    Senior Member RaspK_FOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Moschato, Athens, Greece
    Posts
    1,128
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    I believe that the most important to keep in mind is one thing only:
    It&#39;s all about the players, really.
    That being said, I would like to add that what really is meant to be Birthright is not a low-fantasy setting: it is a mid-fantasy setting with low-magic, sub-zero-tech themes. It has the feel of mythology and fantasy hanging about it proud and noble, yet stays out from the path of magic that may be wielded by anyone or such things that always came to be the traps for D&D. All in all, it has a story-line to make it sound clear and true.

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.