Results 21 to 29 of 29
Thread: Birthright Adventures
-
04-03-2004, 04:50 AM #21
----- Original Message -----
From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 7:34 AM
> The magician class wasn`t a change to a core class it was a new
> class. A concept that is more fully embraced via the 3/3.5
> mechanics (that is creating new classes).
That` a distinction without a difference, clearly the magician is a modified
wizard. Its not like they invented a journalist class with no analog to the
bard or any other class. He was a specialist with some additional
restrictions, a kind of kit built in.
> Having elves not being priests was likewise not a change to the
> core classes.
Which clearly misses the notion that what is core, be it a race or class is
not neccesarily preserved in setting materials. The point, which may be so
obvious as to be overlooked, is that settings change core materials.
> Again - my resistance to including the option of a paladin as a
> prestige class is based on the context in which people have
> posted their reasons for using prestige classes for paladins.
So, why stick with an unpopular mechanic, and without doing the poll you
have no evidence that its not unpopular (assuming you could get a
representative sample), just because its core, when the very nature of a
setting is to change the core? A setting is nothing more than house rules
in which the house in question is a publishing house.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
-
04-03-2004, 02:30 PM #22
At 03:34 PM 4/2/2004 +0200, irdeggman wrote:
> The magician class wasn`t a change to a core class it was a new
> class. A concept that is more fully embraced via the 3/3.5 mechanics
> (that is creating new classes).
Technically, I think it was a change to a core class. "Wizards who are
restricted to lesser magic are known as _magicians_ or _seers_ in Cerilia"
(RB 12.) That sounds like it`s pretty much a tweak to an existing class
rather than something cut from a whole new cloth. Not that it really
matters in the long run... after all, in a 3e update the distinction
doesn`t make much of a difference unless one is going to have a single
class with two alternate paths available. They do that with a couple of
prestige classes, for instance. They have what amounts to an extensive set
of "special ability trees" a la D20 Modern that are a bit more open
ended. In this case, however, I don`t think that`s really warranted. A
separate class write up makes more sense.
> Having elves not being priests was likewise not a change to the core
> classes.
No, but it was a change to the core races. One that seems to give people a
lot of trouble, for that matter. Not allowing elves to be druids, for
instance, is probably one of the more contentious issues among BR
newbies--and a few veterans. I think the idea here is that the same spirit
of differentiating things from the core materials in a campaign text should
apply. Of course, it didn`t in the 2e rules set, but that was really a
much more restrictive system on the whole without the same options for
customization.
>The point I was making was that the paladin was a `core` 2nd ed class and
>was a `core` BR 2nd class.
>
> Paladin is a `core` 3rd/3.5 ed class and there is no reason not to take
> a stance that it shouldn`t be a `core` 3.5 BR class.
>
> Again - my resistance to including the option of a paladin as a prestige
> class is based on the context in which people have posted their reasons
> for using prestige classes for paladins. They (generally) did not have
> anything to do with the BR campaign specifically, they had to do with
> people who didn`t like the concept of a paladin - most common stance was
> the use of a Holy Warrior type of class instead.
That`s a legitimate argument. At it`s core, I do think the argument has
more to do with a critique of the 3e/3.5 system than BR in
particular--though IMO that`s sufficient reason to change things in
campaign material.
There are a few BR specific reasons to go with a prestige class for
paladins, however. Probably the most obvious is the function of RP
collection in BR`s domain level that gives paladins the ability to collect
points from levels of both law and temple holdings. That`s a very nice
benefit at the domain level, and one that kind of leans towards a prestige
class function IMO. (A similar argument could be used for rangers.) I
don`t think the issue really makes much difference unless it is associated
with an ability to cast realm spells, but that`s a bit more tweaking than I
think most folks want to make, so I can understand people not wanting to go
so far as to give paladins access to realm magic.
I`d suggest that some of the issues with BR paladins` multi-classing,
however, are an indication of the prestige class problem too. That is, it
indicates what might be in another D20 product the kind of thing that would
be a prestige class requirement for a prestige class; the ability to cast
divine magics for a prestige class that is otherwise a fighter, for instance.
The way BR paladins are individualized for the particular gods also seems
to lend itself to the prestige class function rather than the core class
system. One could argue that it fits in better with the 3e definition of
the function of prestige classes as opposed to the core classes. This is
illustrated by the number of prestige classes that are, for all intents and
purposes, paladins of various alignments in so many D&D products.
At the heart of the matter, however, is that I think the issue of making
paladins a prestige class might represent a level of complexity that isn`t
necessarily the kind of thing everybody wants in their campaign materials,
so I can see the argument for not going with that kind of system in the
core BR update. It`d be cool to have that kind of thing (and dozens of
others) in a BR equivalent of UA.... I`m sure that`s not going to happen,
but it`s a nice thought that it might.
Gary
-
04-05-2004, 11:30 AM #23
----- Original Message -----
From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 4:53 AM
? ... and include dwarves/Moradin since it fits in so well with the
> 3.5 ruleset and they can have paladins now (whereas dwarves
> were forbidden in 2nd ed).
They were forbidden the class, not the function. They are well known for
the fighter/priest combination, and the CPH specifically noted Dwarves in
their demi-paladin section. See the pic on p. 70. The Champion kit from
the CDH is also very paladin-like. This kit is sanctioned in approved kits
on p. 14 of the BR rulebook. The step to actually allow the class as
modified for a Moradin faith is actually the final step in a natural
progression already nearly complete in 2e.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
-
04-05-2004, 11:50 AM #24
At 11:53 AM 4/5/2004 +0200, irdeggman wrote:
>IMO, we should stick to the the 4 paladins from 2nd ed and include
>dwarves/Moradin since it fits in so well with the 3.5 ruleset and they can
>have paladins now (whereas dwarves were forbidden in 2nd ed).
I`ve never understood the rationale for dwarven paladins in BR, especially
in relation to this suggestion about keeping the 2e use of paladins in the
setting. BR made several changes to the core rules when it came out
regarding paladins. The class was restricted not just to humans, but to
specific human races. Alignment was changed for the class in certain cases
(a 2e sacred cow from what I could tell) and the class abilities were
altered. If dwarves had been meant to have access to the paladin class in
the original materials then they would have been. Personally, I don`t see
the paladins of Moradin fitting in any better with the 3.5 rules set in any
particular way. Other than the class being available to 3e dwarves is
there some other rationale?
Gary
-
04-05-2004, 01:37 PM #25
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
- Posts
- 3,945
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Originally posted by geeman@Apr 5 2004, 06:50 AM
At 11:53 AM 4/5/2004 +0200, irdeggman wrote:
>IMO, we should stick to the the 4 paladins from 2nd ed and include
>dwarves/Moradin since it fits in so well with the 3.5 ruleset and they can
>have paladins now (whereas dwarves were forbidden in 2nd ed).
I`ve never understood the rationale for dwarven paladins in BR, especially
in relation to this suggestion about keeping the 2e use of paladins in the
setting. BR made several changes to the core rules when it came out
regarding paladins. The class was restricted not just to humans, but to
specific human races. Alignment was changed for the class in certain cases
(a 2e sacred cow from what I could tell) and the class abilities were
altered. If dwarves had been meant to have access to the paladin class in
the original materials then they would have been. Personally, I don`t see
the paladins of Moradin fitting in any better with the 3.5 rules set in any
particular way. Other than the class being available to 3e dwarves is
there some other rationale?
Gary
As Kenneth pointed out there were many examples of dwarven fighter/cleric type of kits acceptable in 2nd ed BR. Since kits have gone away and these examples paralleled the paladin class so much it only makes sense to allow it.
IMO the reason that being a paladin wasn't extended to dwarves wa that TSR wanted to maintain the exclusivity of the class to humans. This had more to do with the way they (TSR) saw races as being balanced as far as multiclasses went than it did with actually themeatic adherence.
Also the 'restriction' of only certain human subraces having paladins was immediately broken in Ruins of Empire - remember that Vos paladin of Haelyn predominantly listed as an NPC.
I fall back into the restriction for no dwarven paladins wasn't a BR specific issue since they weren't allowed in the core rules, the same as dwarven or halfling arcane casters. 3rd ed opened up the door for them to have wizards/sorcerers and even bards. While wizards of those races could easily be seen as rare, IMO bards are a common theme in any society especially in dwarven ones. The old mining and drinking songs come to mind.
Kenneth, I wonder why the last couple of times you have posted replies to the Poll thread they have ended up on the Royal Library thread? Since I can't move a reply from one thread to another I'm stuck here (the same as Gary). It only makes things confusing when trying to keep similar themed topics together since this discussion has somehow ended up under the BR adventures thread in the Royal Library.Duane Eggert
-
04-05-2004, 04:10 PM #26
At 03:37 PM 4/5/2004 +0200, irdeggman wrote:
>I`ve never understood the rationale for dwarven paladins in BR,
>especially<>
> in relation to this suggestion about keeping the 2e use of paladins in
> the<>
> setting. BR made several changes to the core rules when it came out<>
> regarding paladins. The class was restricted not just to humans, but
> to<>
> specific human races. Alignment was changed for the class in certain
> cases<>
> (a 2e sacred cow from what I could tell) and the class abilities were<>
> altered. If dwarves had been meant to have access to the paladin class
> in<>
> the original materials then they would have been. Personally, I don`t
> see<>
> the paladins of Moradin fitting in any better with the 3.5 rules set in
> any<>
> particular way. Other than the class being available to 3e dwarves is<>
> there some other rationale?<>
>
> the BRCS either since neither were classes in 2nd ed.
I don`t think that follows.... Since sorcerers and barbarians didn`t exist
(though barbarians did have earlier incarnations than in 2e) they couldn`t
have been used in developing the BR materials. Since paladins DID exist in
2e they could have been allowed to dwarves in BR`s 2e rules should that
have been something deemed necessary or thematically warranted in the same
way that the campaign materials changed the paladin class to restrict it to
only a few human races (a change from the 2e standard) and changed the
class itself to make it different from the core class. There could have
been dwarven paladins in the original BR materials but they
weren`t. Therefore, they shouldn`t be in a 3e update.
>Nor should any race other than humans or half-elves be allowed to be bards
>(OK elves too since BR specifically extended the class to them).
Well, since you mentioned it... races other than humans, half-elves and
bards should not be allowed to be bards. Do we have a crying need for
dwarven bards in BR, really? Is access to illusion, divination and charm
magics really that compelling a thing for dwarves? Do we really need lute
strumming, diminutive, hirsute, little people? There`s nothing compelling
or even very appropriate about allowing the free access of the character
classes to all races in BR.
This is another one of those cases when it`s the function of the campaign
materials is to set these types of restrictions. That the core materials
don`t set them has nothing to do with the themes of the setting.
> As Kenneth pointed out there were many examples of dwarven
> fighter/cleric type of kits acceptable in 2nd ed BR. Since kits have gone
> away and these examples paralleled the paladin class so much it only
> makes sense to allow it.
Fighter/cleric type 2e kits only indicates that the specialty feat/special
ability functions of those classes should be utilized in 3e to reflect the
particulars of those abilities, not that an entirely different character
class (which, I reiterate, could have been done in the first place) should
be used.
> IMO the reason that being a paladin wasn`t extended to dwarves wa that
> TSR wanted to maintain the exclusivity of the class to humans. This had
> more to do with the way they (TSR) saw races as being balanced as far as
> multiclasses went than it did with actually themeatic adherence.
OK. I don`t know if that`s the case or not. I think they did it because
the character class doesn`t really fit the racial themes... and it still
doesn`t in the 3e update. Cerilian dwarven paladins are kind of goofy,
especially since several of the class abilities seem more apt for
humans. I don`t get a real big "lay on hands" vibe off of Cerilian
dwarves, for instance, and several other aspects of the character class
don`t seem very appropriate to express dwarf theology. Aside from the
goofiness of the 3.5 special mount power of paladin`s
> Also the `restriction` of only certain human subraces having paladins
> was immediately broken in Ruins of Empire - remember that Vos paladin of
> Haelyn predominantly listed as an NPC.
Sure, it was broken once... for a human. Opening up the racial
restrictions of the setting doesn`t exactly flow from that one
exception. There are lots of such things in the BR materials, and it`s
just as easy (and probably more sensible) to attribute them to some shoddy
editing rather than try to use that as a justification for losing chunks of
the system of racial class restrictions.
> I fall back into the restriction for no dwarven paladins wasn`t a BR
> specific issue since they weren`t allowed in the core rules, the same as
> dwarven or halfling arcane casters. 3rd ed opened up the door for them
> to have wizards/sorcerers and even bards. While wizards of those races
> could easily be seen as rare, IMO bards are a common theme in any society
> especially in dwarven ones. The old mining and drinking songs come to mind.
For the most part, the racial class restrictions should remain the same in
an update as they were in the original materials. While some of those were
core restrictions, they also influenced the overall theme of the
setting. Now that there are barbarians should we have Anuirean and Khinasi
barbarians running around? It`s thematically sensible to restrict that
class to the Rjurik, Vos, orogs and gnolls. When it boils right down to
it... BR dwarven paladins are IMO just odd. They`re odd in 3e in general,
but in BR they are downright peculiar.
> Kenneth, I wonder why the last couple of times you have posted replies
> to the Poll thread they have ended up on the Royal Library thread? Since
> I can`t move a reply from one thread to another I`m stuck here (the same
> as Gary). It only makes things confusing when trying to keep similar
> themed topics together since this discussion has somehow ended up under
> the BR adventures thread in the Royal Library.
The tag that routes the posts from the message list to the message boards
is a little numerical code in brackets at the end of the subject
line. When the subject lines are too long the end of it gets cut off and
the message board has no info on what the lister`s response is _supposed_
to go, so it defaults to the Royal Library.
Gary
-
04-05-2004, 06:50 PM #27
----- Original Message -----
From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 8:37 AM
> Kenneth, I wonder why the last couple of times you have posted replies to
the Poll thread they have ended up on the Royal Library
I can`t win. I specifically moved Shadow World and the Faiths because I
wasn`t really staying on topic of the Shadow World thread and what I had to
say didn`t have anything to do with the BRCS.
I specifically moved Priestly Magic in Battle because I wasn`t staying on
topic of How Have the Humans Won, taking the conversation in a new direction
which, frankly, was influenced as much by the recent Polytheism and the war
threads Knights, Ginetes, and other musings, (which I had moved out of
Paladins and Multiclassing thread for the same reasons) as it was sparked by
the explanation of human victory, pre-Deismaar.
I don`t know how my comments on paladin rules ended up in this Adventures
thread, though. I do have two theories. Either I clicked on the wrong
message and wrote a reply under a nearby thread, or its another case of the
missing message SW effect menacing our humble activites.
You have made the point several times that we have gotten off thread in
earlier messages, so take this to mean that someone is listening.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
-
04-05-2004, 07:10 PM #28
Gary have you have completly 180`d on holy warriors? Where is the GeeMan
who wrote the Hellion of Maglubiyet in April of `00? What would Tim Nutting
say? Or, are you just comming over to my approach to paladins, that
represent them best not by a class, but by access to "paladin" feats?
Going back and reading the archives, I observed then that the purpose of the
paladin, and its restriction to humans, was that humans were forbidden to
multi-class. So the paladin satisfied the knights-in-search-of-the-grail
motif of dedicated warriors, without breaking the multi-classing
prohibition.
Today, I still contend that the class is obsolete with the free human
multi-classing, and best represented by allowing the purchase of certain
feats by faith for character who abide by the conduct requirements of
clerics. Such a system eliminates a core class and the need for variations
of ultimatly similar classes.
As for devoted warriors of Moradin, they certainly do make sense. The
Forge-lighter described in the CPH is especially appropriate to Baruk-Azhik
and anywhere else the struggle against the Orogs is a primary theme.
Back in my Barik-Azhik days (pre-Diesmaar it almost seems now), I had a
dwarven chanter as a member of the court, a dwarven bard. He drummed,
chanted, and knew the geneologies of all the dwarves of name. He was an
expert on Baruk-Azhik history and come to think of it, I don`t remember him
ever casting spells.
All hail the triumph of 3e.
You can check out these old archives at
http://oracle.wizards.com/scripts/wa...irthright-l#26
just be careful not to handle these old scrolls too roughly, the papyrus
will crack and chip.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
-
04-06-2004, 08:00 AM #29
At 01:58 PM 4/5/2004 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
>Gary have you have completly 180`d on holy warriors? Where is the GeeMan
>who wrote the Hellion of Maglubiyet in April of `00? What would Tim
>Nutting say? Or, are you just comming over to my approach to paladins,
>that represent them best not by a class, but by access to "paladin" feats?
Heh. No, I haven`t 180`d on the holy warrior thing. I`ve refined. I
have, however, 180`d on the whole prestige class thing. Perviously, my
thinking was that with a good system of feats one could do away with
prestige classes. While that`s still basically true, prestige classes are
a nice short hand way of doing the same thing without having to articulate
a colossal system of tree-like feats and special abilities. I still like
the idea of holy warriors as 1st level core classes, but I prefer to keep
the paladin function a prestige class. A while back we were talking about
having "specialty fighters" of the type that would be "holy warriors" for
each of the gods who have paladins. IMO such holy warriors are really just
specialist fighters with a few tweaks to the class. That way the
"knightly" functions of the holy warriors can kick in at the point at which
they take levels in a prestige class.
The Hellion should in that context be a prestige class available to goblins
after they take a few levels as a fighter and/or cleric.
Gary
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks