Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 29 of 29
  1. #21
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    ----- 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

  2. #22
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    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

  3. #23
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    ----- 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

  4. #24
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    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

  5. #25
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    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

    Using this logic then barbarians and sorcerers shouldn&#39;t be allowed in the BRCS either since neither were classes in 2nd ed. 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).

    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&#39;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 &#39;restriction&#39; 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&#39;t a BR specific issue since they weren&#39;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&#39;t move a reply from one thread to another I&#39;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

  6. #26
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    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?<>

    >
    > Using this logic then barbarians and sorcerers shouldn`t be allowed in

    > 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

  7. #27
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    ----- 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

  8. #28
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    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

  9. #29
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    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)

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.