Elven Rangers

[Sir Justine]

Hi,

In relation with this question (do elves should have druidic/ranger magic) I completely agree with Don E and the Green Knight.
In fact, IMC I make the priests of Erik clerics with nature-related domains and I reserve druids for elves and some other races.
That is because the 3rd edition "druid" is very different from the 2nd edition. In the original Birthright, the druid was a priest of a specific deity (Erik in the case).
But in the 3rd edition, druids are no longer priests: druids cast divine spells in the same way clerics do, though they get their spells from the power of nature rather than from the deities... (or something like that)
So you can say that Cerilian elves have druids and they still don't have gods, which is the original Birthright idea!

This has but a single problem, as irdggman pointed: if they had divine (this isnt' the correct term...) magic, why the elves lost the war to the humans? Actually, I don't think this is a problem, as one can justify that the elves lost because, while they had divine magic, they didn't had a CHURCH, and this could make a big difference - elves would have half a dozen of diffused druids, while the humans would have LOTS of organized clerics, which would be much more effective in a battle.

---

Back to the rangers, I personally don't like rangers with spells. To me a ranger is a stalker, hunter, scout, whatever. I really don't like D&D idea that almost everyone should have spells. In short, my opinion to the ranger case is: use a variation without spells...

[Green Knight]

I agree with Justine on the ranger part as well. I generally reserve the

ranger class for elves, half-elves, and some humans who have a special

connection with nature (for some reason or the other). The remaining

wilderness-oriented fighter types get to use the non-magical scout class

(or whatever you prefer).



Cheers

Bjørn



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

From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion

[mailto:BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM] On Behalf Of Sir Justine

Sent: 16. desember 2003 00:25

To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM

Subject: Re: Elven Rangers [2#2141]



This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

You can view the entire thread at:

http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...=ST&f=2&t=2141



Sir Justine wrote:

Hi,



In relation with this question (do elves should have druidic/ranger

magic) I completely agree with Don E and the Green Knight.

In fact, IMC I make the priests of Erik clerics with nature-related

domains and I reserve druids for elves and some other races.

That is because the 3rd edition "druid" is very different

from the 2nd edition. In the original Birthright, the druid was a priest

of a specific deity (Erik in the case).

But in the 3rd edition, druids are no longer priests: druids cast

divine spells in the same way clerics do, though they get their spells

from the power of nature rather than from the deities... (or something

like that)

So you can say that Cerilian elves have druids and they still don`t

have gods, which is the original Birthright idea!



This has but a single problem, as irdggman pointed: if they had divine

(this isnt` the correct term...) magic, why the elves lost the war to

the humans? Actually, I don`t think this is a problem, as one can

justify that the elves lost because, while they had divine magic, they

didn`t had a CHURCH, and this could make a big difference - elves would

have half a dozen of diffused druids, while the humans would have LOTS

of organized clerics, which would be much more effective in a battle.



---



Back to the rangers, I personally don`t like rangers with spells. To me

a ranger is a stalker, hunter, scout, whatever. I really don`t like

D&D idea that almost everyone should have spells. In short, my

opinion to the ranger case is: use a variation without spells...



************************************************** **********************

****



Birthright-l Archives:

http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by The Green Knight@Dec 15 2003, 02:43 PM
I think you are missing the point or rather limiting yourself to 2E

canon.

Actually I'm trying to stay within the setting definitions. There was a long list of posts concerning what was flavor and what was setting definition material.

In 2nd ed druids were a separate class just like paladins were. There were under the broad category of priest as paladins were under the broad category of warrior but they were still different classes. In Birthright the setting defined a difference between the core druid and the Birthright druid, the fact that Birthright druids were priests of Erik.

In 3rd ed all spells are categorized as either divine or arcane for mechanics purposes. For one divine spells don't suffer arcane spell failure chances and other factors could come into play like some sort of special spell resistance (I haven't seen any examples of this yet, but the possibility does exist) also prerequisites for prestige classes.

Birthright campaign setting definition material (that material which set it apart from the core rules) included (not an all-inclusive list):

Elves don't worship gods and hence can't be clerics (they could in the core rules)

There was greater and lesser magic (arcane) and in order to cast greater magic a character had to be of elven blood or be a scion. (There was no distinction in the core rules and humans could cast greater magic).

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by The Green Knight@Dec 15 2003, 07:15 PM
This has but a single problem, as irdggman pointed: if they had divine

(this isnt` the correct term...) magic, why the elves lost the war to

the humans? Actually, I don`t think this is a problem, as one can

justify that the elves lost because, while they had divine magic, they

didn`t had a CHURCH, and this could make a big difference - elves would

have half a dozen of diffused druids, while the humans would have LOTS

of organized clerics, which would be much more effective in a battle.

So elves were more organized as fighters than if theyhad any 'druids' amongst them. Doesn't make any sense. The elven racial affinity for individuallity doesn't quite make the transfer. One thing they have been known to come together for short times (short being a relative word for an immortal race) for the common good.

Before Deismaar there were no realm spells so the major effect of organized religion and temples doesn't really factor in to the equation.

[Don E]

Using the distinction made in 3/3.5 ed rangers cast divine spells. This doesn't make them deity inspired/supplied but only a 'type' of magic, all magic is either arcane or divine per 3/3.5 - makes things simplier IMO.

According to the 3ed definition divine spells are "Spells of religious origin powered by faith or by a deity." Based on this I think Mr. Foggart raise a very relevant topic on wheter this is appropiate for elven rangers. What is then simple for 'regular' DnD is something that causes trouble for the Birhtirght setting. Like so many other things there are different solutions, and different people will inevitably choose a wide range of solutions.

Actually I'm trying to stay within the setting definitions. There was a long list of posts concerning what was flavor and what was setting definition material.

That is exactly Green Knight's point. We all know what the original BR setting contained, but a lot of us prefer to change this around and add other bits to it. We are merely exchanging ideas and concepts that we know are outside the original BR setting, but which we think others might find useful.

Somebody has here pointed out a inconsistency arising from the setting definition material. Hence any solution to the problem will have to be outside the setting definition material.

The solution to the initial question I see as the one causing the least change/difficulty/confusion is saying that rangers (and similar classes/presitge classes) use primordial instead of divine magic. This wouldn't conflict with elves being barred from using divine magic and still allow for elven rangers. Druids can still be priests of Aeric (or something else if you prefer) and only be the province of humans. Personally I also like non-magic rangers, but that I think is a greater change to the rules and setting.

Cheers,
Don E

[Mr.Froggatt]

Wow! I sparked a debate! Cool, now I feel like fully accepted memeber of the Birthright Fansite!
Seriously, it's nice of you guys to gimmie feedback on that little question.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Don E@Dec 16 2003, 02:46 PM

According to the 3ed definition divine spells are "Spells of religious origin powered by faith or by a deity." Based on this I think Mr. Foggart raise a very relevant topic on wheter this is appropiate for elven rangers. What is then simple for 'regular' DnD is something that causes trouble for the Birhtirght setting. Like so many other things there are different solutions, and different people will inevitably choose a wide range of solutions.

Cheers,
Don E

Same definition in 3.5. But let's look at the classes (again using the 3.5 PHB - much better text overall than 3.0)

Druids: "She gains her magical powers from either the force of nature itself or from a nature deity."

Rangers: "Though a ranger gains divine spells from the power of nature, he like anyone else may worship a chosen deity."

Now using this amplifying text - there doesn't seem to be a real problem with matching the Birthright setting to 3.5 for this issue.

Druids (in Birthright - gain their magical powers from a nature deity (i.e., Erik), no other option)

Rangers as in the core rules gain their spells from the power of nature.

Cerilian elves can revere (and have faith in) nature and have such a tight affinity for it that as a ranger they gain the divine spells (if using a spell casting ranger that is).

Since druidic magic is granted by the worship of a nature deity in Cerilian, elves can not be druids (at least not normally - I would never rule out the exception, but the social backlash would be immense for the elf).

By revering (or having faith in) nature an elf is not giving up his individuality and 'serving' a deity, he is serving all of nature which doesn't really have the same worshipping feel to it.

The key here is the difference between 'faith' and 'worship'. Cerilian elves don't worship individual deities, they can have faith in nature.

[Don E]

Fair enough. We are basically agreeing, but I prefer to call the reverence of nature something different than divine magic as it is not based on a divine deity. It is all sematics,

Druids (in Birthright - gain their magical powers from a nature deity (i.e., Erik), no other option)

That is of course if you feel bound by the 'setting definition'. For the rest of us there are a plethora of options. If somebody can have faith in nature enough to have spells granted for this, why wouldn't there be any dedicated spiritual leaders aka priests? Or on the other hand, if the ranger's spells aren't from a deity, would a mere human be able to acheive that bond with nature?

Cheers,
Don E

[Don E]

Fair enough. We are basically agreeing, but I prefer to call the reverence of nature something different than divine magic as it is not based on a divine deity. It is all sematics,

Druids (in Birthright - gain their magical powers from a nature deity (i.e., Erik), no other option)

That is of course if you feel bound by the 'setting definition'. For the rest of us there are a plethora of options. If somebody can have faith in nature enough to have spells granted for this, why wouldn't there be any dedicated spiritual leaders aka priests? Or on the other hand, if the ranger's spells aren't from a deity, would a mere human be able to acheive that bond with nature?

Cheers,
Don E

[Green Knight]

Point is:



By all means, do present your own views of the issue, but don`t:



A) Overly quote published BR material or Core Rulebooks - we know what

the books say.

B) In any way try to stop an interesting thread by claiming it is

contrary to either the rules or the setting.



:-)



Cheers

Bjørn