Results 31 to 40 of 58
Thread: Elven Druid Poll
-
03-09-2004, 08:00 AM #31
I think if we took the published materials as a guide the derivations of
Vorynn and Reynir would be the most common for elves.
One of the problems with using these kinds of sources is that only the
royals are covered comprehensivly. What proportion Azrai derivations have
among the nobility depends, I think, on just haw dark one`s view of the
elves is. This would involve more than bloodline, but such things as the
Gheallie Sidhe and the prospect for good relations with humans, a
willingness to cooperate against abominations, &c.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
-
03-09-2004, 12:38 PM #32
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
- Posts
- 3,945
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Why do the random bloodline derivation tables have the Azrai deriviation has the most frequent one for elves?
The random tables were generated with a common percentabe , in decending order of frequency. Then the 'appropriate' derivations were 'added in' this follows the D&D patern of using common frequencies, like BAB being either good, average or poor or saving throws being either good or poor.
OK that explains why the frequency % are the same for all races (that is the most, next most, etc. derivations).
Why was Azrai chosen for the 'most frequent' one for the elves?
Well the single largest detemination was the proximity of the character to the fallen god, the next was the scion's inclination. The latter took a higher order of importance when determining whether or not a scion ended up with a 'true' bloodline or not.
The elves were closest to Azrai. As Kenneth pointed out the published major elven scions have deriviations other than Azrai, except for Rhoubhe. But these are 'selected' individuals and not necessarily the populace as a whole.
Elves as a race have been at war with every other race, except halflings and Orogs at one time or another during their history. There was the Ghaele Sidhe against the humans, etc. Since as a race they live forever, there hasn't really been a long time for them to change their philosophy on things in general - so they have a lot of baggage to overcome whereas humans, for instance, have had many generations to change how they perceive things.
Elves followed none of the human deities and in fact rejected them (and basically still do) so using the factor of them following the principles of the deity is rather shaky at best. Even goblins recognized the human deities, and feared/respected them - part of that pantheon of deities thing.
The 2nd ed tables had only 1 frequency table that was not broken down by race so all scions had roughly a 9% chance of having an Azrai deriviation and a 20% chance of having an Andurias one. A little broken, I don't think anyone disagrees with this statement.
It should also be noted that there really wasn't any randomness applied to published NPCS, they were created the way the designers wanted the NPC to be and hopefully they didn't break the random rules in the process, althought this wasn't a requirment. If you notice there is not a single elven scion listed with the long life blood ability. Obviously because the designers wanted them to have abilities and not some that gave them no benefit at all.
So the bottom line in the the basis for selection of frequency of derivation for elves and blood line deriviations was that they were closest to Azrai and only rejected his following at the end - this does not mean that they rejected his philosophy only his leadership and they didn't trust any of the human deities.
Now why do the elven leaders published have derivations other than Azrai, most frequently is Andurias I believe? This is because those deriviations promote greater leadership than does Azrai's. Azrai's leadership is more of a selfish one, elves as a race aren't selfish so their natural leaders would reflect the pull of their bloodlines, which would lead to having significantly other derivations than Azrai in those in charge. Well, that's my opinion anyway.Duane Eggert
-
03-13-2004, 06:26 AM #33
- Join Date
- Apr 2003
- Posts
- 72
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
There is an inherent dificulty with converting 2nd edition material to 3/3.5 edition rule sets. This is the basic shift in the design philosophy of D&D. The first incarnations of the game 1st and 2nd edition were about creating balance through restriction. Classes and Races were all heavily restricted and the worlds reflected this. Including birthright. BR made a MINOR shift with the druid in that it made them ALL nature clerics of a specific god. This did little to upset the spirit of teh rules from 2E. A greater rule change was no elven clerics, but again this was still not a large diparture from the "spirit" of teh old rules. It was a large deaparture from teh rules themselves in restricting the elves from the cleric class but it wasnt a large shift in the spirit of the rules which were all about creating balance through restrictions. Enter 3rd edition.
3rd edition is about freedom. It tries to create balance without using restrictions to create balance. This is causing friction while BR is converted to 3e. The players or many players are rebeling from what they see as a violation to the spirit of the new rule set. They want freedon. Enter the traditionalists they see the desire for elven druids as a fundemental violation of the birthright setting.
If the idea that ALL druids in birthright are clerics then elven druids appear to be a direct violation of the setting. But this is a slap in the face to common sense. Of all the cultures that would druids would flurish in its the sidhelean. The druids are a logical extention of the nature connection that the elfs have in this setting. So to have them restricted is 100% counter intuitive. Yet Druids are clerics in birthright.
The best solution would be to make druids as the class is presented in the PHB a arcane spell caster that has learned to cast spells in natural armour, restricted to non-human or to the rare human . Then create a special nature cleric class for clerics of Erik. This i think would be more in teh spirit of both the campaign setting and the new rules edition. Its obvious to me that the reason it wasnt done in the first place with the original rules was because it was easy and a new class that mirrors a druid in many ways seemed redundent and with commercial publications you have time contrants and profit margins. It takes both time and money to create a balanced class. We dont have these retraints. Taking a cleric and modifing its skills and special abilities to to be more nature orientated would seem closer to the intention of the nature clerics.
There is also a fundemental difference in teh cosmology of teh birthright setting and the core rules. Arcane magic is a speerate power source for spells from nature and deities. But in birthright you have divine magic directly from the divine beings and arcane magic that is directly dirived from nature. This causes areas where direct conversion doesnt fit well. This shift in cosmology is a huge diparture to the core rules of both 2e and 3* edition. Nature's magical manifistations have always been divine magic in birthright they are arcane. So rangers and druids which are nature spell casters are divine spell casters in teh cosmology of birthright they should be arcane. Birthright sidesteped the issue with druids by making them nature clerics but it does so in a manner that has caused the unsatisfied feeling that has sparked teh whole elven druid debate. What should be done is to make the character classes in the game fit the cosmology of the setting. Making a ranger an arcane spell caster that can cast spells like a bard (ie in light armour they dont suffer spell failure) and use Int instead of wisdom as its spell casting stat. has a better feel for birthright and if a Erik cleric class is created specific for teh nature clerics make druid use Int as well and have them arcane spell casters. They dont suffer arcane spell failure when they use armour with no metal. The shift in the nature spell casters in terms of the speical rules to excempt them from standard arcane spell failure, has presedent with the special rules for arcane spell casting with 3.5 bards. So these minor changes shouldnt cause a huge up roar.
What i think the Arcane druid ranger and the creation of a special nature cleric class does is solve all the major issues with the elven druid without violating the spirit of birthright or the freedom created in the new edition of D&D. These changes also seem to make the cosmology of birthright fit better. The changes are also balanced as much as they are in the core rules. Changing wis to int shouldnt cause a fundemental shift in balance. The real issue with this proposed idea is creating and balancing the new nature cleric class. But adding a class isnt unpresidented either we have the magician and the noble class.
Is there any fundemental reason why we cant add these changes? They do add size to the final download but they, i feel, create a better solution and they DONT add a varient which many GM dismiss out of hand.
Does this not solve all the objections to the elven druid and all the justifications for allowing teh elven druid? If it does shouldnt serious consideration be made to working on these changes?
-
03-13-2004, 04:40 PM #34
At 07:26 AM 3/13/2004 +0100, Airgedok wrote:
> 3rd edition is about freedom. It tries to create balance without using
> restrictions to create balance. This is causing friction while BR is
> converted to 3e. The players or many players are rebeling from what they
> see as a violation to the spirit of the new rule set. They want freedon.
> Enter the traditionalists they see the desire for elven druids as a
> fundemental violation of the birthright setting.
While I hate to disagree with so well thought out and articulated argument,
I do feel obliged to point out that there were plenty of people who argued
for elven druids before 3e came out. Now that 3e is out it does, perhaps,
seem less sensible to keep the campaign-based restrictions that were
initiated under 2e, but one does so in a 3e conversion for the same reasons
that they were done in the previous edition--to convey the campaign themes.
Gary
-
03-13-2004, 08:20 PM #35
I count 316 messages in the "Nature School for elven wizards" thread, which
started in May of 2003 and was most recently posted one month ago today (the
13th).
It started with Elrond`s very sensible question, why is it that, `no elf
(other than a ranger) can cast (for example) a "pass without trace" or a
"speak with animals".`
Responces to this extended from "its the setting, no tinkering" to "let`s
have a nature school of arcane magic for the elves" (Elrond`s own
suggestion) to allowing elven druids.
You can view the entire thread at:
http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1651
The people who argue that its setting and no tinkering should be accepted,
and both Gary and irdeggman have stated this possition by way of explanation
(not argument, I am sure both have stated some interest in it) today, tends
to be unsatisfactory to many folks. Its hard to provide a good explanation
for why elves don`t cast nature and animal oriented spells. This is, of
course the point of Airgedok`s approach to the problem in terms of
restrictions and balance. But simply opening up druids (even arcane druids)
to the elves creates the problem for many people in that this slot is
mentally already occupied. All of which argues for a specifcally Sidhe
class or nature, and I would argue as well, elementalist arcane spellcaster.
Only such a class can provide balance in its spell list (one of the problems
with just adding a Nature school best artuiculated by Ryan Caveney), can
exploit the setting material (indeed I would call the class Taelinri), and
thereby provide nature spells to elves without offending the setting
purists. Mark Aurel has provided a basis to make such a class, I have
provided a basis, and I believe there are others. I doubt (without a poll
telling me differently) that this any other solution would satisfy as many.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
-
03-14-2004, 04:27 AM #36
- Join Date
- Apr 2003
- Posts
- 72
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Originally posted by geeman@Mar 13 2004, 04:40 PM
At 07:26 AM 3/13/2004 +0100, Airgedok wrote:
> 3rd edition is about freedom. It tries to create balance without using
> restrictions to create balance. This is causing friction while BR is
> converted to 3e. The players or many players are rebeling from what they
> see as a violation to the spirit of the new rule set. They want freedon.
> Enter the traditionalists they see the desire for elven druids as a
> fundemental violation of the birthright setting.
While I hate to disagree with so well thought out and articulated argument,
I do feel obliged to point out that there were plenty of people who argued
for elven druids before 3e came out. Now that 3e is out it does, perhaps,
seem less sensible to keep the campaign-based restrictions that were
initiated under 2e, but one does so in a 3e conversion for the same reasons
that they were done in the previous edition--to convey the campaign themes.
Gary
i dont think we should be blind to the failings of the setting. i think we can add a druid to elves and in turn keep them from having priests with healing spells.
Fact divine magic in Birthright is NOT nature magic period.
Fact arcane magic in birthright IS nature magic
Fact divine magic in D&D 2e and 3e is both divine and nature
Fact arcane magic in D&D 2e and 3e is a seperate magical source from deities or nature.
I think that these four facts are creating a fundemental problem in the conversion process. Arcame magic using classes just dont feel like they are nature magic users. The one diving magic using class that really feels like it uses nature magic is the druid yet under the setting rules its prohibited. i dont think this can be simply ignored. The setting rules as they stand just dont feel right and dont make sense at all. Is there no room for a solution? Or is the setting dogma despite its errors?
-
03-14-2004, 04:57 AM #37
A common error, made by many people in various situations, is the following:
Fact divine magic in Birthright is NOT nature magic period.
Fact arcane magic in birthright IS nature magic
Fact divine magic in D&D 2e and 3e is both divine and nature
Fact arcane magic in D&D 2e and 3e is a seperate magical source from deities or nature.
I think that these four facts are creating a fundemental problem in the conversion process. Arcame magic using classes just dont feel like they are nature magic users. The one diving magic using class that really feels like it uses nature magic is the druid yet under the setting rules its prohibited. i dont think this can be simply ignored. The setting rules as they stand just dont feel right and dont make sense at all. Is there no room for a solution? Or is the setting dogma despite its errors?- There are two forms of arcane magic: Lesser magic, and True magic.
- Lesser magic is mostly based on one's own skills.
- True magic is nature magic.
- There are two forms of divine magic: Nature-dependent magic, and Priestly magic.
- Priestly magic comes from one's patron/matron deity.
- Nature-dependent magic is nature magic.
- There are two forms of arcane magic: Lesser magic, and True magic.
-
03-14-2004, 05:30 AM #38
----- Original Message -----
From: "Airgedok" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 10:27 PM
> Arcame magic using classes just dont feel like they are nature
> magic users. The one diving magic using class that really feels
> like it uses nature magic is the druid yet under the setting rules
> its prohibited.
You know, the real problem here is that at some point they imported the
standard D&D notion of the elf as a wizard and stuck us with that
understanding of things. So the alternate theory of nature magic which you
are advocating here requires abandoning the standard D&D view for a setting
specific view. Things would be peachier had they not imported so much
standard D&D in at the begining.
The old 2e druid handbook makes the point that much of our understanding of
wizards is often taken from figures better understood as druids, and they go
on to claim Merlin as a druid rather than a wizard. Had this been the
prevailing view in the halls of BR HQ when the setting was being written.
Its this kind of thing that leaves me very suspicious of ideas found in the
core rules as solutions to problems in the setting.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
-
03-14-2004, 05:43 AM #39
If you are going there, let me tell you that I have change dmost of the core classes for the new campaign I design: barbarians get more bonuses while enraged but lose these benefits when they are not (and are berserkers, not "barbarians"), arcane spell-casters are vastly different, and I brewed a new magic system based on the magic system of Soverign Stone...
-
03-14-2004, 06:30 AM #40
At 05:27 AM 3/14/2004 +0100, Airgedok wrote:
>The setting rules as they stand just dont feel right and dont make sense
>at all. Is there no room for a solution? Or is the setting dogma despite
>its errors?
Personally, I don`t think this is an error of the setting. Rather, the
argument that BR elves should have access to druidic magic is simply
ignoring the campaign materials in favor of the core materials. There are
scads of reasons why the campaign materials exclude elves from the druidic
class that get cited whenever this topic comes up, but for some reason (I
think a basic desire to equate the typical D&D elf with the BR elf since
D&D elves are much simpler, comprehensible, easier to play and less alien
than BR elves) those reasons just don`t seem to satisfy. Setting dogma
can`t really be "in error" pretty much by definition. It can contradict
other campaign material (and thus be in error with itself) but when it
contradicts the core materials the campaign material supercedes core
material. D&D elves are like buttered popcorn. BR elves have no
butter. Neither one is in error, it`s just the way they`re served
up. Allowing BR elves access to the druid class contradicts several BR
themes. That`s fine if one wants to do it in a homebrew--in which themes
are subject to the inclination of the DM, but it`s pretty much the point of
having a campaign setting to express themes that differ from the core rules.
I should also note that IMO the problem is not simply barring elves from
healing magic. BR elves do not strike me as the type of creatures who
would engage in several of the powers of the druid character
class. Wildshape is an important feature of druids, and not something that
seems particularly appropriate for the Sidhe connection to
mebhaighl. Furthermore, the class features of the druid character class
strike me as being particularly inelegant for portraying the BR elven
attitude towards nature. The weapon and armor proficiencies don`t seem
appropriate for the Sidhe, nor does granting elves access to the whole
druid spell list seem apt. Offhand, the druid spell Meld into Stone, for
instance, seems a bit of an odd way to go about expressing BR elven nature
magic IMO, as do most of the spells having to do with fiery blades,
controlling/manipulating insects or vermin, etc. One objection I have to
the portraying BR elves` interest in nature by using the druid character
class is that the druid character class is accompanies a range of nature
oriented abilities, spells, etc. that aren`t on the whole apt for BR
elves. Portraying the Sidhe attitude and ability with magic requires more
care than that. Essentially, it`s trying to use a big mallet to strike a
very subtle tone.
Gary
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks