Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 58
  1. #31
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    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

  2. #32
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    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

  3. #33
    Member
    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?

  4. #34
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    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

  5. #35
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    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

  6. #36
    Member
    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 think there is a fundemental reason why the call for the elven druid has been apart of BR setting conversations from the get go. The original rule doesnt make sense, it feels wrong to how the magic cosmology is presented in teh setting and it feels wrong to how the elven culture is presented. I think I explaign prety conviencingly why it was done this way. I also think that we dont need to be bound by those reasons. The creaters of the BR setting erred when they made the druid a nature priest and excluded elves. It was a forced change in the setting that doesnt "feel" right. Had they modified the druid to remove its healing or modified the healing spells significantly (ie no instant healing) and then in turn added a nature prest they would have made the setting's elven class restrictions "feel" better.

    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?

  7. #37
    Senior Member RaspK_FOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Moschato, Athens, Greece
    Posts
    1,128
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    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?
    The logic behind this argument is based on the concept of linear "trees"; that is, each branch of the tree can only have other branches or ending parts, and the branches do not work together (interact). On the other hand, in real life, there can be no real isolation, which in Birthright means:
    • 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.

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

  9. #39
    Senior Member RaspK_FOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Moschato, Athens, Greece
    Posts
    1,128
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    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...

  10. #40
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    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)

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.