Chap 1 Rev

[irdeggman]

I told you that I'd try to have the Chap 1 rev out for discussion this week and here it is.


This is a zipped Word doc.

[irdeggman]

Hee is the pdf version.

Note that both have no graphics at this time.

[BrennanHawkwood]

Originally posted by irdeggman@Mar 2 2004, 10:35 PM
I told you that I'd try to have the Chap 1 rev out for discussion this week and here it is.

COOL! More new and revised stuff!

I Looking through it quickly, these are the items it occurs to me to comment on (and some of them really should be taken more as comments then pointing out something that needs to be changed):

• I find it odd that the human can only spend the per level bonus skill point on regional background skills. The 4 points gained at first level makes sense since they ideally grew up in that culture. After that I would assume that the extra point just reflects human versatility and it wouldn't strictly have to be spent on one of the skills emphasized in the culture they grew up in.
• Should the noble class really have the same Base Attack Bonus as a Fighter? I suppose this is based off of the style of changes that were made to the 3.5 ranger, but it still seems odd to me. I see a noble being at least as skilled at combat as a cleric or rogue but not more unless they actually multi-class into a combatabt class such as fighter. Especially given the number and nature of their special abilities, which should be really useful in many birthright campaigns.
• Looking at the mount availability table (1-12) I noticed that heavy warhorses are only available in Anuire and light warhorses are typically restricted to Anuire, Khinasi and the Elves. Yet, the Rjurik, Brecht and Vos can all field cavalry of light or medium weight. That must be really poorly trained cavalry or REALLY expensive. I expect that this is actually a oddity that has been preserved from the original material rather than a deliberate oversight, but couldn't resist commenting on it.
• On a similar note, I noticed that the scimitar is listed as the common weapon for elite Brecht warriors (table 1-1) despite the fact that it is only readily available to the Khinasi. Of course, I thought it was kind of odd that the elite weapon was scimitar rather than rapier, but I had assumed that was something 'suggested' in Havens of the Great Bay (which I've only skimmed since we've never played in that region).

As always YMMV...and great job so far! Thanks for all the work.

-- Blair Monroe

[Mark_Aurel]

Might want to add a direct link in case any mailing list people want to see and download this.

http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...showtopic=2317

[JanGunterssen]

Just pointing an errata

* In page 14, Table 1-5 New Skills, marks Lead skill as cross-class skill for Barbarians. The skill text in the same page says "This skill can be used untrained, and is considered a class skill for Barbarians, Clerics, Fighters, Paladins and any class for which Perform is a class skill (including Aristocrats, Bards, and Rogues)."

Comments:
* Profession skills: as they are encouraged in Birthright, I will suggest to include Profesion (soldier) and/or Profession (Mercenay) for the Fighter class. For them any Profession Skill is treated as a cross-class.
* Elves: The designers of the 3.5 Ed suggest in the DMG that the +2 Strenght bonus is a greater boon that any other, so they weight it with a -2 both in Charisma AND Intelligence for Half-orks. So a -2 in Strenght would result in a net +2 in the other abilities. So I suggest it would be more adecuate the following modifiers: -2 Strenght, +2 Dexterity, -2 Constitution, +2 Intelligence, +2 Charisma. That would also make sense as the elves are great arcanists (who bases his magic in the Intelligence and Charisma).

Doubts:
Er.. English is not my born language, but how does transform the resistance to bludgeoning damage from the previous version to the 5/piercing and slashing from the present? Bludgeoning isn't refered to concusion damage, as caused with maces and flails?

Thanks

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by JanGunterssen@Mar 3 2004, 08:10 PM
Doubts:
Er.. English is not my born language, but how does transform the resistance to bludgeoning damage from the previous version to the 5/piercing and slashing from the present? Bludgeoning isn't refered to concusion damage, as caused with maces and flails?

Thanks

In the original (i.e., 2nd ed material) blugeoning refered to a type of weapon. DR always refers to weapon damage and to no other kind. DR lists the things that bypass the DR after the slash so for DR 5/slashing or piercing, any slashing or piercing weapon would bypass the DR.

[RaspK_FOG]

To make it more simple, Damage Reduction has the following parts:

×/[any clause]
|.....|__ Whatever damages the creature without any reduction
|__ The ammount of reduction applied to the damage

Possible clauses include:

• bludgeoning
• piercing
• slashing
• chaotic
• evil
• good
• lawful
• silver
• cold iron
• - (this damage reduction always applies)

Furthermore, there can be two or more clauses, combined either with "and" or "or".

Now that I think of it, it would be interesting to say that this DR also applies on [Force] effects, since they are based on the same logic... Oh well, it will make a fun house rules, that it will...


My own concern goes to the Black Strike Style (if my memory plays me no tricks, that's the name), now that Two-Weapon Defence, Improved Two-Weapon Defence, and Greater Two-Weapon Defence are out: why care for a +2 dodge bonus when you can get a +2 shield bonus? In any case, A little care on that matter is my suggestion, as well as a little change when it comes to the main-gauche: as a full-basket hilted dagger, would it not be better to say it grants a +2 bonus on attack rolls to avoid being disarmed?

[BrennanHawkwood]

I was just re-reading things in this revision again and a couple of things to ask came to mind.

The first, I was wondering if I could be directed to any discussion on what the Magician class should be like vs. a user of true magic. I was thinking about it and while I like the magician class (and its spell list)as presented, when I look back over the class in the original rulebook it seems like it really isn't quite what it was as its scope seems to have been both widened considerably and narrowed in other regards.

I certainly don't want to start another 'war' over this so I would be happy to go read old threads discussing the topic before saying anything more.

The other question I had is related to this one. If one opts to use the classes as presented in the BRCS, are there any recommendations for dealing with characters like Rogr Algondier in Ilien? IIRC he is portrayed as having been the unblooded apprentice to the previous Count of Ilien, who was a blooded wizard of reasonably high level. Upon the death of his master, Rogr became Count and received the previous regent's bloodline. Previously this effectively meant that he could now cast spells of higher than 2nd level and that was that. Now it seems like he would be stuck with being a multi-class Magician/Wizard and having to 'redo' the first several levels. Just curious if any thought on how to deal with this type of situation had been discussed and what the designers suggestions for dealing with it would be.

--- Blair Monroe

[RaspK_FOG]

That's why I have forgone the standard spell system and use a home-brewed Sovereign-Stone spell system, but that is another case...

A suggestion would be that magicians who receive RP can learn to cast spells as wizards, since they learn and work in - almost - the same way, but this could be problematic... Let us see what the people here have to say.

[BrennanHawkwood]

Originally posted by JanGunterssen@Mar 4 2004, 02:10 AM
Doubts:
Er.. English is not my born language, but how does transform the resistance to bludgeoning damage from the previous version to the 5/piercing and slashing from the present? Bludgeoning isn't refered to concusion damage, as caused with maces and flails?

Not certain where you are confused at.

Others have already mentioned that the first part of the DR code indicates the amount of damage ignored and the second part is what type of attack or attacks that will ignore the damage reduction, thus doing full damage.

It also seemed like you could be confusing bludgeoning damage with subdual or nonlethal damage. Bludgeoning describes the way an attack harms its opponent. In 3/3.5 a weapon doing bludgeoning damage is often doing lethal damage straight to the target's hit points. It is not automatically subdual or nonlethal damage. A mace or flail does lethal damage by way of bludgeoning your target to death. The damage inflicted is no less lethal than the damage a sword would do.

Some bludgeoning attacks such as unarmed attacks and saps are specifically meant to do temporary damage or to knock someone out. In those cases, they are marked in the Player Handbook as inflicting nonlethal or subdual damage rather than hit point damage, but it is still bludgeoning damage.

IIRC, when you apply DR it doesn't matter if the damage is subdual or hit point damage...only the method in which the damage was inflicted. So punching a Cerilian dwarf (with DR 5/slashing and piercing) with your bare fist or wearing a normal gauntlet (both are bludgeoning attacks) would require you to do more than 5 points of damage to actually hurt the dwarf. It doesn't matter if it was nonlethal/subdual damage or not. On the other hand , if you punch the dwarf while wearing a spiked gauntlet (a lethal piercing attack) you are going to have an annoyed dwarf because all of the damage you roll will be applied to his hit points without any being subtracted for the Damage Reduction.