Results 21 to 30 of 188
Thread: Chap 1 Rev
-
03-07-2004, 12:29 AM #21Originally posted by irdeggman+Mar 6 2004, 09:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (irdeggman @ Mar 6 2004, 09:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RaspK_FOG@Mar 5 2004, 07:28 PM
Only bards get no arcane spell failure chance for wearing armour, and light armour is not that mighty, not to mention the fact that a magician goes around more than the wizard and sorcerer.
Just becasue a class has an armor proficiency doesn't eliminate the arcane spell failure chance for that armor, it only eliminates the not proficient in armor ones. [/b][/quote]
You are wrong there... 3.5e made 3 wonderful steps towards improving the bard when it comes to armour and weapon proficiencies:- He got his weapon list fixed, including the longsword, rapier, (composite) shortbow, shortsword, whip, and all simple weapons; apart from longbows, which they erroneously got off the list, I don't remember if I missed anything...
- Bards are now proficient only with light armour. He also gets proficient with shields, excluding the tower shield, a proficiency only fighters start with. No scale-mail-clad and tower-shield-bearing standard bards, no sir!
- Under the armour and weapon proficiencies for the bard, there is a paragraph which says that a bard never suffers an arcane spell failure chance for wearing light armour, since he needs to sing to cast his spells which have very simplistic somatic components; shields, medium armour, or heavy armour incur an arcane spell failure chance normally.
-
03-07-2004, 01:25 PM #22
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
- Posts
- 3,945
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Good point - I missed that excerpt in the PHB for bards and armor. The trade off is of course that all bardic spells have a verbal component, so Silent Spell is never an option for them. So in the overall scheme of things it balances out.
Now I don't really like that ruling on armor and bards for the simple reason that there shouldn't be exceptions to rules that are class-based. That is arcane spell failure only applies to spells with somatic components, they (WotC) are now saying well it doesn't apply to spells with somatic components when cast by a bard in light armor, but it would apply to the same spell cast by a wizard in light armor. Either a spell has somatic components or it doesn't and if it does the arcan spell failure chance should apply. Why bother with the Still Spell feat then? Something just doesn't make sense here. When the entire precept of the D&D d20 system was to make things work the same for every class and have a 'simple' standard that applies. Oh well I didn't write the WotC rules, I just get to complain about them :lol:Duane Eggert
-
03-08-2004, 02:49 AM #23
True, 3._e introduced standardisation... But do not let yourself not see that there are some things that overrule standards.
For example, a ranger can fight more effectively if wearing light armour and carrying no medium or heavy load without meeting any requirements or actually taking any feats; a barbarian goes faster under the same conditions and also can avoid being hit when he shouldn't, just like the rogue, who can avoid being harmed by some area effects entirely, and so on, and so on... This is the point of class features: the overriding or application of a rule, whatever the core rules say.
Just like that, a bard can cast spells in armour, only when it is light, without an arcane spell failure chance. It balances out the fact that a bard always had to sing to cast his spells, yet casting them without a somatic component was taking too much time! All in all, until recently, a bard who was wearing armour was in deep trouble: I once lost a cure critical wounds spell because of a lousy 10% chance! What good is being able to wear armour if it hinders you anyway?
And one other thing: no, bards can take the Silent Spell feat and use it in the core rulebooks; the problem lied in the fact that they had to use it all the time, unlike a wizard, many of whose spells do not have verbal components. In my settings, however, no Silent Spell for bards... B)
-
03-08-2004, 03:50 AM #24
----- Original Message -----
From: "RaspK_FOG" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 8:49 PM
> But do not let yourself not see that there are some things that
> overrule standards.
All D&D`s rules are just a vast enumeration of these exceptions. The basic
rules would be about three pages without the exceptons and special cases.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
-
03-08-2004, 03:44 PM #25
- Join Date
- May 2002
- Location
- Glasgow, Scotland
- Posts
- 120
- Downloads
- 10
- Uploads
- 0
believe me, you would feel a lot different if you fought alongside your Count: "Good lads, the Count is coming; let us go to battle under his proud banner!" and such stuff; morale is always improved when your leader is there with you, into the fray.
The point is the old noble allowed you to be either by clever use of the bonus feats and maybe a bit of multi-classing. This new one seems hell-bent on fitting characters into a cliché.
In any case, Coordinate is an intelligent mechanic, as are the various inspirational class features - notice how the Coordinate bonus applies only on bonuses for cooperation
As for the magician, I think Extra Slot is not only broken as a feat (since everyone will choose the highest spell level allowed to them by the feat so as to be able to cast any one spell of up to that level!, it also does not fit the "lesser path" motif introduced in Birthright.
As for armour, hit die, and skills, no, I think allowing a magician free access to rogue skills such as Disable Device, Forgery, Hide, Listen, Move Silently, Search, Spot, yet give him only a d4 and no armour... well, that is broken
CM.
-
03-08-2004, 04:04 PM #26
- Join Date
- Oct 2003
- Location
- california
- Posts
- 317
- Downloads
- 2
- Uploads
- 0
Why do the administrate skill and master administrator feats remain so much stronger than their brethren? Since the domain actions which they provide bonuses to are already at the core of BR domain level play, they intristically are more powerful than other comparable skills and feats, yet both of them are given an extra bonus which breaks the mold of comparable skills and feats. Adminstrate is given an additional +2 to create/rule holdings and master administrator also sets the DC for reducing domain costs at 15. It seems like removing these extra benefits would help balance them out.
All in all, you did an excellent job with both chapter 1 and 2.Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
-
03-08-2004, 10:00 PM #27Really? So Aaron Vaumel (sp?) inspires his troops on the field does he? I'm sorry, I kind of picture him as a slight little wormtongue-like man - maybe a capable administrator and probably an excellent courtier, but an inspiring general? No.
The point is the old noble allowed you to be either by clever use of the bonus feats and maybe a bit of multi-classing. This new one seems hell-bent on fitting characters into a cliché.
And the 3.5 Noble presented here seems to be an adaptation of a class custom-tailored to the BR world. My own complaint is that it seems decidedly Anuirean, and doesn't fit nearly as well into the noble concepts for any of the other human cultures.
And what exactly is “co-operation”? What does the bonus apply to? When and for how long? In it’s current state it is ill conceived and poorly described.
I seriously doubt the Noble will be reworked at this point, but if it were, my own vote would be to trim down the special abilities just a bit and then add a bonus feat or special ability, perhaps once every five levels or so, allowing for a combination of distinct class features and a bit of customization that makes them more adaptable to different cultures. If some of the more warlike features were removed (such as Battle Cry and Inspire Loyalty), along with Resources (which I think is a bit silly and could easily be replaced by good roleplaying, establishing a network of contacts and other nobles who owe you favors within the game), then a list of bonus feats and special abilities (and here War Cry and then Inspire Loyalty might be options) could become available without over-powering the class as a whole and vastly expanding its very realistic diversity. After all, Nobles (and the wealthy in general) throughout history have been renowned for their eccentricities and diversity
On the other hand: I don`t think this [BAB] should be the same as that of a fighter - they may train well, but they don`t fight for their lives on a daily basis. Plus it makes the class too good for a one level dip for a melee character - the wealth, favoured region, bonus skill points are only balanced against a 2 point loss in potential HP.[*]
The Fighter makes for poor direct comparison with most classes. It is what it is: a fighting specialist who lives for the next combat feat. And they get plenty of them, ensuring that level for level a fighter is the best combatant in the field, hands down. The noble will never match a fighter for pure skill and power (especially when you consider that the noble will spread out his attributes in favor of Cha and Int, while the fighter will always go for Str, Con, and maybe Dex, another significant aspect of his combat dominance).
As for the magician, I think Extra Slot is not only broken as a feat (since everyone will choose the highest spell level allowed to them by the feat so as to be able to cast any one spell of up to that level!, it also does not fit the "lesser path" motif introduced in Birthright.
-
03-08-2004, 10:21 PM #28Why do the administrate skill and master administrator feats remain so much stronger than their brethren? Since the domain actions which they provide bonuses to are already at the core of BR domain level play, they intristically are more powerful than other comparable skills and feats, yet both of them are given an extra bonus which breaks the mold of comparable skills and feats. Adminstrate is given an additional +2 to create/rule holdings and master administrator also sets the DC for reducing domain costs at 15.
I also noticed another thing: instead of synergystic skills granting a bonus of +1 per 5 ranks in the key skill to domain actions, they now grant a flat +2 bonus if the regent has 5 or more ranks in the key skill.
You know what I have to say to that? BLAAAAHHHH! :angry: There's nothing worse than taking a flawed sytem and expanding it to include yet more aspects of a campaign world.
Now don't get me wrong - I like the basic idea of the skill synergy system in D&D, I just think it could be improved upon. I've already posted before on my own ideal system for domain synergies: +1 synergy bonus per +5 in the key skill for the domain action. So what if it doesn't match the normal 3.x skill synergy system! These are Domain Actions, a ruleset seperate from the normal rules, and a rule like this is IMO an improvement rather than some major complication or confusion for new players.
And knowing that my ideal system will never be accepted as "official" or even an acceptable variant because it's too deviant from the WOTC standard, I think the 1st draft BRCS rules, in which synergystic skills added +1 per 5 ranks in the key skill to domain actions, was still a much better system than the flat +2 for 5 or more ranks. It recognizes that yes, a 10th level character who has maxed out their rulership skills will in fact be better than the 5th level character doing the same thing (even if it's just slightly better!.
But then again, I would rewrite the synergy rules to be more like this in general if I were at the helm - every 5 ranks or +5 would grant a +1 synergy bonus to related skill checks, because this is IMO more reflective of reality - any time a person has greater expertise in a field related to the one they're working in, there are generally going to be more useful insights they can draw on for the task at hand.
But hey, this is just an ongoing gripe about the D&D system in general - I just hoped that for the domain rules at least (where every +1 really counts), the revised game would keep a more intelligent synergy bonus system instead of conforming to the somewhat-immature D&D status quo.
Osprey
-
03-09-2004, 12:51 AM #29
- Join Date
- Oct 2003
- Location
- california
- Posts
- 317
- Downloads
- 2
- Uploads
- 0
While I agree fully with Osprey, I would suggest a somewhat less dramatic overhaul in hopes that some change may ensue.
For Adminsistrate strip it of the synergy bonus of +2 to create/rule holding which I believe is on top of the normal +1 bonus to domain actions for every 5 ranks in the relevant skill. Also raise DC for reducing actions costs by 1 to (25-the cost).
For Master Administrator strip it of the bonus of setting the adminstrate check for reducing domain maintenance to 15, from (15+domain maintenance).
They remain a must have skill and feat, but they are not quite so powerful.Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
-
03-09-2004, 02:52 AM #30For Master Administrator strip it of the bonus of setting the adminstrate check for reducing domain maintenance to 15, from (15+domain maintenance).
For Adminsistrate strip it of the synergy bonus of +2 to create/rule holding which I believe is on top of the normal +1 bonus to domain actions for every 5 ranks in the relevant skill. Also raise DC for reducing actions costs by 1 to (25-the cost).
Osprey
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks