Page 3 of 19 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 188

Thread: Chap 1 Rev

  1. #21
    Senior Member RaspK_FOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Moschato, Athens, Greece
    Posts
    1,128
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    Originally 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.
    Actually all arcane casters suffer the same spell failure chance now, there is no exception for bards. It is just part of the 3/3.5 rules.

    Just becasue a class has an armor proficiency doesn&#39;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&#39;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&#33;
    • 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.

  2. #22
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    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&#39;t really like that ruling on armor and bards for the simple reason that there shouldn&#39;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&#39;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&#39;t and if it does the arcan spell failure chance should apply. Why bother with the Still Spell feat then? Something just doesn&#39;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 &#39;simple&#39; standard that applies. Oh well I didn&#39;t write the WotC rules, I just get to complain about them :lol:
    Duane Eggert

  3. #23
    Senior Member RaspK_FOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Moschato, Athens, Greece
    Posts
    1,128
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    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&#39;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&#33; 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&#33; 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)

  4. #24
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    ----- 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

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    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&#33;" and such stuff; morale is always improved when your leader is there with you, into the fray.
    Really? So Aaron Vaumel (sp?) inspires his troops on the field does he? I&#39;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.

    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
    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.

    Furthermore, a noble&#39;s not just trained to defend himself fairly and simply land a blow or two on the open field (bard, cleric, druid, rogue), he is more like the militaristic figure who is able to wade through the battle and - just maybe - make it out unscathed, or at least alive.
    Again that is just one take on the noble.

    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&#33, it also does not fit the "lesser path" motif introduced in Birthright.
    Why does it follow that because “everyone will choose the highest spell level allowed to them by the feat” the feat is broken? Is a mage capable of casting 3rd level spells that gains an additional casting of one 2nd level spell suddenly a god? Or that much more powerful than one who can now create wondrous items? For me it nicely captures the “lesser path” – the magician does not strive for the greater things. He masters the little things.

    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
    One, you get one of those skills and it is by no means free – it’s cost you one of your four special abilities that you will receive by 20th level. You must still invest skill points and you don’t get it until 5th level at least, meaning you’ve missed the initial placement of skills and must sacrifice points you had spent on other things. If you think it through, there are intrinsic costs and trade-offs to just adding one more class skill.

    CM.

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    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.

  7. #27
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,475
    Downloads
    34
    Uploads
    8
    Really? So Aaron Vaumel (sp?) inspires his troops on the field does he? I&#39;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.
    Which is why I would never cast Aaron Vaumel as a Noble, but rather as a Rogue, who can do all of the things you mention quite well - as well as a run a profitable trade empire.

    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 do you think this is very different from the other PHB classes? All classes are cliche to varying degrees, the Barbarian, Bard, and Ranger being some glaring examples (as is the Monk, though he&#39;s not a part of BR), and the Rogue is pretty gross that way too (Special Abilities at level 10+ being the only options for variation). Whether we like it or not, this is definitely the recurring pattern for 3.x D&D.
    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&#39;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.
    While my own critique wouldn&#39;t be quite so harsh, I do agree that the Cooperation benefits and mechanics could certainly do with some more explicit explanation, description, and maybe an example to illustrate the mechanic.

    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.[*]
    Well, if it weren&#39;t for the existence of the 3.5 Ranger, I might agree with you. But when I compare the Noble to the Ranger (the obvious inspiration for this version of the Noble), I see the Ranger with the same BAB,HP, and Skill Points, plus 2 Strong saves (vs. only 1, Will, for the Noble), plenty of cool class features and bonus feats (Favored Enemies, combat styles for archery or 2-weapon fighting = multiple bonus feats), and lesser spellcasting abilities on top of all of that&#33; In the end, I think the 3.5 Ranger still wins out as the more powerful class overall (though there&#39;s valid argument that 3.5 went a little overboard in revamping the ranger).

    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&#33, it also does not fit the "lesser path" motif introduced in Birthright.
    Just what exactly are you referring to? I just looked up the Magician again, and I don&#39;t see anything called Extra Slot available as a feat or class feature or anything. Perhaps I have downloaded a more recent version of Ch. 1? The only thing I can corellate to this is that Magician&#39;s spells per day seem the same as a specialist wizard&#39;s, which makes sense given the fact that there is no allowance for them to be specialists as wizards can. So it seems we&#39;re already assuming that Magicans are specialists, very similar to the way they were described in the original 2e materials.

  8. #28
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,475
    Downloads
    34
    Uploads
    8
    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.
    Yep. And don&#39;t forget Contest is also Administrate-based, as is Create/Rule Province&#33; And Rule and Contest Actions are really the most significant Domain actions in the game...net result is that Master Administrator becomes a "must-have" feat that any regent PC in his right mind will take if he or she cares at all about having a regent PC who is a good ruler. As a DM, this means to me that any NPC regent who is competent (and thus able to compete with the PC regents)also has this feat, which ends meaning that the large majority of regents in the game are Master Administrators. Now if this matches the designers&#39; and/or BRCS team&#39;s conception of the BR world, I guess that&#39;s OK. But is this really what they envisioned?

    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&#33; :angry: There&#39;s nothing worse than taking a flawed sytem and expanding it to include yet more aspects of a campaign world.

    Now don&#39;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&#39;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&#39;t match the normal 3.x skill synergy system&#33; 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&#39;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&#39;s just slightly better&#33.

    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&#39;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

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    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.

  10. #30
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,475
    Downloads
    34
    Uploads
    8
    For Master Administrator strip it of the bonus of setting the adminstrate check for reducing domain maintenance to 15, from (15+domain maintenance).
    A while back I posted my thoughts on Master Administrator, and the cost to reduce Domain Maintenance was one of the biggies. I found that 15 + Domain Maintenance quickly becomes unreachable for a landed regent of any significance. In my campaign I&#39;ve made it DC 10 + (1/2 Seasonal Maintenance) for Master Administrators while it is DC 10 + Seasonal Maintenance without the feat. I found this worked pretty well, at least for a while, though large and powerful domains still build up maintenance costs that make the DC unreachable for even the best Master Administrators. Some advanced regents in my game have come up with other means to aid them in reaching those high DC&#39;s (and when I say high, I&#39;m talking DC 40-50 or better, and that&#39;s when the armies are all garrisoned&#33 - like the Tome of Finance, a specially made magic item that gives a hefty skill bonus to the Seasonal Maintenance reduction check, or hired teams of administrators that give a cooperative synergy bonus to the regent&#39;s maintenance check. It may seem crazy that such things be necessary, but as a DM try making that check with greater powers like Avanil or Boeruine and you&#39;ll see how quickly the maintenance costs add up. On the other hand, I really hate the flat DC 15 for Master Administrators that makes it ridiculously easy to make the check regardless of how massive one&#39;s domain is. I&#39;d rather see regents go to such lengths as I mentioned above then make it a thing they no longer have to worry about as they recklessly grow and grow and grow...

    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).
    Now I might be wrong about this, but I&#39;m pretty sure I&#39;m not...I believe the flat +2 synergy bonus is replacing the BRCS system of +1 per 5 ranks in the key skill for domain action synergy bonuses. Hence the rantings in my last post. <_<

    Osprey

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.