Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 94
  1. #41
    Senior Member RaspK_FOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Moschato, Athens, Greece
    Posts
    1,128
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    First of all, I didn't mean to be rude or anything; I just mean to say that we have to let some things go by and act upon them on a more personalised level (i.e. house rule: no dwarven paladins, paladins are a prestige class available only to humans).

    The reason IMHO that the BRCS should have dwarven paladins is that it's the only race that might consider having any paladins; by definition, no Sidhelien can become a paladin (they must have a non-lawful alignment, and they do not worship any deities, plus only typical racial worshippers may become "priests" of a deity), and halflings do not have the mindset to become paladins.

    People point to the fact that BR did not have any dwarven paladins; I am not sure about this, but I think the only setting that actually might have had any non-human paladins was FR, which was far from the typical D&D setting class-and-level-allowed-to-races-wise, not to mention I think not even FR had any non-human paladins! I am not sure, though, right now, since this is the only setting that has gotten me so seriously confused (too many issues from 2e to 3e)!

  2. #42
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    RaspK_FOG,

    In 2nd ed paladins were a human exclusive class. There were no 2nd ed TSR settings that had non-human paladins including FR (or any sub section of it, e.g., Mastica, etc.)
    Duane Eggert

  3. #43
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    OK I think I've got all of the comments incorporated nto Chap 1.

    I'm going to start a sanctioning poll for the races section, since there were no coments on the latest version.

    Here is the pdf version.
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Duane Eggert

  4. #44
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Here's the Word version.
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Duane Eggert

  5. #45
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,475
    Downloads
    34
    Uploads
    8
    There's another little piece of errata I noticed in the latest revision: the Master Administrator feat says the normal domain maintenance check is DC 10+ seasonal maintenance. The skill says it is DC 15 + seasonal maintenance.

    I strongly recommend changing the skill to match the feat, i.e. DC 10 + seasonal maintenance.

    Luckily, this is a dead easy fix.

    That's about the only thing I found editing-wise in my first read through. Lookin' good, Duane!

    Osprey

  6. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Victoria BC, Canada
    Posts
    368
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I like it, and am surprised to see so many of my suggessted fixes in there.

    I do, however have a few things to point out...

    Elven Artisan: Should probably list "any agical item creation feat" as a prerequisite for completelness sake.

    Leadership: It still looks like the maximum GB value of a military cohort cannot exceed the character level. Perhaps a short example would be in order if we are going to be allowing that value to exceed the normal maximum of a cohort's level as per the DMG.

    Table 1-12: Armour Availability: Banded mail lists a race as 'Or'. I'm assuming that it means Orog, but there is no Orog designaton found in the text on page 30.

    That's all I have to point out -- good work Duane!

    -Mike
    "It may be better to be a live jackal than a dead lion, but it is better still to be a live lion -- and usually easier."

    - R. A. Heinlien, from The Collected works of Lazarus Long

  7. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Victoria BC, Canada
    Posts
    368
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by irdeggman@Jul 27 2004, 05:37 PM
    RaspK_FOG,

    In 2nd ed paladins were a human exclusive class. There were no 2nd ed TSR settings that had non-human paladins including FR (or any sub section of it, e.g., Mastica, etc.)
    There was only one special case in FR for non-hunman paladins during the 2nd Ed years -- Saurials, and i think they did that because of some silly novel...
    "It may be better to be a live jackal than a dead lion, but it is better still to be a live lion -- and usually easier."

    - R. A. Heinlien, from The Collected works of Lazarus Long

  8. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Victoria BC, Canada
    Posts
    368
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by geeman@Jul 27 2004, 02:00 AM
    I certainly agree that it is not enough to simply complain about some aspect or other of the proposed text. A good critique includes one or more alternates, and it`s worth noting that that is the most legitimate way to present just about any criticism. On some occasions, however, I think there is an implicit "this should be dropped" solution being suggested by many such comments. That is especially the case when some of the complaints are in regards to things that smack of house rules or that are, essentially, tangentially related to the original setting material. It would be silly, for instance, for me to present an alternative to paladins of Moradin when I think the solution is that it should just be deleted from the BRCS.

    I`ve written a LOT of stuff for the BR community over the years and, on the whole, I`ve found that it is met with a lot of very good commentary, sometimes mediocre commentary, and occasionally really bad commentary. However, in my experience even when I haven`t agreed with the alternatives or the critiques themselves, I often derive something from them that effects another aspect of the game, and there winds up being a
    positive overall effect in the end--even from some of the really bad criticisms. As such, I think it is reasonable to ask that those proposed alternatives be given the same consideration that is being asked for here. Sometimes proposals are discounted so quickly and forcefully that it`s hard to see how they could possibly have been given much consideration. In light of the fact that the nature of how they are presented means they are almost by definition the very first draft of those ideas, a little reflection is almost always warranted. In that respect what is good for the goose is good for the gander. (Hmm. Maybe those should be my next two awnsheghlien write ups....)

    Gary
    Gary...

    Don't get me wrong. You do produce, and in the case of saying that something should be deleted, you present cogent arguments to support your case. I was ranitng about people who don't do a damn thing, save to naysay anything that we do here because it isn't how *they* do things at home...

    All things in consideration and healthy debate....

    -Mike
    "It may be better to be a live jackal than a dead lion, but it is better still to be a live lion -- and usually easier."

    - R. A. Heinlien, from The Collected works of Lazarus Long

  9. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Edinburgh, UK
    Posts
    190
    Downloads
    5
    Uploads
    0
    I would suggest changing the regional feats system to match the update done in the Plyaer's Guide to Faerun. Instead of the characters having the opportunity of taking many relatively unappealing feats, they can now choose to take one quite good feat. This will encourage players to actually choose the regional feats and give the diversity one would hope for.

  10. #50
    Senior Member RaspK_FOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Moschato, Athens, Greece
    Posts
    1,128
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by Athos69+Jul 28 2004, 07:47 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Athos69 @ Jul 28 2004, 07:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-irdeggman@Jul 27 2004, 05:37 PM
    RaspK_FOG,

    In 2nd ed paladins were a human exclusive class. There were no 2nd ed TSR settings that had non-human paladins including FR (or any sub section of it, e.g., Mastica, etc.)
    There was only one special case in FR for non-hunman paladins during the 2nd Ed years -- Saurials, and i think they did that because of some silly novel... [/b][/quote]
    Both comments are actually true... As I mentioned, even I was not sure, but I thought even FR had not (non-saurial) non-human paladins. So, the whole thing regarding dwarves and paladins is a bit of a core-over-campaign-material issue: while having only one deity granting access to druidic powers (along with nature when it came to the Sie) was acceptable in 2e, non-human paladins was not.

    As for the saurials and Finder Wyvernspur, the only novel worth reading was "Finder&#39;s Bane" (pun OBVIOUSLY intented), which happens to have a few thematic errors as well... Like a certain paladin trembling in terror at some point&#33; :angry:

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.