Sanctioning Vote for Chap 1

[geeman]

Raesene Andu writes:



> I would prefer to leave the restriction on classes up to each

> individual DM to determine for his or her campaign rather than

> stick races into a strait jacket in the BRCS and say absolutely

> every elf in existence cannot be a cleric, or every dwarf cannot

> be a wizard.



Well, first off, this kind of campaign material does not say that absolutely

every elf in existence cannot be a cleric or that every dwarf cannot be a

wizard. The 3e/3.5 text spells out pretty clearly that individual DMs can

have exceptions to the race/class restrictions as s/he sees fit.



Secondly, the reason why this should be included in a campaign update rather

than leaving it up to individual DMs is because that`s the case anyway.

Individual DMs can choose to abide by any particular campaign material

stricture they desire. Leaving this material out is not empowering DMs.

They already have that power. Rather, it is ignoring campaign themes in a

campaign update.



When it comes to presenting campaign material it is much easier for a DM to

ignore particulars than it is for them to come up with their own based upon

the original themes.



> We are primarily talking about PCs here though aren`t we.



I think we`re talking about the campaign setting as a whole or, at best, the

NPCs that DMs are likely to create. There`s nothing preventing DMs from

creating exceptions to the campaign material at their leisure, but it should

at least be noted in the campaign material that these kinds of restrictions

exist.



Gary

[Bokey]

Saw only one problem, only read about half way through discussion board before I decided to go ahead and bring it up, so if this is redundant, I apoligize. All of the chart framing graphics appear to be slightly out of alignment with the rest of the column. Table 1-6 in particular even has its footer on the wrong page, but all of them seem to be in various states of disarray.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Bokey@Feb 10 2005, 04:12 PM
Saw only one problem, only read about half way through discussion board before I decided to go ahead and bring it up, so if this is redundant, I apoligize. All of the chart framing graphics appear to be slightly out of alignment with the rest of the column. Table 1-6 in particular even has its footer on the wrong page, but all of them seem to be in various states of disarray.

Yeah I have had problems trying to get things aligned correctly. I consider that something that Arjan can fix in the final product - when he puts back in the artwork

[Mark_Aurel]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG
On your note: these paladin classes were done by me and Irdeggman, whom I have to thank from the bottom of my heart for his patience, and we are across the globe from each other! Do you know how much time it took to finish THIS only?

I think I can imagine.

I may have been misunderstood earlier, though; while I think the class as it stands right now is not good, I also don't think it's a good reason to hold anything up. People will doubtless hold differing opinions, and it is futile to try and reconcile every possible opinion.

[Mark_Aurel]

Originally posted by geeman
I`d suggest that some of the race/class restrictions in the original BR
materials are based upon the 2e rules set, but most of them were not. Even
in those cases where they may have been inspired by the original 2e rules
there were often campaign-specific justifications for them that supported
the race/class restriction.

I agree with that. I think there's a great deal of room within the current rules for making variations, and not allowing for every possble combination or variation.

In my current campaign (which is not a Birthright one), players are allowed to be of three distinct human subraces, elves, dwarves, and orcs. They can choose from a limited subset of classes, some drawn from non-core books, like the Marshal, the Warlock, and the Scout. Not all races can be of all classes, either. Monks don't exist; other classes are highly restricted -- paladins are only available to one of the human subraces, warlocks are allowed to a wider spread of races than the regular arcane casters, etc. It makes for better flavor, I think.

However, I don't think it's necessarily grounds for halting sanctioning here any more than the paladin issue is. There is text which fairly strongly advises against the idea of Elven clerics.

[Osprey]

Here's a little piece of errata I've been chewing on:

Should Rogues really have Lead as a class skill?

Nobles, warriors (ftr/pal/ran/bar), bards, and clerics all have a sensible concept for the skill: all of them are potentially "stand up and rally the people/troops" sorts of character concepts.

Is it a rogue skill simply because it is Charisma-based? Is there a sound conceptual reason for it being a rogue class skill?

[Raesene Andu]

There are other ways of leading, it isn't all just stand up and rally the people. Even rogue have to have leaders (hence guilds, with guildmasters).

[ConjurerDragon]

Osprey schrieb:



>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...ST&f=36&t=2988

>

> Osprey wrote:

> Here`s a little piece of errata I`ve been chewing on:

>

>Should Rogues really have Lead as a class skill?

>

>Nobles, warriors (ftr/pal/ran/bar), bards, and clerics all have a sensible concept for the skill: all of them are potentially "stand up and rally the people/troops" sorts of character concepts.

>

>Is it a rogue skill simply because it is Charisma-based? Is there a sound conceptual reason for it being a rogue class skill?

>

Rangers? I remember the 2E rules in the Birthright Rulebook on rangers

who got NO experience if they would take more than one NPC per three

levels on an adventure (except his own "followers", 2D6 NPCs but those

only from Ranger level 10 onward)- that sounded for me like exactly the

opposite of being a LEADER. Selfreliance was their pride, not

commanding followers.

bye

Michael

[Osprey]

Well, one of the main resons this question is essential is that Lead has become a key skill for ruling Law holdings, Agitating, and Investiture.

Should rogues make good law regents? While they lack warcraft, and thus won't get full RP from law holdings until higher level (7th minimum with 10 ranks in Lead), this is really the only way in which fighter-types will be better law regents.

As it stands, rogues stand out as the best regent class, along with the noble (who has less skill points but gets bonus feats): with Administrate, Diplomacy, Lead, and Profession as class skills, and 8 skill points per level, rogues are potentially ideal as landed, law, and guild regents.

I'm not flat-out disagreeing with this, but wanted to draw attention to how this aspect might play out in a campaign.


Also, on Table 1-6, that lists class and cross-class skills re. Administrate, Lead, and Warcraft.

Administrate is currently a class skill for magicians.

There was discussion previously about Rangers having Warcraft as a class skill. Was that intentionally not added, or is this an oversight? There is some argument for them having Lead as well, though this one is more controversial (some rangers in BR form bands and scout units, and I would assume their leaders are also rangers). I think this is an area where there was internal contradictions in the 2e material.

Should Barbarians be restricted from Warcraft as a class skill? Is Warcraft seen as a highly learned skill that requires a literate civilization, or does it also include less formal tactical and strategic insights and experience?

Questions, questions...though the fixes, if any, will be easy enough to make.

[Raesene Andu]

One quick query that was raised with me is regarding the Master Administrator feat. At the moment it reads You gain a +2 bonus to Administrate checks, and a +2 bonus to Create, Contest, and Rule Province domain actions.

Should that read Rule Holding instead of Rule Province?