Adjudicating Magicians and Specialization Using Pathfinder.

[Michael Romes]

In 2e magicians were only able to access 2 schools for spells above 3rd level, so whereas a normal specialist lost 1 school, the magician lost 6...

I wrote "comparable specialist". A Mage specialized in one school is not comparable to the 2E Magician who specializes in two schools (Illusion/Divination). A double specialized Wizard would be closer to the Magician.
That is why I mentioned the Red Wizard of Thay as an comparable example of more limits with more power in specialization than the normal specialist.

And while a 2E specialist Wizard who specialize twice would lose 2 (or 3 or 4 depending on choice as e.g. an invoker lost Enchantment and Charm) complete schools of magic, the Magician retains up to level 2 of all schools. That sounds not great in all other D&D settings where magic is plenty and characters raise to high levels soon. But in Birthright where most of the population has no PC classes at all and most Magicians are lowlevel it is nice to have.

[Fizz]

Indeed. Magicians could only cast Lesser Magic, not True Magic. Lesser magic was all illusion and divination spells, and 1st-2nd level spells of the other schools.

-Fizz

[Michael Romes]

Indeed. Magicians could only cast Lesser Magic, not True Magic. Lesser magic was all illusion and divination spells, and 1st-3rd level spells of the other schools.

-Fizz

If you mean 2E then only level 1 and 2 spells of the other schools. The marking spells of the other schools (e.g. Fireball) that become available at 3rd level were already barred to the 2E Magician.

[Fizz]

If you mean 2E then only level 1 and 2 spells of the other schools. The marking spells of the other schools (e.g. Fireball) that become available at 3rd level were already barred to the 2E Magician.

Yes, 2nd. Typo. Starting writing "less than 3rd" and then shifted.

-Fizz

[Fizz]

And while a 2E specialist Wizard who specialize twice would lose 2 (or 3 or 4 depending on choice as e.g. an invoker lost Enchantment and Charm)

To clarify, in 2E the only specialist that lost 3 schools was the illusionist, who could not cast necromancy, invocation, abjuration spells. Invokers lost enchantment and conjuration.

Also of note, 2nd Ed magicians did gain a few other advantages over true mages. Magicians could acquire proficiencies from the rogue group, in addition to the wizard and general groups. As well, magicians had a better selection of weapons than a mage.

So comparing the true mage to magician isn't just a matter of available schools.

-Fizz

[Michael Romes]

To clarify, in 2E the only specialist that lost 3 schools was the illusionist, who could not cast necromancy, invocation, abjuration spells. Invokers lost enchantment and conjuration.

Also of note, 2nd Ed magicians did gain a few other advantages over true mages. Magicians could acquire proficiencies from the rogue group, in addition to the wizard and general groups. As well, magicians had a better selection of weapons than a mage.

So comparing the true mage to magician isn't just a matter of available schools.

-Fizz

You are right, of course not. A magician has something besides spellcasting.

However the reason I brought up a twice specialized Wizard in comparison was that some find the Magician too weak and wanted to add the whole school of Charming to them in addition to Illusion and Divination. And for that reason I argued regarding spell selection that you can´t compare a generalist Wizard or even a specialized Wizard (e.g. Invoker) to a Magician, but that for a fitting comparison of available spells a twice specialized Wizard would be closer.

If anything then the weapon and armour proficiencies that the Magician receives and the "no true Wizard" restrictions that the Bard has to adhere too, would to me rather mean that the Bard should retain his usual spells fromt he school of Charming instead of losing those of level 3+ to make both classes more different from each other.

[Fizz]

However the reason I brought up a twice specialized Wizard in comparison was that some find the Magician too weak and wanted to add the whole school of Charming to them in addition to Illusion and Divination. And for that reason I argued regarding spell selection that you can´t compare a generalist Wizard or even a specialized Wizard (e.g. Invoker) to a Magician, but that for a fitting comparison of available spells a twice specialized Wizard would be closer.

If anything then the weapon and armour proficiencies that the Magician receives and the "no true Wizard" restrictions that the Bard has to adhere too, would to me rather mean that the Bard should retain his usual spells fromt he school of Charming instead of losing those of level 3+ to make both classes more different from each other.

I don't think the magician gets any armour benefits over a wizard (not in 2nd Ed anyways). I think they still can't wear armour, but just have a few more weapons available to them.

Maybe it's just some OCD talking (heh), but one things that bugged (bugs?) me in the original rules are the multiple justifications required. For example, illusion and divination comprise Lesser Magic, but bards can cast enchantment spells. This is explained by saying they use the elven spellsong technique, but it's still magic yet neither True Magic nor Lesser seemingly. So it always felt like exception upon exception to justify class aiblities, when the simpler solution would have been to tweak the classes. (Similarly, druids get their magic from Erik, even though mebhaigl comes from the land / nature, but rangers don't need Erik, etc etc.)

In that light, i don't mind enchantment being made part of Lesser Magic. Lesser Magic is meant to be more subtle, not flashy or overtly destructive, so enchantment fits. This way bards are lesser spellcasters without any extra justification for their spells needed.

I don't think magicians are underpowered, but i don't think adding enchantment as part of Lesser Magic breaks anything either. Magicians still cast the same number of spells per day, it just makes them a bit more flexible. It's not like you're giving them new damage potential with fireballs or summoned monsters or anything like that (which would also ruin the entire feel of the class).


-Fizz

[Michael Romes]

I don't think the magician gets any armour benefits over a wizard (not in 2nd Ed anyways). I think they still can't wear armour, but just have a few more weapons available to them.

You´re right. I prefer 2E but still remember parts of the 3E BRCS sometimes.
In 2E they got more weapons and access to the Rogue, Wizard and General Non-Weapon-Proficiencies.

Maybe it's just some OCD talking (heh), but one things that bugged (bugs?) me in the original rules are the multiple justifications required. For example, illusion and divination comprise Lesser Magic, but bards can cast enchantment spells. This is explained by saying they use the elven spellsong technique, but it's still magic yet neither True Magic nor Lesser seemingly. So it always felt like exception upon exception to justify class aiblities, when the simpler solution would have been to tweak the classes. (Similarly, druids get their magic from Erik, even though mebhaigl comes from the land / nature, but rangers don't need Erik, etc etc.)

Wasn´t the 2E Cerilian Druid not just a specialty priests of Aeric? That is something I liked more in 2E than in 3E, too. Priests who are different from each other not only by adding some domain spells, but who actually have to resemble their deity by having Major and minor spheres of access to spells which in turn limited their access to priest realm spells so that no single priest could cast them all.

In that light, i don't mind enchantment being made part of Lesser Magic. Lesser Magic is meant to be more subtle, not flashy or overtly destructive, so enchantment fits. This way bards are lesser spellcasters without any extra justification for their spells needed.

I don't think magicians are underpowered, but i don't think adding enchantment as part of Lesser Magic breaks anything either. Magicians still cast the same number of spells per day, it just makes them a bit more flexible. It's not like you're giving them new damage potential with fireballs or summoned monsters or anything like that (which would also ruin the entire feel of the class).

The 2E Magician already has access to level 0 to 2 of Enchantments without any change, just like to any other school.
More Enchantment (Dominate? Shadowwalk?) and he again becomes to similar to the "elven spellsong" Bard and risks to join being shunned in Khinasi lands as the Bard and to intrude on the territory of the True Wizard.

[Fizz]

Wasn´t the 2E Cerilian Druid not just a specialty priests of Aeric? That is something I liked more in 2E than in 3E, too. Priests who are different from each other not only by adding some domain spells, but who actually have to resemble their deity by having Major and minor spheres of access to spells which in turn limited their access to priest realm spells so that no single priest could cast them all.

Yeah, 2nd Ed had specialty priests, and druids were presented as an example of a specialty priest. I liked this system as well, except for how the spell spheres were defined; they were pretty sloppy in some cases, and could result in some non-sensical spells being available to certain faiths.

However, druids had a lot of extras in comparison to other specialty priests. And in Birthright, they had all regular druid abilities from the PH, PLUS they had hide in shadows, move silently and animal empathy as a ranger 3 levels higher!

In other games (such as 3E, C&C) i've never liked the idea of a class being unique to one faith. To me, druids are the less organize, more primal type of priest. So in my games, druids can be priests by Erik, Ruornil, or Kriesha, with each faith having a few tweaks in the same way a cleric does.

The 2E Magician already has access to level 0 to 2 of Enchantments without any change, just like to any other school.
More Enchantment (Dominate? Shadowwalk?) and he again becomes to similar to the "elven spellsong" Bard and risks to join being shunned in Khinasi lands as the Bard and to intrude on the territory of the True Wizard.

In 2nd Ed, the Cerilian bard could only cast illusion, divination and enchantment (not any spell from any other school of any level). I understand the desire to keep them unique, but the inconsistencies in magic always bugged me.

In the description of the wizard class, the Birthright rulebook says there are three types of magic: lesser, true, and realm. So all magic should fit into one of those. So if a non-blooded human bard can cast a high level enchantment spell, it must be lesser magic. And then a magician should be able to cast it as well. The casting method (elven spellsong) still ultimately channels mebhaigl, so why can't a magician use his own casting method to channel it into the same effect?

So the 2nd Ed rule for bards felt like a kludge to me. Your mileage may vary, of course.


-Fizz

[Sorontar]

One thing that always made things different between how BR handled magic and clerical specialties was the fact that while one clerical faith may have specialties in which domains it covered, each temple had different approaches to that faith. The PC or NPC then had a different interpretation of that approach. This was true even for druids of Eric. Those in the Emerald Spire were very much community-based, getting back to nature types, but the Oaken Grove were more outward thinking and concerned about society working with nature to benefit all. They might have had access to the same spell lists, but how they would approach using them would be different.

Magicians and Mage Specialisations didn't have the same ideological leanings. I don't remember anything about magical colleges except the big one in the City of Anuire, and it didn't certainly enforce any beliefs or practises on its students or graduates.

Sorontar