Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1

    The mhor/dautoa questions.

    Why is the mhor a ranger?I cant figure this out.Why did the birthright designers make him a ranger?

    I mean in 2nd ed rangers get RP from guilds only.

    The mhor,a level 7 ranger,has no guilds.

    Therefore he only gets RP from the provinces he controls.

    This seems borderline stupid to me?

    Same thing with dauota.Paladin?No temple under his control?Erm....what?

    Im fairly surprised they didnt make the regent of brosengae a priest(ooh look all those guilds and no RPs!) or Isalie a thief.

    As an experiment on how screwed up these realms are,try playing doing those examples above.....playing isalie as a thief,brosengae as a priest,diemed as a wizard,etc,etc,all under 2nd ed rules of RP collection.

  2. #2
    In 2nd edition Birthright, all members of the warrior class collect full RP for law holdings. Fighters, paladins, and rangers are all warrior sub-classes. So, as a ranger, the Mhor collects full RP for each province, full RP for each law holding and half RP for each guild holding.

  3. #3
    Thats not what it says in my copy of the rulebook.It clearly says rangers under guilds only.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    England
    Posts
    95
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Questions right. I'm looking at my Dm's screen right now and it says Guild only. But i would probably let Rangers have half Law as well.

    Doesn't the right up of Mhoried say "The Mhor doesn't like using Law holdings against his people. He uses the Regency from his Law Holdings and other Ventures to repel those who would gain law here."

    Personally i think they made a typo and Mhoried is SUPPOSED to be a Fighter.

    Manty

  5. #5
    Its interesting to note that the BR computer game has the mhor listed as a fighter(although elinie is still listed as paladins,making that realm nearly impossible to play with next to no regency).Considering that the game is almost identitcal to the TT version,that might be an indication that it really is a typo.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Ashland, NH
    Posts
    1,377
    Downloads
    6
    Uploads
    0
    Page 41 of the original BR rulebook states (Table 14):

    -All classes collect full regency from Provinces.

    -Warriors (fighters, rangers, and paladins) collect full regency from Law Holdings.

    -Rangers collect full regency from Guild Holdings.


    So the Mhor as a ranger would receive full regency from his land, law, and guilds.

    Ironically, this makes rangers more potentially powerful (or at least diverse) than fighter regents.

    Paladins are also potentially more powerful, receiving full regency from land, law, and temple holdings.

    IMO rangers should have only received 1/2 RP from law and guilds (and paldins only 1/2 RP from temples) in order to keep them more balanced with Fighters and to better symbolize their unsuitability as regents, I mean, rangers aren't exactly typified as "people-persons", nor as great proponents of law and order. Call me crazy, but that's my take on the issue.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    England
    Posts
    95
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    so i grabbed my book, flipped to page 41 and checked out table 14.

    and there's nowt about Ragers getting Law.

    mine says

    Guild: Thief, Ranger, Bard*
    Law: Warrior, Priest*, Thief*
    Source: Wizwaz
    Temple: Priest, Paladin
    Province: All
    Trade Route : Thief (1RP per GB produced.

    So i wonder if they did multiple versions?

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    England
    Posts
    95
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Bugger i hit post, cant be bothered to edit so.......

    I made a house rule on this years ago.

    My group consisted of a priest Regent, with a Thief, Paladin, and Wizwaz vassals. Each was given a province (of Roesone incidently) to rule. Now the Priest and thief each got half law plus full Guild/Temple, but the Paladin only Temple. I took the examples in the Table and just expanded it. The Paladin and Ranger in my game can both get half Law.

    But thinking about it more maybe it was just bad editing or writing by the original creators. Nowhere else does it class a fighter as a Warrior so maybe Warrior does mean Fighter, Paladin and Ranger.

    Well done Osprey *Pats on head*

  9. #9
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Mantyluoto
    But thinking about it more maybe it was just bad editing or writing by the original creators. Nowhere else does it class a fighter as a Warrior so maybe Warrior does mean Fighter, Paladin and Ranger.

    Well done Osprey *Pats on head*
    Actually the 2nd ed PHB had rangers, paladins and fighters listed under "warrior" and so did the player's option series.

    Had to do with picking up proficiencies and all of that stuff.
    Duane Eggert

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.