Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 153
  1. #11
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by gazza666
    In 3rd edition, classes don't mean what they used to. Someone with a level of barbarian isn't necessarily a primitive savage - it's just someone that can rage in combat. Someone with a level of paladin doesn't necessarily belong to a knightly order - it's just someone that has learned to channel their faith into minor healing abilities. Likewise, a fighter isn't necessarily a soldier (could just be someone that took a course in Power Attack 101), a rogue isn't necessarily a thief, and so forth.

    Granted, spellcasters tend to be the exception, but that's only because the mechanics of spell acquisition do not favour multiclassing.
    Hmm actually classes are better themed than that. A barbarian is not merely someone who can rage.

    Read the Background information in the PHB it talks about what the classes are about. All of the color information in the PHB is not included in the SRD so if you are using that as your source (many people do) it lacks a lot of information that helps to fill out what the classes are about.

    Paladins in 2nd ed never had to be "knights" either. They are still more than character who can channel their faith into minor healing. There is that Code of Conduct thing (no other class has it) that separates them from clerics and the like. Again the Background information in the PHB is useful.

    The major difference between 2nd ed and 3.x as far as classes go is the relative ease with which a character can multiclass. No set class combination restrictions (nor level restricitions) based on race nor any minimum ability score requisites to take a class. A character can choose to be a fighter with a 5 strength if he wanted to (IIRC in 2nd ed the minimum was an 8) he just isn't very good in melee while he could have a relatively high dex and be a capable archer.
    Duane Eggert

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by irdeggman
    Hmm actually classes are better themed than that. A barbarian is not merely someone who can rage.

    Read the Background information in the PHB it talks about what the classes are about. All of the color information in the PHB is not included in the SRD so if you are using that as your source (many people do) it lacks a lot of information that helps to fill out what the classes are about.
    In my opinion, the "background" information is meaningless fluff that is flat out contradicted by the mechanics of multiclassing.

    If you want a campaign whereby barbarians are primitive savages, you'll need something besides the core rules to play such a campaign. The core rules allow you to take level 1 as a fighter, level 2-3 as a ranger, level 4 as a barbarian, and then continue on as a fighter for the next couple of levels until you reach level 6 or so when you pick some cool-power prestige class. What does the "background" section have to say about such characters?

    You could describe such a character as someone that started off as a trained veteran, then spent some time in the woods, where he kicked around with a bunch of orcs that taught him their primitive ways, before re-enlisting... but does anyone not find that story ludicrous? (Incidentally, if you're human this would not impose any XP penalties).

    If you think that this sort of multiclassing is hard to justify for story reasons - that is of course your prerogative. But it's absolutely allowed as far as the 3.5 core rules are concerned.

    Paladins in 2nd ed never had to be "knights" either. They are still more than character who can channel their faith into minor healing. There is that Code of Conduct thing (no other class has it) that separates them from clerics and the like. Again the Background information in the PHB is useful.
    The code of conduct is what I was referring to by "faith". (Of course in my campaign paladins have no such code of conduct anyway, but we're talking about the core rules here, so that's irrelevant).

    The major difference between 2nd ed and 3.x as far as classes go is the relative ease with which a character can multiclass. No set class combination restrictions (nor level restricitions) based on race nor any minimum ability score requisites to take a class. A character can choose to be a fighter with a 5 strength if he wanted to (IIRC in 2nd ed the minimum was an 8) he just isn't very good in melee while he could have a relatively high dex and be a capable archer.
    And this difference is exactly why I claim that classes are just collections of abilities. The reason to multiclass is not "I want my fighter to have some primitive roots"; it's "I want the rage ability". The former, if you're one who hates the idea of power gaming, can be had just by declaring it so (and maybe buying only hide armour and a spear instead of more civilised equipment). There's no need to multiclass for that. The only reason to multiclass is if you want some mechanical ability rather than just a story idea.

  3. #13
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia
    Posts
    6
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by gazza666
    In my opinion, the "background" information is meaningless fluff that is flat out contradicted by the mechanics of multiclassing.
    Quote Originally Posted by gazza666
    The only reason to multiclass is if you want some mechanical ability rather than just a story idea.
    I think this is a bit of an overstatement. Certainly, a mechanical advantage is a reason to multiclass, but just as certainly it's not the only one. Story ideas are also a reason to multiclass, and a potent one, often (though not always) leading people into suboptimal designs (in particular, almost every multiclassed spellcaster would nearly have to be of the "story-justified" type).

    I'll grant that a character multiclassing into (for example) barbarian can be a little tricky to justify, but the justification can still be "I'm losing control of the beast within" rather than "I want to be able to rage once a day and gain some other abilities for which I'd have to give up the best armor choices." On the other hand, prestige classes are a little different. Regardless of any mechanical benefits which may be the reason some players want to join, prestige classes require that at least lip service be paid to story justifications, in the character having to perform some campaign related goal or take a number of sub-optimal skills or feats.

    Quote Originally Posted by gazza666
    If you want a campaign whereby barbarians are primitive savages, you'll need something besides the core rules to play such a campaign. The core rules allow you to take level 1 as a fighter, level 2-3 as a ranger, level 4 as a barbarian, and then continue on as a fighter for the next couple of levels until you reach level 6 or so when you pick some cool-power prestige class. What does the "background" section have to say about such characters?

    You could describe such a character as someone that started off as a trained veteran, then spent some time in the woods, where he kicked around with a bunch of orcs that taught him their primitive ways, before re-enlisting... but does anyone not find that story ludicrous? (Incidentally, if you're human this would not impose any XP penalties).
    This is certainly not the only way one could describe such a character. Even looking at the Scandinavian cultures that the Rjuriks are primarily based on, the berserker/barbarian was a prominent type of warrior but certainly not the only one. Martial training of a less chaotic sort was certainly not unknown (not everyone was a berserk) and woodland and tracking skills would no doubt have proved valuable as well. These multiple abilities don't require the story you propose above, just an interest in finding out a little of many of the skills and talents a group (or several groups) practice. Think of (another real-world analogy) a student who studies several martial arts, or martial arts and fencing, or fencing and tracking. The people who do such things may be dilettantes, but they are not impossible to believe in, nor do they require ludicrous story explanantions, just a deep curiosity. Real people can rarely be claimed to be following some optimal game path.

    So yes, you are correct in that the multiclassing system doesn't require any sort of story justification. However, it certainly doesn't contradict or make meaningless class background information, nor disallow or make ludicrous story-based or campaign-based justifications for multiclassing. In fact, the non-numeric descriptions of the races (such as the general personality description, alignment tendencies, and physical description) and the classes (standard backgrounds, origins, and motivations) are not meaningless. Even for characters who do not match these usual characteristics, the standard version plays an important role for the characters, as their differences from the norm are a large part of what make them interesting.

  4. #14
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia
    Posts
    6
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Off Topic before?

    Sorry if my last post was a bit off-topic in a thread at least originally intended to promote the reintroduction of the Guilder or at least an exploration of how it could be made to work as a DM specific add-on. I don't necessarily oppose the use of the Guilder, though I'd suggest one needs to be careful in making them to avoid making them either game-breaking in some areas or utterly inferior to other classes. I agree with gazza that the following are definitely problems:

    Quote Originally Posted by gazza666
    Firstly, it is strongly recommended that no character have more skill points than a rogue (the same way that nobody should have a better BAB progression than a fighter). And secondly, the "expert" ability has the potential for great abuse when it comes to qualifying for prestige classes.
    His fixes of both problems seem reasonable too:

    Quote Originally Posted by gazza666
    • Drop the skill points to 8 per level. It is far too tempting to "dip" into this class for a single level otherwise; you get pre-3.5 ranger syndrome.
    • Change the expert ability to instead provide (say) a +2 competence bonus to 3 skills, with possibly the number of skills and the bonus increasing with level. (Or one could treat the progression similar to a ranger's favoured enemy).
    How to fix the Guilder to make it not useless compared to the Rogue, but still not overpowered is a little tougher. One suggestion is to give the Guilder a greatly expanded selection of class skills, possibly even to the extreme of the Akashic in Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved, making all skills class skills. This would of course require that the Guilder's special abilities be significantly weaker than the Rogue's (which is probably almost guaranteed given the nature of the classes). Another option is to give the Guilder a player-chosen class skill list (in a little more extreme version than Fizz's Original one) such as:

    Class Skills
    The guilder's class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Craft (Int), Knowledge (all skills, taken individually) (Int), Profession (wis), and any ten additional skills chosen by the player. These skills are chosen at first level and thereafter cannot be changed.

    In either case, I'd suggest that the Guilder have equal skills per level to the Rogue (but no more) and generally somewhat weaker (and vastly different) special abilities, but not completely inconsequential ones. Additionally, the second option above could be modified to allow six, eight, or twelve player-chosen class skills as seems appropriate given their other abilities. The good Will saves seem to be another worthwhile difference from the Rogue, either coupled with good Reflex saves or not. Another possibility is to grant the Guilder Medium armor proficiency (and probably only simple weapons), and maybe even d8 hit dice, further differentiating them from the Rogue by leading them away from being so steath-oriented.

    Anyway, the Guilder would be a difficult class to make both balanced and useful, but something like this seems like a possibility to get there without stepping on too many toes of the other classes.

  5. #15
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Here is some things that may be useful.

    Follow the link to an old "discussion" about the noble.

    There are several documents (i.e., versions) there.

    The first one was my original concept for a noble. IMO it does a whole lot towards capturing the guilder issue but it was shot down via polls and we ended up with the current version in the sanctioned chapter.

    I've attached the word file to make it easier to "find".

    http://www.birthright.net/showthread...ighlight=noble
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Duane Eggert

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Fizz
    I find that argument inconsistent with the rest of the setting- Many core classes are regional in Birthright. Barbarians are only found among the Rjurik and Vos, Paladins among Anuireans and Khinasi. The Brechts need one of their own. (And it fits well among the merchants of Khinasi too, anyways.)
    I like the idea of having regional base classes. There are pleanty of good base classes out there that could very well fit into a Birthright campaign. For Brechtur, it seems like the Swashbuckler and Scout classes are good fits, no?

  7. #17
    Senior Member RaspK_FOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Moschato, Athens, Greece
    Posts
    1,128
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    If you are going to introduce such a class, good ideas are the Illicit Barter ability found in the Star Wars d20 Scoundrel class, as well as The Wheel of Time d20 Wanderer class (I think). Check up on those two classes for a good theme.

    Additionally, it's very important to actually give the Guilder some more defining skills: Appraise, Bluff, Craft, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Profession, Spot, and an additional 10 skills as class skills seems to be a sound mechanic (though I would go for 10 + Int modifier); I would also grant him bonus feats chosen from a list, including Cosmopolitan and Skill Focus. Contacts from the Scoundrel and Noble are also a sound mechanic if handled properly.

  8. #18
    Special Guest (Donor)
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    southwest Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    563
    Downloads
    140
    Uploads
    1
    Thanks everyone for the input!

    Seems people are worried about the extra-ranks idea. I guess that's not usually a concern of mine since my group doesn't use prestige classes.

    While i agree the guilder is sort of a niche class, i've always (even back in 2nd ed) liked the idea of a solely skill-based class. I know that many consider the rogue to be that class for 3E, but it's too sneak-focused for that purpose. In my mind, the guilder should be to the expert what the fighter is to the warrior.

    The trick is finding enough special things to make it a worthwhile class. That was easy in 2nd Ed where non-weapon proficiencies were scarce.

    I will consider all the stuff stated here and see what i can work up. Any other suggestions are always welcome!

    -Fizz
    Last edited by Fizz; 07-24-2006 at 02:01 AM.

  9. #19
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    At 08:53 PM 7/19/2006, Birthright.net Message Boards wrote:

    >Hi all-

    Hello back. Let`s see if this whole interaction between boards/list
    is up and going....

    >Class Skills
    >
    >Administrate (Wis), Appraise (Int), Bluff (Cha), Concentration
    >(Con), Craft (Int), Decipher Script (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Forgery
    >(Int), Gamble (Wis), Gather Information (Cha), Intimidate (Cha),
    >Knowledge (all), Listen (Wis), Perform (Cha), Profession (Wis),
    >Search (Int), Sense Motive (Wis), Sleight of Hand (Dex), Speak
    >Language (Int), Use Rope (Dex)
    >
    >Plus, the guilder chooses 3 other skills to be class skills.
    >
    >Skill Points: 10

    As a rule of thumb, I found a couple of things in designing classes
    and assigning them skill points. One, they should probably not
    exceed 8/level. It just seems to work out well if that`s the cap,
    especially if one considers that an INT bonus might bump it up even
    higher. In general, I found 1/3 of the current total list of class
    skills is a good number. That way there are always things the PC
    might be able to do better but he has access to a decent number of
    his class skills. In this case that would peg it at right about
    8. (23 class skills / 3 = 7.blahblahblah)

    >Expert: The guilder is not constrained by the maximum ranks as other
    >classes are. The maximum ranks he may have in a given skill is
    >equal to 3 + 1.5 times his level. Thus, at 2nd level his max ranks
    >would be 6 instead of the usual 5. At 10th he could have 18 ranks,
    >instead of 13. At 20th he could have 33 instead of 23. (This
    >emulates the 2nd Ed guilder ability of having extra nonweapon
    >proficiency slots.)

    I`m thinking of just doing away with max ranks entirely, but that`s a
    whole `nother screed.

    >Silver Tongue: Constant dealing with others gives the guilder a keen
    >sense of how to make them believe his lies. He may attempt a retry
    >of the Bluff skill, but with a –5 penalty.
    >
    >Pidgin: Guilders have a knack for communicating despite barriers of
    >an uncommon language. He can communicate and understand simple
    >concepts, such as the need for food, desire to trade, warnings,
    >etc. This works similar to the Decipher Script skill. The guilder
    >makes a Pidgin check equal to d20 plus his Intelligence modifier
    >plus his level. The DC varies with the complexity of information
    >that is trying to be conveyed.

    As for special abilities, I think there should be some effort to
    differentiate the class not only from rogues, but to emphasize their
    administrative/financial role at the domain level. That is, they
    aren`t thieves... they steal from people licitly. Thus, things like
    an ability to trade/purchase items, a long-standing relationship with
    others. Maybe an income from what we might assume to be a sort of
    medieval portfolio (the way certain D20 classes get a daily, weekly
    or monthly stipend) might be in order.

    G

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    124
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I`ve found instances that would allow any of the core
    classes in any of the regions of the Birthright
    setting.

    The Five Peaks region could easily spawn barbaric
    humans. In fact, the northernmost province of
    Mhoried, as found in a module, had highland type
    people very similar to Scottish people; who were, for
    all intents and purposes, still a barbarian people for
    many centuries after they were "civilized" by the
    English.

    Barbaric desert tribes in Khinasi are easily made.

    And etc...

    I don`t think there is a region in Birthright that
    can`t support any class you wish to play.

    Just my two pence.


    Anthony Edwards


    --- "Birthright.net Message Boards"
    <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET> wrote:

    > I find that argument inconsistent with the rest of
    > the setting- Many core classes are regional in
    > Birthright. Barbarians are only found among the
    > Rjurik and Vos, Paladins among Anuireans and
    > Khinasi. The Brechts need one of their own. (And
    > it fits well among the merchants of Khinasi too,
    > anyways.)
    >
    > I like the idea of having regional base classes.
    > There are pleanty of good base classes out there
    > that could very well fit into a Birthright campaign.
    > For Brechtur, it seems like the Swashbuckler and
    > Scout classes are good fits, no?

    __________________________________________________
    Do You Yahoo!?
    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
    http://mail.yahoo.com

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.