Bards (version by: KGauck)

[RaspK_FOG]

That would be an interesting interpretation of the whole concept of bamboo elves...

As for bards, you are missing a specific aspect of the whole issue; bards learn a unique aspect of magic that they guard a lot: spellsinging. Enchantments cast by bards are, for all terms and purposes, sung, not cast. It's only healing anyone should have a problem with, thematically.

[kgauck]

I find spellsong daft, the last thing worth preserving and better off forgotten.

I would have expected that the several posts arguing against irdeggman's suggestion would have established that I understand, "changing one aspect means changing another aspect, and another aspect, and another."

Of course "setting should always take precedence." That's the basis of my argument here - the god of heraldry and art will have divine bards, the rest is gravy. If you're such a stickler for setting as you say you are, how can you justify arcane skalds among the Rjurik, when its plain they are hostile to arcane magic? You can argue that this is spellsong and sidhe derived, but the Rjurik have no love of the sidhe either, so that's pretty weak. Further, I am a partisan of Ryan Caveney's half-elf as changeling, so people practicing expeclictly elf-magic should be expected to be preparing humans for the conquest of the elves. You can argue that they are "our arcanists," but then why not just say the same about "our wizards". Indeed it makes much more sense to say that skalds are members of Erik's priesthood, that their spellcasting stacks with druids, and that they are totally integrated as druids.

Finally, don't mistake disagreement for a failure to understand your argument. I'm much more interested in developing religion than I am the archaic elf-human cultural exchange.

[RaspK_FOG]

I can only say one thing in these regards: with some of what you say, I agree, with others I don't; but I don't see "Birthright" taking precedence, but a variation of it instead. Not that I have anything with it, if that's what you want, but I don't see that as any simpler.

[kgauck]

Birthright in actual play is always going to be subject to the various perspectives of the players involved and can only be authentic when its left on the page. Players will interpret BR in terms of the game the want to play. A big game with the Gorgon as the central enemy, based on reunifying Anuire is going to be a different game from one where one PC is regent of the IHH and the other PC's are his closest advisers. Not only because the two campaigns have different interests and emphasis, because to that extent both can inhabit BR in different ways, but moreso because players in those two different games will draw on different sets of literary and historical models. The BR texts are so brief, they construct little more than a framework with very little filled in beyond a core framework. Someone steeped in Tolkien will read the words on the BR pages much different from someone steeped in Arthur or some other source. I mean to go beyond a sense that they will fill in gaps differently, I mean to say they will read the words on the page differently. When you see the word "noble" do you think of a Roman style noble who might be a priest, landowner, merchant, soldier, or politician, or do you mean a 19th century noble who has no social or political purpose and spends his time in idle activities of privilege and wealth, or a 13th century Anglo-French noble, who is distinct from and sometimes at odds with merchants and priests? What you bring to the page is going to ultimately be much more significant than what is on the page.

I'd like to see what is on the page remain key, but I also acknowledge that people whom I respect (say Ryan Caveney or John Machin) are going to read the same materials significantly differently than I do.

[Thelandrin]

This is a fascinating debate, but please let's not have people second-guessing each other what they do or not understand.

[RaspK_FOG]

You are correct, and I should apologise for that; I am really very sorry, KGauck. Last year has been rougher than I care to admit to myself and I am more tense than I should; I beg your pardon for my attitude.

[Sorontar]

Remember that BR is set up with a lot of specialists. There is no generic paladin or druid. They are all restricted to certain churches and have skill and weapon preferences etc according to the church. The priest is always a specialist. Even the magician is a specialist arcane spellcaster. So the nature of the BR bard need not match that of a generic bard. I like the idea of it having different purposes according to different divine patrons.

As to what the specialisations should be, I don't know but I too would prefer the setting to rule them, rather than forcing them to stay in the generic form.

If you want background to how they got the skills, how about elven bards having their own specialisation? They can have an arcane spell list and all the church/human bards can have divine lists.The humans didn't "learn" explicitly from the elves for elven music is "out of this world"/etheral, but they did learn how to interweave sound with reality and with the support of their divine patrons, they created their own bardic spells. Being blooded could allow a bard to learn the elven tunes, but they would lose access to the divine bardic spells. For this reason, most blooded bards stick to the church hymns.

This way, the elves can be prevented from having access to the healing spells, but some human bardic specialisations do have them, and you can still further restrict what spells any bard can use within different churches and add some as well.

Apologies if this has been suggested before.... memory like sieve.

Sorontar.

[Lee]

I initially did not like the idea of divine-casting bards, as it alters
"Rules As Written." However, the rationale put forward here, appeals to me
somewhat, at least for Erik/Laerme bards. If one could write divine-casting bards
for them, and arcane-casting bards for sidhe and some humans who learned
from them, that would be neat.

Just my 2 coppers,
Lee.



************************************** See what`s new at http://www.aol.com

[Pauper]

Greetings,

did you never read the SRD? I have a legal version for download at www.esnips.com/web/pietroschekswebresearch/

The divine bard is defined among unearthed arcana "Core class variants". The cloistered cleric and druidic avenger might be to your liking just as well (and if you would have read my PDFs you would all long know) ;o)

The horrible number of mistakes in the PDF made it a bit difficult... I mentioned before, standard character classes get comparably few feats. Couldn`t one make a rule that all five levels one gets a cultural feat (independent of class, to suit atmosphere mostly)?

Some days ago I contemplated if a half-elf magician or half-elf bard would be a more suiting figure for "generic Birthright". Both have unique benefits, yet outside of D&D the Bard is often perceived as a weak mix, here you discuss herald...

Delete standard D&D classes and make unique ones for Birthright completely?

Example:
Wilderness Lore is a knowledge, yet as game gudie I wouldn`t even ask those who spend decades in Rjurik or Vosgaard, if they can surivive the standard environmental threats.

Bard again. Spellsong. I know only that it exists, spin a mini-tale to make readers and players understand?

Sorry, opinion but not much to offer here spontaneously.

[irdeggman]

Greetings,

did you never read the SRD? I have a legal version for download at www.esnips.com/web/pietroschekswebresearch/

The divine bard is defined among unearthed arcana "Core class variants". The cloistered cleric and druidic avenger might be to your liking just as well (and if you would have read my PDFs you would all long know) ;o)

But not the "official" SRD from WotC.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35

Far too many people choose to combine things that are OGC into a single source and call it "the SRD" which is not true. I have also noticed a propensity for people to add their own interpretation to the text contained in the "offical" SRD.

The horrible number of mistakes in the PDF made it a bit difficult... I mentioned before, standard character classes get comparably few feats. Couldn`t one make a rule that all five levels one gets a cultural feat (independent of class, to suit atmosphere mostly)?

Wilderness Lore is a knowledge, yet as game gudie I wouldn`t even ask those who spend decades in Rjurik or Vosgaard, if they can surivive the standard environmental threats.

All 5 levels of what or did you mean at every 5th level?

Atmosphere - Like in the sanctioned version of Chap 1 of the BRCs which has survival as a class skill for both Vos and Rjurik and various saving throw bonuses to the human cultures? Never underestimate the power granted by always treating a skill as a class skill . That entails only costing 1 sp per rank and having a max rank limit of level + 3 (instead of 1/2 of that).

Wilderness Lore doesn't exist as a skill anymore (in 3.5 - which is what UA is written per) - it is Knowledge (Nature) and doesn't have to do with surviving in the wild (except as source of a bonus due to synergy) that is the function of the survival skill, as well as tracking.


Difference in the two (my example):
Knowledge (nature) - "many parts of a pine tree are edible"
Survival - "knowing where to find the edible pine tree and prepare it to eat"