Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 68

Thread: Classes

  1. #21
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ThatSeanGuy View Post
    I think 'noble' was a bad class anyway. It makes one class better at being an aristocrat than the others, when the idea is that the whole party are nobility.
    Just because the whole party are nobles doesn't mean that they are all equally good at being leaders of domains. So that was rather the point.

    Second, the beauty of the free multi-classing of 3x was that you could decide just how much a character departed from being such a leader and specialized in something else.

    On the Warlock: Can we not do the monk thing again? The idea of getting power by making deals with spirits is as old as the idea of 'magic', and I just think it's a really negative way to start the conversion: "Oh, by the way, these core classes are out.".
    Not every thing belongs in every setting. But as far as the Warlock goes, I haven't seen any opposition and plenty of support for it on the several threads where it has been discussed. I think there is plenty of support for Shadow pacts, Fey pacts, and for the Khinasi, somethink aproximating the Star pact, but connected with sun or moon instead.

  2. #22
    Site Moderator AndrewTall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    2,476
    Downloads
    30
    Uploads
    2
    The question to me is 'how do we keep BR magic powerful but rare' with the existing spellcasting classes. I can read skill, courage and luck into most powers for the various fighter types, but splitting the spellcasters into 'true magic' and 'magicians' is looking tough.

    PC's can always be exceptional, but some mechanic is needed for the hedgemage type that has enough magic to be burned at the stake but can't tap the real McCoy.

    The easy restriction is 'no ability which causes damage' for the magicians - but I don't know if enough powers are left to give magicians a power progression...

    People who play epic campaigns (I think from recollection that BR players split evenly between gritty and epic campaigners) should be fine without the magician, but I certainly want someone to make my spellcaster look good, provide potions and simple witchcraft, etc.

  3. #23
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by AndrewTall View Post
    The easy restriction is 'no ability which causes damage' for the magicians - but I don't know if enough powers are left to give magicians a power progression...
    Indeed, the magic I have always found most appropriate for BR is divination, illusion, and enchantment. No damage in any of those (necessarily).

  4. #24
    Why not have Warlocks serve as magicians?

    If you want magic without the proper blood, you have to make a pact with a spirit that could screw you. It makes "real" magic something difficult to achieve, while giving folks more options.

    The problem with the Magician, IMO, is that divination has largely become a ritual thing, and illusion and enchantment have moved into the psychic power set. That, and the wizard class is a heck of a lot more balanced these days-having a class that's specifically "Weaker than wizard." is kind of weird, mechanically.

  5. #25
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ThatSeanGuy View Post
    That, and the wizard class is a heck of a lot more balanced these days-having a class that's specifically "Weaker than wizard." is kind of weird, mechanically.
    Sure its weird from a perspective that looks at the adventure level and thinks about combat classes being balanced. But, Its perfectly reasonable from a world-design perspective that includes both great wizards and hedge mages, and doesn't want to simply say that the old lady that makes love philters and healing tonics out by the old bridge isn't simply a lower level version of the High Mage Alies, but something different.

    Given that I could do three things in a BR campaign, design a world that satisfies a sense of coherence, tell a cool story, and balance characters for adventures, I would prefer to achieve them in that order, and if I never quite got around to the third, I'd still feel OK.

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    883
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    ThatSeanGuy wrote:
    Why not have Warlocks serve as magicians?


    If you want magic without the proper blood, you have to make a pact with a spirit that could screw you. It makes "real" magic something difficult to achieve, while giving folks more options.

    The problem with the Magician, IMO, is that divination has largely become a ritual thing, and illusion and enchantment have moved into the psychic power set. That, and the wizard class is a heck of a lot more balanced these days-having a class that`s specifically "Weaker than wizard." is kind of weird, mechanically.

    The Magician was never only a "weaker Wizard". It was a double specialized Wizard in Illusion and Divination who got some additional abilities of a Thief. Something like a sneaky Eldritch Knight already in 2E ;-)

    And the whole class of magician underlines the importance and rareness of "true" wizards in Birthright.
    Last edited by Thelandrin; 06-21-2008 at 09:38 AM. Reason: Edited for clarity.

  7. #27
    Site Moderator AndrewTall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    2,476
    Downloads
    30
    Uploads
    2
    I haven't seen any psychic stuff, but if it could be reverse engineered into the magician I'd be happy with it - power set is pure flavour anyway so switching the power source from psychic to sorcery should be simple enough.

  8. #28
    We have a couple of way to deal with magicians.

    1. Turn them into a strict NPC class and make seperate rules for them.

    2. Create a new class and just make up attack powers that are far weaker than the wizards. They can still have something, but half as powerful or more.

    3. Take the wizard class and adjust. Make any At-will attack power for a wizard an encounter attack power for a magician. Make any encounter power from a wizard a daily power for magician. Any daily power make it weekly or remove completely and replace with another use of a utility power.

    On the idea of nobles, I am still against it myself. The original 2nd edition had no need for them and every ruler was an adventuring class character. I agree that having character class that excels at domain control would unbalance the other folks (every NPC leader.)

    Lets just have an extensive list of feats and powers available to blooded or noble born characters. As they level, if they are spending almost all of their feats and powers on domain actions and boosts, they are going to be terrible at their class because they have ignored it over the years. There is no need to create a possible unbalancing class, not to mention if we do create a new class then we would still have to follow the leveling path (1-30 powers) in the 4th edition players handbook that gives at-will combat powers and encounter combat powers specificly .... which means we would have to create an entire new leveling mechanic that I am strongly against.

  9. #29
    I agree with the noble class should be begoned, but the druid magician and bard should still continue even if we create our own versions of the druid and bard then they can be unique to BR. Magician are always an intriguing class.

    With the new classes we need to come up with paragon classes for each of the classes that do exist.

  10. #30
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    At 11:45 AM 6/21/2008, Wilenburg wrote:

    >I agree with the noble class should be begoned, but the druid
    >magician and bard should still continue even if we create our own
    >versions of the druid and bard then they can be unique to
    >BR. Magician are always an intriguing class.
    >
    >With the new classes we need to come up with paragon classes for
    >each of the classes that do exist.

    It looks like 4e druids and bards are going to appear in "future
    Player`s Handbook volumes" so it might be prudent to wait until those
    come out before writing up a BR version....

    Gary

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Any of the 'new classes' in use?
    By Ragathol in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 05-01-2007, 08:44 PM
  2. Prestige classes
    By graham anderson in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-17-2004, 04:51 PM
  3. Prestige Classes
    By The Jew in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 11-23-2003, 03:43 PM

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.