No monks?

[Azrai]

Why are the monks cut out of the game? In the text you say that monks are not defined in the Birthright game - of course not, monks are 3. Edition ! (well, 1. Edition, but....). IMO monks are an essential addition to the 3. Edition D&D and should be included. Don't see them oriental, more like normal middle-age-monks.
If you take a look in "Book of Magecraft" some monks are quoted.

[spehar]

I think it's important to remember there are two different kinds of monks. The first monk will actually be an expert or noble class. He is devoted to living his life in a monastary, dedicated to strict vows like poverty and chastity in the name of his religion. These monks will certainly still exist throughout Cerilia.

The second monk is the monk character class. It can be easily argued that these monks exist, particularly in Khinasi lands and in Aduria. I argued these monks shouldn't be taken out of the game. I lost. LOL.

Whatever you do don't confuse one monk with the other.

Mike Spehar

[Azrai]

So here is one vote to include the monks in the game, since they are an elementary part of the 3. Edition !

[Ulairi]

You guys can always add them to your adventures. :)

I'm not a huge fan of the Monk Class being in the game they don't seem to fit with me. Just create a Fighter/Monk with feats.

[Green Knight]

You can have a vote from me too.

I can`t think of a reason not to include them; arguing along the lines of "not in the original material" excludes sorcerers, barbarians etc.

They may not be the most common class, but they deserve to be included.
>
> Fra: Azrai <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
> Dato: 2003/02/05 Wed PM 02:55:26 CET
> Til: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
> Emne: Re: No monks? [36#1261]
>
> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1261
>
> Azrai wrote:
> So here is one vote to include the monks in the game, since they are an elementary part of the 3. Edition !
>
> ************************************************** **************************
> The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
> Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
> To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
> with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
>

Cheers
Bjørn

-------------------------------------------------
WebMail fra Tele2 http://www.tele2.no
-------------------------------------------------

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Cobos]

Green Knight wrote:

>You can have a vote from me too.
>
>I can`t think of a reason not to include them; arguing along the lines of "not in the original material" excludes sorcerers, barbarians etc.
>
>
Not really ... barbarians were very much in the original material as an
idea i.e. Vos, Goblins, Rjurik etc...
Sorcerers fit the description of the elf magic-users perfectly, and as
such was also in the books...
Monks with extreme unarmed combat powers and some semi-mystical KI
powers (which IMHO
opinion points to eastern influence) are not descriped anywhere in
Cerilia. In aduria maybe but then
why not simply include them in your campaign as is...

>They may not be the most common class, but they deserve to be included.
>
>
>
>
>>Fra: Azrai <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
>>Dato: 2003/02/05 Wed PM 02:55:26 CET
>>Til: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
>>Emne: Re: No monks? [36#1261]
>>
>>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
>> You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1261
>>
>> Azrai wrote:
>> So here is one vote to include the monks in the game, since they are an elementary part of the 3. Edition !
>>
>>************************************************** **************************
>>The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
>>Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
>>To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
>>with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Cheers
>Bjørn
>
>
>
Sindre

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[spehar]

There's certainly an arguement that can be made that they have no place in the campaign setting. Those individuals wishing Monks toting religious books in monastaries is one thing. Monks throwing off 10 unarmed strike attacks and falling from 50 story buildings and taking no damage is another. Those wishing to preserve a more Arthurian campaign world will probably not like the monk, else you probably enjoy it.

Mike Spehar

[ryancaveney]

I loathe monks. I`m thrilled they`re not included.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Green Knight]

Well...I`m pretty sure the Rjurik could be rangers and the Vos fighters; and the elves fitting the sorcerer "perfectly"? Why is that; they were wizards in 2E (to me they always seemed more like druids than sorcerers anyway) same as other users of true magic.

Still, I suppose that the monk is a little less easily incorporated in BR, but it can be done; and to good effect. If you just forget the word `ki` the class is quite cool. Why can`t there be Monk of Rilni practicing their mystical arts in the great temple, guarding it against those who would see the Five Oaths destroyed. Or wandering dervishes, roaming the Tarvan Waste and beyound, worshipping their godess by thempering their bodies under Her harsh gaze. Well, these are just two ideas. Give the monk a chance :-)

>
> Fra: Sindre Cools Berg <cobos@SAERS.COM>
> Dato: 2003/02/05 Wed PM 04:00:05 CET
> Til: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
> Emne: Re: Sv: Re: No monks? [36#1261]
>
> Green Knight wrote:
>
> >You can have a vote from me too.
> >
> >I can`t think of a reason not to include them; arguing along the lines of "not in the original material" excludes sorcerers, barbarians etc.
> >
> >
> Not really ... barbarians were very much in the original material as an
> idea i.e. Vos, Goblins, Rjurik etc...
> Sorcerers fit the description of the elf magic-users perfectly, and as
> such was also in the books...
> Monks with extreme unarmed combat powers and some semi-mystical KI
> powers (which IMHO
> opinion points to eastern influence) are not descriped anywhere in
> Cerilia. In aduria maybe but then
> why not simply include them in your campaign as is...
>
> >They may not be the most common class, but they deserve to be included.


Cheers
Bjørn

-------------------------------------------------
WebMail fra Tele2 http://www.tele2.no
-------------------------------------------------

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Azrai wrote:
> Why are the monks cut out of the game? In the text you say that monks
> are not defined in the Birthright game - of course not, monks are 3.
> Edition ! (well, 1. Edition, but....). IMO monks are an essential
> addition to the 3. Edition D&D and should be included. Don`t see
> them oriental, more like normal middle-age-monks.

Ah, yes, along with scribing, gardening, and manuscript illuminating, the
Dominicans, Jesuits, and various Irish monasteries were noted for their
kata practice and proficiency with the kama, nunchuck, and ki strike.

Give me a break.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Green Knight wrote:
> I can`t think of a reason not to include them; arguing along the lines
> of "not in the original material" excludes sorcerers, barbarians etc.

They don`t fit the setting. Not that they weren`t in the rules, but that
there aren`t any cultures which would produce such beasts.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Mark_Aurel]

As previously noted, monks weren't included for flavor reasons. As also previously noted, it should not be hard to include them, should you wish to do so; I see several options for doing so already presented. Another would be to use the "far-off lands" option; there are other continents with different cultures on Aebrynis that may have monks.

On a personal note, one of the reasons that I find Birthright is great is because of the fact that it *didn't* include everything - a campaign setting like Forgotten Realms, while superficially similar, does the opposite, and seems to make an effort to stuff everything in. The core of Birthright did not include such options as psionics, most of the kits made for 2e, many monsters were deemed too "weird," and so on - the decision on monks were based on this precedence.

[doom]

On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 02:55:26PM +0100, Azrai wrote:
> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1261
>
> Azrai wrote:
> So here is one vote to include the monks in the game, since they are
> an elementary part of the 3. Edition !

Certainly we (as a community) can vote to do anything that we want. I
would note, however, that the same arguement can be made about gnomes.
Gnomes are an elementary part of 3e. Does that mean that they should
be included in Cerilia? Both monks and gnomes were about in 2e.. but
the orignal developers made a concious effort to drop both of them from
the setting. It would seem to be unwise to not follow their direction in
this matter.

- Doom

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Azrai]

Originally posted by Mark_Aurel
it should not be hard to include them, should you wish to do so.

Thats not an argument. This way a game would be totally optional, one could also exclude all other classes and add whatever each campaign needs....


As I previously said, monks are not necessarily connected to some oriental setting. Take a look at Salvatores "Demonwar" Saga. These monks are typical middle-age-monks. A quarterstaff instead of a shurikan will make it. Also consider the greek sparta-warriors.

In the Forgotten Realms many religions have monks. If you have some bruce lee's in mind, you have the wrong picture.

[Azrai]

@ Doom:

That's wrong what you say. Gnomes are listed in the monster-list of the official rules and therefore I see no reason not to take them into account.

I can't remember any statement of the developers that monks are not element of Birthright.

[geeman]

If someone wanted to play a monk who had arrived from a distant land in a
BR campaign I don`t think I`d object to that, but the character class
described in 3e (and in 1e before that) doesn`t strike me (pun) as being
very Cerilian. One could certainly posit a small, hidden enclave of people
in various Cerilian regions where monks study/train, but that addition is
rather specific and outside the scope of what one normally considers the
basis for a core class. None of that even has anything to do with the
goofiness of the class, and how extensively it would need to be changed for
BR purposes, so to me it would seem to be a lot of text added to a BR
document for a limited amount of payoff.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[AnakinMiller]

> As I previously said, monks are not necessarily connected to some oriental
setting. Take a look at Salvatores "Demonwar" Saga. These monks are
typical
> middle-age-monks. A quarterstaff instead of a shurikan will make it. Also
consider the greek sparta-warriors.

I fail to see your argument here. I fail to see how the "Monk" Class is
anything similar to a monks from the History.

Quoting the PHB description of the class,

"They train themselves to be versitile warriors skilled at fighting without
weapons or armor."
"Though monks don`t cast spells, they have a magic of their own. They
channel a subtle energy, called ki."
"A monk`s training is her spiritual path. She is innerdirected, capable of
a private, mystic connection to the spiritual world. She needs neither
clerics nor gods."

This does not at all correlate to the midevil monk pouring over dusty tomes
and preserving ancient lore. The problem here is that this class is in fact
an eastern styled martial artist class. While it may not be as full flung
eastern as say a ninja or samuri, it does not mesh well into the five
regions of Cerilia where the vast majority of birthright campaigns take
place. These areas are based on cultures that did not have *chi wielding
karate masters*.

Change the shurikan to the quarter staff and you still have a martial artist
styled class. A quarterstaff is just a renamed bo staff. Still martial
artist in a handbag.

-Anakin
*sick, tired and exhausted*

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[doom]

On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 06:06:13PM +0100, Azrai wrote:
> As I previously said, monks are not necessarily connected to some
> oriental setting. Take a look at Salvatores "Demonwar" Saga. These
> monks are typical middle-age-monks. A quarterstaff instead of a
> shurikan will make it. Also consider the greek sparta-warriors.
>
> In the Forgotten Realms many religions have monks. If you have some
> bruce lee`s in mind, you have the wrong picture.

This may, indead, be the source of the disagreement. The "monk class"
is very mystic and unavoidably "Bruce Lee"-like. They are "balanced"
to be relatively equivalent to characters of equal level with default
magic items (this alone causes has significant potential implication in
a low-magic item availablity campaign). The 3e monk class creates
characters that move at remarkable rates of speed, that can do more
damage with their open hands than they can with a sword, can inflict
damage on creatures immune to normal weapons, and who are capable of
travelling via dimention door as a learned ability.

I would argue that the "Monks" of greek sparta-warrior variety or
middle-aged monk variety are fighters (or members of other classes)
that have taken Improved Unarmed Strike (and perhaps similar
appropriate feats). Such a character could, indeed, be very
appropriate in the setting.


________
/. Doom@cs.wright.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Cobos]

Azrai wrote:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1261
>
> Azrai wrote:
> @ Doom:
>
>That`s wrong what you say. Gnomes are listed in the monster-list of the official rules and therefore I see no reason not to take them into account.
>
>I can`t remember any statement of the developers that monks are not element of Birthright.
>
>
>
Neither can I remember anywhere they said that barbarians was a PC class
in 2e BR either
but that doesn`t mean it is inapproriate for BR. The fact that gnomes is
listed on the monster
list and NOT in the PC generation part early in the rulebook says quite
clearly that gnomes
are not intended as a PC class !!

Sindre

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Ariadne]

I want to vote for a monk too. I don't think they always should be seen as "Bruce Lee" ones. IMO in Khinasi may exist monk orders of Avani (because she is LN it is ideal for monks). Monk orders could further save knowledge (a little bit different from wizard librarys). So why shouldn't they be included, the 3rd Edition gave them an own class (so give them at least a PrC)...

Yes, Gnomes are listed on the monster list, but...: Why no statistics for Gnomes, Goblins (Hobgoblins, Bugbears), Gnolles and Half-Orogs? They would be pretty good as player characters...

[Shade]

I second this. I don`t think monks fit the `flavor` of Cerilia in any way,
and I`m glad the BR team decided not to include them.

At 10:19 AM 2/5/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>I loathe monks. I`m thrilled they`re not included.
>
>
>Ryan Caveney
>
>************************************************** **************************
>The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
>Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
>To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
>with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
>

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[irdeggman]

There was much discussion about including goblins and orogs as player classes in the initial proposal. It was decided that their use would be extremely limited and it wasn't worth the effort to include them as viable player races.

This was only for the initial development, this doesn't mean that this can't be changed it was just a matter of bang-for-the-buck at the initial development stage. Looking at the previews of 3.5 there will be more details forthcoming on how to use monster races for player character. My personal recommendation would be to sit on this one and wait for the 3.5 details to come out and then revisit it then, if the community expresses a desire to.

[Birthright-L]

They may be a really good class, and a feature in 3e; but remember this is a
campaign specific world....I don`t think Monks fit here either. If you want
a martial artist, make a fighter and take feats. Monks of Cerilia should
be, for the most part, NPCs who are either cleric/specialists who devote
their life to religious knowledge, or simple specialists. But that is just
my opinion. You can always just place monks in your own campaign.

Tony






----Original Message Follows----
From: Azrai <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>

Azrai wrote:
So here is one vote to include the monks in the game, since they are an
elementary part of the 3. Edition !

__________________________________________________ _______________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campa...gn.asp?cid=3963 (http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963)

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Malice3679]

> You can have a vote from me too.
>
> I can`t think of a reason not to include them; arguing along the lines of
"not in the original material" excludes sorcerers, barbarians etc.
>
> They may not be the most common class, but they deserve to be included.

Barbarians were certainly there...at least, they were there as much as
barbarians were anywhere in 2e before the Barbarians handbook came out.

The Vos fellas were chock-full of barbaric fun.

Tommy

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Lord Grave]

>
> Well...I`m pretty sure the Rjurik could be rangers and the
> Vos fighters; and the elves fitting the sorcerer "perfectly"?
> Why is that; they were wizards in 2E (to me they always
> seemed more like druids than sorcerers anyway) same as other
> users of true magic.

Fighters, with their access to the bonus feats, symbolize more organized
fighting style, with balance of offense and defense, strength and skill.
While I am sure that there are many Vos Fighters, Barbarians perfectly
fit the description of Vos worshipping berzerkers. Humanoids are also
fitting for Barbarians. Rjurik more or less, but I`d rather make
majority of them Rangers as you say.

The Sorcerers fit Elves perfectly because Elves have inborn ability to
cast the spells(don`t need bloodline), which is exactly how Sorcerers
cast spells. In ItSoD2, I allow Elves to become both Sorcerers and
Wizard, but other races can become only Wizards and only if they are
Blooded.

>
> Still, I suppose that the monk is a little less easily
> incorporated in BR, but it can be done; and to good effect.
> If you just forget the word `ki` the class is quite cool. Why
> can`t there be Monk of Rilni practicing their mystical arts
> in the great temple, guarding it against those who would see
> the Five Oaths destroyed. Or wandering dervishes, roaming the
> Tarvan Waste and beyound, worshipping their godess by
> thempering their bodies under Her harsh gaze. Well, these are
> just two ideas. Give the monk a chance :-)
>

Well, I`d rather make that Cloistered Cleric/Wizard or Druid/Wizard
combination than do that to the Monks. The original Monks have been
balanced with the other classes, and removing some abilities from them
would require adding new abilities to keep the balance, which would
require lots of time, effort and playtesting.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Lord Grave]

>
> On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Green Knight wrote:
> > I can`t think of a reason not to include them; arguing
> along the lines
> > of "not in the original material" excludes sorcerers,
> barbarians etc.
>
> They don`t fit the setting. Not that they weren`t in the
> rules, but that there aren`t any cultures which would produce
> such beasts.

Well, neither do they fit in basic Fogotten Realms, in Faerun, but they
were included because of commercial reasons. Good thing BRCS is not
commercial.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Lord Grave]

> > Azrai wrote:
> > So here is one vote to include the monks in the game,
> since they are
> > an elementary part of the 3. Edition !
>
> Certainly we (as a community) can vote to do anything that we
> want. I would note, however, that the same arguement can be
> made about gnomes. Gnomes are an elementary part of 3e. Does
> that mean that they should be included in Cerilia? Both
> monks and gnomes were about in 2e.. but the orignal
> developers made a concious effort to drop both of them from
> the setting. It would seem to be unwise to not follow their
> direction in this matter.
>

Well, you already have the Manni`s Gnomish Submarine warcard, and there
is a way to acquire it in Berhagen-Zikala Rally adventure. What more do
you need? Place them in Thaele for example? ;-)

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Milos Rasic" <mrasic@TEHNICOM.NET>
To: <BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM>
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] Sv: Re: No monks? [36#1261]


> >
> > On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Green Knight wrote:
> > > I can`t think of a reason not to include them; arguing
> > along the lines
> > > of "not in the original material" excludes sorcerers,
> > barbarians etc.
> >
> > They don`t fit the setting. Not that they weren`t in the
> > rules, but that there aren`t any cultures which would produce
> > such beasts.
>
> Well, neither do they fit in basic Fogotten Realms, in Faerun, but they
> were included because of commercial reasons. Good thing BRCS is not
> commercial.
>


I agree. I don`t like 3E, but removing Monks is a step in the right
direction to me for Birthright d20..)

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Milos Rasic wrote:

> The Sorcerers fit Elves perfectly because Elves have inborn ability to
> cast the spells (don`t need bloodline), which is exactly how Sorcerers
> cast spells.

True as far as it goes, except for one fatal flaw: the absurdly low limit
on total number of spells a sorcerer may know. After a few thousand years
doing magic as naturally as walking, there ought to be almost no limit to
the variety of different things a Sidhe has learned to accomplish with
magic. Sure, casting unprepared from Charisma sounds fine for Sidhelien,
but knowing fewer than ten spells of each level is just completely wrong.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
> True as far as it goes, except for one fatal flaw: the absurdly low limit
> on total number of spells a sorcerer may know. After a few thousand years
> doing magic as naturally as walking, there ought to be almost no limit to
> the variety of different things a Sidhe has learned to accomplish with
> magic. Sure, casting unprepared from Charisma sounds fine for Sidhelien,
> but knowing fewer than ten spells of each level is just completely wrong.

Besides which, humans learned true magic from the elves. They should cast
true magic the same way.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Peter Lubke]

On Thu, 2003-02-06 at 11:42, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:

On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Milos Rasic wrote:

> The Sorcerers fit Elves perfectly because Elves have inborn ability to
> cast the spells (don`t need bloodline), which is exactly how Sorcerers
> cast spells.

True as far as it goes, except for one fatal flaw: the absurdly low limit
on total number of spells a sorcerer may know. After a few thousand years
doing magic as naturally as walking, there ought to be almost no limit to
the variety of different things a Sidhe has learned to accomplish with
magic. Sure, casting unprepared from Charisma sounds fine for Sidhelien,
but knowing fewer than ten spells of each level is just completely wrong.

Flawed argument indeed - but whose?

Just because someone has done something all their life does not make
them necessarily good at it - although they are unlikely to be terribly
poor at it.

it is also highly unlikely that an immortal being will feel constrained
by time - so what makes you think that a 10,000 year old elf would know
more than a 50 year old human.

Elves being creatures of magic does not make them creatures of unlimited
magic either -- the arrogance of the assumption is disappointing to say
the least. Just because some race has a natural ability at something
does not make them unlimited masters of all magic for all time.

In fact, the elves by their very history and by nature must be entirely
constrained in a way that no human can be.

For every reason you give that elves should be one way, there`s an
equally compelling reason for them to be the complete opposite. From a
game design point of view however, the choice of which reasons to accept
is up to the way the designers want to balance the game.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Sir Justine]

Hi people!
I'm going to put my opinions here about the monk thing:
I agree with the Birthright d20 team; IMC I do not allow monks. I mean, if one player REALLY wanted to play a monk, I would let him, but they are not a part of my campaign.
Do not take me wrong - I really like monks. I'm a practioner of karate myself, and I love oriental culture. But that is just the problem with monks - they ARE oriental, and no matter how you see the class, the fact is that they were put in 3D&D to support oriental types.
I'm not saying that every monk is oriental; of course we have monks in ocidental cultures, but the monks in the PHB are NOT those of Sean Connery's Name Der Rose... Not with fast movement, slow fall, unarmed attack...
And if you remove these abilities from the class it will have nothing! It would be better to create a new class, though I don't see why - the class for this type of monk is the cleric...
IMC I created a new class for unarmed combat - the brawler. It can represent, a Vos that fights with his fists, a Brecht who works in the seaport and gets on a lot of fights, an Anuirean tavern brawler...

----

As for the sorcerer thing; IMC sorcerer is the favored class for elves, and wizards for Khinasi. Elves and anyone with a bloodline can be sorcerers or wizards, but elves are normally sorcerers because they use magic on a "natural" way and humans are wizards because they use magical in a "scientific" way.
The fact that humans learned magic form the elves don't mean that humans couldn't create their own form of magic!!! If the student couldn't create nothing new apart from what he learned from his master, there would be no evolution!

[Birthright-L]

For my playing group, and all those I have been a
part of in the past, it is irrelevant whether a class
is included or not. If the group discusses and agrees
to include or exclude rules, we do so. For instance,
at present the group prefers that the Paladin be a
prestige class (ala the Paksenarrion (sp?) saga
written by Elizabeth Moon) and that a variant Ranger
class be used instead of the one presented in the PHB.

I guess what I am trying to say is that something
like the monk issue is a non-issue simply because we
decide what to do or not to do. So, for the proposed
BRCS 3E rules (nicely done, btw), try looking at the
rules as something to be molded by whatever playing
group and/or individual to fit their own style. Does
that make sense at all?

Darkke

=====
`Dark clouds are upon us. A storm is coming, and I intend to ride the thunder.`

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Green Knight]

Nope, it didn`t.

We can all experiment with variant rules and classes in our own campaigns - I think everybody agrees to that :-) The question is whether or not to include the monk in the official BRCS...
>
> Fra: Dar Myth <darkkemyth@YAHOO.COM>
> Dato: 2003/02/06 Thu PM 02:32:25 CET
> Til: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
> Emne: Re: Sv: Re: No monks? [36#1261]
>
> For my playing group, and all those I have been a
> part of in the past, it is irrelevant whether a class
> is included or not. If the group discusses and agrees
> to include or exclude rules, we do so. For instance,
> at present the group prefers that the Paladin be a
> prestige class (ala the Paksenarrion (sp?) saga
> written by Elizabeth Moon) and that a variant Ranger
> class be used instead of the one presented in the PHB.
>
> I guess what I am trying to say is that something
> like the monk issue is a non-issue simply because we
> decide what to do or not to do. So, for the proposed
> BRCS 3E rules (nicely done, btw), try looking at the
> rules as something to be molded by whatever playing
> group and/or individual to fit their own style. Does
> that make sense at all?
>
> Darkke
>
> =====
> `Dark clouds are upon us. A storm is coming, and I intend to ride the thunder.`
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>
> ************************************************** **************************
> The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
> Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
> To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
> with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
>

Cheers
Bjørn

-------------------------------------------------
WebMail fra Tele2 http://www.tele2.no
-------------------------------------------------

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

> We can all experiment with variant rules and classes
> in our own campaigns - I think everybody agrees to
> that :-) The question is whether or not to include
> the monk in the official BRCS...


That`s exactly my point. That`s more relevant to
the people who are producing the product than those
who play it. Either way, people will modify it, and it
is not that impactful of an issue. It can be included
or excluded as desired. I think folk`s personal
opinions are making far too much of this. I could
understand it the class was included AND modified, but
otherwise, I think it is easily dealth with.

Darkke

=====
`Dark clouds are upon us. A storm is coming, and I intend to ride the thunder.`

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

Ryan B. Caveney wrote:

>True as far as it goes, except for one fatal flaw: the absurdly low limit
>on total number of spells a sorcerer may know. After a few thousand years
>doing magic as naturally as walking, there ought to be almost no limit to
>the variety of different things a Sidhe has learned to accomplish with
>magic. Sure, casting unprepared from Charisma sounds fine for Sidhelien,
>but knowing fewer than ten spells of each level is just completely wrong.
>Ryan Caveney
>
As Sidhelien do not cast Necromantic school spells, they can select
their spells from a smaller total number,
and unprepared casting must have disadvantages. 1000 years is often used
as argument for everything (Raesene must be the killing machine of the
world...after 1000 years...). Perhaps innate talent brings them only so
far, and they lack the patience for prolonged studies wizards need as
sidhelien are non-lawful?
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

Sidhain wrote:

>I agree. I don`t like 3E, but removing Monks is a step in the right
>direction to me for Birthright d20..)
>
As was the restrictions of 2E Birthright which allowed only certain
Character Kits and banned psionics.
Good decision.
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

daniel mcsorley wrote:

>On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
>
>>True as far as it goes, except for one fatal flaw: the absurdly low limit
>>on total number of spells a sorcerer may know. After a few thousand years
>>doing magic as naturally as walking, there ought to be almost no limit to
>>the variety of different things a Sidhe has learned to accomplish with
>>magic. Sure, casting unprepared from Charisma sounds fine for Sidhelien,
>>but knowing fewer than ten spells of each level is just completely wrong.
>>
>
>Besides which, humans learned true magic from the elves. They should cast
>true magic the same way.
>
They could learn only lesser magic, as before Deismaar there were no
blooded humans.
After Deismaar they diligently and patiently learn and exercise what
comes to sidhelien naturally.
If you want an example, then I suggest the novel Shadowstone in which
the young half-elf Highmage Aelies in a forgotten Realms disguise learns
to master both ways to deal with magic.
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[doom]

On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 11:28:54PM +0100, Michael Romes wrote:
> Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
> >True as far as it goes, except for one fatal flaw: the absurdly low limit
> >on total number of spells a sorcerer may know. After a few thousand years
> >doing magic as naturally as walking, there ought to be almost no limit to
> >the variety of different things a Sidhe has learned to accomplish with
> >magic. Sure, casting unprepared from Charisma sounds fine for Sidhelien,
> >but knowing fewer than ten spells of each level is just completely wrong.

Hmm. I don`t know if I buy this or not. The same arguement could
apply to sword-based conflict. Immortal elves have plenty of time...
thus should they also be masterful warriors skilled in the use of
nearly all weapons? Perhaps elves, once they find something that works
for them, don`t really make to much of an effort to better it. "A
longsword has worked just fine for 100 years, why should I learn to
use _that_?" This is certainly true for most RL humans (and becomes
more so as one ages and becomes "set in one`s ways"). Perhaps the same
is true for magic... elves learn a few "tricks" and leave it at that.

Still, I agree that, in a level-based system such as D&D, it is
sometimes very hard to faithfully represent the accumulated knowledge
of the very long-lived without also making them into uber bad-asses due
to the levels required to generate the necessary skill points.

- Doom

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Gavin Cetaine]

I like the monk class. Cool powers. Nice attack progression. Fun to play.

That said, I've thought about the issue of monks in BR for quite a while. I have to agree that the monk class is best left out of an official conversion. Like gnomes, they just don't fit the feel. Every TSR world had its own unique aspects and feel. Krynn was about balance, saga campaigns, and the struggle to fight on against the undefeatable. Athas was about survival - how to do it and how the mind could help. Toril is all about powerful magics, high level characters, and how to make clerics powerful enough to kick, er, moving on. Birthright was about vastly different cultures, earth shaking politics, and people who actually are the embodiment of their old gods. Things were added to the world (bloodlines, domain actions, etc) and somethings were left out (the planes, gnomes, monks).

The rules are there. If you want to include monks (or gn... gno... I can't say it) in your campaign, go ahead. That is always your option. One thing that every gamer knows is that there are always house rules. But, IMO, the team did the right thing for the conversion.

[irdeggman]

Maybe I'm missing something here - the d20 rules presented say that elves can be sorcerers, not that they prefer to be. It also says that their favored class is any arcane casting class vice wizard from the core rules.

I haven't really heard anyone say that elves shouldn't be allowed to be sorcerers just why they don't think they would or that they would be wizard instead. So the bottom line is what is the point? Where should the BRCS rules go in this area? Suggetions?:)

[DanMcSorley]

On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, irdeggman wrote:
> Maybe I`m missing something here - the d20 rules presented say that
> elves can be sorcerers, not that they prefer to be. It also says that
> their favored class is any arcane casting class vice wizard from the
> core rules.
>
> I haven`t really heard anyone say that elves shouldn`t be allowed to
> be sorcerers just why they don`t think they would or that they would
> be wizard instead. So the bottom line is what is the point? Where
> should the BRCS rules go in this area? Suggetions?:)

I wouldn`t extend favored class status to all arcane sorcerors.
Especially not magicians, which are a class originally human. 3e standard
is wizard, so maybe wizard or sorceror, whichever is higher, for elves.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[blitzmacher]

On the monk issue.

I agree that monks are not a part of Cerilia as is, but they may be in part of the rest of the Aberynis. Which may be something to put in the one day to be made Atlas.

There may also be some uses of the in Cerilia as well, but more as campaign type hooks. Such as a fighter law regent who gives up the slaying with the sword to find a more spiritual path, and learns less lethal means of combat, and teaches them to others. Or a lower class Khinasi that are not allowed weapons, and are inspired by Avani, decide to start their own type of training and monastry. Either way I would use the monk class as a prestige class, and have the characters start out as fighters choosing all the unarmed type feats. I'd also have the class use the law system, not the temple one.

[Elrostar]

Just thought I'd add my voice to the list of those who approve of the d20 team's decision to not include the monk.

I don't want to ponder the reasons for including the monk class in 3E at all, and I would certainly not want to stop anyone from introducing them in their campaign. However, having said that... They are overwhelmingly oriental, they in no way whatsoever resemble medieval monks of the Franciscan or Benedictine orders, and seem in general contrary to the flavour of Birthright.

I agree wholeheartedly that medieval monks may exist in Cerilia. I've been toying with the idea of running a more european type of campaign (with only one God, and an influential church permeating people's lives), and for that I am certainly going to include orders of monks. However, these will be more likely to be Experts, or cloistered clerics than anything else. So while they are certainly going to be there, if only because monastaries make such wonderful settings full of atmosphere, symbolism and possibilities for excellent roleplaying opportunities, I would never consider having these monks running around wielding kamas, or nunchaku, or anything like that.

It's not that I don't think that eastern philosophy is interesting, or worthwhile to represent in a game, but I am something of a purist. And so based on that, I'd much rather run a game which is purer medieval, rather than one which, like FR, attempts to incorporate _everything_.
Now, before anyone tells me that Birthright isn't remotely close to being a true representation of medieval Europe, I will say that I am obviously aware of that. If anything, my campaign setting leans in the direction of making it more so, rather than less so, and so may strike some people as unorthodox in that sense.

But in any case, for something that should be of broad use, and as close to Canon as we are going to have for BR, I think that monks (and ninja and samurai and katana) and native American shamen and warriors, and African warrior cultures (e.g. Masai), Indian maharajahs, and Polynesian were-sharks, do not belong in the Birthright setting of Cerilia. If they exist elsewhere on the Aberynis, that may be all well and good. But personally, the main dissatisfaction I have with the Birthright game I'm a player in at the moment is that it is trying to turn Birthright into FR. We seem to be overrun with flying castles, magical swords and armor, invading demon-hordes from Aduria, encounters with special emissaries of the Gods, and most recently the appearance of a Chinese Empire far to the east.
While all of this is, in and of itself, possibly interesting and entertaining, it is certainly not what I would be striving for in a Birthright setting.

As for having fighters finding a more spiritual path... This was pretty common in Europe as well. Orders like the Poor Knights of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon (aka the Templars) and the Hospitallers are examples of exactly that kind of behaviour. They also turned out to be among the most kick-ass soldiers around, but that was partly because they severed their ties with the secular world, and spent all their time practicing fighting. Alternately, for the more pacifist-minded noble, one could always become a contemplative monk upon reaching old age. Or if not actually taking vows, at least retire to a monastery and be cared for there, in return for turning over some amount of land to the order.

So that was a long-winded way of saying that I am pleased that monks aren't present in any of the published work so far. And I sincerely hope that the team doesn't succumb to the pressure of people wanting the monk to be included.

Elrostar

[blitzmacher]

There were Psionics in 2e, but not in BR.
There are Psionics in 3e, but not in BR.
There were no sorcerers in 2e PHB, but there are in 3e PHB, and the new BR.
There were no monks in 2e PHB, but there are in 3e PHB, and not the new BR.
Is this an update to make BR 3e?

[geeman]

At 07:17 PM 2/8/2003 +0100, blitzmacher wrote:

>There were Psionics in 2e, but not in BR.
>There are Psionics in 3e, but not in BR.
>There were no sorcerers in 2e PHB, but there are in 3e PHB, and the new BR.
>There were no monks in 2e PHB, but there are in 3e PHB, and not the new BR.
>Is this an update to make BR 3e?

I hope it isn`t. If you take another look at the title it`s called
"Birthright D20" not "Birthright 3e." 3e is really, IMO, largely developed
to support WotC`s core campaign settings--Forgotten Realms and to a certain
extent Greyhawk. Much campaign material is right in the core
books. Essentially, you can`t make BR a 3e product without making it also
look more like those campaign setting--a cataclysmic error. Many aspects
of BR already resemble those settings too closely because it was developed
under the 2e rules which were in many ways those that were developed for
GH/FR. The powers of paladins, the magic system, the character classes
available, and several other aspects of the setting are all incorporated
right into the setting already, when if it were developed without those
influences BR may have looked even more different from FR or GH than it
already does.

D20 on the other hand is the rules set with the campaign materials stripped
away so that alternate campaign settings can developed based on those
rules, and if you take a look at the campaign settings that are produced
since 3e was released and the D20 label created most of them are described
as D20 rather than 3e because that differentiates them from FR and
GH. (Well, there are also licensing reasons too, apparently.)

One could certainly play BR and make it look more like FR or GH by
including psionics, gnomes, monks, etc. You could even throw in Elminster
if you want. Keeping those things out of a D20 update of the setting,
however, is a good idea.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[doom]

On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 07:17:06PM +0100, blitzmacher wrote:
> blitzmacher wrote:
> There were Psionics in 2e, but not in BR.
> There are Psionics in 3e, but not in BR.
> There were no sorcerers in 2e PHB, but there are in 3e PHB, and the new BR.
> There were no monks in 2e PHB, but there are in 3e PHB, and not the new BR.
> Is this an update to make BR 3e?

I don`t understand the question. ;)
The team has tried to incorporate all the "new" things in 3e that are
compatable with the BR setting while recommending against the "new"
things in 3e that are not compatable with the setting. Oftentimes
these decisions are easy (based on the 2e design decisions to exclude
monks, psionics, some kits, etc). In some cases the correct decision
is less obvious (bard spell lists, etc).

- Doom

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[blitzmacher]

The point is that the monk, like the sorcerer, is a new character class in D20(or 3e) or whatever else you want to call it, and did not exist when BR was originally created. It is something that could work very well in BR, especially in Khinasi which is loosely based on middle eastern culture. The same culture based area where the monklike philosophy originated in our own world.

[geeman]

At 10:10 PM 2/8/2003 +0100, blitzmacher wrote:

>The point is that the monk, like the sorcerer, is a new character class in
>D20(or 3e) or whatever else you want to call it, and did not exist when BR
>was originally created. It is something that could work very well in BR,
>especially in Khinasi which is loosely based on middle eastern culture.
>The same culture based area where the monklike philosophy originated in
>our own world.

What aspects of the Khinasi do you see as parallel to the monk-like
philosophies of the modern world that led to the martial arts based version
of the monk?

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[blitzmacher]

How about the mainstream Khinasi worship of Avani. Avani's whole dogma would be perfect for a monk. Lawful neutral, symbol setting sun, domains of knowledge, reason, sun, magic, law. The belief that the sun shines forth her divine essence, Like QiGong, a form of meditation, where light plays a good part in it. Where knowledge should be gathered and access to it should be earned through determined dedication, discipline and self control. Striving to seek wisdom and understanding. Seems similar enough to me.

[Elrostar]

Mainstream worship of Avani = oriental monks?

Sorry, but I don't see the connection. I can see plenty of reasons for having monastic orders in Cerilia, but I don't see any compelling reason to include the oriental monk class.
Monastic orders, as I mentioned in my previous post, are certainly a great thing to include. But European monks were also extremely dedicated, devoting their lives to study and service for the Lord. But then again, that's really what a cleric is, isn't it? Someone who dedicates his or her life to the worship of their deity?

As for them being similar to Khinasi beliefs... Well, if we're going to associate them with Arabic or possibly Persian culture, I don't offhand recall any warrior monks being around there either? If one were to include dervishes, for instance, or Sufi mystics, or something similar to that, that might be very interesting and could add some spice to a campaign setting there. But once again, I don't see what 3E monks can offer a BR campaign other than having people running around (yes, running, given their obscenely high movement rate) who are capable of killing with their bare fists.

If people want to include them, then that's certainly up to them. But I'm still firm in my support of the d20 team for excluding it.

Now where did I put my soap box? :)

Elrostar

[DanMcSorley]

On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, blitzmacher wrote:
> The point is that the monk, like the sorcerer, is a new character
> class in D20(or 3e) or whatever else you want to call it, and did not
> exist when BR was originally created. It is something that could work
> very well in BR, especially in Khinasi which is loosely based on
> middle eastern culture. The same culture based area where the monklike
> philosophy originated in our own world.

No it isn`t. The martial-artist-monk originated much further east than
arabia. Or even Persia.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Dr. Travis Doom wrote:

> > > Sure, casting unprepared from Charisma sounds fine for Sidhelien, but
> > > knowing fewer than ten spells of each level is just completely wrong.
>
> Hmm. I don`t know if I buy this or not. The same arguement could
> apply to sword-based conflict. Immortal elves have plenty of time...
> thus should they also be masterful warriors skilled in the use of
> nearly all weapons?

If they bother to, yes. A 20,000-year-old elf could easily be a
60th-level character. A 30-year-old elf will not be, but that is not my
present concern.

> Perhaps elves, once they find something that works for them, don`t
> really make to much of an effort to better it. "A longsword has worked
> just fine for 100 years, why should I learn to use _that_?"

Sure, but they should be able to do just about *anything* with that trusty
old longsword. I tend to consider a single melee weapon to be the
equivalent of several dozen related spells, and a type of weapon (say,
one-handed slashing) as equivalent to an entire school of spells.
I think the whole Vancian D&D system is actually rather bad at
representing the way I think about elven magic -- I`m more inclined to use
something like White Wolf`s Mage system, in which you can do anything you
can imagine which is consistent with your personal power.

Another angle: the flavor text for the Sidhelien presents them as
inherently unpredictable and changing quickly and easily from one thing to
another -- that leads me to believe that they would generally be more
likely to have a smattering of knowledge about an incredibly wide range of
topics, than to have a singleminded focus on any one of them. I think
many would perceive most forms of long-term serious dedication as weird
and perhaps even unnatural. They seem just as likely to say, "I`ve used
nothing but a longsword for a millennium, so today I will start to use
something -- anything! -- else, just for variety."

> This is certainly true for most RL humans (and becomes
> more so as one ages and becomes "set in one`s ways").

True. However, perhaps this is *why* the elves are so chaotic --
otherwise they`d be in a ten-thousand-year rut.

> Perhaps the same is true for magic... elves learn a few "tricks" and
> leave it at that.

Except IMO elves sort of _are_ magic... their understanding should be much
deeper and broader, even if not as intellectual.

My original post was written in response to someone who seemed to think
Sidhelien should be sorcerers *but not* wizards. In the new 3e
conversion, they are allowed both with no strong preference either way,
which is fine by me. (IMC they`re druids, and no humans are, but that`s
another kettle of fish.)

> Still, I agree that, in a level-based system such as D&D, it is
> sometimes very hard to faithfully represent the accumulated knowledge
> of the very long-lived without also making them into uber bad-asses due
> to the levels required to generate the necessary skill points.

Well, I think there ought to be a fair number of uber-badasses among the
Sidhelien (Rhoubhe or Llaeddra of Lluabraight, for example, IMO ought to
be able take out the Gorgon with both hands tied behind their backs).
That said, even if no XP were being gained, I`d still give the long-lived
races (elves, dwarves, dragons, etc.) at least an extra skill rank per
decade and an extra feat per century, just to represent the things they`d
picked up in the course of their everyday lives.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[blitzmacher]

The religous philosophies start in India. The Khinasi have a mideast through india type feel to them. Define Martial Arts, all trained fighting is a martial art. 3e limited the monk by giving them the oriental weapons. Get rid of the word monk, and what you have is someone who dedicates their lives to knowledge and unarmed and lightly armed combat. Yes, an unarmed person can kill someone wearing armor, it's what you know, not what you wear. Even though I doubt they would attack an armoured person without a weapon, although a more culturaly attuned weapon would be more fitting.

The first time I saw this thread I thought the same as ya'all, no monks. The more I look at the Khinasi, the more it seems to scream monks. They might make a good Paladin class for Avani, like the ranger class does for Erik.

[Birthright-L]

----- Original Message -----
From: "blitzmacher" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
To: <BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM>
Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] No monks? [36#1261]


> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at:
http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1261
>
> blitzmacher wrote:
> The religous philosophies start in India. The Khinasi have a mideast
through india type feel to them. Define Martial Arts, all trained fighting
is a martial art. 3e limited the monk by giving them the oriental weapons.
Get rid of the word monk, and what you have is someone who dedicates their
lives to knowledge and unarmed and lightly armed combat. Yes, an unarmed
person can kill someone wearing armor, it`s what you know, not what you
wear. Even though I doubt they would attack an armoured person without a
weapon, although a more culturaly attuned weapon would be more fitting.


Perhaps you could compare the Khinasi to the Sufi`s?

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Peter Lubke wrote:

> Just because someone has done something all their life does not make
> them necessarily good at it - although they are unlikely to be terribly
> poor at it.

There is a difference between "good" and "flexible". A 20th-level
sorcerer is very good at the particular subset of magic he knows, but pays
for it by being highly inflexible. A 1st-level wizard with a huge
spellbook and a level of cleric to boot is not very good at magic, but
highly flexible. I don`t think that all Sidhelien should be extremely
powerful with magic, but I do think they all ought to be extremely
flexible with it.

> so what makes you think that a 10,000 year old elf would know
> more than a 50 year old human.

200 times as much experience. Even if they haven`t explicitly studied,
they`ll have used magic in a wider variety of situations, which is not
well represented in the D&D system; still, sorcerer spell restrictions
continue to strike me as obviously wrong for elves. The 3e sorcerer seeks
power and uses highly specialized magic to obtain it. The Sidhelien are
interested in magic for the fun of it, and because magic to them is as
natural as flight to birds; also, to them variety and change are a way of
life: "More than anything else, elves are unpredictable, doing what
pleases them from one moment to the next." (BR Rulebook page 7)

> Elves being creatures of magic does not make them creatures of
> unlimited magic either

Not every elf, certainly. But if there are on Cerilia creatures of
unlimited magic, they are definitely the ancient elves.

> For every reason you give that elves should be one way, there`s an
> equally compelling reason for them to be the complete opposite.

Ah, but the Sidhelien are the only reason I still care about Cerilia.
Birthright as a rule system I will continue to use everywhere, but only
Rhoubhe, Llaeddra, the Gheallie Sidhe and their plans for the total
reconquest of the continent by its rightful elven owners catches my heart
and keeps me interested in Aebrynis as a campaign setting.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Elrostar]

I guess I see the Khinasi as more North African and Arabic, possibly with some flavour of Persian thrown in.
But I haven't seen anything to indicate a caste system, Brahmin, or anything else that I would think of as being more distinctly Indian. And certainly not with the leanings towards further east. Yes, buddhism has its origin in the Indian Sub-continent, and oriental monks are typically heavily influenced by buddhism in their philosophy. But having said that, I think that it if you're going to have an Indian flavour, throwing in things like the caste system, and thuggees would be more appropriate. And while I can certainly see cultists like that as being highly devoted warriors, they're still not in any way the unarmed combat specialists that d&d monks are.

Certainly any skill with weapons can be considered a martial art. Fencing is nothing if not precisely that, for instance. But fencers still aren't running around at inhuman speed, falling hundreds of feet without taking damage, and so on. I'm just saying that having philosophically minded warriors is very different from having 3E monks. I'm all in favour of having warriors that are philosophically and/or spiritually minded. As I mentioned in a previous post, the knights Templar or Hospitaller are fascinating examples of a combatant order of monks from western Europe. They were precisely monks who, unlike normal orders, did not take vows against doing violence, but instead acted as the arm of righteousness and the force of victory for the Lord on Earth. Ok, so that sounded like hyperbole, but I'm just trying to point out that an order of monks like that would be far more interesting for most intents and purposes. For an Arabic counterpart, one could look at the Assassins, for instance. But these are still fighters. It would certainly be interesting to develop prestige classes for them (and I don't feel that the templar and hospitallar classes from DotF are appropriate for this, no), but monks? I still don't see it, I'm sorry.

As for unarmored warriors defeating those with armor on a regular basis... There was a reason that heavy armor, and in particular, the development of heavy cavalry was so decisive. And yes, the Arabic warriors were typically more lightly armored, and emphasised mounted cavalry. But that's still hardly a monk in the D&D sense.
If you're in a culture where it's considered normal to carry a weapon (the way it is in most parts of Cerilia), then it's normal to consider training with that weapon.
In Europe the major shift occured when people in Spain began to wear swords as fashion accessories, so to speak. It was necessary to make them lighter so that one could wear one at all times. And from this followed the development of classical fencing. But in Cerilia this is more prevalent in Brecht than anywhere else, since that's where rapiers are popular. But then we can get into the whole debate about the fact that what makes a swordsman great is not that he can hit you, but that you can't hit him. So it's someone with an impossibly high AC, rather than a high Attack bonus (and with expertise, you can still only improve your AC so much). But anyway, that's getting way off topic.

(getting off my soap box once again)

Elrostar

[blitzmacher]

> running around at inhuman speed, falling hundreds of feet without taking damage

That's another of the quirks with the monk class, probably put in there to make it look better.

>As for unarmored warriors defeating those with armor on a regular basis

I never said regular basis, just that it can happen in reality.

>There was a reason that heavy armor, and in particular, the development of heavy >cavalry was so decisive.

True, that's probably why we've never heard of an army of monks defeating a unit of cavalry. Monks though aren't military units though, they're trained warriors and spiritual leaders.

>the knights Templar or Hospitaller are fascinating examples of a combatant order of >monks from western Europe.

Like you said, western europe, like what anuire represents, not khinasi

>If you're in a culture where it's considered normal to carry a weapon (the way it is in >most parts of Cerilia), then it's normal to consider training with that weapon.

Most cultures, even today, carry a weapon of a sort. Only a fool would walk through an unknown door without being able to defend themselves.

>In Europe the major shift occured when people in Spain began to wear swords as >fashion accessories, so to speak. It was necessary to make them lighter so that one >could wear one at all times

As I understand, before christianity took over europe, the way of life, and the gods, taught a person to have a weapon ready. I doubt that way of thinking changed even after christianity took over.

[Shade]

>That said, even if no XP were being gained, I`d still give the long-lived
>races (elves, dwarves, dragons, etc.) at least an extra skill rank per
>decade and an extra feat per century, just to represent the things they`d
>picked up in the course of their everyday lives.

This is not a bad idea, especially since it is very unlikely to unbalance a
campaign. (How many PCs actually play for a century of game time?)

However I don`t think it should be an official rule. If you really want to
include it, put it as a footnote suggesting that the DM can use this as a
guideline to represent the expanded knowledge of long-lived NPCs.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

In the orient, there really is such a movement - the Sufi or Dervish
movement. These people practice divination through dance and other physical
means. Themovement is very much alive today; I have seen them perform in
Istambul. But they are variant clerics/mystics and never developed this into
anything resembling martial arts. Their dance movements are repetitive
rather than combative.

A factor that was at least as important to the development of the martial
arst as monasticism was opression, the will to rebel, and a prohibition
againstthe wearing of arms. This is lacking in Cerillia.

It is easy to confuse the middle east with the far east. Both are oriental
from a eurocentric perspective, but they are as separated from one another
as either is from America or Europe. And martial arts is a phenomena of the
far east, not the middle east.



__________________________________________________ ___
Gratis e-mail resten av livet på www.yahoo.se/mail
Busenkelt!

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

blitzmacher wrote:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1261
>
> blitzmacher wrote:
> The point is that the monk, like the sorcerer, is a new character class in D20(or 3e) or whatever else you want to call it, and did not exist when BR was originally created. It is something that could work very well in BR, especially in Khinasi which is loosely based on middle eastern culture. The same culture based area where the monklike philosophy originated in our own world.
>
Right. However the Monk class in the PHB is not the Monk type you refer
to here.
The PHB Monk is similar to a Bruce Lee, Caine, Kung-Fu, far eastern,
chinese or japanese monk.
NOT a medieval, european monk.

A Friar Tuck (Robin Hoods merry man) would rather be a cleric, not a
monk class character - although Friar Tuck is a monk, he is a cleric in
the classification of the PHB - or to be more realistic, an expert with
good healing skill.
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

blitzmacher wrote:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1261
>
> blitzmacher wrote:
> How about the mainstream Khinasi worship of Avani. Avani`s whole dogma would be perfect for a monk. Lawful neutral, symbol setting sun, domains of knowledge, reason, sun, magic, law. The belief that the sun shines forth her divine essence, Like QiGong, a form of meditation, where light plays a good part in it. Where knowledge should be gathered and access to it should be earned through determined dedication, discipline and self control. Striving to seek wisdom and understanding. Seems similar enough to me.
>
Knowledge and reason are INT based, Monks special abilities are wisdom
based - but do not tell me now that there should be monks in Anuire as
Anuirean got a wisdom bonus in 2E... ;-)

QiGong, Tai Chi, Zen and all the like are far eastern stuff (Chinese,
Japanese), not mediterrean, mauric, or arabean or as another writer
mentioned even persian..

If you really, really want PHB Monks then put them in the monastery
Basaias Seat (on northern Torova Temylatin) an impregnable monastery
carved out of a mountain peak (as described in the Book of Magecraft
under the Sielehr artifact).
THERE do your Monks live, and they do not leave the monastery - and
could only leave in 2 weeks of the year even if they wanted - sounds
like the novel Shangri-La to me...
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

Ryan B. Caveney wrote:

>On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Peter Lubke wrote:
>
Long text about long-live and can do it all snipped:

>>For every reason you give that elves should be one way, there`s an
>>equally compelling reason for them to be the complete opposite.
>>
>Ah, but the Sidhelien are the only reason I still care about Cerilia.
>Birthright as a rule system I will continue to use everywhere, but only
>Rhoubhe, Llaeddra, the Gheallie Sidhe and their plans for the total
>reconquest of the continent by its rightful elven owners catches my heart
>and keeps me interested in Aebrynis as a campaign setting.
>Ryan Caveney
>
A suggestion: It was mentioned to change the boni cultural humans get
from the standard human by giving them more but from a limited, cultural
list.

The same could be done in regard of sidhelien and magic:
1) Sidhelien use magic as a natural thing, as others breathe - they are
most likely sorcerors, not wizards who spend hours bookkeeping and
studying dusty tomes.
2) Sidhelien Sorcerors do never learn or cast spells from the
Necromantic school - if you make this not a cultural choice but a
limitation you can give them more power to balance. Invent specialist
Sorcerors and let them have more spells known.
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lord Shade" <lordshade@SOFTHOME.NET>
To: <BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM>
Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 11:37 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] No monks? [36#1261]


> >That said, even if no XP were being gained, I`d still give the long-lived
> >races (elves, dwarves, dragons, etc.) at least an extra skill rank per
> >decade and an extra feat per century, just to represent the things they`d
> >picked up in the course of their everyday lives.
>
> This is not a bad idea, especially since it is very unlikely to unbalance
a
> campaign. (How many PCs actually play for a century of game time?)
>
> However I don`t think it should be an official rule. If you really want to
> include it, put it as a footnote suggesting that the DM can use this as a
> guideline to represent the expanded knowledge of long-lived NPCs.



Well woudn`t it make sense to allow older elves to start out with some ECL?

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Lord Shade wrote:

> > give the long-lived races at least an extra skill rank per decade
> > and an extra feat per century
>
> This is not a bad idea, especially since it is very unlikely to
> unbalance a campaign. (How many PCs actually play for a century of
> game time?

Right, it`s not about PCs at all. It`s a device for giving ancient NPC
creatures immensely high skill ranks without also giving them immensely
high hit points, saves, BAB, etc. PCs don`t threaten to unbalance a
gameworld -- NPCs do.

> However I don`t think it should be an official rule. If you really
> want to include it, put it as a footnote suggesting that the DM can
> use this as a guideline to represent the expanded knowledge of
> long-lived NPCs.

I suppose. But I think something has to be done to represent said
knowledge, and giving a thousand-year-old old Sidhelien craftsman just an
extra hundred skill ranks is less unbalancing than an extra dozen whole
levels of Expert. This of course leads me to question the entire D&D
concept of a character level as a package of features -- why does getting
really good at painting, singing, weaving etc. suddenly give you hp and
BAB from nowhere? But that`s another story.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

Ryan B. Caveney wrote:

>On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Lord Shade wrote:
>
>>>give the long-lived races at least an extra skill rank per decade
>>>and an extra feat per century
>>>
>>This is not a bad idea, especially since it is very unlikely to
>>unbalance a campaign. (How many PCs actually play for a century of
>>game time?
>>
>Right, it`s not about PCs at all. It`s a device for giving ancient NPC
>creatures immensely high skill ranks without also giving them immensely
>high hit points, saves, BAB, etc. PCs don`t threaten to unbalance a
>gameworld -- NPCs do.
>
Which however means that never every a PC may play an NPC realm - which
in some PBEM games happens.
When then old High Mage Aelies, or the PC Rhuobhe Manslayer or whomever
who is a couple of hundred years old asks where his additional skills
and feats are which are not covered in the PHB...?
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

On Sun, 9 Feb 2003, Michael Romes wrote:

> 1) Sidhelien use magic as a natural thing, as others breathe - they
> are most likely sorcerors, not wizards who spend hours bookkeeping and
> studying dusty tomes.

But they shouldn`t either be limited to knowing just a few spells.
IMO, by far the best fit is actually druid, with all the Sor/Wiz illusion
and enchantment spells added to the spell list, and the various druid
flame-based spells changed to be cold-based (so as to hurt trees less).


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

On Sun, 9 Feb 2003, Michael Romes wrote:

> When then old High Mage Aelies, or the PC Rhuobhe Manslayer or
> whomever who is a couple of hundred years old asks where his
> additional skills and feats are which are not covered in the PHB...?

Rhoubhe is at least a couple thousand years old. So yes, if you let a
player take on his role, I`d say give him everything, and be prepared for
him to kick ass. If I were running the all-Sidhelien campaign I`ve been
planning for some time now, I`d be giving everyone lots and lots of extra
skills.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2003 2:02 PM


> If I were running the all-Sidhelien campaign I`ve been
> planning for some time now, I`d be giving everyone lots
> and lots of extra skills.

Knowledge of one kind or another, meaning all of the skills without a key
physical componant, are aquired a variety of ways in RL. Physical skills
are much more strongly correlated to natural ability and practice. Mental
skills, not so much. Having an active intellect is sufficient to maintain
high mental skill. I don`t need to practice my multiplication tables to
remain a proficient computer they way I need to practice my jump shot to be
a proficient basketball player. This reflects the different ways our
physical and mental abilities are retained over time. As a result, a long
lived person will aquire mental skills beyond one to one corespondance with
physical skills. Because D&D is rooted in a phsyical contest, both physical
and mental skills aquisition follow from the physical model of no-pain,
no-gain. I play basketball to get better at the game, and I drill on
fundamentals to maintain my edge and prevent atrophy. Aquiring mental
skills requires less experience (the very existing of writing means that one
person`s experience can benefit many) and mental skills atrophy much more
slowly (especially in terms of specific use) so that over time, mental
skills will begin to diverge from a curve of physical effort. In a
relatively short period of time, say the adventuring career of a human, that
might not be too great a problem, although retired adventurers should
continue to show improvement in mental ability (if they desire) whithout any
improvement (and possible decline) in physical prowess. Elves and dwarves,
on the other hand, won`t be so easily limited unless we simply don`t want to
confront the two different curves (mental and physical) of learning and
capacity. If we imagine three primary sources of learning, they might be
enrichment (how much, and how easy is it to learn new things), experience
(as in so many skill ranks per level), and the passage of time.

So a proper skills aquisition system would involve cultural bonuses
(Septentrionalis does a nice job with this), ranks per level, and annual
skill bonuses. The quadruple starting bonus is desinged to mirror this
complexity, but does so best when we have a short period of examination.
Its particularly bad at describing the aquired knowledge of long lived
anyones, particularly elves.

I would go so far as to abandon the quadruple bonus, and instead use the
following formula.
10 bonus points for cultural knowledge assinged by the culture
5 bonus points for cultural knowledge for specific classes
2 skill ranks per year alive
additional skill ranks per level.

An 18 year old 1st level human fighter would have 10+5= 15 bonuses and
2+36=38 skill ranks. Much of this would be tied up Knowledge (culture
homeland), (history homeland), (geography homeland), and Craft, Profession,
and Perform skills neccesary to function as a person. Beyond this people
will begin to aquire other skills. Again, on the human scale, we`re often
content to just assume a certain amount of knowledge about one`s home and
livelihood. This breaks down when we look at the 2500 year old 12th level
elf fighter. My suggestion above would give him 15 bonuses, and 5024 skill
ranks. Again probabaly a ton of this knowledge is historical and cultural.

Consider, when confronted by the Ring of Power, Gandalf has to go to Minas
Tirith to research the true nature of the Ring. Elrond the elf, was there
when the Ring changed hands, he just knows this (and innumerable other
things) that even a learned wizard like Gandalf has to go and look up.

Most will nod in the direction of such disparities, but will avoid
complicated formulas for skills in the name of the virtue of simplicity.
Others may throw caution to the wind and consider alternatives.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

A lot of this can be solved by simply adjusting the DC for knowledge rolls.
This is all according tothe rules on knowledge skills - something that
happened during your lifetime is not obtruse knowledge to you.

"What were the banners worn by duke so-and-so at the battle of Vemelion four
hundred years ago?"
" I have this tome with eywitness accounts here, it may say something. Or
perhaps in the heraldry section of the library..."
"Let me see if I can remember - blue and green, with some sort of white
figure - a stag I think."

In this case a human scholar would have a DC in the 30s range, while an elf
who was actually there has a DC of 5 or 10. Then again, elves will not have
witnessed much of human history simply because they were holed up in their
forests when it happened.


__________________________________________________ ___
Gratis e-mail resten av livet på www.yahoo.se/mail
Busenkelt!

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2003 2:02 PM


> If I were running the all-Sidhelien campaign I`ve been
> planning for some time now, I`d be giving everyone lots
> and lots of extra skills.

Knowledge of one kind or another, meaning all of the skills without a key
physical componant, are aquired a variety of ways in RL. Physical skills
are much more strongly correlated to natural ability and practice. Mental
skills, not so much. Having an active intellect is sufficient to maintain
high mental skill. I don`t need to practice my multiplication tables to
remain a proficient computer they way I need to practice my jump shot to be
a proficient basketball player. This reflects the different ways our
physical and mental abilities are retained over time. As a result, a long
lived person will aquire mental skills beyond one to one corespondance with
physical skills. Because D&D is rooted in a phsyical contest, both physical
and mental skills aquisition follow from the physical model of no-pain,
no-gain. I play basketball to get better at the game, and I drill on
fundamentals to maintain my edge and prevent atrophy. Aquiring mental
skills requires less experience (the very existing of writing means that one
person`s experience can benefit many) and mental skills atrophy much more
slowly (especially in terms of specific use) so that over time, mental
skills will begin to diverge from a curve of physical effort. In a
relatively short period of time, say the adventuring career of a human, that
might not be too great a problem, although retired adventurers should
continue to show improvement in mental ability (if they desire) whithout any
improvement (and possible decline) in physical prowess. Elves and dwarves,
on the other hand, won`t be so easily limited unless we simply don`t want to
confront the two different curves (mental and physical) of learning and
capacity. If we imagine three primary sources of learning, they might be
enrichment (how much, and how easy is it to learn new things), experience
(as in so many skill ranks per level), and the passage of time.

So a proper skills aquisition system would involve cultural bonuses
(Septentrionalis does a nice job with this), ranks per level, and annual
skill bonuses. The quadruple starting bonus is desinged to mirror this
complexity, but does so best when we have a short period of examination.
Its particularly bad at describing the aquired knowledge of long lived
anyones, particularly elves.

I would go so far as to abandon the quadruple bonus, and instead use the
following formula.
10 bonus points for cultural knowledge assinged by the culture
5 bonus points for cultural knowledge for specific classes
2 skill ranks per year alive
additional skill ranks per level.

An 18 year old 1st level human fighter would have 10+5= 15 bonuses and
2+36=38 skill ranks. Much of this would be tied up Knowledge (culture
homeland), (history homeland), (geography homeland), and Craft, Profession,
and Perform skills neccesary to function as a person. Beyond this people
will begin to aquire other skills. Again, on the human scale, we`re often
content to just assume a certain amount of knowledge about one`s home and
livelihood. This breaks down when we look at the 2500 year old 12th level
elf fighter. My suggestion above would give him 15 bonuses, and 5024 skill
ranks. Again probabaly a ton of this knowledge is historical and cultural.

Consider, when confronted by the Ring of Power, Gandalf has to go to Minas
Tirith to research the true nature of the Ring. Elrond the elf, was there
when the Ring changed hands, he just knows this (and innumerable other
things) that even a learned wizard like Gandalf has to go and look up.

Most will nod in the direction of such disparities, but will avoid
complicated formulas for skills in the name of the virtue of simplicity.
Others may throw caution to the wind and consider alternatives.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

A lot of this can be solved by simply adjusting the DC for knowledge rolls.
This is all according tothe rules on knowledge skills - something that
happened during your lifetime is not obtruse knowledge to you.

"What were the banners worn by duke so-and-so at the battle of Vemelion four
hundred years ago?"
" I have this tome with eywitness accounts here, it may say something. Or
perhaps in the heraldry section of the library..."
"Let me see if I can remember - blue and green, with some sort of white
figure - a stag I think."

In this case a human scholar would have a DC in the 30s range, while an elf
who was actually there has a DC of 5 or 10. Then again, elves will not have
witnessed much of human history simply because they were holed up in their
forests when it happened.


__________________________________________________ ___
Gratis e-mail resten av livet på www.yahoo.se/mail
Busenkelt!

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[esmdev]

I think some of the more recent posts deserve a topic of their own. :)

On the subject of monks in Birthright.

In the strictest nature of what Birthright was when originally presented, I don't think that the Monk needs to be included into the core BR setting rulebook.

However...

I do think that something along the lines of the following should be included into the header of the class section and the Monk entry removed entirely from the rulebook:

----- This is my suggestion -----
The following classes are presented to reflect those normally found in Cerilia. Through history, exploritory trade from Cerilia into the unknown, and the occassional visits from far away lands, have brought individuals with strange and unusual customs. Players wishing to run classes outside the normal scope of the setting should consult with their GM to determine if additional options are available. It should be noted, however, that individuals from the lands beyond the sea will cannot be blooded.
----- End of my suggestion -----

Just a thought.

[triqui]

IMHO, some people here has made some wrong statements.
First: Barbarians did exist in 2ed cerilia. They were a kit (from complete figther book) that most rjurik players took.
Second: There is no way to introduce monks in 3e cerilia. BUT there is a clear way to ADAPT them. They could be Whirling Dervish, will adapt well to the arab settings of cerilia and will need only minor changes (such as changing the weapons for jambiyas or the like). But in a Brectur, Rjurik, vos or Anuirean setting, they simply dont belong. Imho, as i said.

[geeman]

At 10:45 PM 3/9/2003 +0100, triqui wrote:

>IMHO, some people here has made some wrong statements.
>
>First: Barbarians did exist in 2ed cerilia. They were a kit (from complete
>figther book) that most rjurik players took.

Barbarians fit into the themes of the setting. Personally, I think there
should be a couple of changes to the class for Cerilian purposes. The 3e
barbarian combines what I would break up into at least two classes; the
"native warrior" and the "berserker." The specific class features of the
3e barbarian, however, may not be really the issue here. The descriptions
of at least two human races (not to mention orogs, goblins and gnolls) are
apt for that class.

>Second: There is no way to introduce monks in 3e cerilia. BUT there is a
>clear way to ADAPT them. They could be Whirling Dervish, will adapt well
>to the arab settings of cerilia and will need only minor changes (such as
>changing the weapons for jambiyas or the like). But in a Brectur, Rjurik,
>vos or Anuirean setting, they simply dont belong. Imho, as i said.

A couple of people have pointed out that if one wanted to do this kind of
thing in BR it could be done with the combination of feats that allow for
non-melee weapon combat. IMO, such a character would be a better
reflection of such non-oriental monk than an adaptation (using Western
terms and weapons) in place of those in the 3e monk character class write-up.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "triqui" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 3:45 PM


> But in a Brectur, Rjurik, vos or Anuirean setting, they simply
> dont belong.

This depends on your idea of what is essential (mechanically, not in terms
of flavor) to the monk. The monk can be viewed as just a specialist in
hand-to-hand combat. With some adjustment (and much renaming of class
features) a brawler type character fits in fine in BR.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[AnakinMiller]

> This depends on your idea of what is essential (mechanically, not in terms
> of flavor) to the monk. The monk can be viewed as just a specialist in
> hand-to-hand combat. With some adjustment (and much renaming of class
> features) a brawler type character fits in fine in BR.

You could have a brawler type character. It would be a fighter with unarmed
combat feats. The mystical magical Ki wielding monk does not belong ANY
WHERE in Cerilia. None of the cultures are geared to create the mentality
and mindset that defines the monk. If you take away the background concept
of a monk then aren`t you just trying to have a fighter with smack new Ki
skills that should not be there?

-Anakin Miller
-------------------------
"What was sundered, shall be remade.
What was stolen, shall be avenged. "
- Engraved on the Crown of Diemed

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Atarikid" <atarikid@CHARTER.NET>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 10:48 AM


> If you take away the background concept of a monk then aren`t
> you just trying to have a fighter with smack new Ki skills that
> should not be there?

Ki? Vikings belived that every weapon had its own spirit, and when you
found that spirit and learned to work with it (rather than against it), you
became a powerful warrior. Does this mean a bonus to hit? Penetration
against damage reduction? An extra damage die? Every warrior culture
describes some spirit of the warrior, or an inner power. Prior to WWI, the
French called it elan. Sure, if the monk is designed as an Asian character
type, the word "ki" makes sense, but I could just as well rename any and all
ki powers to reflect Anuire, or any other Cerilian culture. Bonuses are
just mechanics, and a rose by any other name smells just as sweetly.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 01:20 PM 3/10/2003 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> > If you take away the background concept of a monk then aren`t
> > you just trying to have a fighter with smack new Ki skills that
> > should not be there?
>
>Ki? Vikings belived that every weapon had its own spirit, and when you
>found that spirit and learned to work with it (rather than against it), you
>became a powerful warrior. Does this mean a bonus to hit? Penetration
>against damage reduction? An extra damage die? Every warrior culture
>describes some spirit of the warrior, or an inner power. Prior to WWI, the
>French called it elan. Sure, if the monk is designed as an Asian character
>type, the word "ki" makes sense, but I could just as well rename any and all
>ki powers to reflect Anuire, or any other Cerilian culture. Bonuses are
>just mechanics, and a rose by any other name smells just as sweetly.

All of which does rather beg the question, where are the Western unarmed
martial arts based monks that equate to the D&D monk character class? If
the animist thinking of Vikings equates to the Oriental concept of ki why
didn`t they punch and flip their way through Europe rather than hack and
slash? Why didn`t Joan of Arc kick (literally) the English out of France?

Personally, I don`t get the same vibe from the animism and other
interpretations of esprit/elan that I get from the concept of ki and
oriental philosophy that leads to the monk. However, the problem with
Cerilian monks isn`t really the animist/spiritual aspect. That kind of
thing is a commonality of human experience, every culture has some aspect
of that in it. One can come at that from several different angles, and
reinterpret things so as to allow for a monk-like character class in just
about any culture, no matter how much less extensively the real life
analogy was emphasized in that culture. More often than not that would
lead me to the conclusion that a Western (and Cerilian) version of the
unarmed martial arts would be better reflected using the fighter and
unarmed combat feats rather than a separate, crypto-religious class like
the monk, but that`s largely a matter of taste and interpretation. I guess
one really need not even have a spiritual interpretation of the monk. One
could interpret most of his abilities in a sci-fi kind of way, ignoring ki
entirely.

The big issue to me is that there is no wide-spread, rigorously enforced
(socially and/or legally) restriction on military weapons that leads to the
centuries long development of an extensive tradition of unarmed (or crudely
armed) martial arts. There could certainly be a few individuals breaking
boards with their fists rather than axes, but that doesn`t really equate to
the extent of effort and energy that went into the development of the
oriental martial arts traditions. Ki then represents the extensive
development and effort into the concept that exists in all cultures, but is
more greatly emphasized due to various cultural conditions. One could, of
course, include such a system of weapon restrictions on a Western society
and have it develop its own version of the monk, but by and large I think
that really just shifts the culture away from the Western paradigms they
were intended to represent in the first place.

There is also a bit of a stutter IMO in that martial arts are generally
developed for humans to use on other humans. In a D&D setting one has many
opponents with vastly different anatomical arrangements than is typical of
a martial art`s emphasis. The ability to hit hard and fast is, of course,
always useful in a fight and would, I suppose, be generally useful against
any opponent, but the idea of a man punching a stone giant somewhere around
the lower thigh... well, it just strikes me as humorous in a way that
stabbing that same stone giant just doesn`t. It might just be me. YMMV.

As an aside: I do recall many years ago an article in a martial arts
magazine (_Black Belt_, IRRC) that described how one might use various
standard martial arts kicks and punches against dogs or other animals,
including diagrams and photographs with guys in martial arts poses next to
animals that sometimes looked bewildered but more often somewhat
bemused. It was one of the funnier things I`ve ever seen, and set me to
giggling so much I couldn`t hardly perform a kata that day.... While I
guess there`s no technical reason why someone`s Monkey style kung-fu
wouldn`t actually work if used against real monkeys it just seems a strange
thing to want to role-play in a Western campaign setting.

The *real* question, though, is whether or not such a character class
should be included in the BRCS. To me the monk would be useful if one was
purposefully doing a sort of BR/OA crossover. I did at one point play out
some adventures in a OA continent on the opposite side of Aebrynis from
Cerilia, so it`s not like the game mechanics can`t or won`t work. That it
seems more apt to a crossover or alternate continent campaign, however, is
pretty good evidence for why it should not go into the core BRCS text.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[DanMcSorley]

On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Gary wrote:
> All of which does rather beg the question, where are the Western unarmed
> martial arts based monks that equate to the D&D monk character class? If
> the animist thinking of Vikings equates to the Oriental concept of ki why
> didn`t they punch and flip their way through Europe rather than hack and
> slash? Why didn`t Joan of Arc kick (literally) the English out of France?

The same reason they didn`t do these things in east Asia. Warriors there
went armed and armored, just as they did in Europe. Asians soldiers
learned to kick and punch, too, but you couldn`t show me a knight in
Europe who didn`t know how to throw a punch or apply steel boot to ass.

Yeah, various Asian cultures were at times oppressed, and forbidden to use
weapons, so they worked with what they had, and developed a wide variety
of unarmed techniques, but overall, if you go to war, you take a weapon.
What nobody mentions in this history of unarmed combat is that for most of
Asian history, China had the biggest army, and Korea and Japan and Okinawa
depended on China`s goodwill. Then the Japanese got the best army, and
China and Korea and Okinawa, with their ancient traditions of mystical
martial arts, were mostly Japanese provinces right up until 1945, or for
Okinawa, modern times. Must be something to that armed-combat stuff.

The reason we westerners ascribe magic powers to martial arts is because
it`s exotic, and we`re gullible. We don`t think boxers and Greco-Roman
wrestlers have special powers, so why do we think that ninjas and Buddhist
monks do?
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 04:35 PM 3/10/2003 -0500, Daniel McSorley wrote:

> > All of which does rather beg the question, where are the Western unarmed
> > martial arts based monks that equate to the D&D monk character class? If
> > the animist thinking of Vikings equates to the Oriental concept of ki why
> > didn`t they punch and flip their way through Europe rather than hack and
> > slash? Why didn`t Joan of Arc kick (literally) the English out of France?
>
>The same reason they didn`t do these things in east Asia. Warriors there
>went armed and armored, just as they did in Europe. Asians soldiers
>learned to kick and punch, too, but you couldn`t show me a knight in
>Europe who didn`t know how to throw a punch or apply steel boot to ass.

There`s a pretty big difference between those two, though, isn`t
there? Being able to competently deliver a sound, booted kick is a far cry
from flying across the room and kicking someone. I`ve never heard of a
knight or even a Western soldier having the martial tradition to deliver a
sound round-house kick before the martial arts diffused into the West. Oh,
it may have happened, but I don`t think that`d make that person qualify as
the D&D equivalent of a monk.

_The Brotherhood of the Wolf_ gave a really cool fantastic interpretation
of that kind of thing happening in 18th century France, but going with
something like that is a pretty major shift in the emphasis of a setting....

>Yeah, various Asian cultures were at times oppressed, and forbidden to use
>weapons, so they worked with what they had, and developed a wide variety
>of unarmed techniques, but overall, if you go to war, you take a weapon.
>What nobody mentions in this history of unarmed combat is that for most of
>Asian history, China had the biggest army, and Korea and Japan and Okinawa
>depended on China`s goodwill. Then the Japanese got the best army, and
>China and Korea and Okinawa, with their ancient traditions of mystical
>martial arts, were mostly Japanese provinces right up until 1945, or for
>Okinawa, modern times. Must be something to that armed-combat stuff.

I don`t think the relevance of a post-gunpowder soldiery with repeating
weapons is very apt, but let`s go ahead and assume all of that to be
true. It still doesn`t answer the question, where are the Western unarmed
martial arts based monks that equate to the D&D monk character class? It`s
not so much the lack of _armies_ of Viking monks that is the problem. It`s
the total absence of a monk-like tradition of unarmed combat. If the
Western equivalents that were proposed (an animist belief in the spirit of
a weapon and the French concept of elan) or any others actually equate to
ki then why no Western monks who focus on martial arts? Why hasn`t that
become part of the Western tradition in the same way it has in the East?

>The reason we westerners ascribe magic powers to martial arts is because
>it`s exotic, and we`re gullible.

I don`t think you can really blame the supposed magical powers of martial
arts on Western ignorance and gullibility. It`s more a product of Eastern
legend, mythology and myth making (much of it modern) than something than
the product of Westerners.

>We don`t think boxers and Greco-Roman wrestlers have special powers, so
>why do we think that ninjas and Buddhist monks do?

We don`t think boxers and Greco-Roman wrestlers have special powers because
people who study them don`t combine their efforts with the crypto-religious
aspects that are often associated with Eastern unarmed combat.

The magical or mystical aspects of the monk, however, aren`t really the
point. You could play monks by assuming that none of their powers were
really mystical in nature. The point is that such things are distinctly
Eastern in flavor (as in somewhere starting to the sunrise side of the
Punjab) and not something that one should include in a campaign setting
based on Western cultural paradigms.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

Well, implicit in changing the names of Monk abilities would be changing the
setting ideas behind them. My parallel between Viking animism and oriental
ki was that special performance produces game modifier. I don`t think they
are the same. If Arnulf the Rjurik atunes to the spirit of his axe, could
he achieve DR penetration? If so, what is the difference from a mechanics
POV? Setting and decription difference is certainly different.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Cobos]

Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> Well, implicit in changing the names of Monk abilities would be changing the
> setting ideas behind them. My parallel between Viking animism and oriental
> ki was that special performance produces game modifier. I don`t think they
> are the same. If Arnulf the Rjurik atunes to the spirit of his axe, could
> he achieve DR penetration? If so, what is the difference from a mechanics
> POV? Setting and decription difference is certainly different.
>
> Kenneth Gauck
> kgauck@mchsi.com
>
> ************************************************** **************************
> The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
> Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
> To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
> with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
>
Personally my problem with the monk PC class in BR is more of a
mechanics stand-point. The monk has lots of cool special abilites to
let it function in a medium-high magic setting since that class hardly
can use magical weapons at all. That is a problem in BR, since hardly
anyone else either has any magical items... So as such the monk is not
balanced at all (the same argument can be said about the cleric too
of course...) when in a typical low-magic BR setting.

Cobos

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sindre Cools Berg" <cobos@SAERS.COM>
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 10:29 AM

> The monk has lots of cool special abilites to let it function
> in a medium-high magic setting since that class hardly can use
> magical weapons at all. That is a problem in BR, since hardly
> anyone else either has any magical items... So as such the monk
> is not balanced at all

Personally, I`ve never played a monk, think the monk is a goofy class, and
would rather not use the class at all (except in an oriental based campaign,
which I`m not really interested in). But I do think the class can be
modified to fit Cerilia.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.