BRCS Chapter 1 - the Magician Class

[Shade]

I like most of what the BR team has done with the classes section but I
have some issues with the Magician class. I`ll outline these in detail below.

Flavor text - most of this I am happy with, except the part concerning
races. Nowhere in 2e BR did dwarves become magicians. I think the BRCS doc
should reflect consistency with the concept of the Magician being a nerfed
Mage, and discourage Dwarven Magicians just like the doc discourages
Dwarven true mages. Both are arcane magic which is something Dwarves don`t
do in Birthright. I am kind of ambivalent towards halfling magicians - but
at least I think the doc should say that they`re quite rare, because there
is no mention of a halfling magician in the original BR products. P.48 of
the Book of Magecraft states that only Humans can become magicians.

Game Rules

Hit dice - d6. WTF??? A higher hit die implies a "beefier" character.
Magicians are bookworms just like wizards; why are they tougher? Magicians
did not have a d6 hit die in 2nd edition. Why the power increase in 3e? I
would change this back to a d4.

Class skills - I like the expanded class skill list. This reflects the
ability of 2e magicians to learn Rogue proficiencies. Only change I would
suggest is that you add Pick Pockets as a class skill; in 3e this
represents prestidigitation, which falls within the realm of Magician
abilities, IMHO.

Skill points/level - I like magicians getting 4/level. They study fewer
types of spells, so have more time to practice skills.

Weapon and Armor proficiency - I am happy with this overall but I would
also add rapier proficiency to magicians, as it was an allowed proficiency
for them in 2nd edition. This suggestion, like many of my other thoughts,
is aimed at converting the magician as closely as possible between editions.

BAB/Saves - identical to wizard. Looks good.

Spontaneous Casting - a nice touch and not a significant power increase.
Looks good.

Special Ability - I like how the Special Ability progression has been
nerfed from Travis Doom`s original conversion, in which it was possible for
a magician to pick up more metamagic feats than a wizard (which didn`t make
sense). Now it is equal to wizard, except magician has the OPTION of taking
Spontaneous Spell, Cantrips, or Class Skill, which are all weaker than a
metamagic feat and therefore not overpowering IMHO. One change I would make
here is if the Magician picks up the class skill special ability, to let
them choose 2 class skills rather than one. This brings the power of the
special ability up to 1 feat (the Versatile feat lets you pick 2 skills).

Spell Progression - I would prefer that the spell progression was exactly
that of a Wizard, except the magician gets +1 bonus spell per level from
Illusion or Divination. I understand why this was changed (the new Magician
spell list) which incidentally is my primary objection to the new Magician
class as written.

New Spell List - This is my main problem with the class. As I see it the
Magician spell list is basically the same as the Bard list, except it is
expanded to include 7th-9th level spells. This is a good idea in principle,
and I understand where you are coming from, but IMO the end result
distracts significantly from the original Magician.

The original magician was not designed to be "balanced" as a PC class.
Arguably it was 2e`s first NPC class. The original magician was MEANT to be
weaker in almost every way than a regular wizard; the only advantage it had
was that you were a specialist in BOTH illusion and divination, but at a
very high price.

The BRCS doc`s incarnation of the Magician is SIGNIFICANTLY stronger
relative to a wizard than the 2e magician was vis-a-vis the 2e wizard. The
d6 HD, expanded skill list, extra skill points, wider variety of special
abilities, and expanded spell list, all together, represent a very
significant power increase.

The biggest problem is the healing spells. In normal D&D 3e, it`s fine for
a bard to have healing spells as magic is hardly rare. In a setting like FR
especially, where you can buy healing wands by the truckload and there are
18th level archmages begging for money on street corners, magic is hardly
"fantastic" or "wondrous." In a setting like that, there is nothing
"miraculous" about bringing people back from the brink of death merely by
touching them and saying a prayer.

In BR on the other hand, magical healing is a big deal and is the main
reason the elves lost so hard to humans. Healing is the biggest advantage
of clerics over mages. Why then, would that be such a big deal if elven
bards/magicians could cast healing spells too?

Furthermore, even in 2e, BR bards received a significant nerf compared to
standard 2e bards. Considering the nature of arcane magic in BR, shouldn`t
this be the case in 3e as well? If we are trying to be as faithful as
possible to the original rules, shouldn`t the bard spell list be
significantly reduced (especially to exclude healing spells?)

Take it from another angle - the premise (which you may or may not agree
with) that the magician was meant to be a lesser form of the wizard. The
"poor man`s" wizard, if you will.

How then, does that make sense, if the magician can perform magical
miracles of healing and the wizard can`t? Wizards are supposed to be able
to do everything a magician can do and more.

Healing spells aside, the addition of charms and summoning spells to the
bard/magician spell list represents a significant expansion of power
relative to 2e BR bards and magicians. In 2e magicians could only use
illusions and divinations above 2nd level; why all of a sudden should they
get the power to also use summonings and charms? P. 48 of the Book of
Magecraft is explicit: "these spellcasters specialize in the magic of
knowing and seeming."

In 2nd edition BR it specified that bards cast spells as magicians, except
they learn to use enchantment/charm spells through the use of ancient elven
songs. But that`s ALL they`re supposed to be able to use. They are not
supposed to be able to summon fiendish creatures from the nether realms,
which is what a summoning spell is. To me, this is much more a "wizard"
type of ability than something a dabbler (bard) or a seer/illusionist
(magician) would be able to do.

I hope I`ve outlined my thought process clearly enough. If the BRCS team
already discussed this at length then I apologize for bringing it up again,
but I feel very strongly about this. I hate seeing power inflation and this
is precisely it.

How I would address it -

1. Bards - Nerf the spell list. Take out all healing spells and summoning
spells, making it resemble the 2e BR bard spell list. Arcane Illusions and
Divinations only as normal spells, plus Enchantment/Charm spells as songs,
in a verbal component-only format. Fits well with the bardic song ability.

2. Magicians - Keep the spell list identical to what magicians had in 2e.
Magicians are supposed to be seers and common illusionists. They can grasp
the fundamentals of true magic (all 1st and 2nd level arcane spells) but
lack the ability to progress farther. They can only use arcane illusions
and divinations of 3rd level and higher. Definitely lose the healing
spells. I also think being able to summon creatures from the Outer planes
and dominate a person`s mind goes far beyond the scope of a magicians power.

In this regard I liked Travis Doom`s original magician conversion much
better (in fact I thought it was quite good, except for the frequency of
the special abilities), because it stayed true to the 2e spell list.

************************************************** **************************
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]

>
> Hit dice - d6. WTF??? A higher hit die implies a "beefier"
> character. Magicians are bookworms just like wizards; why are
> they tougher? Magicians did not have a d6 hit die in 2nd
> edition. Why the power increase in 3e? I would change this
> back to a d4.

I don`t agree here. Magicians are more like Rogues, using their magical
skills to earn for living, just like you mentioned in Class Skills
comment.


>
> Skill points/level - I like magicians getting 4/level. They
> study fewer types of spells, so have more time to practice skills.


For same reasons, I agree here. They should not gain as many as thieves,
but a little more that 4.

************************************************** **************************
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 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] BRCS Chapter 1 - the Magician Class


> >
> > Hit dice - d6. WTF??? A higher hit die implies a "beefier"
> > character. Magicians are bookworms just like wizards; why are
> > they tougher? Magicians did not have a d6 hit die in 2nd
> > edition. Why the power increase in 3e? I would change this
> > back to a d4.
> > >

this


> > Skill points/level - I like magicians getting 4/level. They
> > study fewer types of spells, so have more time to practice skills.
>


and this are related--they study a lot, but also can`t study magic or as
complex magic, this gives them more time to run and play outdoors er...ehm,
learn combat techniques, defense traits--they aren`t necessarily
tougher--just better trained--D&D"s paradigm of HP not being strictly a
measure of physical health.

************************************************** **************************
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]

> I guess what I am getting at is yes, they do have more time on their
hands,
> but no, they don`t use that time to exercise. They instead use it to learn
> roguish stuff without actually being a rogue.
>

Well, consider this from the logic of pure physicality most thief stuff is
arduous....and likely physical.



> A good precedent for this is the Arcane Trickster (mage/thief) PrC, which
> gets d4 hp.
>
> I just don`t see the need to increase the hit die from a d4 to a d6 - I
> would keep it with Travis Doom`s original Magician conversion (which for
> the most part is very good, IMO).
>


I don`t use 3E or D20 currently as the only incarnation I`ve found tolerable
is Mutants and Masterminds. So it`s kinda moot to me...

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Shade]

At 07:37 PM 2/5/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Milos Rasic" <mrasic@TEHNICOM.NET>
>To: <BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM>
>Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 7:06 PM
>Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] BRCS Chapter 1 - the Magician Class
>
>
>> >
>> > Hit dice - d6. WTF??? A higher hit die implies a "beefier"
>> > character. Magicians are bookworms just like wizards; why are
>> > they tougher? Magicians did not have a d6 hit die in 2nd
>> > edition. Why the power increase in 3e? I would change this
>> > back to a d4.
>> > >
>
>this
>
>
>> > Skill points/level - I like magicians getting 4/level. They
>> > study fewer types of spells, so have more time to practice skills.
>>
>
>
>and this are related--they study a lot, but also can`t study magic or as
>complex magic, this gives them more time to run and play outdoors er...ehm,
>learn combat techniques, defense traits--they aren`t necessarily
>tougher--just better trained--D&D"s paradigm of HP not being strictly a
>measure of physical health.

That`s a good point, and I know my suggestions look contradictory. HOWEVER,
in 2e BR Magicians had the same HP as wizards (suggesting a similar lack of
physical activity) but had more TRAINING in non-fighter, non-wizard areas,
reflected in their wider weapon selection and rogue profs.

I guess what I am getting at is yes, they do have more time on their hands,
but no, they don`t use that time to exercise. They instead use it to learn
roguish stuff without actually being a rogue.

A good precedent for this is the Arcane Trickster (mage/thief) PrC, which
gets d4 hp.

I just don`t see the need to increase the hit die from a d4 to a d6 - I
would keep it with Travis Doom`s original Magician conversion (which for
the most part is very good, IMO).

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Shade]

At 09:13 PM 2/5/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>> I guess what I am getting at is yes, they do have more time on their
>hands,
>> but no, they don`t use that time to exercise. They instead use it to learn
>> roguish stuff without actually being a rogue.
>>
>
>Well, consider this from the logic of pure physicality most thief stuff is
>arduous....and likely physical.

Yeah, but we`re not giving magicians jump, balance and tumble as class
skills are we?

We`re giving them Use Magic Device, several Charisma skills, and I would
suggest Pick Pockets.

************************************************** **************************
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]

There was a way for a halfling to gain Magician Levels in the original boxed
set; but it was sort of a cheese method: Become a priest of Ruornil and you
gain casting ability as a magician of half your priest level (I think that
is what it was). So I think halflings should be able to take levels in
Magician to try and stay true to the original setting somewhat; but ONLY if
they are first clerics of Ruornil.

Tony


----Original Message Follows----
From: Lord Shade <lordshade@SOFTHOME.NET>

I like most of what the BR team has done with the classes section but I
have some issues with the Magician class. I`ll outline these in detail
below.

Flavor text - most of this I am happy with, except the part concerning
races. Nowhere in 2e BR did dwarves become magicians. I think the BRCS doc
should reflect consistency with the concept of the Magician being a nerfed
Mage, and discourage Dwarven Magicians just like the doc discourages Dwarven
true mages. Both are arcane magic which is something Dwarves don`t do in
Birthright. I am kind of ambivalent towards halfling magicians - but at
least I think the doc should say that they`re quite rare, because there is
no mention of a halfling magician in the original BR products. P.48 of the
Book of Magecraft states that only Humans can become magicians.


__________________________________________________ _______________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Shade]

I really only have a problem with dwarves being magicians, because of their
"antimagic" nature evidenced by save vs spell bonuses. In 2e halflings were
considered to be "antimagic" as well because they used a similar mechanic.

In 3e halflings are actually totally unlike the halflings in 2e (2e
halflings are a complete copy of Tolkien hobbits) and furthermore they lost
the antimagic aspect.

I for one much prefer Tolkien`s hobbits to WOTC`s new interpretation of
them, so they`ll always be chubby, LG pastoral types in my games, even
though their stats might change.

At 11:55 PM 2/5/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>There was a way for a halfling to gain Magician Levels in the original boxed
>set; but it was sort of a cheese method: Become a priest of Ruornil and you
>gain casting ability as a magician of half your priest level (I think that
>is what it was). So I think halflings should be able to take levels in
>Magician to try and stay true to the original setting somewhat; but ONLY if
>they are first clerics of Ruornil.
>
>Tony
>
>
>----Original Message Follows----
>From: Lord Shade <lordshade@SOFTHOME.NET>
>
>I like most of what the BR team has done with the classes section but I
>have some issues with the Magician class. I`ll outline these in detail
>below.
>
>Flavor text - most of this I am happy with, except the part concerning
>races. Nowhere in 2e BR did dwarves become magicians. I think the BRCS doc
>should reflect consistency with the concept of the Magician being a nerfed
>Mage, and discourage Dwarven Magicians just like the doc discourages Dwarven
>true mages. Both are arcane magic which is something Dwarves don`t do in
>Birthright. I am kind of ambivalent towards halfling magicians - but at
>least I think the doc should say that they`re quite rare, because there is
>no mention of a halfling magician in the original BR products. P.48 of the
>Book of Magecraft states that only Humans can become magicians.
>
>
>__________________________________________________ _______________
>Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
>************************************************** **************************
>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.

[Birthright-L]

The basic issue that has to be decided on with the magician is ifit is a PC
class or an NPC class.

Personally, I don`t favor using NPC classes at all, but I still think that
the Magician should be an NPC class. And that means it should be
significantly worse than a wizard. Preferably, it should also be less
complex to use in play, with less special abilities.

If this is the path chosen, there is no need for all the special abilities
or the d6 hit points. I still think they should have a good skill list and
skill points, but that is enough. After all, compared to adepts, they still
rulethe playing field (especially at low levels).

On the other hand, if they are made a PC-equivalent class, then the d6 hit
die and all the class abilities are highly motivated. I feel this is the
approach taken by the design team. It is not the path I would have taken for
the magician, but it is a valid design descision.

I also strongly agree that magicians should have the Pick Pocket skill for
stage magic!

/Carl


__________________________________________________ ___
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.

[doom]

On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 06:34:25PM -0600, Lord Shade wrote:
> I like most of what the BR team has done with the classes section but I
> have some issues with the Magician class. I`ll outline these in detail below.

[snip]

> How then, does that make sense, if the magician can perform magical
> miracles of healing and the wizard can`t? Wizards are supposed to be able
> to do everything a magician can do and more.
>
> Healing spells aside, the addition of charms and summoning spells to the
> bard/magician spell list represents a significant expansion of power
> relative to 2e BR bards and magicians. In 2e magicians could only use
> illusions and divinations above 2nd level; why all of a sudden should they
> get the power to also use summonings and charms? P. 48 of the Book of
> Magecraft is explicit: "these spellcasters specialize in the magic of
> knowing and seeming."

The "path of lesser magic" presented an interesting power. 3e bards have access
to healing magic. Thus a number of potential options were manifest:

Option #1: Bards don`t use lesser magic... they using something else, or lesser
magic plus some divine magic. Probably a bad option: All BR campaign
material suggests that bards are very much practioners of "lesser magic".

Option #2: BR Bards shouldn`t have access to healing magic. Probably a bad option:
Anything that powers _down_ bards seems like a big mistake.

Option #3: Reinterpret "lesser magic" to allow for the new bard spell list and
provide an opportunity for the magician class to be an actually playable
PC class.

The team went with option #3 (although I am oversimplifying the
discussion and the total number of options considerably). The PAGES of
kit information on magicians gives strong indication that the magician
was intended to be a full PC class. The previous "wizards/sorcerors can
do everything thing better" conversions made this unlikely. The d20
team came to accept this as being the "best" compromise in our
opinion. Not only does it make a very campaign specific class more
playable, it also GREATLY increases the believability of statements
like "there are are a few score true mages in all of Cerilia" from the
PCs POV if there aren`t two-four true mages in every realm.

- 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.

[ConjurerDragon]

Lord Shade wrote:
...

>Nowhere in 2e BR did dwarves become magicians. I think the BRCS doc
>should reflect consistency with the concept of the Magician being a nerfed
>Mage, and discourage Dwarven Magicians just like the doc discourages
>Dwarven true mages. Both are arcane magic which is something Dwarves don`t
>do in Birthright. I am kind of ambivalent towards halfling magicians - but
>at least I think the doc should say that they`re quite rare, because there
>is no mention of a halfling magician in the original BR products. P.48 of
>the Book of Magecraft states that only Humans can become magicians.
>
Yes, exactly that I thought, too :-)

>Game Rules
>Hit dice - d6. WTF??? A higher hit die implies a "beefier" character.
>Magicians are bookworms just like wizards; why are they tougher? Magicians
>did not have a d6 hit die in 2nd edition. Why the power increase in 3e? I
>would change this back to a d4.
>
I second this as well. Even 3E Sorcerors have only D4 while looking to
be more often in non-magical combat with their slightly larger list of
weapons than wizards. In this aspect the Magician would be like the
Sorceror IMO.

>Class skills - I like the expanded class skill list. This reflects the
>ability of 2e magicians to learn Rogue proficiencies. Only change I would
>suggest is that you add Pick Pockets as a class skill; in 3e this
>represents prestidigitation, which falls within the realm of Magician
>abilities, IMHO.
>
:-)

>Skill points/level - I like magicians getting 4/level. They study fewer
>types of spells, so have more time to practice skills.
>Weapon and Armor proficiency - I am happy with this overall but I would
>also add rapier proficiency to magicians, as it was an allowed proficiency
>for them in 2nd edition. This suggestion, like many of my other thoughts,
>is aimed at converting the magician as closely as possible between editions.
>BAB/Saves - identical to wizard. Looks good.
>Spontaneous Casting - a nice touch and not a significant power increase.
>Looks good.
>
:-)

>Spell Progression - I would prefer that the spell progression was exactly
>that of a Wizard, except the magician gets +1 bonus spell per level from
>Illusion or Divination. I understand why this was changed (the new Magician
>spell list) which incidentally is my primary objection to the new Magician
>class as written.
>
Or even +2 as a Magician is a specialist in both divination and illusion?

>[snip] New Spell List and Magician NPC class... in 2E not thought as PC class...
>
Exactly! What the Adept is to the cleric, the Aristocrat to the Noble,
the warrior to the Fighter is the Magician to the Wizard.

>In BR on the other hand, magical healing is a big deal and is the main
>reason the elves lost so hard to humans. Healing is the biggest advantage
>of clerics over mages. Why then, would that be such a big deal if elven
>bards/magicians could cast healing spells too?
>
But there were no elven magicians as in 2E only humans were magicians
;-) (p. 12 old rulebook)
And the reasons that the elves lost can by anything you like:
Surprise of divine magic,
numbers,
active support of gods who had not sworn to not take part in worldly
affairs...

But I second his point in that magical healing is important and should
not be given lightly to a class which never had it and has no reason to
get it. Wizards do not have healing, Rogues do not have healing.
Magicians are best described as part Wizard/part Rogue. They get some of
the spells, and some of the skill and weapons. Healing is divine, or
alchemistic (as the healing salve in Tome&Blood).

>Healing spells aside, the addition of charms and summoning spells to the
>bard/magician spell list represents a significant expansion of power
>relative to 2e BR bards and magicians. In 2e magicians could only use
>illusions and divinations above 2nd level; why all of a sudden should they
>get the power to also use summonings and charms? P. 48 of the Book of
>Magecraft is explicit: "these spellcasters specialize in the magic of
>knowing and seeming."
>
For Magicians: Yes, I see it the same way. Only divination and illusion
above 2nd level.
For Bards: Even 2E Bards could cast Charm/Enchantment school with the
elven spellsong, so I see no problem with them having charm in 3E.

>In 2nd edition BR it specified that bards cast spells as magicians, except
>they learn to use enchantment/charm spells through the use of ancient elven
>songs. But that`s ALL they`re supposed to be able to use. They are not
>supposed to be able to summon fiendish creatures from the nether realms,
>which is what a summoning spell is. To me, this is much more a "wizard"
>type of ability than something a dabbler (bard) or a seer/illusionist
>(magician) would be able to do.
>
Summoning Fiends or other creatures is IMO something neither of the
normal classes should be allowed. In COG II there was a house rule which
allowed only summoning of creatures native to Aebrynnis (goblins,
Ogres...) and I liked it. It gave meaning to the barrier that is the
shadowworld and that secludes Aebrynnis from the other planes. And it
would be logical, as in the draft Knowledge (Planes) is advised to be
highly unusual - but summoning creatures from other planes is allowed as
spells exist that do so? Then those spells should be limited in Aebrynnis...

>1. Bards - Nerf the spell list. Take out all healing spells and summoning
>spells, making it resemble the 2e BR bard spell list. Arcane Illusions and
>Divinations only as normal spells, plus Enchantment/Charm spells as songs,
>in a verbal component-only format. Fits well with the bardic song ability.
>
Yes.

>2. Magicians - Keep the spell list identical to what magicians had in 2e.
>Magicians are supposed to be seers and common illusionists. They can grasp
>the fundamentals of true magic (all 1st and 2nd level arcane spells) but
>lack the ability to progress farther. They can only use arcane illusions
>and divinations of 3rd level and higher. Definitely lose the healing
>spells. I also think being able to summon creatures from the Outer planes
>and dominate a person`s mind goes far beyond the scope of a magicians power.
>
Exactly.
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.

[spehar]

Since 3rd Ed isn't restictive it was decided we shouldn't be restrictive either. The recemendations are there because, well honestly, I don't remember anyone off hand liked the idea. But I think it was done to be unrestrictive.

The d6 hit die. Magicians are very bard-like. It was debated to possibly get rid of the magician since bards significantly fill more of that role. The magician still can serve an important role, but decreasing their hit die would even further more limit their already highly restricted value.

Intended PC class or not, it still does not appeal to most players. It is a useful class and that is good enough for me. If it wasn't useful, get rid of it. Wizards are rare. Other spellcasters are rare. Why create a NPC class for virtually no one?

Mike Spehar

[ConjurerDragon]

Sidhain wrote:

>>I guess what I am getting at is yes, they do have more time on their
>>
>hands,
>
>>but no, they don`t use that time to exercise. They instead use it to learn
>>roguish stuff without actually being a rogue.
>>
>
>Well, consider this from the logic of pure physicality most thief stuff is
>arduous....and likely physical.
>
Arduos? I suddenly imagine a rogue sneaking into a dark mansion, moving
silently from shadow to shadow without making a noise, picking a lock of
a door, disabling a trap with his nimble fingers - and all the while
carrying dumbbells? (Hantel in german) because his skills are physical
and arduos ;-)

Logic tells me not to change what does not need to be changed. If the 2E
Magician could have the same hd as the 2E wizard, while he balanced his
lack of spells with a wider selection of weapons and 2 specializations,
then why does the 3E Magician have to change from the hd of the wizard?
As I wrote earlier the Sorceror also has all simple weapons (more than
the wizard) and the sorceror also has only d4 if you want an example
which is not the arcane trickster from another book.
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.

[Shade]

>The d6 hit die. Magicians are very bard-like. It was debated to possibly
get rid of the magician since bards significantly fill more of that role.
The magician still can serve an important role, but decreasing their hit
die would even further more limit their already highly restricted value.

They weren`t "bard-like" in 2e, at least according to their hit die. 2nd
edition bards had d6; BR magicians had d4. To me this is not a good enough
reason to change it.

>Intended PC class or not, it still does not appeal to most players. It is
a useful class and that is good enough for me. If it wasn`t useful, get
rid of it. Wizards are rare. Other spellcasters are rare. Why create a NPC
class for virtually no one?

I`m not sure what point you`re trying to make here. The designers of 3e
included the warrior NPC class, knowing full well that no player in his
right mind would ever pick it. The 2e magician, as written, was similar; no
player in his right mind would pick it, but it served a useful purpose in
allowing the DM to introduce NPC wizard-types while keeping the flavor of
the setting (magic is rare) intact.

Magicians served an important purpose defensively; they can use detect
magic, detect invisibility, detect charm, and know alignment, all important
spells in a game where politics is everything and magic is so rare that a
simple invisibility (send in an invisible 4th level thief to steal war
plans; in FR there would be permanencies and wards all over the place to
prevent such skullduggery, but in BR the rarity of high-level casters
precludes such solutions) or charm person could influence the outcome of wars.

Since there are only supposed to be something like 25 wizards in Anuire,
and about half of them are detailed in Ruins of Empire, it just doesn`t
make sense for any regent to have a full wizard following him around all
day to make sure he doesn`t get charmed.

However protection from 1st level mind-influencing spells, both cleric and
wizard, is vitally important. That`s why you have a lesser wizard, a
magician, to defend you. But if you`re fighting a real war, you better
engage in diplomacy with a real wizard, because no amount of magicians can
summon troops out of thin air or shoot fireballs from their eyes and
lightning bolts from their arse.

Also keep in mind in 2e Dispel Magic was a Universal spell and therefore
accessible to magicians. We might want to make a special exception and
allow magicians to learn this in 3e as well (or we might not, saying you
need a magician to find the charm spell and then a cleric to dispel it).

************************************************** **************************
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]

> But I second his point in that magical healing is important and should
> not be given lightly to a class which never had it and has no reason to
> get it. Wizards do not have healing, Rogues do not have healing.
> Magicians are best described as part Wizard/part Rogue. They get some of
> the spells, and some of the skill and weapons. Healing is divine, or
> alchemistic (as the healing salve in Tome&Blood).

> >1. Bards - Nerf the spell list. Take out all healing spells and summoning
> >spells, making it resemble the 2e BR bard spell list. Arcane Illusions and
> >Divinations only as normal spells, plus Enchantment/Charm spells as songs,
> >in a verbal component-only format. Fits well with the bardic song ability.

I think the two "snips" above illustate one of the trickiest
decisions. 3e bards "suddenly" have healing spells. (Priests also
suddenly have a very differnet and more diverse selection of
high-level divine spells).

If we _keep_ the bard list intact then, elven bards can cast healing
spells that are _not_ divine. Likewise magicians should be able to
cast healing spells (since it is the same branch of magic).

If we "nerf" the bard spell list then we basically competely hose the
Bard class without offering anything in return. We decided to go with
a "do as little harm as possible" approach here and just incorporate
minor healing magic into the magician (which is just a BR class
in any case) rather than attempting to "fix" a standard class by
"removing" spells from its spell list.

I`d like to here more opinions on this topic and see what the
majority favors. Either way works, but they have very different
side effects.

- 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.

[Cobos]

Lord Shade wrote:

>>The d6 hit die. Magicians are very bard-like. It was debated to possibly
>>
>>
>get rid of the magician since bards significantly fill more of that role.
>The magician still can serve an important role, but decreasing their hit
>die would even further more limit their already highly restricted value.
>
>They weren`t "bard-like" in 2e, at least according to their hit die. 2nd
>edition bards had d6; BR magicians had d4. To me this is not a good enough
>reason to change it.
>
>
>
>>Intended PC class or not, it still does not appeal to most players. It is
>>
>>
>a useful class and that is good enough for me. If it wasn`t useful, get
>rid of it. Wizards are rare. Other spellcasters are rare. Why create a NPC
>class for virtually no one?
>
>I`m not sure what point you`re trying to make here. The designers of 3e
>included the warrior NPC class, knowing full well that no player in his
>right mind would ever pick it. The 2e magician, as written, was similar; no
>player in his right mind would pick it, but it served a useful purpose in
>allowing the DM to introduce NPC wizard-types while keeping the flavor of
>the setting (magic is rare) intact.
>
>Magicians served an important purpose defensively; they can use detect
>magic, detect invisibility, detect charm, and know alignment, all important
>spells in a game where politics is everything and magic is so rare that a
>simple invisibility (send in an invisible 4th level thief to steal war
>plans; in FR there would be permanencies and wards all over the place to
>prevent such skullduggery, but in BR the rarity of high-level casters
>precludes such solutions) or charm person could influence the outcome of wars.
>
>Since there are only supposed to be something like 25 wizards in Anuire,
>and about half of them are detailed in Ruins of Empire, it just doesn`t
>make sense for any regent to have a full wizard following him around all
>day to make sure he doesn`t get charmed.
>
>However protection from 1st level mind-influencing spells, both cleric and
>wizard, is vitally important. That`s why you have a lesser wizard, a
>magician, to defend you. But if you`re fighting a real war, you better
>engage in diplomacy with a real wizard, because no amount of magicians can
>summon troops out of thin air or shoot fireballs from their eyes and
>lightning bolts from their arse.
>
>Also keep in mind in 2e Dispel Magic was a Universal spell and therefore
>accessible to magicians. We might want to make a special exception and
>allow magicians to learn this in 3e as well (or we might not, saying you
>need a magician to find the charm spell and then a cleric to dispel it).
>
>
>
And the interesting thing is that in my running campaign I`ve now got
one player playing a
fighter/magician with the d6 hd and the nerfed spell list... His
character concept is that he
is primarily a fighter but the person dabbles in magic... Using spells
like detect magic,
comprehend languages, true strike etc... and I think it is great... So
IMHO keep the d6 hd
but make sure the spell list equals the one in 2e, and keep the large
skill selection... That
makes the class a good NPC court mage class as well as a good I want to
know something
about magic so I choose 1-3 lvls of magician class (then as a secondary
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.

[Gavin Cetaine]

Sir Gavin Cetaine steps aside to allow Master Dietric Bliene to speak

What is this? People are daring to say "Let's take away from the bards." How dare they? The songs of wound binding are too vital to those of us who live by the song. Aside from some defensive castings, some persuasive magics, and the occasional divinational or illusory effect, they are all we really have. Now, like you I have heard rumors of this college that teaches one how to bring creatures from the Shadowlands. But these must simply be finely crafted illusions... at least I hope so.

Now, let me be honest with you. I'm not quite as good at sneaking around as my halfling friend. The Lord High Mage usually has the right spell at hand for every occasion and knows everything about everything. Our more spiritually minded friend, well let's just say that religion is a good thing to have around in a friend. And lets face it, I'm not exactly the bes.., er sec.., all that great a swordsman. Actually, I really can't figure out why His Grace hasn't had the Champion show me to the palace gate yet. But I do my best to help out where I can and the healing effects of music are a huge part of that.

And don't go thinking that magicians need powered down either. Really, magician is a fine career path. Yes, they take spots that should more properly be filled by humble lore keeper's like myself. But, lets face it, some of my brothers of the trade haven't exactly given the rest of us good names. Being a magician is a bit costly and its always easier to trust a man whose livelyhood depends solely on your good health.

Now, if you will excuse me, I need to get back to my masterpiece. Dietric's Tiny Abode... lasts 4hours a day for every......

Sir Gavin retakes his chair and tries to avoid glaring holes into someone's back.

[irdeggman]

Note that the bard's healing spells in 3rd ed are arcane spells. Skip talked about this in Sage Advice when refering to scribing scrolls. A bard with the scribe scroll feat could make a cure light wounds scroll that is arcane, hence a cleric/druid/paladin/ranger couldn't cast the spell from the scroll since the "arcane" designator takes it off of their spell list, since they are classified as "divine" casters.

Personally this is the one change in bards that I have never been too found of, giving them healing spells. But that is not for me to say and trying to change a "core" class is IMO beyond our charter. We are not after all rewriting the 3rd rules, that is for 3.5.

[DanMcSorley]

On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, irdeggman wrote:
> Note that the bard`s healing spells in 3rd ed are arcane spells.
> Skip talked about this in Sage Advice when refering to scribing
> scrolls. A bard with the scribe scroll feat could make a cure light
> wounds scroll that is arcane, hence a cleric/druid/paladin/ranger
> couldn`t cast the spell from the scroll since the "arcane"
> designator takes it off of their spell list, since they are classified
> as "divine" casters.
>
> Personally this is the one change in bards that I have never been too
> found of, giving them healing spells. But that is not for me to say
> and trying to change a "core" class is IMO beyond our charter. We
> are not after all rewriting the 3rd rules, that is for 3.5.

Right, ok, but why do magicians get healing spells? Originally they were
diviners and illusionists. I can see adding enchantment and summoning to
make them playable as PCs (though making them an NPC class like the Adept
and Warrior would have been an ok way to go too), but they should not have
healing spells.
--
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.

[Green Knight]

Why not just make the magician into the twice-specialized wizard of old?

Throw in some mid-level enchantments and abjurations, as well as hit
points, fair BAB, and more skills/feats.

Then you have a very playable PC magician, without the need for dealing
with healing magic, or even worse, 9th level conjurations.

Just an idea; liked him better in v3.08

************************************************** **************************
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]

Dr. Travis Doom wrote:

>think the two "snips" above illustate one of the trickiest
>decisions. 3e bards "suddenly" have healing spells. (Priests also
>suddenly have a very differnet and more diverse selection of
>high-level divine spells).
>If we _keep_ the bard list intact then, elven bards can cast healing
>spells that are _not_ divine. Likewise magicians should be able to
>cast healing spells (since it is the same branch of magic).
>If we "nerf" the bard spell list then we basically competely hose the
>Bard class without offering anything in return. We decided to go with
>a "do as little harm as possible" approach here and just incorporate
>minor healing magic into the magician (which is just a BR class
>in any case) rather than attempting to "fix" a standard class by
>"removing" spells from its spell list.
>I`d like to here more opinions on this topic and see what the
>majority favors. Either way works, but they have very different
>side effects.
>
Another viewpoint on Magicians from me:
A Magician is foremost a specialized wizard.

In 3E as before in 2E a wizard who spezializes in a school is forever
and completely barred from at least one other school or more. A Diviner
in 3E has to select 1 prohibited school and an Illusionist either
Divination and Necromancy or any other one as prohibited from the eight
schools of magic from the PHB.

A Magician is a specialist wizard in BOTH Illusion and Divination and
thus it is only right that he has more than double the prohibited
schools than a specialist wizard who has and can only ever have one
special school.

However the 2E Magician retained mastery of spells of level 1 and 2 of
ALL schools which is an advantage compared to the specialized wizard,
who gives up all spells of his prohibited school.

In addition the Magician has the same (small) advantage as the Sorceror
of having a wider selection of weapons than the Wizard, and he can wear
light armour.

Furthermore he has more skills as he can not rely only on his magic
which makes him similar to the rogue.

That alone sounds balanced to me to let the Magician be as he was in 2E
and not give him access to more schools more hitpoints or even healing
(argh!) - if he needs the Magician can spend his more skill points to
buy Alchemy ranks and create Healing Salve to get the healing he needs!

But one more thing is to consider: A Magician is unblooded and can if
rolled use his best rolls for his abilitys or can if you use the buy
point system buy higher abilitys than the wizard, who has to build a
bloodline.

So there is no need to change the 2E Magician - he is even in my eyes
superior to the Wizard in some aspects:
In campaigns where the players start with low-level characters the
Magician will rule: At low levels he has the same access to spells as
the wizard and is a specialist in 2 schools. Additionally he has highers
ability scores because he has no bloodline.

In short-lived campaigns (sadly that are many) the Magicians will learn
more spells in the limited time as his twofold specialization allows him
better chances to succeed the spellcraft checks than his wizard
counterparts.

Only in high-level campaigns or in campaigns where the players are
regents the wizard has the advantage, as Magicians lack 3+ spells of 6
schools and can never be regents (unless they somehow aquire a bloodline).
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.

[Lord Grave]

>
> If we _keep_ the bard list intact then, elven bards can cast
> healing spells that are _not_ divine. Likewise magicians
> should be able to cast healing spells (since it is the same
> branch of magic).
>
> If we "nerf" the bard spell list then we basically competely
> hose the Bard class without offering anything in return. We
> decided to go with a "do as little harm as possible" approach
> here and just incorporate minor healing magic into the
> magician (which is just a BR class in any case) rather than
> attempting to "fix" a standard class by "removing" spells
> from its spell list.
>
> I`d like to here more opinions on this topic and see what the
> majority favors. Either way works, but they have very
> different side effects.
>

Bardic healing powers are nothing compared to clerical, but in
Birthright setting Clerics who are high-level enough to feel that
difference are very rare. I suggest that you make all healing spells for
Bards and Magicians one level higher, but give them something to
compensate. For example, they could use their Cha bonus instead of other
bonuses for saves. This would represent the fact that Bards can use
their physical attractivness to disrupt the concentration of their
enemies. For example, a male wizard who thinks about attractiveness of
female person while he casts deadly spell at her is more likely to fail.

************************************************** **************************
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]

From: "Bjørn E. Sørgjerd" <bjorn.sorgjerd@C2I.NET>

> Then you have a very playable PC magician, without the need for dealing
> with healing magic, or even worse, 9th level conjurations.
>

Are we in agreement on that we want a playable magician? I for one do not. I
want a magician calibrated versus the other NPC classes, like warrior and
adept.


__________________________________________________ ___
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.

[DanMcSorley]

On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Milos Rasic wrote:
> Bardic healing powers are nothing compared to clerical, but in
> Birthright setting Clerics who are high-level enough to feel that
> difference are very rare.

Bards were balanced against clerics by the 3e designers, to be able to
heal, but not as well as clerics. This can be easily seen since bards
don`t get first level spells at all until second level.

Magicians, unlike bards, are a version of wizards, and should not use the
3e bard spell list. No healing for magicians.
--
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.

[doom]

On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 05:28:55PM -0500, daniel mcsorley wrote:
> Bards were balanced against clerics by the 3e designers, to be able to
> heal, but not as well as clerics. This can be easily seen since bards
> don`t get first level spells at all until second level.
>
> Magicians, unlike bards, are a version of wizards, and should not use the
> 3e bard spell list. No healing for magicians.

I don`t necessarily agree with this statement. 2e BR Magicians were
their own class. Certainly they cast wizards spells, but their spell
lists were limited. Likewise, 2e BR bards cast wizard spells (with
limited spell lists). I don`t see that magicians should be "wizards"
in 3e anymore than bards should be wizards in 3e. Both have unique
advantages/disadvantages which differentiate them.

If the premise that they are a unique class is accepted (opinions will
clearly differ here) then their spell list is "up in the air", but
there are certainly advantages to said list being consistant with that
of the bard (the other class that practices lesser magic).

________
/. 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.

[DanMcSorley]

On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Dr. Travis Doom wrote:
> If the premise that they are a unique class is accepted (opinions will
> clearly differ here) then their spell list is "up in the air", but
> there are certainly advantages to said list being consistant with that
> of the bard (the other class that practices lesser magic).

That would be OK, if bards really practiced lesser magic, but they have
divine healing spells that should be reserved for clerics. This works out
kind of for bards, since they have delayed spellcasting, but with
magicians you`d get 1st level wizards casting healing spells like they
were clerics. Not good.
--
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.

[Shade]

At 10:49 PM 2/7/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>From: "Bjørn E. Sørgjerd" <bjorn.sorgjerd@C2I.NET>
>
>> Then you have a very playable PC magician, without the need for dealing
>> with healing magic, or even worse, 9th level conjurations.
>>
>
>Are we in agreement on that we want a playable magician? I for one do not. I
>want a magician calibrated versus the other NPC classes, like warrior and
>adept.

I second this wholeheartedly. I do not want a playable magician. I want a
magician on power with NPC classes.

I don`t know if this is coming down to a vote but there`s no consensus as
of yet.

************************************************** **************************
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 06:20 PM 2/7/2003 -0600, Lord Shake wrote:

> >Are we in agreement on that we want a playable magician? I for one do not. I
> >want a magician calibrated versus the other NPC classes, like warrior and
> >adept.
>
>I second this wholeheartedly. I do not want a playable magician. I want a
>magician on power with NPC classes.
>
>I don`t know if this is coming down to a vote but there`s no consensus as
>of yet.

If I get a vote... I want a playable magician class. I`m not real keen on
the NPC class concept to begin with, but aside from that a non-blooded
arcane spellcaster that one might actually want to use would be very
appropriate to my campaigns in general--not to mention that I think the
magician was originally meant to be a playable class, not a precurser to
the 3e NPC class concept.

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.

[ConjurerDragon]

Dr. Travis Doom wrote:

>On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 05:28:55PM -0500, daniel mcsorley wrote:
>
>>Bards were balanced against clerics by the 3e designers, to be able to
>>heal, but not as well as clerics. This can be easily seen since bards
>>don`t get first level spells at all until second level.
>>Magicians, unlike bards, are a version of wizards, and should not use the
>>3e bard spell list. No healing for magicians.
>>
>
>I don`t necessarily agree with this statement. 2e BR Magicians were
>their own class. Certainly they cast wizards spells, but their spell
>lists were limited. Likewise, 2e BR bards cast wizard spells (with
>limited spell lists). I don`t see that magicians should be "wizards"
>in 3e anymore than bards should be wizards in 3e. Both have unique
>advantages/disadvantages which differentiate them.
>
Magicians in 2E were Wizards in my opinion. Closely resembling
specialist wizards in two schools. Balanced somewhat by gaining more
weapons than the wizard and having better access to
nonweapon-proficiencys, but basically their core is a specialized wizard.

Unique about the Magician is not that their class - they´re Specialist
Wizards with some advantages.
Unique is that unlike in other worlds the True Wizard is so rare as he
has to be elven or have a bloodline. Magicians fill the need to have
more arcane spellcasters around (for court magicians, to protect those
who can afford them and as the many who sell spellcasting services as in
the PHB). Magicians in this fill a role very similar to that of the
warrior as already has been mentioned.

Comparing a Wizard with a Magician is not really correct. Better would
be to compare a Specialist Wizard with a Magician and they look much
more equal.

If Magicians are too weak to be considered as a separate class, perhaps
that is because most people do not like to be specialist wizards instead
of being able to learn spells from all schools? Is specialization not
rewarding enough to forfeit a school of magic?
And double specialization not rewarding enough to be banned from all but
two schools and spells lower than level 3 of the rest?

>If the premise that they are a unique class is accepted (opinions will
>clearly differ here) then their spell list is "up in the air", but
>there are certainly advantages to said list being consistant with that
>of the bard (the other class that practices lesser magic).
>
Bards may be practioneres of lesser magic, but even in 2E Birthright
they could not use all spells they were entitled to by the PHB - there
is no reason not to have them have the same limitation in 3E when they
were limited in 2E.

This is however not really a huge disadvantage for the 3E Bard - the 3E
Bard is limited similar to the Sorceorr in the total number of spells he
may know, and thus he could never learn all spells from his own spell
list or even from all schools of magic, not even most of them even if
he has access to more schools of magic.

So he selects the few spells he may know from a list which is not quite
so large - but he still may know the same number of spells as the 3E
Bard, only from a more limited list. That the Bardic spell list in 3E IS
already limited compared to the wizard arcane spell list makes it
complicated as the 2E bard simply used the wizard list. That could be
countered by allowing the Birthright Bard access to the same arcane
spells as the 2E Bard had (= the whole 2E lesser Magic), but more
spells than on the 3E bard list would make it difficult to use that bard
character in another world if the player wants to use his character
elsewhere in a different campaign - which is no reason for a character
only used in Birthright.

However one point in which I differ from my own point of view: I would
not object to have Bards cast healing spells - Music can soothe the
most savage beast and bring comfort to people. A nice Birthright way to
deal with 3E Bardic Healing would be to have formerly divine spells be
one level higher for the Bard (Cure Minor Wounds level 1, Light wounds
level 2, Moderate Wounds elvel 3, Serious Wounds level 4, Critical
Wounds level 5) - as the bard can know only a limited number of spells,
all players would think twice if they really want to know spells which a
cleric has much earlier and unlimited access to.

And a last word: Bards are Fighter/Thief/Mages or perhaps
Warrior/Rogue/Magicians - their spellcasting is not their primary focus
and not the worst problem as their foremost art is bardic music.
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]

Dr. Travis Doom wrote:

>On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 05:28:55PM -0500, daniel mcsorley wrote:
>
>>Magicians, unlike bards, are a version of wizards, and should not use the
>>3e bard spell list. No healing for magicians.
>>
>I don`t necessarily agree with this statement. 2e BR Magicians were
>their own class. Certainly they cast wizards spells, but their spell
>lists were limited. Likewise, 2e BR bards cast wizard spells (with
>limited spell lists). I don`t see that magicians should be "wizards"
>in 3e anymore than bards should be wizards in 3e. Both have unique
>advantages/disadvantages which differentiate them.
>
>If the premise that they are a unique class is accepted (opinions will
>clearly differ here) then their spell list is "up in the air", but
>there are certainly advantages to said list being consistant with that
>of the bard (the other class that practices lesser magic).
>/. Doom@cs.wright.edu
>
Another important thought on giving Magicians healing what they never
had is the availability of magical healing.
Morg has a very good statement about healing on Aebrynnis on his page
but I do not know if I may post the URL to the public?
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.

[irdeggman]

Note that if the magician spell list goes back to the original one that there will be very few spells of higher level available. I think I calculated it some where around 5 or so per level for 7th and up. This is extremely limiting and more so than any other spell casting class.

The 2nd ed Universal spell list list of the Wizards' spell compendium also included spells like teleport, teleport without error and astral spell which should probably be excluded from the magician list.

[ConjurerDragon]

irdeggman 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=1272
>irdeggman wrote:
> Note that if the magician spell list goes back to the original one that there will be very few spells of higher level available. I think I calculated it some where around 5 or so per level for 7th and up. This is extremely limiting and more so than any other spell casting class.
>
Class. But not compared to a specialized wizard who loses access to one
or more schools for specializing in just one school of magic. The
Magician specilizes in two schools of magic and retains access to all
level 0, 1, 2 spells so it seems o.k. to me.
A specialist wizard does not gain more weapons or more skills, the bonus
to his specialized school is all he gets for losing another school.

However a player can always research more approbiate spells, the PHB
never did list all spells and 2E had lots of new spells in more books.
In 3E therer certainly will be more spells in more books coming
(although Tome&Blood does list no Illusion/Divination spells of level 7+).

What happened to the "seer" special ability from Dooms manual? It
allowed Magicians to add divine divinations to their spell list.

>The 2nd ed Universal spell list list of the Wizards` spell compendium also included spells like teleport, teleport without error and astral spell which should probably be excluded from the magician list.
>
Following the 2E PHB Teleport was an alteration spell of level 5, so
barred from Magicians.
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.

[Ben Harrison]

Just to add to the discussion. Why not let the magician keep healing but
start receiving the healing spells at a different level.

For example, just to get started.

There is cure ?minor? wounds spell that only cures 1 hp. let that be a
magicians 1st heal spell and have it at first level.

let cure light wounds be a 2nd or 3rd level

and let cure serious wounds be at least a 5th. Also this would be the last
cure spell a magician gets.

Also let me make a plead for a magican to have "Magic Missle". I base this
partially on the flavor text at the start of the Battle magic section of the
Book of Magecraft. In it a magician, wishing he could help his kingdom in
war gets the idea of a large mass of magic missles striking down the
kingdoms foes.

Let Magic Missle be the "fireball" of magicians and make it a 3rd level
spell for them, maybe with the provision that a magicain CASTS it 3 levels
lower than he really is (i.e. he still only gets a single missle, which is
what levels 2nd level wizard gets to use)

************************************************** **************************
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]

Ben L. Harrison wrote:

>Just to add to the discussion. Why not let the magician keep healing but
>start receiving the healing spells at a different level.
>
Because a specialized Wizard does not get healing spells either?

>For example, just to get started.
>There is cure ?minor? wounds spell that only cures 1 hp. let that be a
>magicians 1st heal spell and have it at first level.
>let cure light wounds be a 2nd or 3rd level
>and let cure serious wounds be at least a 5th. Also this would be the last
>cure spell a magician gets.
>
Morgramen has written an (In my opinion) excellent article about the
availability of magical healing in Aebrynnis which can be read under

> http://www.bloodsilver.com/scholastic/healing.php

I would like to ask anyone who wants the Magician to have healing to
read this article before.

>Also let me make a plead for a magican to have "Magic Missle". I base this
>partially on the flavor text at the start of the Battle magic section of the
>Book of Magecraft. In it a magician, wishing he could help his kingdom in
>war gets the idea of a large mass of magic missles striking down the
>kingdoms foes.
>Let Magic Missle be the "fireball" of magicians and make it a 3rd level
>spell for them, maybe with the provision that a magicain CASTS it 3 levels
>lower than he really is (i.e. he still only gets a single missle, which is
>what levels 2nd level wizard gets to use)
>
Yes, definitely. See where the re-creation of the Magician brings more
troubles than it is worth!
Let him be the old 2E Illusion+Divination specialist with access to all
level 0,1,2 spells of all other schools, more skills and more weapons
than wizards and light armour and most will be happy :-)
And it will be compatible to the good old Book of Magecraft and the
"Rain of Magic Missiles".
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.

[DanMcSorley]

On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Ben L. Harrison wrote:
> Just to add to the discussion. Why not let the magician keep healing but
> start receiving the healing spells at a different level.

I feel like I should keeping harping on this. Magicians are wizards.
Wizards do not get healing spells. Have not, do not, nor should we make
them. There, got that out of my system.
--
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 Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Michael Romes wrote:

> Magicians in 2E were Wizards in my opinion. Closely resembling
> specialist wizards in two schools.

Absolutely. In fact as mechanics go I think they ought to be *precisely*
specialist wizards in two schools, in addition to the "no spells above 3rd
level other than illusion and divination" restriction.

At the very least, there should not be anything on the magician spell list
which is not also on the wizard spell list -- so no healing unless wizards
get it, too.


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.

[Shade]

At 04:13 PM 2/8/2003 +0100, you 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=1272
>
> irdeggman wrote:
> Note that if the magician spell list goes back to the original one that
there will be very few spells of higher level available. I think I
calculated it some where around 5 or so per level for 7th and up. This is
extremely limiting and more so than any other spell casting class.

Why is this a problem? How many characters in Birthright actually get to
level 13? I am willing to bet you that there is not a single Magician of
level 13 or higher in ANY WOTC-published BR rulebook.

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Shade]

At 12:22 PM 2/8/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>Just to add to the discussion. Why not let the magician keep healing but
>start receiving the healing spells at a different level.
>
>For example, just to get started.
>
>There is cure ?minor? wounds spell that only cures 1 hp. let that be a
>magicians 1st heal spell and have it at first level.
>
>let cure light wounds be a 2nd or 3rd level
>
>and let cure serious wounds be at least a 5th. Also this would be the last
>cure spell a magician gets.

In principle this changes nothing. My primary beef is that the magician
suddenly gets miraculous powers of healing he didn`t have in 2e. Healing
spells should, IMHO, be exclusively in the hands of priests and druids.

>Also let me make a plead for a magican to have "Magic Missle". I base this
>partially on the flavor text at the start of the Battle magic section of the
>Book of Magecraft. In it a magician, wishing he could help his kingdom in
>war gets the idea of a large mass of magic missles striking down the
>kingdoms foes.
>
>Let Magic Missle be the "fireball" of magicians and make it a 3rd level
>spell for them, maybe with the provision that a magicain CASTS it 3 levels
>lower than he really is (i.e. he still only gets a single missle, which is
>what levels 2nd level wizard gets to use)

I think we should keep the 2e system of letting magicians cast all sor/wiz
spells of level 1-2, and all sor/wiz divinations and illusions of level 3
and higher.

This would allow magicians access to magic missile.

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Shade]

>Option #2: BR Bards shouldn`t have access to healing magic. Probably a
bad option:
> Anything that powers _down_ bards seems like a big mistake.

I don`t get this. The bard "spell list" got nerfed in 2e BR also. BR bards
lost access to 5 schools of magic that PHB bards often relied on. If
anything, 3e bards would lose access to a smaller number of spells because
their spell list is smaller to begin with.

>Option #3: Reinterpret "lesser magic" to allow for the new bard spell list
and
> provide an opportunity for the magician class to be an actually
playable
> PC class.
>
>The team went with option #3 (although I am oversimplifying the
>discussion and the total number of options considerably). The PAGES of
>kit information on magicians gives strong indication that the magician
>was intended to be a full PC class. The previous "wizards/sorcerors can
>do everything thing better" conversions made this unlikely. The d20
>team came to accept this as being the "best" compromise in our
>opinion. Not only does it make a very campaign specific class more
>playable, it also GREATLY increases the believability of statements
>like "there are are a few score true mages in all of Cerilia" from the
>PCs POV if there aren`t two-four true mages in every realm.

But no PC in his right mind is going to play a magician anyway. That`s what
wizards and sorcerers are for. Since 3e has the mechanic for NPC classes,
why not use it? And if we`re talking about PAGES of information suggesting
that magicians should be a PC class.. pp. 48-55 address the topic of
magicians. That`s not very much, especially considering that the rest of
the book is primarily geared towards true wizards.

On a book about arcane magic in Birthright, of course a small section is
going to be about magicians. That so little of it is about magicians shows
that the emphasis for PCs is on true wizards. And don`t forget, NPCs use
kits too. Also, the Sages & Specialists book for 2e is an example of how
"PAGES" of material can be written exclusively for NPCs.

In closing, what I am trying to refute here is the assumption that just
because kits for magicians were included in the Book of Magecraft, it was a
class meant to be played by PCs.

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Shade]

>If we "nerf" the bard spell list then we basically competely hose the
>Bard class without offering anything in return.

Well, 2nd edition Birthright did this to the Bard too, so why can`t we?
After all, we`re staying true to the setting.

************************************************** **************************
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 Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Ben L. Harrison wrote:
>
>>Just to add to the discussion. Why not let the magician keep healing but
>>start receiving the healing spells at a different level.
>>
>I feel like I should keeping harping on this. Magicians are wizards.
>Wizards do not get healing spells. Have not, do not, nor should we make
>them. There, got that out of my system.
>
Yes :-)
(however specialized wizards to be more exact)

Perhaps we should give specialized Wizards healing spells as well? ;-)
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.

[Raedwald]

I am really on the fence concerning the magician. Its seems the design group did not want to mess with the Bard. Therefore it had arcane healing, and since the Bard practiced lesser Magic, the Magician should have it.

I think the Bards magic should be considered derivations of Elven spell songs, which comprise lesser and true magic. This brings up the ball of wax that Elven arcane casters cast healing spells. This may not be so bad if they require 2 feats to do so (Elven Voice and Spellsong).

Anyway as to the magician, get rid of the healing and the summoning. Stick close to lesser magic, all spells of 0-2 level, Illusions and Divinations (seeming and Knowing) of levels 3-9. However if left at that, the magician is too weak to be a playable class. I like the idea of allowing the magician to sub-specialize in either Abjuration, Enchantment, or Transmutation, allowing access to 3rd level spells of 1 school.

Keep the hit dice d6. The d6 is tempting (Monte Cook's sorcerer variant has d6). Magicians are experts, dabblers in magic, sages if you will. Wizards d4 can also reflect the cost of handling True magic.

Skills are good, though I might add decipher script, pick pockets to allow additional flavor. I also miss the seer special ability (though I might require spell focus (divination) as a prerequisite).

Comments?

[Shade]

>Keep the hit dice d6. The d6 is tempting (Monte Cook`s sorcerer variant
has d6). Magicians are experts, dabblers in magic, sages if you will.
Wizards d4 can also reflect the cost of handling True magic.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I don`t think "because
Monte Cook did it" is a reason to justify ANYTHING. Monte`s ranger is
totally broken; just because he allowed it doesn`t mean we have to make the
same mistake. Just because he worked on the PHB and DMG doesn`t mean that
he has any concept of balance; I would guess he came up with a lot of
stuff, and had others try to balance it for him. (he even admits on his own
website that he went overboard with his ranger)

>
>Skills are good, though I might add decipher script, pick pockets to allow
additional flavor. I also miss the seer special ability (though I might
require spell focus (divination) as a prerequisite).
>
>Comments?

I like the idea of adding decipher script.

************************************************** **************************
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 Sun, 9 Feb 2003, Lord Shade wrote:
> >Skills are good, though I might add decipher script, pick pockets to allow
> additional flavor. I also miss the seer special ability (though I might
> require spell focus (divination) as a prerequisite).
>
> I like the idea of adding decipher script.

Pick pockets is the skill used for stage magic too, Magicians should have
that.
--
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.

[Shade]

At 02:34 PM 2/9/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>On Sun, 9 Feb 2003, Lord Shade wrote:
>> >Skills are good, though I might add decipher script, pick pockets to allow
>> additional flavor. I also miss the seer special ability (though I might
>> require spell focus (divination) as a prerequisite).
>>
>> I like the idea of adding decipher script.
>
>Pick pockets is the skill used for stage magic too, Magicians should have
>that.

I agree; I said that in my original post about magicians and didn`t think I
needed to repeat it. :)

************************************************** **************************
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 01:11 PM 2/9/2003 -0600, Lord Shade wrote:

> >Keep the hit dice d6. The d6 is tempting (Monte Cook`s sorcerer variant
>has d6). Magicians are experts, dabblers in magic, sages if you will.
>Wizards d4 can also reflect the cost of handling True magic.
>
>You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I don`t think "because
>Monte Cook did it" is a reason to justify ANYTHING.

He didn`t really say _that_.... I do, however, agree that just because
Monte says/does something that doesn`t mean we do, and I would, in fact,
extend the same thinking into just about any game system or designer`s
work, right up to and including many of the standard D&D 3e rules.

>Monte`s ranger is totally broken; just because he allowed it doesn`t mean
>we have to make the
>same mistake. Just because he worked on the PHB and DMG doesn`t mean that
>he has any concept of balance; I would guess he came up with a lot of
>stuff, and had others try to balance it for him. (he even admits on his own
>website that he went overboard with his ranger)

In this case, MC`s ideas on the ranger and sorcerer are heading in the
right direction. His ranger has faults, but it deals with many of the
problems with the version of the class presented in 3e and is worth a
look. Similarly, his modifications to the sorcerer are a big improvement
over the version in the PHB.

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.

[Mark_Aurel]

I like the idea of adding decipher script.

Hmmm. I think I read over at ENWorld that the latest issue of Dungeon seems to indicate that Decipher Script will be a standard skill for wizards in the revised edition. Wouldn't really surprise me; it's been a house rule of mine almost since 3e came out.

[Green Knight]

Mark_Aurel wrote:

I like the idea of adding decipher script.

>Hmmm. I think I read over at ENWorld that the latest issue of Dungeon
seems >to indicate that Decipher Script will be a standard skill for
wizards in >the revised edition. Wouldn`t really surprise me; it`s
been a house rule >of mine almost since 3e came out.

What about the Use Magic Device skill? In the low-magic world of
Cerilia, should this skill really belong to the non-magical rogue? I
would suggest removing it, Decipher Script, and the ability to remove
magical traps (how do they do that?). It is all well and good with the
bard (and magician), who has at least some magical potential, but not
the Rogue.

Cheers
Bjørn

************************************************** **************************
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 Feb 2003, [iso-8859-1] Bjørn Eian Sørgjerd wrote:
> What about the Use Magic Device skill? In the low-magic world of
> Cerilia, should this skill really belong to the non-magical rogue? I
> would suggest removing it, Decipher Script, and the ability to remove
> magical traps (how do they do that?). It is all well and good with the
> bard (and magician), who has at least some magical potential, but not
> the Rogue.

We`re not rewriting 3e. If we were, I`d launch into a rant about how
Bards have healing spells even though they`re arcane casters. But we`re
not.

Besides which, 2e thieves and bards had an equivalent ability, and it
wasn`t removed for BR.
--
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 Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Bjørn Eian Sørgjerd wrote:

> What about the Use Magic Device skill? In the low-magic world of
> Cerilia, should this skill really belong to the non-magical rogue? I
> would suggest removing it, Decipher Script, and the ability to remove
> magical traps (how do they do that?).

I heartily concur. Heck, I did that even in my Greyhawk campaign.


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.

[Shade]

At 01:24 PM 2/10/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>At 01:11 PM 2/9/2003 -0600, Lord Shade wrote:
>
>> >Keep the hit dice d6. The d6 is tempting (Monte Cook`s sorcerer variant
>>has d6). Magicians are experts, dabblers in magic, sages if you will.
>>Wizards d4 can also reflect the cost of handling True magic.
>>
>>You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I don`t think "because
>>Monte Cook did it" is a reason to justify ANYTHING.
>
>He didn`t really say _that_.... I do, however, agree that just because
>Monte says/does something that doesn`t mean we do, and I would, in fact,
>extend the same thinking into just about any game system or designer`s
>work, right up to and including many of the standard D&D 3e rules.

Hmm, yeah, my statement was a little harsh. I apologize, I didn`t mean to
jump down your throat :)

>>Monte`s ranger is totally broken; just because he allowed it doesn`t mean
>>we have to make the
>>same mistake. Just because he worked on the PHB and DMG doesn`t mean that
>>he has any concept of balance; I would guess he came up with a lot of
>>stuff, and had others try to balance it for him. (he even admits on his own
>>website that he went overboard with his ranger)
>
>In this case, MC`s ideas on the ranger and sorcerer are heading in the
>right direction. His ranger has faults, but it deals with many of the
>problems with the version of the class presented in 3e and is worth a
>look. Similarly, his modifications to the sorcerer are a big improvement
>over the version in the PHB.

"Heading in the right direction" and "arrived in the right place" are two
different things. The ranger did need a power boost at the middle levels.
However, Monte improved the spells, skills, AND feats, removing only the
HD. For a build through level 20, the Monte Ranger is way overpowered
compared to a level 20 fighter.

I don`t know much about the Monte Sorcerer but I do not think that a
primary arcane caster should have a d6 hd. The only reason the Sorcerer is
underpowered compared to the wizard is that he doesn`t get anything after
level 1. If you give him a metamagic feat every 5 levels, I think he`s
fine. I`d also make a small change to the skill list, adding in Charisma
skills, but I WOULD NOT increase the skill points available.

************************************************** **************************
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 Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Bjørn Eian Sørgjerd wrote:
>
>>What about the Use Magic Device skill? In the low-magic world of
>>Cerilia, should this skill really belong to the non-magical rogue? I
>>would suggest removing it, Decipher Script, and the ability to remove
>>magical traps (how do they do that?).
>>
>
>I heartily concur. Heck, I did that even in my Greyhawk campaign.
>Ryan Caveney
>
This is strange to me. Do you forbid fighters to be able to use a Rod of
lordly Might, because the magic in the world is rare?

Rogues disable traps not as a hobby. They are able to disable them to
get to the things on the other side which are guarded by the traps. If
Magic is rare and magical traps also, then the magical treasure on the
other side of the trap of that wizard is certainly worth to train your
skill to be able to get around the trap.
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.

[Green Knight]

> Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Bjørn Eian Sørgjerd wrote:
> >
> >>What about the Use Magic Device skill? In the low-magic world of
> >>Cerilia, should this skill really belong to the non-magical rogue? I
> >>would suggest removing it, Decipher Script, and the ability to remove
> >>magical traps (how do they do that?).
> >>
> >
> >I heartily concur. Heck, I did that even in my Greyhawk campaign.
> >Ryan Caveney
> >
> This is strange to me. Do you forbid fighters to be able to use a Rod of
> lordly Might, because the magic in the world is rare?
>
> Rogues disable traps not as a hobby. They are able to disable them to
> get to the things on the other side which are guarded by the traps. If
> Magic is rare and magical traps also, then the magical treasure on the
> other side of the trap of that wizard is certainly worth to train your
> skill to be able to get around the trap.
> bye
> Michael Romes
>

The question is how do you explain the rogue`s ability to interact with magic? I have problems with the rogue class doing this in a world of high magic, but where exactly did the rogue get to see a magic trao and thuse learn to remove them) in Cerilia?

The fighter can use the rod (even if it is a stupid item) since it works for his class (IMO removing such items might be a good idea). Use Magic Device allows the rogue (potentially) to grad a Staff of Power and start blasting people. Again I`m OK with this, except in Cerilia as I simply can`t figuer out how exactly the rogue learned to do this.

About the same applies for Decipher Script; as the skill is written it seems a "magic skill", since you`re able to decipher things that are beyond your knowledge of langueages etc.

Cheers
Bjørn

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.

[ConjurerDragon]

Green Knight wrote:

>>Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Bjørn Eian Sørgjerd wrote:
>>>
>>>>What about the Use Magic Device skill? In the low-magic world of
>>>>Cerilia, should this skill really belong to the non-magical rogue? I
>>>>would suggest removing it, Decipher Script, and the ability to remove
>>>>magical traps (how do they do that?).
>>>>
>>>I heartily concur. Heck, I did that even in my Greyhawk campaign.
>>>Ryan Caveney
>>>
>>This is strange to me. Do you forbid fighters to be able to use a Rod of
>>lordly Might, because the magic in the world is rare?
>>
>>Rogues disable traps not as a hobby. They are able to disable them to
>>get to the things on the other side which are guarded by the traps. If
>>Magic is rare and magical traps also, then the magical treasure on the
>>other side of the trap of that wizard is certainly worth to train your
>>skill to be able to get around the trap.
>>bye
>>Michael Romes
>>
>
>The question is how do you explain the rogue`s ability to interact with magic? I have problems with the rogue class doing this in a world of high magic, but where exactly did the rogue get to see a magic trao and thuse learn to remove them) in Cerilia?
>
To create traps is a skill Craft (Trapmaking), magical traps are simply
seen only more difficult, more powerful traps.
To remove or evade traps is the business of rogues. That magical traps
are more seldom in a world where magic is rare,
could result in rogues who never have seen a magic trap and could not
disable one, you are right. However as the treasure that is worth to be
guarded by a magical trap in a rare-magic world certainly is enormous,
it is of interest to any rogue to know how to get around the trap.
Thieves Guilds can pay huge sume to hire rogue wizards to teach the
skill. Rogues can give their experiences to their apprentices.

There are always ways to get valuable knowledge as humans are greedy ;-)

>The fighter can use the rod (even if it is a stupid item) since it works for his class (IMO removing such items might be a good idea).
>
The argument "it works for his class" can be used for anything. Rogues
can disable magic traps and use magic devices, because it "works for
their PHB class", too ;-)

> se Magic Device allows the rogue (potentially) to grad a Staff of Power and start blasting people. Again I`m OK with this, except in Cerilia as I simply can`t figuer out how exactly the rogue learned to do this.
>About the same applies for Decipher Script; as the skill is written it seems a "magic skill", since you`re able to decipher things that are beyond your knowledge of langueages etc.
>
e.g. Enigma. Could only a wizard decipher the code?
From small bits of information a code can be deciphered. An example
that comes to my mind is Russel Crowe in "A beuatiful mind" where he
deciphers a russian code by simply staring at a wall and comparing and
staring until he cracked the code.
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.

[irdeggman]

Decipher Script is specifically not used to read magic writings, only ancient and unknown languages. Use Magic Device is the skill used to deceipher magic writings if the character doesn't have spellcraft which is the actual skill that would be used.

Use Magic Device as written has a pretty good balance to it, there are sufficient (IMO) limitations or restrictions to prevent this from being overplayed if done correctly. Specifically "You mus consciously chose what to emulate. That is, you have to know what you are trying to emulate when you make an emulation check."

So to use the Rod of Lordly Might the rogue (or bard) must first determine (somehow) that is is usable by fighters and then make an emulation check using Use Magic Device before he can use it. And even then he has to make the check again every time he attempts to use the device.

The reason that rogues and bards have this skill is their adaptability and by using this ability to "pretend to be something else" they are able to successfully use the item in question. IMO the way the 3rd ed skill is written is a whole lot clearer than it was in 2nd ed and definitely by the description of how the skill works allows the deduction that I've made above whereas in 2nd ed it just happened.

[Birthright-L]

This seems to be another issue where the conversion should stay neutral and
let individual DMs decide how they want their games. In some campaigns, it
doesn`t make sense for rogues to be able to work with magic, butthe could in
the original, so there is no reason to think they should not do it in the
new version.

/Carl


__________________________________________________ ___
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.

[Raedwald]

The Magician class seems to suffer from being from using the wizard as the base class. You basically restrict the spell list and then end up trying to balance hp, skills and special abilities to make the class playable.

An idea would be to base the Magician on the Bard class. To adjust it I would add +2 spells to each level (spells/day) of the Bards spells per day list. This can be explained as bonus for specialization in Divination & Illusion. Allow 0-2 spells of all schools, access to 3rd level schools of either transmutation, Enchantment, or Abjuration. Spell list would need to be revised a little (rule on Scry at 3rd level (Bard) or 4th level (Wizard) for example).

Allow the Magician the Bard addtional weapon proficiency (based on regional favored weopons list), same hp, and skills points as a Bard. Adjust the skills list a little from the Bard, such has been done and discussed

The spontaneous casting of cantrips is a great idea, why not take it further? I would also allow spontaneous casting of first level spells (perhaps 8th level), and spontaneous casting of second level spells (16th?). This would make the Magician a true master of lesser magic. I'm not sure if having bonus feats at 4th, 12th, and 20th level would be too overpowering.

I hope that this might capture the spirit of the Magician, without having to force them to be a lesser wizards. Comments?

[geeman]

At 07:36 PM 2/10/2003 -0600, Lord Shade wrote:

>The ranger did need a power boost at the middle levels.
>However, Monte improved the spells, skills, AND feats, removing only the
>HD. For a build through level 20, the Monte Ranger is way overpowered
>compared to a level 20 fighter.

He did remove (one) of the additional feats at 1st level too. It certainly
was still broken, but most of the improvements were I think a good
idea. The big problem with the ranger is the "front-loaded" feats at 1st
level combined with so few class abilities, and arguably the most anemic
spell list of the core classes. I really _hate_ his suggestion that
rangers should have d8 HD rather than d10. Just seems like a weird
departure from what is the standard for "fighting classes" vs other types.

>I don`t know much about the Monte Sorcerer but I do not think that a
>primary arcane caster should have a d6 hd. The only reason the Sorcerer is
>underpowered compared to the wizard is that he doesn`t get anything after
>level 1. If you give him a metamagic feat every 5 levels, I think he`s
>fine. I`d also make a small change to the skill list, adding in Charisma
>skills, but I WOULD NOT increase the skill points available.

The number of skill points available to a few of the character classes is
one of my oldest complaints about 3e, and I`ve written up a lot of stuff
regarding the skill system, so I won`t bore anyone by repeating it. I do
think it`s a good idea to bump the sorcerer`s skill points up to 4/level,
though.

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.

[Raedwald]

Some afterthoughts: With the puny selection of illusion and divination spells at 7-9 th levels Magicians start becoming very underpowered at higher levels and Restricting them to levels 1-6 I think helps foster the low level magic feel. The highest level Maagician I ever recall in an old Birthright products was 12th. So in most campaigns would limiting access really be so terrible?

At 5th level a wizard can cast 4-3-2-1; sorcerer 6-4-2; magician(proposed) 5-5-3.


At 10th level wizard 4-4-4-3-3-2; sorcerer 6-6-6-6-5-3; magician (proposed) 5-5-5-4-2.
With spontaneous casting the magician could cast any 0-1 level spell known, and adjusted on the fly with metamagic. Not the power of wizard/sorcerer, but could really be effective if the circumstances of the situation could be exploited.

Ok enough rambling, let the criticizing begin!

[ryancaveney]

On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Michael Romes wrote:

> Rogues disable traps not as a hobby. They are able to disable them to
> get to the things on the other side which are guarded by the traps.

Agreed.

> If Magic is rare and magical traps also, then the magical treasure on
> the other side of the trap of that wizard is certainly worth to train
> your skill to be able to get around the trap.

Except that I don`t think it makes any sense in terms of "gameworld
physics" for such training to be possible. IMO, if you want to disable or
circumvent magic, you need magic. To disarm a magical trap, IMO the spell
Dispel Magic is absolutely required. To unlock a magical lock, either
Dispel Magic or Knock will do. But no skill can ever replace the spell.

> To create traps is a skill Craft (Trapmaking), magical traps are
> simply seen only more difficult, more powerful traps.

I don`t see it that way at all. Craft (Trapmaking) can at most make
extremely good NONmagical traps, exactly as Craft (Weaponsmith) will allow
you to make masterwork weapons but not enchanted ones. Magical traps are
the province of spells, possibly augmented by the trapmaking skill -- but
no one who cannot cast Sepia Snake Sigil or Explosive Runes or Guards And
Wards or Symbol or whatever else can create a trap that is magical.

> To remove or evade traps is the business of rogues.

But to remove or evade magic is the business of spellcasters. If rogues
want to be able to disarm magical traps, let them pick up a few levels of
wizard or cleric of Eloele to gain the power to circumvent them magically,
which IMO is the only way they can be circumvented.

> That magical traps are more seldom in a world where magic is rare,

Which makes rogues who can`t cast spells more useful.

> could result in rogues who never have seen a magic trap and could not
> disable one,

Not being able to cast spells makes them unable to disable them,
regardless of how many they`ve seen.

> However as the treasure that is worth to be guarded by a magical trap
> in a rare-magic world certainly is enormous, it is of interest to any
> rogue to know how to get around the trap.

Which means it is of interest to any such rogue to multiclass to gain
access to the spell Dispel Magic.

> Thieves Guilds can pay huge sume to hire rogue wizards to teach the
> skill.

Except that no such mundane skill ought to exist. It just isn`t sensible
to me that such a thing is possible.

> Rogues can give their experiences to their apprentices.

IMO, all the experienced rogue can say is, "If you don`t want to have to
give up whenever you meet a magic trap, dedicate yourself to the Lady of
the Night."

> There are always ways to get valuable knowledge as humans are greedy ;-)

Sure! But that doesn`t mean that all forms of valuable knowledge are
modeled in the mechanics as mundane skills learnable by the rogue class.
The way to get such knowledge IMO is to become a multiclassed spellcaster.

> e.g. Enigma. Could only a wizard decipher the code?

Decipher Script got a bit muddled in there. I don`t have any problem with
rogues or any other class learning the mundane (in the sense of
nonmagical, not in the sense of easy) mathematical tricks of cryptography
as a means of coding and decoding messages. However, even if a rogue is
able to decipher both the code and the language in which a scroll is
written, and read its contents aloud, that still doesn`t mean she ought to
be able to cast the spell -- only a spellcaster could do that.

That is to say, anyone can copy a coded document without knowing what it
means. People who are good codebreakers can break codes in the sense of
decrypting obscure symbols or digit patterns into words of normal text,
but that doesn`t mean they can *understand* what the decrypted text
*means*. This

44961676f6e616c696a75602478656020756274757272696e6 76028416d696c647f
6e69616e60296e6024786560246567656e6562716475602375 7263707163656e2a0

is a sentence in English written with a simple replacement cipher.
A Perl one-liner can decrypt it instantly, to become

Diagonalize the perturbing Hamiltonian in the degenerate subspace.

What this *really means*, however, is only comprehensible to people with
university training in physics.

IMO, Decipher Script is the first part, the part I used a computer to do:
changing one set of symbols into another set of symbols. This skill is
nonmagical, but magic spells can help. Actually casting the spell is the
second part, the part I have to know physics to do: gleaning anything
useful from the second set of symbols, which are "encoded" in a rather
different sense. This skill is the ability to cast the spell regardless
of whether it is written on a scroll or not, which is the same thing as
having the requisite level of a spellcasting class.

> From small bits of information a code can be deciphered. An example
> that comes to my mind is Russel Crowe in "A beuatiful mind" where he
> deciphers a russian code by simply staring at a wall and comparing and
> staring until he cracked the code.

If life were D&D, John Nash would most definitely have been a Wizard. =)
More directly, he was an Expert. If that scene really happened, then it
was an application of the Decipher Script skill. However, he did not
actually understand what it was he had deciphered -- he asked what the
coordinates were for but the generals wouldn`t tell him -- so having
deciphered it did not in fact enable him to use the data personally.


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 Tue, 11 Feb 2003, irdeggman wrote:

> "You must consciously choose what to emulate. That is, you have to
> know what you are trying to emulate when you make an emulation check."

The very concept of an "emulation check" strikes me as so fundamentally
wrong that I (and all my players, the first time we ever opened the new 3e
PHB) instantly (and unanimously) decided the Use Magic Device skill would
never be allowed in any campaign we played, especially as multiclassing
was now so very easy.


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.

[doom]

On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 12:06:00PM -0800, Gary wrote:
> The number of skill points available to a few of the character classes is
> one of my oldest complaints about 3e, and I`ve written up a lot of stuff
> regarding the skill system, so I won`t bore anyone by repeating it. I do
> think it`s a good idea to bump the sorcerer`s skill points up to 4/level,
> though.

Not that this topic is particularly BR related... but I disagree. IMHO
sorcerer are already as powerful (I`d argue more powerful, in fact)
than wizards. The ability to cast on the fly goes a long way towards
making everyone one of their spell slots count, whereas wizards often
have a significant portion of their spell lists tied up in spell that
are "less useful" during a particular situation. Buffing out the
sorcerer class any more would seem to tip the advantage fully into
their court.

- 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.

[DanMcSorley]

On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Raedwald wrote:
> The Magician class seems to suffer from being from using the wizard
> as the base class. You basically restrict the spell list and then end
> up trying to balance hp, skills and special abilities to make the
> class playable.

Why are we trying to make it playable? Make it an NPC class like the
warrior or the commoner, and move on.

> An idea would be to base the Magician on the Bard class.

A magician isn`t a bard. It`s a weaker version of the wizard. That`s
what it is conceptually, so that`s how it ought to be implemented.

> I hope that this might capture the spirit of the Magician, without
> having to force them to be a lesser wizards. Comments?

The `spirit of the Magician` is that they are lesser wizards who can`t
access true magic because they lack bloodlines. There`s no force
involved, that`s what they ARE.
--
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.

[DanMcSorley]

On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
> The very concept of an "emulation check" strikes me as so fundamentally
> wrong that I (and all my players, the first time we ever opened the new 3e
> PHB) instantly (and unanimously) decided the Use Magic Device skill would
> never be allowed in any campaign we played, especially as multiclassing
> was now so very easy.

This message and your previous ones are all very well and good, but we`re
not rewriting 3e. We`re not including our pet house rules and calling
them Birthright. And we shouldn`t rewrite the rogue.
--
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 Tue, 11 Feb 2003, daniel mcsorley wrote:

> all very well and good, but we`re not rewriting 3e. We`re not
> including our pet house rules and calling them Birthright.

I fail to see how that isn`t exactly what we are doing, and in fact how
that isn`t exactly what Birthright always was.

The very existence of the magician class in original BR was a major change
from what vanilla 2e D&D was. So were blood abilities, realm spells,
battle spells, domain actions, bonus hp for regents, new specialty
priests, and the specific rules regarding all the PC races. Dark Sun,
Ravenloft, et al. also changed many existing rules or added new ones which
interacted with old ones in sometimes very strange ways. AFAICT, it`s
just what campaign settings do, at least as published by TSR.

I sympathize with your argument that the changes we make in going from 2e
to 3e should be as small as possible. However, I think in this case my
way actually accomplishes this goal better than your more literal way.

For one thing, I see no essential distinction between adding new things
and subtracting old ones. In order to make BR work at all, we have to add
a whole bunch of stuff to standard D&D, but that doesn`t seem to make it
any less D&D; neither should cutting some stuff out to make it work better.

Then there is the issue of what legal scholars of the US Constitution call
"founders` intent". In 2e, thieves couldn`t develop the skill to use
class-specific magical devices, so there was no need for the BR designers
to add a rule forbidding them to do so in order to maintain the flavor of
their campaign world. But *if there had been* such a skill, as there is
in 3e, I feel quite sure that *there would have been* such a prohibition
in the original BR rules -- and it is to that spirit that I attempt to
remain true in my own personal vision of the "proper" conversion.

For example: in 2e, there were no monks in the PHB or in BR. In 3e, there
are monks in the PHB; should there be in BR? Your argument would say we
should therefore include monks in BR, since to do otherwise would simply
be taking a pet house rule and calling it Birthright -- because you seem
to have defined as a house rule any change to what is found in the 3e PHB.
If you agree that monks should be kept out of BR in order to preserve the
flavor of the setting, why then does the same argument that favors
dropping the entire monk class not apply to dropping the much smaller (and
thus much less significant a change) Use Magic Device skill? My previous
messages may have confused the issue by making reference to other campaign
worlds, so I will restate my position. I don`t like the skill in any
campaign world -- but *even if I did* like it in other worlds, I would
*still* argue that it should be excluded from Birthright for the same
reason I think monks and unblooded sorcerers should be excluded from
Birthright: they just don`t fit the flavor of the setting, and thus make
it harder to adequately describe the world in which we want people to play.

Which brings me to a similar example: in 2e, there were no sorcerers in
the PHB or in BR. In 3e, there are sorcerers in the PHB; should there be
in BR? Your argument would say we should therefore include sorcerers in
BR. But it goes further still -- in 2e, BR had no rule restricting the
sorcerer class only to characters with bloodlines. Therefore, if we are
not to introduce pet house rules, we are forced to say that the sorcerer
must not only be present in BR, but in fact present exactly as it is found
in the PHB -- namely, without any restriction as to bloodline. I think
this is a terrible idea, so I conclude I must advocate a new pet house
rule (aka change to the PHB) in order to keep BR feeling like BR -- if
there are sorcerers in 3e BR, then they must have bloodlines, to best
express the parallelism between sorcerers and wizards that would have been
modeled in 2e BR if the parallel had existed in 2e D&D.

Then again, the whole idea of minimal change doesn`t appear very popular
around here at the moment. The basic BR domain rules are very changed in
the current draft of the conversion document -- as you have pointed out,
those are already filled with pet house rules. If we`re changing core
Birthright mechanics so much already, I see no reason we should not also
change core D&D mechanics -- which are less central to what BR is anyway.


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.

[Raedwald]

"Why are we trying to make it playable? Make it an NPC class like the
warrior or the commoner, and move on."


Let's agree to disagree on whether the magician should be a PC class. In Birthright Wizards are so few and rare, that they can over shadow other players (if not regents). Magicians are a chance to play a less awe inspiring figure. A chance to play a hedge wizard, seer, magical entertainer, court advisor, sage, or charm/potion peddler. I see the magician as a character who magically must wield the equivalent of a dagger and not the wizard's magical greatwsword.

By basing the magician more on the bard than the wizard, I think you make a more playable character. Yes, the magician is a lesser wizard, and can't channel the raw power a wizard can, but can do more with the magic he does know.

And when I say base on the Bard I am referring to spells/day +2 per level, hit points and skill points. Saving throws and BAB might be better based on the wizard.

[Green Knight]

Ryan wrote:

>Then there is the issue of what legal scholars of the US Constitution
call >"founders` intent". In 2e, thieves couldn`t develop the skill to
use >class-specific magical devices, so there was no need for the BR
designers >to add a rule forbidding them to do so in order to maintain
the flavor of >their campaign world. But *if there had been* such a
skill, as there is in <3e, I feel quite sure that *there would have
been* such a prohibition in <the original BR rules -- and it is to that
spirit that I attempt to remain <true in my own personal vision of the
"proper" conversion.

Good point

I think the bard is a good example of how that original BR designers
tried to limit/modify the abilities of the 2E classes. They felt that
the normal bard spell list was inappropriate, thus banned most schools.

Had the 2E thief had the Use Magic Device special ability in 2E I`m
pretty sure they would have excluded that as well; and the ability to
remove magic traps.

************************************************** **************************
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]

Raedwald 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=1272
>
> Raedwald wrote:
> The Magician class seems to suffer from being from using the wizard as the base class. You basically restrict the spell list and then end up trying to balance hp, skills and special abilities to make the class playable.
>
But this is done to specialized Wizards as well, and they don´t get
additional skills, hp or special abilities except the advantage of
becoming better in the specialized school - which the Magician gets in
two schools.

Would you consider to play a specialized Wizard, or do I understand that
you think the bonus for specialization is too weak?
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 Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Bjørn Eian Sørgjerd wrote:

> I think the bard is a good example of how that original BR designers
> tried to limit/modify the abilities of the 2E classes. They felt that
> the normal bard spell list was inappropriate, thus banned most schools.

Yes, another good example of a core rule changed to fit the flavor of the
setting. The core rules are always subordinate to the campaign rules.

> Had the 2E thief had the Use Magic Device special ability in 2E I`m
> pretty sure they would have excluded that as well; and the ability to
> remove magic traps.

I`m glad we agree.

The issue is a philsophical one: what does "Birthright 3e Conversion"
actually mean? 2e BR was different from core 2e. Core 3e is also
different from core 2e, but in a different direction. If we attempt
to make 3e BR exactly as different from core 3e as 2e BR was from core
2e, we will end up with a 3e BR as different from 2e BR as core 3e is
from core 2e. I think that difference is much too large. I want a
3e Birthright that in both spirit and mechanics is as close as
possible to 2e Birthright, which means it must be more different from
core 3e than 2e BR was from core 2e.


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]

daniel mcsorley wrote:

>On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Raedwald wrote:
>
>>The Magician class seems to suffer from being from using the wizard
>>as the base class. You basically restrict the spell list and then end
>>up trying to balance hp, skills and special abilities to make the
>>class playable.
>>
>Why are we trying to make it playable? Make it an NPC class like the
>warrior or the commoner, and move on.
>
I concur.

>>An idea would be to base the Magician on the Bard class.
>>
>A magician isn`t a bard.
>
Yes.

> It`s a weaker version of the wizard. That`s
>what it is conceptually, so that`s how it ought to be implemented.
>
No. A Magician is a double specialized wizard with additional skills,
and more access to weapons and armour.
In a low-level campaign where the Wizard has no access to level 3+
spells the Magician is far better and could be a brilliant choice for a
player who does not want to be a regent.

Even later he is still useful, as with his specialization in Divination
and Illusion he is still up to par with an specialized Wizard
Illusionist or Diviner. However at higher levels he lacks the
versatility of the other schools a True Wizard without specialization
enjoys and the power of realm spells and to be a regent.
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]

Hello,

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Travis Doom" <doom@CS.WRIGHT.EDU>
> Not that this topic is particularly BR related... but I disagree. IMHO
> sorcerer are already as powerful (I`d argue more powerful, in fact)
> than wizards. The ability to cast on the fly goes a long way towards
> making everyone one of their spell slots count, whereas wizards often
> have a significant portion of their spell lists tied up in spell that
> are "less useful" during a particular situation. Buffing out the
> sorcerer class any more would seem to tip the advantage fully into
> their court.
>
> - Doom

having a level 20 sorcerer is not the same as having to level a sorcerer
from level 1 to 20. Their restriction in spells known is a big problem for
them. I like more wizards for that than sorcerers (and metamagics help
too...). Greetings,

Vicente

************************************************** **************************
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 Tue, 11 Feb 2003, [iso-8859-1] Bjørn Eian Sørgjerd wrote:
> Had the 2E thief had the Use Magic Device special ability in 2E I`m
> pretty sure they would have excluded that as well; and the ability to
> remove magic traps.

Which is obviously wrong, because they didn`t remove the ability of the 2e
thief to cast spells from scrolls.
--
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.

[DanMcSorley]

On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Michael Romes wrote:
> > It`s a weaker version of the wizard. That`s
> >what it is conceptually, so that`s how it ought to be implemented.
>
> No. A Magician is a double specialized wizard with additional skills,
> and more access to weapons and armour.

He`s less than that, because he got no spells above 2nd level EXCEPT those
from his specialized schools. A specialist is equivalent to a wizard
powerwise, but the magician was weaker than either.
--
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.

[irdeggman]

Also 2nd ed thieves could remove magical traps only at half their normal percentage. The equivalent in 3rd ed is to have the DC much higher (greater than 25). Note that 2nd ed Birthright also didn't limit the thieves ability to remove magical traps either.

[Shade]

> Raedwald wrote:
> The Magician class seems to suffer from being from using the wizard as
the base class. You basically restrict the spell list and then end up
trying to balance hp, skills and special abilities to make the class playable.

I still maintain that the class isn`t supposed to BE playable, at least
from the perspective of a player character. It was 2nd edition`s first NPC
class; in fact I wouldn`t be surprised if the idea of NPC classes in 3e was
based on the magician.

>An idea would be to base the Magician on the Bard class.

Are we trying to convert the 2e BR rules to 3rd edition or are we rewriting
them completely? The Magician was less-versatile wizard in 2e and IMHO
that`s what he should be in 3e.

To adjust it I would add +2 spells to each level (spells/day) of the
Bards spells per day list. This can be explained as bonus for
specialization in Divination & Illusion. Allow 0-2 spells of all schools,
access to 3rd level schools of either transmutation, Enchantment, or
Abjuration. Spell list would need to be revised a little (rule on Scry at
3rd level (Bard) or 4th level (Wizard) for example).

To me expanding his spell list to include 3 whole new schools is even
worse. This is totally different from what the magician was in 2nd edition.

>Allow the Magician the Bard addtional weapon proficiency (based on
regional favored weopons list), same hp, and skills points as a Bard.
Adjust the skills list a little from the Bard, such has been done and
discussed

I agree with improving the weapon list and the skills, as this was done in
2e, but not the hit points, because magicians are just as flimsy as wizards
(as in 2e).

>The spontaneous casting of cantrips is a great idea, why not take it
further? I would also allow spontaneous casting of first level spells
(perhaps 8th level), and spontaneous casting of second level spells
(16th?). This would make the Magician a true master of lesser magic. I`m
not sure if having bonus feats at 4th, 12th, and 20th level would be too
overpowering.

...so the Magician is some kind of weird blend between wizards and sorcerers?

>I hope that this might capture the spirit of the Magician, without having
to force them to be a lesser wizards. Comments?

No offense, but to me this doesn`t capture the spirit of the Magician at
all :) What you are suggesting is so different from the 2nd edition
magician, that at least to me, it is an entirely new class. Magicians
specialize in LESSER MAGIC, so logically they would be LESSER WIZARDS.

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Shade]

> Raedwald wrote:
> Some afterthoughts: With the puny selection of illusion and divination
spells at 7-9 th levels Magicians start becoming very underpowered at
higher levels and

This is precisely the point.

Restricting them to levels 1-6 I think helps foster the low level magic
feel. The highest level Maagician I ever recall in an old Birthright
products was 12th. So in most campaigns would limiting access really be so
terrible?

...this makes no sense to me. Why place an artificial restriction on their
maximum spell level castable if nobody ever gets there in the first place?
I am willing to bet that less than 5% of BR campaigns are going to involve
a magician that gets past level 12. Heh, how many campaigns even feature
NORMAL PCs that get past level 12??? Probably less than 25%.

>At 5th level a wizard can cast 4-3-2-1; sorcerer 6-4-2; magician(proposed)
5-5-3.

Where are you getting these numbers?


>Ok enough rambling, let the criticizing begin!
>

very well then :)

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Shade]

At 11:26 PM 2/11/2003 +0100, you 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=1272
>
> Raedwald wrote:
> "Why are we trying to make it playable? Make it an NPC class like the
>warrior or the commoner, and move on."
>
>
>Let`s agree to disagree on whether the magician should be a PC class. In
Birthright Wizards are so few and rare, that they can over shadow other
players (if not regents). Magicians are a chance to play a less awe
inspiring figure. A chance to play a hedge wizard, seer, magical
entertainer, court advisor, sage, or charm/potion peddler. I see the
magician as a character who magically must wield the equivalent of a dagger
and not the wizard`s magical greatwsword.

Hmm, ok.. if you want to play any of these things, you can very easily do
them by being a wizard (for a Human Person Player Character this is always
an option). Specialize as an enchanter and call yourself a witch. Want to
sell potions? Take the brew potion feat. Want to be a seer? Try being a
Diviner (not a magician!) and picking up the Divine Oracle PrC. Sage? Get a
high Int and a lot of knowledge skills. Magical entertainer? Last I checked
there was a class for this called `Bard.` If you don`t like bard, then a
wizard/Virtuoso is always open to you.

All of these are fully viable for PC wizards and easily balanced with most
other PC builds.

Nobody says you HAVE to be awe-inspiring as a wizard. You can choose to be
an intimidating, Gandalf-like archmage, or you can play your wizard as
something subtle. The magician is a mechanic to create weak NPCs - don`t
power him up for the reasons stated above, when a PC can choose to be a
wizard any time he wants!

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Shade]

>No. A Magician is a double specialized wizard with additional skills,
>and more access to weapons and armour.
>In a low-level campaign where the Wizard has no access to level 3+
>spells the Magician is far better and could be a brilliant choice for a
>player who does not want to be a regent.
>
>Even later he is still useful, as with his specialization in Divination
>and Illusion he is still up to par with an specialized Wizard
>Illusionist or Diviner. However at higher levels he lacks the
>versatility of the other schools a True Wizard without specialization
>enjoys and the power of realm spells and to be a regent.
>bye
>Michael Romes

Both of these are very good points. In 2nd edition, in campaigns where you
were not going to go past level 4 magicians were in every way better than
wizards. It is an interesting case but in my opinion too limited to really
try to come up with a roleplaying justification. If you do need one, you
could say something like: lesser magic is easier to learn, so magicians are
more powerful early on.

Point 2: In 2nd edition all the magic schools were considered to be roughly
equal to each other in power. Divination was considered slightly
underpowered (lost only 1 school) while Illusion was considered slightly
overpowered (loss of 3 schools, but I have no idea why the designers
thought this way.. but I suspect it had something to do with 1st edition,
where Illusionist was a separate class). Going on the assumption that all
the schools are equal (as they are in Player`s Option: Spells & Magic,
where all magic schools cost 5cp), a magician could in one way be equal to
a wizard of the same level.

Consider

Magician at level 18 - can memorize 2 9th level spells
Specialist Wizard at level 18 - can memorize 2 9th level spells

Magician memorizes Weird (x2).
Necromancer memorizes Wail of the Banshee (x2).

How much difference is there really in this case? Is one really stronger
than the other? I *know* that I am ignoring the very important fact that
versatility is a form of power, but discounting that, both a mage and a
magician, at level 18, can memorize 2 area of effect death spells.

This is another reason why I think the magician doesn`t need to be powered
up. He can already match or exceed the wizard in spells castable, and in
theory his spells are just as good as the wizard`s. So if you want to make
a dangerous and threatening magician, you can. Load him up with blur,
mirror image, various shadow magics, weird, phantasmal killer, and similar
spells.

************************************************** **************************
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 03:51 PM 2/11/2003 -0500, Doom wrote:

>IMHO sorcerer are already as powerful (I`d argue more powerful, in fact)
>than wizards. The ability to cast on the fly goes a long way towards
>making everyone one of their spell slots count, whereas wizards often have
>a significant portion of their spell lists tied up in spell that are "less
>useful" during a particular situation. Buffing out the sorcerer class any
>more would seem to tip the advantage fully into their court.

It wasn`t really sorcerer`s relative power in relation to that of wizards
that I was talking about there. The character class system has several
aspects to it, access to the skill system being one, and that aspect is
imbalanced for the sorcerer. One or two aspects of the character class
system don`t directly relate necessarily to inflicting damage in combat,
the skill system being the most prominent, and the skill system in general
is of pretty little value in comparison to access to the magic system. For
BR purposes, access to the skill system can be very important, given the
domain level and various aspects of play that aren`t typical for D&D.

When it comes to the power of the sorcerer vs that of the wizard, however,
the wizard does come out ahead if you take into consideration his bonus
feats and greater spell list, and how they relate to the magic system as a
whole, not just spell slots per day. That`s because one has to factor in
their greater ability to create magic items, which in many ways overshadows
the sorcerer`s ability to cast spells spontaneously. For example, Craft
Wand taken as a wizard`s 5th level bonus feat gives a wizard the ability
the create a Wand of Fireballs at a pretty reasonable cost, which takes the
place of the sorcerer`s relatively slight spellcasting advantage over
wizards, especially when one takes into consideration that the wizard can
use the same ability to gain what is, in effect, the sorcerer`s 1/round
"rate of fire" for spellcasting, with a much greater amount of
"ammunition." That is, charges for the wand vs. spells per day. Of
course, the wizard must pay XP to create the wand, but the potential CR
awards from that expenditure make it a pretty amazingly good trade off.

By way of comparison, take the standard array`s 10th level sorcerer and
compare that to the standard array`s 9th level wizard, but give the wizard
magic item creation feats and 9,000 XP worth of magic items based on those
feats.

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.

[irdeggman]

Note the Goblin card that came with the original card set listed magician as a viable class for goblins (common, elite and huge). So there is evidence to indicate the statement that only humans could be magicians could be in error. although which item is in error is up to a matter of judgement. It could be that goblins weren't originally designed to be a PC race hence the BoM statement was only refering to those PC playable races. Even so, unless we keep all of the racial class restrictions from the 2nd ed version it doesn't make sense to apply any other limits. These racial limitations were based on the AD&D racial class restrictions from the core books and then had the campaign flavor aspects applied.

[Raedwald]

IMO Magicians should be a playable class, not just NPC. They are not "lesser wizards", they are masters of lesser magic. Their abilities in handling lesser magic should be superior to that of the Wizard/sorcerer. My idea was to expand the spontaneous casting of cantrips (by substituting other memorized spells of equal or higher level) ability to 1st level spells and 2nd level spells at higher levels. In Birthright I imagine when wizards are researching lesser magic spells they consult magicians.

There seems to be an issue that has not been discussed, what is lesser magic? The Magician presented in Playtest book seems to have a new slant on what that entails. Honestly I was impresssed, it was a very good attempt to capture the flavor and power of the magician. 2E defined lesser magic as two schools and spells of 1-2 level. The 3E defines at 2 schools level 0-9, and some other schools level 0-6. The major problem with the 3E proposed version is the boundaries are a bit fuzzy - inserting new spells requires more judgement. Some people are fine with that, others want more definite guidelines. Also the healing and summoning changes the role of the magician significantly.

>How much difference is there really in this case? Is one really stronger
>than the other? I *know* that I am ignoring the very important fact that
>versatility is a form of power, but discounting that, both a mage and a
>magician, at level 18, can memorize 2 area of effect death spells.

>This is another reason why I think the magician doesn`t need to be powered
>up. He can already match or exceed the wizard in spells castable, and in
>theory his spells are just as good as the wizard`s. So if you want to make
>a dangerous and threatening magician, you can. Load him up with blur,
>mirror image, various shadow magics, weird, phantasmal killer, and similar
>spells.

Good point. But I think the versatility of the wizard is the issue. If the target has protection against the death affect, the wizard can try something else, the Magician is stuck with Weird (or foresight!?!). My thought was the magician can't even begin to compete at high levels - so why bother. As specialists in seeming and knowing, I would expect that a wizard casting Weird and a Magician casting Weird, the magician might have some slight edge.

[ConjurerDragon]

daniel mcsorley wrote:

>On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Michael Romes wrote:
>
>>>It`s a weaker version of the wizard. That`s
>>>what it is conceptually, so that`s how it ought to be implemented.
>>>
>>No. A Magician is a double specialized wizard with additional skills,
>>and more access to weapons and armour.
>>
>
>He`s less than that, because he got no spells above 2nd level EXCEPT those
>from his specialized schools. A specialist is equivalent to a wizard
>powerwise, but the magician was weaker than either.
>
A wizard specialist is specialized in one school and loses total access
to one (or more) other schools. He can´t even cast 0,1 or 2 level spells
from his prohibited schools.

A 2E Magician is a specialist in two schools, gaining the same
advantages of a specialized wizard in two schools and thus has barred
from more schools - however he can still cast 0, 1,2 level spells from
ALL schools, even from those a specialized wizard is completely barred from.

All level 0, 1, 2 spells are a lot. If you have to research them all
during your career except the two each time levelling up, it will take
long to learn all those spells for the Magician in addition to those
from his two specialized schools, illusion and divination.

Spontaneous Casting is something of what I do not fully understand the
need - if a Magician has so few highlevel spells as some on the list
mentioned, only 2 9th level, 2 8th level and 5 7th level spells (if we
use ONLY the PHB) then he has at high character levels lots of
spellslots he can fill with low-level spells if that is still possible
in 3E.

However if one would want to give the Magician more caster-power then I
would recommend, not to give him healing for the reasons that he is an
arcane caster focusing on 2 schools. Instead you could utilize the 2E
Character Kit info from the Book of Magecraft to give even regional
advantages to Magicians.

e.g. p. 52 "Illuminator" All Khinasi Magicians are more proficient in
the casting of light-based illusions. They are able to use the equivalen
of the Extend Spell feat to all spells which affect light.

p. 50 "Court Magician" An Anuirean Magician gains the benefit of the
equivalent of an Extend Spell feat for his alteration spells (of course
he still can cast only level 0,1,2 of that school).

p. 51 "Disguiser" A Magician can choose to become a disguiser and gain
the benefit of the feats "Still Spell" and "Silent Spell" for the spells
Alter Self and Change Self.

Without the hindrances of the 2E version of those kits it would be
something not as strange as divine healing for a specialized Wizard.
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]

>
>
>Consider
>Magician at level 18 - can memorize 2 9th level spells
>
The list on p. 21 says 3?

>Specialist Wizard at level 18 - can memorize 2 9th level spells
>
2+1 (2 normal for Wizard + 1 bonus in the school he specialized in)

In anything else you wrote I agree :-)
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.

[Shade]

Oops I was referring to second edition :)

Should have specified that.

At 05:10 PM 2/12/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>Consider
>>Magician at level 18 - can memorize 2 9th level spells
>>
>The list on p. 21 says 3?
>
>>Specialist Wizard at level 18 - can memorize 2 9th level spells
>>
>2+1 (2 normal for Wizard + 1 bonus in the school he specialized in)
>
>In anything else you wrote I agree :-)
>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.
>

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Shade]

>However if one would want to give the Magician more caster-power then I
>would recommend, not to give him healing for the reasons that he is an
>arcane caster focusing on 2 schools. Instead you could utilize the 2E
>Character Kit info from the Book of Magecraft to give even regional
>advantages to Magicians.
>
>e.g. p. 52 "Illuminator" All Khinasi Magicians are more proficient in
>the casting of light-based illusions. They are able to use the equivalen
>of the Extend Spell feat to all spells which affect light.
>
>p. 50 "Court Magician" An Anuirean Magician gains the benefit of the
>equivalent of an Extend Spell feat for his alteration spells (of course
>he still can cast only level 0,1,2 of that school).
>
>p. 51 "Disguiser" A Magician can choose to become a disguiser and gain
>the benefit of the feats "Still Spell" and "Silent Spell" for the spells
>Alter Self and Change Self.

This is actually not a bad idea at all. There are 2 ways to implement this:

1. turn them into Prestige Classes (the 3e kits). Since there isn`t a whole
lot here, 5 level PrCs would be best IMO.

2. make them special abilities. From a balance perspective, these are not
too different from the Wu Jen`s spell secrets, but they are significantly
stronger. They`d have to be toned down some but I favor this approach.

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Shade]

>
>There seems to be an issue that has not been discussed, what is lesser
magic?

Birthright rulebook, p. 12: "Any person of sufficient intelligence and
training can command lesser magic, comprising the arts of illusion and
divination. These two schools draw upon energies that are drastically
different and relatively weaker than the energies used by the other schools
of magic. Lesser magic also includes the 1st- and 2nd-level spells of the
other schools."

This seems pretty clear cut to me - there`s nothing to discuss. Any attempt
to redefine lesser magic for our own purposes is in direct contradiction of
the original BR rulebook.

> The Magician presented in Playtest book seems to have a new slant on what
that entails. Honestly I was impresssed, it was a very good attempt to
capture the flavor and power of the magician. 2E defined lesser magic as
two schools and spells of 1-2 level. The 3E defines at 2 schools level
0-9, and some other schools level 0-6. The major problem with the 3E
proposed version is the boundaries are a bit fuzzy - inserting new spells
requires more judgement. Some people are fine with that, others want more
definite guidelines. Also the healing and summoning changes the role of the
magician significantly.

I still see no reason why we should ignore the original rules for lesser
magic, other than the argument that the Magician should be balanced vs PC
classes (which as you know is an argument that I don`t accept). If you want
to expand the spell list in your own game, that`s fine, but IMHO we do not
have a license to make radical, fundamental changes to Birthright. My view
is that our conversion should be as true to the original as possible, both
in the letter and the spirit of the rules.

>>How much difference is there really in this case? Is one really stronger
>>than the other? I *know* that I am ignoring the very important fact that
>>versatility is a form of power, but discounting that, both a mage and a
>>magician, at level 18, can memorize 2 area of effect death spells.
>
>>This is another reason why I think the magician doesn`t need to be powered
>>up. He can already match or exceed the wizard in spells castable, and in
>>theory his spells are just as good as the wizard`s. So if you want to make
>>a dangerous and threatening magician, you can. Load him up with blur,
>>mirror image, various shadow magics, weird, phantasmal killer, and similar
>>spells.
>
>Good point. But I think the versatility of the wizard is the issue.

You are of course absolutely right. My argument was intentionally very
simplistic - I was just trying to point out a specific case. But I don`t
think that you and I will be able to convince each other.. we are debating
more for the benefit of the undecideds on the list :) It would be nice if
we could agree to disagree, but we can`t - only one of our viewpoints can
be reflected in the final document.

Regardless of what the final decision is, at least the arguments are
interesting!

************************************************** **************************
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 10:23 PM 2/12/2003 -0600, Lord Shade wrote:

>Birthright rulebook, p. 12: "Any person of sufficient intelligence and
>training can command lesser magic, comprising the arts of illusion and
>divination. These two schools draw upon energies that are drastically
>different and relatively weaker than the energies used by the other
>schools of magic. Lesser magic also includes the 1st- and 2nd-level spells
>of the other schools."
>
>This seems pretty clear cut to me - there`s nothing to discuss. Any
>attempt to redefine lesser magic for our own purposes is in direct
>contradiction of the original BR rulebook.

I think this is a little grayer than that. Various 2e spells or other
magic-related issues have been included in this 3e conversion that would
have a much more dramatic influence on the setting--the 3e mechanics for
magic item creation being probably the most obvious. The conversion`s text
about how magic items are "relatively uncommon in Cerilia" without any
actual game mechanical way of hampering magic item creation is very
different from the 2e requirement to access to the permanency spell for
arcane spellcasters in order to create things like magical
swords. Including a few healing spells into the definition of lesser magic
is pretty minor compared to that. (I`ve long been a proponent of MORE
magic items in BR than seems to be the norm, so it`s not something I`m all
that worried about myself.)

When it comes to healing magics for bards and magicians... I don`t know if
it`s really a big problem. From a balance standpoint (if we can use that
term in relation to the D&D magic system with a straight face) healing
magics are readily available in the BR setting since there are no
restrictions on priests, so giving other spellcasters access to that kind
of magic isn`t a dramatic shift. It`s arguable whether or not the classes
need access to round them out or not, so the only real issue is whether or
not it is bad for the "spirit" of the setting. Personally, I don`t think
it would have much impact at all on the themes of BR, so unless one is
trying to emphasize something specific it still probably won`t make all
that much of a difference.

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.

[ConjurerDragon]

Lord Shade wrote:

>>>How much difference is there really in this case? Is one really stronger
>>>than the other? I *know* that I am ignoring the very important fact that
>>>versatility is a form of power, but discounting that, both a mage and a
>>>magician, at level 18, can memorize 2 area of effect death spells.
>>>
>>>This is another reason why I think the magician doesn`t need to be powered
>>>up. He can already match or exceed the wizard in spells castable, and in
>>>theory his spells are just as good as the wizard`s. So if you want to make
>>>a dangerous and threatening magician, you can. Load him up with blur,
>>>mirror image, various shadow magics, weird, phantasmal killer, and similar
>>>spells.
>>>
>>Good point. But I think the versatility of the wizard is the issue.
>>
>
>You are of course absolutely right. My argument was intentionally very
>simplistic - I was just trying to point out a specific case. But I don`t
>think that you and I will be able to convince each other.. we are debating
>more for the benefit of the undecideds on the list :) It would be nice if
>we could agree to disagree, but we can`t - only one of our viewpoints can
>be reflected in the final document.
>
>Regardless of what the final decision is, at least the arguments are
>interesting!
>
A point about versatility: If you compare a Magician to a Wizard, you
are doing the wrong comparison.
Wizards are certainly much more versatile than Magicians - however
Wizards are also more versatile than ANY form of specialist Wizard.

To make a fitting comparison you have to compare the Magician not with
the generalist Wizard, but with the specialized Wizard.

The speciliazed wizard has still more schools available than the
Magician, but the Magician is specialized in 2 schools and he retains
mastery of the 0,1,2 level spells of ALL schools - which any specialized
wizard can´t cast if from his prohibited school or schools.

Additionally if I understand the spells cast list of the 3E Magician,
then he has at 20th level 5 spells of each level, as compared to the
Wizards 4 - the specialized Wizard will have 5 too, like the Magician,
BUT his additional spells have to be only from his school of
specialization, the Magician has no such retriction listed for his 5th
spell.

In my opinion if one thinks that the Magician is not a playable class
for players, then I understand that as if that person sees
specialization not as rewarding enough for the penalties involved and
would also not find a specialized wizard playable - which would require
a change of the core 3E rules to do away with which we do not want as
far as I understood, right?
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.

[irdeggman]

Mechanic to reflect "low magic" campaign - see Chapt 8, variant on low magic campaign. This variant increases the market value of itmes by 30%. Since the market value goes up the corresponding exp point cost to create them also goes up.

The biggest problem with saying Birthright is a low magic item campaign is that in 2nd ed while it was always said the campaign was low magic item there was a tremendous amount of magic items available in the published adventures and books (very conflicting concepts).

Another problem is the use of CR for monsters, these are based on a relative amount of magic items being available.

[ConjurerDragon]

irdeggman 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=1272
>
> irdeggman wrote:
> Mechanic to reflect "low magic" campaign - see Chapt 8, variant on low magic campaign. This variant increases the market value of itmes by 30%. Since the market value goes up the corresponding exp point cost to create them also goes up.
>
>The biggest problem with saying Birthright is a low magic item campaign is that in 2nd ed while it was always said the campaign was low magic item there was a tremendous amount of magic items available in the published adventures and books (very conflicting concepts).
>
Not at all.
I see it this way: A normal adventurer has much less access to magical
items in Birthright than in other worlds which reflects the rarity of
magic. However player characters in Birthright are most times assumed to
be regents, not just vagabonds/adventureres. They are rich, they have
loyal followers, they have allies and they have ancient familylines.

All reasons that Birthright regents have an access to magical items
which resembles other worlds - while "normal" characters are very
limited in their access to magical items.

In addition the Book of Regeny as the draft 0.0 mention that magical
items are commonly not made just yesterday for the new regent of XYZ -
most and certainly the powerful are heirlooms perhaps from more of 1000
years of empire and 500 years of civil war or even relics from 3000
years of elven supremacy found in ruined towers and ruins - even if few
items are produced per year, it sums up on the long run.
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]

On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 02:38:28 -0800, Gary <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET> wrote:

>At 10:23 PM 2/12/2003 -0600, Lord Shade wrote:
>When it comes to healing magics for bards and magicians... I don`t know if
>it`s really a big problem. From a balance standpoint (if we can use that
>term in relation to the D&D magic system with a straight face) healing
>magics are readily available in the BR setting since there are no
>restrictions on priests, so giving other spellcasters access to that kind
>of magic isn`t a dramatic shift. It`s arguable whether or not the classes
>need access to round them out or not, so the only real issue is whether or
>not it is bad for the "spirit" of the setting. Personally, I don`t think
>it would have much impact at all on the themes of BR, so unless one is
>trying to emphasize something specific it still probably won`t make all
>that much of a difference.
>Gary

You are wrong in the assumption that there are no limits on priests in 2E
Birthright. There were several limits.

First: The priests of the Birthright gods had higher ability requirements
than the 2E standard cleric (only WIS 9 as compared to Birthrights 2E priest
of e.g. Haelyn WIS 9, STR 9, CHA 12).

As there were no generic priests in Birthright, this alone made Birthright
clerics much rarer than 2E standard priests and is a reason for the high
number of "clerics" who are not able to cast spells in Birhtright - simple
monks, priests, and people who are in 3E perhaps commoners living in a
monastery, experts overseeing a cloister and such as is mentioned in some
places in the Birthright books.

In addition there was a 2E restriction on priest which had not to be printed
in the Birthright AGAIN - but were still valid in 2E Birthright and made the
world even more "rare magic - not only arcane but also divine": Specialty
priests!

e.g. Priests of Belinik could NEVER cast Cure Critical Wounds - it was a 5th
level spell and the god would have to grant Major access to the Healing
sphere for the priest to be able to cast it - Nesiriean priest had that
major access to healing.

Haelynite priests had only minor access to Divination and could never cast a
detect lie - Nesirian priest could do it and so on.

Birthright so was a rare magic world, both in the arcane and the divine.

The arcane, because of the world-specific bloodlines requirement for wizards
of not-elven heritage, and divine because of 2E Specialist Priests with
higher ability requirements - I can´t do the math but certainly we have
people on the list who know how much rarer priest of Haelyn were than simple
2E priests.

Morgramen to say it again, has written an excellent (IMO) article about
magical healing in Aebrynnis which I recommend to read:
http://www.bloodsilver.com/scholastic/healing.php


In my opinion Birthright should stay a rare (but powerful) magic world both
in the arcane and the divine.

That Birthright had no additional restrictions on divine magic was due to
that 2E already had specialty priests unable to cast all spells. Why add a
world specific rule if the core book alrady has one?

That 3E Birthright changes this, because 3E D&D has no longer the divine
restrictions and made clerics FULL spellcasters, very different than in 2E
is in my opinion no reason to change the Birthright world and drown it in
large masses of clerical full spellcasters.

Birthright 2E would have had a restriction on divine spellcasters - if 2E
D&D would not already have had one. Birthright 3E should stay close to
Birhtright 2E and not copy 3E D&D in that point.
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.

[geeman]

At 05:39 PM 2/13/2003 +0100, irdeggman wrote:

> Mechanic to reflect "low magic" campaign - see Chapt 8, variant on low
> magic campaign. This variant increases the market value of itmes by 30%.
> Since the market value goes up the corresponding exp point cost to create
> them also goes up.

That refers to the actual price on "the market" is that correct? I mean,
it`s a cost increase applied after magic item creation that doesn`t effect
the XP cost, material cost or difficulty with which a spellcaster can
create a magic item.

What I mean about a mechanic to reflect a low-magic setting would have to
be a game mechanic that would impact the overall number of magic items that
have been created. That is, the total numbers of them in relation to the
amount in a similar campaign world. Increasing the market value isn`t a
hindrance to the 3e methods for magic item creation that would impact the
number of such items that exist. In my most recent BR campaign, I actually
doubled the market cost of magic items, and there are still an awful lot of
them around.

>Another problem is the use of CR for monsters, these are based on a
>relative amount of magic items being available.

This is definitely true, though there aren`t a lot of intelligent ways of
handling it presented in the standard rules, so one has to come up with
something. One solution presented (by the Falcon
http://oracle.wizards.com/scripts/wa.exe?A...&O=T&T=1&P=169) (http://oracle.wizards.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0204E&L=birthright-l&D=0&H=0&O=T&T=1&P=169))
was that one could average the CR with the "treasure level" of as
determined by comparing the value of its inventory in gp to the table in
the DMG. That seems to work pretty well.

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.

[irdeggman]

Actually the market price of a magic item is the base used to determine all of the costs - the cost in materials and the exp cost. The market price equals the base price. See the DMG, pg 241-242 for the description of how to make a ring of three wishes and it becomes clearer. The terminolgy in the PHB and DMG should be made clearer to ensure that people understand that these two prices are the same thing. Hopefully this will be cleared up some in 3.5 which they promised to work on the magic item creation rules.:)

[geeman]

At 10:37 PM 2/13/2003 +0100, irdeggman wrote:

>Actually the market price of a magic item is the base used to determine
>all of the costs - the cost in materials and the exp cost. The market
>price equals the base price. See the DMG, pg 241-242 for the description
>of how to make a ring of three wishes and it becomes clearer. The
>terminolgy in the PHB and DMG should be made clearer to ensure that people
>understand that these two prices are the same thing. Hopefully this will
>be cleared up some in 3.5 which they promised to work on the magic item
>creation rules.:)

Ah, OK. I got it. The vocab is a little funky there....

Still 30% greater cost isn`t all that dramatic. 3e magic item creation
costs 40 XP per 1,000gp of the item being created, so 30% more represents
12XP/1,000gp more. As I noted before I doubled the cost of magic items in
my BR campaign and there are still quite a lot of them around.

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.

[Yair]

About magic items - What about requiring 1/5 instead of 1/25 of the base price in XP? That will tend to make magic items rarer as PCs will tend to make less of them (and NPCs could only make about 1/5 of the usual amounts).
For my campaign, I am considering this house rule, with the addition that the "extra xp" will be used by me to create additional abilities, but that these will be detailed only when and if the story requires it. I am also considering using the Sword of Our Fathers accessory (basically, requiring a person to rise a class level but not get the class's special abilties increase in order to "unlock" a secret power of the item). I'll almost certainly use it for artifacts.
I also make the market price some 4 times the one listed in the DMG (the base price stays the same - but demand and rarity makes the end product's price skyrocket).

About the magician: I never played BR in 2E, but when I explained the Magician class to my group I talked about a Diviner/Illusionist. When the 3E conversion came out, I was not pleasently suprised to see haste-casting, demon-summoning, monster-dominating wizard, with curing spells to boot. With d6 hp. I think I'll stick to the old magician, this one smells too much like a wizard (not all of them cast fireballs, you know).
I strongly support nerfing his spell list. I see him as specializing in both divination and illusion. This makes for at least two opposed schools (say, abjuration and necromancy). That d6 has got to be worth another one (say, transmutation). And allowing partial access to all these (say 1st as 2nd, 2nd as 3rd, 3rd as 4th) requires another (say, Enchantment). Trade in the other minor perks (general feats, extra class skills, weapon prficiencies) for the rest of the schools (evocation, transmutation and some universal spells) and this seems pretty balanced to me. Maybe a tad weak, but certainl palayable. Not a fireball-throwing or mass-charming wizard, perhaps, but he can still whip some good illusion spells (shadow evocation/conjuration, among others), and the divine spells can be crucial in a political camapign. It has my sign of approval.

[Shade]

The conversion`s text
>about how magic items are "relatively uncommon in Cerilia" without any
>actual game mechanical way of hampering magic item creation is very
>different from the 2e requirement to access to the permanency spell for
>arcane spellcasters in order to create things like magical
>swords. Including a few healing spells into the definition of lesser magic
>is pretty minor compared to that. (I`ve long been a proponent of MORE
>magic items in BR than seems to be the norm, so it`s not something I`m all
>that worried about myself.)

Regardless of what we eventually put in the conversion doc, I am going to
continue using the 2e system of magic item creation for my BR 3e campaign
(ie, they are nearly impossible to make). I really don`t like the 3rd
edition rules for magic item creation at all.

But that`s just my campaign and I don`t advocate that drastic a change for
the conversion.

>When it comes to healing magics for bards and magicians... I don`t know if
>it`s really a big problem. From a balance standpoint (if we can use that
>term in relation to the D&D magic system with a straight face) healing
>magics are readily available in the BR setting since there are no
>restrictions on priests, so giving other spellcasters access to that kind
>of magic isn`t a dramatic shift. It`s arguable whether or not the classes
>need access to round them out or not, so the only real issue is whether or
>not it is bad for the "spirit" of the setting. Personally, I don`t think
>it would have much impact at all on the themes of BR, so unless one is
>trying to emphasize something specific it still probably won`t make all
>that much of a difference.

*shrug*

I don`t have much to say at this point without repeating myself. I strongly
disagree with the notion that healing spells for arcane casters
(bard/magician) would have little impact on the spirit of the setting. I
think it represents a huge change and shouldn`t be done.

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Shade]

At 05:39 PM 2/13/2003 +0100, you 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=1272
>
> irdeggman wrote:
> Mechanic to reflect "low magic" campaign - see Chapt 8, variant on low
magic campaign. This variant increases the market value of itmes by 30%.
Since the market value goes up the corresponding exp point cost to create
them also goes up.
>
>The biggest problem with saying Birthright is a low magic item campaign is
that in 2nd ed while it was always said the campaign was low magic item
there was a tremendous amount of magic items available in the published
adventures and books (very conflicting concepts).

The designers have ALWAYS rewarded large amounts of magical treasure in
published adventures. It`s symptomatic of TSR/WOTC in general, not just
Birthright.

************************************************** **************************
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 that magicians should conform, as closely as possible, to what was originally created in the BR 2e. If for no other reason, to remain true to the older setup. For people who plan to use this to transition an existing campaign, how exactly do we explain that we're sorry, but the new age of magicians is cooler than you to the PCs? Or if we say, take what you want - how do you remain true to your backstory?

Also, it was stated pretty clearly in the 2e rulebook that blooded wizards had the power and magicians were pretty much left to wish that they could be as cool. I can see where designers might want to improve on a class to make it more functional than it was, but in the cass of 3e which has sorcerer and wizard already, I don't think that a 3rd true arcane class is really needed for impact, so if I got a vote I'd say keep the magician closer to 2e.

On another note related to topics on this thread, I think that the designers should go in and do some major surgery on the bard class to bring it in compliance with the bard as described in the 2e setting. I agree with others who feel that healing spells should not be accessible to arcane casters. Bards were defined in the setting with specific roles and abilities, some extended and some restricted from the standard 2e class.

I think if you want to just leave bard spell list as it is presented in 3e, you might as well add monks and psionics into the setting as well. Ignoring this on bards and changing magicians alters the setting enough that you cannot really say that psionics weren't always present but just never defined well.

Of course, I'm not saying you should add psionics or monks, I'm simply pointing out that these changes are so significant as to change the class conception within the setting in a very dramatic way. Not only would a bard be a warrior, a poet and a diplomat, he also does house calls as a side job.

[esmdev]

As a side note with a little humor on my last post, I was considering that a bard might force the target's body to spontaneously form psionic self-healing powers by continuously reciting bad poetry to infinitum until the subject is either driven to kill himself to escape (gets xp for the kill plus the perform) or develops the self-heal and flees (gets xp for defeating the subject plus the perform). ;) Really bad humor, I should go to bed.

[geeman]

At 11:59 PM 2/16/2003 +0100, Yair wrote:

>About magic items - What about requiring 1/5 instead of 1/25 of the base
>price in XP? That will tend to make magic items rarer as PCs will tend to
>make less of them (and NPCs could only make about 1/5 of the usual amounts).

I like it, though I wonder if 1/10 might be better. 1/25 always struck me
as a rather strange number in the first place. In general, though, I`d
prefer a more "organic" system of magic item creation that included various
other factors like the skill of the spellcaster, the quality of the base,
non-magical item used, etc. D&D`s flat magic item creation rules are
rather boring and simplistic in addition to being a rather frighteningly
imbalanced aspect of the game.

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.

[Birthright-L]

From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>

> I like it, though I wonder if 1/10 might be better. 1/25 always struck me
> as a rather strange number in the first place. In general, though, I`d
> prefer a more "organic" system of magic item creation that included
various
> other factors like the skill of the spellcaster, the quality of the base,
> non-magical item used, etc. D&D`s flat magic item creation rules are
> rather boring and simplistic in addition to being a rather frighteningly
> imbalanced aspect of the game.
>

The issi is: how much complexity do you want. A magic sword costs 1000 gp
and 80 XP to create (in addition to the weapon itself). This can either be
played out as a straighth expense, in which case it represents the creator
"subcontracting" the collection of mundane and magical components to various
spirits, alchemists oand such. Or it can be played out.

"First, the creator petitions the local smith to create a blade of
surpassing strength and beauty. Then, the dew of twelve mornings and the
wine of twelve countries must be collected for the tempering of the blade.
Twelve virgin boys and twelve virgin girls must chant while the final edge
is put on the sword, and the names of twelve ancestors spoken..." Etc.,
etc., ad nauseum.

This is just fluff. It can be important fluff, and a player who wishes to go
through with it and play it out should perhaps be granted a reduction in
price as far as "game mechanics" (gp and XP) are concearned because of the
time and effort the PLAYER put into it. But I see no reason to burden
players who do not want to go through this process with all the details.
Anyway it would take a whole volume just to come up with recepies like this
one, and might cause you to be accused of writing occult manuals. So I say
that this is the realm of the DM. It might fit nto some special expansion,
but it should not be in the "basic" rules of a conversion manual.

Magic item creation in 3E is about player empowerment. It used to be that
only the DM could create agic items - the cost was simply to high. And if a
PC ever created a magic item, it was never a simple sword +1 - paying 1 Con
was only worth it for holy swords and the like. Now, in 3E, any spellcaster
that decides to take the feats (which is still not done lightly) can create
items. The DMs absolute power over this aspect of the game is removed. To
make this possible, the magic item creation rules have been extensively
reworked to make the items balanced for their price and prerequisites. Of
course, some DMs might be afraid of this. The balancing has only been
partially successful. But still, it is a central part of the 3E idea of
adding options and choices.

What Iwant to say is that while item creation in Birthright can be more
difficult than normal (higher XP cost, possibly an RP cost), it should notbe
made impossible (one feat per type of magic item).

/Carl





__________________________________________________ ___
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.

[irdeggman]

One of the other options discussed by the development team was to add +1 level to the magic item. While this bumped up the cost (in gp and exp) it was a slightly more cumbersome than a straight percentage increase (which was mentioned in the BRRB as a means of increasing the raritly of magic items). The downside of this +1 level was that it made creating lower magic items much more desireable than higher level ones and seemed to be counter to the concept that there are fewer magic items but that they are generally more powerful than the standard campaign's versions.

[Yair]

Magic item creation in 3E is about player empowerment. It used to be that only the DM could create agic items - the cost was simply to high. And if a PC ever created a magic item, it was never a simple sword +1 - paying 1 Con was only worth it for holy swords and the like.


I didn't remember it from 2E (it's been a LONG time...). I am thinking about reintroducing the mechanic. Requiring 1 Con (in addition to the normal XP costs) should create just the thing we are after here - the magic items will be far rarer, but they will tend to be powerful. I suggest rquiring 1 Con (permament decrease, with no Restoration possible unless the magic item is destroyed in the ceremony) for all magic-item creation feats except Brew Potion and Scribe Scroll.

Speaking of "rare-magic" - can anyone think of a way to limit the magical feel of the clerics in 3E? I was thinking of lowering the "manifestations" of most clerical spells. A Bless spell, for example, will not have any visible signs. The magic will still be there (losing it would require a rewrite of the Cleric class, which is clearly beyond the desired scope) but it will be on "mute". Only exremely powerful spells (and turn undead?) will have any outward sign - all the rest could be explained as "coincidence", "luck", or so forth. Basically, the gods are hidden, working their miracles behind the scenes.
I am not sure if this is even a rule-change. More like a mood-change. I am just not sure if it is applicable to enough cleric spells (cure minor wounds, light, mending, to name some orisons).

[blitzmacher]

>I didn't remember it from 2E (it's been a LONG time...). I am thinking about reintroducing the mechanic. Requiring 1 Con (in addition to the normal XP costs) should create just the thing we are after here - the magic items will be far rarer, but they will tend to be powerful. I suggest rquiring 1 Con (permament decrease, with no Restoration possible unless the magic item is destroyed in the ceremony) for all magic-item creation feats except Brew Potion and Scribe Scroll.<

I think requiring 1 bloodline point for each magical ability for magic items, and RP amount equal to xp spent for scrolls and potions, would work better for BR. Seeing how the battle of mt. D. changed the way magic functioned in Cerilia.

[irdeggman]

The potential problem with bloodline expenditure is that per 3rd ed rules any spellcaster can create a magic item if he has the right feats. There is no real game reason to require a blooded character to create all items (above scrolls and potions). If the magician as a dual specialist illusions/diviner is the way things proceed then this would mostly eliminate them from creating magical items. Somehow I always imagined most divination "devices" as being created by magicians vice wizards.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 9:17 PM


> There is no real game reason to require a blooded character to
> create all items (above scrolls and potions).

Scrolls and potions, yes, but what about tattoos and other spell storage
devices? Tattoos where described in the Vos setting material, and its
certainly reasonable to include infusions. I use them in Rjurik areas.
Generalizing spell storage devices is easy enough, because all class
dependent spell storage devices would be mechanically like scrolls
(requiring a seperate feat, but that feat looking very much like scribe
scroll) and all spell storage devices that can be used regardless of class
would operate mechanically like potions.

Whether a spell caster would create potions, carve runes, or paint tattoos
would be cultural (another way to distingish cultures). In Anuire,
Brectuer, and Khinasi I have been using scrolls and potions, in Rjurik
infusions and runes, and in Vosgaard tattoos. People familiar with arabic
culture may have new suggestions for specific Khinasi alternatives to
scrolls and/or potions.

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.

[ConjurerDragon]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 00:47:06 +0100, blitzmacher <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
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=1272
> blitzmacher wrote:
> >I didn`t remember it from 2E (it`s been a LONG time...). I am thinking
about reintroducing the mechanic. Requiring 1 Con (in addition to the normal
XP costs) should create just the thing we are after here - the magic items
will be far rarer, but they will tend to be powerful. I suggest rquiring 1
Con (permament decrease, with no Restoration possible unless the magic item
is destroyed in the ceremony) for all magic-item creation feats except Brew
Potion and Scribe Scroll.<
>
>I think requiring 1 bloodline point for each magical ability for magic
items, and RP amount equal to xp spent for scrolls and potions, would work
better for BR. Seeing how the battle of mt. D. changed the way magic
functioned in Cerilia.

I disagree because of several points:
1) Requiring a drop of blood means that unblooded characters can´t create
magical items. The number of True Wizards+Magicians IS already much lower
than in other worlds. That alone means the overall number of arcane magical
items is lower than in other worlds. Banning Magicians from creating magical
items (even from creating crystal balls which would fit perfectly for
Magicians!), and banning even elven wizards without bloodlines from creating
magical items would be a severely restricting rule - and who created all the
elven magical items before Deismaar?

I would instead say that Magicians should have full access to the few spells
in the "Universal" School of Magic, meaning that they can use the Permanency
spell to create magic items of which they know the required spell, e.g.
Crystal Ball/scrying.

2) Spending a point of Bloodline strenght is something VERY different for
different characters:
A Wizard with a bloodline strength of only 2 - he spends 1 point of
bloodline strenght to create a magical item, then spends 8 RP to raise his
bloodline again to the old value - a very small sacrifice.

A Wizard with a bloodline strenght of 30 - he spends 1 point and has to
spend 120 RP to gain his old value back, right?

So this is unbalanced as one character has to sacrifice considerable more
than the other by spending 1 point of blood.

To balance it, you would have to set a RP amount for the creation of the
magic item, say 10 RP per + of the item and then the scion spends bloodline
strength to pay. A scion with a high bloodline strength would have to spend
still only 1 point, but scions with lower lines would have to sacrifice more
than 1 point.


3) Wizards of Aebrynnis are not less powerful than Wizards of other worlds -
they are only much rarer!

Why then should they have to spend something that wizards of other worlds do
not have to - without gaining an advantage?

Using the own blood in a world with bloodlines is a really interesting
option. The Blood Magus from Tome&Blood for example can use a drop of his
blood (inflicting points of Hitpoint damage to himself) to substitute for a
minor material component or more of his blood for a major component (gp
price 1-50 - damage 5, gp 51-300 damage 11, gp 301-750 damage 17, component
750+ damagee 23)

This ability would be perfectly fitting for True Wizards of Aebrynnis in my
opinion. Not sacrificing Bloodlinestrenght, but normal blood to reduce the
bookkeeping of components.
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]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 00:47:06 +0100, blitzmacher <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
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=1272
> blitzmacher wrote:
> >I didn`t remember it from 2E (it`s been a LONG time...). I am thinking
about reintroducing the mechanic. Requiring 1 Con (in addition to the normal
XP costs) should create just the thing we are after here - the magic items
will be far rarer, but they will tend to be powerful. I suggest rquiring 1
Con (permament decrease, with no Restoration possible unless the magic item
is destroyed in the ceremony) for all magic-item creation feats except Brew
Potion and Scribe Scroll.<
>
>I think requiring 1 bloodline point for each magical ability for magic
items, and RP amount equal to xp spent for scrolls and potions, would work
better for BR. Seeing how the battle of mt. D. changed the way magic
functioned in Cerilia.

I disagree because of several points:
1) Requiring a drop of blood means that unblooded characters can´t create
magical items. The number of True Wizards+Magicians IS already much lower
than in other worlds. That alone means the overall number of arcane magical
items is lower than in other worlds. Banning Magicians from creating magical
items (even from creating crystal balls which would fit perfectly for
Magicians!), and banning even elven wizards without bloodlines from creating
magical items would be a severely restricting rule - and who created all the
elven magical items before Deismaar?

I would instead say that Magicians should have full access to the few spells
in the "Universal" School of Magic, meaning that they can use the Permanency
spell to create magic items of which they know the required spell, e.g.
Crystal Ball/scrying.

2) Spending a point of Bloodline strenght is something VERY different for
different characters:
A Wizard with a bloodline strength of only 2 - he spends 1 point of
bloodline strenght to create a magical item, then spends 8 RP to raise his
bloodline again to the old value - a very small sacrifice.

A Wizard with a bloodline strenght of 30 - he spends 1 point and has to
spend 120 RP to gain his old value back, right?

So this is unbalanced as one character has to sacrifice considerable more
than the other by spending 1 point of blood.

To balance it, you would have to set a RP amount for the creation of the
magic item, say 10 RP per + of the item and then the scion spends bloodline
strength to pay. A scion with a high bloodline strength would have to spend
still only 1 point, but scions with lower lines would have to sacrifice more
than 1 point.


3) Wizards of Aebrynnis are not less powerful than Wizards of other worlds -
they are only much rarer!

Why then should they have to spend something that wizards of other worlds do
not have to - without gaining an advantage?

Using the own blood in a world with bloodlines is a really interesting
option. The Blood Magus from Tome&Blood for example can use a drop of his
blood (inflicting points of Hitpoint damage to himself) to substitute for a
minor material component or more of his blood for a major component (gp
price 1-50 - damage 5, gp 51-300 damage 11, gp 301-750 damage 17, component
750+ damagee 23)

This ability would be perfectly fitting for True Wizards of Aebrynnis in my
opinion. Not sacrificing Bloodlinestrenght, but normal blood to reduce the
bookkeeping of components.
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.

[irdeggman]

Chapter 8 contained some magic items that "require" blood ability score points, but these were rare and specifically designed to be "about" the blood. There was also a variant to "allow" the expenditure of blood ability score points in lieu of experience points to create magic items.

Oh yeah, the 3rd ed version of "permanency" is a whole lot more restrictive as to what spells can be made permanent on an object or area. This reflects the 3rd ed concept of using feats to create magic items. Also permancy is only a sorc/wiz spell so they are the only classes that could create magic items using this system (i.e., clerics could not create a magic item). The required levels necessary to use this spell to make permanent magic items/areas is much more restrictive than the feats as is the exp cost involved.

[blitzmacher]

Requiring a bloodline score or RP in the creation of magic items is very Birthright Oriented. When the old gods died magic in Cerilia was changed, before the event creating these items was more common, after it the process was lost. After the event the use of realm spells( a greater magic, just like magic items are, a greater magic), came into to play, but only by those who were blooded. Those without bloodlines lack that one link to the lands magic that the blooded have, and therefore cannot perform greater magic. The same with elves, having elven blood may allow them to be a wizard, but not all of the can cast realm magic. Bloodlines has to be the tie in to creating magic items, it keeps any chance of mass producing magic items from happening. If a character wants to make a lot of items they can, but they also have to worry about maintaning their source holdings.

>A Wizard with a bloodline strength of only 2 - he spends 1 point of
bloodline strenght to create a magical item, then spends 8 RP to raise his
bloodline again to the old value - a very small sacrifice.<

how long does it take him to collect those RP's

>Why then should they have to spend something that wizards of other worlds do
not have to - without gaining an advantage?<

Wizards of other worlds have access to more items, but they don't have bloodlines, kinda balances itself out.

>The potential problem with bloodline expenditure is that per 3rd ed rules any spellcaster can create a magic item if he has the right feats<

Birthright has always had exceptions to the rules, that's what makes it so good

[geeman]

At 05:02 AM 2/21/2003 +0100, blitzmacher wrote:

>When the old gods died magic in Cerilia was changed, before the event
>creating these items was more common, after it the process was lost.

Actually, the nature of magic in Aebrynis wasn`t changed, just who had
access to it, so I don`t think that the means of creating items was MORE
common before Deismaar. The change after Deismaar was access to higher
magic for non-elves and, presumably, magic items based on those higher
magics. In fact, using the original 2e rules only those with access to
divine or true magic could create permanent magic items, so the only people
with standard magic items would be elves or priests, and priestly magic
item creation was more of a time investment, as well as being limited.

>Bloodlines has to be the tie in to creating magic items, it keeps any
>chance of mass producing magic items from happening. If a character wants
>to make a lot of items they can, but they also have to worry about
>maintaning their source holdings.

I like the idea that one could use RP or XP in order to create magic
items. In the original setting, however, there`s no reason why
spellcasters other than those capable of casting realm magic are able to
create magic items.

XP alone does prevent characters from setting up the kinds of "magic item
factories" common in other campaign settings, though it isn`t that much of
a stumbling block. Using RP in place of XP would allow for exactly that
kind of magic item creation, however, so that`s probably not the way most
BR players would prefer to go. Bloodline strength score points could be
sacrificed, as has been suggested once or twice, but that really equates
pretty closely to RP since one can use regency to increase one`s
bloodline. That`s something of a problem because depending on how one
handles the bloodline "spent" it could make magic item creation less costly
for those wizards with lower bloodline strength scores since they need to
spend less RP to raise their scores back to previous levels.

Also, I think making magic item creation cost bloodline diminishes the
power and mystical nature of the elves somewhat. Access to arcane magics
as part of what one gets for a bloodline is the "birthright" of all elves
and half-elves. That`s part of their charm--if you`ll forgive the
pun. Any elf can become as powerful a wizard at the adventure level as the
strongest human noble.

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.

[irdeggman]

The reason I prefer blood line ability score points vice RP as a means of substitution for exp is that using RP is like using only the interest on the principal. A character doesn't really have to "do anything" to acquire RP other than create (and rule up) a holding. A character has to "adventure" or "risk" something in order to gain exp, in order to recover bloodline ability points a regent would have to not use his RP for at least two domain turns (6 domain actions) and would thus be "risking" the adverse effects of others taking actions against him. IMO this is the closest thing to an equivalent to exp.

Also RPs are generated much quicker than are increases in blood ability score points so the later is "much more dear" to any character.

[ConjurerDragon]

irdeggman 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=1272
>
> irdeggman wrote:
> The reason I prefer blood line ability score points vice RP as a means of substitution for exp is that using RP is like using only the interest on the principal. A character doesn`t really have to "do anything" to acquire RP other than create (and rule up) a holding. A character has to "adventure" or "risk" something in order to gain exp, in order to recover bloodline ability points a regent would have to not use his RP for at least two domain turns (6 domain actions) and would thus be "risking" the adverse effects of others taking actions against him. IMO this is the closest thing to an equivalent to exp.
>
>Also RPs are generated much quicker than are increases in blood ability score points so the later is "much more dear" to any character.
>
This is true for regent characters. Have you considered that there are
also blooded Wizards, who are not regents?
They could spend a point of bloodline and gaint it back, by heroic deeds
or bloodtheft (which of course a regent can do, too).

And a regent has not necessarily to do nothing for 2 domain turns and
risk actions of others without doing anything.
A regent could save up some RP in a longer time and then raise his
bloodline back up again. Only if he wants to restore his bloodline as
soon as possible, he would save the whole income of 2 seasons.

Has anyone considered, that magic items that are only usable on the
adventure level, should perhaps not cost RP or a bloodline point? In my
opinion only items which are usable on the domain level (e.g. giving a
free SCRY or such - Danicas Crystal of Scrying? or the Staff of
Transport, or Alieriens Orb which make realm spells cheaper) should cost
resources from the domain level.

Items like a sword +1, which will certainly not bring any advantage on
the domain level, should cost only resources from the adventure level
(gold, XP).

However the prices certainly should be highter than in core or Forgotten
Realms. The Book of Regency, if I remember right, suggested to have
masterwork items cost as much as magical: e.g. a Masterwork Longsword
with it´s +1 should be as expensive as a magic longsword +1.

That would mean of course, that magic items would be even more expensive
(higher market price = higher XP cost, as XP cost = 1/25th of market price).
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.

[irdeggman]

Michael Romes, I think we are saying the same thing.

Blood ability score points vice RP as an alternative to exp to create a magic item. I believe you pointed out that a non-regent would essentially have to do this since he wouldn't have any RPs.

You mentioned adventure only items as only costing resources. Isn't that the standard in the DMG/PHB - they cost gold and exp? Even though exp isn't strictly a "resource". The variant introduced (in Chap 8) was an alternate, not to be interpreted as the "replacement" to the standard method in the PHB/DMG.

The Book of Regency "couldn't" have made the suggestion concerning masterwork items since that is a 3rd edition term. In 2nd ed masterwork only meant that it was finely made but had no special game mechanic benefits. The Book of Magecraft contained a suggestion to increase the the XP and gp values by 15-25%.

[Fizz]

Think i'll put in my two coppers...

Back to the magician as a playable PC class or not, if i get a vote it'd be to make it a fully playable PC class. One of the things i like about Birthright is that magic is treated as something truly special. So, wizards are truly rare. But i don't want to limit my players that much. There's always someone who wants to play a magic-user, and the magician fits in perfectly. It maintains the flavor of the setting while still allowing someone to play a useful spellcasting type. Oh, and i always thought the 2E Magician was a playable class. Less spells, but more skills and a bit better combat. Same in 3E.

I also see no issue in having other races be magicians. It doesn't require special blood, and can catch the pc's quite unaware. A goblin magician with a few well-placed illusions can really freak out the pc's... :)

As to curing spells... It never made sense to me that in 3E a bard has curing spells and a wizard doesn't. In standard D&D, arcane magic is arcane magic. To me, anything a bard can do should also be doable by a wizard. In Birthright, i feel the same way. Elves cast true magic through spellsong, and bards use spellsongs. So if a bard can cast curing spells, why can't an elf wizard? They both use the same technique, yes? As for magicians, if a magician can do it, so should a wizard, imho. I actually do not have a big problem with all spellcasters being able to cast curing spells, though some level differences would be appropriate. Nor do i mind if they're not there. But as it stands in the playtest, they're inconsistent.

-Fizz

[ConjurerDragon]

Fizz 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=1272
>
> Fizz wrote:
>Back to the magician as a playable PC class or not, if i get a vote it`d be to make it a fully playable PC class. One of the things i like about Birthright is that magic is treated as something truly special. So, wizards are truly rare. But i don`t want to limit my players that much. There`s always someone who wants to play a magic-user, and the magician fits in perfectly.
>
Why? Just because Wizards are rare, does not mean that your players are
unable to play a wizard. Quite the opposite is true: Most players will
play Wizards and enjoy their increased value and reputation as most
other NPC´s are "only" Magicians.

>I also see no issue in having other races be magicians. It doesn`t require special blood, and can catch the pc`s quite unaware. A goblin magician with a few well-placed illusions can really freak out the pc`s... :)
>
In 2E only very, very few goblins would (even if allowed) have been able
to become Magicians, due to the ability score requirements. That in 3E
these minimum requirements are gone completely and everyone can become a
Magician is increasing the number of spellcasters - which is taking away
from the "rare magic and arcane spellcasters" setting that Birthright is.

>As to curing spells... It never made sense to me that in 3E a bard has curing spells and a wizard doesn`t. In standard D&D, arcane magic is arcane magic. To me, anything a bard can do should also be doable by a wizard. In Birthright, i feel the same way. Elves cast true magic through spellsong, and bards use spellsongs. So if a bard can cast curing spells, why can`t an elf wizard? They both use the same technique, yes? As for magicians, if a magician can do it, so should a wizard, imho. I actually do not have a big problem with all spellcasters being able to cast curing spells, though some level differences would be appropriate. Nor do i mind if they`re not there. But as it stands in the playtest, they`re inconsistent.
>
I agree that it does not make sense :-)
However I came to the opposite conclusion: Instead of saying that
Magicians have to have heal-spells, because the 3E Bard has them and the
3E Bard is also an arcane spellcaster I would say: No heal spells to
both! ;-)

The argument that both are arcane spellcasters is equally valid for the
Wizards as well - should he also be able to heal? No!
(2E Elven Wizards were supposed to use the spellsong and have teached
the first human bards - but still in 2E they had no healing)

In 2E Birthright the Bard´s spell list was shorter than the 2E core
Bards list, because Bards, like 2E Magicians were practioners of "lesser
Magic" and thus both were restricted from several schools of magic. In
3E it should be the same, as it is more important to keep 3E Birthright
similar to 2E Birthright than to 3E (after all 2E Birthright differed
from 2E core, so why should 3E Birthright not from 3E core?).
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]

irdeggman 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=1272
>
> irdeggman wrote:
>Blood ability score points vice RP as an alternative to exp to create a magic item. I believe you pointed out that a non-regent would essentially have to do this since he wouldn`t have any RPs.
>
Not alternative in the way as either RP or XP.

>You mentioned adventure only items as only costing resources. Isn`t that the standard in the DMG/PHB - they cost gold and exp? Even though exp isn`t strictly a "resource". The variant introduced (in Chap 8) was an alternate, not to be interpreted as the "replacement" to the standard method in the PHB/DMG.
>
I suggested to requrest bloodlinepoints or RP only for items that can be
used on the domain level of play. And the normal gold/XP costs for items
for the adventure level.

>The Book of Regency "couldn`t" have made the suggestion concerning masterwork items since that is a 3rd edition term. In 2nd ed masterwork only meant that it was finely made but had no special game mechanic benefits. The Book of Magecraft contained a suggestion to increase the the XP and gp values by 15-25%.
>
Right. I searched for where I read it and found the article on the old
Birthright net
www.Birthright.net/old:

>
> Master Craftsmen of Cerilia
>
> There are a few Master Craftsmen in Cerilia, whose wares are fit for a
> King. As BR dosen`t have a load of magic weapons floating around,
> these Weapons of Quality would be the senseable choice for someone who
> is above using something "off the rack", as it were. To that end I
> have come up with a short list of Master Craftsman, including the
> qualities of the items they fashion. I suggest using "Sages &
> Specialists" to detail these NPCs as individuals should your PCs ever
> encounter one of them. Also a DM should determine where in Cerilia
> each of these folks live. Its unlikely that they all dwell right in
> the PCs hometown. Also prices of these various items should be rather
> high(at least as high as a Magical item of a similar type), these men
> only work a few pieces a year, and each is unique in some way. So even
> the greatest King may have to wait years before he will recieve his
> item. Provided the Master agrees to construct one for them. It should
> also be noted that these items are as much a statement as they are a
> useful tool, and anyone recognizing the item for what it is will have
> thier Reactions modified when encountering someone possessing one of
> them. Haveing recognized the owner as a warrior of some distinction,
> even if they have
> never heard of them. Lastly all of these items are of the finest
> quality, and all of them are suitable for enchantment. Once enchanted
> that will supersede the items original bonuses.
>
> Herrick(Blademaster) - Herrick crafts the best bladed weapons in
> Cerilia. PCs can have most any *standard* type of sword or dagger made
> for them by this Craftsman. His wares have half the Speed
> Factor(minimum of 1)of a normal weapon of its type, and the blades are
> +1(non-magical)to Damage.
>
> Cadian(Bowmaster) - Cadian is a Half-Elf who fashions the finest Bows
> in the Civilized kingdoms. PCs may have Cadian craft them almost any
> type of *standard* Bow or Crossbow. Cadian`s weapons grant a
> +1(non-magical)to Hit, and have their ranges increased by +10 yards
> per range catagory. Also all his bows act as "Strength Bows" allowing
> a user to add thier Strength bonuses to the bow`s to Hit(as well as
> the +1 normally givin)and Damage rolls.
>
> Volund(Axemaster) - Volund is a Dwarf. Even among his people his
> weapons are legendary. PCs can have Volund forge most any *standard*
> Mace, Axe, or Flail. Volund`s weapons are +1 to Hit, and +2 on
> Damage(both non-magical).
>
> Ivarsson(Pole Arms Master) - Ivarsson`s family has manufactered Pole
> Arms for the elite of Cerilia for centuries. PCs can have this
> Craftsman make virtually any *standard* Pole Arm. Weapons made by him
> have half the Speed Factor (minimum of 1) of a normal weapon of its type.
>
> El-Siddig(Armsmaster) - This Khinsani family has a reputation for
> creating the most unusual of weapons. PCs may have them make almost
> any *non-standard* weapon they can think of(Katana, Blowgun, Caltrop,
> Cestus, etc.). These weapons will have a +1(non-magical) to Hit, and
> some(DMs discretion)may also have a +1(non-magical)on Damage.
>
> Von Golenstiel(Armorsmith) - Von Golenstiel creates some of the most
> fabulous suits of armor in all of Cerilia, but aside from being
> attractive they also serve thier wearer more effectively. PCs can have
> this Craftsman construct nearly any type of armor or shield. All armor
> made by him functions at 1 AC class better then its normal type, and
> all shields he makes grant an additional +1(non-magical)to the users AC.
>
> by Sepsis <mailto:richt@metrolink.net>
>
> "War is a matter of vital importance to the State;
> the province of life or death;
> the road to survival or ruin.
> It is mandatory that it be thoroughly studied."
> -Sun Tzu,(The Art of War)-
>

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Fizz]

Michael Romes:
> Why? Just because Wizards are rare, does not mean that your players are
unable to play a wizard. Quite the opposite is true: Most players will
play Wizards and enjoy their increased value and reputation as most
other NPC´s are "only" Magicians.

This assumes the character is automatically blooded. If the character is not a scion or elven but still wants to play a magic-user, then the magician is the only way to go. I do not want to force a player into playing an inferior class. I think a basic magic-user (magician) should always be an option for the player. Besides which, i think the Magician was a fully playable class in 2E. I always found him to be so. So it should be no different in 3E.

> In 2E only very, very few goblins would (even if allowed) have been able
to become Magicians, due to the ability score requirements. That in 3E
these minimum requirements are gone completely and everyone can become a
Magician is increasing the number of spellcasters - which is taking away
from the "rare magic and arcane spellcasters" setting that Birthright is.

Oh, i agree. They should be rare among goblins. However, 3E has it's own mechanics for `minimum' requirements of classes. A typical goblin with Intelligence of 10 could cast 0 level spells- that's not worth pursuing the class. But exceptional goblins with half-way decent Intelligence could become magicians. They will be rare because goblins usually aren't that bright.

But 3E is about choice, and given the blood restrictions on wizards, i think it's fair to the players to make the magician a viable class. It was in 2E, so it should be in 3E also.

> I agree that it does not make sense :-)
However I came to the opposite conclusion: Instead of saying that
Magicians have to have heal-spells, because the 3E Bard has them and the
3E Bard is also an arcane spellcaster I would say: No heal spells to
both! ;-)

That's fine with me, actually. Either all bards, magicians and wizards can heal, or none of them can. It needs to be consistent one way or the other. I don't care which way. :)

-Fizz

[Raedwald]

I used the Class Construction Engine, http://www.angelfire.com/wierd/konundrum, to evaluate the proposed Magician and I got a score of around 240. Very respectable and balanced.

I have to admit I do not like the concept of arcane healing. If the designers feel that they should not remove it, maybe for arcane casters the healing will transform damage to subdual damage or "cure" subdual damage. That would lessen its impact, true healing would still be the province of clerics.

I'm not sure that the cost and changing of magic items should be that radically changed. Perhaps just changing the time from days to weeks (or months) would do the trick. I might exclude potions and scrolls from this. If it would take 2 months to make a +1 sword, it would definitely slow down creation.

[TheAuldGrump]

Hmmm, my only comment about the magician is that I think the healing should not be as effective as a cleric's, perhaps adding a level to the spell in regards to when the magician can cast it. So, Cure minor wounds would be a 1st level spell, cure light wounds a 2nd level spell and so on.

I do very much like the magician class as rewritten, I feel that allowing non regent play was pretty much overlooked in 2nd ed. and is a fine addition to the game. In particular I like the idea of a 'game within a game' where the non-regents act as hired agents for the regent characters.

Magician is a class that I would enjoy playing.

The Auld Grump

[cerebralus]

Bear in mind when reading the following that I have never played Birthright 2E :)

On Playability:
I think it is a very playable class and IMHO, one that I think many players could have fun with.

On Skills:
I like the addition of Pick Pocket and Decipher Script that several people have mentioned and feel these fit the class as presented in the draft.

On the Class Skill Special Ability:
I agree w/Shade that the ability should make two cross-class skills into class skills.

On Healing Spells:
I agree that healing spells should be one level higher. Cure Minor Wounds, though, could remain as a 0-level spell. The most powerful healing spell that magicians should have access to would be Cure Serious (4th level).

Miscellaneous Suggestions:
If magicians are considered to be experts in lesser magics, then perhaps the spell list should become more restricted beginning with 5th level spells. I haven't had time to read all the spell descriptions from 5th level on, but I would imagine that it would be relatively easy to edit the spell lists.

With the spell restrictions, one could also consider changing the spells per day to reflect their mastery of lower level magic. Again, I haven't had time to properly think this through, and I do realize this could affect some of the metamagic feats attractiveness, but it was an idea I had.

If either one of these two things are done, then (again IMHO) I could completely see why the magician would have D6 HP/level from a game mechanic standpoint. For me, personally, such restrictions on spells would do little, I think, to make the class less desirable to play.

Nathan Hawks

[Mourn]

I wanted to point something out.

<
Magician descriptive text
Magicians are practitioners of the path of lesser magic. Unable (or unwilling) to tap the great energies of the land itself to wield the powers of true magic, these arcane spellcasters specialize in the application of the less extravagant powers of the world. Their arcane lore is not based upon the channeling of immense natural powers, but rather on the refinement and evocation of a more precise and subtle lore.

Loremaster descriptive text
Loremasters are spellcasters who concentrate on knowledge, valuing lore and secrets over gold. They uncover secrets that they then use to better themselves mentally, physically, and spiritually.
>

Sound somewhat similar. They both learn arcane lore as well as practical knowledge.

<
Magician class skills (4+Int)
The magician’s class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Alchemy (Int), Bluff (Cha), Concentration (Con), Craft (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Disguise (Cha), Escape Artist (Dex), Gather Information (Cha), Heal (Wis), Knowledge (all skills, taken individually) (Int), Perform (Cha), Profession (Wis), Scry (Int), Spellcraft (Int), Use Magic Device (Cha).

Loremaster class skills (4+Int)
The loremaster’s class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Alchemy (Int), Appraise (Int), Concentration (Con), Craft (Int), Decipher Script (Int), Gather Information (Cha), Handle Animal (Cha), Heal (Wis), Knowledge (all skills, taken individually) (Int), Perform (Cha), Profession (Wis), Scry (Int), Speak Language, Spellcraft (Int), Use Magic Device (Cha).
>

Similar lists. They could be merged together, reflecting the amount of knowledge magicians have access to.

<
Magician spellcasting
As wizard, with spell restrictions.

Loremaster spellcasting
As any spellcasting class.
>

No connection here. However, I think the idea of making magician a "secondary" spellcaster, like the bard, is a good idea. Grant them six levels of spells, and give them a unique spell list. Them, grant them a number of other special abilities to balance it out.

<
Magician class features
Spontaneous casting
Spell Mastery
Special Abilities
-Additional Class Skill
-Bonus cantrip
-Feat
-Spontaneous Spell

Loremaster class features
Secet
-Instant mastery (4 ranks in one skill)
-Secret health (+3 hp)
-Secrets of inner strength (+1 Will)
-Lore of true stamina (+1 Fort)
-Secret knowledge of avoidance (+1 Ref)
-Weapon trick (+1 attack)
-Dodge trick (+1 dodge bonus to AC)
-Applicable knowledge (feat)
-Newfound arcana (bonus 1st)
-More newfound arcana (bonus 2nd)
Lore (bardic knowledge)
Bonus Languages (additional languages means more knowledge)
Greater Lore (identify 1/item)
True Lore (legend lore or analyze dweomer)
>

The loremasters abilities fit well with the concept of the magician. A few rough points could be smoothed, but it could be adapted into the class, adding a little more focus on illusion as well. This would make a magician a less useful spellcaster, but more useful in a lot of other areas, especially KNOWLEDGE.

[Shade]

Mourn, that`s really interesting. I hadn`t considered Loremaster as a PrC
for Magicians to take.

It fits very well, and Magicians can easily meet the prereqs for the class.
It seems like a natural fit for the scholarly type of Magicians (as opposed
to the more roguish types).

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Mourn]

Originally posted by Shade
Mourn, that`s really interesting. I hadn`t considered Loremaster as a PrC
for Magicians to take.

It fits very well, and Magicians can easily meet the prereqs for the class.
It seems like a natural fit for the scholarly type of Magicians (as opposed
to the more roguish types).


Well, if magician is going to be a base PC class, then I'd suggest stripping out the loremaster, revamp some of the class skills and class features, add some illusion oriented-abilities and a brand new 1-6 spell list and *poof* you have a base magician class.

However, if the base class isn't going to happen, then a wizard going loremaster would be good... though the requirement for 3 item creation or metamagic feats is kinda ridiculous. I'll see if I can come up with a base magician class and I'll post it here.

[Maxius]

Of all of the revisions I like this one the least. In the game I run I have told the players I don't use this Magician. The Magician I use currently is a Wizard that is specialized in Illusion and Divination and cannot use any other spell lists.

I agree with the original poster of this thread ... the Magician is not meant to be a balanced class. In effect ... half a class. Since multi-classing is so easy it is no great limitation.

[Shade]

At 06:57 PM 3/24/2003 +0100, you 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=1272
>
> Mourn wrote:
>
Originally posted by Shade
>Mourn, that`s really interesting. I hadn`t considered Loremaster as a PrC
>for Magicians to take.
>
>It fits very well, and Magicians can easily meet the prereqs for the class.
>It seems like a natural fit for the scholarly type of Magicians (as opposed
>to the more roguish types).
>
>
>Well, if magician is going to be a base PC class, then I`d suggest
stripping out the loremaster, revamp some of the class skills and class
features, add some illusion oriented-abilities and a brand new 1-6 spell
list and *poof* you have a base magician class.

IMO Magician should be a base *NPC* class, but we`ve already discussed this
to death...

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Mourn]

Originally posted by Shade
IMO Magician should be a base *NPC* class, but we`ve already discussed this
to death...


I agree. Comparing it to the adept, it would look something like this...

Magician
Magicians are practitioners of the path of lesser magic. Unable (or unwilling) to tap the great energies of the land itself to wield the power of true magic, these arcane spellcasters specialize in the application of less extravagang powers of the world. Their arcane lore is not based upon the channeling of
Hit Die: d6.
Saves: Fortitude poor, Reflex good, Will good
BAB: As adept.

Class Skills
The magician's class skills are Alchemy (Int), Bluff (Cha), Concentration (Con), Craft (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Disguise (Cha), Gather Information (Cha), Knowledge (all skills taken individually) (Int), Pick Pocket (Dex) Profession (Wis), Scry (Int, exclusive skill), and Spellcraft (Int).

Skill Points at 1st Level: (4 + Int modifier) x 4
Skill Points at Each Additional Leel: 4 + Int modifier

Class Features
All of the following are class features of the magician NPC class.
Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Magicians are skilled with all simple weapons. Adepts are not proficient with any type of armor nor with shields.
Spells: A magician casts arcane spells. He is limited to a certain number of spells of each spell level per day, according to his class level. Like a wizard, a magician may prepare and cast any spell on the magician spell list, provided he can cast spells of that level. Like a wizard, he prepares his spells ahead of time each day.
The DC for a saving throw against a magician's spell is 10 + spell level + the magicians Intelligence modifier.
When the magician gets 0 spells of a given level, he gets only bonus spells for that spell slot. An adept without a bonus spell for that level cannot yet cast a spell of that level. Bonus spells are based on Intelligence.
Magicians use the same spell progression as the adept NPC class.
Spellbook:

Starting Gear
2d4 x 10 gp worth of equipment.

Magician Spell List
Magicians choose their spells from the list in the BRCS playtest document, beginning on page 60, and progresses up to 5th-level spells.

[destowe]

I have always seen the magician as a LT to a regent. The court mage, the advisor, the person that detects the trouble. If trouble was found, then someone had to be sent to involve the sourceholder to help.

True mages are to rare to be used this way. Magician should be a NPC-class, an arcane adept.

If they truely need need healing magic, only give them cure light wounds. That could be a poultice or healing salve out of Tome & Blood.

[Fizz]

Originally posted by Maxius
I agree with the original poster of this thread ... the Magician is not meant to be a balanced class. In effect ... half a class. Since multi-classing is so easy it is no great limitation.


I don't understand why some people think the Magician is not meant to be a balanced class. When compared to a Wizard, the magician is more limited in magic ability but may use better weapons and has a greater skill selection. He can't produce some of the fantastical effects that a wizard can, but he makes up for it in other ways.

Thus, i feel it should be the same way in 3E. If it wasn't meant to be a playable class, it never would have been presented. No where in the original description does it say that players should shy away from it because it's `underpowered'. All it says is their magic potential is less than that of a wizards. I had a great time with a magician i once played, and he was just as important to the party as anyone else.

A Birthright conversion without a playable Magician class is so... unBirthrightish. :)


-Fizz

[marcum uth mather]

the birthright setting has always been known as a low magic game. in a game like this a magician is perfect. real wizards are a rare thing to behold, almost none of them out there. so in a world like this the magician gives you the opsion to play a magic user, but stay true to the campain. they are not that underpowerd. the new list for them is ubsered though. IMC we stick to the ORIGINAL BR FEEL by only allowing 1-2 levels in all the schools besids div or ill. No the magician should not have healing magic, neather should thge bard or the elf. if you want to heal someone take a few levels in a cleric some were. archane and divine magic are two distinct and seperat things.

[Green Knight]

I second that.

Hey, even a straight magician conversion along lesser/True magic lines
gives a perfectly playable character. Divination may be a little weak,
but illusion is good enough for the character to be playable.

And please; no elven clerics/paladins. That is the ONE thing I don`t
want to see changed. I can live with elven druids/rangers, and thus a
little elven healing, but that is pretty much it.

-----Original Message-----
From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion
[mailto:BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM] On Behalf Of marcum uth mather
Sent: 22. april 2003 18:33
To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
Subject: Re: BRCS Chapter 1 - the Magician Class [36#1272]

This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
You can view the entire thread at:
http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1272

marcum uth mather wrote:
the birthright setting has always been known as a low magic game. in a
game like this a magician is perfect. real wizards are a rare thing to
behold, almost none of them out there. so in a world like this the
magician gives you the opsion to play a magic user, but stay true to the
campain. they are not that underpowerd. the new list for them is ubsered
though. IMC we stick to the ORIGINAL BR FEEL by only allowing 1-2 levels
in all the schools besids div or ill. No the magician should not have
healing magic, neather should thge bard or the elf. if you want to heal
someone take a few levels in a cleric some were. archane and divine
magic are two distinct and seperat things.

************************************************** **********************
****
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.

[ryancaveney]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, Bjørn Eian Sørgjerd wrote:

> And please; no elven clerics/paladins. That is the ONE thing
> I don`t want to see changed. I can live with elven druids/rangers,
> and thus a little elven healing, but that is pretty much it.

Oh, I quite agree! Elves need good nature magic, but under no
circumstances should they worship gods to get it, or for any other reason.
I don`t see any real game-mechanical need for a distinction between arcane
and divine magic, but I do see big in-character roleplaying distinctions
between the attitudes of elves, human wizards, and human priests.


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.

[Mourn]

Originally posted by ryancaveney
Oh, I quite agree! Elves need good nature magic, but under no
circumstances should they worship gods to get it, or for any other reason.
I don`t see any real game-mechanical need for a distinction between arcane
and divine magic, but I do see big in-character roleplaying distinctions
between the attitudes of elves, human wizards, and human priests.


So elves have no free will? They cannot choose to worship a god?

I think not.

[ryancaveney]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, Mourn wrote:

> So elves have no free will? They cannot choose to worship a god?

IMO, an elf who did choose to worship a human god would be considered
astonishingly stupid, downright insane, or a clear and present danger to
Sidhelien society. Yes, they`re mercurial and free-wheeling, but I don`t
think they`re quite *that* open-minded. It might even be the equivalent
of suicide, in the sense that in the more militant realms it could be seen
as renouncing elfhood and declaring oneself to be human, and therefore
properly the next victim of the Gheallie Sidhe.

Sure, I suppose it is theoretically possible -- in the sense that as any
mathematician can tell you, events of measure zero can in principle
actually occur, but any physicist will respond that in practice the
universe just doesn`t work like that in any measurable way -- but it is so
incredibly unlikely and inappropriate to the setting that I feel including
any rules about it other than outright prohibition is a really bad idea.

Actually, those who think of gods as being directly involved with the
day-to-day granting of spells (I do not hold this view, but I know there
are some around here who do) have a good basis on which to argue that
elven priests are even theoretically impossible. In that model there are
*two* free-willed entities, one with more power over the relationship than
the other: no matter how much an elf wants to be able to cast clerical
spells, if no god can be found who is willing to grant an elf those spells
and powers, the elves are out of luck.


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.

[Peter Lubke]

On Wed, 2003-04-23 at 07:41, Mourn 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=1272

Mourn wrote:

Originally posted by ryancaveney
Oh, I quite agree! Elves need good nature magic, but under no
circumstances should they worship gods to get it, or for any other reason.
I don`t see any real game-mechanical need for a distinction between arcane
and divine magic, but I do see big in-character roleplaying distinctions
between the attitudes of elves, human wizards, and human priests.


So elves have no free will? They cannot choose to worship a god?

I think not.

Sure, they can choose to do so. Just because no gods answer does not
mean that they are not listening. Just because they gain no divine
spells does not invalidate their faith. Of course, other elves point out
that fact as proof that the worshiping elves are not of a healthy mind -
but would never go so far as to say that they should not do so.

Who knows, one day a prayer may be answered. (but not IMC)

************************************************** **************************
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]

I see Sidhelien as more fundametally different from humans. I`d say that
they are Fey rather than Humanoids, and as Fey, they do not reallyhave free
the way humans understand it. They cannot help but be semi-otherworldly
creatures and they simply lack what it takes to worship a god.

Making them fey is not breaking with 2ed canon, since there were no creature
types in 2ed. And the sidhelien of Cerila was much more strange than the
regular DnD 2ed elves.

************************************************** **************************
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]

Finally another that thinks the sidhe should be fey...hmm, they are immortal, magical, and have a close connection to nature. Sounds pretty fey to me :-)
>
> Fra: Stephen Starfox <stephen_starfox@YAHOO.SE>
> Dato: 2003/04/23 Wed PM 01:52:48 CEST
> Til: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
> Emne: Re: BRCS Chapter 1 - the Magician Class [36#1272]
>
> I see Sidhelien as more fundametally different from humans. I`d say that
> they are Fey rather than Humanoids, and as Fey, they do not reallyhave free
> the way humans understand it. They cannot help but be semi-otherworldly
> creatures and they simply lack what it takes to worship a god.
>
> Making them fey is not breaking with 2ed canon, since there were no creature
> types in 2ed. And the sidhelien of Cerila was much more strange than the
> regular DnD 2ed elves.
>
> ************************************************** **************************
> 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.
>


-------------------------------------------------
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.

[Fizz]

Originally posted by The Green Knight
Finally another that thinks the sidhe should be fey...hmm, they are immortal, magical, and have a close connection to nature. Sounds pretty fey to me :-)


And add me as yet another. :) Not only does their description and abilities fit the fey type, but being fey automatically gives several appropriate advantages. For example, immunity to Hold and Charm Person spells (which affect humanoids, not fey).

On a similar note, i've sometimes wondered if Cerilian dwarves fit the elemental (earth) type. Very tough, resistant to damage, high encumberance, and cold gray skin. Not as obvious as elves are fey, but still a connection there. Being elemental would have other major benefits though (immunity to critical hits for one), so maybe it's not a good idea. :)

-Fizz

[Green Knight]

Indeed, I have played with the idea many times, but found the elemental
type to be too weird; it has no facing, can`t be flanked etc.

In the end I ended up with a humanoid dwarf with the earth subtype.

-----Original Message-----
From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion
[mailto:BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM] On Behalf Of Fizz
Sent: 23. april 2003 19:20
To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
Subject: Re: BRCS Chapter 1 - the Magician Class [36#1272]

This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
You can view the entire thread at:
http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1272

Fizz wrote:

Originally posted by The Green Knight
Finally another that thinks the sidhe should be fey...hmm, they are
immortal, magical, and have a close connection to nature. Sounds pretty
fey to me :-)


And add me as yet another. :) Not only does their description and
abilities fit the fey type, but being fey automatically gives several
appropriate advantages. For example, immunity to Hold and Charm Person
spells (which affect humanoids, not fey).

On a similar note, i`ve sometimes wondered if Cerilian dwarves fit the
elemental (earth) type. Very tough, resistant to damage, high
encumberance, and cold gray skin. Not as obvious as elves are fey, but
still a connection there. Being elemental would have other major
benefits though (immunity to critical hits for one), so maybe it`s not
a good idea. :)

-Fizz

************************************************** **********************
****
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.