BRCS Chapter 1 - Feats

[Shade]

I`m moving through the doc a lot slower than some other people, so that`s
why I haven`t contributed to the discussion on a lot of topics. I finally
got to the feats and here are my thoughts:

There is a lot of cool stuff here that shows tremendous creativity and
innovation on the part of the BRCS team. However, some of it is imbalanced.
In the design process, for every free-thinking creative (these people are
necessary for good and fun ideas) you need a hard-assed balance fiend
(someone like myself or Daniel :) to keep things in perspective.

When balancing feats, I think these are good guidelines to use:

1. Does it go beyond the scope of feats of its type?

(For example, many feats give +2 to 2 different skills. If a feat gives +3
to 2 different skills, it probably goes too far.)

2. Does it make any other feat obsolete?

(For example, FR`s Foe Hunter feat gives +1 to damage and Improved Critical
against a certain creature type. Favored Critical from MotW gives Improved
Critical against a certain creature type. Since Foe Hunter is in every way
better than Favored Critical, it makes Favored Critical obsolete.)

3. Is it a must-have or a no-brainer feat?

(For example, FR`s Spellcasting Prodigy is so good pretty much every
spellcaster type should pick it.)

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, the feat is probably
overpowered.

Using these guidelines, here are my thoughts on the BRCS feats:

Animal Whispers - cool feat, makes a lot of sense.

Arcane Sanctum - this is really freaking cool :) The wording needs to be a
bit more clear. I`d actually up this in power a bit, making the +1 DC work
in an entire province rather than a number of miles based on source level.
In any case it is still far weaker than Spellcasting Prodigy, but still a
good feat. I`d also change the requirement from Bld 13+ to "must control a
source (1) in the province where the sanctum is located" or somesuch.

Battle Caster - good feat. The skill requirement should be removed - feats
never have skill requirements.

Black Strike - this feat does a good job of representing the original
flavor of the blackstrike proficiency. However, it might be overpowered -
there are two feats that resemble it, Off-Hand Parry from MotW and FR`s
Twin Sword Style.

BS grants +2 dodge w/ offhand, no attacks offhand, no TWF attack penalty.
OHP grants +2 dodge w/ offhand, no attacks offhand, but you keep the -2 TWF
attack penalty.
TSS grants +2 armor bonus vs. 1 opponent, keep offhand attacks, keep -2 TWF
attack penalty.

BS is clearly overpowered relative to OHP; effectively it is OHP that gives
you a +2 to attack rolls. TSS itself is a balanced feat.

How to balance BS without making it identical to OHP or TSS? Let`s look at
the original blackstrike for inspiration: it required you to use a rapier
and something else (usually a dagger, shortsword, cloak or buckler), gave
the AC bonus against 1 opponent only, and you lost your offhand attacks.

How about this:

You receive a +3 dodge bonus to AC against a single opponent when you wield
a second weapon in your off-hand but do not attack with that weapon. You
incur no penalties for attacking with two weapons when you use the
Blackstrike feat.

Blood Focus - looks good. My only concern is that getting +2 DC and +2 vs
SR would cost you 2 feats for spells, but I think it is ok because blood
abilities are far more limited than spells.

Bloodline Prodigy - looks good on paper, but it MUST be playtested.

City-Dweller - well done.

Conqueror - looks good, assuming we keep the Lead skill, which is not
something I`m convinced we should do (more on that later).

Daily Blessing - a really cool idea. Looks good to me.

Discipline - nifty.

Divine Sanctum - really cool! Whoever came up with the idea for these feats
is a genius. :)

Dwarven Artisan - this is really shady. wtf is a superior masterwork item?
As far as I know `superior masterwork items` are not mentioned in the DMG
and are not intrinsic to the flavor of Birthright. I think this feat should
be removed entirely.

Elven Artisan - this feat is balanced and mimics the power of the Magical
Artisan feat.. BUT, considering that magic items are supposed to be rare in
BR, should we really include a feat that facilitates their construction?

Elven Voice - the concept is good, but it is mechanically overpowered. +2
to a skill (diplomacy) is equal to half a feat. You further get a +2 to
another skill in a limited form (which is almost a restricted version of a
half-feat), and +2 to specific types of enchantment spells (which is a
restricted version of a full feat). The problem lies in that almost all the
enchantment spells that require saves are charms anyway, so this is really
almost as good as a whole feat.

This feat definitely needs to be nerfed somehow. I think the best way to
balance it would be to compare it to the Alluring feat from Song & Silence,
which is powerful but lists 2 crappy feats as prerequisites. As always,
drop the skill requirement for the feat. I`d suggest this effect:

Prerequisites: Elf, Skill Focus: Perform, Cha 13+. You get a +2 to Perform
(Song) checks and a +2 to the DCs of mind-influencing spells that depend on
the power of your voice.

This makes it very slightly weaker than Alluring, but that`s okay as it has
fewer prerequisites.

Erudition - this feat is clearly overpowered as it makes Education
obsolete. Make it identical to Education to balance it. (I guess we cannot
reprint Education because of OGL concerns.)

Forestdweller - looks good.

Great Leader - I don`t know what gets a synergy bonus to Lead, but my hunch
is that this feat is slightly overpowered.

Hardiness - this feat is REALLY shady. Anything that flat out doubles the
effect of something else is just waiting to be abused. One example that
springs to mind: imagine if a character had the Hardiness feat, and then
proceeded to pick Dragon`s Toughness (MotW). +24 HP, it is balanced so far
as this is just as if he had picked Dragon`s Toughness twice. But if he
picks Dragon`s toughness again, he gets a further +24. You can see where
this is going, and it has the potential to be really sick.

This feat serves no essential purpose and I think it should be removed or
redone entirely.

Highlander - nice. I think the feat needs to be powered up slightly by
taking away the restriction on terrain, OR by making the bonus a +3 or 4
and keeping the terrain restriction.

Improved Shadow Guide - may need playtesting.

Inscribe War Tattoo - nice job on the conversion, but this MUST be playtested.

Leadership - interesting twist. Needs to be playtested to ensure balance,
though.

Master Administrator - I feel this feat has the potential to be
overpowered, but I`ll outline the reasons when I discuss skills.

Master Merchant - This feat is slightly overpowered, as it is equal to a
standard feat (+2 to 2 skills) but gives an additional benefit at the
domain level of play. Possibly reduce the skill bonuses to +1.

Military Genius - looks good.

Northerner - nice.

Plainsrider - sweet.

Regent Focus - This feat could potentially be really strong. Think about if
you used Regent Focus (contest). This could have the effect of saving you
dozens of RP every season.. regardless of whether this feat makes it into
the final document, I know I would not allow it in my campaign as I feel it
gives too much of an advantage, and almost becomes a must-have feat.

Regional Arms Training - ...

This is hands down the most broken feat I have ever seen. It puts
Spellcasting Prodigy to shame. This feat is a must-have, overpowered feat
that goes far beyond the scope of what a feat should do and makes many
other feats obsolete.

To my knowledge, NO feat in D&D gives you a +3 to hit. I don`t think there
is any non-epic feat that gives a flat out +2 to hit.. and all the feats
that DO give +2 to hit (Tread on the Blade, for example) are all conditional.

Furthermore this feat makes Weapon Focus completely obsolete. This is to be
avoided. This feat gives so much bang for the buck there is no reason for
every character that spends a significant amount of time using weapons not
to take it.

One possibility for RAT is to change it to give proficiencies only. In this
form the feat is still overpowered relative to Martial Weapon Proficiency
(which only gives 1 prof), but in my mind that is ok because I think MWP is
way underpowered anyway.

The problem with this feat comes in here: who would actually pick this
feat? 1st level commoners is the logical answer, but they would probably
spend their only feat on something related to their everyday life, like
Skill Focus: Profession (farmer). A 3rd level commoner might take it, but
if a 3rd level commoner has had that much experience with fighting, he
would probably be a Com2/Warrior1 anyway, and already have access to the
proficiencies. The other answer is that a rogue or cleric might pick it, in
which case it makes sense to keep a weakened version of this feat.

The power of the feat DEFINITELY needs to be reduced, although IMHO the
best solution is to drop it altogether. Even if we keep Regional Arms
Training in a reduced capacity, I think Elite Arms training should be
completely removed, as the only people that would train with Elite Arms
would be fighters and warriors anyway.

Regional Rogue Training - I see no real reason to keep this feat, and
besides, it is potentially overpowered (it can give +5 to skills in some
cases). If it must be kept, I would prefer the mechanic to be something
like: You get +2 in 2 of your region`s rogue skills. That way it is capped
at +4 skill points no matter what.

Seafarer - nice.

Shadow Guide - this feat might not be necessary if we decide to make
halflings +1 ECL (which I am in favor of). Otherwise it is fine in my book.

Shadow Magic - Nice concept, but the feat is slightly overpowered. +1 DC
for Illusion and Necromancy would be balanced, but the extra +2 to Illusion
(Shadow) is too much. I`d make up a separate feat, Improved Shadow Magic,
that gives a +3 to Illusion (Shadow) magic and stacks with Shadow Magic
(giving +4 to Illusion(shadow) in total).

Shadow Walker - see shadow guide.

Spellsong Mastery - cool idea. The feat looks good, but the skill
requirement should be removed (as with all other feats).

Spymaster - cool feat but it is overpowered as it gives too many skill
points. +6 is too much; cut it down to +2 to gather information and bluff,
or keep the bonus to all 3 skills but make the bonuses conditional, as was
done with Seafarer and Plainsrider.

All in all, I think a lot of the feats are really cool and have great
concepts, but need to be tweaked somewhat in the interests of balance. IMHO
a couple should be taken out entirely. Keep in mind this is only my
opinion, and I hope I have sufficiently explained the rationale behind my
recommendations. I look forward to hearing your thoughts!

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

Excellent post.

Some clarifications and thought process explanations;


Battle Caster - good feat. The skill requirement should be removed - feats
never have skill requirements.


Mounted Combat. Other feats expand upon what is possible to do with a skill; Track - Wilderness Lore, for instance.


Black Strike - this feat does a good job of representing the original
flavor of the blackstrike proficiency. However, it might be overpowered -
there are two feats that resemble it, Off-Hand Parry from MotW and FR`s
Twin Sword Style.


Black Strike has some prerequisites that makes it more of an end-chain feat than a starting feat. The feat's benefit is primarily comparable to the benefit of a large shield; +2 to AC. I've actually wondered if this feat was weak, myself.


Erudition - this feat is clearly overpowered as it makes Education
obsolete. Make it identical to Education to balance it. (I guess we cannot
reprint Education because of OGL concerns.)

Does it really? It grants less immediate benefit; what it does is reward characters who spend more feats on skill focus (knowledge: whatever). Education, on the other hand, grants +1 to two knowledge skills by itself.


Great Leader - I don`t know what gets a synergy bonus to Lead, but my hunch
is that this feat is slightly overpowered.

The reference to a synergy bonus is an error; what it does is grant a +2 bonus to Lead and domain actions keyed to that skill - primarily Agitate.


Hardiness - this feat is REALLY shady. Anything that flat out doubles the
effect of something else is just waiting to be abused.

This addresses one point of the design process here - the feats in the BRCS were designed considering core feats primarily, not feats from splatbooks and independent d20 publishers (it'd be nuts to try and survey all of that). Anyway, the original benefit of this feat was different: It granted double the constitution bonus to hit points at first level, and +1 bonus hit point every time each of the other mentioned feats was taken.


Master Merchant - This feat is slightly overpowered, as it is equal to a
standard feat (+2 to 2 skills) but gives an additional benefit at the
domain level of play. Possibly reduce the skill bonuses to +1.

This, and the other "master" feats, as well as the "great leader" feat were intended to support the domain level of play; note that this particular feat has more stringent prerequisites than the others.


Regent Focus - This feat could potentially be really strong. Think about if
you used Regent Focus (contest). This could have the effect of saving you
dozens of RP every season.. regardless of whether this feat makes it into
the final document, I know I would not allow it in my campaign as I feel it
gives too much of an advantage, and almost becomes a must-have feat.


This feat was balanced with its limited versatility in mind - if you spend every action contesting, that's 12 RP saved per season - I guess it really depends on how common contest actions are in your campaign; you'd also need to consider the change in the contest action itself, I think, to get the full picture on that. The feat was originally part of a pyramid as well; statesmanship - master a/d/m - regent focus. Also note that this feat is very depedent on your campaign. In a PBEM-style environment, where domain-level interaction is 99% of the game, it is certainly too strong. The feat, however, is balanced for a normal campaign, with a distribution between adventure and domain-level play.


Shadow Magic - Nice concept, but the feat is slightly overpowered. +1 DC
for Illusion and Necromancy would be balanced, but the extra +2 to Illusion
(Shadow) is too much.

I'm not quite sure - spell focus provides a larger bonus in a single area; even though this feat totals up to more than spell focus does, I'm not quite sure it's stronger - i.e. consider skill emphasis (+3) vs alertness (+2/+2). Actually a bad example, but I don't really think this feat would make it to a must-have list - I'd put it on a "strong feats" list, but it doesn't supplant existing feats. I'd use the excuse of "not all feats are perfectly equal" and mutter something about skill focus, but I'll definitely keep what you've said in mind.

[Birthright-L]

Interesting that the discussion has proceeded to feats. I`ve been balancing
feats for the Netbook of Feats for years now, and I look forward into
putting my teeth into these. Due to time constraints, I have only skimmed
the BRCS, but I can still comment on some of this.
Most of your comments seemed initiated, though I have not analyzed them in
depth. But some things I can`t agree with.

First, feats can have skill requirements. Check out Mounted Combat. It is
rare to have a requirement of more than a single skill rank, but it is
definitely not a no-no.

Second, on Black Strike. I think this is a balanced feat, and it is very
simple to use. Off-Hand Parry is clearly a very underbalanced feat. With
Black Strike, you have to learn two feats in order to get a +2 AC bonus, one
of which you could have gotten by simply using a buckler. And there are
cheap magical bucklers that make the buckler way superior to the off-hand
blade (Well, perhaps magical bucklers are rare in Birthright, but in general
it is true).



From: "Lord Shade" <lordshade@SOFTHOME.NET>

> Black Strike - this feat does a good job of representing the original
> flavor of the blackstrike proficiency. However, it might be overpowered -
> there are two feats that resemble it, Off-Hand Parry from MotW and FR`s
> Twin Sword Style.
>
> BS grants +2 dodge w/ offhand, no attacks offhand, no TWF attack penalty.
> OHP grants +2 dodge w/ offhand, no attacks offhand, but you keep the -2
TWF
> attack penalty.
> TSS grants +2 armor bonus vs. 1 opponent, keep offhand attacks, keep -2
TWF
> attack penalty.
>
> BS is clearly overpowered relative to OHP; effectively it is OHP that
gives
> you a +2 to attack rolls. TSS itself is a balanced feat.
>
> How to balance BS without making it identical to OHP or TSS? Let`s look at
> the original blackstrike for inspiration: it required you to use a rapier
> and something else (usually a dagger, shortsword, cloak or buckler), gave
> the AC bonus against 1 opponent only, and you lost your offhand attacks.
>
> How about this:
>
> You receive a +3 dodge bonus to AC against a single opponent when you
wield
> a second weapon in your off-hand but do not attack with that weapon. You
> incur no penalties for attacking with two weapons when you use the
> Blackstrike feat.
>



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

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

[ConjurerDragon]

Lord Shade wrote:

>...
>
>When balancing feats, I think these are good guidelines to use:
>1. Does it go beyond the scope of feats of its type?
>(For example, many feats give +2 to 2 different skills. If a feat gives +3
>to 2 different skills, it probably goes too far.)
>2. Does it make any other feat obsolete?
>(For example, FR`s Foe Hunter feat gives +1 to damage and Improved Critical
>against a certain creature type. Favored Critical from MotW gives Improved
>Critical against a certain creature type. Since Foe Hunter is in every way
>better than Favored Critical, it makes Favored Critical obsolete.)
>3. Is it a must-have or a no-brainer feat?
>(For example, FR`s Spellcasting Prodigy is so good pretty much every
>spellcaster type should pick it.)
>If the answer to any of these questions is yes, the feat is probably
>overpowered.
>
>Using these guidelines, here are my thoughts on the BRCS feats:
>Arcane Sanctum - this is really freaking cool :) The wording needs to be a
>bit more clear. I`d actually up this in power a bit, making the +1 DC work
>in an entire province rather than a number of miles based on source level.
>In any case it is still far weaker than Spellcasting Prodigy, but still a
>good feat. I`d also change the requirement from Bld 13+ to "must control a
>source (1) in the province where the sanctum is located" or somesuch.
>
Arcane Sanctum is a very strong feat. A similar feat is "Sanctum spell"
Metamagic feat from Tome&Blood - and this feat raises your effective
spell level by one if cast in your sanctum (which is only 10 foot/level)
but if not cast in the sanctum you have -1 spelllevel!

Arcane Sanctum only gives the bonus without the penalty, and the
"Sanctum" is much larger as it is in miles, not feet.

>Battle Caster - good feat. The skill requirement should be removed - feats
>never have skill requirements.
>
In my opinion it is too restrictive.
1) To cast Battle Spells you have to have a military unit that has
special training which restricts the use of Battle Magic or else you can
do nothing with that feat.
2) Batle Magic is not nearly as devastating as the 2E Books of Magecraft
and Priestcraft made it, not even as the standard spells (Fireball,
Lightnign Bolt) as described on the warcards.
3) Caster Level 5+ would prevent regents like Rogr Aglondier (Illien) or
Harald Khorien (Taeghas) to be able to go on the battlefield as battle
casters.
4) The addition of the Warcraft skill which is a cross-class skill for
all casters as requirement (Cleric, Sorceror, Wizard) makes no sense in
my opinion - if a wizard knows to cast a Fireball and that it has a
certain range and can affect a certain area, then why should he know
military matters to cast it?. The USE of the Warcraft skill for a skill
check to see how good the effect of the spell is is even stranger in my
opinion - if you want Battle Magic to be difficult and sometimes not to
work, then require a Spellcraft check.

Good is that the strange rule of battle magic only every 3 round of
battle has been dropped in my opinion.
However as I played Torele Anviras in COG II my opinion is biased
towards mighty but rare magic.

The requirement "spellcaster level 5+" - would that mean a 5th level
Assasin could cast Battle Spells? Brrrrrr...

>Divine Sanctum - really cool! Whoever came up with the idea for these feats
>is a genius. :)
>
See Tome&Blood and my comment above.

>Dwarven Artisan - this is really shady. wtf is a superior masterwork item?
>As far as I know `superior masterwork items` are not mentioned in the DMG
>and are not intrinsic to the flavor of Birthright. I think this feat should
>be removed entirely.
>
I do not concur here. Dwarves are certainly masters of stoneworking,
just like elves are of woodworking.
Masterwork Items are certainly found more often in a world where magic
items or equipment is rarer.

To have Artisans of Dwarves or Elves BOTH produce non-magic superior
masterwork items sounds good.
Elven Mandolins or flutes would be highly praised, Dwarven Masons -->
remember the fortress in Binsada? would be highly sought...

The Feat Elven Artisan which allows the production of magic items at a
discount of 25% is too strong.
The "Arcane Craftsman" character concept from the "Quintessential
Wizard" from Mongoose Publishing allows to take the Craft Wondrous Item
at first level (not for free, you have to spend a feat to get it, only
you may take it at first level despite the normal restriction) and only
a 10% discount for not having the Scribe Scroll feat for free (which is
only a restriction for wizards) and for having to spend at least 1 skill
poin in a craft pertinent to the productino of magical items.

>Elven Artisan - this feat is balanced and mimics the power of the Magical
>Artisan feat.. BUT, considering that magic items are supposed to be rare in
>BR, should we really include a feat that facilitates their construction?
>
No, or not with that discount ;-)

>Master Administrator - I feel this feat has the potential to be
>overpowered, but I`ll outline the reasons when I discuss skills.
>
As there are no longer Maintenance Costs for provinces and holdings on
which Administration could be used to save money, the use of this skill
is more limited than in 2E - what I do not like.
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]

From: "Michael Romes" <Archmage@T-ONLINE.DE>

> Arcane Sanctum is a very strong feat. A similar feat is "Sanctum spell"
> Metamagic feat from Tome&Blood - and this feat raises your effective
> spell level by one if cast in your sanctum (which is only 10 foot/level)
> but if not cast in the sanctum you have -1 spelllevel!
>

While it is true that Arcane Sanctum is more powerful than Sanctum Spell,
the later is so weak as to be pointless. Nobody would EVER take the Sanctum
Spell feat. Even if it was free, it would still only be used very rarely.
And the penalty only applies if you actually add the metamagic to a spell,
which is optional. Wizards could get caught with spells prepared as Sanctum
Spells while out of their sanctums, but spontaneous casters would never be.

On the subject of Arcane Sanctum, I actualy feel that this could be a rule
that is always effective when you are near a source you control, with no
need for a feat. After all, fighters can get combat benefits from their
castles.

/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.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lord Shade" <lordshade@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2003 2:13 AM


> Battle Caster - good feat. The skill requirement should be removed - feats
> never have skill requirements.

Don`t forget the Mounted Combat feat requires the Ride skill. Its not
unprecidented. Skill Focus implies access to a skill. Could a fighter take
Skill Focus in a cross-class skill like Hide? If not, then at least having
a class skill is required for Skill Focus.

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.

[Ariadne]

I like the feat descriptions in the 3rd Edition version. Some comments:

IMO "shadow magic" should be restricted for Khinasi (because of the five oaths). They would rather hunt down a spellcaster who cooperates with the shadow world and casts necromancy spells. The feat in general is good, I think.

Battle caster is a crying eye: This would mean every spellcaster who likes to help in a battle must take the feat...

Shadow walker, Shadow guide: Lowering Halflings this way isn't this good, I think. I would rather say they are a target for +1 ECL, but should keep their advantages...

[irdeggman]

Part of the reason for the battle magic feat was to have something reflective of avoiding friendly fire damage with a spell on the battlefield. A spellcaster with this feat cannot cause friendly fire damage, the way the 2nd ed rules worked a fireball cast in battle would by necessity (and range effects) cause damage to allied forces. The reason for simplifing the effects of battle magic was to eliminate many the problems caused by the BoM and how to ejudicate what spells can be used effectively in a battle situation.

[DanMcSorley]

On Sun, 9 Feb 2003, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> Could a fighter take Skill Focus in a cross-class skill like Hide?

Yes.
--
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 Sun, 9 Feb 2003, Stephen Starfox wrote:

> On the subject of Arcane Sanctum, I actualy feel that this could be a
> rule that is always effective when you are near a source you control,
> with no need for a feat. After all, fighters can get combat benefits
> from their castles.

I agree completely. In fact, I`d make the bonus bigger as source levels
got bigger; say an additional +1 DC for every source level. If that seems
too much (it doesn`t to me), make it an additional +1 DC for every two
levels above the first (i.e. 1-2 = +1, 2-3 = +2, 4-5 = +3, etc.).

IMC, I give an extra effective *caster level* for every source level, and
apply the benefit throughout the entire province. I think regent wizards
on their own terrain ought to be that much more powerful; it also tends to
keep them in their own lands, since outside they become so much less
powerful than they`re used to, and become relatively easy prey for
whatever wizard does own the local sources. For example, in Conalier the
Sword Mage is pretty much invulnerable to Harald Khorien (levels 10+3=13
vs. 4), but in Seamist it`s an almost even fight (levels 10 vs. 4+6=10).
I extend this to spells per day as well as effect per spell, so I allow
Khorien to research and cast 5th level spells -- but only if he`s in one
of the three provinces where he has a source 6. Outside the seat of his
power, he just can`t access them anymore.

I apply the same benefit to regent priests, with temple level substituted
for source level. Surrounded by their loyal flock, they are much more
powerful than when among strangers or enemies; and they can perform much
more impressive miracles when a throng of the faithful are in attendance.


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.

[DanMcSorley]

On Sun, 9 Feb 2003, Ariadne wrote:
> IMO "shadow magic" should be restricted for Khinasi (because of the
> five oaths). They would rather hunt down a spellcaster who cooperates
> with the shadow world and casts necromancy spells. The feat in general
> is good, I think.

It shouldn`t be restricted by culture, because that would prevent there
being rogue Khinasi wizards who worked with shadow. The five oaths are a
roleplaying thing, and if a Khinasi wanted to take this feat and then try
to avoid the 5 oath nazis, I`d certainly let him.
--
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.

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by DanMcSorley

It shouldn`t be restricted by culture, because that would prevent there being rogue Khinasi wizards who worked with shadow. The five oaths are a roleplaying thing, and if a Khinasi wanted to take this feat and then try to avoid the 5 oath nazis, I`d certainly let him.
Maybe, but he should be automaticaly marked as a renegate, if the Khinasi wizard takes it. So it should be somehow restricted...

[Mark_Aurel]

Maybe, but he should be automaticaly marked as a renegate, if the Khinasi wizard takes it. So it should be somehow restricted...

That's actually a perfect example of a role-playing restriction, and is up to the individual DM's campaign. I think a renegade Khinasi wizard and his conflict with other Khinasi wizards would make for an interesting campaign angle. However, I think that making a note of this in a section on game mechanics would be going too far - I'm sure there are other feats and even skills and spells that would warrant similar commentary or restrictions; this would be quite beyond the scope of this work, and place unnecessary restrictions on characters. I also think that absolutely, utterly, under no circumstances, should a game mechanical benefit be balanced by a role-playing disadvantage. That can be done in individual campaigns, but to base a rules set on it, is a recipe for abuse.

[DanMcSorley]

On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Ariadne wrote:
> Maybe, but he should be automaticaly marked as a renegate, if the
> Khinasi wizard takes it. So it should be somehow restricted...

No. That`s a roleplaying thing. And there`s no such thing as
`automatically marked`, the 5 oath police would have to find out he`d been
experimenting with the shadow world before there would be any action at
all. Leave the cultural nonsense out of the feat.
--
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 Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Ariadne wrote:
> Maybe, but he should be automaticaly marked as a renegate, if the
> Khinasi wizard takes it. So it should be somehow restricted...

No. That`s a roleplaying thing. And there`s no such thing as
`automatically marked`, the 5 oath police would have to find out he`d been
experimenting with the shadow world before there would be any action at
all. Leave the cultural nonsense out of the feat.
--
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]

>>Using these guidelines, here are my thoughts on the BRCS feats:
>>Arcane Sanctum - this is really freaking cool :) The wording needs to be a
>>bit more clear. I`d actually up this in power a bit, making the +1 DC work
>>in an entire province rather than a number of miles based on source level.
>>In any case it is still far weaker than Spellcasting Prodigy, but still a
>>good feat. I`d also change the requirement from Bld 13+ to "must control a
>>source (1) in the province where the sanctum is located" or somesuch.
>>
>Arcane Sanctum is a very strong feat. A similar feat is "Sanctum spell"
>Metamagic feat from Tome&Blood - and this feat raises your effective
>spell level by one if cast in your sanctum (which is only 10 foot/level)
>but if not cast in the sanctum you have -1 spelllevel!
>
>Arcane Sanctum only gives the bonus without the penalty, and the
>"Sanctum" is much larger as it is in miles, not feet.

The problem here is that WOTC`s own feats aren`t balanced relative to each
other. In a case like this, we have to make a judgment call using our own
common sense.

Granted, Arcane Sanctum is way stronger than Sanctum Spell, but Sanctum
Spell downright sucks. It`s one of the worst feats in the game. Try
comparing Arcane Sanctum to Spellcasting Prodigy - the latter increases the
DCs of ALL your spells by 1, whereas Arcane Sanctum only does it in a
limited area. Now which feat is underpowered?

My hunch is that Arcane Sanctum is probably ok, because it lies somewhere
in the middle ground. Spellcasting Prodigy is generally considered too
strong, whereas Sanctum Spell is too weak. Arcane Sanctum falls somewhere
in the middle - if you consider Spellcasting Prodigy and Sanctum Spell to
be the extremes of what should be allowed, then Arcane Sanctum is
definitely balanced.

>>Battle Caster - good feat. The skill requirement should be removed - feats
>>never have skill requirements.
>>
>In my opinion it is too restrictive.
>1) To cast Battle Spells you have to have a military unit that has
>special training which restricts the use of Battle Magic or else you can
>do nothing with that feat.
>2) Batle Magic is not nearly as devastating as the 2E Books of Magecraft
>and Priestcraft made it, not even as the standard spells (Fireball,
>Lightnign Bolt) as described on the warcards.
>3) Caster Level 5+ would prevent regents like Rogr Aglondier (Illien) or
>Harald Khorien (Taeghas) to be able to go on the battlefield as battle
>casters.
>4) The addition of the Warcraft skill which is a cross-class skill for
>all casters as requirement (Cleric, Sorceror, Wizard) makes no sense in
>my opinion - if a wizard knows to cast a Fireball and that it has a
>certain range and can affect a certain area, then why should he know
>military matters to cast it?. The USE of the Warcraft skill for a skill
>check to see how good the effect of the spell is is even stranger in my
>opinion - if you want Battle Magic to be difficult and sometimes not to
>work, then require a Spellcraft check.

I don`t really know how to balance battle magic. I agree that the skill
level requirement should be taken out - as many pointed out, the Mounted
Combat feat requires Ride ranks, but feats that require skill ranks are the
exception rather than the norm.

The core 3e rules only have 1 feat that requires skill ranks, why does
every other feat in the BRCS doc require skill ranks?

As for battle magic, I didn`t get the Book of Magecraft until I stopped
playing so I know very little about its use in the game. I always thought
it was way overpowered - my understanding is that a level 1 magician could
use rain of magic missiles and start wiping out enemy units. That seems too
strong to me.

>>Dwarven Artisan - this is really shady. wtf is a superior masterwork item?
>>As far as I know `superior masterwork items` are not mentioned in the DMG
>>and are not intrinsic to the flavor of Birthright. I think this feat should
>>be removed entirely.
>>
>I do not concur here. Dwarves are certainly masters of stoneworking,
>just like elves are of woodworking.
>Masterwork Items are certainly found more often in a world where magic
>items or equipment is rarer.
>
>To have Artisans of Dwarves or Elves BOTH produce non-magic superior
>masterwork items sounds good.
>Elven Mandolins or flutes would be highly praised, Dwarven Masons -->
>remember the fortress in Binsada? would be highly sought...

I have no problem with masterwork items. I have a problem with Superior
Masterwork Items, which is a mechanic we`ve invented out of thin air that
has no basis either in the core 3e rules or the original 2e BR setting.

How about we do this? Keep the Dwarven Artisan feat, but say that it lets
you create some exotic weapons like Mercurial Greatswords. The Merc GS is
too weird for the human cultures to use, but it kind of makes sense that
certain dwarven smiths might, thanks to advanced knowledge of metallurgy,
know how to construct one.

Another option is to change the feat to Moraksorr Artisan and allow
characters with this feat to forge items made out of that rare metal, which
would otherwise be impossible. Such items would effectively be `superior
masterwork items` (although I think that terminology should be avoided
because of munchkin overtones.. "Yeah, I get the extra +6 because it is a
Superior Enhancement Bonus, which stacks with a Normal Enhancement Bonus").

>The Feat Elven Artisan which allows the production of magic items at a
>discount of 25% is too strong.
>The "Arcane Craftsman" character concept from the "Quintessential
>Wizard" from Mongoose Publishing allows to take the Craft Wondrous Item
>at first level (not for free, you have to spend a feat to get it, only
>you may take it at first level despite the normal restriction) and only
>a 10% discount for not having the Scribe Scroll feat for free (which is
>only a restriction for wizards) and for having to spend at least 1 skill
>poin in a craft pertinent to the productino of magical items.

Hmm. Discounting 3rd party stuff for the moment, I compared Elven Artisan
to the feat Magical Artisan from FRCS, which gives a 25% discount on a
specific item creation feat.

Regardless of the numbers, I think this feat should be excluded from BR in
order to preserve the rare-magic feel of 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.

[Shade]

>Some clarifications and thought process explanations;
>
>
Battle Caster - good feat. The skill requirement should be removed
- feats
>never have skill requirements.
>
>
>Mounted Combat. Other feats expand upon what is possible to do with a
skill; Track - Wilderness Lore, for instance.

Hmm, I forgot about Mounted Combat.. but my basic point remains unchanged.
Using skill requirements for feats is the exception rather than the rule.
Is mounted combat the only feat that has a REQUIREMENT of a skill in order
for you to get it? That`s probably like less than 1% of all the feats WOTC
has published. What percentage of the feats we put in the BRCS have skill
requirements?


>Black Strike has some prerequisites that makes it more of an end-chain
feat than a starting feat. The feat`s benefit is primarily comparable to
the benefit of a large shield; +2 to AC. I`ve actually wondered if this
feat was weak, myself.

Blackstrike has 2 prereq feats and OHP has 2 prereq feats. I agree that OHP
is probably weak.. but at the same time, I have a problem with making a
feat that EXACTLY duplicates what another feat does, AND gives some
additional bonuses. It`s fine if you want to make Blackstrike stronger in
practice than OHP, but at least make it different in some way.

>
Erudition - this feat is clearly overpowered as it makes Education
>obsolete. Make it identical to Education to balance it. (I guess we cannot
>reprint Education because of OGL concerns.)
>
>Does it really? It grants less immediate benefit; what it does is reward
characters who spend more feats on skill focus (knowledge: whatever).
Education, on the other hand, grants +1 to two knowledge skills by itself.

Hmm, that`s true. Leave Erudition as is, then :)

>
Great Leader - I don`t know what gets a synergy bonus to Lead, but
my hunch
>is that this feat is slightly overpowered.
>
>The reference to a synergy bonus is an error; what it does is grant a +2
bonus to Lead and domain actions keyed to that skill - primarily Agitate.

I think I really need to read the section on domain rules before I keep
commenting on this sort of stuff, since I have no idea what you`re talking
about. :)

>
Hardiness - this feat is REALLY shady. Anything that flat out
doubles the
>effect of something else is just waiting to be abused.
>
>This addresses one point of the design process here - the feats in the
BRCS were designed considering core feats primarily, not feats from
splatbooks and independent d20 publishers (it`d be nuts to try and survey
all of that).

Hehe, that`s what the rest of us on the listserv are for :) This is a first
draft; of course it won`t be perfect.

>Anyway, the original benefit of this feat was different: It granted double
the constitution bonus to hit points at first level, and +1 bonus hit point
every time each of the other mentioned feats was taken.

I very strongly suggest that the feat be returned to the original benefit.
The original is almost exactly balanced vs the FR feat Mind over Body,
which is a really cool feat IMO (even though it`s not particularly useful).

Trust me, you want to avoid flat-out doubling at any cost. It is just ripe
for abuse.

>
Master Merchant - This feat is slightly overpowered, as it is equal
to a
>standard feat (+2 to 2 skills) but gives an additional benefit at the
>domain level of play. Possibly reduce the skill bonuses to +1.
>
>This, and the other "master" feats, as well as the "great leader" feat
were intended to support the domain level of play; note that this
particular feat has more stringent prerequisites than the others.

I need to read the domain rules. :o

>
Regent Focus - This feat could potentially be really strong. Think
about if
>you used Regent Focus (contest). This could have the effect of saving you
>dozens of RP every season.. regardless of whether this feat makes it into
>the final document, I know I would not allow it in my campaign as I feel it
>gives too much of an advantage, and almost becomes a must-have feat.
>
>
>This feat was balanced with its limited versatility in mind - if you spend
every action contesting, that`s 12 RP saved per season - I guess it really
depends on how common contest actions are in your campaign; you`d also
need to consider the change in the contest action itself, I think, to get
the full picture on that. The feat was originally part of a pyramid as
well; statesmanship - master a/d/m - regent focus. Also note that this feat
is very depedent on your campaign. In a PBEM-style environment, where
domain-level interaction is 99% of the game, it is certainly too strong.
The feat, however, is balanced for a normal campaign, with a distribution
between adventure and domain-level play.

I dunno.. I don`t really support any feat that lets you economize on RPs or
GB. To me the value of 1 RP far exceeds the value of a +1 to hit, for
example. YMMV, though.. but I`d like to see this playtested extensively
before it`s included.

>
Shadow Magic - Nice concept, but the feat is slightly overpowered.
+1 DC
>for Illusion and Necromancy would be balanced, but the extra +2 to Illusion
>(Shadow) is too much.
>
>I`m not quite sure - spell focus provides a larger bonus in a single
area; even though this feat totals up to more than spell focus does, I`m
not quite sure it`s stronger - i.e. consider skill emphasis (+3) vs
alertness (+2/+2). Actually a bad example, but I don`t really think this
feat would make it to a must-have list - I`d put it on a "strong feats"
list, but it doesn`t supplant existing feats. I`d use the excuse of "not
all feats are perfectly equal" and mutter something about skill focus, but
I`ll definitely keep what you`ve said in mind.

That`s certainly one way to look at it. However, in this case it`s very
easy to see if the feat is balanced or not, and it`s clear that it isn`t.
When we have a clear-cut case in front of us, why not take the easy way out?

I agree with you that the feat doesn`t make it to a must-have list, but at
the same time, there`s almost no reason to take Spell Focus: Illusion when
you can take Shadow Magic.

Shadow Magic (even a toned down version with +1 to Ill/Nec) is dangerous by
itself, because there`s nothing to say it doesn`t stack with SF: Ill/Nec or
GSF: Ill/Nec. To me adding an additional +2, even to a very limited
selection of spells, is very dangerous as it allows you to amass a +7 DC
with feats alone. I`d rather that +7 cost 4 feats as opposed to 3.

************************************************** **************************
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:

>The problem here is that WOTC`s own feats aren`t balanced relative to each
>other. In a case like this, we have to make a judgment call using our own
>common sense.
>Granted, Arcane Sanctum is way stronger than Sanctum Spell, but Sanctum
>Spell downright sucks. It`s one of the worst feats in the game. Try
>comparing Arcane Sanctum to Spellcasting Prodigy - the latter increases the
>DCs of ALL your spells by 1, whereas Arcane Sanctum only does it in a
>limited area. Now which feat is underpowered?
>
I do not own the book in which Spellcasting Prodigy is described - which
book is it an had this feat perhaps restrictions that Sanctum Spell had not?

>>In my opinion it is too restrictive.
>>1) To cast Battle Spells you have to have a military unit that has
>>special training which restricts the use of Battle Magic or else you can
>>do nothing with that feat.
>>2) Batle Magic is not nearly as devastating as the 2E Books of Magecraft
>>and Priestcraft made it, not even as the standard spells (Fireball,
>>Lightnign Bolt) as described on the warcards.
>>3) Caster Level 5+ would prevent regents like Rogr Aglondier (Illien) or
>>Harald Khorien (Taeghas) to be able to go on the battlefield as battle
>>casters.
>>4) The addition of the Warcraft skill which is a cross-class skill for
>>all casters as requirement (Cleric, Sorceror, Wizard) makes no sense in
>>my opinion - if a wizard knows to cast a Fireball and that it has a
>>certain range and can affect a certain area, then why should he know
>>military matters to cast it?. The USE of the Warcraft skill for a skill
>>check to see how good the effect of the spell is is even stranger in my
>>opinion - if you want Battle Magic to be difficult and sometimes not to
>>work, then require a Spellcraft check.
>>
>As for battle magic, I didn`t get the Book of Magecraft until I stopped
>playing so I know very little about its use in the game. I always thought
>it was way overpowered - my understanding is that a level 1 magician could
>use rain of magic missiles and start wiping out enemy units. That seems too
>strong to me.
>
A level 1 Magician in 3E could without INT modifier memorize 2 level 1
spells and so 2 "Rain of Magic Missililes".
However Magic Missile and it´s battle magic counterparts power are very
dependant on character level. A 1st level character gets only 1 Missile
and the second at 3rd caster level (3E).

The battle Magic version (2E Book of Magecraft) was even more limited as
it gave the caster only 1missile for 6 levels.

So a 1-5th level caster could do 1 H result to 1 unit. A 6th level
caster 2 H results to one unit or 1 H to two units - firing this spell
into a melee had the chance of friendly fire hitting the casters friends.

I do not find that overpowering. An arcane caster inflicting 1 H result
to an enemy in a whole battle which could take several turns with large
armys? He could only wipe out e.g. scouts as they only can take 1 H and
are gone. Most others will stay alive and keep fighting.

>Another option is to change the feat to Moraksorr Artisan and allow
>characters with this feat to forge items made out of that rare metal, which
>would otherwise be impossible. Such items would effectively be `superior
>masterwork items` (although I think that terminology should be avoided
>because of munchkin overtones.. "Yeah, I get the extra +6 because it is a
>Superior Enhancement Bonus, which stacks with a Normal Enhancement Bonus").
>
Sounds good. Mithril and Mordaskorr for Elven/Dwarven artisans and
perhaps a better chance to create the Masterwork Item.

>>The Feat Elven Artisan which allows the production of magic items at a
>>discount of 25% is too strong.
>>The "Arcane Craftsman" character concept from the "Quintessential
>>Wizard" from Mongoose Publishing allows to take the Craft Wondrous Item
>>at first level (not for free, you have to spend a feat to get it, only
>>you may take it at first level despite the normal restriction) and only
>>a 10% discount for not having the Scribe Scroll feat for free (which is
>>only a restriction for wizards) and for having to spend at least 1 skill
>>poin in a craft pertinent to the productino of magical items.
>>
>
>Hmm. Discounting 3rd party stuff for the moment, I compared Elven Artisan
>to the feat Magical Artisan from FRCS, which gives a 25% discount on a
>specific item creation feat.
>
There are no forgotten realms ;-)
(however if you want to use this for a comparison, then it should be
clear that 25% are only worth discussing in a world where magic is not rare)

>Regardless of the numbers, I think this feat should be excluded from BR in
>order to preserve the rare-magic feel of the setting.
>
Right! Elves can certainly can create wonderful items
(Masterwork/Mithril) and a feat for that matching a dwarven
(Masterwork/Mordaskorr) artisan would be fine, IMO.
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 Rahvin]

> Regardless of the numbers, I think this feat should be excluded from BR in
> order to preserve the rare-magic feel of the setting.

Personally, I think any feats that help to specialize spellcasters adds to
the flavor of a low-magic setting. Birthright isn`t really "low-magic",
it`s just that magic is rare. Because magic is still powerful, and indeed
even far more advanced than some other settings (blood abilities, "blooded
items", battle magic, realm magic), I think it would help the flavor a lot
of each wizard/caster was different and highly specialized. Thus, adding
any feats that further specialize a wizard really adds to the idea that
magical power is individual, rather than based on the idea of a community of
magic-users passing on their secrets through academies and such.

Though not really based out of 2e material, having a lot of "arcane feats"
would, I believe, really add to the flavor of this kind of powerful/rare
magic feel and also would give a basis for wizards of different geographic
areas to be dramatically different from each other.

There`s a lot of mention of court mages, a swamp mage, etc. in the books,
and it would be nice if there were actually specializations which warranted
these titles.

As a side effect of this philosophy, I don`t think I`m going to allow
non-specialized wizards in my BR campaigns, just as it doesn`t have
non-specialized clerics.

-Lord Rahvin

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

Michael Romes wrote:

>I do not own the book in which Spellcasting Prodigy is described -
which
>book is it an had this feat perhaps restrictions that Sanctum Spell had
not?

Make a wild guess...and yes, it IS the FRCS...

The only catch is that you must take the feat at 1st lvl (why you would
not do that is beyond me). It ups your primary spellcasting ab by 2;
giving your spells +1 DC and a bonus spell slot.

This might easily give the munchkin human enchanter +2 1st lvl bonus
spells at caster lvl 1. That is four spells in all, a mix of charm
person, hypnotism, and sleep. DC (with spell focus) is 18 for those 1st
lvl spells. Not bad at all...

Such notables as Halaster and the Simbul have it (but not Elminster or
the Blackstaff guy). Question is; can your spellcaster afford to be
without it?

Oh no, I really DO belong with the FRCS not the BRCS...

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

Overall, I think most feats are well thought out and balanced. However, there are a few that made me scratch my head.

Regional arms training - why count it as weapon focus? Let it stand on its own, its four feats in one, people will take it. If not, I assure you my NPCs will.

Elven Artisan: Why would you want to encourage making magical items in a low-magic world? Even for elves? Make the items stronger, better, faster - sure, to represent the wonderful elven mastery of magic. But cheaper?
On that count, as it is presented BR isn't a low-magic campaign. More support is needed if the book is to allow it to be run as such "from the box". Right now, I'm thinking of all those clerics, forging holy weapons for their holy wars...
How about demanding one-feat-per-item for creating major items? For example, learning how to craft a particular sword (say, a +1 flame-strike sword) will require one Craft Arms and Armor feat. Learning how to craft a plain old +1 sword will require another such feat. And so on.
Just a random thought. Stream of consciousness here.

Regent Focus: a +4 to contest checks?! I never played the diplomacy turns, so I can't really criticize intelligently, but this seems a little overboard...

Shadow Walker: this is a good feat, but the name is the same as [i]the shadow walk[i/] spell. I recommend combining the two for best effect... both are cool.

That's all for now.
Have a good time now...

[Shade]

>A level 1 Magician in 3E could without INT modifier memorize 2 level 1
>spells and so 2 "Rain of Magic Missililes".
>However Magic Missile and it´s battle magic counterparts power are very
>dependant on character level. A 1st level character gets only 1 Missile
>and the second at 3rd caster level (3E).
>
>The battle Magic version (2E Book of Magecraft) was even more limited as
>it gave the caster only 1missile for 6 levels.
>
>So a 1-5th level caster could do 1 H result to 1 unit. A 6th level
>caster 2 H results to one unit or 1 H to two units - firing this spell
>into a melee had the chance of friendly fire hitting the casters friends.
>
>I do not find that overpowering. An arcane caster inflicting 1 H result
>to an enemy in a whole battle which could take several turns with large
>armys? He could only wipe out e.g. scouts as they only can take 1 H and
>are gone. Most others will stay alive and keep fighting.

...

You don`t think the fact that a single 1st level, landless, sourceless,
unblooded MAGICIAN can wipe out a unit of 200 scouts with 1 spell is
overpowering?

If battle magic is THIS strong, I don`t understand how elves ever lose
battles...

Michael I think you and I have agreed on just about everything thus far,
but this seems mind-boggling to me.

For the record, I am not proposing a drastic rules change for battle magic
for the BR conversion. I think we should convert it as accurately as
possible, and people that have a huge problem with it (like me) can
houserule it for our own games.

I also think this is how we should handle the myriad of issues people have
pet peeves with, such as Rogues and disarm Magic Trap/Decipher Script and
the like.

************************************************** **************************
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 12:34 PM 2/13/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>> Regardless of the numbers, I think this feat should be excluded from BR in
>> order to preserve the rare-magic feel of the setting.
>
>Personally, I think any feats that help to specialize spellcasters adds to
>the flavor of a low-magic setting. Birthright isn`t really "low-magic",
>it`s just that magic is rare. Because magic is still powerful, and indeed
>even far more advanced than some other settings (blood abilities, "blooded
>items", battle magic, realm magic), I think it would help the flavor a lot
>of each wizard/caster was different and highly specialized. Thus, adding
>any feats that further specialize a wizard really adds to the idea that
>magical power is individual, rather than based on the idea of a community of
>magic-users passing on their secrets through academies and such.
>
>Though not really based out of 2e material, having a lot of "arcane feats"
>would, I believe, really add to the flavor of this kind of powerful/rare
>magic feel and also would give a basis for wizards of different geographic
>areas to be dramatically different from each other.
>
>There`s a lot of mention of court mages, a swamp mage, etc. in the books,
>and it would be nice if there were actually specializations which warranted
>these titles.

I agree wholeheartedly. I really would like to see more "unique" and
"flavorful" magic-related feats that were also well-balanced.

Another option for this is the use of PrCs.

************************************************** **************************
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:

>>A level 1 Magician in 3E could without INT modifier memorize 2 level 1
>>spells and so 2 "Rain of Magic Missililes".
>>However Magic Missile and it´s battle magic counterparts power are very
>>dependant on character level. A 1st level character gets only 1 Missile
>>and the second at 3rd caster level (3E).
>>
>>The battle Magic version (2E Book of Magecraft) was even more limited as
>>it gave the caster only 1missile for 6 levels.
>>
>>So a 1-5th level caster could do 1 H result to 1 unit. A 6th level
>>caster 2 H results to one unit or 1 H to two units - firing this spell
>>into a melee had the chance of friendly fire hitting the casters friends.
>>
>>I do not find that overpowering. An arcane caster inflicting 1 H result
>>to an enemy in a whole battle which could take several turns with large
>>armys? He could only wipe out e.g. scouts as they only can take 1 H and
>>are gone. Most others will stay alive and keep fighting.
>>
>
>...
>
>You don`t think the fact that a single 1st level, landless, sourceless,
>unblooded MAGICIAN can wipe out a unit of 200 scouts with 1 spell is
>overpowering?
>
Are 200 scouts in a unit, weak as they are? Even if so I do not think
that arcane magic is too strong.
Arcane Magic always was the destructive force as opposed to the divine
healing magic (generally speaking).

However that level 1 Magician would not simply walk on the battlefield
and destroy a unit of scouts.
There are prerequisites before that:

1) The Magician has to know the conventional spell Magic Missile (not
that hard but still requrires a successful spellcraft3E check if it is
not one of the spells he started with)
2) The Magician must spend a RESEARCH action to research the battle
magic version of the spell
2E Book of Magecraft had 1 month per 3 levels, so at least 1 month
research for the minimum of time. However the research check in 2E was
that you succeed to learn the spell ONLY on a roll of a D20 on a 20 =
only 5% chance!!!
The chances could be improved by caster level (for every 3 caster levels
reduce the required result by 1 (a level 1 Magician still has to throw a
20).
The caster could reduce the required roll by 1 if he was a specialist
from the school of the spell - however Magicians are specialists in
Illusion and Divination and Magic Missisle was Evocation, so still no
help for the 1st level Magician
The caster could reduce the required roll by spending RP and/or GB - the
Magician in your example, landless, sourceless has certainly neither.
The caster could reduce the required roll for each time he tried before
to learn the spell (and failed).

That is awfully difficult and time-consuming for a Magician who tries to
research a battlespell not from the Illusion/Divination school.

In addition the memorized battle spell took up one spell slot of the
Magician so that he can cast less conventional magic - rendering him
nearly defenceless.

>If battle magic is THIS strong, I don`t understand how elves ever lose
>battles...
>
They have no Magicians, as they are all able to become 2E Wizards (no
bloodline requirement for sidhelien).
They lost due to several factors: Numbers - humans breed nearly as fast
as humanoids. Divine Magic - when the old gods were still alive, they
actively took part in the war against the elves, which is impossible
today as the new gods took an oath to not intervene in wordly affairs in
physical form.
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]

In 3E, almost all luck has been eliminated from spell research. The
Spellcraft DC for researching a new spel is 10 + spell level. The cost in
time and gp is still high, but very little luck is involved.

I like this. Adding randomnes adds no balance unless you do a whole lot of
dice rolls.

A 5 chance per very expensive research action is not randomness - it`s blind
luck. And I genenerally dislike rules that reward blind luck.

/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.

[ConjurerDragon]

Stephen Starfox wrote:

>In 3E, almost all luck has been eliminated from spell research. The
>Spellcraft DC for researching a new spel is 10 + spell level. The cost in
>time and gp is still high, but very little luck is involved.
>
>I like this. Adding randomnes adds no balance unless you do a whole lot of
>dice rolls.
>
>A 5 chance per very expensive research action is not randomness - it`s blind
>luck. And I genenerally dislike rules that reward blind luck.
>/Carl
>
The 2E rule to research Battle Spells wanted to make it take long and be
difficult - that is important, else there would be to much spellcasters
doing it.

It rewarded patience in that the chance raised by 1 for every time you
failed (you learned from the experience even when not being successful).
That is not blind luck. After 19 action rounds or month a 1st level
Magician with enough money could have researched a 1st level battle
spell with 95% accuracy (1 always failed in 2E as far as I remember).
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.

[Athos69]

Regarding Superior Masterwork items:

The concept was not invented out of whole cloth by the BRCS team -- Ther is a very similar version in teh Arcanis campaign setting.

[Shade]

At 07:15 PM 2/25/2003 +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=1310
>
> Athos69 wrote:
> Regarding Superior Masterwork items:
>
>The concept was not invented out of whole cloth by the BRCS team -- Ther
is a very similar version in teh Arcanis campaign setting.

Is Arcanis WOTC?

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

[Eosin the Red]

No, but WoT is and it also uses a similar item called the Masterpiece
Weapon--- It provides a +2 instead of the standard +1 to hit (no increase in
damage).

> Is Arcanis WOTC?

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

[Athos69]

Arcanis is not WOTC, but it is a D20 campaign world.

Superior Masterwork in Arcanis grants +1 to damage (which will not stack wiht magical enhancements) for weapons and an additional -1 to armour check penalties.

-Mike