Nature school for elven wizards [Archive]

Mark_Aurel

05-14-2003, 09:15 PM

This is actually sort of an interesting topic. I've been tinkering with some house rules the last few weeks, trying to see if I could tweak the 3e spell system slightly, without going off the deep end too much.

Anyway, one of the ideas that entered my pot came from one of the previews that Monte Cook put up on his site of his upcoming book Arcana Unearthed.

He basically sorts spells in three categories - common or simple spells, I forget what the middle category is supposed to be called and am too lazy to look it up, so let's call it "arcane" spells for lack of a better term, and exotic spells. Basically, the spell categories correspond to weapon categories, and a bit more. The simple spells are spells that are pretty much common to all spellcasters - stuff like detect magic, dispel magic, and a lot of simple generic effects. The second category is supposed to be a bit more powerful, with more interesting effects thrown in. The final category of exotic spells contains the most rare and powerful spells - stuff that only a few of the greatest spellcasters can swing - or a spellcaster's signature spell or spells.

Now, the way I swung this idea was to have spells sorted in basically the same three categories. A full list of simple spells, a lot of smaller, themed lists for the arcane spells, and all exotic spells are learned individually. Spellcasters begin with basic access to simple spells, and also gain some access to various arcane spell lists. Wizards more than anyone else, of course. What this does is basically make spellcasters much more themed and less all-purpose swiss army knives.

For instance, one wizard might learn fire magic, earth magic and anvil magic, and also know the exotic haste spell. He can learn spells from those lists. Another might learn seeing magic, earth magic, and wind magic, and also know the exotic gaseous form spell.

I'm trying to put some finishing touches on this system and see if I like it - the idea is specifically to accomodate themed spellcasters without taking away too much of what makes a D&D wizard a wizard. Oh, and changing out his familiar for a staff instead. "I told you to take the wizard's staff!"

All that aside, I haven't seen that much wiggle room in the 3e rules for adding "schools" - if you do, it creates a helluva headache, because you'll have to change a lot of other material in the process.

What room there is in 3e for the Elven "nature-oriented wizard" would be:
-Play a wizard or sorcerer and pick the appropriate spells, or develop your own.
-Play a druid and call yourself a wizard.
-Make up a prestige class that allows wizards and sorcerers to access druid spells or just gives nature-related abilities.
-Just modify the wizard's spell list, mix in druid spells, and create a unique Elven spell list.
-Just do what every self-respecting elf does. Frolic naked and pretend to be in tune with nature. Hmmm. Might be a different campaign world.
-Make up feats that allow Elven wizards and sorcerers to use access some standby druid abilities and spells.

That's about it, I think.

ryancaveney

05-14-2003, 11:03 PM

On Wed, 14 May 2003, irdeggman wrote:

> If a new arcane school is created than any wizard/sorcerer (even
> non-elves) would be able to learn spells from it. That`s how 2nd ed
> bards learned enchantment spells (from the elves). Opposition schools
> only come into play if a wizard is a specialist.

Yes, that`s a good point. To make this rigid, you`d need to add in as a
separate rule that certain class features are different for elven wizards
and non-elven wizards (specifically, only elves have access to the new
nature school, and only non-elves have access to necromancy?).

The less-intrusive way to handle it would be just to add the new school to
the wizard list, and say that these spells are common among elves but
almost unknown among non-elves only because no non-elf has bothered to
research them yet -- but yes, this means all wizards could figure out how
to cast them. I can see both pros and cons to this approach.

> It might be a better option to give elves a few spell-like abilities
> such as the ones you`ve listed. This would make them similar to drow,
> but would end up giving them an ECL in all probability.

The trouble with this is that "they`re good with plants and animals"
translates into a much longer list of spells than the drow get; you`d end
up having to do something like make a big menu from which each individual
elf could choose a few, at which point just changing the spell list might
be easier.

Actually, in some ways, this is the approach I`ve adopted -- I have
gradually come to see the Sidhelien druid class IMC as not something the
elves study or even choose to become, but rather just a Savage-Species-ish
implementation of the fact that Cerilian elves really are humanoid nature
elementals with potential access to a huge number of innate abilities...
some days, I think *every* elf IMC should have a few druid levels.

> Necromany spells are already "shunned" by the elves and they disdain
> evocation ones.

Yeah, but they are *prohibited* from casting some of the very spells to
which they have the thematically strongest connection. That seems wrong.

> I would have to question the necessity of having to do this. It seems
> to fit but it isn`t an absolute necessity, as ryan states.

Let me amend that a little. I don`t think altering the wizard spell list
is the only way to fix the problem -- I could live with any of the ones
Mark Aurel suggested -- but I do think we need to give standard access to
all nature-themed spells to any elf who wants them.

> In 2nd ed, cerilian elves didn`t get these spells unless they were
> rangers.:)

I don`t think you need to require that they take a specific class to have
access to them, either. Having made a "generic elven nature spell" list,
I would add all those spells as standard options to elves who chose to be
bards, wizards, assassins, or even paladins if such creatures existed
(which they don`t, of course; but perhaps in other campaign worlds).

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

05-14-2003, 11:44 PM

On Wed, 14 May 2003, Mark_Aurel wrote:

> For instance, one wizard might learn fire magic, earth magic and anvil
> magic, and also know the exotic haste spell. He can learn spells from
> those lists. Another might learn seeing magic, earth magic, and wind
> magic, and also know the exotic gaseous form spell.

I like this idea. Of course, "anvil magic" makes me think only of Warner
Brothers` cartoons... Wile E. Coyote as a wizard who always fumbles his
spellcasting rolls and buys cursed spell components is a good image,
though. =)

> and changing out his familiar for a staff instead. "I told you to
> take the wizard`s staff!"

=) A campaign I played in several years ago had a variety of magic items
which I haven`t seen in D&D elsewhere, which in 3e rules could be
interpreted as adding metamagic feats to your castings. That is, not an
item that gives you a feat which you then use normally, but rather one
which adds the feat for you even without you having to cast it as a
higher-level spell. For example, the one my fighter-mage found
essentially added two effective caster levels for determining the damage
done by any lightning-based spell I cast.

> All that aside, I haven`t seen that much wiggle room in the 3e rules
> for adding "schools" - if you do, it creates a helluva headache,
> because you`ll have to change a lot of other material in the process.

One of the things I really liked about the 2e spell lists was that they
listed the wizard school to which each cleric spell belonged. I also
really liked religion-specific access to clerical spheres. The
re-genericization of clerics is perhaps my biggest annoyance in 3e.

> -Play a wizard or sorcerer and pick the appropriate spells, or develop
> your own.

Spell research is a fine answer. In fact, IMO, there isn`t a spell on any
class`s list which a wizard can`t eventually research.

> -Play a druid and call yourself a wizard.

A fine plan. The mechanics of the classes and what the characters call
themselves in the gameworld need bear no clear relation.

> -Make up a prestige class that allows wizards and sorcerers to access
> druid spells or just gives nature-related abilities.

Interesting; my only quibble is that I think elves should have easier
access to nature magic than other kinds, and from first level. In fact,
if I were to proceed along these lines, I might make elves start with only
nature spells and require a prestige class for access to evocations. =)

> -Just modify the wizard`s spell list, mix in druid spells, and create
> a unique Elven spell list.

That`s pretty much what Elrond`s after, I think.

> -Just do what every self-respecting elf does. Frolic naked and pretend
> to be in tune with nature. Hmmm. Might be a different campaign world.

*grin* But doesn`t that mean they`re druids after all? As the song
(the filk of "Gimme that Old Time Religion") goes,

We will worship like the Druids,
Drinking strange fermented fluids,
Running naked through the woo-ids,
And that`s good enough for me!

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

05-15-2003, 11:36 AM

Elrond 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=1651
>
> Elrond wrote:
> Elves cannot be clerics or druids and shun the arcane school of necromancy. These are the rules of Birthright and I agree with them, but I find difficult to accept that no elf (other than a ranger) can cast (for example) a "pass without trace" or a "speak with animals". I believe a school of arcane spells that deals with nature should be created for elven arcane spellcasters.
>What do you think about it? Which should be the opposite schools and what spells should be included?
>
In the 2E Birthright Book all Sidhelien automatically "Pass without
Trace" in natural settings (p. 7) - why should they bother to learn that
spell to cast it on lesser creatures? And how could not being able to
cast this spell be a restriction if all of them can use it freely?
bye
Michael

************************************************** **************************
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

05-15-2003, 12:00 PM

Mark_Aurel 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=1651
>
> Mark_Aurel wrote:
>...
>What room there is in 3e for the Elven "nature-oriented wizard" would be:
>-Play a wizard or sorcerer and pick the appropriate spells, or develop your own.
>-Play a druid and call yourself a wizard.
>
That is quite good and the opposite example we already find: The Rjurik
Wizard who pretends to be a druid.
bye
Michael

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

Elrond

05-15-2003, 12:51 PM

What edition of D&D are you using?

Third edition, of course. I’m one of the few Italians (I’m sorry for my English) that know and appreciate Birthright (this campaign setting hasn’t been translated).

Just modify the wizard`s spell list, mix in druid spells, and create a unique Elven spell list.

That`s pretty much what Elrond`s after, I think.

Exactly.

If a new arcane school is created then any wizard/sorcerer (even non-elves) would be able to learn spells from it.

Yes, that`s a good point. To make this rigid, you`d need to add in as a separate rule that certain class features are different for elven wizards and non-elven wizards (specifically, only elves have access to the new nature school, and only non-elves have access to necromancy?).

The less-intrusive way to handle it would be just to add the new school to the wizard list, and say that these spells are common among elves but almost unknown among non-elves only because no non-elf has bothered to research them yet -- but yes, this means all wizards could figure out how
to cast them. I can see both pros and cons to this approach.

So let’s specify, in the description of elves and half-elves, that elven-blooded arcane spellcasters have free access to spells from the “nature school” (to be created) and let’s introduce a new general feat (for non elven wizards): “elven arcane lore”.

Elven Arcane Lore [General]

You have mastered the fundamentals of elven arcane lore.
Prerequisites: Non elven-blooded wizard, Skill Focus (Knowledge Arcana).
Benefits: Upon taking this feat the wizard gains access to the elven “nature school” and becomes a specialist. He must choose necromancy and either evocation or conjuration as opposite schools.
He can still use the prohibited spells he knew prior to taking this feat, including using items that are activated by spell completion or spell trigger.

My idea is that this kind of magic may only be learned (this excludes sorcerers) by non elven-blooded characters and specialisation should be necessary for them. To achieve this, they need to take the Elven Arcane Lore feat.
On the contrary, elven-blooded sorcerers and wizards are free to select spells from the new “nature school” and the latter may specialise in that school. They don’t need to take the feat because the new spells are natural to elven sorcerers and part of the arcane teachings of elven wizardry.

I think this is a good solution...

N.B: elven-blooded means elf or half-elf. It has nothing to do with blood abilities.

Mark_Aurel

05-15-2003, 02:27 PM

Ah, I think I need to clarify one of my earlier points.

The idea of a separate spell lists for Elven wizards is pretty easy to do and balance, I think. It just shouldn't be characterized as a "school" - schools are mainly supposed to gather up certain types of effects (with subschools and descriptors as subdividers). Unlike 2e, there's a lot of different spell lists in 3e - making a new spell list is no problem. I just don't think calling it a "school" is a good idea. I know this sounds pedantic, but it's much easier to communicate an idea if we keep our concepts clear.

Making it cost a feat should IMO only be necessary if you actually gain access to additional spells, instead of simply changing one spell list for another.

Other things to consider for an Elven "nature mage" might be things like his bonus feats - scribe scroll doesn't sound very appropriate by itself, though you could assume an alternate medium (i.e. "print spell on bark") or replace it with something else - the eschew materials feat sounds sort of appropriate. Perhaps his bonus feats can be selected from a somewhat wider or different list to further differentiate. Finally, the familiar is sort of appropriate, but I wouldn't consider it unreasonable to exchange it for something else of similar overall power, as long as it's appropriate. Gaining some additional nature- or wilderness-related abilities might work, as might alternate forms of familiars or benefits. There's a lot of cool potential material here; making a few minor adjustments to a class can give it an entirely different feel very easily.

Elrond

05-15-2003, 03:13 PM

The idea of a separate spell lists for Elven wizards is pretty easy to do and balance, I think. It just shouldn't be characterized as a "school" - schools are mainly supposed to gather up certain types of effects (with subschools and descriptors as subdividers). Unlike 2e, there's a lot of different spell lists in 3e - making a new spell list is no problem. I just don't think calling it a "school" is a good idea. I know this sounds pedantic, but it's much easier to communicate an idea if we keep our concepts clear.

I think it’s better to speak of a new school. In Spells&Magic (a second edition accessory) additional schools were created: alchemy, force, elemental... The spells included in those new schools were taken from the traditional ones. A distinction was made between schools of effect and of philosophy. The same can be done with the third edition. The “nature school” should include abjurations, conjurations, divinations and so on, dealing with nature.

Making it cost a feat should IMO only be necessary if you actually gain access to additional spells, instead of simply changing one spell list for another.

But you do. The spells included in the “nature school” can be taken only if you are Elf or Half-Elf. If you are not then you must take the feat in order to gain the new spells. I consider the new school as a racial knowledge that may be learned by non elves but at the cost of two talents (considering also the Skill Focus) and a specialisation.

irdeggman

05-15-2003, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by Elrond

The idea of a separate spell lists for Elven wizards is pretty easy to do and balance, I think. It just shouldn't be characterized as a "school" - schools are mainly supposed to gather up certain types of effects (with subschools and descriptors as subdividers). Unlike 2e, there's a lot of different spell lists in 3e - making a new spell list is no problem. I just don't think calling it a "school" is a good idea. I know this sounds pedantic, but it's much easier to communicate an idea if we keep our concepts clear.

I think it’s better to speak of a new school. In Spells&Magic (a second edition accessory) additional schools were created: alchemy, force, elemental... The spells included in those new schools were taken from the traditional ones. A distinction was made between schools of effect and of philosophy. The same can be done with the third edition. The “nature school” should include abjurations, conjurations, divinations and so on, dealing with nature.

I think what Mark_Aurel is referring to is an "elf spell list" which would be limited to characters of elven blood. This would be similar to the 3.5 racial weapons lists. A racial spell list would probably be the least intrusive way to handle this. Any spell (normally divine or arcane) can be added to a new spell list so it shouldn't much make a difference, also wizard/sorcerer spells could be added this list in addition to the nature/plant oriented divine ones.:)

irdeggman

05-15-2003, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by Elrond

Elven Arcane Lore [General]

You have mastered the fundamentals of elven arcane lore.
Prerequisites: Non elven-blooded wizard, Skill Focus (Knowledge Arcana).
Benefits: Upon taking this feat the wizard gains access to the elven “nature school” and becomes a specialist. He must choose necromancy and either evocation or conjuration as opposite schools.
He can still use the prohibited spells he knew prior to taking this feat, including using items that are activated by spell completion or spell trigger.

My idea is that this kind of magic may only be learned (this excludes sorcerers) by non elven-blooded characters and specialisation should be necessary for them. To achieve this, they need to take the Elven Arcane Lore feat.
On the contrary, elven-blooded sorcerers and wizards are free to select spells from the new “nature school” and the latter may specialise in that school. They don’t need to take the feat because the new spells are natural to elven sorcerers and part of the arcane teachings of elven wizardry.

By requiring a character with this feat to become a specialist wizard is pretty restrictive. Stating that he can use any spells/items from the oppositin listed that he knew before taking the feat is contrary to the way that specialist wizards work. Once an oppositin school always an opposition school - that is the point of being an opposition school. Also why require an opposition school when necraomancy is pretty much already a racial opposition school, hence no drawback to make up for the bonuses granted by specializing (an extra spell per day, better Spellcraft checks).:)

ConjurerDragon

05-15-2003, 03:46 PM

Mark_Aurel 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=1651
>
> Mark_Aurel wrote:
>
...

>Other things to consider for an Elven "nature mage" might be things like his bonus feats - scribe scroll doesn`t sound very appropriate by itself, though you could assume an alternate medium (i.e. "print spell on bark")
>
In the "Quintessential Wizard" from Mongoose publishing several examples
of alternate "scrolls" are given, e.g. rune stones (I think they sound
much like the stones the elven wizard in the Shadow Stone uses) or wood
slats.
bye
Michael

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

Elrond

05-15-2003, 05:17 PM

Why create a new school and not just implement the traditional ones? Because the new spells can easily belong to traditional schools for the elves but should constitute an entirely new school for non elven wizards. The latter ones must specialise in the elven arcane lore. They cannot learn, for example, Invisibility to Animals as an illusion spell, Detect Animals or Plants as a divination, Summon Nature’s Ally I as a conjuration or Animal Friendship as an enchantment, like elves do. They must learn them from the “nature school”. On the other hand, elven wizards may either specialise in the new school, take these new spells from the traditional schools or take (for example) Invisibility to Animals from the “nature school” even if they are specialised in illusion and count divination (but not “nature”) as an opposition school.

Elrond

05-15-2003, 05:40 PM

By requiring a character with this feat to become a specialist wizard is pretty restrictive.

I know, but it must be restrictive. Few non elven wizards should learn that kind of magic.

Stating that he can use any spells/items from the oppositin listed that he knew before taking the feat is contrary to the way that specialist wizards work. Once an oppositin school always an opposition school - that is the point of being an opposition school.

It's the way specialisation works for an Incantatrix. Since you cannot say that Elven Arcane Lore is a feat to be taken when the character is created, I followed the example of an existing rule.

Also why require an opposition school when necraomancy is pretty much already a racial opposition school, hence no drawback to make up for the bonuses granted by specializing (an extra spell per day, better Spellcraft checks).:)

Pretty much... And you have to choose another school (conjuration or evocation).

Mark_Aurel

05-15-2003, 06:27 PM

I think it’s better to speak of a new school. In Spells&Magic (a second edition accessory) additional schools were created: alchemy, force, elemental... The spells included in those new schools were taken from the traditional ones. A distinction was made between schools of effect and of philosophy. The same can be done with the third edition. The “nature school” should include abjurations, conjurations, divinations and so on, dealing with nature.

Bingo. You can't take a 2e way of looking at spells and apply it to 3e. There are no spells in 3e that belong to multiple schools of magic. The schools of magic are used in a specific, precise mechanical way, to define a lot of different effects and immunities. Moving things around can create some weird effects. From a mechancial viewpoint, the schools of magic, as well as subschools and descriptors, were built into 3e to make the system easier to use for the purpose of categoric effects. Shifting spells between schools can create some pretty illogical effects (of course, the system as is isn't necessarily perfectly logical, but it works).

I still think Spells & Magic was a pretty good accessory for its time - it contained lots of diverse, useful material and ideas, and was solidly written overall. In 3e terms, though, the new schools it introduced wouldn't work as schools - they'd more likely be separate spell lists - not new schools by themselves; that's sort of hardcoded into the system core, and the new wizard specialists would be some kind of prestige class, or feat.

There's really no reason why you can't make it a new school - you'd just have to rewrite a large section of the PHB and the spell lists as part of your house rules. It's a much better and less intrusive way to make a separate spell list instead. Use the base wizard list, drop most necromancy effects and area effect evocations, add a lot of druid spells, and I think you have what you want - in a way that doesn't require tampering with the core of the game's spell system.

ryancaveney

05-15-2003, 08:21 PM

On Thu, 15 May 2003, Elrond wrote:

> Third edition, of course.

Not necessarily. My BR campaign is still 2e (albeit heavily modified),
because I haven`t yet found or made a 3e conversion I like. I`m thinking
even more strongly of taking it to something that isn`t D&D at all;
however, I still like to talk about how I`d do it in D&D. =)

> I`m one of the few Italians (I`m sorry for my English)

No need to apologize: your English is excellent. Better than the kind
spoken by many of my fellow Americans, actually -- as is the case with
many of the non-native speakers on this list. :)

> So let`s specify, in the description of elves and half-elves, that
> elven blooded arcane spellcasters have free access to spells from the
> "nature school" (to be created) and let`s introduce a new general feat
> (for non elven wizards): "elven arcane lore".

Sounds like a fine plan. I`m not keen on the specialization rule, though.
I think it makes perfect sense that for non-elves to gain access to elven
nature magic, they must sacrifice their ability to cast necromantic
spells. I`m torn on the topic of whether specialists who have already
sacrificed necromancy by choosing it as an opposition school should be
able to take this feat without giving up anything else, or if they should
be forced to lose evocation as well. However, I don`t think they should
be required to specialize in nature magic. Certainly they can if they
wish, but I can see a place both for generalists with a different list and
for specialists in other schools. I suspect this feat would be extremely
popular among Khinasi wizards, who are already forbidden to do necromancy;
Rjurik wizards who wish to please the druids, work alongside them or even
pretend to be one of them; and all those, especially specialist enchanters
and illusionists, who wish to ingratiate themselves with the elves in the
hopes of being accepted as students.

> My idea is that this kind of magic may only be learned (this excludes
> sorcerers) by a non elven-blooded characters

I don`t see why it should exclude sorcerers; could you please explain?

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.

Elrond

05-15-2003, 09:49 PM

Bingo. You can't take a 2e way of looking at spells and apply it to 3e. There are no spells in 3e that belong to multiple schools of magic.

Right... Then for elven wizards and sorcerers you take the new spells and distribute them among the traditional schools. Non elven wizards may learn these spells (as an additional spell list) through the Elven Arcane Lore, and specialise on it, but must take necromancy and either conjuration or summoning as opposite schools.

I don`t think they should be required to specialise in nature magic.

They should because, if history says that they have learned true magic from the elves, these spells represent the secret lore of the elven race, a knowledge that cannot be gained easily. You need a lot of research... a specialisation.

I don`t see why it should exclude sorcerers; could you please explain?

Because elven sorcerers have a unique link with the land and these spells should testify it. This link cannot be taught. Wizards, on the other side, learn the mechanics of magic and this can be taught.

destowe

05-15-2003, 10:27 PM

I have always thought of elves as something like the jann.

Perhaps a small template of ECL+1 like the tables in Manual of Planes for half-elemental.

Even commoners would have small spell-like ability.

With using the community creation rules from the DMG, most of, if not all of the 1st level NPC-classes would not exist as they are ECL2. This would help explain the lower population in elven provinces.

Even a common elf is more powerful than a common human.

Humans advantage is numbers and divine guidance.

RaspK_FOG

06-28-2003, 01:26 AM

People, I hope you are not going too far... Even though most people do not undestand this, even restoration is a necromantic spell! Accept the facts!

As for creating a new school of magic, well, only if you are ready to dit down and do a lot of work. Bu tyou should never have more than a number of schools at the same time, or your campaign will have too many spells!

Kalien

06-28-2003, 01:49 AM

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG
As for creating a new school of magic, well, only if you are ready to dit down and do a lot of work. Bu tyou should never have more than a number of schools at the same time, or your campaign will have too many spells!

There is not necessarily any requirement to add a single new spell to those contained in the PHB when designing a new school of spells for wizards. You could simply draw up a list of spells with a common theme and call it the Nature School. Such a new categorisation certainly assists players who like to design and play 'themed' mages as they can become specialised in a school (and theme) that they could not before. This would not take too much time at all.

You could do this for Force descriptor spells if you wished for sorcerers or wizards who concentrated on "raw" magical energy (though you might want to look at other sources than the PHB to get enough spells). There is no reason why you could not do the same for Nature-oriented spells.

Personally, I think that "Nature" is potentially too broad a category - though I'd wait to see what spells were included before making a judgement. I know John will love to hear me say it, but I would encourage people thinking of designing new schools of magic to take a look at Ars Magica spell techniques and arts.

Trithemius

06-28-2003, 05:13 AM

Kalien sez:
> Personally, I think that "Nature" is too broad a category.
> I know John will love to hear me say it, but I would
> encourage people thinking of designing new schools of magic
> to take a look at Ars Magica spell techniques and arts.

AHAHAHAHAAAHAHAAA! Soon your journey to the Dark Side will be complete!

Uh. I mean:

Ars Magica sure is neat!

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

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

RaspK_FOG

06-28-2003, 10:44 PM

It seems you misunderstand the meaning of Schools of Magic... Anyway, there should be something more specific to define this new school you have in mind. Perhaps, Animatis would be a proper name and general meaning... Such arcanists would be able to cast druidic-like spells, as well as some more shamanistic spells; restoration spells, and some lesser healing spells, similar to necromantic ones, but not necromantic, could be appropriate. The spells available would include:

Animal Friendship (instead of familiar, such a mage would be able to have an an. friend)
Liveoak
Restoration
Shillelagh
Shambler
Snare

Or something similar to that. Secondly, a lot of work would be needed to be done, so that new spells would come up... Don't know if you have the courage, but I guess you should come up with clearer suggestions?

Trithemius

06-29-2003, 02:20 AM

RaspK_FOG wrote:
> It seems you misunderstand the meaning of Schools of
> Magic...

The D&D schools of magic (formerly known as the "schools of philosophy"
are:
A) To my mind, boring
B) Not philosophical
C) Clunky and daft

I`m happy to see the back of them myself.

> Anyway, there should be something more specific to
> define this new school you have in mind. Perhaps, Animatis
> would be a proper name and general meaning... Such arcanists
> would be able to cast druidic-like spells, as well as some
> more shamanistic spells; restoration spells, and some lesser
> healing spells, similar to necromantic ones, but not
> necromantic, could be appropriate. The spells available would include:

Well...
In Ars Magica there are the forms of Animal and the forms of Herbam
which cover most natural phenomenon. It is not a school per se, but
there are lineages in the game that focus on particular uses of these
Arts. I prefer that kind of set-up, which allows for all sorts of
divergent philosophies about the nature of the arts, etc.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

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

Kalien

06-29-2003, 05:29 AM

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG
It seems you misunderstand the meaning of Schools of Magic...

Umm ... was this directed at me? If you are directly replying to someone's comments it helps if you mention who you are replying to. If it was to me and I was in a less chirpy mood I might take umbrage at comments that question my courage to come up with clearer suggestions.

Originally posted by Trithemius
The D&D schools of magic (formerly known as the "schools of philosophy" are:
A) To my mind, boring
B) Not philosophical
C) Clunky and daft

I don't think anyone truly regards them as philosophy. I suspect the term philosphy is used in this respect as an alternative or "useful" term to describe the common thread or theme that runs through the D&D arcane spell schools. It's easier to say that a school has a common or distinctive philosophy rather than saying the spells within a school of arcane magic have a common objective (e.g., protection) or harness magical energies in a certain way (e.g. evocation or conjuration).

Well...
In Ars Magica there are the forms of Animal and the forms of Herbam which cover most natural phenomenon. It is not a school per se, but there are lineages in the game that focus on particular uses of these Arts. I prefer that kind of set-up, which allows for all sorts of divergent philosophies about the nature of the arts, etc.

Well, the 3e designers have stated, in reference to elemental magic, that players and DMs are free to come up with their own Schools of elemental magic - both the "standard" four and alternatives such as force and what might be termed 'spirit'. Such schools are bound together by a common theme of a single element such as fire rather than by a "philosophy" that categorises spells by how they utilise arcane magical energies. As such there is official recognition of the idea that an arcane spell school can simply reflect a common theme of What type of magic it uses, rather than any idea of How such magic is used.

So I think I stand by my comments that an arcane spell school is simply a grouping of arcane spells linked by a common theme - whether that theme be reflected in how the spell works OR in what it affects or utilises.

Now, as far as a Nature School goes I personally think it is too broad and would be inclined to construct a school that related to animals and another that related to plants. For a little flavour you could call them Animus and Herbum ...

RaspK_FOG

07-11-2003, 10:32 PM

Well, I think that one ought to answer te initial question...

The first problem with creating a new school of magic in D&D is that you cannot simply create a new school by assigning to it spells from other schools: it must also have new and/or unique spells that a spellcaster would not be able to cast otherwise!

Secondly, the concept: the existing schools provide a categorisation based on the way the spells affect the world around them, or what they actually do. They have nothing to do with the theme that they are based upon! For example, enchantment is the school of magic through which people can enchant creatures or things. Transmutation, on the other hand, is the school of magic that enables you to change things as you see fit. Now, creating a nature school (or an animal and a plant school, if you prefer that idea) does not follow that pattern, since such a school would only relate around nature, not the effect magic has on the world.

You could get around this problem if your world has a completely different magic system, like "The Wheel of Time".

Your call. Your choice.

Birthright-L

07-12-2003, 10:32 AM

with creating a new school of magic in D&D is that you cannot simply create a new school by assigning to it spells from other schools: it must also have new and/or unique spells that a spellcaster would not be able to cast otherwise!

>

> Secondly, the concept: the existing schools provide a categorisation based on the way the spells affect the world around them, or what they actually do. They have nothing to do with the theme that they are based upon! For example, enchantment is the school of magic through which people can enchant creatures or things. Transmutation, on the other hand, is the school of magic that enables you to change things as you see fit. Now, creating a nature school (or an animal and a plant school, if you prefer that idea) does not follow that pattern, since such a school would only relate around nature, not the effect magic has on the world.

>

> You could get around this problem if your world has a completely different magic system, like "The Wheel of Time".

>

Semantics.

You`re problem seems to be calling it a `school of magic`.

You can call it an `alternate spell list` or even a `racial spell list` if

you`d like, and this would keep the spirit of the suggestion alive, I think.

The benefit of making `Nature` into a `school of magic` is that certain

effects like Spell Focus and a wizard`s Specialization could be used with

it. I think these are bigger issues than the exclusivity and thaumeturgical

arguments you outline above. Personally, I see no problem with this.

As a side note, strictly as a matter of personal taste, I prefer Spells &

Magic`s descriptions of Schools of Philosophy (the things we usually think

of as schools of magic), Schools of Effect, and Schools of Thaumaturgy. (I

don`t like Thaumaturgy, actually... I think that`s better handled with feats

and classes. But I like Schools of Effect and Schools of Philosophy.)

-Lord Rahvin

Magian

07-12-2003, 01:28 PM

es not need to be a school but it could be an arcane

path followed by elven wizards. You could include the spells you wish to

have in the said school of nature and use it as say a lesson or course list

of spells to learn in the given path of nature that is in accordance with

the culture of the elfs that have followed this path since the beginning.

There is something about this line of thought for spell aquisition in one of

the dragon magazines, can`t remember it, but it had a few kinds of paths or

cycles of magic a wizard could follow, even multiple paths could be studied.

It seems like a good idea for spells that are shared within a circle or

organization of wizards.

But I must say that a school does actually describe the type of effect the

spell has, as nature is a broad term it would more be like a priest sphere

(or whatever they are called in 3E) than it would be a school. Even the

priest spells have schools listed to show what effects they have.

__________________________________________________ _______________

The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*

http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Mourn

08-02-2003, 10:50 PM

I have an idea.

Nature Wizard
You study nature magic.
Prerequisite: Sidhelien, Knowledge (nature) 1 rank, Wizard 1st.
Benefit: You can learn spells from druid spell list as if it were one level higher.

geeman

08-03-2003, 11:26 AM

+0200, Mourn wrote:

> Nature Wizard

> You study nature magic.

> Prerequisite: Sidhelien, Knowledge (nature) 1 rank, Wizard 1st.

> Benefit: You can learn spells from druid spell list as if it were one

> level higher.

Given that the feat allows access to spells as if they were one level

higher than the druid level maybe the prereq could be the ability to cast

2nd (or higher) level arcane spells rather than wizard levels alone. That

would allow sorcerers access to the feat also (and many people think that

class is more apt for elves than the wizard class) and would connect up

with the ability granted by the feat a bit better.

Gary

RaspK_FOG

08-03-2003, 06:54 PM

To make clear what has been once again misunderstood:

1) If you want to give a player the ability to cast spells he shouldn't have the ability to, you cannot just say "Let's make up a new school of magic!", because schools of magic represent the use and application of what is eldritch on the worlds around and beyond us. Now, creating a new "Nature school" would never replicate that effect, since it would simply be a jumble of spells, even if they never quite had a reason to be there!

2) You cannot create racial spells; it is ill-suited. If you want to give only elves access to arcane "nature magic", you should create a new class or prestige class.

geeman

08-03-2003, 08:41 PM

+0200, RaspK_FOG wrote:

>To make clear what has been once again misunderstood:

>

>1) If you want to give a player the ability to cast spells he shouldn`t

>have the ability to, you cannot just say "Let`s make up a new school

>of magic!", because schools of magic represent the use and

>application of what is eldritch on the worlds around and beyond us. Now,

>creating a new "Nature school" would never replicate that

>effect, since it would simply be a jumble of spells, even if they never

>quite had a reason to be there!

I don`t think anyone should feel obliged to lock BR into this rather FR/GH

description of magic. The nature of the arcane schools of magic in BR

could (and probably should) be quite different from that of other campaign

worlds, and needn`t abide by any colour commentary in the core texts

regarding the "science" or logic behind the system. Aside from which,

there`s plenty of opportunity to add new schools of magic if one finds them

interesting. While they haven`t done much for 3.0+ that I recall reading,

schools of magic have been described for things like Numbers, Song, Force,

etc. Even if it were cant one still could add schools if one saw a purpose

to it--and this pretty well qualifies.

>2) You cannot create racial spells; it is ill-suited. If you want to give

>only elves access to arcane "nature magic", you should create a

>new class or prestige class.

There are plenty of racial spells that come out fairly regularly. When a

particular race is presented or an existing one is described in detail we

often get new spells particular to that race. A recent issue of Dragon had

spells particular to dragons.

Gary

Magian

08-03-2003, 11:23 PM

f allowing a heavy emphasis of nature related spells for

elves in Birthright. I have considered including many of the druid and

cleric spells that emulate nature related effects.

As far as the science or logic behind it we could simply base such spells on

the four elemental planes that the elves due to their phsyiology can draw

upon. It could be argued that spells are like technology. They can use

different approaches of execution to reach the same or similar desired

effect or result. Therefore we could simply use the already listed spells

and just put a tag on them like sidhelien in the wizard, sorceror, cleric,

etc. catagory.

__________________________________________________ _______________

Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.

http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

Trithemius

08-04-2003, 03:51 AM

> 1) If you want to give a player the ability to cast spells

> he shouldn`t have the ability to, you cannot just say

> "Let`s make up a new school of magic!", because

> schools of magic represent the use and application of what is

> eldritch on the worlds around and beyond us. Now, creating a

> new "Nature school" would never replicate that

> effect, since it would simply be a jumble of spells, even if

> they never quite had a reason to be there!

Wow. I disagree with you so entirely.

To my mind the "schools" are the framework that certain people use in

order to classify magic. They aren`t -the only way- of explaining

magical phenomenon; they are just general enough to be useful to almost

all people. It makes perfect sense to me that other groups of people

classify the magical arts dfferently.

> 2) You cannot create racial spells; it is ill-suited. If you

> want to give only elves access to arcane "nature

> magic", you should create a new class or prestige class.

In my opinion: nonsense. Prestige classes may be more of an elegant

solution to the problem, but there is no -real- reason to not have

spells that are available to only one society.

--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

-----------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

Trithemius

08-04-2003, 03:51 AM

>
> I do like the idea of allowing a heavy emphasis of nature

> related spells for elves in Birthright. I have considered

> including many of the druid and cleric spells that emulate

> nature related effects.

>

> As far as the science or logic behind it we could simply base

> such spells on the four elemental planes that the elves due

> to their phsyiology can draw upon. It could be argued that

> spells are like technology. They can use different

> approaches of execution to reach the same or similar desired

> effect or result. Therefore we could simply use the already

> listed spells and just put a tag on them like sidhelien in

> the wizard, sorceror, cleric, etc. catagory.

I believe it was Kenneth who suggested it to me (and the list?) that

some kind of modified "shugenja" system might represent sidhelien magic

well. It`d need to get its own set of non-oriental terms and names; and

probably some kind of variety of "schools" to represent the training

styles of particular famous sidhe magicians.

--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

-----------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

Mark_Aurel

08-04-2003, 08:23 AM

Trithemius wrote:

Wow. I disagree with you so entirely.
To my mind the "schools" are the framework that certain people use in
order to classify magic. They aren`t -the only way- of explaining
magical phenomenon; they are just general enough to be useful to almost
all people. It makes perfect sense to me that other groups of people
classify the magical arts dfferently.

Certainly not. However, the schools of magic as they are, are a pretty central component to the 3e/3.5 system. Removing or disregarding them is generally a lot more trouble than it's worth - there's a lot of little mechanical effects scattered about that would need to be reexamined as well. Of course, a determined house-ruler wouldn't have problems with that either. It's just generally easier to create new categorizations for magic through other routes than remapping the school system. Sample ways which are entirely within the system include new spell lists, spells restricted by certain criteria (like being undead, a demon, or a dragon, or having a specific feat), or creating a new descriptor and making a list of the spells to which it applies. Simpler, and hence generally better, ways of creating new subdivisions of spells.

geeman wrote:

I don`t think anyone should feel obliged to lock BR into this rather FR/GH
description of magic. The nature of the arcane schools of magic in BR
could (and probably should) be quite different from that of other campaign
worlds, and needn`t abide by any colour commentary in the core texts
regarding the "science" or logic behind the system. Aside from which,
there`s plenty of opportunity to add new schools of magic if one finds them
interesting. While they haven`t done much for 3.0+ that I recall reading,
schools of magic have been described for things like Numbers, Song, Force,
etc. Even if it were cant one still could add schools if one saw a purpose
to it--and this pretty well qualifies.

What exactly is specifically "FR/GH" about the school system? I might imagine a different way of the spells to be divided up, certainly, but that applies for any campaign. Most of the schools contain fairly common archetypes of spells, and I don't see those archetypes or the similarity of effects by which the schools have been divided change much for BR. Earthdawn had a somewhat similar system - of Wizardry, Illusion, Nethermancy, and Elementalism as the four "schools" - perhaps a more generally flavorful way of distributing the spells, but I could see it applied to most D&D campaigns pretty easily as well - just like the school system. The main difference between 3e and previous versions is that in 3e, the spells aren't just divided up by school anymore - there's various subsystems to create a more granular system, one which should ultimately satisfy the players of spellcasters more in terms of the ability to easily customize spellcasters. A couple of the examples you mention - Song and Force - are already present in the system, though not as schools. Song spells can basically be put together from language-dependent and some sonic spells, though generally, song should be a form of casting, and thus a feat or a prestige class (I think there is such a PrC in FR), and not a school. Force are spells with the force descriptor. My question remains the same, though - what exactly is specifically "FR/GH" about the spell description system?

kgauck

08-04-2003, 11:06 AM

Trithemius

08-04-2003, 02:27 PM

>
> Certainly not. However, the schools of magic as they are,

> are a pretty central component to the 3e/3.5 system. Removing

> or disregarding them is generally a lot more trouble than

> it`s worth - there`s a lot of little mechanical effects

> scattered about that would need to be reexamined as well. Of

> course, a determined house-ruler wouldn`t have problems with

> that either. It`s just generally easier to create new

> categorizations for magic through other routes than remapping

> the school system. Sample ways which are entirely within the

> system include new spell lists, spells restricted by certain

> criteria (like being undead, a demon, or a dragon, or having

> a specific feat), or creating a new descriptor and making a

> list of the spells to which it applies. Simpler, and hence

> generally better, ways of creating new subdivisions of spells.

Personally, I consider myself to be a determined houseruler. I have

opted for my games though to dink around with Ars Magica instead of d20.

I personally think that if I have to reconsider the terms of a system,

I`d rather reconsider the terms of a system that I rather like ;)

My ramapant Ars Magica fanboyism aside though, while the schools may be

important at a metagaming level, I am unsure whether they should colour

the way in which we structure our campaign setting. I certainly do not

have "evokers" in my Cerilia. I might have "war magi" though, or "fire

wizards" or whatever.

--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

-----------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

RaspK_FOG

08-04-2003, 02:45 PM

Well, Mark Aurel and Kenneth Gauck said most of what I had in mind, but in order to put my two cents worth of thinking into this, and hopefully make you understand this once and for all, consider this situation:

1) About Spells and Schools of Magic: The Shools of Magic do not represent the way that spells are classified in the worlds of fantasy as much as present the way they work! For example, a necromancy spell directly affects the life and death energies, thus a necromantic spell allows you to cast spells that cause fatigue, heal ability damage (restoration), or even kill others! A descriptor, on the other hand, and as Mark Aurel has so well done to remind as of, present what lies beneeth. An Evocation (Force) spell, like magic missile deals damage through force (the Force descriptor) which was evoked (the Evocation school), or it could just create an obstacle with the same force, like the wall of force spell.

2) About Spells and Classes: It seems you did not notice I mentioned a "new class" possibility; some of you at least. You can always create a new variant class with a "only elves or half-elves" restriction. I disagree with such a choice, but it is a lot better than introducing racial spells! Secondly, you could simply create a new prestige class with the fewest possible requirements, such that a 5th level wizard (and/or sorcerer, your call) could easilly reach and allow him to get spells as if he was advancing in his own class, but give him access to these spells as well; an idea would be to let him take spells from the druidic list with their level increased by 1, except for any druidic spell that can also be taken from their earlier class, which they take at the spell level of their earlier class or the druidic +1, whichever is lower. All of this would be nicely presented as a spell-list to the player, of course, and a small guide-line for coming up with new spells.

3) Concerning spells: This can only be acceptable with creatures that have uniquely powerful abilities, such as dragons, deities (not that they are one race, but whatever), celestials, devils, and demons. Even then, the problem is solved with spell lists.

Mark_Aurel

08-04-2003, 02:59 PM

not familiar with Lot5R, shugenja are elementally based
spellcasters.

I suspect that there are two usages of the meaning for "school` at work
here. I believe that advocates of the nature school do not mean to use
school as a mechanical term to mean that Charm Animal would not be an
enchantment, but would be a nature spell. Rather they mean it as a body of
spells organized for convienience, so I can tell of fireball, for instance
is castable by sidhe (and I would not include such a spell). Many classes
and PrC`s have their own spell lists. There is nothing new here.

Yes, I tend to agree. My point is simply not to throw the baby out with the bathwater - it is perfectly possible to twist the existing system into a lot of different flavors without changing the schools themselves around. Alternate spell lists, spells with requirements, prestige classes and even base classes - all are generally easier ways to implement specific forms of flavor without having to do anything about the schools themselves at all.

I guess what I'm really trying to point out is that the way magic is described is pretty specific in 3e - and I get the distinct impression that some of the understanding of what exactly constitutes a "school" of magic stems from a 2e-ish reading of the rules. The point is that schools in 3e are set parameters upon which to vary the rules - a part of the modular system itself, more than it is a real flavor deal. The flavor of the spellcaster is based solely on how you build it - what spells, skills and feats you choose, what class you have, and whether you have a customized version of that or not. Changing the schools around is a bit like adding new ability scores. Generally harder than it looks, if you still want to play D&D reasonably by the book.

Personally, I consider myself to be a determined houseruler. I have
opted for my games though to dink around with Ars Magica instead of d20.
I personally think that if I have to reconsider the terms of a system,
I`d rather reconsider the terms of a system that I rather like ;)

My ramapant Ars Magica fanboyism aside though, while the schools may be
important at a metagaming level, I am unsure whether they should colour
the way in which we structure our campaign setting. I certainly do not
have "evokers" in my Cerilia. I might have "war magi" though, or "fire
wizards" or whatever.

I agree completely with this too - I think Birthright wizards mostly have strong, unique themes that says something about their character, I like it this way, and I think the rules should reflect it. I like "wind mages" or "swan mages" or whatnot, not "evoker #43" and "the zoophiliac transmuter." I do not think it is a good reason to change the schools, however. I'm a fan of minimalism in terms of house rules - the less I have to do, and the better it fits in with what already exists, the better. 3e, with its fairly modular design fits me very well for this reason - it is easy to write in new feats, classes, skills, spells, etc to achieve a desired flavor effect. Generally, I think the story is more important than 400 pages of house rules to solve personal quibbles with an imaginary game.

That said, I'm personally a fan of the idea of a nature-oriented slant on Elven spellcasters. I've experimented with various slants on this in the past - one example, quickly summarized is roughly as follows:

- Basically, take a wizard.
- Make a new spell list, drawing on a combination of wizardly and druidic spells, using the entry in the BoM as an aid to determine what belongs and does not, and if anything changes levels. Overall, less bang and versatility than the regular wizard, more power over nature and natural effects.
- No bonus feats or familiar.
- Animal companions as per a druid instead of familiars, possibly.
- Unlimited spell knowledge as per a wizard. Casting method is by preparing a limited number of spells - however, the spellcaster can pick any spell he has currently prepared to cast, as long as he has slots left, and does not "lose" prepared spells. This essentially allows the caster to know a lot of spells and freely cast, though from a more limited selection. Spells per day should be similar to a generalist wizard, though progression through the spell levels may be slightly slower (as per a sorcerer). Spellcasting stat may be charisma.

By designing a class and spell list along these parameters, or a similar set, you can easily achieve the goal here - to have nature-themed Elven spellcasters without them intruding on any other niche - and without ever doing any work on the "schools" themselves.

You could say I'm primarily making a semantic point about what constitutes a school and not, and I'd guess you'd be correct.

Mark_Aurel

08-04-2003, 03:01 PM

RaspK_FOG

08-04-2003, 03:05 PM

Excuse me, but not all evocation spells are war-oriented. Many do not even deal damage.

Trithemius

08-04-2003, 04:08 PM

>
> You could say I`m primarily making a semantic point about

> what constitutes a school and not, and I`d guess you`d be correct.

That`s okay. I like a good quibble as much as the next person. :D

I think I generally agree with your points, I`m just skeptical of D&D`s

usefulness.

--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

-----------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

geeman

08-04-2003, 09:03 PM

+0200, you wrote:

>What exactly is specifically "FR/GH" about the school system? I

>might imagine a different way of the spells to be divided up, certainly,

>but that applies for any campaign.

I didn`t say the school system was specifically FR/GH, as in they could

only exist and should only exist in those settings. I said the schools

outlined in the core materials were a "rather FR/GH description of magic"

so we shouldn`t feel obliged to stick to it for the purpose of a different

campaign setting like BR. The core materials are meant for FR/GH. That`s

explicitly stated several times by the guys who wrote 3e. Adding other

schools of magic or going with different interpretations of how magic works

makes sense for other campaign settings; like a nature school for BR

elves. BR has a different set of basic assumptions about magic than those

campaign settings or even the core materials often assume, so the argument

that creating a school of magic to express a BR paradigm because the school

of magic system precludes doing so doesn`t add up.

Gary

geeman

08-04-2003, 10:54 PM

what the text/page number is for the information on

schools of magic being "the use and application of what is eldritch on the

worlds around and beyond us" (or things to that effect) and apparently

immutable and fixed? In discussing the issue with my group yesterday one

person said he remembered reading something to that affect but not where

(which was odd because he`s usually the one who can quote chapter and

verse) while the remaining three of us didn`t. We spent a while going

through different texts trying to find the source but didn`t turn anything

up and I`d like to check out the full text.

Gary

kgauck

08-04-2003, 10:54 PM

spellcaster. One thing I would do is have a fey

companion instead of an animal companion. This probabaly becomes available

later than starting levels.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

geeman

08-05-2003, 12:26 AM

-0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> I like Mark`s sidhe spellcaster. One thing I would do is have a fey

>companion instead of an animal companion. This probabaly becomes available

>later than starting levels.

Maybe a familiar with a "Fey Companion" feat available later would work?

Gary

Mark_Aurel

08-05-2003, 12:30 AM

I didn`t say the school system was specifically FR/GH, as in they could
only exist and should only exist in those settings. I said the schools
outlined in the core materials were a "rather FR/GH description of magic"
so we shouldn`t feel obliged to stick to it for the purpose of a different
campaign setting like BR. The core materials are meant for FR/GH. That`s
explicitly stated several times by the guys who wrote 3e. Adding other
schools of magic or going with different interpretations of how magic works
makes sense for other campaign settings; like a nature school for BR
elves. BR has a different set of basic assumptions about magic than those
campaign settings or even the core materials often assume, so the argument
that creating a school of magic to express a BR paradigm because the school
of magic system precludes doing so doesn`t add up.

By 'school system,' I meant the 'schools' as they are in 3e. That would be abjuration, conjuration, divination, enchantment, evocation, illusion, necromancy, and transmutation. I don't really see anything about that division that's specifically 'flavor-related' - it's mostly a functional metagame distribution of spells, and it is somewhat 'hard-coded' into the system. Change the school system, and you have to look at hundreds of different effects scattered about to readjudicate how they would work without the schools. The school system is primarily part of a system to describe how things interact mechanically - it's not a flavor element. This is why spells cast by non-specialized spellcasters are categorized in schools too. Descriptors and subschools are a further layer to categorizing spells and their effects, and are excellent mechanical tools.

If you want spellcasters with different *flavor* - you make a new spell list for that spellcaster. Like a nature list. Or a 'nethermancy' list. Or a 'witch' list. Or a 'shaman' list. Or a 'dragon magic' list. Et cetera. Ad infinitum. These are not schools of magic, however - just flavorful spell lists. It tends to make it easy to adjudicate things like 'Elves get a +2 bonus on saves against enchantment spells' and similar effects - without regard to whether the spell is 'nature magic' or 'dragon magic' - elves are still hard to charm.

As far as I know, FR has a lot of different types of magic or flavors of spellcasters - I don't quite see how the schools as they are pertain especially to that setting, but not BR. For that matter, it is shown pretty clearly that the schools of magic are taught as they appear in the PHB in BR - I personally find that wrong, but that's what's in the books, and not my strictly personal interpretation of what is BR and what is 'not BR.' I'd much prefer if the schools were left mainly for what they are - a mechanical element, not a flavor element, or at least, more than they are a flavor element.

Again this assertion about core materials and FR/GH - I remember you made this claim before about how 3e was thoroughly infested with FRisms, but you never produced the list of examples you promised. What I've seen the designers of the core materials say isn't that they are specifically FR/GH - but that they use GH to fill in the flavor element examples in the core books, like god lists, or prestige class flavor text, and that FR is supposed to be an easy campaign that uses the core materials as they are as much as possible - not that the rules were tailor made for those settings - rather that FR is tailor made to fit D&D - which is a big difference. Now, of course, the 3rd edition of D&D draws on a variety of sources from previous editions - there is some influence from many different sources. The bard seems much more similar to BR bards than previous edition bards of other campaigns, for instance. BR is a D&D setting, and while you could argue about how you think it could or should have been different, it remains a D&D setting, with D&D assumptions at its core. You could replace the flavor material from the PHB with BR flavor material (like gods or spellcaster names), and the rules'd look pretty much the same.

geeman

08-05-2003, 05:08 AM

+0200, Mark Aurel wrote:

>Again this assertion about core materials and FR/GH - I remember you made

>this claim before about how 3e was thoroughly infested with FRisms, but

>you never produced the list of examples you promised.

Let me first reiterate that I haven`t said that in this thread. I said the

core rules are meant for FR/GH, which was stated by WotC when they designed

them, but even in that context I`m not saying that the schools of magic are

an exclusive FR/GH influence and only apt for those settings. What I said

(and still stand behind) is that the argument that the schools of magic as

presented in the 3e core texts precludes the introduction of other schools

is "a rather FR/GH description of magic" meaning only that such an

interpretation of magic is more apt for either of those settings rather

than BR which has significant differences in its themes and system of

magic, so it doesn`t work as an argument for not introducing a whole new

Nature school of magic for BR elves.

As for compiling a list of FRisms in the 3e core materials... I don`t think

I ever promised to make a whole _list_ of them. There are far too many for

me to make a list. I said I`d further elucidate my POV on the subject at

some point, which I think I have several times. (I should note that IMO GH

and FR are pretty nearly the same, or at least one is the spawn of the

other.) Fairly regularly someone suggests a FR/GH aspect of 3e that they

think should be included in BR; gnomes and monks being possibly the most

obviously not meant for the setting. I`ve argued that everything from the

power scale (the rate at which PCs gain XP and level up) is a FR

influence. As far as game specific things, prestige classes are probably

the worst offenders as far as FR/GH influences on other campaigns. I`ve

had several discussions with people who want to use prestige classes in

ways that would normally be reserved for awnsheghlien or another other BR

theme. I`d suggest that things right down to the requirements of character

classes and their special abilities are FR/GH influences that D&D has yet

to shake off. The barbarian is very similar to the one first written up by

Gygax for his GH setting. It`s really a sort of Viking/berserker

stereotype not an uncivilized warrior class. The class skills for paladins

are unchanged since GH, clerics are still the original basic interpretation

of the crusading priest rather than a really priestly class, etc.

In fact, it`s fairly common when someone suggests a rule based on a BR

theme that s/he then has to defend it against people who note that it

contradicts many of the FR/GHish aspects of 3e. Off the top of my head

paladins, druids, dragons, spells and spell components, the number and type

of magic items available, the magic system in general and all the races of

BR have at one point or another been compared to the core materials,

particularly those FR aspects of the core materials. Even little things

like the detect evil ability of paladins works fine in my experience in FR

and GH--and was written by Gygax, I believe--but recently there`s been a

discussion of how it mucks about with things in BR and several people have

suggested removing it. IMO that`s a FR/GH aspect of the core rules that

people are suggesting changing for BR.

>What I`ve seen the designers of the core materials say isn`t that they are

>specifically FR/GH - but that they use GH to fill in the flavor element

>examples in the core books, like god lists, or prestige class flavor text,

>and that FR is supposed to be an easy campaign that uses the core

>materials as they are as much as possible - not that the rules were tailor

>made for those settings - rather that FR is tailor made to fit D&D -

>which is a big difference.

Given the amount of campaign material in the core texts I`d disagree. At

least, I`d suggest that that campaign material has much more of an

influence than you`re suggesting.

>Now, of course, the 3rd edition of D&D draws on a variety of sources

>from previous editions - there is some influence from many different

>sources. The bard seems much more similar to BR bards than previous

>edition bards of other campaigns, for instance.

I think that`s generally true, but I don`t know that it`s a BR influence on

the core rules, really, so much as simply a differently designed character

class that has been incredibly badly done in previous editions. Any change

from those versions of the bard would make it "more BR" since the earlier

versions were so odd.

>BR is a D&D setting, and while you could argue about how you think it

>could or should have been different, it remains a D&D setting, with

>D&D assumptions at its core. You could replace the flavor material

>from the PHB with BR flavor material (like gods or spellcaster names), and

>the rules`d look pretty much the same.

I really wonder what BR would have looked like if it had been originally

written under the D20 rules alone, independent of D&D or even

3e. Personally, I think it would look very different. We would not have

bards, barbarians, clerics, druids, etc. because there would be no need to

stick to those classes. At least, not the standard 3e versions of those

classes. BR versions would differ from them as much as the character

classes in WoT do, including a much more elucidated noble PC class that

would probably contain aspects that interact directly with the domain level

of play. Magic item creation and the whole system of magic would probably

be different. To be frank, that`s the kind of direction I`d like to see

the setting take.

Gary

kgauck

08-05-2003, 08:17 AM

ge -----

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

Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 11:38 PM

> I really wonder what BR would have looked like if it had been originally

> written under the D20 rules alone, independent of D&D or even

> 3e. Personally, I think it would look very different.

It did look different, but the system they were operating under, 2e was not

very flexible. If BR were created now, the flexibility of D20 would mean

that the setting would have as many special class, race, and other write ups

as we see in other d20 settings. It would not just be D&D in Cerilia.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

geeman

08-05-2003, 08:58 AM

-0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>If BR were created now, the flexibility of D20 would mean that the setting

>would have as many special class, race, and other write ups as we see in

>other d20 settings. It would not just be D&D in Cerilia.

...and much better for it IMO. The original materials did differ from 2e

quite a bit, though they stuck to the basic outline of the system, but that

system was what they had to work with.

To illustrate the FR/GH influence on D&D 3e it might be best to look at

other D20 campaign settings to see how they vary from 3e. Things changed

in other D20 campaigns might very well be changed in BR plus more than a

few BR specific things.

Arguably the differences between BR and 3e are the kinds of things that

attract new people to the setting. At least, that`s what got me into the

setting (and back into D&D for that matter) back when I first read the

"Seeking Bloodsilver" adventure in Dungeon. I wouldn`t really have any

marketing data on such things, but it just strikes me as being a better

tactic (and more interesting) than making it look like 3e.

Gary

kgauck

08-05-2003, 09:38 AM

ge -----

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

Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 3:45 AM

> Arguably the differences between BR and 3e are the kinds of things that

> attract new people to the setting.

Settings are, in many ways, the coolest of all extras to go out and get. I

have four settings and have WoT on my list. I only play one setting, but I

borrow ideas from the others and use the way that they have been liberated

to go out and create new things as an encouragement to create my own unique

BR campaign in Cerilia. The BR conversion never really interested me

because it was so tepid by comparison to d20 settings already out there.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

ryancaveney

08-05-2003, 07:46 PM

Mark_Aurel wrote:

> That said, I`m personally a fan of the idea of a nature-oriented

> slant on Elven spellcasters. I`ve experimented with various slants on

> this in the past - one example, quickly summarized is roughly as

> follows:

>

> - Basically, take a wizard.

> - Make a new spell list, drawing on a combination of wizardly and

> druidic spells,

Yup. Not a bad plan. Personally, I prefer to start with druid, and then

add some wizard spells (esp. illusion and enchantment/charm), but that`s

not particularly important. Casting from Int or Cha is better than Wis.

On the whole, I don`t care what name is given to the rule change,

but some change is necessary -- a version of Cerilia in which elves

are *prohibited* access to nature magic is no Cerilia at all.

Ryan Caveney

ryancaveney

08-05-2003, 08:00 PM

Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> I suspect that there are two usages of the meaning for "school" at

> work here. I believe that advocates of the nature school do not mean

> to use school as a mechanical term to mean that Charm Animal would not

> be an enchantment, but would be a nature spell. Rather they mean it

> as a body of spells organized for convienience, so I can tell of

> fireball, for instance is castable by sidhe (and I would not include

> such a spell). Many classes and PrC`s have their own spell lists.

> There is nothing new here.

Agreed! However, Jan has convinced me that "school" has a legitimate

technical meaning which leads to it being a misleading term here. That

is, the Eight Standard Schools are *disjoint* sets; each and every spell

is classified into exactly one of them. In addition to these eight, which

are the only lists of spells to which Jan and others want to give the name

"school", there are a vast number of other lists of spells. These lists,

however, overlap and are not complete: some spells are on many

supplemental lists, and some are on none. As a semantic point, I have no

problem accepting that only The Big Eight should be called "schools", and

all other lists of spells should be called "spell lists". I personally do

not want to make a ninth exclusive category (which is what strict

constructionists fear loose usage of "school" implies), I want to make an

additional descriptor (like a clerical domain name) to add to certain

spells (which is what I think most advocates of a "new school" really

mean, using the term loosely); I`m perfectly happy to call this a

"Sidhelien Nature Magic spell list" instead of a "Nature School", and so I

think will most others be.

I hope we will be able to now move beyond that part of the discussion, and

get to the part I find more interesting: exactly which spells go on it?

What spells are "opposed" to it? That is, many of us agree with Kenneth`s

statement above that Sidhelien shouldn`t be throwing fireballs

willy-nilly; this implies the existence of a corresponding spell list

under some other name (e.g., "Prohibited to Sidhelien", or "no elves" for

short) which lists (a hopefully equivalent set of) spells which elves

must forfeit in order to balance their access to the nature list.

Ryan Caveney

geeman

08-05-2003, 10:34 PM

-0400, Ryan Caveney wrote:

>Agreed! However, Jan has convinced me that "school" has a legitimate

>technical meaning which leads to it being a misleading term here. That

>is, the Eight Standard Schools are *disjoint* sets; each and every spell

>is classified into exactly one of them.

Has anyone found a reference in the 3e materials to this classification as

being so steadfast as it`s been suggested, or is that suggestion an

interpretation based on the way they made each spell a single school in 3e?

Whether it is a suggestion or not, it seems to me that given the way

several spells are still "cross over" between both the broader arcane and

divine categories of spells, and most are still available to both types of

spellcasters (those who cast their spells spontaneously vs those who must

prepare/memorize them) that putting a restriction on the number and

classification of spells by their schools of magic is somewhat counter to

general thinking behind the 3e magic system.

Gary

kgauck

08-05-2003, 10:34 PM

ge -----

From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>

Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 2:43 PM

> I hope we will [...] get to the part I find more interesting: exactly

which

> spells go on it? What spells are "opposed" to it?

My recommendation would be to start with a firm control of the elements.

The sidhe are described in the color material as being very elemental. In

fact I would only allow specializing as spellcasters in one of the four

elements, possibly with specialization in fire being an advanced study

covered only in a PrC. Then I`d go back and comb through the druid list

looking for obvious spells to include, which either reinforce the elemental

aspect or match the color text. I would then look at the various

enchantments and other spells to see what really belonged on the sidhe spell

list. Depending on how powerful such a caster was at this point, I`d go

thorugh the nature spells again, looking to balance various levels, round

out the list, and fill any gaps.

Both Legend of the Five Rings and Soverigen Stone organize every spell

according to one of the four elements. I would do the same for the sidhe

spell list. In Lot5R, for example, air spells are "subtle, involving

travel, intuition, influence, divination, and illusion." I would not

totally bar opposing elements, just elemental spells after 2nd level. In

Soverign Stone, air spells include charms, mentalism, travel, and illusion.

Thoughts?

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

kgauck

08-06-2003, 02:48 AM

ge -----

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

Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 5:16 PM

> Whether it is a suggestion or not, it seems to me that given the way

> several spells are still "cross over" between both the broader arcane and

> divine categories of spells, and most are still available to both types of

> spellcasters

This has nothing to do with the technical meaning of "school" however. The

school is a grouping of spells that have a consistent approach in the rules

and a similar game effect. All spells of a certain school work the same way

according to the same principles. For example, for every abjuration, if the

spell creates a barrier that keps certain creatures at bay, you cannot

advance to use the barrier to force the creatures back. Instead, you feel a

counter pressure if you attempt this, and if you continue to advance, the

spell is broken. This is a consitent part of being an abjuration. Some

schools lack this consistency overall, and employ subschools. Enchantment

employs subschools of charm and compulsion. Divine spellcasters don`t think

in terms of schools, for them it is a metagaming effect on how to interprent

spell effects. Wizards think in terms of schools within the game and their

specialization is organized by school.

Other uses of school generally refer to the standard English usage of the

word as a group of people or practices, especially philosophers, artists, or

thinkers, whose thought, work, or style demonstrates a common origin or

influence or unifying belief. The proposed nature spell list, and the

clerical healing domain both fit this general definition, but not the

technical definition in D&D.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

geeman

08-06-2003, 06:06 AM

-0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> > Whether it is a suggestion or not, it seems to me that given the way

> > several spells are still "cross over" between both the broader arcane and

> > divine categories of spells, and most are still available to both types of

> > spellcasters

>

>This has nothing to do with the technical meaning of "school" however. The

>school is a grouping of spells that have a consistent approach in the rules

>and a similar game effect. All spells of a certain school work the same way

>according to the same principles.

My point is that that`s evidence that such an interpretation isn`t

necessarily supported by the rest of the system, so it looks to me like

schools of magic are merely categorizations, not meant to determine the

game mechanical things as is being suggested. I understand what you guys

are saying about the schools of magic, but I`m still looking for the

reference that says that is the technical meaning and use of schools of

magic. According to the glossary in the PHB a school of magic is a "group

of related spells that work in similar ways." That`s it. Not quite the

extension of the concept that seems to be assumed here by several posters

who`ve suggested a new school would somehow ruin the continuity of the

system. Unless there is such a description, and some explanatory text to

support it, I think this is just an interpretation of the schools of magic,

and one that doesn`t necessarily work within the context of the rest of the

magic system. From what I can tell the interpretation is based mostly on

the specific change from 2e-3e that made spells members of single schools

rather than the occasional spell that was in two schools, but there`s

nothing else to indicate that schools are meant to have the significance or

singularity that is being described. There`s the addition of subschools,

but most of those seem to have the actual game mechanical effects that are

being attributed to schools themselves.

Gary

Mark_Aurel

08-06-2003, 09:26 AM

My point is that that`s evidence that such an interpretation isn`t
necessarily supported by the rest of the system, so it looks to me like
schools of magic are merely categorizations, not meant to determine the
game mechanical things as is being suggested. I understand what you guys
are saying about the schools of magic, but I`m still looking for the
reference that says that is the technical meaning and use of schools of
magic. According to the glossary in the PHB a school of magic is a "group
of related spells that work in similar ways." That`s it. Not quite the
extension of the concept that seems to be assumed here by several posters
who`ve suggested a new school would somehow ruin the continuity of the
system. Unless there is such a description, and some explanatory text to
support it, I think this is just an interpretation of the schools of magic,
and one that doesn`t necessarily work within the context of the rest of the
magic system. From what I can tell the interpretation is based mostly on
the specific change from 2e-3e that made spells members of single schools
rather than the occasional spell that was in two schools, but there`s
nothing else to indicate that schools are meant to have the significance or
singularity that is being described. There`s the addition of subschools,
but most of those seem to have the actual game mechanical effects that are
being attributed to schools themselves.

Gary

Now you are just being stubborn. Just because something isn't stated anywhere doesn't make it not true - I don't think there's a a statement anywhere that fighters can't cast any spell they want to at will, either, although I suppose you could argue that since it's not stated that he can't, a fighter really should be able to cast wish at will, at any time. The schools are a way to classify spells and their effects across all spell lists - for instance, the Elven spell list that was the topic here would contain enchantment spells (like charm person or animal), conjuration spells (like wall of thorns or summon nature's ally), transmutation spells (like polymorph or control weather), and so on. The point is that spells on a school list interacts in specific ways with certain game mechanics (like the Elven save bonus, or the break enchantment spell) - that is the purpose of schools.

For alternate spellcasters, like with the Elven spellcaster we're currently debating, the advice given is pretty crystal clear in the DMG - p. 26 of the 3e DMG (don't have the 3.5 one yet, so I don't know which page it is on there). Nowhere have there been any articles or design guidelines for new schools of magic - like there have been with feats, prestige classes, spell lists, and so on. In 2e, IIRC, the Wizard's Handbook contained guidelines on designing a new school - no such thing in 3e, because the nature of the schools themselves changed somewhat. Spells are only in one school now, where before there were some that were in multiple schools.

Now, of course, no one is standing around being the rules police and denying you from redefining stuff completely for your own campaign - like adding new schools, redefining which spells belong where, and so on - just like no one is the rules police when it comes to things like "more realistic" hit point systems or whatnot. The point is just that schools have a clearly defined role in 3e - even psionic abilities have schools to define their effects. If you want a different flavor of spellcaster, it's a simple matter of setting up a new spell list, or possibly adding some descriptors - like "weather." That's what the system recommends and supports doing.

geeman

08-06-2003, 02:50 PM

+0200, Mark_Aurel wrote:

>
I understand what you guys are saying about the schools of magic,

>but I`m still looking for the reference that says that is the technical

>meaning and use of schools of magic.

>

>Now you are just being stubborn. Just because something isn`t stated

>anywhere doesn`t make it not true - I don`t think there`s a a statement

>anywhere that fighters can`t cast any spell they want to at will, either,

>although I suppose you could argue that since it`s not stated that he

>can`t, a fighter really should be able to cast wish at will, at any time.

At the very least fighters are described as not understanding spellcasters,

and the core classes that can cast spells are all described/listed as

such. In any case, let me see if I can rephrase this in a way that will

make it clearer, in a way that will more positively identify my objection,

and why I don`t think I`m simply being stubborn here.

First of all, the description of a group of spells as a school does have

several benefits. Most obviously, there can be wizard specialists in that

school, and an elven spellcaster that specializes in a nature school of

magic would seem to make sense in the context of the BR description of the

race, so the argument than such a spell list couldn`t exist as a school

based on what appears to be only an interpretation seems contradictory to

the theme of the setting. If one is going to have a spell list based on a

particular theme, and that theme is as intrinsic to the emphasis of a

racial description as nature is to elves, it seems counter-productive to

particularly describe that spell list as "not a school" because that winds

up making that list _less_ useful to that race than another spell list that

is described as a school (like, say, necromancy) which the campaign

material describes as something that race does not emphasize. The capacity

of elves to cast spells from a nature oriented spell list should have the

same utility as their ability to cast spells from another spell list. The

inclusion of a nature school would allow for elven wizards who specialize

in that school much the same way the core rules describe gnomish

illusionists. For BR that kind of thing would be a good use of the core

mechanic into a campaign theme.

Secondly, I normally _like_ extrapolations of the rules into thematic

concepts like the way people are describing the difference between schools

of magic and simple class-based spell lists. Under other circumstances,

that`s the kind of "meta-mechanical thinking" (if you will) that I find

interesting. In this case, however, it seems counter to one or more of the

themes of the setting, and as such a negative influence of a rather vaguely

defined and somewhat minor core 3e concept (if it really exists at all)

into the campaign material--which is the precise opposite of how that kind

of thing should work. Campaign material should always, Always, ALWAYS take

precedence over core material. The only reason it shouldn`t take

precedence over campaign material is because an individual DM wants to run

his gaming that way. If the DM controlling his campaign is Rule 0 then

campaign material taking precedence over core material is Rule 0.1. This

extrapolation upon core material is all well and good, but to then apply it

to the campaign setting in a way that is counter to themes expressed by

that material is not the way to go.

Thirdly, I`m not very confident that it`s a very legitimate example of

"meta-mechanical thinking" in the first place. It is entirely possible

that in 3e the definition of school of magic really is meant to be as

positive a category as it has been described. The designers might have

grouped those categories of spell lists as part of an overarching

philosophical construct, making it the kind of thing that the Architect

from _The Matrix: Reloaded_ would describe as "a harmony of mathematical

precision." But I don`t think that`s the case. It seems more likely to me

that they just streamlined the spell lists since the magic chapter(s) are

the biggest part of the PHB, and they wanted to make those lists and

descriptions more concise. They did several other things to streamline

that list (like no duplicate arcane and divine lists, more carefully

designed spell descriptions, etc.) so I think this definitive and exclusive

nature of the schools of magic that is being extrapolated here is derived

from a simple editing decision rather than anything based on any thinking

regarding game mechanics.

Lastly, while it`s certainly possible that they really meant to make

schools of magic the exclusionary concept that`s being suggested, the

effects of breaking such a concept for the purpose of a nature oriented

school of magic are, at best, slight. I think it would be pretty hard to

find any negative effects from making a nature school and allowing the

effects of a school to a spell list. Are there any other aspects of the

magic system would be effected? In fact, the effects of a school of magic

might very well be applicable to several other BR concepts. One of the

things I`ve always liked about BR is an interaction between the adventure

and domain level of play. What about something like this: Add your source

holding level to your spellcaster level when casting spells from the Nature

school in a province in which you control sources. That`s the kind of

thing that would fit right into BR themes, and is very similar to the

descriptive stuff for schools regarding how certain game mechanical

influences on schools. One make such a rule for any spell list, of course,

but it makes more sense if it is a school of magic rather than just a list

of spells. In a similar manner there are other BR themed schools that

might be used. A school of Shadow magic, for instance, seems very apt

given the proximity of the Shadow World in BR.

Gary

Mark_Aurel

08-06-2003, 11:04 PM

First of all, the description of a group of spells as a school does have
several benefits. Most obviously, there can be wizard specialists in that
school, and an elven spellcaster that specializes in a nature school of
magic would seem to make sense in the context of the BR description of the
race, so the argument than such a spell list couldn`t exist as a school
based on what appears to be only an interpretation seems contradictory to
the theme of the setting. If one is going to have a spell list based on a
particular theme, and that theme is as intrinsic to the emphasis of a
racial description as nature is to elves, it seems counter-productive to
particularly describe that spell list as "not a school" because that winds
up making that list _less_ useful to that race than another spell list that
is described as a school (like, say, necromancy) which the campaign
material describes as something that race does not emphasize. The capacity
of elves to cast spells from a nature oriented spell list should have the
same utility as their ability to cast spells from another spell list. The
inclusion of a nature school would allow for elven wizards who specialize
in that school much the same way the core rules describe gnomish
illusionists. For BR that kind of thing would be a good use of the core
mechanic into a campaign theme.

There are a couple of pretty big leaps here. Let me try to summarize your logic here:
1. If it's a school, there can be specialist wizards.
2. If it's not a school, there can't be specialists in it, and that's contradictory to the theme of Birthright.

I think that about sums it up, along with an attempt to brand an example of a school as a spell list and hold it up against your sample school.

Campaign material should always, Always, ALWAYS take
precedence over core material. The only reason it shouldn`t take
precedence over campaign material is because an individual DM wants to run
his gaming that way.

Has anyone said otherwise? If you could dig up the description of the nature school in any 2e BR materials (obviously not 3e), or find an example of alternate schools in other official 3e products, that'd work okay for me. What we are really doing here is interpreting what was previously mainly flavor material into useful game mechanics - something that is generally easier to do with 3e than previous editions - and thus applying the existing rules to that. The existing rules are pretty clear on how to treat spellcasters with different flavors.

Now, if you want an example of a new "school" in 3e, I've just found one - it's "Ectomancy," from Ghostwalk (just got ahold of a copy of it today). This is a good an example of any as I've seen of what you were just talking about - how campaign/flavor material interacts with the rules. Ectomancy is a new descriptor specific to the Ghostwalk setting - many of the new spells, as well as PHB spells like astral projection, invisibility to undead, negative energy protection (no longer around in 3.5 IIRC), and wail of the banshee have this descriptor.

I don't really see anything wrong with an elf being a "specialist" in a "nature magic" descriptor - or a ghost in ectomancy, for that matter - though I tend to prefer a more radical variant, as I showed earlier, with a class that casts spells in what I'd consider a more "elven" fashion than what a wizard does.

Osprey

08-07-2003, 01:15 AM

Forgive me for interrupting the massive debate over technicalities and definitions, but...

What's wrong with changing the BRCS playtest docs and saying that Cerilian elves CAN be Druids? I mean, Druids are nature-based spellcasters by definition, so why all the talk of introducing a new school of magic when there's already a complete class set up? In what ways does the Druid class not satisfy the concept of an elven spellcaster? Especially now that druids can be regent spellcasters without draining the sources, it seems to fit perfectly with the elven concept. In fact, why not give Cerilian elves Druid as a favored class, rather than mage? Heck, I've always wondered about that with elves in general, not just the Sidhelien.

Is there a reason better than "we already said that elves aren't druids?" Far as I can tell, it would be easy to describe some cultural differences between human and elven druids, and if you really wanted to make a more distinguished difference, adding some sort of Elemental specialist prestige class for elves wouldn't be out of line either. Finally, adding a few "elf only" spells to the existing Druid list could also be done. Tweaking the existing class would be a lot easier than making a whole new one.

I present these ideas as possible simpler alternatives to what seems to be a problematic attempt at making a new school / spell list / character class. One of the problems with making a new School is that according to the PHB, there isn't much oin the way of "dual school" spells, in other words a spell that is both Abjuration and Transmutation, for example. The schools definitely tend to describe the actual function of the spell, while Arcane / Divine define the basic source of power and technique used. Spell lists, on the other hand, are class-specific, so you would have to create a new Sidhelien spellcaster class, or at least a prestige class, to justify a new spell list. These concepts keep in the spirit of the 3e mechanics, and I worry about going too far outside the lines for the sake of favorites.

Doesn't this whole "Sidhelien get their own rules" bit smack of favoritism rather than game balance? Tolkien's elves were pretty all-out superior to humans, too, but that hardly makes for a balanced game for PC's.

If Sidhelien come to be too good, I'd suggest adding some ECL's for balance.

-Osprey

kgauck

08-07-2003, 02:00 AM

esky question of the humans first learning magic from

the elves. If the magic of the elves is druidical, it bears more of a

relationship to the Erik`s priests, not human wizards. This puts requires

some explanation, unless the elves are actually a cross between wizards and

druids, in which case its easier to imagine that humans had taken the arcane

ball and run with it. Even if we were to go that way, I`d still be inclined

to buff their power over the elements.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

geeman

08-07-2003, 07:06 AM

+0200, Mark_Aurel wrote:

>There are a couple of pretty big leaps here. Let me try to summarize your

>logic here:

> 1. If it`s a school, there can be specialist wizards.

> 2. If it`s not a school, there can`t be specialists in it, and that`s

> contradictory to the theme of Birthright.

>

> I think that about sums it up, along with an attempt to brand an example

> of a school as a spell list and hold it up against your sample school.

I think there were a couple more aspects to that part of the post:

3. A list of nature spells should be as useful to Cerilian elves as any

other list that`s described in the core materials as a school.

4. The specialization effect of the wizard class is the 3e function that

would be best (or at least easiest) to reflect that kind of thing in BR in

a similar way to how 3e handles gnome illusionists.

>
Campaign material should always, Always, ALWAYS take precedence

>over core material. The only reason it shouldn`t take precedence over

>campaign material is because an individual DM wants to run his gaming that

>way.

>

>Has anyone said otherwise?

This interpretation of how 3e handles schools of magic strikes me as an

argument that the core materials should take precedence over the campaign

material since it is being assumed that in BR there cannot be a nature

school because of the way 3e delineates those schools. Now, I`m not

convinced it`s a very good interpretation of the 3e rules in the first

place, but my point there is that even if it is accurate it doesn`t make

any difference regarding the inclusion of such a school in BR.

>If you could dig up the description of the nature school in any 2e BR

>materials (obviously not 3e), or find an example of alternate schools in

>other official 3e products, that`d work okay for me. What we are really

>doing here is interpreting what was previously mainly flavor material into

>useful game mechanics - something that is generally easier to do with 3e

>than previous editions - and thus applying the existing rules to that. The

>existing rules are pretty clear on how to treat spellcasters with

>different flavors.

I wish there had been a school of magic in the 2e version of BR, but the

rules set (as has been noted once or twice) back then was not nearly as

flexible as it is in 3e/d20, so it`s probably not a surprise that it didn`t

exist. I don`t recall seeing a list of nature oriented spells so

described. But there`s so much colour text in the 2e BR documents that

it`s hard to ignore. Just a few references:

BoM p5: "Each race of Cerilia has its own attitudes towards and

philosophies of magic." That could be interpreted as schools of magic.

Under the "Elves" description: "Nearly as old as the continent itself,

Cerilia`s elves live in perfect harmony with nature." and "Children of

nature, they embrace all that is of the natural world--including magic."

p6: "Elves prefer subtlety over brute force and thus favor magic schools

and spells that bring them closer to nature."

There`s also some information about what schools of magic are not favored

by elves and why. Elves "repudiate necromancy" they "shun magic of the

invocation/evocation school" and "seldom cast spells of the

conjuration/summoning school." Those would make good opposition schools

for a nature school.

Gary

geeman

08-07-2003, 07:18 AM

+0200, Osprey wrote:

>What`s wrong with changing the BRCS playtest docs and saying that Cerilian

>elves CAN be Druids?

Druids have such a definitive role in BR that I`m personally loathe to open

up the 3e priestly class to elves. The big problem isn`t the spell list or

the capabilities of druids, since most of those things are the kinds of

things elves might do. Aside from that role being that of Erik`s

priesthood, it`s stuff like the other aspects of the druid

class. Strangely, the wild shape ability of druids doesn`t seem apt to

describe the Cerilian elven take on nature (that could be just my

impression there.) Personally, I think the d8 HD is a problem too, as is

the stuff on armor and weapon types, so there are several class features

that should change for a Cerilian elven take on the nature priest. An

elven "nature wizard" or something might make some sense, though.

Gary

kgauck

08-07-2003, 07:55 AM

ge -----

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

Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 1:14 AM

> This interpretation of how 3e handles schools of magic strikes me as an

> argument that the core materials should take precedence over the campaign

> material since it is being assumed that in BR there cannot be a nature

> school because of the way 3e delineates those schools.

Good sir, I am the furthest from thinking that the printed rules must

superceed the setting, but at the same time I am able to understand the

meaing of these printed rules without reguard for their utility. I did

after all post a suggestion for sidhe spellcasters that tossed the rulebook

out the window.

> Now, I`m not convinced it`s a very good interpretation of the 3e rules

> in the first place, but my point there is that even if it is accurate it

> doesn`t make any difference regarding the inclusion of such a school

> in BR.

This may well be, but it doesn`t change the words on the page. That`s why

its better to look to other d20 products rather than confine ourselves to

the PHB.

> BoM p5: "Each race of Cerilia has its own attitudes towards and

> philosophies of magic." That could be interpreted as schools of magic.

It could, but that would be a different meaing of the word. I am very much

in favor of distinct sidhe spellcasting based on the color text. But I am

under no illusions that what I am doing fits nicely and happily next to the

PHB. If we are going to call such things schools, we owe it to other list

members to clarify that we don`t mean what the PHB does. Or we should use a

different word. Its not as though we have a shortage.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

Mark_Aurel

08-07-2003, 10:09 AM

This interpretation of how 3e handles schools of magic strikes me as an
argument that the core materials should take precedence over the campaign
material since it is being assumed that in BR there cannot be a nature
school because of the way 3e delineates those schools. Now, I`m not
convinced it`s a very good interpretation of the 3e rules in the first
place, but my point there is that even if it is accurate it doesn`t make
any difference regarding the inclusion of such a school in BR.

There are two separate issues here. One is rules interpretation. The other is campaign flavor stuff.

1. Rules interpretation - how schools of magic work in 3e. They're basically tools to classify and categorize spells, not really flavor-heavy elements.
2. Campaign flavor - "elves cast nature magic." I don't see anyone objecting to this at all. I don't necessarily see what bearing it has on #1, either. If schools are a distinct mechanical element, and not a flavor element, then campaign flavor elements shouldn't mess around with them either.

I wish there had been a school of magic in the 2e version of BR, but the
rules set (as has been noted once or twice) back then was not nearly as
flexible as it is in 3e/d20, so it`s probably not a surprise that it didn`t
exist. I don`t recall seeing a list of nature oriented spells so
described. But there`s so much colour text in the 2e BR documents that
it`s hard to ignore. Just a few references:

Actually, the rules set was more flexible in some ways. Definitions and terms weren't generally equally as precise as they are in 3e - the case of the schools is a good example of this. You would be making up new rules subssystems to handle things, not apply existing ones - like how initiative worked different from combat rolls, which worked different from wrestling rolls, and then there was another subsystem for saves, and another for proficiencies, and so on. 3e is more flexible than 2e was for a few reasons - you can do a lot more with the rules as they are, without having to make up new types of rules, just new modular elements, and there's a lot more specific types of "hooks" to attach such changes to, given the system of precise definitions that 3e employs. The way spells are classified is one of the best examples of this - with schools, subschools and descriptors, making for more different standardized forms of interaction between different mechanical elements. In short, the type of flexibility you seem to refer to is a 2e-ism, not a 3e-ism - insofar as you'd be changing the meaning of a mechanical term a bit.

Trying to tie your argument for having a "nature school" to "campaign material always, Always, ALWAYS taking precedence" is a neat little rhetorical trick, though. It just doesn't have that much relevance here, I think. It's a bit like taking a passage from some book that reads something like "he had great stamina and held the rock for hours" is an argument that in *that* campaign, carrying capacity should be based on Con, not Str.

Just to reiterate some old examples and add a new one:
1. The DMG uses alternate spell lists for different-flavor spellcasters. Nowhere is there any mention of altering schools.
2. Ectomancy from Ghostwalk is an example of a campaign-specific flavor thing - and it's a new descriptor for spells, not a new school.
3. Oriental Adventures should feature a different outlook on spells from the PHB, right? Them having five elements, or animistic casting or whatnot. OA features new spell lists, and some descriptors, not new schools.

BoM p5: "Each race of Cerilia has its own attitudes towards and
philosophies of magic." That could be interpreted as schools of magic.

Under the "Elves" description: "Nearly as old as the continent itself,
Cerilia`s elves live in perfect harmony with nature." and "Children of
nature, they embrace all that is of the natural world--including magic."

p6: "Elves prefer subtlety over brute force and thus favor magic schools
and spells that bring them closer to nature."

Yes. What I wanted to see was some rules text to back your stance that a nature "school" is somehow required. Obviously, there is none. What we are doing is simply converting flavor text to rules, something which is easier to do with the existing mechanics than it was in 2e - whipping up a list of new spells is entirely within the system, whereas 2e sorted spells on two lists only - wizard spells and priest spells. The flavor text itself should have no bearing on how we interpret the rules - only how we apply them. Trying to mix up campaign flavor material with rules interpretation only clouds the issue. Campaign flavor material has to do with rules application - not interpretation. You don't reinterpret how skills are resolved, how attacks are resolved, how ability scores work, and so on - you apply different modular elements to achieve a desired flavor. Allowing or disallowing various classes and prestige classes can make for very different campaign flavors. So can different spell lists.

Now, I'm not opposed to house rules or whatnot - I simply think that rules debates work best if they work on a common ground where everyone has the same understanding of how the rules work. If you want a different hit point system, that's fine with me - that doesn't mean you should go trying to use a different interpretation from everyone else of what the core rules hit point system means. Redefining the entire magic system is also fine with me, of course - the point is just that I think a common ground of mutual understanding of how the rules work is most conductive to constructive rules debates. Anything else, and we wouldn't be speaking the same language, which generally leads to war, if history is to be an indication.

Mark_Aurel

08-07-2003, 10:14 AM

Druids have such a definitive role in BR that I`m personally loathe to open
up the 3e priestly class to elves. The big problem isn`t the spell list or
the capabilities of druids, since most of those things are the kinds of
things elves might do. Aside from that role being that of Erik`s
priesthood, it`s stuff like the other aspects of the druid
class. Strangely, the wild shape ability of druids doesn`t seem apt to
describe the Cerilian elven take on nature (that could be just my
impression there.) Personally, I think the d8 HD is a problem too, as is
the stuff on armor and weapon types, so there are several class features
that should change for a Cerilian elven take on the nature priest. An
elven "nature wizard" or something might make some sense, though.

I tend to agree with this. Druids are somewhat suited for the role intended, but there's generally a lot of elements to them that aren't all that well suited at all. Wild shape doesn't strike me as appropriate. A d8 HD, a good Fort save, even a medium attack progression doesn't seem entirely apt. They could be used in a pinch, but I'd rather have something more like a wizard or sorcerer - and there are some spells on the druid list I find inappropriate, and some wizard/sorcerer spells that they should still have, so simply switching spell lists isn't quite a good option either, IMO.

geeman

08-07-2003, 12:45 PM

-0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> > This interpretation of how 3e handles schools of magic strikes me as an

> > argument that the core materials should take precedence over the campaign

> > material since it is being assumed that in BR there cannot be a nature

> > school because of the way 3e delineates those schools.

>

>Good sir, I am the furthest from thinking that the printed rules must

>superceed the setting, but at the same time I am able to understand the

>meaing of these printed rules without reguard for their utility. I did

>after all post a suggestion for sidhe spellcasters that tossed the rulebook

>out the window.

That wasn`t directed at a particular person. Several folks have presented

this interpretation about schools of magic and it strikes me as being

incorrect for the reason I stated: It takes what I see as a somewhat

questionable extrapolation of the 3e texts and then applies that to

campaign material. The important thing is that even if the interpretation

of the 3e mechanic were sound it needn`t apply to the campaign setting.

> > Now, I`m not convinced it`s a very good interpretation of the 3e rules

> > in the first place, but my point there is that even if it is accurate it

> > doesn`t make any difference regarding the inclusion of such a school

> > in BR.

>

>This may well be, but it doesn`t change the words on the page. That`s why

>its better to look to other d20 products rather than confine ourselves to

>the PHB.

Which words on the page do you mean? Is there something in the D&D texts

that states how schools of magic work that supports the "exclusive school"

position?

> > BoM p5: "Each race of Cerilia has its own attitudes towards and

> > philosophies of magic." That could be interpreted as schools of magic.

>

>It could, but that would be a different meaing of the word. I am very much

>in favor of distinct sidhe spellcasting based on the color text.

That quote is definitely the weakest (though the others are much more

solid) and I wouldn`t base a whole game mechanic on it alone. In context

with the others, however, it makes more sense and can work as the basis of

a Nature school of magic, or other schools that other races of Cerilia

might endorse.

>But I am under no illusions that what I am doing fits nicely and happily

>next to the

>PHB. If we are going to call such things schools, we owe it to other list

>members to clarify that we don`t mean what the PHB does. Or we should use a

>different word. Its not as though we have a shortage.

I`m still not convinced that the PHB says what you guys are saying it does,

I`m afraid, but regardless of that in this case I want to use the mechanic

of the school of magic to reflect the colour text of the campaign material,

so using a different word won`t work. A description of what I`m talking

about will be another post.

Gary

geeman

08-07-2003, 12:45 PM

+0200, Mark_Aurel wrote:

> Trying to tie your argument for having a "nature school" to

> "campaign material always, Always, ALWAYS taking precedence" is

> a neat little rhetorical trick, though.

Thanky. I don`t care much for emoticons, so a little playing around with

the text is more interesting.

When it comes to this particular issue, the conclusion that I`m coming to

is that the best way to handle it is to make a Nature school of magic and

give access to that school not only to Sidhe mages, but allow them to

specialize in it. That way it not only utilizes the 3e mechanics that I am

confident in (and that more people are comfortable with) but fits into the

colour text. Write up to follow....

Gary

geeman

08-07-2003, 12:45 PM

re productive way to go. Here`s a Nature School write up:

Nature School

Cerilian elves have a connection to nature and the land unlike that of

any other race or spellcaster. This connection allows them access to a

special type of magic that is unavailable to other arcane

spellcasters. Elves may cast spells from the Nature school and may

specialize in that school of magic. Specialists gain all the benefits of

school specialization and must also choose one or more schools of magic

from which they cannot learn spells.

Here`s a little text that would go with the School Specialization stuff on

p54 of the PHB (or whatever page it is now in 3.5):

Nature: Spells that relate to the natural environment are in the Nature

school. Specialists in the Nature school are called _taelinri_ (teachers)

in the Sidhelien tongue, and among those few outside elven lands who know

of their existence and powers they are sometimes called Nature Wizards and

the Wise. Only elves or half-elves may specialize or learn spells from the

nature school of magic (unless those spells appear on another schools list

of spells, of course.) To become a specialist in the nature school the

wizard must select prohibited schools from the following choices: (1)

Necromancy and one of the following schools: Conjuration, Enchantment,

Evocation; (2) any three of the following schools: Abjuration, Divination,

Illusion, Necromancy, Transmutation.

Here`s a very brief write up of the school that would go in the "Schools of

Magic" section of Chapter 10: Magic.

NATURE

The nature school is comprised of spells that manipulate the

wilderness. Spells involving natural animals, plants and the natural

environment itself fall under the nature school of magic.

If subschools are necessary for some reason "flora" "fauna" and

"environmental" might be apt, depending on how one wanted to divide up the

subject. I avoided including spells that controlled weather as many of

them are "elemental: air" based and would probably be more apt for another

school of magic....

Spells in the nature school. This part is eminently debatable, of course,

and I`m going to just crank this out, so comments about what should or

shouldn`t be included are very welcome.

0th level

Detect Poison

Know Direction

Purify Food and Drink

1st level

Calm Animals

Detect Animals or Plants

Detect Snares and Pits

Entangle

Invisibility to Animals

Obscuring Mist

2nd level

Animal Messenger

Animal Trance

Delay Poison

Hold Animal

Tree Shape

3rd level

Dominate Animal

Meld Into Stone

Plant Growth

Snare

4th level

Control Plants

Giant Vermin

Hallucinatory Terrain

5th level

Animal Growth

Awaken

Commune with Nature

Wall of Thorns

6th level

Find the Path

Ironwood

Liveoak

Spellstaff

Stone Tell

7th level

Animal Shapes

Changestaff

Control Weather

Wind Walk

8th level

Command Plants

Creeping Doom

9th level

Foresight

Shambler

Shapechange

Sympathy

Other schools of magic that seem apt for BR are a Shadow school an

Elementalist school and given the number of spells that are specific to BR

maybe even a Bloodline based school of magic.

Gary

kgauck

08-07-2003, 10:47 PM

ge -----

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

Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 7:26 AM

> That wasn`t directed at a particular person.

No one said that it was. The reason I point to myself is that I don`t even

use this magic system. I have no ties to to it and no interest in making

agree with me. So either I stumbled onto this interpretation (also held by

others) or its actually there. My distinct impression is that you find this

interpretation inconvenient and so reject it regardless of the text because

its not what you want it to say. The argument that it really doesn`t say

this is post hoc reasoning. As Mark said, you are being stubborn.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

geeman

08-08-2003, 02:08 AM

-0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> > That wasn`t directed at a particular person.

>

>No one said that it was.

It looked like you were taking it that way, particularly since your

response was directed at me and didn`t address the ideas expressed. Sorry

if I misread your "Good sir" opening and statements about your own take on

things as being defensive.

>The reason I point to myself is that I don`t even use this magic

>system. I have no ties to to it and no interest in making agree with

>me. So either I stumbled onto this interpretation (also held by others)

>or its actually there. My distinct impression is that you find this

>interpretation inconvenient and so reject it regardless of the text

>because its not what you want it to say. The argument that it really

>doesn`t say this is post hoc reasoning. As Mark said, you are being stubborn.

I am stubbornly trying to feel out the situation... but this is an

important aspect of the campaign setting--one of the most significant

aspect of the elven race--so I think it warrants the examination. I do

find the interpretation inconvenient in that it interferes with uses of the

game mechanics, and is being used to justify not incorporating campaign

themes in a way that fits in with things like character class--a much more

important and easily utilized aspect of the game mechanics. It goes from a

very particular reading of the text to exclude some of the most general

ideas about the system, which is not a good way to go. If nothing else,

however, this elaboration on the subject has gotten a write up for Nature

specialists and a school of magic spell list, so it`s been worthwhile IMO.

I should note that I don`t think the interpretation is completely illogical

or without basis. The 3e core documents don`t list more than the eight

schools of magic and their respective subschools. There was a definite

effort to eliminate listing spells as being in more than one school. Those

schools of magic are in many ways classification of spells by

characteristic rather than the rather loose descriptor of them that was in

previous editions. I can see someone reading into that the idea that those

were the only schools possible in 3e, and I understand how one might see

the inclusion of new schools as interfering with that.

Unfortunately, I really don`t think that was what they meant to do. Aside

from not seeing a whole lot of thinking that is so grandiose and determined

in the core rules as is suggested by the interpretation, including six or

ten other schools of magic that were apt for campaign settings like Dark

Sun`s elemental based spellcasting or BR`s elves would muddy up those spell

descriptions and make the biggest part of the core texts longer and more

muddled. The core texts don`t emphasize campaign material (or any campaign

material other than FR/GH) so they wouldn`t include such things. The

suggestion that there can`t be more schools of magic is an extrapolation

from what is more likely just an effort to streamline the text of the spell

chapter of the PHB. Since it keeps getting said that it`s in the text in

such a positive manner I keep asking for an actual reference, but barring

something that really says that that is supposed to be the case, I think

the interpretation is just something that`s been read into the text.

In this case, the interpretation that there can`t be additional schools of

magic is a very, Very, VERY (since Mark liked the rhetorical device)

particular reading the game rules and using that as a justification for not

utilizing other aspects of the rules is not IMO just inconvenient. It is

an overall Bad Idea. Isn`t is possible that its just a bad idea that has

been extrapolated from a simple editing choice?

Mark has pointed out one D20 document that includes a new school of magic

and, while I don`t have access to gobs of D20 stuff, here`s one

more. Mongoose Publishing`s _Encyclopedia Arcane: Star Magic_ describes

the spells and capacity of mages who gain their spells from the stars (kind

of like having a spellbook in the sky) as a school of magic. The spell

list includes spells from what are other schools of magic in 3e. Though

the system doesn`t grant specialists the same powers granted to

"traditional" 3e specialists, there are several benefits for

specialization. I`d argue that one or two of the other "encyclopedias"

from Mongoose handle groups of spells and create spellcasting classes that

are very similar to schools of magic. The Demonology, Battle Magic and

Chaos Magic Encyclopedias handle spells in a very similar manner. Those

are the only ones I`ve seen, I`m afraid, so there could be more.

In any case, making a nature school of magic and giving elven spellcasters

access to it seems like the most elegant solution presented so far. It`s

better than giving elves access to the druid character class and is simpler

than developing a new character class with its own spell list.

Gary

Mark_Aurel

08-08-2003, 03:21 PM

In this case, the interpretation that there can`t be additional schools of
magic is a very, Very, VERY (since Mark liked the rhetorical device)
particular reading the game rules and using that as a justification for not
utilizing other aspects of the rules is not IMO just inconvenient. It is
an overall Bad Idea. Isn`t is possible that its just a bad idea that has
been extrapolated from a simple editing choice?

No. You have yet to provide any real benefit to expanding the school system. Changing the spell system entirely is your prerogative, of course, but the schools are what they are in D&D. I think Kenneth is right on the money concerning his analysis of your disagreement here - it doesn't suit your agenda, so instead of simply conceding, you keep plumbing for new arguments.

For that matter, the thing I was referring to earlier wasn't the "ve, Ve, VE" thing - it was trying to tie an argument about game mechanics terminology into something completely separate - campaign flavor issues. The matter at heart here is simply defining what a school is and how it works in 3e, not "the fight for the freedom to define BR" since, as I've pointed out, there's a lot of ways to achieve exactly what you want, without redefining the schools.

Mark has pointed out one D20 document that includes a new school of magic
and, while I don`t have access to gobs of D20 stuff, here`s one
more. Mongoose Publishing`s _Encyclopedia Arcane: Star Magic_ describes
the spells and capacity of mages who gain their spells from the stars (kind
of like having a spellbook in the sky) as a school of magic.

Nice try, but no cigar. I never pointed out any new schools - I stated that there was an Ectomancy descriptor in Ghostwalk, which falls about as close to your ideals of "campaign flavor vs rules" theme as something possibly can, then there's the Witch spell list in the DMG, and there are always the new spell lists in OA - a setting which really features a higher level of philosophical differences in terms of magic/spirits/whatnot than BR does compared to core D&D. In none of these cases were new schools introduced. All the examples I cited are WotC-published ones. Using an example from a Mongoose book is a bit of a waste - they're basically the McDonald's of the RPG industry - only freed from the obligation of having to keep everything clean and hygienic. Much of what Mongoose has produced is utter crap, showing a poor understanding overall of the underlying structure and assumptions of the rules, and this doesn't sound like an exception at all. Trying to use a Mongoose example as some form of precedence is like trying to recommend a meal at McDonald's over one at a fine five-star restaurant. The finest d20 publishers are companies like Malhavoc and Green Ronin - if you could find examples in their products, I'd accord it a bit more weight. As it is, Monte just put out a new variant PHB - with a very interesting magic system. Guess which eight schools it features? What is added is a bunch of new descriptors and a new system of "spell templates." All in all, combined with the simple/complex/exotic division of spells, this creates a fairly interesting variant system without actually changing any of the core mechanics, like spells by level or school.

Now, I don't see what you're trying to do as simple or elegant - it's meddling with something needlessly for very little, if any, payback. It's like trying to change the engine, when what your real goal is actually to repaint the ship. Simple would be something like "Elven wizards can use the druid spell list in place of the wizard list if they want to. Oh, no healing spells for them, but they can use wizard enchantment and transmutation spells, and a few others that fit." That'd be simple, and somewhat elegant. Another way would be to adapt and reverse some of the rules from the Book of Vile Darkness - create an extensive Nature spell list, have elves cast spells from that, and associate some cost with casting a lot of the regular spells.

The point is that the system doesn't bar you from creating a Nature spell list at all - there are many established ways to create flavored spell lists and apply them. Creating new schools isn't one of them, nor is it ever likely to be, since that isn't just creating a new list - it is redefining a part of the magic system itself.

geeman

08-08-2003, 05:55 PM

+0200, Mark_Aurel wrote:

>You have yet to provide any real benefit to expanding the school system.

>Changing the spell system entirely is your prerogative, of course, but the

>schools are what they are in D&D.

I`ve described the benefits at least a couple of times. Here they are again:

1. By adding Nature as a school of magic and giving access to elves and

half-elves to that spell list we can reflect the elven emphasis on natural

magic as is described several times in the campaign material without having

to write up an entire spell list or qualify the wizard character class

itself. It`s a shorter "add in" to the 3e core rules than a new character

class write up or whole new spell lists and (aside from the supposed

exclusive nature of schools of magic that has been suggested) would require

very little change from the standard 3e versions of such things. Hence

"simpler."

2. Since it will function with existing character classes and existing game

concepts (like how school specialization works) it will not require

exceptional or qualified rules; like your suggestion of giving

elven wizards access to druidic spells, less healing magic, plus two or

more schools. A new school is "more elegant" than an entirely new spell

list. I should also note that in writing up the Nature school that I

suggested in a previous post I found more than a few druidic spells that

were not particularly apt for elven wizards, not just healing ones. A look

at the druidic spell list will show that just giving elven wizards access

to druidic spells--even if healing spells are deducted--is a rather

hamfisted way of reflecting the elven emphasis on magic. It is, therefore,

doubly "inelegant" because it not only makes for a somewhat confused spell

list, but also doesn`t very well reflect the campaign material.

3. As a school of magic elves could use the wizard specialization function,

gaining the benefits like any other school. Thus, elven wizards are as

able to cast spells from that list with the same potential utility as they

could cast spells from other schools. If one just adds spells to the

repertoire of elven spellcasters without giving them access to the function

of specialization with those spells then one winds up with elves who have

more functionality with other, non-nature oriented spells--which the

campaign material would indicate isn`t the case.

>I think Kenneth is right on the money concerning his analysis of your

>disagreement here - it doesn`t suit your agenda, so instead of simply

>conceding, you keep plumbing for new arguments.

My agenda in this case is to reflect the campaign material in updated game

mechanics, which I honestly think is better reflected by a Nature school of

magic than by any of the other suggestions. When it comes to plumbing for

new arguments, I find new arguments nice should they produce new ideas, but

in this case the plumbing appears to be getting backed up....

>For that matter, the thing I was referring to earlier wasn`t the "ve,

>Ve, VE" thing - it was trying to tie an argument about game mechanics

>terminology into something completely separate - campaign flavor issues.

Oh. C`est la vie. The "rhetorical device" comment threw me off because I

wouldn`t describe tying game mechanic terminology to campaign flavor issues

as a rhetorical issue. That is entirely the point in playing an

independent campaign setting.

When it comes to tying game mechanics into campaign flavor issues, I think

the "exclusive schools of magic" interpretation is a real "cart before the

horse" mindset. In fact, it`s worse. The horse is riding on the

cart.... The campaign flavor issues are much more important than the 3e

game mechanics. All this stuff about not allowing new schools of magic

because 3e doesn`t allow it--a position that I still think has has very

little support outside of the impressions of those espousing it--is being

given far too much significance in this case. Instead of making BR look

like 3e, I think 3e/D20 rules should be used to reflect BR themes, improve

them where possible, and they should be ignored where they interfere with

the setting`s dynamics. Even if I agreed with the "no new schools of

magic" interpretation, I don`t think it is particularly important to this

issue.

>The matter at heart here is simply defining what a school is and how it

>works in 3e, not "the fight for the freedom to define BR" since,

>as I`ve pointed out, there`s a lot of ways to achieve exactly what you

>want, without redefining the schools.

Defining what a school is for 3e is not very high on my agenda, since I

think that stuff is pretty secondary to portraying campaign

material. Honestly, that the interpretation of what a school of magic is

in 3e is pretty well covered material at this point, so unless there`s some

further elaboration on the definition I don`t think we need to go over it

again.

>
Mark has pointed out one D20 document that includes a new school of

>magic and, while I don`t have access to gobs of D20 stuff, here`s one

>more. Mongoose Publishing`s _Encyclopedia Arcane: Star Magic_ describes

>the spells and capacity of mages who gain their spells from the stars

>(kind of like having a spellbook in the sky) as a school of magic.

>

>Nice try, but no cigar. I never pointed out any new schools - I stated

>that there was an Ectomancy descriptor in Ghostwalk, which falls about as

>close to your ideals of "campaign flavor vs rules" theme as

>something possibly can, then there`s the Witch spell list in the DMG, and

>there are always the new spell lists in OA - a setting which really

>features a higher level of philosophical differences in terms of

>magic/spirits/whatnot than BR does compared to core D&D. In none of

>these cases were new schools introduced.

That`s OK, I gave up cigars quite a while ago. Your description read to me

like they actually described it as a school, not just as supporting the

campaign vs. core material issue. Did they actually refer to it as a

school or no? Did they allow wizard specialists in it? Is the word

"ectomancy" in the spell subtitles?

>All the examples I cited are WotC-published ones. Using an example from a

>Mongoose book is a bit of a waste - they`re basically the McDonald`s of

>the RPG industry - only freed from the obligation of having to keep

>everything clean and hygienic.

I`m not a particularly big fan of Mongoose`s material either. (IMO WotC is

the McDonald`s of RPGs. Mongoose is more fluffy.) I was, however, asked

for D20 references. Frankly, I couldn`t care less if other D20 companies

come up with new schools or not--or if WotC comes up with them for that

matter. All that matters IMO is that in this case it suits both the

campaign material and the game mechanics to add a new school.

>As it is, Monte just put out a new variant PHB - with a very interesting

>magic system. Guess which eight schools it features? What is added is a

>bunch of new descriptors and a new system of "spell templates."

>All in all, combined with the simple/complex/exotic division of spells,

>this creates a fairly interesting variant system without actually changing

>any of the core mechanics, like spells by level or school.

I generally like Monte Cooke`s work, but I don`t think it`s very surprising

that a variant core text by him would have the same number of schools of

magic. Including campaign material isn`t the role of a core text. At

least, I don`t find it any more compelling an argument that there should be

no more schools of magic than the reading of the 3e core books that is

already being espoused.

>Another way would be to adapt and reverse some of the rules from the Book

>of Vile Darkness - create an extensive Nature spell list, have elves cast

>spells from that, and associate some cost with casting a lot of the

>regular spells.

If you could elaborate on your thinking here I`m curious why you thing

elves should have a cost for casting regular spells. Is that a balance for

access to nature spells or is there some other justification?

Here`s the important question regarding the exclusive nature of the schools

of magic: What are the negative consequences of adding new schools?

Gary

Mark_Aurel

08-08-2003, 07:22 PM

When it comes to tying game mechanics into campaign flavor issues, I think
the "exclusive schools of magic" interpretation is a real "cart before the
horse" mindset. In fact, it`s worse. The horse is riding on the
cart.... The campaign flavor issues are much more important than the 3e
game mechanics. All this stuff about not allowing new schools of magic
because 3e doesn`t allow it--a position that I still think has has very
little support outside of the impressions of those espousing it--is being
given far too much significance in this case. Instead of making BR look
like 3e, I think 3e/D20 rules should be used to reflect BR themes, improve
them where possible, and they should be ignored where they interfere with
the setting`s dynamics. Even if I agreed with the "no new schools of
magic" interpretation, I don`t think it is particularly important to this
issue.

There are several issues here, that must be viewed separately for a good analysis:

1. Giving Elven magic a more nature-based profile.
2. How do the 3e rules support magic with different flavor?
3. How do 3e 'schools of magic' work? Are they a classification tool for spells with different effects?

Now, there isn't any real reason for #3 to necessarily be related to #1 - defining the function of the schools, which is clearly to group spells based on the type of effect they produce, along with subcategories (subschools) and secondary categories (descriptors). This produces a good system wherein to clearly define how spells and effects interact, and also provides a good basis for coming up with new flavorful mechanics - like feats that grant bonuses based on certain descriptors or schools or subschools. This is why 'special effects' like spells and psionic powers all are subject to the school classification system. It puts everything in a clear fashion. Like terrain types. There's a standardized set of terrain types for 3e too - and there's a design guideline that says "do not create new terrain types." The point is to not create anything redundant. The schools of magic are all based on certain classifiable magic actions - alterations changes things, enchantments affects people's minds, illusions affects their senses, and so on. Sometimes, the lines are a bit blurry, but that's the general gist of it (and the blurry lines would seem likely to be a sacred cow thing anyway). 'Nature' is not an action category like the schools are - if you want to insert 'nature' into the standard spell system, it would be as a descriptor - like air, earth, good, or whatnot. That's another thing I suppose I haven't been too clear on, since it appears so obvious on reading the PHB.

For going to item #2, there's been an abundance of examples of this - 3e supports magic with alternate flavor much better than 2e ever did, because the books encourage the creation of alternate spell lists (2e only had two spell lists, after all) and there's also the ability to easily insert new descriptors to which you can append other mechanical effects. A very clear example of this is given in the DMG - and it is entirely clear from that, and pretty much every book published by WotC since how 'alternate flavor spellcasters' is handled within the D&D rules system.

So, for item #1, it is entirely possible, and quite easy to do - there's just a different and more advanced terminology than 2e had.

Trying to make it out as if #1 has some kind of overriding effect for letting you throw out the points in #3 as suits your whim, however, is the attempted rhetorical coup here. Slick, but not a very honorable way to go about things.

Now,
a) I am not intrinsically opposed to any alternate magic system to suit a different style or flavor of playing;
B) I do believe in trying to interpret a system correctly when discussing it, even if I'm not going to use it that way, just to make discussions sane and tolerable;
c) I also believe the point here was that the 3e magic system doesn't "support" or "need" new magic schools, and that this discussion was based on that system to begin with;
thus, I wouldn't mind at all if you wanted to build a magic system from the ground up to suit your flavor of play better - however, I do mind (for some pedantic reason) when terminology gets consistently and willfully used wrong (given that 3e generally has pretty precise terminology).

If you could elaborate on your thinking here I`m curious why you thing
elves should have a cost for casting regular spells. Is that a balance for
access to nature spells or is there some other justification?

It is a balancing thing in one way, but the main idea deals with adding flavor - if Elven spellcasters take, say 1d4 Constitution damage for casting Necromancy spells, for instance, that helps make that magic 'dangerous' and 'forbidden' among Elves - and it opens room for more mechanics, like a "Dark Magic" feat which permits casting such spells with less or no cost.

Trithemius

08-08-2003, 07:22 PM

o Mark Aurel):

> I`m not a particularly big fan of Mongoose`s material either.

> (IMO WotC is the McDonald`s of RPGs. Mongoose is more

> fluffy.)

So who does the hotdogs? I have AEGs takeway sushi and I find it okay,

although I prefer the dine-in experience of the earlier non d20 L5R game

(More sauces? Free teas?).

Sorry, all this jogging on the spot that you fellas are doing is making

me hungry. ;)

--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

-----------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

Trithemius

08-08-2003, 07:22 PM

ere`s the important question regarding the exclusive nature

> of the schools of magic: What are the negative consequences

> of adding new schools?

Perhaps we could call them something like "Teachings" instead of

"Schools". If people like "school" to refer to the meta-game groupings

of spells mentioned in the PHB, then we need a different word.

I think someone might have said this earlier, but perhaps it got lost in

the ruckus?

I too am very (Very, VERY?) interested to see (as simply as possible and

as divorced from rhetoric as possible in this late-argument-phase) the

negative consequences of adding new subgroupings of spells; even though

I don`t use d20 for BR, I do recognise that it is probably the most

widely played game in the world today and am interested in how it is

viewed by (most of) the folks around here.

--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

-----------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

Mark_Aurel

08-08-2003, 08:28 PM

Perhaps we could call them something like "Teachings" instead of
"Schools". If people like "school" to refer to the meta-game groupings
of spells mentioned in the PHB, then we need a different word.

I think someone might have said this earlier, but perhaps it got lost in
the ruckus?

I too am very (Very, VERY?) interested to see (as simply as possible and
as divorced from rhetoric as possible in this late-argument-phase) the
negative consequences of adding new subgroupings of spells; even though
I don`t use d20 for BR, I do recognise that it is probably the most
widely played game in the world today and am interested in how it is
viewed by (most of) the folks around here.

No reason to make up new terminology when "spell list" will do perfectly well, I think. 3e does employ a much more specific terminology than previous editions, and this is generally for the good, as it allows much smaller texts to contain precise details on effects than were the case before. It's not really a matter of "people liking" it as much as using and reading the system as is.

The PHB defines "school of magic" as follows: "A group of related spells that work in similar ways. The eight schools available to spellcasters are..."

Now, I haven't seen anyone opposed to new subgroupings of spells at all - it's simply a matter of using the existing terminology correctly. Creating a "Nature school" is a bit like creating a "run/charge" ability score (hint: Ability scores describe traits of a character; run/charge are actions a character can take) - or like fitting square pegs and round holes. Creating a "Nature" descriptor would fit perfectly into the system as it is, with a minimum of fuss. Similarly, creating an Elven spell list accomplishes the same effect, on perhaps a wider and ultimately more satisfying scale. There really aren't any negative consequences to this, as long as the new descriptors are fairly easy to comprehend, their number isn't excessive, and they actually have some mechanical effect - would be pointless to needlessly classify things.

Creating a new school, on the other hand, seems pointless - and "nature" isn't a suitable theme for that anyway, as nature isn't so much a bunch of similar effects, as it is a theme that spans several different categories of effects - which tends to label it clearly as a descriptor or spell list in the D&D system.

Abjurations protect from something.
Conjurations conjure something
Fire spells create fire energy or affect fire creatures or just fire.
Abjuration [fire] protects from fire.
Conjuration [fire] conjures fire.

Abjuration [nature] protects from something "natural" like animals, plants, or the weather.
Conjuration [nature] conjures animals or plants.
Transmutation [nature] transforms something "natural."

So, picking a few of spells from the PHB, they might read:

Command Plants - Enchantment (Charm) [Mind-Affecting, Nature]
Commune with Nature - Divination [Nature]
Control Weather - Transmutation [Nature]

with a "Nature" descriptor in place. Now, granted, "nature" is a potentially very wide concept, so narrowing it down a bit or splitting it into different subcategories might work better.

So, in short:
School - classifies a form of magical action or effect.
Subschool - a more narrow version of the above.
Descriptor - classifies something a spell affects, or the type of materials involved - whether specific or abstract - like alignments or elements.

geeman

08-08-2003, 08:37 PM

+1200, John Machin wrote:

>Perhaps we could call them something like "Teachings" instead of

>"Schools". If people like "school" to refer to the meta-game groupings

>of spells mentioned in the PHB, then we need a different word.

Maybe a term like pseudo-school, meta-school or even something like Sidhe

School or Fey Philosophy would satisfy the semantics? If "pseudo-school"

was defined as having all the effects of a school of magic (allowing

specialization by wizards and was a category in all the same sense that

schools are) but just wasn`t defined separately from the actual 3e schools

then it might be easier for those who think schools are sacrosanct....

>I too am very (Very, VERY?) interested to see (as simply as possible and

>as divorced from rhetoric as possible in this late-argument-phase) the

>negative consequences of adding new subgroupings of spells; even though

>I don`t use d20 for BR, I do recognise that it is probably the most

>widely played game in the world today and am interested in how it is

>viewed by (most of) the folks around here.

I`m curious too. I asked about this once before, but it didn`t get a

response, which is too bad since it`s really the only compelling reason for

supporting (or making) the interpretation that I can see. Even if the

interpretation of the 3e schools of magic that`s being described is

correct, and the designers thought that there should be no additional

schools in 3e, what`s the problem with new ones?

Gary

ConjurerDragon

08-08-2003, 08:58 PM

>Gary sez:

>

>

>>Here`s the important question regarding the exclusive nature

>>of the schools of magic: What are the negative consequences

>>of adding new schools?

>>

>>

>Perhaps we could call them something like "Teachings" instead of

>"Schools". If people like "school" to refer to the meta-game groupings

>of spells mentioned in the PHB, then we need a different word.

>I think someone might have said this earlier, but perhaps it got lost in

>the ruckus?

>I too am very (Very, VERY?) interested to see (as simply as possible and

>as divorced from rhetoric as possible in this late-argument-phase) the

>negative consequences of adding new subgroupings of spells; even though

>I don`t use d20 for BR, I do recognise that it is probably the most

>widely played game in the world today and am interested in how it is

>viewed by (most of) the folks around here.

>

>

Creating new "schools" of magic perhaps with spells from other schools

would be problematic in this points as I see it:

- the more schools there are, the less severe is that a specialist is

banned from one (or two or three). If you are barred from one/two/three

schools of only 8 it´s worse than to be barred from 1/2/3 out of 9 or

more schools.

- if spells exist in several schools, then a specialist would perhaps

still have access to them through the other school what would happen if

you just take some spells and group them into a new nature school

- I can´t think of an example spell right now, but if some spell from

the enchantment school would appear in the nature school, would an elfs

racial +2 bonus to enchantment spell be usable against that "nature" spell?

bye

Michael

geeman

08-08-2003, 10:46 PM

+0200, Michael Romes wrote:

>Creating new "schools" of magic perhaps with spells from other schools

>would be problematic in this points as I see it:

>- the more schools there are, the less severe is that a specialist is

>banned from one (or two or three). If you are barred from one/two/three

>schools of only 8 it´s worse than to be barred from 1/2/3 out of 9 or

>more schools.

Now that`s a good, substantive point. (Whew, nice to have something meaty

here to sink my pearlies into....) I don`t think it`d be a problem in

practice, however, since the school would only be available to elves or

half-elves, so it won`t dilute the overall spell system overmuch. If one

added a whole bunch the opposed school issue could be an issue.

That said, I think it would be sensible to say that any arcane spellcaster

gets access to eight schools of magic, essentially requiring an elf or

half-elf to sacrifice one or maybe two of their existing schools for access

to the Nature school (or to one of the other schools that I`m also

considering.) Since the majority of the spells in the Nature school I

wrote up were from the druid spell list there shouldn`t be too much of a

problem with arcane spellcasters losing a lot of spells with such a

ruling. Optionally, one could simply say that elven spellcasters have

access to the Nature school, but lose access to the Necromancy school, but

I kind of like the idea that they could choose to still cast necromantic

spells if they wanted--and face the potential disgust/shunning from the

elven community since that`s the kind of thing the campaign material

suggests. That would not be the same as specializing in the Nature school,

however, because one only gains access, not greater ability with the spells

on the Nature school list. I made specialization a bit more difficult (see

below) in order to address this particular issue.

>- if spells exist in several schools, then a specialist would perhaps

>still have access to them through the other school what would happen if

>you just take some spells and group them into a new nature school

Also a good point, though though in this case the number of crossover

spells was relatively small since they mostly came from an entirely

different class`s spell list.

Nonetheless, to deal with this problem, if you take a look at the

requirements for specialization in the Nature school in the earlier post,

you`ll note that I made the requirements for specialization a minimum of

two of the more significant or three less powerful schools be opposed

schools rather than the typical one, two or three schools (depending on the

relative "power" of the specialized school.) That is, I made the cost for

specialization slightly higher than the spell list for the school itself

warranted in order to compensate for those occasional spells on the list

that may exist in an opposing school giving the specialist access despite

his opposition. I haven`t cross referenced or charted out the actual

number of spells that exist in opposing schools in the proposed school,

however, so I don`t know if this is really that big of an issue, but again

given that most of those spells came from an entirely different class`s

list I don`t think there are that many.

Overall, then part of the Nature school could be a couple of sentences that

describe how an elven wizard gains access (by sacrificing one or two

schools) and how s/he specializes (by sacrificing two or three schools.)

A similar handling of other new schools would be invisible to the player

and need only a small notation in a "Behind the Curtain" box.

>- I can´t think of an example spell right now, but if some spell from

>the enchantment school would appear in the nature school, would an elfs

>racial +2 bonus to enchantment spell be usable against that "nature" spell?

I`d say yes. The "classification" function wouldn`t change. Rather, the

classifications would still operate the same way. Just by way of an

example if there was some sort of racial bonus that some monster had to the

"nature" school it would still apply. Let`s say, for instance, _Charm

Person or Animal_ was on the Nature school list (it`s not, but for the sake

of argument) and that the designers imagined that the semi-mammal status of

a duck-billed platypus gave it a +2 bonus to spells of the "nature"

school. Both the elven racial resistance to Charm and the platypus

resistance to the Natural school would apply to the same spell. In

previous editions of the game when spells sometimes existed in two schools

this wasn`t a problem.

Gary

RaspK_FOG

08-09-2003, 02:12 AM

I still support the theory that schools should not change, as does Mark Aurel, and the use of descriptors. Remember, geeman, that I had clearly mentioned that schools represents effects, not ideals of groupings!

An idea for descriptors: instead of giving a nature one, why not give animal,environment, and plant descriptors? Example:

Enchantment [Animal]: Charm Animal
Transmutation [Animal]: Reincarnate

Divination [Environemnt]: Detect Snares and Traps
Transmutation [Environment]: Control Weather

Enchantment [Plant]: Control Plant
Transmutation [Plant]: Shambler

Transmutation [Animal, Plant]: Shapechange

As for those who insist on defining their own terms, without seeing beyond their own personal scope, here is a piece of work thought of in "Races of Faerun"; yep, those good guys at WotC have thought of a system to give different spellcasting abilities and focuses without all this "extra schools" jumble: Traditions!

Oh, and before I move on, Toril is characterised by its high magic concept, but some of its ideas are really great! For example, for the "Shadow school" geeman mentioned, there is the Shadow Weave (Weave is the goddess of magic's tapestry that defines both the boundaries from raw magic and its passage to the world; Shadow Weave is the creation of a rival goddess that wanted her spell-casters to not be in need of the Weave, since these two deities are what allows spell-casters access to magic through their creations). Shadow Magic, the magic employed through tapping at the Shadow Weave, is focused on illusions, necromancy, such staff.

Here are the feats that would be adapted from Forgotten Realms for you, if you insist on not liking the idea of spell lists, however more consistent it is:

Shadow World Magic
Prerequisite: Wisdom 13+ or patron deity Kriesha
Benefit: From now on, your spells tap the Shadow World instead the mebhaigl (don't remember spelling). You can activate items of the Shadow World without taking damage (or whatever mechanic you prefer).
+1 to DC and caster level checks to overcome spell resistance (+1 spell power) for Enchantment, Illusion, Necromancy, [Darkness] spells.
-1 caster level for Evocation and Transmutation spells, but not such [Darkness] spells.
Cannot cast [Light] spells, or use spell trigger and spell completion [Light] powers of items.
Magic items you create are Shadow Magic items.
Special: You immediately lose 2 points of Wisdom. You can still use the feat, even if it lowers your Wisdom below 13 (rules exception).
You can only regain the lost Wisdom by striking a deal with Kriesha. You must receive an atonement spell from a cleric of Kriesha and choose her as your patron. (The usual quest is to destroy a follower of Avani with an ECL at least equal to yours.)

Khinasi Elementalist
Benefit: +1 caster level with spells from the Air or Fire Tradition, whichever you choose, even exceeding maximum damage allowed (like 11d6 for fireball.
If you are a wizard, apart from the two spells per level you get to add to your spellbook, you get to add a spell from the tradition for free when you are able to cast it.
Air Tradition: 0 - mage hand; 1st - shocking grasp; 2nd - levitate; 3rd - lightning bolt; 4th - shout; 5th - telekinesis; 6th - chain lightning; 7th - reverse gravity; 8th - Bigby's clenched fist; 9th - Bigby's crushing hand
Fire Tradition: 0 - flare; 1st - burning hands; 2nd - pyrotechnics; 3rd - fireball; 4th - wall of fire; 5th - dismissal; 6th - control weather; 7th - delayed blast fireball; 8th - incendiary cloud; 9th - meteor swarm
(you can easilly see where this points to ;) )

Anuirean Missionary
Prerequisites: Anuirean human, ability to cast divine spells
Benefit: +1 caster level to Missionary Tradition spells; +2 if actually trying to proselytise people
Missionary Tradition: 0 - purify food and drink; 1st - bless; sanctuary; 2nd - calm emotions, consecrate, enthrall; 3rd - prayer, remove disease; 4th - discern lies, tongues; 5th - atonement, hallow; 6th - heroe's feast; 7th - resurrection; 8th - mass heal; 9th - miracle

Eldritch Linguist
Prerequisites: Brecht human, ability to cast divine spells
Benefit: +1 caster level to Linguist Tradition
Linguist Tradition: 0 - read magic; 1st - command, comprehend languages; 2nd - speak with animals, whispering wind; 3rd - bestow curse,explosive runes, glyph of warding, speak with dead, speak with plants; 4th - dismissal, sending, shout, tongues; 5th - atonement, greater command, hallow; 6th - greater glyph of warding, word of recall; 7th - blasphemy, dictum, holy word, power word stun, word of chaos; 8th - power word blind, symbol; 9th - power word kill

Other traditions can and have been designed; you could built one as you see fit, even giving druidic spells to elven wizards. It still is effectively another way to implement spell lists, and it does work! Without altering a class. If you want, you could simply expand them, or even work them out: the end result could be very promising...

geeman

08-09-2003, 03:40 AM

+0200, RaspK_FOG wrote:

> I still support the theory that schools should not change, as does

> Mark Aurel, and the use of descriptors. Remember, geeman,

> that I had clearly mentioned that schools represents effects, not ideals

> of groupings!

I`ve been trying to avoid this particular aspect of the discussion since

it`s going to inevitably lead to something of a black hole... but many of

the decisions for which school a spell belongs to are arbitrary and

weak. What are you basing the strength of the 3e decision making in this

particular issue on? I took a glance at the PHB just now to see how

accurate this kind of interpretation was an in the Conjuration school of

magic one has effects as disparate as Mordenkainen`s Magnificent Mansion

that creates extra dimensional living space to Power Word, Stun which

effects a single creature for an amount of time based on its hp. While one

could justify the school of magic that a particular spell belongs to,

several of them have effects that could be put into more than one school

(as they were up until 3e.)

In fact, my opinion is that there needn`t be eight schools of magic if the

effects were as deterministic as you`re suggesting. Most of the

necromantic spells, for example, could fall into other categories since

what many of them do is evoke, charm, animate, etc. things that fall under

a particular "undead" status, all of which are things handled by other

schools of magic. Of course, they included a necromancy school because

it`s such a clear and obvious category for the purpose of character

concepts in most campaign settings (almost as obvious as Nature is in BR)

but my point is that the 3e schools of magic are in many ways themselves

colour descriptors, not the hard and fast product of an intellectual

process that it is being suggested.

>An idea for descriptors: instead of giving a nature one, why not give

>animal,environment, and plant descriptors? Example:

>

>Enchantment [Animal]: Charm Animal

>Transmutation [Animal]: Reincarnate

So you would give access to plant, animal or environmental subschools to

elven wizards rather than a school of magic? Is that how you`re suggesting

it would work? My objection to this kind of thing in previous posts is

mostly that it would not allow for specialization in such subschools

without a little weird (and probably inelegent) rewriting of that aspect of

the 3e mechanics. Like the suggestion that schools of magic are immutable,

it seems to embrace a vague, esoteric, unwritten rule and use it has the

justification for not employing the more basic and clearly outlined aspects

of 3e like specialization. What is the mechanistic difference between

making up three or more new subskills (I think a "terrain" or "weather"

category might be prudent) and just adding a new school of magic?

Gary

RaspK_FOG

08-10-2003, 04:55 AM

Mark_Aurel

08-10-2003, 06:08 AM

First of all, conjuration is the idea of manifesting almost anything by actually CALLING it (please, go read the meaning of conjuring or summoning someone from a good dictionary; I just wrote the meaning of the word allegory in an other site, and I am tired of going fetching information for others), whether that is a Power Word, a Wall of Stone, or even positive energy! Now, in 3.5, even [Teleportation] spells have become Conjuration spells.

Necromancy? Why, sure, restoration affects undead of all things! As do ray of enfeeblement, inflict wounds spells, harm, blindness/deafness (in 3.5), finger of death... That reminds me of the joke: Ressurect Self (drawback: must cast it yourself)! SHEESH!

And for the last time, [INSERT THINGY HERE] ARE DESCRIPTORS! OFF WITH SCHOOLS, DAMMIT!

And you were saying you didn't simply insist...

Calm down. It's not worth getting upset, and here's why:

> I still support the theory that schools should not change, as does
> [b]Mark Aurel, and the use of descriptors. Remember, geeman[/ b],
> that I had clearly mentioned that schools represents effects, not ideals
> of groupings!

I`ve been trying to avoid this particular aspect of the discussion since
it`s going to inevitably lead to something of a black hole...

Translated, what he seems to be saying is simply that he feels free to ignore whatever arguments you put forth that he can't properly refute, as it sucks his entire case into a black hole - that's basically what he's been doing all along anyway. There's really no point trying to debate or argue with someone who feels free to ignore what you say, and won't admit to being wrong - and no point getting upset, either.

RaspK_FOG

08-10-2003, 06:59 AM

:) Thanks, Mark! You really said it all, but I just hate it when others stick to their own arguments... Ever heard of the spell "Power Word Fine"? :D

geeman

08-10-2003, 08:34 AM

3 +0200, Mark_Aurel wrote:

>
> I still support the theory that schools should not change, as does

> > Mark Aurel, and the use of descriptors. Remember, [b]geeman[/ b],

> > that I had clearly mentioned that schools represents effects, not ideals

> > of groupings!

>

> I`ve been trying to avoid this particular aspect of the discussion since

> it`s going to inevitably lead to something of a black hole...

>

>Translated, what he seems to be saying is simply that he feels free to

>ignore whatever arguments you put forth that he can`t properly refute, as

>it sucks his entire case into a black hole - that`s basically what he`s

>been doing all along anyway. There`s really no point trying to debate or

>argue with someone who feels free to ignore what you say, and won`t admit

>to being wrong - and no point getting upset, either.

What I was getting at was that the interpretation itself is based on more

than a few shaky assumptions--in this case the assumption is that the 3e

concept of schools of magic was based on a very firmly thought out set of

categories. The eight schools of magic used as categories for spells`

effects that is being assumed is so important here aren`t themselves based

on any deep thinking about an integrated magic system. They`re just

arbitrary groupings that often conflict with one another, and as such

aren`t anything that should be given nearly the elaboration or importance

with which they have been attributed. Including additional groupings based

on campaign material is actually a less arbitrary way of handling the

situation, and makes good sense for our purposes in BR.

The "black hole" I mentioned is the adherence to the core texts that leads

to a seemingly endless justification of 3e`s mechanics that often pops up

when someone presents something that expresses a BR theme in a way that

conflicts with the core 3e rules, or in this case what is really just a

personal interpretation of the 3e rules. Strangely, the 3e core texts do

not take themselves as seriously, nor are they so dogmatic about changes

and additions, as several posters have been. In fact, the writers of the

core rules go to some lengths to describe them as guidelines rather than

rules and that things are easily changeable and adaptable. They often

describe how to tweak and vary the ideas expressed. Without much

exaggeration, that could be described as "the Golden Rule" of D&D.

I should also note that I have once again started receiving messages from

people off the list/boards noting the behavior of posters in this thread,

so I`m going to have to caution folks to please be cautious with your tone,

and let`s try to scale back the personal attacks. There`ve been several

cases of name calling and some unwarranted comments made recently, not to

mention the occasional personal attack. Let`s try not to personalize this,

folks. I`ve not made an issue of any of them because they`ve been directed

at me, and I don`t really care if people get unpleasant with me

personally. It does seem to dilute their ability to actually address the

issue at hand and make clear, intelligent arguments. It also makes it a

bit more difficult to read past such off-topic comments to find the actual

ideas they are trying to express, but directing negative comments at me

isn`t going to end my participation in the BR community, because it doesn`t

particularly bother me. However, a couple of people have emailed me saying

that they haven`t chimed in on this subject and several others because they

don`t see the point in getting flamed for expressing an idea, and that`s

not a good thing, so let`s ratchet it back a bit.

Gary

irdeggman

08-10-2003, 10:13 AM

Let's see if I can sum this up some. Gary doesn't like the 3rd ed system of magic and wishes to use something different. Mostly due to it not being consistent and based on some arbitrary concepts. Unless I'm wrong Gary, you use a different magic system entirely right?

This is the basic source of the disagreement. It is like comparing apples and oranges. Both taste good (usually unless you get a bad one) but if someone wants an orange an apple won't do.

Gary keep up the mediation - it becomes difficult when you are involved in the subject I'm sure. Hey didn't I just recently post a thread on respect for posters?

For the record I think a different spell list is the mechanism that 3rd/3.5 uses. I have seen plenty of examples of new spell lists but none that have new schools. Not in the the Wizards' books anyway.

geeman

08-10-2003, 11:32 AM

3 +0200, irdeggman wrote:

>Let`s see if I can sum this up some. Gary doesn`t like the 3rd ed system

>of magic and wishes to use something different. Mostly due to it not

>being consistent and based on some arbitrary concepts. Unless I`m wrong

>Gary, you use a different magic system entirely right?

I wouldn`t mind and entirely different system of magic for BR, but I pretty

much use the 3e system of magic right now, with maybe a few changes here

and there regarding the character classes` access to spells, but it works

largely the same way. I just don`t think some of these issues regarding

that magic system are so adamant in 3e as has been suggested, and I`m much

more interested in reflecting BR concepts than in "staying true to 3e" as

appears to be the emphasis of several posters.

I use a pretty much entirely rewritten skill system... but that`s another

issue entirely.

>Hey didn`t I just recently post a thread on respect for posters?

Yeah, as a matter of fact!

Gary

Mark_Aurel

08-10-2003, 11:35 AM

What I was getting at was that the interpretation itself is based on more
than a few shaky assumptions--in this case the assumption is that the 3e
concept of schools of magic was based on a very firmly thought out set of
categories.

3e PHB p. 281. "school of magic: A group of related spells that work in similar ways."

No one has said that they are 'perfect' as they are or any of the like, or that some schools aren't necessarily redundant, as you seem to imply. They are what they are, however - primarily a tool for classifying spells.

I guess I'll repeat, one more time, what you've primarily kept ignoring below:

1. Schools - primarily a classification for the _effects_ of spells - the type of "spell action," if you like.

Enchantment

2. Subschools - more narrow categories.

Enchantment (Charm)

3. Descriptor - primarily a classification for _what_ a spell affects or creates, or the mode of the effect, or whatever - call it the "spell object," if you like.

Enchantment (Charm) [Mind-Affecting]
Evocation [Fire]

That is a very reasonable interpretation, based on how the PHB presents and groups things, isn't it? If it isn't, I'd like to know why, exactly, it isn't a reasonable interpretation.

You are using Necromancy as a counterexample to #1 - the definition for what these spells do is found on p. 158 of the 3e PHB - "Necromancy spells manipulate the power of death." Vague, sure, but it also deals with how D&D (meta)physics work (and let's not get into that on a tangent too). More than anything, it's probably a sacred cow thing - to not redefine the magic system too much, so as not to lose touch with previous editions. I'm sure Jonathan Tweet would've liked to go further. That too, is tangential, however. And, if you'd like, there's another exception that doesn't quite fit - the "Universal school" - whose sole purpose is to give all wizards access to certain "required" spells. In terms of being "logical," only limited wish/wish belongs in the category of "universal," being raw magical power. Permanency should also really be a feat, not a spell, to be consistent - it's somewhere between an item creation and a metamagic feat.

Let's add a point #4 to that list.

4. Spell list - a list of spells, either for a specific class, or for a subset of a class, or accessible to one or more classes through other means (such as a feat or a sacrifice). Examples would be the wizard/sorcerer or druid lists, the shaman list, or the Corrupt spell list. Spell lists generally contain spells from multiple schools and with different types of descriptors and subschools.

The "black hole" I mentioned is the adherence to the core texts that leads
to a seemingly endless justification of 3e`s mechanics that often pops up
when someone presents something that expresses a BR theme in a way that
conflicts with the core 3e rules, or in this case what is really just a
personal interpretation of the 3e rules. Strangely, the 3e core texts do
not take themselves as seriously, nor are they so dogmatic about changes
and additions, as several posters have been. In fact, the writers of the
core rules go to some lengths to describe them as guidelines rather than
rules and that things are easily changeable and adaptable. They often
describe how to tweak and vary the ideas expressed. Without much
exaggeration, that could be described as "the Golden Rule" of D&D.

Yes - and has anyone denied this, or are you beating on a strawman? We're not debating your liberty to do anything you want to with the rules - it's your game, after all. We're talking about the rules as - they - are - presented - in - the - PHB. You can't expect "but the Congress can make new laws!" to be a valid argument in a court. I believe my entire point at the start of this was that creating a "school of Nature" would be using the term "school" as defined by the PHB wrong, and that the 3e rules default to a different way of making customized "flavor casters" - spell lists. Optionally, feats or new descriptors.

Trying to make yourself the Holy Defender of Gaming Freedom has nothing to do with the case here, honestly.

I should also note that I have once again started receiving messages from
people off the list/boards noting the behavior of posters in this thread,
so I`m going to have to caution folks to please be cautious with your tone,
and let`s try to scale back the personal attacks. There`ve been several
cases of name calling and some unwarranted comments made recently, not to
mention the occasional personal attack. Let`s try not to personalize this,
folks. I`ve not made an issue of any of them because they`ve been directed
at me, and I don`t really care if people get unpleasant with me
personally. It does seem to dilute their ability to actually address the
issue at hand and make clear, intelligent arguments. It also makes it a
bit more difficult to read past such off-topic comments to find the actual
ideas they are trying to express, but directing negative comments at me
isn`t going to end my participation in the BR community, because it doesn`t
particularly bother me. However, a couple of people have emailed me saying
that they haven`t chimed in on this subject and several others because they
don`t see the point in getting flamed for expressing an idea, and that`s
not a good thing, so let`s ratchet it back a bit.

Mmmm. I haven't really seen any personal attacks in this thread, unless they've been awfully weak - care to elaborate on that? There was the point where I called you stubborn, I think, and I think Kenneth agreed to that, and there was RaspK_FOG writing "sheesh" in all caps as a reply to you, and underlining a point with "dammit."

On the other hand, you posted "even some rather Kabbalistic interpretations of that system of rules" in another thread, which I think at least partially was aimed at me, and which can be seen as somewhat of an insult, though veiled. Apart from that, you outright stated that you've been avoiding addressing certain points of other posters, which is pretty rude for a lengthy discussion - and you've repeatedly ignored other items as well, such as examples of parallells to the theme of Elves and Nature in BR (is there any setting in which Elves _aren't_ green?) - like the theme of Ectomancy for Ghostwalk, and how that is handled.

Now, if you think this thread has gotten out of hand, you might want to reexamine the source of that a bit - I'm pretty sure I have a temper, for one, but I'm also reasonably certain you're being unusually and unreasonably obstinant, and that can often make people do or say things they otherwise wouldn't.

For my part, I think I've wasted enough time trying to explain what is pretty much obvious beyond a cursory examination. I'm out of this.

geeman

08-10-2003, 03:41 PM

3 +0200, Mark_Aurel wrote:

> 1. Schools - primarily a classification for the _effects_ of spells -

> the type of "spell action," if you like.

>

> Enchantment

>

> 2. Subschools - more narrow categories.

>

> Enchantment (Charm)

>

> 3. Descriptor - primarily a classification for _what_ a spell affects or

> creates, or the mode of the effect, or whatever - call it the "spell

> object," if you like.

>

> Enchantment (Charm) [Mind-Affecting]

> Evocation [Fire]

>

> That is a very reasonable interpretation, based on how the PHB presents

> and groups things, isn`t it? If it isn`t, I`d like to know why, exactly,

> it isn`t a reasonable interpretation.

I am not and have not questioned that schools of magic have a role in

categorizing spell effects. If it helps, I`ll say it flat out: Schools of

magic have a primary role in categorizing spell effects, just as described

above. I completely agree with that statement. It is not a point of

contention as far as I`m concerned. I think we all understand that spells

are classified by school and effect in 3e, and that in that classification

the schools represent "groups of similar spells" as is written in the PHB.

In fact, the above description of the classification system isn`t really an

interpretation. It`s an elucidation of the system. What is an

interpretation is the extrapolation based on the reading of the text that

says there cannot be other schools of magic--or that adding new schools of

magic for BR elves will somehow ruin the purpose of schools of magic as

presented in 3e. _That_ is an interpretation. Reading into the "one

spell, one school" prose of 3e that there can, therefore, be no additional

schools is a leap in logic indicated nowhere in the text. In this case,

it`s unreasonable because... well, there`s not any real reason to make that

interpretation. If it serves a purpose then by all means go with

it. However, for our purposes, there is a reason NOT to make it, since a

new school of magic will work for BR elves, so sticking to that

interpretation when there`s a good reason not to is unreasonable.

Let`s say, for example, that the above "Enchantment (Charm)

[Mind-Affecting]" spell was the druidic spell _Charm Person or Animal_ and

the "Evocation (Fire)" spell was _Fire Seeds_. (The latter is actually

"Conjuration (Creation) [Fire]" but for the sake of the example here it

doesn`t really matter.) What if, in addition to being described according

to their 3e classification by school, subschool and descriptor, they were

also described as a "Nature (Fauna)" spell and as a "Nature (Flora)" spell

too? Both of those spells might then appear on the spell list for a Nature

school of magic. Where`s the harm in that?

The benefits of including such a spell list and making it a school of magic

are that:

1. One needn`t write up a whole new spell list for elven wizards.

2. One can have elven wizards specialize in that school of magic.

3. The classification function of the school of magic is more readily

utilized than a whole spell list, so if one wanted to assign modifiers to

certain creatures it would be more easily done. Just as an example

something like, "Unnatural Creature X is immune to spells from the school

of Nature." As opposed to something like "Unnatural Creature X is immune

to spells cast by elven wizards" or you`d have to list a group of spells

from their spell list from which they`d be immune if one went with an

entire spell list.

> You are using Necromancy as a counterexample to #1 - the definition for

> what these spells do is found on p. 158 of the 3e PHB - "Necromancy

> spells manipulate the power of death." Vague, sure, but it also

> deals with how D&D (meta)physics work (and let`s not get into that on

> a tangent too). More than anything, it`s probably a sacred cow thing - to

> not redefine the magic system too much, so as not to lose touch with

> previous editions. I`m sure Jonathan Tweet would`ve liked to go further.

> That too, is tangential, however. And, if you`d like, there`s another

> exception that doesn`t quite fit - the "Universal school" -

> whose sole purpose is to give all wizards access to certain

> "required" spells. In terms of being "logical," only

> limited wish/wish belongs in the category of "universal," being

> raw magical power. Permanency should also really be a feat, not a spell,

> to be consistent - it`s somewhere between an item creation and a

> metamagic feat.

Actually, if I might clarify my position here. I don`t think I used the

Necromancy school in quite that way. All I was saying with the necromancy

example was that the schools of magic as a classification tool are fairly

arbitrary and not as set in stone as was expressed. Many spells could be

seen as cross overs from other schools. That doesn`t mean that there

shouldn`t be a necromancy school or that there shouldn`t be schools, for

that matter. Merely that the thinking that went into 3e`s schools of magic

was not as elaborate or purposeful as the "no new schools" interpretation

seems to assume. Necromancy is a sort of "cross over" school of magic with

spells that would otherwise fall very easily into the other schools. A

Nature school for elves would be much the same.

If one were to describe _Animate Dead_ as being both "Necromancy [Evil]"

and as "Transmutation" like the _Animate Objects_ or _Animate Rope_ it

wouldn`t be a problem.

>
The "black hole" I mentioned is the adherence to the

> core texts that leads

> to a seemingly endless justification of 3e`s mechanics that often pops up

> when someone presents something that expresses a BR theme in a way that

> conflicts with the core 3e rules, or in this case what is really just a

> personal interpretation of the 3e rules. Strangely, the 3e core texts do

> not take themselves as seriously, nor are they so dogmatic about changes

> and additions, as several posters have been. In fact, the writers of the

> core rules go to some lengths to describe them as guidelines rather than

> rules and that things are easily changeable and adaptable. They often

> describe how to tweak and vary the ideas expressed. Without much

> exaggeration, that could be described as "the Golden Rule" of

> D&D.

>

> Yes - and has anyone denied this, or are you beating on a strawman?

Well, it certainly appears like several folks have been arguing that their

interpretation of the 3e rules should take precedence over the campaign

setting`s text in this case, and have been very dogmatic about it.

>I haven`t really seen any personal attacks in this thread, unless they`ve

>been awfully weak - care to elaborate on that?

The tone of the thread has been brought to my attention, so I am obliged to

bring it to everyone`s attention. It would be counter productive to do a

whole play-by-play or "he said X, so I said Y" kind of thing, so I`ll not

elaborate. I`d encourage you (and everyone else) to go through your posts

in the thread and consider some of the comments you`ve made in regards to

tone and content. Where comments are addressed not at the points being

made but at who made them is a good indication of where the tone has gone

wrong.

> On the other hand, you posted "even some rather Kabbalistic

> interpretations of that system of rules" in another thread, which I

> think at least partially was aimed at me, and which can be seen as

> somewhat of an insult, though veiled.

Well, it wasn`t particularly aimed at you. Several people have engaged in

such interpretations in this and other threads. If you found that term

insulting then I don`t know what to tell you other than it was pretty much

meant to more descriptive than anything else.... I mean, I can only use

the same adjectives so many times without getting bored.

However, if I might point out something. Given this ability to read things

into the 3e core texts, or rather to find the minute implications of the

categorization system of schools of magic, you might be reading a bit more

acid into posts that disagree with you than is really there. It`s far

easier IMO to come to the conclusion that someone is attacking you from a

post that disagrees with your opinion than it is to draw such an absolute

conclusion from the hints of the 3e text. It`s clear you take this very

seriously, and I`ve made a conscious effort to try to avoid getting

personal here. Several people have taken my posts personally (or seem to

have) when I`ve really tried to address the ideas, not the people. I have

only these posts to base my assessments on, and I have no personal feelings

about the people who have participated in this thread.

>Apart from that, you outright stated that you`ve been avoiding addressing

>certain points of other posters, which is pretty rude for a lengthy

>discussion - and you`ve repeatedly ignored other items as well, such as

>examples of parallells to the theme of Elves and Nature in BR (is there

>any setting in which Elves _aren`t_ green?) - like the theme of Ectomancy

>for Ghostwalk, and how that is handled.

Actually, what I said was that I was avoiding addressing one subject, as in

I didn`t want to address the issue of how intelligent the eight schools of

magic were as categories because I knew that would result in responses

geared towards justification of the 3e`s prose.

Regarding elves and nature in BR as opposed to in other settings, I thought

that was addressed ages ago in the post about just giving elves access to

the druid character class? In any case, the answer to that one is that in

other settings, elves can be druids, satisfying the "universal green" theme

of elves. At least, they usually do. I`m sure someone`s got a setting out

there someplace in which they don`t, but I can`t recall any. BR elves do

not have access to the druid class because that class has another thematic

emphasis in the setting (as was described in an earlier post) so a school

of magic works better in BR to reflect the seriousness of the elven nature

theme better than a simple spell list.

As for Ectomancy in Ghostwalk, I don`t have that text. I have only your

comments to go on, and I don`t think that`s enough to really address the

subject intelligently, I`m afraid, so I`m going to refrain from commenting

blindly.

Gary

kgauck

08-11-2003, 01:30 AM

ge -----

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

Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 10:04 AM

> What is an interpretation is the extrapolation based on the reading

> of the text that says there cannot be other schools of magic--or that

> adding new schools of magic for BR elves will somehow ruin the

> purpose of schools of magic as presented in 3e.

Only those who worship at the rules and sacrifice good idea upon that altar

make that argument. The argument I have made and I have seen Mark making is

that schools have mechannically similar effect. As Mark as mentioned, not

identical mechanics, but the consistency of range, area, and save are fairly

strong. A nature school (rather than descriptor) has no similarity of

mechanic, only a similarity of usefulness. A nature school that had (and I

am just recylcling Mark`s examples)

Command Plants, Commune with Nature, and Control Weather lacks this

consistency. I can predict what a spell in such a presumed school will

effect (nature) somthing that few other schools can do, necromacny being an

exception, but I cannot predict how it will work, that is how I can

adjudicate range, area, or save questions based on other examples of the

spell. Such predictions about how I can use my knowledge of one enchantment

(charm) to rule in another case is not perfect. The designers are not

devotees of harmony in design. But its far more reliable than it is for

spells that effect fire, weapons, or nature. These are unified by what they

effect, not how they work, and this is, as Mark has argued, best handled by

descriptors.

The case of Necrmancy is special because it is both a school and a

descriptor (in effect). Necromancy does have a predictable effect (on dead,

undead, or causing death). But it does have all the elements of a school as

well. The spells tend to require touch, effect one body (some spells are

mere dupliates of other spells that effect multple bodies), and typically

require Fortitude saves. Further (as a book like the old 2e Necromancy

sourcebook reveals) a whole theory of magic can underly the specifc magics

behind this school and the way it works. I could likewise do this to

enchantments and most other schools. I can`t think of a school I couldn`t,

but I haven`t been exhaustive. This can`t be done for a presumed nature

school. At least not without basing my arguments mostly on what the spell

does, and not how it works. But that is an argument for priestly spheres or

domains. We have elementalists without elemental schools. Specialization

on a theme is possible. That`s one of the reasons we have descriptors. So

I can be a fire mage of Binsada.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

Birthright-L

08-11-2003, 08:41 AM

ation I`m posting is out of date as it applies to 2nd

edition rules, but Spells & Magic was a *great* book and the fact that it

was written by the author of Birthright is only of marginal relevance to the

topic at hand. I`m not sure if it will help you guys or not, but take from

it what you will.

--

Rich Baker, Player`s Option: Spells & Magic, p13

(note: I`ve skipped over the brief description for each school)

The eight standard schools of spells presented in the Player`s Handbook --

abjuration, alteration, conjuration/summoning, enchantment/charm, greater

divination, illusion/phantasm, invocation/evocation, and necromancy -- are

schools of philosophy. While all spells in this scheme of organization are

cast much the same way, the approach and method by which they achieve their

purpose varies from school to school. For example, conjuration spells

generally bring something to the caster from another location, while

necromancy spells manipulate the forces of life and death.

While spells in a school of philosophy generally involve the application of

a common principle, they vary greatly in effect. For example, invocations

create anything from solid matter such as walls of stone or iron to

comprehensive enchantments such as contigency or limited wish. Note that

all spells grouped into schools of philosophy share the same execution or

method of casting -- the use of verbal, somatic, and material components to

summon and direct magical energy.

In most campaigns, the schools of philosophy represent the baseline or

standard against which other forms of magic are measured. Almost all spells

can be described through this system of magic, with very few exceptions.

For a wizard to develop a new school of philosophy, he would have to devise

a class of spells that share a common approach or methodology. Most likely,

a group of related spells that already exist in one school or another would

have to be used as a starting point for a new school. It`s much easier to

build a new school of effect or school of thaumaturgy than to build a new

school of philosophy. The Complete Wizard`s Handbook suggests a school of

transmutation that concentrates on spells that change one element or

material into one other element or material. Another possibility might be a

school of animation, centering on spells that provide motive force to

inanimate objects.

-Lord Rahvin

Birthright-L

08-11-2003, 09:14 AM

specific D&D-related elements of a school of magic are

largely being ignored (or perhaps they were dicuseed long ago).

If Nature was considered a school of magic, there would be very specific

effects for magic-users in a campaign:

1) Wizards can specialize in Nature. As a specialist, he would be able to

cast more Nature spells than anything else and he`d have an opposition

school from which he couldn`t cast. I don`t like the idea that Necromancy

is opposed to Nature, but given the campaign material I think this is

probably pretty apt.

2) Wizard specialists who do *not* specialise in Nature magic could use the

Nature school as a back-door to get spells they normally wouldn`t have

access to. For example, since Control Weather is normally a transmutation

spell, couldn`t an argument be made that an Invoker who is forbidden from

transmutation spells could still cast Control Weather because it is from the

nature school of magic? This could muddle things up a bit if choose to

start adding schools.

3) There could be miscallenous game effects that apply to the school of

magic or its specialists. For example, a monster might be immune to Nature

spells or some race/culture might have Nature Specialist as its favored

class.

4) Since there could be game effects that apply to the school of Nature,

but likely there are no published sources that effect the school of Nature,

it`s not really a hinderence or benefit either way. Very few monsters are

likely to have the aforementioned immunity to nature spells, for example,

unless we went to work righting up BR-specific monsters.

5) Certain character-level advancement effects could be applied to the

school of Nature. The most obvious example I could think of is that Spell

Focus could be applied to all spells within the Nature school. There might

be other feats in other books that would apply too.

I think analyzing these points (and coming up with new ones), weighing their

pros and cons and decidng whether we think these should apply to the

Birthright setting in general or elves specifically would be a much more

efficient use of our time, rather than debating the history of the spell

system, the ambiguity of spell allocation, or the dogma of 3e design

principles.

Based on the actual character-level game effects, does it make sense to

apply this school of magic to elves in Birthright?

-Lord Rahvin

irdeggman

08-11-2003, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by geeman@Aug 10 2003, 10:41 AM
Well, it certainly appears like several folks have been arguing that their

interpretation of the 3e rules should take precedence over the campaign

setting`s text in this case, and have been very dogmatic about it.
Gary, you've lost me on this one. I don't recall any specific mention of the campaign setting's text being used. Many have said that they thought that Cerilian elves should have access to nature like spells, whether divine or not. This was based on a "feel" from the setting not on any specific text mentioned in any of the setting rules.

irdeggman

08-11-2003, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by Birthright-L@Aug 11 2003, 04:14 AM
If Nature was considered a school of magic, there would be very specific

effects for magic-users in a campaign:

1) Wizards can specialize in Nature. As a specialist, he would be able to

cast more Nature spells than anything else and he`d have an opposition

school from which he couldn`t cast. I don`t like the idea that Necromancy

is opposed to Nature, but given the campaign material I think this is

probably pretty apt.

2) Wizard specialists who do *not* specialise in Nature magic could use the

Nature school as a back-door to get spells they normally wouldn`t have

access to. For example, since Control Weather is normally a transmutation

spell, couldn`t an argument be made that an Invoker who is forbidden from

transmutation spells could still cast Control Weather because it is from the

nature school of magic? This could muddle things up a bit if choose to

start adding schools.

3) There could be miscallenous game effects that apply to the school of

magic or its specialists. For example, a monster might be immune to Nature

spells or some race/culture might have Nature Specialist as its favored

class.

4) Since there could be game effects that apply to the school of Nature,

but likely there are no published sources that effect the school of Nature,

it`s not really a hinderence or benefit either way. Very few monsters are

likely to have the aforementioned immunity to nature spells, for example,

unless we went to work righting up BR-specific monsters.

5) Certain character-level advancement effects could be applied to the

school of Nature. The most obvious example I could think of is that Spell

Focus could be applied to all spells within the Nature school. There might

be other feats in other books that would apply too.

I think analyzing these points (and coming up with new ones), weighing their

pros and cons and decidng whether we think these should apply to the

Birthright setting in general or elves specifically would be a much more

efficient use of our time, rather than debating the history of the spell

system, the ambiguity of spell allocation, or the dogma of 3e design

principles.

Based on the actual character-level game effects, does it make sense to

apply this school of magic to elves in Birthright?

-Lord Rahvin

As Lord Rhavin pointed out, making this selection of spells a school would allow any wizard or sorcerer access to them. This is generally a bad idea. Not only would it dilute the emphasis being made on Cerilian elves' aptitudes and connection to nature but it would open up a huge can of worms that would allow arcane casters to cast divine spells.

Making it a racial list, using the dragon lists or even those that a Drow can use as examples of how this can be done would prevent access to these spells by non-elven arcane casters which is a very important consideration here.

This also follows the pattern of racial familiarity for weapons in a broad type of way. It could be said that Cerilian elves and half-elves have a racial familiarity with the following spells (insert appropriate list) and they can be added to the appropriate arcane caster spell list for them. A bit of a stretch but a similar precedent has been set with the dwarven waraxe and making it a martial weapon for dwarves. This doesn't mean that any dwarf can use it but those with proficiency in martial weapons can without having to spend a exotic weapon feat on it. The similar case could be made for elves, those who can cast arcane spells can add thesespells to their spell list following the normal rules.

Making it a school that "requires" specialization to learn doesn't fit any of the mechanics in 3.0/3.5 or any of materials that I have seen published by companies other than Wizards. Specialization is always an "option" and not a requirement.

geeman

08-11-2003, 01:11 PM

3 +0200, irdeggman wrote:

>
Well, it certainly appears like

> several folks have been arguing that thei interpretation of the 3e rules

> should take precedence over the campaign setting`s text in

> this case, and have been very dogmatic about it.

>

>I don`t recall any specific mention of the campaign setting`s text being

>used. Many have said that they thought that Cerilian elves should have

>access to nature like spells, whether divine or not. This was based on a

>"feel" from the setting not on any specific text mentioned in

>any of the setting rules.

There isn`t anything in setting`s _rules_ that I recall reading that would

support a school of magic for nature, just "the campaign setting`s

text". Specifically, the text was several quotes regarding the elven take

on magic from the BoM with a brief annotation, but there`s additional stuff

from other sources.

Gary

Raesene Andu

08-11-2003, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Aug 9 2003, 11:42 AM
Oh, and before I move on, Toril is characterised by its high magic concept, but some of its ideas are really great! For example, for the "Shadow school" geeman mentioned, there is the Shadow Weave (Weave is the goddess of magic's tapestry that defines both the boundaries from raw magic and its passage to the world; Shadow Weave is the creation of a rival goddess that wanted her spell-casters to not be in need of the Weave, since these two deities are what allows spell-casters access to magic through their creations). Shadow Magic, the magic employed through tapping at the Shadow Weave, is focused on illusions, necromancy, such staff.

Here are the feats that would be adapted from Forgotten Realms for you, if you insist on not liking the idea of spell lists, however more consistent it is:
You know this is rather amusing. The whole Shadow Weave thing for FR was based on the Birthright campaign setting to start with. It came about when Rich Baker's book The Shadow Stone, which was original going to be about the High Mage Aelies, the shadow world, and one of the Lost was converted over to FR after the BR line was cancelled.

Obviously it caught on, because when the new 3E FRCS came out, suddenly there was this thing called the Shadow Weave and they had to create a whole new mythology about it.

So effectly what you are proposing is that we create feats adapted from the Forgotten Realms, which in turn are based on a whole idea that was adapted from Birthright. I find the whole circular thing rather amusing.

irdeggman

08-11-2003, 01:38 PM

Actually Ian, the concept of Shadow magic and a world of shadow (or plane) dates back even farther. Dark Sun had very strong ties to the shadow plane and Birthright got a lot of its concepts from there.

geeman

08-11-2003, 02:12 PM

3 +0200, irdeggman wrote:

> As Lord Rhavin pointed out, making this selection of spells a school

> would allow any wizard or sorcerer access to them. This is generally a

> bad idea. Not only would it dilute the emphasis being made on Cerilian

> elves` aptitudes and connection to nature but it would open up a huge can

> of worms that would allow arcane casters to cast divine spells.

>

>Making it a racial list, using the dragon lists or even those that a Drow

>can use as examples of how this can be done would prevent access to these

>spells by non-elven arcane casters which is a very important consideration

>here.

Given the limited number of true mages in BR, I don`t think this is really

that much of a problem, but I did note in the description of the school

that it was only available to elven or half-elven spellcasters. Given that

it is a campaign specific situation, it`s easy to add such a note to

accommodate the campaign material. That write up made Nature an "exclusive

school" if you will, not available to humans (or other spellcasters.)

>This also follows the pattern of racial familiarity for weapons in a broad

>type of way. It could be said that Cerilian elves and half-elves have a

>racial familiarity with the following spells (insert appropriate list) and

>they can be added to the appropriate arcane caster spell list for them. A

>bit of a stretch but a similar precedent has been set with the dwarven

>waraxe and making it a martial weapon for dwarves. This doesn`t mean that

>any dwarf can use it but those with proficiency in martial weapons can

>without having to spend a exotic weapon feat on it. The similar case

>could be made for elves, those who can cast arcane spells can add

>thesespells to their spell list following the normal rules.

My argument is that access to a simple spell list is not significant enough

to reflect the elven interest in nature magic as described in the campaign

text. As an "exclusive school" it allows for the possibility of elven

specialists in the school, making the study of "nature magic" a particular

effort on the part of the elf.

To continue the analogy of racial weapon proficiencies; making it a school

of magic is similar to the rule that allows for dwarves to specialize in

that racial weapon, so they have the possibility of specializing in the

weapon. Giving elves access to spell list alone without describing it as a

school is like giving the dwarves the ability to wield their waraxe as a

racial ability, but without describing it as a proficiency so that they can

use feats like Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization to it.

>Making it a school that "requires" specialization to learn

>doesn`t fit any of the mechanics in 3.0/3.5 or any of materials that I

>have seen published by companies other than Wizards. Specialization is

>always an "option" and not a requirement.

The suggestion I`ve made in regards to this is that elven wizards could

either gain access to the school as a ninth school of magic (without

specialization) or if one felt that was imbalancing that they could trade

in one of the schools (Necromancy being most apt, both as far as campaign

material and game mechanics are concerned) in order to gain access to the

proposed Nature school (this is still without specialization.) If one

wanted to specialize in the Nature school the text describing how to do

that was a bit more stringent than is the norm for specialization; two

schools became opposed schools or three of the less significant ones (using

the PHB as a guide in that assessment.) Usually specialization requires

only one or two opposed schools, though several do have "any three schools"

as also a possibility.

Personally, I don`t think it would be very imbalancing to just add the

Nature school as a 9th school of magic to those available to elven

spellcasters--imbalancing spellcasters is a bit of a redundancy--but I can

see how it would make sense from a game mechanic standpoint to make them

trade a single school for access and two or three for

specialization. Since it seems to fit in just as nicely with the colour

text of the setting, it`s a good option.

Gary

Raesene Andu

08-11-2003, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by irdeggman@Aug 11 2003, 11:08 PM
Actually Ian, the concept of Shadow magic and a world of shadow (or plane) dates back even farther. Dark Sun had very strong ties to the shadow plane and Birthright got a lot of its concepts from there.
I didn't know that (but then I don't own any Dark Sun products). So it must be a good idea then, if everyone is using it. I know the whole Shadow Magic/Awnmebhaighl concept is something I've used a lot in my own campaigns, even before the FRCS came up with the Shadow Adept prestige class.

ConjurerDragon

08-11-2003, 03:06 PM

> At 11:33 AM 8/11/2003 +0200, irdeggman wrote:

...

> There isn`t anything in setting`s _rules_ that I recall reading that

> would

> support a school of magic for nature, just "the campaign setting`s

> text". Specifically, the text was several quotes regarding the elven

> take

> on magic from the BoM with a brief annotation, but there`s additional

> stuff

> from other sources.

> Gary

For example "Greatheart" where elves could meld into trees or something

similar to hide from their enemies.

bye

Michael

irdeggman

08-11-2003, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by ConjurerDragon@Aug 11 2003, 10:06 AM

> At 11:33 AM 8/11/2003 +0200, irdeggman wrote:

...

> There isn`t anything in setting`s _rules_ that I recall reading that

> would

> support a school of magic for nature, just "the campaign setting`s

> text". Specifically, the text was several quotes regarding the elven

> take

> on magic from the BoM with a brief annotation, but there`s additional

> stuff

> from other sources.

> Gary

For example "Greatheart" where elves could meld into trees or something

similar to hide from their enemies.

bye

Michael

I knew someone would bring that one up. The problem with it is the fact that a human could do it also only not as well. Basically, it translates into a skill of some kind and not a real ability. Because of the ability for a non-blooded human to do this, I didn't perceive it as a magic thing.

The other factor is do we consider the fiction to be cannon? Or is it merely color that helps.

ConjurerDragon

08-11-2003, 03:50 PM

r />

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=1651

>

>...

>

> For example "Greatheart" where elves could meld into trees or something<>

> similar to hide from their enemies.<>

> bye<>

> Michael<>

>I knew someone would bring that one up. The problem with it is the fact that a human could do it also only not as well. Basically, it translates into a skill of some kind and not a real ability. Because of the ability for a non-blooded human to do this, I didn`t perceive it as a magic thing.

> The other factor is do we consider the fiction to be cannon? Or is it merely color that helps.

>

>

In Greatheart the two goblins are described as not understanding which

parts of the elves abilitys is trained and what needs magic to work (I

think the transleap over an enemy was the location in the book). So the

human who was raised by the elves could perhaps have learned something

about their magic. Perhaps a 3E Commoner 1/Fighter X/Magician Y...

bye

Michael

Raesene Andu

08-11-2003, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by irdeggman@Aug 12 2003, 12:51 AM
I knew someone would bring that one up. The problem with it is the fact that a human could do it also only not as well. Basically, it translates into a skill of some kind and not a real ability. Because of the ability for a non-blooded human to do this, I didn't perceive it as a magic thing.

The other factor is do we consider the fiction to be cannon? Or is it merely color that helps.
Or possibly an ability unique to the Sielwode, due perhaps to an property of the ancient trees that make up that forest or some ancient magic cast by a long dead elf.

As for the novels being cannon, well to a certain extent perhaps, but there are several notable inconsistancies and outright errors in a couple of the novels, so while they make good stories, I wouldn't necessarily consider every single word to be cannon.

geeman

08-11-2003, 04:06 PM

3 +0200, irdeggman wrote:

> The other factor is do we consider the fiction to be cannon? Or is it

> merely color that helps.

I wouldn`t consider it canon, but I do think a lot of that stuff indicates

things that can be included as game mechanics and that are sensible to

include as at least optional material, since it`s got a lot of thematic

material that is the kind of thing that makes a campaign material special.

The BoM is where the majority of the emphasis on the nature aspect of elves

comes from, but some folks dislike this or that supplement to the BR

materials from time to time, so if one wasn`t wild about that text I can

see discounting it. The BoM is IMO one of the better supplements, and the

stuff about the elven philosophy and capacity for magic seems to fit

smoothly into the basic background of the race as described in the

Rulebook, so I think it`d be fine to put right into the campaign setting`s

write up--especially since it wouldn`t be a lot of text. Others might

prefer that it appear in a 3.0 -- 3.5 update of the BoM text, however.

Similarly, the Tuarhieval SB has a lot of commentary that I think could be

used to justify an Elemental school of magic for BR elves (I used a touch

of it in the description of the Nature school since it seemed so

significant to the race.) Since that descriptive text seems to fit so well

into the elven psychology and the rest of the setting, I would really

prefer to see elves having access to spells lists of both those types and

that they were described as additional schools of magic to allow for

specialization and the ancillary effects of schools.

Gary

Elrond

08-11-2003, 10:39 PM

Wow! It seems you enjoyed this topic. I’m sorry but I wasn’t able to follow the the thread in the last two months. :(
In September I’ll begin a 3.5 Birthright campaign. I passed the last weeks translating the Brcs stuff in Italian (for my players) and I’ve introduced a few home rules.
Well, I’ve considered the whole matter of the “elven nature school” and... I’ve changed my mind: no new school and no “elven arcane lore feat”. :P
Here’s the solution I’ve adopted. Elven arcane spellcasters (true magic) lose spells from necromancy and evocation and gain about half the spells of the druid list (distributed among the six remaining arcane schools). The elf comprehension of mabhaighl and the balance of nature is more profound than the one of other races. In giving up necromancy and evocation, an elf becomes one with nature and is able to channel the mebhaighl to power a different kind of spells. This lore was never revealed to non elves and remains secret. Renegade elven arcane spellcasters (the ones using necromancy and evocation) are no longer tuned to nature and lose the new spells.
An elf wizard gives up only one of the remaining six schools to become a specialist. (Another home rule regarding all specialist wizards, under the 3.5 rules, is the possibility to chose divination as one of the two opposition schools... If players are so stupid to give up divinations, that’s their problem).

ryancaveney

08-12-2003, 12:41 AM

Elrond wrote:

> Here`s the solution I`ve adopted. Elven arcane spellcasters (true

> magic) lose spells from necromancy and evocation and gain about half

> the spells of the druid list (distributed among the six remaining

> arcane schools).

Not too bad, but I`m really not keen on Sidhelien giving up evocation.

I know the BoM says they shun it, but to me the only reason for that

is fear of collateral damage -- that is, no fireballs in their home

forests, but fireballs in human villages in the plains are fair game,

and perhaps even encouraged. Evocations with little or no chance of

harming nearby trees (e.g., Magic Missile) I think are never a problem.

I am very strongly attached to the primal elemental view of the Sidhelien,

and thus deeply disagree with the idea that a sidhe with strong fire

ancestry and perhaps a Basaia bloodline to boot can`t sling fireballs

anywhere she wants, _as an important part of_, rather than in opposition

to, her connection to nature.

> Renegade elven arcane spellcasters (the ones using necromancy and

> evocation) are no longer tuned to nature and lose the [nature] spells.

This is a fine plan. How many of these do you envision exist in

Cerilia? None? Just Rhuobhe Manslayer? Lots in Tuar Annwn?

Ryan Caveney

RaspK_FOG

08-12-2003, 09:37 AM

Well, sorry, geeman, if you think I insulted you, but I still think that Necromantic spells like restoration have little effect over the power of death. Actually, a more accurate description (found elsewhere, have to point out) is that Necromancy manipulates the forces of life and death... Secondly, I know quite my bit of real life necromantic lore: one of the first necromantic covens worldwide exists in my country. :P

Really now, what made me angry was your consistence in ignoring the idea of using [descriptors] and Nature Magic Spell Lists based on the concept that such an idea would need a lot more work, or that it would be less believable (thus negating the suspension of disbelief, I presume) to make elven wizards face the same hindrances in affecting nature that humans have...

While your idea is interesting, I can still mention a counter concept. I, for one, like the concept of traditions:

Elven Nature Mage
Your hereditary link to the land itself allows you to power your spells through the raw force of the mebhaigl (still can't spell the thing?) and achieve the control only fey have over what is eldritch.
Prerequisites: Elf or half-elf, non-specialised wizard.
Benefit: You are considered specialised with the following list of spells, as if it were a school of magic; all rules that concern specialisation work for this tradition of magic, including the fact that you have to leave Necromancy as an opposition school.
[Insert spell list here]
Special: Must get this feat at 1st level, during character creation.

As for Shadow Magic... yeah, I have to agree it's funny alright ( :lol: ), but I haven't seen too much a use of any such mechanic, so I thought it would be interesting... Any comments are welcome; I always want to hear intelligent ideas over the things that I work with.

As for FR: I know its a world that makes no sense most of the time, but some of the concepts that first appeared there still made it in the core rules in 3e... Anyone who didn't enjoy the idea of Wild Magic? Well, apart from all of you who have lost characters due to wild magic, that is! :D

irdeggman

08-12-2003, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by Elrond@Aug 11 2003, 05:39 PM
Wow! It seems you enjoyed this topic. I’m sorry but I wasn’t able to follow the the thread in the last two months. :(
In September I’ll begin a 3.5 Birthright campaign. I passed the last weeks translating the Brcs stuff in Italian (for my players) and I’ve introduced a few home rules.
Well, I’ve considered the whole matter of the “elven nature school” and... I’ve changed my mind: no new school and no “elven arcane lore feat”. :P
Here’s the solution I’ve adopted. Elven arcane spellcasters (true magic) lose spells from necromancy and evocation and gain about half the spells of the druid list (distributed among the six remaining arcane schools). The elf comprehension of mabhaighl and the balance of nature is more profound than the one of other races. In giving up necromancy and evocation, an elf becomes one with nature and is able to channel the mebhaighl to power a different kind of spells. This lore was never revealed to non elves and remains secret. Renegade elven arcane spellcasters (the ones using necromancy and evocation) are no longer tuned to nature and lose the new spells.
An elf wizard gives up only one of the remaining six schools to become a specialist. (Another home rule regarding all specialist wizards, under the 3.5 rules, is the possibility to chose divination as one of the two opposition schools... If players are so stupid to give up divinations, that’s their problem).
Not bad. But a few questions/comments.

PHB (3.5) - "A wizard may never give up divination to fulfill this requirement. {opposition schools for specialists}"

Also how can one specialize if it is not a school?

Should elven bards be prohibitied from having access to these spells?

The more I think about it the more I think that the most streamlined method would be to add elven nature magic familiarity to the elf (and half-elf) racial abilities.

Elven nature magic familiarity - Due to their strong ties to the land of Cerilia elves add the following spells to any arcane spellcaster list they may have at the equivalent spell level listed.

Basically this is a similar treatment to that of racial weapon familiarity (3.5). The spells still have the schools and descriptors assigned to them in the PHB, so meta magic feats, spell resistance, etc. rules would still work normally. Races other than elves (and half-elves) don't gain this benefit since they are not of a separate school. Since we are talking about divine spells that can be used arcanly here we only need to include those spells that an elf would not normally be allowed. The character would not be able to cast these spells if they didn't have an arcane spellcasting class of the appropriate level (as normal spell progression). Note in 3.5 all spells have a school assigned to them, either one of the 8 or universal which is used for those that don't really fit into one of the 8.

Now this would require a look at the specific spells to make sure that an approriate level is applicable if they have mutiple levels. It would probably be best to make them the lowest level spell listed if more than one level is listed.

RaspK_FOG

08-12-2003, 10:35 AM

Good idea! Mine lacked the concept of being widely availabel...

I think, though, that the spell levels, as I have mentioned elsewhere, should be considered in this way:

wizard only spells: as they are
druidic spells: as they are, or +1, if REALLY good
accessible by both: wizard-level, or druidic +1

Bards should get spells with care; their spell-power is low in Birthright, as it seems, so not much power should be given to them... Any ideas?

geeman

08-12-2003, 11:24 AM

3 +0200, RaspK_FOG wrote:

> I think, though, that the spell levels, as I have mentioned elsewhere,

> should be considered in this way:

>

> wizard only spells: as they are

> druidic spells: as they are, or +1, if REALLY good

> accessible by both: wizard-level, or druidic +1

>

> Bards should get spells with care; their spell-power is low in

> Birthright, as it seems, so not much power should be given to them... Any

> ideas?

The spell list I wrote up was mainly spells from the druid list. Upon

occasion spells are available to both divine and arcane spellcasters and I

avoided those spells in order to not give elven spellcasters a "back door"

that allowed them access to a spell they would otherwise lose if they

specialized or needed to sacrifice a school of magic for access to the

Nature spells.

When it comes to spell levels none seemed to particularly need

altering. At least, they seemed to `port pretty directly and were

comparable in power to those already available to arcane spellcasters, so I

kept them as they were listed for druids. That list appears to be OK,

though I haven`t gone over it with a fine tooth comb.

Gary

irdeggman

08-12-2003, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by geeman@Aug 12 2003, 06:24 AM
The spell list I wrote up was mainly spells from the druid list. Upon

occasion spells are available to both divine and arcane spellcasters and I

avoided those spells in order to not give elven spellcasters a "back door"

that allowed them access to a spell they would otherwise lose if they

specialized or needed to sacrifice a school of magic for access to the

Nature spells.

I agree with Gary on this one the "list" should only include spells that a wizard normally doesn't have access to. Otherwise the spell ends up on the list twice at 2 different spell levels.

Elrond

08-12-2003, 12:05 PM

Not too bad, but I`m really not keen on Sidhelien giving up evocation. I know the BoM says they shun it, but to me the only reason for that is fear of collateral damage -- that is, no fireballs in their home forests, but fireballs in human villages in the plains are fair game, and perhaps even encouraged. Evocations with little or no chance of harming nearby trees (e.g., Magic Missile) I think are never a problem.

Evocation draws too much power from the mebhaighl and is very taxing for nature. This should be the explanation for elves’ dislike of evocation. That should have nothing to do with fire spells and burning forests.

This is a fine plan. How many of these do you envision exist in Cerilia? None? Just Rhuobhe Manslayer? Lots in Tuar Annwn?

Elves belonging to clans still engaged in the Gheallie Sidhe let their hatred for humans darken their responsabilities toward nature. Spellcasters with evocation spells should be common among those clans whereas they are considered renegades by the majority of the Sidhelien. Rhuobhe Manslayer, who’s also a necromancer, forgot entirely the meaning of respect and love for nature.

kgauck

08-12-2003, 02:38 PM

ore elementalist approach to sidhe magic, rather than

starting with druidical magic. One more source for a good elementalist is

that written by our own Elton Robb and published in _Occult Lore_ by Atlas

Games and Penumbra.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

ConjurerDragon

08-12-2003, 03:55 PM

r />

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=1651

>

> RaspK_FOG wrote:

> Well, sorry, geeman, if you think I insulted you, but I still think that Necromantic spells like restoration have little effect over the power of death. Actually, a more accurate description (found elsewhere, have to point out) is that Necromancy manipulates the forces of life and death... Secondly, I know quite my bit of real life necromantic lore: one of the first necromantic covens worldwide exists in my country. :P

>

>

A different question about necromancy: In the pdf file of wizards with

the changes from 3.0 to 3.5

there is a table with spells which changed school. Bless Weapon changes

from Transmutation to NECROMANCY???

bye

Michael

irdeggman

08-12-2003, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by ConjurerDragon@Aug 12 2003, 10:55 AM
r />

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php...36&t=1651<br (http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=1651<br) />
>

> RaspK_FOG wrote:

> Well, sorry, geeman, if you think I insulted you, but I still think that Necromantic spells like restoration have little effect over the power of death. Actually, a more accurate description (found elsewhere, have to point out) is that Necromancy manipulates the forces of life and death... Secondly, I know quite my bit of real life necromantic lore: one of the first necromantic covens worldwide exists in my country. :P

>

>

A different question about necromancy: In the pdf file of wizards with

the changes from 3.0 to 3.5

there is a table with spells which changed school. Bless Weapon changes

from Transmutation to NECROMANCY???

bye

Michael

In the actual printing of the book (3.5 PHB) it is still transmutation. It must be an editorial in the pdf.

Osprey

08-12-2003, 08:23 PM

When it comes to spell levels none seemed to particularly need
altering. At least, they seemed to `port pretty directly and were
comparable in power to those already available to arcane spellcasters, so I
kept them as they were listed for druids. That list appears to be OK,
though I haven`t gone over it with a fine tooth comb.

From what I've seen, druidic spells (except at the highest levels) are fairly weak compared to comparable wizard levels, so I doubt adding levels to the druidic versions would really be necessary for game balance.

Elven nature magic familiarity - Due to their strong ties to the land of Cerilia elves add the following spells to any arcane spellcaster list they may have at the equivalent spell level listed.

Basically this is a similar treatment to that of racial weapon familiarity (3.5). The spells still have the schools and descriptors assigned to them in the PHB, so meta magic feats, spell resistance, etc. rules would still work normally. Races other than elves (and half-elves) don't gain this benefit since they are not of a separate school. Since we are talking about divine spells that can be used arcanly here we only need to include those spells that an elf would not normally be allowed. The character would not be able to cast these spells if they didn't have an arcane spellcasting class of the appropriate level (as normal spell progression). Note in 3.5 all spells have a school assigned to them, either one of the 8 or universal which is used for those that don't really fit into one of the 8.

Now this would require a look at the specific spells to make sure that an approriate level is applicable if they have mutiple levels. It would probably be best to make them the lowest level spell listed if more than one level is listed.

I've gotta say, simply adding an extra set of available spells for one feat is a pretty big advantage if their are no restrictions attached. I think it reasonable to bar Necromancy at the very least as a condition of using the elven "bonus spells." On the other hand, I don't see any reason that elves wouldn't have learned a version of evocation that isn't so draining on the mebhaigal (sp?), at least on a personal level. Evocation Realm Spells, however, might be a different matter... If evocation's destructive power is the sole province of non-elven spellcasters, then I would ask two questions:
1. How did the humans learn Evocation and Necromancy? Azrai? Are they then shadow-tainted schools? (heh, wouldn't that be a fun plot device <_< )
2. Could elves learn druidic elemental spells in exchange for giving up evocation? If so, the elven spell list should be fairly generous to compensate, as losing evocation severely powers down a wizard's offensive potential. Another option is allowing elves to learn Evocation spells as spells of 1 higher level than for wizards and sorcerers (i.e., Magic Missile is a level 2 spell, fireball 4th, etc.). Personally, I like the more raw elemental-nature spells on the druids' list, like fire seeds, fire storm, elemental summoning, call lightning, etc. I think these kinds of destructive spells are excellent examples of magic that taps nature's existing power, rather than draining its source.
I would also suggest giving elves Summon Nature's Allies as a Realm spell instead of Summon Monstrous Unit.

All in all, though, I think the running idea of a "bonus spell list" for elves based on a racial feat is a good solution to all of this. Just keep it balanced...

-Osprey

irdeggman

08-12-2003, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by Osprey@Aug 12 2003, 03:23 PM

I've gotta say, simply adding an extra set of available spells for one feat is a pretty big advantage if their are no restrictions attached. I think it reasonable to bar Necromancy at the very least as a condition of using the elven "bonus spells." On the other hand, I don't see any reason that elves wouldn't have learned a version of evocation that isn't so draining on the mebhaigal (sp?), at least on a personal level. Evocation Realm Spells, however, might be a different matter... If evocation's destructive power is the sole province of non-elven spellcasters, then I would ask two questions:
1. How did the humans learn Evocation and Necromancy? Azrai? Are they then shadow-tainted schools? (heh, wouldn't that be a fun plot device <_< )
2. Could elves learn druidic elemental spells in exchange for giving up evocation? If so, the elven spell list should be fairly generous to compensate, as losing evocation severely powers down a wizard's offensive potential. Another option is allowing elves to learn Evocation spells as spells of 1 higher level than for wizards and sorcerers (i.e., Magic Missile is a level 2 spell, fireball 4th, etc.). Personally, I like the more raw elemental-nature spells on the druids' list, like fire seeds, fire storm, elemental summoning, call lightning, etc. I think these kinds of destructive spells are excellent examples of magic that taps nature's existing power, rather than draining its source.
I would also suggest giving elves Summon Nature's Allies as a Realm spell instead of Summon Monstrous Unit.

All in all, though, I think the running idea of a "bonus spell list" for elves based on a racial feat is a good solution to all of this. Just keep it balanced...

-Osprey
I think you missed something here. Its not a feat. It would be under the racial traits just like dwarven weapon familiarity (in 3.5 PHB). By not making it a feat the problems with whether or not a player would choose it for his PC and whether or not other races could pick it up are eliminated. In the BRCS (pg 54) it already states that elves disdain spells from the evocation and summoning schools and absolutly shun necromantic spells. "Elves have been known to hunt down spellcasters, including other elves, who have ruined nature with their carelessness."

By not making them absolutely forbidden (i.e., removing them from the applicable spell lists) the door is open for role-playing and an almost infinite amount of storylines revolving around elves who don't follow the prescribed path. A player has the option of choosing how to run his PC, if an elf and he chooses say "fireball" as a spell that he uses frequently he is runnning the risk of bringing down the acrimony of his "fellow" elves while still being an outcast from most human societies.

IMO magic missle, while an evocation spell is not one that would draw the ire of elven society while fireball, flaming sphere or even lightning bolt would probably do so.

Remember that by adding the spells to the PC's spell list doesn't mean that he knows them automatically and in the case of a sorcerer or bard he has a definite limit to the amount of spells that he can know and thus the player must choose wisely.

Also the "rules" on spell research are pretty reasonable when you factor in the schools. It would be hard to justify creating a magic missile spell that is not an evocation without absolutely trashing the existing spell system.

Good points with the Realm Spells, but let's deal with one thing at a time before we move on to the next level.

RaspK_FOG

08-12-2003, 10:54 PM

Oops, my mistake there! I should impose the fact that only POWERFUL druidic spells should be thought of as nature magic... But I guess you are right.

It seems, though, that they should be renamed before being added to the spell familiarity, so they are not affected by school specialisation too.

Oh, I really love the time we will see an elven mage control weather, don't you?

Necromantic bless weapon? :lol:, Wizards really screwed that up pretty bad! How about a new Necromancy spell: Bless Skeleton? ROFL!!

Elrond

08-12-2003, 11:00 PM

How did the humans learn Evocation and Necromancy?

From the elves, humans learned how to tap the mebhaighl. Spells of necromancy and evocation came as a natural consequence of the grater power that became available. Elves chose not to develop necromancy and evocation, humans do.

the elven spell list should be fairly generous to compensate, as losing evocation severely powers down a wizard's offensive potential

About half the spells of the druid list should compensate for this loss. The offensive potential of elven wizards is constituted primarily by illusions and nature control spells. No need of fireballs or magic missiles.

RaspK_FOG

08-12-2003, 11:03 PM

Sorry for double-posting, just noticed: bards really don't face much trouble in this; just let them cast the old druidc spells they had in 3e that they no longer have in 3.5 (control weather, control water, wind wall, gust of wind) and all is all.

geeman

08-13-2003, 04:25 PM

3 +0200, RaspK_FOG wrote:

> Oh, I really love the time we will see an elven mage control

> weather, don`t you?

Yeah, that seems to be the kind of thing an elf spellcaster should be able

to do, doesn`t it? Right now, however, I`m thinking elves should have

access to two schools of magic (or traditions, whatever one wants to call

them.) One of the concerns expressed about Nature was that it might be too

broad a category. The druid spell list is, after all, pretty large and

includes spells that do things like effect animals, some that affect

plants, some that change the terrain and some that influence weather or

have an elemental effect. Cerilian elves in are described in various

sources as having an interest in the natural environment and in having a

sort of religious view regarding their connection to the four

elements. Many of the weather controlling spells could be interpreted as

being similar to the elemental: air group of magic spells, so perhaps

weather controlling spells should be included with elemental ones.

Gary

geeman

08-13-2003, 04:50 PM

3 +0200, RaspK_FOG wrote:

>I still think that Necromantic spells like restoration have little

>effect over the power of death. Actually, a more accurate description

>(found elsewhere, have to point out) is that Necromancy manipulates the

>forces of life and death...

That sounds right. "Life and death" is a better description of the

necromantic school`s spells actual powers. There are more death ones than

life ones, but the school does cover both. My point was that some spells

under the necromantic school do things like animate, deal damage, etc. that

would (in the absence of that descriptor) fit into other schools of magic

that handle such things. Because the thing being animated is a skeleton,

however, it fits into the necromantic school, and the damage done is to

undead or is described in such a way as having to do with

life/death. Necromancy as a school _should_ exist. Its still a fairly

general category of spells and one that will apply to many (if not most)

campaign settings.

>Secondly, I know quite my bit of real life necromantic lore: one of the

>first necromantic covens worldwide exists in my country. :P

I joined an Enchantment/Charm coven a while back... mostly for the dancing

and requisite nudity, but it was still an interesting experience.

>Really now, what made me angry was your consistence in ignoring the idea

>of using [descriptors] and Nature Magic Spell Lists based on the concept

>that such an idea would need a lot more work, or that it would be less

>believable (thus negating the suspension of disbelief, I presume) to make

>elven wizards face the same hindrances in affecting nature that humans have...

Actually, it`s not that I think it would take more work or wreck

believability, it`s that I really I don`t think it`s very important. The

schools of magic as spell descriptors is pretty much incidental to me. I`m

much more interested in the function of schools of magic as they would

apply to actual play for our purposes here; character class and access to

spell lists by race. If that means they are not described as a school of

magic--they are called traditions or quasi-schools or whatever--in order to

accommodate the issue of schools=spell descriptors then that`s fine by me.

Gary

RaspK_FOG

08-15-2003, 11:38 PM

Thanks, Gary, for your replies. I have to aplogise once again: being rush is no good...

Anyway, I would really like the idea of running a poll on that too... Maybe I should change my "name" to Poll O' Mania. :lol: Honestly, people, what do you think?

irdeggman

08-17-2003, 09:40 PM

After working on this I've come up with the following using the 3.5 PHB as a basis.

Elven racial abilities:
Variant: Elven nature magic familiarity - Due to their strong ties to the land of Cerilia elves add the following spells to any arcane spellcaster list they may have at the equivalent spell level listed. Elves follow the rules for learning and casting these spells for the spellcasting class that they apply. These spells would be cast as arcane spells.
0-Level
Create Water

1st-Level
Calm Animals -
Charm Animal -
Detect Snares and Pits -
Entangle -
Goodberry -
Hide from Animals -
Longstrider – I’d add it even though it doesn’t really have a nature theme, it does fit in with the elven descriptions
Magic Fang -
Magic Stone -
Pass without Trace -
Shillelagh -

2nd-Level
Animal Messenger -
Barkskin -
Hold Animal -
Reduce Animal -
Soften Earth and Stone -
Tree Shape -
Warp Wood -
Wood Shape -

3rd-Level
Diminish Plants -
Dominate Animal -
Magic Fang, Greater -
Meld into Stone -
Plant Growth -
Quench -
Snare -
Spike Growth –
Wind Walk -

4th-Level
Air Walk
Antiplant Shell -
Command Plants -
Giant Vermin -
Spike Stones -

5th-Level
Awaken -
Commune with Nature -
Control Winds -
Tree Stride -
Wall of Thorns -

6th-Level
Ironwood -
Liveoak -
Repel Wood
Spellstaff -
Stone Tell -
Transport via Plants -

7th-Level
Animate Plants -
Changestaff -
Transmute Metal to Wood -
Wind Walk -

8th-Level
Animal Shapes -
Control Plants -
Repel Metal or Stone -

9th-Level
Shambler -

Druid spells not added to the list of elven racial familiarity (and why)

0-Level
Cure Minor Wounds – Don’t include, it doesn’t really have a nature theme
Detect Magic – Don’t include, it’s on the Brd and Sor/Wiz lists already
Detect Poison – Don’t include, it’s on the Brd and Sor/Wiz lists already
Flare – Don’t include, it’s on the Brd and Sor/Wiz lists already
Guidance – Don’t include, it doesn’t really have a nature theme
Know Direction – Don’t include, it’s already on the Brd list
Light - Don’t include, it’s on the Brd and Sor/Wiz lists already
Mending - Don’t include, it’s on the Brd and Sor/Wiz lists already
Purify Food and Drink – Don’t include, it doesn’t really have a nature theme
Read Magic - Don’t include, it’s on the Brd and Sor/Wiz lists already
Resistance - Don’t include, it’s on the Brd and Sor/Wiz lists already
Virtue – Don’t include, it doesn’t really have a nature theme

1st-Level
Cure Light Wounds – Don’t include, it doesn’t really have a nature theme
Endure Elements – Don’t include, it’s already on the Sor/Wiz list already
Faerie Fire – Don’t include, it’s an evocation spell
Jump - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Obscuring Mist - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Produce Flame – Don’t include, it’s an evocation spell and a fire one
Speak with Animals - Don’t include, it’s on the Brd list already
Summon Nature’s Ally I – Don’t include, it’s a summoning spell

2nd-Level
Animal Trance - Don’t include, it’s on the Brd list already
Bear’s Endurance - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Cat’s Grace - Don’t include, it’s on the Brd and Sor/Wiz lists already
Delay Poison - Don’t include, it’s on the Brd list already
Fire Trap - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already and a fire spell
Flame Blade – Don’t include it’s an evocation and fire spell
Flaming Sphere - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already, is an evocation and fire spell
Fog Cloud - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Gust of Wind - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already and is an evocation
Heat Metal – Don’t add it’s a fire spell
Owl’s Wisdom - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Resist Energy - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Restoration, Lesser – Don’t include it’s not really a nature theme
Spider Climb - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Summon Nature’s Ally II – Don’t include it’s a summoning spell
Summon Swarm – Don’t include it’s a summoning spell

3rd-Level
Call Lightning – Don’t include it’s an evocation spell
Contagion - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already and is a necromancy spell
Cure Moderate Wounds – Don’t include it’s not really a nature theme
Daylight - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already and is an evocation spell
Neutralize Poison - Don’t include, it’s on the Brd list already
Poison – Don’t include it’s a necromancy spell
Protection from Energy - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Remove Disease – Don’t include it’s not really a nature theme
Sleet Storm - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Speak with Plants - Don’t include, it’s on the Brd list already
Stone Shape - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Summon Nature’s Ally III – Don’t include it’s a summoning spell
Water Breathing - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already

4th-Level
Blight - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Control Water - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Cure Serious Wounds – Don’t include it’s not really a nature theme
Dispel Magic - Don’t include, it’s on the Brd and Sor/Wiz lists already
Flame Strike – Don’t include it’s an evocation and fire spell
Freedom of Movement - Don’t include, it’s on the Brd list already
Ice Storm - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already and is an evocation spell
Reincarnate – Don’t include it’s not really a nature theme
Repel Vermin - Don’t include, it’s on the Brd list already
Rusting Grasp – Don’t include it’s not really a nature theme
Scrying - Don’t include, it’s on the Brd and Sor/Wiz lists already
Summon Nature’s Ally IV - Don’t include it’s a summoning spell

5th-Level
Animal Growth - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Atonement – Don’t add it doesn’t really have a nature theme
Baleful Polymorph - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Call Lightning Storm – Don’t include it’s an evocation spell
Cure Critical Wounds – Don’t include it’s not really a nature theme
Death Ward – Don’t add it’s a necromancy spell
Hallow – Don’t add it doesn’t have a nature theme and is an evocation spell
Insect Plague – Don’t add it’s a summoning spell
Stoneskin - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Summon Nature’s Ally V - Don’t include it’s a summoning spell
Transmute Mud to Rock - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Transmute Rock to Mud - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Unhallow – Don’t add it doesn’t have a nature theme and is an evocation spell
Wall of Fire - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already and is an evocation and fire spell

6th-Level
Antilife Shell – Don’t add it’s not really a nature theme
Bear’s Endurance, Mass - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Bull’s Strength, Mass - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Cat’s Grace, Mass - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Cure Light Wounds, Mass – Don’t include it’s not really a nature theme
Dispel Magic, Greater - Don’t include, it’s on the Brd and Sor/Wiz lists already
Find the Path - Don’t include, it’s on the Brd list already
Fire Seeds – Don’t add it’s not really a nature theme and is a fire spell
Move Earth - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Owl’s Wisdom, Mass - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Summon Nature’s Ally VI - Don’t include it’s a summoning spell
Wall of Stone - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already

7th-Level
Control Weather - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Creeping Doom – Don’t add it’s a summoning spell
Cure Moderate Wounds, Mass – Don’t include it’s not really a nature theme
Fire Storm – Don’t add it’s an evocation and fire spell
Heal – Don’t include it not really a nature theme
Scrying, Greater - Don’t include, it’s on the Brd and Sor/Wiz lists already
Summon Nature’s Ally VII - Don’t include it’s a summoning spell
Sunbeam – Don’t add it’s an evocation spell
True Seeing - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already

8th-Level
Cure Serious Wounds, Mass – Don’t include it’s not really a nature theme
Earthquake – Don’t add it’s an evocation spell
Finger of Death - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already and is a necromancy spell
Reverse Gravity - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Summon Nature’s Ally VIII - Don’t include it’s a summoning spell
Sunburst – Don’t add it’s an evocation spell
Whirlwind – Don’t add it’s an evocation spell
Word of Recall – Don’t add it’s not really a nature spell

9th-Level
Antipathy - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Cure Critical Wounds, Mass – Don’t include it’s not really a nature theme
Elemental Swarm – Don’t add it’s a summoning spell
Foresight - Don’t include, it’s on the Sor/Wiz list already
Regenerate – Don’t add it’s not really a nature spell
Shapechange – Don’t add it’s not really a nature theme
Storm of Vengeance – Don’t add it’s a summoning spell
Summon Nature’s Ally IX - Don’t include it’s a summoning spell
Sympathy – Don’t add it’s not really a nature theme

RaspK_FOG

08-17-2003, 10:15 PM

Hey, thes are great! Thank you! ;)
Actually, after that, I don't think we really need a poll: your work is outstanding!

Elrond

08-17-2003, 11:47 PM

Elven racial abilities:
Variant:* Elven nature magic familiarity - Due to their strong ties to the land of Cerilia elves add the following spells to any arcane spellcaster list they may have at the equivalent spell level listed.* Elves follow the rules for learning and casting these spells for the spellcasting class that they apply.* These spells would be cast as arcane spells.

I want my name on the Brcs! :P
Good job irdeggman! B)

Osprey

08-18-2003, 08:39 PM

Good work on the spell list - I think it's a well thought-out addition.

Just one question for irdeggman:

Cure Light Wounds – Don’t include, it doesn’t really have a nature theme

Why aren't healing spells considered to have a nature theme? It seems to me that any power dealing with forces of growth, life energies, and resoration fits well with a nature theme. Nature is partly elemental, but elves are closely connected to the forces of the living world. Also, since they don't have clerics or druids normally, who are their healers? Only bards? (assuming elven bards are still capable of healing).

In particular, I think things like Remove Disease, Neautralize Poison, Cure spells, and Regenerate are fairly appropriate for a nature mage, though at least at normal druid levels or higher.

Still, great job altogether. Congrats.
Osprey

RaspK_FOG

08-18-2003, 10:34 PM

A wizard with healins spells??? That's a "no-go", I think you know that...

And why only bards? What are Magicians for? And they even have more such spells, if my memory plays me no tricks on this one!

And, actually, this is no nature theme; only protest one would have there is Reincarnate, maybe Regeneration!

And last point: balance! If elven wizards could do healing and things like regeneration or raising the dead, why would one ever play a non-elf, then? As the DMG says in designing variant spell lists: "Beware the allmighty hybrid!"

Mark_Aurel

08-18-2003, 11:21 PM

In particular, I think things like Remove Disease, Neautralize Poison, Cure spells, and Regenerate are fairly appropriate for a nature mage, though at least at normal druid levels or higher.

Well, Poison, possibly, but Elves don't get sick, so Remove Disease is a no-no. To them, I suppose, disease is something unnatural, unimaginable and foul - something that only comes from the darkest black magic, and thus something they're perhaps powerless to face. Regenerate is something I'd ponder a bit more - being immortal, it would suck to spend eternity without legs. I know Tolkien's Elves were supposed to be immune to being scarred; would it seem logical or fair if Birthright Elves had some form of long-term natural regenerative ability?

RaspK_FOG

08-18-2003, 11:31 PM

Well, it could be very nice, since Birthright's Elves are so much like Tolkien's... I even noticed that the name Sidhe refers to the elves of the Celts: a great, noble race of faery...

Anyway, I still think that such a power should only allow regeneration without the ability to grow lost parts back. Only the "stick part to the stump; it will stick in xdx rounds" variety, and even that is WAY too good...

irdeggman

08-19-2003, 02:43 AM

Originally posted by Osprey@Aug 18 2003, 03:39 PM

Why aren't healing spells considered to have a nature theme? It seems to me that any power dealing with forces of growth, life energies, and resoration fits well with a nature theme. Nature is partly elemental, but elves are closely connected to the forces of the living world. Also, since they don't have clerics or druids normally, who are their healers? Only bards? (assuming elven bards are still capable of healing).

In particular, I think things like Remove Disease, Neautralize Poison, Cure spells, and Regenerate are fairly appropriate for a nature mage, though at least at normal druid levels or higher.

The Birthright background material (in the original campagn setting) mentioned that one of the reasons that the elves didn't dominate the humans was due to clerical magic, specifically healing.

Neutralize poison is already on the bard's spell list so there really is not a good reason to give an elf character a way to get around something that he could gain bu judicial use of a class that is available to him. And even though it is a healing spell, without restricting the bard spells to elves it works for them.

Regenerate is not a nature oriented spell and it falls under the healing spells mentioned previously by the original Birthright material.

Remove disease is also a healing spell see previousl comments on them.

And only in 3rd ed (and 3.5) do bards get any healing spells. There has been a lot of discussion about that topic already, many think that Birthright bards shouldn't get the healing spells.

Adding healing spells to the elves' list will only serve to undercut one of the main themes of the Birthright campaign setting and that was a marked difference between elven spellcasting and humans.

Birthright-L

08-19-2003, 04:03 AM

> Adding healing spells to the elves` list will only serve to undercut one of the main themes of the Birthright campaign setting and that was a marked difference between elven spellcasting and humans.

>

Agreed.

Healing spells should not be allowed for elves. I don`t have a particuarly

good reason for this as it doesn`t sound nature-related and even

elven-related, but I agree that it`s a main theme in Birthright that

shouldn`t be changed. I do, however, think that some of the restrictions on

elven magic (regarding invocation and necromancy) may call for some thematic

change and I`d prefer if most of their magic came from elemental effects

(which I wouldn`t exchange for healing spells).

Of course, now elves (or at least PC elven adventurers) would just have

Potions and Wands of Healing anyway given to them by elven bards, dwarven

clerics, or fey allies.

I believe it was Mark Vandermuelen (sorry if a misspelled the name) that

suggested way back when that to preserve the "elves can`t use healing magic"

backdrop of the setting, elves themselves should be immune to healing

spells.

I really like this suggestion and I would think that if elves *could* cast

healing spells, they still shouldn`t be allowed to heal one another.

Perhaps animals, plants, fey creatures, etc. but not other elves. They

would be have immunity along with immunity to desease.

It`s harsh, but it does partially explain why they lost the war against the

humans. It also brings the elves power level ("almost an ECL") down a

notch. :)

Of course, this would be easier to reflect if Healing was a school of

magic... ::dives for cover::

-Lord Rahvin

kgauck

08-19-2003, 09:17 AM

I have no problems putting healing spells in arcane spell lists (and scratch

my head with wonder at people who do have a problem with it). But the BR

text does suggest that divine healing magic was a human advantage. Plus, it

helps explain why the humans won. Still for those who want sidhe healing,

one could extend the spell casting and effect duration so that its useful in

character time, but not in combat time. A leg could be regenerated over a

month (happy character) but not by any means with a 3 round casting time and

a 2d10 healing time. In fact, 3 days and 2d10 days makes more sense.

One handy way to introduce spell you don`t want to see cast very often is to

design them as ritual spells taking days to cast and multiple days to take

effect. Such spells bridge the gap between the standard spell lists and

realm spells. Most people kind of assume Battle Spells fit this same kind

of catagory.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

Osprey

08-19-2003, 08:19 PM

For the sake of game balance, no wizard or sorcerer healers is fine by me. Personally, I have yet to see a good reason not to have druidic elves. Jealous privelage of the Rjurik humans (and their player fans)? Heck, I wouldn't care if you called the elven druids arcane spellcasters! After all, the PHB druid class has nothing to do with deities, it is all about the power of nature itself as a kind of divine entity. How again does this conflict with elves?

Anyways, I won't keep going on about it, but I feel like the original game material (at least the original stuff) never did a good job of explaining this to me. No clerics makes perfect sense. No elven versions of the druid makes very little sense, other than a total focus on the arcane spellcasters and making the druid class a very rigidly narrow class within Cerilia.

KGauck, I like your idea of slow healing, or healing available only within ritual magic limitations. Even combining the idea of elven healing immunity, such that elves can't be "fast healed." It would make sense that an elves' metabolism (or spirit, or whatever) might slow down the rate at which healing affects them. Here's an idea of how to apply that:

1) Only ritual healing spells are able to continuously apply healing energies over the length of time necessary for an elf to benefit from it. The total hp healed could be limited by some factor per day, such as character level or CON modifier.
2) Ritual magic always allows for the possibility of group casting and "taking shifts" for spells that take days to cast. Some rules for this effect should probably be taken into account. And somehow, group ritual magic (perhaps in musical form) seems really appropriate for elves anyways.
3) Could bards, magicans, sorcerers, and/or wizards combine efforts?

Osprey

RaspK_FOG

08-19-2003, 10:46 PM

You may be right, Osprey, when it comes to sorcerers/wizards being unable to wield healing magic, but I have to point out a thing or two:

1) Druids are servants of deific powers in Birthright, unlike Greyhawk. This makes them unable to cast spells and do stuff if they do not devote themselves to a deity. Rangers, on the other hand, draw power from nature.

2) If I am not wrong, and my memory plays me no tricks on this one, healing spells (and I mean, all healing spells, not just restoration) in 2e were Necromantic, right? Well, as it has been told, campaign material should supercede and can make some core rules obsolete for a campaign. Why not make healing spells Necromantic once more? That would dissallow Elves from casting healing spells!

ryancaveney

08-20-2003, 12:09 AM

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Kenneth Gauck <kgauck@MCHSI.COM> wrote:

> I have no problems putting healing spells in arcane spell lists (and

> scratch my head with wonder at people who do have a problem with it).

Hear, hear! This particular artificial distinction has long struck me as

one of the most annoying, as well as most needless, silly goofs of D&D.

I know it`s an intentional design element -- I just think it`s a serious

flaw. Every sane wizard wants to research healing spells, and I think the

logic of the game is much improved if they can. The usual objections that

the 3e conversion document ought to be a minimal change will arise; but

that is not my primary concern, and in any case is easily answered by

opening the standard druid class to elves, perhaps even as their racial

favored class.

> But the BR text does suggest that divine healing magic was a human

> advantage.

Which to me is an example of the rules being used to drive the setting,

rather than the other way around, as we prefer. Therefore, I have no

problem ignoring it, since embodied nature spirits who can throw fireballs

(as the 2e rules stand, this is perfectly allowed) but can`t heal are a

much bigger suspension of disbelief problem for me.

> Plus, it helps explain why the humans won.

That particular advantage just isn`t big enough. The explanation I

personally favor is that the war in question was in fact primarily between

the elves and the *dragons*, with the humans (and the goblins) playing a

minor supporting role to the dragons. Only in the aftermath, once both

major powers had been nearly wiped out, were the humans able to take over

large tracts of land, since it was empty, uncontrolled and badly scorched.

In the stories they told their descendants, however, they vastly inflated

their own importance and greatly diminished that of their former masters.

> Still for those who want sidhe healing, one could extend the spell

> casting and effect duration so that its useful in character time, but

> not in combat time. A leg could be regenerated over a month (happy

> character) but not by any means with a 3 round casting time and a 2d10

> healing time. In fact, 3 days and 2d10 days makes more sense.

I claim the game world is a much more sensible place if all regeneration

magic -- and possibly most or nearly all healing magic -- takes place on

this sort of time scale.

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Osprey <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET> wrote:

> Personally, I have yet to see a good reason not to have druidic

> elves.

I quite agree!

> Jealous privelage of the Rjurik humans (and their player fans)?

*grin* I like the Rjurik better than most of the Cerilian humans -- and I

think they learned to be druids from the Sidhelien!

> Heck, I wouldn`t care if you called the elven druids "arcane

> spellcasters". After all, the PHB druid class has nothing to do with

> deities, it is all about the power of nature itself as a kind of divine

> entity. How again does this conflict with elves?

I concur wholeheartedly: 3e druid is an excellent class for the Sidhelien!

> Anyways, I won`t keep going on about it, but I feel like the original

> game material (at least the original stuff) never did a good job of

> explaining this to me. No clerics makes perfect sense. No elven

> versions of the druid makes very little sense, other than a total focus

> on the arcane spellcasters and making the druid class a very rigidly

> narrow class within Cerilia.

Yes, absolutely. Elves encouraged to be druids makes perfect sense; elves

prohibited from being druids is ridiculous.

> It would make sense that an elves` metabolism (or spirit, or whatever)

> might slow down the rate at which healing affects them.

I actually think elves in their ancient forests heal *faster* than other

creatures, though slower in areas with low source potential.

> And somehow, group ritual magic (perhaps in musical form) seems

> really appropriate for elves anyways.

Seconded! *Especially* in musical form. Healing by chamber music...

Ryan Caveney

ryancaveney

08-20-2003, 12:20 AM

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, RaspK_FOG wrote:

> Druids are servants of deific powers in Birthright, unlike Greyhawk.

> This makes them unable to cast spells and do stuff if they do not

> devote themselves to a deity. Rangers, on the other hand, draw power

> from nature.

Well, druids of *Erik* are servants of a diety, but I see no reason elves

can`t access the same powers of nature directly. I`d actually rather see

them banned from wizard than banned from druid! They`re much better

described as deeply involved with the workings of the natural world on a

very personal level, than as doing alchemical research in dank and dusty

laboratories like mad scientists.

> If I am not wrong, and my memory plays me no tricks on this one,

> healing spells (and I mean, all healing spells, not just

> _restoration_) in 2e were Necromantic, right?

You`re quite right. However, that necromancy is a school with a severly

split personality. It includes everything that has anything to do with

the undead, both helping and harming them. This had the ludicrous result

that the only wizards particularly concerned with fighting against the

undead -- the Sidhelien and the Khinasi -- were the only ones discouraged

or prohibited from learning any spell that would be useful in doing so!

If you`re going to prohibit access to "necromancy", then necromancy for

that purpose should mean only those undead-affecting spells which are

*beneficial* to the undead, not harmful. Like the notations of the

clerical spheres, such as Light(Reversed only) for Darkness and

Healing(Reversed only) for Harming, their access should have been called

something like Necromancy(Reversed only) meaning Raise Dead but not Slay

Living, etc.

> Well, as it has been told, campaign material should supercede and can

> make some core rules obsolete for a campaign.

Oh yes -- but the end result has to *make sense*. I seems clear to me

that ending over backwards to deny healing magic to the elves makes

distinctly less sense than giving it to them.

Ryan Caveney

Birthright-L

08-20-2003, 01:09 AM

>> Well, as it has been told, campaign material should supercede and can

>> make some core rules obsolete for a campaign.

>

> Oh yes -- but the end result has to *make sense*. I seems clear to me

> that ending over backwards to deny healing magic to the elves makes

> distinctly less sense than giving it to them.

No healing magic for elves. The reason that campaign material was made with

the previous rules was with the assumption that healing magic came from the

gods. I have no problem WHATSOEVER with elves being able to be druids, and

even being better druids than humans, but as a campaign restriction elves

shouldn`t be able to cast healing spells with the rationale that such magic

can only come from the gods. Human druids can`t even do it, except that

they have the aid of Erik.

The same rationale that you use to disallow "dark" necromancy to elves and

Khinasi whie allowing "decent" necromancy can be applied to allow nature

magic to elves while disallowing any "healing" magic. I realise it`s kind

of desireable to work outside the streamlined magic rules, but if we have to

do this to accomodate the campaign world, perhaps its a concession that the

rules are simply not adaptable/steamlining enough to place value on. And

anyway, I think these are the only two examples that really warrant it -

healing and dark necromancy.

Elves should be druids. Hell, it should be their favored class. Sources

should apply to druids, rather than wizards, since we don`t have the four

basic classes anymore. But elves shouldn`t heal or regenerate, ritual or

otherwise.

-Lord Rahvin

Osprey

08-20-2003, 03:40 PM

Elves should be druids. Hell, it should be their favored class. Sources
should apply to druids, rather than wizards, since we don`t have the four
basic classes anymore. But elves shouldn`t heal or regenerate, ritual or
otherwise.

-Lord Rahvin

Well, nice to know I'm not alone in this thinking. I was starting to feel a little crazy... :blink:

"Oh yes -- but the end result has to *make sense*. I seems clear to me that ending over backwards to deny healing magic to the elves makes distinctly less sense than giving it to them." [Ryan Caveney]

"No healing magic for elves. The reason that campaign material was made with
the previous rules was with the assumption that healing magic came from the
gods. I have no problem WHATSOEVER with elves being able to be druids, and
even being better druids than humans, but as a campaign restriction elves
shouldn`t be able to cast healing spells with the rationale that such magic
can only come from the gods. Human druids can`t even do it, except that
they have the aid of Erik.

The same rationale that you use to disallow "dark" necromancy to elves and
Khinasi whie allowing "decent" necromancy can be applied to allow nature
magic to elves while disallowing any "healing" magic. I realise it`s kind
of desireable to work outside the streamlined magic rules, but if we have to
do this to accomodate the campaign world, perhaps its a concession that the
rules are simply not adaptable/steamlining enough to place value on. And
anyway, I think these are the only two examples that really warrant it -
healing and dark necromancy." [Lord Rhavin]

Personally, I have no desire to return to 2e rules. I think the system was largely broken, and the rules piecemeal. 3e is cool because it is a far more cohesive system that works internally.

By what rationale (not rules or printed words of the original Birthright authours), what sense, is healing magic exclusive property of the gods? My question from the beginning has been driving at the heart of the matter: what is the actual nature of healing magic? Why could only the gods and their servants do it? Because the rules say so? Surely we can do better than that...

My reasons for liking the idea of slowing down or even disallowing healing magic for elves has one core reason: elves are immortal. I could imagine that their states of virtual timelessness would make anything that speeds up their natural processes (like healing) difficult if not impossible.

But its got nothing to do with serving the gods. The mebhaighal could easily serve to empower magical healing or any other sort of magic. If it's the sole property of the gods, I'd love to hear a good metaphysical reason for this beyond "it said on page so and so..."

Osprey

Birthright-L

08-20-2003, 04:48 PM

> Well, nice to know I`m not alone in this thinking. I was starting to feel a little crazy... :blink:

Yeah, that happens a lot. According to Wotc rules regarding the mailing

lists, "me too" posts are kind of disallowed and, in any case, frowned on by

proper netiquette. So often you`re arguing a point with no idea whatsoever

whether other people are agreeing with you, cheering you on, or hoping

you`ll shut up soon. Usually, it`s a bit of all of the above. Don`t let it

discourage you. It`s just the nature of the medium in which we`re

conversing.

> Personally, I have no desire to return to 2e rules. I think the system was largely broken, and the rules piecemeal. 3e is cool because it is a far more cohesive system that works internally.

I grant you that "no necromancy" and "no healing" for elves was based almost

exclusively on the way that 2e rules worked. I grant that this might not

have been the case if it wasn`t made as a D&D system, and I`ve long been

arguing to take the AD&D out of Birthright. But the rules, whether out of

blind loyalty or because of the original inspiration, *did* influence the

campaign and "no healing" is a dramatically important point in the campaign

material, whether or not it`s still in the rules.

I`m not talking about returning to 2e. I don`t even want to convert to 3e,

actually. I`d much rather see Birthright as its own independent d20

product. People have made comparisons to Wheel of Time d20, but personally

I`d like to compare it more with Spycraft d20.

> By what rationale (not rules or printed words of the original Birthright authours), what sense, is healing magic exclusive property of the gods? My question from the beginning has been driving at the heart of the matter: what is the actual nature of healing magic? Why could only the gods and their servants do it? Because the rules say so? Surely we can do better than that...

Well... now. This may take some time to think about and articulate

properly. You`re asking me to prove the basic premise on which my argument

was founded. That`s hard.

The actual `nature` of healing magic is such that only gods could do it. I

don`t even really like their `servants` doing it either. I suppose the best

case for why it would be the exclusive nature of the gods involves the

Healing blood ability. Healing it one of the most clear-cut and obvious

blood abilities, and obviously represents a large aspect of the gods power

at Deismaar. I think this is a stronger case than `nature magic` should

heal... because really... what SHOULDN`T nature magic do?

The fact that only gods could only grant healing magic, whether it be from

divine magic of Haelyn or Erik or the arcane magics of Learme, Avanil, or

Rjurnil, is my basic premise. I can`t exactly "prove" it. At best, I could

try to rationalize it, as above, but that`s not very constructive.

> My reasons for liking the idea of slowing down or even disallowing healing magic for elves has one core reason: elves are immortal. I could imagine that their states of virtual timelessness would make anything that speeds up their natural processes (like healing) difficult if not impossible.

My basic reason for denying elves healing magic is to explain how humans

ever took over Cerelia. As Ryan and others have pointed out, that can`t be

the *only* reason or maybe not even the *major* reason, but I think it is

significant and does help explain some things.

It`s also questionable whether healing speeds up their natural process or

not. I`d say not.

There`s not much to gain in granting healing magic to elves. And you risk

discontinuity with the background of the setting. I guess you could argue

that they could have "learned" healing magic by now, too, but I see it as

something that`s basically denied to them due to their fey-like nature.

> But its got nothing to do with serving the gods. The mebhaighal could easily serve to empower magical healing or any other sort of magic. If it`s the sole property of the gods, I`d love to hear a good metaphysical reason for this beyond "it said on page so and so..."

My own cosmology of Birthright, which I posted ages ago but can`t seem to

find in the archives, suggested that there should be distinction between

arcane, divine, and nature magic. Magic was originally the exclusive

property of the old gods, and then they blew up releasing magic

everywhere... into bloodlines to create blood abilities, into the land to

create sources and mebhaighal, and into their champions to create new gods.

Thus current divine magic of the gods, arcane magic of the mebhaighal, and

whatever magic is derived from the land itself should all be considered the

same "stuff", from the same source, and follow very similar rules.

Except that elves had magic even when the old gods were around. They were

pretty good at it, too. This suggests that "elven magic" follows some

different rules than everyone else`s magic should. Instead of having a

divide between "arcane" and "divine" magics, the divide should literally be

between "elven" and "non-elven" magic, with different character classes,

spell lists, and spellcasting rules for each type. There could even be a

third "shadow" magic that would follow different rules, but that could be

linked to Azrai and the others, or built into whatever cosmology grants

elves their magic, so it need not necessarily be its own category.

(That particular cosmology I was outlining also suggested that just as some

people have suggested than animals and objects have been "awakened" by

bloodlines at Deismaar, the land itself had been awakened, and unknowingly

was collecting regency from each source holding tapped as per the standard

vassalage rules, and every so often performed its own domain actions which

we tend to regard as independent phenomenon, like "Land`s Choice"

investiture and so forth.)

-Lord Rahvin

ryancaveney

08-20-2003, 04:48 PM

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Osprey wrote:

> By what rationale (not rules or printed words of the original

> Birthright authours), what _sense_, is healing magic exclusive

> property of the gods? My question from the beginning has been driving

> at the heart of the matter: what is the actual _nature_ of

> healing magic? Why could only the gods and their servants do it?

> Because the rules say so? Surely we can do better than that...

Yes, exactly! The resistance to "arcane healing" is deeply rooted in the

D&D rules, but the rule just doesn`t make sense when describing the world,

particularly Cerilia IMO.

> My reasons for liking the idea of slowing down or even disallowing

> healing magic for elves has one core reason: elves are immortal. I

> could imagine that their states of virtual timelessness would make

> anything that speeds up their natural processes (like healing)

> difficult if not impossible.

Actually, this is precisely my reason for making their natural healing

faster and better than non-ageless races. What is aging, really, in a

biological sense? It`s the accumulation of poisons and minor damage on a

microscopic level, leading to a gradual wearing down of natural processes,

especially the self-healing ones. Therefore, since elves are forever

*young*, not merely forever getting older in the normal sense of less

agile, more fragile and slower to heal, they must actually be much

healthier and much more thoroughly and efficiently self-repairing than

every other race. But this must take lots of energy, and it seems strange

to make elves eat ten times as much as every other species; this

observation, coupled with the idea that I really don`t see intensive food

production as a major part of sidhelien society, plus their highly magical

nature and tied-to-the-power-of-the-land description makes me think that

the majority of an elf`s nutrition is actually obtained directly from

mebhaighl! Everything else they eat is just for fun and flavor, or to

maintain their connection with the natural cycles of the forest.

As I wrote on Tuesday, September 24, 2002, in the thread "Re:

rationale for half-elves [2#958]":

>> IMC, the way Sidhelien immortality operates is that they draw

>> sustenance directly from ambient magical energy: that is, mebhaighl.

>> My Sidhelien can only really live comfortably in a province with a

>> source potential of at least six. In provinces with potential nine,

>> they have stat and speed bonuses, and don`t actually need to eat at

>> all unless they want to. Around source potential 3, they become

>> susceptible to disease, need to sleep, and have to eat about twice as

>> much as a human of the same mass. Below that, they have stat and

>> speed penalties, tire easily, need to eat much more than humans do to

>> maintain health, and actually begin to age. Trapped in a province

>> with source potential zero, an elf will die of magical starvation in

>> about a week. All these bad effects can be halted or reversed by

>> going back into a province with a sufficiently high source potential

>> and staying there long enough.

But that`s not the main thrust of this argument, in which I agree

completely with you: healing magic has no necessary connection to

religion.

> But its got nothing to do with serving the gods. The mebhaighal could

> easily serve to empower magical healing or any other sort of magic.

> If it`s the sole property of the gods, I`d love to hear a good

> metaphysical reason for this beyond "it said on page so and so..."

Exactly! In Cerilia, I think ALL magic is based on mebhaighl. Magic is

magic is magic. The only difference I see between "arcane" and "divine"

spellcasting is who first taught the necessary skills to humans. I don`t

think priests ask gods to do things and then the gods produce spell

effects -- I think long, long ago gods taught priests specific rituals by

which they could manipulate mebhaighl themselves. IMO, "arcane" and

"divine" are really just two different user interfaces to exactly the

same operating system. I see priestly magic as a bells-and-whistles GUI,

in which it`s fairly easy to do anything you can find in the drop-down

menus, but practically impossible to do anything for which your software

vendor (i.e., diety) hasn`t provided a button. I see wizard magic as a

command-line approach, with a learning curve that makes it more limited at

the start, but later on makes it much easier to produce new effects by

combining the different pieces of knowledge you`ve already learned.

Ryan Caveney

geeman

08-20-2003, 06:11 PM

At 12:32 PM 8/20/2003 -0400, Ryan Caveney wrote:

> > By what rationale (not rules or printed words of the original

> > Birthright authours), what _sense_, is healing magic exclusive

> > property of the gods? My question from the beginning has been driving

> > at the heart of the matter: what is the actual _nature_ of

> > healing magic? Why could only the gods and their servants do it?

> > Because the rules say so? Surely we can do better than that...

>

>Yes, exactly! The resistance to "arcane healing" is deeply rooted in the

>D&D rules, but the rule just doesn`t make sense when describing the world,

>particularly Cerilia IMO.

While one could argue that the restriction of healing magics to divine

spellcasters in BR is a legacy of D&D`s delineation of the difference

between arcane and divine magics, in this case it`s so wrapped up in some

of the basic ideas behind the setting (elven decline vs human ascendance,

along with things like the fundamental difference between source and temple

holdings) that giving access to healing magic to elves would be

contradictory to the background material. The D&D categorization of

healing as "divine" by definition is fairly arbitrary--though there are

some game balance and thematic issues connected with the concept--but

regardless of whether it works for D&D to me the question is whether or not

it works for BR, and I`d argue that it does. BR`s system of specialty

priests and the relative rarity of arcane magics is pretty much part of the

core thematic emphasis of the setting, so tinkering with that too much

alters many of the basic ideas for the campaign. While that`s fine for

homebrews, the question here is really more about what should be adopted as

part of an update to the setting itself, and IMO granting healing magics to

elves as part of a 3e/D20 update is contradictory to several of the basic

premises behind the core campaign setting.

Gary

geeman

08-20-2003, 06:48 PM

While I sympathize with the desire to given elves more nature oriented

powers, I don`t like the idea of making them druids for several reasons.

In the first place, I`m not convinced BR druids are meant to be D&D

druids. That is, I don`t know that priests of Erik should be quite the

mirror of D&D druids that they are presented as in the original

materials. As has been noted by a couple of posters, BR doesn`t have

druids per se. The setting has specialist priests of Erik who are,

essentially, duplicates of the D&D druid character class. In fact, the 2e

D&D version of the druid made comments that aligned the druid class with

the concept of the specialty priesthood of the cleric, but in BR that

specialization was taken a step further to represent the followers of a

particular deity rather than "nature" itself as an abstract "ethos" or

religion. So while there`s no need for D&D druids to worship a particular

deity BR druids (and other priests) do in the same way that other character

classes are more particular in the setting than they are in the core books.

In BR paladins follow a particular deity, wizards must have a bloodline or

elven heritage, and druids must be worshippers of Erik.

While I don`t really want to rehash the "campaign material themes vs 3e

core text" debate, I`m afraid this is another aspect of it. Making elves

druids would seem to satisfy their nature orientation, but I should point

out that the nature orientation of elves comes mostly from a single source;

the Book of Magecraft. There are certainly additional indications of the

elven orientation to nature, that orientation is described as magical in

nature, not necessarily religious. Even in that text nature orientation of

elves is not emphasized to the extent that nature is emphasized in the

materials describing Rjurik culture. Elves do not have a cultural emphasis

on living in harmony with nature in the same way that is the basis of the

Rjurik culture. As such, in order to satisfy the campaign materials I

think including a Nature school of magic (or a spell list available to

elven arcane spellcasters) is a better reflection of the "middle step" of

nature orientation of Cerilian elves. That is, elven nature magics are "an

emphasis" which includes the whole of arcane magics, and a rather aloof and

unassailable attitude towards all things living, where humanity`s interest

in magic is more along the lines of a total dedication to a power. Thus,

restricting Cerilian elves from access to the more rigorous dedication to

nature that is embodied by the druid character class is in keeping with the

campaign material.

Thematically, elves are described in several places as having a

non-religious emphasis. At least, in the sense that humans have a

religious, professional emphasis. They certainly have their own

theological beliefs and there`s a role for spirituality in their attitudes,

but by and large the race does not lend itself towards priestly

pursuits. Now, that`s not to say an individual elf couldn`t become a druid

in the same manner than an individual elf could choose to become a priest

of any other Cerilian god--also a subject described in the published

materials--but that doesn`t mean that such access should be granted to the

entire race as part of the core texts or as anything other than an

individual DM`s fiat/exception.

When it comes to specific powers of the druid class I think there are

several aspects of it that don`t really fit the descriptive text of

Cerilian elves. First off, there`s the HD, BAB, saves and special

abilities of the class. I`d argue that the emphasis on magic that elves

have is more scholarly than faith-based and, thus, better portrayed by the

lower HD, BAB, etc. of the wizard class than a priestly one. Second, while

I think it might be possible for an elf to temporarily take the form of an

animal or other creature through magic, the druidic power to wild shape is

more intrinsic to that class`s nature orientation than is really justified

by the elf`s descriptive text. That is, because elves view themselves as

being a "higher order" of life than anything else in Cerilia they would not

have the desire to change into lower forms as part of their basic,

intrinsic abilities. As a temporary thing (like a spell) it makes sense,

but as a personal ability it seems like something that elves would find

abhorrent. Cerilia`s elves are not "one with" nature. In the same way

that they charm and manipulate humans, their emphasis on natural magic is

towards manipulation and control rather than getting "in tune with" nature

as is the emphasis of druids.

In a similar manner a Rjurik druid that travelled into elven lands might be

horrified to see the manipulations of nature performed by elves. Vast

"buildings" of magically altered plants, and "enslaved" animals. Great

walls of magically created, thorny vegetation might seem a worthwhile thing

to have in a domain, but to a purist like a druid it would be an

aberration. Furthermore, elves don`t really live "in harmony" with

nature. Rather, they assume that they are at the top of the food chain,

and enforce that hierarchy. I don`t know if this analogy will make a lot

of sense, but one could see it as a large extension of the difference

between a manicured garden with topiary and carefully trimmed hedges and a

more "natural" garden in which the plants and trees are nurtured, but not

altered significantly from their natural conditions. Where druidic

"gardening" is of the latter, elven "gardening" is more directed towards

the former. At least, that`s my take on the difference between the druid

class and the emphasis of Cerilian elves. It`s part of the general shift

of Cerilian elves in a direction other than that of the standard, D&D elves

towards a colder, aloof, less touchy-feely race.

Gary

ryancaveney

08-20-2003, 07:50 PM

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 lordrahvin@SOFTHOME.NET wrote:

> I grant you that "no necromancy" and "no healing" for elves was based

> almost exclusively on the way that 2e rules worked. I grant that this

> might not have been the case if it wasn`t made as a D&D system, and

> I`ve long been arguing to take the AD&D out of Birthright.

Which makes this whole situation much easier to discuss with you. =)

> But the rules, whether out of blind loyalty or because of the original

> inspiration, *did* influence the campaign and "no healing" is a

> dramatically important point in the campaign material, whether or not

> it`s still in the rules.

This is the crucial point. Exactly why do you think "no healing is a

dramatically important point"? I`ve never seen it as such. It always

struck me as a jarring, accidental rulesism. Elves have no gods, yes,

*that* is dramatically important, but it always seemed to me that no

healing was an unfortunate and nonsensical over-rulesy side-effect of that

decision, not in any way a conscious design choice by itself. How is

"elves can`t heal" important to your Cerilia?

> I`m not talking about returning to 2e. I don`t even want to convert

> to 3e, actually. I`d much rather see Birthright as its own

> independent d20 product. People have made comparisons to Wheel of

> Time d20, but personally I`d like to compare it more with Spycraft d20.

Which I think is a fine plan!

> Well... now. This may take some time to think about and articulate

> properly.

That`s the idea. =)

> You`re asking me to prove the basic premise on which my argument

> was founded. That`s hard.

>

> The actual `nature` of healing magic is such that only gods could do it.

Ah. Yes, your premise is so basic that it is not amenable to proof. In

your mind, healing is *axiomatically* god-based. Thus what you really

have is an *aesthetic* decision: why did you decide that only gods could

heal? Just because that`s what the rules said, or for some other reason?

> I suppose the best case for why it would be the exclusive nature of

> the gods involves the Healing blood ability.

Lots of things are blood abilities which are not the exclusive province of

the gods. Alertness, Animal Affinity, Character Reading, Charm Aura,

Death Touch, Detect Illusion, Elemental Control, Enhanced Sense, Fear,

Heightened Ability, Protection from Evil, Resistance, Shadow Form, Travel,

Unreadable Thoughts... in fact, essentially *all* the blood abilities

mimic spell effects. Is your argument that wizards should be denied

access to *all* such spells? If so, there`s really not much left for them

to be allowed! If not, then why is healing special? Why is it different

from all these other things which are blood abilities, yet still allowed?

If you do want to go this way, and I think a fascinating magic system

would result, do different spell lists for each bloodline derivation!

Thus, only wizards who were also scions of Anduiras could summon air

elementals, since only Anduiras has Elemental Control (Air); only wizards

who were also scions of Brenna could cast Cat`s Grace, since only Brenna

has Heightened Ability (Dex); only wizards of derivations with the Travel

blood ability could cast Dimension Door or Teleport; etc. I think this

would be a very interesting idea to pursue, but I don`t think it`s

actually what you had in mind just yet.

> I think this is a stronger case than `nature magic` should

> heal... because really... what SHOULDN`T nature magic do?

Create undead. =) Illusion and divination. Bunches of other stuff.

> I can`t exactly "prove" it. At best, I could try to rationalize it,

> as above, but that`s not very constructive.

OK, so let`s try another tack. Why do you like it better?

No rationalization: why does no elven healing make you happy?

> There`s not much to gain in granting healing magic to elves.

IMO, logical consistency of the magic system is gained. That`s why I

grant healing to non-elven wizards, too. Healing is an extremely

desirable ability, and I can think of no metaphysical reason to deny it to

any true spellcaster -- except perhaps clerics of Belinik and Kriesha,

because those gods like suffering and ruthless natural selection.

> I see it as something that`s basically denied to them due to their

> fey-like nature.

And I see it as part of their fey nature. Ah well.

> Thus current divine magic of the gods, arcane magic of the mebhaighal,

> and whatever magic is derived from the land itself should all be

> considered the same "stuff", from the same source, and follow very

> similar rules.

I quite agree. It`s just that in my cosmology of Birthright, the

mebhaighl came *before* the gods, and provided much of their power; in

some ways, it even created them -- or at least, without its presence and

use as a fuel, they never would have arisen. When they exploded, they

weren`t giving the land anything new -- they were just giving back the

part they had stolen of what the land had always originally had. Hence

IMO magic is magic (well, true magic is true magic and low magic is low

magic -- IMO unblooded priests are just as limited as magicians), and

since true magic can heal, anyone who can cast true magic (those of elf,

giant or dragon blood, and those with bloodlines) can cast healing magic.

> Except that elves had magic even when the old gods were around. They

> were pretty good at it, too.

Right.

> This suggests that "elven magic" follows some

> different rules than everyone else`s magic should.

On the contrary, it suggests to me that the humans` gods stole magic from

the elves!

> the land itself had been awakened,

I think the land was *always* awake. The humans` gods worked to steal the

inherent powers of the land (mebhaighl) to make themselves more powerful;

thus the real winners of Deismaar IMO were the elves -- though they paid

an astonishingly heavy price for it, they managed to get the humans` gods

to destroy each other, and return to the land much of the power they had

stolen from it. Now perhaps their strength is recovered enough to once

more venture forth from the guarded forests to revitalize the land by

bathing it in the stolen blood of all the scions of the other species....

Ryan Caveney

irdeggman

08-20-2003, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by Osprey@Aug 20 2003, 10:40 AM

By what rationale (not rules or printed words of the original Birthright authours), what sense, is healing magic exclusive property of the gods? My question from the beginning has been driving at the heart of the matter: what is the actual nature of healing magic? Why could only the gods and their servants do it? Because the rules say so? Surely we can do better than that...

Osprey
Unfortuneately that is really a "core rules" issue and not a Birthright specific one.

In 2nd ed only priests, druids and paladins could cast curing spells.

In 3rd ed this was expanded to include bards and hence bards became the only class capable of casting arcane healing spells.

Mark_Aurel

08-20-2003, 08:28 PM

Ah. Yes, your premise is so basic that it is not amenable to proof. In
your mind, healing is *axiomatically* god-based. Thus what you really
have is an *aesthetic* decision: why did you decide that only gods could
heal? Just because that`s what the rules said, or for some other reason?

> I suppose the best case for why it would be the exclusive nature of
> the gods involves the Healing blood ability.

I think I'd put it like this: The power of life and death is the sole domain of godhood. Reviving, or miraculously curing someone, requires divine power. The natural way for Elves to heal is with time - since they are undying and ageless, they have all the time in the world to heal up. They don't age, and they don't fall ill. They don't *need* healing magic - they just retreat into their forests and heal there.

To be a bit more specific, I think the restriction on healing magic is one of the few things that actually makes the magic system feel *magical* - I think there should be more idiosyncratic exceptions like that, and less "comic book magic" or mage-type influences. What defines a given type of magic shouldn't really be what it can do, but what it *can't* do. I've never really been fond of the industrialistic mindset that some apply to magic in general - "oh, wizard X has a problem? I guess he'll just make up a new spell to deal with it." I think magic gets a more magical, other-worldly feel once it becomes something more (or less) than just a silly Harry Potteresque-plot device - "wave your wand, and solve the problem!" doesn't really strike me as any more "magical" than turning the lamp in my room on or off.

Magic becomes distinctly un-magical the moment you treat it like a tool that should solve everything. Placing some random restrictions on its functionality, like "no spells under a full moon," or "you can't charm someone wearing a silver necklace," or "no healing spells for elves" makes it feel more alive and part of the game world. A simple statement of "healing magic is the province of the gods and their servants" suffices for me in this regard.

One of my favorite articles ever in Dragon was the Paths of Magic, from issue 216. Maybe 217, not 100% on that.

kgauck

08-20-2003, 09:29 PM

----- Original Message -----

From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>

Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 2:35 PM

> OK, so let`s try another tack. Why do you like it better?

> No rationalization: why does no elven healing make you happy?

I can answer the question "why does it make you happy that arcane healing is

allowed." My first BR character was a physician of the renaissance mold. A

medical doctor who had taken the anatomist kit. If the setting was a

renaissance setting, and for me that means the intellectual setting more

than anything, such a non-religious physician is the perfect thing. This

was a great character, and I would never want to go back to prohibiting such

a character.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

ryancaveney

08-20-2003, 09:29 PM

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, RaspK_FOG wrote:

> And last point: balance. If elven wizards could do healing and things

> like regeneration or raising the dead, why would one ever play a

> non-elf, then? As the DMG says in designing variant spell lists:

> "Beware the allmighty hybrid."

Pace Dan McSorley`s (I think generally correct) insistence that a

roleplaying restriction should never be used as a rule balancing agent,

that`s exactly what I think has to occur here. The average individual elf

should indeed be immensely more powerful than the average individual

non-elf, and I don`t think any amount of mechanical balancing attempts can

alter that basic fact of the setting. One-on-one, always bet on the elf.

The elves` only real weaknesses are that they are so vastly outnumbered

and so universally hated. The answer here is, in Cerilia, there should

NEVER be a party which includes both elves and non-elves. They just don`t

adventure together. Kill each other, sure -- but not cooperate.

Ryan Caveney

ryancaveney

08-20-2003, 11:22 PM

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Mark_Aurel wrote:

> I think I`d put it like this: The power of life and death is the sole

> domain of godhood

Life *and* death? So wizards shouldn`t get Power Word, Kill, either?

Does this also mean wizards shouldn`t Animate Dead anymore?

> The natural way for Elves to heal is with time - since they are

> undying and ageless, they have all the time in the world to heal up.

> They don`t age, and they don`t fall ill. They don`t *need* healing

> magic - they just retreat into their forests and heal there.

OK, I suppose. Still, I think their wars with all the other species over

the past 15,000 years or more have given them plenty of incentive to

develop rapid healing spells -- enough that I think a mere disinclination

to learn healing magic isn`t enough to have stopped them. If they don`t

use healing magic, there has to be a reason why they *can`t*, not just

won`t or haven`t yet bothered.

> I think the restriction on healing magic is one of the few things that

> actually makes the magic system feel *magical*

Fascinating. It is one of the primary obstacles to my suspension of

disbelief. I think it makes the system feel much *less* magical.

> less "comic book magic" or mage-type influences.

I don`t know what you mean by this. Could you please elaborate?

> "oh, wizard X has a problem? I guess he`ll just make up a new

> spell to deal with it."

Of course! That`s how you know he`s a wizard! If he solved his problem

by beating things up, he`d be a fighter. If he solved his problem by

sneaking around and stealing things, he`d be a thief. If he solved his

problem by praying to his god, he`d be a cleric. D&D`s character classes

are precisely about stereotyping people`s problem-solving strategies.

The very definition of D&D wizards is that they are magical researchers.

Working in the laboratory to create new spells is central to their shtick.

> "wave your wand, and solve the problem" doesn`t really strike me as

> any more "magical" than turning the lamp in my room on or off.

The way you`ve described it, the power is in the wand, not the wizard.

IMO, the wizard gains his power by *understanding* the world, and learning

how to manipulate its constituents on a fundamental level. Turning on the

lamp requires no more magical skill than drinking a potion -- anyone can

do it, because the hard part has been done in advance by a specialist.

The magic is in designing and making the lamp, understanding enough about

the electrical properties of materials to know how and why to choose

tungsten for the filament and copper for the contact, to know how and why

the bulb`s properties must change if you fill it with chlorine instead of

argon. Wizardry isn`t knowing not to stick your finger in an electrical

socket, it`s knowing how the power plant and the transmission lines work,

and how to build a circuit that will pick up your favorite radio station

when you plug it in. The magic is in observing and comprehending things

on a much deeper level than mere mundanes do, and thereby obtaining far

more power over those things than the oblivious can understand. Wizardry

isn`t using software, it`s writing software. That`s actually one of the

things I find most annoying in Harry Potter -- they`re not learning to

understand magic, they`re memorizing a collection of tricks like monkeys

being trained to program a VCR. Real wizards understand how the whole

structure fits together, which gives them the ability to improvise

effectively. Power comes from knowing how the universe works.

Everyone solves their problems by knowing how to change the universe to

get the result they want -- that`s what solving problems is. What makes

someone a wizard is the particular kinds of changes they choose to make

and the method by which they make them: namely, research-based magic.

> Magic becomes distinctly un-magical the moment you treat it like a

> tool that should solve everything.

Then D&D wizards are doomed to be unmagical, because the way the rules

work, magic is the only tool they have that doesn`t suck. Therefore,

since a wizard`s best action is almost invariably to cast a spell, they`re

pretty much typecast already. Magic is their only strength, so of course

it`s how they solve everything. If you want to make wizards not solely

reliant on their magic, you have to make multiclassing for spellcasters a

rigorous requirement: as it stands now multiclassing can only make a

wizard *less* powerful, so no competent one does.

Roleplaying adventures are pretty much entirely about solving problems.

In D&D, the way in which you are capable of solving problems is determined

almost completely (though less in 3e than before) by your character class.

Wizards are the people who *have* to use magic, because it`s the only tool

they`ve got. Clerics at least have good combat abilities; a wizard

without magic in D&D is as good as dead already.

> Placing some random restrictions on its functionality, like "no spells

> under a full moon" or "you can`t charm someone wearing a silver

> necklace" or "no healing spells for elves" makes it feel more alive

> and part of the game world.

As a part of my theory that magic is all about understanding things which

are hidden from most people, as a world designer I can accept such

restrictions only if they fit into my global magical metaphysics as

coherent and cooperative parts. Commoners have countless superstitious

sayings such as these, but real wizards know some are literally true, some

are only metaphorical, and some are totally incorrect -- but all of them

can be evaded in certain ways for certain periods by sufficiently careful

preparation. My theory of Cerilian magic requires that there be no spells

which are categorically impossible for elves to cast, because in my theory

all magic use of any kind originally derives from elves.

But if the restrictions are truly to be random, why not "no healing spells

for priests" instead? I grant you that having occasional restrictions can

be nice for flavor purposes, but the choice of precisely which

restrictions to use is a delicate business. Nothing yet said gives me any

reason to think "no healing spells for elves" is a better flavor rule than

"yes healing spells for elves".

Oh, BTW -- Rournil is the god of both moon and magic, so the first

suggestion you made is not a good one for Birthright. However, since he

is also the chief divine enemy of the undead, changing that to "you can`t

Animate Dead during the full moon", or even "you can`t cast harmful

necromancy during the full moon" would be very appropriate to Cerilia.

> A simple statement of "healing magic is the province of the gods and

> their servants" suffices for me in this regard.

The simple statement I far prefer is "there is no essential difference

between arcane and divine magic."

> One of my favorite articles ever in Dragon was the Paths of Magic,

> from issue 216. Maybe 217, not 100% on that.

I don`t recall it. I`ll look it up, if I can find it.

Ryan Caveney

RaspK_FOG

08-20-2003, 11:35 PM

OK, since last night I post, many answers and counter-answers have been posted themselves... Well, here are my 2 cents:

1) For one thing, it was always a thematic issue that gods actually granted "magicks" (an archaic term, I give you that, but one of the best) to their clerics themselves! It is not like opening a pathway to the raw force of the eldritch, like arcane spell-casters do: to the cleric, the loss of either his patron or his connection to him is the loss of his powers, whether permanent or not.

2) The slow metabolism of the Sidhelien and the thing that results to their non-aging figures and their immunity to disease, are two very different things. If you asked a doctor, he would tell you that a low metabolism makes you more vulnerable to illness and less adept at healing naturally. It seems that the elves, while metabolically very low on the scale, must have other powers that make them more resistant to disease. In fact, organisms that age faster have to replenish their cells much faster than organisms that leave longer; the latter must simply make sure their cells can reproduce for times and times again, not fast.

3) Unlike what most people believe, druids were not simply people who revered nature and attuned to it. Druids were celtic priests. Indeed, they were more than best described as specialty priests in 2e. The concept that they need not believe in a deity does not mean that this was a rules based choice back then in 2e to only make priests of Erik be druids.

Birthright-L

08-21-2003, 01:12 AM

>> But the rules, whether out of blind loyalty or because of the original

>> inspiration, *did* influence the campaign and "no healing" is a

>> dramatically important point in the campaign material, whether or not

>> it`s still in the rules.

>

> This is the crucial point. Exactly why do you think "no healing is a

> dramatically important point"? I`ve never seen it as such. It always

> struck me as a jarring, accidental rulesism. Elves have no gods, yes,

> *that* is dramatically important, but it always seemed to me that no

> healing was an unfortunate and nonsensical over-rulesy side-effect of that

> decision, not in any way a conscious design choice by itself. How is

> "elves can`t heal" important to your Cerilia?

Mostly because I can`t see any way in which humans could have won the war

against the elves for control of Cerelia. This was said to be a dramatic

tactical advantage over the elves.

I realise that this idea was developed in response to rules being used at

the time, but when the campaign setting was made this was one of the central

premises with which the authors were writing the history of Cerilia. It

also doubtly contributes to a fair reasoning as to why humans are the

dominant and most common race in Cerilia, and why they can thrive in just

about every terrain.

This doesn`t go far in explaining it all of course, because it seems to me

the authors were a little biased when it came to who the dominant races of

the continent were going to be. Nontheless, I am against taking away so key

a tactical advantage from the humans and other non-elves, not only in the

history of Cerilia, but even in their modern day conflicts.

As far as other considerations as to why they lost the war: I`ve read your

post regarding the battles against the Dragons, and I might also add them to

the list of tactical advantages weighed against the elves. I`m more

inclined to level the playing field if elves weren`t immortal. In my own

campaigns, I`ve replaced immortality with reincarnation, so as to explain

why there aren`t a couple active units of 4554th level ranger/wizards

running around. I`ve also added outside sources of trouble, such as Dark

Sources and problems with the Shadow World at the time, as well as the

prominence of key heroes at the time of the battle.

I`ve been experimenting with the idea that human gods also may have

interfered in the proper uses of divination magic at the time and even

present day. If only humans could accurately rely on powerful divinations

from their gods, and the human gods of illusion and knowledge (Azrai,

Eleole, Avani, etc.) could interfere with arcane divinations, I think that

might make a suitable replacement to the "healing" advantage.

But I definitely think that the humans should have a rather significant

magical advantage over the magically superior elves, and that the advantage

should be connected to the churches that have risen to such immense power

and prestige over the years of Cerilia`s bloody history. "Being blessed by

the gods" should have some decisive, obvious advantages in pre-Deismaar

battles for control of the continent.

> Ah. Yes, your premise is so basic that it is not amenable to proof. In

> your mind, healing is *axiomatically* god-based. Thus what you really

> have is an *aesthetic* decision: why did you decide that only gods could

> heal? Just because that`s what the rules said, or for some other reason?

Yes, but a little bit more complicated than that. It`s not that I`ve

decided that healing is automatically god-based, it`s that I`m trying to

justify not changing someone else`s decision that healing is automatically

god-based.

Mark (I think) recently mentioned that only gods could influence life and

death. While you could easily nitpick on the statement that wizards should

then not be able to kill, the simple fact is that it`s a common philosophy

that the granting of life is a godly act. In a fantasy setting such beliefs

are not just philosophy, they`re real. Gods should be able to do certain

stuff that no one else can.

While all that`s a decent rationalization (as such things go), I`m not sure

I agree with it. If I had to start from scratch, I`d say that priestly

magic should be limited to things that are subtle and perhaps would make one

question if there was a spell cast at all, like Bless, Atonement, and such

things. Instant healing is definitely *not* subtle.

Whether or not healing magic is arcane or divine is not my strongest point,

though others have stressed it. My point is that healing magic should be

denied to elves.

> OK, so let`s try another tack. Why do you like it better?

> No rationalization: why does no elven healing make you happy?

I like that it helps (even just a little) to preserve, explain, and

rationalize Cerilia`s history because I don`t have much desire to change it

(or at least the end results anyway).

Given the hostilities between elves and humans and their history, I kind of

like that elven mages are generally superior in all ways except one

significant area in which humans excel to such a degree that they take it

for granted. I`d like connecting this power to the church.

Elves with magical healing *and* immortality strike me as over the top.

Finally, I like the idea that elven magic is entirely different from human

magic. While this doesn`t necessarily follow from the "no healing for

elves" argument, it does somewhat contribute to my happiness.

>> I suppose the best case for why it would be the exclusive nature of

>> the gods involves the Healing blood ability.

Heh. Thanks for the detailed reply to this. I take it back, for now. At

least until I have my BR materials handy and a little more time to think

about the issue.

>> I think this is a stronger case than `nature magic` should

>> heal... because really... what SHOULDN`T nature magic do?

>

> Create undead. =) Illusion and divination. Bunches of other stuff.

If you have any other ideas about specifics that nature magic shouldn`t do,

I`d love to hear them.

>> There`s not much to gain in granting healing magic to elves.

>

> IMO, logical consistency of the magic system is gained. That`s why I

> grant healing to non-elven wizards, too. Healing is an extremely

> desirable ability, and I can think of no metaphysical reason to deny it to

> any true spellcaster -- except perhaps clerics of Belinik and Kriesha,

> because those gods like suffering and ruthless natural selection.

Yes, but you`re intentionally not thinking of metaphysical reasons to deny

it to spellcasters. Tying healing magic to gods isn`t necessarily something

that`s restricting us toward making a campaign environment, it`s an

available convinience. One party has no access to gods. They lost, even

with magical superiority. Clearly tying *something* definite in terms of

magical exclusiveness to gods seems like a good idea, does it not?

Searching for cosmological or metaphysical reasons to deny or grant access

to any kind of spell is fruitless. You`ve already stated that you want

logical consistency and that your cosmology makes magic *universal*. This

is a basic premise that you`ve accepted. I can`t offer any metaphysical

reasons to grant differences in magic or spellcasters, because your basic

premise is that there is none! I can offer a different premise with a

different cosmology and different metaphysics (as I did before), but that

doesn`t in anyway give you a metaphysical reason to deny any magic to anyone

that fits with the established unfair premises you`ve presented.

I don`t think "logical consistency" need apply a state of uniformity over

all magic and their casters. You can still maintain logical consistency

with different magic systems and different magics, but not if you`re

personally going to overlook potential metaphysical differences for the sake

of the aforementioned logical consistency.

>> I see it as something that`s basically denied to them due to their

>> fey-like nature.

>

> And I see it as part of their fey nature. Ah well.

Yeah. Stupid thing to write up. Sorry about that.

> I quite agree. It`s just that in my cosmology of Birthright, the

> mebhaighl came *before* the gods, and provided much of their power; in

> some ways, it even created them -- or at least, without its presence and

> use as a fuel, they never would have arisen. When they exploded, they

> weren`t giving the land anything new -- they were just giving back the

> part they had stolen of what the land had always originally had. Hence

> IMO magic is magic (well, true magic is true magic and low magic is low

> magic -- IMO unblooded priests are just as limited as magicians), and

> since true magic can heal, anyone who can cast true magic (those of elf,

> giant or dragon blood, and those with bloodlines) can cast healing magic.

I think that having the mebhaeighl around longer than the gods is a pretty

common view, but I don`t like because it leads almost exactly to the point

you`re going with it.

>

> On the contrary, it suggests to me that the humans` gods stole magic from

> the elves!

This just doesn`t sound very interesting or fun to me. I hate that BR

explains bardic magic this way.

> I think the land was *always* awake. The humans` gods worked to steal the

> inherent powers of the land (mebhaighl) to make themselves more powerful;

> thus the real winners of Deismaar IMO were the elves -- though they paid

> an astonishingly heavy price for it, they managed to get the humans` gods

> to destroy each other, and return to the land much of the power they had

> stolen from it. Now perhaps their strength is recovered enough to once

> more venture forth from the guarded forests to revitalize the land by

> bathing it in the stolen blood of all the scions of the other species....

I just prefer the idea that it`s a recent occurance that is developing right

now. No one really knows about it, but each year things get stranger and

stranger... if it was always this way, then it`s just another part of the

backdrop rather than an evolving occurance and potential source of

campaign/adventure ideas.

---

I want to apoligize for the way my posts in this thread are presented. I

know my views on this subject, it`s just been awhile since I`ve had to

describe them in a structured manner. And I`m doing this with very little

time available and no books in front of me, and I do want to respond

promptly as your interest in this matter deserves. Instead of an argument,

I`m just kind of throwing out ideas and repsonses hoping you`ll read

arguments from them that I don`t have time or inclination to structure right

now. In a few days, my points should be much clearer if this thread is

still active.

-Lord Rahvin

kgauck

08-21-2003, 02:43 AM

----- Original Message -----

From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>

Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 6:02 PM

> > "oh, wizard X has a problem? I guess he`ll just make up a new

> > spell to deal with it."

>

> Of course! That`s how you know he`s a wizard!

I totally agree with Ryan here. And while I think this is true for all

wizards its got to be doubly true for elves. If neccesity is the mother of

invention, the elves will have a spell for every occasion. Not every elf,

but the some total knowledge of all elves will. Elves that have lived for

more than a thousand years may well know all of these spells, but that won`t

effect PC power.

> That`s actually one of the things I find most annoying in Harry Potter

> -- they`re not learning to understand magic, they`re memorizing a

> collection of tricks like monkeys being trained to program a VCR.

Harry Potter is nearly pure Hermeticism in short pants. There is no new

magic, there are just the secrets that still exist from the revelations of

thrice great Hermes. The scentific tradition of knowledge and the esoteric

tradition are long at odds. If one`s BR magic theory is esoteric, its

certainly possible that the elves could be without it. But the all spell

research is an attempt to fill in gaps in a predesignated body of secrets.

Creative spell creation is an illusion, as much as modern science regards a

perpetual motion machine to be so. One discovers what is extant in the

universe, or what secrets were left by a wiser golden age.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

Trithemius

08-21-2003, 03:12 AM

> Harry Potter is nearly pure Hermeticism in short pants. There is no new

> magic, there are just the secrets that still exist from the revelations of

> thrice great Hermes. The scentific tradition of knowledge and the esoteric

> tradition are long at odds. If one`s BR magic theory is esoteric, its

> certainly possible that the elves could be without it. But the all spell

> research is an attempt to fill in gaps in a predesignated body of secrets.

> Creative spell creation is an illusion, as much as modern science regards a

> perpetual motion machine to be so. One discovers what is extant in the

> universe, or what secrets were left by a wiser golden age.

Dying Earth calls this "The Primacy of Ancient Knowledge". It is a

rule/principle that allows the GM to disallow pretty much any thing they

don`t like.

"If it was possible, someone would have done it already! And done it

better!"

--

John Machin

[trithemius@paradise.net.nz]

-----------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

irdeggman

08-21-2003, 05:16 AM

You know that this thread is now straying from it's original topic and more into the"overall" philospohy of elves in general like should they be druids/clerics or not.

At least it's not about what Intelligence really is. ;)

mithrom

08-21-2003, 08:37 AM

First of all, being somewhat new, I`m probably sticking my nose in where

it doesn`t belong, :) but first, I do agree that healing magic should be

denied arcane spell casters, for game balance purposes, as well as elves

in particular for campaign balance purposes. Generally my agreements

lie in the same realm as those arguments and positions already expressed

in support of those themes, so I won`t bore you with re-runs.

If you`re seeking a metaphysical cause for why divine casters can heal,

though, it could very easily be explained by just stating the obvious

fact that instantaneously healing a body is an inordinately complex

task, one that requires divine intervention. The body is a very

delicate balance of systems, each chugging away at their assigned task.

A sword swinging through the middle of someone`s GI tract is sure to

wreck this balance. Instantaneous healing would require not just the

repair to the superficial damage but would also require that balances be

restored, lost blood be regenerated, cell mitosis kicked back into full

speed, and so forth and so on.

There would just be too many variables for a mortal spell caster to be

able to heal any wound instantly, without some kind of higher power

guiding him. Perhaps he could study how to repair a wound that hit just

so, at this angle, did exactly this much damage to the person`s

circulatory system, this much damage to his skin, this much damage to

his bones, and so forth. And if that wizard had the luck to stumble

upon someone who was wounded exactly in that manner researched, then

great for him! He should make his next purchase include lottery

tickets, `cause he`s definitely got luck going for him.

Elves` disdain for the gods would then finish the explanation as to why

the immortal elves have yet to develop healing magic. And maybe they`re

working on it, maybe it`s their top priority, but the complexity of the

issue should keep them from finding answers for a real long time.

Patrick

geeman

08-21-2003, 03:00 PM

When it comes to access to healing magics by Cerilian elves I`m something

of a "published word geek" by which I mean that the published materials IMO

take priority on the subject. I don`t think elves should have access to

such magics as a race but I think that for reasons having to do with the

characterizations of the races, not game balance or game mechanics.

Ryan is quite right in pointing out that the addition of healing spells to

the elven repertoire would not destroy game balance (and least, not any

more than spells already do) and that humanity`s access to healing spells

does not explain the failure of elves to hold onto more of the continent

when faced by human expansion. The number of migrating humans, their

reproductive capacity and the (as of yet unexplained) effects of

deforestation upon elven populations are much more likely causes of

humanity`s success rather than the different spells on the divine vs arcane

spell lists.

It is also possible (even probable in this case) that the exclusive nature

of healing spells is an example of "rulism" (a nice term) in the original

BR materials in which the setting`s designers were unable to break away

from the dynamics of 2e enough to break that mold. In the long run,

however, the real question is whether or not the prohibition suits the

themes of BR, not whether they were inspired by the dynamics of the rules

set when the setting was produced.

In this case the exclusion of healing magic from elven spellcasters forms a

basic part of the background material for the setting. It may be true that

healing magics may not adversely effect the game balance nature of BR, but

access to healing magics is one of the factors in the generalized premise

of the setting that is used as a justification for the human advantage over

the elves. It is in reality only one factor among many, but the important

thing is that it is one of the reasons humans _believe_ they have succeeded

in Cerilia. That characterization is an aspect of the fundamental

difference between humans and elves. Humans have faith (literally) in the

capacity of their religion(s) over that over the "godless" elves. That

faith is more than a little misguided since arcane magics are so much more

devastating and powerful on a massive scale than divine magics, but that`s

entirely the point. In the same way that many other aspects of the BR

materials (the Atlas of Cerilia) are written from the human POV and may be

colored by that perspective, the belief that it is the power of healing

magics (and by extension the gods they worship) that has led to the

supremacy of human is incorrect or, at least, incomplete--but it is that

mistaken belief that tells us much about the fundamental thinking of humans

in the setting. It tells us much about the thinking of humanity--that

their faith is strong for all it`s inadequacy as an explanation (possibly

the definition of faith in the first place) to the situation in which it is

applied.

It also tells us a few things about elven thought and culture. For one

thing, forgoing healing magics is part of their overall obstinate nature

regarding the worship of divinities. Individual elves can worship the

gods, as is noted in a couple of places in the BR materials, though they

would face a sort of disdain by their fellow elves. Why should that be

true? Worshipping the gods has very practical purposes game mechanically

and from a social POV. One can heal, gets HD twice that of a wizard, a

better BAB progression, etc. But it is part of the character of elves that

they deny to worship deities despite the utility that they would gain as a

race and culture by doing so. It`s a very significant aspect of their

arrogance, their belief in their own immortal selves and their disdain for

all things human that they refuse on a cultural basis to engage in

activities that are associated with races they believe to be "beneath" them.

Now, if one were to make healing magics part of the elven spell list, not

only does it vitiate the demonstrable aspect of human, pre-Deismaar magics

but it also makes elves less "alien" to humanity. It wouldn`t destroy

those differences, of course, because it`s only one of the cultural

attitudes and conflicts between humans and elves in Cerilia, but it is one

of the few that are recognizable in game mechanics. From time to time

someone will suggest that a particular rule will interfere with

role-playing, which is something that I dread. Rules should never replace

role-playing. In fact, I`d suggest that where possible they should support

role-playing. In this case, I think the elven prohibition to healing

magics is one of the things that supports the differences between the

mindsets of the humanity and elves, and is as such a good thing to keep in

the setting.

Similarly, the difference between giving elves access to some nature

oriented spells as a school or a special spell list vs allowing them access

to the druid character class on anything other than an individual basis

also illustrates the differences between the two races.

Gary

kgauck

08-21-2003, 03:00 PM

----- Original Message -----

From: "Patrick Westcott" <pwestcott@BELLSOUTH.NET>

Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 2:23 AM

> If you`re seeking a metaphysical cause for why divine casters can heal,

> though, it could very easily be explained by just stating the obvious

> fact that instantaneously healing a body is an inordinately complex

> task, one that requires divine intervention. The body is a very

> delicate balance of systems, each chugging away at their assigned task.

This is, however, more rationalization than explanation. I could just as

easily argue that the human body is a system based on the four humors, and

that these are elementally based (blood being the air fluid, for example).

If elves are, as I have argued, master elementalists and naturalists, what

would be more appropriate than having the ability to restore the natural and

elemental balance of the body.

See, for example

http://mbhs.bergtraum.k12.ny.us/cybereng/sonnets/humors.html

As for balance, there are other spells that could more sensibly withdrawn in

compensation.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

ryancaveney

08-21-2003, 04:03 PM

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, irdeggman wrote:

> You know that this thread is now straying from it`s original topic and

> more into the overall philospohy of elves in general

So rename it. But that seems to make it difficult to find...

In any case, it`s a hell of a lot more interesting now than when it was

focused on whether "school" was the proper technical term. =)

Ryan Caveney

ryancaveney

08-21-2003, 07:29 PM

*sigh* 346 lines. Part One:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 lordrahvin@SOFTHOME.NET wrote:

> > How is "elves can`t heal" important to your Cerilia?

>

> Mostly because I can`t see any way in which humans could have won the

> war against the elves for control of Cerelia. This was said to be a

> dramatic tactical advantage over the elves.

I was always partial to the direct divine intervention theory -- nothing

less seems quite big enough. I`ll have to go back and check exactly who

said what, but I personally would interpret that statement as an after the

fact rationalization by a human chronicler fishing for some way to explain

what happened without knowing the whole story.

> It also doubtly contributes to a fair reasoning as to why humans are

> the dominant and most common race in Cerilia, and why they can thrive

> in just about every terrain.

But all the non-sidhelien species have religions with healing magic.

Can healing magic be the reason humans are more common than goblins?

> This doesn`t go far in explaining it all of course, because it seems

> to me the authors were a little biased when it came to who the

> dominant races of the continent were going to be.

Oh, yeah! They picked an outcome, then tried to write a backstory which

led to that point -- but as we`ve all noticed, it doesn`t really make

sense. It`s very difficult to explain the state of the world in 551 MR,

given everything else we know about Cerilia.

> Nontheless, I am against taking away so key a tactical advantage from

> the humans and other non-elves, not only in the history of Cerilia,

> but even in their modern day conflicts.

Which implies that priests would be the primary targets of the Gheallie

Sidhe, and the elven armies in wartime...

> In my own campaigns, I`ve replaced immortality with reincarnation, so

> as to explain why there aren`t a couple active units of 4554th level

> ranger/wizards running around.

Yes, immortality is a thorny issue. On the one hand, I really like it

thematically. On the other, it does have a huge influence on the campaign

backstory -- it hits it like a wrecking ball, actually. This is one of

the things that has prompted much of my speculation on half-elves: what if

most of the population of the elven realms is actually half-elves, with

only a small ruling class of true elves? Even without the halvsies,

perhaps the total elven population is just really small -- maybe only a

few dozen sidhelien in total survived Deismaar, and the few thousand

present now have their hands full just holding on. Really, without these

things or other effects of similar strength, I can`t explain why the elves

don`t reconquer Cerilia *today*, much less how they got knocked down in

the first place. Which is part of why my preferred mode of interaction

with the official history is to rewrite it heavily, and accept that the

elves really are the strongest force in Cerilia even now. I see them as

somewhat like the elder races from Bablyon 5: distant, incomprehensible,

content mostly to keep to themselves, but unstoppable if angered. My own

belief as to why they don`t yet rule Cerilia is that they`re taking their

time preparing; once their leaders decide they`re ready, Goodnight Humans.

> I`ve also added outside sources of trouble, such as Dark Sources and

> problems with the Shadow World at the time, as well as the prominence

> of key heroes at the time of the battle.

Yeah, I also like problems in the SW as a way to keep the elves too busy

to wipe out the humans just yet.

> the human gods of illusion and knowledge (Azrai,

> Eleole, Avani, etc.) could interfere with arcane divinations,

Fascinating! I like this idea.

> "Being blessed by the gods" should have some decisive, obvious

> advantages in pre-Deismaar battles for control of the continent.

Some advantages, yes. Which ones is much less clear. I personally favor

gods walking the land beside you.

> It`s not that I`ve decided that healing is automatically god-based,

> it`s that I`m trying to justify not changing someone else`s decision

> that healing is automatically god-based.

Ah, yes. I see the distinction.

> In a fantasy setting such beliefs are not just philosophy, they`re

> real. Gods should be able to do certain stuff that no one else can.

On the contrary, in D&D especially, I think there is no difference

of kind between gods and anyone else, only in degree. That is, to me, the

D&D gods are precisely adventurers with lots of XP and high bloodline

scores. That is, if they exist at all -- I prefer an atheist metaphysics,

in which there really are no gods, but people still believe in them anyway.

> While all that`s a decent rationalization (as such things go), I`m not

> sure I agree with it. If I had to start from scratch, I`d say that

> priestly magic should be limited to things that are subtle and perhaps

> would make one question if there was a spell cast at all, like Bless,

> Atonement, and such things. Instant healing is definitely *not* subtle.

That sounds very reasonable. The approach I would take would be to make

priests exclusively ritual spellcasters -- miracles both subtle and

unsubtle are OK, but require a consecrated space, lots of props, and hours

of praying, chanting and singing by the whole congregation. They should

be able to produce much bigger total effects than individual wizards

without access to sources, but be very slow and inflexible. Every single

spell they cast would be like a minor realm spell in requirements.

> Whether or not healing magic is arcane or divine is not my strongest

> point, though others have stressed it. My point is that healing magic

> should be denied to elves.

Well, it`s refreshing to hear alternate reasoning. =)

> > OK, so let`s try another tack. Why do you like it better?

> > No rationalization: why does no elven healing make you happy?

>

> I like that it helps (even just a little) to preserve, explain, and

> rationalize Cerilia`s history because I don`t have much desire to

> change it (or at least the end results anyway).

Whereas I am happier to change it. Fair enough.

> Given the hostilities between elves and humans and their history, I

> kind of like that elven mages are generally superior in all ways

> except one significant area in which humans excel to such a degree

> that they take it for granted. I`d like connecting this power to the

> church.

OK, this is an aesthetic standard which makes sense to me. I don`t think

this particular area should be healing, but you have convinced me there

really ought to be one. I`m just not sure what it should be -- but my

first inclination is actually to make it so that every human religion

controls large armies of the undead. Film noir Cerilia?

> Elves with magical healing *and* immortality strike me as over the top.

I like my elves over the top. =) By rights, they should rule every

fantasy world in which they`ve ever appeared. I personally am unabashedly

prejudiced in favor of elves, and Cerilia is the best D&D treatment of

them I`ve ever seen, in part because it finally admitted their individual

superiority and made them want to exterminate humans. I really like the

all-powerful genocidal elves BR implies -- the Gheallie Sidhe is the

primary reason I`m still interested in Cerilia.

> I like the idea that elven magic is entirely different from human

> magic. While this doesn`t necessarily follow from the "no healing for

> elves" argument, it does somewhat contribute to my happiness.

OK, again, while this is not my own preference, I can appreciate yours.

One of the problems with Cerilia and the amount of time we`ve all spent

fiddling with it over the years is that there are just too many really

good ideas to fit into just one campaign setting! I think we need four or

five different variations on the theme of Cerilia, each with a different

sampling of the ideas.

> >> I suppose the best case for why it would be the exclusive

> >> nature of the gods involves the Healing blood ability.

>

> Heh. Thanks for the detailed reply to this. I take it back, for now.

> At least until I have my BR materials handy and a little more time to

> think about the issue.

You`re welcome. =)

Part Two coming soon!

Ryan Caveney

ryancaveney

08-21-2003, 07:29 PM

Part Two of Two:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 lordrahvin@SOFTHOME.NET wrote:

> >> I think this is a stronger case than `nature magic` should

> >> heal... because really... what SHOULDN`T nature magic do?

> >

> > Create undead. Illusion and divination. Bunches of other stuff.

>

> If you have any other ideas about specifics that nature magic

> shouldn`t do, I`d love to hear them.

I`ll try to come up with some this weekend, when next I have time to go

over the rulebooks in detail. For now, I`ll just note that "nature" above

is really being used in two very different ways.

The kind of nature magic that started this discussion is what I might call

"Sierra Club nature magic" -- talking to animals, making plants grow

faster, awakening trees, and the other vaguely environmentalist (or, in

some cases, eco-terrorist) stuff that PHB druids do -- this kind of nature

magic is thematically a strictly limited subset of D&D spells. This is

the kind of thing that is just silly to deny to elves.

The kind of nature magic with no boundaries comes from a conception of

nature which has no boundaries: that is, there is literally nothing that

is "supernatural", since if it exists, it is part of nature. This,

coupled with ideas about magic being a path to interact with the

fundamental underpinnings of all reality (my own vision of this has been

expressed as "magic is particle physics") leads to making the name "nature

magic" necessarily redundant: that is, when magic is power over everything

that exists, and nature is everything that exists, well duh. =)

Does that help at all?

> One party has no access to gods. They lost, even with magical

> superiority. Clearly tying *something* definite in terms of magical

> exclusiveness to gods seems like a good idea, does it not?

I suppose. Perhaps the sticking point is that I just don`t like gods.

Cerilia, because it`s by far my favorite of all the D&D campaign settings

I`ve ever seen, became the place I stuck all of my favorite other little

tidbits. One of the reasons my writings here sometimes seem disjointed

even to me is that I realize the way I think of Cerilia as being is

actually rather different from the mainstream conception, and I often try

to talk about both at once.

> Searching for cosmological or metaphysical reasons to deny or grant access

> to any kind of spell is fruitless.

> You`ve already stated that you want logical consistency and that your

> cosmology makes magic *universal*. This is a basic premise that

> you`ve accepted. I can`t offer any metaphysical reasons to grant

> differences in magic or spellcasters, because your basic premise is

> that there is none!

Touche. =) Still, it`s good to get such assumptions out in the open, as

otherwise one can spend ages not bothering to mention the fundamental

differences in assumptions that makes logical argument imconclusive.

> I can offer a different premise with a different cosmology and

> different metaphysics (as I did before), but that doesn`t in anyway

> give you a metaphysical reason to deny any magic to anyone that fits

> with the established unfair premises you`ve presented.

This is one of the reasons I want several Cerilias -- with a different

cosmology and metaphysics in each one! I suppose you mean unfair in that

with my axioms, it is impossible to prove that elves shouldn`t have

healing. While this is true, it is possible by argument outside that

system to convince me to change my axioms (and you`ve done rather a good

job of that in this thread).

I would also remark that, as far as fairness goes, "elves can`t heal" is

much more unfair as a general principle than "everyone can heal". Of

course, "only elves are immortal" is distinctly unfair, too... ah, well.

> I don`t think "logical consistency" need apply a state of uniformity

> over all magic and their casters.

It does if, as you`ve pointed out, one assumes uniformity from the

beginning. =) Logical consistency only tests whether your assumptions

agree, and whether your conclusions follow from your assumptions. It

cannot test whether your assumptions are "good" or "bad" -- such a utility

function necessarily *precedes* logic.

> You can still maintain logical consistency with different magic

> systems and different magics, but not if you`re personally going to

> overlook potential metaphysical differences for the sake of the

> aforementioned logical consistency.

Conceded. Which leaves us with "I like my assumptions better", I suppose.

> >> I see it as something that`s basically denied to them due to their

> >> fey-like nature.

> >

> > And I see it as part of their fey nature. Ah well.

>

> Yeah. Stupid thing to write up. Sorry about that.

No, not stupid at all -- I think it`s an excellent plan to make these

things as explicit as possible. The reason I think healing is elf-like

and you don`t is that we have different concepts of what "elf-like" means:

that makes sense! Then we go on to explore what exactly our personal

definitions are, which also makes lots of sense. Yay us. ;)

> I think that having the mebhaeighl around longer than the gods is a

> pretty common view, but I don`t like because it leads almost exactly

> to the point you`re going with it.

Yes, this is exactly how aesthetics and logic properly interact: you can

see that, given assumption A, logic implies conclusion C should follow;

since you don`t like conclusion C (a process which is entirely separate

from logic per se), logic says you must discard assumption A to avoid it.

> > On the contrary, it suggests to me that the humans` gods stole magic

> > from the elves!

>

> This just doesn`t sound very interesting or fun to me. I hate that BR

> explains bardic magic this way.

I`m glad we had this talk! Now I think we understand each other much

better. Emotional motives and aesthetics underlie all reasoning. Now we

can feel secure saying "to each his own", because our only disagreements

are preferences -- we each see that based on the other`s preferences, he

has drawn the appropriate conclusion for himself. I`m sorry if I sound

like a terrible philosophy lecturer, but it`s so rare that this kind of

very valuable discussion is done in such detail in this forum that I think

it deserves some explict mention. You also seem a bit worried; I`ll

address that section more specifically below, but I do want to say I don`t

see any problem with your approach so far. I quite like it, actually.

> I just prefer the idea that it`s a recent occurance that is developing

> right now. No one really knows about it, but each year things get

> stranger and stranger... if it was always this way, then it`s just

> another part of the backdrop rather than an evolving occurance and

> potential source of campaign/adventure ideas.

I very much like this approach. Happily, it`s not closed to me -- I can

still use the land`s activities in an evolving manner, because even though

it`s always been around IMC, it`s still not at all well understood.

Perhaps the land has recently changed its mind about something, perhaps

because someone new has recently discovered how to talk to it. Perhaps

there are actually several different awarenesses (one per bloodline

derivation?), and they are in conflict...

> I want to apoligize for the way my posts in this thread are presented.

> I know my views on this subject, it`s just been awhile since I`ve had

> to describe them in a structured manner. And I`m doing this with very

> little time available and no books in front of me, and I do want to

> respond promptly as your interest in this matter deserves.

I think you`re doing an excellent job. I`ll accept your apology, even

though I don`t think you owe me one (though if you`re apologizing to

others as well, that`s between you and them). Thank you for your concern.

Oh, BTW -- Gary, I`m not ignoring you; it`s just taking me a bit more time

to process your posts. I`ll respond this weekend, I think.

> Instead of an argument, I`m just kind of throwing out ideas and

> repsonses hoping you`ll read arguments from them that I don`t have

> time or inclination to structure right now. In a few days, my points

> should be much clearer if this thread is still active.

It`s working fine for me so far. I`m definitely enjoying this. I know

I`ve left a lot unsaid, too. Hopefully my thinking can still be followed.

Ryan Caveney

RaspK_FOG

08-21-2003, 09:55 PM

Remember I earlier mentioned the idea of Necromantic healing spells? Well, for those of you who believe that arcane spell-casters should be able to cure people (and I really love the following ways to implement this very idea!) has been published in the #2 Issue of the Campaign Magazine (some changes have been made, otherwise the authors would be chasing after me :D ; anyway, some of them needed a bit cleaning):

Minor Necromantic Healing
Necromancy
Level: Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Fortitude partial
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless)
You can heal minor wounds using necromantic magic. This spell heals 1d6 +1 per caster level (maximum +5) points of damage. This healing is not like the soothing balm of a priest's touch, rather, this is an unnatural acceleration of the target's own healing abilities. It is quite painful, leaves a scar, and takes its toll on the target. Every time someone is healed in this fashion, they must make a Fortitude save (DC 15) or suffer 1 point of temporary Strength damage.
Material Component: A small amount of non-animal blood, willingly given. This blood can be drawn from anyone but the person to be healed, at a cost of 1 hit point.

Necromantic Healing
Necromancy
Level: Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Fortitude partial
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless)
You can heal more significant wounds using necromantic magic. This spell heals 2d6 +1 per 2 caster levels (maximum +10) points of damage. Like minor necromantic healing, this is a painful, unnatural and scarring way to be healed. Every time someone is healed in this fashion, they must make a Fortitude save (DC 20) or suffer 2 points of temporary Strength damage.
Material Component: A small amount of non-animal blood, willingly given. This blood can be drawn from anyone but the person to be healed, at a cost of 1 hit point.

Metabolise Poison
Necromancy
Level: Sor/Wiz 5
Range: Touch
Saving Throw: Fortitude partial
Similar to the spell neutralise poison, but this spell actually "burns" the poison up through the natural metabolic reactions of the creature by speading them up unnaturaly. As a result, the target of this spell takes 2d6 damage while the poison is reft from its body. Additionaly, wizards and sorcerers cannot use this spell to neutralise the poison inside naturally poison-bearing creatures, like a viper.

The authors laso pointed out:

Here is another interesting note - and an option you may want to use for your games. When we initially wrote up minor necromantic healing and necromantic healing they didn't include the temporary Strength damage; instead, they read:
Every time the target is healed with this spell, she must amke a Fortitude save (DC 8 + points of damage healed) or acquire an additional +1 SR to all Conjuration (Healing) spells. This side effect is permanent and cumulative.

ryancaveney

08-21-2003, 11:07 PM

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Patrick Westcott wrote:

> There would just be too many variables for a mortal spell caster to be

> able to heal any wound instantly, without some kind of higher power

> guiding him. Perhaps he could study how to repair a wound that hit just

> so, at this angle, did exactly this much damage to the person`s

> circulatory system, this much damage to his skin, this much damage to

> his bones, and so forth.

This is the Rolemaster paradigm of healing. Even divine-type spellcasters

(RM calls them "channelers") must learn separate spell lists for healing

nerve damage, muscle damage, bone damage, concussion, blood loss, etc.

Possibly more realistic, but far too much overhead for frequent game play.

> Elves` disdain for the gods would then finish the explanation as to why

> the immortal elves have yet to develop healing magic. And maybe they`re

> working on it, maybe it`s their top priority, but the complexity of the

> issue should keep them from finding answers for a real long time.

I`m just not buying it. In 15,000 years of trying, they`d have it by now.

Complexity can`t be the reason. It seems increasingly like "I just don`t

want them to" is the only real reason, which is irreconcilable with my

"but I`d like them to". *sigh*

Ryan Caveney

ryancaveney

08-21-2003, 11:49 PM

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> If neccesity is the mother of invention, the elves will have a spell

> for every occasion. Not every elf, but the some total knowledge of

> all elves will. Elves that have lived for more than a thousand years

> may well know all of these spells, but that won`t effect PC power.

Yes, exactly! If it can be done with magic, at least one living elf knows

how to do it. Llaeddra and Siebharrin probably know every single spell.

> Harry Potter is nearly pure Hermeticism in short pants. There is no

> new magic, there are just the secrets that still exist from the

> revelations of thrice great Hermes.

Ah, thank you -- I knew there had to be some source for it.

> The scentific tradition of knowledge and the esoteric tradition are

> long at odds.

Perhaps, then, my total immersion in the scientific tradition renders it

impossible for me to appreciate classical hermeticism. I know that when

the "magic is physics" debate has occurred in the past, there was clearly

a side which disagreed with me, but I could never really figure out what

they meant, or why they thought as they did.

> If one`s BR magic theory is esoteric, its certainly possible that the

> elves could be without it.

I`m afraid I`m missing the antecedent for this "it". Could you expand

upon the meaning of this sentence, please?

> But then all spell research is an attempt to fill in gaps in a

> predesignated body of secrets. Creative spell creation is an illusion,

I am of two minds on this issue. At first glance, emotionally, I find

this quite distasteful; there ought to be plenty of room for creativity in

magic. But then, thinking more carefully, it could be said that science

has the same outlook -- the universe has physical laws (a predesginated

body of secrets), and the life`s work of a scientist is to fill in some of

the gaps of our knowledge of them. This requires quite substantial

creativity, especially on the part of those scientists who say, "this old

gap was filled in wrongly -- we must rip this out, and start again over

here in this other way." Perhaps it`s even related to the philosophical

debate about whether mathematics is invented or discovered -- that is, is

mathematics a science, or an art with very strict rules (such as the

various highly constrained forms of poetry) which happens to be useful to

describe nature (as, for example, photography is). The difference, I

suppose, is that in science the knowledge was never lost -- it is in fact

new knowledge (albeit of old things) in that no one ever knew it before,

so it is not really *re*discovery. Which means there really is much less

scope for creativity in hermetic magic, which again bring me back to

thinking it`s a good thing that I don`t really grok its worldview. =)

> One discovers what is extant in the universe, or what secrets were

> left by a wiser golden age.

Again, discovering what is extant in the universe strikes me as a

commonality of the esoteric and scientific approaches, not a distinction

between them. I suppose there could be a significant distinction in their

definitions of "universe", if the esoteric side used it to mean "the sum

total of former human knowledge" rather than "the totality of existence".

Is this in fact a correct characterization?

Though the Sidhelien of Cerilia did indeed have a now-past golden age, I

don`t think much if any knowledge has been lost. Power has been lost, and

land and loved ones, but too many still live who personally remember the

old days for their former wisdom to have diminished.

Ryan Caveney

Birthright-L

08-22-2003, 07:37 AM

Ryan,

I will continue to hold the stance not only that I prefer non-healing elves

for my campaigns, but also that healing magic granted to elves would be

inappropriate for the BRCS. The basis of that argument is not that there`s

a metaphysical reason for doing so, nor that elven healing is a bad thing,

but that the restriction on elven healing is a useful tool to help develop

the campaign story.

I do, however, now place a much higher emphasis on a sort of customizable

magic metaphysics even than I did before, which will be worked into my

non-D&D TORG/Masterbook hybrid rules for my own campaign, which I will

eventually send to the list or post to a website somewhere. But D&D doesn`t

allow for that sort of thing. As for non-official BRCS stuff to write up,

this thread has proved very useful and has generated a lot of ideas and

perspectives on multiple issues.

Personally, speaking ideally in terms of our own individual house campaigns,

I prefer elven magic to follow slightly different rules as far as casting

methods and spell design. This isn`t as practical in D&D as it is in the

TORG/Masterbook hybrid system I`m working on (thanks again, CyberSavant),

wherein the basic plan is to make healing magic more difficult for elves

rather than deny it altogether. And even then, it should be practical to

have individual elven healers without necessarily making it very common.

I`m still not sure what to do about divination, as this seems like something

that should be denied or restricted as well. In fact, if anything should be

considered the elven forte, it should probably be the nature of conjuration

and alteration (which would include healing). The things we tend to regard

as "lesser magic" such as illusion and divination should probably not only

be less common among elves, but in general that`s where their racial magical

drawbacks should lie and where the humans should have a clear advantage

(having specialists and gods that focus in these areas). Anything

mind-influencing (such as Charm spells) should probably be the exclusive

province of humans, whose gods also specialize in this area.

But I don`t propose any of this for the BRCS. If we were doing our own

d20-esque thing... maybe. But the team has made their agenda pretty clear

in those issues, and I think the mainstream BR gamers would prefer if we not

changed the entire history of the elven culture. As for your thoughts on

having different Cerilias and metaphysics for each one, I think that is also

counterproductive to the goals of the BRCS and the people whom they service.

To be honest, while I don`t like your atheist pseudo-science views toward

Cerilian metaphysics (in this particular case), I do love some of your

specific ideas used in conjunction with such a view. For example, your case

that humans won the war not through priestly healing but through direct

intervention of the gods: This makes a *lot* of sense. The core 2e printed

Birthright stapled rulebook seem to place quite a large emphasis on the

avatars of each god and their physical properties which is dramatically

surprising considering the lack of any such direct godly interaction within

the setting.

But these gods should definitely be *gods* not just characters with really

high bloodlines and experience points. That`s just absurd! :) Although I

see the very obvious counterpoint to that in that the current gods *were*

literally just characters with lots of xp who got hit with bloodlines... I

prefer to think that they were changed quite a bit when "hit". When talking

about the original gods, though, I make no such conceit. They were gods.

They should be treated as such! Repent now, or Azrai will be waiting under

your bed at night...

The abundance of human clerics over clerics of any other race, and the

exclusive ability of clerics to cast healing spells could easily be an

indication of why humans are much more common than anyone else, including

other races that might have clerics. While other races may have important

religions, none of them seem to have the immense power, prestige, resources,

and reach of the human churches within Cerilia. I don`t think anyone can

really deny (unless they do so as the basic premise of their metaphysics...)

that healing is one of the primary advantages/duties/services of almost

every major church on the continent. Add to that the fact that there is at

least one church in almost every human province, and that they combine to

form yet more powerful church empires...

...yeah, if we give some reasoning to make the church the basic cause of the

reason humans are dominant it kind of results in a sort of cyclic effect

wherein the dominance of humans contributes to the rising power of the

church. Humans eventually become the most dominant race and the human

churches among the most powerful, which seems appropriate when the gods were

literally once human themselves.

As for your desire to find some other "atheist" magical advantage, I`m all

for that. And yes, I could even see necromancy as a valid point, though not

a particularly strong one. Your comment as to armies of undead for each

church... that was a joke, right? It`s hard to tell when a guy whose

figured out how much XP it takes to reach level Pi is joking or serious. I

think "healing" works as a fine advantage/restriction in this particular

case, but like I said before I`m also thinking divination could also suit

this purpose. ("Charm" wouldn`t, for obvious reasons.)

I rather liked your response to my comment when I suggested that denying

healing to elves is as important in their current conflicts as in their

historical battles. If this is true, then yes, the Gheallie Sidhe and the

elven armies would definitely want clerics and religious figures to be their

primary targets. It makes a lot of sense. I really like the idea that the

godless elves would make the elimination of human clerics their most vital

targets, right there next to taking out blooded humans. It works out

rule-wise, makes sense historically, tactically, and follows through from

the differences in culture.

A lot of people seem to really like the themes involved in elven

immortality. Personally, I see it more as a nuisance. I`ve never thought

immortality that great for a whole race. As I`ve already presented, I

prefer a system of reincarnation wherein some elves can recover their

memories from past lives. All the benefits (thematically) of immortality,

without any of that pesky leveling-up nightmares.

I rather enjoyed your comments on the demographics of elves and the

increased likelihood of half-elven populations. It makes a lot of sense, as

far as helping to rationalize the current historical development of Cerilia.

I`ll think on it some more.

You seem to have no problem whatsoever in rewriting Cerilian history and

changing the "current" state of affairs in Cerilian politics. I think this

is a bit harder for other people`s campaigns, and most I think would prefer

to just be harsh to elves. It`s a strange sort of trade-off we`re working

with here... make slight changes to the story or make slight changes to the

magic system? I`m surprised no one`s brought up the dwarves yet...

Your campaign seems really elven-based. Your bias toward the elves was well

stated. "By rights, they should rule every fantasy world in which they`ve

ever appeared." And you`re right if you look at it strongly, it seems like

elves should be the dominant race on the planet, perhaps a rising force

awaiting their time of vengeance. (what`s a few thousand years..?)

But most people, I think, try not to look too closely to the elves,

preferring to instead see them as a once-great race now declining,

struggling against a possible extinction. Altogether I think this is a far

more entertaining and realistic view of elves over how they`re treated in

other books, where they just sort of accept their fate and contemplate it

for a few millennia up in the tranquility of their native forests.

The fact that you really, really, like elves and that you don`t particularly

like the idea of gods as special deities that influence the campaign world

explains a lot of your desire to level the metaphysical playing fields. It

makes this debate of course particularly amusing, since I`m trying to

suppress the rise of the next Elven Empire. While I`m not particularly

advocating giving healing power exclusively to the gods and their champions,

I`m not necessarily against it either, as I acknowledge the usefulness of

such a plot point.

Your comparison to the elder races of Babylon 5 seem amusing, but I don`t

particularly agree with it. (Although I would like to name one of the elven

cities "Za Ha Doom"...) It`s an interesting analogy. I don`t think it

follows from any of the BR products, but it`s still pretty cool. I`d like

to play it. It`s not a BRCS thing, but I`d like to play it.

To find a B5 comparison, I`d see them resembling more the Mimbari than

anything else. Specifically, of course, the warrior caste as that`s mostly

what`s presented to us in the BR books, but I think they have their Worker

and some equivalent of the Religious caste. (druidic? magical?) Maybe the

Religious caste should be replaced with something resembling the Centauri.

The democratic system (Grey Council and all that) could also be seen as a

type of "chaos" by the feudal humans. I`ve also added the belief in

reincarnation with some of the same plot points in mind... a huge racial

concern right now is that less and less elves are born every year leading

some to wonder what is happening to the elven souls that should be

reincarnated. Hell, "We are a world gone mad" seems like a perfectly fine

elven quote during wartime...

It`s a side-point and a rather minor issue, but I feel I should clear this

up: In my previous methods, I think my use of the words "fair" and "unfair"

left some confusion. I didn`t mean that a particular ruling or idea was

fair or unfair to elves or humans; I couldn`t care less if our rules are

unfair to elves. :) I was referring to the fact that "magic is the same for

everyone" is an unfair premise when arguing as to whether or not all magic

should be the same for everyone.

As for our side-discussion on the metaphysics of a "blooded planet" and the

question as to the age of meighbdal, is was interesting to read your replies

on the issue. I especially liked the idea that each bloodline invoked a

different awareness, but I think this would (or should) impact too heavily

on the current status of Cerelia as we know it. Hell... this could be the

starting idea for a whole different campaign world. My own personal view of

the activity is that it`s just happening now, it`s barely awakening, some

hints of it are only now evolving, and nothing like this has ever happened

before in the history of the campaign world. Thematically, I just like it

better that way. It gives it a more epic feel, actually opens up

possibilities of more epic world-changing campaigns, and gives the world a

larger feeling of growth and change. I`m think of starting a campaign that

introduces the first psionicst as Planet`s messenger... it will probably be

some kind of plant creature composed of fungus... :)

I`m likewise glad we had this talk. Now that we`ve stated our sides of the

issues, highlighted the differences in our campaign styles, re-evaluated our

motives, and decided to which extend we`ll balance our logical structures

with our inherent biased goals, perhaps now would be an appropriate time to

move on. I really enjoy our discussions on this and other issues, but all

of this discussion, debating, and analysis really gets in the way of

bickering and flaming each other... : )

-Lord Rahvin

kgauck

08-23-2003, 09:10 PM

----- Original Message -----

From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>

Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 6:27 PM

> > If one`s BR magic theory is esoteric, its certainly possible that the

> > elves could be without it.

>

> I`m afraid I`m missing the antecedent for this "it". Could you expand

> upon the meaning of this sentence, please?

If one`s BR magic theory is esoteric, its certainly possible that whatever

the DM decides is outside the ancient wisdom of the elves, the elves could

be without. If that means that the ancient learning doesn`t include healing

magic, elves cannot cast healing magic. The humans may have been taught the

secrets of healing magic by the gods and so it was designed for their fleshy

bodies, and not useful or adaptable to the elemental nature of the elves or

their injuries.

Pre-Greek science, pre-Thales if you will, knowledge was superstition. The

spirits on the mountain do not like to be disturbed, if you pasture your

goats on Spirit Mountain they will make your goats sick.

Between Thales and Aristotle, the Greeks practiced a new kind of thinking

about the world which we recognize as scientific. A noxious ivy grows on

that mountain and if you herd your goats there, they ivy, which grows among

the grass, will be ingested by your goats and they will become nausious. By

the way, that ivy can be used as an aniceptic and prepared to be used to

induce abortions.

After the conquest of Greece by Alexander, the Greeks lost confidence in

reason, Aristotle fell out of favor, and society turned back towards the

superstition of the old times. But they could not just go back, too much

had changed in the way people look at the world. So what developed, what is

called esoterica, is a pseudoscientific approach to the matters of

superstition. Now, we`ll go up collect the noxious ivy and try to use it in

spells to kill the goats of my enemy. The native gods (the Indo-European

pantheon led by Zeus) had taken a serious blow during the scientific age, so

it doesn`t really return. Instead eastern cults are embraced. Older

religions untainted by scientific thinking. By use of syncretic comparison,

the Greek names were associated with these eastern gods, so Hermes is

associated with Thoth. Hermeticism has almost nothing to do with classical

or archaic Hermes, and quite a lot to do with Egyptain Thoth in Greek dress.

The old, exotic superstitions were likewise dressed up in pseudoscience, but

the notions are distinctly inscientific.

A fun book to look at for this approach in medieval and early modern Europe

is _Science and the Secrets of Nature: Books of Secrets in Medieval and

Early Modern Culture_ by William Eamon published by PrincetonUP.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

kgauck

08-24-2003, 02:55 PM

One explanation of the decline of the elves, their lack of healing, and why

their longevity doesn`t win the day for the elves, is to embrace the Celtic

and the Celtic derived Tolkien explanation that the fire has gone out of the

elves, or they are being drawn into the farie realm. Such a realm was

created, the sections on the seelie and unseelie worlds in BloodSpawn fir

this description. Its also possible that this "tir nan og" is another

continent to the west, still undiscovered by humans.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

Osprey

08-24-2003, 10:44 PM

Whew! Go away for a weekend, and Ryan writes a thesis on the nature of elves! ;)

What a fascinating and well-thought-out discussion. I've thouroghly enjoyed catching up on this thread.

Here's a thought that's been rolling around while reading the last 10+ posts. This one could easily go on the "Elves and Immortality" thread in the Royal Library, too.

Cerilian elves are heavily inspired by the Celtic fae / sidhe, right? I thought I'd examine the source for inspiration and analysis of the Cerilian elves (see The Book of Invasions as good primary source material).
The sidhe (or faeries) are really a human-influenced pantheon of nature spirits. The old "gods" of Ireland were the leaders and heroes of the Tuatha de Danaan (literally, "People of the Goddess Dana"), an ancient race (never named as humans) that battled the Fomors for control of Ireland. Thanks to the leadership and prowess of their champions (such as Nuada Silverhand, Lugh of the Long Arm, and the Dagda), they won the war against Balor One-Eye and the fomorri.

Later, along come iron-wielding human settlers, the Milesians (or Sons of Mil), who battle the Tuatha de Danaan for supremacy of Ireland. They fight a bloody war, the Danaans' magic and bronze against the humans' cold iron, which easily defeats bronze armor and weapons and disrupts the fae magic of the Danaans. Later folklore says that cold iron is poison to natural magic and spirits of the earth, including the fae. The Milesians are the Gaels of Ireland, from whom the modern-day Gaelic Irish are supposedly descended.

The Milesians defeat the Danaans (in a single day, supposedly), and the Danaans agree to divide Ireland with the humans. The humans take the half above ground, and the Danaans get the underside of Eire. Of course, Underworld and Otherworld are virtually synonomous here, meaning the Sidhe leave the world of the living to dwell in the spirit world. In later folklore this becomes the Realms of Faerie that King Arthur's knights and random people wander into from time to time..

Later, Christianity demonizes the fae folk as blood-sucking demons, changelings, and creatures of the Devil, but they survive in popular folklore and are revived and revised many times over the years.

So...why are Cerilian elves immortal? Because having a "fae-like nature" means they are primarily spirit creatures, not mortal flesh and blood like humans.

Why don't they worship gods? Because they are gods of a sort, divine creatures in their own right who compete with human gods as equals (from the elven POV, anyways).

I believe this neatly explains why elves can cast arcane "true magic." They are by their very nature divine creatures, much like blooded humans but quite seperate from unblooded ones. Unlike blooded humans, however, they are holistically divine, so I definitely believe arcane magic would come more easily and naturally for them than for humans.

If I had my way, elves would not be a normal PC race. In fact, I never allow mixed race parties of PC's in my own BR campaigns. If elves and humans are cooperating, it is a strong exception to the xenophobic, racist norms of elven culture. I don't think humans hate elves in general, but are certainly afraid of them and their Ghaelle Sidhe.

Ideally, I think elves should be a distinct "monster" race, much like dryads, brownies, sprites, etc...this would eliminate the bothersome "ECL" issue of game balance unless a game allowed monster PC's, in which case you follow those rules.

The problem here is that the creators of Cerilian elves tried to make them both faeries and mortals rolled into one race, aka "the Tolkien approach." Which creates all kinds of problems in the mechanics of an RPG that tries to balance such inherently unbalanced qualities.

Tolien's elves were certainly superior to humans in every aspect. Check out Warhammer RPG for a statistical representation of this.

In 3e AD&D, elves are syupposed to be a normal PC race. I think this is a mistake for a BR setting, and would gladly see it eliminated from BRCS, or have them presented as a superior race template with +ECL's. Then it's not such an issue to allow them "unfair" advantages over humans.

Why the ECL's, from a philosophical perspective? Because immortals don't have the driving sense of urgency generated by a fear of death such as fuels human ambition and growth. I think there is a good reason why there can be immortal elves without insane character levels: most simply don't pursue power on the scale that humans do. What's the rush?

I think there's an inherent conflict between the stated chaotic, dynamic nature of Cerilian elves and immortality. The way I resolve that issue is that the elves' inner nature is quite unchanging and stubborn, as is reflected by their immortal, unaging bodies. The "dynamism" of elves, IMO, would be in their outward manifestations: magical effects of swirling colors, clothes that change to fit their moods, art designed on one's latest inspiration or impulse.

As for Sidhelien magic: following a fae inspiration, I would instantly name Illusion and Enchantment as their favored schools, not their weak points. Faeries of folklore are overwhelmingly strong in these areas, and most all of fae magic is based on glamour rather than elemental forces of destruction. Also, that power is strongly territorial - the fae are far more potent in their own realm than the mortal ones, which makes it difficult to expand in any kind of largescale manner.

If Sidhelian are somewhat whimsical and moody, the intuitive Sorcerer makes far more sense than the scholarly Wizard as a favored class IMO. Magic can thus be treated as a natural extension of their divine / spiritual beings, as opposed to a scholarly pursuit based on rigor and study. I've always believed that wizards should prefer Lawful type alignments (rule-based, formulaic), while Sorcerers would tend towards Chaos (intuitive, individualized).

What if Cerilian elves had a vulnerability to cold iron? This would go a LONG way towards explaining why the humans won, and do it in a way that parallels real human mythology (which is quite appropriate for Cerilia and its historical inspirations). If cold iron were poisonous to elves and couldn't be healed properly (leaving horrible scars, magic-dampening "diseases" or conditions, etc.), imagine how well the history and current balance of power would be explained. Not to mention the hatred the elves bear for the humans...How would you like to have a constantly pussy, ugly wound across your face for the next 2000 years? Bitter? Yeah, that's putting it lightly.

Following some earlier ideas, I could see elves having some powers of natural regeneration or fast healing in places with strong sources of mebhaighal, but never against iron-inflicted wounds. Why [/i]bother[I] with healing magic in such a case, especially when your magic is useless against cold iron anyways.

Also, if cold iron dampens Sidhelien magic, it would make an effective defense against it (again, I'm following faerie folklore here).

All of this leads to my other major problem with BR elves: high technology. Nature oriented yet high tech? How's that? High levels of art? Absolutely. Extreme skills of craftsmanship and aesthetic skill? Definitely. Odd inventions? Maybe, for some of the creative-whimsical types. But technology in the scientific sense for a chaotic race aligned with nature? I don't really see it, at least not in a typical Renaissance style as described in the BR material.

I see materials like mithril and bloodsilver being an elven creation because they were iron alternatives designed to match or exceed the humans' weapons and armor. Too bad mithril is so rare (and tighmaevril even rarer). Ever wonder why druids can't have metal arms and armor?

So there you have my ideal Sidhelien. I'm not insisting on any kind of BRCS adoption, but I do hope some of the real world history and game suggestions are of interest or even inspiration to readers following this thread. Hope you enjoyed it!

Osprey

ryancaveney

08-27-2003, 11:31 PM

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, RaspK_FOG wrote:

> For one thing, it was always a thematic issue that gods actually

> granted "magicks" (an archaic term, I give you that, but one of the

> best) to their clerics themselves... It is not like opening a pathway

> to the raw force of the eldritch, like arcane spell-casters do: to the

> cleric, the loss of either his patron or his connection to him is the

> loss of his powers, whether permanent or not.

Then why are there range and area effect and so on restrictions for

clerical spells that look identical to those of wizard spells? Surely

Haelyn himself doesn`t have so severe a limitation on how he can use his

power -- what priests` spellcasting abilities must represent is how much

skill they have in manipulating the magical energy provided by the god,

rather than how much status they have determining how hard the god is

willing to exert himself on their behalf. Thus I don`t see a meaningful

difference between skill in controlling magical energy from the gods and

skill in controlling magical energy from the land.

> The slow metabolism of the Sidhelien and the thing that results to

> their non-aging figures and their immunity to disease, are two very

> different things. If you asked a doctor, he would tell you that a low

> metabolism makes you more vulnerable to illness and less adept at

> healing naturally. It seems that the elves, while metabolically very

> low on the scale, must have other powers that make them more resistant

> to disease. In fact, organisms that age faster have to replenish their

> cells much faster than organisms that leave longer; the latter must

> simply make sure their cells can reproduce for times and times again,

> not fast.

While I am certainly one of the most ardent advocates for birthright to

learn from hard science, I don`t really think this analogy holds up.

Elves aren`t *long*-lived, they`re *infinitely*-lived. They just can`t

obey the scaling law that relates mass to lifetime via a fairly constant

number of heartbeats per lifespan. I don`t think their metabolisms really

are slower -- they`re not merely undying, they are un*aging*. They are

always in what for a human is the prime of life, and their reflexes (Dex)

are superior; thus I think their metabolism is at least as fast as healthy

young adult human, if not slightly faster.

> Unlike what most people believe, druids were not simply people who

> revered nature and attuned to it. Druids were celtic priests.

I am well aware of this. However, in D&D it is not nearly so clear-cut.

D&D "druid" is just a spellcaster who focuses on nature and can turn into

animals, who need not worship a god any more than a fighter or rogue must.

Given that in Cerilia the land itself is the source of immense magical

energies and exercises some degree of choice in the government of its

inhabitants, I can think of no better place to have D&D "druid"-class

magic-users who have no particular religion, just a strong attunement to

the land and its inherent power.

Ryan Caveney

ryancaveney

08-27-2003, 11:31 PM

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Gary wrote:

> and the (as of yet unexplained) effects of deforestation upon elven

> populations are much more likely causes of humanity`s success

I`ve advanced a theory: elves physically cannot, rather than merely prefer

not to, live anywhere the source potential of the province drops too low.

Burn down the forest and build cities and plant crops, and the elves must

move or sicken and die of magical malnutrition -- or kill you and regrow

the forest.

> In the long run, however, the real question is whether or not the

> prohibition suits the themes of BR, not whether they were inspired by

> the dynamics of the rules set when the setting was produced.

Agreed. More on this later.

Ryan Caveney

Eosin the Red

08-28-2003, 12:11 AM

> > The slow metabolism of the Sidhelien and the thing that results to their non-aging figures and their immunity to disease, are two very different things. If you asked a doctor, he would tell you that a low metabolism makes you more vulnerable to illness and less adept at healing naturally. It seems that the elves, while metabolically very low on the scale, must have other powers that make them more resistant to disease. In fact, organisms that age faster have to replenish their cells much faster than organisms that leave longer; the latter must simply make sure their cells can reproduce for times and times again, not fast.

>>> While I am certainly one of the most ardent advocates for birthright to learn from hard science, I don`t really think this analogy holds up. Elves aren`t *long*-lived, they`re *infinitely*-lived. They just can`t obey the scaling law that relates mass to lifetime via a fairly constant number of heartbeats per lifespan. I don`t think their metabolisms really are slower -- they`re not merely undying, they are un*aging*. They are always in what for a human is the prime of life, and their reflexes (Dex)are superior; thus I think their metabolism is at least as fast as healthy young adult human, if not slightly faster.

Going off of this message and Ryan`s other message about magical connection - if one needed or desired a scientific answer the way I would "explain" the immortality is thus: Cell division in Elves is sparked by the ambient magic around them, when the level is insufficient the division stops, rapidly making them vulnerable to disease and injury. Rather than having an inbuilt mechanism controlling the number of divisions each cell will under go [in humans believed to be somehow associated with Teleomeres] the number of times a cell can replicate in an elf is regulated by an external stimilus, effectively making their lives immortal as long as they lived in an area with sufficient magic.

This would have some cool ingame effects - as the potential of the lands near elves was destroyed they would "feel it" becoming more prone to illness and regular old aging pains. FREX as humans started to strip mine, the local elves would feel something akin to the prodrome of flu-like symptoms as their cell division slowed to a new level of replication. They aren`t sick but they know that they are not well either.

Randy ~ Eosin

Krow

08-28-2003, 12:46 AM

Cell division in Elves is sparked by the ambient magic around them, when the level is insufficient the division stops

How about inability to heal naturally? :o

ryancaveney

08-28-2003, 04:23 PM

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> and the Celtic derived Tolkien explanation that the fire has gone out

> of the elves, or they are being drawn into the farie realm. Such a

> realm was created, the sections on the seelie and unseelie worlds in

> BloodSpawn fir this description. Its also possible that this "tir nan

> og" is another continent to the west, still undiscovered by humans.

If you`re going to do this, please make it a full-blown otherworld: the

Forgotten Realms chose the "island just off the coast" approach, and it

has always struck me as awfully silly. Among other things, what happens

once humans fill Cerilia and then have to migrate to yet another

continent? It would all have to happen again. If what you want is

something along the lines of "technology can`t actually advance until

magic and the elves are gone; it is a historical imperative that faerie

fades from the mortal realm", then please have them fade away to another

world entirely, not just go *literally* west or underground. Journeys

that start physical but end up magical are OK, but nothing too prosaic.

Ryan Caveney

kgauck

08-29-2003, 02:06 AM

----- Original Message -----

From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>

Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 6:26 PM

> I`ve advanced a theory: elves physically cannot, rather than merely prefer

> not to, live anywhere the source potential of the province drops too low.

> Burn down the forest and build cities and plant crops, and the elves must

> move or sicken and die of magical malnutrition -- or kill you and regrow

> the forest.

I see some similarities to this any my notions of the fey. The places they

protect aren`t just home, they specifically contain magical links to the fey

demi-plane of the Shadow World. Destroy their tree and the dryad has lost

this link, and dies. The dryad isn`t tied to the tree per se, the tree is a

link, or a gate, to the Shadow World.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

ryancaveney

08-29-2003, 10:55 PM

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Eosin the Red wrote:

> Going off of this message and Ryan`s other message about magical

> connection - if one needed or desired a scientific answer the way I

> would "explain" the immortality is thus: Cell division in Elves is

> sparked by the ambient magic around them, when the level is

> insufficient the division stops, rapidly making them vulnerable to

> disease and injury. Rather than having an inbuilt mechanism

> controlling the number of divisions each cell will under go [in humans

> believed to be somehow associated with Teleomeres] the number of times

> a cell can replicate in an elf is regulated by an external stimilus,

> effectively making their lives immortal as long as they lived in an

> area with sufficient magic.

Yes, that is *exactly* what I mean. Thank you for putting my own thoughts

so well! That`s precisely the "science" I had in mind.

> This would have some cool ingame effects - as the potential of the

> lands near elves was destroyed they would "feel it" becoming more

> prone to illness and regular old aging pains. FREX as humans started

> to strip mine, the local elves would feel something akin to the

> prodrome of flu-like symptoms as their cell division slowed to a new

> level of replication. They aren`t sick but they know that they are not

> well either.

Yes! Yes! You have it!

I first came up with this idea to explain how you could have a densely

populated society without any real agriculture to speak of, but it has

grown into one of my favorite elf concepts for a great many reasons.

Ryan Caveney

QuestingMage

08-31-2003, 06:44 PM

I'm quite impressed with the conjunction of metaphysics and game design this thread has inspired.

I find it interesting, and arrogant, that humans are the "default" species in all fantasy realms. The most numerous, the baseline, the normative species in all fantasy worlds. In all of the D&D worlds, the other races are "fractional" humans. They only have a portion of the characteristics of humans, even if they have some of ours to a greater degree (strength in dwarves, magical aptitude and long life in dwarves.)

Halflings and gnomes have everything we do--except raw power.
Humanoids have our aggression and even faster birth rates--but lack civilization
Elves are thinner, more beautiful, and more magical--but they lack our ambition and team-spiritedness.
Dwarves have the worst deal of all. They are tougher, greedier, more technically advanced, and more clan-oriented than humans are. But we have saddled them with the responsibility of dealing with things that go bump in the night. (Orogs in Birthright)

Given similar birthrates among humans, elves, and dwarves, I think that the lawful nature of dwarves, as opposed to the neutral nature of humans, and chaotic nature of elves, would give them the edge in the world-domination sweepstakes.

irdeggman

08-31-2003, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by QuestingMage@Aug 31 2003, 01:44 PM

Given similar birthrates among humans, elves, and dwarves, I think that the lawful nature of dwarves, as opposed to the neutral nature of humans, and chaotic nature of elves, would give them the edge in the world-domination sweepstakes.
Why would you make this assumption?

There were some pretty good articles in Dragon over the past couple of years on the races - specifically dwarves and elves. The elves' birthrate was basically portrayed as relating to their coming into "heat" very rarely - which also explains their sexual freedom without having excessive children.

As I recall dwarves were portrayed as maturing more slowly, mating for life (directly in opposition to the elves) and not reproducing very quickly either.

ryancaveney

08-31-2003, 09:09 PM

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, QuestingMage wrote:

> I find it interesting, and arrogant, that humans are the

> "default" species in all fantasy realms.

I find it arrogant, repetitive, boring and annoying. =)

Hence in part my fondness for rewriting Cerilia to reverse it.

> They only have a portion of the characteristics of humans, even if

> they have some of ours to a greater degree (strength in dwarves,

> magical aptitude and long life in dwarves.)

That second example should be "in elves", yes?

> Humanoids have our aggression and even faster birth rates--but lack

> civilization

And in Cerilia, they`re more civilized than pretty much anywhere else.

The capital of Kal Kalathor is the second-biggest city on the whole

continent, and its realm a very strong one! To the humans of Anuire

who`ve dealt with the fanatic human-hating Gheallie Sidhe of the Sielwode

and the reasonable, happy-to-trade, moderately diplomatic King of

Thurazor, goblins probably seem rather more civilized than elves!

> Dwarves have the worst deal of all. [...] we have saddled them with

> the responsibility of dealing with things that go bump in the night.

Very well put. =)

> Given similar birthrates among humans, elves, and dwarves, I think

> that the lawful nature of dwarves, as opposed to the neutral nature of

> humans, and chaotic nature of elves, would give them the edge in the

> world-domination sweepstakes.

*Given similar birthrates*, yes. That assumption is not widely held,

though. Also, it is generally held that of those three, only the humans

actually want to dominate the world -- the others just want to be left

alone. One of the things which most makes me like Cerilia is that many of

the elves have figured out the only way to get the humans to leave them

alone is to eradicate them entirely. =)

Ryan Caveney

QuestingMage

08-31-2003, 10:01 PM

I find it arrogant, repetitive, boring and annoying. =)
Hence in part my fondness for rewriting Cerilia to reverse it.
Yes, I agree! I don't think much in the rules needs to be rewritten, however. My point about the birthrates was mainly just to point out the generally embedded assumption that demi-humans have lower birthrates. As Irdeggman pointed out, there are some very plausible explanations for why elven and dwarven birthrates are low.

But the argument can be made in the other direction as well. If we assume that Elves are much more in tune with nature than humans, and have some mechanism for keeping in balance with the environment, it is plausible that the same mechanism which keeps them from OVER populating their environment might also keep them from UNDER populating it as well. If the population drops too much, elven women start producing twins, and the elven children will draw more magic into themselves, and mature earlier. For example. I could come up with others, if you're interested. ;)

This is yet another of the style of play preferences. I just think that humans of Cerilia should be given more of a run for their money.

That second example should be "in elves", yes?
Yes, it should. Thanks.

Very well put. =)
Glad you liked it B)

I don't think anything is wrong with the demi-human rules. I"m just putting in my plug for giving Elves and Dwarves the most opmtimistic interpretation of the rules.

Cheers,
Shaun

kgauck

09-01-2003, 04:19 AM

Generally birth rates are a function of parental investment. The more

investment parents make, the lower the birthrate. Fish, rats, and insects

are generally identifies at one end (r selected) and higher mammels are at

the other end (K selected). Goblins are traditionally regarded as the most

r selected species that holds realms in Cerilia. Elves and dwarves as among

the most K selected. I`m not really into elf culture broadly or Cerilian

Sidhe, but I am inclined to agree with Ryan`s general notion that elf health

and reproduction are tied to the potency of the mebhaighl. Dwarves are the

great investors, puting far more time and effort into a single exceptional

axe, and I think the same is true of children. Now, I used to figure that

most dwarves had a dozen children, but over a very long period of fertility,

a child born once or twice a decade. On the other hand I figured that 2d6

children lived to have children of their own.

The write up of Baruk-Azhik suggests that the dwarves are in danger of

losing the war against the orogs. In fact, I think old Grimm takes,

surprise, the very long view. Instead, like the British in WWI, the dwarves

are confronted with making adjustments in their society to respond, and

really don`t want to. Accepting younger parents (most dwarves delay

childbirth 30 to 50 years after sexual maturity in order to establish

themselves and accrue the benifits of more mature parentage) more frequent

childbirth, and generally shifting from quality to quantity, which really

goes against the whole culture`s values.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

geeman

09-01-2003, 06:12 AM

At 03:59 PM 8/31/2003 -0400, Ryan Caveney wrote:

> > I find it interesting, and arrogant, that humans are the

> > "default" species in all fantasy realms.

>

>I find it arrogant, repetitive, boring and annoying. =)

>Hence in part my fondness for rewriting Cerilia to reverse it.

My own take on this kind of thing is that the decline of magic and magical

races is such a theme of fantasy fiction that it`s nearly cliche. For a

"high fantasy" setting, however, that perfectly fine. Especially for a

setting that has so many other traditional fantasy themes in it like BR. I

would, however, like something other than colour text to define that

decline, I`d like actual game mechanical disadvantages. I especially want

them if one is going to have a whole system of developing realms,

population, etc. like the BR domain level of play. It`s 100% fine to

describe elves as in decline and to have that be one of the themes of the

setting. I`d just like to see that theme make its way into actual

adventure and domain level of play with notable effects on how characters

(or regents) are able to conduct their activities. Most of the things that

Cerilian elves have as part of their racial description--most notably

immortality and racial access to true magic--would be the kinds of things

that would give them a significant advantage as a race over others without

those advantages. The advantage of other races--access to divine

magic--doesn`t really add up to the advantages of elves.

When it comes to other campaigns (my homebrews, in particular) I tend to

prefer that humans not be the dominant race. I prefer to make up campaigns

in which humanity is overshadowed by invading aliens, enslaved by their

robot servants run amuck, or things like that. Some dialogue that I wrote

for a proposed sci-fi campaign using D20 Modern rules:

Fallen Humanity

"You owe us eighty-six thousand adjusted, Henshaw. Don`t make me send

the breakerbot to see you. Not very efficient the breakerbot. Last

collectee they had to euthinize, you know. She had too much damage to her

knee joints. Couldn`t carry much anymore. Not productive. Same could happen

to you if you don`t pay," the threatbot said. You could guarantee one thing

about the `bots these days: subtlety was no longer part of the program.

"My child needed medicine," the little man pleaded. "I had no choice."

"It makes no difference what excuse you make, human. Drugs for disease,

drugs for pleasure. All part of the weakness of you biologicals. Have the

money by tomorrow at oh, eleven forty or you`ll get a visit from

breakerbot. Maybe if enough of you is left over after breakerbot visit we

can sell for scrap." At that point a human would have laughed, but the

threatbot simply turned away with cold efficiency to make its next appointment.

You are humans in the early 22nd of century Earth. AI has taken control

of the planet, and the robots are now in charge. Forced to suffer under the

brutal domination of the machine race, what hope does humankind have to

survive? How can people compete against the overwhelming strength of

machinery guided by the supra-intelligences that reside in the

omni-neuronet? Turned into little more than slaves by the manipulations of

the machines, human beings are no longer the dominant life form on the

planet... not by a long shot. Can you make it in this hostile world? Is

there some chance for humanity? Do any humans dare fight back against the

regime of the machine?

That campaign will probably never get developed beyond that text. I just

found the vocabulary ("threatbot" and "breakerbot") really funny, so I had

to scribble up that tongue-in-cheek intro. In fact, I`ve been teased a bit

recently for coming up with campaigns in which humanity is always

declining. My response to that critique was to come up with a campaign

setting in which humanity is the dominant species, which satisfied the

players until I told them that human isn`t a PC race....

For more "traditional" fantasy settings like BR, however, the rise of

humanity is fine.

Gary

QuestingMage

09-02-2003, 11:40 PM

Especially for a setting that has so many other traditional fantasy themes in it like BR. I would, however, like something other than colour text to define that decline, I`d like actual game mechanical disadvantages. I especially want them if one is going to have a whole system of developing realms, population, etc. like the BR domain level of play.
Exactly! I share your preference for explicit rules. I just visited Athas.org, after having been pointed there by one of these threads. After reading their playtest rules, I looked up the druid spell Plant Growth, because I was curious about the farm productivity impact of that spell. Then I accidentially discovered a cool feature of Google. The Google Calculator (http://www.google.com/help/features.html#calculator) Just type in "acres per square mile" and up will pop "1 square mile = 640 acres" The clever geeks at Google have built us a nice little free converter. Anyway, there are 640 acres per square mile. So, pumping +(pi * .5^2)*640 into google tells us that there just over 500 acres per casting of Plant growth. Some more quick Googling yielded the numbers 6 bushels/acre of wheat in a good medieval harvest, and 25 bu/year to keep someone alive, assuming one loaf of bread per day per person.
This gives us a staggering productivity improvement of 1,000 extra bushels of wheat per casting of plant growth! That's enough to support 40 people.
Anyway, back to the population growth issue.
Geeman said:
In fact, I`ve been teased a bit recently for coming up with campaigns in which humanity is always declining. My response to that critique was to come up with a campaign setting in which humanity is the dominant species, which satisfied the players until I told them that human isn`t a PC race....

That is *really* funny! I like your sense of humor.
The Lone Ranger and Tonto were wandering in the West. After they crested a hill, they were suddenly confronted with a large band of angry Indians, waving their weapons and shouting warcries. The LR said, "Oh no. We're in trouble." Tonto said, "Who's this 'we', white man?"
Hmm, I'm having a hard time staying focused on the population growth issue. Aaaaaany-way. Maybe rules don't need to be detailed down to the average births per mother level, but I do think that the assumptions which lead to the rise and fall of nations should be made explicit.

QuestingMage

09-03-2003, 12:11 AM

KGauk said
Generally birth rates are a function of parental investment. The more investment parents make, the lower the birthrate.
Very true. And your r/k selection analysis is very accurate as well. But fantasy realms are not just = (our world) + dragons + magic - guns. We, as Americans and Westerners, find it hard to imagine intentionally pumping out extra kids to serve the war effort. Whether that is due to our elevated level of morality, or our successfull history, I leave to others to judge.

My own personal view of Elves and Dwarves, especially when they are under population pressure, is that both groups are more reluctant to fight, both outsiders and other members of their race, but when they do fight, they fight to kill. Banners and ribbons and shields and trumpets--these matter little to demi-humans.

Among other traits, I think that Elves would be less likely than most races to meet on fixed fields of battle. With stealth and low light vision, Elves would be terrible guerilla fighters. If the Elves decided that you should die, one day you would just never wake up. The combination of slight stature, and the prospect of eternal life, if not killed by other creatures, would lead to a race of snipers. And by this I do not mean +2 on missle combat. I mean, the regent takes off a day to go hunting and never returns.

One interesting possible extention of Geeman's 'Fallen Humanity' concept is "Half-Elves Ascendent". One good strategy for Elves would be to insinuate themselves into the human ruling class, and make Elven blood a mark of status among humans. By allying themselves with major human bloodlines, and offering some of their scions in marriage, they could create a class of Noble Half-Elves with genetic ties to to the Elves, and create some very interesting diplomatic interactions. How would *you* like to live an extra 150 years? Or failing that, have your heir live an extra 150 years?

Among other things, I think that the long lives of Elves, and to a lesser extent, dwarves are vastly underrated in terms of game implications. What if every elf, male and female, had to serve for 50 years in the Elven Militia (call it what you will). Even a very lazy elf would probably attain 3rd level as a ranger or druid, and could go up to 10-12th. Imagine an entire nation of 3-10th level rangers who sing/make pottery/paint/craft furnture/etc because they prefer it. What would happen if you enraged such a people? What would happen to a human province if 1,000 ticked off 5th level Elven rangers invaded, in bands of 6 to 12? Ugly! Ugly! Ugly!

In the quality/quantity fight two very important factors are concentration of force, and replentishment rate. It the quanity side can bring a significant fraction of it's forces to bear at once, and replentish them rapidly, they will win. Conversely, if the quality side can pick their battles, keep the quanity side off balance, and disrupt reinforcements, they will win.

After a full human lifetime of facing 3 HD orogs in constricted caves, the average dwarf would be to the average human as the average special forces Sgt Major is to the average Army private coming out of infantry combat school.

RaspK_FOG

09-03-2003, 04:05 PM

Actually, this is why 2e had it clear that "demihumans" where generally restricted in their advancement. The logic is both understandable and flavourful: organisms that age faster also grow up and procreate faster (and in greater numbers, concerning the latter) in order to survive. It is not an inability of the long-living races, rather an inherent advantage of inferior races. That's why mice can get so many if unattended!

Anyway, seeing that this thread has gone astray, I take this opportunity to interrupt the whole line of thought and ask a few things...
One of the "community's" members made a post that gave a full list that allowed elven arcane spell-casters access to druidic spells in context with dwarven weapon familiarities, etc. I wanted to point out two things:

1) Why do you take spells on a druid/wizard theme only? While not very important to most people, I would argue that bards should have a separate list that would give them access to some of these spells earlier on, so that they could cast some of them. 3e allowed a bard to cast control weather and control water, even if 3.5 does not; why not allow an elven bard the same at more reasonable levels?

2) Why drop summon nature's ally spells entirely? Even if it was advised that elves are generally not fond of Conjuration spells, bI really see no reason in dissallowing an elven wizard the ability to summon a sprite? Elves have actually been discribed as more manipulating than respectful of nature.

irdeggman

09-03-2003, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Sep 3 2003, 11:05 AM

Anyway, seeing that this thread has gone astray, I take this opportunity to interrupt the whole line of thought and ask a few things...
One of the "community's" members made a post that gave a full list that allowed elven arcane spell-casters access to druidic spells in context with dwarven weapon familiarities, etc. I wanted to point out two things:

1) Why do you take spells on a druid/wizard theme only? While not very important to most people, I would argue that bards should have a separate list that would give them access to some of these spells earlier on, so that they could cast some of them. 3e allowed a bard to cast control weather and control water, even if 3.5 does not; why not allow an elven bard the same at more reasonable levels?

2) Why drop summon nature's ally spells entirely? Even if it was advised that elves are generally not fond of Conjuration spells, bI really see no reason in dissallowing an elven wizard the ability to summon a sprite? Elves have actually been discribed as more manipulating than respectful of nature.
Your first point is the one I made (and got slammed on) earlier. Thanks for reiterating it and getting back to the original question.

For your specific questions on the spell familiarity lists:

(1) The point was to create a "racial" list that was independent of class. Hence the reason to make it "add" to an arcane caster list at the same level. Another point was to not bypass any restrictions that would be invoked by picking up spells that could be picked up by taking levels of the appropriate class - that is an arcane class that already had the spell on its list. Control Weather and Control Water are already on the sorc/wiz list and putting it on this one would dilute the importance of that class. An elf can take levels in wizard or sorcerer - this racial list shouldn't be a way around having to take levels to get there.

(2) Summon Nature's Ally is a summoning spell and elves disdain them. It didn't make any sense to include a spell as racially familiar if it was on the disdained list of the race.

RaspK_FOG

09-04-2003, 08:58 AM

OK. Thanks for the reply, irdeggman!

ryancaveney

09-04-2003, 04:16 PM

On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, RaspK_FOG wrote:

> Actually, this is why 2e had it clear that "demihumans"

> where generally restricted in their advancement.

Except that in 2e Birthright, one nonhuman race-class combo is unlimited:

elven wizards. =)

> The logic is both understandable and flavourful:

Flavorful perhaps, understandable no. Nonhumans paying an XP penalty

would be the proper mechanic for advancing more slowly; the mechanic

actually used, in which they advance just as rapidly until suddenly they

hit a brick wall at some completely arbitrary degree of competence, never

made any sense at all. It is a balancing mechanism, but it is an

extremely illogical one devoid of any sensible in-game explanation.

Explanations have of course been offered, but they all ring extremely

hollow and work awfully hard to stretch reason that far. This is perhaps

the most egregious example of a silly rules hack put in place only in a

misguided attempt to enforce foolish, arrogant human dominance.

> organisms that age faster also grow up and procreate faster (and in

> greater numbers, concerning the latter) in order to survive.

Agreed. But then, if this means elves and dwarves should be limited to

lower levels than humans, why does the same logic not necessarily imply

that humans ought to be limited to lower levels than goblins, who grow up

and procreate even faster and in still greater numbers? Rather, if you

must have a mechanic for this (I don`t think you should, but if you must),

give elves and dwarves an XP penalty relative to humans, and give goblins

and gnolls an XP bonus relative to humans.

> It is not an inability of the long-living races, rather an inherent

> advantage of inferior races. That`s why mice can get so many if

> unattended

Mice get more numerous. Mice do NOT get higher-level! No matter how many

mice are living in the walls, never will any one of them be able to take

on a mouse-hunting cat alone. The advantage of the mice is that there are

so many of them born that although they cannot stop the cat from killing

many of them, there will always be more of them than the cat has the time

and energy to kill. The analogy between this and the humans vs. the

Gheallie Sidhe should be clear. =)

What this line of argument implies to me is that humans should in general

be much *lower* in level than elves and dwarves, on the grounds that,

relatively, their primary evolutionary strategy is quantity over quality

-- which is, albeit in less technical terms, basically what Kenneth said.

> Why drop summon nature`s ally spells entirely?

> Elves have actually been discribed as more manipulating than

> respectful of nature.

Most recently, by Gary. I`m not sure how I stand on the issue. (Though I

think I was the one who first suggested -- partly in jest -- large-scale

Sidhelien topiary on this list many years ago, which Gary found very

amusing...)

In any case, I disagree with Duane (and the BoM) -- I think they use lots

of summoning spells. In particular, I think they make a great deal of use

of the Summoning realm spell -- it allows them to force gnolls, goblins

and ogres to fight and die for them against humans: regardless of who wins

the battle, in that case every single casualty on *both* sides is a little

victory for the elves! For the same reason, I and others think they

should also make large-scale use of charmed troops, including individual

prisoners formed into units and entire units taken whole with Subversion.

Given that, barring violence, a sidhe will live *forever*, they should all

work really hard to avoid entering combat personally. Along those lines,

I have long thought the bulette is actually a biological weapon created by

the elves: rare but almost unstoppable, quickly drives whole villages of

humans from their homes, and eats everything *except* elves. =)

Ryan Caveney

QuestingMage

09-05-2003, 02:24 AM

Ryan, I agree with all of the points you just listed. Well, I'm a bit dubious about the Bulette hypothesis, but it is amusing ;-)

But I'd like to throw in my two cents on the broader question of rules design, as it impacts Elven spell lists and specialty priests. I think we should try to clarify what features are core the Birthright experience, and which aren't. For example, Ryan and I are in favor of more powerful Elves and Dwarves. But we are suggesting different emphases and assumptions. NO RULE CHANGES ARE NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT OUR VISION of demihuman supremacy. It is merely a matter of emphasis. I think a "Stronger Demihumans" sidebar would be a good way to address this in the Birthright sourcebook. A couple paragraphs and we can all move on.

I'm not a cleric kind of guy, and don't have an opinion on that issue. But I wouldl like to ask all sides what the minimum necessary set of rule changes is to achieve your objectives.

The next step is to split these changes into 4 buckets: core rule changes, suggested variant rule changes, and suggested flavor text/different assumptions with no rule changes. Ultimately all rules will be either core, offically proposed variants, or house rules.

I would like to be of help to the Birthright developer team. I know that some of my posts have been off topic. Irdeggman et al, where would you like to see this thread go? What kind of input are you looking for from us? Maybe we should have a "What Birthright means to me" thread, a "Personal preferences, Strongly Defended" threat, and a "nuts and bolts game mechanics thread?"

Thanks,
Shaun

irdeggman

09-05-2003, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by QuestingMage@Sep 4 2003, 09:24 PM
The next step is to split these changes into 4 buckets: core rule changes, suggested variant rule changes, and suggested flavor text/different assumptions with no rule changes. Ultimately all rules will be either core, offically proposed variants, or house rules.

I would like to be of help to the Birthright developer team. I know that some of my posts have been off topic. Irdeggman et al, where would you like to see this thread go? What kind of input are you looking for from us? Maybe we should have a "What Birthright means to me" thread, a "Personal preferences, Strongly Defended" threat, and a "nuts and bolts game mechanics thread?"

Thanks,
Shaun

Jan (Mark_Aurel) already started a thread for this very thing.

http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php...=ST&f=36&t=1876 (http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=1876)

I think that where exactly they would fall, core rule changes, official variants, etc., will fall out of the ensuing discussions there.

Osprey

09-05-2003, 07:46 PM

Ryan Caveney wrote:

Flavorful perhaps, understandable no. Nonhumans paying an XP penalty
would be the proper mechanic for advancing more slowly; the mechanic
actually used, in which they advance just as rapidly until suddenly they
hit a brick wall at some completely arbitrary degree of competence, never
made any sense at all. It is a balancing mechanism, but it is an
extremely illogical one devoid of any sensible in-game explanation.
Explanations have of course been offered, but they all ring extremely
hollow and work awfully hard to stretch reason that far. This is perhaps
the most egregious example of a silly rules hack put in place only in a
misguided attempt to enforce foolish, arrogant human dominance.

I strongly agree with this. AD&D's (1st %2nd eds.) race level restrictions were definitely created for the sake of game balance and human-dominant settings, NOT because it made sense in any logical way. The logic was a set of rationalizations for the way the world was first designed and why it shouldn't be changed. Personally, one of my favorite changes that came with 3e was the open levels and multiclassing features that allowed for far more diversity for PC's.

It is far more logical, as Ryan pointed out, that slower advancement makes more sense for long-lived races than a level limit. In point of fact, logic would dictate that elves and dwarves would reach equal or higher levels than humans if truly committed to their chosen path (i.e., class). Perhaps a longer life means a less hurried pace, but even that would have built-in "side benefits", such as extra skill points in less class-oriented areas (such as Craft, Perform, Profession, etc.). D&D has always favored the humans as the ascendant race in mearly all of their campaign settings, and Cerilia is certainly no exception.

I think XP adjustments for demi-humans isn't the best solution, however. The best solution is at the large-scale political level, and birth-rates and population levels are pretty central to that issue. The truth is that this doesn't balance at a PC-adventure level, because the individual elf is going to be superior to the average individual human. Factors like ambition, intelligence, technology and cultural advancements- these all feed into how the average individual progresses within a race/culture.

I would tend to assume that longer-lived races DO have a lower birthrate - it's a pretty common tendency in nature, so why should it be different for the demihuman races? And if elves are truly immortal, why do they procreate in a biological way? This has NEVER made much sense to me. Immortals should follow their own set of rules, not the rules of mortal, bilogical species.

Mice get more numerous. Mice do NOT get higher-level! No matter how many
mice are living in the walls, never will any one of them be able to take
on a mouse-hunting cat alone. The advantage of the mice is that there are
so many of them born that although they cannot stop the cat from killing
many of them, there will always be more of them than the cat has the time
and energy to kill. The analogy between this and the humans vs. the
Gheallie Sidhe should be clear. =)

Again, I agree. This is not only the advantage of the humans over the elves, but of the goblins vs. humans, dwarves, and elves. Orogs, however, don't seem to quite follow the same high-birthrate lines, or at least would tend to weed out the unfit so that their adult warriors are stronger, thus keeping their numbers reasonable. But they must still be more numerous than the dwarves, and quite capable of smart tactics, or the dwarves wouldn't be slowly losing the war.

Since elves and humans rarely mix, especially in adventure-scale parties, why do the Sidhe need to be anything like the PHB elves? Why do they need to have ECL's and fit the PC "game balance" mechanics? In my own BR campaigns, I never really allow PC's to run mixed human/elf parties because it simply doesn't agree with the setting except in rare cases, and then only short-term. Thus, the level-balance rules for keeping advancement, powers, etc. "fair" is rather irrelevant except for determining CR's. ECL's, on the other hand, are identical to XP penalties - your net character level is lower, and your always x number of levels behind the "lesser races." How does that make any real sense? If there were, for example, a +4 ECL Sidhe template, it would suggest that the average elf needs 10,000xp just to start advancing inh a character class. So what was the elf doing in all that time? Twiddling his/her thumbs? Net result= slower advancement. This is just a variation on the -20% XP theme.

If I were to have the Sidhe my way, their CR's would reflect the abilities and powers of immortals, not "demi-humans." Sidhelen are definitely not demi-humans, they are a magical race of immortal humanoid beings with an ancient history and culture that far precedes the humans and even the dwarves. Give them the powers and abilities that the setting suggests they have, and allow that individual elves ARE superior to humans, but their numbers simply can't replenish at the rate of the younger races. Individually superior doesn't have to mean invincible, and some would die as the result of conflicts, while the humans, goblins, etc. bounce back a generation later and do it all over again. I think the mice analogy mentioned earlier is a good one.

Osprey

RaspK_FOG

09-12-2003, 10:53 PM

Well, it seems you got the point, even if I did not express it as well as I would have liked and should have. Yet, you missed another point: I am entirely against the concept of levels limits (meaning that a demihuman had to stop completely at a given level) but preferred the concept of XP costs.

Again, in the end, an elf still can become a higher level [Whatever]: if he does not have to die at the age of 75 or more, he can become pretty much of a legendary wizard or ranger, right?

Then again, you pointed out that humans should get less levels. On the contrary, I believe that humans should always be the medium: thus, people can associate other races on a scale more similar to their own. Why, for example shouldn't we base that Small or Large creatures are the standard? I suppose a system where the base size was Fine and all figures were calculated on that basis would be interesting, but it would be more than merely confusing, don't you think?

Last, but not least, I never thought humans really were the dominant race.

All in all, it is a good point, making side-notes. In fact, the DMG in 2e pointed out that you could consider the ability to create a world where humans were not the dominant race.

Anyway, I wanted to make a proposition: Gary insisted that he would prefer it if we gave elves the ability to specialise in Nature magic... We made a simple mistake, but a silly one, nonetheless, of not thinking how to integrate both ideas, spell lists and the idea of specialisation...

Working on an Elementalist prestige class for my domains, I created 4 traditions for the 4 elements. The Elementalist takes an Elemental specialisation at 1st level, and gains the benefits of one extra spell per day of his chosen elemental tradition in exchange for dropping another tradition entirely, and then all fell in place:

We can make a Nature Mage (or whatever you would like to call it), who would gain the following class feature:

Nature Specialisation (Ex): Like a specialist wizard, nature mages specialise in a very particular aspect of magic; this difference, however, is not one imposed by preference as much as nature itself. Through their special connection with nature itself and their deep understanding of the latter, nature mages are allowed to add spells from their spellbooks and cast spells from the Nature Magic spell list which appears below.
Furthermore, Nature Mages gain a bonus spell slot per level of spell he can cast which is strictly reserved for the casting of spells from the Nature Magic spell list. On the other hand, they can no longer cast spells from the schools of Conjuration and Necromancy (my note: this is just a sketch, OK?).
The Nature Mage would also have this little cuties:

Requirements:
Feats: Scribe Scroll.
Race: Elf or half-elf.
Skills: Kn (Arcana) 4+ ranks, Kn (Nature) 4+ ranks, Spellcraft 4+ ranks.
Spells: Must be able to cast 1st-level arcane spells through preparation.

Of course, the Nature Magic spell list has appeared earlier on.
Furthermore, an additional racial trait for elves (apart from the Nature Magic Familiarity) that specifically notes that the use of Conjuration and Necromancy spells, as well as overt use of Evocation spells, is abhorible to elves and thus can lead to making such elves outcasts.

Mourn

09-12-2003, 11:46 PM

No Conjuration spells? Let's see the "nature" spells that would be lost...

Creeping doom. Cure (any) wounds. Delay poison. Elemental swarm. Fire seeds. Fog cloud. Insect plague. Neutralize poison. Obscuring mist. Regenerate. Remove disease. Shambler. Sleet storm. Storm of vengeance. Summon nature's ally. Summon swarm. Wall of stone. Wall of thorns.

No Necromancy spells? Most make sense... but what about blight, which deals only with plants (a nature spell)? And contagion, which deals with diseases (a very natural thing)? Poison, which uses natural venom?

irdeggman

09-13-2003, 02:33 AM

Elves are not in opposition to conjuration spells themselves, only the summoning ones, in addition to necromancy and evocation.

Why would an elf ever cast blight? That would be an aborhorent spell to them under any set of circumstances, IMO.

Osprey

09-13-2003, 03:26 AM

Elves are not in opposition to conjuration spells themselves, only the summoning ones, in addition to necromancy and evocation.

Just out of curiosity, what source do you draw that from? I don't remember reading anything so specific (but it has been a while since I've been over the old BR books). I guess I'm having a hard time understanding any logic as to why elves wouldn't want to summon creatures, especially quasi-real ones who don't actually die when they're destroyed. Why is this a problem?

Osprey

Mourn

09-13-2003, 03:33 AM

Originally posted by irdeggman@Sep 12 2003, 06:33 PM
Elves are not in opposition to conjuration spells themselves, only the summoning ones, in addition to necromancy and evocation.

Why would an elf ever cast blight? That would be an aborhorent spell to them under any set of circumstances, IMO.
I'm responding to what he said. He said Conjuration and Necromancy spells... so I listed the "nature" spells of those schools (usually based on whether the druid possesses them). Now, you say they have a problem with Evocation...

There goes call lightning, daylight, earthquake, faerie fire, fire storm, flame blade, flame strike, flaming sphere, flare, gust of wind, hallow, ice storm, produce flame, sunbeam, sunburst, unhallow, wall of fire, whirlwind, wind wall.

Only summoning spells? Why would an elf be opposed to summoning an elemental or some animals for assistance? I could see (calling) spells not being popular, as those summon extraplanar beings (mainly outsiders).

All I'm seeing discussed is arbitrary restrictions.

As for why an elf would cast blight... same reason a human would. Or a dwarf. For the same reason one person kills another. Or decides to rob a store.

Because not all people fit into your nice little stereotypes.

ConjurerDragon

09-13-2003, 06:03 PM

irdeggman schrieb:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=1651

> irdeggman wrote:

> Elves are not in opposition to conjuration spells themselves, only the summoning ones, in addition to necromancy and evocation.

> Why would an elf ever cast blight? That would be an aborhorent spell to them under any set of circumstances, IMO.

>

>

Not at all times. Certainly not in a forest, but casting a blight on a

part of the land where humans have cut down all trees, to plow and plant

crops would I see as acceptable target for a sidhelien casting blight.

Not directed against nature but against a nature enslaved by humanity.

bye

Michael

kgauck

09-13-2003, 06:27 PM

----- Original Message -----

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

Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 12:25 PM

> Not at all times. Certainly not in a forest, but casting a blight on a

> part of the land where humans have cut down all trees, to plow and plant

> crops would I see as acceptable target for a sidhelien casting blight.

> Not directed against nature but against a nature enslaved by humanity.

Its a form of the death plague concept. Sidhe would find an elf who cast

such a spell as acceptable as a humans who death plagued a rival human

realm. Nature enslaved by humans needs to be liberated not destroyed.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

RaspK_FOG

09-13-2003, 07:27 PM

Look, the Nature Magic spell list was made out by another member of the forum, and I don't think that if you do not look back througout the whole thread you can simply make a point, right?

If you have any objections, discuss on the spell list, but I wanted to put it down in one way or the other. As for stereotypes, I guess you forget that elves would be the first to cast out of their society anyone who does not fit their nice little stereotypes! They are not ours, so do not put the blame on us, OK?

Anyway, you seem to forget that elves hate to control the power of life and death in such an unnatural way as Necromantic spells. And swift blades (something no elf ever missed wielding against their enemies) will never fail you. As for all this spells you are discussing, it would be safer to think of all things; see the aforementioned spell list, then make any arguments you have against it. As for Conjuration (Healing) spells, they should not be available to wizards in my opinion, as they should not be to any wizard in my opinion, except for few cases, and even then remote.

Mourn

09-14-2003, 02:44 AM

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Sep 13 2003, 11:27 AM
If you have any objections, discuss on the spell list, but I wanted to put it down in one way or the other. As for stereotypes, I guess you forget that elves would be the first to cast out of their society anyone who does not fit their nice little stereotypes! They are not ours, so do not put the blame on us, OK?
There is a difference between a roleplaying guideline that talks about elven reluctance to use particular spells, and a mechanic that denies elves access to a good deal of spells, including those that are considered nature spells.

I'm not here to argue points about the world and its culture. I'm here to discuss game mechanics... and arbitrarily stripping a race of spells is wrong.

Elves in BR may hate another elf that casts a Necromancy spells... it still remains that elf's choice to cast the spell. What you are discussing is removing the choice from the elf, simply because the society frowns upon it.

kgauck

09-14-2003, 03:51 PM

----- Original Message -----

From: "Mourn" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 9:44 PM

> Elves in BR may hate another elf that casts a Necromancy spells

> ... it still remains that elf`s choice to cast the spell. What you are

> discussing is removing the choice from the elf, simply because the

> society frowns upon it.

Most of the abilities that the game measures are cultural. If elves don`t

practice a particular kind of magic, penalize those who do, where does the

prospective spell caster obtain copies of the spell, or find a teacher?

Removing a spell from a list just means the character has to research the

spell from scratch or find someone to teach them. Such spells are more like

spells invented by individual characters which can be shared but cannot be

selected from a common spell list of typical spells.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

irdeggman

09-14-2003, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by Osprey@Sep 12 2003, 10:26 PM

Elves are not in opposition to conjuration spells themselves, only the summoning ones, in addition to necromancy and evocation.

Just out of curiosity, what source do you draw that from? I don't remember reading anything so specific (but it has been a while since I've been over the old BR books). I guess I'm having a hard time understanding any logic as to why elves wouldn't want to summon creatures, especially quasi-real ones who don't actually die when they're destroyed. Why is this a problem?

Osprey
Book of Magecraft, pg 6

"Favored school(s): Enchantment/Charm

Unlikely school(s): Conjuration/summoning, invocation/evocation

Shunned school(s): necromancy"

From pg 5 of BoM

"'Unlikely' schools are those those not favored by the race, though a few of the more useful spells of these schools can be found in higher-level wizards' spellbooks. Beginning wizards seldom know many spells from their race's unlikely schools.

Wizards practicing the magic of 'shunned' schools are often themselves shunned by other spellcsters and ostracized by their people; many times they are looked upon as aberrations or evildoers."

From pg 6 of BoM

"Elves seldom cast spells of the conjuration/summoning school because such magic conflicts with their belief in the free will of all beings. They also tend to shun magic of theinvocation/evocation school, because it is an overt forcing of mebhaighl into the environment."

I hope that answers your question.

IMO, an elf wizard (not low level) would entirely be within reason to have magic missile in his spell book but not fireball or lightning bolt since the latter are more likely to cause damage to the environment (and both are referenced as having this potential later on pg 6 of BoM).

Osprey

09-14-2003, 07:44 PM

Ah, never had the opportunity to read the Book of Magic. I definitely like the way they describe the attitudes toward the various schools. Thanks, Duane, for elaborating on that - it's very helpful for putting things in perspective.

The question still remains about quasi-real summoned creatures, however. Especially considering Charm is a favored school, which is all about bending the will of sentient creatures to their own ends. Isn't this rather contradictory with the BoM's reasoning for disliking Conjuration and Summoning? And what about the quasi-real nature of summoned creatures, particularly in Cerilia where they are more Shadow-stuff than real.

Also, Conjuration includes a lot of non-summoning spells, although a number of them could be in there for the same reason as evocation (ex.: Melf's Acid Arrow or Flaming Sphere).

Personally, I think the limitation on Evocation and Necromancy is quite crippling all by itself, and is a fair trade for specialization in the Nature School, if you want to go the Specialization route.

Would it perhaps work to let the spell list for Nature Spells be an elven feat for arcane spellcasters? Since they are arcane spells, they would still have to be individually learned, and the feat wouldn't grant bonus spells or anything. Hence, for the cost of a feat, elves get slightly more versatility in their range of possible spells to memorize or learn. I don't think this would be unbalancing for the setting.

Osprey

RaspK_FOG

09-14-2003, 10:38 PM

In the end, it all goes down the same way as elven clerics, Mourn: you can always allow such things, but that does not mean they will be common. Giving access to these same spells readilly means it will be a common occurence; otherwise, why should elves or dwarves actually get weapon proficiencies, if it just is a predisposition towards a certain element? For one thing, the DM I think of as the best I have ever met is the only person who actually presented as with an elven wizard that - yes - wielded a longsword! He is supposed to be able to do it, but most people don't!

It is like that, when you make suggestions or mechanics: there will always be one DM or another who will defy them. That's why rules and mechanics should (if possible) be ultima, so that none can easilly say: "Let's get over the rules, OK? Wizards should not wield swords!", or some people I know who believe it is unreasonable of a wizard not to wield a blade!

Osprey, I am afraid you missed the point: many people (not sure if that includes myself, but who am I to say they are wrong?) believe that this should not be a feat, as one would not present as with ability but potential instead. I thought it best if it was made into a prestige class that any 1st level elven Wizard would be able to attain, but the new 3.5 rules are a bit more strict (not absolute, but strict, nonetheless) about minimum character levels for prestige classes.

Osprey

09-15-2003, 07:15 AM

Osprey, I am afraid you missed the point: many people (not sure if that includes myself, but who am I to say they are wrong?) believe that this should not be a feat, as one would not present as with ability but potential instead.

Eh - I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Could you elaborate on the ability/potential phrase?

I know it was discussed a while back about it being a feat, but the the idea of the expanded spell list has come along quite a ways since then, so I don't think it's totally off to reintroduce the idea. I thought it might be a good solution to allowing the additional nature spells without actually banning any schools of magic - with the possible exception of Necromancy, because it seems so diametrically opposed. I could imagine someone like Rhuobhe delving into Necromancy and losing his access to nature magic.

I still think the feat idea is a neat and simple solution to the issue - and unlike a prestige class, does give you access to the list at 1st or low levels (depending on the prerequisites, if any besides arcane spellcasting). It also fits in with the trend that formed in the BRCS concerning racial feats and exclusive optional abilities that they allowed based solely on racial/cultural background.

-Osprey

irdeggman

09-15-2003, 09:46 AM

If you use the racial familiarity tact then there are "no" automatic banning of schools. It doesn't require the expenditure of a feat, doesn't grant elves any specific, "automatic" bonuses hence avoiding a level adjustment. By adding the spells to their arcane spell lists they still have to learn them and must give up learning something else (in the case of bards and sorcerers) in order to learn any of them.

Making it a racial familiarity also keeps other races' arcane casters from having access to them with or without using a feat.

No, I think that that the racial familiarity method solves far more problems than it would create, follows a similar mechanic recently introduced in the PHB, prevents the issue of specialization (since they are not a school) and all that would entail and by making it a variant allows DMs to choose whether or not they want to apply it to their campaigns.

This method simply is, IMO, superior to using a feat or prestige class in order to incorporate this elven concept.

Remember that feats are worth their weight in GBs and if it is a metamagic feat then elven wizards are forced to give up something else that they would normally use their bonus feats for. Note that in 3.5 by adding forge ring as a separate item creation feat withut adding an additional bonus one, wizards cannot create all of the items they used to be able to. So if more things are added into the mix that wizards (elven or otherwise) we would sjust be making it harder for players to play that class.

Osprey

09-15-2003, 02:09 PM

Note that in 3.5 by adding forge ring as a separate item creation feat withut adding an additional bonus one, wizards cannot create all of the items they used to be able to. So if more things are added into the mix that wizards (elven or otherwise) we would sjust be making it harder for players to play that class.

Um, Forge Ring was a seperate feat in 3.0, too (12th level caster minimum).

The only hangup I have with the racial familiarity tact is that elves get "something for nothing." Having an expanded spell list (in terms of spells they are able to learn) is definitely an advantage, especially for wizards (the elven favored class), and should be treated as such. I just think that the expenditure of a feat for this advantage isn't too high of a price to pay for the versatility gained, especially since the list is fairly inclusive.

Osprey

ConjurerDragon

09-15-2003, 02:50 PM

irdeggman schrieb:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=1651

>

>...

>

>Note that in 3.5 by adding forge ring as a separate item creation feat withut adding an additional bonus one, wizards cannot create all of the items they used to be able to. So if more things are added into the mix that wizards (elven or otherwise) we would sjust be making it harder for players to play that class.

>

Forge Ring is already in my 3.0 PHB p. 83, why do you think it has been

added in 3.5?

bye

Michael

irdeggman

09-15-2003, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Osprey@Sep 15 2003, 09:09 AM

Note that in 3.5 by adding forge ring as a separate item creation feat withut adding an additional bonus one, wizards cannot create all of the items they used to be able to. So if more things are added into the mix that wizards (elven or otherwise) we would sjust be making it harder for players to play that class.

Um, Forge Ring was a seperate feat in 3.0, too (12th level caster minimum).

The only hangup I have with the racial familiarity tact is that elves get "something for nothing." Having an expanded spell list (in terms of spells they are able to learn) is definitely an advantage, especially for wizards (the elven favored class), and should be treated as such. I just think that the expenditure of a feat for this advantage isn't too high of a price to pay for the versatility gained, especially since the list is fairly inclusive.

Osprey
My bad on the forge ring feat, it was in 3.0 as well. Essentially no changes to the item creation feats have been made, only to how they are made.

Why does the increase in access to spells justify the expenditure of a feat? The trade off is not clear to me. Clearly this feat would not be near as balanced in power as is the other feats now, since it only allows access to the list but doesn't grant them any extra spells per day (something that per Savage Species doesn’t qualify for a level adjustment). Requiring scribe scroll as a prerequisite feat pretty much hampers any bard or sorcerer from gaining any of these spells. Most people tend to believe that the sorcerer class most closely represents elven arcane casting. If this prerequisite is invoked then an elven sorcerer would have to use his only starting feat to acquire it. If not then he wouldn’t gain these low level spells until after 3rd level, the next available feat. An elven bard would then have to wait until 5th level (and every 3rd level after) and a elven sorcerer would have to wait until 4th (and every even level after) to swap out an existing spell for one of the nature oriented ones.

The elven racial spell list is pretty low level stacked:

0- 1 extra, 1st – 11 extra, 2nd level – 8 extra, 3rd level – 9 extra, 4th level – 5 extra, 6th level – 6 extra, 7th level – 4 extra, 8th level – 3 extra, 9th level – 1 extra

Osprey

09-15-2003, 11:59 PM

Requiring scribe scroll as a prerequisite feat pretty much hampers any bard or sorcerer from gaining any of these spells. Most people tend to believe that the sorcerer class most closely represents elven arcane casting. If this prerequisite is invoked then an elven sorcerer would have to use his only starting feat to acquire it.

Eh? Why would Scribe Scroll be a prerequisite? I agree, this is definitely a wizard-centric requirement, which is silly. I, too, think that sorcerers make a whole lot of sense for elves, given their intuitive grasp of magic. I don't feel strongly that bards need access to nature magic, but I can see where it could fit.

I would prefer to expand the Nature Spell List a bit if I were to call it a feat - your point is well-taken, and I remeber thinking that it did get awfully small at the upper levels. I wouldn't mind seeing it get beefed up a bit. I'll think about some possibilities for that.
-Osprey

geeman

09-16-2003, 12:54 AM

At 11:46 AM 9/15/2003 +0200, irdeggman wrote:

> No, I think that that the racial familiarity method solves far more

> problems than it would create, follows a similar mechanic recently

> introduced in the PHB, prevents the issue of specialization (since they

> are not a school) and all that would entail and by making it a variant

> allows DMs to choose whether or not they want to apply it to their campaigns.

Making it a school makes it a variant too, doesn`t it? What about the

racial method makes that any more of an option than the school of magic

method? Aside from any supposed ease of DMing are there any particular

merits to racial familiarity over the school of magic method?

Gary

irdeggman

09-16-2003, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by geeman@Sep 15 2003, 07:54 PM
Making it a school makes it a variant too, doesn`t it? What about the

racial method makes that any more of an option than the school of magic

method? Aside from any supposed ease of DMing are there any particular

merits to racial familiarity over the school of magic method?

Gary

Gary,

Racial familiarity has a basis in the core rules, functioning similarly to the racial weapon familiarity that dwarves and gnomes now get. They don't gain any "free" proficiency but if they have martial weapon proficiency then they don't have to expend a special feat to gain the exotic weapon proficiency to use racialweapons without penalty.

A school has access to all races and technically can't be excluded from any of them. A spell is in one and only one school. This is due to the 3.5 (same as 3.0 only the wording is generally better in 3.5 books) definition of what a school is.

3.5 PHB pg 169 "Cutting across the categories of arcane and divine spells are the eight schools of magic. These schools represent the different ways that spells take effect."

3.5 PHB pg 172 "Almost every spell belongs to one of the eight schools of magic. A school of magic is a group of related spells that work in similiar ways. A small number of spells (arcane mark, limited wish, permancy, prestidigitation, and wish) are universl, belonging to no school."

Belonging to a school doesn't make a spell arcane nor does it make it divine, that depends on the caster type. So simply trying to make a "new school" doesn't resolve whether or not the spells are arcane or divine. Spellcasters cast spells that are on their spell list not from a school per se. In order to have elves be able to cast spells that have been added to the "nature school" as you want to call it still requires that they be added to the applicable class spell lists. Since the racial familiarity is only about doing this with no extra entailments it is already a similiar game mechanic that doesn't introduce the other potential problems that having a school does.

How would these spells be added for access by elves with spell casting prestige classes? The racial familiarity method automatically accomplishes this.

Simply put, schools (and spheres) don't work the way they did in 2nd ed. In 2nd ed schools were for wizards and spheres were for priests, the lines have now been blurred by design. We've got to distance ourselves from thinking in those terms.

Bottom line, IMO, the racial familiarity accomplishes the intent with the least amount of problems, potential or otherwise, and requires the least amount of work to implement if desired.

RaspK_FOG

09-16-2003, 06:30 PM

Oops! I admit that the Scribe Scroll requirement was a little off there... Sorry for that.

Thinking it a bit over, I realised there is an inherent flaw in my design of the class: class features. Unless you specifically made it so, wizards would have a severe handicap, while sorcerers would also have the problem of very low-powered familiars. To overcome this, I suggest the following class featur:

Familiar: If the character has a familiar, its abilities increase every time the character gains a level in the prestige class as if the character gained a level in the class that allowed him to acquire a familiar.

Again, it seems that an adaptation for nature spells for bards must be done separately.

Furthermore, I believe that a racial feat is not as good a choice for some cases (a.k.a. specialisation), as the class gives the ability to "specialise" in a "tradition", as if the elf specialised in a school. I did not mean to say that the class was an alternative to the list; I meant it as a way to "specialise" in that "tradition".

The meaning of potential vs. ability, Osprey, was that a feat means that one can opt to take the feat or not, but a racial familiarity is not something you choose whether you have or not: if you are an elf, you simply have the ability to cast any of these spells.

irdeggman

09-16-2003, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Sep 16 2003, 01:30 PM

The meaning of potential vs. ability, Osprey, was that a feat means that one can opt to take the feat or not, but a racial familiarity is not something you choose whether you have or not: if you are an elf, you simply have the ability to cast any of these spells.
But like the long sword example this doesn't mean that the elf can cast the spell only that he has the potential to. That is he must first have an arcane spell casting class and then he must "learn" the desired spell, since none of the arcane casting classes automatically "know" all of the spells on their list - except for wizards and 0-level spells (but only 1 is being added anyway). So it is a player's choice option, which is consistent with most things in 3.0/3.5.

Since this doesn't require a separate write up for each arcane casting class - you've already mentioned "modifying" the sorcerer class and acknowledged that the bard class must also have something done to it, it is inherently "easier" and introduces less chance for problems and yet accomplishes the same basic concept.

Also, as previously cited, the 3.5 DMG basically "requires" the prerequisites for a prestige class to be set such that a character must be at least 5th level in order to qualify.

geeman

09-16-2003, 10:04 PM

At 11:41 AM 9/16/2003 +0200, irdeggman wrote:

>
Making it a school makes it a

> variant too, doesn`t it? What about the<>

> racial method makes that any more of an option than the school of magic<>

> method? Aside from any supposed ease of DMing are there any particular<>

> merits to racial familiarity over the school of magic method?<>

>

>

> Racial familiarity has a basis in the core rules, functioning similarly

> to the racial weapon familiarity that dwarves and gnomes now get. They

> don`t gain any "free" proficiency but if they have martial

> weapon proficiency then they don`t have to expend a special feat to gain

> the exotic weapon proficiency to use racialweapons without penalty.

>

> A school has access to all races and technically can`t be excluded from

> any of them. A spell is in one and only one school. This is due to the

> 3.5 (same as 3.0 only the wording is generally better in 3.5 books)

> definition of what a school is.

>

> 3.5 PHB pg 169 "Cutting across the categories of arcane and divine

> spells are the eight schools of magic. These schools represent the

> different ways that spells take effect."

>

> 3.5 PHB pg 172 "Almost every spell belongs to one of the eight

> schools of magic. A school of magic is a group of related spells that

> work in similiar ways. A small number of spells (arcane mark, limited

> wish, permancy, prestidigitation, and wish) are universl, belonging to no

> school."

This is somewhat different from the original suggestion, which was that

using an expanded spell list as a racial trait (variant) rather than a

school of magic (variant) would be easier for DMs to `port in or `port out

of their homebrews. To address that particular point, I think a nature

school of magic variant would actually be easier since all of that text

could be put into a box in the setting material, and could be ignored or

incorporated at the DM`s inclination. The racial trait variant would go

right into the racial descriptive text--assuming that the BRCS is going to

abide by 3.5`s formatting standards, which appears to be one of the goals

of the design team--and would, therefore, take a little more work for a DM

to excise should he not want to incorporate that aspect of the setting

material. If the ease of use by the DM is the issue, a school of magic

variant is better because it both uses more readily accessible game

mechanics and can be formatted in a more modular way.

As regards the points raised above about 3e/3.5 methods, I`m one of the

folks who think the BRCS should really not be so devoted to replicating

every nuance of 3e`s rules, particularly when doing so runs counter to the

fundament(s) of the setting material. That tug o` war, however, is

something that probably won`t get resolved here :) so I`ll leave it alone

after noting that I see almost all of those things as merits rather than

demerits regarding what could go into the setting text. I don`t think it

would be a problem to simply note in a school of magic that it was

available only to elves. As a school of magic it could be used to reflect

the more nature oriented aspect of races other than the elves (the Rjurik

being the most obvious) should a DM choose to allow them access, along with

the requisite specialization. The one spell/one school issue isn`t nearly

as dire an issue, nor do I think it was intended to have the repercussions

that have been extrapolated from it, that have been used in this

thread. Last, I still think the capacity to specialize in nature oriented

spells should be something available to elves (or even Rjurik wizards and

sorcerers) just like the extant schools of magic in order to convey the

relationship of that race to that sort of magic.

I would like a little more explanation upon one point that`s raised above

if it`s not too much trouble. That is, that the schools of magic

"represent the different ways that spells take effect." That`s been

suggested before, and I`ve gone through the PHB`s spells in order to find

evidence of it, but with no success. Are you talking about actual game

mechanical effects like duration, casting time, etc.? Is it just the

categorization of effects that`s being described?

Gary

geeman

09-16-2003, 10:22 PM

One more point about using a school of magic to expand the arcane spell

lists of elves: There is more than one aspect of Cerilian elven magic that

differs from that of standard, arcane spellcasters, so there should be more

than one additional school. In the BoM we have the BR-based colour text

that provides the justification for a Nature school of magic, but in other

sources (the Tuarhieval SB) we have at least as much material that points

to giving elves access to elemental based spell lists. Now, one could

simply add elemental spells from the divine list to that of the racial

spells of elves if one wanted, but if one really wants to reflect the

racial magics of elves by doing both nature and elemental magics then the

size of that list is going to start getting pretty big. Rather than have

one racial spell list I think it would be more functional to have a nature

school and an elemental school for BR elves.

There are additional schools that could be incorporated into BR in order to

reflect setting material. In order to reflect BR themes, it would also be

prudent to include a "song" school that would define the relationship

between the sidhe and human bards. A "war" school for the (rare) Vos

wizard would better reflect the differences between the human magics, and

describe such a character`s emphasis better than any of the existing schools.

Gary

ConjurerDragon

09-16-2003, 10:42 PM

Gary schrieb:

> One more point about using a school of magic to expand the arcane spell

> lists of elves: There is more than one aspect of Cerilian elven magic

> that

> differs from that of standard, arcane spellcasters, so there should be

> more

> than one additional school. In the BoM we have the BR-based colour text

> that provides the justification for a Nature school of magic, but in

> other

> sources (the Tuarhieval SB) we have at least as much material that points

> to giving elves access to elemental based spell lists. Now, one could

> simply add elemental spells from the divine list to that of the racial

> spells of elves if one wanted, but if one really wants to reflect the

> racial magics of elves by doing both nature and elemental magics then the

> size of that list is going to start getting pretty big. Rather than have

> one racial spell list I think it would be more functional to have a

> nature

> school and an elemental school for BR elves.

> There are additional schools that could be incorporated into BR in

> order to

> reflect setting material. In order to reflect BR themes, it would

> also be

> prudent to include a "song" school that would define the relationship

> between the sidhe and human bards. A "war" school for the (rare) Vos

> wizard would better reflect the differences between the human magics, and

> describe such a character`s emphasis better than any of the existing

> schools.

> Gary

Perhaps that is too simple and completely outlandish, but could not

the sidhelien get access to the plain PHB "plant" domain and your

example of the Vos Wizard to the "War" Domain at the expense of another

school?

bye

Michael

RaspK_FOG

09-16-2003, 10:52 PM

Anyway, I still believe, Garry, that choosing the wordin and mechanics of "tradition" is not so taxing on you to incorporate. All in all, a new school would in the end do nothing but hinder the individual DM. If we could work the concept of creating a prestige class, though, that would specialise in the casting of nature magic, by mechanically forgoing and shunning the school of Necromancy, or, if some of us have the time to make an additional spell list, the tradition that opposes nature. If any of you can create such a list, including evocation or conjuration spells that disrupt the mebhaigal and necromancy spells, it would be better than being generic...

The concept of using a prestige class that would require you to be an elf with ranks in the Knowledge (Arcana) and Knowledge (Nature) skills was to enable an elf to actually specialise in such a class, getting an extra spell slot per spell level that would be reserved for the casting of nature spells; that's why I had placed the Scribe Scroll requirement, now that I remember it (since wizards, the only casters that normally specialise, get scribe scroll at 1st level). Now that I think of it, I believe that a "Spell Mastery (any spell from the Nature Tradition)" requirement would have been even better!

As for bards, perhaps you are right. In the end, it could be best to do it as you say.

RaspK_FOG

09-17-2003, 12:00 AM

Originally posted by irdeggman+Sep 16 2003, 08:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (irdeggman @ Sep 16 2003, 08:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--RaspK_FOG@Sep 16 2003, 01:30 PM

The meaning of potential vs. ability, Osprey, was that a feat means that one can opt to take the feat or not, but a racial familiarity is not something you choose whether you have or not: if you are an elf, you simply have the ability to cast any of these spells.
But like the long sword example this doesn't mean that the elf can cast the spell only that he has the potential to. That is he must first have an arcane spell casting class and then he must "learn" the desired spell, since none of the arcane casting classes automatically "know" all of the spells on their list - except for wizards and 0-level spells (but only 1 is being added anyway). So it is a player's choice option, which is consistent with most things in 3.0/3.5.

Since this doesn't require a separate write up for each arcane casting class - you've already mentioned "modifying" the sorcerer class and acknowledged that the bard class must also have something done to it, it is inherently "easier" and introduces less chance for problems and yet accomplishes the same basic concept.

Also, as previously cited, the 3.5 DMG basically "requires" the prerequisites for a prestige class to be set such that a character must be at least 5th level in order to qualify. [/b][/quote]
Irgeddman, it seems you missed the point here: making it a feat is no more than making the option of having the ability possible, while a racial trait is the ability itself.

If we speak of potential, making this a feat is like having the potential of having the potential, instead of simply having the potential. :wacko:

geeman

09-17-2003, 12:00 AM

At 12:30 AM 9/17/2003 +0200, Michael Romes wrote:

>Perhaps that is too simple and completely outlandish, but could not

>the sidhelien get access to the plain PHB "plant" domain and your

>example of the Vos Wizard to the "War" Domain at the expense of another

>school?

Sure, one could just give them that kind of access. I personally think

those spell lists are rather light (nine total spells) in relation to the

arcane spellcaster`s access to magic, and that the ability to specialize in

those spells a la the school of magic with all the abilities thus gained is

warranted for either case.

I am curious about the racial spell list option: What D20/3e/3.5 texts use

this option? I know there are racial weapons, but the idea of a racial

spell list seems like quite a leap from that, so what was the inspiration

for the idea?

Gary

geeman

09-17-2003, 12:06 AM

At 12:52 AM 9/17/2003 +0200, RaspK_FOG wrote:

>All in all, a new school would in the end do nothing but hinder the

>individual DM. If we could work the concept of creating a prestige class,

>though, that would specialise in the casting of nature magic, by

>mechanically forgoing and shunning the school of Necromancy, or, if some

>of us have the time to make an additional spell list, the tradition that

>opposes nature. If any of you can create such a list, including evocation

>or conjuration spells that disrupt the mebhaigal and necromancy spells, it

>would be better than being generic...

You mean a list of spells that a nature school would oppose

automatically? Other than necromantic or the ones already listed as being

opposed to BR elves?

> The concept of using a prestige class that would require you to be an

> elf with ranks in the Knowledge (Arcana) and Knowledge (Nature) skills

> was to enable an elf to actually specialise in such a class, getting an

> extra spell slot per spell level that would be reserved for the casting

> of nature spells; that`s why I had placed the Scribe Scroll requirement,

> now that I remember it (since wizards, the only casters that normally

> specialise, get scribe scroll at 1st level). Now that I think of it, I

> believe that a "Spell Mastery (any spell from the Nature

> Tradition)" requirement would have been even better!

I like prestige classes, but I prefer to have a more limited use of them in

campaign material than most folks. A general prestige class focus that

follows a base character class emphasis. Going from fighter to knight,

rogue to highwayman, cleric to patriarch with each of the prestige classes

having generally better (or at least more specialized) class abilities with

appropriate prereqs.

In this case, however, I really think access to nature spells should be

available from the get go rather than using the prestige class function. A

nature spell list should have 1st and 2nd levels spells which makes for a

somewhat odd transition using the prestige class mechanic since that is

technically only available at 5th or higher level. An elf spellcaster to

takes a level in that class will suddenly gain access to low level spells

that were previously barred to him; a sort of retroactive spell list, which

seems a bit inelegant to me.

Gary

Justinius_ExMortis

09-17-2003, 02:27 AM

This is my first post and perhaps a bit dodgy as a result, but please bear with.

This may be a return to earlier arguments but I would like to say that the simplest method, in my mind at least, is simply allow Elves of Cerilia access to the Druid class mechanics but alter the setting material of Druids to reflect the Elven access. This roughtly translates into allowing an Elven PC/NPC access to the Druid class but simply refering to the class itself as something else and redefining the story material surrounding said "Elven Druid class" to reflect Cerilia and it's various setting specific restrictions.

Following in this line of reasoning there really isn't a reason why Priests of Erik couldn't simply be the Cleric class with an emphasis on shape alteration and nature aligned magic. Even simply allowing them access to the Alter Self, Polymorph self, etc. line of spells would be a simple and economical change for most GM's to make. Perhaps even gifting Priest of Erik with the ability to Polymorph self into an animal of somekind a certain number of times a day would be acceptable. Another option would be to simply allow free multiclassing for Priests of Erik between the Cleric and Druid classes and otherwise reserve Druid for Elves and Priest of Erik only.

As with many discussions and debates there are many paths to what could be considered a fair and acceptable resolution. My honest opinion of creating a whole new school of "nature" based magics for Cerilian Wizards to represent something already adequately handled by both Cleric and Druid classes is rather silly and time consuming for something that could easily be solved through several alternative and simpler ways.

The classes of D&D and AD&D have come a long way to D20 and no longer truly reflect their more restrictive uses by the original creators. When it was stated that Elves couldn't be Clerics or Druids, because Druids in Cerilia are Priests Eriks and Elves can't be priests, it easily fit in the then rules mechanics and class dilenations. In that time the Druid class was very much an alternative Cleric having posessed a very heriarchal system and worshipping as if it were some self-aware diety. In D20 Druid has moved more towards a very free-form, pagan basis system with little to no centralization. A more approriate magical practice for feyish primordial creatures? Clerics being unattainable and Wizardry very much a Master/Apprentice scholarly education. This is even more obvious when one considers the very Hermetic style of D&D Wizards and even sorcerers. Very much the image of pointy hats, dusty tomes, and rune engraved staves. The closest I could see a Cerilian elf coming to arcane magics would be the sorcerer class and no further.

Well, really just wanted to put in my two cents and cut my teeth on an involved subject for my first post. 'Til next time, stay frosty kids.

Justinius_ExMortis
Entropy is my Master

Osprey

09-17-2003, 02:28 AM

In this case, however, I really think access to nature spells should be
available from the get go rather than using the prestige class function. A
nature spell list should have 1st and 2nd levels spells which makes for a
somewhat odd transition using the prestige class mechanic since that is
technically only available at 5th or higher level. An elf spellcaster to
takes a level in that class will suddenly gain access to low level spells
that were previously barred to him; a sort of retroactive spell list, which
seems a bit inelegant to me.

Gary

I agree with Gary on this one. I too think it should be possible to cast these spells right at 1st level. And as irdeggman pointed out, it creates real problems for sorcerers and bards.

I still think that potential is woth something, however. Having more options IS a valuable asset, even if you can't choose more per day.

But if the spell list is fairly limited, then barring Necromancy is a pretty reasonable tradeoff, as it is also a rather small school for arcane casters.

Osprey

Justinius_ExMortis

09-17-2003, 02:30 AM

D'oh!

Allow me to add something to my previous post, Bard class is also an excellent example of an Arcane spell using class undertaken by the kind of creatures that Cerilian Elves are written to be. My apologies for any annoyances on that part.

Justinius_ExMortis
Entropy is my Master

irdeggman

09-17-2003, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by geeman@Sep 16 2003, 07:00 PM
I am curious about the racial spell list option: What D20/3e/3.5 texts use

this option? I know there are racial weapons, but the idea of a racial

spell list seems like quite a leap from that, so what was the inspiration

for the idea?

As I said from the git go it was based on the racial weapon familiarity. I haven't seen anything really similar in any of the books. The pattern of a race have a strong tendency towards certain things, e.g., racial weapon familiarity, seemed to parallel the reasoning for allowing elves access to these spells. Like the weapon familiarity, the spell familiarity doesn't automatically grant the elves something for nothing - a dwarven wizard is still not proficient with a dwarven war axe for example, likewise an elven fighter wouldn't automatically be able to cast these spells (that would definitely cross the lines into the level adjustment range).

irdeggman

09-17-2003, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by geeman@Sep 16 2003, 05:04 PM

This is somewhat different from the original suggestion, which was that

using an expanded spell list as a racial trait (variant) rather than a

school of magic (variant) would be easier for DMs to `port in or `port out

of their homebrews. To address that particular point, I think a nature

school of magic variant would actually be easier since all of that text

could be put into a box in the setting material, and could be ignored or

incorporated at the DM`s inclination. The racial trait variant would go

right into the racial descriptive text--assuming that the BRCS is going to

abide by 3.5`s formatting standards, which appears to be one of the goals

of the design team--and would, therefore, take a little more work for a DM

to excise should he not want to incorporate that aspect of the setting

material. If the ease of use by the DM is the issue, a school of magic

variant is better because it both uses more readily accessible game

mechanics and can be formatted in a more modular way.

Gary

Gary, you make it sound like making easier to port in or out was the driving reason for the elven racial familiarity method. This was never the case. Many times I have said it solves more problems than it causes and that is still very much a true statement.

Several other points I have brought up against the school method you have chosen not to address and they should be before making the statement that it is easy and best.

In oder to cast a spell the spell must be on the class spell list. This is a core concept and not subject to "word smithing" being attempting to describe schools. So every elven arcane caster must have his spell list modified to address this in one way or another. So an additional step is required.

Making it a school will allow specialization - which seems to be one of the intents. A draw back to this is that it will require taking 2 opposition schools of magic, note that summoning is not a school but conjuration is and it includes summoning. If a spell exists in more than one school and one is in the school of specialization and also appears on an oppostion school - how will this be handled mechanically? This is something that the core rules doesn't require to be addresssed since a spell appears in only one school there.

Also there are several factors that affect saves and effects based on the school that the spell is being cast from. How will these be addressed if the spell is in more than one school? There are not supposed to be 2 different version of the same spell. There are however divine and arcane versions of them, but the spell still is treated as coming from the same school.

In order to make the nature school as you have suggested requires first a change to the core mechanics and then an implementation of the option. It does not "allow" for a simple "layering on" of the option and is hence inherently more complex than the racial familiarity.

Osprey

09-17-2003, 04:22 PM

OK, I've been reading both sides of this (school versus racial familiarity) for a while. I think irdeggman has made a good point (and he did make it before, many pages back in this thread, but this time I think it was well articulated).

If you're going to use the 3.x D&D system, then you have to respect the basic mechanical structure (even if you don't like it). I think he's right - calling it a school really does open up a can of contradiction worms.

SO....here are two different proposals, neither of which probably perfectly suits your wish lists (oh ye proponents), but both of which make some sense within the rules system we're working with, and remain somewhat balanced in power:

1) Racial Familiarity: Elven arcane spellcasters may choose to gain access to the Nature Tradition of spells, but in exchange must forswear their access to the school of Necromancy. So long as they do not learn any Necromantic magic, they may learn and memorize spells from the Nature Tradition as part of their normal spell lists. Should the elf ever decide to learn Necromancy, he will lose access to this tradition's spell list.

2) Nature Magic Affinity Feat: Elven arcane spellcasters may purchase this racial feat at any level. When this feat is taken, the spellcaster gains one bonus spell per day of each level that he/she is able to cast, at the cost of being restricted from the use of Necromancy. The bonus spells must be chosen from the Nature Tradition spell list.

Obviously, there are pros and cons to each of these. The feat now grants a real advantage, not just a potential one, at a cost that is smaller than a normal School Specialization (just 1 small school is banned), and it opens up the tradition to sorcerers and bards. I personally like the feat option best.

The racial familiarity model doesn't allow specialization and bonus spells. But trading off Necromancy for Nature Magic is a pretty even trade, IMO, so the ability gets balanced out.

I focus on Necromancy because in 3e it does seem to be diametrically opposed to nature magic, especially in BR. I see the Shadow World's growing [necromantic] corruption as one of the major threats facing the elves and the natural, living world. I can also imagine certain elves (the Manslyer comes to mind) forswearing their nature magic aptitude for the powers that necromancy offers. Even some well-intentioned mages embracing necromancy for the sake of fighting the Shadow World (and perhaps slowly being corrupted by this choice).

Osprey

RaspK_FOG

09-17-2003, 09:52 PM

Following in this line of reasoning there really isn't a reason why Priests of Erik couldn't simply be the Cleric class with an emphasis on shape alteration and nature aligned magic. Even simply allowing them access to the Alter Self, Polymorph self, etc. line of spells would be a simple and economical change for most GM's to make. Perhaps even gifting Priest of Erik with the ability to Polymorph self into an animal of somekind a certain number of times a day would be acceptable. Another option would be to simply allow free multiclassing for Priests of Erik between the Cleric and Druid classes and otherwise reserve Druid for Elves and Priest of Erik only.

Justinius_ExMortis, I am afraid one would face a lot more frustration by utilising any of these techniques/mechanics. I don't mean to consult you, it's just that it really entails much more problems than other things would. Look what happened when they allowed rangers to be of any alignment in 3e: many characters, even evil ones, suddenly got 1 level (I mean it when I say only 1 level!) of the ranger class, just to get the benefits of Ambidexterity and Two-Weapon Fighting... Now, with the two feats incorporated into one and the Fighting Style of the Ranger appearing at 2nd level, some things will change once more...

The classes of D&D and AD&D have come a long way to D20 and no longer truly reflect their more restrictive uses by the original creators. When it was stated that Elves couldn't be Clerics or Druids, because Druids in Cerilia are Priests Eriks and Elves can't be priests, it easily fit in the then rules mechanics and class dilenations. In that time the Druid class was very much an alternative Cleric having posessed a very heriarchal system and worshipping as if it were some self-aware diety. In D20 Druid has moved more towards a very free-form, pagan basis system with little to no centralization. A more approriate magical practice for feyish primordial creatures? Clerics being unattainable and Wizardry very much a Master/Apprentice scholarly education. This is even more obvious when one considers the very Hermetic style of D&D Wizards and even sorcerers. Very much the image of pointy hats, dusty tomes, and rune engraved staves. The closest I could see a Cerilian elf coming to arcane magics would be the sorcerer class and no further.

Even though the wild, chaotic side of the Sidhe would mean that they tend to make good Sorcerers (especially with their bonus to Charisma), but their "immortality" allows them to study for ages, thus they can make good Wizards as well. The matter concerning Druids, however, is a bit confusing, as most people seem to have disassociated the Druidic class from its priestly role, something which was largely reinstated by 3.5e with their enhanced ability to cast spells, now that they can simultaneously cast a summon nature's ally spell in place of a prepared spell.

Druids revere nature. If you are going to say anything about it, allow me to tell you that this is the D&D point of view. Druids in real life revered the Horned God, a masculine image of nature, similar to the Consort of the Goddess Witches and Warlocks believed in. Either way, Druids form a tightly connected, yet loosely placed, clergy.

kgauck

09-17-2003, 11:17 PM

> The classes of D&D and AD&D have come a long way to D20

> and no longer truly reflect their more restrictive uses by the

> original creators.

Not so much. Remeber clerics that worshiped forces in 2e? BR as a setting

made the druid a priesthood of a specific diety, when the broader D&D system

embraced a much wider concept of priesthood. 3e seems to me more

restrictive for clerics than 2e. But either way, the setting was more

restrictive than either 2e or 3e.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

Osprey

09-18-2003, 03:52 AM

Druids revere nature. If you are going to say anything about it, allow me to tell you that this is the D&D point of view. Druids in real life revered the Horned God, a masculine image of nature, similar to the Consort of the Goddess Witches and Warlocks believed in. Either way, Druids form a tightly connected, yet loosely placed, clergy.

Actually, our knowledge of "real" druids is disctinctly sketchy, as they were mostly killed off by the Romans and faded away long before the facts were written down. And the ones who started doing the writing were Christian monks, who had a distinctly biased view.

It is pretty definite that they did serve as a kind of priesthood for the Celts, but to whom seems to have varied widly deppending upon where they were located. Most Celtic tribes had a patron god (sound familiar?), and there seems to have been a general reverence for the Goddess (or Earth Mother, Dana, etc.) common to the Celts in some form or another. Ceirinos (one name for the Horned God you refer to, but don't quote me on the spelling) is also a recurring theme in Celtic archeological finds, but I think it's going a bit far to say "all druids worshipped the Horned God." It's also stretching to claim that the historical druids were a tightly-knit bunch. To quote my favorite professor of Celtic Studies (U. of Aberdeen, Scotland), "We just don't know."

Now if you're referring to the modern group of practicing druids who claim to have preserved and revived the ancient practices of the original Druids, please say so. But I have a hard time giving them too much credibility, considering that they appeared in the 60's when it was suddenly cool to practice pagan religions.

Osprey

geeman

09-18-2003, 07:53 AM

At 12:13 PM 9/17/2003 +0200, irdeggman wrote:

>
I am curious about the racial spell

>list option: What D20/3e/3.5 texts use this option? I know there are

>racial weapons, but the idea of a racial<>

> spell list seems like quite a leap from that, so what was the

> inspiration for the idea?<>

>

>

> As I said from the git go it was based on the racial weapon

> familiarity. I haven`t seen anything really similar in any of the

> books. The pattern of a race have a strong tendency towards certain

> things, e.g., racial weapon familiarity, seemed to parallel the reasoning

> for allowing elves access to these spells.

Earlier in the thread I was asked for D20 references to justify the use of

a Nature school of magic. There are a lot of variations in D20 texts on

how the magic system works, replicating or tweaking specialization,

changing spell lists, etc. Some with new character classes that

effectively grant similar game effects as specialization, but without

calling it specialization or the new spell list a school of magic.

Personally, I don`t see much of a need for D20 references, since it matters

very little to me if BR fits into that label. Since the racial spell list

method was presented as being more in keeping with the rules, however, some

similar usage of the concept would support the argument that the racial

spell list is more apt for 3e than would be a school of magic. Barring

such examples, however, I don`t think the argument is very valid, or at

least it`s based on the same kind of divergence from the 3e texts that the

school of magic method is. One of the things that keeps coming up in this

thread is how 3e does things. Getting things in line with 3e is a useful

thing to do in many cases (though I don`t think it should be that huge of a

concern) but in this case it seems to be a misapplication of that

standard. That is, it`s being argued that a new school of magic is not 3e

while a racial spell list is, and I`m not seeing a lot of support for that

in the actual 3e/3.5 texts or in any other D20 documents.

>Like the weapon familiarity, the spell familiarity doesn`t automatically

>grant the elves something for nothing - a dwarven wizard is still not

>proficient with a dwarven war axe for example, likewise an elven fighter

>wouldn`t automatically be able to cast these spells (that would definitely

>cross the lines into the level adjustment range).

That adds up. It`s not any different from how things would work as a

school of magic, of course. Elven fighters wouldn`t be able to cast such

spells any more than they would be able to if it were described as a racial

spell list. I do, however, think that if one is going to expand the

concept of racial familiarity one would need to define the term and include

the appropriate text to explain what the function of the rule is. Schools

of magic are an existing 3e standard, so would require no new explanation.

Gary

irdeggman

09-18-2003, 11:10 AM

Osprey,
Both of your variations on the proposals tie in opposition schools to using the nature magic issue.

The racial affinity did not do this for a reason. Many people have brought up the role-playing aspects of shunned and unlikely schools of magic (from BoM). This is a reasonable issue since the game is really about role-playing. Part of the proposal of the racial affinity one was that it did not automatically insert opposition schools, it was part of the 3rd ed concept of player choices. The elven player has the choice of what spells to gain with his arcane casting levels - he can gain nature spells or the more traditional ones, but he doesn't not gain any additional ones.

geeman

09-18-2003, 12:06 PM

At 02:13 PM 9/17/2003 +0200, irdeggman wrote:

>

> This is somewhat different from the original suggestion, which was that<>

> using an expanded spell list as a racial trait (variant) rather than a<>

> school of magic (variant) would be easier for DMs to `port in or `port

> out<>

> of their homebrews. To address that particular point, I think a nature<>

> school of magic variant would actually be easier since all of that text<>

> could be put into a box in the setting material, and could be ignored

> or<>

> incorporated at the DM`s inclination. The racial trait variant would

> go<>

> right into the racial descriptive text--assuming that the BRCS is going

> to<>

> abide by 3.5`s formatting standards, which appears to be one of the

> goals<>

> of the design team--and would, therefore, take a little more work for a

> DM<>

> to excise should he not want to incorporate that aspect of the setting<>

> material. If the ease of use by the DM is the issue, a school of magic<>

> variant is better because it both uses more readily accessible game<>

> mechanics and can be formatted in a more modular way.<>

>

>

> Gary, you make it sound like making easier to port in or out was the

> driving reason for the elven racial familiarity method. This was never

> the case. Many times I have said it solves more problems than it causes

> and that is still very much a true statement.

All I was addressing there was the original statement that it would be

easier for DMs to use a racial spell list rather than a school of magic. I

think there are many more reasons for not going with a racial spell

list--particularly if keeping continuity with 3e`s rules is a goal--but I

didn`t mean to imply ease of use was the driving reason for going with one

or the other method. There was more to that post than the above quoted

text in which I responded to the other points raised, and I tried to make

it clear that the above was in response only to that particular point (it

says so right in the quote) so I don`t think it really reads like you`re

suggesting....

> Several other points I have brought up against the school method you

> have chosen not to address and they should be before making the statement

> that it is easy and best.

I am trying to address these points, but it seems my responses to the

points against the school of magic method either aren`t being noticed or

they are simply underwelming, so let me try it again. In general the

points against the school of magic idea are all based on what I see as a

very particular reading of the 3e text. None of the text quoted from the

3e/3.5 books necessarily mean what has been suggested that they mean. Yes,

in the 3e texts arcane spells belong to only one school (or to a

"universal" category) but that doesn`t mean that they can belong to ONLY

one school, if new schools were imagined for the purpose of a different,

non-core campaign setting. Yes, the 3e texts say there are eight schools

of magic (and an "universal" category) but they do not say those are the

only schools of magic that can be used. Yes, the 3e texts divide up the

spells by effect, but the assumption that that categorization is in

anything other than a system of notation isn`t supported by anything in the

texts. At least, I`ve looked for actual game mechanical relationships

between the spells within each school and not noticed any. If anyone can

come up with examples I`ll be happy to admit I`m wrong on this one. As for

the specific game mechanical problems raised with adding a new school of

magic, I think they are more often than not addressed by the existing rules

and/or they are a problem for either method. As for instance:

>In oder to cast a spell the spell must be on the class spell list. This

>is a core concept and not subject to "word smithing" being

>attempting to describe schools. So every elven arcane caster must have

>his spell list modified to address this in one way or another. So an

>additional step is required.

>

>Making it a school will allow specialization - which seems to be one of

>the intents. A draw back to this is that it will require taking 2

>opposition schools of magic, note that summoning is not a school but

>conjuration is and it includes summoning. If a spell exists in more than

>one school and one is in the school of specialization and also appears on

>an oppostion school - how will this be handled mechanically? This is

>something that the core rules doesn`t require to be addresssed since a

>spell appears in only one school there.

Note first please that there`s nothing preventing the same thing from

happening with a racial spell list, or rather that one has to do the same

things in coming up with a racial spell list to prevent it from happening

that one would have to do using a school of magic. That is, what happens

if a spell is on a racial spell list, but also appears among the list of

spells that a character chooses as one of his opposition schools should he

specialize? Cerilian elves would be just as likely to specialize in a

school of magic and choose two opposition schools which have spells that

are on the racial spell list as they might choose schools that have spells

that cross over into other schools. An elf who specializes in enchantment,

for instance, might choose necromancy and transmutation as his opposed

schools. Entangle, Plant Growth and Goodberry (to name a few) were

proposed as spells that should appear on a racial spell list for

elves. What will happen in cases of elven specialists who choose

opposition schools that have spells in them that are also on their list of

racial spells?

There are a couple of answers to that question. They may get access to

those spells, they might not, they could lose certain specialization

effects, etc. The point here is that whatever one decides to use as the

solution to that issue could just as easily be used to deal with any cross

over spells from multiple schools of magic.

Personally, I think the solution for either a school of magic or a racial

spell list should be that a specialist does not gain access to spells that

are in an opposition school for him ever--whether they appear on his list

of racial spells, or if they appear on his specialized school`s spell list,

but the point here is that this has been raised as an issue for schools of

magic, but the same problem exists for both method and the solution is

probably the same for them both as well.

> Also there are several factors that affect saves and effects based on

> the school that the spell is being cast from. How will these be

> addressed if the spell is in more than one school? There are not

> supposed to be 2 different version of the same spell. There are however

> divine and arcane versions of them, but the spell still is treated as

> coming from the same school.

Regarding things like modifiers to saves: I think this is pretty well

covered by the way modifiers and saves already work, and new schools of

magic or spells that cross over to two or more schools would be addressed

by the extant rules. If one gets a bonus on a save he does so regardless

of how many schools the spell is actually in, and bonuses don`t stack

unless the modifier is so described. Let`s say a spell was both in the

Enchantment and the Nature schools, and a spellcaster uses that spell on a

group of creatures. One of the creatures has +2 to saves vs. Enchantment,

a second gets +2 to saves vs. Nature and a third gets +2 to saves vs. both

Enchantment and Nature. All three get +2 to save vs. the spell effect. If

the third target`s saves came from different kinds of modifiers (racial vs.

circumstantial) then they`d stack, per the rules on such things, but

otherwise not.

I should also note that this issue with saves and modifiers isn`t limited

to the use of spells in schools. In fact, it would be more easily handled

using a school of magic that it would by the racial spells list since there

are existing 3e texts to handle that sort of thing. If one were to have a

save vs. a Nature school for some creature somewhere for some reason,

wouldn`t it be just apt to give that creature a save vs. spells cast by

elven spellcasters from their racial spell list?

> In order to make the nature school as you have suggested requires first

> a change to the core mechanics and then an implementation of the option.

> It does not "allow" for a simple "layering on" of

> the option and is hence inherently more complex than the racial familiarity.

Either is a change to the core mechanics, and I think subject to a similar

number of issues regarding complexity. In fact, they often appear to be

the same issues.

Gary

geeman

09-28-2003, 01:28 PM

I`ve gotten hold of a copy of the D20 Ghostwalk book. It`s very

interesting. Many interesting aspects of it, and some that will probably

work their way into my interpretation of life after death for BR (still in

progress.) Here`s the text for the ectomancy "school" of magic from that

setting:

Ectomancy is the study of magic relating to ghosts, ectoplasm and souls

(rather than simply the application of positive or negative energy). While

many spells are considered to be of this type, ectomancy is not a true

school of magic--for example, some ectomancy spells are in the necromancy

school, others on in the conjuration school, and so on. Wizards cannot

choose ectomancy as a specialist school, but some focus their studies on

ectomancy, just as some focus on fire or teleportation.

All spells that are considered "ectomancy" spells bear the ectomancy

descriptor after the school name.

What follows is a list of spells from the PHB that could be considered

ectomancy in addition to those presented in that book. All of the spells

are nowhere compiled into a spell list or anything nice and helpful like

that, but the descriptor is placed in the spell description after the

school of magic, so the Ghostwalk spell Charm Person or Ghost has the text

"Enchantment (Charm) [Ectomancy, Mind-effecting]" in it.

The thing is, aside from having an additional classification to convey a

campaign theme (necromancy would probably be enough for most other

campaigns, but since the Ghostwalk campaign features ghosts as PCs some

more careful break downs of the magic system are in order) there`s very

little use in the descriptor. Only one game mechanical affect is

associated with ectomancy spells that I`ve found (I haven`t read the whole

text, so it`s entirely possible I`ve missed something.) The one effect

I`ve found is that the campaign`s Ghost domain`s granted power is the

ability to cast ectomancy spells at +1 caster level.

I can`t come up with any reason why specialization wouldn`t be possible for

ectomancy spells for Ghostwalk wizards or sorcerers, and if it`s a more

suitable way of handling a nature school for BR elves then I think that`d

be fine too.

Gary

Osprey

09-28-2003, 05:01 PM

The thing is, aside from having an additional classification to convey a
campaign theme (necromancy would probably be enough for most other
campaigns, but since the Ghostwalk campaign features ghosts as PCs some
more careful break downs of the magic system are in order) there`s very
little use in the descriptor. Only one game mechanical affect is
associated with ectomancy spells that I`ve found (I haven`t read the whole
text, so it`s entirely possible I`ve missed something.) The one effect
I`ve found is that the campaign`s Ghost domain`s granted power is the
ability to cast ectomancy spells at +1 caster level.

I can`t come up with any reason why specialization wouldn`t be possible for
ectomancy spells for Ghostwalk wizards or sorcerers, and if it`s a more
suitable way of handling a nature school for BR elves then I think that`d
be fine too.

Gary

The other use I can think of for the descriptor is suggested in the first part of your post:

Wizards cannot choose ectomancy as a specialist school, but some focus their studies on ectomancy, just as some focus on fire or teleportation.
All spells that are considered "ectomancy" spells bear the ectomancy
descriptor after the school name.

It seems like they are suggesting that one could take the feat Spell Focus: Ectomancy, and add to the DC's of spells with that descriptor. I'm certain we could make a similar case for "Elven Nature Magic" descriptors, but we'd have to change the current rules to allow specialization.

-Osprey

geeman

09-28-2003, 07:36 PM

At 07:01 PM 9/28/2003 +0200, Osprey wrote:

>I`m certain we could make a similar case for "Elven Nature

>Magic" descriptors, but we`d have to change the current rules to

>allow specialization.

Sure, but it`s such an easy tweak that I think it would be a pretty smooth

change.... My point there, though, was that I can`t see any reason why

they didn`t go ahead and have some rules for specialization in ectomancy in

that Ghostwalk text. I mean, there doesn`t seem any particular need to

specifically rule it out, and given the theme of the campaign it seems like

it would be apt.

Gary

RaspK_FOG

09-28-2003, 09:41 PM

Wow, slow down there! Schools are schools, subschools are subschools, descriptors are descriptors, and no overlapping should exist, or there would be a humongous confusion!

Gary, you asked what should happen if a Sidhelien chose to specialise in a school of magic (Enchantment, for example), and chose Transmutation as a prohibited school (they are no longer "opposed" in 3.5e), which so happens to have quite the number of spells from the Nature tradition.
(Note:I like the word, and in order to define this so as to avoid further confusion, a tradition of magic is a spell list that is not specifically tied to a class as much as a given ability, like a feat, a racial trait, or even a feature of a group of classes; for example, the Mage tradition of sorcerers and wizards, who get mostly the same spells.)
Anyway, such a Nature spell would be prohibited to that wizard as well as any other spell from the same school! I do not see why should it not be prohibited, if he cannot activate spell trigger and spell completion devices of the same school... I mean, we can exercise and increase our strength, but neglecting our fitness results in not as strong muscles as we could have, doesn't it?

Furthermore, descriptors can have numerous effects, like +1 to caster level for such spells if you have the appropriate feat, inability to cast, effect, such things. Anyway, an interesting mechanic would be to give the sidhelien this ability:

Nature-Magic Affinity: Sidhelien are innately connected with nature, ever giving and taking power with her. As a result, Sidhelien arcane spellcasters add to their spell lists all spells that appear in the Nature Tradition spell list (see below). Any spell that bears the [Nature] descriptor is a spell from the Nature Tradition spell list.
Nature-Magic Specialism: A Sidhelien wizard who has not specialised in a school of magic can choose at 1st level to specialise in Nature-Magic, acquiring an extra spell slot per spell level per day which is reserved for [Nature] spells, but to do so, the Sidhelien forgoes any Necromancy and Conjuration (Summoning) spells, much like specialist wizards forgo two schools of magic.

Ming I

01-29-2004, 08:44 PM

After reading the responses to my proposed Sidhelien racial changes (In the Birthright 'Demihuman' Traits thread) it really made me think about what it means to be "tied to the land of Cerilia". Since my new concept of Elves might be of interest to some people in this thread, I thought I would cross-post:

Racial Abilities: Cerilian Elves have the following racial traits +2 Dexterity, +2 Intelligence, +2 Charisma, -2 Constitution
Medium-size: As medium-size creatures, elves have no special bonuses or penalties due to their size.
Elven base speed is 30 feet.
Immunity to magic sleep spells and effects, and a +2 racial saving throw bonus against Enchantment spells or effects
Any creature using the Sense Motive skill against an elf must add +4 to the DC of the check due to the unfathomable nature of the elven mind.
Low-Light Vision: Elves can see twice as far as a human in starlight, moonlight, torchlight, and similar conditions of poor illumination. They retain the ability to distinguish color and detail under those conditions.
+2 racial bonus on Knowledge (nature), Listen, Spot, and Survival checks. These skills are also considered Class skills for an elven character.
Ageless: Cerilian elves are immortal and as such do not experience any of the benefits or penalties of aging.
Purity of Body: Cerilian elves are immune to mundane (but not magical) diseases.
Nature's Stride: Cerilian elves are unhampered by natural obstructions or natural terrain surface conditions.
Trackless Step: Cerilian elves leave no trail in natural surroundings and cannot be tracked. Cerilian elves may choose to leave a trail if so desired.
Weapon Proficiency: Cerilian elves receive Marital Weapon Proficiency with longsword,shortbow, longbow, composite shortbow, and composite longbow.
Fey: Cerilian elves are Fey, not humanoids.
Automatic Language: Sidhelien. Bonus Languages: Any
Favored Class: Any Arcane Spellcaster
This ties an elven character to nature without needing to create or give them access to a grouping of nature-type spells.

Though it is true that they have an overall bonus of +4 in abilities, and an increased number of traits, Elves, who are not Bards or Rangers, have no access to magical healing until they reach 13th level as a wizard, when they could cast Limited Wish to mirror the effects of any spells 5th level or lower. I would even go so far as to suggest: altering the Ranger class so that it didn't use spells in the BRCS, and removing the cure, and remove disease spells from the Bard List.

My sincere apologies if my ideas are just a rehash of previous posts.

RaspK_FOG

01-30-2004, 03:33 AM

No apologies needed; just two things, though: Elves can always be cured by others ('Me name wouldda be: "Ze Inephabre... Arry!"')
Well... that racial portrait surely needs a level adjustment, don't you think?!
"One with Nature" sounds like Trackless Step... Am I wrong?
No offence meant...

Another thing... I agree with not having wizards and stuff casting cure spells: the two concepts do not fit well with each other...

However, along with my interpretation of sorcerers having an intuitive relationship with the magic of the land (mebhaegal, I think that's the correct spelling... stupid memory; me and gaelic do not belong with each other), I think that the following should be interesting to those of you who really must have arcane spellcasters being able to heal themselves...

Catabolise Poison
Necromancy
Level: Sor 5
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature of up to 1 cu. ft./level touched
Duration: 10 min./level
Saving Throw: Fortitude partial
Spell Resistance: Yes
You detoxify any sort of venom in the creature touched. A poisoned creature suffers no additional effects from the poison, and any temporary effects are ended, but the spell does not reverse instantaneous effects, such as hit point damage, temporary ability damage, or effects that don’t go away on their own. For example, if a poison has dealt 3 points of Constitution damage to a character and threatens to deal more damage later, this spell prevents the future damage but does not repair the damage already done.
The creature is immune to any poison it is exposed to during the duration of the spell. Unlike with delay poison, such effects aren’t postponed until after the duration – the creature need not make any saves against poison effects applied to it during the length of the spell.
Unlike with neutralise poison, this spell cures poisoning by unnaturally speeding up the catabolic procedures in the target creature. Due to this, each detoxification caused by the spell deals 2d6 points of damage to the creature; if the target makes a successful Fortitude saving throw, it is dealt half damage. Also due to the above, you cannot detoxify a poisonous creature or object, since they won’t catabolise the venom (either due to being immune to its poison or having no metabolism at all respectively).
Material Component: A small piece (about 1 cubic inch) of fresh or preserved liver.

Recuperation
Necromancy
Level: Sor 2
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Fortitude negates
Spell Resistance: Yes
By increasing the healing processes of the creature you touch, you allow it to heal damage much faster than it normally would.
You convert 2d6 points of normal damage +1 per level (maximum +10) to nonlethal damage. If the target suffers no normal damage, but has taken nonlethal damage, it is cured of nonlethal damage equal to your roll.
In any case, such things tend to wire creatures out; if the target of the spell was beneficially affected (by having some its damage being converted, or by having it cured), it must make a Fortitude save, or become fatigued. If it was cured of nonlethal damage, it receives a +2 bonus to save.

Recuperation, Greater
Necromancy
Level: Sor 3
Greater recuperation works exactly like recuperation, except as noted above; furthermore, greater recuperation converts 3d6 points of damage +1 per level (maximum +15) instead.

Recuperation, Lesser
Necromancy
Level: Sor 1
Lesser recuperation works exactly like recuperation, except as noted above; furthermore, lesser recuperation converts 1d6 points of damage +1 per 2 levels (maximum +5) instead.

Ming I

01-30-2004, 04:29 AM

On Jan 30th, 2004 at 04:33 AM RaspK_Fog wrote:

Elves can always be cured by others ('Me name wouldda be: "Ze Inephabre... Arry!"')

Elves can be healed/cured by others, yes, but can you see an army of Elves "taking five" to rush over to the local Dwarven, Half-Elf, Halfling, or *gasp* Human settlement to get patched up? The lack of large amounts of "quick" healing (especially if Rangers received no spells and Bards had healing removed from their spell list) and curatives would reinforce the thematic idea that Elves lose fights because they need extended recovery time. Yes, the elves may have the greatest concentration of true mages but how many Limited Wishes can the average Elven Wizard cast? :lol:

Well... that racial portrait surely needs a level adjustment, don't you think?!

Do you think so? The elves as a race have no "internal" access to healing and curative spells until 13th level when they can cast limited wish (which is HUGE if Rangers get no spells and Bards have a few removed). The elves are only immune to sleep and have no damage resistance, spell resistance, or spell-like abilities. What were you thinking for a racial adjustment though?

"One with Nature" sounds like Trackless Step... Am I wrong?

No, you're correct. I missed the very last part of Trackless Step which says: "...and cannot be tracked". I thought they could still be tracked via the scent ability. I'll edit the previous post to include Trackless Step rather than One With Nature.

No offence meant...

And none taken...except for that Jar Jar Binks sounding comment. :lol:

Seriously though, thank you very much for the feedback.

jaldaen

01-30-2004, 06:31 AM

Originally posted by Ming I@Jan 29 2004, 10:29 PM

Well... that racial portrait surely needs a level adjustment, don't you think?!

Do you think so? The elves as a race have no "internal" access to healing and curative spells until 13th level when they can cast limited wish (which is HUGE if Rangers get no spells and Bards have a few removed). The elves are only immune to sleep and have no damage resistance, spell resistance, or spell-like abilities. What were you thinking for a racial adjustment though?
Though elves might not have "internal" access to healing and curative spells, they can still recieve the benefit of these spells and thus this facet of the race cannot be used as a balancing factor as any group of adventures can be placed in a similar situation (i.e. without access to such spells) by not having access to a cleric or druid. Would such a group be considered of a lesser level than one that has a cleric? I do not think so... I've seen plenty of parties without clerics or druids that found methods to deal with the lack of healing and curative spells. Now if elves could not be healed by healing or curative spells, then you could claim that such a weakness is a balancing factor.

Now with that out of the way I would place the CR of your version of the elves as 1 with a level adjustment at +2 or +3. I came to this decision by running the numbers in comparison with the drow.

Ability scores: Your elves win by +2
Vision: Drow win with Darkvision
Skills: Your elves win with +12 racial bonus versus +6 (and auto search)
Extraordinary, Spell-like and Supernatural Abilities: Your elves win hands down by virtue that they are always active and mimic spells of higher level than those a drow can cast with their special abilities.
Spell Resistance: The drow's spell resistance is almost worth a +1 by itself and wins big here.
Weaknesses: Drow has light blindness a concrete disadvantage, versus your lack of inherent healing/curative spells for the race... again your elves win out.

Now from designing monsters for d20 for the last couple years I would say that overall your elves edge out the drow in power level primarily due to their extraordinary and supernatural abilities effectively cancel out the spell-like abilities and spell resistance of drow and your elves win out on ability score, skill bonuses, and lack of concrete weakness which outweighs the drow's darkvision and light blindness ;-).

Of course you could make the arguement that this slight advantage does not warrant an increase from the drow's +2 Level Adjustment and this might be correct, but I always like to highball things before playtesting them and work them down from there....

So in short ;-): Your elves definately deserve a +2 or +3 level adjustment... perhaps comparing them to svirfneblin (a +3 LA race) will help nail down whether or not they deserve a +2 or +3 adjustment... but for now I need sleep ;-)

My 2 Cents,
Joseph

Ming I

01-30-2004, 10:39 AM

Awesome! This feedback is just awesome! Now that the gushing is over, on to the discussion. :D

Though elves might not have "internal" access to healing and curative spells, they can still recieve the benefit of these spells and thus this facet of the race cannot be used as a balancing factor as any group of adventures can be placed in a similar situation (i.e. without access to such spells) by not having access to a cleric or druid. Would such a group be considered of a lesser level than one that has a cleric? I do not think so... I've seen plenty of parties without clerics or druids that found methods to deal with the lack of healing and curative spells. Now if elves could not be healed by healing or curative spells, then you could claim that such a weakness is a balancing factor.

It seems to be a running theme in d20 material that all of the standard races have access to all of the standard classes without exception (at least none that I can think of now). No matter how unlikely, being a member of any class is still a possibility. The Birthright system doesn't agree with that at all. There are restrictions on which races have access to some of the classes; clerics, druids and wizards, specifically. The first two race restrictions affect only elves, and can not be bypassed by taking another class (again, that is only if changes are made to the Bard and Ranger classes). High-level wizards (13th or 17th level) could bypass the restrictions in order to duplicate spells, but not class abilities. Even then, each duplicated spell would reduce the caster's experience by 300XP. This is not a significant one-time cost for a 13th or 17th level wizard, but rely too heavily on this tactic and that wizard will never advance to a higher level. I see this level of access to class abilities, and other spell lists as a severe penalty. Conversely, if a non-elf blooded, non-divine blooded creature wanted access to wizard abilities or to learn the "rudimentary" levels of magic, they could simply choose levels in the Magician class.

Although elves can benefit from curative, and healing spells, what reasonable access do they have to those effects? In the game that I play in, Elves are (except for the progressive movement) mostly isolated within expansive forests. Forests that are off-limits to humans, and those that worship human gods. So clearly I am colored by my experiences.

I guess the solution is to play a party of only elves and see whether or not you find it relatively simple to be cured, or healed. ;)

Now with that out of the way I would place the CR of your version of the elves as 1 with a level adjustment at +2 or +3. I came to this decision by running the numbers in comparison with the drow.

Woah, woah, woah. If you are going to weigh my proposed Elves against another version to determine the LA, you should really be using the current Cerilian Elves (who have no LA) as the basis.

The question is - are the following abilities/traits powerful enough to warrant a +2 or +3 level adjustment?:
+6 overall bonus to abilities
+2 racial bonus to skills and 4 more class skills
Trackless Step
Adding +4 to the DC of any Sense Motive check used against an Elf

I thought Wild Empathy was different than what it was (tongues and a Diplomacy check would accomplish the same thing), so I have removed it from the proposal.

Challenging ideas and making them better is a good thing. For example, I'm willing to say that Elves are frail again (-2 Constitution) which will give them a +4 overall bonus to abilities.

Keep the comments coming! I really, really appreciate outside insight in this matter.