Adurian Faq

[Raesene Andu]

ADURIA FAQ

Part 0: Introduction

Will this expansion use the d20 Birthright rules?
· Yes… and no.
· The Adurian Campaign Setting draws on the d20 Birthright Rulebook as its source, but in the case of a rule in the ACS overriding one in the BRCS, always use the Adurian rule instead.
· Several sections of the BRCS are no longer used or have been changed for Aduria (especially the bloodline, magic, characters, and religion chapters). In these cases, alternative rules will be given. Most of these changes are highlighted in this FAQ.

Part 1: Characters

What standard PC races will be included?
· Humans (15+ sub-types)
· Halflings

What new PC races will be included?
· Asla, Quala, Ssarak

Why all the new races?
· The Adurian Campaign Setting is an attempt to move away from the standard D&D settings with elves, dwarves, half-elves, half-orcs and so on. To this ends, the new PC races will be very different from the norm.
· There are also several setting specific reasons for the inclusion of these new races over the traditional ones.

What standard PC classes are available?
· All, although the wizard will face some restrictions (see below).

What new PC classes will be included?
· The Shadow Mage replaces the wizard in all regions except the Anuirean Colonies and even there Shadow Mages control vast regions, especially in Oeried and surrounding kingdoms.

What is the Shadow Mage?
· A darker, tainted version of the wizard, corrupted by the influence of Azrai.
· More powerful than the standard wizard, but also cursed due to his closeness to the Shadow World, the Shadow Mage sacrifices his soul to the darkness in order to boost his power.
· Like the wizard, is restricted only to those characters possessing bloodlines.
· A Shadow Mage can cast realm spells (drawn from a new list of such spells), but can only tap the Shadow World to power his magic.

Are there any other restrictions on classes?
· Yes, the Monk class will only be common in the southern regions of Aduria, not in the north or the central regions. Wandering monk may be encountered in these other regions, but organised societies of Monk are only common in the south.

What about the other new classes from the BRCS?
· The noble will be revamped somewhat for the ACS to reflect the setting.

Will there be any new skills and feats in the ACS?
· Yes
· Several new regional feats will be presented, some of these may be previewed before the release of the ACS
· Also in the interest of creating differences between the races, Humans will choose their bonus feats and skills from a list of background feats & skills. This list will be different for each race.

Any changes to the Equipment tables?
· Yes, several new racial weapons (some are renamed version of standard weapons, some completely new) will be looked at.
· Primitive firearms and cannon may also be featured. This is still being considered.
· Other new equipment specific to the setting

Part 2: Bloodlines

Will there be any changes to the bloodline rules?
· Possibly, depending on the final version of the bloodline rules in the BRCS
· Any rules presented in the ACS will be provided as an option only, so either the BRCS or ACS rules could be used depending on your preference.

Will there be any new blood abilities?
· Yes, although not a large number, just a few setting specific ones.

Will there be any change to the Usurpation rules & Bloodtheft?
· Possibly, again this depends on the final rules presented in the BRCS and again all the ACS will do is provide an option to using the official rules.

Part 3: Magic

Will there be any changes to the magic rules?
· Yes, the introduction of Shadow Magic will mean significant changes.
· Arcane spellcasters will now be faced with a choice between Mebhaighl, or the darker but more powerful shadow magic, which draws on Awnmebhaighl, the energy of the Shadow World.
· These two types of magic do not mix, so that if a region has a lot of shadow mages (for example Oeried) then normal wizard will find their spells weakened and likewise Shadow Mages are weaker in regions where Mebhaighl magic is prevalent (e.g. Zaynani).

Will there be any new spells or clerical domains?
· Large numbers of new spells are planned, including more than fifty that are available solely to Shadow Mages.
· Several new domains for Adurian clerics are also planned, with most using more unique spells in an attempt to bring a BR feeling the spell lists.

Are there any new realm spells?
· Again, there will be a large number of new realm spells for both priests and wizards.
· The realm magic system will also be revamped somewhat for the ACS.

Part 4: Gods and Religion

Are there any new gods in the ACS?
· Yes, four new gods will be presented
· Two of the gods are older human gods worshipped only in a single region of Aduria, the other two are new racial gods worshipped across the continent (or wherever their followers can be found).


If you have an additional question not listed here, then please ask and I will do my best to answer it.

[Osprey]

The introduction of gunpowder marks a landmark advance in technology that will eventually (along with the advance of industrialization) dominate warfare. I know this isn't absolute fate, but it's pretty likely given real-world historical precedents.

All I'm saying is consider VERY carefully before adding this to this (or any) world. Tech from Aduria will probably spill over into Cerilia sooner or later, and Aebrynis will never be the same...

-Osprey

[Anakin_Miller]

Birthright already has primitive gun powder in Khinasi and Anuire. Rich

Baker wrote an article in Dragon Magazine that introduced it. Dragon #226

if I remember correctly.



-Anakin Miller



> The introduction of gunpowder marks a landmark advance in technology

that will eventually (along with the advance of industrialization) dominate

warfare. I know this isn`t absolute fate, but it`s pretty likely given

real-world historical precedents.

>

> All I`m saying is consider VERY carefully before adding this to this (or

any) world. Tech from Aduria will probably spill over into Cerilia sooner

or later, and Aebrynis will never be the same...

>

> -Osprey

>

>



>

> Birthright-l Archives:

http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html

>

>

>

[Raesene Andu]

The Rich Baker article you mention is Weapons of the Waves from Dragon #232.

One thing that is interesting to note is that if the history of Aebrynis is following our own history then Cerilia is still 50-100 years away from common and effective usage of cannon as navel weapons.

Also, the prevelence of magic will most likely have prevented major technological advances in this field. After all, why bother with gunpowder weapons when you can hire a mage that can cast fireballs and similar spells.

However, some regions of Aduria are slighly more advanced that Cerilia in certain fields. For example, ships built in Mor Atha are the next step up from Cerilian vessels and regularly prey on Anuirean vessels en-route from Cerilia to Oried, Lurech, and Alitaene. The introduction of gunpowder (or hellpowder as Rich calls it in his article) to Cerilian vessels could help protect slow trading ships from Mor Athan pirates.

[Osprey]

Since arcane magic is a rarity in Cerilia, I think the invention of gunpowder would be heartily welcomed and sought after by Cerilians. There simply aren't that many mages to be hired to throw fireballs, whereas cannons could [eventually] be mounted on every ship. And technology has always had the appeal of potential limited only by knowledge, craft, and natural resources - it doesn't require anything like a mage born with a divine bloodline.

Also, I don't think a Dragon Magazine article need be considered BR canon [no pun intended :) ], even if Rich Baker wrote it. I've always considered stuff printed there to be optional material that can be added, but isn't core material. That's my take on it, anyways.
-Osprey

[Raesene Andu]

The article itself wasn't really about cannons and gunpowder for BR, that was only a 1/2 page at the end of a 6 page article. Most of it was about the history of Cerilian shipbuilding, featuring 3 new (or rather old) ships that were once built and then there is some information about ramming, boarding, and so on.

[DanMcSorley]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Raesene Andu wrote:

> Also, the prevelence of magic will most likely have prevented major

> technological advances in this field. After all, why bother with

> gunpowder weapons when you can hire a mage that can cast fireballs and

> similar spells.



Because anyone can use a gun with a bit of training. You don`t have to

put up with prima-donna attitudes from your gunners, because you can

always hire more. Your guns can fire as many times a day as you can

afford powder, while no amount of money will let a wizard memorize more

fireballs. Your gun unit isn`t a single point of failure- if one gunner

dies, the rest of the unit can pick up the slack and probably even hand

the gun off to someone else, while if your wizard dies, his 2nd level

apprentice isn`t much of a backup.



--

Daniel McSorley

[Nikolai II]

Originally posted by DanMcSorley@Sep 26 2003, 05:43 PM
Because anyone can use a gun with a bit of training. You don`t have to
put up with prima-donna attitudes from your gunners, because you can
always hire more. Your guns can fire as many times a day as you can
afford powder, while no amount of money will let a wizard memorize more
fireballs. Your gun unit isn`t a single point of failure- if one gunner
dies, the rest of the unit can pick up the slack and probably even hand
the gun off to someone else, while if your wizard dies, his 2nd level
apprentice isn`t much of a backup.

Yes and no - handgunners are all you say, but it took 60 years from basic artillery to basic handguns - and another generation before they were practically useful.

And while artillery crews were easy to come by (just as battle-magic support forces used to be in 2ed) once you were talking about the masters necessary to utilize artillery effectively it was back to primadonna acting.

The benefit of technology is that anyone can learn to master it though, so makers of gunpowder and master artillerists (casting guns, aiming them and training crews) will soon become more numerous than mages

But artillery will certainly come to power in any case just as you say - or one might as well argue that swords and crossbows would never have been researched since mages can trump them too.

But there is no reason why mages should be made to suffer just because gunpowder exists - all that you can do with gunpowder could be done before, with the exception of mines.

I mean that magic and gunpowder are not opposed in any way. I would also like to point out that it took gunpowder until the 18th century to dominate warfare completely, some four centuries, so the inclusion of a few gunpowder weapons shouldn't kill any world..

(Although the domination could go slightly faster if bayonets are invented earlier, but three centuries is probably the minimum :))

[Monkey Rogue]

True, in our own history the original cannon makers were bellsmiths. Weird huh? Makes sense though, when you consider the crafting it takes to make a bell and a cannon are the same.

Until the Colt came around, people were still somewhat unfamiliar with firearms. Even the advent of rifles didn't make that much better. It was the industrial age, when we developed interchangable parts that firearms became more easy to learn because more people could afford them, easier to repair, etc.

Just adding to the thought here. I recommend not adding anything but the most cumbersome and dangerous firearms, if any at all.

[Osprey]

If firearms are added, though, I strongly recommend ignoring the DMG conversion rules, 'cause those rules make firearms (flintlocks et al.) about as potent as bows or crossbows, thus ignoring the entire reason firearms DID come to dominate warfare. Firearms were so deadly because of their ability to practically ignore armor - i.e., vastly superior penetration and a great deal of tissue damge compared to an arrow or bolt.

The problem with D&D is the way it handles armor - in an all or nothing fashion. Either the armor completely blocks an attack, or it is useless and the attack does just as much damage as if you were unarmored.

So how to account for firearms? One way is to give them high damage stats, and unprecedented critical threat ranges and multipliers. That at least comes close to representing the the deadliness of firearms. On the other hand, earlier firearms (esp. before rifles are invented) should be pretty inaccurate at range, so they should have short range increments.

Here's a possibility for flintlock-era weapons (ROF = Rate of Fire):
Flintlock Pistol: 1d8 Damage (18-20/x3), 10' Range increment, ROF 1/3
Flintlock Musket: 2d6 Damage (18-20/x3), 30' Range Increment, ROF 1/4

Earlier versions (matchlocks, wheelocks, arquebuses) would have even shorter range increments and longer reload times: a matchlock might be something like 1 shot per minute (10 rounds, or ROF 1/10, and that's generous, really), a wheelock slightly better at perhaps ROF 1/8, with range increments at around 20' or so for musket-size guns. I reckon damage would remain more constant, though, as accuracy and reload times were the major improvements over the centuries of firearms development.

An alternative system would allow firearms to make ranged touch attacks, thus ignoring armor bonuses (but not deflection/ force armor/ cover bonuses) to AC. This would be a kind of blanket system that says "normal armor is useless against firearms." In such a system, I'd get really restrictive with range increments and tone down the damage somewhat: perhaps 1d6 (19-20/x3), 5' Range for pistols; 1d8 (19-20/x3), 10' Range for muskets. Thus, there would be major penalties to hit at any significant distance (which is pretty accurate historically).

What do the rest of you think?

[geeman]

At 08:54 PM 2/5/2004 +0100, Osprey wrote:



> Here`s a possibility for flintlock-era weapons (ROF = Rate of Fire):

> Flintlock Pistol: 1d8 Damage (18-20/x3), 10` Range increment, ROF 1/3



One of the things that several D20 products have done is given powered

weapons (guns, blasters, etc.) two dice of damage rather than one. In the

case of something like a flintlock pistol it might be 2d4 rather than 1d8.



Personally, I like the 18-20/x3 crit, but one should bear in mind that

eventually somebody is going to make a keen version of the thing or take

the IC feat. Just something to consider.



>An alternative system would allow firearms to make ranged touch attacks,

>thus ignoring armor bonuses (but not deflection/ force armor/ cover

>bonuses) to AC. This would be a kind of blanket system that says

>"normal armor is useless against firearms." In such a system,

>I`d get really restrictive with range increments and tone down the

>damage somewhat: perhaps 1d6 (19-20/x3), 5` Range for pistols; 1d8

>(19-20/x3), 10` Range for muskets. Thus, there would be major penalties

>to hit at any significant distance (which is pretty accurate historically).

>

> What do the rest of you think?



What category do you think these weapons would be; simple, martial or

exotic? IMO that`s really the crux of the matter... who can wield these

weapons and why? In several settings they make firearms exotic weapons,

the rationale being that when first introduced they require special

training, and most people are so unfamiliar with them that they don`t

qualify as something one can simply pick up.



Gary

[kgauck]

I would focus on damage reduction as the key here. Firearms within the

first two range increments should ignore damage reduction from armor.

Currently I have armor give a +2, +3, or +4 armor bonus to AC based on being

light, medium, or heavy, and give a dmage reduction of 1/- and 2/- for

medium and heavy armors.



Were I to play in a gunpowder campaign, I would probably have AC bonuses be

+0, +1, and +2, and have the damage reductions be 2/-, 3/-, and 4/- for

light, medium, and heavy.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[ConjurerDragon]

Gary schrieb:



> At 08:54 PM 2/5/2004 +0100, Osprey wrote:

> ...

> Personally, I like the 18-20/x3 crit, but one should bear in mind that

> eventually somebody is going to make a keen version of the thing or take

> the IC feat. Just something to consider.



"Keen: ... Only slashing weapons can be enchanted to be keen..." DMG 3.0

p. 187



>What category do you think these weapons would be; simple, martial or

>exotic? IMO that`s really the crux of the matter... who can wield these

>weapons and why? In several settings they make firearms exotic weapons,

>the rationale being that when first introduced they require special

>training, and most people are so unfamiliar with them that they don`t

>qualify as something one can simply pick up.



Improved Critical only improves the critical of a weapon that you are

proficient with. And I would assume that firearms would be exotic

weapons for everyone so you had to spend a second feat to be able to do

that. And don´t forget to add in the chance that the arquebus explodes

in your face ;-)

bye

Michael

[teloft]

"Keen: ... Only slashing weapons can be enchanted to be keen..." DMG 3.0
p. 187

well a true quote. but if I remeber corectly there are other enchantment thet alows the same critical efect on other weapons. so you can hace the critical way up by using them. even thow the keen name can only be used on slashing weapons

[geeman]

At 12:48 AM 2/6/2004 +0100, Michael wrote:



>>Personally, I like the 18-20/x3 crit, but one should bear in mind that

>>eventually somebody is going to make a keen version of the thing or take

>>the IC feat. Just something to consider.

>

>"Keen: ... Only slashing weapons can be enchanted to be keen..." DMG 3.0

>p. 187



Good point. I mention it only because generally weapons have either a

lower crit range (other than 20) or a greater crit result (than x2) but not

both, so if one is going to have both it makes the use of Improved Critical

as a feat more dramatic, and that should be taken into consideration. I

think its debatable whether firearms should really have a much better

critical stat than other weapons. That might be better reflected by simply

portraying their damage dice higher or by giving them a penetration value

(or both.) Modern bullets, of course, do all kinds of unpleasant damage,

but a lead ball or simple bullet is going to be a bit more straight forward

in its damage.



Personally, I use a vitality/wound system, so there is no x2 or x3

damage--crits just go to wound points. It`s even more dramatic than doing

additional damage, and the critical range of 19-20 is a big deal for weapon

in such a system. (In Star Wars D20 light sabers and blaster rifles only

have a threat range of 19-20.) Using hit points, however, I`d probably go

with both.



> >What category do you think these weapons would be; simple, martial or

> >exotic? IMO that`s really the crux of the matter... who can wield these

> >weapons and why? In several settings they make firearms exotic weapons,

> >the rationale being that when first introduced they require special

> >training, and most people are so unfamiliar with them that they don`t

> >qualify as something one can simply pick up.

>

>Improved Critical only improves the critical of a weapon that you are

>proficient with. And I would assume that firearms would be exotic

>weapons for everyone so you had to spend a second feat to be able to do

>that.



That`s how they did it in Witchfire IIRC. (It`s been a while.) I think

there`s an argument to be made, however, that the fundamental thing about

firearms is their relative ease of use. Someone who had never touched or

even heard of one, of course, is not going to be able to pick one up and

use it, but after a pretty brief introductory period using a gun is pretty

simple. By comparison, I fiddled round with some of the exotic melee

weapons (I`ve never seen a real double bladed sword before, though I`m sure

somebody`s got one in their basement someplace... but I have used

three-sectioned staffs) and I can see how those would require a

feat. Firing a gun skillfully, of course, requires a lot of practice, but

firing a gun at all (without being "non-proficient" in D20 terms) is pretty

easy.



>And don´t forget to add in the chance that the arquebus explodes in your

>face ;-)



A critical fumble, perhaps?



I`ve never had a gun explode in my face, but I actually did have an arrow

explode in my face once.... True story. This guy talked me into buying

wooden arrows. More real, more authentic, an overall better archery

experience, he said. He made them from hand, and it was a labor of love,

so I bought a dozen. I used them several times and using them is

interesting. They fly differently. It`s hard to explain. There was a

hairline crack laterally across the shaft less than a foot from the

head. Just as I released I saw the crack as I sighted down the arrow. It

opened up as force was applied to it from the string. It opened up just

enough for me to see the crack--and enough for it to catch on the rest as

the arrow passed along it. It was about an 80 lbs. bow so the arrow

snapped and the back end of it (a good two feet of wood) compressed between

the bow and the string, shattered into flinders that flew all around

me. Other than a splinter in my index finger, no damage done to me, but I

think that was pretty lucky. I`ve only bought aluminum shafted arrows

after that.



Another thing that should probably be considered is that if one is

imagining an explosive like black powder then it makes an awful lot of

smoke. I`ve fired muzzle loaders in the past and I can tell you the

shooter literally disappears in a cloud (and sometimes the guys to either

side of him do too.) Most of us are probably used to modern, smokeless

propellants, or seen films that use less smokey (or only a very small

amount of) powder for the sake of visuals, but since the D&D equivalent is

often referred to as "smoke powder" I`m pretty sure its not meant to be

that clean.... The rules on concealment are in order.



BTW, one of the things I ran into the other day in a non-D&D, non-D20 RPG

that I really liked was the way it handled ammunition. It`s always annoyed

me that in D&D with its strangely abstracted system of combat that one

still has to account for every arrow. Melee combat assumes an exchange of

blows, parries, dodges, etc. but missile combat is one missile for one

attack. Aside from the dichotomy of abstract vs particular, its an

annoying thing to keep track of. Character sheets can have little tally

marks all over them or erasures that just look untidy.... The rule that

this RPG used as that you always had ammunition until you rolled a 1. That

1 represented having emptied your clip, meaning you had to reload. One

then keeps track of the amount of reloads one has, not every single

round. There are still tally marks and erasures on the character sheets,

but the time accounting is dramatically reduced. It also has a nice parity

with the otherwise very abstracted D20 combat system. Most importantly,

however, was that it made for a lot more drama during play, so I`m going to

give that a shot (pun intended) for a BR campaign using arrows, bolts,

sling bullets, whatever and see how well it works.



Gary

[Trithemius]

Monkey Rogue:

> True, in our own history the original cannon makers were bellsmiths.

> Weird huh? Makes sense though, when you consider the crafting it takes

> to make a bell and a cannon are the same.



Bells have to ring without cracking and so bell-makers were probably the

best "large-scale" metallurgists at the time. Its not that weird to me, maybe I

have been shooting other people`s models with my model bombards for so long it

seems natural? :)



> Until the Colt came around, people were still somewhat unfamiliar with

> firearms. Even the advent of rifles didn`t make that much better. It was

> the industrial age, when we developed interchangable parts that firearms

> became more easy to learn because more people could afford them, easier

> to repair, etc.



What!? Are you implying that Frederick the Great`s men, or even Gustavus

Adolphus` men, were unfamiliar with their weapons?



I`m going to pick on your history here. I think that breechloading and pin-

firing were far more important developments in military firearms than the

revolver, and it came only five years after Colt got his patent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartridge_(weaponry)#History



> Just adding to the thought here. I recommend not adding anything but

> the most cumbersome and dangerous firearms, if any at all.



There is no point in adding firearms if they are just going to be dangerous

curios. In order for them to have an impact they need to be widely adopted and

thus be actually useful.



--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

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

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

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

- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.

[Trithemius]

Osprey:

If firearms are added, though, I strongly recommend ignoring the DMG

> conversion rules, `cause those rules make firearms (flintlocks et al.)

> about as potent as bows or crossbows, thus ignoring the entire reason

> firearms DID come to dominate warfare. Firearms were so deadly because

> of their ability to practically ignore armor - i.e., vastly superior

> penetration and a great deal of tissue damge compared to an arrow or

> bolt.



Quite right.



> Here`s a possibility for flintlock-era weapons (ROF = Rate of Fire):

> Flintlock Pistol: 1d8 Damage (18-20/x3), 10` Range increment, ROF 1/3

> Flintlock Musket: 2d6 Damage (18-20/x3), 30` Range Increment, ROF 1/4



Another reason for improving the damage of firearms is that firearms do not add

a STR bonus to damage. A critical with a bow is excellent; a critical with a

firearm, (in the DMG version) or a crossbow for that matter, is pretty sad.



I persuaded our GM to alter crossbows in this way:

Light Crossbow: 2d6 Damage (19+/x2) etc...

Heavy Crossbow: 2d8 Damage (19+/x2) etc...



This makes the humble crossbow actually somewhat scary, even in the hands of

average soldiers - which is the point, if I recall history correctly.



Firearms ended up something like this, IIRC:

Pistol: 2d6 Damage (19+/x3) etc...

Arquebus: 2d8 Damage (19+/x3) etc...



> Earlier versions (matchlocks, wheelocks, arquebuses) would have even

> shorter range increments and longer reload times: a matchlock might be

> something like 1 shot per minute (10 rounds, or ROF 1/10, and that`s

> generous, really), a wheelock slightly better at perhaps ROF 1/8, with

> range increments at around 20` or so for musket-size guns. I reckon

> damage would remain more constant, though, as accuracy and reload times

> were the major improvements over the centuries of firearms development.



There were arquebus that -weren`t- matchlocks?

I know there were wheellock semi-rifled hunting pieces and firelock carbines

for garrison troops but I never through that they were described by the folk of

the time as arquebus.



I think the reloading times have more to do with training and preparations (pre-

measuring of powder, or use of cartridges) than with the guns themselves. When

its a choice between 8 rounds and 10 rounds, I`m happy to simplify. The

Swashbuckling Adventures CS presents two systems - a "realistic" one and

a "cinematic" one. I`d quote it but my books are all on a ship. Kenneth has the

book though, I believe, and could. I expect, be persuaded be quote it with

little effort.



> An alternative system would allow firearms to make ranged touch

> attacks, thus ignoring armor bonuses (but not deflection/ force armor/

> cover bonuses) to AC. This would be a kind of blanket system that says

> "normal armor is useless against firearms." In such a system,

> I`d get really restrictive with range increments and tone down

> the damage somewhat: perhaps 1d6 (19-20/x3), 5` Range for pistols; 1d8

> (19-20/x3), 10` Range for muskets. Thus, there would be major penalties

> to hit at any significant distance (which is pretty accurate

> historically).



Well, the thing is, armour could protect against firearms to a certain degree.

The problem was that it was bloody heavy so people gave up wearing full suits

of it, and relied on speed (and the difficulty of aiming at fast targets)

instead. Cavalry gave up on 3/4 armour and used breastplates and helmets, and

in some cases just buffcoats. Perhaps firearms should ignore all armour but

heavy armour, and some new grades of armour should be introduced (a heavy

cavalry breastplate and helmet comes to mind)? This is what we did in our brief

17th Century D&D game.



--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

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

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

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

- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.

[Trithemius]

Gary:

> Personally, I like the 18-20/x3 crit, but one should bear in mind that

> eventually somebody is going to make a keen version of the thing or

> take the IC feat. Just something to consider.



Improved Critical (Firearms)

Prerequisites: BAB 8+; or plays a hell of a lot of Counter-Strike.



> What category do you think these weapons would be; simple, martial or

> exotic? IMO that`s really the crux of the matter... who can wield these

> weapons and why? In several settings they make firearms exotic weapons,

> the rationale being that when first introduced they require special

> training, and most people are so unfamiliar with them that they don`t

> qualify as something one can simply pick up.



Firearms. Fighters get it, along with Martial Weapons. It should be considered

in every other way the Martial Weapon Proficiency.



Possibly some classes should get access to specific firearms, ala Rogue and

Bard lists of weapons.



--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

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

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

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

- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.

[Trithemius]

Michael Romes:

> "Keen: ... Only slashing weapons can be enchanted to be keen..." DMG

> 3.0 p. 187



Even *I* know that was corrected in the errata. Otherwise how the hell do you

make a keen rapier?



> Improved Critical only improves the critical of a weapon that you are

> proficient with. And I would assume that firearms would be exotic

> weapons for everyone so you had to spend a second feat to be able to do

> that. And don´t forget to add in the chance that the arquebus explodes

> in your face ;-)



Arquebus that are well made and maintained didn`t do this -excessively-.

Proficient users should not have their guns explode, unless it is dramatically

appropriate (like the old Star Wars game and power-packs running out..).



--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

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

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

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

- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.

[Trithemius]

teloft:

> well a true quote.



A true quote from 3.0e.

>From *pre-errata* 3.0e.

Which edition is being used again?



>From http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/MagicItemsII.rtf

> Keen: This ability doubles the threat range of a weapon. Only piercing

> or slashing weapons can be keen. (If you roll this property randomly for

> an inappropriate weapon, reroll.) This benefit doesn’t stack with any

> other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon (such as the keen

> edge spell or the Improved Critical feat).



Honestly, if people are going to use and quote this ruleset, could they do so

consistently? Hey! Why don`t we all just play Ars Magica instead... ;)



--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

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

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

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

- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.

[Osprey]

There were arquebus that -weren`t- matchlocks?
I know there were wheellock semi-rifled hunting pieces and firelock carbines
for garrison troops but I never through that they were described by the folk of
the time as arquebus.


I don't know, honestly, though I know wheellock muskets were used for warfare in the early 1600's, toward the end of the breastplate and helm era. The term arquebus has always been a broadly applied term in my own readings.

The colonists at Jamestown, VA ended up trimming down and eventually ditching their breastplate-and-helm armor. Experience quickly taught them how useless it was.

[Osprey]

Simple, Martial, or Exotic Proficiency for Firearms:

I think in large part this dependes on the ra and commonality of gunpowder and firearms in he world. How commonly available is it? How much demand is there for trained gunners?

Inthe early era of firearms, roughly equivalent to the middle/late medieval period in Europe, firearms were definitely an exotic, dangerous, and uncertain weapon. In this kind of setting, I think firearms would qualify as an Exotic Weapon Proficiency.

As the technology improved, and entire units of arquebusiers and musketeers come to be a more common sight on the battlefield (late medieval - Renaissance era), then a sufficient degree of military training would allow firearms to be considered a Martial Weapon Proficiency. Still not the sort of thing a typical person could easily pick up and learn, but well within the norm for regular military training.

I think it is only in the later eras, perhaps the 18th century and beyond (in Europe), that firearms became the dominant weapon for hunting (for the common man, not just the nobility) as well as warfare. Here is the point where we might call firearms proficiency a Simple Weapon Proficiency.

So there's my sliding-scale answer to your question, Geeman. I think it's quite relative to the setting as to what type of proficiency it is.

-Osprey

[Trithemius]

Osprey:

> The colonists at Jamestown, VA ended up trimming down and eventually

> ditching their breastplate-and-helm armor. Experience quickly taught

> them how useless it was.



I was mainly think of cavalry harness. There are stories about veteran pikemen

ditching their heavy harness too (and shortening their pikes when on long

marches).



--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

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

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

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

- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.

[kgauck]

The French in Napoleon`s army threw away food during the hot, long march

into Russia. I am not sure that throwing away gear is good evidence that

such gear is useless. Just that soldiers can be disinclined to carry what

is heavy.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Trithemius]

Kenneth Gauck:

> The French in Napoleon`s army threw away food during the hot, long

> march into Russia. I am not sure that throwing away gear is good evidence

> that such gear is useless. Just that soldiers can be disinclined to carry

> what is heavy.



Good point, although it is mentioned that there were notorious pikeman`s

armours that only deflected the points of enemy pikes into the soft parts.



Infantry armour was also generally of lesser quality than that of cavalry. One

presumes this means that it was of less use in deflecting shot.



--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

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

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

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

- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.

[Mantyluoto]

Just to add my 2p's worth.

i think that all firearms should be Martial weapons for the standard statistics

Flintlock Pistol: 1d8 Damage (18-20/x3), 10' Range increment, ROF 1/3
Flintlock Musket: 2d8 Damage (18-20/x3), 30' Range Increment, ROF 1/4

but if a user wants to improve his RoF he needs to take it as an exotic Weapon which would change it to 1/2 or 1/3.

There are pro's and cons to every system, i like the idea they create a lot of smoke which will help in the chaos of a fight, and i like the idea that firearms are rare.

I'm in year 9 of my campaign and my main regent is showing interest in Aduria, but needs to sort out the Iron Throne first :D

[ausrick]

Well, since we ressurrected a 2 year old thread, I might as well post on it as well! The talk of Gunpowder comes up a lot. also, whether weapons should be considered Martial or Exotic. From what I've seen different campaign settings handle it differently. What it seems to hinge on are how common the weapons are, and how easily someone with x amount of combat knowledge would know how to use them properly. So while they are a rarity and a novelty, they would be Exotic, then as firearms and society progress, when they become common enough that in society standard soldiers/levys/militia have a reasonable chance to be outfitted with them, then those weapons would be considered Martial weapons. (Note, that older versions of the weapons not in common use, if operated differently would probably still be exotic). And eventually when firearms become so common that even non-combatants are familiar with their use for such common activities as hunting, self protection, etc. then they would probably become simple weapons. Unless playing a specific campaign that spells out the familiarity, there should probably be some DM call on how common they are. It is kind of the same idea that in the PHB certain weapons are exotic that in the Oriental Adventures campaign are martial. In a campaign with a lot of domain level play, time could pass very quickly. I always have seen cerillia as on the cusp of gunpowder, where in 551 MR the chivalric Anuirean Knight reigns supreme, but in 571? 591? 651? Who knows? how will the players adapt should the campaign go on that long?

Oh, and some people have mentioned in various places on the board that they feel there is conflict between Science and Magic, and these two cannot exist in the same place at the same time very well. I personally don't have a problem with that in a fantasy world but for people who do, one of the ravenloft books, and I forget which one, I think it was the Gazeteer that has Lamordia in it, has an optional rule for the conflict. It basically says that as a particular location gains faith in science and thus looses faith in the supernatural as it feels science can explain those things and there is nothing above the natural, then magic gains a percentage of failure. This idea I guess can play nicely in a campaign where already magic is more effective in the wilds and it pits wizard regents against the encroaching civilization. If I find the table I'll post it here. I don't have my books with me at work.

[Mantyluoto]

In my campaign my regent controls, Medoere, has Albeile isle & Mieres under her direct control, is pally with roesone has defense treaty with an OIT controlled Ilien (don't ask!!) and is now pondering how to stop Diemed seizing the Iron throne before the next sword and crown in 3rd quarter 560MR.

Did i say it was just about to start 1st quarter 559MR!

and in my game Azrai is returning from the south where gunpower is common and merchants are going to start filtering it up during just after the Sword & Crown.

[JoseFreitas]

An alternative "middle of the road" option is to define some sort of penalization to AC values - something like "ignore any AC bonuses from leather based armor, halve AC bonuses for metal based armors - and give firearms strong critical threat ranges and high damage".

Historically, although firearms didn't come to almost dominate warfare (I say almost because even today the bayonet and knife have a place in restricted space close quarter fighting), from sometime in the middle of the 16th century onward lack of firearms became a very big disadvantage, and pretty much access or not to them could determine the outcome of a battle. See the history of the expansion into the east by the portuguese and dutch etc... or even before that the tremendous influence cannon had in the conquest of Granada.

Also, the fact is that it takes A LOT less training to make someone competente at using a firearm (and it's much easier to aim a gun than other types of ranged weapns - much as a crossbow is easier to aim than a bow). It was possible to train a competent infantryman to use firearms in a couple of months. This was one of the decisive factors in the spread of firearms, made even faster and more important with the rise of "national" armies, starting in the 17th and culminating in the Napoleonic armies.

José de Freitas
Portugal

[limolnar]

Are there any available openings for this game?

[Mantyluoto]

what game?

[Ugrush]

Where is there going to be any work done on this area of birthright? been talking since 2003 about it and nothing...

[geeman]

At 07:37 PM 3/19/2008, Ugrush wrote:

>Where is there going to be any work done on this area of birthright?
>been talking since 2003 about it and nothing...

That should probably be the first question answered in an Adurian FAQ....

Gary

[kgauck]

Where is there going to be any work done on this area of birthright? been talking since 2003 about it and nothing...
One should always be dubious about sentences in the passive voice which refer to work being done. Work is not done, people do work.

People may have set out with good intentions, but not gotten very far.
People may have hoped to address questions, but gone no further than hope.

I suspect there may be some good bits (I've seen a nice map) out there, but not assembled and posted.

But anyone with ideas can start assembling stuff for the wiki.

[AndrewTall]

The wiki already has a fair chunk on http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php/Aduria

another source I've been slowly wiki-fying is http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Labyrinth/8099/

And of course anyone who wants to add their own vision is more than welcome to do so!

[Green Knight]

I did some work detailing Aduria a while back. It can be found at:

http://www.atlas.twilightpeaks.net/gpage.html

[Lifesbane]

Does anyone know where I could get a map of Aduria other than a rar file?

[Green Knight]

I could perhaps e-mail it to you?