New Class Options

[Osprey]

After reading the Flavour vs. Mechanics forum, I was reminded of a few ideas I've been considering. For the sake of not deviating too much from that thread's purpose, however, I'm posting these in a new topic based on some possible class additions/ rewrites for revised BRCS and/or variant proposals. For now, though, this is just brainstorming.


8. Paladins and priests.
I also like the idea of paladins for all religions. As for priests/clerics, I'd have to say that the 2E rules for these speciality priest were unbalanced, but I did like the differences between the religions. I'm proposing changing the domains for the clerics to make them more unique (and to restrict certain news spells that I'm working on just to clerics of a certain faith). Another option is to have a different list of class skills for different faiths, or something like that. The Atlas will also feature some prestige classes for specific religions, but not one for each...[Raesene Andu]

Looking at the 3.5 Mystic Theurge prestige class, I can't help but notice how perfectly it fits as a prestige class for servants of Ruornil. I think it would be great to make this an exclusive option for Priests of Ruornil - OK, possibly priests of Avani too, although I think the Loremaster far more fitting for them.


Dwarves can’t be wizards. In 2nd ed this is not setting material since this was the standard rule and dwarves were not allowed to be wizards at all. I have never seen a TSR 2nd ed setting that allowed them to be wizards.
[irdeggman]

I've been chewing on this idea of a new class or prestige class for dwarven arcane spellcasters: the Runemaster. I tried to work out a set of stats for a prestige class, but so far have been unhappy with the results. But I still like the concept (and maybe some of you can help out with some ideas for ways to make this mechanically viable if it's found to be a good idea).

Here's the concept: since dwarves are so grounded in the material world, and tied to their earthen nature, it makes sense that arcane magic would be somewhat foreign to them. On the other hand, mebhaighal IS earthpower in its purest form, so it doesn't quite make sense that they would be alienated from such a constant companion. That's where the runemaster comes in (and the more I think about it, the more I think it would be better to make a new variant of the sorcerer or wizard rather than a prestige class).

The Runemaster uses symbolism as an exclusive focus for his magic. Dwarven runes, when worked by a runemaster, can focus arcane energies and bind them into objects. The simplest form of this is expressed in single-icon runestones, each containing a single spell that must be activated/triggered in some way. As the runemaster progresses in his craft, he learns to bind them into metals (such as weapons and armor) as well, and to inscribe combinations of several runes for more potent effects. It is important to note, however, that runes must always be inscribed in solid, earth-based substances: stone, metal, and dwarven flesh(!) all being suitable recipients for runic magic. Heh, heh, yeah, I love the idea of runemasters learning to inscribe runic tatoos, but only dwarves (OK, constructs, stone giants, and any earth elemental natives would also qualify) having the necessary stone-like constitution to accept the magic. This could probably work in a similar fashion to Vos war tattoos.

Runemasters would necessarily be craftsmen as well, and the idea was that they represent the arcane articifers of the dwarven race. The class would focus on their specialized advantages in this area, while limiting their flexibility compared to other wizards and sorcerers. Honestly, this was meant to be more of an NPC class, as runemasters would rarely (if ever) be adventurers. However, the role they play in dwarven history and present society would be extremely important, hence the necessity for fleshing out their capabilities.

I know that in many ways this idea resembles prestige classes, but in this case there are 2 BR-specific problems with that:
1. It allows general dwarven mages to be a viable reality, which really cuts into the general concept of dwarves distrusting mages, or simply not understanding them at all.
2. Prestige classes encourage higher-level characters, which also conflicts with the lower level setting of Cerilia.

Thus I'm proposing that Runemasters would be the only arcane spellcasters of the dwarven race, maintaining their distinction as great articifers of stone and metal wonders while limiting an explosion of dwarven mages in Cerilia.

-Osprey

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Osprey@Oct 9 2003, 08:27 AM
Thus I'm proposing that Runemasters would be the only arcane spellcasters of the dwarven race, maintaining their distinction as great articifers of stone and metal wonders while limiting an explosion of dwarven mages in Cerilia.

-Osprey
Off hand I'd be loathe to restrict dwarven bards. I have never seen any reason why all cultures don't have their own version of a bard. Some distrust them (Khinasi), some make fun and belittle them (Vos), some treat them with ultimate respect (Rjurik) but essentially all cultures have their own version of a bard.

In 2nd ed the Complete Book of Bards opened the door for bards of nontraditional races (i.e., those normally restricted like halflings).

[Osprey]

Interesting...my first reaction to dwarven bards, in all honesty, was something like..."You're kidding, right?" I never imagined dwarves having sweet voices or any particular appreciation for music. But then I started thinking about work songs, and realized that rythm and percussion might be right up their alley. Miners and blacksmiths probably have an excellent sense of rythm, and dwarves with their long work days might sing/chant to make the time go by. That's what I imagine, anyways - 12 hour shifts, maybe more, in the mines (which by now might be far from their permanent homes), in stints of several weeks or months, and then a vacation period back home for a week or more of good family and social time, drinking, eating, and making merry (dwarven style).

So heavy rythm and chants might fit a dwarven bard's style, aye?

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Osprey@Oct 9 2003, 11:27 AM
Interesting...my first reaction to dwarven bards, in all honesty, was something like..."You're kidding, right?" I never imagined dwarves having sweet voices or any particular appreciation for music. But then I started thinking about work songs, and realized that rythm and percussion might be right up their alley. Miners and blacksmiths probably have an excellent sense of rythm, and dwarves with their long work days might sing/chant to make the time go by. That's what I imagine, anyways - 12 hour shifts, maybe more, in the mines (which by now might be far from their permanent homes), in stints of several weeks or months, and then a vacation period back home for a week or more of good family and social time, drinking, eating, and making merry (dwarven style).

So heavy rythm and chants might fit a dwarven bard's style, aye?
Yup pretty much. A player is currently playing a dwarven bard/cleric in our 3rd ed game right now and his character's voice has never been portrayed as particularly sweet. Bards don't always have to sing, they can use many different entertainment styles, drums is particularly good for dwarves and of course the Gregorian chant like style.

Think of the Wizard of Oz and the songs of the solders by the Wicked Witch of the East - "yo de do, yo do".

[RaspK_FOG]

Well, their only problem (and a BIG one at that) is their penalty to Charisma, but this does not apply to BR! :D

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Osprey" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 11:27 AM





> So heavy rythm and chants might fit a dwarven bard`s style, aye?



Exactly. One of the Overthane`s adviser in my 2e campaign was his former

tutor, a dwarven chanter who could trace everyone`s geneology back into the

mists of time. He played drums on occasion, and spoke in a low bellowing

chant.



The other kind of dwarven bard I had was the tumbler. Rather than singing

and playing instuments, he performed for groups feats of acrobatics,

tumbling around.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[The Jew]

Here is an idea for a dwarven runemaster. Starting with a wizard as a base.
The changes are:

hit die: d8
skill points: 4+int mod
The bonus scribe scroll feat be switched to an item creation feat

The runemaster could only cast spells by touch, by drawing a rune on the object or recipient. Would lose most spells from the schools conjuration, evocation and necromancy, many others from the other schools and pick up some spells from clerics.

The runemaster would be able to create magic items, but only of stone, metal or dwarven flesh. Six item creation feats:
structures(such as walls, doors, on a trap, etc..)
wonderous items
weapons and armour
tattoos
rings
combination creation (allow several dwarves to participate in the creation of the item, sharing the experience costs and time. Important for creating particularly powerful items, such as the main gate to the dwarven kingdom)

The mechanics for creation would be the same except that the runemaster would have to create the item themselves (the reason for the extra skill points). The cost would be 10% less because of the runemasters complete familiarity with the item.

This would be a NPC class, though it is strong enough that a PC could play it.

[Osprey]

Hmmm, interesting...

Why d8 hit die type? Dwarves already get a Constitution bonus (and DR) to account for their toughness. How about d6 - still a bit tougher than the wizard (its base).

Why add clerical spells, by the way? And consider that limiting the spell lists too much might preclude the creation of a number of magical items. I think it already balances by the fact that the runemaster has a very limited method of transferring the magic - through runes alone. Powerful under the right circumstances, but nigh-impotent in other situations (where range is an issue, especially). And considering that a good 90% of arcane spells are ranged, that&#39;s a pretty hefty limitation&#33; I don&#39;t think I&#39;d trim down the spell lists at all.

Also, it might be feasible to allow non-dwarves to have such a class. Crap, who invented the Rjurik anti-magic sentiment, anyways? Suspicion and distrust I could understand, but it really slaps the whole Norse/Celtic derivation right in the face - Odin discovered runic lore in Norse mythology, and later passed it onto man. The Celts&#39; druids seem to have been so wreathed in mystery that they could almost as easily qualify as "sorcerers" as they could priests. And besides, how often could the average, mundane Rjurik person tell if magic is arcane or divine anyways?

Eh, sorry to go off ranting, the original point was that Rjurik Runemasters might be a pretty cool addition, too.

[Airgedok]

I loathe the old D&D rule sets that created racial limits to classes. Even the elven - clerical rules isnt a racial rule but a cultural rule. An elf that was raise in a human temple could very well become a priest to a human god if such an elf desired to worship the god of its "parents" and the god wanted to accept teh elf as its servant.

The point being that cultural rules are always better than racial rules. In the most well known fantasy setting tolkien&#39;s middle earth dwarves are great users of magic&#33; But in the form of item creation they are second only to the elves in the creation of magic items. The point I&#39;m making is that D&D in the earlier versions was very very limiting and the 3x version have allowed you to create a vast difference within the classes a a rogue can be a diplomate or a thug yet they both use the same rogue template but one is part of the ruling class and the other is a lower class criminal. Yet they are both rogues. One is a theif one is a diplomate. The class distinctions in 3x editions are very broad and thus none limiting and thats why they didnt make rules that eliminated dwarven magic users like they did in 2e or 1e ad&D. Because a Wizard that concentrates on item creation is well within most fantasy literature of dwarven cultures. And yet who&#39;s to say taht there isnt a dwarven gandalf? Why is it important to eliminate choice to the races? The human advantages teh extra feat and teh skill points are far more powerful than most racial abilities in 3x edition rules, so it not a balance issue.

I just find it strange why people are so against giving players choice in the game. Does it really ruin the birthright setting to have dwarven wizards? Does it really complete the birthright setting to disallow dwarven wizards? What makes a setting and what breaks a setting? While Gandalf the grey is a major icon in tolken&#39;s lord of teh rings his magic power is almost never displayed and yet he is used as a symbol of magical power in the setting. But I ask how can that one symbol of a NON-HUMAN be the basis of so many human wizards? i mean its well within the realm of reason to eliminate human wizards and socerers as a viable class options in a d20 middle earth setting but it would cause 100&#39;s of people to say "hey thats not fair&#33;" So inturn isnt it just a viable that if human wizards are aceptable in middle earth that dwarves would be too? and cant this same argument to transplanted in birthright? Why cant dwarves be arcane magic users? What does it hurt? i think 3x edition did alot to address the failings of D&D with its racial restrictions. I think teh game is better for its more open rules. The weapon restrictions are now gone again a better way to address weapons is handled in the current editions. I guess it falls under the subjective view point of if you think D&D has gone the better route with its sules in allowing greater diversity with character classes and races or if you prefer the more structured but restictive rules of teh older system? Does birthright want to be part of the former or latter? It appears that all adaptations of the older 2e settings that have been converted for 3e have kept the the new spirit of teh 3e rules of non-racial restrictions for the 3e version of teh setting. Shouldnt birthright keep to that spirit and allow individual GM/DM add more restrictive rules if they desire?

[ConjurerDragon]

Osprey 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=2000

> Osprey wrote:

> Hmmm, interesting...

> Why d8 hit die type? Dwarves already get a Constitution bonus (and DR) to account for their

toughness. How about d6 - still a bit tougher than the wizard (its base).

> Why add clerical spells, by the way? And consider that limiting the spell lists too much

> might preclude the creation of a number of magical items. I think it

already balances by the

> fact that the runemaster has a very limited method of transferring

the magic - through runes

> alone. Powerful under the right circumstances, but nigh-impotent in

other situations (where

> range is an issue, especially). And considering that a good 90% of

arcane spells are ranged,

> that`s a pretty hefty limitation&#33; I don`t think I`d trim down

the spell lists at all.



When seen as an NPC class which as most dwarves can only be found in

dwarven provinces and underground then the range issue of arcane magic

is not so great a problem. Underground, with the exception of larger

dwarven halls there should not be so much room that the long and medium

ranges of spells really could be used to advantage by some human or

other races wizard to compare to the runemaster. Additionally his racial

darkvision would allow him to take advantage over the humans need for a

light spell/torch to light him a limited area underground.



As a PC who would like to adventure outside the normal dwarven society

and on the surface, there it would really difficult to compete.



> Also, it might be feasible to allow non-dwarves to have such a

class. Crap, who invented the

> Rjurik anti-magic sentiment, anyways? Suspicion and distrust I could

understand, but it really

> slaps the whole Norse/Celtic derivation right in the face - Odin

discovered runic lore in Norse

> mythology, and later passed it onto man. The Celts` druids seem to

have been so wreathed in

> mystery that they could almost as easily qualify as

"sorcerers" as they could

> priests. And besides, how often could the average, mundane Rjurik

person tell if magic is

>arcane or divine anyways?



The last statement is the reason that rjurik wizards tend to use spells

which look like comparable druidic/clerical counterparts. The unschooled

eye of commoners can´t see the difference so they are safe - until a

real druid or priest wanders through that village and discovers that the

village druid is a wizard ;-)

[The Jew]

from osprey
>Why add clerical spells, by the way? And consider that l>imiting the spell lists too much might preclude the >creation of a number of magical items. I think it already >balances by the fact that the runemaster has a very >limited method of transferring the magic - through runes >alone.

The limits on the spells were because of ones that would not function as touch spells. Conjuration and evocation are almost entirely schools whose spells have a long distance or are created out of thin air. Certainly most spells that could be delivered by touch should be kept. I suggested nixing necromancy since it tends to be an evil schools and the dwarves are a good race. I know very little about 2e BR, what are peoples feelings on that school?
The addition of clerics spells, is to help strengthen the class, but would mostly be restricted to spells that effect stone or metal or are rune based. Examples:

magic stone, align weapon, make whole, glyph of warding, magic vestment, meld into stone, stone shape.

We would of course have to careful about restricting wizard spells that are useful for creating magic items, and be generous with cleric spells for the the same reason.

I agree with a d6 hit die. I was just raising it since a runemaster would be less of a bookworm and more of a craftman than a traditional wizard. They would also be in much more danger in combat since their spells are touch attacks.
It would also need a better attack bonus. Either a clerics or maybe even a fighters, since all of its attacks are touched base.
In a party this class would act as more of support for other party members, like a bard, rather than going after the enemies.

[geeman]

Airgedok writes:



>An elf that was raise in a human temple could very well become a

>priest to a human god if such an elf desired to worship the god

>of its "parents" and the god wanted to accept teh elf

>as its servant.



While I agree with the above interpretation I think it should be noted that

in the original materials the language is somewhat vague on whether an elf

could actually take levels in a priestly class. There is text in some of

the supplements to support that interpretation, but it really just says that

a elves are free to worship gods if they choose to do so as a sort of "don`t

ask, don`t tell" policy in the elven culture, but that doesn`t really mean

that an elf can take levels as a cleric or priest.



Gary

[ConjurerDragon]

Gary Foss schrieb:

> Airgedok writes:

>> An elf that was raise in a human temple could very well become a

>> priest to a human god if such an elf desired to worship the god

>> of its "parents" and the god wanted to accept teh elf

>> as its servant.

> While I agree with the above interpretation I think it should be noted that

> in the original materials the language is somewhat vague on whether an elf

> could actually take levels in a priestly class. There is text in some of

> the supplements to support that interpretation, but it really just says

> that

> a elves are free to worship gods if they choose to do so as a sort of

> "don`t

> ask, don`t tell" policy in the elven culture, but that doesn`t really mean

> that an elf can take levels as a cleric or priest.

> Gary



If an sidhelien really believes in a god and therefore choses not only

to worship this god but to become a cleric of that god - how can he stay

among his own people remaining silent about his god?



Spreading the word about your god is one of the dutys of most priests

and the elf would be in a constant contradiction between his dutys to

his new god and his people.



So an elf who worships a god - silently is one thing in elven realms.

But elven clerics can´t exist in elven realms in my opinion.

bye

Michael

[Green Knight]

Personally, I don`t like this approach. It`s too much

"humans-with-pointy-ears". I like the sidhe enigmatic and ALIEN. IMC,

they`re not human, hell they`re not even humanoid.



Maybe they are incapable of worship on a metaphysical level (maybe they

lack a soul or whatever, and that`s a worship requirement) or maybe

they`re simply so different that the god-worshipper relationship simply

holds no meaning.



Of course, there are always exceptions to every rule. I had an elf once,

which (in a bad case of Tolkienesque DMing) renounced his heritage and

became mortal in order to worship Nesirie, Lady of Grief and Mourning.



Cheers

Bjørn



-----Original Message-----

From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion

[mailto:BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM] On Behalf Of Michael Romes

Sent: 13. oktober 2003 20:49

To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM

Subject: Re: New Class Options [36#2000]



Gary Foss schrieb:

> Airgedok writes:

>> An elf that was raise in a human temple could very well become a

>> priest to a human god if such an elf desired to worship the god

>> of its "parents" and the god wanted to accept teh elf

>> as its servant.

> While I agree with the above interpretation I think it should be noted

that

> in the original materials the language is somewhat vague on whether an

elf

> could actually take levels in a priestly class. There is text in some

of

> the supplements to support that interpretation, but it really just

says

> that

> a elves are free to worship gods if they choose to do so as a sort of

> "don`t

> ask, don`t tell" policy in the elven culture, but that doesn`t really

mean

> that an elf can take levels as a cleric or priest.

> Gary



If an sidhelien really believes in a god and therefore choses not only

to worship this god but to become a cleric of that god - how can he stay

among his own people remaining silent about his god?



Spreading the word about your god is one of the dutys of most priests

and the elf would be in a constant contradiction between his dutys to

his new god and his people.



So an elf who worships a god - silently is one thing in elven realms.

But elven clerics can´t exist in elven realms in my opinion.

bye

Michael



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

****



Birthright-l Archives:

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

[destowe]

It seems that what you would like is to use the bard class as a base point.

Myabe change the Reflex save to give good Will and Fort saves. The base attack/hp/skill points are good, but the skills need some changing.

For a suggestion of spells I would look into the 2nd edition of Skills and Powers that dealt with Magic. There were 2 related schools, but I forget the names. As the bard was only sound, one was writing and the other was items.

[Osprey]

Unfirtunately, bards&#39; limited selection of spells doesn&#39;t work too well for the runemaster concept. Wizards&#39; formulaic approach to magic still seems like the way to go to me.

[geeman]

Michael Romes writes:



> If an sidhelien really believes in a god and therefore choses not only

> to worship this god but to become a cleric of that god - how can he stay

> among his own people remaining silent about his god?

>

> Spreading the word about your god is one of the dutys of most priests

> and the elf would be in a constant contradiction between his dutys to

> his new god and his people.

>

> So an elf who worships a god - silently is one thing in elven realms.

> But elven clerics can´t exist in elven realms in my opinion.



I think it`s entirely possible to be a sort of low-key, non-denominational,

relaxed kind of theologian (though such folks might be in remarkably short

supply in the real world. Levels in such classes might be used to reflect a

personal, internalized faith based more on a system of reflection and

worldly attitudes rather than actual conversions and efforts at "spreading

the word" as it were. Monks of a sect or other brotherly orders would

qualify as priests, though they might never deliver a sermon.



Heck, I got "Internet ordained" so I could officiate a wedding a few months

back--an experience I highly recommend (officiating, that is, not

marriage--but whatever floats your boat) and there`s more than a few people

for whom I hope someday to deliver the last rites.... I don`t think that

really makes me a cleric in D&D terms, of course, but neither necessarily

does taking levels as a cleric make one a priest in real life terms either.

Some people who may have taken levels in such a class may never have

performed any ritualistic services at the head of a congregation.



I think the elven "don`t ask, don`t tell" policy is a fairly good

justification for not allowing any elf to ever take actual levels in a

cleric/druid class in that it is kind of part of the role of such a person

to preach. At least, it would make it pretty difficult to take on such

levels while in elven lands, especially for a character reared amongst

elves.



On the other hand, it doesn`t say such an elf CAN`T preach. He or she will

just get into trouble for doing so, and could face repercussions--which is

pretty close to the definition of martyrdom for most religious folks. Maybe

such actions would be the kind of thing that would attract the attention of

the GS, and lead to being hunted, cast off, exiled, etc. for such a

character? In the long run it might turn out to be a cool campaign hook for

a homebrew--which is not to say that I want to see it in the core BR

materials. I think such a thing should be left to "DM fiat" rather than

made a standard for the setting.



Gary

[RaspK_FOG]

Err, if I am not mistaken, the current Playtester BRCS has no rule for Sidhelien being unable to become clerics. Anyway...


As for new ideas for classes, I am here with a few ideas I picked up from The Wheel of Time&#33; First of all, one could easilly adopt the mid-step base save concept that the people who wrote the aforementioned book introduced.

In D&D, both 3e and 3.5e, the standard advancement rules for base saves includes two progressions: High and Low, meaning a base of (1/2 * Class Level + 2) and (1/3 * Class Level) respectively... I was checking my copy of the book and noticed (I was that dense) that there was a third advancement, which I call Average. By making the appropriate calculations, I noticed the progression is (2/5 * Class Level + 6/5). Here it is in table format:



Level * * Base Save Bonus
1 * * ** * *+1
2 * * ** * *+2
3 * * * * * *+2
4 * * ** * *+2
5 * * * * * *+3
6 * * ** * *+3
7 * * ** * *+4
8 * * ** * *+4
9 * * ** * *+4
10 * * * * *+5
11 * * * * *+5
12 * * * * *+6
13 * * * * *+6
14 * * * * *+6
15 * * * * *+7
16 * * * * *+7
17 * * * * *+8
18 * * * * *+8
19 * * * * *+8
20 * * * * *+9

Another idea would be to use the defence statistic; each class has a defence statistic, which represents its ease at defence. The statistic does not stack with armour and shield bonuses (the higher bonus is what makes it to the character&#39;s Defence, the equivalent of Armour Class), except for Armsmen, who have the lower Defence progression along with a few other classes, but their own defence stacks with armour and shield bonuses. Characters who multiclass have their total bonus reduced by 2 (something I apply myself to the total for High Base Saves; for Average saves, I reduce the total only by 1).

The Defence bonus progressions are the same as the ones assigned to saves (High, Low, and Average for those who allow it) + 2.


I happen to like both ideas, but they are little hard to assign in some cases... Oh well, more about that tomorrow&#33; ^_^

[Osprey]

Concerning Runemasters: I would propose that rune spells aren&#39;t entirely limited by touch. While it&#39;s a good basis, I think what&#39;s important is that the runic inscription is always the source of magic. For example, emanation effects (like detect magic) and protective magics (mage armor, fire shield, etc.) might be very appropriate for rune spells.

However, what I would curb is the idea that you could have runic "ray guns" that could shoot lightning bolts or cones of cold. However, using a rune-inscribed sword with a Lightning Rune might create a Shocking Burst type of effect, or even act much like a spell-storing weapon and actually deliver the full spell on release (i.e., deliver a 10d6 lightning bolt if it has a 10th level rune on the sword). On the other hand, this could get pretty powerful if such weapons could be used by anyone...

Ugh, still no clean system...

[RaspK_FOG]

You could always consider allowing a converted form of Dragon&#39;s new Arcane Strike feat, which effectively adds a +2 bonus to attack rolls and +1d6 points of damage per level of a spell you "burn up". Like with other similar feats you must make an attack right after the wasting of the spell, and the maximum bonus to attack you can thus achieve is +12 to attack and +6d6 to damage (6th-level spells; if you waster higher-level spells, you still get the same bonuses). I suggest the class acquires the ability at 8th level (the prerequisites for the feat were the ability to cast arcane spells, plus a +4 base attack bonus).


Suggestions for the Runecaster class:
______________________________

Hit Die: d6.
Base Attack Bonus: Low.
Base Save Bonuses: Will High.

Inscribe Rune at 1st level; allows you to craft a magical item that can be used (crumbled to dust) to invoke its power. Effects with Touch or Personal ranges allowed, as well as area effects: Line becomes 5-feet burst for every 30 feet of length, Cone becomes 5-feet burst for every 15 feet of length, while circle burst effects are left as they are. Range increment for area effects: 10 feet.

[RaspK_FOG]

Remember when I said I found clerics to be too good? Well, here is my proposal for all of you who may agree. This is a variant that evens out spell progression for Paladin-like divine spellcasters and allows divine spellcasting levels to actually stack in order to determine spell acquisition.

On the following lines, the Holy Warriors (Paladins, and the like) get the 1st column, Priests (Clerics, and the like) get the 2nd column, and Mystics get the 3rd column. A different style could be implemented for Druids and Rangers, but I have not worked it out just now. If you are interested in the Mystic, I will be posting him soon (not a DragonLance Mystic, of which I had not the time to take a look, but my own).


Alternative No.1

Level 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1 0 - - - - 2 - - - - - - 3 1 - - - - - - - -
2 0 - - - - 3 0 - - - - - 4 2 - - - - - - - -
3 1 - - - - 3 1 - - - - - 4 2 1 - - - - - - -
4 1 - - - - 3 2 0 - - - - 4 3 2 - - - - - - -
5 1 0 - - - 3 3 1 - - - - 4 3 2 1 - - - - - -
6 1 0 - - - 3 3 2 - - - - 4 3 3 2 - - - - - -
7 1 1 - - - 3 3 2 0 - - - 4 4 3 2 1 - - - - -
8 1 1 - - - 3 3 3 1 - - - 4 4 3 3 2 - - - - -
9 1 1 0 - - 3 3 3 2 - - - 4 4 4 3 2 1 - - - -
10 1 1 0 - - 3 3 3 2 0 - - 4 4 4 3 3 2 - - - -
11 2 1 1 - - 3 3 3 3 1 - - 4 4 4 4 3 2 1 - - -
12 2 1 1 - - 3 3 3 3 2 - - 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 - - -
13 2 2 1 0 - 3 3 3 3 2 0 - 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 1 - -
14 2 2 1 1 - 4 3 3 3 3 1 - 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 - -
15 2 2 2 1 - 4 4 3 3 3 2 - 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 1 -
16 3 2 2 1 - 4 4 4 3 3 2 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 -
17 3 3 2 2 0 4 4 4 4 3 3 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 1
18 3 3 3 2 1 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 2
19 3 3 3 3 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3
20 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Holy Warriors, Priests, and Mystics all cast divine spells from the Cleric Spell list in a sort of pooled faith. If a character does not multiclass, he can simply use the above tables. If he does, however, his spell progression is that of the class with the more available spell levels. To come up with a character&#39;s spellcasting ability, sum up the fractional levels produced by the following formulas + 1.

Each level above 1st equals&#58;
============================
Holy Warriors&#58; 3/12 of a new step in spell progression.
Priests&#58; 4/12 of a new step in spell progression.
Mystics&#58; 6/12 of a new step in spell progression.

[Airgedok]

Originally posted by ConjurerDragon@Oct 13 2003, 07:13 PM
Gary Foss schrieb:

> Airgedok writes:

>> An elf that was raise in a human temple could very well become a

>> priest to a human god if such an elf desired to worship the god

>> of its "parents" and the god wanted to accept teh elf

>> as its servant.

> While I agree with the above interpretation I think it should be noted that

> in the original materials the language is somewhat vague on whether an elf

> could actually take levels in a priestly class. There is text in some of

> the supplements to support that interpretation, but it really just says

> that

> a elves are free to worship gods if they choose to do so as a sort of

> "don`t

> ask, don`t tell" policy in the elven culture, but that doesn`t really mean

> that an elf can take levels as a cleric or priest.

> Gary



If an sidhelien really believes in a god and therefore choses not only

to worship this god but to become a cleric of that god - how can he stay

among his own people remaining silent about his god?



Spreading the word about your god is one of the dutys of most priests

and the elf would be in a constant contradiction between his dutys to

his new god and his people.



So an elf who worships a god - silently is one thing in elven realms.

But elven clerics can´t exist in elven realms in my opinion.

bye

Michael













Umm you make an assumption that i think you shouldnt. You assume that these religions are evangelical, like Islam or christianity they try to increase membership through conversion. But what about other religions like judism or hinduism that are not evangelical? It is very easy to see an elf being a priest much like a buddest monk and not trying to convert anyone.

What does a cleric mean and can a single definition be tolerable? Wouldnt it be more accurate to ask what does a cleric of [blank] mean?

I dont know how human gods would react to an elven worshipper asking to join his church but I ask this "IF and this is a the key word IF a god accepted a sidhe worshipper into his priesthood is their any reason why an elf couldnt be a cleric? This is a question about teh spirit of teh rules within 3e and how that spirit effects and is effected by Birthright. I dont know the answer. Or I&#39;m not 100% sure what teh answear is but this is the place to hash these concepts out.

Whats more important the spirit of Birthright or the spirit of 3e? If you ignore the spirit of birthright you lose that which makes that wold compelling but if you ignore the spirit of 3e you lose that which make 3e so much better a rule set that 2e (at least to the vast majority of people I realise that many feal the opposite but then again this isnt for them as they&#39;ll just play the original).

I dislike racial prohibition rules and even class prohibition rules that were the standard of the 2e rules like no dwarven wizards or wizards can use swords. I find the current system far better. Hell if i had a sidhe regent taht wanted to becoe a cleric I&#39;d let him try... the character would have to convince me and through me teh god that the elf was actually a servent of the god and not just trying to gain a source of power. Also any sidhe that tries to bring that religion to his Elven subjects will likely end up an Ex-regant and in turn an Ex-sidhe.

But on an adventure level game I could well see an sidhe being converted and joining the priesthood. The difference in the rule&#39;s spirit is that their are cultural barriers not racial barriers. Much like the barriers woman face they are not racial but cultural. I find those types of rules aceptable but I find racial rules totaly uncacceptable.

[Airgedok]

Just want to be clear on my position I&#39;m all for creating new classes so long as no race is excluded from any class including elves. That being said I&#39;m all for cultural concequences for various classes. i could see elves viewing any elven cleric as they would a necomancer. Perhaps its a subtle differance to some but for me its an important issue.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Airgedok@Oct 14 2003, 09:23 PM
Just want to be clear on my position I&#39;m all for creating new classes so long as no race is excluded from any class including elves. That being said I&#39;m all for cultural concequences for various classes. i could see elves viewing any elven cleric as they would a necomancer. Perhaps its a subtle differance to some but for me its an important issue.
It is important to review the campaign setting definition material for Birthright. One of the things that separates it from other settings is the fact that there are no elven gods and that elves can&#39;t (normally) be clerics (or priests in 2nd ed). This is an important aspect that needs to always be kept in mind.



Atlas of Cerilia pg 6 “Still, the elves were pushed back year after year because of an element they had never encountered – priestly magic. The elves could easily call upon the forces inherent in the wood and water, field and air, but had never worshipped deities and thus, could not even begin to understand this new source of power. The human priests were the deciding factor against the elves’ expertise in magic and combat; the old gods favored humans to such an extent that the elves found themselves practically powerless.”

Birthright Rule Book (BRRB) pg 5 Table 3: Racial Level Limits {elves can’t be priests of any level}.

BRRB pg 11 Priest – races allowed; dwarf, half-elf, halfling, human {no elves}

PS Tuarhievel pg 19 “To the elves, spiritual development is the responsibility of the individual. The path an elf takes is a decision that only he or she can make. So strong is this belief that if an elf chooses to worship one of the human gods, so be it. The only restriction placed on such an individual is that of silence while within elven lands.”

While on the surface the section from the Tuarhievel PS seems to contradict the other references, as Gary has pointed out it doesn’t talk about levels as a priest. Being a worshipper of a god does not mean being a priest. This is somewhat outlined in the Book of Priestcraft in the composition of a temple holding and the various classes that are available in the typical holding. So all in all I would have to say that these are not contradictory statements in the 2nd Birthright books and that the original campaign setting material was pretty clear on elves not being priests.

[RaspK_FOG]

One thing I never quite understood and many people still seem reluctant to approach is the real meaning of being a cleric. Allow me to explain...

(Let&#39;s just say that nobles are not the standard BR nobles, just any class that plays that role well; I, for one, prefer the noble from The Wheel of Time to that of BR, but that&#39;s another thing entirely.)
For all we no, a priest can be anyone who is versed in the theological issues and background of his particular church and can actually preach about them to the masses, but does not have to (as a priest, his role is to perform ceremonies) . If we want to be honest, a bard/adept or noble/adept, and, of course, a noble or expert with few cleric levels would be able do the above. What really differentiates the aforementioned example is that a cleric (the word is greek, and means "one who preaches/one related to preaching") is exactly that part of the clergy which is assigned to drawing new believers to their church.
(In order to avoid being clobbered, I must agree that I gave my class the name cleric to avoid having them confused for standard D&D clerics.)

[RaspK_FOG]

Oh, Osprey, I don&#39;t want to be nagging or anything, but tell me, how did you like my idea for runic inscription? I would really like to know what&#39;s your opinion.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Oct 16 2003, 11:10 AM
One thing I never quite understood and many people still seem reluctant to approach is the real meaning of being a cleric. Allow me to explain...

(Let&#39;s just say that nobles are not the standard BR nobles, just any class that plays that role well; I, for one, prefer the noble from The Wheel of Time to that of BR, but that&#39;s another thing entirely.)
For all we no, a priest can be anyone who is versed in the theological issues and background of his particular church and can actually preach about them to the masses, but does not have to (as a priest, his role is to perform ceremonies) . If we want to be honest, a bard/adept or noble/adept, and, of course, a noble or expert with few cleric levels would be able do the above. What really differentiates the aforementioned example is that a cleric (the word is greek, and means "one who preaches/one related to preaching") is exactly that part of the clergy which is assigned to drawing new believers to their church.
(In order to avoid being clobbered, I must agree that I gave my class the name cleric to avoid having them confused for standard D&D clerics.)
While this is interesting it really has nothing to do with anything. What I mean is the meaning of the terms "priest" and "cleric" are defined by the context they are used in. In this case "priest" was defined by the 2nd ed TSR products and what being a priest entailed, the same with "cleric" and 3rd ed. What the roots of the words or their meaning in "real life" has nothing to do with how they are used in the fantasy game of D&D.

We cannot redefine what the core rules uses as meaning for these things without absolutely trashing the entire D&D system.

In none of the TSR/Wizards product definitions is a priest or cleric "required" to proslytize. Many people see that as the role of a priest/cleric but the way they are used in the core products does not support that belief. Also the "more choices" foundation of 3rd makes this sort of requirement rather in opposition to the very concept/preceipts of 3rd ed itself.

What this comes down to is a "house-rules" approach to what being a priest/cleric means and how a player should role-play one.

[irdeggman]

I like the concept of a rune master more as a prestige class than a replacement for a wizard. I would, however, be hesitant about introducing a prestige class that duplicates what can be done using the existing classes. There are class combos for dwarven artificers (from dragon magazine) that could very reasonably be used.

Some one earlier posted a reference as to how Dragonlance was handling the "sudden appearance" of dwarven wizards and thought that there should be some sort of explanation for this in Birthright. I don&#39;t really see the need to publish an explanation for the following reasons:

(1) Cerilian dwarves are very secretive about themselves and their clans so there could have always been wizards in the dwarven clans just that no outsiders knew about them.

(2) Sources in dwarven lands are not listed as being "owned" by anyone (at least as far as Baruk-Azhik goes). This could reflect that the "owner" is just not known. The various books listing who owns what holdings aren&#39;t necessarily supposed to be absolutly factual - otherwise there is no way to "surprise" players with a change in what was published.

(3) There are not that many dwarves and their numbers are shrinking due to their high casualties from their war with the Orogs. IMO this means that most dwarves don&#39;t have the time to focus on the study of arcane lore that typifies a wizard - they are too busy learning and using martial skills in their clans&#39; defense.

[RaspK_FOG]

Concerning clergies: That&#39;s a point I cannot dismiss&#33; Good one, Irdeggman&#33; ;)

As for the Arcane Strike feat, I noticed the bonuses to attack cannot go beyond your base attack bonus, but the bonus damage is dealt normally.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Oct 16 2003, 06:27 PM

As for the Arcane Strike feat, I noticed the bonuses to attack cannot go beyond your base attack bonus, but the bonus damage is dealt normally.
Help me out here, where is the Arcane Strike feat located? Maybe its just that "old" thing creeping up on me. :D

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 6:16 PM





> I like the concept of a rune master more as a prestige class than a

> replacement for a wizard. I would, however, be hesitant about

> introducing a prestige class that duplicates what can be done using

> the existing classes.



I also am inclined to avoid duplicating whole classes, when all that needs

to be altered is a single feat- namely Carve Rune in place of Scribe Scroll.

A dwarven runecaster could use the standard wizard class and substitute

Carve Rune, it might include an altered list of familiars (perhaps snake,

lizard, spider, mole or other underground creatures) and certainly any other

dwarf wizard neccesities could be added to the list of acceptable feats

taken by the wizard`s bonus feats.



I am personally not inclined to dwarven rune-casters, since I have Rjurik

rune casters drawing on this particular Norse tradition. Rjurik druids,

bards, and clerics can take Carve Rune, and then have no need for Scribe

Scroll, although members of the Oaken Grove can take Scribe Scroll. My own

inclination for dwarves would be to use gems, jewelry, precious metals, and

other stones as spell storage devices.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[RaspK_FOG]

:lol: Well, it just so happens that WotC came up with a new feat in the September issue of Dragon, called Arcane Strike, and I thought that a rune-carving, somewhat more battle-ready type, would really like it...

If you want the details, it is only a while back I post most of it.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Oct 17 2003, 09:34 PM
:lol: Well, it just so happens that WotC came up with a new feat in the September issue of Dragon, called Arcane Strike, and I thought that a rune-carving, somewhat more battle-ready type, would really like it...

If you want the details, it is only a while back I post most of it.
From the way you had originally posted it I thought that this comment was in relation to the BRCS or a suggested modification and not a comment on a Dragon article proposed feat. ;)

[Osprey]

Oh, Osprey, I don&#39;t want to be nagging or anything, but tell me, how did you like my idea for runic inscription? I would really like to know what&#39;s your opinion.

Which idea are you referring to? I looked back through the posts, but couldn&#39;t find what you were referencing. Would you mind (re)posting it again, for the sake of clarity?

-Osprey

[RaspK_FOG]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Oct 15 2003, 01:03 AM
Suggestions for the Runecaster class:
______________________________

Hit Die: d6.
Base Attack Bonus: Low.
Base Save Bonuses: Will High.

Inscribe Rune at 1st level; allows you to craft a magical item that can be used (crumbled to dust) to invoke its power. Effects with Touch or Personal ranges allowed, as well as area effects: Line becomes 5-feet burst for every 30 feet of length, Cone becomes 5-feet burst for every 15 feet of length, while circle burst effects are left as they are. Range increment for area effects: 10 feet.
Sorry for that, Osprey&#33; Here they are:

[Osprey]

RaspK_FOG:
The Inscribe Rune ability is interesting, especially the effect changes. But I wonder, are they a bit too complicated? Also, I definitely drop the area effect thing, or just change areas to cone-like effects. Having a fireball fly out of a runestone is really cheezy. <_<

Honestly, I&#39;m not crazy about runecasters as PC&#39;s, especially adventuring types. Articifers would spend their time at their craft more than anything else. I imagine dwarven types being more like professional craftsmen making occasional magic items, inscribing runic tatoos on worthy warriors, etc.

Hmm, perhaps in that light they really are better made as a prestige class...spent their earlier days as wizards, possibly adventuring, then settle down in their elder days as craftsmen, sages, etc.

[OsricIlien]

I think the Idea for the RuneMaster Is sound. Perhaps removing some spells that Would make little sense like charm person and adding some healing or other spells to the class would help balance the reduction in ranged capabilities. And if you kept the ability to used ranged spells adding the requirement of a material focus for every spell deserves some sort of trade off.

Osric Ilien :)

[RaspK_FOG]

I think you mean "material component", Osric, right? Please clear this up: a material component or a focus?

As for the Inscribe Rune ability, Osprey, I forgot to mention that inscribing runes on stones/gems would cost as much as scribing a scroll.

If you like the concept of making the Runecaster a prestige class, I suggest that you go on with some requirements in the line of requiring a runic alphabet to be known by the character. You could also make it so that other schools of magic, aside the aforementioned Enchantment, are not well suited for runecasting: Illusion (stationary illusions can be both good and bad ideas, according to their nature), Necromancy (except for a few spells that work like wards) and some Divination and Transmutation spells (like message) seem particularly out of context. Abjuration, Conjuration, some Evocation, and most Transmutation spells seem to be the key to such a class.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "OsricIlien" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 5:53 PM





> I think the Idea for the RuneMaster Is sound. Perhaps removing

> some spells that Would make little sense like charm person would

> help balance the reduction in ranged capabilities. And if you kept

> the ability to used ranged spells adding the requirement of a material

> focus for every spell deserves some sort of trade off.



Using Viking runes as a model, charm person is exactly the kind of spell

these things were used for. Again, I am more interested in Rjurik runes

than Dwarven. A metamagic feat might be involved here, as might clever

placement of the runes.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[RaspK_FOG]

So, Charm and Dominate spells would be in line, and so would be geas/quest... It would evolve into an interesting prestige class; using prestige sub-classes for the Rjurik and Dwarven versions would be interesting.

[Osprey]

As for the Inscribe Rune ability, Osprey, I forgot to mention that inscribing runes on stones/gems would cost as much as scribing a scroll.

If you like the concept of making the Runecaster a prestige class, I suggest that you go on with some requirements in the line of requiring a runic alphabet to be known by the character. You could also make it so that other schools of magic, aside the aforementioned Enchantment, are not well suited for runecasting: Illusion (stationary illusions can be both good and bad ideas, according to their nature), Necromancy (except for a few spells that work like wards) and some Divination and Transmutation spells (like message) seem particularly out of context. Abjuration, Conjuration, some Evocation, and most Transmutation spells seem to be the key to such a class.

I think a class ability/feat like Rune Casting would probably cover the language aspect, as I would assume that dwarven wizards already know dwarven writing (which should use a runic script). The same would be true for Rjurik runecasters. However, the secret powers of runes and the ability to utilize them from is what is really entailed within the special abilities of such a class.

But a prerequisite like Decipher Script (5 ranks) might symbolize the work put into figuring out the runes&#39; secret meanings.

Let me see if i can&#39;t flesh out a few basics for a prestige class writeup.

-Osprey

[Airgedok]

Originally posted by irdeggman+Oct 15 2003, 09:54 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (irdeggman @ Oct 15 2003, 09:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Airgedok@Oct 14 2003, 09:23 PM
Just want to be clear on my position I&#39;m all for creating new classes so long as no race is excluded from any class including elves. That being said I&#39;m all for cultural concequences for various classes. i could see elves viewing any elven cleric as they would a necomancer. Perhaps its a subtle differance to some but for me its an important issue.
It is important to review the campaign setting definition material for Birthright. One of the things that separates it from other settings is the fact that there are no elven gods and that elves can&#39;t (normally) be clerics (or priests in 2nd ed). This is an important aspect that needs to always be kept in mind.

[snip]


[/b][/quote]
However the key word in your statement is "(normally)" Its a rather HUGE distinction from they can NEVER be clerics or Dwarves can NEVER be wizards. The idea that Elves would never accept a regent who embraced the human gods is one thing but to exclude a player in and adventure level game from EVER taking a cleric level just because he is an elf is a whole different kettle of fish. There is evidence to support the inturpitation that an elf could be a cleric if they wanted to worship a god and the god accepted such worship.

I&#39;m not advocating that the sidhe should be able to be clerics period. I&#39;ve advocating that ther not be a Racial prohibition but rather a cultural prohibition.

You start saying that X race can only be A, B & C for classes like 2E D&D and you will alienate a huge portion of the players. You have a paragraph explaining why culturely there are no clerics in sidhe lands and that a Sidhe cleric is as rare as being unique but possible for non-regents at least then you have a rule that is acceptable. This still keeps the spirit of the setting that as a whole elves have no priests but also keeps the spirit of the 3e rules that says no core class is excluded from any race.

[Airgedok]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Oct 16 2003, 04:10 PM
One thing I never quite understood and many people still seem reluctant to approach is the real meaning of being a cleric. Allow me to explain...

(Let&#39;s just say that nobles are not the standard BR nobles, just any class that plays that role well; I, for one, prefer the noble from The Wheel of Time to that of BR, but that&#39;s another thing entirely.)
For all we no, a priest can be anyone who is versed in the theological issues and background of his particular church and can actually preach about them to the masses, but does not have to (as a priest, his role is to perform ceremonies) . If we want to be honest, a bard/adept or noble/adept, and, of course, a noble or expert with few cleric levels would be able do the above. What really differentiates the aforementioned example is that a cleric (the word is greek, and means "one who preaches/one related to preaching") is exactly that part of the clergy which is assigned to drawing new believers to their church.
(In order to avoid being clobbered, I must agree that I gave my class the name cleric to avoid having them confused for standard D&D clerics.)
Ah in D&D teh cleric is more a warrior priest than a evangalist and AGAIN not all religions are evangelical like Islam and christianity. Many are non evangelical. So you definition of what a cleric is is fundementaly flawed.

[Osprey]

RaspK,
I just figured out a way runes could use area effects: the runestone is activated, begins to glow with power, and the wielder throws it at his target. BOOM&#33; Grenade-like effect, basically. Figure runestones have a range increment of 20.&#39; (They&#39;re not very aerodynamic, usually small rectangular slabs).

-Osprey

[kari]

I woould say the elfs used to be clerics, usualy clerics of &#39;Azrai&#39; Before the battle. But now they value there fredoom, and have a mutual understandings of the works of gods. knowing thet if thay were to suport a god ever again, it would lead to the ruins of the remains of there people. No god can be above any elf. so even if a elf would rise to godhood. he would not exspect followers from his own race. and he would be exspected to veiw the other elfes as equales.

So begin a cleric of any god, and doing its seremonys, and biddings, would be blasemy to ther fallen bretherns. the ones thet fell in the war of gods.

the day the elfs turnd, thay turnd away from all gods. But before thay were the best of servants/ Clerics.

[kari]

Im thinking about, how to build a little campage, where the gods can be Pc&#39;s as well as any regents.

what can a god benifit from having followers. How sould tows rules work. what seremonys sould there be to gain acsess to the energy in the harts of people thet fule the powers of the god, how can a god grant spells, would there be a limit on how many clerics one god can have depending on his mana pool. granting a cleric acsess to higer level spells migth drain the mana pool of the god, and therefore not every cleric has acsess all of the time. and sometimes the manapool is emty.

:) me like to play a god

would be nice to have some discussion on this topic.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by kari@Oct 21 2003, 09:40 AM
I woould say the elfs used to be clerics, usualy clerics of &#39;Azrai&#39; Before the battle. But now they value there fredoom, and have a mutual understandings of the works of gods. knowing thet if thay were to suport a god ever again, it would lead to the ruins of the remains of there people. No god can be above any elf. so even if a elf would rise to godhood. he would not exspect followers from his own race. and he would be exspected to veiw the other elfes as equales.

So begin a cleric of any god, and doing its seremonys, and biddings, would be blasemy to ther fallen bretherns. the ones thet fell in the war of gods.

the day the elfs turnd, thay turnd away from all gods. But before thay were the best of servants/ Clerics.
The problem with scenario is that the elves were around before they fell sway to Azrai&#39;s promises and then at the last minute they turned on him at Deismaar. Story wise and campaign material wise it just doesn&#39;t fit that cerilian elves were ever clerics

Why would they worship a human deity? Especially not the one soverign over nature.

If you really want to open the door for all races to be all things then the restriction on having to be blooded or of elven blood in order to be a wizard would also have to be removed since this gives a clear advantage to elves and half-elves.

When I said (normally) elves couldn&#39;t be clerics - what the 2nd ed books actually said was that they couldn&#39;t be clerics. I did a listing of the applicable excerpts from all of the 2nd ed sources (excluding novels) and basically pointed out the text wasnt really contradictory, it just had to be read as a whole and not taken as snippets. Elves could not be priests, although some followed the teachings of some of the human gods this didn&#39;t make them priests.

As I also tried to point out in 2nd this was a campaign definition issue since it was something that differed from the standard whereas dwarves not being wizards did not, since they could not be wizards in the 2nd ed core rules anyway.

The elves were at war with the humans before Deismaar and the main reason that they were &#39;defeated&#39; that was given was priestly magic which was totally alien to the elves.

[ConjurerDragon]

Airgedok 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=2000

>

> Airgedok wrote:

>
One thing I never quite understood and many people still seem reluctant to approach is the real meaning of being a cleric. Allow me to explain...

...

of his particular church and can actually preach about them to the

masses, but does not have

to (as a priest, his role is to perform ceremonies) . If we want to be

honest, a bard/adept o

r noble/adept, and, of course, a noble or expert with few cleric levels

would be able do the

above. What really differentiates the aforementioned example is that a

cleric (the word is

greek, and means "one who preaches/one related to

preaching") is exactly that part of

the clergy which is assigned to drawing new believers to their church.

> (In order to avoid being clobbered, I must agree that I gave my class the name cleric to

avoid having them confused for standard D&D clerics.)

> Ah in D&D teh cleric is more a warrior priest than a evangalist and AGAIN not all

religions are evangelical like Islam and christianity. Many are non

evangelical. So you

definition of what a cleric is is fundementaly flawed.



In a game where the PCs are regents they will be expanding. Expanding

means either converting rival faiths followers to the own faith or

preaching to gain new followers and create a new temple where none yet

is. So while not all religions in Cerilia are evangelical (and certainly

Kriesha and Belinik will not bring good news) all major religions of

the different races are trying to expand. Haelyn had a hold over most of

the empire before it´s fall and lost most of his presence after the fall.

bye

Michael

[Osprey]

What really differentiates the aforementioned example is that a
cleric (the word is
greek, and means "one who preaches/one related to
preaching") is exactly that part of
the clergy which is assigned to drawing new believers to their church.


What cleric originally meant in Greek, and what it came to mean in the medieval church, were distinctly different. Although clerics were preachers in the medieval church, it really was a pretty broad term that seems to have been interchangeable with "priest." It was only monks that were a distinctly seperate breed. At least, that&#39;s as near as I can tell with my limited knowledge of medieval Christianity.

[teloft]

>Why would they worship a human deity?
was &#39;Azrai&#39; a human deity?

well, if you barracade them from using positive energy, or something of thet sort.

it could be ruled thet begin cleric of the older gods was somehow difrent. and yes. only clerics blessed by the grace of there deitys blood would be able to tap into there power to fule there deitys biddings. So the new way of using the godly powers were intruduced by the human deitys. &#39;Positive energy&#39; flow and healing spells.

Im not sure about this. but to call them clerics would be somehow flaed. Think of the Templar from Darksun, able to draw power from there dragonking.

:ph34r:

[teloft]

I have the monks always somehow relaited to the colections of knowledge. In my philosofy clas i leard about a bard

the bards name was Phithagoras or something of thet like.

He playd a string instument, and traveld.

when he came back from the east to south italy he had some nifty idees about how to live life. and gaind followers and founded the school of phitagoras. or more like the hous of phitagoras.

this is the prototype thet both became the european university, and the european monestry.

this institution liven on long afther his deth. and is rumord to still be around underground in italy.

at there goldenage there were many scoolars thet did lodes of mathimatics along with other arts. and naming them afther there school.

some here sould know some math formulas with the name the Phitagoras rule, something about triangels

there belive was thet everything could be explaind by numbers. (not fractions)

:ph34r:

[teloft]

On the mater of runecasting.

I come from a culture where there is a real balive in

the powers of the old nordic runes.

&#39;rune&#39; = something hidden, hidden knowledge,

forbidden knowledge

usualy used to enchant people, curse them, or protect

them.

there is no evocation in the traditional rune castin.

you would hide a rune in somones bed in order to have

the person sleeping in the bed become somehow

enchanted. somone enchanted in such way would need to

find the rune, the sourch of the power, then find

somone to dispell the rune by chansing it.

this is a insiders view, dont let it spoil your game,

ignor this if you feel like it. :)


here is a spell list
from what a normal
rune casting could be about

Aid
Alarm
Align Weapon
Alter Self
Analyze Dweomer
Animal Messenger
Animate Dead
Antilife Shell
Arcane Lock
Arcane Mark
Arcane Sight
Atonement
Bane
Banishment
Barkskin
Bestow Curse
Break Enchantment

Calm Animals
Calm Emotions
Cause Fear
Charm Animal
Charm Monster
Charm Person
Chill Metal
Chill Touch
Circle of Death
Command
Command Undead
Confusion
Confusion, Lesser
Consecrate
Contagion

... and so on in the same manner

no evocation,


Im not saying thet there is a upper limit on rune casting spells.
But I would rule thet the rune spell caster is usualy multiclased as a barberian, or a figher


the Barberian thet can not read, could cast runes. for the lore is in tales, but one must studdy a rune in order to copy it.


it usualy takes a long time to take efect, I cant see runes begin used like grenades. this is more of the cleric nature then any other. perhaps a ranger/bard nature...


As I think of runes, anyone can scribe a rune, but youll need a seremony to imbue the rune with your power (Xp). then you acsuly have to give your victem the rune, here the &#39;sleight of hand&#39; skill comes in handy, to plant this item.


A good rune caster will hide any magig aura coming from the rune, and even try to hide the rune simble.

Now your enemy grows weaker in mater of days / hours, then you can attack him in his weakend stadge,


a skillfull runecaster can see if somone is under the effect of a rune. then by searching. the rune can by found.

the rune has a magical ling to its creator, and it can be turnd. you dont ned to spend Xp to turn a rune, now the rune will work on the creator, and when he finds out the rune has been turn, he will sacrifice a lot in order to get it..

:ph34r:

[geeman]

At 12:50 PM 10/21/2003 +0200, Airgedok wrote:



>However the key word in your statement is "(normally)" Its a

>rather HUGE distinction from they can NEVER be clerics or Dwarves can

>NEVER be wizards. The idea that Elves would never accept a regent who

>embraced the human gods is one thing but to exclude a player in and

>adventure level game from EVER taking a cleric level just because he is an

>elf is a whole different kettle of fish. There is evidence to support the

>inturpitation that an elf could be a cleric if they wanted to worship a

>god and the god accepted such worship.

>

> I`m not advocating that the sidhe should be able to be clerics period.

> I`ve advocating that ther not be a Racial prohibition but rather a

> cultural prohibition.



I think any BR update should be silent on allowing an individual elf to be

a cleric or not, and should simply state that elves are prohibited from

that class. It`s always the case that a DM can rule an exceptional

character in his homebrew or otherwise tweak things should s/he want, and

those occasions when the rules or campaign material point out that aspect

of the DM`s role in the game it seem to be reserved for some of the more

questionable and vague aspects of the rules; the Leadership feat, for

instance, has text saying that the DM need not allow it in his campaigns--a

notation that always struck me as being redundant and unnecessary,

especially since other feats seem to have attracted a lot more attention in

later supplements as being either unbalanced or badly written. In this

case anyone who wants to allow an elf cleric can and should, but there`s no

real need to put anything in the campaign setting spelling out the DM`s

role in managing and manipulating the campaign material for his use and his

players.



> You start saying that X race can only be A, B & C for classes like

> 2E D&D and you will alienate a huge portion of the players. You have

> a paragraph explaining why culturely there are no clerics in sidhe lands

> and that a Sidhe cleric is as rare as being unique but possible for

> non-regents at least then you have a rule that is acceptable. This still

> keeps the spirit of the setting that as a whole elves have no priests but

> also keeps the spirit of the 3e rules that says no core class is excluded

> from any race.



I don`t know that it really alienates that many people. Sure, there are

folks who can`t seem to swallow any restrictions, but in this case it`s not

like one can`t play a cleric or can`t play an elf, one just can`t play an

elf cleric--without a forgiving DM, that is. There are several

restrictions of this type in other campaign settings. It is, in fact, one

of the purposes in coming up with a campaign setting that differs from the

rules of the core system.



Gary

[RaspK_FOG]

Yes, Osprey, that&#39;s what I meant with area effects&#33; :) I never thought of a glowing object, more of a glowing rune, perhaps, but that&#39;s basically what I had in mind. That&#39;s also the reason why I wrote then "range increment 10 feet", but I suppose your idea of range increments of 20 feet is best&#33; :D How do you like it now? I hope it seems good, now you got it.

[geeman]

At 12:41 AM 10/22/2003 +0200, Osprey wrote:



>
What really differentiates the aforementioned example is that

> a cleric (the word is greek, and means "one who preaches/one

> related to preaching") is exactly that part of the clergy which is

> assigned to drawing new believers to their church.

>

>

> What cleric originally meant in Greek, and what it came to mean in the

> medieval church, were distinctly different.



It`s also important to note that what it means in D&D is an entirely third

category. The classes are specializes, yes, but their application needn`t

be rigid. Levels in the cleric class can be used to reflect many different

priestly or religious aspects of character, not just an inclination towards

being a medieval Christian crusading warrior/priest.



It`s a mistake, I think, to attach too much significance to the

nomenclature of the character class names. A fighter may be someone who

has skills in fighting, and the character class designed to reflect that

emphasis, but other classes have combat abilities, so we shouldn`t assume

that anyone who fights must be a fighter, or even a member of an associated

class like paladins or rangers. Nor should we assume that only a cleric

can preach or be religious. Back in the days of 1e every character record

sheet had a space for noting the character`s patron deity, and the 3e texts

have a lot of information to support that kind of relationship between

particular character classes and the pantheons described in those texts.



Gary

[Osprey]

Yes, Osprey, that&#39;s what I meant with area effects&#33;* I never thought of a glowing object, more of a glowing rune, perhaps, but that&#39;s basically what I had in mind. That&#39;s also the reason why I wrote then "range increment 10 feet", but I suppose your idea of range increments of 20 feet is best&#33;* How do you like it now? I hope it seems good, now you got it.

Nice to know we&#39;re on the same page. And yes, I too meant the rune would glow, although a casual observer might not notice the difference if the runecaster were whipping his fireball runestone at him&#33; ;)

If we go with the idea of evocative runecasting, I think your figures on converting ranges work pretty well.

The original idea was this: a prestige class that is focused on enchanting items. The aim was to symbolize the secrets of runic magic giving a kind of edge to the articifer in creating items of power.

However, if every runestone is just a potion in stone form, I&#39;m not sure it adds a great deal to the setting. Even as a spell completion item (which would be better, IMO), we&#39;re just talking about a different material form of the spell scroll.

One of the possiblilities I&#39;m thinking is that runemasters could inscribe runes of power on items that are simply measured in a flat gp cost, rather than stacking with the base enhancement bonuses of weapons. The potential there, of course, is that multiple runes could potentially be inscribed upon a single powerful item. [Warning - If you want a low-magic game, this is NOT a good option&#33;] Oriental Adventures uses this approach for a number of added enchantments for weapons and armor. Of course, they don&#39;t bother to explain WHY some things add +1/+1 etc. and others just add +xxx gp to the base cost. On that note, Tatooed Monks have provided some inspiration for how a Runemaster&#39;s abilities might stack up as they progress in levels.

As a preliminary proposal, perhaps something like this (note that I&#39;ve opened up the possibility that runes might hold arcane or divine magic, but the Decipher Script prereq. tends to favor wizards and bards, although rogue/clerics, cleric/wizards, and cleric/loremasters are all possible candidates at higher levels&#33;):

Runemaster prestige class
Prerequisites:
Skills: Craft [Runecraft] 7 ranks, Craft [Metalworking, Stonecarving, or Tattoo Artist] 5 ranks, Decipher Script 5 ranks, Knowledge: Arcana 7 ranks [Runelore]
Feats: Craft Magic Arms and Armor or Craft Wondrous Item

Class Features:
Hit Die: d6
Base Attack: Low (+0/+1/+1/+2/+2/+3/+3/+4/+4/+5/+5)
Saving Throws: Will high, Fortitude and Reflex low
Skill Points: 4+Int skill points per level
Class Skills: Appraise, Concentration, Craft, Decipher Script, Knowledge (any), Profession, Spellcraft

Spellcasting: At 2nd level, and every 2 levels thereafter (4th, 6th, 8th, and 10th), the Runemaster adds +1 level of spellcasting to a previous spellcasting class, chosen by the player when the level is gained if more than one spellcasting class was known.

Special Abilities:
Level 1: Inscribe Rune (1/item): the Runemaster may inscribe a single rune on a suitable medium (weapons, armor, tatoos, ). The rune may duplicate the effects of a spell known by the runemaster. The runic spell has a maximum level equal to the character&#39;s runemaster level.

A permanent magical rune may be activated once per day by uttering the secret name of the rune as a comman word. The market price is equal to [caster level x spell level x 300 gp], and the creation cost is 1/2 this in material components and 1/25 the market price in xp. Runic tattoos cost twice the normal price, as they do not take up a normal item slot. Inscribing a rune successfully requires a Runecraft skill check at DC 15 + (2 x spell level). This check is made midway through the creation process. Failure results in wasting 1/2 the material components that were to be used, although no xp is lost. Runecrafting is not for the novice articifer&#33;

A Runestone may also be crafted using the Craft Wondrous Items feat. As a reusable item, use the guidelines above. However, a Runestone may also be crafted as a single-use item that is consumed when the magic&#39;s duration expires. The costs are the same as for scrolls (spell completion) or potions (use-activated), either form of which may be created by the Runemaster. If the spell has an area effect, the runestone may be thrown with a range increment of 20&#39;. Like all runes, these items are activated by uttering the secret name of the rune. Bardic Lore or Kn: Arcana might reveal this name of a randomly discovered runestone (DC 15 + 2 x the level of the runic spell). 5 or more ranks in Decipher Script adds a +2 synergy bonus to this check.

Level 2: Bonus Feat: Craft Magic Arms and Armor or Craft Wondrous Item;
+1 spellcaster level

Level 3: Enhanced Power: the Runemaster may now inscribe up to 2 runes on a single item. This number increases by 1 every 2 levels (3 at 5th, 4 at 7th, and 5 at 9th).

Level 4: Greater Renewal (2/day limit): The Runemaster may create runes usable up to twice per day, although the cost doubles (spell level x caster level x 600 gp market price). This increases again every 4 levels, with the cost increasing appropriately.
+1 spellcaster level

Level 5: Enhanced Power (3 runes per item limit)

Level 6: +1 spellcaster level

Level 7: Enhanced Power (4 runes per item)

Level 8: Greater Renewal (3/day limit, price = spell level x caster level x 900gp)
+1 spellcaster level

Level 9: Enhanced Power (5 runes per item)

Level 10: True Mastery: the Runemaster has discovered the deepest secrets of runelore. The xp cost for inscribing runes is now only 1/30 of the market price&#33;
+1 spellcaster level

[irdeggman]

Osprey it reads pretty well. But I see your point that the prestige class is just not special enough. The abilities seem kind of weak compared to other prestige classes and can mostly be duplicated via the craft items feats.

[Osprey]

Osprey it reads pretty well. But I see your point that the prestige class is just not special enough. The abilities seem kind of weak compared to other prestige classes and can mostly be duplicated via the craft items feats.

The major advantages are these:

1. Runes are slightly less expensive to create than other magic item effects (the base cost would normally be spell level x caster level x 360gp for a normal misc. item). I balanced this with the limit on # of uses per day. But that&#39;s just a limit, it doesn&#39;t weaken the individual uses of the power. And of course, at 10th level the xp cost drops even more (about 20%).

2. There is no absolute level limit on runic spells; they&#39;re limited only by the runemaster&#39;s prestige class level and his actual spellcaster level. At higher levels, those expendable item runestones could be far more powerful than any potion or wand (imagine the 15d6 DB Fireball runestone usable by any character&#33;).

3. Compared to BRCS, I dropped the Inscribe War Tatto feat because all that really represents is a Wondrous Item that doesn&#39;t take up a normal slot. Why should that require a seperate feat? I think the CWI feat + an appropriate skill check (Craft: Tattoo Artist, must be a masterwork tattoo) should cover that.

4. Rune-inscribed weapons and armor are going to be FAR superior to any normal types from the DMG, especially at higher levels. As an arbitrary power-limiting mechanic, spell storing weapons from the DMG can hold 1 (expendable) spell of up to 3rd level. Whoopie...armor doesn&#39;t even get access to spell storing. And all of their normal abilities stack with the base enhancement bonuses, while runes&#39; costs and abilities are figured seperately for each rune. This bypasses the normal exponential increase in costs for the same power in magical weapons and armor. Now whether or not you think this is a good idea is another issue, but it obviously allows for much more potent items without astronomical costs.

5. I should have added this into the runic powers: runic powers in weapons are command-word activated (a free action), and offensive powers affect only the target on a successful strike (touch attack, which eliminates a save). Area effect spells may be treated as target effect spells, and as such their effective spell level should be 1 lower. Thus a fire rune that uses fireball as a base with a target effect would be treated as a 2nd level spell when determining cost. Of course, if the item shoots a fireball out of the weapon, then it should have full cost.

Here&#39;s an example of the upper reaches of such a class, which we should examine for the purposes of game balance through maximum progression (I&#39;ve used the 3.5 stats for all things, which does power down the runic effects somewhat):

Imagine Anghmal Trueforge, the legendary dwarven runemaster (Wizard 9/Runemaster 10/Archmage 1, a 15th level wizard in terms of spellcasting abilities, with the Elemental Mastery ability of the archmage) who crafts his greatest creation: "Arad-Dhum", the Grand Axe of Baruk-Azhik. As a base he forges a +4 moraskorr Dwarven Waraxe: Bane vs. Orogs [a +5 weapon in 3.5, a 53,330gp market price using moraskorr = adamantine for this example; +26,665 gp cost to create, 2133 xp cost]. As a 10th level Runemaster, he may inscribe up to 5 runes, each usuable from 1 to 3 times per day as he chooses. The runes may each hold a spell of up to 8th level (the highest level he knows).

Putting all of his lore and craft into this item as his greatest legacy to his people, Angmhal doesn&#39;t skimp on the powerful runes. He inscribes the following runes (CL=caster level):
Rune of Fire: 3/day, 10d6 Fire damage [CL 10, single target Fireball spell(Level 3-1 = 2)]; market price =2x10x900 = +18,000 gp); creation cost = 9000 gp + 600 xp
Rune of Thunder: 3/day, 10d6 Sonic damage [CL 10 Sonic Ball, sonic version of fireball above]; +18,000 gp market price, creation cost = 9000 gp + 600 xp
Rune of Paralysis: 2/day, Hold Monster, DC 17 [CL 9]; market price = 5x9x600 = 27,000gp; creation cost = 13,500 gp + 900 xp
Greater Rune of Dispelling: 1/day, Greater Dispel [CL 20, +20 dispel]; market price = 6x20x300= 36,000 gp; creation cost = 18,000 gp + 1200 xp
Rune of Strength: 3/day, +4 Strength to wielder for 3 minutes [CL 3]; market price = 3x2x900 = 5400 gp; creation cost = 2700 gp + 180 xp.

So the grand total (for one of the greatest weapons in existence) comes to:
Market Price: 157,730 gp
Creation Cost: 78,865 gp + 5613 xp

Well within his xp capabilities, and 40 GB from the Overthane (and maybe the Royal Guild pitching in) isn&#39;t inconcievable at this level of play. Of course, we&#39;re assuming that Anghmal Fireforge is a true patriot, and isn&#39;t charging the market price to create the item&#33;

Well, the jury&#39;s still out on this one, particularly on the game balance issue...but a runemaster obviously has great potential as an articifer.

[Osprey]

And for an entirely different approach (one that respects the basic guidelines for balancing powers of weapons and armor as laid out in the DMG), variant B to the Runemaster prestige class might be much simpler. Base stats (hit dice, skills, saves, and spellcaster levels at every other level) remain the same, but the special abilities change as follows:

Allow the basic (1st level) Inscribe Rune ability to apply only to Runestone wondrous items (as already described).

2nd level: Runic Secrets: runes represent a more efficient means of enchantment. Item creation costs for any item is reduced to 40% (2/5) of the market price in gp, and 1/30 in xp.

3rd level: Bonus Item Creation Feat (any)

6th level: Deeper Secrets: item creation costs = 1/3 market price in gp, and 1/40 in xp.

7th level: Bonus Item Creation feat

10th level: Runic Mastery: item creation costs = 1/4 market price in gp, and 1/50 in xp (exactly 1/2 the normal creation costs&#33;)

Simple yet effective.

-Osprey

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Osprey@Oct 22 2003, 01:07 PM
And for an entirely different approach (one that respects the basic guidelines for balancing powers of weapons and armor as laid out in the DMG), variant B to the Runemaster prestige class might be much simpler. Base stats (hit dice, skills, saves, and spellcaster levels at every other level) remain the same, but the special abilities change as follows:

Allow the basic (1st level) Inscribe Rune ability to apply only to Runestone wondrous items (as already described).

2nd level: Runic Secrets: runes represent a more efficient means of enchantment. Item creation costs for any item is reduced to 40% (2/5) of the market price in gp, and 1/30 in xp.

3rd level: Bonus Item Creation Feat (any)

6th level: Deeper Secrets: item creation costs = 1/3 market price in gp, and 1/40 in xp.

7th level: Bonus Item Creation feat

10th level: Runic Mastery: item creation costs = 1/4 market price in gp, and 1/50 in xp (exactly 1/2 the normal creation costs&#33;)

Simple yet effective.

-Osprey
Interesting work up. I generally like it. One thing though, changing the xp versus market price ratio should basically never be toyed with. This number is pretty much set in stone (no pun intended) in 3.5. The xp cost is always 1/25 of the market price. Changing the market price is a good modifier and that ultimately changes the xp cost. But changing the ratio between the two is very much something that messes up the "natural" order of things in 3.5.

[kgauck]

---- Original Message -----

From: "Osprey" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 12:40 PM





> 1. Runes are slightly less expensive to create than other magic item

> effects (the base cost would normally be spell level x caster level x

> 360gp for a normal misc. item). I balanced this with the limit on #

> of uses per day.



Why are runes less expensive?



Limits per day on a spell storage device is no limit at all. Even I could

only make one per day, at the end of a month I could have plenty for my next

adventure action. It can certainly be a problem for rulers who use runes,

but not for lieutenants, courtiers, or others who can spare some down-time.



> 2. There is no absolute level limit on runic spells; they`re limited only

> by the runemaster`s prestige class level and his actual spellcaster level.

> At higher levels, those expendable item runestones could be far more

> powerful than any potion or wand (imagine the 15d6 DB Fireball

> runestone usable by any character&#33;).



This is a total end run around similar spell storage devices. Storage

devices usable by any character (potions) are limited as to level and are

more expensive than those which are activation based (scrolls or wands)



> 3. Compared to BRCS, I dropped the Inscribe War Tatto feat because

> all that really represents is a Wondrous Item that doesn`t take up a

> normal slot. Why should that require a seperate feat? I think the CWI

> feat + an appropriate skill check (Craft: Tattoo Artist, must be a

> masterwork tattoo) should cover that.



Tattoos are clearly a spell storage device, and should be treated as such

with their own feat. I have no problem with a skill check being added on,

but this is another work around of similar spell storage devices. Fine

rules have been crafted for tattoos, BR does well to employ them unless

there is some compelling reason to do otherwise.



> 4. Rune-inscribed weapons and armor are going to be FAR superior to

> any normal types from the DMG, especially at higher levels.



This is a flashing warning light right there, AFAIC.



> As an arbitrary power-limiting mechanic, spell storing weapons from the

> DMG can hold 1 (expendable) spell of up to 3rd level.



Runes are specifically described in other places as not working this way

(runes on weapons can effect the wielder but in no case can effect any

creature struck by the weapon). Again, this is similar to how other spell

storage devices work.



> And all of their normal abilities stack with the base enhancement bonuses,

> while runes` costs and abilities are figured seperately for each rune.

> This bypasses the normal exponential increase in costs for the same

> power in magical weapons and armor.



Yikes!



> Now whether or not you think this is a good idea is another issue, but it

> obviously allows for much more potent items without astronomical costs.



I think its a bad thing *because* it allows for much more potent items

without astronomical costs. I think this is a bad thing in general, I think

its a terrible idea for Birthright.



> Well, the jury`s still out on this one, particularly on the game balance

> issue... but a runemaster obviously has great potential as an articifer.



If they jury is still out, Gene Hackman has been at work on this one.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[teloft]

spell storing as a rune.

you prepear the spell then cast it at the rune you scribe, you must sucsead a craft (scribe rune) check == DC of the spell begin cast. (done seacretly by the DM)

then you can do a combo with Erase, a 1st lv spell, to destry the rune when it has been used.


as a penalty to use this you have lost your acsess to your spell slot until the rune has been Erased.

So you can naver have more runes then your spells per day. and with the Erase combo, it halvens.


to cast the rune you wount need the Somatic compoment, but only the comand word.

this will alow some wery deadly wizard/Figther combos.

the rune is a spell completium like scrolls, but becous of there limitations thay do not cost Xp. but the runes dont always work.

you can be aided in your rune scribeing by a nother character witch has the craft (scribe rune) or knowledge (Runes)

5 ranks in Knowledge runes have a +2 sinergy on craft (scribe rune)

you can indedtify a rune by alone know (rune)
as if you had done with spellcraft / know (arcana) / detect magic

5 ranks in spellcraft / know (arcana) have a +2 sinergy on know (rune)
read magic also works to indentify the rune

a roge can use his use magic divice in order to use a rune.


a variant:
the rune has the ability to do the spell 1/day for every spell slot spent.

if the spell Erase is used on the rune, it will disapear freeing the magic slots of its caster.

variant 2:
the rune scriber must use the spell &#39;Arcane Mark&#39; to scribe the rune.

variant3:
by spending a Div spell lv0 into the rune,
the rune caster can have the rune only work for one caster
and no one else. or one race/sex of casters,
lets say only usable by halflings.

a rouge can use her use magic divice to negate this restriction.

this can also be used to trigger the erace spell if a particilar race/sex is trying to use the rune.

if you want a better detection like alignment, one must use a higer level spell.

:ph34r:

[Osprey]

Interesting work up. I generally like it. One thing though, changing the xp versus market price ratio should basically never be toyed with. This number is pretty much set in stone (no pun intended) in 3.5. The xp cost is always 1/25 of the market price. Changing the market price is a good modifier and that ultimately changes the xp cost. But changing the ratio between the two is very much something that messes up the "natural" order of things in 3.5.

Adjusting the fractions is precisely what makes this such a simple and effective approach. And the reason it works is because runes could be used in just about any magic item, with the exception of potions and certain wondrous items. The "natural order" of things is exactly what gets messed with every time a prestige class is made that grants some sort of unusual advantage. Take the mystic theurge prestige class, for example. Having a prestige class that grants 2 levels of spellcaster ability per level of the class blatantly breaks the common sense rules of the character class system. Yet there it is, in black and white in the 3.5 DMG.

If the the designers have no problems bending or breaking their own guidelines because they think it is cool, why should we be so frightened of doing something similar?

Hard and fast rules for item creation are fine. What I&#39;m proposing is a single prestige class that simply affects a set of numbers that aren&#39;t normally affected. Does that mean they should never change, or just that no one has come up with a decent way of doing it without wrecking the game?

To do it the other way means adjusting the market price of every single item in the game that could be inscribed with runes&#33;

Now which sounds less problematic to you? Having just tried out the 1st way, I can tell you how difficult it was to measure things like balance.

Besides, if the market price changes, that means the same items inscribed with runes are somehow woth less on the open market, even though they function exactly the same as the non-runic versions. Now how does that make any sense?

But saying these items can be made more efficiently, and then using the above system to represent that, says: "hey, I can spend less resources to make an equivalent item because I have a superior method of item creation, but of course I can sell the item for as much money as any other articifer, because it works just as well." Which is exactly the goal of this class. Also, the ratios between gp and xp stay pretty balanced at each of the 3 levels of increased efficiency, which helps keep those proportions stable.

[Osprey]

Kenneth,
I can understand your perspective on things, and respect it. You obviously are a proponent of the low-magic version of Birthright, which is fine. Most of your comments seem to reflect a desire to limit the power level of the campaign. Take your commentary on tattoo magic, for example, where you advocate a seperate feat for these; I could just as easily argue that every wondrous item is also a spell storage device, as the item creation rules in the DMG clearly indicate; the only real difference is in charges vs. renewable use, but in 3.5 even that has been further blurred by the inclusion of more expendable wondrous items such as salves, oils, feather tokens, etc.. In truth, Wondrous Items are a broad catch-all category for all items except those with charges, potions and scrolls (single use items), weapons and armor, rods, and rings. In truth, the distinctions are pretty arbitrary, but there they are, whcih leaves the distinction of tattoos as seperate items or wondrous items a pretty arbitrary category as well, and one which will be decided upon based upon a preference for more or less magic in your game.

I like low-magic settings myself, but not exclusively. I also like epic settings, and the potential for a world to evolve from one to the other. Assuming you read my other posts, I can tell you this: my goal was to create a prestige class of dedicated articifers, who are better at it than normal spellcasters with item creation feats.

After looking back, I very much like the 2nd variant, which keeps things clean and simple, but yes, does encourage the existence of more magic items in the world. Much as allowing RP or bloodline (or both) to substitute for xp costs also encourages this.

But please keep this in mind: prestige classes are ALWAYS optional, and the RP/bloodline for xp is also a variant rule. Neither of these are things I would EVER propose as core additions to the Birthright rules, but rather as options to be added to a specific variant of the BR world where magic items aren&#39;t necessarilly rarer than bloodsilver. I think I&#39;ve been pretty careful when proposing material as to distinguish which is proposed as submissions for the core material of the revised BRCS (where I think I&#39;ve been fairly conservative in keeping things powered down), and which are proposed as variants.

Specifically concerning the Runemaster prestige class, there is a fact that keeps it somewhat controllable as far as game balance is concerned: while it grants definite advantages in item creation, it also slows a spellcaster&#39;s advance in general power (gaining a spellcaster level every other level of the prestige class), making it rather unattractive to most PC&#39;s. It really was designed more as an NPC-focused prestige class, which puts it in the hands of the DM when keeping the campaign setting blanced according to his/her preferences.

What it allows, though, is the existence of a few high-level articifers who are capable of producing some really potent items. Personally, I&#39;ve always been attracted to the existence of epic items of power, and campaigns that can reach epic proportions, even from humble beginnings. But that&#39;s a personal preference, this class is built off that preference, and it&#39;s there for others who might share that preference, as well as to generate other ideas and alternatives from people who might want to see something entirely different. For example, I would love to see your own proposal for a runemaster or whatever you want to call it) prestige class, class variant, brand of magic...whatever your favored approach might be. It would undoubtedly be a quality contribution to a lower-magic setting, which I am also interested in.

-Osprey

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Osprey@Oct 23 2003, 01:26 AM

Adjusting the fractions is precisely what makes this such a simple and effective approach. And the reason it works is because runes could be used in just about any magic item, with the exception of potions and certain wondrous items. The "natural order" of things is exactly what gets messed with every time a prestige class is made that grants some sort of unusual advantage. Take the mystic theurge prestige class, for example. Having a prestige class that grants 2 levels of spellcaster ability per level of the class blatantly breaks the common sense rules of the character class system. Yet there it is, in black and white in the 3.5 DMG.

If the the designers have no problems bending or breaking their own guidelines because they think it is cool, why should we be so frightened of doing something similar?

Hard and fast rules for item creation are fine. What I&#39;m proposing is a single prestige class that simply affects a set of numbers that aren&#39;t normally affected. Does that mean they should never change, or just that no one has come up with a decent way of doing it without wrecking the game?

To do it the other way means adjusting the market price of every single item in the game that could be inscribed with runes&#33;

Now which sounds less problematic to you? Having just tried out the 1st way, I can tell you how difficult it was to measure things like balance.

Besides, if the market price changes, that means the same items inscribed with runes are somehow woth less on the open market, even though they function exactly the same as the non-runic versions. Now how does that make any sense?

But saying these items can be made more efficiently, and then using the above system to represent that, says: "hey, I can spend less resources to make an equivalent item because I have a superior method of item creation, but of course I can sell the item for as much money as any other articifer, because it works just as well." Which is exactly the goal of this class. Also, the ratios between gp and xp stay pretty balanced at each of the 3 levels of increased efficiency, which helps keep those proportions stable.
Where did the designers break their guidelines in the core books on prestige classes?

I generally don&#39;t like prestige classes that grant a +1 to caster level at each level, but after a few reads the mystic theurge is one of the more balanced prestige classes. How do I arrive at that conclusion? Well the only special class ability they gain is the increase in caster level. They also have a d4 for hit dice which lowers the hit dice for the cleric side, they also don&#39;t gain any of the bonus item creation feats that wizards gain. They get a poor BAB, 2 poor saving throws and 1 good saving throw (same a wizard).

I don&#39;t understand what you are refering to by adjusting the market price for every single item in the game that could be inscribed with runes. I mean you have already adjusted the cost by changing the price to make it. If you want to you can make it an "equivalent market price" for the item which is still used to determine the items construction costs, but the market price remains the same (is set by the creator and the going market - since the actual market prices given are just averages not what they actually run for at any given time in any given location). This still keep in line with the core item creation rules.

If you made them spell trigger items then their use is a whole lot less common, since the spell must be on the users spell list in order to be able to use the item (exception being use magic device ability).

I generally don&#39;t like the use of runes on weapons and armor, since this pretty much by passes the create item feats that wizards (etc.) would use. I can undersand a rune caster being able to store his spells in runic devices (the old artificer specialist) but creating items that others can use at a much cheaper cost (gp and xp) is something that just screams as something to introduce low cost magic items into a setting that is supposed to have less (at least not more) magic items than the other settings.

[geeman]

At 11:09 AM 10/23/2003 +0200, irdeggman wrote:



>


>Take the mystic theurge prestige class, for example. Having a prestige

>class that grants 2 levels of spellcaster ability per level of the class

>blatantly breaks the common sense rules of the character class

>system. Yet there it is, in black and white in the 3.5 DMG.

>

> If the the designers have no problems bending or breaking their own

> guidelines because they think it is cool, why should we be so frightened

> of doing something similar?

>



> Where did the designers break their guidelines in the core books on

> prestige classes?



I don`t recall it saying anywhere that +1 to two different spellcasting

levels was to be specifically avoided, but it does say in the same text

(p174) that "No class should excel beyond another one overall. Pay

particular attention to special class features and spells." The Mystic

Theurge would seem to be a prestige class that they didn`t pay particular

attention to.... Especially since the prereqs for that particular prestige

class are pretty amazingly feeble given the ability to level up in two

spellcasting classes.



I used close to the minimum characteristics of the awnsheghlien class I use

(it has d8 HD and the medium BAB progression, but everything else is

minimized) in the Bloodline Point system in order to offset the benefits of

a bonus 1 BP every level and I still think the class is a bit

imbalanced. Spellcasting in D&D is generally the most imbalanced aspect of

the system, and +1 existing spellcasting class alone is worth substantially

more IMO than the 1BP/level that I use....



>I generally don`t like prestige classes that grant a +1 to caster level at

>each level, but after a few reads the mystic theurge is one of the more

>balanced prestige classes. How do I arrive at that conclusion? Well the

>only special class ability they gain is the increase in caster

>level. They also have a d4 for hit dice which lowers the hit dice for the

>cleric side, they also don`t gain any of the bonus item creation feats

>that wizards gain. They get a poor BAB, 2 poor saving throws and 1 good

>saving throw (same a wizard).



Most of these "balances" for the Mystic Theurge are already class features

for the wizard, so saying that they balance out things against the cleric

aspect of the character isn`t really very accurate. Essentially, the

Mystic Theurge class is a wizard that also grants cleric (or other divine)

spellcasting abilities. A 20th level character who takes the Mystic

Theurge path loses three levels of arcane spellcasting by taking levels in

a divine spellcasting class (but he does get those levels in divine

spellcasting, and that class`s BAB, saves, etc.) and gives up a total of

four bonus feats in exchange for 14 levels of divine spellcasting

ability.... That`s a pretty sweet trade IMO.



Gary

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Osprey" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 1:55 AM



> I can understand your perspective on things, and respect it. You

> obviously are a proponent of the low-magic version of Birthright,

> which is fine. Most of your comments seem to reflect a desire to

> limit the power level of the campaign.



Actually my objections are mostly based on the fact that I see runes and

tattoos as being much more like potions and scrolls than I do as wonderous

items. They function mechanically like them and the function in the same

way, as spell storage devices. Look over the way you have described runes

and tattoos and ask, who would choose to take brew potion or scribe scroll

instead. Aside from role-players who might select a self-denying option its

not a likely choice because they are comparatively inferior even though they

do the same things. I like the idea that Rjurik will choose runes as a

spell storage device, that Vos will choose tattoos, and that Anuireans,

Brecht, and Khinasi will choose scrolls. All should be roughly equal in

advantage because they do the same thing and all work the same way.

Wonderous items are difficult to catagorize because they are miscellaneous

objects with a wide variety of modes of operation. It would be nice to

break this catagory down a bit, and make it less of a catch-all, but many of

the catagories one would contrive would be small and of only occassional

use. One of the largest catagories, clothes, is still of less use at any

given level compared to a standard spell storage device where every spell

can be stored. Runes and tattoos posses that quality, that they can recieve

any spell. Hence, they require their own feat, just like potions and

scrolls have. If they defy the limits typically associated with scrolls and

potions, than that feat should more closely resemble craft rings.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Osprey]

Actually my objections are mostly based on the fact that I see runes and
tattoos as being much more like potions and scrolls than I do as wonderous
items. They function mechanically like them and the function in the same
way, as spell storage devices. Look over the way you have described runes
and tattoos and ask, who would choose to take brew potion or scribe scroll
instead. Aside from role-players who might select a self-denying option its
not a likely choice because they are comparatively inferior even though they
do the same things. I like the idea that Rjurik will choose runes as a
spell storage device, that Vos will choose tattoos, and that Anuireans,
Brecht, and Khinasi will choose scrolls. All should be roughly equal in
advantage because they do the same thing and all work the same way.
Wonderous items are difficult to catagorize because they are miscellaneous
objects with a wide variety of modes of operation. It would be nice to
break this catagory down a bit, and make it less of a catch-all, but many of
the catagories one would contrive would be small and of only occassional
use. One of the largest catagories, clothes, is still of less use at any
given level compared to a standard spell storage device where every spell
can be stored. Runes and tattoos posses that quality, that they can recieve
any spell. Hence, they require their own feat, just like potions and
scrolls have. If they defy the limits typically associated with scrolls and
potions, than that feat should more closely resemble craft rings.

Kenneth Gauck


One of the basic premises of the runecasting ability is that it is a special class ability acquired only through a prestige class, not a generally available feat. As a normal feat/magic item I would agree that it should follow the same guidelines. It has a built-in limitation of maximum spell level in a rune = the runemaster&#39;s prestige class level. This, combined with the spellcaster level per 2 class levels, does serve to limit the preponderance of high-powered runestones floating around in the world, and the cost for the expendable ones is the same as for potions and scrolls. One of the reasons Iplaced the progression in spellcaster levels at 2nd, 4th, etc. rather than 1st, 3rd, etc. is to dissuade the munchkin spellcasters from taking 1 level in the prestige class just to get the runecasting ability.

There are basically 2 kinds of prestige classes in D&D: the specialist and the combined class types. The specialist is one who sacrifices the broader abilities of a standard class in order to gain advantages in a specialized area. In this case, the class grants a specialty advantage in the area of magic item creation, but sacrifices the general power progression of the normal spellcaster classes.

As for wondrous items...if we were to try and make a less arbitrary system of wondrous item categories, the only way I could see to do it would be by using the magic item slots: necklaces, amulets, periapts, etc. being one group; helms, headbands, circlets, hats being anothers; boots; cloaks; robes/tabards/mantles another; belts and girdles; gloves & gauntlets; bracelets and bracers; and finally the miscellaneous category of non-standard items that don&#39;t take up slots at all (quite a few of those actually).

Now in a lower-magic setting this might not be as ludicrous an approach as it first seems. What it does is keep articifers from crafting a huge variety of items with only a single feat. And dissuades a large number of PC&#39;s from being quite so attracted to that one feat, Craft Wondrous Items, that grants an amazing variety of potential magic items as a 3rd level+ spellcaster. What I&#39;ve found is that most wizard PC&#39;s are immediately attracted to 2 feats: Craft Magic Items and Craft Wands. Both grant huge advantages, and for only 2 feats, why not? The costs aren&#39;t astronomical except for the higher-powered wondrous items, thanks to the exponential cost system (when working out the 1st runemaster example, I discovered how quickly caster level x spell level x 300/600/900 gp adds up&#33;).

The flavor created by breaking down the Wondrous Items into multiple categories is that crafting magic items is a rare set of secrets known only by a few, and it isn&#39;t easily shared. So knowing how to craft any magic item at all becomes the province of the specialist. In such a world, just having an articifer-type prestige class that grants bonus item creation feats (one every 3 levels, perhaps) would be a decent addition if they could exist at all.

[Osprey]

>I generally don`t like prestige classes that grant a +1 to caster level at
>each level, but after a few reads the mystic theurge is one of the more
>balanced prestige classes. How do I arrive at that conclusion? Well the
>only special class ability they gain is the increase in caster
>level. They also have a d4 for hit dice which lowers the hit dice for the
>cleric side, they also don`t gain any of the bonus item creation feats
>that wizards gain. They get a poor BAB, 2 poor saving throws and 1 good
>saving throw (same a wizard).

Most of these "balances" for the Mystic Theurge are already class features
for the wizard, so saying that they balance out things against the cleric
aspect of the character isn`t really very accurate. Essentially, the
Mystic Theurge class is a wizard that also grants cleric (or other divine)
spellcasting abilities. A 20th level character who takes the Mystic
Theurge path loses three levels of arcane spellcasting by taking levels in
a divine spellcasting class (but he does get those levels in divine
spellcasting, and that class`s BAB, saves, etc.) and gives up a total of
four bonus feats in exchange for 14 levels of divine spellcasting
ability.... That`s a pretty sweet trade IMO.

Gary


I agree with Gary, and would throw in that they can also turn undead as a 3rd level cleric, as well as spontaneously cure/inflict with all those cleric spell levels to boot.

However, keep in mind that it&#39;s only a 10-level prestige class, so the biggest point of imbalance would be at that peak. Given that a cleric 3/ wizard 3 can take the class, a 16th level Mystic Theurge (3/3/10) would have the spellcasting abilities of a 13th level cleric and a 13th level wizard, instead of the single class 16th level caster. Not much of a disadvantage at all, and only 3 bonus magical feats down from the wizard&#33; The only other limiter is that the character can still only cast one spell per round, albeit from a much larger array of possible spells. Thanks to the 3.5 rewrite of Haste not allowing an extra spell to be cast (a purely mechanical rewrite, IMO), this is more of a limiter than it once was, but Quickened spells can still allow 2 spells per round...fireball/heal&#33; Ouch...

Likewise with the 17th level Mystic Theurge cleric/sorcerer (3/4/10).

By 20th level, a Mystic Theurge cleric wizard might be up to cleric 3 /wizard 7/ mystic theurge 10, gaining back one of those bonus feats and now being a caster of wizard 17/cleric 13 powers&#33; Balanced? Not by a long shot&#33;

I think they allowed the 3.5 spellcaster prestige classes to be more generous with spellcaster levels because they powered down the magic system overall. The main idea was that a spellcaster level isn&#39;t worth what it used to be, so it was more OK to allow the Arcane Trickster to survive (the other super-powered prestige class). And once they allowed that one to stick around, they made a bunch of others with similar advantages (I get most of the advantages of BOTH classes? Cool&#33;).

The net result is that core spellcaster prestige classes are a LOT more powerful than they used to be. Alas, my old favorite the Loremaster has been overshadowed...

-Osprey

[geeman]

At 03:19 PM 10/23/2003 +0200, Osprey wrote:



>However, keep in mind that it`s only a 10-level prestige class, so the

>biggest point of imbalance would be at that peak.



Generally, the prestige classes only list 10 levels, but the Epic Level

Handbook has lots of guidelines for taking prestige classes beyond the 10

levels listed on the tables for the class descriptions. The Mystic Theurge

would be one of the easiest to apply that process to since it`s got so few

class features. Since we`re talking about a minimum 16th level character

taking things past that "limit" is probably not that big a deal....



Gary

[Eosin the Red]

>>Take the mystic theurge prestige class, for example.



Others have piped in but I thought that there is one aspect that is often overlooked with the Theurge. I would play a level 20 Theurge anyday of the week - you would rock!!!



I would not play a level 3 wizard/level 3 cleric/ level 1-5 Mystic Theurge. You suck and all of your friends would make fun of you. The upper end of this class really does shine but from 4th level till about 15th level, you have to be carried by the group.



When the parties 7th level wizard is whipping out minor globe and other 4th level spells, you are hoping that your 2 magic missles will be enough to take him out, if not you will be forced to resort to your most powerful spell - Flaming Sphere.



It ain`t the destination, it is the journey. And the 12 level ride on the poor boy highway is no fun.





Besides, this is a perfect class for Suris.



Randy~Eosin

[geeman]

At 06:29 PM 10/23/2003 -0400, Randy~Eosin wrote:



>Besides, this is a perfect class for Suris.



If I were going to do something like the Mystic Theurge for BR`s priests of

Ruornil I`d probably give it d6 HD, the medium BAB progression, and

alternate +1 arcane spellcaster level with +1 divine spellcaster level for

the class`s special ability.



In general, however, I think it`s better to just give priests of Ruornil

access to a set (a 2e sphere) of divinatory and illusion spells to reflect

their magical emphasis rather than have them multi-class and create a

prestige class that combines two class`s features, but we`ll see how all

that plays out in the specialty priest thing I`m fiddling around with.



Gary

[RaspK_FOG]

Dragon published a very nice set of specialty priests for the 2nd Revision Issue, and one of them is perfect for priests of Ruornil... Checks it out&#33;

[Osprey]

Generally, the prestige classes only list 10 levels, but the Epic Level
Handbook has lots of guidelines for taking prestige classes beyond the 10
levels listed on the tables for the class descriptions. The Mystic Theurge
would be one of the easiest to apply that process to since it`s got so few
class features. Since we`re talking about a minimum 16th level character
taking things past that "limit" is probably not that big a deal....

Gary


The Epic handbook also is real specific about the fact that these prestige classes can only hit 11th level+ once the character reaches epic levels (level 21+ characters). What&#39;s even worse, Wizards&#39; downloadable 3.5 addendum for the Epic Players&#39; Handbook did a writeup for the Mystic Theurge, and it&#39;s completely broken&#33; All of the sudden you get arcane/divine spellcaster levels at alternating levels (arcan at 11th, divine at 12th, arcane at 13th, etc.), while keeping the d4 hit die&#33; And then they throw in a bonus feat every 5 or 6 levels...what a waste&#33; Who would bother? Like I said, broken...

The only prestige class I&#39;ve seen be more than 10 levels is the Void Disciple from Oriental Adventures. But that is really a questionable exception to the normal limit of 5 or 10 levels as a core guideline. You think it&#39;s not a big deal to be capped at 10th level as a Mystic Theurge until level 21? If you had a 16th level Mystic Theurge character (3/3/10) who just hit level 17, you better believe it would make a difference to any player&#33; 1 spellcaster level vs. 2...hmm, tough choice there.


If I were going to do something like the Mystic Theurge for BR`s priests of
Ruornil I`d probably give it d6 HD, the medium BAB progression, and
alternate +1 arcane spellcaster level with +1 divine spellcaster level for
the class`s special ability.


Why bother with a prestige class at that point? Multiclass cleric/wizards would be stronger except for a slightly weaker base attack, which doesn&#39;t make much sense for a priest of Ruornil IMO. As a multiclass, you&#39;ll keep improving turning, familiars, and get bonus feats as a wizard.

If you want something stronger but not as strong as the mystic theurge, then throw in some additions appropriate to a priest of Ruornil. One is that every prestige class level adds to the character&#39;s effective level when turning undead, representing the priest&#39;s specialty in battling those creatures of the Shadow World. This combined with +1 spellcaster level per level (the player chooses to add divine or arcane each level) seems somewhat more balanced. A few other special class abilities probably wouldn&#39;t be out of place, either, since we&#39;re talking about a specialized prestige class.

[geeman]

Osprey writes:



>The Epic handbook also is real specific about the fact that these

>prestige classes can only hit 11th level, once the character reaches

>epic levels (level 21+ characters).



I`ll have to check that out more carefully this weekend. To be completely

honest, I find most of that text pretty bad, and the "epic level" itself

something of a travesty, so just skimmed the sections on advancing character

classes beyond their normal limits.



Gary

[destowe]

Back to the Runecaster.

I have another vision that I think would work fairly well.

If a Runecaster casts a spell w/o using a rune the casting time is increased. 1 action becomes a full round action, and full round actions become 2 full round actions.

But when the runecaster &#39;memorises&#39; spells for the day, some can be inscribed as runes. This costs an additional 1 GP in material componetnts. This would usually be on a clay tablet, or flat stone. This can then be broken as a standard action, releasing the spell.

This runic item than can then be given to others or used by the runecaster. Whoever breaks the item is assumed to be the caster for purposes of targeting, so that a fighter or rogue can &#39;direct&#39; offensive runes. But damage/area of effect/duration uses the Runecaster level.

Until the rune is activated the Runecaster can not rememorize the spell slot. This is very similar to the clerical spell Imbue with Spell Ability. The Runecaster can break his items w/o the spell activating if he wishes. This would then free the spell slot so a new spell could be memorized.

I would use the cleric BAB/HD/Saves with the wizard spell progression and bonus feats. Scribe Scroll would become Scribe Rune, identical except for flavor. Maybe not allow Quicken Spell as a feat.

[RaspK_FOG]

I have to disagree, Destowe, for making it that a runecaster can cast spells from a rune (one that costs one gp, nonetheless, is effectively consumed, and is not described as an added material component if he wants too) as a standard action, but casting spells normally, something he already could do as a standard action, becomes a full-round action, and so on... Nah&#33;

One thing though, so you may not make that mistake (I was confused with this part, so I know what I mean): any spell that would take more than an action, has its casting time increased as follows:

1 full-round action --&#62; 1 round + 1 full-round action
1 or more rounds --&#62; the same number of rounds + 1 full-round action

Remember that a minute is 10 rounds, an hour is 600 rounds, and so on.

I remembered that FR has a very interesting prestige class under the same name, but he is a divine spellcaster, and generally not of my appealing. Perhaps naming the prestige class runemage or runecrafter?

I will present my variation on FR&#39;s prestige class soon. And for those who prefer low-magic settings, I have good news: he is not a master-craftsdwarf ( :lol: ) like Osprey&#39;s (no offence; I really liked it).

[RaspK_FOG]

Err... I forgot to tell something: you give the class the Hit Die type of d8, an average BAB progression, good Fort and Will base saves, the wizard&#39;s bonus feats and (the already assumed) wizard spell progression (which would be interpreted as an extra arcane spellcasting class level for purposes of spellcasting only with each gained class level) - can I ask what have you left out? Familiars and turning?&#33; Nope; definitely too good&#33;

[teloft]

Here I have a variant for the rune-battle mage.

a metamagic feat awailable to all spellcasters.

scribe rune.
Pre: 1st lv spell caster.

one can scribe rune upon any surfes,
usualy wood, or some soft stone,
harder material takse much longer time to preper
1 day/lv if inscribed in metal or stone.
but 1 hour/lv if in wood
and 1 min/lv if in sobestone or other soft clay-like material.
And you pay the Xp cost like scribing a scroll when scribing the rune.

you imbue your spellslot to the item.

the item is &#39;spell completium&#39; like scroll, but dos not provoke attack of oppertunety.

the item is not consumed by casting, and regains its power if you wis, when you memmorice your spells, thet is if you have the item.

if you lose the item, you dont have acsess to thet spellslot of yours. &#33;&#33;

you can not change the spell inscribed on the item.

the erace spell destryes the rune, and if the item is broken the rune is destroed.

Finding a rune alows you to do &#39;use magic devise&#39; to activate the rune.

:ph34r:

[destowe]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Oct 27 2003, 11:25 AM
Err... I forgot to tell something: you give the class the Hit Die type of d8, an average BAB progression, good Fort and Will base saves, the wizard&#39;s bonus feats and (the already assumed) wizard spell progression (which would be interpreted as an extra arcane spellcasting class level for purposes of spellcasting only with each gained class level) - can I ask what have you left out? Familiars and turning?&#33; Nope; definitely too good&#33;
Actually that is the same as the druid. The HD/attack/saves and spell progression are the same as the standard druid. Except there is only a bonus feat every 5 levels than some sort of special ability at every level. I only stated wizard as it would not give them automatic selection of all spells. They still need to learn them from outside sources and learn 2 per level.

There is no familar, no turning, no wild shape, so they are much weaker in the special abilities. Wizard spells are more powerful offensively than priests (IMO), but if you limit them to 2+int skill points than 4+int skill points of the druid, that evens some things out.

There is no XP required in making the runes, but there is a built in limit on the number he can create at one time. Once the runemaster has used all the spell slots up making runes, there is no more to be made until some are used or destroyed.

They are best at placing the spells on items. They still need the extra time to cast the spell, but it is hopefully at a safe place where they have the time to do so. The standard action is just to activate the rune. Like activating a wand. (Not sure if full round spells still need a full round to cast from a wand. If that is the case, then I would just make activating the rune the same length of time as casting the spell.)

[RaspK_FOG]

Sorry for this little feat of applying necromancy on forum threads here, but I was checking through my collection of books for feats for a friend whose character was reincarnated as a gnome and came up with the old FRCS and Races of Faerûn books I own, or, most particularly, the Runesmith feat that inspired me a little...

I want to share this image for you to see:

One thing before I start: WotC and Sovereign Press both have overruled the standard rule of 50% and 4% of market price as gp and XP costs respectively (see Races of Faerûn, Gold Dwarf Dweomersmith (feat) [+1 caster level on spells that create or enhance weapons, reduces magic weapon gp creation costs by 5%], Shield Dwarf Warder (feat) [+1 caster level on spells that create or enhance suits of armour or shields, reduces magic armour or shield gp creation costs by 5%], FRCS, Magical Artisan (feat) [reduces item creation feat gp and XP costs by 25%], and Codex Mysterium, Artificer (10-level prestige class) [reduces all item creation monetary and XP costs by 5% per level, gains 6 item creation feats, and has Brew Potion and Scribe Scroll as requirements, etc.]).

Metallurgy grants a +3 bonus on all Craft (armoursmithing, blacksmithing, or weaponsmithing) checks. Prerequisite: Dwarf, or human culture with emphasis on metallurgy (guess who :P ).
Runesmith works similarly to Eschew Materials, with the exception that it does not ommit material components, but makes them focuses instead (in the form of runes etched on various surfaces, usually metal or stone), and that it grants a -4 penalty on Spellcraft checks to realise what spell is being cast, unless the identifier also has the Runesmith feat. Prerequisite: Craft (rune) 4 ranks.


Dwarven Craftsman
Hit Die: d6

Requirements:
Race: Cerilian Dwarf
Skills: Craft (rune) 10 ranks, Craft (armoursmithing, blacksmithing, or weaponsmithing) 10 ranks, Spellcraft 10 ranks
Feats: Metallurgy, Runesmith, Scribe Scroll
Spells: Ability to cast 4th-level arcane spells

Class Features:
Skills: As Wizard
BAB: +3/4 of class level
BSB: Fortitude (High), Reflex (Low), Will (High)
Spells: +1 caster level per 2 class levels
Bonus Feats: 1st level - Inscribe Rune, Craft Wondrous Item, Craft Magic Arms and Armour, 2nd level - Craft Runestone, 10th level - Forge Ring
Dwarven Craftsmanship: Dwarven Craftsmen are very ingenious in their crafts; when determining gp and XP costs for creating items, reduce the final cost by 5% per level of the character up to 50% for scrolls and runestones, 5% per 2
levels up to 25% for armour and weapons, and 10% for rings at 10th level.

[graham anderson]

The way i have been thinking of doing dwarves with the new rules 3 , 3.5 etc in relation to magic is that dwarves can learn magic but have no cultural history or interest in learning it but that somewhere there may be a group of dwarves like the derro only stat wise they are identical to other dwarves as it is a cultural difference. I have also bean thinking of gnomes as dwarves that were enslaved by the elves and now follow more elven views but stat wise are still pretty much identical to dwarves.

what do people think of this.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by graham anderson@Feb 27 2004, 12:14 AM
The way i have been thinking of doing dwarves with the new rules 3 , 3.5 etc in relation to magic is that dwarves can learn magic but have no cultural history or interest in learning it but that somewhere there may be a group of dwarves like the derro only stat wise they are identical to other dwarves as it is a cultural difference. I have also bean thinking of gnomes as dwarves that were enslaved by the elves and now follow more elven views but stat wise are still pretty much identical to dwarves.

what do people think of this.
There are no gnomes in Cerilia. Long time hot topic. Bottom line there is only one mention of gnomes, as an item in the monster list in the BRRB. They are never mentioned in any other material, none of the PS, expansions or adventures. Rich Baker put out something on how he had envisioned gnomes existing as more of a nature-based race, but that it didn&#39;t make it into the setting when finalized. In effect, it was an editorial error to include them in the monster table. One of the many editorial errors in the setting material.

I wouldn&#39;t introduce a different subrace of dwarves at all. BR went to great extremes to not introduce subraces, except for humans. I see no reason to introduce any now.

Culture wise, you are probably better off with having dwarven arcane casters, except for bards, having some sort of school and society. Probably focused on artifacing. They are clan-oriented and each clan does generally have a specific function in dwarven society. So there could be a small clan dedicated to this, again mostly focused around creating weapons and armor.

IMO dwarven bards are a very welcome addition, since I think that all cultures have some kind of storytellers. Good old dwarven work songs, gotta love em.

[kgauck]

My own take on arcane dwarves is that, as you say, they lack a cultural

backround for arcane magic. Never the less, the pull of Vorynn`s blood does

lead many of its scions to the arcane arts.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[kgauck]

I have no problem with people putting out their own take on gnomes, dwarven

subraces, or inventing new races for Cerilia. Let all the creativity come

to the fore and we on the list/boards can pick and choose (or re-use and

translate) for our own purposes.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[RaspK_FOG]

I absolutely loved the whole dwarven bard concept, but, much like with dwarven clerics, they were underpowered due to their racial -2 penalty on Charisma. Cerilian dwarven bards and clerics are actually a possibility (even if Dexterity is also an important ability to bards)&#33;

[Osprey]

I absolutely loved the whole dwarven bard concept, but, much like with dwarven clerics, they were underpowered due to their racial -2 penalty on Charisma. Cerilian dwarven bards and clerics are actually a possibility (even if Dexterity is also an important ability to bards)&#33;

Not to take this too far off topic, but did you ever notice the inherent conflict bewteen 3.0&#39;s description of Wisdom and Charisma? If Wisdom represents (among other things) strength of will and Charisma represents force of personality and character, what really is the difference between the two in this respect?

For instance, dwarves having strong wills and intense strength of character seems to be intrinsic to their racial character, yet there they are getting a Charisma penalty. It&#39;s obvious that this penalty was applied for social resons, yet it would also cross over to things like Use Magic Device and the variant Charisma as Bloodline modifier - which unfortunately don&#39;t translate as well with this type of racial modifier.

Do we then make conditional modifiers in which this penalty doesn&#39;t apply? Or do we just suck it up and say "Oh well, the system can&#39;t be perfect?"

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Osprey" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 5:15 PM





> to be intrinsic to their racial character, yet there they are getting

> a Charisma penalty. It`s obvious that this penalty was applied

> for social resons, yet it would also cross over to things like Use

> Magic Device and [...]



I think a dwarven penalty for Use Magic Device is quite appropriate.



The Charisma attribute isn`t measuring the kind of strength of will that

dwarves are known for, its measuring the kind of strength of will that

attracts followers, convinces other people to do their bidding, it

represents personality writ onto others.



I wouldn`t spend much mental effort trying to understand the world through

game rules, I`d figure out how the world works and then use the best

mechanics to reflect that reality.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[RaspK_FOG]

An excellent way to put it, Kenneth&#33;

A little more comparison between the two abilities (and yes, I have thought about it too, in the past, and I realised this): Wisdom represents the person&#39;s ability to realise what is going on around him (logic, receptability of concepts and facts), while Charisma is the means that allows you to use the inisght granted by the former.
Wisdom represents stability of will and how much it can stand (its stamina), while Charisma represents force of will and strength of personality. That&#39;s why, for example, Charisma is, and should always, be used whenever you make a Perform check, as performances are mostly how well you can show off and still hide your mistakes.

[JanGunterssen]

Just an idea: Must we allways think about paper-made scrolls?
What makes imposible for a Dwarf wizard to write a spell in stone?
Why we sould forget the symbol spell (an spells like this)?

Regarding to elven clerics...
Generally, the main effort for the clerics are regarding souls. The cleric&#39;s soul or the would be followers&#39; ones. I asume that (as stated in the previous topic) the elves have not souls. I don&#39;t have anything against an elf taking priest levels, but I think he/she would be more interested in other&#39;s souls than his/her soul. And of course he will be seen as a foul among other elves... who doesn&#39;t have souls neither.

Just some ideas

[Ming I]

I absolutely LOVE the should they/shouldn&#39;t they Elven cleric/druid character debate. :D

What&#39;s interesting, at least to me, is that there were never any clerics in Birthright. All priests were specialty priests.

pg. 11 Birthright Rulebook

Every priest character in a Birthright campaign must choose one of the Cerilian powers and abide by the allowed weapons, armor, and spheres of access granted to priests of that deity. In some cases, these restrictions are similar to the standard abilities associated with the cleric class, but in other cases, priests may command unusual abilities.

In 2nd edition Birthright the Druid was seen as a specialty priest, not it&#39;s own class.

Even in 2nd edition standard AD&D it stated:

Priests of differing mythoi often go by titles and names other than priest. A priest of nature, for example (especially one based on Western European tradition) could be called a druid.

A quick check of the Book of Priestcraft shows under Clergy for Erik:

Clergy: Priests (always CALLED druids)

That&#39;s really all that had happened to the specialty priests of Erik. They were (and still are) called druids, and were given the standard druid abilities (with a few more).

2e AD&D described a specialty-priest example that was so widely used it became its own sub-class, the druid (like a Ranger or Paladin were Warrior subclasses). All members of the druid class however had to be of neutral alignment, that was clear in the PHB as well as the Complete Book of Druids. Since the "druids" presented in the Birthright rulebook weren&#39;t of that alignment (and had fewer restrictions and more bonuses), they more than likely weren&#39;t supposed to be confused with the PHB druid (priest sub-class) that many people are saying (including me) should be opened up to whomever wants it.

There are other examples of this kind of behavior exhibited by the original design team, like calling all Holy Warriors (also called Crusaders, if I recall correctly) Paladins. Then going on to say things like:

Cuiraecen&#39;s paladins are chaotic good. They may specialize in a weapon following the rules for fighters.

or

Nesirie&#39;s paladins are always female. They share the granted powers of the priesthood, but cannot summon a warhorse.

The paladin class was also pretty specific. All paladins had to be of Lawful Good alignment. However a Holy Warrior (of which the Paladin was an example) could be of any alignment and wasn&#39;t as heavily restricted.

To the veterans on the list: I&#39;m sorry for bringing up these points again.

To the newbies on the list: This thread seems to flare up at least once a month in one topic or another.

As always, if anyone can find, either in the Complete Guide to Paladins, the Complete Guide to Druids, or the PHB where these classes are allowed to be of a different alignment please let me know.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by JanGunterssen@Mar 1 2004, 08:41 PM

Regarding to elven clerics...
Generally, the main effort for the clerics are regarding souls. The cleric&#39;s soul or the would be followers&#39; ones. I asume that (as stated in the previous topic) the elves have not souls. I don&#39;t have anything against an elf taking priest levels, but I think he/she would be more interested in other&#39;s souls than his/her soul. And of course he will be seen as a foul among other elves... who doesn&#39;t have souls neither.

Just some ideas
That is not the &#39;main&#39; reason for no elven clerics/priests in Cerilia, it is just one of the discussions as to why things may have worked the way they did.

The main reason for no elven priests was that the elves in Cerilia have no gods. This is a specific difference in the Birthright campaign than in other campaign settings or the &#39;core&#39; 2nd ed rules.

As far as no souls for elves - this was a discussion/topic throughout 2nd ed, greater than Birthright specifically. IIRC using the raise dead or resurrection spells on elves was more difficult because of the &#39;no souls&#39; for elves concept in 2nd ed.

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by irdeggman@Mar 2 2004, 12:43 PM
The main reason for no elven priests was that the elves in Cerilia have no gods. This is a specific difference in the Birthright campaign than in other campaign settings or the &#39;core&#39; 2nd ed rules.
And elvels NEED no gods. If you are immortal you simply need nothing what tells you, what happenes to your soul after your death...

[Osprey]

And elvels NEED no gods. If you are immortal you simply need nothing what tells you, what happenes to your soul after your death...


Well put, Ariadne. I think that really is the core of it all right there. :)

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Osprey@Feb 28 2004, 06:15 PM

For instance, dwarves having strong wills and intense strength of character seems to be intrinsic to their racial character, yet there they are getting a Charisma penalty. It&#39;s obvious that this penalty was applied for social resons, yet it would also cross over to things like Use Magic Device and the variant Charisma as Bloodline modifier - which unfortunately don&#39;t translate as well with this type of racial modifier.

Do we then make conditional modifiers in which this penalty doesn&#39;t apply? Or do we just suck it up and say "Oh well, the system can&#39;t be perfect?"
Cerilian dwarves didn&#39;t have the Charisma penalty in 2nd ed that the core rules dwarves did, instead it was a Dex penalty. Same applies in the BRCS. Cerilian dwarves are different than the core rules ones, as are all of the races - it is one of the things that makes the campaign setting specific instead of just a layer on of the core rules. Hence no inherent penalty to Cha based skills and abilities.

[Green Knight]

Indeed they should not. If you also read the description of the dwarves,

not just the stats, you`ll find this interpretation reinforced.



Cerilian dwarves are described as "strong, enduring folk who enjoy hard

living and hard work. They are filled with an irrepressible store of

good cheer and song". The section goes on to speak of things I don`t

think fits well with a CHA penalty



Cheers

Bjørn



-----Original Message-----

From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion

[mailto:BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM] On Behalf Of irdeggman

Sent: 2. mars 2004 17:30

To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM

Subject: Re: New Class Options [36#2000]



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=2000



irdeggman wrote:


Originally posted by Osprey@Feb 28 2004, 06:15 PM
[b]

For instance, dwarves having strong wills and intense strength of

character seems to be intrinsic to their racial character, yet there

they are getting a Charisma penalty. It`s obvious that this penalty was

applied for social resons, yet it would also cross over to things like

Use Magic Device and the variant Charisma as Bloodline modifier - which

unfortunately don`t translate as well with this type of racial modifier.



Do we then make conditional modifiers in which this penalty doesn`t

apply? Or do we just suck it up and say "Oh well, the system can`t

be perfect?"

Cerilian dwarves didn`t have the Charisma penalty in 2nd ed that the

core rules dwarves did, instead it was a Dex penalty. Same applies in

the BRCS. Cerilian dwarves are different than the core rules ones, as

are all of the races - it is one of the things that makes the campaign

setting specific instead of just a layer on of the core rules. Hence no

inherent penalty to Cha based skills and abilities.



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

****



Birthright-l Archives:

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

[JanGunterssen]

>>Cerilian dwarves are described as "strong, enduring folk who enjoy hard
>>living and hard work. They are filled with an irrepressible store of
>>good cheer and song". The section goes on to speak of things I don`t
>>think fits well with a CHA penalty

That&#39;s right&#33; As close tied to the earth, Cerillian Dwarves are hard (remember they have dense bodies ability an so) and strong. So are they spirits. I can understand a Dextery penalty, while for me a Charisma penalty is just a "copy and paste" easy making rule from the PHB. :)

I think they are some kind of earth guardians (quasi-earth-elementals) while I see the elves as "the-land-above-the-earth guardians". That would also explain why the shide and the dwarves never fight each other before the arrival of the human tribes.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Bjorn" <bjorn.sorgjerd@C2I.NET>

Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 10:42 AM





> Cerilian dwarves are described as "strong, enduring folk who

> enjoy hard living and hard work. They are filled with an

> irrepressible store of good cheer and song". The section goes

> on to speak of things I don`t think fits well with a CHA penalty



I don`t find any of this description has having anything to do with the CHA

ability score. Perhaps if they inspired strength, endurance, good cheer,

and a love of labor to others. Clearly Cerilians have embraced a fair

amount of sidhe culture. What have they adopted of dwarven culture? Aside

from Diirk Watershold (who was given a 15 CHA), I know of no dwarves who

play a significant role in Anuirean politics (as opposed to their own

insular communities). Indeed I think that the CHA penalty reflects that

insularity. This may be a Tolkenesque reading of the dwarves as a people

who care nothing for the affairs of the day, but are content to mine their

deeps for treasure.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com