Prestige Classes

[The Jew]

I don't have any ideas at the moment, but it would be cool to think of some to be added into the BRCS-revised. If someone thinks of some, they should probably start a new thread for each one, so that we could more easily develop them. As far as theory goes, maybe they should be mostly 5-level prestige classes, since birthright is a low-level world.

[RaspK_FOG]

Well, this is not quite necessary: consider a prestige class that approaches the 5th-level character and has 10 levels... Such a prestige class would really be more than fine for Birthright in my opinion.

[Raesene Andu]

Prestige Classes were originally going to go in the Atlas of Cerilia, going with the idea that they were designed to fit with certain regions or organisations that they then might as well be in the same document as the description of the organisation.

I'm not particularly tied to that idea thought.

What I might do is release all of the currently submitted prestige classes for discussion by the community so you can see where we stand and pick out those that you like and suggest changes for those that you don't. It will take a little while to put all that info together, but I'll see what I can do.

[CMonkey]

Can, open. Worms, everywhere...

:unsure:

CM.

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by The Jew@Nov 1 2003, 08:54 PM
I don't have any ideas at the moment, but it would be cool to think of some to be added into the BRCS-revised. If someone thinks of some, they should probably start a new thread for each one, so that we could more easily develop them. As far as theory goes, maybe they should be mostly 5-level prestige classes, since birthright is a low-level world.
Most until now created prestige classes are actually 10 level based ones, some few have 5 levels...

[CMonkey]

Originally posted by Ariadne@Nov 2 2003, 05:31 PM
Most until now created prestige classes are actually 10 level based ones, some few have 5 levels...
But there is no need, requirement or even real reason for them to be.

I must agree with the Jew as one of the problems I've been having with prestige classes is the low level theme of BR. For example, I wanted a prestige class for the Knights of Moonstrike Keep to give them a bit of flavour, but the entire fighting wing of the keep can't (shouldn't?) be 6th+ level, but if it's only the "command team" then much of the flavour I wanted is gone - result: a 5 level PrC with 3rd level minimum requirements.

I just can't think of a better solution :(

CM.

[lordofallandnothing]

I have seen that in a few of the supplements that they have prestige classes that progress 3 levels,some that progress 5 levels most that progress 10 level and in the latest dragon magazine they even had some racial classes that proceeded to 9'th level so I do not see why we could not have some three level prestige classes that would require something like maybe 2 previous
levels in another class to gain entry into them...Maybe I am totally off-base here but IMO that would probably be the best answer especially considering like a few of you have said that birthright is basically a low level world...
Your thoughts on this as always are welcome :)

[kgauck]

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

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

Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 11:40 AM





> I must agree with the Jew as one of the problems I`ve been having

> with prestige classes is the low level theme of BR. For example, I

> wanted a prestige class for the Knights of Moonstrike Keep to give

> them a bit of flavour, but the entire fighting wing of the keep can`t

> (shouldn`t?) be 6th+ level



Use the dojo theory of training certain feats. That is, an organization,

like the Knights of Moonstrike, have their own feat (or series of feats),

and you can only learn it from the KoM, and they don`t just teach anyone.

After all, its a secret - praise Ruornil.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[kgauck]

The problem with PrC`s and all their cool flavor and BR`s low level setting

caused me to abandon the idea that nearly everyone was below 10th level.

I`ve bumped my ceiling up to 16th level. Too many neat feats, series of

feats, PrC`s, and multi-class cominations require higher level characters.

Much more then 2e, 3e/d20 flowers after the lower levels. So, it may be

prudent to re-think the low level nature of BR, without allowing the

pendulum to swing all the way to the other side. I used to generally cap

CR`s at 5, now 10 is closer to my upper limit, but I am also a bit more

flexible in higher level CR encounters.

[geeman]

At 01:42 PM 11/2/2003 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:



> > I must agree with the Jew as one of the problems I`ve been having

> > with prestige classes is the low level theme of BR. For example, I

> > wanted a prestige class for the Knights of Moonstrike Keep to give

> > them a bit of flavour, but the entire fighting wing of the keep can`t

> > (shouldn`t?) be 6th+ level

>

>Use the dojo theory of training certain feats. That is, an organization,

>like the Knights of Moonstrike, have their own feat (or series of feats),

>and you can only learn it from the KoM, and they don`t just teach anyone.

>After all, its a secret - praise Ruornil.



One could combine the concepts and have that feat be a prereq for the

prestige class.



Gary

[Sir Justine]

Hi,

About what you said:

1 - Kenneth&#39;s idea of using feats instead of prestige to represent the training of some organizations is good because of two things: first, as some of you said, it wouldn&#39;t be right to make all soldiers of an army 6th-level fighters, but a 2nd level fighter can already have four feats (if human); second, it&#39;s much easy to make a couple of feats than a full prestige class - it would be a LOT of work to make a single prestige for every group of Cerilia.

2 - About what Raesene said, that would be nice. I remember of the prestiges submitted to the site, and they were good overall. Sure, some need a little work - a myself submitted one 10th-level prestige that could be made a 5th-level one. But when I made it I didn&#39;t even knew a prestige could have only five levels&#33; If a remember correctly, the first prestiges with 5 levels appeared on the Forgotten Realms.
Now, if I would redo that prestige, I would make it a 5 level one.

3 - Finnaly, you all are talking about the "low-level" setting of Birthright. Some time ago I put a post in a topic about the NPCs for the Atlas talking about this. No one commented it, however... :(
I wouldn&#39;t say it all again but, in short, what I think is that NPCs should have a higher level cap than the one that is presented on the book. If not, the DM as only one option: you don&#39;t let your players increase their character&#39;s levels. That, or very soon the PCs will be laughing at the NPCs...

[teloft]

Originally posted by CMonkey+Nov 2 2003, 06:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CMonkey @ Nov 2 2003, 06:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ariadne@Nov 2 2003, 05:31 PM
Most until now created prestige classes are actually 10 level based ones, some few have 5 levels...
But there is no need, requirement or even real reason for them to be.

I must agree with the Jew as one of the problems I&#39;ve been having with prestige classes is the low level theme of BR. For example, I wanted a prestige class for the Knights of Moonstrike Keep to give them a bit of flavour, but the entire fighting wing of the keep can&#39;t (shouldn&#39;t?) be 6th+ level, but if it&#39;s only the "command team" then much of the flavour I wanted is gone - result: a 5 level PrC with 3rd level minimum requirements.

I just can&#39;t think of a better solution :(

CM. [/b][/quote]
I can think of it this way, thay are all training and advancing, skill vise and so one in the same direction, and thet devotion of the many will bring front the few thet acsuly master the theemd prestige class, commanders would have the class.

now here is a thougth. you need to have commanders with sertan prestige class in order to gain acsess to sertan &#39;Unit templet&#39; or &#39;a trainer&#39; for your units. thet would be to teach the many to act in a sertan why to sertan situations, then in order to have acsess to the &#39;prestige class&#39; you acsuly have to come from such a unit.

To master something new, never herad of before, you acsuly have to bring a prestige class to your DM and reason why in hell you have acsess to knowledge relaited to the seacrets of this class, and why in hell you can show the disiplin of training this class, and you sould also reason why in hell it fits with your history, and your culture. and to the fela of the game...

:ph34r:

[teloft]

about the low level theam.

Yes, in older verions of DD it realy was a must.

But what I think now, is you can acsuly have a cap on the power of the character by spiking some of the few &#39;to powerfull featurs&#39; or &#39;hig level featurs thet are not in the feel of the game&#39;

as a variant I offer: critical table.

a crossbow can realy kill anyone. no mater how hig level he is.

if somone can not be killed by one good shot from a crosbow, he is out of the game. not in the feel any more..


and btw, I like to have automatic wonding ability on a critical
on all weapons. As in the new 3.5

its a Con damage.

veryfied critical, Unse a 2nd ed table DD for nice special effects. :)

:ph34r:

[Green Knight]

I decided a long time ago to let the "low-level flavor thingie" go. It contributed nothing to my enjoyment of the game, and in 3E in particular it robbed the players of a lot of opportunity to do cool stuff.



Most player characters are now in the 6th-10th level range.

>

> Fra: Kenneth Gauck <kgauck@MCHSI.COM>

> Dato: 2003/11/02 Sun PM 08:51:56 CET

> Til: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM

> Emne: Re: Prestige Classes [36#2057]

>

> The problem with PrC`s and all their cool flavor and BR`s low level setting

> caused me to abandon the idea that nearly everyone was below 10th level.

> I`ve bumped my ceiling up to 16th level. Too many neat feats, series of

> feats, PrC`s, and multi-class cominations require higher level characters.

> Much more then 2e, 3e/d20 flowers after the lower levels. So, it may be

> prudent to re-think the low level nature of BR, without allowing the

> pendulum to swing all the way to the other side. I used to generally cap

> CR`s at 5, now 10 is closer to my upper limit, but I am also a bit more

> flexible in higher level CR encounters.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>



Cheers

Bjørn



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

WebMail fra Tele2 http://www.tele2.no

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

[Mark_Aurel]

Can, open. Worms, everywhere...

:unsure:

CM.

Indeed.

[Prospero]

Me, I like the low-level, low-magic, low-resurrection setting that is Birthright. I feel it adds a lot - a world where a +1 dagger is a priceless heirloom, rather than something to be thrown away, a world where wizards are rare and fearsome rather than for hire in every little podunk village, where a man can be ruler of one of the most powerful realms in the land without being an Epic-level character blessed by 12 gods and a master of sorcery as well.

[Sir Justine]

Me, I like the low-level, low-magic, low-resurrection setting that is Birthright. I feel it adds a lot - a world where a +1 dagger is a priceless heirloom, rather than something to be thrown away, a world where wizards are rare and fearsome rather than for hire in every little podunk village, where a man can be ruler of one of the most powerful realms in the land without being an Epic-level character blessed by 12 gods and a master of sorcery as well.

At the most, I agree with you, but why would a +1 dagger be a "priceless heirloom"? I would always take a masterwork longsword instead of it - same bonus to attack, better damage...

By now you shall be thinking that I&#39;m an "overpower" "munchkin" or whatever. But don&#39;t take me wrong - I&#39;m not. It&#39;s just that your campaign world must be beliavable - and for this to happen the rules must be according. If by the rules a dagger +1 is worst than a masterwork longsword (and it IS, except in some rare occasions) why would someone use the dagger instead of the sword? (ok, ok, there are some motives, like "the dagger is smaller", but I&#39;m talking about war - and even them, the difference between a +1 dagger and a masterwork dagger is very slim.)

Actually, I&#39;m being a BETTER roleplayer by using the longsword instead of the magic dagger, because its what a real fighter would do (he would use the best weapon available, wound&#39;t him?)&#33;

What I want to say is that sometimes people, in trying to make a "low-magic" world, like middle-earth, instead make a unreal, flawed world. In other worlds, if you want mages to be rare, it is not enough to say: "IMC, mages are rare". The rules must support this. Sure, the DM has control over the NPCs, but not over the PCs (or at least, he shoudn&#39;t have). If your NPCs don&#39;t use nor expect magic, because you say its rare in your world, and there is a PC mage, he will be unstopable...

[The Jew]

If by the rules a dagger +1 is worst than a masterwork longsword (and it IS, except in some rare occasions) why would someone use the dagger instead of the sword?


Such as those rare occasions when players play rogues, maybe a guild master. These characters tend to have high dexterity and likewise a tendency to have weapon finesse. Daggers are also easier to conceal and can be thrown (granted, a dangerout act with a heirloom). Overall, a longsword is a more commonly used melee weapon, but the family heirloom may have been created for the not so rare character described above.

I do agree with your overall point about creating actual reasons why a particular world strays from the norm, rather than just using a blanket statement and assuming that will be adequate.

[CMonkey]

Actually, I&#39;m being a BETTER roleplayer by using the longsword instead of the magic dagger, because its what a real fighter would do (he would use the best weapon available, wound&#39;t him?)&#33;
No, you&#39;re not being a better roleplayer for that reason. If you&#39;re enjoying your game and contributing (even a little) to the enjoyment of the other players, you are a good roleplayer. If you aren&#39;t either of these, you&#39;re a bad roleplayer, for that group. Roleplaying is a big glass house dude.

Having said / ranted that, he may not use the dagger, but he&#39;d always carry it and the day he fought a (3.0) werewolf, he&#39;d realise why it was priceless to his grandfather and he wanted his son, and his son&#39;s son to have it....


What I want to say is that sometimes people, in trying to make a "low-magic" world, like middle-earth, instead make a unreal, flawed world. In other worlds, if you want mages to be rare, it is not enough to say: "IMC, mages are rare". The rules must support this. Sure, the DM has control over the NPCs, but not over the PCs (or at least, he shoudn&#39;t have). If your NPCs don&#39;t use nor expect magic, because you say its rare in your world, and there is a PC mage, he will be unstopable...
I agree strongly with this, it is a major flaw in the current BRCS - it even says that regents shouldn&#39;t have default magical defences against wizards and such without making it harder to be one. One of my major house rules there - nerf the spellslingers.

CM.

[teloft]

I created a world back in &#39;97 when I was traveling in Finnland.

there I had magic zones.

// Ill try to do a little convert here.

so each spell you know has its zone, and dosent work out side of thet zone.

a equalient version of the spell migth be in use out site of you defolt zone, But in order to use thees codse, or logg into thows spells you have to roll.

Even thow it isint exsisting, as you can write a e-mail and try to send it to a nonexsistant e-mail.

You migth also like to do a little study on the zone your traveling to, in order to learn how to do the spells in thet zone.

a mage with a sorce holding can afect what spells his domain supports. like a admin can upgrate a computer system. or Format your hard drife.

a mage usualy has controle over whats awailable by his layline system.

Gods have a lay-line system of there own, and thay need to do there networking for the divine spells to work


... I intruduces a metamagic feat thet would alow you to cast a spell instantly without any suport from a network. Witch would be the defolt.

Sorserer have a natural talent to conect to the network, and therefore thay dont need to study as much in order for there powers to work. hench thay dont know much.

This restricts spellcasters. and alows difrent awailability of spells by regions.


To make a spell you know awailable by your network is a realm spell.

Realm spells are not restricted by this.

:ph34r:

[Athos69]

My 2 cents (Canadian):

Prestiege Classes

There are alot of people who dislike the idea of throwing them into the game, saying that they will change the game into a collection of &#39;Godlike&#39; characters.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The idea of a Prestiege Class is to allow for variety from the basic 3.5 classes. A PrCl is not, in itself a godlike thing. It is a departure from the strict, narrow path which is a standard class, and a way of bringing colour, flavour and variety to the campaign world. PrCls tend to be balanced, both against each other, and against the standard classes (the Mystic Theurge being an obvious exception), and the nuber of levels that each one has is not a reflection of how powerful it is -- it merely graduates the game effects of the class over a longer pariod of itme and allows a further branching from the standard class that the player came from.

I fully support the creation of 3.5 PrCls for BR, and whether they be 5-level or 10 level classes, it makes no difference. If a DM is going to be running a low-level campaign, it is a moot point. If the DM does not want to deal with Epic characters, then it doesn&#39;t really matter how many levels tere are of PrCl, as you will be trading off levels in the standard classes for PrCl levels.

-Mike

[The Jew]

PrCls tend to be balanced, both against each other, and against the standard classes (the Mystic Theurge being an obvious exception)


Mystic theurge is actually one of the more balanced prestige classes, as long as you start playing the character 6th level or earlier. Most PrCls are not balanced against regular classes though. Actually they are almost uniformely stronger. The red wizard of thay is the most exreme case, about equal to a normal wizard if he does not have access to his circle, extrordinarily more powerful if he does. I still think they should be included, especially new ones which could be a little better balanced power wise; both capturing, and adding too, the flavor of birthright.

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by The Jew@Nov 5 2003, 02:13 AM
Mystic theurge is actually one of the more balanced prestige classes, as long as you start playing the character 6th level or earlier.
You can&#39;t play a Mystic Theurge below 6th character level, because you need 3 levels of an arcane and 3 levels of a divine spellcasting class as a prereq...

Otherwise this prestige class is discussed greately. A clr 3/ wiz 3/ mystic theurge 10 gains a spellcasting ability of a clr 13/ wiz 13 (character level 26), but you trade it for wizard bonus feats and the better turn undead ability (and don&#39;t forget, multiclassing characters gain higher level spells later). If this PrC is overpowered or balanced is everybodie&#39;s own taste...

[Osprey]

After reading through 3.5, it seems prestige classes now serve 1 of 2 main functions:
1) Combine 2 base classes as a multiclass character into a flavored combination single prestige class. Most of the "new" 3.5 prestige classes in the DMG (as opposed to those in the 3.0 DMG) represent this aspect, such as Arcane Trickster, Eldritch Knight, Mystic Theurge, etc. And they left out a bunch of other possiblilities which I&#39;ve had fun playing with: a Divine Trickster (cleric/rogue with the Trickery domain, replaces Ranged Legerdemain w/ Cosmic Prank...), the Noble Wizard (a rare bird of the BR world that almost got used before poor Osric died...), and others. These are my particular favorites, allowing a balanced split-class character to take one class well-suited to their particular multiclass blend.

2) A specialist of some sort. The specialists tend to either be really good in their particular area (the Red Wizard is a quintessential example here, the Thaumaturgist another), or gain some unique abilities related to their specialty (such as the Assassin). Most of the 3.0 prestige classes were of this variety, of which there were many cool ones and some not so well designed...

Overall, I really like using prestige classes in the advanced game. They allow for almost endless variety of flavor and distinction for the veteran characters (PC and NPC) of the game world.

-Osprey

[RaspK_FOG]

One of the issues that has been hard-pressed (really a lot&#33;) with the move-on to 3e - and, lately, 3.5e - of D&D is that it has caused the setting of Birthright to lose much of its reachness; others support it shouldn&#39;t even be a D&D setting at all&#33;

I think that since the people who do us a favour by converting the setting for these versions, since they do put tremendour effort in all of this, made the choice of actually stepping up to 3.5e (a relief granted to us by the WotC, Inc., so that these very people would continue this setting for d20), I think we should try and incorporate the new motifs to the setting. And that does not only include the obvious issues, but the not so obvious as well...

For that matter, let me give you the example that inspired me to write to above ranting: the matter of level of the world. While the world is a high-fantasy setting, it is also a generally low-magic setting as well. Furthermore, it cannot be helped: 2e Birthright was always a low-level setting&#33;

But what should be considered as low-level in 3(.5)e? Chechk out the XP advancement; anyone can see that getting your character up to 20th level, even in Birthright, is rather easy&#33; How do you then define "low level"?

Let me tell you one thing, really, for this is where it all leads to: we can always lower the awards of encounters, like making them 50% the value it should normally be granted to them (that means half the XP and half the price of items&#33;), a theme I really like for low-level settings. Also, increase the mean level of all characters according to their current level. An idea would be:

01-03 --&#62; 01-05
04-07 --&#62; 06-10
08-11 --&#62; 11-15
12-15 --&#62; 16-20



As for the importance and standing of Prestige Classes, I can present two examples that can easilly make clear that Osprey is right in his points:

FR, the setting which, I am sure, propelled the creation of 3.5e more than any other (especially with its billions of 1st-level, non-good rangers ^_^), was the source for the Red Wizard (Thay is on the Realms), and it does feature more than one other such prestige class: the War-Wizards of Cormyr, the Harper Scout/Mage/Priest, the Hathran, etc.
How many of you have really noticed that the Eldritch Knight (especially if he has the spellcasting ability of a bard instead of a sorcerer/wizard to provide him with the requirements of the prestige class) is nothing more than a much more reasonable Blade-Singer, without the painful powers of the latter, but without having only elf-blooded being able to take it.

[RaspK_FOG]

Actually, where can I suggest a new prestige class? Is the Royal Library OK?

[Mark_Aurel]

PrCls tend to be balanced, both against each other, and against the standard classes (the Mystic Theurge being an obvious exception)

Actually, Mystic Theurges are very well balanced. There&#39;s several aspects to this. For spellcasters, loss of their highest-level spells means a loss of efficiency or spell effect power in general. Mystic Theurges will be hurling Flaming Spheres when Wizards use Fireballs, casting Dimension Door when the Wizard has Teleport, and so on. Second, there&#39;s a numerical loss. Mystic Theurges essentially take a -3 penalty on Spell Pentration rolls, which really gets quite significant as you reach higher levels. Imagine fighters that has to roll half their attacks at -3 and you get the idea. Third, there&#39;s the issue of caster level output in general - when the Wizard does 10d6 with a Fireball, the Mystic Theurge will be doing 7d6 damage, at a smaller range. The Mystic Theurge has to spread his ability advancements out a bit - he can&#39;t simply max out a single spellcasting stat, essentially yielding him with somewhat inferior save DCs for the spells he has (beyond the fact that his highest spells are one level lower, which is essentially a +1 bonus for enemies on all saves right there). Finally, the Mystic Theurge sacrifices advancement in class-specific abilities. He doesn&#39;t gain the familiar advancement or bonus feats of wizards. He doesn&#39;t advance in turning undead like a cleric, and he&#39;s fairly inferior to a single-classed cleric in combat in general, with worse saves, worse attack, worse hp, and he can&#39;t generally wear armor.

Overall, the Mystic Theurge is very well balanced, sacrificing raw power for versatility. Depending on the party makeup, he&#39;s either significantly less useful or marginally more useful than a single-classed caster would be.


Actually, where can I suggest a new prestige class? Is the Royal Library OK?

That would be OK, I think. This thread would be fine too.

[Osprey]

After some indiependent playtesting with a Cleric/Wizard of Ruornil, I have to agree with Mark - on all three points. A player of mine played a 10th level character: a Cleric 5/Wizard 5. And he was significantly weaker than most other 10th level characters. The Mystic Theurge, as Jan explained, is actually a decent balance of breadth of powers at the cost of "specialization" in arcane or divine magic (relative to a single class wizard or cleric, anyways). A "3 level penalty" is almost like getting a +3 ECL template for the mystic theurge advantages. Not a bad measure of its power, IMO.

[Raesene Andu]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Nov 8 2003, 11:00 AM
Actually, where can I suggest a new prestige class? Is the Royal Library OK?
Yes, the Royal Library would be the best place to discuss new material such as Prestige Classes. This forum is for the discussion of the BRCS document, and the rules contained in it.

[RaspK_FOG]

Thank you all for the directions&#33; As a matter of fact, I checked some time ago on the Guilder prestige class presented in the Royal Library, and while it had an interesting concept, I found a number of incosistencies that really made me upset about the try. No offence meant but, please, check it out: 9 + Int skill points per level, an average BAB progression - which would be perfect, if not for the +4 at 5th level-, and effectively 2 bonus feats per level&#33;

Anyway, as for the Mystic Theurge, you forgot something very important: a 5th-level Cleric/5th-level Wizard/10th-level Mystic Theurge would not be able to cast 9th level spells of any kind&#33; Furthermore, the less restrictive Sorcerer variant will not be able to cast even 8th-level arcane spells&#33;

[OsricIlien]

I think that a special unit would have very few of its members that were actually part of the Prestige Class that group would have. As an example I have a fellow player that calls his special unit the Fists of Roesone, he being the Baron of Roesone. Only the captains and perhaps some very important individuals with in the unit would have a few levels in the Fists of Roesone prestige class. The point is really that most people within a unit would be members of the club but not nessecarily the people that epitomize what being part of that group means.

[RaspK_FOG]

This does not apply to all of prestige classes: the concept of making such "club specific" PrCls is to give the extra piece of edge such role-playing issues can; the Red Wizards (of Thay, mind you ;) ) is an excellent example.

[Mark_Aurel]

Anyway, as for the Mystic Theurge, you forgot something very important: a 5th-level Cleric/5th-level Wizard/10th-level Mystic Theurge would not be able to cast 9th level spells of any kind&#33; Furthermore, the less restrictive Sorcerer variant will not be able to cast even 8th-level arcane spells&#33;

If you go that way, sure. I think the best way to optimize a Mystic Theurge is probably to go 3/7/10 - yielding 9th-level spells at 20th level.

[RaspK_FOG]

I agree with you; I just had to mention the fact that you can&#39;t be the super-caster anyway... It sure allows you to keep quite the option: Versatility, or Power?

(I&#39;d rather have a 13th-caster-level Cleric/17th-caster-level Wizard than the other sides; :P . In any case, choosing a Sorcerer occupation would give give you a Clerical edge, but problematic spellcasting and level progression; <_< .)

[Osprey]

I agree with you; I just had to mention the fact that you can&#39;t be the super-caster anyway... It sure allows you to keep quite the option: Versatility, or Power?

(I&#39;d rather have a 13th-caster-level Cleric/17th-caster-level Wizard than the other sides;* . In any case, choosing a Sorcerer occupation would give give you a Clerical edge, but problematic spellcasting and level progression;* .)

And it&#39;s quite in line with the D&D mechanical philosophy: specialization and that "little extra edge" of specialized high power (such as comes from playing a single-class spellcaster) comes at a premium price. Consider that it is considered worthwhile to dedicate an entire feat to get +1 to attack only with a single weapon [this being the Weapon Focus feat, of course]&#33; Why? Because fighters already get maxed out base attack values and tend to have high strength.

So it&#39;s not such a different concept that the creators/designers of 3.5 D&D think that it&#39;s a fair trade to gain a great deal of diversity in spellcasting while losing a level or two of spell power and several less spells per day of that type.

Try it out; give it a fair run with some playtesting, and see if it&#39;s really as ridiculous as it might at first seem. Then give an opinion on it. ;)

Later&#33;
Osprey

PS - Besides, if you only have a small party of PC&#39;s, you might find it pretty darn convenient to have a mystic theurge if he&#39;s the only dedicated spellcaster in the group&#33; "Whew&#33; Good thing the wizard decided to dedicate his path to Ruornil, otherwise we&#39;d have been dead a long time ago&#33;"

Not an unreasonable quote from a party without a cleric, methinks. This is a problem I run into frequently in D&D; for some reason most people just don&#39;t like to play clerics/priests nowadays; the world is too religiously apathetic, I guess, or maybe it&#39;s just in the gamer circles that there&#39;s a real stigma attached to religion - probably because of all the born-again crusaders telling us how D&D leads us into devil worship&#33; I know I got my share back in my grade school days&#33; Yech&#33; :P

[RaspK_FOG]

:lol: I understand what you mean; the party I now run as a favour to my best friend (he ran it some time ago, but had to go to another town due to his studies) has a 10th-level ranger, a 7th-level wizard/1st-level fighter/2nd-level Eldritch Knight, an 11th-level monk, and a 10th-level psychic warrior, and now has a 10th-level rogue as well...

As for how I find it, it certainly is not ridiculous: I find it a strange and interesting idea, but it certainly can be overpowering. Add to that the fact that most people are very annoyed by D&D&#39;s favour towards battle, and you have it: another accuse of D&D and power-playing... *Sigh*

[Kzintosh]

Hi There&#33; :D I just joined this forum. I&#39;ve only recently come to enjoy Birthright...it&#39;s a wonder it took this long for me to truly appreciate the depth and flavor of the setting. Magnificent&#33; I&#39;m not much of a D&D player...I&#39;d rather use some other systems. However, I appreciate a 3rd edition version of Birthright (so I may placate all my player chums who seem a wee bit fixated on 3E :P ). Personally, I much prefer the low-level feel. This is a classic thread in any campaign...low versus high. Birthright, in my opinion, best presents a campaign for the "common man"...not some mighty thewed warrior-king that fairly glows like a Christmas tree during a detect magic, slaying dragons with the strength of his ale-laden breathe alone. Munchkinism at it&#39;s finest ;) But then again, someone could argue why even present the blood enemies if you aren&#39;t meant to overthrow them (to which I would answer...they aren&#39;t B) ). Of course the best thing is to simply leave it to the DM to tailor the campaign to their desired style. It&#39;s all about the players, really. I&#39;m in the process of prinint out the 3E test version. Don&#39;t know if I&#39;ll be able to play test it anytime soon, but I&#39;ll look for the opportunity as it presents itself. I look forward to more. Keep up the great work, all of you&#33; :D

[kgauck]

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

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

Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 7:26 PM



> Birthright, in my opinion, best presents a campaign for the "common

> man" ...not some mighty thewed warrior-king that fairly glows like a

> Christmas tree during a detect magic, slaying dragons with the strength

> of his ale-laden breathe alone. Munchkinism at it`s finest ;)



I rather think BR is the reverse of this. BR is /the/ setting for the

hero-king (the name of a suppliment, BTW) who by favor of heaven acomplishes

what would be impossible to mere mortals. It is the most Homeric of

settings in this regard. The common man has even less hope of greatness in

BR, for greatness is limited to the blooded, the divinely favored. What

most campaigns lack is some explanation for why this mope killed the dragon

and won the kingdom (other then the fact that he was run a player). Only

Arthur can pull the sword from the stone because it is his birthright. No

one else need apply. A hundred thousand common men acting in unison are

insufficient to stop the king once his birthright is claimed. Far from

being the setting of the common man, this is the aristocratic setting par

excellance.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Peter Lubke]

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

From: "Kenneth Gauck" <kgauck@MCHSI.COM>

To: <BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM>

Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 1:15 PM

Subject: Re: Prestige Classes [36#2057]





> ----- Original Message -----

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

> Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 7:26 PM

>

> > Birthright, in my opinion, best presents a campaign for the "common

> > man" ...not some mighty thewed warrior-king that fairly glows like a

> > Christmas tree during a detect magic, slaying dragons with the strength

> > of his ale-laden breathe alone. Munchkinism at it`s finest ;)

>

> I rather think BR is the reverse of this. BR is /the/ setting for the

> hero-king (the name of a suppliment, BTW) who by favor of heaven

acomplishes

> what would be impossible to mere mortals. It is the most Homeric of

> settings in this regard. The common man has even less hope of greatness

in

> BR, for greatness is limited to the blooded, the divinely favored. What

> most campaigns lack is some explanation for why this mope killed the

dragon

> and won the kingdom (other then the fact that he was run a player). Only

> Arthur can pull the sword from the stone because it is his birthright. No

> one else need apply. A hundred thousand common men acting in unison are

> insufficient to stop the king once his birthright is claimed. Far from

> being the setting of the common man, this is the aristocratic setting par

> excellance.





Well, I tend to disagree with KG and agree with Kzintosh. I don`t think that

was the intention of the original framers at all.

There may be some debate on what is meant by "common" however.



In my opinion a scion may be a commoner, i.e. not a born aristocrat. In fact

I reject totally the idea that a blooded birthright is the accepted normal

due to one born to a scion. Of course, I do not disallow a scion to pass

his bloodline to an heir - thus a child may come into their birthright (i.e.

a bloodline) upon investiture or death of a parent. Investiture tends to

create generations of blooded scions - but mostly one at a time. While most

new scions (99%) are in fact born to non-scion parents.



Having said that though, a born scion *is* a hero-king (or

hero-king-in-witing), and will more easily accomplish great deeds (to the

building of a domain or realm) than an unblooded character. For even a lowly

commoner may be divinely favored - while a young prince is more likely to be

parentally favored (early investiture - i.e. pre-death).



However, denying genetic bloodlines is not a majority viewpoint. (`specially

with those who want a powerful campaigns - i.e. most 3e+ players).



Some issues that denying genetic hereditary bloodlines help with:

(i) bloodline creep - slow and steady increase in total bloodline in

Cerilia; total bloodline remains staedy

(ii) lack of dynamic variety in newly born scions - no Alexanders or

Attilas; the Roele bloodline could be found at any time (makes for good

plotlines, e.g. the Dragon reborn)

(iii) breeding programs - to produce a "great bloodline", leave this to the

divine; this never worked in real-life and tended to backfire.

(iv) bloodline harvest - (partially) Without predetermined results, the

first a potentially harvester learns of a blooded character will be when

they are powerful enough to defend themselves.

[RaspK_FOG]

I believe that the most important to keep in mind is one thing only:

It&#39;s all about the players, really.

That being said, I would like to add that what really is meant to be Birthright is not a low-fantasy setting: it is a mid-fantasy setting with low-magic, sub-zero-tech themes. It has the feel of mythology and fantasy hanging about it proud and noble, yet stays out from the path of magic that may be wielded by anyone or such things that always came to be the traps for D&D. All in all, it has a story-line to make it sound clear and true.

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by Mark_Aurel@Nov 11 2003, 03:52 AM

Anyway, as for the Mystic Theurge, you forgot something very important: a 5th-level Cleric/5th-level Wizard/10th-level Mystic Theurge would not be able to cast 9th level spells of any kind&#33; Furthermore, the less restrictive Sorcerer variant will not be able to cast even 8th-level arcane spells&#33;

If you go that way, sure. I think the best way to optimize a Mystic Theurge is probably to go 3/7/10 - yielding 9th-level spells at 20th level.
The "best" way for a mystic theurge is to be clr 3/ wiz 7/ mystic theurge 10 or clr 7/ wiz 3/ mystic theurge 10. As Marc Aurel pointed out, you get 9th level spells of one class at 20th level. To get 9th level arcane AND divine spells you have to wait till 24th level...

If you go your way (wiz5/clr5/ Mystic Theurge 10) you have to wait even longer...

[RaspK_FOG]

Ariadne, it seems you have missed something when it comes to epic (above 20th) levels: your spell progression stops at 20th Character Level, no matter how many levels you&#39;ve got&#33; There is only one way to get higher level spell slots to use from that point on: check the Epic Feats section in the DMG; it is there...

[Osprey]

Ariadne, it seems you have missed something when it comes to epic (above 20th) levels: your spell progression stops at 20th Character Level, no matter how many levels you&#39;ve got&#33; There is only one way to get higher level spell slots to use from that point on: check the Epic Feats section in the DMG; it is there...

Um, I think you&#39;re wrong there...normal spell progression only stops at 20th level within a given class. An epic character could be a wizard 20/ cleric 20/ bard 20/ etc., and get full spell selections from each&#33; Which means a 30th level character from our above example could be a wizard 10/ cleric 10/ mystic theurge 10, and have the spellcasting abilities of a 20th level cleric and wizard. And at 24th level (wizard 7/cleric 7/mystic theurge 10) could have 9th level cleric and wizard spells.

If you read over the epic rules, they state that full class abilities are gained for advancement in a given class up to 20th level in that class, except that feats may be chosen from the epic list as well as the normal one, and attack and save progressions are standardized for any epic character with a total character level of 21+.

The supposed balancer is that many of the really juicy epic feats require maxxed out progression in one of the standard classes, or specific class abilities and really high ability scores in order to meet the prerequisites for the feat. In other words, specialists will tend to qualify sooner than broad character types.

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Nov 22 2003, 05:52 AM
Ariadne, it seems you have missed something when it comes to epic (above 20th) levels: your spell progression stops at 20th Character Level, no matter how many levels you&#39;ve got&#33; There is only one way to get higher level spell slots to use from that point on: check the Epic Feats section in the DMG; it is there...
Osprey said it completely correctely: You get 20 levels of all classes combined. This means, you can only get 20 levels of spells, but your caster level can be much more (40th level for example).

You can be 20th level wizard, 20th level cleric and 10th level Mystic Theurge (OK, you actually will never be that, but it&#39;s an example). This would mean, you can cast as much spells as a 20th level arcane and divine spellcaster, but is caster level 30 (arcane)/ 30 (divine) and a 50 HD character (see Epic Level Handbook)...

[RaspK_FOG]

You are right... My mistake there...