Chap 1 Rev [Archive] - Birthright.net

BrennanHawkwood

03-02-2004, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by irdeggman@Mar 2 2004, 10:35 PM
I told you that I'd try to have the Chap 1 rev out for discussion this week and here it is.

COOL! More new and revised stuff!

I Looking through it quickly, these are the items it occurs to me to comment on (and some of them really should be taken more as comments then pointing out something that needs to be changed):
I find it odd that the human can only spend the per level bonus skill point on regional background skills. The 4 points gained at first level makes sense since they ideally grew up in that culture. After that I would assume that the extra point just reflects human versatility and it wouldn't strictly have to be spent on one of the skills emphasized in the culture they grew up in.
Should the noble class really have the same Base Attack Bonus as a Fighter? I suppose this is based off of the style of changes that were made to the 3.5 ranger, but it still seems odd to me. I see a noble being at least as skilled at combat as a cleric or rogue but not more unless they actually multi-class into a combatabt class such as fighter. Especially given the number and nature of their special abilities, which should be really useful in many birthright campaigns.
Looking at the mount availability table (1-12) I noticed that heavy warhorses are only available in Anuire and light warhorses are typically restricted to Anuire, Khinasi and the Elves. Yet, the Rjurik, Brecht and Vos can all field cavalry of light or medium weight. That must be really poorly trained cavalry or REALLY expensive. I expect that this is actually a oddity that has been preserved from the original material rather than a deliberate oversight, but couldn't resist commenting on it.
On a similar note, I noticed that the scimitar is listed as the common weapon for elite Brecht warriors (table 1-1) despite the fact that it is only readily available to the Khinasi. Of course, I thought it was kind of odd that the elite weapon was scimitar rather than rapier, but I had assumed that was something 'suggested' in Havens of the Great Bay (which I've only skimmed since we've never played in that region).

As always YMMV...and great job so far! Thanks for all the work.

-- Blair Monroe

Mark_Aurel

03-02-2004, 11:47 PM

Might want to add a direct link in case any mailing list people want to see and download this.

http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2317

JanGunterssen

03-04-2004, 01:10 AM

Just pointing an errata

* In page 14, Table 1-5 New Skills, marks Lead skill as cross-class skill for Barbarians. The skill text in the same page says "This skill can be used untrained, and is considered a class skill for Barbarians, Clerics, Fighters, Paladins and any class for which Perform is a class skill (including Aristocrats, Bards, and Rogues)."

Comments:
* Profession skills: as they are encouraged in Birthright, I will suggest to include Profesion (soldier) and/or Profession (Mercenay) for the Fighter class. For them any Profession Skill is treated as a cross-class.
* Elves: The designers of the 3.5 Ed suggest in the DMG that the +2 Strenght bonus is a greater boon that any other, so they weight it with a -2 both in Charisma AND Intelligence for Half-orks. So a -2 in Strenght would result in a net +2 in the other abilities. So I suggest it would be more adecuate the following modifiers: -2 Strenght, +2 Dexterity, -2 Constitution, +2 Intelligence, +2 Charisma. That would also make sense as the elves are great arcanists (who bases his magic in the Intelligence and Charisma).

Doubts:
Er.. English is not my born language, but how does transform the resistance to bludgeoning damage from the previous version to the 5/piercing and slashing from the present? Bludgeoning isn't refered to concusion damage, as caused with maces and flails?

Thanks

irdeggman

03-04-2004, 01:45 AM

Originally posted by JanGunterssen@Mar 3 2004, 08:10 PM
Doubts:
Er.. English is not my born language, but how does transform the resistance to bludgeoning damage from the previous version to the 5/piercing and slashing from the present? Bludgeoning isn't refered to concusion damage, as caused with maces and flails?

Thanks
In the original (i.e., 2nd ed material) blugeoning refered to a type of weapon. DR always refers to weapon damage and to no other kind. DR lists the things that bypass the DR after the slash so for DR 5/slashing or piercing, any slashing or piercing weapon would bypass the DR.

RaspK_FOG

03-04-2004, 01:55 AM

To make it more simple, Damage Reduction has the following parts:

×/[any clause]
|.....|__ Whatever damages the creature without any reduction
|__ The ammount of reduction applied to the damage

Possible clauses include: bludgeoning
piercing
slashing
chaotic
evil
good
lawful
silver
cold iron
- (this damage reduction always applies)
Furthermore, there can be two or more clauses, combined either with "and" or "or".

Now that I think of it, it would be interesting to say that this DR also applies on [Force] effects, since they are based on the same logic... Oh well, it will make a fun house rules, that it will...

My own concern goes to the Black Strike Style (if my memory plays me no tricks, that's the name), now that Two-Weapon Defence, Improved Two-Weapon Defence, and Greater Two-Weapon Defence are out: why care for a +2 dodge bonus when you can get a +2 shield bonus? In any case, A little care on that matter is my suggestion, as well as a little change when it comes to the main-gauche: as a full-basket hilted dagger, would it not be better to say it grants a +2 bonus on attack rolls to avoid being disarmed?

BrennanHawkwood

03-04-2004, 02:02 AM

I was just re-reading things in this revision again and a couple of things to ask came to mind.

The first, I was wondering if I could be directed to any discussion on what the Magician class should be like vs. a user of true magic. I was thinking about it and while I like the magician class (and its spell list)as presented, when I look back over the class in the original rulebook it seems like it really isn't quite what it was as its scope seems to have been both widened considerably and narrowed in other regards.

I certainly don't want to start another 'war' over this so I would be happy to go read old threads discussing the topic before saying anything more.

The other question I had is related to this one. If one opts to use the classes as presented in the BRCS, are there any recommendations for dealing with characters like Rogr Algondier in Ilien? IIRC he is portrayed as having been the unblooded apprentice to the previous Count of Ilien, who was a blooded wizard of reasonably high level. Upon the death of his master, Rogr became Count and received the previous regent's bloodline. Previously this effectively meant that he could now cast spells of higher than 2nd level and that was that. Now it seems like he would be stuck with being a multi-class Magician/Wizard and having to 'redo' the first several levels. Just curious if any thought on how to deal with this type of situation had been discussed and what the designers suggestions for dealing with it would be.

--- Blair Monroe

RaspK_FOG

03-04-2004, 02:08 AM

That's why I have forgone the standard spell system and use a home-brewed Sovereign-Stone spell system, but that is another case...

A suggestion would be that magicians who receive RP can learn to cast spells as wizards, since they learn and work in - almost - the same way, but this could be problematic... Let us see what the people here have to say.

BrennanHawkwood

03-04-2004, 02:31 AM

Originally posted by JanGunterssen@Mar 4 2004, 02:10 AM
Doubts:
Er.. English is not my born language, but how does transform the resistance to bludgeoning damage from the previous version to the 5/piercing and slashing from the present? Bludgeoning isn't refered to concusion damage, as caused with maces and flails?

Not certain where you are confused at.

Others have already mentioned that the first part of the DR code indicates the amount of damage ignored and the second part is what type of attack or attacks that will ignore the damage reduction, thus doing full damage.

It also seemed like you could be confusing bludgeoning damage with subdual or nonlethal damage. Bludgeoning describes the way an attack harms its opponent. In 3/3.5 a weapon doing bludgeoning damage is often doing lethal damage straight to the target's hit points. It is not automatically subdual or nonlethal damage. A mace or flail does lethal damage by way of bludgeoning your target to death. The damage inflicted is no less lethal than the damage a sword would do.

Some bludgeoning attacks such as unarmed attacks and saps are specifically meant to do temporary damage or to knock someone out. In those cases, they are marked in the Player Handbook as inflicting nonlethal or subdual damage rather than hit point damage, but it is still bludgeoning damage.

IIRC, when you apply DR it doesn't matter if the damage is subdual or hit point damage...only the method in which the damage was inflicted. So punching a Cerilian dwarf (with DR 5/slashing and piercing) with your bare fist or wearing a normal gauntlet (both are bludgeoning attacks) would require you to do more than 5 points of damage to actually hurt the dwarf. It doesn't matter if it was nonlethal/subdual damage or not. On the other hand ;) , if you punch the dwarf while wearing a spiked gauntlet (a lethal piercing attack) you are going to have an annoyed dwarf because all of the damage you roll will be applied to his hit points without any being subtracted for the Damage Reduction.

BrennanHawkwood

03-04-2004, 02:39 AM

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Mar 4 2004, 02:55 AM

My own concern goes to the Black Strike Style (if my memory plays me no tricks, that's the name), now that Two-Weapon Defence, Improved Two-Weapon Defence, and Greater Two-Weapon Defence are out: why care for a +2 dodge bonus when you can get a +2 shield bonus? In any case, A little care on that matter is my suggestion, as well as a little change when it comes to the main-gauche: as a full-basket hilted dagger, would it not be better to say it grants a +2 bonus on attack rolls to avoid being disarmed?

Hmmm... I just noticed that Black Strike is no longer listed as a feat in the recently posted version of the chapter.

Given that I was going to pick one of the various duelist or swachbuckler style prestige classes (or possibly even base classes for Brechts) and use it for practitioners of that fighting style, I heartily approve of this change.

-- Blair Monroe

BrennanHawkwood

03-04-2004, 02:49 AM

Just noticed a possible awkward wording in the chapter 1 revision file. It might just be me, but I thought I'd bring it up incase it isn't.

On page 15 of the PDF version, in the first paragraph under the FEATS header, you have this line: "These regional notations are not regional background feats; regional background feats are listed in the section on Races."

When I investigate the section on Races, I cannot find anything refered to as 'regional background feats'. The closest I seem to be able to find is the paragraph in the generic description of humans (pg. 1, left hand column) which reads: "Bonus feat. At first level, human characters receive an extra feat. Non-elite characters may only take a feat common in their region (as listed in Table 1-6: Common feats by region). Elite characters (such as player characters) may take any feat for which they are eligible."

This seems like it is either contradicting the first statement or is a circular reference or an awkward wording of what was intended here.

-- Blair Monroe

JanGunterssen

03-04-2004, 03:13 PM

Thnaks for your gently answers to my doubt.
Then if a dwarf falls 30' his DR also applies? I asume it is.

irdeggman

03-04-2004, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by JanGunterssen@Mar 4 2004, 10:13 AM
Thnaks for your gently answers to my doubt.
Then if a dwarf falls 30' his DR also applies? I asume it is.
No it does not.

The 3.5 rules on damage reduction are pretty much as follows ". . .ignore damage from most weapons, unarmed attacks, or natural weapons, but not from energy attacks, spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural attacks." See PHB pg 307, DMG pgs 291-292 (most detail), and MM pg 307 for specifics.

This was an issue that caused a lot of confusion and conflicting opinions in 2nd ed, but the 3.5 rules are pretty clear and removes this confusion, IMO.

JanGunterssen

03-05-2004, 04:43 PM

Thanks again

CMonkey

03-05-2004, 09:53 PM

Random thoughts I'm afraid:

Skills:
I agree with the previous poster that it would make more sense for only the first four bonus human skill points to be limited to the regional ones.

Druid:
Given that in birthright, druids are clerics of eric, shouldn't they get knowledge religion as a class skill?

Magician:
The special abilities "Additional class skill" and "Bonus Cantrips" are weak compared to the other two options. Making the class skill one equivalent to "Cosmopolitan" from the BRCS and replacing Bonus Cantrips with an "Extra Slot" from Tome and Blood equivalent could help? Other than that, I really like it. Is the spell list the same?

Noble:
I liked the old one more than this one. First of all though, the stuff I like is: Favoured Region - though a +1 bonus would seem more balanced (see below)
Wealth
Adding Warcraft to their class skills (indeed, their skills are spot on)
Presense
A warning though: a 10th level noble with a bloodline of 32, Divine Aura and a bloodmark will have skills like Bluff, Gather Information, Intimidate, Sense Motive of +27+Cha and a Diplomacy of +29+Cha bonus before they choose feats. Now, according to the Epic book, a roll of 35 on a diplomacy check will turn someone from hostile to friendly and a roll of 50 will turn someone from hostile to helpful or from helpful to fanatically loyal. Further, a bluff check of 50+ acts as a non-magic Suggestion spell.

On the other hand: BAB: I don't think this should be the same as that of a fighter - they may train well, but they don't fight for their lives on a daily basis. Plus it makes the class too good for a one level dip for a melee character - the wealth, favoured region, bonus skill points are only balanced against a 2 point loss in potential HP.
Resources: This is what roleplaying is for. Your favoured region, contributes to your diplomacy allowing you to barter favours and influence others. This bland mechanism is inappropriate for BR.
Co-ordinate: The text of this: "Coordinate (Ex): At 3rd level, the noble gains the ability to guide the cooperation of other characters by making a Charisma check (DC 10 + the number of characters commanded). If successful, this increase the bonus granted by cooperation by +2." doesn't seem to make any sense to me and what I think it means ("That's it lads, lift with your knees!") seems a bit too much like the bard again.
Battle Cry and Inspire Loyalty are out of place here - they really are the domain of the bard and don't necessarily reflect what a generic noble should be able to do.

Feats Regional Arms Focus & Regional Elite Arms Focus: Thought they were fine the way they were and the new ability to change the weapon you favour doesn't make sense.

CM.

ConjurerDragon

03-05-2004, 11:30 PM

CMonkey 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=2317

>

> CMonkey wrote:

>...

> Magician:

> The special abilities "Additional class skill" and "Bonus Cantrips" are weak compared to the other two options. Making the class skill one equivalent to "Cosmopolitan" from the BRCS and replacing Bonus Cantrips with an "Extra Slot" from Tome and Blood equivalent could help? Other than that, I really like it. Is the spell list the same?

>

>

Something else about the Magician: The 2E Magician had access to the

Rogue and Wizard nonweapon proficienys. Shouldn´t he have "all Wizard

and Rogue skills as class skills" instead of listing only a selection of

them which also would be much shorter than the list?

If the Magician has a different spellselection with healing and

conjuration (what I still don´t like) than the 2E Magician who was

limited to all 1st and 2nd level spells and only illusion and divination

for level 3+, and as the 3E Sorceror just as the wizard has a d4, then I

see no reason to give the Magician a d6. He should rather have the same

as the wizard - or if he gets d6, Simple Weapon Proficiency and Light

Armour proficiency (which I also don´t like - is the Magician a Bard?)

and goes more into the direction of rogue with special abilitys for

spellcasting then he should not have any spells of level 3+ except

illusions and divinations.

If we look only at the adventure level, as a Magician as unblooded

character is generally not meant to rule, then with all the stuff about

the new Magician it should be carefully avoided to make him better than

a Wizard who specializes in Illusion and Divination and in 3.5 has to

forfeit 4 schools, with the same spellcasting benefits as the Magician

for being a specialist, but without receiving more weapons, light

armour, healing, more skill points and a wider skill selection.

bye

Michael

> Noble:

> I liked the old one more than this one. First of all though, the stuff I like is: Favoured Region - though a +1 bonus would seem more balanced (see below) Wealth Adding Warcraft to their class skills (indeed, their skills are spot on) PresenseA warning though: a 10th level noble with a bloodline of 32, Divine Aura and a bloodmark will have skills like Bluff, Gather Information, Intimidate, Sense Motive of +27+Cha and a Diplomacy of +29+Cha bonus before they choose feats. Now, according to the Epic book, a roll of 35 on a diplomacy check will turn someone from hostile to friendly and a roll of 50 will turn someone from hostile to helpful or from helpful to fanatically loyal. Further, a bluff check of 50+ acts as a non-magic Suggestion spell.

>

> On the other hand: BAB: I don`t think this should be the same as that of a fighter - they may train well, but they don`t fight for their lives on a daily basis. Plus it makes the class too good for a one level dip for a melee character - the wealth, favoured region, bonus skill points are only balanced against a 2 point loss in potential HP. Resources: This is what roleplaying is for. Your favoured region, contributes to your diplomacy allowing you to barter favours and influence others. This bland mechanism is inappropriate for BR. Co-ordinate: The text of this: "Coordinate (Ex): At 3rd level, the noble gains the ability to guide the cooperation of other characters by making a Charisma check (DC 10 + the number of characters commanded). If successful, this increase the bonus granted by cooperation by +2." doesn`t seem to make any sense to me and what I think it means ("That`s it lads, lift with your knees!") seems

> a bit too much like the bard again. Battle Cry and Inspire Loyalty are out of place here - they really are the domain of the bard and don`t necessarily reflect what a generic noble should be able to do.

> Feats Regional Arms Focus & Regional Elite Arms Focus: Thought they were fine the way they were and the new ability to change the weapon you favour doesn`t make sense.

> CM.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

RaspK_FOG

03-06-2004, 12:28 AM

Allow me to mention here that flavour and feeling of character classes is more important than stereotypes; for example, why insist on this whole "this is too much bard-like, get it off"? I love bards, but that does not mean others should not grant a bonus to their allies! And believe me, you would feel a lot different if you fought alongside your Count: "Good lads, the Count is coming; let us go to battle under his proud banner!" and such stuff; morale is always improved when your leader is there with you, into the fray.

In any case, Coordinate is an intelligent mechanic, as are the various inspirational class features - notice how the Coordinate bonus applies only on bonuses for cooperation, not any case like the bard. Furthermore, a noble's not just trained to defend himself fairly and simply land a blow or two on the open field (bard, cleric, druid, rogue), he is more like the militaristic figure who is able to wade through the battle and - just maybe - make it out unscathed, or at least alive.

As for the magician, I think Extra Slot is not only broken as a feat (since everyone will choose the highest spell level allowed to them by the feat so as to be able to cast any one spell of up to that level!), it also does not fit the "lesser path" motif introduced in Birthright. As for armour, hit die, and skills, no, I think allowing a magician free access to rogue skills such as Disable Device, Forgery, Hide, Listen, Move Silently, Search, Spot, yet give him only a d4 and no armour... well, that is broken! Only bards get no arcane spell failure chance for wearing armour, and light armour is not that mighty, not to mention the fact that a magician goes around more than the wizard and sorcerer.

Michael Romes

03-06-2004, 05:22 PM

Errors?

- Under Lead the same text about "Matters of Justice" that have a DC of at least.... just as under Administration?

Equipment:
- The special Improved Mail is still listed under Scale Mail (+4)what is wrong, as it is not worse, but has to be better than CHAIN MAIL (+5) as it is the improved chain mail worn by Khinasi and Rjurik to match the heavy Plate of the Anuireans.
- Naturally as the Anuireans actually use Plate Mail for which to match the others use Improved Mail, having Improved Mail available to Anuireans is nonsense.

Mounts:
- The 2E version had the Vos ONLY with the Varsk, all horses were restricted to Anuireans (heavy Warhorse), An+Khinasi (medium Warhorse) and An+Kh+Elves (light Warhorse). considering that horses don´t get along with Varsks and "the weather and poor forage of lands make it difficult for the Vos to keep horses" (2E rulebook).
That would mean that the "All" for horses should be replaced by a more restrictive list as in 2E.

- Saber and Warspear:
You give the Warspear a X4 critical, which neither Lance nor spear have in the PHB and the versatility to use it as both, but reduce the critical of the Saber (19-20/X2) as compared to the PHB Scimitar (18-20/X2)? If the longsword can have 1D8 and the same critical range as the 1D6 shortsword, then what is the reason that the 1D8 saber can´t have the same critical range as the Scimitar?
bye
Michael

irdeggman

03-06-2004, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Mar 5 2004, 07:28 PM
Only bards get no arcane spell failure chance for wearing armour, and light armour is not that mighty, not to mention the fact that a magician goes around more than the wizard and sorcerer.
Actually all arcane casters suffer the same spell failure chance now, there is no exception for bards. It is just part of the 3/3.5 rules.

Just becasue a class has an armor proficiency doesn't eliminate the arcane spell failure chance for that armor, it only eliminates the not proficient in armor ones.

RaspK_FOG

03-07-2004, 12:29 AM

Originally posted by irdeggman+Mar 6 2004, 09:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (irdeggman @ Mar 6 2004, 09:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RaspK_FOG@Mar 5 2004, 07:28 PM
Only bards get no arcane spell failure chance for wearing armour, and light armour is not that mighty, not to mention the fact that a magician goes around more than the wizard and sorcerer.
Actually all arcane casters suffer the same spell failure chance now, there is no exception for bards. It is just part of the 3/3.5 rules.

Just becasue a class has an armor proficiency doesn't eliminate the arcane spell failure chance for that armor, it only eliminates the not proficient in armor ones. [/b][/quote]
You are wrong there... 3.5e made 3 wonderful steps towards improving the bard when it comes to armour and weapon proficiencies: He got his weapon list fixed, including the longsword, rapier, (composite) shortbow, shortsword, whip, and all simple weapons; apart from longbows, which they erroneously got off the list, I don't remember if I missed anything...
Bards are now proficient only with light armour. He also gets proficient with shields, excluding the tower shield, a proficiency only fighters start with. No scale-mail-clad and tower-shield-bearing standard bards, no sir!
Under the armour and weapon proficiencies for the bard, there is a paragraph which says that a bard never suffers an arcane spell failure chance for wearing light armour, since he needs to sing to cast his spells which have very simplistic somatic components; shields, medium armour, or heavy armour incur an arcane spell failure chance normally.

irdeggman

03-07-2004, 01:25 PM

Good point - I missed that excerpt in the PHB for bards and armor. The trade off is of course that all bardic spells have a verbal component, so Silent Spell is never an option for them. So in the overall scheme of things it balances out.

Now I don't really like that ruling on armor and bards for the simple reason that there shouldn't be exceptions to rules that are class-based. That is arcane spell failure only applies to spells with somatic components, they (WotC) are now saying well it doesn't apply to spells with somatic components when cast by a bard in light armor, but it would apply to the same spell cast by a wizard in light armor. Either a spell has somatic components or it doesn't and if it does the arcan spell failure chance should apply. Why bother with the Still Spell feat then? Something just doesn't make sense here. When the entire precept of the D&D d20 system was to make things work the same for every class and have a 'simple' standard that applies. Oh well I didn't write the WotC rules, I just get to complain about them :lol:

RaspK_FOG

03-08-2004, 02:49 AM

kgauck

03-08-2004, 03:50 AM

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

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

Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 8:49 PM

> But do not let yourself not see that there are some things that

> overrule standards.

All D&D`s rules are just a vast enumeration of these exceptions. The basic

rules would be about three pages without the exceptons and special cases.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

CMonkey

03-08-2004, 03:44 PM

believe me, you would feel a lot different if you fought alongside your Count: "Good lads, the Count is coming; let us go to battle under his proud banner!" and such stuff; morale is always improved when your leader is there with you, into the fray.
Really? So Aaron Vaumel (sp?) inspires his troops on the field does he? I'm sorry, I kind of picture him as a slight little wormtongue-like man - maybe a capable administrator and probably an excellent courtier, but an inspiring general? No.

The point is the old noble allowed you to be either by clever use of the bonus feats and maybe a bit of multi-classing. This new one seems hell-bent on fitting characters into a cliché.

In any case, Coordinate is an intelligent mechanic, as are the various inspirational class features - notice how the Coordinate bonus applies only on bonuses for cooperation
And what exactly is “co-operation”? What does the bonus apply to? When and for how long? In it’s current state it is ill conceived and poorly described.

Furthermore, a noble's not just trained to defend himself fairly and simply land a blow or two on the open field (bard, cleric, druid, rogue), he is more like the militaristic figure who is able to wade through the battle and - just maybe - make it out unscathed, or at least alive.
Again that is just one take on the noble.

As for the magician, I think Extra Slot is not only broken as a feat (since everyone will choose the highest spell level allowed to them by the feat so as to be able to cast any one spell of up to that level!), it also does not fit the "lesser path" motif introduced in Birthright.
Why does it follow that because “everyone will choose the highest spell level allowed to them by the feat” the feat is broken? Is a mage capable of casting 3rd level spells that gains an additional casting of one 2nd level spell suddenly a god? Or that much more powerful than one who can now create wondrous items? For me it nicely captures the “lesser path” – the magician does not strive for the greater things. He masters the little things.

As for armour, hit die, and skills, no, I think allowing a magician free access to rogue skills such as Disable Device, Forgery, Hide, Listen, Move Silently, Search, Spot, yet give him only a d4 and no armour... well, that is broken
One, you get one of those skills and it is by no means free – it’s cost you one of your four special abilities that you will receive by 20th level. You must still invest skill points and you don’t get it until 5th level at least, meaning you’ve missed the initial placement of skills and must sacrifice points you had spent on other things. If you think it through, there are intrinsic costs and trade-offs to just adding one more class skill.

CM.

The Jew

03-08-2004, 04:04 PM

Osprey

03-08-2004, 10:00 PM

Really? So Aaron Vaumel (sp?) inspires his troops on the field does he? I'm sorry, I kind of picture him as a slight little wormtongue-like man - maybe a capable administrator and probably an excellent courtier, but an inspiring general? No.

Which is why I would never cast Aaron Vaumel as a Noble, but rather as a Rogue, who can do all of the things you mention quite well - as well as a run a profitable trade empire.

The point is the old noble allowed you to be either by clever use of the bonus feats and maybe a bit of multi-classing. This new one seems hell-bent on fitting characters into a cliché.

And do you think this is very different from the other PHB classes? All classes are cliche to varying degrees, the Barbarian, Bard, and Ranger being some glaring examples (as is the Monk, though he's not a part of BR), and the Rogue is pretty gross that way too (Special Abilities at level 10+ being the only options for variation). Whether we like it or not, this is definitely the recurring pattern for 3.x D&D.
And the 3.5 Noble presented here seems to be an adaptation of a class custom-tailored to the BR world. My own complaint is that it seems decidedly Anuirean, and doesn't fit nearly as well into the noble concepts for any of the other human cultures.

And what exactly is “co-operation”? What does the bonus apply to? When and for how long? In it’s current state it is ill conceived and poorly described.
While my own critique wouldn't be quite so harsh, I do agree that the Cooperation benefits and mechanics could certainly do with some more explicit explanation, description, and maybe an example to illustrate the mechanic.

I seriously doubt the Noble will be reworked at this point, but if it were, my own vote would be to trim down the special abilities just a bit and then add a bonus feat or special ability, perhaps once every five levels or so, allowing for a combination of distinct class features and a bit of customization that makes them more adaptable to different cultures. If some of the more warlike features were removed (such as Battle Cry and Inspire Loyalty), along with Resources (which I think is a bit silly and could easily be replaced by good roleplaying, establishing a network of contacts and other nobles who owe you favors within the game), then a list of bonus feats and special abilities (and here War Cry and then Inspire Loyalty might be options) could become available without over-powering the class as a whole and vastly expanding its very realistic diversity. After all, Nobles (and the wealthy in general) throughout history have been renowned for their eccentricities and diversity

On the other hand: I don`t think this [BAB] should be the same as that of a fighter - they may train well, but they don`t fight for their lives on a daily basis. Plus it makes the class too good for a one level dip for a melee character - the wealth, favoured region, bonus skill points are only balanced against a 2 point loss in potential HP.

Well, if it weren't for the existence of the 3.5 Ranger, I might agree with you. But when I compare the Noble to the Ranger (the obvious inspiration for this version of the Noble), I see the Ranger with the same BAB,HP, and Skill Points, plus 2 Strong saves (vs. only 1, Will, for the Noble), plenty of cool class features and bonus feats (Favored Enemies, combat styles for archery or 2-weapon fighting = multiple bonus feats), and lesser spellcasting abilities on top of all of that! In the end, I think the 3.5 Ranger still wins out as the more powerful class overall (though there's valid argument that 3.5 went a little overboard in revamping the ranger).

The Fighter makes for poor direct comparison with most classes. It is what it is: a fighting specialist who lives for the next combat feat. ;) And they get plenty of them, ensuring that level for level a fighter is the best combatant in the field, hands down. The noble will never match a fighter for pure skill and power (especially when you consider that the noble will spread out his attributes in favor of Cha and Int, while the fighter will always go for Str, Con, and maybe Dex, another significant aspect of his combat dominance).

As for the magician, I think Extra Slot is not only broken as a feat (since everyone will choose the highest spell level allowed to them by the feat so as to be able to cast any one spell of up to that level!), it also does not fit the "lesser path" motif introduced in Birthright.
Just what exactly are you referring to? I just looked up the Magician again, and I don't see anything called Extra Slot available as a feat or class feature or anything. Perhaps I have downloaded a more recent version of Ch. 1? The only thing I can corellate to this is that Magician's spells per day seem the same as a specialist wizard's, which makes sense given the fact that there is no allowance for them to be specialists as wizards can. So it seems we're already assuming that Magicans are specialists, very similar to the way they were described in the original 2e materials.

Osprey

03-08-2004, 10:21 PM

Why do the administrate skill and master administrator feats remain so much stronger than their brethren? Since the domain actions which they provide bonuses to are already at the core of BR domain level play, they intristically are more powerful than other comparable skills and feats, yet both of them are given an extra bonus which breaks the mold of comparable skills and feats. Adminstrate is given an additional +2 to create/rule holdings and master administrator also sets the DC for reducing domain costs at 15.

Yep. And don't forget Contest is also Administrate-based, as is Create/Rule Province! And Rule and Contest Actions are really the most significant Domain actions in the game...net result is that Master Administrator becomes a "must-have" feat that any regent PC in his right mind will take if he or she cares at all about having a regent PC who is a good ruler. As a DM, this means to me that any NPC regent who is competent (and thus able to compete with the PC regents)also has this feat, which ends meaning that the large majority of regents in the game are Master Administrators. Now if this matches the designers' and/or BRCS team's conception of the BR world, I guess that's OK. But is this really what they envisioned?

I also noticed another thing: instead of synergystic skills granting a bonus of +1 per 5 ranks in the key skill to domain actions, they now grant a flat +2 bonus if the regent has 5 or more ranks in the key skill.

You know what I have to say to that? BLAAAAHHHH! :angry: There's nothing worse than taking a flawed sytem and expanding it to include yet more aspects of a campaign world.

Now don't get me wrong - I like the basic idea of the skill synergy system in D&D, I just think it could be improved upon. I've already posted before on my own ideal system for domain synergies: +1 synergy bonus per +5 in the key skill for the domain action. So what if it doesn't match the normal 3.x skill synergy system! These are Domain Actions, a ruleset seperate from the normal rules, and a rule like this is IMO an improvement rather than some major complication or confusion for new players.

And knowing that my ideal system will never be accepted as "official" or even an acceptable variant because it's too deviant from the WOTC standard, I think the 1st draft BRCS rules, in which synergystic skills added +1 per 5 ranks in the key skill to domain actions, was still a much better system than the flat +2 for 5 or more ranks. It recognizes that yes, a 10th level character who has maxed out their rulership skills will in fact be better than the 5th level character doing the same thing (even if it's just slightly better!).

But then again, I would rewrite the synergy rules to be more like this in general if I were at the helm - every 5 ranks or +5 would grant a +1 synergy bonus to related skill checks, because this is IMO more reflective of reality - any time a person has greater expertise in a field related to the one they're working in, there are generally going to be more useful insights they can draw on for the task at hand.

But hey, this is just an ongoing gripe about the D&D system in general - I just hoped that for the domain rules at least (where every +1 really counts), the revised game would keep a more intelligent synergy bonus system instead of conforming to the somewhat-immature D&D status quo.

Osprey

The Jew

03-09-2004, 12:51 AM

While I agree fully with Osprey, I would suggest a somewhat less dramatic overhaul in hopes that some change may ensue.

For Adminsistrate strip it of the synergy bonus of +2 to create/rule holding which I believe is on top of the normal +1 bonus to domain actions for every 5 ranks in the relevant skill. Also raise DC for reducing actions costs by 1 to (25-the cost).

For Master Administrator strip it of the bonus of setting the adminstrate check for reducing domain maintenance to 15, from (15+domain maintenance).

They remain a must have skill and feat, but they are not quite so powerful.

Osprey

03-09-2004, 02:52 AM

For Master Administrator strip it of the bonus of setting the adminstrate check for reducing domain maintenance to 15, from (15+domain maintenance).

A while back I posted my thoughts on Master Administrator, and the cost to reduce Domain Maintenance was one of the biggies. I found that 15 + Domain Maintenance quickly becomes unreachable for a landed regent of any significance. In my campaign I've made it DC 10 + (1/2 Seasonal Maintenance) for Master Administrators while it is DC 10 + Seasonal Maintenance without the feat. I found this worked pretty well, at least for a while, though large and powerful domains still build up maintenance costs that make the DC unreachable for even the best Master Administrators. Some advanced regents in my game have come up with other means to aid them in reaching those high DC's (and when I say high, I'm talking DC 40-50 or better, and that's when the armies are all garrisoned!) - like the Tome of Finance, a specially made magic item that gives a hefty skill bonus to the Seasonal Maintenance reduction check, or hired teams of administrators that give a cooperative synergy bonus to the regent's maintenance check. It may seem crazy that such things be necessary, but as a DM try making that check with greater powers like Avanil or Boeruine and you'll see how quickly the maintenance costs add up. On the other hand, I really hate the flat DC 15 for Master Administrators that makes it ridiculously easy to make the check regardless of how massive one's domain is. I'd rather see regents go to such lengths as I mentioned above then make it a thing they no longer have to worry about as they recklessly grow and grow and grow...

For Adminsistrate strip it of the synergy bonus of +2 to create/rule holding which I believe is on top of the normal +1 bonus to domain actions for every 5 ranks in the relevant skill. Also raise DC for reducing actions costs by 1 to (25-the cost).

Now I might be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure I'm not...I believe the flat +2 synergy bonus is replacing the BRCS system of +1 per 5 ranks in the key skill for domain action synergy bonuses. Hence the rantings in my last post. <_<

Osprey

The Jew

03-09-2004, 04:18 AM

The +2 synergy bonus for create/rule holding was in the BRCS and you will notice that none of the other domain related skills note a +1 for every 5 ranks to the domain action. But maybe this is a question that is best left to jgerdman to answer. If Osprey is right though, it would be a tremendous weakening of the skill.

irdeggman

03-09-2004, 12:01 PM

True, 3._e introduced standardisation... But do not let yourself not see that there are some things that overrule standards.

For example, a ranger can fight more effectively if wearing light armour and carrying no medium or heavy load without meeting any requirements or actually taking any feats; a barbarian goes faster under the same conditions and also can avoid being hit when he shouldn't, just like the rogue, who can avoid being harmed by some area effects entirely, and so on, and so on... This is the point of class features: the overriding or application of a rule, whatever the core rules say.

You are comparing apples and oranges. For example a ranger gains 'virtual feats' when in light or no armor without having to meet any of the prerequisites (e.g., dex requirement, etc.) but he can still purchase the 'regular' feat and apply it normally. There is no equivalent feat for arcane spell casting in light armor available to other arcane casting classes.

The increased movement of a barbarian and monk is part of their class specific abilities and doesn't bypass any normal rules for movement in armor. Their base movement rate is increased by 10' (or more ) but the specific armor may reduce this increased movement by a certain amount. That is, if wearing chainmail a human barbarian's movement rate is 30'. His modified movement is 20 (normal base of 30' but limited by the armor) than his extra 10' is added to this total.

Just like that, a bard can cast spells in armour, only when it is light, without an arcane spell failure chance. It balances out the fact that a bard always had to sing to cast his spells, yet casting them without a somatic component was taking too much time! All in all, until recently, a bard who was wearing armour was in deep trouble: I once lost a cure critical wounds spell because of a lousy 10% chance! What good is being able to wear armour if it hinders you anyway?

And one other thing: no, bards can take the Silent Spell feat and use it in the core rulebooks; the problem lied in the fact that they had to use it all the time, unlike a wizard, many of whose spells do not have verbal components. In my settings, however, no Silent Spell for bards...

Actually this is wrong. PHB pg 100 "Special: Bard spells cannot be enhanced by this metamagic feat." So a bard can take the feat, but can't apply it to the casting of bardic spells - only if he has other spellcasting abilities.

Also bards aren't required to sing when casting their spells they only have a verbal component (singing, recitation or music). Who really thinks that playing an instrument, any instrument, involves a 'relatively simple somatic component'? No this is quite obviously an attempt to rewrite game-mechanics to fit what a game designer's concept of a bard should be.

As a side note, when a bard applies a metamagic enhancement to a spell he does it exactly like a sorcerer would, pg 143 of the PHB. The metamagic feat does not apply to all spells cast only to those that the caster decides to apply it, at the time of casting for a bard/sorcerer. It takes longer to cast. For a spell that normally has a standard action casting time it is a full-round action (i.e., it uses the bard's move and standard actions), if the spell has a longer casting time it takes an additional full-round action to cast it. The bard uses an equivalent spell slot corresponding to the metamagic feat being applied.

Sir Tiamat

03-09-2004, 06:50 PM

In the revision is written:

"In a historical context, Brechtür can be viewed as a parallel
of Spain during the Renaissance. Brechtür has a relatively
advanced medieval technology similar to that of the early
Renaissance cultures."

Yet renaissance Spain was a catholic monarchy. The Brechtur are a people of merchants with several republics. They are far more like the two mayor European renaissance seafaring republics, the republic of Venice and the republic of the Netherlands.

kgauck

03-09-2004, 09:30 PM

---- Original Message -----

From: "Sir Tiamat" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 12:50 PM

> "Brechtür can be viewed as a parallel of Spain during the Renaissance.

>

> Yet renaissance Spain was a catholic monarchy. The Brechtur are a

> people of merchants with several republics. They are far more like the

> two mayor European renaissance seafaring republics, the republic of

> Venice and the republic of the Netherlands.

You overlook the trade empire of Aragon. The trade that they controlled

from Barcelona was as important as that of Venice or the Netherlands. Their

network included Sicily, Naples, the Adriatic, Greece, and points beyond.

their control of trade in the western-most Med was absolute. One had to to

as far east as Italy where the Genoese would become rivals to see

competition.

Again, we might speak of the Portugese, whose trade in bulk goods (both

grains and wines) was significant. Their exploration of Africa was

motivated by trade (since West Africa was one of the few regions that wanted

to purchase European goods and would pay in precious metals).

I would have no problems using Iberia as a model for the Brecht, I would

just emphisise those things that are most like the Brecht, rather than

things that are not. Every culture is diverse and offers is models that can

be adopted seclectively for our gaming purposes. We never have to take the

whole thing at once.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

RaspK_FOG

03-09-2004, 10:49 PM

Originally posted by irdeggman@Mar 9 2004, 03:01 PM

True, 3._e introduced standardisation... But do not let yourself not see that there are some things that overrule standards.

For example, a ranger can fight more effectively if wearing light armour and carrying no medium or heavy load without meeting any requirements or actually taking any feats; a barbarian goes faster under the same conditions and also can avoid being hit when he shouldn't, just like the rogue, who can avoid being harmed by some area effects entirely, and so on, and so on... This is the point of class features: the overriding or application of a rule, whatever the core rules say.

You are comparing apples and oranges. For example a ranger gains 'virtual feats' when in light or no armor without having to meet any of the prerequisites (e.g., dex requirement, etc.) but he can still purchase the 'regular' feat and apply it normally. There is no equivalent feat for arcane spell casting in light armor available to other arcane casting classes.

The increased movement of a barbarian and monk is part of their class specific abilities and doesn't bypass any normal rules for movement in armor. Their base movement rate is increased by 10' (or more ) but the specific armor may reduce this increased movement by a certain amount. That is, if wearing chainmail a human barbarian's movement rate is 30'. His modified movement is 20 (normal base of 30' but limited by the armor) than his extra 10' is added to this total.

Just like that, a bard can cast spells in armour, only when it is light, without an arcane spell failure chance. It balances out the fact that a bard always had to sing to cast his spells, yet casting them without a somatic component was taking too much time! All in all, until recently, a bard who was wearing armour was in deep trouble: I once lost a cure critical wounds spell because of a lousy 10% chance! What good is being able to wear armour if it hinders you anyway?

And one other thing: no, bards can take the Silent Spell feat and use it in the core rulebooks; the problem lied in the fact that they had to use it all the time, unlike a wizard, many of whose spells do not have verbal components. In my settings, however, no Silent Spell for bards...

Actually this is wrong. PHB pg 100 "Special: Bard spells cannot be enhanced by this metamagic feat." So a bard can take the feat, but can't apply it to the casting of bardic spells - only if he has other spellcasting abilities.

Also bards aren't required to sing when casting their spells they only have a verbal component (singing, recitation or music). Who really thinks that playing an instrument, any instrument, involves a 'relatively simple somatic component'? No this is quite obviously an attempt to rewrite game-mechanics to fit what a game designer's concept of a bard should be.

As a side note, when a bard applies a metamagic enhancement to a spell he does it exactly like a sorcerer would, pg 143 of the PHB. The metamagic feat does not apply to all spells cast only to those that the caster decides to apply it, at the time of casting for a bard/sorcerer. It takes longer to cast. For a spell that normally has a standard action casting time it is a full-round action (i.e., it uses the bard's move and standard actions), if the spell has a longer casting time it takes an additional full-round action to cast it. The bard uses an equivalent spell slot corresponding to the metamagic feat being applied.
First of all, I do not think the examples I gave are that much different, but each to his own, as they say...

Secondly, oops, my bad: you are right about bards and Silent Spell; I obviously missed that (bards could use it in 3e), but it doesn't matter that much to me: I never allowed bards to use it for their spell-casting, anyway. And I know the whole thing regarding bards and spell-casting; what I meant when I said "they have to use it all the time" was a remark to the fact that all bard spells have verbal components, even if the spell itself does not have one (a common example being hypnotic pattern). Also, about bards singing while spell-casting, the common novel and book description from earlier editions generally described a small humming or singing for bards who cast spells; the notion that recitation will do was added later, to make things simpler and more typical, I assume. Finally on that note, the simplicity of somatic components for bardic spells does not refer to the playing of an instrument, rather, it is like the constant need for a bard to perform to cast his spells.

On an earlier note, "co-operation" refers to the action any character can take if the circumstances so allow to help another, like lifting a portculis (the typical example from the rulebooks), digging a ditch, building a pallisade, etc.

irdeggman

03-10-2004, 10:30 AM

Re the noble and his clicheing:

When we revised this chapter, Doom did most of the work - I just inserted some recent discussion topics - dwarven DR and elven nature magic, we looked at the 'original' noble and thought that the class was just not 'special' enough. What that means is that the class had no real theme to it. It boiled down to a generic class that gained bonus feats with nothing that tied them together.

So we looked at what did it mean to be a noble in the context we were trying to present. A character had to have the 'time' and 'resources' to be able to be what might be called 'gentry' or the nobility.

What this translated to was the character had to have 'money' and 'power' backing him. The character's development was roughly based on being sponsored by someone, either his parents or foster-parents or the like. This concept of nobility is why not all cultures in Cerilia support the noble as a class.

That was also why the various class abilities were chosen - to give the noble that noble feel vice just a generic expert class.

Originally I had proposed having three separate 'paths' of nobility. A scholar, a merchant, and a warrior. The character had to choose a path to follow (like the 3.5 ranger) and then his bonus feats would be from a more selective list and maybe tweek his class abilities some to suit. But this proved too difficult, at least for me, to put together - besides it would have given a real long class description (text wise).

Now it might have translated into a too powerful class, but that is why its out for discussion.

Here's a link to some of the previous discussion on the 'original' version of this class for background.
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1366

RaspK_FOG

03-10-2004, 07:04 PM

Or you can go and adapt the basic themes worked about in the Wheel of Time noble class; here is a synopsis of the class.
(Note: I include more information for those not accustomed with TWOT additions and/or changes to the core rules.)

The Wheel of Time Noble
Base Attack Bonus: Average
Base Fortitude Save: Low
Base Reflex Save: Average (1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5,...)
Base Will Save: High
Defence Bonus: 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 8, 9, 9, 10, 10, 10, 11
Reputation: 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 9, 9, 10, 10, 11, 11, 12, 12, 13

Hit Die: d8
Class Skills: Appraise, Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Innuendo, Intimidate, Knowledge (all skills, taken individually), Listen, Perform, Ride, Sense Motive, and Speak Language.
Skill points per level: 4 + Int modifier

Class Features:

Weapon & Armour Proficiency: All simple and martial weapons; light armour and shields.

Bonus Class Skill: At 1st level, choose any one cross-class skill; it is now considered a class skill of yours for all purposes.

Call in a Favour: At 1st level and at every odd-numbered level you gain the ability to call in a single favour, calling upon resources and contacts other heroes do not have (no Gather information check, or no money spent to requisition resources, for example).
To do so, you must succeed at a Charisma check modified by your level; DC varies, from 10 for simple favours, to 25 or higher for expensive or illegal favours. No taking 10, taking 20, or allowance of retrying a roll for the same (or virtually the same) favour; failure, however, simply means this favour cannot be called upon, and another favour can be asked. Some favours are not allowed (virtually impossible; BR example, learning the plans of the Gorgon's sanctuary...).
Favours can be accumulated, up to 5; if more than 5 are kept and an additional favour would be gained, it is not gained, and you reamin with 5 favours.

Inspire Confidence: At 2nd level, a noble can use oratory to inspire confidence in allies; you must speak for at least 1 round, and succeed at a Diplomacy check, with a DC of 10 +1 per 5 allies thus inspired (including the noble).
Benefits are: a competence on attack rolls, skill checks, and Will saves.
Duration: Right after the noble stops, for 10 minutes per round of inspiration.
Maximum Duration: 5 hours for 30 rounds (3 minutes) of inspirational speach.
Daily Uses: 1/day.
Bonus is equal to: +1 at 2nd level, +1 every 4 levels thereafter.
Maximum Bonus: +5 at 18th level.

Command: At 4th level, you can guide the operation of other characters by making a Charisma check with a DC of 15 + the number of characters commanded. This increses the bonus granted by co-operation (RaspK FOG's comment: the one I mentioned above, remember people? Core rulebooks have it that any and all characters that can and do help must make an appropriate check with a DC of 10 to grant a +2 circumstance bonus for favourable conditions) by +2. This increase goes up by two (to +4, +6, etc.) every four levels thereafter; a 20th-level noble increases the bonus granted by co-operation by +10, which means every character helping grants a +12 bonus on the check!
Commanding requires as much time as the task at hand, to a minimum of a full round.

BrennanHawkwood

03-10-2004, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Mar 10 2004, 08:04 PM
Or you can go and adapt the basic themes worked about in the Wheel of Time noble class; here is a synopsis of the class.
(Note: I include more information for those not accustomed with TWOT additions and/or changes to the core rules.)

Though more 'complex' the 3.5 conversion of the Wheel of Time Noble (as written by Randall Bruner) has some interesting ideas. IIRC it was intended to make the class more 3.5-compatible and to allow it to better capture some of the variation between different types of nobles. I too will provide more info than usual...in case people are not familiar with the WoT material.

(Be aware...this is not being presented as a balanced or even finished character class, but more as an example of another way that someone approached a similar character type. Also, I have reformatted it slightly in order to share it here, but otherwise I have not removed any Wheel of Time specific references).

NOBLE (by: Randall Bruner)

Hit Die: d8

Class Skills
The noble’s class skills: Appraise (Int), Bluff (Cha), Composure (Int), Concentration (Con), Diplomacy (Cha), Gather Information (Cha), Innuendo (Wis), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (any) (Int), Listen (Wis), Perform (Cha), Ride (Dex), Sense Motive (Wis), and Speak Language.
Skill Points at 1st Level: (4 + Int modifier) x 4.
Skill Points at Each Additional Level: 4 + Int modifier.

Base Attack Bonus: Average (0,1,2,3,3,4,5,6,6,7,8,9,9,10,11,12,12,13,14,15)
Base Fortitude Save: Low (0,0,1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3,4,4,4,5,5,5,6,6,6)
Base Reflex Save: Average(1,2,2,2,3,3,4,4,4,5,5,6,6,6,7,7,8,8,8,9)
Base Will Save: High (2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12)
Defense Bonus: 3,4,4,4,5,5,6,6,6,7,7,8,8,8,9,9,10,10,10,11
Base Reputation: 3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,13
Special Features:
Bonus Class Skill (1st level)
Noble Ability (Even levels)
Bonus Feat (3rd,7th,11th,15th,19th levels)

Class Features:
All of the following are class features of the noble.

Weapon and Armor Proficiency: The noble is proficient in the use of all simple and martial weapons, light armor, and shields. .

Bonus Class Skill: At 1st level, a noble may designate any one cross-class skill (except for a channeling skill) as a class skill. This represents an area of “illicit” or “unapproved” expertise.

Noble Ability: The noble may select her ability from among the following list.

Favor: The noble gains the ability to call in a single favor. By using this favor, the noble can call upon contacts and resources most heroes don’t hove. This allows the noble to gain important information without going through the time and trouble of a Gather Information check, or to requisition resourses without paying for them.
To successfully call in a favor, the noble makes a special Charisma check, adding his or her level to the roll. The GM sets the check’s DC. Simple favors have a DC of 10, while expensive or illegal favors could have a DC of 25 or higher. The noble can’t take 10 or take 20 on this check, nor can he or she make multiple attempts at the same favor. However, the favor isn’t called in if the noble fails the roll; he can try later to call in a different favor. Truly extreme favors, such as getting the plans to the Stone of Tear, are generally impossible. Such tasks should be the basis of an adventure, not a single die roll.
A noble can select this ability as often as he desires. Any unused favors are accumulated.

Command: The noble can guide the cooperation of other characters by making a Charisma check (DC 15 + the number of characters commanded). This increases the bonus granted by cooperation by +2. He may by this ability multiple times. Each time he gets an additional +2 bonus.

Resources: The noble gains the ability to call on resources and contacts. She gains a +2 circumstance bonus on all Gather Information checks. She can also requisition other resources as necessary; at the GM’s discretion, these can include everything from funds to political favors, from fresh hourses to critical supplies, from passage with a merchant caravan to shelter in a noble’s ally’s country manor. The base chance of obtaining the desired resources is 50% in and around a city, 25% in a good-sized town or village, and 10% in the countryside.

Court Gossip: A noble picks up a lot of stray knowledge listening to court gossip. A noble may make a special Court Gossip check with a bonus equal to his level + his Int Modifier to see whether he knows some relevant information about local notable people, legendary items, or noteworthy places. The noble may not take 10 or 20 on this check. The GM determines the DC of the check by referring to the table below.

...table snipped...based on bardic knowledge table...

Inspire Confidence: A noble can use oratory to inspire confidence in allies. To inspire confidence, the noble must speak (and the allies must hear the noble speaking) for at least 1 round, and the noble must make a Diplomacy check with a DC equal to 10 + 1 per 5 allies to be inspired (including the noble). An ally inspired with confidence gains a +1 to attacks, +1 to all skill checks, and +1 to Will saves (these bonuses are competence bonuses). The effect begins as soon as the noble ends an inspirational speech and lasts for 10 minutes per round the noble spent inspiring the allies, to a maximum of 5 hours for 30 rounds of inspiration. Whether or not the Diplomacy check succeeds, the noble may not attempt to inspire confidence again for at least 24 hours. The character may take this ability up to four times. Each time she gets an additional +1 bonus.

Eye Contact: The noble can discern lies by maintaining eye contact with the person she is conversing with. She gains +2 to Sense Motive and Gather Information checks as long as the eye contact is maintained. This ability does not work if either the player or the person with whom she is maintaining eye contact breaks the contact, but is regained once eye contact is reestablished. The noble may take this a second time, giving her an additional +2 bonus to her Sense Motive checks and Gather Information).

For the Crown: The noble gains a +1 bonus to all attack and damage rolls when in her homeland. This bonus stacks with any other feats or bonuses. The noble may take this ability again, and it adds an additional +1 bonus.

The Measure of a Man: The noble can make a special check to determine if someone is really what he or she are trying to portray. The noble may add her level in this class to any Spot checks that oppose the Bluff or Disguise checks of someone who is trying to pretend to be a member of the nobility. The noble may take this a second time, and it gives her a +2 bonus to such checks.

Aura of Confidence: The noble is the image of grace, style, and confidence wherever she goes. She receives a +2 bonus on all rolls involving social interaction. She may take this a second time, and it grants her an additional +2 bonus.

Aura of Heroism: The noble is the image of valor, glory, and heroism wherever she goes. Whenever the noble defeats an opponent in combat, all allies in her presence gain a +2 bonus to all attack rolls and Will saves for the next round. The noble may take this ability a second time, and it grants her allies an additional +2 bonus.

Aura of Importance: The noble is the image of pride, awe, and importance wherever she goes. She receives a +5 bonus to all Diplomacy and Intimidate checks, but only when speaking in an official capacity as a leader, courtier, representative, or royal. The noble may take this a second time, granting her an additional +2 bonus.

Aura of Intimidation: The noble is the image of fear, sternness, and intimidation. Whenever the noble makes any Intimidation check, she gains a +3 bonus. She may take this a second time, granting her an additional +2.

Aura of Order: The noble is the image of balance, lawfulness, and order wherever she goes. Once per day, she may instantly take 20 on any skill check involving social interaction, even if the taking 20 rules would not normally permit it to be done. The noble may take this a second time, and it gives her the ability to take 20 another time per day.

Aura of Serenity: The noble is the image of calmness, peace, and serenity wherever she goes. The noble may attempt to prevent a fight and calm others down by making a Diplomacy or Intimidation check. All people who can hear the noble must make a Will save (DC = result of Diplomacy or Intimidation check). All who fail the saving throw are instantly calmed and will not fight unless provoked again. The noble may take this again, and it gives her +2 to her Diplomacy or Intimidation checks for this ability.

Aura of Wisdom: The noble is the image of knowledge, reason, and wisdom wherever she goes. The noble gains a +2 bonus to all knowledge checks. This reflects her ability to portray information and knowledge, and see reason in all things. She may take this a second time, and it gives her an additional +2 bonus.

Voice of Authority: Once per day, the noble can use this ability to gain a circumstance bonus equal to his level in a Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate check. The noble may take this a second time, gaining an additional use per day.
Master of the Courts: The noble has mastered the Great Game to such a level that she gains a +2 bonus to all Intelligence-, Wisdom-, and Charisma-based checks when playing Daes Dae'mar. The noble may take this again, and will get an additional +2 bonus.

Great Leader: When selecting followers using her Reputation score when she is able, the noble may double her Reputation score. This bonus applies only to determining the total levels of followers. This ability may only be taken once.

Bonus Feats: The noble gets bonus feats at 3rd, 7th, 11th, 15th, and 19th levels. These feats must be taken from the following list: Agile, Alertness, Bullheaded, Combat Expertise, Cosmopolitan, Diehard, Diligent, Disciplined, Dodge, Endurance, Fame, Heroic Surge, Improved Critical, Investigator, Iron Will, Luck of Heroes, Mimic, Mobility, Negotiator, Persuasive, Quick Draw, Run, Seductive, Sharp-Eyed, Silver Palm, Skill Focus, Smooth Talk, Toughness, Trustworthy, Wealthy, Weapon Finesse, and Weapon Focus.

RaspK_FOG

03-12-2004, 10:16 PM

I believe one could create a similar noble class, can't one? However, I would go with an additional line for the Noble Ability choice, which would be, of course, the character's background... Much like regional feats.

JanGunterssen

03-13-2004, 02:16 AM

Originally posted by kgauck@Mar 9 2004, 10:30 PM
You overlook the trade empire of Aragon. The trade that they controlled

from Barcelona was as important as that of Venice or the Netherlands. Their

network included Sicily, Naples, the Adriatic, Greece, and points beyond.

their control of trade in the western-most Med was absolute. One had to to

as far east as Italy where the Genoese would become rivals to see

competition.

Again, we might speak of the Portugese, whose trade in bulk goods (both

grains and wines) was significant. Their exploration of Africa was

motivated by trade (since West Africa was one of the few regions that wanted

to purchase European goods and would pay in precious metals).

I would have no problems using Iberia as a model for the Brecht, I would

just emphisise those things that are most like the Brecht, rather than

things that are not. Every culture is diverse and offers is models that can

be adopted seclectively for our gaming purposes. We never have to take the

whole thing at once.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

Well I must agree with sir Tiamat, Kenneth.

As every spaniard from my age had to study at school :( Aragon maritime power allowedd them to take several islands an many territories along the Mediterranean. But his economy was still almost fully land-based.
Portugal, by the other way looked at their trade to improve his poor economy, but his catholic culture weighed them very much, restraining them to attain the economical potential that later would reach the netherlands.

The entrepreneurship culture associated to the Brechts is closer to the luteran and calvinist ethics than the catholic one. So I allways thought about the Brechts being like the Hanseatics Leage germans. His trade emporium run over the Baltic Sea and the Northern Sea trough the XII-XVIth centuries. And his sea also turned to ice in winter, like the Krakenauricht! :D

Osprey

03-13-2004, 04:04 AM

The entrepreneurship culture associated to the Brechts is closer to the luteran and calvinist ethics than the catholic one. So I allways thought about the Brechts being like the Hanseatics Leage germans. His trade emporium run over the Baltic Sea and the Northern Sea trough the XII-XVIth centuries. And his sea also turned to ice in winter, like the Krakenauricht!

I am definitely in agreement, and given the Germanic bent of the Brecht, I'm inclined to think this is more what the original designers had in mind when the Brecht were created.

kgauck

03-13-2004, 07:00 AM

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

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

Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 8:16 PM

> As every spaniard from my age had to study at school :( Aragon

> maritime power allowedd them to take several islands an many

> territories along the Mediterranean. But his economy was still

> almost fully land-based.

Perhaps you would be interested in a list of Catalan trade consulates all

based in Barcelona. In France: Montpellier, Aigues, Arles, Avignon,

Martigues, Marseilles, and Nice. These territories were owned by the counts

of Barcelona from 1113 to 1246. In BR terms, the Aragonese (Aragon and

Barcelona joined in 1137) may have lost the land, but they kept the guild

holdings. In Africa: Bougie (now in Algieria) and Tunis. In Sardinia:

Sassari, Alghero, Oristano, and Cagliari. Aragon took Sardinia from Genoa

and Pisa in a rapid campaign from 1323-26, it took till 1341 to finally

expell all of the Pisans and Genoese. In Italy they had counsulates in

Savona, Genoa, Pisa, Livorno, Sienna, Rome, Ancona, and Venice. In Naples:

Gaeta, Naples, Ischia, Castellammara, Tropea, and Ontronto. In Sicily:

Tripani, Palermo, Messina, Agrigento, Licata, Syracuse, and Catania. Since

losing Provence to the Anjou in 1246, they became enemies and so Anjou

control of the kdm of Naples resulted in Aragonese intervention there

starting in 1282. They took Sicily in 1409 and arranged to inherit Naples

which they did in 1443. They also had consulates in Ragusa (modern

Dbrovnik), Modon in Achaea and held Athens as a fief after 1379.

That my friend, is a maratime empire. Venice had fewer trade consulates,

but she was acting not as a general maritime trade center, but as the

middle-man between the Islamic spice trade and the European markets. Genoa

had even fewer consulates, not only because she lost out to Venice in the

east, but because she lost out to Barcelona in the west. The loss of

Genoese centers in Sardinia reveal the dominance

of Aragon in the Western Mediterranean.

> The entrepreneurship culture associated to the Brechts is closer to

> the luteran and calvinist ethics than the catholic one. So I allways

> thought about the Brechts being like the Hanseatics Leage germans.

Well, since there are no Catholics or Lutherans in Cerilia this is really a

moot point. The thing I find most vexing about most historical analysis

done on this list is the assumption that using a culture as an analog means

you take the whole culture entirely. No analogy works totally, all of them

are only partial. Since the Brechts worship Sera (predominantly) I don`t

continue to impose burdens from a Catholic frame of mine. There is no

point, Catholicism doesn`t exist in Cerillia. When I look at the Hanse, I

don`t see a perfect match for the Brecht. There are elements that are not

transferable. I can invent new material, certainly, but to a large degree

Also, why is this an either/or issue? Why can`t

Weber had some interesting ideas about Protestantism and capitalism, but

let`s not forget that Tiamat`s original suggestion included Venice

(Catholic) and the Netherlands (Calvinist), not the Hanse (Lutheran). If

Venice and Genoa are trading republics, and leading ones roughly analogous

to our time period in Cerilian technology, why exclude Barcelona? All three

are Catholic, all three were vast sea-going states based on trade. Neither

the Aragonese nor the Italians got into the knightly culture of France, both

were early adopters of fencing with light blades, which is why two of the

most common fencing styles are the Italian style and the Spanish style.

Were the Hanse ever fencers? Its because of things like this that I argue

against using only one culture as the inspiration for any one of the nations

of Cerilia, but urge that we pick and choose our bits of inspiration from

several cultures based on what makes the most sense as described in BR. As

such, what is wrong with using Aragon as an inspiration, especially when we

focus on the Catalonian and Valencian coasts?

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

JanGunterssen

03-13-2004, 06:17 PM

Wonderfull Kenneth!!

You have given us an historic lesson. I'm not joking, I'm astonish. I've never heard about the Aragon trade consulates being so powerful. So every day you can learn something! (as my grandma said).

I agree with you in several points:

First and most important, is that the reference cultures given in the BRCS should be a way to inspire DMs or to give them backgrounds to create a better "ambiance", not a must-be-followed guidelines in order to understand a culture, specially in the broad areas we're talking about.

So I understand that it is important to point the easiest refference to any DM that approach BRCS. Giving them the "Spain during Renaissance" parallel reference might easily guide to misunderstanding. Almost no DM knows so much about the Aragon culture as you do, and if they are right to point the spanish reinassance in the XVth century they would inevitably think about Castilla (with their Catholic Kings and his Cristopher Columbus), not Aragon (by the way by the renaissance, Spain was not a single political entity, as you already know).

So, looking the names given as an example and the general cultural traits, I think it would be a better option to point the Hanseatic League. An easy one. A more understoodable. IMO.

Second, there is not such Catholic nor Lutheran religions in Birthright, nor can their touch be felt in the Birthright cultures. But BR is the less pantheistic campaign that TSR crated. The concepts shown in the BoP about religious strife, Official Religion, Religious Investiture and so are closer to our historic reinassance counterparts than any other time.

Third, It's true that the brecht fighting style is closer than the Italian or the Spanish style, but as you said, we don't need to take the cultures as a whole and we could point in the rules that the brecht style is closer to the Venetian or the Spanish stile.

A personal question, if yoou dont mind, Kenneth: How do you know so much about middle age Aragon?

kgauck

03-13-2004, 07:20 PM

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

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

Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 12:17 PM

> So I understand that it is important to point the easiest refference

> to any DM that approach BRCS. Giving them the "Spain during

> Renaissance" parallel reference might easily guide to misunderstanding.

> [...] So, looking the names given as an example and the general

> cultural traits, I think it would be a better option to point the

Hanseatic

> League. An easy one. A more understoodable. IMO.

If I had to pick only one culture, I`d pick the Hanseatic League. Its the

best single analog. Hopefully references beyond that would also include why

they are chosen. Tiamat refered to Venice as a "seafaring republic" which

is a good clue as to what to borrow and what not to borrow (notions of trade

and government, possibly attitudes towards nobility and class structure).

> A personal question, if you dont mind, Kenneth: How do you

> know so much about middle age Aragon?

A fellow grad student was specializing in Florentine Art History, but found

references to the political goings on difficult to follow, so I wrote him a

brief history of Italian rivalry so he could make sense of why Florentine

artists appeared to be pro-Venetian at one point, but might be anti-Venetian

at another. Aragon came into it all because of the important role she

played in Italian politics starting with the Sicilian Vespers and lasting

into the Napoleonic period. The most important book on the subject is

Fernand Braudel`s The Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II. Braudel

deals a lot with trade (also in his Civilization and Capitalism series) and

really helps to make sense of what guild holdings are, what they are doing,

and how to use them in the game.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

Osprey

03-29-2004, 02:27 PM

Spymaster Feat

I was disappointed to see the Spymaster feat removed from the revised Chapter 1. While I understand not wanting a feat that gives a bonus to 3 skills, I propose to keep the feat but rewrite it as a regent feat like Master Merchant, Master Administrator, etc., as there isn't currently any such thing for Espionage.

Spymaster
Requirements: Cha 13+
Grants a +2 bonus to Gather Information and Disguise. Also grants a +2 bonus to Espionage domain actions.

Athos69

04-01-2004, 07:04 PM

I wopuld make a few suggestions to help out the new players in the current version of Chaper 1 that is out for comment.

Brecht: Add that the race has strong overtones of the Hanseatic League, and linguistically, they have strong Germanic overtones.

Khinasi: Add that the race has strong Arabic (Ottoman) overtones in their culture and language.

Rjurik: Pronouciation should be (REE-you-rick) to better reflect the sound of the Nordic 'J'. Linguistically, the race uses Old Norse or other Scandanavian forms.

Vos: Note that linguistically, the names have a strong overtone of the Rus.

Sidhe: Linguistically, note that this race tends to use Welsh Gaelic as a model. Pronounciation guide would be useful.

This is what I've picked up on in my reading for the 1st half....

-Mike

Athos69

04-01-2004, 07:14 PM

OK, reading further...

The 'Master' level Feats have always bothered me with their proliferation in a PBEM campaign. What do people think about adding a minimum level (a la Leadership) or a minimum number of ranks in the associated skill as a prerequisite?

-Mike

Osprey

04-02-2004, 04:29 PM

The 'Master' level Feats have always bothered me with their proliferation in a PBEM campaign. What do people think about adding a minimum level (a la Leadership) or a minimum number of ranks in the associated skill as a prerequisite?

Heh, NOW you bring it up! This summer I had written up an entire list of such suggestions, re-writing all of the Master feats to have prerequisites based on a minimum level of skill ranks in the appropriate skill. This was basically 5 ranks for the regional favorites (like Master Merchant for the Brechts), and as much as 7-10 ranks for non-regional types (like Master Merchant for an Anuirean). This way the regional advantage was that low-level characters could gain some really advantageous feats as regents by 2nd level, while anyone could get them through enough experience (regional advantages being most advantageous at the start, mattering less with time and experience).

I recall there was a lot of discussion, and as is typical, lots of different opinions and 10 variants of these ideas, and ultimately...nothing. I don't think a darned thing ever came of any of it as far as the official Revision is concerned.

So yeah, I'm all for it as I ever was, but I have little hope of seeing much of anything change from the BRCS unless there is one heck of a chorus of voices in support of an idea. That's been my experience thus far.

Osprey

Athos69

04-02-2004, 05:55 PM

Well Osprey, for one thing, I did not have the experience in PBEM gaming that I do now, so I didn't see how it was being abused. In a straw poll done by the DM in a camaign I'm co-DMing, at least 80% of the leaders of Anuire had Master Administrator, and several of their Lieutenants had the feat as well.

If we make 10 ranks the standard for these feats (i.e. granting them to 'masters' in their fields), then that makes the minumum level 7 before the feat can be taken, (and in reality making it 9th level). This would also have the effect of making such characters choose which Master level feats they will take, because by the time you're 9th level, you won't be progressing *too* far because of lowered XP rewards for successful rulership.

The Jew

04-02-2004, 09:43 PM

I definitely agree with Ospreys suggestion. 5 Ranks for a regional master feat and 7-10 ranks for all others. I have one problem with it though. Administrate is used to create, rule up and contest all types of holdings (though with the campaigns I have been in Know arcana is used for Sources). Maybe it would be best to use a different skill for different types of holdings. This would also serve to weaken what is an uber skill and feat.
Administrate makes sense for law holdings. For Temple holdings I think Lead would be best. Martin Luther and Jesus started their new religions through fiery oratary, not excellent bureacratic skills. For sources holdings it should be Knowledge arcana. For guild holdings I would go with either a Profession, Craft or Diplomacy.

Athos69, do you have a character in that game. I am Carilon Alam.

The Jew

04-03-2004, 12:59 AM

I left this a little vague. Master merchant would then provide a +2 bonus to create, rule and contest guild holdings. Great leader would do the same for temple holdings. A new feat Master of the arcane would provide the bonus for source holdings, along with a +2 bonus to Knowledge Arcana.

Osprey

04-03-2004, 06:25 AM

In my campaign I've already replaced Administrate with Lead for Investiture (Ceremony) actions, so that's stricken from the Master Administrator list. Isee Investiture as largely a product of popular support, at least more than any beauracratic skills!

Temple holdings? Yeah, Lead is a decent pick although it's already used for Agitate (the other specialty of temples), so maybe Diplomacy might work better. For one thing, it's the other key skill for determining regency collection (Lead+Diplomacy for temples). And if we're integrating some of the ideas on polytheism that have been fleshed out lately, it would make sense how important Diplomacy is in uniting a polytheistic faith, and in gaining political power for a temple. Temples are spiritual power, yes, but politically they are especially Social Power. And I see Diplomacy as a good representationof all the social maneuvering necessary to get various factions to support you. Lead, on the other hand, is about rousing the masses through mood rather than negotiation and careful maneuvering...which also can help or hurt one's domain actions through attitude.

Ugh...it's a mess, really. I don't feel like I have better answers, though I'd bee interested what other people think are appropriate key skills for various domain actions. Finalizing Chapter 1 is hard to do when skills factor into the all-important domain rules.

The Jew

04-03-2004, 05:50 PM

You're a bit confused Osprey ;) . Lead and Knowledge religion are the two skills for temple regency collection. I would stick with lead, not because the real world logic behind using diplomacy is faulty, since it is one of the regency collection skills.

To alter my previous proposal slightly. Instead of administrate for law holdings use warcraft. One could argue that that development of a strong police or banditry organizations (dependent upon how law holdings are conceptualized for individual realms) would be aided by an excellent grasp of military strategems. Administrate would remain the skill for landed regents. I would also propose changing the regency collection skills for land to administrate and warcraft.

Each type of holding (and land) would have a different base skill and a different master feat which provides a bonus. Each base skill would be one of the two skills needed for regency collection. These master feats would then be availabe to different cultural areas at different skill ranks requirements. I would think that Great leader (for temples) would be a regional feat for all regions. The Anuireans would definitely have Master administrator and Military genius available as regional feats. Khinasi would probably have master merchant and Master of the arcane as regional feats.

Barbarossa Rotbart

04-27-2004, 10:13 AM

If you look at the names, pictures and parts of their culture you will get following:
Anuire: welsh/french/german during the later medieval
Rjurik: skandinavian
Brechtür: northern germany during the height of the hanseatic league
Vosgaard: russia after the mongolian invasion
Khinasi: arabia before the ottomans (which were turks)

Osprey

04-27-2004, 03:16 PM

Anuire: welsh/french/german during the later medieval

Now consider the striking similarity to Norman Anglo-Saxon England in that same era...Germanic + French + Welsh & Gaelic influence. Gee, imagine that...the base region of the campaign modeled on medieval England.

Barbarossa Rotbart

04-28-2004, 01:52 PM

What would you expect...!
It would really have been strange if Anuire was created on a french or german bachground (although to campaign reminds me of the time in which the empire was ruled by an weak roman emperor.)

tcharazazel

04-30-2004, 09:30 AM

Each type of holding (and land) would have a different base skill and a different master feat which provides a bonus. Each base skill would be one of the two skills needed for regency collection. These master feats would then be availabe to different cultural areas at different skill ranks requirements. I would think that Great leader (for temples) would be a regional feat for all regions. The Anuireans would definitely have Master administrator and Military genius available as regional feats. Khinasi would probably have master merchant and Master of the arcane as regional feats.

That looks rather good :)

So to bring it back to the front then.

Master Diplomat, Administrator, ect: requires either 5 ranks for regional, or 10 ranks for non regional characters in the relevant skill + the regular ability requirements. they would all offer at least +2 to the relevant skill and +2 to the relevant domain action, ie administrate, diplomacy, ect.

Including the new Master of Arcana feat that offers +2 to K/Arcana and +2 to Source actions, hmm tho thats really excluding the druids to some extent. Heh, could also have a Master of Nature that offers +2 to K/Nature and +2 to Source actions, however, a character cannont have both Master of Arcana and Master of Nature.

Great Leader: would be available in every region though it would require 5 ranks of Lead and CHA 13+.

Spymaster would serve as the Espionage version, probably regional to Brecht and maybe 1 other, like Anuire (heh, left over from all the court intrigue of the empire). Would give +2 to at least gather info, possibly bluff, and +2 to espionage actions.

Additionally to these changes in the feats, the change in what skill is used to rule up a holding, ie Warcraft for Law, Diplomacy for Temple holdings, Diplomacy makes the most sense for ruling guilds really though the others Proffession (any) or Craft (any) could also make sense, and K/Arcane or K/Nature for ruling Source holdings as both wizards and druids can be source regents.

This is basically what's being proposed, correct?

Osprey

04-30-2004, 01:56 PM

Spymaster would serve as the Espionage version, probably regional to Brecht and maybe 1 other, like Anuire (heh, left over from all the court intrigue of the empire). Would give +2 to at least gather info, possibly bluff, and +2 to espionage actions.

For Spymaster, I'd go with +2 Gather Information and +2 Disguise, and +2 to Espionage Actions.

In general, I like if the Master feats have one very useful skill synergy, and if a 2nd one, it is of marginal value (Disguise is a less broadly applicable skill than Bluff, which overpowers the feat IMO).

Similarly, Great Diplomat could be expanded to be +2 Diplomacy and +2 Profession (Courtier), and +2 to Diplomacy domain actions.

Great Leader is good as is (+2 Lead, +2 Lead-based domain actions, and +2 Leadership score).

Master Merchant: +2 Appraise and +2 Profession (Merchant), and +2 to guild/trade-related Domain Actions. (This one is powerful, so no need for any great basic skill synergies like Diplomacy IMO).

Master Administrator doesn't need a 2nd skill synergy because it grants +2 Administrate, +2 to Admin-based domain actions, AND lowers the seasonal maintenance DC.

I still vouch for the Master Administrator system I've been using in my campaign from early on. Playtesting for a year+ now has shown it to work very well:

Master Administrator lowers the seasonal maintenance check to DC 10 + (1/2 seasonal maintenance in GB).

Osprey

04-30-2004, 02:31 PM

Additionally to these changes in the feats, the change in what skill is used to rule up a holding, ie Warcraft for Law, Diplomacy for Temple holdings, Diplomacy makes the most sense for ruling guilds really though the others Proffession (any) or Craft (any) could also make sense, and K/Arcane or K/Nature for ruling Source holdings as both wizards and druids can be source regents.

I'm not sure anything solid has been proposed by a serious group other than what's already in the BRCS.

However, it's hard to see how Administrate isn't the most relevant skill for creating and ruling holdings, as such actions are all about large-scale expansion and management.

I'd say not Warcraft for Law holdings...what does battlefield strategy have to do with administering the law? Enforcing it, maybe, but utilizing and expanding a legal system? Even in a medieval setting, I'm not sure I see the connection as a strong one, let alone a key skill.

Here's one set of proposals for key Domain action skills. See below for those actions with (?) after them:

Agitate: Lead

Coronation/Divestiture: Lead (the only 2 ceremony actions which require checks)

Create/Rule Province: Administrate or Lead (?)

Create/Rule/Contest Law: Administrate or Lead (?)

C/R/C Temples: Administrate, Lead, or Diplomacy (?)

C/R/C Guilds: Administrate, Diplomacy, or Profession: Merchant (?)

Create/Contest Trade Route: Diplomacy

C/R/C Sources: Knowledge (Nature)

Create Ley Line: Knowledge (Arcana)

Diplomacy: Diplomacy

Espionage: Gather Information

At least, this is one set of proposals...in truth, it's a messy thing, because one could argue for many different skills being key skills depending on HOW one goes about the action. There are multiple effective methods for creating or ruling provinces and holdings. A temple might expand its influence through inspirational sermons and popular support (Lead), canny negotiation with the local nobility and regents (Diplomacy), or skillful expansion of the existing temple infrastructure(Administrate). Guild expansion could take similar routes: good market tactics could be attributed to a good Profession: Merchant skill of the regent, or he pulls strings in the local court (Diplomacy), or he grows through efficient guild operations and delegation, putting the most effective people in the right places at the right times (Administrate). Law, on the other hand, I'd say comes down to a good beauracracy (Administrate) and/or popular appeal (Lead), in that the people are willing to obey and support the law because they respect, love, and/or fear the regent. And Ruling a province would follow similar principles.

If you accept the above statements, it's easy to see why Administrate becomes the default key skill for holdings of all types, as it's the one skill common to all province/holding types except sources. Lead is also quite prominent, which should be an obvious "big skill" for a regent - a charismatic leader can have big advantages in getting things done, because the people are behind him.

A second, messier possibility is that there might be more than one key skill for the same action, allowing regents to choose their strongest key skill when attempting an action like Ruling holdings. Thus, the Great Leader might be just as effective as the Master Administrator at ruling a province or law holding - they just go about it in different ways. While this is a little less simplistic system than one key skill per action, it allows for a slightly more interesting domain-level game where different regents of the same type can build on different strengths and still be fully competitive with one another - avoiding the cookie cutter Master Administrators dominating everything by default, as happened with the BRCS version (I think anyone who playtested the BRCS much can agree on that trend).

What do you think, oh illustrious BR community? :)

Osprey

tcharazazel

04-30-2004, 03:03 PM

WOOT!!! FREEDOM!!!

heh, that basically what your proposing, and it definately makes sense to me. Cause in reality there were so many different methods to effectively rule over the people.

Heheh, it would also open up the poissiblity for regents deciding to go different paths instead of the same every time, namely turning into true master administrators by keeping that skill maxed out most of the time.

Kelphthal

05-01-2004, 02:08 AM

I was looking over the magician and noble classes, since for the most part everything else looks fine (up to the end of classes is as far as i have gotten)

My thoughts on the magician:

1) spontaneous casting is way to weak of a power in the long run. admitedly at 1st or second level spontaneously casting a 0th level spell could help, but at 12th level it is a waste. I would refine it as follow. The magician can forfeit any spell they have prepared to cast another spell. This new spell myust be at least two levels lower than the forfeited spell or 0th level. This keeps the power relatively weak, but increases its utility in the long run.

2) based on the same argument as number 1, bonus catrips seems to be pretty weak. I would suggest replacing the ability with something that improves the ability granted by number 1. perhaps reducing the level defecit to 1 instead of 2. this would also replace spontaneous spell.

3) add an armor proficiency ability. exactly the same as 3.5 bards. so starting at 5th level, a magician who wants tyo could focus on wearing armor, and combining it with spell casting.

in regards to the noble:

1) lower the base attack bonus by one point. it is too easy to pick up a level of noble with a fighter to level out the will save bonus without a noticable penalty. Now i know that fighters will always be better fighters because of feats, but it often comes down to attack bonuses.

2) a first elvel noble gets 160-980 gold pieces as written now. plus a monthly salary.. I think that aside from the starting cash being higher, nobles should not draw a salary. If they are going to be adventurers that is what they do for money, if they are going to be regents that is what they do for money. The need for disposable income is a great adventure motivator.

3)create a short list of abilities that the noble can select from at appropriate levels. These abilities can be bonus feats, battlecry, coordinate, presence, inspire loyalty, etc. not all nobles gain the same abilities, or in the same order over time. on the same veein, repeatedly selecting an ability would make it stronger, rather than simple levels.

I would suggest looking at the noble as a catch all class for children of nobility, including the black sheep of the family. perhaps especially the black sheep of the family, since it is an adventuring class. It is possible that noble born children would have other classes, but some are unlikely at the beginning.

Oh well, that is my 2 coppers, for what it is worth

tcharazazel

05-02-2004, 08:07 AM

I like all your ideas for the magician, and I like your first and third idea for the noble, especially the third one as it offers a means of creating more variablity among the nobility. The 2nd suggestion for the noble i disagree with:

2) a first elvel noble gets 160-980 gold pieces as written now. plus a monthly salary.. I think that aside from the starting cash being higher, nobles should not draw a salary. If they are going to be adventurers that is what they do for money, if they are going to be regents that is what they do for money. The need for disposable income is a great adventure motivator.

You are forgetting that nobles will be having their own personal lands and estates (not whole provinces, just like plantaions ect) that generate income for them, even if they are adventuring or ruling as a regent. This is the reasoning behind them getting Wealth. As most nobles would be landed regents don't forget that regents really dont get money from taxes, and using the tax money for personal use is very likely to piss off the people. Honestly, if you want to come up with the story that a certain PC comes from a poor noble family who only realy has their title and little else, then that would just be a house rule for the character, and not something that should be applied to the rest. Because, in the middle ages to renissance era the nobility still had the title, power, and wealth, which is the general era BR is based on.

Now, What do you think about the discussion concerning changing the feats and bringin back the Spymaster feat?

RaspK_FOG

05-03-2004, 12:15 AM

I forgot something; aren't dwarves supposed to get Stability?

Endrin Helrick

05-03-2004, 12:26 AM

tcharazazel

05-03-2004, 12:34 AM

RaspK_FOG Posted on May 3 2004, 01:15 AM
* I forgot something; aren't dwarves supposed to get Stability?*

? read the chap 1 revision file, dwarves have stability. What they took out was Enduring Strength, which gives dwarves +4 strength racial to determine their carrying capacity.

So, What do you think about the other topics on hand, Rasp? namely the changes to the feats and the magician and noble classes?

You are not making dwarves use a feat to get the -5 against bludgeoning attacks

Actually, now its DR 5/slashing and piercing. its no longer bludgeoning. And the reasoning behind it is that all dwarves are really friggin thick, which is just they way they have always been built and will probably always be.

I do think that its cool to keep halflings with their ability to enter the Shadow World. However, it does make sense that not all halflings can so easily go back to the Shadow World, heh, not like many would want to go back anyway. Besides after so many generations of living outside of the Shadow World they probably wouldnt be quite as attuned to the Shadow World as they used to be. All that aside, halflings lost that ability in the BCRS so trying to bring it back from 2ndE is probably not gonna happen, so just keep it as a house rule.

What do you think about the proposed changes to the feats though and to the magician and noble classes?

Kelphthal

05-03-2004, 03:48 AM

I still not sure about the continuous influx of cash for nobles. Perhaps a compromise would be have one of the abilities to be selected be "funded" wherein the PC gets a stipend from his family per month.

Personally I have found that Birthright is most satisfying when players start as independent adventurers and have to build up their own reputations and/or militaries to carve out a kingdom. I know that isn't for everybody, but the flexibility should exist.

***

In regards to the feats, I haven't eread over the entire chapter yet, but I do agree that the Domain actions should be spread over more skills, and that similar domain actions should comeunder the heading of master feats.

I belive that those feats should be exclusive, so you can't be a master administrator, spymaster, master arcana... etc...

I also believe that one of the requirements should be skill focus with the primary skill. For example master administrator requires skill focus administration and spy master requires gather information

I need to see the domain actions side by side with the new rules before I can say exactly what benefit they should give, but rather than messing with the base DCs I would suggest a nice high skill bonus, like character level perhaps. Net result an administrator with master admin would have D20+ranks+mods+2 for skill focus + char level for master admin. that way it grows with the character. A low level master admin should be far worse than a high level one, not just the difference in ranks.

tcharazazel

05-03-2004, 06:18 AM

The problem is that most landed regent NPCs will be nobles also, so its not just for the PCs, and they wont be getting the cash from their parents rather it will be their personal lands more often than not...

However, if you want to have them wait to get the cash from their lands until their parents die, or if their parents give them some living expenses. That would be DM controled for each situation really, and for the case of the allowance, you would figure that the parents would actually get a certain amount from being nobles also, and they just give their kids, the PCs, a certain amount of cash every month from that.

With regard to the feats, I agree that all of the master type feats should have a certain amount of ranks in the appropriate skills.

However, I do not believe that they should be exclusive, because Great Leader is one that is approprate for just about any successful Land, Law, and Temple regents, and Master Diplomat is also one that is appropriate for all types of regents... heheh, and guilders would also be appropriate for Master merchant and spymaster. Its more dificult to put a limiter on feats sayin that they cannot take other feats if they have taken this feat (as its not done in 3.5). Besides, if your PCs are often adventuring they would be wanting to focus probably more on the combat type feats, and not the regent type feats so if they want to use up their precious feats on regent types then they will be weaker in combat. So, there is a natural balancer, especially if you toss them into combat more often than not ;)

irdeggman

05-03-2004, 09:35 AM

I dont agree that a Hlafling should have to use feats to get the shadow walk ability. That was apart of the them in 2ed and one thing that made them so cool. You are not making dwarves use a feat to get the -5 against bludgeoning attacks and you are definately giving the elves alot more with new and different spells for them.

Did the halflings do something to you to bone them over this much.

I agree that there has to be a shadow with in 5ft of them and there could be a dc check but i dont think they should have to use a feat. They would have to take a few levels of fighter to use a normal feat on shadow walk and the fighter feats for combat. I think the halflings need to be rethought.

This was done basically to avoid giving them a level adjustment as a race. Granting them the equivalent of a 4th level spell (Dimension Door) usuable multiple times per day crosses the level adjustment barier.

As far as dwarves and their DR goes, that is a bit closer to a LA. The way the revised Cap 21 dwarves are written, they get a -4 penalty to swim and tumble checks to help off set the potential of a level adjustment. Combe this with the way that DR works in 3.5 (only applies to weapons and natural attacks), their DR 5/slashing or piercing has any slashing or piercing weapon or natural attack bypass the DR and it is much less a level adjustment. This is more open than say the skeleton's DR 5/bludgeoning which only has bludgeoning weapons or natural attacks bypass their DR.

I think you should add in Gnomes. They are great little inventors which could add to the future with gun powder and other little neat inventions.

Gnomes, that has been one of the most oft discussed topics. Basically there was only one mention of gnomes and that was on the table of AD&D Monsters in Cerilia on page 89 of the BR RB. This is the only mention of gnomes in any BR product. They are never mentioned in any supplement, any adventure or in any novel. The reason for their inclusion in the table on pg 89 is mostly attributed to the wonderful editing process that BR went through when published. Rich Baker posted something about how he had originally envisioned a more nature-based gnome for inclusion but it never met the cut for publication, so the tinkerer gnome was never a concept in the BR cosmology.

irdeggman

05-03-2004, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by tcharazazel@May 2 2004, 07:34 PM

RaspK_FOG Posted on May 3 2004, 01:15 AM
* I forgot something; aren't dwarves supposed to get Stability?*

? read the chap 1 revision file, dwarves have stability. What they took out was Enduring Strength, which gives dwarves +4 strength racial to determine their carrying capacity.

True and the reasoning in dropping the enduring strength was stability and the fact that dwarves in 3.5 no longer suffer any movement penalty for wearing armor or carrying medium or heavy loads. Between the two of these it seemed like a pretty good approximation to the BR 2nd ed dwarf material without adding 'extra' into the equation.

Kelphthal

05-03-2004, 02:33 PM

Okay, that is a valid argument against exclusivity.

I still don't think the noble needs quite that much money. If they are an adventuring character they will be earning far more than that, and if they are not then they are at the very least going to be subsisting on the taxes, even if they don't draw a salary. That is at least part of what court upkeep pays for.

I think that the ongoing cash is just one thing adding to the value of the class versus other classes without actually making a signifigant benefit for the class.

personally i think that nobles should gain an ability at 1,3,6,10,15,20 and one of those abilities could be an allowance... that way a first level char could get it, or not.

personally I am somewhat opposed to case by case DM intervention on characters. Not that it isn't the place of the DM, but when you write the rules assuming it will happen, you wrote bad rules.

tcharazazel

05-03-2004, 05:17 PM

irdeggman, Thanks for the explanations for the halflings, dwarves and gnomes. What do you think about the proposed changes to the Master feats and the skill changes for the domain?

I still don't think the noble needs quite that much money. If they are an adventuring character they will be earning far more than that, and if they are not then they are at the very least going to be subsisting on the taxes, even if they don't draw a salary. That is at least part of what court upkeep pays for.

Heh, how many nobles would really go adventuring? Over all the nobles there are in Anuire and even Cerrillia probably not that many, because they would just hire out the work to groups of adventures. Now, some of the younger nobles may go out adventuring however, they would make not much anyway until they get up to higher levels, when they will be ruling their lands or a domain.

personally I am somewhat opposed to case by case DM intervention on characters. Not that it isn't the place of the DM, but when you write the rules assuming it will happen, you wrote bad rules.

Well, I agree it is a problem when the rules are written expecting to be changed. However, I do not agree that most DMs would be making that change, though im not so sure most would. As the example you give doesnt apply to all Nobles, just starting out PCs really, heh, and they dont get much cash, as you pointed out, so why is it a problem again exactly?

personally i think that nobles should gain an ability at 1,3,6,10,15,20 and one of those abilities could be an allowance... that way a first level char could get it, or not.

Its easier to just keep it 1 special ability added every 3 levels, selected from their current list of special abilities So, it should be 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 16, 18... There is just one major problem with this system from the curent class. Namely, that the special abilities of the noble accrue over time, while in this system they do not, unless you pick them multiple times.

So true you would end up with more specialized nobles, however what about in epic levels? would the addition of new special abilities continue at every 3 levels? probably. And then there is problem of trying to rebalance the class with the other 3.5 classes as doing such a major change would definately lower its current effectivity.

Hehe, you could also get some really off kelter nobles then as they could put a large portion of those special abilities into Presense so your PC nobles at level 12 could have an effective +10 to their charisma... heh, +5 to all CHA based skills...

Or was your intention that once they select a special ability their special ability will automatically increase every 3 levels or so, without them selecting it again? So if they take wealth at level 1 then it will increase every 3 levels, or if they take Presence at level 1 it will automatically increase every 3 levels?

irdeggman

05-03-2004, 06:08 PM

I'm waiting till more people sound in about the master feats and domain actions before I chime in with a definite opinion. Most of the discussion seems sound, the effects need to be worked on though.

I'm wondering if people actually think that a character will take many levels of noble. I mean a scion will end up taking a level (or two) of scion class then that leaves only 18 or 19 levels of other classes before epic level (not addressed in the BRCS and not planned on being, at least not yet). There are really only three cultures that would use noble classes (Anuirean, Khinasi and Brecht) the rest don't have a place in their society for nobility. So lets see if a Khinasi focuses on noble class then he would be giving up the wizard path, if he is a scion - something not real likely for that culture. An Anuirean would be giving up the fighter class, also not real likely (fighters still get more bonus feats than nobles do) and Brecht would be giving up Rogue, also not likely - they lose too many skills by choosing the noble path. IMO most likely a character would only a level or two of noble before focusing on a more standard class. At one time we had banted about requiring a character to start out as a noble if he wished to come from nobility since he would have essentially been born with privilege, but from a game-mechanics view that was not something that really worked (I mean that it is really against the 3.5 class concept to require that).

The noble was based on many different sources out there (d20 Modern, Star Wars d20, several third party books, etc.) looking for similarities and concepts that seemed to fit together into a BR theme.

I was against the broad base of feats available for the noble as bonus feats, and would have preferred to have a noble choose a path (warrior, guilder or scholer) and then have their bonus feats coming from a subset for each. This, however proved too unwieldy to work with and hence the version that is up for discussion presently. I am not convinced that the good BAB wouldn't be better off as average, since the class gets as many skill points as does a ranger with more class abilities to choose from.

The basis for the 'salary' was pretty much nailed.

"This wealth represents the character’s share of estate or manor income, his share of inherited wealth or heirlooms, money obtained by blackmail and extortion, or any other reasonable source of income for an up and coming member of the upper class. Generally, a noble must return to his home region to collect these revenues."

What this reflects is that nobles from the upper class have some sort of assets that are theirs to personally claim. This door is also opened to the infamous 'blackmail', much more prevelant in Brecht society than elsewhere.

All of these things work together to create a colorful and full history for a character at creation and this is something that should be encouraged, IMO.

Athos69

05-03-2004, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by irdeggman@May 3 2004, 11:08 AM
I'm waiting till more people sound in about the master feats and domain actions before I chime in with a definite opinion. Most of the discussion seems sound, the effects need to be worked on though.
Well, here's my take on it...

The Master Admin is, IMHO, broken as it sits. Reduce the DC for maintenence cost reduction from 15+budget to 10+budget, and you will have made a large step towards balancing the feat.

The other thing that I have found is that in a PBEM, any regent's player worth their salt will make sure that they have Master Administrator as early as possible. With only ability and regional prerequisites, characters could have this feat from 1st level onwards. If this is supposed to be a 'MASTER' feat, then let's make sure that it winds up in the hands of the Masters.

Proposed prerequisites for 'Master' feats: Relevant ability @ 13+, Skill Focus (relevant skill), 8 ranks of the relevant skill.

I do not support changing the prerequisites based on cultural bias or location. This adds an unneccessary level of complication. To answer those who wish to make noise about how an Anuirean would be more likely to be an Administrator than a Vos, look at the Background skills available to those subraces. If you have a background skill, and are required to spend your 4 bonus skills on them, then you already have a head start in that skill, not to mention that it is thereafter always considered a class skill.

I do feel that we need a Master feat for Arcana, and possibly one for the Divine. I also support the reappearance of Spymaster.

-Mike

tcharazazel

05-03-2004, 07:33 PM

irdeggman, Thanks for clearing that stuff up with the noble class, and how specific do you want these Master feats to get? I mean do you want to see a list with each feat and its proposed prereqs and benefits ect?

The Master Admin is, IMHO, broken as it sits. Reduce the DC for maintenence cost reduction from 15+budget to 10+budget, and you will have made a large step towards balancing the feat.

In the game im in, the DM rules that Master Administrator halves the domain maintinance instead of making the base DC 15, in addition to the normal benefits, +2 admin skill +2 to admin domain actions.

The way we were figuring it was that it would look more like this:

Master Administrator

Prereq: Int 13+ and 10 ranks in Administrate

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Administrate skill and to any domain actions that recieve a potenital synergy bonus from Administrate. The DC for reducing domain maintenance is DC 10 + 1/2 domain maintenance.

I think the skill focus in the skill is a good idea also, though it may be a bit much if the feat already requires 10 ranks in the skill.

Good to see that you want to bring back spymaster and add in the Master of Arcane and a master feat for divine, though I think that Great Leader rather covers the divine aspect.

Athos69

05-03-2004, 08:15 PM

Let's have a look at what levels that characters can start getting these feats. If you have a minimum # of ranks equal to 10, the soonest a character can possibly get this feat woiuld be 9th level (7th level for the ranks to be 10, 9th before a new feat is available). If it is set at 8, then 6th level becomes a possibility (5th for the ranks, 6th for the feat).

What we need is for the Atlas team to tel us what the average level of a Regent in Cerillia is, so that we don't make the feat too common, or too rare. If the average level of a regent is 5th, then 8 ranks may be just about right. If it's 8th, then 10 ranks may be perfect...

tcharazazel

05-03-2004, 08:56 PM

Good call, heheh, though waiting for the atlas team may take a while. In the mean time we can figure out what it would require if the average ruler is 5th level. Actually, its better that way, cause even if the regents average level is 8-10 then some of them could possibly have 2 Master feats, which would make more sense for some of them, like the guilders getting Master Administrator and Master Merchant.

Athos69

05-03-2004, 09:08 PM

Also, keeping the ranks at 8 adds a bit of symmetry with Prestiege Classes, which usually spring up at 6th level or so.... I like symmetry.

On average levels, after a very cursory scan through the books, the campaign tends to be fairly low-mid level, with a few notable exceptions. I'd concur with an average level around 5-7.

tcharazazel

05-03-2004, 09:36 PM

Ok then so to rewrite these Master feats then they would look something like this:

Master Administrator

Prereq: Int 13+ and 8 ranks in Administrate

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Administrate skill and to any domain actions that recieve a potenital synergy bonus from Administrate. The DC for reducing domain maintenance is DC 10 + 1/2 domain maintenance.

Master Diplomat

Regions: Anuire, Brechtur, Khinasi
Prereq: Cha 13+ and 8 ranks in Diplomacy

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Diplomacy skill and to any domain actions that recieve a potenital synergy bonus from Diplomacy.

Master Merchant

Regions: Brechtur, Khinasi
Prereq: Cha 13+, Int 13+ and 8 ranks in Appraise and Diplomacy

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Appraise and Diplomacy skills and to any domain actions related to trade and finance.

Master of the Arcane

Prereq: Int 13+ and 8 ranks in K/Arcana

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to K/Arcana skill and to any domain actions that recieve a potenital synergy bonus from K/Arcana.

Great Leader

Prereq: Cha 13+ and 8 ranks in Lead

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Lead skill and to any domain actions that recieve a potenital synergy bonus from Lead. If you take the Leadership feat you gain a +2 bonus to your leadership score.

Spymaster

Prereq: Cha 13+ and 8 ranks in Disguise and Gather Info

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Disguise and Gather Info skill and to any domain actions that recieve a potenital synergy bonus from Gather Info.

Also a possiblity for those druids source regent types, what about this:

Nature's Servant (as Master of Nature seems a little contrary to the druidic ideas)

Prereq: Wis 13+ and 8 ranks in K/Nature

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to K/Nature skill and to any domain actions that recieve a potenital synergy bonus from K/Nature.

What do you think of these?

RaspK_FOG

05-03-2004, 09:49 PM

I know about my mistake regarding dwarves, I just somehow missed the trait in their description (how daft can I get?); and I have already realised why you dropped Enduring Strength, since it's so obvious ;). No offence meant.

As for gnomes, you might like forest gnomes, a race that has appeared in the past, especially FR; I know many people do not like the setting or parts of it (including me) but there are tons of good ideas for the setting. Presenting you with the little guys then:

Life-style: Foot-gatherers and living in small groups running from 100 members to a small family, forest gnomes usually live in homes so skillfully carved out of living trees that they are hard to spot (Survival DC 20).
Description: The shy and reclusive forest gnomes are rarely seen by other races, even close cousins (RaspK FOG's comment: in settings with other gnome races, that includes even gnomes!). These miniscule self-appointed care-takers of the green expanses of the world have an average height of 2' to 2-1/2' and weight of 25 to 30 pounds. The bigest forest gnome is not as high as 3 feet (2' 0" base height, + 1d10" for males, +1d6" for females) and not as heavy as 40 pounds (25 pounds base weight for males, 20 pounds for females, ×1 libre per inch of height beyond base height). They wear their brown or black hair and beards long, their skin is bark-shaded, and have eyes of brown or blue. Their hair grays or whites out with age; a forest gnome can live far longer than 400 years (adulthood: 150 years, middle age: 225 years, venerable age: 300 years, maximum age: +4d100 years).
Traits: These are all in addition to gnome traits as presented in the PHB.
+4 racial bonus on Hide checks, which increases to +8 in forest settings.

+1 racial bonus on attacks against kobolds, orcs, goblinoids, and reptilian humanoids.

Automatic Languages: Common, Gnome, Sylvan. Bonus Languages: Draconic, Elven, Goblin, Halfling, Treant, and Orc.

Spell-like Abilities: At will - pass without trace, speak with animals, cast on self. Caster and level: druid of forest gnome's character level.

Level Adjustment: +1.

That doe not mean I agree with the whole way this is done, but it could be a good point to start if you want to design an appropriate entry in the Atlas.

Athos69

05-03-2004, 10:05 PM

Master Administrator

Prereq: Int 13+ and 8 ranks in Administrate

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Administrate skill and to any domain actions that recieve a potenital synergy bonus from Administrate. The DC for reducing domain maintenance is DC 10 + 1/2 domain maintenance.

Looks good to me. Only thing is that we will need to look at how easily someone would be able to make that administrate roll. If you have 8 ranks in Admin, you will have a minimum base modifier of +11. perhaps we should make it DC15 + 1/2 maintenence cost, as per the DM you play with. Otherwise the failure rate on that skill will be disgustingly low.

Master Diplomat

Regions: Anuire, Brechtur, Khinasi
Prereq: Cha 13+ and 8 ranks in Diplomacy

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Diplomacy skill and to any domain actions that recieve a potenital synergy bonus from Diplomacy.

Only one reservation with this -- the fact that Synergy stacks with Synergy. In the case of a Master Diplomat and Master Merchant, that gives an inherent +4 synergy bonus to the creation of trade routes. Do we want this effect?

Master Merchant

Regions: Brechtur, Khinasi
Prereq: Cha 13+, Int 13+ and 8 ranks in Appraise and Diplomacy

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Appraise and Diplomacy skills and to any domain actions related to trade and finance.

As above, plus is this 8 ranks total, or 8 ranks each?

Master of the Arcane

Prereq: Int 13+ and 8 ranks in K/Arcana

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to K/Arcana skill and to any domain actions that recieve a potenital synergy bonus from K/Arcana.

Add +2 bonus to Spellcraft and Research actions, plus is this 8 ranks total, or 8 ranks each?

Great Leader

Prereq: Cha 13+ and 8 ranks in Lead

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Lead skill and to any domain actions that recieve a potenital synergy bonus from Lead. If you take the Leadership feat you gain a +2 bonus to your leadership score.

No problems with this.

Spymaster

Prereq: Cha 13+ and 8 ranks in Disguise and Gather Info

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Disguise and Gather Info skill and to any domain actions that recieve a potenital synergy bonus from Gather Info.

I wouldn't use Disguise for this one - the Spymaster is at the center of the intelligence web, receiving reports from all of his operatives. I would tend to go with Knowledge (Regional) or (Local). Plus is this 8 ranks total, or 8 ranks each?

Nature's Servant (as Master of Nature seems a little contrary to the druidic ideas)

Prereq: Wis 13+ and 8 ranks in K/Nature

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to K/Nature skill and to any domain actions that recieve a potenital synergy bonus from K/Nature.

Let's not ignore Spellcraft, or Survival as well for this one...

*FINALLY*: We may want to specifically list the Domain actions that are affected by these feats' bonuses. That would make it alot less ambiguous for players and DMs.

**NB: We may want to get confirmation that Chapter 5 will be using the current system for determining domain-level skill bonuses. If there is a shift to include ability, feat and blood modifiers into the total before dividing by 5, we may wish to reduce the domain bonuses for these feats to +1.

RaspK_FOG

05-03-2004, 10:27 PM

I would go with a prerequisite of 9 ranks instead of 8; remember that the queue regarding increasing/adding abilities goes as follows: Level increase.
Ability increase.
Skill point application.
Feat selection.
Hit point assignment.
That means that making your choice of assigning skill points preceeds that of feat selection. So, I would go more with 9 ranks (character level goes just beyond the first quarter of progression).

tcharazazel

05-03-2004, 11:06 PM

ok then so what about these adjustments:

Master Administrator

Prereq: Int 13+ and 9 ranks in Administrate

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Administrate skill and to any domain actions that recieve a potenital synergy bonus from Administrate (such as Rule Province and Rule Holding). The DC for reducing domain maintenance is DC 10 + 1/2 domain maintenance.

Master Diplomat

Regions: Anuire, Brechtur, Khinasi
Prereq: Cha 13+ and 9 ranks in Diplomacy

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Diplomacy skill and to any domain actions that recieve a potenital synergy bonus from Diplomacy (such as Diplomacy, and Create Trade Route).

Master Merchant

Regions: Brechtur, Khinasi
Prereq: Cha 13+, Int 13+ and 9 ranks in Appraise and 9 ranks in Diplomacy

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Appraise and Diplomacy skills and to any domain actions related to trade and finance (such as Create Trade Route, not sure if there are any others really, unless Rule Holding Guild is appropriate).

Master of the Arcane

Prereq: Int 13+ and 9 ranks in K/Arcana and 9 ranks in Spellcraft

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to K/Arcana and Spellcraft skill and to any domain actions that recieve a potenital synergy bonus from K/Arcana (such as Create Ley Line and maybe Rule Holding Source , however, it only works if they use K/Arcana to Create or Rule Source Holdings).

Great Leader

Prereq: Cha 13+ and 9 ranks in Lead

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Lead skill and to any domain actions that recieve a potenital synergy bonus from Lead (um... Agitate and maybe train troops). If you take the Leadership feat you gain a +2 bonus to your leadership score.

Spymaster

Prereq: Cha 13+ and 9 ranks in Gather Info and 9 ranks in K/Regional or K/Local

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Gather Info and K/Regional or K/Local skill and to any domain actions that recieve a potenital synergy bonus from Gather Info (such as Espionage).

Also a possiblity for those druids source regent types, what about this:

Nature's Servant (as Master of Nature seems a little contrary to the druidic ideas)

Prereq: Wis 13+ and 9 ranks in K/Nature and 9 ranks in Survival

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to K/Nature and Survival skill and to any domain actions that recieve a potenital synergy bonus from K/Nature (Such as Rule Source Holding and Create Ley Line, however, as with Master of the Arcane it only works if they use K/Nature to create or rule ley source holdings).

There is one problem with changing the whole system from the create and rule province and holding and that it will complicate the system more. Namely, every type of holding would have a differnt key skill, and some like guild and sources would have multiple. Heh, if we decide thats its too complicated then just ignore the create source holding ect in the Master of the Arcane and Nature's Servant feats.

Osprey

05-03-2004, 11:13 PM

QUOTE
Master Administrator

Prereq: Int 13+ and 8 ranks in Administrate

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Administrate skill and to any domain actions that recieve a potenital synergy bonus from Administrate. The DC for reducing domain maintenance is DC 10 + 1/2 domain maintenance.

-Looks good to me. Only thing is that we will need to look at how easily someone would be able to make that administrate roll. If you have 8 ranks in Admin, you will have a minimum base modifier of +11. perhaps we should make it DC15 + 1/2 maintenence cost, as per the DM you play with. Otherwise the failure rate on that skill will be disgustingly low. [Athos 69]

After a year of playtesting the DC 10 +1/2 Domain Maintenance (I'm tcharazazel's DM, and I set it at 10+1/2 maint.), I can tell you: the DC's get WAY higher than 15 for domain maintenance really quick, especially for landed regents. With larger landed domains, where sizable courts, multiple castles, and large armies are maintained, that DC can become unreachable even for Master Administrators. All in all, I've been quite happy with the DC 10+1/2 maint. method...I strongly recommend it for the revised BRCS.

In general, I don't think it should be at all a problem for a Master Administrator to make the seasonal maintenance check for a small domain. They are after all the Masters of their craft...while a large domain may be beyond the reach of even the most skilled Administrators to run with ay great efficiency.

QUOTE
Master Diplomat

Regions: Anuire, Brechtur, Khinasi
Prereq: Cha 13+ and 8 ranks in Diplomacy

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Diplomacy skill and to any domain actions that recieve a potenital synergy bonus from Diplomacy.

-Only one reservation with this -- the fact that Synergy stacks with Synergy. In the case of a Master Diplomat and Master Merchant, that gives an inherent +4 synergy bonus to the creation of trade routes. Do we want this effect? [Athos 69]

QUOTE
Master Merchant

Regions: Brechtur, Khinasi
Prereq: Cha 13+, Int 13+ and 8 ranks in Appraise and Diplomacy

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Appraise and Diplomacy skills and to any domain actions related to trade and finance.

-As above, plus is this 8 ranks total, or 8 ranks each? [Athos 69]

The problem with Master Merchant is that in the BRCS, it does stack with Master Administrator for guild holding-related actions, and Great Diplomat for trade route creation (which is ridiculously easy at DC 10 anyways). In my game, it works out that every competitive guilder ends up with Master Administrator and Master Merchant, giving some sick bonuses (+4 Create/Contest/Rule Guilds) AND the much desired benefit of savings on seasonal maintenance. It's generically boring for them all to possess these, yet the disadvantages of not having these feats make them "must-have" feats for the ambitious guilder. How to solve this problem? One option is to simply drop Master Merchant if Administrate remains the key skill for guild holding actions.

Option 2: Make Profession (Merchant) the key skill for guild holdings (create/rule/contest) - here is a skill that currently is pretty much useless to a guild regent, yet may conceptually best describe the single most important skill any merchant, including a guild regent, would possess. With this option, I'd rewrite Master Merchant to require 9(?) ranks in Profession (Merchant), and have it add +2 to Appraise and Profession (Merchant) skills, and +2 to guild and trade related actions. If it stacks with Great Diplomat for building trade routes, well I can say from experience that those actions dealing with guild holdings are the really important ones, as they're a necessary prerequisite for making trade routes.

QUOTE
Master of the Arcane

Prereq: Int 13+ and 8 ranks in K/Arcana

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to K/Arcana skill and to any domain actions that recieve a potenital synergy bonus from K/Arcana.

-Add +2 bonus to Spellcraft and Research actions, plus is this 8 ranks total, or 8 ranks each? [Athos 69]

Research? Why does an Arcane Master necessarilly need to be a good researcher (consider sorcerers)? Also, giving +2 to the 2 main skills of a wizard (K/Arcana + Spellcraft), PLUS a domain action bonus, tends to overpower the feat. Much like Great Diplomat, I think I'd leave well enough alone on this one, and just give the skill bonus to K/Arcana.

QUOTE
Spymaster

Prereq: Cha 13+ and 8 ranks in Disguise and Gather Info

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Disguise and Gather Info skill and to any domain actions that recieve a potenital synergy bonus from Gather Info.

-I wouldn't use Disguise for this one - the Spymaster is at the center of the intelligence web, receiving reports from all of his operatives. I would tend to go with Knowledge (Regional) or (Local). Plus is this 8 ranks total, or 8 ranks each? [Athos 69]

I like the idea of Knowledge (Regional) as the 2nd skill for Spymaster (along with Gather Info) - makes a lot of sense for running a full-blown spy network. Good call.

**NB: We may want to get confirmation that Chapter 5 will be using the current system for determining domain-level skill bonuses. If there is a shift to include ability, feat and blood modifiers into the total before dividing by 5, we may wish to reduce the domain bonuses for these feats to +1.

Blood modifiers? What are you referring to? Do you mean RP?

That aside, I've rarely found the +2 to a skill added in before calculating synergy bonuses is a big deal. In my campaign I give synergy bonuses equal to +1 per +5 bonus in the key skill for a domain action. This way, regents with strong natural talents (high ability scores for key regent skills) and skill/feat combinations are recognized as more capable rulers based on their actual abilities rather than just ranks in a skill, which represents a much narrower aspect of skill: experience only. And I've definitely liked the results in my game, though if you're concerned about overstacking regent bonuses where things get a little sick is stacking Regent Focus + Master feats...for ruling provinces, another standard that has emerged in my campaign is Regent Focus (Rule Province) + Master Administrator, granting +6 to rule a province before the actual skill synergies are even factored in. It's not so impossible to rule provinces to high levels with those feats factored in, as it once was in the 2e BR game.

The other really powerful feat is Regent Focus: Contest Holding...a regent with a level 10 court can contest up to 6 holdings in a single domain, which means that one feat saves the regent the equivalent of 24 RP, while the defending regent gets no such feat to counter.

To deal with this, I introduced a counter-feat called Regent Focus: Defend Holding, which adds +4 to the DC's of the regent's holdings whenever they are contested. This was meant to represent the ability of some regents to set up holdings that are well-protected from political/financial maneuvering, which seems as reasonable a talent/feat as the other Regent Focus feats, and things definitely are allowed to stay better balanced this way.

tcharazazel

05-03-2004, 11:35 PM

Master Administrator

Prereq: Int 13+ and 9 ranks in Administrate

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Administrate skill and to any domain actions that recieve a potenital synergy bonus from Administrate (such as Rule Province and Rule Holding). The DC for reducing domain maintenance is DC 10 + 1/2 domain maintenance.

Master Diplomat

Regions: Anuire, Brechtur, Khinasi
Prereq: Cha 13+ and 9 ranks in Diplomacy

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Diplomacy skill and to any domain actions that recieve a potenital synergy bonus from Diplomacy (such as Diplomacy, and Create Trade Route).

Master Merchant

Regions: Brechtur, Khinasi
Prereq: Cha 13+, Int 13+ and 9 ranks in Appraise and 9 ranks in P/Merchant

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Appraise and P/Merchant skills and to any domain actions related to trade and finance (such as Create Trade Route, Contest Guild Holding and possibly Rule Guild Holding is appropriate).

Master of the Arcane

Prereq: Int 13+ and 9 ranks in K/Arcana

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to K/Arcana skill and to any domain actions that recieve a potenital synergy bonus from K/Arcana (such as Create Ley Line, Contest Source Holding, and maybe Create/Rule Holding Source, however, it only works if they use K/Arcana to Create or Rule Source Holdings).

Great Leader

Prereq: Cha 13+ and 9 ranks in Lead

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Lead skill and to any domain actions that recieve a potenital synergy bonus from Lead (Agitate, possibly Invest Province and Cornination). If you take the Leadership feat you gain a +2 bonus to your leadership score.

Spymaster

Prereq: Cha 13+ and 9 ranks in Gather Info and 9 ranks in K/Regional

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Gather Info and K/Regional skill and to any domain actions that recieve a potenital synergy bonus from Gather Info (Espionage). Honestly, for a spymaster i think that local may not encompass a large enough area really.

Also a possiblity for those druids source regent types, what about this:

Nature's Servant (as Master of Nature seems a little contrary to the druidic ideas)

Prereq: Wis 13+ and 9 ranks in K/Nature and 9 ranks in Survival

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to K/Nature and Survival skill and to any domain actions that recieve a potenital synergy bonus from K/Nature (Such as Create Ley Line, Contest Source Holding and possibly Rule Source Holding, however, as with Master of the Arcane it only works if they use K/Nature to create or rule ley source holdings).

What do yall think of this now?

Other related subjects then:

1)What about changing the base skill for Invest Province and Cornination to Lead?

2)What about changing the base skill for Rule/Create/Contest Holding to a new skill appropriate to the holding in question. Thus, Guilds would be P/Merchant, and Source would be either K/Arcana or K/Nature (depending on if the Character is an Arcane or Divine spellcaster). As for Law and Temple... hmm those im not so sure about, however, I think that Law is fine as it is with Administrate as most landed regents have Law, while as for Temple maybe Lead or Diplomacy.

3) Regent Focus (Defend Holding) +4 to Defense (DC) vs regents Contesting your holdings.

Any others that I'm missing?

Athos69

05-04-2004, 12:15 AM

QUOTE
**NB: We may want to get confirmation that Chapter 5 will be using the current system for determining domain-level skill bonuses. If there is a shift to include ability, feat and blood modifiers into the total before dividing by 5, we may wish to reduce the domain bonuses for these feats to +1.

Blood modifiers? What are you referring to? Do you mean RP?

I was referring to any modifiers brought about by Blood abilities, such as Divine Aura, which adds +2 to any Charisma-based skill.

tcharazazel

05-04-2004, 12:36 AM

Heh, i forgot to include what my DM uses for determining the total bonus to a domain action. So, it would be skill modifier/5 to determine the skill's bonus to the domain action. Thus, as my DM stated, the character's natural abilities and blood abilities then would be reflected in the character's ability to perform domain actions.

For example then. A 5th lvl noble with and Int of 16, 8 ranks in Administrate and Master Administrator would have a +15 to Administrate, and thus from his skill modifier he would get +3 to Rule Province, however, as he has Master Administrator he would actually have +5 to rule province.

What do you think of this change also?

Athos69

05-04-2004, 12:42 AM

OK, just weighing in now on only a few nit-picking points, since the rest of it looks pretty damn good.

Master of the Arcane: Is this feat allowable as one of a Wizard's bonus feats?

Nature's Servant: Since this is primarily a Knowledge feat, why not call it 'Wilderness Savant'?

Knowledge (Regional) should be added to the list of skills that a Noble receives a +2 bonus to for the Favoured Region ability.

Athos69

05-04-2004, 12:48 AM

Originally posted by tcharazazel@May 3 2004, 05:36 PM
For example then. A 5th lvl noble with and Int of 16, 8 ranks in Administrate and Master Administrator would have a +15 to Administrate, and thus from his skill modifier he would get +3 to Rule Province, however, as he has Master Administrator he would actually have +5 to rule province.

What do you think of this change also?
I support this change, but beware of the fact that DCs will invariably have to be raised somewhat. In order to counter this, we may want to reduce Domain Synergies for the Master feats to +1, to reflect that they are adding to the chance in both the Domain synergy and the additional bonus to the relevant skills.

BTW: minor flaw in your calculations. Admin(8) + Int(+3) + M. Admin(+2) = +13

That would be +2 when divided by 5, then +2 for the feat = +4

tcharazazel

05-04-2004, 12:49 AM

Master of the Arcane: Is this feat allowable as one of a Wizard's bonus feats?

Good question, and id say no as this is more in line with a skill focus feat and no class who gets bonus feats, namely fighters and wizzies, gets skill focus as a bonus feat.

Nature's Servant: Since this is primarily a Knowledge feat, why not call it 'Wilderness Savant'?

Cool with me, i just came up with the name right when i made it, so im not particularly attached to it.

Knowledge (Regional) should be added to the list of skills that a Noble receives a +2 bonus to for the Favoured Region ability.

That makes sense to me also.

BTW: minor flaw in your calculations. Admin(8) + Int(+3) + M. Admin(+2) = +13

That would be +2 when divided by 5, then +2 for the feat = +4

Heheh, thanks was a little distracted when i wrote that.

tcharazazel

05-04-2004, 01:19 AM

With regard to this however,

In order to counter this, we may want to reduce Domain Synergies for the Master feats to +1, to reflect that they are adding to the chance in both the Domain synergy and the additional bonus to the relevant skills.

It really depends on how much you want to limit the growth of Domains... If we say most NPC regents are levels 5-7 then lets take the best example we got for ruling province as its the hardest to do.

Level 7th Human Noble with Int 16, 10 ranks in Administrate, Master Administrator, and Regent Focus (Rule Province), (if you want we could throw in skill focus Administrate however, it wont matter in this example). So total Administrate skill modifier = +15 so +3 to Admin domain actions, with +2 from Master Administrator and +4 from regent focus so a total of +9. Now if he is trying to rule a province to level 6 then its a net DC of 16-9=7. So not too hard for this Administrate and Provincial focused ruler, now for him to get it to level 10 it would be a net DC of 20-9=11 So, about a 50% chance to do so, and for those who want to totaly focus upon ruling the land it would make sense that its easier for them. As a 7th level human noble only has a total of 4 feats, and 2 of them are going into such a specific focus then its fitting they would be so good at it, heh, tho from the look of the map, most regents dont believe its a good idea to totally focus upon ruling up their provinces. With this in mind then they probably wouldnt have Regent Focus (Rule Province) and thus only have +5 to ruling up Provinces and Law holdings for that matter, so for those 2 previous examples the net DCs would be, for level 6 net DC of 16-5=11 and for level 10 a net DC of 20-5=15. This means that it would take about 2 or 3 seasons to successfully rule up the province, or 1 if they are lucky or 4+ if they arent. And have to pay for all those failures...

However, if the PCs focused so much on ruling provinces at this low level they would obviously not be as good at combat, which could be rather deadly to lower level characters who go out adventuring on a regular basis...

Athos69

05-04-2004, 01:44 AM

The above example would only eat 2 of the character's four feats -- hardly crippling in my mind, considering that he would automatically have Leadership and in all likelyhood a 5th level cohort to back him up.

The big point I need to make is that there are roll-players out there who will min/max everythig they can get their hands on, and we need to strike a balance. I understand that this is just such an example, but we need to look at the worst abuses to see where we should draw the line.

Another way of looking at Domain Synergy plus skill bonus is to convert it to a straight skill bonus. +2 domain synergy and +2 to a skill is like giving the character a +12 to the skill. Is this not a bit *too* powerful?

tcharazazel

05-04-2004, 02:18 AM

Well, in year or so playin a landed regent it has helped, however, it hasnt been overpowering. A +2 vs a +1 bonus only really would come into play if the regent were to try to raise a province above level 10 the way my DM has it set up (DC for level above 10 = +2 per level so to raise to level 11 = 10 (base) + 10 (for first 10 levels) + 2 (for level 11) = 22 DC or the easy way to think of it is just multiple the level raised to x2 and to raise it to level 15 would be DC 30, which is totally outa the reach of just about everybody.) Otherwise in those 2 examples i gave the DCs would have been DC 12 to raise to level 6 and DC 16 to raise to level 10, just a 5% difference...

heheh, don't forget that this +12 to skill bonus would only apply to Domain actions of the appropriate type, so its a limited bonus, and really the way to think of it is that a Master at the skill gets a 10% bonus to the domain actions compared to a regular person who gets none.

Heh, otherwise, I only started to focus upon regent feats around level 9 as i was in enough fighting before i became a regent. If I had focused more upon my regent feats earlier I would have been dead many times over, heheh.

Overall, i dont really see the point in changing that +2 bonus to a +1.

Athos69

05-04-2004, 02:28 AM

Fair enough -- As I see it, my job is to look for potential loopholes and abuses of the rules....

Kinda amazing how we've managed to hammer out a good chunk of this in only a few hours... :)

BTW: Any idea who's handling Chapter 5? I'd like to see a loophole plugged up....

tcharazazel

05-04-2004, 02:56 AM

heheh, aye its been fun. Unfortunately, I don't know who is doing Chapter 5, though you could just put a post up to address the issue so they could add it in to their current revision.

Ok, who else thinks these feats are well hammered out?

Raesene Andu

05-04-2004, 04:27 AM

I'm doing Chapter 5, or at least I will be...

irdeggman

05-04-2004, 09:37 AM

Good job folks.

One problem I see though is having a prereq of a set number of ranks in a skill that the feat ends up providing a bonus to. Seems sort of like a vicious spiral type of thing. It feeds on and promotes its own growth. Using Skill Focus as a prereq might be better, in essence allowing the master feats to become an improved skill focus type of thing.

I also see Knowledge (regional) as pretty much allowing the PHB skill of Knowledge (local) to be superceded since it would have broader applications.

Athos69

05-04-2004, 10:00 AM

Hmmmm... so you're proposing that tthe Prereqs be a combination of ability, Skill Focus and Level....

tcharazazel

05-04-2004, 11:11 AM

irdeggman

05-04-2004, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by Athos69@May 4 2004, 05:00 AM
Hmmmm... so you're proposing that tthe Prereqs be a combination of ability, Skill Focus and Level....
I hope you are not referring to my comment since I never made the connection of level.

irdeggman

05-04-2004, 12:11 PM

Heh, well thats a much higher limiter than just needing ranks in the skill, as that would mean for each Master feat they would need a skill focus feat, so that would really force them to specialize even more, so would they be as balanced as they are now then? Heheh, or would they need something to balance them out now?

The only feats I know of that require ranks in skills to get them are epic feats, at least of those I can remember off hand. However, this doesnt meant that non epic feats couldnt require a certain number of ranks in a skill to get them. Especially, onces that are rightly called Master feats.

Because with your system, of just requiring ability and skill focus, they could have 0 ranks in the skill and yet be masters at it... they could even be Masters from level 1 if they are human and take skill focus in the skill and then the Master feat and still have 0 ranks in the skill. This just makes no sense for the idea behind the feat.

Hence, I still believe that requiring a certain number of ranks in the skill be an important factor, certainly more important than just having skill focus in the skill.

Mounted Combat requires 1 rank in Ride skill. That is the only core book feat that has a prerequisite of any ranks in a skill.

Greater Spell Penetration (an improved version of Spell Penetration) is available to a 1st level Human as is Greater Spell Focus. Most of the other Greater feats are structured that the ability score prequisite and/or BAB are such that a 1st level character can't acquire them.

My point was that having a minimum rank prerequisite for a skill that the feat provides a bonus to is a circular argument. Using the Skill Focus feat as a prerequiste (for 2 different feats) would require a character to be at least 3rd level (if human) in order to be eligible and by the very purpose of the Skill Focus feat it makes the character be focused on those aspects. Otherwise those classes with more skill points per level automatically gain a benefit. If requiring the Skill Focus feats as prerequisites then only the Noble class would have a clear benefit from a class standpoint and I think that was one of the issues brought up - that nobles should have an inside track on getting to the Master level feats.

Now people have also brought up that in PBEM games the Master feats are almost considered 'must haves', the characters in PBEM also usually don't take martial or metamagic type of feats since they are almost always Domain level based and not adventuring, so requiring the use of feats in order to get there will help alleviate this problem.

[quote[With regard to K/Regional good to see that you agree, that its better than K/Local for Spymaster.[/quote]

I never said that, I was in fact trying to state the opposite. Creating a Knowledge (regional) wipes out a PHB skill, Knowledge (local) and that doesn't seem very good IMO. A new feat could be made that 'extends' the benefit of Knowledge (local) to a region instead which would be balanced in 3.5 terms.

Don E

05-04-2004, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by tcharazazel@May 4 2004, 12:11 PM
Because with your system, of just requiring ability and skill focus, they could have 0 ranks in the skill and yet be masters at it... they could even be Masters from level 1 if they are human and take skill focus in the skill and then the Master feat and still have 0 ranks in the skill. This just makes no sense for the idea behind the feat.

Hence, I still believe that requiring a certain number of ranks in the skill be an important factor, certainly more important than just having skill focus in the skill.

Conseptually I see nothing wrong with a character having the Skill Focus feat but only a few ranks in the relevant skill. While traditionally most feats are viewed as abilities or techniques learned, I tend to see skill enhancing feats as more of a natural talent of the character. Hence a character with skill focus, and potential a master feat or greater skill foucs, but with few ranks simply possess an untapped potential in the relecant skill.

On a more fundamental level I am still undecided on the issue of feats with a domain level effect. This topis has probably been discussed before, but please bear with me. I know feats are a new game mechanic in in 3e, but there was very few ways in which the character's own skill had any effect on the domain level of play in 2e BR. For me the jury is still out on whether this is good or bad. My primary concern is that the stacking of bonuses from skills and one or more feats could potentially have an unbalancing effect on the game. I think we have all seen how incredibly popular this feats have become in the game, and especially so in PBeMs.

My main fear at the moment is on the issue of magic items. In my (rather vague) memory there are few published magica items that give any bonus on the domain level of play, and I think all of these are artifacts or relics. With the new domain bonus feats it would become scarily easy for even minor magic items to give huge (and potentially severely unbalancing) bonuses on domain actions. What I see as a potential danger is every wizard worth his salt creating some magic item, even before starting to aquire sources, granting him the Master Arcanist, Regent Focus (Rule Source) and Regent Focus (Contest Source). While I am sure most DMs would try limit this kind of behaviour, the can of worms would be open and the potential for abuse quite significant.

Personally I think it might be safer (but perhaps less fun) to simply stick with the current skill enhancing feats and to only give a bonus on domain actions related to the skill total of the character. Each action could have one or two skill associated with them, and the total divided by five or ten respectively would give the relevant bonus on the domain action. That is of course only if one really wants character level play to have a direct influence on the domain level of play.

Another problem with the current feats, and especially the Regent Focus ones, is that the open up for characters of various classes becoming very proficient in actions not really realted to their core concept. Who want the ruthless warlord to be as able as the master guilder in affairs of commerce? Relating domain bonuses to skill total limits this problem considerably.

Thanks for you patience and attention.
Cheers,
E

Osprey

05-04-2004, 03:59 PM

One problem I see though is having a prereq of a set number of ranks in a skill that the feat ends up providing a bonus to. Seems sort of like a vicious spiral type of thing. It feeds on and promotes its own growth. Using Skill Focus as a prereq might be better, in essence allowing the master feats to become an improved skill focus type of thing.

Isn't this exactly how real-life specialties work, though? You have to have a clue before you can "master" a skill, correct? In fact, you had better be pretty darn competent...

I think the reason for requiring ranks is one I argued a while back...it simply makes sense. More sense than the lack of requirements for skill-based feats in the 3.5 PHB to be perfectly honest. Why sink to the lowest common denominator on this one?

Irdeggman, step away from the 3.5 core rules, briefly, and examine the feats for a sense of internal consistency and logic; then compare them to the BR setting, and ask how well they fit/balance there; THEN see how well they agree with 3.5 or not.

Personally, I don't see any problem with the way they've been written out, though I'd say 9 ranks in one main skill per feat is sufficient for a requirement.

These aren't like any PHB feats anyways. They are very distinctly their own set of regent feats specific to the BR world. Which means they can have their own requirements and their own set of rules. We don't have to ape WOTC at every turn.

Knowledge (local) is the most useless skill for 99% of PC's as ever met the PHB. Knowledge (Regional) should replace it, even to the extent of granting the +2 synergy bonus to Gather Information in that region...nobody has enough skill points to get K/Local in more than one place, yet guild regents in the BR world would certainly be experts in more than one province or town. While K/Local might be fine for NPC "locals", it's way too narrow for regents and travelling adventurers, not to mention spymasters...

tcharazazel

05-04-2004, 04:00 PM

My point was that having a minimum rank prerequisite for a skill that the feat provides a bonus to is a circular argument. Using the Skill Focus feat as a prerequiste (for 2 different feats) would require a character to be at least 3rd level (if human) in order to be eligible and by the very purpose of the Skill Focus feat it makes the character be focused on those aspects. Otherwise those classes with more skill points per level automatically gain a benefit. If requiring the Skill Focus feats as prerequisites then only the Noble class would have a clear benefit from a class standpoint and I think that was one of the issues brought up - that nobles should have an inside track on getting to the Master level feats.

I guess I'm missing how its a circular argument to require 9 ranks in a skill to get a Master feat.. so to break it down sentence by sentence.

2) Actually if you have humans getting a bonus feat (for being human as per the PHB) then if the only requirement is to get the skill focus feat, they can get the Master feat at 1st level, and still have 0 ranks in the skill. Just because you get skill focus, doesnt mean that you are totally focused upon the skill because unlike epic skill focus, skill focus doesnt require any ranks.

3)Actually having it be 9 ranks in the relevant skill would limit those people who have those skills as class skills, instead of any class, like Don E pointed out a Warlord could be a Master Merchant just as easily as the Guilder. True for those clases who get less skill points they would have to decide to spend them on the relevent skills otherwise... they would not be able to get the Master feats. This would also promote Nobles to being the most dominant ruling class as they have all of the required Master skills as class skills, which makes sense doesnt it?

4) So actually, as noted jsut above Nobles do have the inside track currently as they have all the required Master skills as class skills, and they also have the skill points to keep at least some of them up. And Actually, as also mentioned above, with your current system of only requiring skill focus, it does not give nobles the inside track at all, it gives anybody who is human or if not human, to be able to get the Master feats at either 1st or 3rd level no matter what class they are.

Ok, so after breaking down what you said, im still not folllwong how the idea of requiring ranks is a circular argument... mayb you could elaborate a little more?

My main fear at the moment is on the issue of magic items. In my (rather vague) memory there are few published magica items that give any bonus on the domain level of play, and I think all of these are artifacts or relics. With the new domain bonus feats it would become scarily easy for even minor magic items to give huge (and potentially severely unbalancing) bonuses on domain actions. What I see as a potential danger is every wizard worth his salt creating some magic item, even before starting to aquire sources, granting him the Master Arcanist, Regent Focus (Rule Source) and Regent Focus (Contest Source). While I am sure most DMs would try limit this kind of behaviour, the can of worms would be open and the potential for abuse quite significant.

Yeah, this is something that is up to the DM, as normally BR is considered a low magic world with regard to having very very few magic items. Even without adding Master of the Arcane feat to those 2 regent focus feats would make it a very potent item. Heh, may add Regent Focus (Create Source) and Regent Focus (Create Ley Line) to the list also. Though looking at the 3.5 DMG, on Table 7-33 pg 285, it doesnt really offer a price to add a feat to an item. So, the DM could easily rule that it cant be made until maybe a Academy of Magic wonder is created and hes paying for it, or never heheh.

Personally I think it might be safer (but perhaps less fun) to simply stick with the current skill enhancing feats and to only give a bonus on domain actions related to the skill total of the character. Each action could have one or two skill associated with them, and the total divided by five or ten respectively would give the relevant bonus on the domain action. That is of course only if one really wants character level play to have a direct influence on the domain level of play.

Currently, the bonus to a domain action from the relevent skill is from ranks in that skill, So it is solely dependent upon character level, and if that skill is a class skill. The proposed change was to allow lower level characters with good natural talent and/or skill focus to be better at it sooner. (skill modifier/5 = bonus to domain action) The MAster feats just help the characters to build up their realms a little easier 10% to be exact, so its not an over powering type of feat really, and after playtesting it for a while now it really only comes into play occasionally, cause you either have a good chance at making the roll or you dont most of the time.

Osprey

05-04-2004, 04:11 PM

A Note on Domain Action DC's (this will be posted in Ch. 5 section, too):

Was it really necessary in the BRCS to lower DC's by one from their 2e origins?

IMC, for Rule Province or Holding I use DC 10 + target level of province/holding, which you might have noticed reading tcharazazel's examples ( I think he forgot that I even changed that ;) ).

In BRCS it was DC 10 + current level of province or holding.

To be blunt, I think my system's better: this way, it's 1 DC harder for every action, which answer's Athos69's concern about the +1/+2 bonus on Master Feats...there's where the extra +1 gets sucked up. :)

Also, it keeps ruling to higher levels just a tad harder, which is necessary when allowing +1 per +5 skill.

Finally, it makes a distinction between the Create Holding DC (10) and Ruling a Holding to level 1 (DC 11 now, was DC 10 in BRCS).

Raesene, a question: If Create Holding is so resource intensive that it cannot be done as a Realm Action, why is it one of the easiest Domain Actions in the game at DC 10? Whereas Ruling Holdings is more difficult, yet it's no problem to do up to 6 a month with a sufficient court?

tcharazazel

05-04-2004, 04:21 PM

Lol, yeah, i totally forgot about that, as you changed it so long ago...

Osprey

05-04-2004, 04:39 PM

My main fear at the moment is on the issue of magic items. In my (rather vague) memory there are few published magica items that give any bonus on the domain level of play, and I think all of these are artifacts or relics. With the new domain bonus feats it would become scarily easy for even minor magic items to give huge (and potentially severely unbalancing) bonuses on domain actions. What I see as a potential danger is every wizard worth his salt creating some magic item, even before starting to aquire sources, granting him the Master Arcanist, Regent Focus (Rule Source) and Regent Focus (Contest Source). While I am sure most DMs would try limit this kind of behaviour, the can of worms would be open and the potential for abuse quite significant.

Well, Tcharazazel mentioned the one limiter: feats don't normally get granted by magic items, with a few exceptions (Mighty Cleaving on weapons and intelligent items).

Limiter 2: when you publish the revised BRCS, simply don't list any magic items with domain action bonuses. OR...

#3: Assign very high GP values to such items, or even better, make them Artifacts, such that the only types of domain-enhancing items are skill-enhancing items (like a Tome of Finance for Administrate), which will then only add +1 per +5 skill bonus to domain actions. Nothing huge there, right? A +1 or 2 domain bonus from a magic item shouldn't be a severe unbalancer, and it should require a constant kind of bonus (rather than #of uses per day), as domain actions are month-long actions.

Osprey

irdeggman

05-04-2004, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Osprey@May 4 2004, 10:59 AM

Knowledge (local) is the most useless skill for 99% of PC's as ever met the PHB. Knowledge (Regional) should replace it, even to the extent of granting the +2 synergy bonus to Gather Information in that region...nobody has enough skill points to get K/Local in more than one place, yet guild regents in the BR world would certainly be experts in more than one province or town. While K/Local might be fine for NPC "locals", it's way too narrow for regents and travelling adventurers, not to mention spymasters...
How 'big' is the region? Is it the Southern Coast? Anuire? A single Province?

Should knowledge (region) let the character have the same benefit for the Imperial City as for Avanil? The Imperial City, IMO, is so large and distinctive that it should be its own region. Things run differently there than anywhere else. Knowledge (local) which is what is being replaced here - gives bonuses to Gather Information checks based on knowing local laws, customs, personalities, etc. Laws and customs change drastically between places. Again using the Imperial City as an a example - the laws and customs there are greatly different than those just outside the city. It is specifically its own place (like the Vatican inside Rome).

What exactly a region is needs to be defined for this skill. For while all of Anuire has similar cultural tendencies (ala background skills and feats) each province has its own set of personalities, laws and customs. It is this last information that is being used for the bonuses to Gather Information (or Espionage as the domain action in question).

Athos69

05-04-2004, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by irdeggman+May 4 2004, 04:48 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (irdeggman @ May 4 2004, 04:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Athos69@May 4 2004, 05:00 AM
Hmmmm... so you're proposing that the Prereqs be a combination of ability, Skill Focus and Level....
I hope you are not referring to my comment since I never made the connection of level. [/b][/quote]
Actually, yes. You see, we don't want Level 1 or level 3 Master anythings, do we? If we nix the rank prerequisite, we have no control save character level.

tcharazazel

05-04-2004, 06:45 PM

How 'big' is the region? Is it the Southern Coast? Anuire? A single Province?

It's for each cultural sub region, such as Southern Coast, Heartlands, Western Coast, ect.

Athos69

05-04-2004, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by irdeggman@May 4 2004, 11:02 AM
How 'big' is the region? Is it the Southern Coast? Anuire? A single Province?

Should knowledge (region) let the character have the same benefit for the Imperial City as for Avanil? The Imperial City, IMO, is so large and distinctive that it should be its own region. Things run differently there than anywhere else. Knowledge (local) which is what is being replaced here - gives bonuses to Gather Information checks based on knowing local laws, customs, personalities, etc. Laws and customs change drastically between places. Again using the Imperial City as an a example - the laws and customs there are greatly different than those just outside the city. It is specifically its own place (like the Vatican inside Rome).

What exactly a region is needs to be defined for this skill. For while all of Anuire has similar cultural tendencies (ala background skills and feats) each province has its own set of personalities, laws and customs. It is this last information that is being used for the bonuses to Gather Information (or Espionage as the domain action in question).
I've always seen the difference between Local and Regional to be purely a matter of scale. A very good example would be a bard with K/Local.

He knows what's going on in every thorp and hamlet in the province, who's shagging the mayor's daughter in the dead of night in the barn (probably him, but I digress), how many calves farmer Brown had last season, who bakes the best bread and local legends of an ancient army's graveyard, now covered by the trees over yonder.

He would not likely know the political currents that flow through and subtly change the province, whispers of potential war with the Kingdom's neighbour, that a new overseer to the King's tax collectors has been appointed recently and he has an addiction to expensive artwork, nor woud he know that the temple that spans three kingdoms takes a dim view of it.

Conversely, a noble with K/Regional wouldn't give a damn about such 'provincial' matters that our bard knows. He'd be concerned with the larger scale of things.

To directly answer your question, Local should be a single province. The Imperial City would be the focus of a Local skill. The Heartlands would be an example of a Regional skill. I would also have to postulate that if you have ranks in a Local skill, and 5 or more ranks in the Region that it is in, you should get a synergy bonus to the Local Skill, but not the oter way around.

Don E

05-04-2004, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by tcharazazel@May 4 2004, 05:00 PM

My main fear at the moment is on the issue of magic items. <snip> While I am sure most DMs would try limit this kind of behaviour, the can of worms would be open and the potential for abuse quite significant.

Yeah, this is something that is up to the DM, as normally BR is considered a low magic world with regard to having very very few magic items. Even without adding Master of the Arcane feat to those 2 regent focus feats would make it a very potent item. Heh, may add Regent Focus (Create Source) and Regent Focus (Create Ley Line) to the list also. Though looking at the 3.5 DMG, on Table 7-33 pg 285, it doesnt really offer a price to add a feat to an item. So, the DM could easily rule that it cant be made until maybe a Academy of Magic wonder is created and hes paying for it, or never heheh.

I know there is no prescribed cost to magic items given in the table in teh DMG. This is of little hindrance to any remotely well read player, most of which can come up with a number of magic items granting bonus feats. All of these do so at a very reasonable cost, creating a potential balance (and inconsistency with 2e if one actually worries about such things).

While the DM is of course free to limit whatever he wants, your suggestions starts the annoying trend of arbitrarily setting restrictions on various rules. If there is one thing players don't like it is arbitrary restrictions thats comes about as a result of the rules possibly being (oooh dangerous word :P ) unbalanced.

Personally I think it might be safer (but perhaps less fun) to simply stick with the current skill enhancing feats and to only give a bonus on domain actions related to the skill total of the character. Each action could have one or two skill associated with them, and the total divided by five or ten respectively would give the relevant bonus on the domain action. That is of course only if one really wants character level play to have a direct influence on the domain level of play.

Currently, the bonus to a domain action from the relevent skill is from ranks in that skill, So it is solely dependent upon character level, and if that skill is a class skill. The proposed change was to allow lower level characters with good natural talent and/or skill focus to be better at it sooner. (skill modifier/5 = bonus to domain action) The MAster feats just help the characters to build up their realms a little easier 10% to be exact, so its not an over powering type of feat really, and after playtesting it for a while now it really only comes into play occasionally, cause you either have a good chance at making the roll or you dont most of the time.

In my experience a +2 bonus to domain actions is very significant. Not only is this based on personal esperience, but the number of players choosing such feats gives an indication how much more powerful such a feat is than Thoughness. Especially with Regent Focus giving a +4 bonus it becomes quite significant.

Changing the system to skill modifier/5 eliminates the requirement to create new feats, as any feat giving a bonus to a skill will contribute to some extent. Simplifies the feat section, prevents abuse in magic items and eliminates the problem with PBeM charaters only choosing feats that have a purley domain related benefit.

For the observant readers there is one modification that has to be introduced to prevent this system from becoming abused in a similar way to what I have described above. Personally I do not see this as a big problem as the loophole is a problem to the game as a whole and should be adressed in the magic chapter.

Cheers,
E

irdeggman

05-04-2004, 08:56 PM

QUOTE
One problem I see though is having a prereq of a set number of ranks in a skill that the feat ends up providing a bonus to. Seems sort of like a vicious spiral type of thing. It feeds on and promotes its own growth. Using Skill Focus as a prereq might be better, in essence allowing the master feats to become an improved skill focus type of thing.

Isn't this exactly how real-life specialties work, though? You have to have a clue before you can "master" a skill, correct? In fact, you had better be pretty darn competent...

So in order to gain a paltry +2 bonus to 2 skills you have to have 9 ranks in each? That means that you are already an "master" by anyone's standards. THe benefit is kind of anti-clamatic to the prerequisites. Having a clue doesn't make you have a large amount of ranks in a skill.

I think the reason for requiring ranks is one I argued a while back...it simply makes sense. More sense than the lack of requirements for skill-based feats in the 3.5 PHB to be perfectly honest. Why sink to the lowest common denominator on this one?

This is not the way to incorporate problems that people have with the core rules. I can simply argue the opposite - why change the core rules when they work fine? The way feats have prerequisites structured in the core rules is very balanced and after they reworked the feats in 3.5 the feats themselves are pretty well balanced with other too.

Irdeggman, step away from the 3.5 core rules, briefly, and examine the feats for a sense of internal consistency and logic; then compare them to the BR setting, and ask how well they fit/balance there; THEN see how well they agree with 3.5 or not.

I'd say to do just the opposite and step back into 3.5 instead of trying to rationalize a set of house rules that you and tcharazazel have been playing with for a year. When someone has been using house-rules for so long they tend to become ingrained into one's psyche and become part of their base line instead of reverting back to the source document to find out why or where the 'logical' next step should be taken from the core rules.

These aren't like any PHB feats anyways. They are very distinctly their own set of regent feats specific to the BR world. Which means they can have their own requirements and their own set of rules. We don't have to ape WOTC at every turn.

Now here is the real crux of the matter I think. The domain system in BR was the absolute closest thing in BR, or any 2nd ed AD&D setting, to being a true d20 system. Hence the application of new rules to that system should logically follow the d20 approach and not try to muck up the way that WotC has advanced to parallel BR.

irdeggman

05-04-2004, 09:06 PM

Re magic items. I would assume that pretty much all of the listed BR specific magic items are the same ones that are listed in Chap 8 (current version) it has all of the listed artifacts from the BR sources that we could find.

Pretty much the only changes to that section will be to make sure that it is in line with 3.5 - I don't think that much has changed that will affect them though. I am adding tighmaevril as a special material vice an enchantment. And probably changing the low magic variant from 30% increase in cost to double the list price as mentioned in the Complete Warrior.

Osprey

05-04-2004, 09:35 PM

To directly answer your question, Local should be a single province. The Imperial City would be the focus of a Local skill. The Heartlands would be an example of a Regional skill. I would also have to postulate that if you have ranks in a Local skill, and 5 or more ranks in the Region that it is in, you should get a synergy bonus to the Local Skill, but not the oter way around.

I agree completely. And I would add this:

Knowledge: Regional adds a +2 synergy bonus to gather Information in the region.
Knowledge: Local adds a +2 synergy bonus to gather Information in the province.

A character who has 5 ranks in both, and is in the appropriate (Local) province would get a total +4 synergy bonus on Gather Information there.

This would (finally) make the K/Local skill worth having for those who are extremely concerned witht he goings on in a province: a regent's capital, or the Imperial City, being the 2 most likely choices for a PC in Anuire.

Osprey

05-04-2004, 10:07 PM

So in order to gain a paltry +2 bonus to 2 skills you have to have 9 ranks in each? That means that you are already an "master" by anyone's standards. THe benefit is kind of anti-clamatic to the prerequisites. Having a clue doesn't make you have a large amount of ranks in a skill.

The real benefit of Master-class skills is the domain action bonus...the skill bonuses are icing on the cake.

Also: according to the BRCS Ply Trade action (p. 104), a "master" is someone with +10 or better in a skill, a Grandmaster has +15 or better. 9 ranks is pretty close to +10...0 ranks is a far cry from that, even 4 ranks as a 1st level character with the class skill is well below this.

Finally, I don't see the acquisition of a Master feat as at all anticlimatic. Quite the opposite, I see it as the crowning specialty feat that elevates soemone with master potential (9+ ranks) to the ranks of the great masters...especially as regents go.

And if you've ever played a regent character getting a feat like Master Administrator, you'd probably agree that it is a great leap forward in measuring your skills and competence as a regent.

I'd say to do just the opposite and step back into 3.5 instead of trying to rationalize a set of house rules that you and tcharazazel have been playing with for a year. When someone has been using house-rules for so long they tend to become ingrained into one's psyche and become part of their base line instead of reverting back to the source document to find out why or where the 'logical' next step should be taken from the core rules.

The "source document" for me is and will remain the original 2e Birthright setting. The next step from that is the BRCS document, based on 3rd edition conversions and some new rules/ideas. Finally, there are the WOTC changes made to 3.5 from 3.0, which are for the most part pretty good though I have my personal disagreements in parts (like massive downgrading of magic), but to be honest I've left most of those issues out of my posts and suggestions. Most of my pet peeves about D&D that get brought up are true for 3.0 and 3.5.

As for what I've been playing, I've been doing exactly what anyone playtesting the BRCS should be doing: playtesting the BRCS as it was written, then making modifications where they seemed appropriate and playtesting those revisions to see if they really are good changes to make. The things I've been advocating are those changes that proved to be good ones, which I believe is exactly the job of a playtester. Rather than sitting around and simply criticizing what's wrong with it, I've been doing my best to look for and test revisions and improvements, so that the revised 3.5 BRCS doesn't need to be yet another playtest document, but a finished product. I am well aware of the tendency of house rules to become baseline, which is why I've been very specific in advocating those variations as revisions, and giving the reasons for why those changes were made, rather than assuming they are already part of the core rules. But sometimes those revisions must be made in groups to keep internal balance, such as raising DC's of domain
actions in order to balance the added-in bonuses from counting skill bonuses rather than ranks.

All of that said, the actual changes from 3.0 to 3.5 are rather minor in comparison, and as such I consider that aspect of the revision to be a relatively minor aspect of the project. Making 3.5 Birthright a variant of 3.5 Greyhawk, with domain actions and bloodlines added in, strikes me as being far less important than making a Birthright setting that is simply compatible with the core rules yet is an excellent D20 product in and of itself. And the excellence will come from a combination of creativity, good writing, internal balance and consistency, and sufficient (not necessarily complete) compatibility with the 3.5 core rules.

Osprey

tcharazazel

05-04-2004, 11:16 PM

I know there is no prescribed cost to magic items given in the table in teh DMG. This is of little hindrance to any remotely well read player, most of which can come up with a number of magic items granting bonus feats. All of these do so at a very reasonable cost, creating a potential balance (and inconsistency with 2e if one actually worries about such things).

While the DM is of course free to limit whatever he wants, your suggestions starts the annoying trend of arbitrarily setting restrictions on various rules. If there is one thing players don't like it is arbitrary restrictions thats comes about as a result of the rules possibly being (oooh dangerous word* ) unbalanced.

Well Don E, it seems that you missed what Osprey said conserning the magic items that offer feats, only inteligent magic items and the mighty cleave weapon (which in fact is not a feat as it requires the person have the feat cleave and it only adds 1 more cleave attempt, so its not like Great Cleave then and thus its not offering a feat)

After even a quick scan of the items even inteligent items dont get feats in 3.5, so that leaves you with 0 examples of magic items that have feats.

So, if its not even an example in the 3.5 magic item lists, how are you going to argue for it being in a world with very few magic items! Cause you seem to have ignored the first sentence of the arguement that BR is a Low Magic world, this means very few magic items, so its not arbitrary for the DM to say No to PCs creating items that grant feats. In Fact its totally justified, and should be expected.

Osprey

05-04-2004, 11:30 PM

In my experience a +2 bonus to domain actions is very significant. Not only is this based on personal esperience, but the number of players choosing such feats gives an indication how much more powerful such a feat is than Thoughness. Especially with Regent Focus giving a +4 bonus it becomes quite significant.

Changing the system to skill modifier/5 eliminates the requirement to create new feats, as any feat giving a bonus to a skill will contribute to some extent. Simplifies the feat section, prevents abuse in magic items and eliminates the problem with PBeM charaters only choosing feats that have a purley domain related benefit.

I have several responses to this:

1st the PBeM's aren't the best basis for designing the revised BRCS. Birthright is a tabletop RPG first and foremost. While it would be nice to have it be PBeM-friendly, I really think the work of adapting it to PBeM should be on those DMs' shoulders rather than the BRCS team's.

As I see it, Toughness in a PBeM is rather useless compared to domain-related feats, because
A. Toughness is a pretty crappy feat in general, and
B. PBeM's, as I understand it, are heavily domain-based rather than balanced between action/adventure and domain scale, correct? So naturally a PBeM player will want the feat most advantageous for their character. Always expect power-gaming when designing an RPG, even if you (as a DM) don't encourage it.

2nd: Simplifying the feat section isn't necesarily desirable - new BR-specific feats help distinguish the setting from Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, or any other campaign setting.

3rd: Granting only a +2 or +3 to a skill means feats are pitiful contributors to domain actions - which is entirely subjective as to whether or not this is desirable.
Most players and DM's I've played with or talked to seem to like feats granting domain bonuses. This is in contrast to your proposal, which has severe built-in limitations. This means provinces won't grow much, and Regency will become even more dominant than it already is. For example: in the BRCS system, an extremely skilled regent with the right feats, even with a weaker bloodline, has a chance to be the underdog when pitting herself against a regent with a stronger bloodline, which lends itself to the heroic setting rather than a purely bloodline-dominated world. I definitely prefer those minor scions to have a chance for greatness, and clever politicking combined with great skill should, IMO, be able to accomplish this.

4th there's no limit on skill bonuses from magic items, so while the Master feats only add +2 to the domain action, an item with a +20 to skill would add +4 to it.

5th: I searched through the 3.5 list of magic items, and realized that now even intelligent items don't grant feats. Which means there is absolutely no precedence in the core books for bonus feats from magic items. Which also means that every DM has a very strong argument for not allowing such items in the game, regardless of how much players may like the idea. Now as to whether or not they allow items that grant bonuses to domain actions directly is a whole different story - these are the kinds of items I would prefer to see relegated to either artifact/relic status, or just really expensive and thus out of reach of all but the most powerful PC's or NPC's.

Athos69

05-04-2004, 11:54 PM

Originally posted by Osprey@May 4 2004, 02:35 PM

To directly answer your question, Local should be a single province. The Imperial City would be the focus of a Local skill. The Heartlands would be an example of a Regional skill. I would also have to postulate that if you have ranks in a Local skill, and 5 or more ranks in the Region that it is in, you should get a synergy bonus to the Local Skill, but not the oter way around.

I agree completely. And I would add this:

Knowledge: Regional adds a +2 synergy bonus to gather Information in the region.
Knowledge: Local adds a +2 synergy bonus to gather Information in the province.

A character who has 5 ranks in both, and is in the appropriate (Local) province would get a total +4 synergy bonus on Gather Information there.
So to summarize...

Knowledge (Regional): Applies to a large cultural area, such as the Southern Coast, the Heartlands or the Western Marches. 5 or more ranks in Knowledge (Regional) bestows a +2 synergy bonus to both Knowledge (Local) if it is within the region and to Gather Information within the region.

Knowledge (Local): Applies to a single specific province, such as the Imperial City, Ilien, Abbatuor or Brosien. 5 or more ranks in Knowledge (Local) bestows a +2 synergy bonus to Gather Information checks within the province in question.

The synergy bonuses from Knowledge (Regional) and Knowledge (Local) to Gather Information stack if the province in question is within the region.

Don E

05-05-2004, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by Osprey@May 5 2004, 12:30 AM
1st the PBeM's aren't the best basis for designing the revised BRCS. Birthright is a tabletop RPG first and foremost. While it would be nice to have it be PBeM-friendly, I really think the work of adapting it to PBeM should be on those DMs' shoulders rather than the BRCS team's.

The use of PBeM was perhaps a bad choice in this case. Saying domain centred play would be more appropriate. One of my main problems with feats that are only usable in one spehere of the game and not the other, while not perhaps the worst issue for players in a consistent campaign, is the various NPCs out there. If one gives an NPC regent described as a brillinat diplomat the relevant feats to give him bonus on domain actions he will end up rather mediocre on the character play level, and vice versa.

2nd: Simplifying the feat section isn't necesarily desirable - new BR-specific feats help distinguish the setting from Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, or any other campaign setting.

So we are now down the slippery slope of trying to come up with differences rather than similarities to try distiguish BR from other worlds? I don't think this is the way to go if one of the goals is to make it user friendly and attract new gamers.

3rd: Granting only a +2 or +3 to a skill means feats are pitiful contributors to domain actions - which is entirely subjective as to whether or not this is desirable.
Most players and DM's I've played with or talked to seem to like feats granting domain bonuses. This is in contrast to your proposal, which has severe built-in limitations. This means provinces won't grow much, and Regency will become even more dominant than it already is. For example: in the BRCS system, an extremely skilled regent with the right feats, even with a weaker bloodline, has a chance to be the underdog when pitting herself against a regent with a stronger bloodline, which lends itself to the heroic setting rather than a purely bloodline-dominated world. I definitely prefer those minor scions to have a chance for greatness, and clever politicking combined with great skill should, IMO, be able to accomplish this.

I disagree with you here. My experience from playing 2e was that ruling provinces were far too easy, and most DMs included some mechanism to stem the sudden boom of 7+ provinces sprouting up everywhere. +2 or +3 is not a pitiful bonus if one has a balance between as you mentioned before. If one goes with the Regent Focus feat the character would not be very skilled, he would just be maxed out to perform as specific domain action without having any more to show of actual skills that the average Joe down in the tavern.

4th there's no limit on skill bonuses from magic items, so while the Master feats only add +2 to the domain action, an item with a +20 to skill would add +4 to it.

The skill bonus from magic items have always been a problem for me when playing the new versions of DnD. Due to the pathetically low cost for creating such items magic users tends to start spewing out overpowering items. "Alertness feat? Far too expensive! I'll just throw together this helmet with +10 to both Spot and Listen, andd I'll slap on some extra points for Spellcraft just to make it more useful to my character." Saying arbitrarily no to such items just doesn't make anybody happy, and I don't even want to myself.

This is more relevant for the magic chapter, but whever I play a campaign that focuses more on skill use than combat, this problem keeps returning. Especially in BR with a significant amount of resources floating around at the wizards disposal some house is needed. I would suggest as an alternative rule along wiwth the others that the cost for skill bonuses be increased to (bonus squared x 200).

5th: I searched through the 3.5 list of magic items, and realized that now even intelligent items don't grant feats. Which means there is absolutely no precedence in the core books for bonus feats from magic items. Which also means that every DM has a very strong argument for not allowing such items in the game, regardless of how much players may like the idea. Now as to whether or not they allow items that grant bonuses to domain actions directly is a whole different story - these are the kinds of items I would prefer to see relegated to either artifact/relic status, or just really expensive and thus out of reach of all but the most powerful PC's or NPC's.

Alertness feat from Ioun Stone, various arrow deflection/snatching items and golem creation feat. Based on both 3e and the few feats items in 3.5e it appears the cost for a feat is around 10000gp. A significant amount, but not overwhleming for a wizard in search for that extra little edge.

Cheers,
E

irdeggman

05-05-2004, 03:18 PM

Osprey,
I want to apologize if I may have seemed to get personally insulting towards you here. I have found you to be very even minded and polite so I want to make sure you understand that before I start to tear you up. . . .just kidding.

I had wanted to shake things up a bit and cement the logic behind what was being proposed, perhaps get people to look outside of what they may have preconceived.

It is possible to add a level prerequisite to a feat with precedence (specialization - 4th level fighter, Leadership - 6th level character, any of the item creation feats caster level X). So if part of the logic for using skill ranks was to prevent low level characters from getting the 'master' level feats there is an existing, fairly commonly used mechanic in place to accommodate it.

tcharazazel has kept insisting that a first level character could gain the master level feats if only skill focus feat were required.

There are 3 (in the recent proposal) that have only a single skill prerequisite (Master Administrator, Master Diplomat and Great Leader) while there are 4 with 2 (Master Merchant, Master Arcane, Master Spymaster and Nature’s Servant).

The ones with 2 skills as prerequisite are impossible to gain at 1st level. A human gains 2 feats at first level (one for character level and one for being a human) so that would be the 2 skill focus feats and he wouldn’t be able to gain master feat until at least 3rd level.

Now the ones with a single skill prerequisite are different in more ways than one. These 3 could quite easily be the 3 most powerful and useful of the master level feats. So something needs to be done to them regardless for balance. They have fewer prerequisites than the other less powerful feats as currently proposed.

The current skill rank prerequisites would have either a 6th level character prerequisite (if all class skills) or a 15th if they are not.

What is the desired character level for these feats? It would be far easier to just make it a character level prerequisite if that is desired. In 2nd ed the average level of a major BR NPC regent was less than 15 (somewhere around 9-12th level) so even they would not have been eligible for these feats.

Feats are worth their weight in GB, far more valuable than skill points since characters gain them less frequently. Requiring a character to spend his precious few feats in lieu of skill points requires a much more dedicated focus for the character than does expending skill points. By expending feats the character is giving up other options for character development, spellcasters give up the divine feats, item creation or metamagic feats. True wizards still get their bonus feats that can be used for metamagic and item creation feats, but they can’t be used for anything else – same with fighters and their fighter feats.

One of the reasons that the epic feats have skill rank prerequisites is that the ranks mean something else. For example the number of epic spells castable per day is equal to the ranks in Knowledge (applicable one) divided by 10. So a high number of ranks as a prerequisite for epic feats makes a lot of sense since it serves another purpose too.

As far as the tabletop versus PBEM controversy, well this really comes down to the method of play. There is a large number of people who play primarily domain-based games (e.g., PBEM like if not actually PBEM) and another faction that plays primarily adventure based games. One of the design concepts of the BRCS was for a baseline of roughly equal amount of time in both with the idea that local changes could be more easily made to adapt to the style of play being used. So looking at things from a PBEM (i.e., domain-based) viewpoint is really a must for anything that is proposed. The question to ask is will this work for both systems and if not how much change would be required to adapt or ignore it?

For adventure based games these feats are pretty much useless and those that play them can just as easily ignore them as they see fit. For domain-level based games these types of feats are their bread and butter while the players will ignore the adventure level focused feats and use these instead.

Osprey

05-05-2004, 04:25 PM

Irdeggman,

I actually proposed reducing the master feat prerequisites to one skill per feat so that they would be more standardized and even. Here's the way I would go with those 4 that were requiring 2 skills:

Master Merchant: Requires 9+ ranks in Profession (Merchant).

Spymaster: Requires 9+ ranks in Gather Information.

Master of the Arcane: Requires 9+ ranks in K/Arcana.

Nature’s Servant: Requires 9+ ranks in K/Nature.

This reduces each feat's requirements to its key skill, allowing that the secondary skill bonus is just that: secondary. It also focuses on which skill is really primary in the domain action affected by the feat.

As for level requirements, well: there's a strong thematic reason for requiring skill ranks rather than levels, but requiring levels has a much weaker argument behind it, and feels much more arbitrary IMO.

As to which is easier, well: one is just as easy as the other when you're the writer, isn't it? It's no "harder" to deviate from the 3.5 precedents than it is to write anything else, and so far I've heard no objections besides Irdeggman's at daring to be deviant in this way. Personally, I consider it an improvement to require skill ranks for these feats, as it simply makes sense for reasons already stated (as in a character should already demonstrate a degree of mastery to be eligible for the feat).

I also think required skills narrow down who is eligible in a fair way: if those skills are class skills, then 6th level is the earliest they can get those feats, which I'd say is fine. If they're cross-class skills, well, why should the 6th level wizard be eligible for Master Administrator anyways? Again, it just makes sense that those who are qualified are eligible long before those who are not, rather than saying anyone who has a given amount of xp qualifies (the level requirement).

As feats are incredibly valuable, this is why I didn't favor requiring Skill Focus as a requirement, as it makes every PC have 2 feats for 1 master feat - as you said, feats are worth their weight in GB.

Finally, keep in mind that the Noble class is likely going to convert many, if not the majority, of 2e NPC regents into more competent landed regents, and open up class skills like Administrate for them. KGauck pointed out a while ago that Fighters should in truth make better warriors and generals than regents, and I quite agree. Here is where the revision must depart from the original game, as there wasn't a Noble class for 2e, but the Noble should really be the ideal landed regent, and the best all-around regent (versatile enough to run law and guilds).

Osprey

P.S. - Apologize? Heck, you've been more restrained than I...and no worries, as long as we can say what we need to say and dust off our gloves at the end of the day, don't sweat it. I'm most interested in keeping things constructive and high quality, and sometimes that needs a bit of harshness. If we were talkin', I'd buy you a drink, but as it is, you'll have to settle for an e-beer. ;)

Athos69

05-06-2004, 01:30 AM

Originally posted by irdeggman@May 4 2004, 01:56 PM
So in order to gain a paltry +2 bonus to 2 skills you have to have 9 ranks in each? That means that you are already an "master" by anyone's standards. THe benefit is kind of anti-clamatic to the prerequisites. Having a clue doesn't make you have a large amount of ranks in a skill.
Duane, the +2 bonus to the skill is icing on the cake. What is actually realized though this feat is an additional 10 'phantom' ranks you get when perforning actions on a Domain scale (the +2 to domain actions).

Raesene Andu

05-06-2004, 05:03 AM

I am not opposed to requiring certain ranks in skills as a prerequisite for a feat, it does make very good sense, especially when talking about requiring ranks of profession (merchant) to become a master merchant, that makes perfect sense to me.

Athos69

05-06-2004, 05:43 PM

Ian, one thing that we need to discern is if you will be bumping up the levels of all of the regents, some of the Regents, or specific Regents. A good example is that there are alot of Guilders who are between 2nd and 5th level, with onle Mheallie Berion bucking the trend with a staggering (for Guilders) 8th level.

Such a decision will hav an effect on the 'Zeroing Point' of setting skill minimums.

-Mike

Kelphthal

05-06-2004, 06:25 PM

alright... assuming at some point the master feats will be settled upon, and that abuse of them will still be found...

back to my earlier sticking point on nobles. too much money. I was looking over (gasp) Star Wars d20 and looked at the noble class. They have a neat way of doing the extra money.

I don't have the book here, but to paraphrase you make a charisma test, and get a certain amount of money per level, times your charisma bonus...

for BR i would suggest the following:

As a free domain level action performable once per domain turn the noble may attempt to gather funds from his families various connections.

Make a charisma test, adding levels of noble as an additional bonus using the DCs listed below. The noble receives 50 gp, times their noble level, times how much they make the charisma test by.

DCs
Home City 10
Home Province 15
Home Domain 20
Home Territory 25 (eastern marches, heart land...)
Home Nation 30 (Anuire, Brechtur...)
Anywhere else 40+

For example a first level noble with a +2 charisma calls in some favors in his home town. He rolls a 16 (13+2 for charisma+1 for noble level) passing the test by 6. He receives (16-10(level of successs))*50*1(noble level) 300 gp

Later, at 6th level, attempts the same in a neighboring province, and now rolls a 21(13+2 for charisma+6 for level) this time receiving (21-20)*50*6 or 300 gp. Notice i used the same roll for both examples.

This way the character who is adventuring far from home does not have the same support network he has when he is in his families castle. Also money doesn't magically appear in the characters account while he is serving as a trade envoy to the brecht.

If i recall correctly free domain actions still take several days and the DM is free to allow benefits to the charisma test for roleplaying and circumstance.

irdeggman

05-06-2004, 08:29 PM

An interesting concept. Remember that the noble in the revised Chap 1 has to go back home in order to collect his income so an adventuring noble can't collect if he is away on an adventure elsewhere. This makes it harder to gain all that money.

One problem that has always existed with BR and pretty much nothing we could possibly come up with will make go away, is that money is pretty much a non-issue for heroic characters. Almost all are regents in some way (or soon to become ones) and regents have access to greater funds than does the average D&D adventurer. The old "I'll pay your group 100gp to rescue my daughter from the clutches of the bandits that took her" adventure hook is pretty much wasted when the characters have to deal with money in the 10,000 gp range each month (that is only 5 GB worth).

Athos69

05-06-2004, 08:41 PM

Well we shouldn't forget that noblesse oblige should be at the core of the Noble class, and those who aren't generous with their money should start to see some social backlash from it...

irdeggman

05-06-2004, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by Athos69@May 6 2004, 03:41 PM
Well we shouldn't forget that noblesse oblige should be at the core of the Noble class, and those who aren't generous with their money should start to see some social backlash from it...
Unless of course you are Brecht (can we say Ferengi).

tcharazazel

05-06-2004, 08:54 PM

I definately agree with you irdeggman, nobles get a pittance compared to a normal domain's seasonal collection. So, really its not such a big issue. Trying to export the noble to a game that isnt focused on such a larger scale, then it would need to be redone. However, by the time PC nobles begin to collect larger amounts of wealth a month, they really should be regents, or Lts.

heh, so they take a penalty to collecting the cash from their lands = month(s) spent away from them? is that want your getting to Athos69?

So if a noble spends 5 months away from his lands, he not only doesnt collect the cash from this lands during that time, he cannot collect from his lands for the next 5 months as he needs to spend it to appease the people.

Athos69

05-06-2004, 09:02 PM

nope... I was referring more to a penalty for not roleplaying the charitable aspects of a Noble's social responsibility. Donations to the church(es), alms for the poor, works to the betterment of the populace, and being a patron to the arts are all examples of noblesse oblige.

tcharazazel

05-06-2004, 09:14 PM

heheh, yeah tho puttng in roleplaying penalties can be tough. maybe have them need to in effect tithe to their peoples?

RaspK_FOG

05-06-2004, 10:47 PM

If making the Master Feats available to low level characters is so important (which obviously is :P) and most of us still want them to have a ranks-in-skill prerequisite, then why not use the logical method?

Such low-to-mid-level characters as stated earlier will be from 2nd to 5th level; I believe that giving free access to such feats at 2nd level is bad in any case. So, my proposal (and it was not half-bad accepted) was to put in a 9+ ranks prerequisite. This is the maximum number of ranks one can have for a class skill at 6th level. Similarly, the maximum ranks for a class skill at 3rd level (half 6th level) is 6 ranks. To wrap things up, a prerequisite of 6+ ranks was not that uncommon for a feat in some books and it is not as high as to be prohibiting to most people who are masters of their trade, but it would be able to sort through the masses.

tcharazazel

05-06-2004, 11:18 PM

the main reason for the support of requiring 9 ranks is that its almost at 10 which is considered a Master by the Ply Trade table in the BCRS page 104 (technically Master = +10-14). This is the standard used in the game, so why would these Master feats require something much lower?

Of course we could do something else then, and require the skill modifier to = 10+ to get the feat. Then a level 3 char with skill focus and a decent ability mod would be able to get the Master feat.

The real question then is, does the ranks in the skill really determine mastery or does the skill modifier?

Osprey

05-07-2004, 09:26 PM

Concerning Administrate, Lead, and Warcraft skills:

Errata: Barbarians should be listed in the table on class/cross-class table as having Lead as a class skill (again, the Horde! Yar! :angry: ), as under the skill description they are said to have it.

Rangers should have Warcraft as a class skill. As hunters of big game and monsters, rangers rely on tactics far more than most characters to take down creatures much bigger, tougher, and stronger than themselves. This is the classic purview of the hunter.

Also, BR rangers are a bit different than their PHB Greyhawk template, where they are depicted as loners and recluses. There are entire units of rangers in the BR world, such as in Aerenwe and Dhoesone, and arguably every unit of scouts may in fact be rangers. If these are a typical element of many armies, doesn't it stand to reason that heroic rangers who lead one or more companies might in fact make very excellent tacticians and battlefield commanders, being experienced at supplying, moving, and utilizing hundreds of troops at a time?

I'd also vote for Rangers having Lead as a class skill, primarily because this is the skill used to train units to higher levels of experience, and it represents a character's skill in inspiring units to fight hard even against overwhelming odds (the unit Morale bonus from Lead).

By current BRCS regency collection rules, Rangers would then become excellent Law regents and potentially become half-decent landed and guild regents. If this were introduced then original 2e regents like the Baroness of Dhoesone and Lilian Swordwraith could be justified as half-decent landed regents, and thus portrayed as Ranger-class characters, which thematically suits them better than any other class.

Other than that, I'm quite OK with the rest of the class vs. cross-class assignments of these 3 skills.

Osprey

RaspK_FOG

05-07-2004, 10:02 PM

Very well written, if I may say so...

RaspK_FOG

05-13-2004, 10:58 PM

I had a few ideas I would like to share with you (wears his +183,72 super-dooper heavy fortification dwarven fullplate armour of backscratching before writing further): Magicians may be able to add some orisons to their personal spell list in the form of cantrips as a class feature; such spells would include minor effects only that fit the class.
Nobles should be able to choose what benefits they get; this should be worked out as a list of choices for the noble to make (for example: "Do I want to take Weapon Focus (longsword), or should I get an additional class skill and a +2 bonus on such checks? Maybe I should become an Investigator..."

tcharazazel

05-14-2004, 02:14 AM

Magicians may be able to add some orisons to their personal spell list in the form of cantrips as a class feature; such spells would include minor effects only that fit the class.

not quite following your reasoning for your idea here rasp, why would magicians be able to add some 0 level cleric spells to their spell list? While I think its a cool idea, I dont think that its really appropriate.

Nobles should be able to choose what benefits they get; this should be worked out as a list of choices for the noble to make (for example: "Do I want to take Weapon Focus (longsword), or should I get an additional class skill and a +2 bonus on such checks? Maybe I should become an Investigator..."

um not really following this one either... if players cant figure out how to plan what skills and feats they want its their own fault really. We dont need to spend pages in the book for every class to show them how to be good at that class, or how and when to take skills and feats to get certain prestiege classes. If we did that it would add probably 50-100 pages... with all the possible combinations from all the suplements... make that 200+ pages... not really worth it.

Unless you mean that instead of the way the 3.5 noble is presented, have it be a list of choices with the noble gaining a special ability every level or every other level. I dont really think this is the best way to go either.

I really like how Osprey presented a different version of noble, with them loosing the resources and coordinate, and instead gaining a bonus feat every 5 levels at levels 2/7/12/17. This would allow for more variability in the nobles, and also get rid of the semi redundant ability resources and the rarely used though overpowered when used coordinate ability.

The issues about the noble are addressed on this thread Ch. 5 Key Skills for Domain Actions. Heh, yeah wrong name for it though oh well

irdeggman

05-14-2004, 03:43 PM

Osprey

05-14-2004, 08:52 PM

I'm working on a new noble write up. One with a noble-focus that has them pick a career path (like the ranger does). This path would determine their favored saving throw and from which list their bonus feats would come. It's looking like what I had originally thought of is pretty much the way things are leaning, so I guess I'll have to bite the bullet and do the write up.

Well, don't hurt yourself. ;) Honestly, that sounds pretty cool if you're willing to do it. I don't mind an open list of bonus feats myself, but if you feel it would be better to lay in some limitations/prescriptions for different cultures of nobles, that's cool. Good luck (and feel free to email me for collaboration).

Osprey

RaspK_FOG

05-14-2004, 11:58 PM

My second idea was mostly based on an old announcement Irdeggman had made that he would not be doing what he now thinks he will have to do... Oh well, guess I won't have to nag him then. :P

As for the way this could be done, I generally think that giving bonus access only to feats is a shame; I particularly liked how Athas.org worked their variant bard class (For those of you who don't know it, Athas is the world were the Dark Sun campaign setting takes place and bards do not cast spell there but are very good rogues and alchemists, which makes them lethal when they use their best tool: poison!), which you should check out, by the way, especially if you agree with my idea of additional choices. In fact, here is a quote from their PDF:
Trade Secrets: At every 4th level the bard learns a trade secret chosen from the list below. Poison dealer: Pay ½ of the ordinary price for raw materials needed to craft poisons.
Scorpion’s touch: Add +1 to the save DC of all poisons applied by you. Ôhis trade secret may be chosen more than once, and its effects stack.
Skilled: Add half your bard level (rounded down) as a competence bonus ôo one of the following skills: Appraise, Bluff, Craft, Diplomacy, Heal, Perform, Ðrofession, Sense Motive or Sleight of Hand. This trade secret may be chosen ìore than once, each time it applies to a different skill.
Smokestick application: You can combine inhaled poisons with ómokesticks. All creatures within the area the smokestick covers (10 ft cube) are affected by the poison you applied to the smokestick. The effectiveness of the smokestick poison depends on the amount of poison applied to the smokestick. If one dose is applied, the save DC is reduced by 4. If two doses are applied, the save DC is reduced by 2. If three doses are applied, the save DC is unaffected. No more than three doses can be applied to one smokestick.
Versatile: Select any two non-class skills. These are now considered bard class skills.
Coolheaded: You may take 10 on Bluff and Diplomacy checks.
Poisonbane: +4 insight bonus to Craft(Alchemy) checks when creating antitoxin and poison antidotes.
Accurate: When you attack an armored opponent, your accuracy allows you to ignore 1 point of natural armor bonus to AC or 1 point of armor bonus to AC. This trade secret may be chosen more than once, and its effects stack.
Agile: You receive a +1 dodge bonus to AC. This trade secret may be chosen more than once, and its effects stack.
Poison resistance: +4 bonus to saving throws against poisons.

Osprey

05-15-2004, 12:35 AM

QUOTE
Trade Secrets: At every 4th level the bard learns a trade secret chosen from the list below.
Poison dealer: Pay ½ of the ordinary price for raw materials needed to craft poisons.
Scorpion’s touch: Add +1 to the save DC of all poisons applied by you. Ôhis trade secret may be chosen more than once, and its effects stack.
Skilled: Add half your bard level (rounded down) as a competence bonus ôo one of the following skills: Appraise, Bluff, Craft, Diplomacy, Heal, Perform, Ðrofession, Sense Motive or Sleight of Hand. This trade secret may be chosen ìore than once, each time it applies to a different skill.
Smokestick application: You can combine inhaled poisons with ómokesticks. All creatures within the area the smokestick covers (10 ft cube) are affected by the poison you applied to the smokestick. The effectiveness of the smokestick poison depends on the amount of poison applied to the smokestick. If one dose is applied, the save DC is reduced by 4. If two doses are applied, the save DC is reduced by 2. If three doses are applied, the save DC is unaffected. No more than three doses can be applied to one smokestick.
Versatile: Select any two non-class skills. These are now considered bard class skills.
Coolheaded: You may take 10 on Bluff and Diplomacy checks.
Poisonbane: +4 insight bonus to Craft(Alchemy) checks when creating antitoxin and poison antidotes.
Accurate: When you attack an armored opponent, your accuracy allows you to ignore 1 point of natural armor bonus to AC or 1 point of armor bonus to AC. This trade secret may be chosen more than once, and its effects stack.
Agile: You receive a +1 dodge bonus to AC. This trade secret may be chosen more than once, and its effects stack.
Poison resistance: +4 bonus to saving throws against poisons.

I still think Coordinate +2 seems fine as a bonus feat/character ability. But not more than +2.

Coolheaded seems very appropriate for a social-focused noble. I think, however, that something like this being applied to one skill only is more on par with a feat's typical power (class abilities are under less restriction to be comparable to feats). So choose 1 class skill, and you may now take 10 regardless of the situation.

Skilled is extremely over-powered compared to 3.5 standards, I think. I'd prefer Skill Focus as a bonus feat.

Poison Resistance +4 would also be an excellent Noble ability.

irdeggman

05-15-2004, 02:43 AM

I've always like the work at athas.org. In fact I asked them for permission to adapt their favored terrain bonus into the non-spellcasting ranger I'd worked up (and they gave it).

irdeggman

05-15-2004, 02:45 AM

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@May 14 2004, 06:58 PM
My second idea was mostly based on an old announcement Irdeggman had made that he would not be doing what he now thinks he will have to do... Oh well, guess I won't have to nag him then. :P

Nope, but I can nag you Rasp, I'm still waiting.. . . ;)

RaspK_FOG

05-15-2004, 09:41 PM

I know... How long has it been, two weeks?

"Aiee... Gonna kill me friend, that's whanna gonna do! :angry: Arr..."

tcharazazel

05-18-2004, 11:04 PM

Ok, back to the Master Feats now, heh, finally.

Master Administrator

Prereq: Int 13+ and 9 ranks in Administrate

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Administrate skill and to any domain actions that recieve a potenital synergy bonus from Administrate (Create/Contest/Rule Province). The DC for reducing domain maintenance is DC 10 + 1/2 domain maintenance.

Master Diplomat

Regions: Anuire, Brechtur, Khinasi
Prereq: Cha 13+ and 9 ranks in Diplomacy

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Diplomacy skill and to any domain actions that recieve a potenital synergy bonus from Diplomacy (Diplomacy, Create Trade Route, and Create/Contest/Rule Temple Holdings).

Master Merchant

Regions: Brechtur, Khinasi
Prereq: Cha 13+, Int 13+ and 9 ranks in P/Merchant

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Appraise and P/Merchant skills and to any domain actions related to trade and finance (such as Create Trade Route).

Master of the Arcane

Prereq: 9 ranks in K/Arcana

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to K/Arcana and Spellcraft skills and to any domain actions that recieve a potenital synergy bonus from K/Arcana (Create Ley Line).

Great Leader

Prereq: Cha 13+ and 9 ranks in Lead

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Lead skill and to any domain actions that recieve a potenital synergy bonus from Lead (Agitate, Create/Contest/Rule Law Holdings, and Coronation and Investiture). If you take the Leadership feat you gain a +2 bonus to your leadership score.

Spymaster

Prereq: Cha 13+ and 9 ranks in Gather Info

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Gather Info, K/Regional skill and to any domain actions that recieve a potenital synergy bonus from Gather Info (Espionage).

Wilderness Savant

Prereq: 9 ranks in K/Nature

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to K/Nature and Survival skill and to any domain actions that recieve a potenital synergy bonus from K/Nature (Create/Contest/Rule Source Holdings).

There they are, along with the domain actions that they would affect. We all like em?

For those who still think that having skill ranks as a prereq is really unprecedented, here are some examples from the Complete Warrior that also require skill ranks higher than 1 rank. (They list the general feats on pages 94-95, divine feats on page 108, tactical feats on page 110 and weapon styles on page 113) I'll just name them and their require ranks to save space.

Flick of the Wrist (general) requires Slight of Hand 5 ranks, Flying Kick (general) requires Jump 4 ranks, Giantbane (tactical) requires Tumble 5 ranks, and Raptor School (tactical) requires Jump 5 ranks.

HAHAHA!!! See that! We're ahead of our time! and the D&D devs are just catching up!

tcharazazel

05-19-2004, 01:23 AM

Ok, now as were splitting up the domain actions by holding type it makes sense that we should also make Regent Focus Create/Contest/Rule Holding different for each holding type. As this is a +4 bonus it really shouldnt apply so broadly to every type of holding, as this greatly benefits those with multiple holdings. For example you will have to choose Regent Focus Rule Guilds/Law/Source/Temple instead of Regent Focus Rule Holding. The same would apply to Creating and Contesting Holdings.

Whaddaya'll think?

Athos69

05-19-2004, 01:24 AM

T'Char... one thing that bugged me about the description of the feats in the 3.0 BRCS is the quote: "and to any domain actions that recieve a potenital synergy bonus from". It's my personal preference, but I would like to see all of the Domain actions that are affected listed in the Feat writeup. I feel that having the list in black and white really aids new players to the game during the character creation phase, and would help to avoid errors.

-Mike

tcharazazel

05-19-2004, 04:08 AM

thats what the domain actions in () are. they tell ya what domain actions they affect. heheh, so not so tough to change that tho

Osprey

05-19-2004, 04:23 AM

Mike, I'll redo the feats that way for you in proper format (as proper as can be had on the forms anyways), so they can be imported directly into the BRCS. How's this:

Master Administrator

Prerequisites: Int 13 and Administrate 9 ranks
Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Administrate checks, and a +2 bonus to Create, Contest, and Rule Province domain actions.
The DC for reducing domain maintenance is DC 10 + 1/2 domain maintenance.
Normal: The DC for reducing seasonal maintenace by 1/4 is DC 10 + seasonal maintenance.

Master Diplomat
Regions: Anuire, Brechtur, Khinasi
Prerequisites: Cha 13 and Diplomacy 9 ranks
Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Diplomacy skill checks, and a +2 bonus to all Diplomacy-based domain actions. These include Diplomacy, Create Trade Route, Contest Trade Route, and Create, Contest, and Rule Temple Holdings.

Master Merchant
Prerequisites: Cha 13, Int 13, and Profession (Merchant) 9 ranks
Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Appraise and Profession (Merchant) skill checks, and a +2 bonus to any domain actions related to trade and finance. These include Create and Contest Trade Routes, and Create, Contest, and Rule Guild Holdings.

Master of the Arcane
Prerequisite: Knowledge (Arcana) 9 ranks
Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Knowledge (Arcana) and Spellcraft checks, and a +2 bonus to the Create Ley Line domain action.

Great Leader
Prerequisites: Cha 13 and Lead 9 ranks
Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Lead checks, and a +2 bonus to any Lead-based domain actions. These include Agitate, Coronation, Investiture, and Create, Contest, and Rule Law Holdings.
If you take the Leadership feat you gain a +2 bonus to your leadership score.

Spymaster
Prerequisites: Cha 13 and Gather Information 9 ranks
Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Gather Information and Knowledge (Regional) skill checks, a a +2 bonus to Espionage domian actions.

Wilderness Savant
Prerequisite: Knowledge (Nature) 9 ranks
Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Knowledge (Nature) and Survival checks, and a +2 bonus to Create, Contest, and Rule Source Holdings.

Athos69

05-19-2004, 04:37 AM

Looks great to me Osprey!

The Jew

05-19-2004, 09:37 AM

Since prof(merchant) is now a regular skill could we nix appraise and roll that skill into prof(merchant), since appraise is a weak skill and prof(merchant) needs to be definded as to what it does; it would also have some other uses beyond what appraise currently does.

If that idea is shot down, master merchant should not give +2 to appraise. The trend with the rest of the master feats is that they give a bonus to create/contest/rule holding and a +2 bonus to two skills. If they give a bonus to create/contest/rule holding and some other domain actions then they give a +2 bonus to one skill. The other exception to this is master administrator, but it also helps with lowering domain maintenance.

irdeggman

05-19-2004, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by tcharazazel@May 18 2004, 06:04 PM
For those who still think that having skill ranks as a prereq is really unprecedented, here are some examples from the Complete Warrior that also require skill ranks higher than 1 rank. (They list the general feats on pages 94-95, divine feats on page 108, tactical feats on page 110 and weapon styles on page 113) I'll just name them and their require ranks to save space.

Flick of the Wrist (general) requires Slight of Hand 5 ranks, Flying Kick (general) requires Jump 4 ranks, Giantbane (tactical) requires Tumble 5 ranks, and Raptor School (tactical) requires Jump 5 ranks.

HAHAHA!!! See that! We're ahead of our time! and the D&D devs are just catching up!
But none of those feats (from CW - I don't have my book with me so I'm going from memory) give a bonus to skill checks for the skills that they require a rank in to obtain. That was the only thing that caused me concern - hence the infinite spiral concept (that is a prereq feeds a benefit that increases the effect of the prereq. . . ). So we are not a head of the curve but in a completely different location. ;)

irdeggman

05-19-2004, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by The Jew@May 19 2004, 04:37 AM
Since prof(merchant) is now a regular skill could we nix appraise and roll that skill into prof(merchant), since appraise is a weak skill and prof(merchant) needs to be definded as to what it does; it would also have some other uses beyond what appraise currently does.

I wouldn't eliminate appraise and replace it with prof (merchant). Profession skills and their relation with craft skills has been a long time discussion at WotC and Sage Advice. I also think that ties into how appraise relates to these also.

Basically profession checks are made on a weekly (or longer) basis and reflect making a living at doing something. Essentially incorporating other skills into how that would run. Whereas craft skills involve actually making something specific. Basically profession is buy and selling on a continuous basis while craft is manufacturing specific items. Think of growing crops (craft) and running a supermarket (profession). Appraise comes into play on a specific basis, that is it relates to one specific transaction at a time and not over a long period of time.

The Jew

05-19-2004, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by irdeggman+May 19 2004, 05:11 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (irdeggman @ May 19 2004, 05:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-The Jew@May 19 2004, 04:37 AM
Since prof(merchant) is now a regular skill could we nix appraise and roll that skill into prof(merchant), since appraise is a weak skill and prof(merchant) needs to be definded as to what it does; it would also have some other uses beyond what appraise currently does.

I wouldn't eliminate appraise and replace it with prof (merchant). Profession skills and their relation with craft skills has been a long time discussion at WotC and Sage Advice. I also think that ties into how appraise relates to these also.

Basically profession checks are made on a weekly (or longer) basis and reflect making a living at doing something. Essentially incorporating other skills into how that would run. Whereas craft skills involve actually making something specific. Basically profession is buy and selling on a continuous basis while craft is manufacturing specific items. Think of growing crops (craft) and running a supermarket (profession). Appraise comes into play on a specific basis, that is it relates to one specific transaction at a time and not over a long period of time. [/b][/quote]
The problem is appraise is such a weak skill, I have never had a character with more than 1 rank in it. Apprasing is of course a key componet for merchants so I would make sense to be part of prof(merchant). using professions for individual roles is not new either. In one dragon magazine, they had an article on producing special items such as a salve which granted fire resistance/1. One of the steps required making herbalism checks. The check was individual, not weekly based.

irdeggman

05-19-2004, 01:45 PM

In our campaigns appraise is a very useful skill. It gives the finder of items, e.g., gems etc., a means of determining their up front value in order to bargain (using diplomacy) to get the 'best price' for the items. It all depends on how these situations are role-played, pretty much as does the benefit/importance of all skills.

tcharazazel

05-19-2004, 03:13 PM

Aye, appraise can be a very useful skill for those who want to get the best deal or not get swindled, so I think it should remain a seperate skill also. However, this point makes sense:

If that idea is shot down, master merchant should not give +2 to appraise. The trend with the rest of the master feats is that they give a bonus to create/contest/rule holding and a +2 bonus to two skills. If they give a bonus to create/contest/rule holding and some other domain actions then they give a +2 bonus to one skill. The other exception to this is master administrator, but it also helps with lowering domain maintenance.

So, we probably should keep them all following similar rules. HMmm, as we've changed the prime skill to a Proffession skill and taken out the Cha based skill (diplomacy) and the Int based skill (appraise), it should probably have Wis 13 as its abilities.

Master Merchant
Prerequisites: Wis 13+, and Profession (Merchant) 9 ranks
Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Profession (Merchant) skill checks, and a +2 bonus to any domain actions related to trade and finance. These include Create and Contest Trade Routes, and Create, Contest, and Rule Guild Holdings.

This way most of the Master Feats require a min of +10 Modifier to the prime skill, thus making them Masters according to the Ply Trade rules in the BCRS. Master of the Arcane and Wilderness Savant are the only 2 don't need the Int 13+ to be nice to druids really, though I think they should require Int 13+ to be consistant with the others really. Any opinions upon that?

But none of those feats (from CW - I don't have my book with me so I'm going from memory) give a bonus to skill checks for the skills that they require a rank in to obtain. That was the only thing that caused me concern - hence the infinite spiral concept (that is a prereq feeds a benefit that increases the effect of the prereq. . . ). So we are not a head of the curve but in a completely different location.*

If you cant prove you are a Master, why should you be called a Master? You're answer to this question is you dont need to prove you are a Master to be called a Master. Heheh, If this was a hippy paradise this would probably fly, however, it thankfully isnt, and people generally need to prove they are Masters at their craft/proffesion/knowledge before they are called Masters, like to get your Masters in a field you need to spend more time in school.

Well, I still dont see how adding to a Modifier = an infinite spiral when Ranks are required. Or how 9 ranks and a +2 modifier gain = Infinite. If the feat added a bonus to the skill = +1 per rank in the skill (ie 9 ranks in the skill = +9 bonus to the skills modifier so +18 total to the modifier) then I would agree with you. Never the less, it isnt infinte as it would only mean that people would have at min a +11-12 modifier to the feat's prime skill one they take it (9 ranks, +1 from the ability fro some, and +2 from the feat) As You can't keep taking this feat over and over again, it does not create an infinte sprial it creates a feat that uses Logic.

If you want the best example really. Look at Skill Focus vs. Epic Skill Focus. Skill Focus requires 0 skill ranks, while Epic Skill Focus Requires 20 ranks in the relevant skill. What we are proposing here is an intermediate level between the two, that is like Skill Focus + a BR only related bonus = Master Feat. Thus, It is very logical to require at least 9 ranks in the prime skill to get the feat. In addition to the reasoning behind a master should be someone who has mastered a skill.

To be honest, I'm still rather surprised that skill focus doesnt require at least 1 rank in the skill, as its supposed to show that the person is focusing in the skill... when they dont really need to prove that they are focusing in the skill.

irdeggman

05-19-2004, 03:55 PM

Actually skill focus says you have knack for the skill. So unlike what the name implies it is not a focus or specialization in the skill it is just an aptitude. IMO I'd rather the feat be rewritten to state it is a focus on the skill and not a knack (which is something to being akin to having a high relevant ability score).

I was pointing out that the CW feats that you mentioned were on a different level or plane than the proposed Master Feats in the fact that even though they have higher than a 1 rank in the prereq skill they don't add a bonus to that skill.

IMO the reason that the epic version of skill focus has ranks is to make sure that the character is actually an epic level character. Skill rank of 20 means at least a 17th level character, pretty much an epic one. Unfortunately skill focus and epic skill focus despite the similar names are not based on each other. Epic skill focus is not simply an improved skill focus since one (skill focus) is based on a knack and the other is based on a dedication. Also the number of ranks in epic skills is very important since other things are dependent on them. For example epic spell casting and the applicable knowledge skill. This is something to realize when making direct comparisons to the epic rules. I also need to check out the 3.5 update for the epic rules to see what (if anything) got changed to make it compatable.

Well if the hang up is calling the feats master feats then why don't we just rename them to regent feats. Regent merchant, regent arcana, regent leader. That way the argument for having a set number of ranks is mote because the it no longer involves being a "master", and yet the name reflects the actual application being targeted. I'm only saying this because I'm geting tired of hearing the main argument being that since it is called "master" it should reflect a high skill level.

I can live with them as Osprey proposed, but watch out for comparisons being made (e.g., the feats in the CW) since they are not equivalent and don't match up well.

The Jew

05-19-2004, 04:09 PM

Aye, appraise can be a very useful skill for those who want to get the best deal or not get swindled, so I think it should remain a seperate skill also. However, this point makes sense:

So in campaigns that you have played in players have spent points in this skill at least vaguely comparably to other thief skills like pick pockets, spot or diplomacy?

I'm not arguing that the benefits that the skill gives should be removed from the game, just added to prof(merchant). The one complaint I have about the use of Prof(merchant) for both regency gain and as synergy bonus for domain actions is that it has no other use in a game. That is not the case with any of the other skills. Honestly, how many people have used profession skills to earn money during their campaigns. I think that giving it a usefullness during non-domain level play would be good.

tcharazazel

05-19-2004, 04:53 PM

So in campaigns that you have played in players have spent points in this skill at least vaguely comparably to other thief skills like pick pockets, spot or diplomacy?

yep, my current guildmaster used that skill to swindle the local merchants, heheh.
I've never used it, however, my Lt. NPC court bard has used it plenty.

IMO the reason that the epic version of skill focus has ranks is to make sure that the character is actually an epic level character. Skill rank of 20 means at least a 17th level character, pretty much an epic one. Unfortunately skill focus and epic skill focus despite the similar names are not based on each other. Epic skill focus is not simply an improved skill focus since one (skill focus) is based on a knack and the other is based on a dedication. Also the number of ranks in epic skills is very important since other things are dependent on them. For example epic spell casting and the applicable knowledge skill. This is something to realize when making direct comparisons to the epic rules. I also need to check out the 3.5 update for the epic rules to see what (if anything) got changed to make it compatable.

I was looking at the 3.5 Version of both, which says nothing about having a knack for the skill. it simply states:

SKILL FOCUS [GENERAL]
Choose a skill.
Benefit: You get a +3 bonus on all checks involving that skill.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new skill.

EPIC SKILL FOCUS [EPIC]
Prerequisite: 20 ranks in the skill selected.
Benefit: The character gains a +10 bonus on all skill checks with that skill.
Special: A character can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time a character takes the feat, it applies to a different skill.

"Knack" for the skill was taken out from 3.0 as it obviously didnt make sense with the name of the feat, otherwise it would have been called skill knack. In 3.0 Epic was called having a Legendary knack for the skill, which also didnt make sense as why would a knack require 20 ranks?

The fact other epic feats and abilities require ranks in a skill... whats that doing in the argument? It doesnt apply to the topic at hand, and just takes away from your argument as its distracting and needless. Best to keep arguments simple and focused ;) True, epic rules are different than normal rules, however, I was not comparing the rules, I was just showing what they have determined to be an epic amount of dedication to a skill, and its not even Epic! 24 ranks in a skill is epic, 20 is still not epic, where epic = level 21+

Heh, I agree they arent based on each other, though they probably should be, as the prereq for epic skill focus should probably reuire the skill focus feat for the skill.

but watch out for comparisons being made (e.g., the feats in the CW) since they are not equivalent and don't match up well.

I wasnt comparing the Master feats to the CW feats, I was showing you that other feats are starting to require more than 1 rank in the relevant skill. I'm just betting its the begining of a trend... a trend towards including logic and skills more into the D&D world.

I can live with them as Osprey proposed

Heheh, so we agree on 2 main things then: keepin appraise and keepin these feats. 2 outa 3 aint bad. When they change the core rules to be more logical, we will then agree on all three :)

irdeggman

05-19-2004, 05:11 PM

3.5 PHB pg Skill Focus "Choose a skill, such as Move Silently. You have a special knack with that skill."

Nope the special knack words are still there ;)

irdeggman

05-19-2004, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by The Jew@May 19 2004, 11:09 AM

So in campaigns that you have played in players have spent points in this skill at least vaguely comparably to other thief skills like pick pockets, spot or diplomacy?

Yes, our dwaven bard/cleric has several ranks in appraise (something like 4 or 5) He is real good at negotiating the best price. Real handy for our party. This is not a BR campaign so the player is using the 3/3.5 dwarf, taking the Cha penalty and now having neither class being a favored one for dwarves. The player puts roleplaying well above power gaming, obviously.

tcharazazel

05-19-2004, 05:15 PM

Hmm, looks like they skipped out on that in the 3.5 revision that's for download then on the site...

irdeggman

05-19-2004, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by tcharazazel@May 19 2004, 12:15 PM
Hmm, looks like they skipped out on that in the 3.5 revision that's for download then on the site...
You must be using the SRD. The SRD is plain vanilla rules, it has had almost all of the color and descriptive text removed. Everything campaign specific (i.e., Greyhawke) has also been removed.

tcharazazel

05-19-2004, 05:40 PM

I am using both the SDR and the pdf file updates from the WOTC wesbite. Thats annoying, they left out the flavor...

Osprey

05-19-2004, 09:06 PM

I'm not arguing that the benefits that the skill gives should be removed from the game, just added to prof(merchant). The one complaint I have about the use of Prof(merchant) for both regency gain and as synergy bonus for domain actions is that it has no other use in a game. That is not the case with any of the other skills. Honestly, how many people have used profession skills to earn money during their campaigns. I think that giving it a usefullness during non-domain level play would be good.

While I completely agree that Appraise logically should be included as one of the primary skills included within Profession (Merchant), the truth of the matter is that the BRCS isn't going to dabble in changing core rules and skill arrangements in 3.5. So in this case, I'm afraid we're stuck with WOTC's view on things.

In general, I think the Profession skills are very poorly handled in the core rules as they seem to imply they have no direct practical application, just a bunch of generalist skills with no real benefit other than plying a trade and earning a living. As if every other skill on the list isn't useful for such a purpose! I call it the "cop-out skill" because they didn't have the patience or savvy to break down Profession skills into more specific skill sets that detail their actual practical uses. Not to mention if they started detailing individual profgession skills they might decide they're not all Wisdom-based after all. Boo to them!

If you're lucky, you can convince your DM to fold Appraise into P/Merchant, or if you're the DM you can make this decision yourself.

tcharazazel

05-23-2004, 11:31 PM

After thinking about these Master feats some more, as most require an ability score above average while they are supposed to mainly be based upon people dedicating the time and energy (skill ranks) into the skill to become masters. It would make more sense to really drop the ability score requirement as it implies that they also need to have a natural talent in the prime skill. (which is more like a skill focus then)

What do you all think of this change?

So, here are the revised list of master feats:

Master Administrator
Prerequisites: Administrate 9 ranks
Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Administrate checks, and a +2 bonus to Create, Contest, and Rule Province domain actions.
The DC for reducing domain maintenance is DC 10 + 1/2 domain maintenance.
Normal: The DC for reducing seasonal maintenance by 1/4 is DC 10 + seasonal maintenance.

Master Diplomat
Regions: Anuire, Brechtur, Khinasi
Prerequisites: Diplomacy 9 ranks
Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Diplomacy skill checks, and a +2 bonus to all Diplomacy-based domain actions. These include Diplomacy, Create Trade Route, Contest Trade Route, and Create, Contest, and Rule Temple Holdings.

Master Merchant
Prerequisites: Profession (Merchant) 9 ranks
Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Appraise and Profession (Merchant) skill checks, and a +2 bonus to any domain actions related to trade and finance. These include Create and Contest Trade Routes, and Create, Contest, and Rule Guild Holdings.

Master of the Arcane
Prerequisite: Knowledge (Arcana) 9 ranks
Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Knowledge (Arcana) and Spellcraft checks, and a +2 bonus to the Create Ley Line domain action.

Great Leader
Prerequisites: Lead 9 ranks
Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Lead checks, and a +2 bonus to any Lead-based domain actions. These include Agitate, Coronation, Investiture, and Create, Contest, and Rule Law Holdings.
If you take the Leadership feat you gain a +2 bonus to your leadership score.

Spymaster
Prerequisites: Gather Information 9 ranks
Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Gather Information and Knowledge (Regional) skill checks, a +2 bonus to Espionage domain actions.

Wilderness Savant
Prerequisite: Knowledge (Nature) 9 ranks
Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Knowledge (Nature) and Survival checks, and a +2 bonus to Create, Contest, and Rule Source Holdings.

RaspK_FOG

05-24-2004, 10:28 PM

I will agree with it, since this is what I told was best in the first place. :lol:

Irdeggman, I have the write-ups, will you please give me your email? I've been trying to reach you since the day before yesterday!

tcharazazel

05-25-2004, 04:47 AM

heh, missed that post Rasp, however, I'm glad to see that you like the master feats this way.

irdeggman

05-26-2004, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@May 24 2004, 05:28 PM

Irdeggman, I have the write-ups, will you please give me your email? I've been trying to reach you since the day before yesterday!
Sent you an IM with it, but my e-mail address has already been listed in several different threads, including the how to handle paladins poll.

I've been out of town since last week so haven't been posting/responding lately - back now.

irdeggman

05-26-2004, 02:33 PM

Here's a question - would it be better to drop the bonus to prereq skill checks gained by these feats and instead just have them focus on the domain level actions they pertain to? It has been repeatedly pointed out that thos bonus' are really only supplemental anyway so dropping them wouldn't really change the benefits of these feats anyway. By doing this the feats become domain level based ones and those playing an adventure-based campaign would just ignore them without really losing anything

Revised version (mine)

Master Administrator
Prerequisites: Administrate 9 ranks
Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Create, Contest, and Rule Province domain actions.
The DC for reducing domain maintenance is DC 10 + 1/2 domain maintenance.
Normal: The DC for reducing seasonal maintenance by 1/4 is DC 10 + seasonal maintenance.

{This one has a reduction in the DC for seasonal maintenance so it has a broader benefit than just the domain actions themselves.}

Master Diplomat
Regions: Anuire, Brechtur, Khinasi
Prerequisites: Diplomacy 9 ranks
Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to all Diplomacy-based domain actions. These include Diplomacy, Create Trade Route, Contest Trade Route, and Create, Contest, and Rule Temple Holdings.

Master Merchant
Prerequisites: Profession (Merchant) 9 ranks
Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to any domain actions related to trade and finance. These include Create and Contest Trade Routes, and Create, Contest, and Rule Guild Holdings.

Master of the Arcane
Prerequisite: Knowledge (Arcana) 9 ranks
Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to the Create Ley Line domain action and to checks made involving Arcane Realm spells.

{Adding on a benfit to Arcane Realm Spells seems appropriate here since the only domain action involved is Create Ley Line and Knowledge (arcana) is the skill necessary for Arcane Realm Spells.

Great Leader
Prerequisites: Lead 9 ranks
Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to any Lead-based domain actions. These include Agitate, Coronation, Investiture, and Create, Contest, and Rule Law Holdings.
If you take the Leadership feat you gain a +2 bonus to your leadership score.

Spymaster
Prerequisites: Gather Information 9 ranks
Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Espionage domain actions and to Domain Initiative checks.

{Adding a bonus to Domain Initiative seems appropriate since knowing more about those around you - the essence of spymaster itself gives you an edge up. Also benefiting only a single domain action is relative light compared to the other master feats.}

Wilderness Savant
Prerequisite: Knowledge (Nature) 9 ranks
Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Create, Contest, and Rule Source Holdings.

Osprey

05-26-2004, 02:51 PM

Here's a question - would it be better to drop the bonus to prereq skill checks gained by these feats and instead just have them focus on the domain level actions they pertain to? It has been repeatedly pointed out that thos bonus' are really only supplemental anyway so dropping them wouldn't really change the benefits of these feats anyway. By doing this the feats become domain level based ones and those playing an adventure-based campaign would just ignore them without really losing anything

Actually, I really like the cross-benefit of adventure and domain benefits; it gives them a slightly more versatile use. Also, these end up looking like powered-down versions of Regent Focus, particularly those that (for most regent characters) will only apply to a single domain action.

However, a few of your ideas for additions were really interesting...

Master of the Arcane
Prerequisite: Knowledge (Arcana) 9 ranks
Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to the Create Ley Line domain action and to checks made involving Arcane Realm spells.

{Adding on a benfit to Arcane Realm Spells seems appropriate here since the only domain action involved is Create Ley Line and Knowledge (arcana) is the skill necessary for Arcane Realm Spells.

This has really cool potential...the lack of application to anything but ley lines has been bothering me too, despite the normal skill bonuses.

Isn't Spellcraft the base skill for learning realm spells though?

However, what checks are made for realm spells? Well, there's really only a check for Dispel and Protection opposed rolls, right? As scrying is out of 3.5, it doesn't leave much...just countermagicks and penetrating wards. Otherwise it's just the Spellcraft check to learn a realm spell, which a skill bonus would have covered.

Spymaster
Prerequisites: Gather Information 9 ranks
Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Espionage domain actions and to Domain Initiative checks.

{Adding a bonus to Domain Initiative seems appropriate since knowing more about those around you - the essence of spymaster itself gives you an edge up. Also benefiting only a single domain action is relative light compared to the other master feats.}
This is another very cool idea...although I think I'd still choose Regent Focus: Espionage long before taking this, as domain initiative is only important some of the time. However, it might be reasonable to add this even if we keep the skill bonuses, since it does apply to only one domain action vs. several like most of the others.
Also, Gather Information is one of those skills that is really good to have skill bonuses in, since it has so few synergies (which seems strange, as I could think of about 20 skills that would help me gather information on a given subject, but hey, what can ya do, it's the friggin core rules... <_< ).

So should we add this feat along with our regent focus feats?

Improved Domain Initiative
Benefit: Adds +4 to the regent's domain intiative.

Now I don't know if anyone would ever take it, but it does add a nice little element of the domain level paralleling the adventure level.

Osprey