Paladins and Multiclassing

[Osprey]

Since the Chapter 1 Revision is still a draft and [hopefully] still revisable, I wanted to bring up the issue of BR paladins and the choices for free multiclassing.

There are 5 paladin types in BR, each dedicated to a specific deity: Haelyn, Neserie, Cuiraecen, Avani, and Moradin.

Except for Paladins of Neserie, the other 4 can all multiclass freely without losing any of their special paladin abilities. In this light, why are Paladins of Neserie excluded from this otherwise pervasive theme?

Paladins of Neserie are excluded from this. What makes them "special" is that they trade their magical warhorse for a few bonus spells of relatively paltry power. Now, anyone who's ever played a paladin that really uses that warhorse as an extension of themselves knows that they can be a powerful advantage in any land battle, they serve as intelligent, bonded guards, they'll protect you when you go down...they're a rather big advantage on land, in other words. But gaining a bonus spell (Sea Domain: Obscuring Mist, Fog Cloud, Water Walk, Control Water) of levels 1 to 4 (and the higher ones only at very high levels).

Don't get me wrong: the Sea Domain was a nice thematic touch (though I think Obs. Mist and Fog Cloud rather redundant powers), but I don't think it quite measures up to the power of a magical warhorse that grows more powerful along with the paladin.

This, combined with no multiclassing, means the Paladins of Neserie get shortchanged in the balance of things, and stand as a less attractive choice for players to run. Personally, I'm sick of portraying Neserie and her servants as mewling weaklings who just don't measure up in any department except healing and compassion. Where's the rage of the stormy sea that birthed Cuiraecen?

SO....here's my suggestion for an alternative for them:

Paladins of Neserie are known for their devotion to their goddess, matched perhaps only by the Paladins of Haelyn. The may freely multiclass as clerics, choosing 2 domains normally. At 5th level, instead of gaining a magical warhorse, Paladins of Neserie may pray for a bonus domain spell for each level of paladin spells they are able to cast. If the paladin has cleric levels, these spells may be chosen from one of the 2 domains already chosen. Otherwise, the character should choose a single domain of Neserie (Good, Protection, Healing, or the Sea).

That one is my personal favorite, as it gives a bit more flexibility while conveying a theme of devotion to their goddess (as clerics will be even more spiritually devoted). But for those who don't like that, here's another alternative:

As paladins' warhprse are equivalent to Familiars, allow paladins of Neserie to instead gain an aquatic animal as a familiar. This should be some creature or creatures native to the sea (including dolphins, seals, seabirds, whales, sharks...and no, sharks are NOT evil...though imposing an Intelligence penalty on the paladin might keep such a familiar in balance).

Osprey
(stay tuned for the companion piece below, on revamping Paladins of Haelyn!)

[Osprey]

Paladins of Haelyn:

Haelyn is the god of War, Nobility, Law, and Leadership. Paladins devoted to him may freely multiclass as clerics? This has never made much sense to me. War Priests of Healyn would do better as Fighter/Clerics anyways.

Why not allow paladins of Haelyn to freely multiclass as Nobles? This would make them uniquely suited to be theocratic regents, a theme I think would be a very rich addition to the BR world, especially in Anuire.

Honestly, this seems to me such a logical extension that I'm not sure any further supporting argument is necessary. What do the rest of the folks of the BR community think?

Osprey

-And as a general note: Paladins of Cuiraecen as Fighter/Paladins is very cool. Paladins of Avani as Paladin/Mages is also a neat thematic element, and makes for some very interesting class potential. Paladins of Moradin as Expert/Paladins? I suppose...luckily, Fighter/Paladins are also an option for them, which is a potent combination, so no shortchanging for them! These three I think should remain as they are, it's Neserie and Haelyn that need reworked IMO.

[geeman]

At 11:10 AM 3/17/2004 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:



>As an act if mischief, I`ll just toss in the idea that paladins should not

>be a class, but a template.



Paladin should be a prestige class.



Gary

[geeman]

At 05:50 PM 3/17/2004 +0100, Osprey wrote:



> Why not allow paladins of Haelyn to freely multiclass as Nobles? This

> would make them uniquely suited to be theocratic regents, a theme I think

> would be a very rich addition to the BR world, especially in Anuire.

>

> Honestly, this seems to me such a logical extension that I`m not sure

> any further supporting argument is necessary. What do the rest of the

> folks of the BR community think?



I`ll buy it. Of course, the restriction on multi-classing for paladins

(and monks) never made a lot of sense to me in the first place, so I might

not be the most objective voice on the subject....



Gary

[kgauck]

As an act if mischief, I`ll just toss in the idea that paladins should not

be a class, but a template.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[kgauck]

Paladins make a good PrC, no doubt about it. What I like about the

template, though, is the elasticity provided. Since in general the paladin

concept is a cross between cleric and fighter, a PrC fixes that balance.

The BAB is either a fighter`s or a clerics. The class features are

pre-determined. A template, allows the character to be all fighter, with

paladin feats. Or even all rogue, or all wizard. Or a multi-class mix as

the player desires. Paladin`s don`t need their own BAB, saves, or HD. they

can just use the one`s of their base class. What makes a paladin a paladin

is his special access to feats that no one else has. Even the spellcasting

can be managed for those who want it by multi-classing as a cleric. Its

just so flexible, its fun to see what players do with it.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Ming I]

In our campaign the Paladin class has been replaced with the Holy Warrior class (taken from Green Ronin's - "The Book of the Righteous"). It serves us well, and doesn't conjure up the "Things that make you go hmmm...." from 2nd edition. ;)

[Green Knight]

Paladins are just fine as a standard class.



================================================== ==========

Fra: Gary <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>

Dato: 2004/03/17 Wed PM 06:57:15 CET

Til: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM

Emne: Re: Paladins and Multiclassing [36#2363]



At 11:10 AM 3/17/2004 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:



>As an act if mischief, I`ll just toss in the idea that paladins should not

>be a class, but a template.



Paladin should be a prestige class.



Gary













================================================== ==========





Cheers

Bjørn



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

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

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

[CMonkey]

Paladins are just fine as a standard class.
I mooted this before, and in my campaign at least, been proved right since. Paladin&#39;s detect evil at will is unbalancing in any campaign that moves beyond simple dungeoneering.

One more vote for prestige class (at least) I&#39;m afraid.

CM.

[irdeggman]

Since the Chapter 1 Revision is still a draft and [hopefully] still revisable,

Yup it is very much up for discussion.


Except for Paladins of Neserie, the other 4 can all multiclass freely without losing any of their special paladin abilities. In this light, why are Paladins of Neserie excluded from this otherwise pervasive theme?

Paladins of Neserie are excluded from this. What makes them "special" is that they trade their magical warhorse for a few bonus spells of relatively paltry power. Now, anyone who&#39;s ever played a paladin that really uses that warhorse as an extension of themselves knows that they can be a powerful advantage in any land battle, they serve as intelligent, bonded guards, they&#39;ll protect you when you go down...they&#39;re a rather big advantage on land, in other words. But gaining a bonus spell (Sea Domain: Obscuring Mist, Fog Cloud, Water Walk, Control Water) of levels 1 to 4 (and the higher ones only at very high levels).

Don&#39;t get me wrong: the Sea Domain was a nice thematic touch (though I think Obs. Mist and Fog Cloud rather redundant powers), but I don&#39;t think it quite measures up to the power of a magical warhorse that grows more powerful along with the paladin.

Something I think you have missed is the granted power of the domain. Paladin&#39;s of Nesire gain the domain granted power (water breathing). This is very much on par with equvalent power levels.

Since they don&#39;t need to multi-class in order to gain this they gain greater benefit from their paladin levels. They gains spells quicker (also a bonus spell per the rules for domain spells), increased healing benefits, etc.

This was an attempt to capture what the 2nd ed paladin had as far as special abilities. In 2nd ed paladins of Nesire did not have special mounts but they gained the granted abilities of the the priests (i.e., the domain granted power).

[irdeggman]

As far as paladins being a prestige class or a template - this is something that those of these opinion have had troubles with in the core rules and is really not a BR-specific issue. Hence it doesn&#39;t really belong here, IMO.

That is to say that based on past posts most (I will not say all, but I&#39;m pretty sure it is all who use those variations) apply to any setting they use paladins in. So it is not a BR issue but a core-rules issue.

[Osprey]

Something I think you have missed is the granted power of the domain. Paladin&#39;s of Nesire gain the domain granted power (water breathing). This is very much on par with equvalent power levels.

Since they don&#39;t need to multi-class in order to gain this they gain greater benefit from their paladin levels. They gains spells quicker (also a bonus spell per the rules for domain spells), increased healing benefits, etc.

This was an attempt to capture what the 2nd ed paladin had as far as special abilities. In 2nd ed paladins of Nesire did not have special mounts but they gained the granted abilities of the the priests (i.e., the domain granted power).


OK, you&#39;re right, I didn&#39;t mention that benefit - but c&#39;mon, Irdeggman, look at the whole picture presented. If you let them freely multiclass as clerics, the same as Paladins of Haelyn are currently presented, they can choose two domains, one of which could be the Sea, and gain that power any ways. The only need 1 level of cleric to get the granted powers of 2 domains. Are you somehow implying that the Sea domain is far stronger than any other one?

The point was to make them equal to the other paladin classes - and since they for some reason can&#39;t multicalss, they&#39;re not at all equal - not one bit. I think Neserie&#39;s focus as healers, as well as a general theme of devotion, makes them very well suited as paladin/clerics - more so than Haelynites, even.

And if you allow them that 1 class to multiclass into clerics...compared to the Haelynites, they still get shorted because Haelynites get a warhorse, while the Neserieans get nothing. Granted domain power or not, you seem to have missed the balancing fact that a Haelynite cleric/paladin would also get 2 domain powers. That&#39;s why I suggested a familiar-type animal companion from the sea.

Come on, man&#33; I appreciate the conservatism in trying to keep the flavour of the old system, but can&#39;t you see how the current system is saying, "Paladins of Neserie simply are weaker than any of the others?" I&#39;m not looking to overpower anyone here, I&#39;m looking to balance the paladins out AND improve the revised game so we can say, "Check it out&#33; We&#39;ve got the 3.5 Birthright setting, and it&#39;s better than ever&#33;" That was one of the main points of the 3.x revisions of D&D itself, was it not? To revamp the old system and make a better one?

When free multiclassing with one other class is a staple of every other paladin type, it becomes a theme, and in this case the Neseriens get excluded. This is a 3e conversion. All I&#39;m asking is that we open things up and allow for a little more diversity and options for characters while still keeping thematic guidelines - my proposal would allow paladins of Neserie, as paladin/clerics, to be very much like their 2e predecessors, but it would ALSO allow other neat and interesting possibilities. A paladin/cleric with Healing and Protection would be awesome for a Holy Warrior of Neserie&#33; See, the cleric aspect ensures that whatever domains are chosen remain within Neserie&#39;s portfolio and thus very thematic - just not choiceless as is the current system, and thus it ends up dry, rigid, and two-dimensional.

I don&#39;t know how it happened, but a theme got started with the multiclassing paladin bit. Personally, I love it - I think it opens up the paladin class and lets them be a lot less cookie-cutter generic. Now see it through instead of allowing it for all but one type...

[geeman]

At 02:42 PM 3/18/2004 +0100, CMonkey wrote:



>
Paladins are just fine as a standard class.

> I mooted this before, and in my campaign at least, been proved right

> since. Paladin`s detect evil at will is unbalancing in any campaign that

> moves beyond simple dungeoneering.

>

> One more vote for prestige class (at least) I`m afraid.



If one makes the paladin a prestige class it allows them to go through a

page--squire--knight process that is so often considered a part of the

genesis of such warriors (and there are several knightly prestige

classes.) Paladins need not necessarily be stereotypical knights, but it

does seem to be the case more often than not that they get played that way,

and in the long run it`s more fun IMO to play their knightly qualities with

a little more development "through the ranks" as it were. That`s another

reason to do away with the multi-classing restriction on paladins (and

multi-class restrictions in general, for that matter.)



Gary

[geeman]

At 04:10 PM 3/18/2004 +0100, irdeggman wrote:



> As far as paladins being a prestige class or a template - this is

> something that those of these opinion have had troubles with in the core

> rules and is really not a BR-specific issue. Hence it doesn`t really

> belong here, IMO.

>

> That is to say that based on past posts most (I will not say all, but

> I`m pretty sure it is all who use those variations) apply to any setting

> they use paladins in. So it is not a BR issue but a core-rules issue.



I think it`s both. It`s definitely a 3e issue--but it`s also a BR issue in

that paladins in our favorite setting have several dissimilarities with the

core class. The issue of multi-classing is one in particular, especially

since the door is opened by the proposed system of Chapter 1 that uses

multi-classing as a way of portraying the differences between the

two. Technically, the system of prestige classes really is a

multi-classing issue.... It is about characters taking levels in a

different class from their first one, after all. There are a few more

restrictions in the form of prereqs than does normal multi-classing, but

it`s really an extension of multi-classing.



The particulars of the BR "paladins" might be easier to take if they were

presented as prestige class options rather than regular classes. There

have been, after all, a good half-dozen prestige classes that are basically

just variants on the paladin in supplemental texts published after the core

books. The Holy Liberator, for instance, is just a chaotic good paladin,

the Blackguard is just a chaotic evil (anti-)paladin, etc. It`s probably

easier to just do away with paladin as a character class--for all that they

were presented as a "core" class in the original BR materials--and using

the prestige class option as a solution for all four (or five in the 3e

updated that expands paladins to dwarves, which is one of the ones for

which a prestige class seems particularly more apt IMO) of the classes that

are basically paladin variants.



Gary

[JanGunterssen]

Osprey, I buy your idea of making Nesirie Paladins freely multiclaseable with clerics.
I also leke the idea of the Haelynites multiclassing as Nobles (but it bring some problems with if Noble means nobility ans noble birht or not)
Regarding Moradin paladins, I don&#39;t believe that their role as Paladins would be to create things or deal like honest armorers. I see Moradin&#39;s paladins as fighters of their faith.
In the end, I think the better proposal is to take the Holy Warrior from the "The Book of the Righteous" as Ming pointed. I think it is the most coustemizable option that allows us to take the spirit of the 2nd Ed BR.

[Osprey]

I think it`s both. It`s definitely a 3e issue--but it`s also a BR issue in
that paladins in our favorite setting have several dissimilarities with the
core class. The issue of multi-classing is one in particular, especially
since the door is opened by the proposed system of Chapter 1 that uses
multi-classing as a way of portraying the differences between the
two. Technically, the system of prestige classes really is a
multi-classing issue.... It is about characters taking levels in a
different class from their first one, after all. There are a few more
restrictions in the form of prereqs than does normal multi-classing, but
it`s really an extension of multi-classing. [Geeman]


I&#39;d rather go for the open multiclassing (at least with a single thematically appropriate class, as presented in Ch 1 and in my first post in this forum) with starting paladins, and then allow for more specialized versions for prestige classes. I can see where you&#39;re coming from with the idea of prestige classes being streamlined multiclass characters, but I&#39;d argue that&#39;s only one of two forms of prestige classes. In fact, the streamlined multiclass type is something that was opened up a great deal more with 3.5 than in 3.0 D&D, with the introduction of the mystic theurge, eldritch knight, arcane trickster, arcane archer, and duelist in the DMG, thus officially sanctioning them as "core" prestige classes. But I think you&#39;re ignoring the remaining 50-75% (a guestimate) of prestige classes, which are quite different. These are the second type of prestige class - the flavoured specialists. These include PrC&#39;s like the Loremaster, the Assassin, the Dwarven Defender, the Archmage and Hierophant, the Horizon Walker, Shadowdancer, and the Thaumaturgist. And if one includes the 3.0 class books (song and Silence, Tome and Blood, etc.), the specialists FAR outnumber the multiclass types.

Also, I think the idea with allowing a single multiclass option for paladins is that they still retain some of the core class restriction in that they must remain dedicated to their path without deviation. The idea behind the multiclass allowance is that the paladin&#39;s deity and portfolio determines what is or is not "deviant" for their paladins&#39; paths. To keep the paladin core class but remove multiclass restrictions entirely does away with this idea altogether, which is not only a truly radical departure from the core paladin class, but robs them of any distinct flavour as a class except for what players or DM&#39;s require or ascribe to them.

Personally, I like the idea of a single multiclassing option for each type of BR paladin, one appropriate to the deity they follow (hence the Noble/Paladin of Haelyn and the Cleric/Paladin of Neserie, whose domains strongly reflect clerical specialties - Healing and Protection especially - more than any other BR deity).

What this allows is for low-level characters to be dedicated holy warriors in service to a deity from the start of their adult careers, rather than much later (as they would be as a prestige class). But not so narrow and 2-D as the core paladin class.

Then, at higher levels, open up prestige classes that represent specific types of paladins - in fact, I would have no problem with several types for any given deity, if there was a creative impetus to create such classes. The general characteristics would allow them to build on the base paladin abilities, and then add special prestige class features depending on the choice of prestige class. I&#39;d expect at least one streamlined multiclass type PrC for each base paladin type based on the multiclass options, and also several dedicated specialist types that fill very specific roles within their temple&#39;s or deity&#39;s service, depending on the specific agendas of each faith. For instance a dwarven paladin prestige class dedicated to fighting the dwarves&#39; racial enemies, Orogs, might be a good type of religious zealot for the dwarves, while a Neserien "Defender of the Lost" (from the BR.net archives) might represent one path for her holy warriors.

The main idea is to allow starting paladins to be more open and flexible than core type paladins, while at higher levels they can funnel their efforts into more specialized roles or streamlined versions of the multiclass base types. I think this can integrate your ideas of more open low-level progression, and later still allow for the dedicated specialists and those who take the basics to the next level.

Also, this allows for the revised BRCS to be more modular, letting the paladin class remain recognizable to those who are familiar with the core rules, and allowing for Prestige Classes as add-on features rather than a total revamping of the base system.

Osprey

[irdeggman]

Osprey,
I wasn&#39;t saying I was gainst changing the multiclassing rules only trying to point out something I think was being overlooked.

Another option (from Complete Warrior and UA, even though it is in the core books but only recently has WotC started to embrace it) is creating &#39;new&#39; classes.

For example:

A paladin of Haelyn probably fits pretty well as the &#39;standard&#39; paladin as does Moradin.

Cuirecean could be redone to better &#39;embrace&#39; the figher theme, perhaps dropping spellcasting ability (and turning undead) {as was done in 2nd ed} replacing it with the ability to specialize and some fighter feats (not the same progression as the fighter since other paladin abilities, like lay on hands and special mount are still available)

Nesiree - could be changed to be less fighter paladin oriented (change the BAB progression to average vice good), drop the special mount and give the water breathing special ability with a different spell list, perhaps a different progression.

Avani - that is the one that is hard to embrace. In 2nd ed, they were clearly the most powerful paladin class. Maybe a different spell list, possibly a different spell progression.

These are just thoughts.

By the way, multiclassing paladins wasn&#39;t something that was originated in the BRCS - it was based on Forgotten Realms, which already had it.

[kgauck]

The paladin of Avani I have used is a kind of a seeker. A powerful warrior,

but with some color text which would more resemble a monk (why should

contemplative warriors be martial artists?) whose spell lists includes a few

more informational spells and whose Will save was improved, while the Fort

save was basic. Khinasi paladins of Avani tend to get light warhorses,

rather than heavy, because it meshes better with Khinasi regional feats.

The special mount of the paladin of Avani gets a +2 Int. I eased up on the

remove disease so that by level 16, he tops off at Remove Disease 4/week.

Skills include Knowledge (all).



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[ConjurerDragon]

Kenneth Gauck schrieb:



>The paladin of Avani I have used is a kind of a seeker. A powerful warrior,

>but with some color text which would more resemble a monk (why should

>contemplative warriors be martial artists?) whose spell lists includes a few

>more informational spells and whose Will save was improved, while the Fort

>save was basic. Khinasi paladins of Avani tend to get light warhorses,

>rather than heavy, because it meshes better with Khinasi regional feats.

>

The Khinasi regional feats on p. 25 of the BRCS in table 1-6?

City-Dweller, Erudition, Master Diplomat, Master Merchant and Seafarer

seem unrelated to the horse of a Paladin and Mounted Archery and

Plainsrider seem to fit to all horses from their description.



The difference I see would be more the type of barding Anuireans use

(heavy barding that slows the heavy warhorse from 50 ft to 35 ft. while

Khinasi would use medium or light barding so that they need not use

light warhorses to have faster horses than Anuireans.



>The special mount of the paladin of Avani gets a +2 Int.

>

The normal heavy warhorse has INT 2 and so INT +2 = 4, but already at

5th level the Paladins Mount gains INT 6 and that raises to 9 on level

20 of the Paladin. What would be the difference of a INT 6 or 8 horse or

later an INT 9 or 11 horse? The horse gains 2 + INT mod. skill points

per HD and the negative modifier means that int he early levels it

always gets only the minimum of 1 skill point, +2 INT or not makes no

differnce. The difference a +2 on INT would make is only that from level

11 of the Paladin onward the Paladins Mount gains not the minimum 1

skill point per HD but 2 skillpoints per HD.



Has that any other effect?



>I eased up on the

>remove disease so that by level 16, he tops off at Remove Disease 4/week.

>Skills include Knowledge (all).

>

Even Knowledge (Planes)? brrrr

bye

Michael

[kgauck]

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

From: "Michael Romes" <Archmage@T-ONLINE.DE>

Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 6:10 AM





> The Khinasi regional feats on p. 25 of the BRCS in table 1-6?



No, the regional feats I devised. Some years ago I looked at the war cards

and observed that each nation had a consistent set of advantages and

disadvnatages, and those play into my feats.



As a result of this study, and historical analogy, I see the Basarji on

light warhorses capable of great strategic speed, not just a slightly faster

tactical speed. I take the Plains States to be like the great steppe which

produced all the great pastoral peoples. So the cavalry tradition is going

to be more Mongol (or Turkish) than it would be Arabic. They only nation for

whom the Composite Shortbow is a martial weapon, rather than an exotic

weapon is the Basarji. I have a feat that allows a Basarji to train their

light horse for more speed, so that when a character rides a horse so

trained, they get a +10 speed. I have a Basarji feat called Skirmish, which

is just like Shot on the Run, except its based on riding a mount (so the

total distance can`r exceed your mount`s normal move) and the prereq is

Mounted Archery.



> The difference I see would be more the type of barding Anuireans use

> (heavy barding that slows the heavy warhorse from 50 ft to 35 ft. while

> Khinasi would use medium or light barding so that they need not use

> light warhorses to have faster horses than Anuireans.



The purpose of a heavy warhorse is for shock action, and Basarji cavalry is

designed more for light cavalry tactics (skirmish, raid, pursuit) rather

than heavy cavalry tactics (charge and break the enemy line). Look at

Anuirean units, there are both Knights and Cavalry. They have heavy and

light cavalry. Going by the ratings of the units, Rjurik, Brecht and the

unit called "Khinasi Light Cavalry" is more like Anuirean Cavalry than it is

like Anuirean Knights. There are some specialized units, say the Blackgate

Stormlords who are knightly, but in general, only Anuireans have heavy

cavalry. If I wanted a unit of Basarji heavy cavalry, indeed I would

proceed as you have described and make them lightly armored (Speed 3,

Defence 3) compared to the Khinasi Light Cavalry (4-2) or Anuirean Knights

(2-4). They would be rare.



> Plainsrider seem to fit to all horses from their description.



This is an insult to Anuirean horsemanship, I think. I give this feat to

both Anuireans and Basarji characters. Both are preeminent horse people.



> Has [the Int bonus] any other effect?



The same effect that the Paladin`s warhorse has when its Int increases by

the Paladin`s level. A creature that has an animal intelligence can only do

what is either totally natural (you can feed your horse) or what you have

trained it to do (tricks, see Handle Animal). An animal with a higher Int

can do was a person of that Int can do, with regard to animals, you can

analogize to children of that many years of age. An animal with a 7 Int can

follow instructions suitable for a 7 year old child. If you send an animal

with an 11 Int out with the instructions, "bring me a druid" you`ll either

get a druid or you`ll be told there were none found. If you ask an animal

with a 6 to find a druid you might get a hermit, a ranger, a scion, or

anything that matches the animal`s conception of what makes a druid a druid.

This problem gets larger the less experience the animal has with drudis.

The Int 6 animal with a lot of experience with druids will do better than

the Int 6 animal without. The Int 11 animal will do reasonably well in

either event assuming that druids are not totally unfamiliar. Smarter

animals can manage a two-part discription better than lower Int animals. If

you describe a ranger as a "nature-warrior" the smart animal tests every

case for both desriptions, the other animal might bring back druids or

knights, which only match one of the descriptors.



There is no substitute for using children as models for low Int creatures.

Experience with little ones gives you good ideas about what kinds of errors

in reasoning will be common with low Int creatures, because it provides a

functional framework for dealing with semi-intelligent animals, something we

have no real experience with. A paladin`s warhorse with a 6 Int is already

as smart (or smarter) than a chimpanzee.



It also stands to reason that if Handle Animal works the way it does with

creatures of animal Int, you could give the task a +1 bonus for each 2

points of Int of the animal beyond 2. A warhorse with an 8 Int would give a

+3 bonus to the task. Presumably, they could learn more and more complex

tasks too.



I would apply Piaget`s four stages of reasoning to the Int of animals this

way. Creatures with animal Int are in the Sensorimotor stage. They can do

things that animals can do. Animals between 3-7 Int (inclusive) are in the

Preoperational stage. They can reason and follow instruction, but their

thinking lacks system and so is often wrong. Animals between 8-12 are

Concrete Operators. As long as they deal with concrete (real) things they

reason pretty well. Animal beyond 13 can reason abtractly. They are Formal

Operators.



All humanoid characters become concrete operators when they get to be

teenagers regardless of Int, exepting, perhaps, the really low Int

characters. Today it is estimated that only a third of people in

industrialized contries every really get to formal operations, so I would

limit this kind of reasoning to PC`s, characters with high Int or Wis, and

the like. Some characters, say an expert craftsman, might be formal

operators with regard to their craft (pricing, crafting, bargaining,

appaisal, learning new techniques) but are concrete operators everywhere

else.



> Even Knowledge (Planes)? brrrr



This would depend on the cosmology of the campaign in question, but in

general yes. I see no reason a paladin of Avani could not learn about the

Shadow World (Avani combats it) or the realm that Avani dwells in. Interest

in other planes (where does Haelyn live?) would fit under just a general

quest for knowledge suitable to all followers of Avani. Obviously, if

something doesn`t exist in a specific campaign world, you cannot know about

it. So even if the only other plane in a game is the SW, the Knowledge

(Planes) is effectively Knowledge (Shadow World). For the two reasons

above, this makes sense.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Birthright-L]

Kenneth Gauck said:

> I take the Plains States to be like the great steppe which

> produced all the great pastoral peoples. So the cavalry tradition is

> going to be more Mongol (or Turkish) than it would be Arabic.



Whoooooo! Turco-Mongol Khinasi!



I have been thinking if the mountainous and forested areas of the

Peninsular are more suited to an Indian style of military, sans elephants.

This needs some work though, I think (and more reading on the Moghuls and

the Hindu principalities for me).



> Going by the ratings of the units, Rjurik, Brecht and the

> unit called "Khinasi Light Cavalry" is more like Anuirean Cavalry than it

> is like Anuirean Knights. There are some specialized units, say the

> Blackgate Stormlords who are knightly, but in general, only Anuireans

> have heavy cavalry. If I wanted a unit of Basarji heavy cavalry, indeed

> I would proceed as you have described and make them lightly armored

> (Speed 3, Defence 3) compared to the Khinasi Light Cavalry (4-2) or

> Anuirean Knights (2-4). They would be rare.



Khinasi have something called (boringly) Medium Cavalry IIRC. I imagine

this is some kind of sipahi-like soldier, who fights with sword, and bow,

and in some cases lances/spears. Mainly armoured in mail, with the

possibility of a cloth (or mail?) barded horse. I`ve decided to dispense

with pretences and actually call them "sipahis" in my games.



Anuirean cavalry (as distinct from knights) confuses me. I am not sure

what role it performs? Is it just detached sergeants deployed seperately

from the knights instead of as a second or third line? Are they mounted

bowmen or crossbowmen in the German mode? Are they some kind of bizarre

fantasy-game artifact? I personally see cavalry in Anuire as having a very

limited role, the only country I expect deploys a lot of them would be

Coeranys (possibly the borderlands of Dhoesone and Mhoried?), since a lot

of the population is mounted and they have a militia tradition.



Brecht cavalry almost certainly developed from the arrival of Anuirean

cavalry and is likely an imitation. A few of them (the Stormlords of

Blackgate) might be good imitiations, but most of them will not be. There

is probably a major difficult in getting good quality horses in Brechtur

too, most horse traders will be coming up from Khinasi and not from

Anuire.



--

John Machin

(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)

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

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

[kgauck]

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

From: "John Machin" <trithemius@KALLISTI.NET.NZ>

Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 9:36 PM



> Anuirean cavalry (as distinct from knights) confuses me. I am

> not sure what role it performs? [...] Are they some kind of bizarre

> fantasy-game artifact?



I think they are like Spanish or Italian cavalry. Neither had gone over to

the French knight on horseback, and saw cavalry, aka ginetes, as good for

hovering around the flanks trying to get behind their opponents, picking off

any stragglers, &c. They were also useful for pinning down enemy infantry.

They were not shock and their charge rating should not reflect a charge, but

the use of expendable weapons, like javelins.



As you know there are national styles of fighting. English tended to have

many more knights fight dismounted and the French. Spanish knights tended

to skirmish following a charge and not ride away and charge again, like the

French. Its fun to imagine some of this behind the warcards, or different

units.



Ginetes wore an aketon, carried some javelins and a sword, and used a

shield. The horse was typically unarmored, though there might be some

additional cloth covering to reduce the harm of incidental blows. When the

Hundred Years War spilled over into Spain and the French and English

intervened, one of the results was that the light cavalry quickly got

heavier. When there are knights on horseback running about, unarmored

cavalry isjust begging to be driven from the field.



Whether a Khinasi paladin was a horsearcher or a fast shock horseman, I

think he would he faster and less armored than an Anuirean who almost always

would be knightly. We get that sterotype from somewhere, and the Anuirean

culture as the Anglo-French chivalric society is the home of that sterotype,

and I see no reason to fight that.



What can be interesting is Brecht cavalry. Its got a real identity crisis,

AFAIC. Are they mounted fencers? Heavy knights? Horse archers? Well

given their own lack of a strong cavalry tradition, I think that Anuirean

and Khinasi tradition would spill over and complicate things. So I would

expect to see a whole variety of horse units, although horse units in

general are significantly more rare in Brectur.



> I personally see cavalry in Anuire as having a very limited role, the

> only country I expect deploys a lot of them would be Coeranys



I think the use of cavalry reflects the strong horse tradition in Anuire.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[kgauck]

It is a bit disappointing that D&D gives us light and heavy horses and

warhorses, but there isn`t so much to distinguish them. No setting I have

seen has given proper interest to horses, and the one serious horse guide I

have seen in the 3x era is full of color, but contains almost no mechanics.



If I want to take the Anuirean paladin, or just the Anuirean knight

seriously, it would be nice to have seperate write ups for destriers,

palfreys, and coursers. Plus wouldn`t it be swell to have full blooded

Turkish, Arabian, and Berber breeds written up as a fast type horse. While

we`re at it, what about Asian horses?



The medieval knight rode destriers because the additional mass of the horse

(they were often twice the weight of other horses) could be conveyed into

the lance during the charge. We have no sense of this in the charge rules

or the horse rules.



Some horse person (breeder, track addict, trainer, &c) who is a gamer needs

to be found to make some sense of all this. While were at it make them an

anthropologist too so they can break all of this down for

non-medieval-European horses too. Was their an ideal chariot type horse?



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[geeman]

At 02:44 AM 3/23/2004 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:



>While we`re at it, what about Asian horses?



Here`s an interesting site on Asian (or Japanese, at least) horses with

some interesting historical information in addition to stuff on the various

breeds, their qualities, etc.



http://www.imh.org/imh/bw/japan.html



Gary

[irdeggman]

Has anybody checked out the book I referenced earlier, Noble Steeds by Avalanche Press?

Kenneth, it has the types of details on different horses that you are referring to.

I&#39;ve talked to some of the people at Avalanche Press and they&#39;ve given us tacit approval to create Cerilian horse types, as long as we reference their book. I&#39;m not certain how much of the text we could freely use and I&#39;m loath to use something that would require people to purchase yet another book to use. But for those who want more details and variations for mounts it is a very good book, and it is on sale (I think it is running around &#036;5 US currently).

[kgauck]

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

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

Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 5:00 AM





> Has anybody checked out the book I referenced earlier, Noble

Steeds by Avalanche Press?



I haven`t been able to find it in stores, I`m just gonna have to go on-line.

Much as I like to support the local retailer, if they can`t special order it

on goods terms ....



I don`t know how many people are really taht interested in horses. If it

were more popular, we would probabaly have more products out there. As

usual, I`ll consider myself a niche market and nay-say putting much horse

material in the core BRCS.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Birthright-L]

Kenneth Gauck said:

> I think they are like Spanish or Italian cavalry. Neither had gone over

> to the French knight on horseback, and saw cavalry, aka ginetes, as good

> for hovering around the flanks trying to get behind their opponents,

> picking off any stragglers, &c. They were also useful for pinning down

> enemy infantry. They were not shock and their charge rating should not

> reflect a charge, but the use of expendable weapons, like javelins.



Should it be pointed out that these troops likely developed in the face of

Islamic cavalry? Other "neighbour-nations" also developed good lighter

cavalry arms as well (Serb gusars, Hungarian hussars, szkeler, etc).

Perhaps Anuirean cavalry developed after the Basarji war of independence?



I`m inclined to treat genitors/jinetes as (in DBM terms) `Light Horse` and

treat the Anuirean Cavalry of WarCard System fame as seperately deployed

"varlets" in the Burgundian mode; in DBM these are classed as `Cavalry`,

instead of being assumed to be included in elements (DBM for "unit") of

`Knights`.



> As you know there are national styles of fighting. English tended to have

> many more knights fight dismounted and the French. Spanish knights tended

> to skirmish following a charge and not ride away and charge again, like

> the French. Its fun to imagine some of this behind the warcards, or

> different units.



I totally agree. That is why I use wargames rules. English knights are

Regular Knights (Inferior), who dismount as Regular Blades (Ordinary);

French chivalry are Irregular Knights (Superior); Spanish are Irregular

(later Regular?) Knights (Fast).



> Ginetes wore an aketon, carried some javelins and a sword, and used a

> shield. The horse was typically unarmored, though there might be some

> additional cloth covering to reduce the harm of incidental blows. When

> the

> Hundred Years War spilled over into Spain and the French and English

> intervened, one of the results was that the light cavalry quickly got

> heavier. When there are knights on horseback running about, unarmored

> cavalry isjust begging to be driven from the field.



If you are Western Europeans and like to use them in strange ways.



> Whether a Khinasi paladin was a horsearcher or a fast shock horseman, I

> think he would he faster and less armored than an Anuirean who almost

> always would be knightly. We get that sterotype from somewhere, and the

> Anuirean culture as the Anglo-French chivalric society is the home of that

> sterotype, and I see no reason to fight that.



Not getting any fighting from me on that one!



> What can be interesting is Brecht cavalry. Its got a real identity

> crisis, AFAIC. Are they mounted fencers? Heavy knights? Horse

> archers? Well given their own lack of a strong cavalry tradition, I

> think that Anuirean and Khinasi tradition would spill over and complicate

> things. So I would expect to see a whole variety of horse units,

> although horse units in general are significantly more rare in Brectur.



In Rheulgard where there is a Khinasi style city state and actual plains

to ride around on I would expect Khinasi style cavalry. For the rest I am

imagining bad imitation Anuirean cavalry. It`s possible that lighter

genitor types have been adopted, but I get the impression that for the

Brecht manoevre means getting out to sea on a boat.



> I think the use of cavalry reflects the strong horse tradition in Anuire.



A heavy horse tradition maybe; and that is knights to my mind. Genitors,

as I have said, don`t strike me as popular in the Heartlands of Anuire and

would be confined to places like Coeranys, and possibly Dhoesone, since

they are dealing with raiders mainly, not heavily armoured military

horsemen. Coeranys is also noted as being a horsed population; even in a

nation with a horseman tradition specific notation of this trend must

count for something.



P.S. Is anyone else noticing a topic drift? Or is that all my fault?



--

John Machin

(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)

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

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

[Birthright-L]

Kenneth Gauck said:

> Was their an ideal chariot type horse?



I`ll try and remember to poll the ancient and Chinese army players at the

wargamers society meeting this week, if you like?



--

John Machin

(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)

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

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

[Birthright-L]

Kenneth Gauck said:

> I`ll consider myself a niche market and nay-say putting much horse

> material in the core BRCS.



That *must* be "neigh-say" Kenneth. ;)



--

John Machin

(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)

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

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