Rev Chap 1 Char Classes

[irdeggman]

Allright here is a revision to the revised Chap 1. It only has character class info. I did not work on the Magician class since so far there hasn't been enough focused discussion on ways to tweek it.

A lot of things have been changed (partial list); Info on where rangers get their spells, paladin alignments, variant for new paladin classes, revised noble class.

The favored terrain bonus for the spell-less ranger variant is from the Athas.org ranger. I asked them for permission to use it and they said yes. I didn't want to make the spell-less ranger too similar to the combat oriented one from the Complete Warrior. That one can always be used by a DM if they want to.


Here is the pdf file download.

[irdeggman]

Here is a zipped word version.

[Osprey]

Looking over the Paladin of Cuiraecen, it looked really good -at first. But looking more closely, I realized it is way underpowered compared to a fighter or especially a fighter/paladin. The problem is that after 5th level, with no spells nor turning ability, they become a far less attractive class than fighters. The low-level abilities are great, the high level ones too few.
I'd give them a bonus feat at 4th level and every 3 levels thereafter, as they're not getting the spells and turning of normal paladins; their lay on hands, special mount, and remove disease keep going up though, so they shouldn't have as many feats as a fighter, but 1 per 3 seems reasonable and keeps them more balanced with fighters and other paladins at higher levels.

[RaspK_FOG]

My initial idea was to give them another feat at 1st level but, hey, we need ideas!

Care to share? ;)

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Osprey@Jun 9 2004, 06:33 PM
Looking over the Paladin of Cuiraecen, it looked really good -at first. But looking more closely, I realized it is way underpowered compared to a fighter or especially a fighter/paladin. The problem is that after 5th level, with no spells nor turning ability, they become a far less attractive class than fighters. The low-level abilities are great, the high level ones too few.
I'd give them a bonus feat at 4th level and every 3 levels thereafter, as they're not getting the spells and turning of normal paladins; their lay on hands, special mount, and remove disease keep going up though, so they shouldn't have as many feats as a fighter, but 1 per 3 seems reasonable and keeps them more balanced with fighters and other paladins at higher levels.
Compare it to the spell less paladin from the Compete Warrior (pg 13). In exchange for losing the ability to cast spells they gain 4 extra abilities (which I correspond to feats) then take away turn undead and I added in an extra feat. The abilities added in the CW are more limiting than being able to choose any fighter feat, including specialization (and its feat tree).

A bonus feat at 4th and every 3rd level after would be a total of 6 extra feats if my math is correct. A fighter gets a total of 11 bonus feats. The paladin still gets all of the other standard paladin abilities (e.g., lay on hands, smite evil, detect evil, divine grace, divine health, aura of courage, special mount, remove disease). How does this all stack up with the extra 5 feats that a fighter would get? The fighter, IMO would then come up way behind the paladin.

I did play around with whether or not losing turning udnead was worth 1 or 2 bonus feats but went with the former because of the choice of feats allowed.

[teloft]

I do not have acrobat reader at this internet caffey Im currently using, So hapens its the only one for miles, and the OTHER one has closed down for all buisniss. I think thayll chance it into a pub.

So my request is for a plain text version, or simmilar !!

well, if its to much problem, then its ok. I can always walk thows miles.

Keep up the good work

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by teloft@Jun 9 2004, 08:01 PM
I do not have acrobat reader at this internet caffey Im currently using, So hapens its the only one for miles, and the OTHER one has closed down for all buisniss. I think thayll chance it into a pub.

So my request is for a plain text version, or simmilar !!

well, if its to much problem, then its ok. I can always walk thows miles.

Keep up the good work
No zip files either?

The zipped one was a word version.

I'll post another link with an unzipped word version.

Here it is:

[fiftyone]

Does the Smite Evil ability of the Paladin of Cuiraecen progress for more uses?

And Monks.. No monks? There's great potential for Monks as prestige like classes, each geared towards lawful dieties. Kriesha for example could have monks that attain special affinity for the cold etc. Perhaps at a high level thier fists turn into Frost weapons :D I know this thing has gone through tons of revisions, but since I'm unemployed for atleast a month (maybe the whole summer!) I have plenty of time to think and write/type stuff up now! :D

@ Osprey - A Paladin is a melee character (usually), but not a melee specialist. The fighter gets bonus feats and that's all he has for class features. The Barbarian has his rage ability which isn't reliant on his enemy's alignment (and several other minor abilities). The Paladin is a sturdy combatant w/ his bonuses to saves/immunities and heavy armor ability, but he isnt a fighter. He's a champion of good and thus his abilities are geared towards fighting evil.


IMO, this is drastic but,.. I'd say make the Cleric, Fighter, Magician, Noble, Rogue and Wizard the only BR base classes. Prestige or regionalize/racialize (Is that.. are those even words? lol) everything else.




and.. Sorry I havn't posted in awhile. Had a great paying job opportunity that lasted about 3 weeks (subcontracting friends ftw) and I spent a week in GED study/prep (which I took this past Monday and Tuesday). I dropped out of HS about three years ago at the beginning of my junior year.

I'll happily post a revised High Mage Aelies of you'll still have me. :wub: Also have a Boeruine and Avanil in the works. ^_^ and rhuobhe, chimaera, binman revisions... lalala

[irdeggman]

Does the Smite Evil ability of the Paladin of Cuiraecen progress for more uses?

My bad. The paladin of Cuiraecen should have the exact same progression on Smite Evil as does the PHB paladin. I'll fix it in the 'final version.


And Monks.. No monks? There's great potential for Monks as prestige like classes, each geared towards lawful dieties. Kriesha for example could have monks that attain special affinity for the cold etc. Perhaps at a high level thier fists turn into Frost weapons I know this thing has gone through tons of revisions, but since I'm unemployed for atleast a month (maybe the whole summer!) I have plenty of time to think and write/type stuff up now!

The idea of monks in Birthright has been discussed to death. See the FAQ for links on this. The PHB monk is basically an oriental/internal spiritual model. There is only one culture that could reasonablly support them - the Khinasi. They do not get their abilities from a deity, at least no the PHB version. Several people have done their own cultural variations of the clas for use in their own games and that it is the best way to handle the class.



IMO, this is drastic but,.. I'd say make the Cleric, Fighter, Magician, Noble, Rogue and Wizard the only BR base classes. Prestige or regionalize/racialize (Is that.. are those even words? lol) everything else.

Paladins have also been discussed and voted on so that is where we are with them.

To drop ranger from the list of core BR classes is also something that most people don't want. Another poll was done on BR rangers. Spellcasting versus non-spell casting.

[soudhadies]

I did not work on the Magician class since so far there hasn't been enough focused discussion on ways to tweek it.


Lets try to take that on then :).

I've spent a bit of time reviewing the class as it appears in the original campaign, in the BoM and in the 3E conversion. What concerns me is the shift in the difference between lesser magic and true magic between the two versions. I'm sure that you can elaborate on this for me but it appears as if the BRCS magician's spell list is derived in a large part from the D20 bard's spell list. This creates a situation where lesser magic, instead of being a subset of arcane magic entirely contained within the scope of True Magic, is a subset of arcane magic that overlaps in some places with True Magic.

This runs counter to the spirit of the original distinction, which was that any wizard could cast any spell a magician could cast, but not vice versa. Magicians were limited by birth in power, and the fact that they had to work so hard to make even the smallest magical tasks function is in large part something that gives True casters an aura of mystique and power. Thus, I feel that magicians should have their original spellcasting restrictions returned (Only Illusion and Divination spells beyond second level).

Similarly, the bard should lose spells, but only to a lesser extent. Although he original BR prohibited all bards (even blooded ones) from using True Magic, it seemed to draw a distinction between Wizardly magic and Bardic magic (hence they were also granted the use of enchantment spells). Thus while bards should lose spells from their list above second level, they should be allowed to keep "bardic spells", such as charms, bard specific spells (Sculpt Sound for instance), and perhaps even spells that appear on bard spell lists but not on Wizard/Sorcerors spell lists.

Now, the counter-argument of balance is sure to be brought up, and I'm pretty sure that a reply of "they got shafted in the original verion, so they should get shafted now" isn't going to fly real well.

For bards the argument could be made that they already gain a sort of tradeoff. Even though they lose abilities, they are pretty much untouchable in many cultural regions, and that alone can help make up for the loss (as long as they don't abuse it). If that doesn't work out in Vosgaard or Khinasi, well, that's why bards are so rare in those regions: it just doesn't pay to be one. If you wanted to quantify that benefit, you could say that bards gain a hefty bonus to Diplomacy, Bluff, and Gather Information Skills in friendly regions.

For Magicians, a lot of the important work has been done. They gain more skill points than Wizards, which reflects the expanded proficiency categories from the original very well, and the Spontaneous casting ability is a really good way of representing the original cantrip talents of magicians.

Its the special abilities that need work. Right now they are kind of "blah". Of course, being myself, I have a suggestion of one possible way to improve it.

One of the things that I've noticed in the new Magician class is a loss of the focus on their being specialists in Illusion and Divination, because they have to put extra effort there for lack of other spells. I propose that the special abilities reflect this. Borrowing a little from the "Noble Focus" of the noble class, we could divide the special abilities into a "Path of Knowing" and a "Path of Seeming" (The terms being borrowed from BoM p.48).

Unlike the Noble Focus, each path is a linear progression that the magician can follow, but the Magician is not bound to either path. Thus you can have "generalists" who follow both paths to some extent, "seers" who follow the path of knowing exclusively, and "magicians" who follow the path of seeming exclusively (the distinction between seers and magicians also appears in the BoM p.48). A magician would get a new special ability from either path at 1st, 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th level.

Here is an idea for how the paths might look:

Path of Knowing

Specialty (First Step): Add +1 to the difficulty scores of saving throws against divination spells cast by the magician. Furthermore, the magician receives a +1 bonus to all saving throws versus divination spells, and gains a +2 bonus to Spellcraft checks to add a divination spell to her spellbook. The effects of this ability do not stack with Spell Focus(Divination), but this ability can be considered as a virtual Spell Focus (Divination) feat.

Advisor (Second Step): Seers have a tendency to just "know" things that will be helpful to their companions. A Seer with this ability automatically succeeds on any attempt to aid another character in the use of a skill. If the seer is untrained in a skill that requires training, and still wants to aid her companion, she may make an untrained skill check anyway against a DC of 15 (She knows what needs to be done, but doesn't neccessarily have the vocabulary to express it). To use this ability the seer does not neccessarily have to be physically in the same location as the companion. The only requirement is that she be able to communicate with him (either verbally or telepathically). The seer can only aide one companion at any given moment.

Prescient (Third Step): The seer is so attuned to fortune and augury that she can anticipate attacks before they are even launched. She can add her wisdom bonus to her armor class. She can can also keep her Dexterity and Wisdom bonuses when caught flat-footed.

Master Advisor (Fourth Step): By this point in her career, a seer is able to provide assistance on a grand scale and influence the fate of nations. She may grant a +2 circumstance bonus to any domain action roll by a regent. Using this ability requires a character action on the part of the seer, meaning that it can only be used once in a given domain round.

Oracular (Fifth Step): Once per month the seer can learn the answer to one question. The question can be about anything past or present (although questions about future events will be much vaguer). This ability is similar to Contact Other Plane although the entity contacted will always know the answer, will never lie, and using this ability poses no risk of reducing the seers ability score. Furthermore, the answer is not limited to a one word answer, but instead can be a short sentence.

Path of Seeming

Specialty (First Step): Add +1 to the difficulty scores of saving throws against illusion spells cast by the magician. Furthermore, the magician receives a +1 bonus to all saving throws versus illusion spells, and gains a +2 bonus to Spellcraft checks to add an illusion spell to her spellbook. The effects of this ability do not stack with Spell Focus(Illusion), but this ability can be considered as a virtual Spell Focus(Illusion) feat.

Trickster (Second Step): By using his talent for cantrips and minor glamers and figments a magician can distract, unbalance, or otherwise interfere with an enemy. Using this ability is a move equivalent action and imposes a -1 penalty to the victim's next roll. It can be used as often as the magician likes, and at a range of five feet per magician level. Activating the ability provokes an attack of opportunity.

Dissembler (Third Step): As the magician's talents at manipulating image and sound grow he develops the ability to generate a small displacement field. Using this ability requires a full round action, but grants the magician the benefits of 20% cover for the next ten rounds. Activating this ability provokes an attack of opportunity.

Master of Illusion (Fourth Step): The magician has become so adept at manipulating his creations that concentration is considered to be a free action while he has a line of sight to his spell effect. This applies only to spells of the illusion school.

True Illusion (Fifth Step): One of the sources of illusionary magic is the Shadow World and the Seeming. By the time that a magician has reached a certain level of expertise he can draw significant amounts of the Seeming into the waking world itself. Using this ability requires a full-round action that provokes attacks of opportunity. The magician can use it to accomplish any of the following (or any similar task at the DM's discretion): make a melee attack against any creature within 50 feet, transport any movable object or creature 30 feet in any direction (the object cannot be transported into another solid object), replicate the effects of any spell up to third level (with a maximum duration of 5 rounds for non-instantaneous spells), halve the hardness of any inanimate object for 5 rounds, or double the hardness of any inanimate object for 5 rounds. The magician must make a will saving throw at DC 10 or be drawn into the Shadow World without having a means of returning. Each successive use of this ability during a twenty-four hour period increases the save DC by two.

[Athos69]

I like Bearcat's ideas for the Magician, but since I'm more focused on the Skills and Feats discussions, I'll give a greewn light to whatever happens here in the Character Class discussions

[RaspK_FOG]

Originally posted by "Bearcat"+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ("Bearcat")</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>One of the things that I&#39;ve noticed in the new Magician class is a loss of the focus on their being specialists in Illusion and Divination, because they have to put extra effort there for lack of other spells. I propose that the special abilities reflect this. Borrowing a little from the "Noble Focus" of the noble class, we could divide the special abilities into a "Path of Knowing" and a "Path of Seeming" (The terms being borrowed from BoM p.48).

Unlike the Noble Focus, each path is a linear progression that the magician can follow, but the Magician is not bound to either path. Thus you can have "generalists" who follow both paths to some extent, "seers" who follow the path of knowing exclusively, and "magicians" who follow the path of seeming exclusively (the distinction between seers and magicians also appears in the BoM p.48). A magician would get a new special ability from either path at 1st, 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th level.[/b]
I like your idea a lot: it incorporates the feeling of 2e nicely.


Originally posted by "Bearcat"@
Specialty (First Step): Add +1 to the difficulty scores of saving throws against divination spells cast by the magician. Furthermore, the magician receives a +1 bonus to all saving throws versus divination spells, and gains a +2 bonus to Spellcraft checks to add a divination spell to her spellbook. The effects of this ability do not stack with Spell Focus(Divination), but this ability can be considered as a virtual Spell Focus (Divination) feat.
This could essentially be translated another way (I need to remind you here that Arcane Defence was a 3e feat from Tome and Blood that required of you to have Spell Focus with the same school in order to grant you a +2 bonus on saves against that school; in 3.5e, the bonus should be reduced to +1):
Parting the Veil of Truth (Rasp&#39;s Note: or whatever): You gain Spell Focus (Divination) and Arcane Defence (Divination) (Rasp&#39;s Note: or you could avoid making such a reference for the site&#39;s own good; stupid me&#33;), and also gain the benefits a wizard specialist gains for specialising in the school of Illusion.
The same should apply on the path of Seeming as well.

<!--QuoteBegin-"Bearcat"
Trickster (Second Step): By using his talent for cantrips and minor glamers and figments a magician can distract, unbalance, or otherwise interfere with an enemy. Using this ability is a move equivalent action and imposes a -1 penalty to the victim&#39;s next roll. It can be used as often as the magician likes, and at a range of five feet per magician level. Activating the ability provokes an attack of opportunity.[/quote]
The range should be "Close", that is, 25 feet plus 5 feet for every 2 levels.

[soudhadies]

This could essentially be translated another way (I need to remind you here that Arcane Defence was a 3e feat from Tome and Blood that required of you to have Spell Focus with the same school in order to grant you a +2 bonus on saves against that school; in 3.5e, the bonus should be reduced to +1)


The reason I did this the way I did was because I was working exclusively from the SRD. I didn&#39;t want to reference a feat that either (as you observed, could get the website in trouble), or not everyone would have access to. Basically my goal here was to approximate the benefits of specialization that the magician&#39;s gained in 2e. I didn&#39;t use the 3E as a model (except for the chance to learn spells) because the bonus spell gained by the magician is already in their spell progression table, and requiring that that spell be from the schools of magic to which they are restricted seemed a little bit ridiculous. To make up for that I threw in the other benefits of 2e specialization instead.



The range should be "Close", that is, 25 feet plus 5 feet for every 2 levels.


That would also work fine.

Any comments on the balance of the abilities themselves? I tried to keep it relatively balanced with an eye to when each step could first be gained, but I&#39;m still not sure whether they get over powered towards the end.

[Osprey]

Any comments on the balance of the abilities themselves? I tried to keep it relatively balanced with an eye to when each step could first be gained, but I&#39;m still not sure whether they get over powered towards the end.

First off, wanted to say, I really, really like the Paths concepts: very cool&#33; :)

Now, as for some constructive feedback, one of the abilities really stood out as potentially over-powered.


Master Advisor (Fourth Step): By this point in her career, a seer is able to provide assistance on a grand scale and influence the fate of nations. She may grant a +2 circumstance bonus to any domain action roll by a regent. Using this ability requires a character action on the part of the seer, meaning that it can only be used once in a given domain round.


I would write in a limit of once per season for this ability, balancing it with the idea of lieutenants being able to &#39;step in&#39; for a regent once a season. This way a regent has to choose what&#39;s really important for his seer advisor to aid in, rather than allowing a +2 bonus to all domain actions if the seer is a permanent fixture in the court.

A few other comments:

Advisor (Second Step): Seers have a tendency to just "know" things that will be helpful to their companions. A Seer with this ability automatically succeeds on any attempt to aid another character in the use of a skill. If the seer is untrained in a skill that requires training, and still wants to aid her companion, she may make an untrained skill check anyway against a DC of 15 (She knows what needs to be done, but doesn&#39;t neccessarily have the vocabulary to express it). To use this ability the seer does not neccessarily have to be physically in the same location as the companion. The only requirement is that she be able to communicate with him (either verbally or telepathically). The seer can only aide one companion at any given moment.


How about just requiring a Concentration check at DC 10 for any skill the Magician has ranks in, and DC 20 for any untrained skill? Automatic seems a bit over the top, but a good Concentration skill will cover the bases pretty well.

Also, a good alternative for the Advisor step would be gaining the Lore skill as bards - I think this is an excellent representation of a seer&#39;s ability to pull random pieces of information out of his mystical hat, to know normally unknowable things - it would be equal to his Magician level plus INT modifier, +2 if he has 5 or more ranks in K/History. Also, you could add a special synergy for magicians, +2 for 5 or more ranks in Concentration. :)

Otherwise, I like the other Seer progresions (Prescient is very cool; Uncanny Dodge + Wis bonus to AC is quite strong, but not uber-powered).

One other thing: I would simply name the first step of each path as the Spell Focus bonus feat, and then add the additional ability of save bonuses as a second part of the advance. This way it is clear that the magician can take Greater Spell Focus as a seperate feat.

An idea for True Illusion: What if the magician doubled the "reality" of any Shadow spells, up to 100% maximum, or added a certain percentage of realness (maybe 10% per 5 class levels?) to any Shadow spell. The Shadow spells are definitely the truest representation of spells that draw on the Seeming, and it seems appropriate that a master could draw more of the realness into them.

There&#39;s my 2-1/2 cents. :)

Osprey

[Athos69]

How about just requiring a Concentration check at DC 10 for any skill the Magician has ranks in, and DC 20 for any untrained skill? Automatic seems a bit over the top, but a good Concentration skill will cover the bases pretty well.
Maybe use a wisdom check instead? DC 10 / 15?

[graham anderson]

I like the ideas bearcat I do something quite similar to this for magicians myself but think that your version looks better. I also think that magicians should have access to only divination illusion spells beyond 2nd lev.

[Osprey]

Similarly, the bard should lose spells, but only to a lesser extent. Although he original BR prohibited all bards (even blooded ones) from using True Magic, it seemed to draw a distinction between Wizardly magic and Bardic magic (hence they were also granted the use of enchantment spells). Thus while bards should lose spells from their list above second level, they should be allowed to keep "bardic spells", such as charms, bard specific spells (Sculpt Sound for instance), and perhaps even spells that appear on bard spell lists but not on Wizard/Sorcerors spell lists.

Now, the counter-argument of balance is sure to be brought up, and I&#39;m pretty sure that a reply of "they got shafted in the original verion, so they should get shafted now" isn&#39;t going to fly real well.

For bards the argument could be made that they already gain a sort of tradeoff. Even though they lose abilities, they are pretty much untouchable in many cultural regions, and that alone can help make up for the loss (as long as they don&#39;t abuse it). If that doesn&#39;t work out in Vosgaard or Khinasi, well, that&#39;s why bards are so rare in those regions: it just doesn&#39;t pay to be one. If you wanted to quantify that benefit, you could say that bards gain a hefty bonus to Diplomacy, Bluff, and Gather Information Skills in friendly regions.


These are interesting proposals. However, I really see no great need to power down bardic magic for Birthright.

The bards&#39; spell lists are already heavily focused on Enchantment as the primary school, and illusion and some transmutation (ex. haste/slow) as secondary schools. Otherwise, some sonic spells make up their only really offensive powers.

I think the art of Spellsong should not be directly equated with magicians&#39; magic. While both might be Lesser Magic, this doesn&#39;t necesarily mean a huge difference inpower so much as approach. I see Spellsong as being one of the most potent of lesser magic paths, a high art that makes the most of the Lesser Path through the magic of harmonics and song. The fact that bardic magic might duplicate true magic as level 3+ spells doesn&#39;t bother me in the slightest, because I see the spells being cast in a way that is entirely different than a wizard or even a sorcerer would cast them.

I think Spellsong should be regarded as "lesser" more as a true mage&#39;s point of view and a commentary on its method - generally more subtle, less forceful, more like coaxing than forcing magic out of the land, people, and the songs themselves.

And if a Spellsong master can wollop out a Shout or Greater Shout once in a while, well - more power to him&#33; This is the power of Spellsong, not a great blast of mebhaighal shaped into a sonic effect as a mage would do it. Though a mage might believe it to be such a thing, the bard would know it&#39;s a special property of attuning the harmonics of his spellsong to special destructive frequencies - a subtle approach (as is fitting), but with a very loud and dramatic effect.

Bottom line: it&#39;s not what you do that distinguishes lesser and greater magic, but HOW you do it that makes all the difference. Spellsong is an elven art, while magicians are a more human approach to lesser magic. So it makes sense that magicians remain divination and illusion specialists, while bards remain slightly superior in their diverse choice of spells, but will have fewer of them and lower levels than magicians.

Osprey

[soudhadies]

Bottom line: it&#39;s not what you do that distinguishes lesser and greater magic, but HOW you do it that makes all the difference. Spellsong is an elven art, while magicians are a more human approach to lesser magic. So it makes sense that magicians remain divination and illusion specialists, while bards remain slightly superior in their diverse choice of spells, but will have fewer of them and lower levels than magicians.


Quite so. I am convinced. Bards can be left as they are. Magicians, however,
should have the old restrictions placed upon them.



How about just requiring a Concentration check at DC 10 for any skill the Magician has ranks in, and DC 20 for any untrained skill? Automatic seems a bit over the top, but a good Concentration skill will cover the bases pretty well.


The way in which the Aid Another on a skill thing works is that the helper must make a skill check against DC 10 to give the companion a +2 bonus to their roll. This is a relatively easy task to accomplish for most characters, so my intention was just to allow the magician to forgo that formality. Another option would be to bend the rule and say that Magician&#39;s can take 10 for such rolls (which normally isn&#39;t allowed). That would mean sucess isn&#39;t guaranteed unless the Magician would know what they were doing anyway (I.E. have a non-negative bonus). The untrained thing would stay the same.



Also, a good alternative for the Advisor step would be gaining the Lore skill as bards - I think this is an excellent representation of a seer&#39;s ability to pull random pieces of information out of his mystical hat, to know normally unknowable things - it would be equal to his Magician level plus INT modifier, +2 if he has 5 or more ranks in K/History. Also, you could add a special synergy for magicians, +2 for 5 or more ranks in Concentration. :)


That would also work.

However, the concept that I had with both of the advisor powers was that a seer is somewhat useless by herself, or when nobody pays attention to her (Like poor Cassandra from the Trojan War), but really shines when other characters make use of their abilities (I guess I wanted them to be the ultimate support class :) ).

I also wanted to avoid copying any other class features mostly verbatim without doing new and exciting things with them (Hence the uncanny dodge/monk AC fusion that is Prescient) because I see that a lot and I think that expanding the horizons of the game is a good thing.

Also, it brings focus to an aspect/rule of the game that doesn&#39;t get used nearly enough in my opinion ;)



I would write in a limit of once per season for this ability, balancing it with the idea of lieutenants being able to &#39;step in&#39; for a regent once a season. This way a regent has to choose what&#39;s really important for his seer advisor to aid in, rather than allowing a +2 bonus to all domain actions if the seer is a permanent fixture in the court.


Good suggestion, that would make them function like the expert advisors in the Book of Regency. I would recommend increasing the bonus to +3 in this case. A 15th+ level seer should be able to act as the highest grade of expert advisor.



One other thing: I would simply name the first step of each path as the Spell Focus bonus feat, and then add the additional ability of save bonuses as a second part of the advance. This way it is clear that the magician can take Greater Spell Focus as a seperate feat.


I thought I had made that clear by saying that it could act as a virtual Spell Focus feat, but if this change would clarify it (or be significantly less verbose for that matter) it would be reasonable to adopt it.



An idea for True Illusion: What if the magician doubled the "reality" of any Shadow spells, up to 100% maximum, or added a certain percentage of realness (maybe 10% per 5 class levels?) to any Shadow spell. The Shadow spells are definitely the truest representation of spells that draw on the Seeming, and it seems appropriate that a master could draw more of the realness into them.


That would work well too. Although the 10% per fives levels thing is kinda moot unless you&#39;re using epic characters (You have to be at least 20th level to gain this ability). What I was going for was that the magician could pretty much do anything that someone with Lesser Seeming (See Blood Spawn p. 7) could do in the Shadow World although for a relatively short duration (and the use of the ability being limited by a major potential drawback).

[soudhadies]

Another issue that needs to be addressed is that of Ex-Magicians and Ex-Wizards. This is something that seems to be an ongoing assumption in the chapter that if you&#39;re blooded you stay blooded, and if you&#39;re unblooded you stay unblooded. However, due to investiture, divestiture, and the new usurpation rules, this isn&#39;t neccessarily the case. So what happens when a magician becomes blooded or wizard/sorceror loses their bloodline?

Ex-Magicians/Ex-Wizards

I think that the most crucial thing to remember about these two is that they essentially do the same thing, but that they are separated from each other solely by bloodline. I think that they should have to take levels in the opposite class instead of the original class, but I think that they should use their combined levels in both classes to determine spells per day (probably using the table from their original class: ex-Magicians will still have that specialist flair they always had, while ex-Wizards are coming into the Lesser Magic game late and so don&#39;t have the extra spell per day.)

Ex-Sorcerors

This one is a problem for me. Sorcerors gain their magical abilities by using their innate "spark" to manipulate magic. In Standard D20 this comes from dragonblood or some such thing. In BR it can be assumed to be elven blood or a divine bloodline. So what happens to a human sorceror who loses their bloodline and hence their "spark"? Are they completely screwed and lose all their spell casting abilities? Lesser magic seems to require loads of studying and practice to make up for being sparkless, so that seems to be the most reasonable consequence. However, it seems unneccesarily harsh (I can already visualize the hypothetical player of a 20th level sorceror sitting across from me shouting "I lose what-now?&#33;"). I&#39;m not sure what a well explained alternative would be.

Of course, another question this discussion brings to my mind is "What happens when a blooded scion of a major or great line loses their bloodline?". Specifically, what happens to their Scion class levels? Do they lose them? Do you lose the bloodline and leadership bonus, but keep the skills and hit points? This probably wasn&#39;t a problem in Savage Species because presumably if you are a Minotaur character there is no way for you to become a not-Minotaur character. I think the solution to both this question and the sorceror question should be related somehow. I know that Chapter 2 is closed, but this is a case of something coming up in relation to another chapter that has wider implications (besides, its better to have a standardized answer than to make everyone come up with a houserule).

[RaspK_FOG]

First of, I want to point out that I would like to see magicians having to prepare one of their spells per level as a spell of their chosen path, or either divination or illusion if a generalist magician: the whole idea that magicians get more spells per day than a wizard, even if those spells are very limited, seems rather jumpy...

I generally believe that the following could solve ex-class issues: Magicians who become blooded can continue gaining levels as magicians, or they can take wizard levels. In the latter case, the character has to start over in his career, but his caster level equals his magician and wizard level totals in spells found on both spell lists: he just has to reeducate himself.
Ex-sorcerers are a tricky issue: since their ability to tap mebhaighal is derived from a special connection to the land, they will immediately lose any spell-casting ability. However, I somehow cannot think of a sorcerer as a bearer of offspring in the manner of kings, and thus I do not know what would come to pass of his bloodline.
Ex-wizards should be able to train as magicians by learning new spells.

[soudhadies]

Ex-sorcerers are a tricky issue: since their ability to tap mebhaighal is derived from a special connection to the land, they will immediately lose any spell-casting ability. However, I somehow cannot think of a sorcerer as a bearer of offspring in the manner of kings, and thus I do not know what would come to pass of his bloodline.


I&#39;m not exactly sure what you mean by that. Non-Elven sorcerors gain their special connection to the land from their Bloodline (which is required for a Non-Elven Caster to use True Magic) so theoretically, if you cut the bloodline you lose the connection. If you&#39;re saying that they are less likely to wilingly give up their bloodline than a landed regent would to an heir/successor. Well, that is probably the case, but that doesn&#39;t preclude their being tied down and forcefully divested of their bloodline.



First of, I want to point out that I would like to see magicians having to prepare one of their spells per level as a spell of their chosen path, or either divination or illusion if a generalist magician: the whole idea that magicians get more spells per day than a wizard, even if those spells are very limited, seems rather jumpy...


Logically speaking this is only a problem for 0th, 1st, and 2nd level spells (In my theory of the Magician spelllist at least). For third level spells and up a Magician will have no choice but to use that slot for an illusion or divination spell, because they are the only spells available to him. And it could be argued that since Magicians are such masters of cantrips that they could conceivably have that extra 0th level spell. So basically we would be making a rule that applies to only a small fraction (2 spell levels) of their spell choice, and that seems a little like overkill.

The problem with making magicians (or wizards) "start over" is that he has to spend the first four levels of his new career learning spells that he can already cast. He also ends up with a very large number of lower level spells per day. I think using one table and applying both levels to the number of spells cast (so a Ex-Mag 5/Wiz 5 casts and prepares spells as a Mag 10) is better. Think of the gaining of a bloodline as the "Eureka" moment where the Magician can do everything he knew how to do but lacked the innate ability to do.

[graham anderson]

Blooded people can be magicians it is a style of magic that anyone can learn.

I have tried to work these issues out in this ways

If a wizard loses his bloodline he still has access to lesser magic( ie the spells that a magician has access to) but has none of the bonuses you get from the magician class. The wizard can then continue to advance in the wizard or magician class.

Ex sorcerers is not a problem for me as I only allow elves access to the sorcerer class but I would have to agree that if you loose your bloodline you loose your spell casting ability. I have no problem with this it creates a great in game story as the character tries to recover his lost power advancing in other levels during the quest. If you really don&#39;t like striping someone of all their spell casting you might let them adapt to a bard as its probably the closest class to sorcerer but I don&#39;t like this much myself.

[irdeggman]

Sorry it took me so long to start replying to these comments/suggestions, but when Arjan did that &#39;magic&#39; yesterday concerning the mail-serv scripts it somehow &#39;disabled&#39; my ability to reply and post. It&#39;s fixed now.



I&#39;ve spent a bit of time reviewing the class as it appears in the original campaign, in the BoM and in the 3E conversion. What concerns me is the shift in the difference between lesser magic and true magic between the two versions. I&#39;m sure that you can elaborate on this for me but it appears as if the BRCS magician&#39;s spell list is derived in a large part from the D20 bard&#39;s spell list. This creates a situation where lesser magic, instead of being a subset of arcane magic entirely contained within the scope of True Magic, is a subset of arcane magic that overlaps in some places with True Magic.

This runs counter to the spirit of the original distinction, which was that any wizard could cast any spell a magician could cast, but not vice versa. Magicians were limited by birth in power, and the fact that they had to work so hard to make even the smallest magical tasks function is in large part something that gives True casters an aura of mystique and power. Thus, I feel that magicians should have their original spellcasting restrictions returned (Only Illusion and Divination spells beyond second level).

Similarly, the bard should lose spells, but only to a lesser extent. Although he original BR prohibited all bards (even blooded ones) from using True Magic, it seemed to draw a distinction between Wizardly magic and Bardic magic (hence they were also granted the use of enchantment spells). Thus while bards should lose spells from their list above second level, they should be allowed to keep "bardic spells", such as charms, bard specific spells (Sculpt Sound for instance), and perhaps even spells that appear on bard spell lists but not on Wizard/Sorcerors spell lists.



Changing the 3.0 (now 3.5) Bard&#39;s spell list was something we seriously looked at. We decided instead to try to embrace the change that 3.0 made with the Bard&#39;s spells. This was because the new bard spell list came real close to capturing the flavor of the BR bards. It seemed counterproductive to redo something that WotC actually made a whole lot better and closer to BR. The only real problem I have with the bard&#39;s spells is the cure spells being on the list, but IMO that is a small price to pay and not worth putting in a variant to delete so few spells from the bard&#39;s list (this can easily be done via house-rules).

The problem with 2nd ed BR was indeed with the poor application of what lesser and greater magic was. It absolutely failed when it came to bards. If a bard can cast spells that are not on the lesser magic list than why can&#39;t the master of lesser magic, the magician, do the same?

Creating a separate magician spell list is still an option, but absolutly the distinction between lesser and greater magic must be maintained (and readily seen)).



Now, the counter-argument of balance is sure to be brought up, and I&#39;m pretty sure that a reply of "they got shafted in the original verion, so they should get shafted now" isn&#39;t going to fly real well.

Wouldn&#39;t even think of it. This is 3.5 so getting shafted in the original isn&#39;t really a thing to worry about. All classes are supposed to be balanced to the max extent possible in 3.5.


For bards the argument could be made that they already gain a sort of tradeoff. Even though they lose abilities, they are pretty much untouchable in many cultural regions, and that alone can help make up for the loss (as long as they don&#39;t abuse it). If that doesn&#39;t work out in Vosgaard or Khinasi, well, that&#39;s why bards are so rare in those regions: it just doesn&#39;t pay to be one. If you wanted to quantify that benefit, you could say that bards gain a hefty bonus to Diplomacy, Bluff, and Gather Information Skills in friendly regions.

Rjurik and Vos bards can still cast spells, they just don&#39;t usually do it do to cultural considerations. The Rjurik bards gain cultural bonuses for this cultural loss (safe haven, always received well,etc.). Now the Vos as a culture just don&#39;t like bards at all, so it doesn&#39;t really matter if they cast spells or not - they are considered a lesser and inferior class of person in Vos cultures.



[/quote]One of the things that I&#39;ve noticed in the new Magician class is a loss of the focus on their being specialists in Illusion and Divination, because they have to put extra effort there for lack of other spells. I propose that the special abilities reflect this. Borrowing a little from the "Noble Focus" of the noble class, we could divide the special abilities into a "Path of Knowing" and a "Path of Seeming" (The terms being borrowed from BoM p.48).

Unlike the Noble Focus, each path is a linear progression that the magician can follow, but the Magician is not bound to either path. Thus you can have "generalists" who follow both paths to some extent, "seers" who follow the path of knowing exclusively, and "magicians" who follow the path of seeming exclusively (the distinction between seers and magicians also appears in the BoM p.48). A magician would get a new special ability from either path at 1st, 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th level.[/quote]

It might be better to include some bonus feats instead. Similar to those allowed to a wizard, but restricted by the class. This way it allows the character to pick a path without going in to too much detail along the way. In 2nd ed they were still only specialists (with ease of casting for cantrips and some more proficiencies thrown in).

[/quote]Here is an idea for how the paths might look:



Master Advisor (Fourth Step): By this point in her career, a seer is able to provide assistance on a grand scale and influence the fate of nations. She may grant a +2 circumstance bonus to any domain action roll by a regent. Using this ability requires a character action on the part of the seer, meaning that it can only be used once in a given domain round.

This one seems too powerful. It pretty much comes close to a realm spell equivalent ability. Magicians should not have realm level abilities, that is why they are lesser arcane casters vice users of greater magic.



True Illusion (Fifth Step): One of the sources of illusionary magic is the Shadow World and the Seeming. By the time that a magician has reached a certain level of expertise he can draw significant amounts of the Seeming into the waking world itself. Using this ability requires a full-round action that provokes attacks of opportunity. The magician can use it to accomplish any of the following (or any similar task at the DM&#39;s discretion): make a melee attack against any creature within 50 feet, transport any movable object or creature 30 feet in any direction (the object cannot be transported into another solid object), replicate the effects of any spell up to third level (with a maximum duration of 5 rounds for non-instantaneous spells), halve the hardness of any inanimate object for 5 rounds, or double the hardness of any inanimate object for 5 rounds. The magician must make a will saving throw at DC 10 or be drawn into the Shadow World without having a means of returning. Each successive use of this ability during a twenty-four hour period increases the save DC by two.

Transporting objects comes awful close to teleportation which is a spell that is on the "too powerful" side for BR.

It seem to me that a lot of the abilites listed can be duplicated by existing feats which might be the better way to go. That is instead of essentially writing "two" magician classes.

Overall some good ideas and concepts. I only think we just need to try to make the application &#39;simplier&#39;.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Osprey@Jun 16 2004, 01:03 PM

Bottom line: it&#39;s not what you do that distinguishes lesser and greater magic, but HOW you do it that makes all the difference. Spellsong is an elven art, while magicians are a more human approach to lesser magic. So it makes sense that magicians remain divination and illusion specialists, while bards remain slightly superior in their diverse choice of spells, but will have fewer of them and lower levels than magicians.

I have to disagree with this. It is about processing the power of greater magic not the way it is cast. Greater magic takes a more powerful toll on the body, which why even elves can&#39;t cast realm spells unless they are blooded.

Elven blood and the gods&#39; blood allow the individual to process the power necessary to harness greater magic without being destroyed.

Going to Bloodspawn and the Sie; elves were part of the them and were split off into 2 halves with their shadow world conuterparts. The Sie could harness both arcane and divine magics. Elves inherited the arcane portion where their shadow world counterparts inhereited the divine portion.

[graham anderson]

I thought that the whole point of the bard was that they use elven spellsong like an elven wizard but they cannot master it properly. It takes meny years and they will never be as powerfull as a wizard but that the use of spellsong enables them access to spells a magician cannot access. Thats the way I work it anyway.
This does raise the question of rjurik bards and I have had discusions on this before people dont seem to agree on the bard issue. I have treid this in two ways one the skalds gain thier power from erik the other that they just practice spellsong like the other bards.


feats could work for a magicain as well you could come up with new feets that would do a lot of the things suggested in the developement path but leave it as bonus feats making the magician more adaptable.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by graham anderson@Jun 17 2004, 10:51 AM
I thought that the whole point of the bard was that they use elven spellsong like an elven wizard but they cannot master it properly. It takes meny years and they will never be as powerfull as a wizard but that the use of spellsong enables them access to spells a magician cannot access. Thats the way I work it anyway.

That would be sort of how 2nd ed intended (maybe) but there are other examples of harnessing greater magic (BoM and BoR) that talk about accessing sources (and artifacts that duplicate sources) but essentially the magician gets burned up (IIRC it was a save or die type of thing).

The big point here is to make something that works fairly seemlessly, unlike 2nd ed BR that had so many errors and inconsistencies that it made gaming a nightmare for a DM. Basically every DM had to create many house-rules to overcome these. The concept now if DM to only have to create house-rules to do things a different way (i.e., to fit their own concepts) and not to create a workable system.

Remember that BR bards were drastically different than PHB ones, just because of that there were numerous issues to be done. Also 2nd ed didn&#39;t really consider things arcane and divine like 3/3.5 does. IMO 3.5 is sooo much better because of this simplification and designation.

[soudhadies]

The problem with 2nd ed BR was indeed with the poor application of what lesser and greater magic was. It absolutely failed when it came to bards. If a bard can cast spells that are not on the lesser magic list than why can&#39;t the master of lesser magic, the magician, do the same?


The Birthright Rulebook was rather explicit on this:

"They may learn spells only from the schools of divination and illusion, and they can also cast spells of Enchantment/Charm by using ancient elven songs. These songs are jealously guarded by the colleges." Rulebook, p.14

Unless they contradict themselves elsewhere that means that bards can only cast spells from those three schools. So when you take away the Spellsongs, they have a more limited spell list than magicians. While Bards are limited to illusion and divination and enchantment for all spell levels, the limitations don&#39;t affect the magician until the third spell level.



Creating a separate magician spell list is still an option, but absolutly the distinction between lesser and greater magic must be maintained (and readily seen)).


That if anything would be the justification to keep the Magicians spell list similar to the bards, but that is a 3.5 consideration (because it is based on keeping the 3.5 bard&#39;s spelllist as is).



It might be better to include some bonus feats instead. Similar to those allowed to a wizard, but restricted by the class. This way it allows the character to pick a path without going in to too much detail along the way. In 2nd ed they were still only specialists (with ease of casting for cantrips and some more proficiencies thrown in).


Perhaps a compromise could be made: The magician is given the choice of taking a step down one of the paths or taking a bonus feat from a list. This would expand their options considerably (By my scratchwork we would go from 6 possible path1/path2 distributions to about 24 path1/path2/feat distributions, and depending on feat choice, the combinations could be endless). The benefit of the paths is to give the magician class a unique feel: that of true masters of illusion or divination.

Regarding Master Advisor:



This one seems too powerful. It pretty much comes close to a realm spell equivalent ability. Magicians should not have realm level abilities, that is why they are lesser arcane casters vice users of greater magic.


Not really, as you see later in the discussion I equate it to the abilities of the Expert advisors from the Book of Regency (and agree with limiting it to one use per domain turn) expert advisors are not required to be blooded or cast realm spells. Besides a 15th+ level seer will have access to Legend Lore, Contact Other Plane, and Scrying. If you locked one in a tower for a month with a crystal ball and some munchies I&#39;m sure they could find enough information to give a regent good advice. Besides, most realm spells are much more powerful than giving a +3 bonus to one roll.



Transporting objects comes awful close to teleportation which is a spell that is on the "too powerful" side for BR.


It actually works kind of like Dimension Door only with a much more limited range (30&#39; vs 400&#39; + 40&#39;/level, which would be 1,200&#39; for a 20th level caster). If it still seems too powerful than it could be further restricted to destinations within the magician&#39;s line of sight (so it couldn&#39;t be used to get through walls).



It seem to me that a lot of the abilites listed can be duplicated by existing feats which might be the better way to go. That is instead of essentially writing "two" magician classes.

Overall some good ideas and concepts. I only think we just need to try to make the application &#39;simplier&#39;.


I think only the first step in each path can be easily created using existing feats. Whether or not the others can be turned into feats is another question entirely. As I said before the two path system grows out of a distinction made in the BoM between magicians and seers. I was building on the distinctions that were heavily implied.

Simplicity, I think, should only be a problem if the class is confusing. A lot of the core classes get a lot of space in the SRD while others don&#39;t (Monks vs. Fighters for example). The question shouldn&#39;t be how much space it takes to express a class&#39; abilities, but whether or not the class&#39; abilities are expressed in a clear and understandable manner.

[irdeggman]

QUOTE

The problem with 2nd ed BR was indeed with the poor application of what lesser and greater magic was. It absolutely failed when it came to bards. If a bard can cast spells that are not on the lesser magic list than why can&#39;t the master of lesser magic, the magician, do the same?




The Birthright Rulebook was rather explicit on this:

"They may learn spells only from the schools of divination and illusion, and they can also cast spells of Enchantment/Charm by using ancient elven songs. These songs are jealously guarded by the colleges." Rulebook, p.14

Unless they contradict themselves elsewhere that means that bards can only cast spells from those three schools. So when you take away the Spellsongs, they have a more limited spell list than magicians. While Bards are limited to illusion and divination and enchantment for all spell levels, the limitations don&#39;t affect the magician until the third spell level.


That is exactly what I was refering to - the 2nd ed BRRB made a direct rule violation of what greater and lesser magic was. Basically they (in 2nd ed) didn&#39;t appear to equate bards with arcane spell casters in this issue.

In 2nd ed BR bards still had all of the other normal bard abilities to balance them out against magicians, so losing spells wasn&#39;t really an issue here. Magicians didn&#39;t really have that many benes for a class, in fact IIRC their spell options were down to 2-4 spells per level at 7-9th level spells since they could only be from Illusion or Divination schools.

[irdeggman]

QUOTE

Transporting objects comes awful close to teleportation which is a spell that is on the "too powerful" side for BR.




It actually works kind of like Dimension Door only with a much more limited range (30&#39; vs 400&#39; + 40&#39;/level, which would be 1,200&#39; for a 20th level caster). If it still seems too powerful than it could be further restricted to destinations within the magician&#39;s line of sight (so it couldn&#39;t be used to get through walls).

Check out "Limited Magic Transportation" variant from Chap 8. This is what I was refering to. It is a common (from the boards over the years) theme that magic transport in BR is very dangerous and rare.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Bearcat@Jun 17 2004, 02:08 PM




It might be better to include some bonus feats instead. Similar to those allowed to a wizard, but restricted by the class. This way it allows the character to pick a path without going in to too much detail along the way. In 2nd ed they were still only specialists (with ease of casting for cantrips and some more proficiencies thrown in).


Perhaps a compromise could be made: The magician is given the choice of taking a step down one of the paths or taking a bonus feat from a list. This would expand their options considerably (By my scratchwork we would go from 6 possible path1/path2 distributions to about 24 path1/path2/feat distributions, and depending on feat choice, the combinations could be endless). The benefit of the paths is to give the magician class a unique feel: that of true masters of illusion or divination.

So instead we should use the ranger approach. A magician chooses a &#39;focus&#39; and then at certain levels he gains a different ability. I think this is real similar to what you wrote up.

[soudhadies]

Check out "Limited Magic Transportation" variant from Chap 8. This is what I was refering to. It is a common (from the boards over the years) theme that magic transport in BR is very dangerous and rare.


I looked through it and I still don&#39;t see a major issue with it the way I have it, for several reasons: A) 30&#39; is not a dramatic distance, its the distance an unencumbered human can walk in a round, basically I wanted the effect to respresent the magician using Seeming brought over from the SW to "warp" space temporarily. B) If the magician fails his save when using the ability he gets sucked into the SW. So it is risky, especially if the magician makes repeated use of the ability (The Save DC increases). If you wanted to cover the bases, you could say that only the magician makes the trip, his clothing and equiptment are left behind. That way he can&#39;t use any magic items to circumvent the penalty (plus you get amusing scenes with nekkid magicians being chased around by wandering Fey).



So instead we should use the ranger approach. A magician chooses a &#39;focus&#39; and then at certain levels he gains a different ability. I think this is real similar to what you wrote up.


It is, actually I think the ranger thing was sitting on the back of my head as I was writing. The way I wrote it was slightly more flexible though: Magicians weren&#39;t forced to choose a path if they didn&#39;t want to, its just impossible for them to get to the really cool powers unless they devote themselves exclusively to it. For example, a magician could choose to gain the spell focus-like benefits in both Illusion and Divination spells, but that means that he won&#39;t ever be able to access the fifth step of either path. The paths were made with the 2/3 cutoff (being the most even distribution between the two paths) in mind. No magician, for example, would ever be able to make use of both defensive powers.

In a way your previous comparison to essentially creating two magician classes is somewhat apt, at least as a basis for using a multi-classing metaphor: In the same way that a Monk/Druid will never be able to access the best powers of either a Monk or a Druid, a magician who divides her atention between the path of Knowing and the path of Seeming will never realize the full potential of either path.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Bearcat@Jun 17 2004, 05:23 PM

It is, actually I think the ranger thing was sitting on the back of my head as I was writing. The way I wrote it was slightly more flexible though: Magicians weren&#39;t forced to choose a path if they didn&#39;t want to, its just impossible for them to get to the really cool powers unless they devote themselves exclusively to it. For example, a magician could choose to gain the spell focus-like benefits in both Illusion and Divination spells, but that means that he won&#39;t ever be able to access the fifth step of either path. The paths were made with the 2/3 cutoff (being the most even distribution between the two paths) in mind. No magician, for example, would ever be able to make use of both defensive powers.

In a way your previous comparison to essentially creating two magician classes is somewhat apt, at least as a basis for using a multi-classing metaphor: In the same way that a Monk/Druid will never be able to access the best powers of either a Monk or a Druid, a magician who divides her atention between the path of Knowing and the path of Seeming will never realize the full potential of either path.
All right we need to decide how to go here. Either the class has 2 paths (like a ranger) or it has max flexability (choose from an expanded set of special abilities). It can&#39;t be both.

The other solution is to create prestige classes to handle these chosen path benefits - which in the long run might be more appropriate. Then keep the magician generalist (i.e., choose from a list of special abilities).

When I redid the noble I put in ranger like path benefits. The noble chooses a path (that can&#39;t be changed) (warrior, scholer, guilder). This path determines his favored save bonus, then when he gains bonus feats he must choose from the list applicable to his path. The class still gets some generic benefits pertaining to basic non-focused things (mostly along leadership related lines). But the class doesn&#39;t get specialization benefits (i.e., chosen path) and generalization.

[irdeggman]

Does anyone have comments (good or bad) on the revisions made to the classes posted (i.e., not the magician class discussion)?

[Osprey]

Yep&#33;

I still like my Noble better :D .

HOWEVER...Duane, I think the three paths was a cool idea too, and I&#39;m down with that staying in the rev. BRCS.

My major hangup is that you left in Resources and Coordinate unmodified. I&#39;ve argued before how broken Coordinate becomes as an ability, especially if it grants more than +2 to cooperative bonuses. Have you, or anyone else, really playtested this ability to see how it balances, or are you working on the theory that it seems like a good idea [at the time]. My own playtesting experience was that Coordinate got broken with high level nobles.

And Resources is a poor substitute for good roleplaying. I am definitely NOT a big fan of having class abilities that replace the need for good roleplaying. In this case, diplomacy and politics. Geez I have enough problems with my PC&#39;s saying, "Well I&#39;m sure my character could say it better than I could with his +34 Diplomacy."

That kills me. I want to strangle the player every time I hear it. So I really don&#39;t favor yet another ability that "does it for you."

I think the Favored Saves and listed bonus feats for each path are pretty cool, though keep in mind that one feat every five levels is very, VERY few feats really. Nontheless, I noticed that Leadership is still in there as a 6th level bonus feat, even though we&#39;re now also allowing scions or regents to take Leadership at lower levels, right? [or is this still going to be a variant option? Also, is this true only for regents, or for any blooded scion?]

Seems like Leadership is kind of "out-of-sync" in the order.

Originally, I had suggested a bonus feat at 2nd level and every 5 levels thereafter (7th, 12th, 17th). Looking back, I realized that in "3.5 Standard" this should be a bonus feat at 2nd, 6th, and every 5 levels thereafter (11,16,21, etc.).

Adding bonus feats was good; adding bonus feats IN ADDITION to all the other proposed special abilities??? What about all of the complaints that the noble was over-powered? It&#39;s only more powered-up now than before.

Drop Resources. Drop Coordinate, or just have it as a one-time class feature at 3rd level to add +2, but don&#39;t let that ability kep stacking up.

Finally, move the feat progression to 2nd, 6th, 11th, etc. This is important, so that Favored Regions and Bonus Feats don&#39;t come all at the same time. Also, not giving a bonus feat at 1st level is generally a good way to keep PC&#39;s from abusing the multiclass system, as it is irritating to see people take 1 level of this or that simply for the bonus feat (and believe me, with a high BAB, lots of skill points, AND a bonus feat, this class would end up showing up as a 1-level class on many character sheets; it already happened in my BRCS playtest game witht he 3.0 Noble).

Finally, just let Leadership be included in the Bonus Feats for every path, and if they qualify they can pick up the feat at 6th level anyways.

So those are my suggestions regarding the Noble.

Osprey

[Osprey]

All right we need to decide how to go here. Either the class has 2 paths (like a ranger) or it has max flexability (choose from an expanded set of special abilities). It can&#39;t be both.


I disagree. I think Bearcat&#39;s idea to allow "either/or" is cool and non-generic. There&#39;s nothing in 3.5 that says every class must follow the same pattern, or that any new classes must be modeled off the core classes. That just happens to be easier. ;) What&#39;s important is that every class have a kind of inherent logic, and be able to interact or mesh with other classes and class abilities.

I&#39;m a big fan of open-ended classes that give a good deal of freedom for PC&#39;s to choose their particular style and flavor of Magician, Cleric, Fighter, or whatever. Fighters in 3.x got so much better because they finally stopped being so generic by allowing a bonus feat to be chosen every other level. 3.5 Rangers are cool, too, but because they&#39;re so inflexible, really a less-fun class to play if your character concept doesn&#39;t fit the generic mold.


The other solution is to create prestige classes to handle these chosen path benefits - which in the long run might be more appropriate. Then keep the magician generalist (i.e., choose from a list of special abilities).

A well-made class that allows flexibility shouldn&#39;t be disallowed. A well-made class should make a PC WANT to be a single-class character. A poorly-made or boring PC class will have players hungering for a prestige class.

If we can write a single, somewhat flexible magician class into the BRCS, why don&#39;t we? Seems smart, since we&#39;re not including Prestige Classes in the BRCS rulebook.


Here&#39;s a suggestion for Magicians, working on the idea of class power balance:
- What if the spells per day for magicians was slightly reduced, say to the same as Wizards?
- We also must take into account that Magicians have an extremely limited spel selection compared to any other spellcaster.
-These 2 factors combine to allow much more freedom in "powering up" the Magician&#39;s other class features.

What I would propose is then to allow a Bonus Magical Feat OR Path Specialty Feat every 3 levels, starting at 2nd level (at 2nd, 5th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th, 20th).

What would then be required is a list of bonus feats, and every Path Specialty feat would need to have requirements written into the description, something along the lines of the Path advances requiring a certain magician class level AND the previous path feat. This would be a way to keep the high level path advances from being taken too early.

At 1st level, the Magician gets all of his cantrips and a 1st level spell, along with weapon and light armor proficiencies. That&#39;s a good chunk of stuff for 1st level, so I reckon they can wait till 2nd level for a bonus feat. And this way (with the 2/5/8 etc. progression), they end at 20th level with another bonus feat as the capstone of their non-epic progression.

Doing this, we could also still write in some of the original proposed idea for magicians, like bonus cantrips or spontaneous cantrips, as additional class-specific feats. Why not?

[irdeggman]

My major hangup is that you left in Resources and Coordinate unmodified. I&#39;ve argued before how broken Coordinate becomes as an ability, especially if it grants more than +2 to cooperative bonuses. Have you, or anyone else, really playtested this ability to see how it balances, or are you working on the theory that it seems like a good idea [at the time]. My own playtesting experience was that Coordinate got broken with high level nobles.

Perhaps instead of +2 it becomes +1 (which by the way is in addition to the normal +2 for aid another


And Resources is a poor substitute for good roleplaying. I am definitely NOT a big fan of having class abilities that replace the need for good roleplaying. In this case, diplomacy and politics. Geez I have enough problems with my PC&#39;s saying, "Well I&#39;m sure my character could say it better than I could with his +34 Diplomacy."

That kills me. I want to strangle the player every time I hear it. So I really don&#39;t favor yet another ability that "does it for you."

You&#39;ve lost me on this one. Both Resources and Coordinate are Charisma checks not a specific skill check. So the example of the +34 to Diplomacy is not quite aqppropriate here.

The major argument with Resources was that it duplicated the effects of Wealth (which was dropped). Calling in &#39;favors&#39; is what having connections is all about. Therefore I have to disagree with you on the intrinsic value of Resources.


I think the Favored Saves and listed bonus feats for each path are pretty cool, though keep in mind that one feat every five levels is very, VERY few feats really. Nontheless, I noticed that Leadership is still in there as a 6th level bonus feat, even though we&#39;re now also allowing scions or regents to take Leadership at lower levels, right? [or is this still going to be a variant option? Also, is this true only for regents, or for any blooded scion?]

Seems like Leadership is kind of "out-of-sync" in the order.

The Chap 8 starting Leadership for free is still a variant. Yes, this would make the class gain a useless ability if the variant is used. But it is important to list it as a separate ability to emphasize its importance in the role of the noble. Perhaps adding a note that if the character already has the leadership feat he may substitute different feat from his path list.


Originally, I had suggested a bonus feat at 2nd level and every 5 levels thereafter (7th, 12th, 17th). Looking back, I realized that in "3.5 Standard" this should be a bonus feat at 2nd, 6th, and every 5 levels thereafter (11,16,21, etc.).

Adding bonus feats was good; adding bonus feats IN ADDITION to all the other proposed special abilities??? What about all of the complaints that the noble was over-powered? It&#39;s only more powered-up now than before.

Actually there is no real standard for bonus feats. In 3.0 they sort of a had a logical progression but 3.5 seemed to throw logic out the window in this case. The same with the levels a prestige class has (no longer 5 or 10, there some with 3 levels).

I had intended to lower the hit dice for the class from d8 to d6 (major change in power) to make up for some of this while still keeping the good BAB.

The bonus feats are from a very selective list and hence are much more restrictive and this keeps it in balance.

As I said earlier Wealth was dropped.


Drop Resources. Drop Coordinate, or just have it as a one-time class feature at 3rd level to add +2, but don&#39;t let that ability kep stacking up.

See above


Finally, move the feat progression to 2nd, 6th, 11th, etc. This is important, so that Favored Regions and Bonus Feats don&#39;t come all at the same time. Also, not giving a bonus feat at 1st level is generally a good way to keep PC&#39;s from abusing the multiclass system, as it is irritating to see people take 1 level of this or that simply for the bonus feat (and believe me, with a high BAB, lots of skill points, AND a bonus feat, this class would end up showing up as a 1-level class on many character sheets; it already happened in my BRCS playtest game witht he 3.0 Noble).

I can do that. But the progression should be more like 2nd and every 5 after not 2nd, 6th and then every 5. I think that the reason you ran into the problems you did with the original BRCS-playtest noble was that they could choose any feat fro their bonus feats - this made them exceptinally adapatable and desirable for players seeking to power game.


Finally, just let Leadership be included in the Bonus Feats for every path, and if they qualify they can pick up the feat at 6th level anyways.

See above suggestion.

[Osprey]

The major argument with Resources was that it duplicated the effects of Wealth (which was dropped). Calling in &#39;favors&#39; is what having connections is all about. Therefore I have to disagree with you on the intrinsic value of Resources.


I missed the dropping of Wealth. Though I&#39;m sorry to see it dropped.

The nice thing about Wealth is that it was a class feature that improved frequently (every other level), thus making every level feel like "you got something" besides just hit dice and skill points (though those are always good too :)). Some have complained about Wealth being too much like easy money, but I have to disagree: Gaining levels in Noble (and not Aristocrat) means something significant. Because wealth can be explained in so many ways (land income, tribute, payment for court positions, wealthy patrons of scholarship and the arts, and/or trade/guild investments), it is extremely versatile and doesn&#39;t really start adding up to significant amounts until very high levels in a single class.

Birthright is uniquely different than other campaign settings, because many PC&#39;s are also regents whose incomes far exceed a noble&#39;s allowance. If we see the Noble class as a kind of profession of the wealthy elite, it makes sense that they are doing something with that wealth that provides a regular income.

In my playtest campaign, I have rarely had problems with Noble class characters (PC&#39;s or NPC&#39;s) having too much income. It only became noticable at higher levels (15+), and by then the PC&#39;s were so wealthy that it still wasn&#39;t outrageous.

As was discussed before, it could be more conditional. A stipulation that Wealth can only be repaid by spending at least one month per season attneding one&#39;s duties at court or in the guild offices or at the university might be appropriate. Nobles shouldn&#39;t have the same freedom to purely adventure that other characters do. The price of privelage is often responsibility, otherwise those privelages start to vanish.

So, another way to put it (as an add-on to the current description):

Wealth: The Noble character must spend one Character Action per season attending his holdings and investments in order to gain the seasonal income from this ability.

I would assume that a regent Noble could have this action folded into his normal domain and court actions. Another option would require either a personal Character Action or a Court Action once per season to gain the benefit from Wealth.


Anyways, I think Wealth is nice because it can be easily quantified. Resources is so messy that many players don&#39;t really integrate how it works. It&#39;s more of a "work with the DM" ability.

Money is nice because, well - it&#39;s only money. It still takes a good character and player to use it well and/or creatively. But having money opens up lots of fun options in a game, and it flows pretty freely for regents anyways [most of the time], so why be stingy? :P



And Resources is a poor substitute for good roleplaying. I am definitely NOT a big fan of having class abilities that replace the need for good roleplaying. In this case, diplomacy and politics. Geez I have enough problems with my PC&#39;s saying, "Well I&#39;m sure my character could say it better than I could with his +34 Diplomacy."

That kills me. I want to strangle the player every time I hear it. So I really don&#39;t favor yet another ability that "does it for you." [Osprey]



You&#39;ve lost me on this one. Both Resources and Coordinate are Charisma checks not a specific skill check. So the example of the +34 to Diplomacy is not quite aqppropriate here. [Irdeggman]


The point was that I dislike allowing dice rolls to substitute for what could be great roleplaying opportunities to do things like grant and gain favors, make friends and contacts, save someone&#39;s life in battle so they&#39;re indebted. These are some of the interesting aspects of the BR game. My concern is that the more this stuff becomes abstracted into a single die roll, the less players and DM&#39;s are encouraged to play out the roleplaying.

On the flip side, too, I see how it could be useful to be able to quantify in certain games where they want to focus on other things.

If you want Resources to remain a viable option, then it def. needs some more concrete examples for various DC&#39;s, for the DM&#39;s benefit at least.

I think once per season (per use) should be sufficient as a standard here, btw, regardless of the scale of the game. The NPC people who grant favors don&#39;t care if you&#39;re adventuring or not, they simply have a limited supply of resources and goodwill.)

One thing that could be done is for income to be counted as a favor, with larger amounts at higer DC&#39;s.

I still like Wealth requiring a Character or Court Action once per season. What do you think? And could it be either swapped or combined with resources?

Osprey

PS - +1 Coordinate Bonus per advance seems much more reasonable.

[irdeggman]

Resources would include getting money from investments (i.e., wealth).

But something that I think I&#39;ll add a Sidebar to is that the major focus of Resources is people and contacts. Too many other games call them contacts which is why the phrase wasn&#39;t used.

Maybe making a single resource (person or organization) for application of resources in addition to personal wealth/investments (could even add in a bonus for Cha modifier) {i.e total number of resources = number of applications + Cha modifier + the total character&#39;s personal investments (for money)}. These resources should be detailed with the DM. This is important because this is where the role-playing effect comes in. By making it a specific person/organization the DM can now introduce many political effects that &#39;require&#39; the character&#39;s attention. If for instance the resource check failed the reason could be that the contact has been kidnapped or discovered (they could be spies also) and the character must do something in order to save his contact, etc. There are an almost infinite range of possibilities here - just like with domain actions that come down to dice rolls, there is still something &#39;behind the roll&#39;. These resources could be &#39;blackmailed&#39; informants, etc.

I think I&#39;ll add restirction that for every addition drawing on the same resource within a domain turn there is a cumulative +2 to the DC check. You can only draw so much water before thewell dries up.

[RaspK_FOG]

Regarding the noble, a small sidebar which reiterates one of the most basic D&D rules - "DM&#39;s discretion overrules mostly any rule; if your DM feels that a simple check should not rule over how good you can parlay, then you should talk over the whole matter with him. A simple solution that may satisfy both sides is to make a mandatory check, then role-play according to the roll; this may not prove very acceptable for some DMs, but it is a first step..." - would be helpful.

As for the magician, I will ask again to have him have the same "Spells per day" table as the wizard and grant each of the specialist paths an extra spell of each level from 1 to 9 of the appropriate school.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Jun 19 2004, 05:10 AM

As for the magician, I will ask again to have him have the same "Spells per day" table as the wizard and grant each of the specialist paths an extra spell of each level from 1 to 9 of the appropriate school.
Back to the question I had earlier:

Generalist (chose from a set list of abilities)

Or different path (like the ranger or new noble)

I reiterate it needs to be one or the other. Anything else would make the class a mish mash of different concepts and possibly going from weak to exceptionally strong in relative power.

[soudhadies]

If I were forced to choose I would say that paths is the way to go, since it captures the focus given in the original setting to Illusion and divination. However, I still don&#39;t see what&#39;s wrong with a "generalist" being a magician who travels a short way down both paths. Let me try to represent what I&#39;m thinking graphically some what:
.............Seer.....................Generalist.. .............................Magician

1 Step |*................................/&#092;.........................................*|
2 Step |................................/...&#092;..........................................|
3 Step |............................../................................................|
4 Step |................................................. ..............................|
5 Step |................................................. ..............................|

Notice how the generalist pays for more diverse skills by being so far removed from the good abilities (which to me is really the definition of a generalist). Thus one setup for the class will allow for a great potential for diversity within the class, while ensuring balance through its stringent parameters.

By the by, while we&#39;re on nobles, I don&#39;t think I&#39;ve seen this mentioned (I might have missed it) but it seems to me that Warcry and Inspire Troops are powers which you would expect to find on a warrior noble, but not neccessarily on a merchant or scholar noble (Mr. Scrooge, or the bespectacled bookworm shouting "once more unto the breach my friends&#33;" just doesn&#39;t work in my mind :D ). Perhaps it might be best to designate those powers Focus Power I and Focus Power II. Then you could keep it War cry and Inspire the troops for the warrior noble but come up with focus appropriate powers for the merchant and scholar.

Edit: used periods to fix up my diagram.

[RaspK_FOG]

You have to agree that subjectivity is obviously at hand; I, for example, find both solutions particularly interesting: one, make the different paths into prestige classes and leave only the generalist class or, two, use a system similar to specialist wizards (NOT like what they appear in Unearthed Arcana, which is how we interpreted them in the aforementioned examples) and import the whole concept seamlessly.

Let me show you an example of what I mean: Prestige Class Approach: Use the class features concepts earlier described. Requirements for attaining the classes should include such things ranks in Knowledge (arcana) and Spellcraft, as well as ability to cast certain spells or access certain spell levels, plus Spell Focus with the associated school.
The benefits given to a specialist being: 1st Level - Spell Focus; 5th level - Spell Penetration; 10th level - +1 on saves vs. spells of associated school; 15th level - Greater Spell Focus; 20th level - Greater Spell Penetration. Also, one spell per spell level from 1 to 9 must be prepared from associated school and other specialist wizard benefits.

[Osprey]

Given that prestige classes aren&#39;t welcome in the core BRCS, I&#39;m strongly opposed to them being considered a typical progression for magicians.

As Rasp mentioned, how do you see magicians being too powerful by having the freedom to choose between specializing in either Illusion or Divination, or meandering between the two paths and being somewhat multi-faceted? As a rule of thumb, generalists in D&D lose out in terms of pure power compared to the stuff that specialists can pull off.

Irdeggman, do you really consider it over-powered for magicians to be able to choose freely between the 2 paths? Or perhaps is it simply the less structured layout of such freedom that you are opposed to? Do you think perhaps this is personal bias rather than solid game design principles that are influencing your ultimatum of "either or?" I ask this because you gave no reasons for this ultimatum other than saying this is how other classes have been done, so this is how the magician must be done. Is that really a good enough reason? If you want to convince me (and others, I suspect) that Bearcat&#39;s idea of free choice within multiple paths is over-powered, I believe some actual evidence/proof would be more convincing than "this is the way they did it, so this is the way we must do it."

Osprey

[irdeggman]

The "too powerful" approach comes when they can essentially choose between such a variety of abilities that they can pick and choose and lose the initial focus of a path.

All of sudden they lose their feel.

The BoM had the class have one of two paths, as had already been mentioned. ONe thing that wasn&#39;t focused on was that the benefits of the paths were actually specified in kits. The closest thing to kits in 3.5 is indeed prestige classes. Prestige classes are now designed to give some oomph and are more powerful than standard classes. I&#39;m glad the powers at be at WoC decided todrop the fascade that they weren&#39;t morepowerful and actually embrace it.

In 2nd ed kits were optional as are prestige classes in 3.5. So in essence what we are really talking about is capturing 2nd ed kit benefits into 3.5 usage.

The change to make a call to paths can really follow the ranger pattern, which is the closest here actually. At some point in the class advancement a decision is made then from that point on the class gains abilities based on the path chosen. This split can happen at any time that the break is logical although usually this would happen early (ranger is at 2nd level, the revised noble is at 1st) - but it can happen later if appropriate. The point is that it does happen at sometime and then from that point on the character follows one of several (depends on how many are available) foci that determines his class ability advancement. There are usually several generic abilities that are gained as the class advances regardless of the path chosen. These commonalities are what bind the paths together into one class instead of having a separate one for each path.


As Rasp mentioned, how do you see magicians being too powerful by having the freedom to choose between specializing in either Illusion or Divination, or meandering between the two paths and being somewhat multi-faceted? As a rule of thumb, generalists in D&D lose out in terms of pure power compared to the stuff that specialists can pull off

What you are describing is what happens to multi-class versus single class characters not generalist versus specialist ones. Generaist ones are those that take a single rank in many skills while a secialist is one that take many ranks in a few skills. The generalist can approach more situations with a chance of success while the specialist can almost guarantee success at his chosen specialy and almost guarantee fialure at anything else.

[geeman]

At 11:46 AM 6/18/2004 +0200, irdeggman wrote:



> Does anyone have comments (good or bad) on the revisions made to the

> classes posted (i.e., not the magician class discussion)?



1. I`d omit some of the non-character class information that is,

essentially, colour text. That is, we don`t need the comment that rangers

"rangers tend to make poor regents" or (my least favorite bit of original

BR text) that "there are perhaps no more than six or seven score true mages

in all of Cerilia."



2. Personally, I don`t much care for the magician/healing aspect of that

character class description. There already are plenty of clerics in BR, so

this addition is rather superfluous. That aside, the divination and

illusion aspects of magicians don`t really connect up with

healing. Enchantment/charm I can see to a certain extent--but healing just

seems to go too far.



3. A few spelling (in caps) and grammatical notes.



"Although there are many spells which wizards and magicians have in common,

most wizards spells require power for (FAR) more extravagant than that

available to magicians."



"However, a magician is not simply a "lesser wizard"; through their subtle

arts magicians have access to some spell effects for which the fierce

energies of the wizard and sorcerer are not well suited."



This reads better as two sentences: "However, a magician is not simply a

"lesser wizard." Through their subtle arts magicians have access to some

spell effects for which the fierce energies of the wizard and sorcerer are

not well suited."



"The effect begins and (AT) the conclusion of the noble`s oratory, and

lasts for 1 minute per round..."



Gary

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by geeman@Jun 20 2004, 09:20 AM
2. Personally, I don`t much care for the magician/healing aspect of that

character class description. There already are plenty of clerics in BR, so

this addition is rather superfluous. That aside, the divination and

illusion aspects of magicians don`t really connect up with

healing. Enchantment/charm I can see to a certain extent--but healing just

seems to go too far.




I don&#39;t much like the healing aspect of the bard either, but its there in the core books and wasn&#39;t changed in 3.5 (much to my chagrin :( ). The only reason for this aspect of the magician was to maintain the split between greater and lesser magic. Bards are users of lesser magic and magicians are the &#39;masters&#39; of lesser magic so there is no reason to exclude magicians from access to the bard&#39;s spell list. This split was not handled very well in 2nd ed and with the reviesed way of handling magic in 3.5 it is important to maintain the continuity (of 3.5) and do our best to capture what was in 2nd ed. Unfortunately this is one of the times where the differences between editions becomes drastically pronounced.

I&#39;d insert a variant to drop the healing spells (from bards and magicians) but that is sort of a lame variant since we are only talking about roughly a spell per level. DMs can do this readily on their own without any &#39;help&#39; from the BRCS.

Now if we revert back to the 2nd ed system a magician would have a total of 2 9th level spells on his list (1 each Illusion/Divination); 6 8th level spells (3 each Ill/Div, 7 7th level (4 Ill/3 Div; and 8 6th level (5 Ill/ 3 Div). This makes for a drastically broken class that is a primary spellcaster, IMO. The &#39;present&#39; version at least has a more realistic break down of spells for a spellcaster.

[graham anderson]

I don’t like arcane spell casters not getting healing spells although I know most people probably wont agree with me. There is a number of ways that I have tried to handle giving wizards healing spells.

1: healing spells are more difficult to cast a first level healing spell is a third level wizard spell.

2: A new core class the healer an arcane spell caster that specialises in healing.

3: A healer prestige class that allows arcane spell casters access to healing spells.

4: Ask the wizard to use a bit of ingenuity a flame cantrip to cauterise the wounds. A cold cantrip to keep someone’s temperature down when they have a disease.

I have leant more towards the prestige class recently with most of the practitioners found among the elves.

[Osprey]

I don&#39;t much like the healing aspect of the bard either, but its there in the core books and wasn&#39;t changed in 3.5 (much to my chagrin* ). The only reason for this aspect of the magician was to maintain the split between greater and lesser magic. Bards are users of lesser magic and magicians are the &#39;masters&#39; of lesser magic so there is no reason to exclude magicians from access to the bard&#39;s spell list. This split was not handled very well in 2nd ed and with the reviesed way of handling magic in 3.5 it is important to maintain the continuity (of 3.5) and do our best to capture what was in 2nd ed. Unfortunately this is one of the times where the differences between editions becomes drastically pronounced.


Bards will have a different spell list than magicians anyways. Not all lesser magic has to be of the same path or have the same spell lists. I hope for quite the opposite, distinct lists tailored to the class. I think BRCS did a decent start with the Magicians lists, but they definitely need to be trimmed and reshaped (which I&#39;d take a shot at if it would be helpful).

Bards having healing through spellsong might be a unique quality of that art: music has a special quality of healing. I like this theme, because it seems to jive well with my image of Neserie, the divine icon of healing, as if they were arcane and divine reflections of one another.

If magicians had medicinal magics at all, I would expect them to be more of a pseudo-science approach, magic that quickens and strengthens the natural healing process rather than miraculous cures in seconds. Similarly, spells that give save bonuses to resist or overcome a disease, spells that give a skill bonus on the Heal check, Slow Poison would make a decent 2nd level spell.

Spells that give general competence skill bonuses to a target might be appropriate for magicians, though it does mimic the bard&#39;s song. On the other hand, Inspire Competence isn&#39;t one of the more impressive bard songs beyond the lower character levels.

Osprey

[RaspK_FOG]

Regarding bards and magicians, I have to say that I do not think they should have the same spell list: they both may be wielding arcane powers that do not reach the full height of a wizard or sorcerer, but that does not mean they are the same&#33;

For example, I believe that while the magician is a very potent diviner, he is on fairly equal ground with the bard when it somes to illusion, and he certainly is left behind by the bard when it comes to enchantments: what the bard may well lack in sheer multitude, he has in finesse and subtlety.

Healing is an issue that I would like to discuss here: one of the things that I loved in 3.×e was their ability to cast healing spells; while it may contradict the flavour many people feel better suits bards, I believe that it matches the little scoundrel for making him a more unique spellcaster and adding to his firepower. This, we could without, and I see no reason for the revision team to make such a fuss of: many campaign settings feature spells that are to be deleted from a class&#39;s spell list, just like adding some to them. A simple example is the new Dragonlance CS in which they specifically say that bards are not able to cast healing spells. Simple as that.