Magician Class

[irdeggman]

I've started a different thread for this topic in order to keep the discussion easier to locate and not get lost within other broader htreads. It is becoming obvious that this will not be an easy one to handle. The polls are indicating no clear opinion (group-wise) on how to handle this one.

This may be the 'last' class to get hammered out because of this difference of opinions and I don't want to drag down the rest of the class section with the apparent on going discussion of this one.

[RaspK_FOG]

Not much of a discussion has started, has there?

A propose the following choices: Typical BRCS version, with one spell slot per level being specifically devoted to either Divination or Illusion. This may seem obsolete, since from one point on magicians get mostly divination and illusion spells, but I feel that better resembles their specialty in such spells. Making them have to choose 2 slots per spell level be one from each school would be devastating, so I do not go for that.
Second choice, they may specialise in either Divination or Illusion. This, either way, grants the following benefits: 1st level: Wizard specialist benefits (spells per day as specialist wizard); any one spell plus one spell from the chosen school known at each level (this overrides typical spell selection).
5th level: +1 effective caster level with spells of chosen school.
10th level: +1 on save DCs to resist spells of the chosen school cast by the character.
15th level: +1 on saving throws to resist spells of the chosen school.
20th level: +1 on save DCs to resist spells of the chosen school cast by the character.

I generally believe that 2e never gave a good reason for assigning the tag of 2nd level as Lesser Magic, so, based on the fact that some pretty important and not that all-powerful Sor/Wiz spells are of the 3rd level plus the fact that 9 / 3 = 3, I suggest that the whole concept is lowered accordingly. This should allow for the poor bard to feel better too (6 / 2 = 3)! :P

[soudhadies]

This probably won't come as too much of a surprise, but I'm in favor of the idea that I proposed earlier, with the magician being able to navigate down too paths of specialization, either following one exclusively or dividing his attentions between both.

[graham anderson]

Looks ok to me rasp but I really like the limitations on magicians when it comes to spells in 2nd ed. There might be ways that you can access better spells like spending your feats on spellsong related feats to gain enchantments like a bard.

I have been working on a magicians guide for my own game and will post it when I am finished. This is not an official product but I would like to know what poeple think of it when I am done. I will try and put up the first draft at the weekend as I would like help from the forum to iron out the flaws.

In the mean time how about something closer to 2nd ed.

Gain feats and resistances as a wizard. Base attacks to.

gain specialisation in divination and illusion.

weapon proficiencys of a roque.

gain 4 skill points a level not 2

d6 hit points instead of d4

cant access non illusion/divination spells of 3rd level or above.

[graham anderson]

bearcat I liked your idea have you thought about adapting them to feats so that people could advance down either one , both or neither. use feat prequisits like whirlwind attack uses them for example. I am in favor of one simple base class that can be altered by prestige classes and feats.

[Osprey]

bearcat I liked your idea have you thought about adapting them to feats so that people could advance down either one , both or neither. use feat prequisits like whirlwind attack uses them for example. I am in favor of one simple base class that can be altered by prestige classes and feats.
The way I see it. most class abilities like Bearcat's path advances and Rogue special abilities, are nothing more than exclusive feats anyways. Graham, I gather that you would prefer something more modular than this; my retort would be that this fails to reward a character for being devoted to a single core class, bit instead makes them rather boring. 3.5 really emphaisized the advantage of core classes, a theme that I think must be maintained in a 3.5 conversion.
-Osprey

[graham anderson]

The way I see it. most class abilities like Bearcat's path advances and Rogue special abilities, are nothing more than exclusive feats anyways. Graham, I gather that you would prefer something more modular than this; my retort would be that this fails to reward a character for being devoted to a single core class, bit instead makes them rather boring. 3.5 really emphaisized the advantage of core classes, a theme that I think must be maintained in a 3.5 conversion.
-Osprey

Some of bearcats abilitys are feats already but others are not and could be made into feats with prequisits.

I dont realy know what you are on about osprey I am in favor of one base class that is very similar to the wizard I don't know how this is boring unless you mean that illusion and divination are boring which in my opinion they are not.


You can then add more flavour with prestige classes and feats just like a wizard.

please tell me how this is boring.

[Osprey]

I dont realy know what you are on about osprey I am in favor of one base class that is very similar to the wizard I don't know how this is boring unless you mean that illusion and divination are boring which in my opinion they are not.


You can then add more flavour with prestige classes and feats just like a wizard.

please tell me how this is boring.

:D Heh, sorry, feelin' a bit punchy, no offense intended.

I mean a class bult around only spells and a few bonus feats isn't as distinct and interesting as a class with special abilities unique to the class. For instance, I think the rogue, bard, druid, and ranger are some of the more interesting and distinct core classes in 3rd edtion, mainly because they are distinct.

For a dynamic contrast to illustrate, compare to d20 Modern's core classes - the strong hero, tough hero, smart hero, etc. - these are the ultimate in modular core classes. They're generic nature makes them easy to build on and mix and match with other classes, but IMO they're so generic that they're flat.

And yes, I'd say the wizard, sorcerer, and fighter are the least distinct and interesting class concepts, though at least the fighter gets so many feats that they are heavily customizable (especially because there are so many feats they can choose from).

[graham anderson]

Heh, sorry, feelin' a bit punchy, no offense intended.

I mean a class bult around only spells and a few bonus feats isn't as distinct and interesting as a class with special abilities unique to the class. For instance, I think the rogue, bard, druid, and ranger are some of the more interesting and distinct core classes in 3rd edtion, mainly because they are distinct.

For a dynamic contrast to illustrate, compare to d20 Modern's core classes - the strong hero, tough hero, smart hero, etc. - these are the ultimate in modular core classes. They're generic nature makes them easy to build on and mix and match with other classes, but IMO they're so generic that they're flat.

And yes, I'd say the wizard, sorcerer, and fighter are the least distinct and interesting class concepts, though at least the fighter gets so many feats that they are heavily customizable (especially because there are so many feats they can choose from).

I am fealing a bit punchy myself its far to early in the morning.

I don't like the ranger or the rogue I think they are both poorly done most especialy the ranger and use a varient of the wilderness warrior(wheel of time) in my games. I do like the bard and druid especialy in a birthright setting. I think the wizard and the sorcerer are fine you can use their magic and things like specialisation to make them destinct. I don't realy like the fighter at least not on its own as all they are good for is killing things.

I tend to create character with a number fo different classes. the characters I am playing at the moment are a roque, noble , wizard and a fighter , wizard , roque. I like multiple classes. I would like the magician to use feats precicely so that they are more addaptable and can be better defined.

[soudhadies]

Making the abilities feats means that we either make them class specific feats, or that we make them open to all classes. Class-specific feats tend to be frowned upon by the D20 establishment (with good cause). And opening them up to other classes means that the distinctiveness of the abilities and magicians would be lost. Also most of them are actually more like class features, for example the ability that was an amalgamation of uncanny dodge and the monk's wisdom bonus to AC.

[irdeggman]

I agree with Bearcat on making the abilities feats. IMO we make them special abilities locked to the path (similar to the revised BR noble). The special abilities would include some feats (I'd say meta-magic feats for the chosen path only (i.e., Ill or div schools only), some that are not feats but rather other abilities that aren't available to other classes which would make the class more unique. I don't think I'd add in item creation feats as being bonus feats for the class though - makes them too much like wizards.

Pretty much any way we cut it the clas will suffer from a lack of available spells on the high end so we need to beef up their higher level abilities to make up for it. Originality is what counts here.

Also we do not need to stick with the wizard spell progression table, we can make up a new one to fit the distribution of spell. Greater emphasis on lower level spells than higher level ones or just change the level of the spells to match a better overall progression. Just some thoughts.

A couple of comments on other posts here:

Only wizards can specialize in a school of magic (sorcerers cannot).

IMO giving magicians access to 3rd level spells (overall) is a real bad idea. Regardless of how lesser/greater magic is/was defined a fireball (3rd level wizard spell) is definitely greater magic, IMO.

[Osprey]

IMO giving magicians access to 3rd level spells (overall) is a real bad idea. Regardless of how lesser/greater magic is/was defined a fireball (3rd level wizard spell) is definitely greater magic, IMO.

Couldn't agree more. 3rd level is where wizard spells really "hit the big time." Haste, Slow, Dispel, Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Displacement...here's the real core of the combat mage's arsenal, where the big fireworks begin.

For a Magician spell list, it seems like Abjuration would be one of the better choices for a possible 3rd school, maybe Conjuration (though not necessary with Shadow Magic). Keep in mind, too, with Shadow Magic spells there actually IS a good reason to have many higher-level slots: it will let them cast shadow-based conjuration and evocation spells of lower level, so having these types of spells (Shades, Shadow Conjuration, etc.) in multiple will be really important for a higher-level magician in general.

However, I'm curious to see if a good class can be made that is pretty strict to the 2e rule of Illusion and Divination only after 2nd level of spells. Hmmm...

[geeman]

At 03:21 PM 6/26/2004 +0200, Osprey wrote:



>------------ QUOTE ----------

>IMO giving magicians access to 3rd level spells (overall) is a real bad

>idea. Regardless of how lesser/greater magic is/was defined a fireball

>(3rd level wizard spell) is definitely greater magic, IMO.

>-----------------------------

>

>Couldn`t agree more. 3rd level is where wizard spells really "hit the big

>time." Haste, Slow, Dispel, Fireball, Lightning Bolt,

>Displacement...here`s the real core of the combat mage`s arsenal, where

>the big fireworks begin. For a Magician spell list, it seems like

>Abjuration would be one of the better choices for a possible 3rd school,

>maybe Conjuration (though not necessary with Shadow Magic). Keep in mind,

>too, with Shadow Magic spells there actually IS a good reason to have many

>higher-level slots: it will let them cast shadow-based conjuration and

>evocation spells of lower level, so having these types of spells (Shades,

>Shadow Conjuration, etc.) in multiple will be really important for a

>higher-level magician in general.However, I`m curious to see if a good

>class can be made that is pretty strict to the 2e rule of Illusion and

>Divination only after 2nd level of spells. Hmmm...



At the risk of chiming in with a "me too" post... me too. I`d extend the

situation a bit as well. I find magicians using healing magics to be as

repugnant to the class as "true magic."



As has been pointed out, however, there really isn`t enough illusion and

divination spells (charm too if one is going to consider bards) in the D&D

repertoire to make for a very good character class if one is going to allow

them access to only those spells, so one can either increase their spell

list "in system" by allowing them access to other spells or come up with a

few dozen more spells to round them out. Personally, I`d prefer the latter

to the former, but that solution does represent a substantial amount of

additional work and brainstorming for what is as often as not a "NPC class"

for the setting.



Gary

[Osprey]

One spell I've wanted to introduce is Competence, though this would be a lower level skill, giving a competence skill bonus to a single target that increases with caster level. Mass Competence could also make for a higher level version.

I really liked Magicians in the BRCS having enhancement-type spells like Greater Magic Weapons, Mass Magic Weapons, First Strike, etc. This does lead to the problem of then officially saying, "Yes, magicians can make magic weapons with Craft magic Arms and Armor." But perhaps this is a worthwhile trade-off, not sure on that yet though. But given the commonality of clerics and their potential for artificing, it's not like magic item production is the sole province of the blooded anyways. Also, true mages will still be capable of creating a much greater diversity of items thanks to their greater spell selection, thus they remain superior artificers.

I think coming up with a set of unique magician spells is pretty much necessary if the magician is to be 'sold' as a PC class. If it's just presented as an NPC class, then it's fine and fitting for their spell lists and capabilities to be limited and inferior to a PC class. Otherwise, they need some cool stuff of their own.

SO...here's a call to the BR community. Who's got some good Magician spells to add to their lists, especially higher-level spells? Let's put our brains together and storm the bastions of Lesser Magic! :D

Whaddya' got?

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Osprey@Jun 27 2004, 10:08 AM
This does lead to the problem of then officially saying, "Yes, magicians can make magic weapons with Craft magic Arms and Armor." But perhaps this is a worthwhile trade-off, not sure on that yet though. But given the commonality of clerics and their potential for artificing, it's not like magic item production is the sole province of the blooded anyways. Also, true mages will still be capable of creating a much greater diversity of items thanks to their greater spell selection, thus they remain superior artificers.

Any spellcaster who takes the craft arms and armor item dreation feat can make magic weapons. There is no spell prereq for that item creation only a caster level. So even rangers and paladins could create magic weapons.

This is something that is core to 3.5 and hence shouldn't be toyed with, IMO. This becomes limited by how bonus feats are given, e.g., wizards gain bonus feats that can be used for any metamagic or item creation feat.

[geeman]

At 06:48 PM 6/27/2004 +0200, irdeggman wrote:



>Any spellcaster who takes the craft arms and armor item dreation feat can

>make magic weapons. There is no spell prereq for that item creation only

>a caster level. So even rangers and paladins could create magic

>weapons.This is something that is core to 3.5 and hence shouldn`t be toyed

>with, IMO. This becomes limited by how bonus feats are given, e.g.,

>wizards gain bonus feats that can be used for any metamagic or item

>creation feat.



Allowing any spellcaster to craft arms and armor really mucks about with

one of the fundamental themes of the BR setting; that it is low magic. As

you note, 3e/3.5 allows any spellcaster to create such items, which is

actually an even greater number of characters than would be able to create

magic items in 2e if magicians had had the same spells (Permanency) as

wizards, so logically the transition from 2e BR to 3e BR would do away with

any low magic concept in the campaign--if one is going to have the campaign

conditions in any way connected to the game mechanics, that is.



In this case, the only feat that needs to be addressed is Craft Magic Arms

and Armor. The situation is very easy to fix in order to maintain

consistency with the original, low-magic theme. The item creation feat

just needs to have an additional prereq added: "Ability to cast true magic

or divine magic." The rest of the feat description can be included or it

might just refer to the PHB.



Gary

[geeman]

At 05:08 PM 6/27/2004 +0200, Osprey wrote:



>Who`s got some good Magician spells to add to their lists, especially

>higher-level spells? Let`s put our brains together and storm the bastions

>of Lesser Magic! :D Whaddya` got?



I haven`t any specific spell write ups, but I would make a couple of

suggestions regarding what kinds of things magicians should be able to do.



1. Spells related to the Shadow World. Magicians should be able to do

things like pierce the veil into the SW and possibly draw forth

creatures/energies from that plane. Personally, I think shadow magics is a

much better direction to go for BR magicians than healing spells if one is

going to add a category of spells.



2. More specifically powered divination and illusion spells. Where there

are metamagic feats to improve various spell effects, results, etc. many

such empowered spells could simply exist in the magician`s

repertoire. Aside from rounding out the spell list for magicians, spells

based on existing magics would require a minimum of spell description text.



3. "Mundane" magics. Where wizards/sorcerers with access to true magic

concentrate on the more powerful and dramatic spells, magicians might be

more like the "technicians" of BR magic. Their spells, therefore, should

be geared towards more common, everyday occurrences. Even magicians have

to make a living, so their spell effects might be things that would

entertain, communicate over distances, predict the sex of babies, etc. On

a more particular basis, magicians would be able to use divinatory magics

to locate things ranging from the location to dig a well, to the place

where a silver vein is hidden.



4. From the political level, there are several kinds of things that might

be apt for a court magician (and, therefore, importan to a BR update.) For

instance, spells that do things like transcribe a conversation, loudly

announce proclamations from a tower, spy upon other regents and protect one

from the magical spying of others, detect lies, traps, poisons, etc. would

all be very appropriate.



Gary

[Birthright-L]

Has anyone considered that the Magician class might be a Rogue class? One

with sligt mystical abilities? Alternatly the nature of Birthright may allow

non blooded to be wizards--but prevent them from surpassing level 3 in

magic, instead forcing tem to learn other skills/class?

[irdeggman]

Limiting magic weapon creation is easily done by increasing the market value of the items (Complete Warrior suggests doubling or tripling the value) this reduces the amount made. Without rewriting the core rules.

I'm not really supportive of creating the number of new magician spells necessary to make the class on an even keel with wizards as far as number of spells. I'd rather have the class make up for higher level spells with class abilities instead.

The class is already a roguish type of spell caster. See the number of skill points (4 + Int mod) and skills and hit die (d6) from the latest class write up.

Non-blooded wizards? Why? It just sort of makes the magician class not make sense that way. Forcing them to have to change classes might well impose the multi-class penalties. Most everyone knows that while multi-class characters are more adaptable they are less powerful, especially the spellcasting ones.

[destowe]

I would like to see Magicians at least be able to scribe scrolls and brew potions.

These are fairly close to those 'trinkets' or 'amulets' of really low power that you can buy/rewarded from a hedge-wizard in fairy tales. As they are single-use they should not upset the balance to much.

[geeman]

At 12:31 AM 6/29/2004 +0200, destowe wrote:



>I would like to see Magicians at least be able to scribe scrolls and brew

>potions.These are fairly close to those `trinkets` or `amulets` of really

>low power that you can buy/rewarded from a hedge-wizard in fairy

>tales. As they are single-use they should not upset the balance to much.



They are also amongst the things the magicians could create in 2e, so they

should be available in 3e.



Some folks (myself included) don`t think magicians should be able to create

permanent magic items since in 3e we have more relaxed requirements for

creating magic items, and several of the spells upon which a some pretty

powerful magic items are based are amongst the BR low magic, but I don`t

really think that`s as big a problem as all that since it can be house

ruled pretty easily. I think the issue is, however, significant enough to

warrant an insert or optional rule in the BRCS....



Gary

[Athos69]

What of the Create Wondrous Item feat? With the restricted spell list for the Magician, would that not also limit the items that could be made?

[geeman]

At 04:30 AM 6/29/2004 +0200, Athos69 wrote:



> What of the Create Wondrous Item feat? With the restricted spell list

> for the Magician, would that not also limit the items that could be made?



It would. Another thing that might limit the number of magic items is that

BR is a relatively low level setting. Those who might create magic items

may not have the levels to do so, and/or may be loathe to sacrifice the

XP. However, there are still an awful lot of items that could be created

that IMO seriously alter the nature of the setting. Allowing magicians to

create permanent magic items means there would be an inordinate amount of

things like Hats of Disguise running around. Most of the ability score

enhancing spells are 2nd level in 3e/3.5 so there is no reason why

Gauntlets of Ogre Strength and Gloves of Dexterity wouldn`t be all over the

place. Such items would be (in the absence of some other rule regarding

them) as common as they might be in some other campaign setting in which

there is no restriction on the creation of magic items. If, that is, one

is going to have the conditions of the campaign setting match up with the

actual capacities of the character classes that inhabit it. BR tends to

err in this from time to time, but its more often with things like elven

immortality....



There is the potential to just raise the expense for creating magic

items. I kind think one should do that anyway in a non-BR campaign, but in

BR it seems insufficient. It opens the pool of potential magic item

creators by something like x100 and that`s the major issue. Making magic

more expensive will decrease the amount of items in the campaign setting,

but in reality it doesn`t really change things all that much given the

total number of people who are now available to create them, and the way

simple scarcity issues work. On the whole, however, I don`t think the

increased costs for magic items is a particularly elegant solution. It is

not, at least, any more of a 3e method of dealing with the situation than

is restricting access to the item creation feats. In fact, it seems to me

that most campaign settings will do things like tweak feat selection before

they`ll change the item creation rules.



Gary

[Osprey]

Geeman,
I like the concept that magicians can generally only create non-permanent (charged or 1-shot) items. It does make a nice clean distinction between lesser and greater magic.

However, should this include illusion and divination-based items, like crystal balls or cloaks of displacement? As illusion and divination specialists, is it necessary to curb their artificing abilities even in these areas?

As for the commonality of magic items, focusing on magicians as the main culprits of magic item inflation in BR seems insufficient given the commonality of clerics in BR, who are capable of creating all the things you're trying to keep out of magicians' hands, such as rods, permanent wondrous items, and arms and armor. If you want a lower-magic setting, restrictions on magicians will not in any way affect clerics' abilities to be artificers. Hence the reason raising market values is a better across-the-board solution for making magic items rarer.

If you're going for a really, REALLY low magic setting in which permanent magic items are extremely rare, well...at that point we either have to ignore or drastically modify the 3e rules for magic item creation and random treasure generation. And I'm not sure the BRCS conversion project is really up to that task...

[Athos69]

Keep in mind too that increasing the GP cost of items, increases both the inflated time requirements in the BRCS, as well as the XP costs (for scrolls and potions).

If we tweak the rate of creation to 1 month of crafting time per 1,000 GP, the Hat of Disguise, according to DMG 3.5 rules would cost 900 GP and take one Domain action to craft. If we multiply the prices by three, that means that an entire SEASON is consumed to craft such an item.

Extending this to a simple +1 weapon, again we're loking at 1 3-month turn to craft it, during which the mage cannot cast realm magics or respond to external threats to his power base. Crafting a +2 weapon from scratch would take an entire year to complete. Is this the rate of slowdown that people want?

[graham anderson]

I would be fine with that sort of slow down athos it would explain nicely why the elves are the only group to have significant numbers of magical items.

[destowe]

I know someone brought up something similar before, but I still like making an RP cost for permanent magical items.

This would limit the seers and most non-source holders right off top. And the RP cost would limit temples even.

Just add a clause that RP equal to maybe 1/3 of the XP spent is needed to make the item permanent.

[geeman]

At 04:57 PM 6/29/2004 +0200, Athos69 wrote:



>If we multiply the prices by three, that means that an entire SEASON is

>consumed to craft such an item.... Is this the rate of slowdown that

>people want?



It`s all about theme and campaign material. I`m not really a slowdown that

I`m after, per se. It`s a "low magic" environment that is in keeping with

some of the original themes. That is, the BR-specific concepts of magic

separated into lesser and true groups, the generalized attunement to the BR

concept of arcane magic being connected to the land itself, etc. In that

context, I`ve argued that BR isn`t really "low magic" at all. It`s just

"low magic item." The point, however, is that it should stay "low magic

item" for reasons having to do with it being described as "low magic" to

begin with. That`s why I`d prefer a solution to the number of magic items

that has more of a connection to the true magic concept.



In this case I also think it`s easier to change the access to item creation

feats for the setting than to revise the item creation math for D&D in

general for the purpose of the setting.



Gary

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by destowe@Jun 29 2004, 10:50 AM
I know someone brought up something similar before, but I still like making an RP cost for permanent magical items.

This would limit the seers and most non-source holders right off top. And the RP cost would limit temples even.

Just add a clause that RP equal to maybe 1/3 of the XP spent is needed to make the item permanent.
I am very much opposed to using RP for magic item creation. IMO this is like using interest to pay a loan. The creator isn't really risking anything to spend RP. He gains RP just by having holdings. If it was blood line strength points that would be different - these are something very personal and not something he is under obligation to be a steward of. IMO RP (and regency in general) is like being a steward of resources, the regent has an obligation to care for his charges (thus the RP and GB) which are in reality domain assets. So by using RP for item creation the regent is actually spending someone else's assets instead of his own.

Multiplying the item creation costs will reduce how many classes can actually afford to create items. Magicians are not in general regents and don't have access to large amounts of funds so they are forced to survive by working for someone else. Increasing the market value also increases the xp cost and time required to create an item - pretty much self-balancing and simple mechanically.

[ConjurerDragon]

destowe schrieb:



>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=2700

>

> destowe wrote:

> I know someone brought up something similar before, but I still like making an RP cost for permanent magical items.This would limit the seers and most non-source holders right off top. And the RP cost would limit temples even.Just add a clause that RP equal to maybe 1/3 of the XP spent is needed to make the item permanent.

>

Only if the only RP income is from holdings.

RP can be earned by successful actions as well and in 2E there were even

a kit that allowed to earn even more RP for successful adventuring.

bye

Michael

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by ConjurerDragon@Jun 29 2004, 11:40 AM
Only if the only RP income is from holdings.

RP can be earned by successful actions as well and in 2E there were even

a kit that allowed to earn even more RP for successful adventuring.

bye

Michael


True, but RP awards for adventuring and domain actions pales in comparison to the amount that is generated by holdings. That was pretty much the indication from 2nd too.

Also RP used to create items doesn't affect a characters advancement like exp expenditures will.

And in addition, RP awards were always in addition to exp awards not in replace of them.

[destowe]

Not sure if I explained it correctly. I am not in favor of replacing XP with RP for permanent magic item creation.

I would change the feats to make this an ADDITION to the XP cost.

[tcharazazel]

1/3 RP costs... hmm that could get rather high for some of the better end quality items, to make a +10 weapon it would take 66,667 RP... who the hell would have that much RP? heh, even the Gorgon wouldn't be able to make that. For a +8 weapon it would cost 42,667 RP and even for a +5 weapon its 16,667 RP, heh even a +2 weapon costs 2,667 RP!!!! To have that much RP to make even the +2 weapon you would need a bloodline score of 1334, unless you burn lots and lots of bloodpoints... heh, even then you'd need a bloodscore of 52 and be willing to drop to a bloodscore of 9 to make one +2 weapon... Heh, that would be nuts!

How would any of the higher end magic items listed in the BRCS and ever be made with such high RP costs...

If you change it to 1/4 RP it is still very unreasonable heheh, 2000 RP for a +2 weapon... If you change it to 1/8 RP its still 1000, 1/16 is 500, 1/32 is 250, 1/64 is 125!!! So even at 1/64 you would need to have a blood score of 63, which almost nobody would have, to not burn any bloodpoints.

There also is the considerable fact that magic items existed before there were blooded scions... so if you still want people to be blooded to make magic items don't try to put in the RP requirements, unless its something reasonable like 1-5 RP per enhancement, so a +2 longsword of dancing would cost between 6 - 30 RP to be made. That is more reasonable.

Keep in mind that the RP reserve I was refering to here was the sanctioned Ch 2 version where you only have a reserve of 2 x bloodscore, instead of the 5 x bloodscore of BRCS. If you conintue to use the BRCS bloodscore version, even then you would only need it to be 1/32 or 1/64 of the material cost to be effective as it will still be rather heafty to make such items. Examples, a blood score of 50 for 1/32 to make a +2 weapon wthout burning any bloodpoints, and a bloodscore of 25 for 1/64.


I agree with irdeggman in that if you want to keep it a low magic setting just multiply the cost of magic items by 2, 3 or 4 as that will raise the GP and Exp costs. And its deffinately easier and more effective than trying to make a new system.

[irdeggman]

Another problem with tying in RP to item creation (as in a prerequisite or extra cost) is that there are multiple ways of playing a BR game.

There is the default game, one that has about even amounts of domain level paly and adventuring.

There is the mostly (if not exclusively) domain level of play ( most PBEM fall into this category, but there are several out there who play table top domain level only games).

Then there are those who play alomost exclusively adventure only games.

If RP is a mandatory cost for creating magic items then it penalizes the adventure only group since RP really only comes into play at the domain level.

The things that all types of game have in common is that characters earn exp and earn money in some manner. Exp and money are the two 'costs' formaking magic items in the core D&D books and if looked at from a wider viewpoint it becomes pretty easy to see that in order to maintain a usable system these are the two things that must be used for magic item creation.

[destowe]

The RP numbers do seem very high, Tcharazazel. Were you basing the 1/3 off the gold cost or the experience cost? I was looking for the experience cost. Hmmm even that seems a bit high for the high level stuff. Around 1666. Ok, back to the lab.

I have rarely seen a pure adventuring team with many item creation feats. The mostly went for the general and combat skills. Maybe a few metamagic. Most of the time they took items that let them survive the fight or boosted skills. They would make the scrolls, potions and wands, but either looted or commissioned the weapons and armor. The wizard and cleric did not like the thought of being a level behind arming the rest of the party.

[Azulthar]

You could also increase the required level for the item creation feats. This would reduce the number of item-creators as well. PC's will probably still get the feats, but the number of NPCs would drop, thus changing the world accordingly.

As for a cost multiplier...double the normal cost seems good enough for me. Personally, I'd go with an added base cost. This would discourage the mass-production of low-level items, but only slightly hinder the production of one-time, powerful magic items. IMC, magic items are far less common, but certainly not less powerful. There just aren't 120 short swords +1 lying around.

Multiplying the cost could result in most magic items being of the +1 variant, as the more powerful/exotic ones simply wouldn't be worth it.

These are just random thoughts, though (as if you need more of those :) ) I have to admit that my experience with D&D item creation is rather limited.


- Azulthar

[tcharazazel]

Ah yeah, I was doing 1/3 of material cost, instead of 1/7 as you proposed. However, if you look at the 1/16 ect costs they are still very high. Heheh, its why I took it 1/64 just incase.


I agree with you, regarding adventurering PCs. They generally do not bother with item creation feats, when they can just find or buy the items. However, if there aren't very many casters who can make or upgrade their items to the level they want, especially when they get to higher levels... then I bet they would pick up those item creation feats. So, to make it clear, low level adventuring PCs are definately not likely to have the item creation feats. Higher level PCs would be more likely to take the feats as there aren't many, if any, NPC casters who can make/upgrade their items, or be willing to do so.

I would also point out that the adventurers shouldnt be punished with an RP cost if they choose to take up item creation. Heh, it does cause a bit of imbalance.

[irdeggman]

Regarding adventurers it all depends on how things are done overall. In our 3.5 house campaign the DM uses the optional training rules from the DMG so there are periods of 'down time' for people to train. My 13 yr od son is playing the wizard of the party and is totally enthralled by the making of magic items. He basically looks up items that other characers can use and figures out when he can make him. Gosh what a concept a novice player embracing the 'team concept' of 3.0/3.5. I only wish that the core rules had introduced a means of getting the exp cost donated from someone else.

My PC a fighter/cleric of Kord "You must do your morning exercise and we can pump you up." has started making potions during the down time. Nothing beats a cure potion.

So it really depends on how the game is being run. BR is designed for months to stretch at a time, even if the players/DM is playing a mostly adventure based game there are still domain actions going on somewhere that affect the players in some capacity.

[Kelphthal]

In regards to the magicians spell list, I think a collective effort should be made to sit down and go through every spell in the 3.5 PHB and determine if iand where it is appropriate. I admit this will take a lot of doing, but needs to be done. After that, any specific holes can be rounded out with a few new spells, especially ones that let magicians do their job as advisors.

An example of the line of thought I am having is Tenser's floating Disk. This is a level one sor/wiz spell. I think it is appropriate for magicians to cast, but probably at level 2, maybe even 3 since it is evocation. In the same vein, tongues would quite possibly slip from level 3 to level 1.

Yeah, I know I am proposing a lot of work, but I think it is worth it.


Second, in regards to magical item creation. The setting is low magic culturally, not mechanically. Wizards choose not to give up their vital essence (XP) to create items, not it is more difficult. It is also a diffusion of power. Wizards, like everyone else on cerillia are power hoarders, they would not just hand out items even to trusted comrades, because they could be turned artound on them.

The price tag of this? Roleplay vs Roll Play. Wizards need to be played in character just like anyone else. If your wix does make a +8 sword, and hand it to his friend the fighter. Let the fighter get caugght in the next adventure, and have to take that +8 sword out of the villains hands.

I any changes to the feats themselves. Increasing the XP xost on permanent magical items is ok.


I guess that covers my little rambling thought.

May the Farce be with You

[irdeggman]

I am going to leave that development of the magician's spell list up to you all. I will definitely be on my sabbatical during that time.

[Osprey]

Developing a Magician Spell List:

What are the guidelines? In the BRCS, illusion and divination were dominant, of course, but enchantment and non-offensive transmutations were also fairly prominent. Do we want to keep this theme? Or do we want to get strict about no spells outside of the 2 main schools above level 2?

This issue must be decided on before we can begin picking the PHB spell lists apart, otherwise it will be an impossibly confused task.

Osprey

PS - Hmm, methinks I'll repost this and start a poll on the issue, as it's likely to be a hot debate and a further refinement of the previos bard/magician poll. Register your preference! :)