Sanctioning Vote for Chap 1

[irdeggman]

All right let's see if we can wrap this up now. I think we've finally got it down. Please if there are any editorials/typos let me know - they can be fixed without any additional voting.

[irdeggman]

Here is the pdf version.

[irdeggman]

Here is the word version.

[Raesene Andu]

All looking good to me.

[RaspK_FOG]

Urgoshes, not Urgroshes.
The dodge bonus should be +4, not +2, right?

Otherwise seems OK...

[Mark_Aurel]

Looks okay, for the most part.

One thing that sticks out a bit is that I don't see why anyone would want to play a paladin of Nesirie in its current form.

[Osprey]

One thing that sticks out a bit is that I don't see why anyone would want to play a paladin of Nesirie in its current form.

Yeah...I gave up on complaining about that...a straight cleric would kick the paladin's butt. I once suggested allowing paladins of Neserie to multiclass as clerics [which is in Ch 1], and allowing their caster levels to stack [not included in BRCS, but what I will use IMC].

I think the Paladin of Cuiraecen class is pretty cool. I used it for a high level Fhyllie the Sword IMC, and liked the results. The bonus feats plus paladin abilites really do a good job of conveying that militant warrior feel the class should have. Good work on that.

Overall I think Chapter 1 looks pretty good. :)

[The incredible, edible Phil]

Some suggestions:

I personally consider BR a High-fantasy campaign when it comes to regents and would suggest giving regents a 32 point buy for those characters.

Change the terminology of regional background skills to cultural background skills because elsewhere the different types of humans are always referenced as a race or culture.

Regional feat mechanics were changed in 3.5 for the official game settings but has not been changed for BR. Was this a choice of the BR developpers?

[irdeggman]

Urgoshes, not Urgroshes.


Per the PHB it is urgrosh



The dodge bonus should be +4, not +2, right?

What is this in reference to?

[irdeggman]

I personally consider BR a High-fantasy campaign when it comes to regents and would suggest giving regents a 32 point buy for those characters.

The rules don't make any distinction betwen a regent and a non-regent at character creation, nor should they. Regents can gain extra benefits, but these are tied into scion class levels with some other variant rules specified in Chap 8. It was decided when putting this together to avoid the highest campaign design as a norm and instead to go with the tougher campaign as the norm. As the DM it is your call to change the amount of points allowed or to use any ability generation system you so desire (rule 0 as it is commonly referred to). The one thing that should be kept is that all ability scores are generated at the same time, that is to include the initial score that determines a scion's bloodline strength score at the same time (part of that balance thing).


Change the terminology of regional background skills to cultural background skills because elsewhere the different types of humans are always referenced as a race or culture.


Good point and I consider this an editorial so it will require no additional vote, as long as the terminology is consistent.


Regional feat mechanics were changed in 3.5 for the official game settings but has not been changed for BR. Was this a choice of the BR developpers?

Yes.
We weren't going to continue chasing the other campaigns. I personnally don't play any Forgotten Realms games and am not going to keep on buying them just to see what is going on there - I only have a finite amount of money (just ask my wife). The method used is consistent with Wheel of Time which was a lot closer to the model used at development and the cultural/regional skill system was modified from the Wheel of Time system basically because it seemed awful harsh to limit it to a single skill with 4 ranks (all of a human's initial bonus) and have that single skill be a class skill. The concept used seemed to be more agreeable to the masses with not as many restrictions and allowed the carry over of the cultural (i.e. human race) characteristics of the 2nd ed game.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Mark_Aurel@Feb 6 2005, 09:33 AM

One thing that sticks out a bit is that I don't see why anyone would want to play a paladin of Nesirie in its current form.
Good to see you posting even occasionally Jan. :)


The paladin issues were discussed at great detail in the past. They were voted on and have been sanctioned already, as has most of Chap 1 except for the noble, skills, feats and equipment. And even then the skills and feats and noble were discussed a whole lot already.


There weren't a lot of people working on the paladin classes, Rasp and me.

People voted on the alignment restrictions, etc.

I have to disagree that the paladin of Nesire is sorely lacking compared to a cleric of Nesire. The paladin retains most of the normal paladin abilities and gains a few extra, has a larger spell selection than a normal paladin (less than the cleric - but that is the way it should be) and can cast moore spels than a standard paladin and les than a cleric - again as it should be.

The default version allows a paladin of Nesire to freely multiclass with a cleric. It is only when using the variant that things change (basically the characer can't freely multiclass anymore but instead gains the straight class abilities which were chosen to be a decent amalgamation of the what would happen if a character multiclassed.


In 2nd ed IMO the paladin of Nesire was the least often chosen paladin anyway. Pretty much the paladin of Avani ruled as far as which paladin was the most powerful. Things are a whole more balanced than they were in 2nd ed

[Mark_Aurel]

Well --

Paladins suffer quite a bit from MAD. They need high Charisma for their special abilities, high Wisdom for their spells, and high Strength and Constitution to be decent fighters. They can shirk on their Dex a bit due to their ability to wear heavy armor, and their Int usually comes dead last. Even if paladins have as good a BAB as fighters, they usually tend to have lower Strength scores, due to having to spread their scores differently, and prioritize differently when they level up. Being 1 or 2 points behind on attack values hurts a lot in the long run. Much more than that, and you quickly become next to irrelevant as any kind of warrior.

What that means is that, in order to be balanced in a game with typical ability scores, a paladin's class abilities need to be somewhat more powerful than those of a fighter. In a game of atypically high ability scores, things change, of course, but that's a whole other nest of worms.

Now, what you've done here is weaken the basic paladin class in five different areas:
- Lower BAB
- Lower HD
- Changed Fort save for Will save (this can be seen as a tradeoff, but for various reasons, it'll probably average out to a penalty -- frontline fighters are meant to make those Fort saves)
- No mount
- Removed most of the paladin's combat-related spells

What do they get in return for that?
- More spells per day, higher spell levels, and earlier spells
- (I'm assuming) a full caster level; this isn't as useful as it sounds, as this class doesn't need to beat SR a lot (at all), and most of its spells don't scale well with level
- Some water-related abilities

As the class stands now, there are several examples to compare it with offhand. The bard, the healer from Miniatures Handbook, and the psychic warrior (at least the 3e kind; haven't seen the 3.5 version). If you compare it to a cleric, it is woefully underpowered, as has already been noted. Of course, clerics are a tad too good to begin with, but anyway.

What this class lacks first and foremost is a niche. It won't heal nearly as good as a cleric, it won't fight nearly as good as a paladin does; it won't really fight much better than a cleric, and it won't really cast spells much better than a paladin. And the other abilities it gets won't make up for that difference.

Part of what makes paladins passable at high levels is their spellcasting ability; they can cast some pretty good buffing spells. Those are gone here, and that hurts a lot. It actually probably hurts about as much as the addition of higher-level spells helps, when those spells just aren't very useful straight up.

At lower levels, of course, there are other tradeoffs. At 1st level, you trade +1 BAB and 2 hp for the ability to cast one 0-level spell once per day. That's a pretty poor tradeoff, especially considering the spells available. Cure Minor Wounds once a day? The hit point loss alone is more than equal to that.

Compared to a bard, this paladin gets an inferior spell list, worse base saves, much fewer skill points, and class abilities that may or may not compare. (Note that the utility of an ability like Smite Evil may drop as the paladin's base attack drops.) A bard specializes in boosting the rest of the party, something this class is woefully lacking in -- and it doesn't pack enough of a punch on its own to compensate for that, either. Being able to heal better is largely irrelevant, as the ability to heal usually means you have to win or survive the fight first, which this paladin won't exactly excel at.

Compared to the psychic warrior, this class simply doesn't have the bonus feats or the abilities that makes it worth it. Psychic warriors can get lots of interesting psionic powers that really boosts their combat prowess. And even then, they're somewhat weak most of the time.

Compared to the cleric, this class is just bad. The cleric will fight very nearly as well, and cast much better spells. As the classes reach higher levels, the cleric will simply outpace this paladin. Clerics having better saves, better turn undead (or at all), domain abilities, and more and better spells more than makes up for all the abilities this class gets.

This class is clearly better at fighting than the healer, but the healer is otherwise a much better... healer, especially on the frontlines.

The paladin of Nesirie needs one of the following boosts, IMO (in order of preference):
- Base attack set back to good.
- More spells per day, and a better spell selection, including all the usual paladin buffs, maybe some summoning (water creature) spells
- HD set back to d10, Fort/Will changed back, and some other or better special abilities

[RaspK_FOG]

I would have no problem in boosting the paladin of Nesirie back to d10 if I thought it was that unbalanced; however, the paladin is not a variant of the fighter per se... Rather, the class is a cleric/fighter mixup that represents a champion of the order; since Nesirie is less militant, her paladins play more of the crusading healer than the crusading warrior, if you catch my drift. And a mount is not very suitable (dolphin, anyone?)...

An idea would be to have her have both good Fortitude and good Will saves, and one could grant her a deflection bonus to her AC equal to her Charisma bonus... But that's that, and I do not see us granting her more spells per day, but the idea of Summon Monster/Nature's Ally (Aquatic/Water only) seems interesting. Buffing spells is not a given, but an increase in skill points to 4 + Int might work.

I am happy you like the Paladin of Cuiraécen; he is my most prized of all 4! :D

As for the dodge bonus, I am referring to the dodge bonus dwarves get; in the PHB, they get a +4 dodge bonus vs. giants, but in Chapter 1. it reads they get +2 instead.

[Green Knight]

Could someone please explain WHY this pretty big change to paladins is being made?

2E papadins had a few special features, but nothing so grat as this. The paladin is a holy WARRIOR, so anything that derails it from that purpose if way of the mark IMO.

B

[Angelbialaska]

I'm not sure who found out that Nesirie's paladins was less militant than other paladins. As pointed out by GreenKnight, then Paladins are warriors. If you want the wandering healer, you simply take a Cleric. Then you can heal spontaneously.

Paladin represent the holy warrior, that is a fighter first and a healer first. I don't think that part should really be changed.

[Mark_Aurel]

I would have no problem in boosting the paladin of Nesirie back to d10 if I thought it was that unbalanced; however, the paladin is not a variant of the fighter per se...

Yes, it is. As already said, the paladin is a holy warrior. Always has been.


Rather, the class is a cleric/fighter mixup that represents a champion of the order; since Nesirie is less militant, her paladins play more of the crusading healer than the crusading warrior, if you catch my drift. And a mount is not very suitable (dolphin, anyone?)...

No, a mount is not very suitable. Which paladins of Nesirie didn't get in 2e, and don't get here. It is easy to replace the mount with something else -- some abilities, a better spell selection, etc.

As for the rest of what you say, yes, the paladin is sort of a fighter/cleric mix. They need a distinct and definite role to contribute to a party, however. As it stands now, it falls short of all the chairs it could sit on. If you want to play a healer, wouldn't a cleric be a better choice?


An idea would be to have her have both good Fortitude and good Will saves, and one could grant her a deflection bonus to her AC equal to her Charisma bonus...

That might be workable, but the problem with that is that the character would still be a poor combatant; note that the HD/save option is my least favored option. It would make the class weak in much the same way as the monk is weak -- they survive, but they never really do any damage, don't pull their weight in a fight (which is what D&D classes mostly are balanced around) or in any other situation.

That idea would probably turn this paladin into the ultimate 'piss the other players off' class -- they die because this paladin isn't a good warrior and can't defend them; the paladin lives to see another group of adventurers die because of her powerful innate defensive abilities.


But that's that, and I do not see us granting her more spells per day, but the idea of Summon Monster/Nature's Ally (Aquatic/Water only) seems interesting. Buffing spells is not a given, but an increase in skill points to 4 + Int might work.

More spells per day is just a solution if the others are unpopular; she needs *something* to compensate for that loss of BAB. And in the case her BAB stays low, if you want this paladin to do anything useful, some buffing spells are required. Otherwise, she'll be a worse combatant than the cleric. Sure, she can smite evil a few times a day. The cleric can boost his own strength, summon divine favor, divine power, and rain fire from the sky -- all the while being a better healer than this paladin. More skill points wouldn't do much except make this paladin even less focused, and inching ever closer to the concept of 'bard,' with the exception that bards are a support class, and this class actually has very little to support others with.

[irdeggman]

Alright here are some thread links for past discussion on Chap 1 (which any one could find if they just took the time to look them up - I did it a page at a time in about 10 minutes). I didn't include all of the threads, there were severalabout elves and spellcasting, but if you want to read them you can check themout on your own. In these threads you will find the discussion (and polls) on paladins. The revised version of Chap 1 was first posted for serious work in March 2004. There have been numerous (some think too many) polls run to quantify issues as we went along and to decide (i.e., sanction) things as we went also.

IMO revisiting issues that have already been decided is totally counter productive. If people didn't wish to participate in the discussion or votes as they came up, well that is a reflection on their commitment to getting this project (product) finished.

The main point I'm trying to make is that we don't invalidate previous votes, unless there is something that casues a drastic change in the way things are done. For example Chap 1 has beensanctiioned. It won't be touched until we finish the remainder of the BRCS. At that time certain issues may casue us to revisit it to revise and mesh the chapters together (Specifically how on the battlefield is handled will cause a serious relooking at some blood abilities). But revisiting (and throwing out previous polls "just because" is just not right. If you don't like things that have already been decided then vote no for sanctioning. If the chap is not sanctioned then it will be time to go back to the writing table and start this process all over again.


Paladins and multiclassing:
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2363


Poll: Trying to capture opinions on BR paladins:
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2395


Chap 1 (revised) – races, discussion on the races:
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2442

Poll Chap 1 revised humans, how to handle:
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2457

Poll: paladin alignments:
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2515


Chap 1 (revised) (first post March 2004)
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2317


Poll: What is the historical reference for the Khinasi?:
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2706


Poll: What is the historical reference for the Brecht?:
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2702

Magician class – discussion on how to handle:
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2700


Poll: Bard, magicians and magic – determining lesser magic guidelines:
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2697


Rev Chap 1 Char classes:
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2674


Avani paladins:
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2580


Poll: Chap 1 classes sanctioning (except noble and magician): (Note this poll was run based on the results of the poll immediately following)
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2770


Poll: Sanctioning vote for classes art of Chap 1:
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2767


Poll: Chap 1 races – sanctioning vote:
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2761

Chap 1 revision (7-04) except for magicians:
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2749


Chap 1 races:
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2699


Magician Spell List:
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2815



Rangers as arcane casters:
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1999


Poll: Which is the better BAB for nobles?:
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2781


Which way should the noble go?:
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2780


Poll: Magician spell list:
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2737


Poll: Noble class abilities:
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2853


Poll: Noble class deciding how to write it:
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2848


Poll: Noble class:
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2830


Magician class sanctioned version:
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2836


Poll: Magician core class features:
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2819


Poll: Magician class sanctioning vote:
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2822

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Feb 7 2005, 04:08 AM
As for the dodge bonus, I am referring to the dodge bonus dwarves get; in the PHB, they get a +4 dodge bonus vs. giants, but in Chapter 1. it reads they get +2 instead.
It was left at +2 to balance out the DR they gain (the skill check modifiers while great for color and logic don't really translate into a solid game-mechanic balance). It was an attempt to keep from making them an EL race.

[Angelbialaska]

The main point I'm trying to make is that we don't invalidate previous votes, unless there is something that casues a drastic change in the way things are done. For example Chap 1 has beensanctiioned. It won't be touched until we finish the remainder of the BRCS. At that time certain issues may casue us to revisit it to revise and mesh the chapters together (Specifically how on the battlefield is handled will cause a serious relooking at some blood abilities). But revisiting (and throwing out previous polls "just because" is just not right. If you don't like things that have already been decided then vote no for sanctioning. If the chap is not sanctioned then it will be time to go back to the writing table and start this process all over again.

Wouldn't that end out with a lot of errata during the time that other chapters are revisioned?

Personally I'd rather work out a bit like:

Write all stuff
Playtest it. Get input back.
Rewrite stuff that needs to be rewritten
More playtesting
Rewrite
Playtesting.

Gives more consistency IMO. Instead of:

Write one chapter
Playtest
Make errata
Write new chapter
Playtest
Make errata to both chapters
Write new chapter
Playtest
Make errata to all chapters...

Each chapter would then be a work in progress, until it all can be concluded.

[irdeggman]

Wouldn't that end out with a lot of errata during the time that other chapters are revisioned?

Personally I'd rather work out a bit like:

Write all stuff
Playtest it. Get input back.
Rewrite stuff that needs to be rewritten
More playtesting
Rewrite
Playtesting.




While ideally that is the best way to do things, logistically there just isn't enough committed man/women power to accomplish that task.



Here is a link to a thread that sums up the concept and desires of the mailserve/netforce:
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1115

There was a poll (that got lost in one of the web' updates that had it clearly decided that people wanted a chapter at a time and basically to do things as they came out.


What is really needed is a group of dedicated people who want to take overall cognizance of a specific chapter. Then things can be done in parallel instead ofme doing it all. What this means is someone who is willing to do an entire chapter and not just portions of it. This is what most people I have had discussions with seem to want to do - insert or work on parts but not the whole chapter.

As a community we have ADD in the fact that we can't focus on any one thing for too long before moving on to something else. ;)

I could/would serve as the overall editor to ensure some sort of continuity/consistency (which is what Doom was doing in the beginning).

The type of people needed are those with extensive knowledge of 2nd ed Birthright and 3.5 core rules. They must be able to check their ego at the door when dealing with the general population (hey I'm working on it OK :D ). They must not try to insert their own hose-rules. What I mean by this is that while everyone has their own version of the rules they use and will continue touse we are trying to develop a baseline for standardizatin. This baseling allows individual DMs to take what they want and add/change the other parts but there will be an area for commonality that can be used as the basis for discussion and a standard set of rules that people can use when they write adventures, etc. (Something I really would like to see happening in the long run). The person needs to be willing (and capable) of writing in English (US) {not making any claims as to whether or not is the 'proper' English but it is the WotC standard being used}. They must also understand and attempt to follow the core philosophy of the project (posted on the FAQ thread).


Oh and that ego thing - anyone who is soley interested in just getting their name on the project need not apply. There have been a ratio of about 10 to 1 people doing this in the past both on the BRCS and the Atlas project.

[Athos69]

Originally posted by Mark_Aurel@Feb 7 2005, 04:22 AM

Rather, the class is a cleric/fighter mixup that represents a champion of the order; since Nesirie is less militant, her paladins play more of the crusading healer than the crusading warrior, if you catch my drift. And a mount is not very suitable (dolphin, anyone?)...

No, a mount is not very suitable. Which paladins of Nesirie didn't get in 2e, and don't get here. It is easy to replace the mount with something else -- some abilities, a better spell selection, etc.
Why not use a variant of the solution for Moradin Paladins? Give Nesirie Paladins an appropriate sized water elemental as a companion?

[The Jew]

Angelbialaska, I would fully agree with you if it was humanly possilbe. Unfortunately few of us have the neccesary lifespans to finish this project in the way you want. The BRCS in the present form has taken around 2 years to revise, and we have finished like 3 chapters.

Besides lacking enough committed invididuals to each take on a chapter a piece, we lack enough of a stable community to possibly work on it as a body. So what you have to consider is that we could work on writing the entire thing, playtest, the fix errata. But unfortunatly by the time we came to reworking the rules 3/4 of the community would have left being replaced by others who would have a different opinion on the matter and want re-edit to fit their house rules. This would most likely continue on forever.

This is what is essentialy happening with the paladins issue. Whether I agree with the opinions or not, half the people writing them weren't actively online when we wrote and voted on paladins. This doesn't make the opinions invalid or bad, but if we go through the entire chapter again, by the time we are done, their will be new people seeking to alter another paladin.

Which of course doesn't mean that for those of us that are still around once the BRCS has been revised, we can go back and do some errata on the paladins should playtesting determine that you are correct.

[RaspK_FOG]

On your note: these paladin classes were done by me and Irdeggman, whom I have to thank from the bottom of my heart for his patience, and we are across the globe from each other! Do you know how much time it took to finish THIS only?

If I thought myself capable enough to write a whole chapter by myself, I would gladly do it; as things stand right now, I have university issues, almost no play-testing power (most of the evaluation I ever do uses the "How does it look?" method, in which I have become more competent the last couple of years EXACTLY because of this fact), and a couple of friends I really have to slap for really offering next to no help!!

I could work on a chapter regarding blood abilities or, even better, additional spells, or parts of the Shadow World, but these are still things that need more than one person to work on and a steady group; as things stand, the greatest difficulty we have is the dispersity of the community and the ego each one of us has in voicing his opinion without contributing; I feel ashamed for not being able to offer more, damn it!!

If you understand what I mean, cut us some slack, realise that it is better to put up errata LATER ON than never finish this, and be done with it, or at least be around when we need you and offer some help instead of popping up and saying: "This does not work."

For those of you who did not even read this, which is nearly obvious, these are the variant paladin classes, not the default, as they were in 2e. In other words, you might as well not use some in your campaign without really caring; it was the voice of the people who made things this way, not only ours.

[Green Knight]

If you don't want any feedback, then don't ask;-)

For myself I'm reasonably pleased with the product, even though there are a couple of bad things thrown in with the good.

However, the Nesirie paladin variant really DO suck, for all the reasons Mark Aurel listed above. While it has a certain theme, the class is more or less unplayable unless you are a real macschist. It stands out as the most glaring "mistake" IMO and should be fixed ASAP. Just my 50 øre.

B

[The incredible, edible Phil]

While the Paladin is a holy warrior, that is short changing the class because otherwise a Fighter/Cleric (and many PrCs) would accomplish that role and better. The Paladin class was originally designed to represent the chivalry and the ideals espoused in the works of Chrétien de Troyes and others that wrote the Arthurian legends, of Charles Lemagne, etc.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Green Knight@Feb 7 2005, 12:16 PM
If you don't want any feedback, then don't ask;-)

For myself I'm reasonably pleased with the product, even though there are a couple of bad things thrown in with the good.

However, the Nesirie paladin variant really DO suck, for all the reasons Mark Aurel listed above. While it has a certain theme, the class is more or less unplayable unless you are a real macschist. It stands out as the most glaring "mistake" IMO and should be fixed ASAP. Just my 50 øre.

B
My biggest problem is that some people now saying to "change this variant" were around for the discussion when it was introduced. There was plenty of time to "fix" it then, but people generally said it was fine - or at the worst had nothing to say about it even when it was voted on.

[The incredible, edible Phil]

A few more edits to consider:

Under elven traits, it is written: "Cerilian Elves receive Marital Weapon Proficiency with longsword, shortbow, and longbow." (page 6 on the .doc)

Now I didn't know cerilian elves were that kinky. ;)



Within the restricted regional feats section, I disagree with making spirited charge anuirean only because both the Khinasi and vos do have significant traditions for riding. The same applies for Mounted Archery which I think should also be expanded to include the Vos.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by The incredible, edible Phil@Feb 7 2005, 02:04 PM
A few more edits to consider:

Under elven traits, it is written: "Cerilian Elves receive Marital Weapon Proficiency with longsword, shortbow, and longbow." (page 6 on the .doc)

Now I didn't know cerilian elves were that kinky. ;)


Well they are prone to stay within the woods for extended periods of time.
Good catch.

[Osprey]

My biggest problem is that some people now saying to "change this variant" were around for the discussion when it was introduced. There was plenty of time to "fix" it then, but people generally said it was fine - or at the worst had nothing to say about it even when it was voted on.

I hear that loud and clear.

Having been the main voice urging a revamp of the class at that time (and I remember hashing out many arguments similar to Mark Aurel's, tho not so techinically laid out as only he can do), I don't think I ever said it was OK. My recollection of things says that the issue was heatedly discussed by a few of us, but most folks didn't care that much about paladins of Neserie anyways, and so my voice was largely unsupported when it mattered. Jan, I wish you had been around then, buddy, your eye for mechanics and fine-tuning power balance would have been very helpful.

As things went, because I couldn't "rally a consensus" against the variant Paladin of Neserie, and the authors believed it was balanced and fine as it stood, it was left unchanged and piggybacked its way through the sanctioning vote. I felt then that the issue was sort-of steamrolled under the pressure to get things sanctioned and keep the project moving. Which is understandable, but frustrating at times: it's too easy to simply ignore issues where the discussion doesn't form a clear majority opinion in opposition to a presented idea. This problem has been improving lately (such as with the Noble, where people have now voiced agreement or disagreement with concrete things proposed), but I believe the PoN issue coming up here is indicative of that problem in the past. Sometimes counting votes is no replacement for a strong, rational argument.


One possibility to patch this issue a bit is to create a paladin/cleric prestige class of Neserie for the Atlas project, one that capitalizes on the default paladin/cleric of Neserie free multiclassing rule. A high BAB, continued clerical spell progression, d8 HD, high Fort saves, and continued leveling of the paladin's smite evil and lay on hands ability could work pretty well IMO. Sort of a divine parallel to the Eldritch Knight.

The Practiced Spellcaster feat from Complete Divine/Arcane is also an excellent way for a cleric/paladin to improve their clerical caster levels lost to paladin levels. At first I thought this feat was way too powerful, but in fact I've found it a great way for multiclass spellcasters to help restore their competitive edge against challenging opponents. IMC for instance there are 3 multiclas spellcasters: a cleric/ war priest of Haelyn, a cleric/wizard/mystic theurge of Ruornil, and a rogue/wizard/divine trickster. All 3 of these characters have suffered immensely in terms of competitve power throughout the campaign, and often this was due to their inferiority against dedicated spellcasters. As soon as the Practiced Spellcaster feat became available, all 3 characters wanted to take it - pointing to the obvious disadvantage of being a lower-level caster (dispelling and spell resistance being some major problem points for them). The feat is really a "fix" for multiclass spellcasters to get back in the action at the proper CR, and so far in my campaign it has worked quite well.

Finally, a revamped variant (that wouldn't be too hard to change to from the existing one) of the Paladin of Neserie could restore her high BAB and still be pretty balanced IMO: a d8 HD and no special mount are weaker than a normal paladin, but increased spellcasting power (like the 6-level spread presented) could compensate for this, especially if some of them matched the cleric's versions: like Divine Favor, Divine Power, and Righteous Might, and the paladin's Bless Weapon, Align Weapon, and Holy Sword spells were included.
The current list may be 6 levels, but it is a VERY small spell selection, and very few spells per day.

Next, drop the water-based special abilities as class features and make them available on her spell list instead (2nd: Water Breathing, 3rd: Water Walk, 4th: Freedom of Movement).

So, beef up the spell lists with some more combat options, restore the high BAB, drop Water Affinity and Freedom of Movement as class abilities, and this should restore the PoN's status as a competent holy warrior and [combat] champion of her goddess.

Osprey

[RaspK_FOG]

As I said, I can do some changes, and I am ready for some of them; what I could not tolerate was the way things were told...

I still believe that the paladins of Nesirie are not that militant; note that militant refers to how militaristic the class is, not how combat-capable it is. I don't think the class stinks that much, but I will give you that I cannot test what I have in mind as adequately as I want... In any case, I hope that some of the feats I have designed (one of which is most suitable for Nesirie) will make it to the BRCS or Atlas.

Furthermore, I believe that, should Irdeggman back out on this, we COULD work the class a little, but any changes will have to wait for now; both Aurel and Osprey have proven to be good listeners and can converse very well, it's just that you have to make sure that the project goes on like we all have to do. No more lag allowed.

[The incredible, edible Phil]

I personally am not convinced that there should be variants of paladins for each deity. If the vision is that they are strictly holy warriors devoted to the dogma of a single deity, then would they not be martially inclined clerics with some fighter levels?

[Green Knight]

Originally posted by The incredible, edible Phil@Feb 8 2005, 01:58 AM
I personally am not convinced that there should be variants of paladins for each deity. If the vision is that they are strictly holy warriors devoted to the dogma of a single deity, then would they not be martially inclined clerics with some fighter levels?
Following this line of reasoning...why would there be a paladin class at all? Isn't that what you are asking really?

[dekrass]

With all the comments, arguments, and discussions of how things should be done and what variants should be authorized I thought I'd add my opinion.

I think the chapter as a whole should be sanctioned and things should move on. Especially considering the main point of contention is an optional variant.

I would also like to thank everyone involved in this project.
If not for the people here volunteering to write, edit, and organize something official I couldn't convince my group to use my favorite setting.

So, thank you and keep up the good work.

[irdeggman]

Next, drop the water-based special abilities as class features and make them available on her spell list instead (2nd: Water Breathing, 3rd: Water Walk, 4th: Freedom of Movement).

This is not in general a good idea. The main reasoning for inserting them as class abilities was to capture the special powers of the 2nd ed paladin. This was something that came across fairly and clear in the posts from the past – people wanted to find away to incorporate the 2nd ed abilities of the paladins. Reducing them to simply spells just sort of makes it a cleric instead. And those spells are already on their spell list.


Like Rasp, I don’t really see Paladins of Nesire in the traditional “holy warrior” role. More like the Hospitaler (3.0 version – I like the descriptions better there) as a travelling healing, mitigator, counselor, and diplomat. “Heal the injured, comfort the lost, and negotiate peace among all men” is a really good summary of what Nesirie is all about. I had trouble rationalizing the existence of paladins of Neserie in 2nd ed given her role as mother and matron of the sea and families – it just didn’t seem to fit, IMO, especially as a standard paladin – which was the base line.

With the vote based on public opinion to require the paladins to have the same alignment as their deity it led to the path that they are the epitome of what the deity is like and that they represent the strongest aspects of that deity. In many ways being closer to truly embodying the deity as closely as humanly possible.

While the clerics represent the people the paladins represent the deity. Clerics are more strongly tied to a specific location (i.e., the temples and shrines) while paladins are more mobile and not tied down in the same way. They in general don’t preside over the day-to-day ceremonies, although they would know them intimately. They instead are more along the demonstrate what a “true follower” should be lines of behavior. Clerics of Neserie are almost always located along coastlines and major river banks. This makes it hard to fulfill the role of mitagator for wars and such.


As I said, I can do some changes, and I am ready for some of them; what I could not tolerate was the way things were told...

Furthermore, I believe that, should Irdeggman back out on this, we COULD work the class a little, but any changes will have to wait for now; both Aurel and Osprey have proven to be good listeners and can converse very well, it's just that you have to make sure that the project goes on like we all have to do. No more lag allowed.


I guess this means I should drop out and let the BRCS proceed without me or this referring to this single issue? I tried to do that a while ago. One because I needed a break and two so I could pursue a professional writing opportunity (which fell through by the way – I guess the closest I’ll be putting out for awhile will be some articles in the upcoming Last Resort (the Alternity e-zine). While Osprey valiantly attempted to keep the project moving it appeared to me that he was quickly becoming bogged down and overwhelmed. Thanks again Jeremy for trying. I saw the project quickly reaching stagnation again so I stepped back in. If this is the wrong thing to do let me know and I’ll turn things over. But not to Ian (Raesene) – not because he couldn’t do it but because his plate is even more full with the Atlas project.

If people want to cancel to vote please make a post and what thing(s) should be revisited. Keeping in mind that is just totally disrespectful to those who bothered to vote for sanctioning (or on individual issues) to ignore those previous polls.

Remember we have been at this chapter in particular since last March. I don’t even want to think how long the “tough” chapters will be (ruling domains and armies and war).

[Raesene Andu]

I think that once a few more days have passed and enough people voted, then it is time to move off this chapter an onto the next one. If people aren't happy with the Paladin of Nesirie, write a new version and submit it vote. We shouldn't be stuck for week arguing about what is, after all, a variant rule.

Holding up sanctioning an entire chapter because of one variant rule is a little silly, especially as it is a ruling consider underpowered by everyone who is objecting. If it was overpowered or game breaking then perhaps it would need careful examination.

[ConjurerDragon]

edible Phil 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=2988

>

> The incredible, edible Phil wrote:

> A few more edits to consider:

>

>Under elven traits, it is written: "Cerilian Elves receive Marital Weapon Proficiency with longsword, shortbow, and longbow." (page 6 on the .doc)

>

>Now I didn`t know cerilian elves were that kinky. ;)

>

>

>

>Within the restricted regional feats section, I disagree with making spirited charge anuirean only because both the Khinasi and vos do have significant traditions for riding. The same applies for Mounted Archery which I think should also be expanded to include the Vos.

>

Why would the Khir-aften-el-Arrasi bother to use something like spirited

charge? Most of their cavalry is lighter than the Anuirean counterparts

and all their cavalry has missile capacity. Their way would be similar

to the way Horse Archers or in Medieval:Total War terms Turcoman Cavalry

would act. Weaken with missiles, attack the flanks, outflank into the

rear... And after that use their sabers to finish the remains.



Spirited Charge is IMO something that should be reserved in the regional

feats section to those who field the really heavily armoured knights

using heavy lances on heavy warhorses with heavy barding.



If I expand your argument that all cultures should have easy access to

Spirited Charge that have a tradition for riding then even the goblins

should get it riding on wolfs, or the Orogs for riding on lizards.



In case of the Vos I see it from the opposite direction. The Vos have

some Aztec like tradition to eat the heart of your enemy and with their

Varsk riders some heavy cavalry. IMO I see them more as fighters seeking

the melee than staying out of reach of the enemy and "cowardly"

attacking from distance with such wimpy weapons as bows ;-)

bye

Michael

[Osprey]

As I said, I can do some changes, and I am ready for some of them; what I could not tolerate was the way things were told...

Furthermore, I believe that, should Irdeggman back out on this, we COULD work the class a little, but any changes will have to wait for now; both Aurel and Osprey have proven to be good listeners and can converse very well, it's just that you have to make sure that the project goes on like we all have to do. No more lag allowed.

I guess this means I should drop out and let the BRCS proceed without me or this referring to this single issue?

I'm pretty certain Rasp was meaning "back down on this issue" of no re-editing of sanctioned sections, not back out of the entire project. The current voting of confidence/no-confidence should prove this aptly, I think.


While Osprey valiantly attempted to keep the project moving it appeared to me that he was quickly becoming bogged down and overwhelmed. Thanks again Jeremy for trying.

Oh yeah, I remember that...without some sort of actual authority, I could only be a voice saying "c'mon guys, let's do it this way." If someone needs a sabbatical in the future, make sure you leave someone else in charge of the project. This project will die without that.


I saw the project quickly reaching stagnation again so I stepped back in. If this is the wrong thing to do let me know and I’ll turn things over.

And here I thought you just loved it here so much you couldn't stay away. :D


If people want to cancel to vote please make a post and what thing(s) should be revisited. Keeping in mind that is just totally disrespectful to those who bothered to vote for sanctioning (or on individual issues) to ignore those previous polls.

I'd already voted to sanction the chapter before the whole Paladin of Neserie issue came up, and I don't want to change that. Overall the chapter is pretty good, most importantly the Noble has reached a sanctionable form, and as Raesene said, the Paladin of Neserie issue is over what some of us think is an underpowered variant. I still don't believe this is a good reason to not sanction the chapter, hence my vote stays "Yes, sanction chapter 1." It's not like I'm forced to use variant classes, or any other rules, in my BR campaign if I don't want to. Same goes for anyone.

Osprey

[The incredible, edible Phil]

Originally posted by Green Knight+Feb 8 2005, 07:46 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Green Knight @ Feb 8 2005, 07:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-The incredible@ edible Phil,Feb 8 2005, 01:58 AM
I personally am not convinced that there should be variants of paladins for each deity. If the vision is that they are strictly holy warriors devoted to the dogma of a single deity, then would they not be martially inclined clerics with some fighter levels?
Following this line of reasoning...why would there be a paladin class at all? Isn&#39;t that what you are asking really? [/b][/quote]
Paladins, with their code of conduct, and their abilities serve as paragons of chivalry. I do believe that the paladin is out of place in a polytheist society, but the "most apt" divinity in BR would be Haelyn.

[Arius Vistoon]

For me, there is still some issues to improve as the Vos and the paladin ( of nesirie ) but
I think that it is big time to validate this chapter
( we will be return after that the whole book will be validated for a last validation ).

Therefore,
I am for the validation of this chapter

[RaspK_FOG]

I am truly sorry to see that a comment I made in terms of reconcilation was so sadly worded that it lead to a misunderstanding; what I meant, Duane, and I have to ask you to forgive my stupidity for my earlier post, is that, should you consider reworking the chapter after the whole project has been completed, then we might do a serious, all-over-the-globe playtesting run amongst the developers and volunteers and see how things play out, and change what needs REALLY be fixed.

[Athos69]

A large PBeM game? I&#39;ll tell you, you&#39;ll need a DM who is a paragon of organization, and a set of players who will be intelligent, but not arrogant, and understand that the object is not to win, but instead to test the rules thoroughly, suggesting changes to rules that are overpowering - even though it gives them an overwhelming advantage.

It will take a special breed of player, and I&#39;m up to that challenge (done QA for a web-design company, so I have an idea of what to do)

[geeman]

Before sanctioning Ch1 for a 3.5 BR update I`d like to revisit the topic of

racial restrictions to character classes. In order to properly place this

issue in the context of the rules being used here`s a relevant quote from

p171 of the 3.5 DMG:



"The parameters of a campaign can shape the benefits and restrictions for

playing characters of various races. Sometimes, in order to reflect

specific roles that you want races to play in the campaign, you can

restrict which classes each race can choose from."



The text goes on to give several examples of how one might go about

restricting race/class, notes that one can always create exceptions, and

advises that players might object given that race/class restrictions do not

exist in the PHB.



I`d suggest that some of the race/class restrictions in the original BR

materials are based upon the 2e rules set, but most of them were not. Even

in those cases where they may have been inspired by the original 2e rules

there were often campaign-specific justifications for them that supported

the race/class restriction.



The above quote really should dispel the notion that such restrictions in a

campaign setting using the 3.5 texts are somehow diametrically opposed to

the rules set itself. In fact, I`d go even further by suggesting that a

conversion of BR to 3.5 that does not address the issue of race/class

restrictions really misses several of the fundamental concepts of the

setting. No update of Chapter 1 should be sanctioned until it includes

such material.



Gary

[The Jew]

And you had to wait tell now to bring it up?

[irdeggman]

Keep on reading in the same text and it says “The fighter class, the cleric class, and the rogue class are rarely restricted. Each is considered available to any race, although you can of course create your own exception.” The 3.0 text said they shouldn’t be restricted. Since the elven prohibition on clerics is a core concept of the campaign setting in 2nd ed this already puts things out of whack with the DMG. The text goes on to say “It’s important, however to make sure that the players understand the explanations behind these changes so that they don’t feel restricted for no reason. It’s often a good idea to balance restrictions with extra allowances -–such as greater starting money, free skills, or some other small consideration.”

The rationalization for elves not being clerics was given – tied into their immortality and the fact they have no gods of their own. What would be the rationalization for no halfling or dwarf wizards other than they couldn’t be that class in 2nd ed so they shouldn’t be here? It is much harder to justify that sort of restriction – elves are of course given the trade off that they can wizards without having a bloodline. Having the text in the BRCS that says that dwarven arcane caster of any sort are rare helps set the stage but flat out saying they can’t be wizards just doesn’t work on a logic check especially since there doesn’t appear to be any justification that can be used except that they couldn’t be in2nd ed so they shouldn’t be now. This specific issue was discussed to death in the past.

[geeman]

At 08:38 PM 2/9/2005 +0100, The Jew wrote:



>And you had to wait tell now to bring it up?



My apologies for my tardiness but I have brought this up in the past,

though without quoting the actual DMG before. In all honesty (and excuse

me if this is said in an impolitic manner, but there`s not a lot of ways to

tiptoe around it and still be clear) I`ve grown more than a bit gunshy

about bringing up issues like this in the BR forum because they often seem

to illicit extra-textual interpretations of what could probably be best

described as "The D&D Philosophy" which appear to be based on that person`s

personal reading of the text, and those interpretations often seemed to me

to be fundamentally flawed if not outright contradicted by a plainer, more

objective reading of the text. Pointing out that even if such

interpretations of The D&D Philosophy were correct (and there is more to

suggest that they are incorrect than to support them) they still don`t

apply since the issue is not the aforementioned D&D dynamic but the dynamic

of a campaign world seems to result in only more entrenched descriptions of

that assumed philosophy at length, so I`ve been mulling over whether or not

I should give it one more go.



Frankly, the quoted material from the DMG is the kind of stuff I only gloss

over when reading the core texts. I don`t much need a justification for

this kind of restriction when I game since I assume that game mechanics

meant to reflect campaign themes supercede core material by

default. Having just reread that section of the DMG, however, (while

looking for something else entirely) I figured I`d give it one more shot by

quoting the actual text describing the issue in the core books that

describe the situation pretty clearly.



At 08:48 PM 2/9/2005 +0100, irdeggman wrote:



>Keep on reading in the same text and it says “The fighter class, the

>cleric class, and the rogue class are rarely restricted. Each is

>considered available to any race, although you can of course create your

>own exception.” The 3.0 text said they shouldn’t be restricted.



It is interesting that the text regarding those three classes in that

section should be revised from 3e`s "never" to 3.5`s "rarely" like

that. In 4e will it be "uncommon" or some even less restrictive term?



Personally, I think they were thinking more of things along the lines of

the Dragonlance setting`s access to divine magic than the BR elf/cleric

dynamic... though, I suppose, on the whole they are similar kinds of things

thematically speaking.



>Since the elven prohibition on clerics is a core concept of the campaign

>setting in 2nd ed this already puts things out of whack with the DMG. The

>text goes on to say “It’s important, however to make sure that the players

>understand the explanations behind these changes so that they don’t feel

>restricted for no reason. It’s often a good idea to balance restrictions

>with extra allowances -*such as greater starting money, free skills, or

>some other small consideration.”



I`d suggest that given the relative scarcity of Cerilian elves, their

compensating access to character classes (or, rather, the similar

restriction to true magic of all other non-scions) the case of elven

clerics is exactly the kind of rare restriction described, and that it has

an appropriately significant campaign based extra allowance. Elves get

more than a few small considerations (disease immunity, immortality, etc.)

that pretty quickly compensate for restricting them from access to the

cleric and paladin character classes (and probably the barbarian one as

well since that was not a 2e class, but should exist in a BR 3.5e update)

especially in light of their free access to the arcane, "true" magic class

in the setting.



>The rationalization for elves not being clerics was given * tied into

>their immortality and the fact they have no gods of their own. What would

>be the rationalization for no halfling or dwarf wizards other than they

>couldn’t be that class in 2nd ed so they shouldn’t be here? It is much

>harder to justify that sort of restriction * elves are of course given the

>trade off that they can wizards without having a bloodline. Having the

>text in the BRCS that says that dwarven arcane caster of any sort are rare

>helps set the stage but flat out saying they can’t be wizards just doesn’t

>work on a logic check especially since there doesn’t appear to be any

>justification that can be used except that they couldn’t be in2nd ed so

>they shouldn’t be now.



For both of the BR versions of those races there are the same types of

compensations. Access to the SW for halflings and DR for dwarves, for

starters. That aside, the same section of the 3.5 DMG describes other ways

of controlling the racial characteristics that could be used pretty easily

to find the appropriate compensations for the restrictions.



On the whole, however, I don`t additional compensations are really all that

necessary since the issue isn`t really just restricting a single race`s

access to character classes, but pretty much all of them. If one assesses

the whole race/class issues of the campaign setting as a whole they balance

out quite neatly.



>This specific issue was discussed to death in the past.



Well, I don`t know if I`d characterize it quite like that... but even were

that the case the language has changed in 3.5 so I think a little

discussion is in order.



The truth of the matter is that there is very little justification for the

elimination of racial class restrictions in the BR update, plenty of

campaign specific reasons to maintain them, and little actual core material

text supporting the assertion that they should be done away with.



Gary

[Raesene Andu]

I would prefer to leave the restriction on classes up to each individual DM to determine for his or her campaign rather than stick races into a strait jacket in the BRCS and say absolutely every elf in existence cannot be a cleric, or every dwarf cannot be a wizard.

The choice regarding elves is a personal choice, not one that is actually firmly rooting in the rules. Elves choose not to worship gods or have clerics, that isn&#39;t the same thing as meaning that they can&#39;t be clerics. Of course it does mean that no elven land can support temple holdings since the vast majority of elves would burn them down and kill whoever tried to set up a temple. Individual elves... strange, mad elves may worship god though and even become clerics, but they would be outcast from their own race and forced to live among the humans.

Likewise regarding dwarves and halfling arcane spellcasters. There aren&#39;t any around at the moment, but that does not mean that it is impossible to get a dwarven wizard or a halfling sorcerer, provided they meet the requirements.

We are primarily talking about PCs here though aren&#39;t we. In that case it is up to the DM to decide what to allow and even if you put in restrictions then you are going to get people who want to play a elven cleric or dwarven wizard, I know it has happened in my campaign and as they was not racial reason why not and both time there was a good story behind the reason why I allowed it.

[irdeggman]

Good summary Ian. I also see no game mechanical reason to say absoutly no to races picking up classes that used to be restricted. BR Elves however have no gods of their own so they would have to be clerics of some othe race&#39;s gods.

[RaspK_FOG]

Well said...

As for the "large PbeM" thing, what I meant was more along the lines of: "Each team playtests this set of rules, while some playtest how some rules interact with other rules."

[Raesene Andu]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Feb 10 2005, 11:45 AM
Well said...

As for the "large PbeM" thing, what I meant was more along the lines of: "Each team playtests this set of rules, while some playtest how some rules interact with other rules."
Perhaps rather than run a large pbem from scratch to playtest the rules you may wish to contact DMs currently running pbems and ask them to test out the rules, or how the proposed changes would fit. I know of at least 2 pbems that are using the revised chapters 1 & 2 in their games.

[RaspK_FOG]

Again, I would like to tone that I do not suggest the use of a PbeM project but a huge clustered test run amongst active author members...

For example, take the variant paladin of Nesirie that was so heavilly suggested to be a poor outcome; now, have at least 1 DM with a couple of experienced players who volunteer for testing how this works out and have it beat with a hammer; that&#39;s the best way to find any errors out.

[geeman]

Raesene Andu writes:



> I would prefer to leave the restriction on classes up to each

> individual DM to determine for his or her campaign rather than

> stick races into a strait jacket in the BRCS and say absolutely

> every elf in existence cannot be a cleric, or every dwarf cannot

> be a wizard.



Well, first off, this kind of campaign material does not say that absolutely

every elf in existence cannot be a cleric or that every dwarf cannot be a

wizard. The 3e/3.5 text spells out pretty clearly that individual DMs can

have exceptions to the race/class restrictions as s/he sees fit.



Secondly, the reason why this should be included in a campaign update rather

than leaving it up to individual DMs is because that`s the case anyway.

Individual DMs can choose to abide by any particular campaign material

stricture they desire. Leaving this material out is not empowering DMs.

They already have that power. Rather, it is ignoring campaign themes in a

campaign update.



When it comes to presenting campaign material it is much easier for a DM to

ignore particulars than it is for them to come up with their own based upon

the original themes.



> We are primarily talking about PCs here though aren`t we.



I think we`re talking about the campaign setting as a whole or, at best, the

NPCs that DMs are likely to create. There`s nothing preventing DMs from

creating exceptions to the campaign material at their leisure, but it should

at least be noted in the campaign material that these kinds of restrictions

exist.



Gary

[Bokey]

Saw only one problem, only read about half way through discussion board before I decided to go ahead and bring it up, so if this is redundant, I apoligize. All of the chart framing graphics appear to be slightly out of alignment with the rest of the column. Table 1-6 in particular even has its footer on the wrong page, but all of them seem to be in various states of disarray.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Bokey@Feb 10 2005, 04:12 PM
Saw only one problem, only read about half way through discussion board before I decided to go ahead and bring it up, so if this is redundant, I apoligize. All of the chart framing graphics appear to be slightly out of alignment with the rest of the column. Table 1-6 in particular even has its footer on the wrong page, but all of them seem to be in various states of disarray.
Yeah I have had problems trying to get things aligned correctly. I consider that something that Arjan can fix in the final product - when he puts back in the artwork ;)

[Mark_Aurel]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG
On your note: these paladin classes were done by me and Irdeggman, whom I have to thank from the bottom of my heart for his patience, and we are across the globe from each other&#33; Do you know how much time it took to finish THIS only?

I think I can imagine.

I may have been misunderstood earlier, though; while I think the class as it stands right now is not good, I also don&#39;t think it&#39;s a good reason to hold anything up. People will doubtless hold differing opinions, and it is futile to try and reconcile every possible opinion.

[Mark_Aurel]

Originally posted by geeman
I`d suggest that some of the race/class restrictions in the original BR
materials are based upon the 2e rules set, but most of them were not. Even
in those cases where they may have been inspired by the original 2e rules
there were often campaign-specific justifications for them that supported
the race/class restriction.

I agree with that. I think there&#39;s a great deal of room within the current rules for making variations, and not allowing for every possble combination or variation.

In my current campaign (which is not a Birthright one), players are allowed to be of three distinct human subraces, elves, dwarves, and orcs. They can choose from a limited subset of classes, some drawn from non-core books, like the Marshal, the Warlock, and the Scout. Not all races can be of all classes, either. Monks don&#39;t exist; other classes are highly restricted -- paladins are only available to one of the human subraces, warlocks are allowed to a wider spread of races than the regular arcane casters, etc. It makes for better flavor, I think.

However, I don&#39;t think it&#39;s necessarily grounds for halting sanctioning here any more than the paladin issue is. There is text which fairly strongly advises against the idea of Elven clerics.

[Osprey]

Here&#39;s a little piece of errata I&#39;ve been chewing on:

Should Rogues really have Lead as a class skill?

Nobles, warriors (ftr/pal/ran/bar), bards, and clerics all have a sensible concept for the skill: all of them are potentially "stand up and rally the people/troops" sorts of character concepts.

Is it a rogue skill simply because it is Charisma-based? Is there a sound conceptual reason for it being a rogue class skill?

[Raesene Andu]

There are other ways of leading, it isn&#39;t all just stand up and rally the people. Even rogue have to have leaders (hence guilds, with guildmasters).

[ConjurerDragon]

Osprey 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=2988

>

> Osprey wrote:

> Here`s a little piece of errata I`ve been chewing on:

>

>Should Rogues really have Lead as a class skill?

>

>Nobles, warriors (ftr/pal/ran/bar), bards, and clerics all have a sensible concept for the skill: all of them are potentially "stand up and rally the people/troops" sorts of character concepts.

>

>Is it a rogue skill simply because it is Charisma-based? Is there a sound conceptual reason for it being a rogue class skill?

>

Rangers? I remember the 2E rules in the Birthright Rulebook on rangers

who got NO experience if they would take more than one NPC per three

levels on an adventure (except his own "followers", 2D6 NPCs but those

only from Ranger level 10 onward)- that sounded for me like exactly the

opposite of being a LEADER. Selfreliance was their pride, not

commanding followers.

bye

Michael

[Osprey]

Well, one of the main resons this question is essential is that Lead has become a key skill for ruling Law holdings, Agitating, and Investiture.

Should rogues make good law regents? While they lack warcraft, and thus won&#39;t get full RP from law holdings until higher level (7th minimum with 10 ranks in Lead), this is really the only way in which fighter-types will be better law regents.

As it stands, rogues stand out as the best regent class, along with the noble (who has less skill points but gets bonus feats): with Administrate, Diplomacy, Lead, and Profession as class skills, and 8 skill points per level, rogues are potentially ideal as landed, law, and guild regents.

I&#39;m not flat-out disagreeing with this, but wanted to draw attention to how this aspect might play out in a campaign.


Also, on Table 1-6, that lists class and cross-class skills re. Administrate, Lead, and Warcraft.

Administrate is currently a class skill for magicians.

There was discussion previously about Rangers having Warcraft as a class skill. Was that intentionally not added, or is this an oversight? There is some argument for them having Lead as well, though this one is more controversial (some rangers in BR form bands and scout units, and I would assume their leaders are also rangers). I think this is an area where there was internal contradictions in the 2e material.

Should Barbarians be restricted from Warcraft as a class skill? Is Warcraft seen as a highly learned skill that requires a literate civilization, or does it also include less formal tactical and strategic insights and experience?

Questions, questions...though the fixes, if any, will be easy enough to make.

[Raesene Andu]

One quick query that was raised with me is regarding the Master Administrator feat. At the moment it reads You gain a +2 bonus to Administrate checks, and a +2 bonus to Create, Contest, and Rule Province domain actions.

Should that read Rule Holding instead of Rule Province?

[Thomas_Percy]

Most of the new feats are "Master Something" with +2 for two skills.
It&#39;s boring, not worth a place in a CS and time of the reader.
But another way, that +2-feats are neccessary.
Maybe you can do ONE sample/example/template feat:
"Master of (Your Choice?)" which gives +2 bonus for two choosen by DM/PC skills?

[The Jew]

Originally posted by Thomas_Percy@Feb 20 2005, 07:34 AM
Most of the new feats are "Master Something" with +2 for two skills.
It&#39;s boring, not worth a place in a CS and time of the reader.
But another way, that +2-feats are neccessary.
Maybe you can do ONE sample/example/template feat:
"Master of (Your Choice?)" which gives +2 bonus for two choosen by DM/PC skills?
Most of the master feats are also related to getting a +2 bonus for effecting specific type of holdings.

[Thomas_Percy]

But maybe there is a possibility of make it short?
BR CS is a very big pdf and saving of 2-3 pages is not bad.

[Osprey]

One quick query that was raised with me is regarding the Master Administrator feat. At the moment it reads You gain a +2 bonus to Administrate checks, and a +2 bonus to Create, Contest, and Rule Province domain actions.

Should that read Rule Holding instead of Rule Province?

Nope - Ch 5 domain action key skills were revised (with a LOT of wrangling over the details, partly so we could hammer out the specifics of the Master feats) such that Administrate is the key skill for Rule (Create/Contest) Province only. The feat itself thus comes out far less broken than in the BRCS playtest; now it adds only to the occasional Rule Province action, but has the additional (very major) benefit of making seasonal maintenance checks still possible for larger domains. Thus, it&#39;s not just a good landed regent feat, but also an excellent lieutenant feat (as the name suggests).

Each type of holding (Cr/Co/Rule actions) has a different key skill:
Law: Lead
Temples: Diplomacy
Guilds: P/Merchant
Trade Routes: Diplomacy
Sources: K/Nature
Ley Lines: K/Arcana

[Raesene Andu]

Originally posted by Osprey@Feb 21 2005, 02:04 AM
Nope - Ch 5 domain action key skills were revised (with a LOT of wrangling over the details, partly so we could hammer out the specifics of the Master feats) such that Administrate is the key skill for Rule (Create/Contest) Province only. The feat itself thus comes out far less broken than in the BRCS playtest; now it adds only to the occasional Rule Province action, but has the additional (very major) benefit of making seasonal maintenance checks still possible for larger domains. Thus, it&#39;s not just a good landed regent feat, but also an excellent lieutenant feat (as the name suggests).

Each type of holding (Cr/Co/Rule actions) has a different key skill:
Law: Lead
Temples: Diplomacy
Guilds: P/Merchant
Trade Routes: Diplomacy
Sources: K/Nature
Ley Lines: K/Arcana
Ok, that makes sense then. I&#39;ll pass on the information. One query, what is the reasoning behind diplomacy as the skill for temples? The others seem logical, but wouldn&#39;t knowledge (religion) be better for temples?

[The Jew]

Originally posted by Raesene Andu@Feb 20 2005, 03:20 PM

Ok, that makes sense then. I&#39;ll pass on the information. One query, what is the reasoning behind diplomacy as the skill for temples? The others seem logical, but wouldn&#39;t knowledge (religion) be better for temples?
I was searching for the link to that discussion, but couldn&#39;t find it. If memory serves me, we decided (by we I mean whoever was most vocal and stubborn during that discussion) for diplomacy because expansion would be based on convincing the masses, not a display of religious or undead lore. Great theologians rarely head the fastest growing churches. A great theologian may have a high rank within a church, but it is the orally skilled preacher who will lead a church to expansion.

[irdeggman]

I&#39;m closing this poll Chap 1 is now considered sanctioned.

Here are the results:

Should Chap 1 be sanctioned?
1. Yes [ 20 ] [76.92%]
2. No [ 6 ] [23.08%]
3. Abstain [ 0 ] [0.00%]
Total Votes: 26