[BIRTHRIGHT] Magic Reform

Hello,
I am going through the magic system in MIDNIGHT right now and it is nearly
all ocg - give me a little time and I will see how it could be worked into
BR and post a synopsis (including the OCG parts). I am not 100% comfortable
yet - having had the book for 3 days. My current conception of it right now
is that it is superior to a low magic type of setting than the base system
and that it has many elements of the Wheel of Time channeler versatility
built into it.

Eosin

----- Original Message -----
From: “Kenneth Gauck” <kgauck@MCHSI.COM>
To: <BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM>
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2003 11:03 PM
Subject: Magic Reform

> I`ve noticed that there is considerable interest in reform of the magic
> system. Some suggestions have been very modest (there is a
non-interference
> pact) other less so. Many settings have been very happy to provide
entirely
> new spellcasting systems with whole new spell lists. Many of these are
> elementally based, but not all of them. In a manner of speaking, the
whole
> wizard - magician situation is an early adjustment of the standard D&D
> spellcasting system, but other settings have left this behind and taken
new
> spellcasting systems way beyond BR.
>
> What should spellcasting look like in Cerilia? Here are some possible
> suggestions.
>
> 1) Spell power progression slows down after 5th to 7th caster levels.
> 1A) Spell limits might be more generous with lower level spells.
> 1B) Other arcane powers might be granted in compensation
> 1Ba) Additional Spell Focus and Spell Penetration feats
> 1Bb) Ability to develope and manipulate ley lines
> 1Bc) Abilities to perform new abilities (travel in Shadow World?)
> 2) Casting times may begin to increase for higher level spells
> 3) Required skill checks may necessitate taking levels of Expert
> 4) Additional requirements are neccesary to move beyond spell level 6
(being
> blooded being required to get beyond 2nd level.
> 5) More specialization
>
> What should be going on with Cerilian spellcasters?
>
> Kenneth Gauck
> kgauck@mchsi.com
>
>


> The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
> Birthright-l Archives:
http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
> To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
> with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.


The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

> What should spellcasting look like in Cerilia? Here are some possible
> suggestions.
>
> 1) Spell power progression slows down after 5th to 7th caster levels.
> 1A) Spell limits might be more generous with lower level spells.
> 1B) Other arcane powers might be granted in compensation
> 1Ba) Additional Spell Focus and Spell Penetration feats
> 1Bb) Ability to develope and manipulate ley lines
> 1Bc) Abilities to perform new abilities (travel in Shadow World?)
> 2) Casting times may begin to increase for higher level spells
> 3) Required skill checks may necessitate taking levels of Expert
> 4) Additional requirements are neccesary to move beyond spell level 6 (being
> blooded being required to get beyond 2nd level.
> 5) More specialization

I prefer some of Rich Bakers work from Spells & Magic. Me and my players are going to be testing it to see if the point values still work in 3e D&D, but overall I dont see why they wouldnt. Im only going to allow up to 10
levels in this “True Mage” class though, which means that due to spell
points, a mage will have much greater versatility but be limited only to 5th
level spells. I`m going to make similiar adjustments for Druid, Bard,
Sorcerer, and Cleric.

In Player`s Option: Spells & Magic, Rich Baker introduced new schools of
magic to reflect casting instead of magic-spell theme, so Geometer and
Alchemist specialist wizards were created in addition to Shadow and Song
specialists. New priests were added like Crusader, Monk, and Shaman, but
other than the Shaman most of these were horribly unbalanced. (The shaman
was cool, and a revamped 3e version would fit nicely in Birthright.)

Chapter 6 included the concept of spell points. At every level, you had a
certain of points. Every “level” of spell you prepare/memorize, has a spell
point cost (4 for 1st level, 6 for 2nd level, 10 for 3rd level, etc.). In
addition, there were “free magics” which doubled the cost. A 3rd level
“free magic” prepared means that you can choose which spell it is as you`re
casting it, choosing any 1st-3rd level spell you know. You can choose to
lower the cost of a spell by adding to the casting time or casting at a
lower caster level, or raise the cost to cast at a higher caster level or
even cast higher level spells than you would normally be allowed.

In addition, chapter 6 included new “types” of magic including the
Channeller, the Preserver/Defiler, the Warlock, the Alienist, the Ritual
Priest, and the Conditional Priest.

The Conditional Priest was cool, but depended on you writing a “template” of
conditions, basically saying that in some situations youre priest can cast spells at a higher caster level, while in others hed have a lower caster
level. Haelyn, for example, might raise a caster level +1 during battles,
while Eleole might actually lower caster level -1 during battles. The book
recommended having 5 of each type “positive” and “negative” conditions.

The Ritual Priest was stupid and depended on using time-dependant and
gp-dependant rituals to gain spellpoints with which to cast spells. For
example, performing a 2 SP ritual to cast a 10 SP spell (3rd level) would
take 5 turns to cast that spell. Making a sacrifice (such as a magic item)
can gain a lot more SP, making the rituals faster. This was a stupid
system, as written. Decent ideas to work from, though.

The Alienist and the Warlock were similiar in theme but had different
mechanics. Everytime an Alienist memorized a spell, there was a percentage
chance that he could gain an insanity, and there was a list. The warlock,
everytime he casts a spell, theres a chance hell be tainted by evil and
this basically used the corruption rules from Ravenloft (actually granting
cool benefits at first, then mixed blessings, then turning you into a
viscious monster, and finally you were an NPC).

The Preserver/Defiler worked like an arcane version of the Ritual Priest,
building up SP to cast a spell during spellcasting by taking energy from the
land. A preserver took a long time to cast a spell, but could cast more
spells. The defiler was just extremely powerful, but killed all life and
vegetation around him with each casting.

The Channeller was the variant magic system that I used that worked really
well, but made characters really powerful. Everytime the character casts a
spell, he`d become fatigued based on a chart in the book. Every time
allotment, depending on the level of fatigue, a saving throw was allowed to
recover. Spell points were gained again over time instead of per day, so
that three hours of rest might be enough to get a couple spells back. The
Channeller in my game died in a climactic battle because he was 5th level
and attempted to cast a 5th level spell (“Hold Monsters”) costing most of
his SP, and risking Mortal Fatigue. He failed his save, and never awoke
again.

Ritualists, if done better, would be cool for Cerelia. The
preserver/defiler might be a cool type of elven magic. I think Warlocks and
Channellers would also have their place. The Shaman class, which summoned
spirit guides (choose either animal, nature spirit, or ancestor) to cast
spells for you or to help you prepare them, but these spirit guides often
asked favors and demanded codes of conduct. You also needed a lengthly
ritual to summon them. I highly recommend the spell point system in any
case and will be posting it soon along with my class writeup of the Mage and
possibly the Shaman. It`ll be written up in a d20Modern/ClassicallyModern
format similiar to the Scion of Vorynn class I posted earlier this week.

-Lord Rahvin


The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>I`ve noticed that there is considerable interest in reform of the magic
>system. Some suggestions have been very modest (there is a non-interference
>pact) other less so. Many settings have been very happy to provide entirely
>new spellcasting systems with whole new spell lists. Many of these are
>elementally based, but not all of them. In a manner of speaking, the whole
>wizard - magician situation is an early adjustment of the standard D&D
>spellcasting system, but other settings have left this behind and taken new
>spellcasting systems way beyond BR.
>
>What should spellcasting look like in Cerilia? Here are some possible
>suggestions.
>
>1) Spell power progression slows down after 5th to 7th caster levels.
> 1A) Spell limits might be more generous with lower level spells.
> 1B) Other arcane powers might be granted in compensation
> 1Ba) Additional Spell Focus and Spell Penetration feats
> 1Bb) Ability to develope and manipulate ley lines
> 1Bc) Abilities to perform new abilities (travel in Shadow World?)
>2) Casting times may begin to increase for higher level spells
>3) Required skill checks may necessitate taking levels of Expert
>4) Additional requirements are neccesary to move beyond spell level 6 (being
>blooded being required to get beyond 2nd level.
>5) More specialization
>What should be going on with Cerilian spellcasters?
>Kenneth Gauck
>kgauck@mchsi.com
>
The Expert class is a bad idea if it really comes to that scions are
required to take levels in a scion class.
Then we would have a Expert/Scion/Wizard - after all a wizard needs to
be a scion with a bloodline and if he also needs lots of skill points
then what will be so great about a Wizard as compared to the Magician?
bye
Michael Romes


The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Here is my current plan for magic in the BR setting. It combines several
things I have been trying to accomplish.

  1. starting with a more narrow spell list, but coming up with a mechanism
    for implementing this
  2. lowering the magic level of the setting without making spellcasting
    classes poor choices.
  3. breaking down the barriers between class spell lists, including arcane
    and divine.

So here is what I`ve done.
A) Spellcasting classes (cleric, druid, wizard, sorcerer) can not exceed
half of your total character level.
B) Alternate classes provide feats as well as new spells known (without
increasing your ability to cast new spells, they also typically have pretty
good skill points.

So, take a priest of Avani. He might take a second class (based on where
the players wants to focus the character, could be a 3-level, 5-level,
10-level, or 20-level class) that provides new spells to learn, special
feats, and a skill list that keeps the character competitive. So our priest
of Avani wants to be a ruler of holdings one day, and develop fire energy
powers. So, I whip up a fire class based on Avani (probably also based off
of something in Tome and Blood, or another supplement). It will have 6
ranks of skill points per level, d6 hit dice, clerical BAB, fortitude save,
add knowledge of spells dealing with sun, fire, and protection, add a domain
the player is interested (lets say a sun domain that immolates undead and
uses fire to purify) and a minor power that increases the character`s power
over fire, or related domains. The other class might be Aristocrat, a PrC
from any of a variety of sources or something I make the character more of a
ruler.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com


The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

— Kenneth Gauck <kgauck@MCHSI.COM> skrev: > Here is
my current plan for magic in the BR setting.
> It combines several
> things I have been trying to accomplish.
>

Is this planned to be a part of the conversion book,
or is it your private musings?


Gå före i kön och få din sajt värderad på nolltid med Yahoo! Express
Se mer på: http://se.docs.yahoo.com/info/express/help/index.html


The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

That would mean anything over a 5th level spell is not available for casting. A 6th level spell needs a 11th level caster. If you make it mandatory to dual class, that means they need to be 21st or 22nd level. Add a scion template to increase the ECL and it gets even worse.

On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, destowe wrote:

> That would mean anything over a 5th level spell is not available for
> casting.

I would have said that was the intent, not a side effect. The concern
is that once you have even a tiny handful of people able to command such
magics, the world simply is not “low magic” anymore – those high-level
spells are the problem being solved by this plan.

> A 6th level spell needs a 11th level caster. If you make it mandatory
> to dual class, that means they need to be 21st or 22nd level. Add a
> scion template to increase the ECL and it gets even worse.

I see no reason to cap total class level at 20, especially for the many
ancient and powerful creatures hanging around Cerilia. For example, given
that I think I probably do want the Magian and Llaeddra (but very possibly
no one else ever, including PCs) casting 9th level spells, I have no
problem at all giving each of them at least 34 total class levels. Among
other things, I think the Gorgon should get his full 25 levels of Fighter,
with no need to introduce “epic” classes, as the right way to extend the
table progression (especially for that class) is completely obvious.

Ryan Caveney


The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Originally posted by ryancaveney

         On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, destowe wrote:

> That would mean anything over a 5th level spell is not available for
> casting.

I would have said that was the intent, not a side effect. The concern
is that once you have even a tiny handful of people able to command such
magics, the world simply is not “low magic” anymore – those high-level
spells are the problem being solved by this plan.

> A 6th level spell needs a 11th level caster. If you make it mandatory
> to dual class, that means they need to be 21st or 22nd level. Add a
> scion template to increase the ECL and it gets even worse.

I see no reason to cap total class level at 20, especially for the many
ancient and powerful creatures hanging around Cerilia. For example, given
that I think I probably do want the Magian and Llaeddra (but very possibly
no one else ever, including PCs) casting 9th level spells, I have no
problem at all giving each of them at least 34 total class levels. Among
other things, I think the Gorgon should get his full 25 levels of Fighter,
with no need to introduce “epic” classes, as the right way to extend the
table progression (especially for that class) is completely obvious.

Ryan Caveney

But the way the Epic rules are written all progression beyond 20th level is handled using epic progression. This character level, not individual class levels. A multi-classed character can be an epic character but not be epic in any one class. Part of the progression is a change in progression of BAB, saving throws, etc. It is important to “follow” those rules since they are inmportant for blanacing out of the system. Now, if using a “home-brewed” system like you do then this doesn’t apply, although it will mean handling everything accordingly (monsters, NPCs, CRs, etc.). Using Epic progressin also allows for the acquisition of “epic” feats which are substantially more powerful than the “ordinary” ones.

On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, irdeggman wrote:

> A multi-classed character can be an epic character but not be epic in
> any one class.

I know. I think the whole idea of “epicness” is entirely unnecessary.

> Part of the progression is a change in progression of BAB, saving
> throws, etc.

A change which I think is silly and unappealing.

> It is important to “follow” those rules since they are inmportant
> for blanacing out of the system.

I disagree completely – I think they make things much more imbalanced.

> Now, if using a “home-brewed” system like you do then this doesn`t

apply, although it will mean handling everything accordingly
(monsters, NPCs, CRs, etc.).

Clearly, introduction of the “no more than 1/2 your levels in a
spellcasting class” rule (which I quite like, btw) would already make
anyones campaign a "home-brew", so theres little point in not making any
other rules changes suggested by it. Personally, given the way the “epic”
stuff is handled, I think its much more of a rules change from the PHB than is "just dont cap character level at 20".

> Using Epic progressin also allows for the acquisition of “epic”
> feats which are substantially more powerful than the “ordinary”
> ones.

Some parts of it are amusing, and others are annoying, but overall I find
it awkward and generally unhelpful. Considered as a whole, I think the
official epic level rules are a bug, not a feature.

Ryan Caveney


The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

> > I see no reason to cap total class level at 20, especially for the many
> > ancient and powerful creatures hanging around Cerilia. For example, given
> > that I think I probably do want the Magian and Llaeddra (but very possibly
> > no one else ever, including PCs) casting 9th level spells, I have no
> > problem at all giving each of them at least 34 total class levels. Among
> > other things, I think the Gorgon should get his full 25 levels of Fighter,
> > with no need to introduce “epic” classes, as the right way to extend the
> > table progression (especially for that class) is completely obvious.
> > Ryan Caveney
>
> But the way the Epic rules are written all progression beyond 20th level is handled using epic progression. This character level, not individual class levels. A multi-classed character can be an epic character but not be epic in any one class. Part of the progression is a change in progression of BAB, saving throws, etc. It is important to “follow” those rules since they are inmportant for blanacing out of the system. Now, if using a “home-brewed” system like you do then this doesn`t apply, although it will mean handling everything accordingly (monsters, NPCs, CRs, etc.). Using Epic progressin also allows for the acquisition of “epic” feats which are substantially more powerful than the “ordinary” ones.

Put the book down, Ird. Step outside the box for a sec. Itll only be a minute. Forget about quoting rules, and try your best to see Ryans comment
here. If you dont agree with it and like the Epic rules better, thats
fine. Say that. But he doesnt need you to quote rules to him that he already said hed be in favor of disregarding. Simply extend the tables to
logical progressions and never make the character an epic level character.
In fact, never open the Epic Handbook. (Actually there is some cools stuff
in that book thats not really epic, but thats another post…) According
to Ryan, and Im not sure I agree with this, but just so were all in the
same page, the Gorgon should be a 25th level fighter but not be Epic. Its just like having a 20th level character, but with 3 more fighter bonus feats, 2 more standard feats, 5d10 hit dice, 10 more skill points (phoo!), +2 Fort, +2 Refl, +2 Will, and an additional +1 to any ability score. Ignore the "epic feats" and keep in mind that the gorgons not really going
to be fighting other “epic creatures” so CRs not such an issue.

-Lord Rahvin


The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

> That would mean anything over a 5th level spell is not available for casting. A 6th level spell needs a 11th level caster. If you make it mandatory to dual class, that means they need to be 21st or 22nd level. Add a scion template to increase the ECL and it gets even worse.

They dont need to be 21st level or whatever. As it is, I think 20th level characters have absurd power, and so too do spellcasters capable of casting 5th level spells. 5th level is plenty high for most single spell casters, and beyond that we get effects that are better off left in the discipline of realm magic. At 5th level, you already have spells that can completely dominate someones free will, clouds that kill everyone inside, render a
creature completely helpless, can send massive damage through a cone of
cold, create massively powerful illusions, move things with your mind,
teleport, animate the dead, unleash violent storms, summon walls of fire,
raise the dead back to life, smite foes with holy power, leave powerful
curses to control actions, summon elementals, or instantly slay a living
creature. Beyond that, even characters in most fantasy novels don`t weild
that kind of power and when they do they are either prevented from using it
for some reason, or else its something more closely tied to the idea of BR
realm magic.

-Lord Rahvin


The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

My limiting spellcasting levels to no more than half of all character levels
is nothing more than my own home rules. Ryan is correct, that the very
purpose of this adjustment is to reduce the power of magic that is routine
in the campaign. Powerful magic will be ancient and DM placed. I will add
that I think 3e is designed for higher level play than previous editions.
Playing at the lowest levels means you lose out on many of the most
interesting character options. I`ve boosted the place where I plateau
character development by failing to provide consistently more dangerous
opponants every time they turn the corner. I want to see knights with more
than power attack.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com


The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Lord Rahvin wrote:

> In fact, never open the Epic Handbook. (Actually there is some cools
> stuff in that book thats not really epic, but thats another post…)

And I even said I like some of the stuff in it, just not as a whole. =)

> According to Ryan, and I`m not sure I agree with this, but just so

were all in the same page, the Gorgon should be a 25th level fighter &gt; but not be Epic. Its just like having a 20th level character, but
with 3 more fighter bonus feats, 2 more standard feats, 5d10 hit dice,
10 more skill points (phoo!), +2 Fort, +2 Refl, +2 Will, and an
additional +1 to any ability score.

Yes, that`s exactly what I meant. Some of the numbers look a bit off –
e.g., I think that should be 2 fighter bonus feats (from 22nd and 24th
levels), not 3 – but the idea is right. Gorgy has a decent Int, though,
so his skill points will go up a bit more than an “average” Ftr 25.

Ryan Caveney


The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Lord Rahvin wrote:
> Put the book down, Ird. Step outside the box for a sec. It`ll only be a
> minute.

Why should anyone listen to you when you open up with this comment? You
obviously consider him to be beneath you, so why bother posting? Do you
just want to instruct us? Thank you, my lord, for speaking to us from on
high.

Daniel McSorley


The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[b]Originally posted by Lord Rahvin

   &gt; &gt; I see no reason to cap total class level at 20, especially for the many

> > ancient and powerful creatures hanging around Cerilia. For example, given
> > that I think I probably do want the Magian and Llaeddra (but very possibly
> > no one else ever, including PCs) casting 9th level spells, I have no
> > problem at all giving each of them at least 34 total class levels. Among
> > other things, I think the Gorgon should get his full 25 levels of Fighter,
> > with no need to introduce “epic” classes, as the right way to extend the
> > table progression (especially for that class) is completely obvious.
> > Ryan Caveney
>
> But the way the Epic rules are written all progression beyond 20th level is handled using epic progression. This character level, not individual class levels. A multi-classed character can be an epic character but not be epic in any one class. Part of the progression is a change in progression of BAB, saving throws, etc. It is important to “follow” those rules since they are inmportant for blanacing out of the system. Now, if using a “home-brewed” system like you do then this doesn`t apply, although it will mean handling everything accordingly (monsters, NPCs, CRs, etc.). Using Epic progressin also allows for the acquisition of “epic” feats which are substantially more powerful than the “ordinary” ones.

Put the book down, Ird. Step outside the box for a sec. Itll only be a minute. Forget about quoting rules, and try your best to see Ryans comment
here. If you dont agree with it and like the Epic rules better, thats
fine. Say that. But he doesnt need you to quote rules to him that he already said hed be in favor of disregarding. Simply extend the tables to
logical progressions and never make the character an epic level character.
In fact, never open the Epic Handbook. (Actually there is some cools stuff
in that book thats not really epic, but thats another post…) According
to Ryan, and Im not sure I agree with this, but just so were all in the
same page, the Gorgon should be a 25th level fighter but not be Epic. Its just like having a 20th level character, but with 3 more fighter bonus feats, 2 more standard feats, 5d10 hit dice, 10 more skill points (phoo!), +2 Fort, +2 Refl, +2 Will, and an additional +1 to any ability score. Ignore the "epic feats" and keep in mind that the gorgons not really going
to be fighting other “epic creatures” so CRs not such an issue.

-Lord Rahvin
[/b]

Actually I agree with the gorgon keeping the “level” I just disagree with extrapolating the eixisting classes to match. I do think that the epic rules work and are a pretty good match with the rules dfor deities and demigods and the info in savage species. I would instead of having the big “G” continue to advance as a fighter have him advance in divine ranks as a demigod up to a lesser deity. This, IMO, is a more accurate description of the influence of his bloodline an his development.

I also recognized that there was a house rules issue here and pointed out that in my reply. But it becomes difficult to have a discussion when people are coming at the point from their own “highly developed” sets of house rules. We are not all on quite the same page when discussing things since not everyone (OK almost no one) has the same adaptations and things that one person considers understood aren’t even know by another person since they hadn’t seen the full set of house rules being used as a reference.

IMO, I’d rather use as much from the core materials as possible and only “tweak” things to fit vice re-write everything to suit my personal vision. This is only an opinion and everyone is more than entitled to make their own campaign any way they wish too.

On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
> Yes, that`s exactly what I meant. Some of the numbers look a bit off –

e.g., I think that should be 2 fighter bonus feats (from 22nd and 24th
levels), not 3 – but the idea is right. Gorgy has a decent Int, though,
so his skill points will go up a bit more than an “average” Ftr 25.

Ignoring the ELH is fine at “low” epic levels like this. The problems the
book was designed to solve arise at higher levels, maybe 60 or so. By
that point, your good save will be around +36, your bad ones at +18 (plus
ability modifiers). That`s an 18 point spread in your saves, and it
basically means that for something to challenge one set of characters
(say, an epic poison with a fortitude save, versus fighters), it will be
completely unsaveable for those without that good save. Similarly for
melee- if BAB progression continues normally, then either the fighter will
hit with every attack, and the rest might hit part of the time, or the
fighter will hit part of the time, and no-one without a 1/1 BAB
progression will be able to hit at all.

Thus, the epic rules, which boil down to: at odd levels, get a +1 epic
attack bonus (same as BAB, but doesn`t count for iterative attacks). At
even levels, get a +1 to all your saves. This keeps the spread down.
Spell progressions and bonus feats and abilities change a little, but not
a lot.

So a fighter will never have more than a 10 point spread in BAB over a
wizard of equivalent level. Party saves shouldn`t spread more than 6-10
points base, not accounting for ability modifiers. This enables DMs of
high level characters to have encounters which involve everyone, and not
just the one character that can do something.

At the level were talking about, say 25th level for the gorgon, 21st or so for the Magian, it doesnt really matter, particularly since these
arent part of an adventuring party which has to be DMed. Though that
might be an interesting game… The Gorgon, the Magian, and the Serpent
get tossed through an interdimensional portal and have to build trust and
find their way home… nah.

Daniel McSorley


The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

I think part of the problem that the Epic Level Handbook tends to create is that it distorts the way people look at levels. A 17th level wizard in core D&D is bloody powerful - and he’s supposed to be - yet once you introduce the epic level rules, he suddenly looks like some kind of wimp.

If you look at what PCs of any level can actually do, it’s pretty epic, even below “epic” levels. Any fighter of above 10th level can reasonably expect to be able to fight an army on his own - an army of about 200 1st-level warriors is about EL 15 (though, realistically, much lower) - if you just take the theory at face value, a single 15th-level fighter has a 50/50 chance of taking down an army of 200 men on his own. I’d say that’s pretty “epic.” That’s a basic fighter with a sword. A wizard, with his weapons of mass destruction, can achieve the same effect much earlier and with a greater degree of reliability.

Now, the reason for the epic rules being as they are is simply what Dan said - the rules are based around a d20. In most cases, when characters have high class-based modifiers, they also generally gain high ability-based modifiers (fighters have high strength, rogues high dexterity, and so on), widening the gap further. If the gap gets too wide (as it would inevitably do, given an infinite extension), then some saves become impossible to make for a fighter, while the wizard succeeds automatically - or vice versa. Makes for extremely bad play, especially given the prevalence of save or die effects. I’d imagine it’d do something like making characters die in shifts - “ok, this combat, the wizards get to shine, while the fighters die and await resurrection afterwards.” Simply extending the normal rules for a few levels work ok for PCs, and for NPCs, it doesn’t matter that much anyway (actually, it does - it’d produce NPCs with extreme achilles heels to some effects and immunities to others, but there are plenty of those anyway).

Finally, I’m not necessarily sold on the idea of requiring spellcasters to multiclass every other level or whatever - of course, if it works for you, more power to you. There’s a few systematic implications beyond the immediately obvious that needs to be applied, though. Spells should probably add +2 DC per spell level instead, as a minimal form of compensation - for instance, the base DC for a 5th-level spell should be 10 + 10 (5x2) + at least 2 (for a 15 Int). Otherwise, pretty much everyone will make their saves, and wizards will be useless. I do think that the “real” issue here, though, is perhaps the view of the leveling issue that I mentioned earlier - if 20th level doesn’t seem like so much, then 9th level spells may seem commonplace. Given the levels that are in the Birthright products, though, I think I can recall about 3-4 NPCs capable of casting 9th-level spells, given 3e rules. Not really a whole lot.

Of course, I also think that calling Birthright a “low magic” setting is entirely wrong. On the contrary, the entire setting strikes me as much more “magical” than the Forgotten Realms, for instance - or, rather, Birthright has magic - FR just has another science. I think, with the bloodlines, mebhaighl, the Shadow World, the presence of fey and elves and awnsheghlien, the entire setting is filled with magic - it’s just that the trappings of it are substantially less common than in other settings. “Rare, but powerful magic” would perhaps seem a better way to describe the setting, given how it is described in the books. Wizards are powerful and mysterious, magic items are rare, but not necessarily weak (just look at the equipment of the premier NPCs).

If you want to change the core assumptions of the setting, by making it low or high magic, or introducing monks or psionics, that’s okay by me. I do think that a better way of modeling Birthright as described in the 2e materials, though, would be to introduce a flat XP penalty on creating magic items (to make it less viable to churn out +1 swords, but not really penalize more powerful items too much) and somehow reward wizards for working in subtle or mysterious ways instead of blasting away at stuff, possibly by moving damaging spells up one or two spell levels.

I think my biggest objjection to the mandatory split is the already low number of high level mages.

I think HMA is listed as 16th. That is not even using 9th lvl spells.

The Sword Mage, one of the feared mages is only 10th. That is only 5th level spells. The mandatory split will lower that to Fireball class.

But one suggestion that I think will make the mandatory split better would be free domain spells at each of the mandatory levels.

A mage get 2 normal spells when leveling, and when leveling in the “domain mage” class gets 1 domain spell. That will give them an ability similar to higher level spells.

A second suggestion would be a bonus to battle magic. Give them the feat Battle Magic free at first level, make Warcraft a class skill, and give a small periodic bonus to the roll. That would make their battle magic harder to resist, but not affect their casting in dungeon settings.

Wouldn’t it be far simple to reduce the spell progression of the various classes instead of requiring players to pick levels in another class?

If the wizard got new spells at levels 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25 that should cap out most PC casters at about 5-6th level spells. Other spellcasting classes need to be reworked too of course.

Give the wizard something in return for the lost spells (skill points, hd, BAB, saves, feats, or whatever). Giving him greater number of low-level spells at high level might also be a good idea as it inceases his staying power, without giving him access to the most powerful magics.

Add a short banned spell list, and there is actually not very much work on this version.

[b]Originally posted by Green Knight

   Wouldn't it be far simple to reduce the spell progression of the various classes instead of requiring players to pick levels in another class?

If the wizard got new spells at levels 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25 that should cap out most PC casters at about 5-6th level spells. Other spellcasting classes need to be reworked too of course.

Give the wizard something in return for the lost spells (skill points, hd, BAB, saves, feats, or whatever). Giving him greater number of low-level spells at high level might also be a good idea as it inceases his staying power, without giving him access to the most powerful magics.

Add a short banned spell list, and there is actually not very much work on this version.[/b]

That is indeed the simpliest solution and the one keeping most with 3rd ed (if that’s the system being used, but regardless it would work with 2nd ed also).