Chap 1 revision (7-04)

Dungeons & Dragons BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
1

All right I think I’ve gotten everything in here now, except for the magician class.

What I’d like to do is have everyone look this over and comment on this thread. I’ll close the other related ones, so everyone is talking about the same thing.

We’ll keep discussion of the magician class on its own thread for now.

In a couple of week I want to try to get to a series of partial sanctioning votes on this chapter. One for races, classes (except for magician), skills and feats, and equipment.

Here is the word version, I’ll post the pdf one after I get home today.

2

Here is the pdf version.

3

Comments

Skills:
I like how each specific use of the skill is set out as a seperate paragraph, and faced in italics. It makes it stand out when one is quickly looking for info.

Perhaps we should include a reference table in the chapter for which skills give synergy bonuses to other skills, as on page 66 of the PHB 3.5 (Table 4-5: Skill Synergies). Also, we may want to consider yet another table summarizing all of the potential bonuses to Domain Actions as a quick reference.

Lead: “Your skill allows you to sway public opinion with your inspiring rhetoric. You may attempt to perform agitate as a free action by making a small number of speeches and inspiring the masses. You do not need to have a holding in the province (or provinces) in which you perform the agitate action, but you must be physically present.” There are no ‘free’ actions in the domain level of play. Is this a Court or a Character action?

Feats:
Only a few questions and suggestions here.

Dwarven Artisan: Since the ‘Master’ level feats require 9 ranks, should this not also be dropped to 9?

Elven Artisan: Only 1 rank in any Craft skill as a prerequisite? I’m assuming this was a typo and supposed to be 10. If so, same comment about Dwarven Artisan.

Leadership: “The total GB muster value of the units in a military cohort may never exceed the cohort level appropriate for your leadership score.” I would rewrite this as “The total GB muster value of the units in a military cohort may never exceed the cohort level appropriate for your leadership score and character level.” This removes abiguity for characters who have high leadership scores and low character levels.

Equpment:

Table 1-9: Melee Weapon Availability: I believe that we had intended to include the Dwarven Urgosh in this list.

Table 1-11: Armour Availability: missing shading on alternate lines in the PDF version, but has shaded line on first line.

Overall:
I would change the reference number of Table 1-1, and move it to a position within the Feats section – it always looked awkward to have it in at the beginning of the chapter, when most referencing to it would be done from the Feats section.

4

Good comments.

Perhaps we should include a reference table in the chapter for which skills give synergy bonuses to other skills, as on page 66 of the PHB 3.5 (Table 4-5: Skill Synergies). Also, we may want to consider yet another table summarizing all of the potential bonuses to Domain Actions as a quick reference.

Arghh, you’re killing me. Good point though

Lead: “Your skill allows you to sway public opinion with your inspiring rhetoric. You may attempt to perform agitate as a free action by making a small number of speeches and inspiring the masses. You do not need to have a holding in the province (or provinces) in which you perform the agitate action, but you must be physically present.” There are no ‘free’ actions in the domain level of play. Is this a Court or a Character action?

Actually this was intended to be a free action performed as part of another action not a separate action, i.e., not taking up a character or court action in itself. Probably needs some clarification.

[b]Dwarven Artisan: Since the ‘Master’ level feats require 9 ranks, should this not also be dropped to 9?

Elven Artisan: Only 1 rank in any Craft skill as a prerequisite? I’m assuming this was a typo and supposed to be 10. If so, same comment about Dwarven Artisan.[/b]

Again good comment

Leadership: “The total GB muster value of the units in a military cohort may never exceed the cohort level appropriate for your leadership score.” I would rewrite this as “The total GB muster value of the units in a military cohort may never exceed the cohort level appropriate for your leadership score and character level.” This removes abiguity for characters who have high leadership scores and low character levels.

Actually the character level was removed from this for a reason. There are variants that could be used (see Chap 8) that allow a higher application of with regard to character level. But I can change this if people feel it is better to use the level must be less than the character from the the Leadership feat. Feedback from the masses please.

Table 1-9: Melee Weapon Availability: I believe that we had intended to include the Dwarven Urgosh in this list.

Aha got you. It is item 4 on the list already

Table 1-11: Armour Availability: missing shading on alternate lines in the PDF version, but has shaded line on first line.

good point


Overall:
I would change the reference number of Table 1-1, and move it to a position within the Feats section – it always looked awkward to have it in at the beginning of the chapter, when most referencing to it would be done from the Feats section

Let’s see what others want, before I start to move things around too much.

Thanks for the comments and promptness of them.

5

Actually the character level was removed from this for a reason. There are variants that could be used (see Chap 8) that allow a higher application of with regard to character level. But I can change this if people feel it is better to use the level must be less than the character from the the Leadership feat. Feedback from the masses please.

I like military cohorts being specifically dependent on Leadership score rather than level. Units vs. henchmen are 2 very different animals, and don’t need to be treated identically. This allows those with high Charisma (like high-level nobles), Great Leader, and the like to attract large numbers of loyal troops, which seems appropriate for BR.

Osprey

6

Thanks Duane. I’m not trying to kill you – just doing what I do best and proofreading what I see. :slight_smile:

[b][quote]Leadership: “The total GB muster value of the units in a military cohort may never exceed the cohort level appropriate for your leadership score.” I would rewrite this as “The total GB muster value of the units in a military cohort may never exceed the cohort level appropriate for your leadership score and character level.” This removes abiguity for characters who have high leadership scores and low character levels.

Actually the character level was removed from this for a reason. There are variants that could be used (see Chap 8) that allow a higher application of with regard to character level. But I can change this if people feel it is better to use the level must be less than the character from the the Leadership feat. Feedback from the masses please.[/b][/quote]

I must have missed that set of commentary then. I retract my original comment on this point, but would like to make another.

There should also be a short paragraph then outlining which modifiers apply in the Birthright world (p. 106, DMG 3.5). For example, does a landed Regent automatically get the Great Renown modifier? Do Blooded Scions automatically get the Special Power modifier, or is this to be completely ignored in favour of the Leadership score bonuses presented in the Scion Class (Chapter 2 Sanctioned)?

[b][quote]Table 1-9: Melee Weapon Availability: I believe that we had intended to include the Dwarven Urgosh in this list.

Aha got you. It is item 4 on the list already[/b][/quote]

But by adding the Dwarven Waraxe and Dwarven Urgosh to the table, you now have 2 entries of Dwarven Waraxe. (The second one is listed as Waraxe, Dwarven.) I would favour the usage of ‘Urgosh, Dwarven’, to match the PHB.

Thanks for the comments and promptness of them.

My pleasure to assist, Duane. Kinda Ironic that I had just managed to get back online after an entire weekend off, and had my commentary ready to go in an hour… :slight_smile:

7

Found a major typo:

Master Diplomat [General]
You are a master of diplomacy.
Regions: Anuire, Brechtür, Khinasi
Prerequisites: Diplomacy 9 ranks
Benefits: You gain a +2 bonus to Appraise and Profession (Merchant) skill checks, and a +2 bonus to any domain actions related to trade and finance. These include Create and Contest Trade Routes, and Create, Contest, and Rule Guild Holdings.

Somehow the description for Master Merchant got mixed in here. Should be:

Master Diplomat
Regions: Anuire, Brechtur, Khinasi
Prerequisites: Diplomacy 9 ranks
Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Diplomacy skill checks, and to all Diplomacy-based domain actions. These include Diplomacy, Create Trade Route, Contest Trade Route, and Create, Contest, and Rule Temple Holdings.

Osprey

8

Damn Osprey, I missed that one. Looks like I’ll have to go back and comb through it looking for other mixups again…

Good catch!

9

Thanks Duane. I’m not trying to kill you –

No, I think you are all out to get me. (Leans over shoulder) “What’s that? Yes, they are all wicked and vile creatures. We should destroy them” :lol:

There should also be a short paragraph then outlining which modifiers apply in the Birthright world (p. 106, DMG 3.5). For example, does a landed Regent automatically get the Great Renown modifier? Do Blooded Scions automatically get the Special Power modifier, or is this to be completely ignored in favour of the Leadership score bonuses presented in the Scion Class (Chapter 2 Sanctioned)?

I thought about that (listing which ones in the DMG apply and when) but decided that would be too cumbersome and restricting for the DM. The modifiers in the DMG are all subjective (as viewed by the particular cohort being recruited) and hence are governed by the DM (and should be). The modifers listed in Chap 2 and for the noble class and great leader feat are all ‘extra’ bonuses that are due to those things andhave no subjectivity associated with them at all.

Chap 8 gives some examples of things that can be used under the various variants pertaining to leadership and cohorts (or Lts).

10

OK :slight_smile: a few more things then…

Page 9: Bards.

The paragraphs are all a bit shattered…

…are members of one of these colleges. By tradition, members of bardic colleges are free to come and go from human lands as they please. Colleges insure this
The bards of Cerilia are practitioners of lesser arcane magic. Their arcane lore is not based upon the…

The missing lines are at the top of the next column both above and bleow Table 1-1.

Paladins of Moradin:
I would move the summoning of a small elemental into the main description as opposed to having it as a variant. Dwarves do not have Cavalry, so having a mount would not fit in the Dwarven culture.

Knowledge:
Were we not going to be using K/Regional and K/Local, as well as differentiating between them in the scope?

Elven Voice:
Is 1 rank of Perform (singing) really the only skill prerequsite? I should think that it would be higher.

Master Merchant:
Add “These include Create and Contest Trade Routes, and Create, Contest, and Rule Guild Holdings.” to the end of the description.

Master of the Arcane:
“You are a master of arcane trade and merchandise.” doesn’t make sense. I would rewrite it as: “You are known for your vast knowledge of matters arcane.”

Spellsong Mastery:
If Perform (singing) is a prerequsite of Elven Voice, and Elven Voice is a prerequsite of this feat, unless this has a higher skill requirement, we don’t newed to list the skill as a prerequisite for this feat.

Wilderness Savant:
I’d alter the description slightly to: “Your knowledge of flora, fauna, rock and stream puts many druids to shame.” This would emphasize the fact that the Feat is knowledge based, as opposed to exerting your influence over nature.

Vos Warspear:
“The cruel barbs of this spear are designed to embed deeply in flesh, causing the Vos war spear to inflict cruel hits.” doesn’t scan well – I think it’s the repetition of the word cruel. I’d change the first instance of that word to ‘backwards-pointing’ to not only give a physical description, but to also explain why the hits (and wounds) are cruel.

There – That’s me ging through with a fine-toothed comb. I did not touch the Magician or Noble sections, since the Magician is still being worked on, and the Noble is complete and pretty much vetted already.

11

While I’m loath to bring it up again, I really need to say something before biting my tongue and kicking myself for not mentioning it when I had the chance. It’s about the new Noble class, something I realize has not really been commented on much at all since you [Duane] wrote it up.

The Scholar path: this looks more like Arcane Sage than mundane scholar. Almost every bonus feat is more applicable to mages than to nobles. A straight Noble Scholar wouldn’t know what to take for bonus feats if he wasn’t an arcane spellcaster. The only feats here that are not arcane magic based (directly) are Diligent (and Decipher Script isn’t even a Noble class skill), Investigator, and Self Sufficient.

What about Skill Focus? This would have been my default choice for a Scholar bonus feat. Another good one is Hobby (this is from another D20 game, I know, but it’s simple: choose any one non-class skill to become a permanent class skill). Erudition (Erudite? I forget the proper name atm) from the BRCS would’ve been perfect too, but alas, it is stricken from the revised feats now. Sadness.

By contrast, it seems like any good regent Noble would be a Guilder if he knew what was good for him, seeing as how they get all of the practical Master-type feats that aid in domain actions. I’m not sure I like this kind of lopsided emphasis that “guilder nobles are the best rulers.” All 3 types of nobles are supposed to be born and bred to rule, right? Shouldn’t each path thus reflect 3 kinds of rulership? Scholarly nobles are well-suited to be source regents, is that the idea? Did you have the Khinasi and Calidhe Dossiere in mind here, perhaps?

OK, done ranting. There’s more stuff I want to comment on, but getting too tired to pick through it and articulate it all right now.

Osprey

12

While I’m loath to bring it up again, I really need to say something before biting my tongue and kicking myself for not mentioning it when I had the chance. It’s about the new Noble class, something I realize has not really been commented on much at all since you [Duane] wrote it up.

Better late than never, but since you mentioned kicking yourself. . . .

The Scholar path: this looks more like Arcane Sage than mundane scholar. Almost every bonus feat is more applicable to mages than to nobles. A straight Noble Scholar wouldn’t know what to take for bonus feats if he wasn’t an arcane spellcaster. The only feats here that are not arcane magic based (directly) are Diligent (and Decipher Script isn’t even a Noble class skill), Investigator, and Self Sufficient.

Several feats work for both divine and arcane casters, like escew materials even though they work better for arcane casters they are applicable to both. Magical apptitude works equally well for arcane and divine casters (spellcraft checks are used for counterspelling). Spell Focus also applies equally well to both divine and arcane casters.

What about Skill Focus? This would have been my default choice for a Scholar bonus feat.

The only problem is that skill focus reflects a knack for a skill (i.e., natural ability) and not the result of study. I really hate how WotC worded that feat, otherwise I would have included it right off the top.

Another good one is Hobby (this is from another D20 game, I know, but it’s simple: choose any one non-class skill to become a permanent class skill).

There are other games that have this as a class ability. I don’t see the reason to add a feat just to balance out a class.

By contrast, it seems like any good regent Noble would be a Guilder if he knew what was good for him, seeing as how they get all of the practical Master-type feats that aid in domain actions. I’m not sure I like this kind of lopsided emphasis that “guilder nobles are the best rulers.” All 3 types of nobles are supposed to be born and bred to rule, right? Shouldn’t each path thus reflect 3 kinds of rulership? Scholarly nobles are well-suited to be source regents, is that the idea? Did you have the Khinasi and Calidhe Dossiere in mind here, perhaps?

This basically reflects how the master feats are stacked in favor of guilders, if looked at objectively.

The concept was for the scholar to be best used for source and temple regents, but there aren’t a lot of feats that work real well for temple regents. Closest seemed to be the master of arcane and wilderness savant (used for druids).

I wanted to ‘balance’ out access to the master feats between the paths which is why they ended up the way they did. Again, they can be changed.

13

The only problem is that skill focus reflects a knack for a skill (i.e., natural ability) and not the result of study. I really hate how WotC worded that feat, otherwise I would have included it right off the top.

I would assume Scholars do have aptitudes for certain skills, particularly Knowledge skills, otherwise why would they have chosen such an academic path? Also, don’t let something as nitpicky as WOTC’s wording in a feat stop you from putting it in the list. Skill Focus is what it is: focus in a single skill. It is a crime not to include this in the Scholar’s list of bonus feats.

How about Master Diplomat then? Diplomacy, while social, also relies upon being well-educated and refined. This seems to me to suiit a scholar well, and will also benefit the temple regents who take this path, something you mentioned was lacking. Personally, I like the oncept of a scholarly noble playing family diplomat, whether he’s a regent or not.

This basically reflects how the master feats are stacked in favor of guilders, if looked at objectively

What I think is more reflected is that by sticking mostly to the core rules, we are limited to feats that are useful on an adventure level, plus any we’ve added for BR. This, of course, is bound to leave the scholarly types a bit under-represented. Ce la vi.

14

I have an idea regarding the Noble: we could patch it up in a way similar to domains that grant class skills!

For example, a Noble Sage might get only gain an extra skill point (or what other number we find suits them best without upsetting balance) at each class level which can only be applied on any Knowledge skill; if the number of special skill points thus granted is greater than 1, it should be divisible amongst any number of Knowledge skills.

Furthermore, a Sage Noble might choose a few class skills from a special list. For example, a Noble Guilder or Sage might choose Decipher Script as a class skill.

Furthermore, another idea would be something like the bard’s Bardic Knowledge, called Sage’s Lore, Sagely Knowledge, or whatever.

15

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Jul 21 2004, 06:05 PM
[b] I have an idea regarding the Noble: we could patch it up in a way similar to domains that grant class skills!

For example, a Noble Sage might get only gain an extra skill point (or what other number we find suits them best without upsetting balance) at each class level which can only be applied on any Knowledge skill; if the number of special skill points thus granted is greater than 1, it should be divisible amongst any number of Knowledge skills.

Furthermore, a Sage Noble might choose a few class skills from a special list. For example, a Noble Guilder or Sage might choose Decipher Script as a class skill.

Furthermore, another idea would be something like the bard’s Bardic Knowledge, called Sage’s Lore, Sagely Knowledge, or whatever. [/b]

I don’t know. This seems to make them 3 separate classes instead of different paths to me. Maybe if you write your comment in a different way and be more specific I’d understand better.

Remember that nobles already get a high number of skill points per level as a class, messing with this by having the scholar path get more seems counter intuitive to me.

16

More comments?

I really want to start the ‘final’ (hopefully) rewrite of this chapter so we can move on to the votes and I can start my sabbatical.

17

OK Duane, you asked for it! :wink:

You already have my comments on the skills and feats sections, as well as the equipment area.

The races section looks fine. Any comment about my proposal to make the earth elemental standard to all Paladins of Moradin? (since they don’t operate cavalry at all)

Noble (Sage path): We need to focus more on knowledge and diplomacy, instead of arcane / divine draining. I would suggest a tweaking of the bonus feat list to include Master Diplomat, Regent Focus, Skill Focus. Failing that, allow the sub-class the ability to make Knowledge checks untrained.

Uh bud-ip bud-ip bud-ip That’s all folks!

18

Originally posted by Athos69@Jul 24 2004, 01:40 PM

The races section looks fine. Any comment about my proposal to make the earth elemental standard to all Paladins of Moradin? (since they don’t operate cavalry at all)

I though about that up front, but decided against it in the PHB default system. The reasoning being that there are subteranean mounts that could be used and the ‘new’ way a paladin ‘calls’ his mount has it appear suddenly and disappear just as quickly (i.e., it is a magical creature). Technically the ‘core’ paladin of Nesirie should likewise have a mount {I’ll change that one to match when I rewrite the chapter before going to a vote for consistency}.

Just because dwarves don’t have cavalry (as units in BR) doesn’t really have any bearing on a dwarven paladin’s special mount. It is a ‘gift’ from his god, and if he is the only one with one then it is even more special.

I’m going to add the other feats to the scholarly noble. I don’t like making/allowing untrained Int - based skill checks as a rule. It just doesn’t make sense as a broad ruling that is - for specific cases and situations it would, but that is a DM call.

19

I still think the solution to the Paladin of Moradin class is to eliminate

it and allow BR dwarves to freely multi-class between the fighter and

cleric classes. It`s more in keeping with the original BR method of

portraying that race, and doesn`t require tweaking the 3e/3.5 paladin class

in a way that differs overmuch from the more reasonable variations of that

class for the human deities.

Gary

20

Originally posted by geeman@Jul 24 2004, 06:40 PM
[b] I still think the solution to the Paladin of Moradin class is to eliminate

it and allow BR dwarves to freely multi-class between the fighter and

cleric classes. It`s more in keeping with the original BR method of

portraying that race, and doesn`t require tweaking the 3e/3.5 paladin class

in a way that differs overmuch from the more reasonable variations of that

class for the human deities.

Gary

[/b]

Isn’t that freely multiclass combo already allowed by both the BRCS and the core rules?

Fighter is the favored class of dwarves, which means that it doesn’t count when figuring out multiclass penalties.

And I know this is based on your use of paladins as a prestige class vice a core class. {Something you’ve espoused repeatedly.}

IIRC you have also taken the stance that paladins of Moradin shouldn’t be allowed in the BRCS anyway.