Nature school for elven wizards

[geeman]

+0200, Mark_Aurel wrote:

>

I understand what you guys are saying about the schools of magic,

>but I`m still looking for the reference that says that is the technical

meaning and use of schools of magic.

Now you are just being stubborn. Just because something isn`t stated

>anywhere doesnt make it not true - I dont think there`s a a statement

anywhere that fighters can`t cast any spell they want to at will, either,

>although I suppose you could argue that since it`s not stated that he

can`t, a fighter really should be able to cast wish at will, at any time.

At the very least fighters are described as not understanding spellcasters,

and the core classes that can cast spells are all described/listed as

such. In any case, let me see if I can rephrase this in a way that will

make it clearer, in a way that will more positively identify my objection,

and why I dont think Im simply being stubborn here.

First of all, the description of a group of spells as a school does have

several benefits. Most obviously, there can be wizard specialists in that

school, and an elven spellcaster that specializes in a nature school of

magic would seem to make sense in the context of the BR description of the

race, so the argument than such a spell list couldn`t exist as a school

based on what appears to be only an interpretation seems contradictory to

the theme of the setting. If one is going to have a spell list based on a

particular theme, and that theme is as intrinsic to the emphasis of a

racial description as nature is to elves, it seems counter-productive to

particularly describe that spell list as “not a school” because that winds

up making that list less useful to that race than another spell list that

is described as a school (like, say, necromancy) which the campaign

material describes as something that race does not emphasize. The capacity

of elves to cast spells from a nature oriented spell list should have the

same utility as their ability to cast spells from another spell list. The

inclusion of a nature school would allow for elven wizards who specialize

in that school much the same way the core rules describe gnomish

illusionists. For BR that kind of thing would be a good use of the core

mechanic into a campaign theme.

Secondly, I normally like extrapolations of the rules into thematic

concepts like the way people are describing the difference between schools

of magic and simple class-based spell lists. Under other circumstances,

that`s the kind of “meta-mechanical thinking” (if you will) that I find

interesting. In this case, however, it seems counter to one or more of the

themes of the setting, and as such a negative influence of a rather vaguely

defined and somewhat minor core 3e concept (if it really exists at all)

into the campaign material–which is the precise opposite of how that kind

of thing should work. Campaign material should always, Always, ALWAYS take

precedence over core material. The only reason it shouldn`t take

precedence over campaign material is because an individual DM wants to run

his gaming that way. If the DM controlling his campaign is Rule 0 then

campaign material taking precedence over core material is Rule 0.1. This

extrapolation upon core material is all well and good, but to then apply it

to the campaign setting in a way that is counter to themes expressed by

that material is not the way to go.

Thirdly, Im not very confident that its a very legitimate example of

“meta-mechanical thinking” in the first place. It is entirely possible

that in 3e the definition of school of magic really is meant to be as

positive a category as it has been described. The designers might have

grouped those categories of spell lists as part of an overarching

philosophical construct, making it the kind of thing that the Architect

from The Matrix: Reloaded would describe as "a harmony of mathematical

precision." But I dont think thats the case. It seems more likely to me

that they just streamlined the spell lists since the magic chapter(s) are

the biggest part of the PHB, and they wanted to make those lists and

descriptions more concise. They did several other things to streamline

that list (like no duplicate arcane and divine lists, more carefully

designed spell descriptions, etc.) so I think this definitive and exclusive

nature of the schools of magic that is being extrapolated here is derived

from a simple editing decision rather than anything based on any thinking

regarding game mechanics.

Lastly, while it`s certainly possible that they really meant to make

schools of magic the exclusionary concept that`s being suggested, the

effects of breaking such a concept for the purpose of a nature oriented

school of magic are, at best, slight. I think it would be pretty hard to

find any negative effects from making a nature school and allowing the

effects of a school to a spell list. Are there any other aspects of the

magic system would be effected? In fact, the effects of a school of magic

might very well be applicable to several other BR concepts. One of the

things I`ve always liked about BR is an interaction between the adventure

and domain level of play. What about something like this: Add your source

holding level to your spellcaster level when casting spells from the Nature

school in a province in which you control sources. That`s the kind of

thing that would fit right into BR themes, and is very similar to the

descriptive stuff for schools regarding how certain game mechanical

influences on schools. One make such a rule for any spell list, of course,

but it makes more sense if it is a school of magic rather than just a list

of spells. In a similar manner there are other BR themed schools that

might be used. A school of Shadow magic, for instance, seems very apt

given the proximity of the Shadow World in BR.

Gary

[Mark_Aurel]

First of all, the description of a group of spells as a school does have
several benefits. Most obviously, there can be wizard specialists in that
school, and an elven spellcaster that specializes in a nature school of
magic would seem to make sense in the context of the BR description of the
race, so the argument than such a spell list couldn`t exist as a school
based on what appears to be only an interpretation seems contradictory to
the theme of the setting. If one is going to have a spell list based on a
particular theme, and that theme is as intrinsic to the emphasis of a
racial description as nature is to elves, it seems counter-productive to
particularly describe that spell list as “not a school” because that winds
up making that list less useful to that race than another spell list that
is described as a school (like, say, necromancy) which the campaign
material describes as something that race does not emphasize. The capacity
of elves to cast spells from a nature oriented spell list should have the
same utility as their ability to cast spells from another spell list. The
inclusion of a nature school would allow for elven wizards who specialize
in that school much the same way the core rules describe gnomish
illusionists. For BR that kind of thing would be a good use of the core
mechanic into a campaign theme.

There are a couple of pretty big leaps here. Let me try to summarize your logic here:

1. If it’s a school, there can be specialist wizards.
2. If it’s not a school, there can’t be specialists in it, and that’s contradictory to the theme of Birthright.

I think that about sums it up, along with an attempt to brand an example of a school as a spell list and hold it up against your sample school.

Campaign material should always, Always, ALWAYS take
precedence over core material. The only reason it shouldn`t take
precedence over campaign material is because an individual DM wants to run
his gaming that way.

Has anyone said otherwise? If you could dig up the description of the nature school in any 2e BR materials (obviously not 3e), or find an example of alternate schools in other official 3e products, that’d work okay for me. What we are really doing here is interpreting what was previously mainly flavor material into useful game mechanics - something that is generally easier to do with 3e than previous editions - and thus applying the existing rules to that. The existing rules are pretty clear on how to treat spellcasters with different flavors.

Now, if you want an example of a new “school” in 3e, I’ve just found one - it’s “Ectomancy,” from Ghostwalk (just got ahold of a copy of it today). This is a good an example of any as I’ve seen of what you were just talking about - how campaign/flavor material interacts with the rules. Ectomancy is a new descriptor specific to the Ghostwalk setting - many of the new spells, as well as PHB spells like astral projection, invisibility to undead, negative energy protection (no longer around in 3.5 IIRC), and wail of the banshee have this descriptor.

I don’t really see anything wrong with an elf being a “specialist” in a “nature magic” descriptor - or a ghost in ectomancy, for that matter - though I tend to prefer a more radical variant, as I showed earlier, with a class that casts spells in what I’d consider a more “elven” fashion than what a wizard does.

[Osprey]

Forgive me for interrupting the massive debate over technicalities and definitions, but…

What’s wrong with changing the BRCS playtest docs and saying that Cerilian elves CAN be Druids? I mean, Druids are nature-based spellcasters by definition, so why all the talk of introducing a new school of magic when there’s already a complete class set up? In what ways does the Druid class not satisfy the concept of an elven spellcaster? Especially now that druids can be regent spellcasters without draining the sources, it seems to fit perfectly with the elven concept. In fact, why not give Cerilian elves Druid as a favored class, rather than mage? Heck, I’ve always wondered about that with elves in general, not just the Sidhelien.

Is there a reason better than “we already said that elves aren’t druids?” Far as I can tell, it would be easy to describe some cultural differences between human and elven druids, and if you really wanted to make a more distinguished difference, adding some sort of Elemental specialist prestige class for elves wouldn’t be out of line either. Finally, adding a few “elf only” spells to the existing Druid list could also be done. Tweaking the existing class would be a lot easier than making a whole new one.

I present these ideas as possible simpler alternatives to what seems to be a problematic attempt at making a new school / spell list / character class. One of the problems with making a new School is that according to the PHB, there isn’t much oin the way of “dual school” spells, in other words a spell that is both Abjuration and Transmutation, for example. The schools definitely tend to describe the actual function of the spell, while Arcane / Divine define the basic source of power and technique used. Spell lists, on the other hand, are class-specific, so you would have to create a new Sidhelien spellcaster class, or at least a prestige class, to justify a new spell list. These concepts keep in the spirit of the 3e mechanics, and I worry about going too far outside the lines for the sake of favorites.

Doesn’t this whole “Sidhelien get their own rules” bit smack of favoritism rather than game balance? Tolkien’s elves were pretty all-out superior to humans, too, but that hardly makes for a balanced game for PC’s.

If Sidhelien come to be too good, I’d suggest adding some ECL’s for balance.

-Osprey

[kgauck]

esky question of the humans first learning magic from

the elves. If the magic of the elves is druidical, it bears more of a

relationship to the Erik`s priests, not human wizards. This puts requires

some explanation, unless the elves are actually a cross between wizards and

druids, in which case its easier to imagine that humans had taken the arcane

ball and run with it. Even if we were to go that way, I`d still be inclined

to buff their power over the elements.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[geeman]

+0200, Mark_Aurel wrote:

>There are a couple of pretty big leaps here. Let me try to summarize your

>logic here:

> 1. If it`s a school, there can be specialist wizards.

2. If its not a school, there cant be specialists in it, and that`s

> contradictory to the theme of Birthright.

>

> I think that about sums it up, along with an attempt to brand an example

> of a school as a spell list and hold it up against your sample school.

I think there were a couple more aspects to that part of the post:

3. A list of nature spells should be as useful to Cerilian elves as any

other list that`s described in the core materials as a school.

4. The specialization effect of the wizard class is the 3e function that

would be best (or at least easiest) to reflect that kind of thing in BR in

a similar way to how 3e handles gnome illusionists.

Campaign material should always, Always, ALWAYS take precedence

over core material. The only reason it shouldn`t take precedence over

>campaign material is because an individual DM wants to run his gaming that

>way.

>

>Has anyone said otherwise?

This interpretation of how 3e handles schools of magic strikes me as an

argument that the core materials should take precedence over the campaign

material since it is being assumed that in BR there cannot be a nature

school because of the way 3e delineates those schools. Now, I`m not

convinced it`s a very good interpretation of the 3e rules in the first

place, but my point there is that even if it is accurate it doesn`t make

any difference regarding the inclusion of such a school in BR.

If you could dig up the description of the nature school in any 2e BR

materials (obviously not 3e), or find an example of alternate schools in

other official 3e products, that`d work okay for me. What we are really

>doing here is interpreting what was previously mainly flavor material into

>useful game mechanics - something that is generally easier to do with 3e

>than previous editions - and thus applying the existing rules to that. The

>existing rules are pretty clear on how to treat spellcasters with

>different flavors.

I wish there had been a school of magic in the 2e version of BR, but the

rules set (as has been noted once or twice) back then was not nearly as

flexible as it is in 3e/d20, so its probably not a surprise that it didnt

exist. I don`t recall seeing a list of nature oriented spells so

described. But there`s so much colour text in the 2e BR documents that

it`s hard to ignore. Just a few references:

BoM p5: "Each race of Cerilia has its own attitudes towards and

philosophies of magic." That could be interpreted as schools of magic.

Under the “Elves” description: "Nearly as old as the continent itself,

Cerilia`s elves live in perfect harmony with nature." and "Children of

nature, they embrace all that is of the natural world–including magic."

p6: "Elves prefer subtlety over brute force and thus favor magic schools

and spells that bring them closer to nature."

There`s also some information about what schools of magic are not favored

by elves and why. Elves “repudiate necromancy” they "shun magic of the

invocation/evocation school" and "seldom cast spells of the

conjuration/summoning school." Those would make good opposition schools

for a nature school.

Gary

[geeman]

+0200, Osprey wrote:

>What`s wrong with changing the BRCS playtest docs and saying that Cerilian

elves CAN be Druids?

Druids have such a definitive role in BR that I`m personally loathe to open

up the 3e priestly class to elves. The big problem isn`t the spell list or

the capabilities of druids, since most of those things are the kinds of

things elves might do. Aside from that role being that of Erik`s

priesthood, it`s stuff like the other aspects of the druid

class. Strangely, the wild shape ability of druids doesn`t seem apt to

describe the Cerilian elven take on nature (that could be just my

impression there.) Personally, I think the d8 HD is a problem too, as is

the stuff on armor and weapon types, so there are several class features

that should change for a Cerilian elven take on the nature priest. An

elven “nature wizard” or something might make some sense, though.

Gary

[kgauck]

ge -----

From: “Gary” <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>

Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 1:14 AM

> This interpretation of how 3e handles schools of magic strikes me as an

> argument that the core materials should take precedence over the campaign

> material since it is being assumed that in BR there cannot be a nature

> school because of the way 3e delineates those schools.

Good sir, I am the furthest from thinking that the printed rules must

superceed the setting, but at the same time I am able to understand the

meaing of these printed rules without reguard for their utility. I did

after all post a suggestion for sidhe spellcasters that tossed the rulebook

out the window.

> Now, Im not convinced its a very good interpretation of the 3e rules

> in the first place, but my point there is that even if it is accurate it

> doesn`t make any difference regarding the inclusion of such a school

in BR.

This may well be, but it doesnt change the words on the page. Thats why

its better to look to other d20 products rather than confine ourselves to

the PHB.

BoM p5: "Each race of Cerilia has its own attitudes towards and

philosophies of magic." That could be interpreted as schools of magic.

It could, but that would be a different meaing of the word. I am very much

in favor of distinct sidhe spellcasting based on the color text. But I am

under no illusions that what I am doing fits nicely and happily next to the

PHB. If we are going to call such things schools, we owe it to other list

members to clarify that we don`t mean what the PHB does. Or we should use a

different word. Its not as though we have a shortage.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Mark_Aurel]

This interpretation of how 3e handles schools of magic strikes me as an
argument that the core materials should take precedence over the campaign
material since it is being assumed that in BR there cannot be a nature
school because of the way 3e delineates those schools. Now, Im not convinced its a very good interpretation of the 3e rules in the first
place, but my point there is that even if it is accurate it doesn`t make
any difference regarding the inclusion of such a school in BR.

There are two separate issues here. One is rules interpretation. The other is campaign flavor stuff.

1. Rules interpretation - how schools of magic work in 3e. They’re basically tools to classify and categorize spells, not really flavor-heavy elements.
2. Campaign flavor - “elves cast nature magic.” I don’t see anyone objecting to this at all. I don’t necessarily see what bearing it has on #1, either. If schools are a distinct mechanical element, and not a flavor element, then campaign flavor elements shouldn’t mess around with them either.

I wish there had been a school of magic in the 2e version of BR, but the
rules set (as has been noted once or twice) back then was not nearly as
flexible as it is in 3e/d20, so its probably not a surprise that it didnt
exist. I dont recall seeing a list of nature oriented spells so described. But theres so much colour text in the 2e BR documents that
it`s hard to ignore. Just a few references:

Actually, the rules set was more flexible in some ways. Definitions and terms weren’t generally equally as precise as they are in 3e - the case of the schools is a good example of this. You would be making up new rules subssystems to handle things, not apply existing ones - like how initiative worked different from combat rolls, which worked different from wrestling rolls, and then there was another subsystem for saves, and another for proficiencies, and so on. 3e is more flexible than 2e was for a few reasons - you can do a lot more with the rules as they are, without having to make up new types of rules, just new modular elements, and there’s a lot more specific types of “hooks” to attach such changes to, given the system of precise definitions that 3e employs. The way spells are classified is one of the best examples of this - with schools, subschools and descriptors, making for more different standardized forms of interaction between different mechanical elements. In short, the type of flexibility you seem to refer to is a 2e-ism, not a 3e-ism - insofar as you’d be changing the meaning of a mechanical term a bit.

Trying to tie your argument for having a “nature school” to “campaign material always, Always, ALWAYS taking precedence” is a neat little rhetorical trick, though. It just doesn’t have that much relevance here, I think. It’s a bit like taking a passage from some book that reads something like “he had great stamina and held the rock for hours” is an argument that in that campaign, carrying capacity should be based on Con, not Str.

Just to reiterate some old examples and add a new one:

1. The DMG uses alternate spell lists for different-flavor spellcasters. Nowhere is there any mention of altering schools.
2. Ectomancy from Ghostwalk is an example of a campaign-specific flavor thing - and it’s a new descriptor for spells, not a new school.
3. Oriental Adventures should feature a different outlook on spells from the PHB, right? Them having five elements, or animistic casting or whatnot. OA features new spell lists, and some descriptors, not new schools.

[b]BoM p5: “Each race of Cerilia has its own attitudes towards and
philosophies of magic.” That could be interpreted as schools of magic.

Under the “Elves” description: “Nearly as old as the continent itself,
Cerilia`s elves live in perfect harmony with nature.” and “Children of
nature, they embrace all that is of the natural world–including magic.”

p6: “Elves prefer subtlety over brute force and thus favor magic schools
and spells that bring them closer to nature.”[/b]

Yes. What I wanted to see was some rules text to back your stance that a nature “school” is somehow required. Obviously, there is none. What we are doing is simply converting flavor text to rules, something which is easier to do with the existing mechanics than it was in 2e - whipping up a list of new spells is entirely within the system, whereas 2e sorted spells on two lists only - wizard spells and priest spells. The flavor text itself should have no bearing on how we interpret the rules - only how we apply them. Trying to mix up campaign flavor material with rules interpretation only clouds the issue. Campaign flavor material has to do with rules application - not interpretation. You don’t reinterpret how skills are resolved, how attacks are resolved, how ability scores work, and so on - you apply different modular elements to achieve a desired flavor. Allowing or disallowing various classes and prestige classes can make for very different campaign flavors. So can different spell lists.

Now, I’m not opposed to house rules or whatnot - I simply think that rules debates work best if they work on a common ground where everyone has the same understanding of how the rules work. If you want a different hit point system, that’s fine with me - that doesn’t mean you should go trying to use a different interpretation from everyone else of what the core rules hit point system means. Redefining the entire magic system is also fine with me, of course - the point is just that I think a common ground of mutual understanding of how the rules work is most conductive to constructive rules debates. Anything else, and we wouldn’t be speaking the same language, which generally leads to war, if history is to be an indication.

[Mark_Aurel]

Druids have such a definitive role in BR that Im personally loathe to open up the 3e priestly class to elves. The big problem isnt the spell list or
the capabilities of druids, since most of those things are the kinds of
things elves might do. Aside from that role being that of Eriks priesthood, its stuff like the other aspects of the druid
class. Strangely, the wild shape ability of druids doesn`t seem apt to
describe the Cerilian elven take on nature (that could be just my
impression there.) Personally, I think the d8 HD is a problem too, as is
the stuff on armor and weapon types, so there are several class features
that should change for a Cerilian elven take on the nature priest. An
elven “nature wizard” or something might make some sense, though.

I tend to agree with this. Druids are somewhat suited for the role intended, but there’s generally a lot of elements to them that aren’t all that well suited at all. Wild shape doesn’t strike me as appropriate. A d8 HD, a good Fort save, even a medium attack progression doesn’t seem entirely apt. They could be used in a pinch, but I’d rather have something more like a wizard or sorcerer - and there are some spells on the druid list I find inappropriate, and some wizard/sorcerer spells that they should still have, so simply switching spell lists isn’t quite a good option either, IMO.

[geeman]

-0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> > This interpretation of how 3e handles schools of magic strikes me as an

> > argument that the core materials should take precedence over the campaign

> > material since it is being assumed that in BR there cannot be a nature

> > school because of the way 3e delineates those schools.

>

>Good sir, I am the furthest from thinking that the printed rules must

>superceed the setting, but at the same time I am able to understand the

>meaing of these printed rules without reguard for their utility. I did

>after all post a suggestion for sidhe spellcasters that tossed the rulebook

>out the window.

That wasn`t directed at a particular person. Several folks have presented

this interpretation about schools of magic and it strikes me as being

incorrect for the reason I stated: It takes what I see as a somewhat

questionable extrapolation of the 3e texts and then applies that to

campaign material. The important thing is that even if the interpretation

of the 3e mechanic were sound it needn`t apply to the campaign setting.

> > Now, Im not convinced its a very good interpretation of the 3e rules

> > in the first place, but my point there is that even if it is accurate it

> > doesn`t make any difference regarding the inclusion of such a school

in BR.

This may well be, but it doesnt change the words on the page. Thats why

its better to look to other d20 products rather than confine ourselves to

the PHB.

Which words on the page do you mean? Is there something in the D&D texts

that states how schools of magic work that supports the “exclusive school”

position?

BoM p5: "Each race of Cerilia has its own attitudes towards and

philosophies of magic." That could be interpreted as schools of magic.

It could, but that would be a different meaing of the word. I am very much

in favor of distinct sidhe spellcasting based on the color text.

That quote is definitely the weakest (though the others are much more

solid) and I wouldn`t base a whole game mechanic on it alone. In context

with the others, however, it makes more sense and can work as the basis of

a Nature school of magic, or other schools that other races of Cerilia

might endorse.

>But I am under no illusions that what I am doing fits nicely and happily

>next to the

>PHB. If we are going to call such things schools, we owe it to other list

>members to clarify that we don`t mean what the PHB does. Or we should use a

different word. Its not as though we have a shortage.

I`m still not convinced that the PHB says what you guys are saying it does,

I`m afraid, but regardless of that in this case I want to use the mechanic

of the school of magic to reflect the colour text of the campaign material,

so using a different word wont work. A description of what Im talking

about will be another post.

Gary

[geeman]

+0200, Mark_Aurel wrote:

> Trying to tie your argument for having a “nature school” to

> “campaign material always, Always, ALWAYS taking precedence” is

> a neat little rhetorical trick, though.

Thanky. I don`t care much for emoticons, so a little playing around with

the text is more interesting.

When it comes to this particular issue, the conclusion that I`m coming to

is that the best way to handle it is to make a Nature school of magic and

give access to that school not only to Sidhe mages, but allow them to

specialize in it. That way it not only utilizes the 3e mechanics that I am

confident in (and that more people are comfortable with) but fits into the

colour text. Write up to follow…

Gary

[geeman]

re productive way to go. Here`s a Nature School write up:

Nature School

Cerilian elves have a connection to nature and the land unlike that of

any other race or spellcaster. This connection allows them access to a

special type of magic that is unavailable to other arcane

spellcasters. Elves may cast spells from the Nature school and may

specialize in that school of magic. Specialists gain all the benefits of

school specialization and must also choose one or more schools of magic

from which they cannot learn spells.

Here`s a little text that would go with the School Specialization stuff on

p54 of the PHB (or whatever page it is now in 3.5):

Nature: Spells that relate to the natural environment are in the Nature

school. Specialists in the Nature school are called taelinri (teachers)

in the Sidhelien tongue, and among those few outside elven lands who know

of their existence and powers they are sometimes called Nature Wizards and

the Wise. Only elves or half-elves may specialize or learn spells from the

nature school of magic (unless those spells appear on another schools list

of spells, of course.) To become a specialist in the nature school the

wizard must select prohibited schools from the following choices: (1)

Necromancy and one of the following schools: Conjuration, Enchantment,

Evocation; (2) any three of the following schools: Abjuration, Divination,

Illusion, Necromancy, Transmutation.

Here`s a very brief write up of the school that would go in the "Schools of

Magic" section of Chapter 10: Magic.

NATURE

The nature school is comprised of spells that manipulate the

wilderness. Spells involving natural animals, plants and the natural

environment itself fall under the nature school of magic.

If subschools are necessary for some reason “flora” “fauna” and

“environmental” might be apt, depending on how one wanted to divide up the

subject. I avoided including spells that controlled weather as many of

them are “elemental: air” based and would probably be more apt for another

school of magic…

Spells in the nature school. This part is eminently debatable, of course,

and I`m going to just crank this out, so comments about what should or

shouldn`t be included are very welcome.

0th level

Detect Poison

Know Direction

Purify Food and Drink

1st level

Calm Animals

Detect Animals or Plants

Detect Snares and Pits

Entangle

Invisibility to Animals

Obscuring Mist

2nd level

Animal Messenger

Animal Trance

Delay Poison

Hold Animal

Tree Shape

3rd level

Dominate Animal

Meld Into Stone

Plant Growth

Snare

4th level

Control Plants

Giant Vermin

Hallucinatory Terrain

5th level

Animal Growth

Awaken

Commune with Nature

Wall of Thorns

6th level

Find the Path

Ironwood

Liveoak

Spellstaff

Stone Tell

7th level

Animal Shapes

Changestaff

Control Weather

Wind Walk

8th level

Command Plants

Creeping Doom

9th level

Foresight

Shambler

Shapechange

Sympathy

Other schools of magic that seem apt for BR are a Shadow school an

Elementalist school and given the number of spells that are specific to BR

maybe even a Bloodline based school of magic.

Gary

[kgauck]

ge -----

From: “Gary” <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>

Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 7:26 AM

> That wasn`t directed at a particular person.

No one said that it was. The reason I point to myself is that I don`t even

use this magic system. I have no ties to to it and no interest in making

agree with me. So either I stumbled onto this interpretation (also held by

others) or its actually there. My distinct impression is that you find this

interpretation inconvenient and so reject it regardless of the text because

its not what you want it to say. The argument that it really doesn`t say

this is post hoc reasoning. As Mark said, you are being stubborn.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[geeman]

-0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> > That wasn`t directed at a particular person.

No one said that it was.

It looked like you were taking it that way, particularly since your

response was directed at me and didn`t address the ideas expressed. Sorry

if I misread your “Good sir” opening and statements about your own take on

things as being defensive.

>The reason I point to myself is that I don`t even use this magic

system. I have no ties to to it and no interest in making agree with

me. So either I stumbled onto this interpretation (also held by others)

or its actually there. My distinct impression is that you find this

interpretation inconvenient and so reject it regardless of the text

because its not what you want it to say. The argument that it really

doesn`t say this is post hoc reasoning. As Mark said, you are being stubborn.

I am stubbornly trying to feel out the situation… but this is an

important aspect of the campaign setting–one of the most significant

aspect of the elven race–so I think it warrants the examination. I do

find the interpretation inconvenient in that it interferes with uses of the

game mechanics, and is being used to justify not incorporating campaign

themes in a way that fits in with things like character class–a much more

important and easily utilized aspect of the game mechanics. It goes from a

very particular reading of the text to exclude some of the most general

ideas about the system, which is not a good way to go. If nothing else,

however, this elaboration on the subject has gotten a write up for Nature

specialists and a school of magic spell list, so it`s been worthwhile IMO.

I should note that I don`t think the interpretation is completely illogical

or without basis. The 3e core documents don`t list more than the eight

schools of magic and their respective subschools. There was a definite

effort to eliminate listing spells as being in more than one school. Those

schools of magic are in many ways classification of spells by

characteristic rather than the rather loose descriptor of them that was in

previous editions. I can see someone reading into that the idea that those

were the only schools possible in 3e, and I understand how one might see

the inclusion of new schools as interfering with that.

Unfortunately, I really don`t think that was what they meant to do. Aside

from not seeing a whole lot of thinking that is so grandiose and determined

in the core rules as is suggested by the interpretation, including six or

ten other schools of magic that were apt for campaign settings like Dark

Suns elemental based spellcasting or BRs elves would muddy up those spell

descriptions and make the biggest part of the core texts longer and more

muddled. The core texts don`t emphasize campaign material (or any campaign

material other than FR/GH) so they wouldn`t include such things. The

suggestion that there can`t be more schools of magic is an extrapolation

from what is more likely just an effort to streamline the text of the spell

chapter of the PHB. Since it keeps getting said that it`s in the text in

such a positive manner I keep asking for an actual reference, but barring

something that really says that that is supposed to be the case, I think

the interpretation is just something that`s been read into the text.

In this case, the interpretation that there can`t be additional schools of

magic is a very, Very, VERY (since Mark liked the rhetorical device)

particular reading the game rules and using that as a justification for not

utilizing other aspects of the rules is not IMO just inconvenient. It is

an overall Bad Idea. Isn`t is possible that its just a bad idea that has

been extrapolated from a simple editing choice?

Mark has pointed out one D20 document that includes a new school of magic

and, while I dont have access to gobs of D20 stuff, heres one

more. Mongoose Publishing`s Encyclopedia Arcane: Star Magic describes

the spells and capacity of mages who gain their spells from the stars (kind

of like having a spellbook in the sky) as a school of magic. The spell

list includes spells from what are other schools of magic in 3e. Though

the system doesn`t grant specialists the same powers granted to

“traditional” 3e specialists, there are several benefits for

specialization. I`d argue that one or two of the other “encyclopedias”

from Mongoose handle groups of spells and create spellcasting classes that

are very similar to schools of magic. The Demonology, Battle Magic and

Chaos Magic Encyclopedias handle spells in a very similar manner. Those

are the only ones Ive seen, Im afraid, so there could be more.

In any case, making a nature school of magic and giving elven spellcasters

access to it seems like the most elegant solution presented so far. It`s

better than giving elves access to the druid character class and is simpler

than developing a new character class with its own spell list.

Gary

[Mark_Aurel]

In this case, the interpretation that there cant be additional schools of magic is a very, Very, VERY (since Mark liked the rhetorical device) particular reading the game rules and using that as a justification for not utilizing other aspects of the rules is not IMO just inconvenient. It is an overall Bad Idea. Isnt is possible that its just a bad idea that has
been extrapolated from a simple editing choice?

No. You have yet to provide any real benefit to expanding the school system. Changing the spell system entirely is your prerogative, of course, but the schools are what they are in D&D. I think Kenneth is right on the money concerning his analysis of your disagreement here - it doesn’t suit your agenda, so instead of simply conceding, you keep plumbing for new arguments.

For that matter, the thing I was referring to earlier wasn’t the “ve, Ve, VE” thing - it was trying to tie an argument about game mechanics terminology into something completely separate - campaign flavor issues. The matter at heart here is simply defining what a school is and how it works in 3e, not “the fight for the freedom to define BR” since, as I’ve pointed out, there’s a lot of ways to achieve exactly what you want, without redefining the schools.

Mark has pointed out one D20 document that includes a new school of magic
and, while I dont have access to gobs of D20 stuff, heres one
more. Mongoose Publishing`s Encyclopedia Arcane: Star Magic describes
the spells and capacity of mages who gain their spells from the stars (kind
of like having a spellbook in the sky) as a school of magic.

Nice try, but no cigar. I never pointed out any new schools - I stated that there was an Ectomancy descriptor in Ghostwalk, which falls about as close to your ideals of “campaign flavor vs rules” theme as something possibly can, then there’s the Witch spell list in the DMG, and there are always the new spell lists in OA - a setting which really features a higher level of philosophical differences in terms of magic/spirits/whatnot than BR does compared to core D&D. In none of these cases were new schools introduced. All the examples I cited are WotC-published ones. Using an example from a Mongoose book is a bit of a waste - they’re basically the McDonald’s of the RPG industry - only freed from the obligation of having to keep everything clean and hygienic. Much of what Mongoose has produced is utter crap, showing a poor understanding overall of the underlying structure and assumptions of the rules, and this doesn’t sound like an exception at all. Trying to use a Mongoose example as some form of precedence is like trying to recommend a meal at McDonald’s over one at a fine five-star restaurant. The finest d20 publishers are companies like Malhavoc and Green Ronin - if you could find examples in their products, I’d accord it a bit more weight. As it is, Monte just put out a new variant PHB - with a very interesting magic system. Guess which eight schools it features? What is added is a bunch of new descriptors and a new system of “spell templates.” All in all, combined with the simple/complex/exotic division of spells, this creates a fairly interesting variant system without actually changing any of the core mechanics, like spells by level or school.

Now, I don’t see what you’re trying to do as simple or elegant - it’s meddling with something needlessly for very little, if any, payback. It’s like trying to change the engine, when what your real goal is actually to repaint the ship. Simple would be something like “Elven wizards can use the druid spell list in place of the wizard list if they want to. Oh, no healing spells for them, but they can use wizard enchantment and transmutation spells, and a few others that fit.” That’d be simple, and somewhat elegant. Another way would be to adapt and reverse some of the rules from the Book of Vile Darkness - create an extensive Nature spell list, have elves cast spells from that, and associate some cost with casting a lot of the regular spells.

The point is that the system doesn’t bar you from creating a Nature spell list at all - there are many established ways to create flavored spell lists and apply them. Creating new schools isn’t one of them, nor is it ever likely to be, since that isn’t just creating a new list - it is redefining a part of the magic system itself.

[geeman]

+0200, Mark_Aurel wrote:

>You have yet to provide any real benefit to expanding the school system.

>Changing the spell system entirely is your prerogative, of course, but the

>schools are what they are in D&D.

I`ve described the benefits at least a couple of times. Here they are again:

1. By adding Nature as a school of magic and giving access to elves and

half-elves to that spell list we can reflect the elven emphasis on natural

magic as is described several times in the campaign material without having

to write up an entire spell list or qualify the wizard character class

itself. It`s a shorter “add in” to the 3e core rules than a new character

class write up or whole new spell lists and (aside from the supposed

exclusive nature of schools of magic that has been suggested) would require

very little change from the standard 3e versions of such things. Hence

“simpler.”

2. Since it will function with existing character classes and existing game

concepts (like how school specialization works) it will not require

exceptional or qualified rules; like your suggestion of giving

elven wizards access to druidic spells, less healing magic, plus two or

more schools. A new school is “more elegant” than an entirely new spell

list. I should also note that in writing up the Nature school that I

suggested in a previous post I found more than a few druidic spells that

were not particularly apt for elven wizards, not just healing ones. A look

at the druidic spell list will show that just giving elven wizards access

to druidic spells–even if healing spells are deducted–is a rather

hamfisted way of reflecting the elven emphasis on magic. It is, therefore,

doubly “inelegant” because it not only makes for a somewhat confused spell

list, but also doesn`t very well reflect the campaign material.

3. As a school of magic elves could use the wizard specialization function,

gaining the benefits like any other school. Thus, elven wizards are as

able to cast spells from that list with the same potential utility as they

could cast spells from other schools. If one just adds spells to the

repertoire of elven spellcasters without giving them access to the function

of specialization with those spells then one winds up with elves who have

more functionality with other, non-nature oriented spells–which the

campaign material would indicate isn`t the case.

>I think Kenneth is right on the money concerning his analysis of your

>disagreement here - it doesn`t suit your agenda, so instead of simply

conceding, you keep plumbing for new arguments.

My agenda in this case is to reflect the campaign material in updated game

mechanics, which I honestly think is better reflected by a Nature school of

magic than by any of the other suggestions. When it comes to plumbing for

new arguments, I find new arguments nice should they produce new ideas, but

in this case the plumbing appears to be getting backed up…

For that matter, the thing I was referring to earlier wasn`t the "ve,

>Ve, VE" thing - it was trying to tie an argument about game mechanics

>terminology into something completely separate - campaign flavor issues.

Oh. C`est la vie. The “rhetorical device” comment threw me off because I

wouldn`t describe tying game mechanic terminology to campaign flavor issues

as a rhetorical issue. That is entirely the point in playing an

independent campaign setting.

When it comes to tying game mechanics into campaign flavor issues, I think

the “exclusive schools of magic” interpretation is a real "cart before the

horse" mindset. In fact, it`s worse. The horse is riding on the

cart… The campaign flavor issues are much more important than the 3e

game mechanics. All this stuff about not allowing new schools of magic

because 3e doesn`t allow it–a position that I still think has has very

little support outside of the impressions of those espousing it–is being

given far too much significance in this case. Instead of making BR look

like 3e, I think 3e/D20 rules should be used to reflect BR themes, improve

them where possible, and they should be ignored where they interfere with

the setting`s dynamics. Even if I agreed with the "no new schools of

magic" interpretation, I don`t think it is particularly important to this

issue.

>The matter at heart here is simply defining what a school is and how it

>works in 3e, not “the fight for the freedom to define BR” since,

>as Ive pointed out, theres a lot of ways to achieve exactly what you

>want, without redefining the schools.

Defining what a school is for 3e is not very high on my agenda, since I

think that stuff is pretty secondary to portraying campaign

material. Honestly, that the interpretation of what a school of magic is

in 3e is pretty well covered material at this point, so unless there`s some

further elaboration on the definition I don`t think we need to go over it

again.

>

Mark has pointed out one D20 document that includes a new school of

>magic and, while I dont have access to gobs of D20 stuff, heres one

>more. Mongoose Publishing`s Encyclopedia Arcane: Star Magic describes

the spells and capacity of mages who gain their spells from the stars

(kind of like having a spellbook in the sky) as a school of magic.

Nice try, but no cigar. I never pointed out any new schools - I stated

that there was an Ectomancy descriptor in Ghostwalk, which falls about as

close to your ideals of “campaign flavor vs rules” theme as

something possibly can, then there`s the Witch spell list in the DMG, and

>there are always the new spell lists in OA - a setting which really

>features a higher level of philosophical differences in terms of

>magic/spirits/whatnot than BR does compared to core D&D. In none of

>these cases were new schools introduced.

That`s OK, I gave up cigars quite a while ago. Your description read to me

like they actually described it as a school, not just as supporting the

campaign vs. core material issue. Did they actually refer to it as a

school or no? Did they allow wizard specialists in it? Is the word

“ectomancy” in the spell subtitles?

All the examples I cited are WotC-published ones. Using an example from a

Mongoose book is a bit of a waste - theyre basically the McDonalds of

the RPG industry - only freed from the obligation of having to keep

everything clean and hygienic.

Im not a particularly big fan of Mongooses material either. (IMO WotC is

the McDonald`s of RPGs. Mongoose is more fluffy.) I was, however, asked

for D20 references. Frankly, I couldn`t care less if other D20 companies

come up with new schools or not–or if WotC comes up with them for that

matter. All that matters IMO is that in this case it suits both the

campaign material and the game mechanics to add a new school.

As it is, Monte just put out a new variant PHB - with a very interesting

magic system. Guess which eight schools it features? What is added is a

bunch of new descriptors and a new system of “spell templates.”

All in all, combined with the simple/complex/exotic division of spells,

this creates a fairly interesting variant system without actually changing

any of the core mechanics, like spells by level or school.

I generally like Monte Cookes work, but I dont think it`s very surprising

that a variant core text by him would have the same number of schools of

magic. Including campaign material isn`t the role of a core text. At

least, I don`t find it any more compelling an argument that there should be

no more schools of magic than the reading of the 3e core books that is

already being espoused.

>Another way would be to adapt and reverse some of the rules from the Book

>of Vile Darkness - create an extensive Nature spell list, have elves cast

>spells from that, and associate some cost with casting a lot of the

>regular spells.

If you could elaborate on your thinking here I`m curious why you thing

elves should have a cost for casting regular spells. Is that a balance for

access to nature spells or is there some other justification?

Here`s the important question regarding the exclusive nature of the schools

of magic: What are the negative consequences of adding new schools?

Gary

[Mark_Aurel]

When it comes to tying game mechanics into campaign flavor issues, I think
the “exclusive schools of magic” interpretation is a real “cart before the
horse” mindset. In fact, its worse. The horse is riding on the cart.... The campaign flavor issues are much more important than the 3e game mechanics. All this stuff about not allowing new schools of magic because 3e doesnt allow it–a position that I still think has has very
little support outside of the impressions of those espousing it–is being
given far too much significance in this case. Instead of making BR look
like 3e, I think 3e/D20 rules should be used to reflect BR themes, improve
them where possible, and they should be ignored where they interfere with
the settings dynamics. Even if I agreed with the "no new schools of magic" interpretation, I dont think it is particularly important to this
issue.

There are several issues here, that must be viewed separately for a good analysis:

1. Giving Elven magic a more nature-based profile.
2. How do the 3e rules support magic with different flavor?
3. How do 3e ‘schools of magic’ work? Are they a classification tool for spells with different effects?

Now, there isn’t any real reason for #3 to necessarily be related to #1 - defining the function of the schools, which is clearly to group spells based on the type of effect they produce, along with subcategories (subschools) and secondary categories (descriptors). This produces a good system wherein to clearly define how spells and effects interact, and also provides a good basis for coming up with new flavorful mechanics - like feats that grant bonuses based on certain descriptors or schools or subschools. This is why ‘special effects’ like spells and psionic powers all are subject to the school classification system. It puts everything in a clear fashion. Like terrain types. There’s a standardized set of terrain types for 3e too - and there’s a design guideline that says “do not create new terrain types.” The point is to not create anything redundant. The schools of magic are all based on certain classifiable magic actions - alterations changes things, enchantments affects people’s minds, illusions affects their senses, and so on. Sometimes, the lines are a bit blurry, but that’s the general gist of it (and the blurry lines would seem likely to be a sacred cow thing anyway). ‘Nature’ is not an action category like the schools are - if you want to insert ‘nature’ into the standard spell system, it would be as a descriptor - like air, earth, good, or whatnot. That’s another thing I suppose I haven’t been too clear on, since it appears so obvious on reading the PHB.

For going to item #2, there’s been an abundance of examples of this - 3e supports magic with alternate flavor much better than 2e ever did, because the books encourage the creation of alternate spell lists (2e only had two spell lists, after all) and there’s also the ability to easily insert new descriptors to which you can append other mechanical effects. A very clear example of this is given in the DMG - and it is entirely clear from that, and pretty much every book published by WotC since how ‘alternate flavor spellcasters’ is handled within the D&D rules system.

So, for item #1, it is entirely possible, and quite easy to do - there’s just a different and more advanced terminology than 2e had.

Trying to make it out as if #1 has some kind of overriding effect for letting you throw out the points in #3 as suits your whim, however, is the attempted rhetorical coup here. Slick, but not a very honorable way to go about things.

Now,
a) I am not intrinsically opposed to any alternate magic system to suit a different style or flavor of playing;
B) I do believe in trying to interpret a system correctly when discussing it, even if I’m not going to use it that way, just to make discussions sane and tolerable;
c) I also believe the point here was that the 3e magic system doesn’t “support” or “need” new magic schools, and that this discussion was based on that system to begin with;
thus, I wouldn’t mind at all if you wanted to build a magic system from the ground up to suit your flavor of play better - however, I do mind (for some pedantic reason) when terminology gets consistently and willfully used wrong (given that 3e generally has pretty precise terminology).

If you could elaborate on your thinking here I`m curious why you thing
elves should have a cost for casting regular spells. Is that a balance for
access to nature spells or is there some other justification?

It is a balancing thing in one way, but the main idea deals with adding flavor - if Elven spellcasters take, say 1d4 Constitution damage for casting Necromancy spells, for instance, that helps make that magic ‘dangerous’ and ‘forbidden’ among Elves - and it opens room for more mechanics, like a “Dark Magic” feat which permits casting such spells with less or no cost.

[Trithemius]

o Mark Aurel):

> Im not a particularly big fan of Mongooses material either.

> (IMO WotC is the McDonald`s of RPGs. Mongoose is more

> fluffy.)

So who does the hotdogs? I have AEGs takeway sushi and I find it okay,

although I prefer the dine-in experience of the earlier non d20 L5R game

(More sauces? Free teas?).

Sorry, all this jogging on the spot that you fellas are doing is making

me hungry.

–

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

---

“Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All.”

Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

[Trithemius]

ere`s the important question regarding the exclusive nature

of the schools of magic: What are the negative consequences

of adding new schools?

Perhaps we could call them something like “Teachings” instead of

“Schools”. If people like “school” to refer to the meta-game groupings

of spells mentioned in the PHB, then we need a different word.

I think someone might have said this earlier, but perhaps it got lost in

the ruckus?

I too am very (Very, VERY?) interested to see (as simply as possible and

as divorced from rhetoric as possible in this late-argument-phase) the

negative consequences of adding new subgroupings of spells; even though

I don`t use d20 for BR, I do recognise that it is probably the most

widely played game in the world today and am interested in how it is

viewed by (most of) the folks around here.

–

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

---

“Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All.”

Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

[Mark_Aurel]

[b]Perhaps we could call them something like “Teachings” instead of
“Schools”. If people like “school” to refer to the meta-game groupings
of spells mentioned in the PHB, then we need a different word.

I think someone might have said this earlier, but perhaps it got lost in
the ruckus?

I too am very (Very, VERY?) interested to see (as simply as possible and
as divorced from rhetoric as possible in this late-argument-phase) the
negative consequences of adding new subgroupings of spells; even though
I don`t use d20 for BR, I do recognise that it is probably the most
widely played game in the world today and am interested in how it is
viewed by (most of) the folks around here.[/b]

No reason to make up new terminology when “spell list” will do perfectly well, I think. 3e does employ a much more specific terminology than previous editions, and this is generally for the good, as it allows much smaller texts to contain precise details on effects than were the case before. It’s not really a matter of “people liking” it as much as using and reading the system as is.

The PHB defines “school of magic” as follows: “A group of related spells that work in similar ways. The eight schools available to spellcasters are…”

Now, I haven’t seen anyone opposed to new subgroupings of spells at all - it’s simply a matter of using the existing terminology correctly. Creating a “Nature school” is a bit like creating a “run/charge” ability score (hint: Ability scores describe traits of a character; run/charge are actions a character can take) - or like fitting square pegs and round holes. Creating a “Nature” descriptor would fit perfectly into the system as it is, with a minimum of fuss. Similarly, creating an Elven spell list accomplishes the same effect, on perhaps a wider and ultimately more satisfying scale. There really aren’t any negative consequences to this, as long as the new descriptors are fairly easy to comprehend, their number isn’t excessive, and they actually have some mechanical effect - would be pointless to needlessly classify things.

Creating a new school, on the other hand, seems pointless - and “nature” isn’t a suitable theme for that anyway, as nature isn’t so much a bunch of similar effects, as it is a theme that spans several different categories of effects - which tends to label it clearly as a descriptor or spell list in the D&D system.

Abjurations protect from something.
Conjurations conjure something
Fire spells create fire energy or affect fire creatures or just fire.
Abjuration [fire] protects from fire.
Conjuration [fire] conjures fire.

Abjuration [nature] protects from something “natural” like animals, plants, or the weather.
Conjuration [nature] conjures animals or plants.
Transmutation [nature] transforms something “natural.”

So, picking a few of spells from the PHB, they might read:

Command Plants - Enchantment (Charm) [Mind-Affecting, Nature]
Commune with Nature - Divination [Nature]
Control Weather - Transmutation [Nature]

with a “Nature” descriptor in place. Now, granted, “nature” is a potentially very wide concept, so narrowing it down a bit or splitting it into different subcategories might work better.

So, in short:
School - classifies a form of magical action or effect.
Subschool - a more narrow version of the above.
Descriptor - classifies something a spell affects, or the type of materials involved - whether specific or abstract - like alignments or elements.