PDA

View Full Version : Refocusing the bloodline discussion



Shade
03-16-2003, 01:08 AM
Ok, I think we`ve gotten a bit off-track with our discussions of the
bloodline system. A lot of options have been put forward, such as ECL for
bloodlines, a scion class, a scion template, and a bloodline "race"
progression ala Savage Species.

I think, however, in debating the merits and flaws of these various
approaches, we`ve lost sight of the original reason(s) behind revising the
2e system. If we can come to a clear agreement on the WHY, we should be
able to easily come up with the HOW.

To begin: What is wrong with the 2e system of bloodlines? WHY do we want to
change it?

The 2e system is completely independent of "2e mechanics"; that is, it
doesn`t depend on input from your race, class, etc to work. You simply take
a d100, and consult the charts in the book, rolling dice where it tells
you. In theory you could take the bloodline generation system and apply it
to any RPG; the only thing you`d have to change is the effects of the blood
powers to sync with the new system (a +1 to hit in 2e would become a +1 to
potence or whatever in Vampire.. but the generation would be the same, a
Tremere vampire still rolls d100 to determine his bloodline strength, then
rolls for derivation and score). I personally like the system, but my
understanding is that there are 2 major problems:

1. Randomness. A lot of DMs and players don`t like the fact that a single
d100 roll can make or break your character. A player that rolls a 96 is
going to have a huge advantage over his guilder rival who rolled a 07.

In my experience the randomness issue is easily dealt with. I simply use DM
fiat to help out players who got bad rolls; but I understand that this is
not a method we can use as a standard. However, a point-buy of some sort is
the best way to approach the problem of randomness. I believe this is where
the "bloodline as a 7th ability score" concept came from.

In the end I don`t think randomness is a big problem; we`ll be able to
develop some sort of system that works without randomness, and publish that
along with a random system for those that like it. Kind of like how the 3e
PHB says you can roll 4d6 6 for stats OR use a point buy. We can continue
to debate the mechanics, but conceptually, this is not an issue.

2. Balance. This is the kicker that a lot of people have problems with, and
the reason is because there are at least 2 major philosophical viewpoints
here. One is that scions are inherently stronger than commoners, and that
is the entire premise of the BR setting, and that the rules should reflect
this (this is the viewpoint to which I subscribe). The other major
viewpoint is that players should have the choice to be a scion or a
commoner and not be penalized for either choice. That is, scions and
commoners should be relatively equal.

The problem lies in that the 2e rules were not clear about which path the
developers favored. Commoners did get SOMETHING, namely a 10% xp bonus.
However those in favor of the first viewpoint will argue (as I have) that a
10% xp bonus doesn`t even come close to the benefits of a bloodline.

The issue of balance lies at the heart of the debate about ECLs and
classes. Until we as a group can decide which approach to take, we will not
make a lot of constructive progress on the issue.

At this point I`d like to go on and add my thoughts about the system, as it
works now.

I believe that the 7th "ability score" for bloodline is simply bizarre,
mainly because of semantics. D&D is full of "scores"; your HP, AC, movement
rate and saving throws are all represented by numbers. What is the
difference between a normal "score" and an "ability score", like the
bloodline? When I think ability score, I think of Str, Dex, etc. Can a
bloodline be improved by +1 every 4 levels? If no, then a bloodline is NOT,
strictly speaking, an ability score.

The reason for the "7th ability score" comes from the point buy system,
where the BRCS team wanted you to sacrifice points on strength, dex, etc,
to have a strong bloodline (I think).

I think, with all due respect to the BRCS team, this is a very bad way to
handle it. IMO bloodline should be a score, just like it was in 2e,
completely independent of the core of your character. If you want to use a
point buy for it, fine; use a 32 point buy (or whatever) to determine
ability scores, and use a separate point buy for bloodline (we would make a
new system of tables with costs of abilities and the like; the DM would
choose the number of points blooded PCs would have to use within the
system). This way bloodline is not an "ability score"; it is a separate
score all on its own like movement rate or gold pieces.

Now on to balance.

There are 2 issues of balance to consider: the balance of scions vs
commoners, and the balance of bloodlines factoring into CRs.

1. I don`t think that scions and commoners need to be balanced. They
weren`t balanced in 2e and IMO don`t need to be in BR3e, because scions
(again IMO) are the focus of the setting. That said, commoners should get
something for not being blooded, OR scions should lose something. ECL is
one way to do it; bloodline as a 7th ability score is another way,
requiring you to sacrifice Str/Dex/etc for a bloodline. A feat/skill system
where you have to spend your levelgain feats is a third way; a scion PrC is
a fourth.

I like none of these methods. I feel the cost to be blooded is too high
with all of the aforementioned approaches. I think the best approach here
is to compare each blood ability to an approximate magical item, and derive
the XP cost from that. In order to use the blood ability you have to pay
the XP cost (one-time only) first. That way a scion will be slightly behind
a commoner in experience, just like in 2nd edition.

2. The issue of bloodlines vs CRs in Cerilia also needs to consider the
following fact: your average level when considering Challenge Ratings also
includes the amount of magical items a character of your level is expected
to have in a `default` setting. Are any of us seriously advocating that BR
characters should have as much treasure as the DMG recommends? I certainly
am not. Because of the scarcity of magic items, the CR system is already
going to be out of whack in Cerilia. We`re not seriously considering ECL
reductions because of a lack of magic items; why should we consider
increases because of bloodlines? To some extent the addition of bloodlines
will mitigate the impact of a lack of magical items.

I`d prefer to just call them even, and leave the CR system unchanged. An
intelligent DM (and almost all DMs are intelligent) will be able to make
adjustments on the fly, based on his knowledge and common sense.

I`ve attempted to summarize the current debate regarding bloodlines. I
don`t think I`ve left anything out, but if I have, my apologies.

So, thoughts?

************************************************** **************************
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.

geeman
03-16-2003, 01:40 AM
At 05:23 PM 3/15/2003 -0600, Lord Shade wrote:

>To begin: What is wrong with the 2e system of bloodlines? WHY do we want to
>change it?

I think there are really only two general reasons.

First, some things have to change in a conversion. Many of the blood
abilities are based on spells, spell-like abilities or character class
abilities that have changed from 2e to D20, so the descriptions of those
things need to be changed. There`s a skill system that many blood
abilities might take advantage of, a system of feats that could be
incorporated, prestige classes, etc. Many of the game mechanics have
progressed and several aspects of the concept of bloodline need to move
along with it.

Second, because some of the original rules were broken or not particularly
well defined. Where possible those things should be fixed in the same way
that various character classes changed from 2e to 3e.

>2. Balance. This is the kicker that a lot of people have problems with, and
>the reason is because there are at least 2 major philosophical viewpoints
>here. One is that scions are inherently stronger than commoners, and that
>is the entire premise of the BR setting, and that the rules should reflect
>this (this is the viewpoint to which I subscribe). The other major
>viewpoint is that players should have the choice to be a scion or a
>commoner and not be penalized for either choice. That is, scions and
>commoners should be relatively equal.

If I might qualify that a bit... I don`t think anyone is saying that scions
and commoners should be relatively equal. They are saying (or, at least, I
am) that _given equal character levels_ commoners and scions should be
equal. The ECL for a scion should be equal to character levels, just as
the ECL for templates or other character features are (supposed) to be. A
10th level fighter should be equal in power to a 8th level fighter with a
+2 ECL from bloodline.

Making scion features more powerful than character levels and then not
assigning an ECL is counterintuitive to a D20 conversion. Aside from
issues of individual character balance, it throws off things like the way
the DM designs encounters per the DMG`s guidelines, and the bonuses from CR
awards since characters with powers that are unaccounted for by ECL will
gain the same XP as characters who lack those features, but will presumably
not expend the same amount of resources.

There are other things thrown out of whack by not accounting for the powers
gained along with a bloodline using ECL. Things like the gp value of his
inventory. Not counting ECL effects also doesn`t always work in favor of
the character either. Let`s say, for example, that one was playing a 5th
level character who had enough effects from bloodline to count as +2
ECL. If one accounts for those modifiers then his leadership score for the
purpose of the leadership feat would be 7 + his charisma modifier rather
than 5 + charisma modifier. Also, his cohorts can be 6th level rather than
4th. For the purpose of actually describing the leadership qualities of a
blooded character--pretty important to such a character--ECL is as
important as actual character levels.

>I believe that the 7th "ability score" for bloodline is simply bizarre,
>mainly because of semantics. [Snip the semantics]
>I think, with all due respect to the BRCS team, this is a very bad way to
>handle it.

I agree with you on that one. I don`t like bloodline as an ability score
much at all. It has, however, been the most common one since 3e came out
and it appeared in Doom`s original conversion, so I think a lot of people
have gotten used to it. When it gets right down to it, I suppose, any
alternative system really needs to be written up in at least as complete a
format in order to be legitimately presented as another option.... I`ve
posted two variants that I think make at least as much or more sense than
bloodline as an ability score (bloodline as a character class and a
bloodline system that is essentially an upgrade of the 2e system) but those
are, after all, only posts not a complete system, and because they are
incomplete it`s difficult for people to get a complete handle on them.

>IMO bloodline should be a score, just like it was in 2e, completely
>independent of the core of your character. If you want to use a point buy
>for it, fine; use a 32 point buy (or whatever) to determine ability
>scores, and use a separate point buy for bloodline (we would make a new
>system of tables with costs of abilities and the like; the DM would choose
>the number of points blooded PCs would have to use within the system).
>This way bloodline is not an "ability score"; it is a separate score all
>on its own like movement rate or gold pieces.

Have you seen the stuff I posted about "2e bloodline in 3e style"?

Gary

************************************************** **************************
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.

Mourn
03-16-2003, 04:40 AM
Wow. This is amazing.

For the first time since coming on this board, I agree with EVERYTHING you said in your post, geeman.

The simple fact of the matter is that bloodline needs to be incorporated in a way that it feels like a part of the d20 System, not a separate system that gets tacked on. And the easiest way for it to do that is to mesh in with the existing tools in the system, namely skills, feats, and spells.

To balance with the system as it is built, bloodline should not just grant scions special powers with no kind of trade-off for commoners. It should, however, open up many more OPTIONS to the scions.

For example, certain spells could be "Wiz/Sor 3, Bloodline (Masela)" which only a scion of Masela could have... or just "Wiz/Sor 3, Bloodline" for any scion of the appropriate class to be able to attain.

But, as I was saying, I agree fully with geeman. The big changes in the system from 2nd Edition to 3rd Edition call for big changes in the Bloodline system, since it was built on 2nd Edition mechanics.

One example I want to note is from the Forgotten Realms. In 2nd Edition, noble-born drow gained extra special abilities for free, and in 3rd Edition, those abilities must be purchased with feats. I'm not saying this is the exact method that should be used, but it gives you an idea of how the official designers took a look at a 2nd Edition mechanic and made it work (and well) in 3rd Edition.

ryancaveney
03-16-2003, 07:51 AM
On Sat, 15 Mar 2003, Lord Shade wrote:

> To begin: What is wrong with the 2e system of bloodlines?
> WHY do we want to change it?

Yes, this is exactly the way the discussion should be approached.

> In theory you could take the bloodline generation system and apply it
> to any RPG; the only thing you`d have to change is the effects of the
> blood powers to sync with the new system (a +1 to hit in 2e would
> become a +1 to potence or whatever in Vampire.. but the generation
> would be the same, a Tremere vampire still rolls d100 to determine his
> bloodline strength, then rolls for derivation and score).

Again, exactly right. For example, Alertness`s "surprised only on a roll
of 1" no longer has a precise meaning in 3e mechanics, so it would have to
be changed to some set of skill bonuses.

> 1. Randomness. A lot of DMs and players don`t like the fact that a single
> d100 roll can make or break your character. A player that rolls a 96 is
> going to have a huge advantage over his guilder rival who rolled a 07.

This is still my only problem with it.

> However, a point-buy of some sort is the best way to approach the
> problem of randomness. I believe this is where the "bloodline as a 7th
> ability score" concept came from.

Yes. But exactly what else to put in the pool with the bloodline score is
unclear. Even if bloodline score is to be balanced only against the six
abilities, I still see no need to rescale the numbers to fit the same 3-18
standard scale as the others. Keep the score meaning exactly as-is, but
say "one stat point buys six points of bloodline" or whatever.

> I believe that the 7th "ability score" for bloodline is simply
> bizarre, mainly because of semantics. D&D is full of "scores"; your
> HP, AC, movement rate and saving throws are all represented by
> numbers. [snip] This way bloodline is not an "ability score"; it is a
> separate score all on its own like movement rate or gold pieces.

Yes, exactly. Bloodline has its own inherent scale, which should not be
changed. To return to your earlier example, your Vampire character still
has all its other scores in the 1-5 White Wolf System, but a BR bloodline
of Brenna, Major, 47 -- because that is the kind of score which is
necessary to interact with the domain system.

> I like none of these methods. I feel the cost to be blooded is too
> high with all of the aforementioned approaches.

Again, you speak my mind word for word.

> I think the best approach here is to compare each blood ability to an
> approximate magical item, and derive the XP cost from that. In order
> to use the blood ability you have to pay the XP cost (one-time only)
> first. That way a scion will be slightly behind a commoner in
> experience, just like in 2nd edition.

This is certainly a less bad approach than any of the others, even if you
double the cost for the "doesn`t take up a slot" power.

> Because of the scarcity of magic items, the CR system is already going
> to be out of whack in Cerilia.

Agreed.

> We`re not seriously considering ECL reductions because of a lack of
> magic items;

Except that some of us are, as with Falcon`s averaging suggestion which
Gary just mentioned again.


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.

ryancaveney
03-16-2003, 07:51 AM
On Sat, 15 Mar 2003, Gary wrote:

> Second, because some of the original rules were broken or not
> particularly well defined.

To speak only about second edition in its own terms, exactly which ones do
you have in mind, and how would you suggest they be repaired or redefined
within the context of second edition only? This is much more important to
me than converting to 3e or any other RPG system.

> The ECL for a scion should be equal to character levels, just as the
> ECL for templates or other character features are (supposed) to be.
> A 10th level fighter should be equal in power to a 8th level fighter
> with a +2 ECL from bloodline.

Only if you first include ability scores and actual magic item inventories
first. Ftr 8 w/ Str and Con 18 vs. Ftr 10 w/ Str and Con 12 is a much
bigger power difference than Ftr 8 with Blood History, Detect Lie and
Persuasion vs. a Ftr 10. Until you`ve corrected balance for standard
ability scores, I don`t think there`s much point in trying to balance
blood powers.


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.

DanMcSorley
03-16-2003, 07:51 AM
On Sat, 15 Mar 2003, Gary wrote:
> >I believe that the 7th "ability score" for bloodline is simply bizarre,
> >mainly because of semantics. [Snip the semantics]
> >I think, with all due respect to the BRCS team, this is a very bad way to
> >handle it.
>
> I agree with you on that one. I don`t like bloodline as an ability score
> much at all. It has, however, been the most common one since 3e came out
> and it appeared in Doom`s original conversion, so I think a lot of people
> have gotten used to it.

I very much doubt it. It has been the most loudly and shamelessly
self-promoted, and it was maneuvered into the BRCS doc the same way, but I
bet a lot of people just used the old tack-on system on top of 3e
characters. I actually very much dislike that the `7 ability score`
system got shoved in just because it was in PDF when the rest of us were
publishing conversion stuff in html and email.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
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.

geeman
03-16-2003, 11:38 AM
At 01:14 AM 3/16/2003 -0500, Ryan Caveney wrote:

> > Second, because some of the original rules were broken or not
> > particularly well defined.
>
>To speak only about second edition in its own terms, exactly which ones do
>you have in mind, and how would you suggest they be repaired or redefined
>within the context of second edition only? This is much more important to
>me than converting to 3e or any other RPG system.

Hm. I don`t know if I had any particular ones in mind.... Since bloodline
was the topic that inspired this thread, though, I think that`d probably be
the one that is the most obvious. Particularly things like Table 12: Blood
Ability Acquisition on p22 of the RB. That structure and progression of
that table has always mystified me. Many of the issues regarding blood
abilities were addressed in the BR playtest draft, so I won`t recount them
all, but in several cases blood abilities have strangely nebulous effects
with no real game mechanical description, when the could be used to express
a very wide range of things. I`m thinking in particular of Blood History,
which from I can tell could give the effects of a vast number of intellect
based skill ranks. Character Reading also is a rather vaguely written and
poorly implemented 2e blood ability.

Other issues include things like bloodtheft. In all honesty, I`ve been
reading posts on the subject for years and I have yet to find a system of
doing bloodtheft that I thought really worked. It`s a great concept, but
very difficult to do in D&D terms. It may not be possible to come up with
a system that is really going to satisfy everyone on this one, so it may
not really qualify as a 2e to 3e issue, but it is something that I`d love
to see handled in a 3e conversion no matter how unreasonable that
expectation is, and no matter how miraculous that treatment might have to
be....

Another issue that I`d like to see better developed is the monetary system
at the domain level. I know, I know, this is another highly discussed
topic, and positions seem to vary pretty widely, but 4GB=8,000gp=1 unit of
elite infantry and the 80GB castle(10) just don`t add up well without some
pretty funky rationalization. 8,000 gp is less than the inventory of a
standard D&D 5th level PC.

Large scale combat is probably something that could also be endlessly
refined, and I`d like to see a substantially more developed system. By and
large the D20 BR text does expand very well on the warcard (pthoo!) system,
but they retained a few things that I don`t much care for--like the 3x5
battlefield map.

I`m sure there are other things that would qualify as issues that could be
clarified or fixed in the original 2e materials.

> > The ECL for a scion should be equal to character levels, just as the
> > ECL for templates or other character features are (supposed) to be.
> > A 10th level fighter should be equal in power to a 8th level fighter
> > with a +2 ECL from bloodline.
>
>Only if you first include ability scores and actual magic item inventories
>first. Ftr 8 w/ Str and Con 18 vs. Ftr 10 w/ Str and Con 12 is a much
>bigger power difference than Ftr 8 with Blood History, Detect Lie and
>Persuasion vs. a Ftr 10. Until you`ve corrected balance for standard
>ability scores, I don`t think there`s much point in trying to balance
>blood powers.

OK, sure. "All other things being equal" characters with equal character
levels should also be equal in power.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
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.

kgauck
03-16-2003, 11:38 AM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 12:14 AM


> Ftr 8 w/ Str and Con 18 vs. Ftr 10 w/ Str and Con 12 is a much
> bigger power difference than Ftr 8 with Blood History, Detect Lie and
> Persuasion vs. a Ftr 10.

It really depends on who that F8 with Detect Lie is, or what his Blood
History is telling him. I have found that rulers with Detect Lie have a
huge advantage, because there is such an incentive to lie to them, either
for self-advantage, malice, or actual treason. A ruler with Detect Lie who
knows how to ask questions knows the worth of all of his courtiers,
lieutenants, cohorts, vassals, and the various vistors and envoys to his
court. As for Blood History, when a ruler sits on the same throne as his
ancestors, their experience can add to his wisdom in matters of state.

> Until you`ve corrected balance for standard ability scores, I don`t
> think there`s much point in trying to balance blood powers.

Using a point buy system fixes that. Everyone gets the same number of
points and spends them in the way they think they`ll get the greatest
utility from them.

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.

Starfox
03-16-2003, 11:38 AM
From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>

> Even if bloodline score is to be balanced only against the six
> abilities, I still see no need to rescale the numbers to fit the same 3-18
> standard scale as the others. Keep the score meaning exactly as-is, but
> say "one stat point buys six points of bloodline" or whatever.
>

This is the way I`ve been playing it for years - one character generation
point gives you 2.5 points of bloodline strength. People started in the
15-50 range. Yes, I gave them a LOT of points.

This has worked extremely well. As I`ve said before, my only issue is that
certain blood abilities (those that grant special powers rather than buff
some other skill/attribute), should have scaled more over levels.

/Carl

************************************************** **************************
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.

ryancaveney
03-16-2003, 05:23 PM
On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> I have found that rulers with Detect Lie have a huge advantage,
> because there is such an incentive to lie to them, either for
> self-advantage, malice, or actual treason.

Well, sure. But then, being able to discern falsehoods in the speech of
one person per day for only ten minutes at a time is casting a net with
extremely large holes. The mere threat of its use will keep people on
their toes, but many gambles to avoid it will succeed. Then there are
magic items: it`s completely defeated by a Ring of Mind Shielding, which
in vanilla 3e could be standard equipment for every courtier of 5th level
or above -- or a Philter of Glibness, 500 gp for one hour-long meeting
with the regent in which you know no one can spot you lie. Blood
abilities are no more useful than magic items, so they should have costs
appropriate to magic items -- in other words, much much less than an ECL.
Even seemingly gross powers like Major Resistance to Nonmagical Attacks,
Great (from Blood Enemies) are revealed as not all that interesting when
you realize that Protection from Arrows is now just a 2nd-level spell.

Yes, in a world where magic items are very rare, blood abilities are
better than no magic at all, but wherever magic items and actual spells
exist they are generally more powerful than the equivalent blood
abilities, often simply because they are more readily accessible (e.g.,
several times per day vs. once per week). Even Elemental Control, Touch
of Decay and Travel, though very powerful at low levels, should stop
giving any ECL modifier at all once characters reach about 9th-11th level.

> As for Blood History, when a ruler sits on the same throne as his
> ancestors, their experience can add to his wisdom in matters of state.

Yes indeed. But it`s of little use in melee combat with a creature never
seen in this area before. To my mind, any use of the ECL modifier has to
be totally situational: if the power doesn`t ever come into use in an
encounter, then it shouldn`t have any effect on determining the XP awards
from that encounter. It means that a particular mix of blood abilities
should really say something like "+2 ECL for negotiation only" or "+1 ECL
for wilderness survival and +3 for personal combat". No single number can
express the true effective challenge of different types of encounters to
characters with very different design styles and specializations.

> Using a point buy system fixes that. Everyone gets the same number of
> points and spends them in the way they think they`ll get the greatest
> utility from them.

But this fairness breaks down as soon as you start calculating ECLs. If
one player buys Str, Dex and Con while another buys bloodline, and you
only assign an ECL to the second one, that`s completely unfair and really
nothing more than an admission that the point values in the buying system
are wrong and you don`t feel like correcting them.


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.

ryancaveney
03-16-2003, 06:03 PM
On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, Gary wrote:

> Particularly things like Table 12: Blood Ability Acquisition on p22 of
> the RB. That structure and progression of that table has always
> mystified me.

It`s a terrible table, I agree. Easily solved by Starfox`s method:
"A character gets one point of bloodline abilities for every full five
points of bloodline strength. Minor abilities cost one such point, major
abilities cost two, and great abilities cost four points." This tends to
give slightly more BAs than rolling on that table, but that doesn`t bother
me at all, and anyway it can be easily tuned to taste by changing the
conversion number (one point per seven or ten or three or...) and perhaps
refined by making some majors better than others, etc.

> thinking in particular of Blood History, which from I can tell could
> give the effects of a vast number of intellect based skill ranks.

Yes, and not just Int -- read loosely, Blood History could allow you to
use every single skill and feat in the game at a decent rank, plus Bardic
Knowledge. It needs to be limited somehow, perhaps with a BardKnow-like
DC to test how likely it is that you can remember anything relevant to the
immediate situation in a short time.

> Character Reading also is a rather vaguely written and
> poorly implemented 2e blood ability.

In 3e it`s really easy: +10 to Sense Motive. That is one positive change
in going to 3e mechanics, I agree. The skill system is better.

> Other issues include things like bloodtheft. In all honesty, I`ve
> been reading posts on the subject for years and I have yet to find a
> system of doing bloodtheft that I thought really worked.

Mine is really simple: "piercing through the heart" is purely a poetic
phrase. Any killing of a scion where there is physical contact, including
strangling them, clubbing them over the head or slaying them with a touch
spell, permits bloodtheft. Touch spells delivered by Spectral Hand work
too, since the hand is manifested from the caster`s own life force.
Ranged attacks will generally cause return of the bloodline to the land,
but if there is someone else in physical contact with the scion when they
die, that third party is likely to gain the benefits of bloodtheft. If a
whole group of people simultaneously kill a scion (e.g., the murder of
Julius Caesar), each of them will get some blood benefit. Certain special
situations have special rules: for example, the Disintegrate spell
destroys the bloodline utterly, not allowing bloodtheft but also
preventing transfer of stored RP to the heir; and killing a scion while in
control of another person`s body by Magic Jar will cause the possessed
body, not the possessing mind, to gain from the bloodtheft.

> Another issue that I`d like to see better developed is the monetary
> system at the domain level.

OK, this is no longer about bloodlines. At present, I am content to say
"the GB is whatever unit it needs to be to let the domain level work
unchanged." I periodically change my mind about how best to connect it to
the adventure level monetary system, but I don`t worry about it too much.

> Large scale combat is probably something that could also be endlessly
> refined, and I`d like to see a substantially more developed system.

Now we`re really far afield. =)

> but they retained a few things that I don`t much care for--like the
> 3x5 battlefield map.

Agreed. By far the biggest problem with the warcards is that stupid map.
I am actually perfectly happy to use the warcards, just so long as they
are spread out on a nice, big hex map with no stacking allowed. (I
actually use 1/2" square cardboard counters on the map, with the warcards
off to the side for reference, so that the battle can easily fit on a
small table.) I still fiddle with a wide variety of alternate systems,
but that one change removes most of my objection to the warcards.

> OK, sure. "All other things being equal" characters with equal
> character levels should also be equal in power.

Right. I`m just saying that if you`re gonna bother to count the effect of
blood abilities, which are generally on the minor magic item scale, you
really need to count up the equality of *all* the other things before it
starts to matter. Consider, for example, Heightened Ability: it should
not induce any ECL at all unless *just one single point* of ability score
difference due to *any* other reason also induces an ECL.


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.

mhelles
03-16-2003, 06:15 PM
I am 100% with Shade on this one. I am basically satisfied with the "old box" bloodline system. At least, it is far better than the 7th ability score rules.

I am not at all concerned about game balance. I don't need ECLs, CRs, or whatever to figure out how to DM a campaign that is challenging and exciting to my players.

On the other hand, it is a convension in D&D to game balance everything. So, ECL adjustments might be the way to go. However, I do hope such game balancing rules will be highly contained and easily ignorable by those of us who don't like (or need) them.

Just my thoughts...

mhelles
03-16-2003, 06:24 PM
> "A character gets one point of bloodline abilities for every full five
> points of bloodline strength. Minor abilities cost one such point, major
> abilities cost two, and great abilities cost four points."

Well, if we are going to have a new bloodline system, I'll probably vote for this one. It's simple, consistent, to the point, and it allows plenty of room for the individual DM to adjust it as he sees fit.

ConjurerDragon
03-16-2003, 07:57 PM
mhelles wrote:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1439
>mhelles wrote:
> I am 100% with Shade on this one. I am basically satisfied with the "old box" bloodline system. At least, it is far better than the 7th ability score rules.
>I am not at all concerned about game balance. I don`t need ECLs, CRs, or whatever to figure out how to DM a campaign that is challenging and exciting to my players.
>On the other hand, it is a convension in D&D to game balance everything. So, ECL adjustments might be the way to go. However, I do hope such game balancing rules will be highly contained and easily ignorable by those of us who don`t like (or need) them.
>Just my thoughts...
>
The ECL´s for major or great scions do bother me.

Not only do non-blooded characters LOSE their bonus to XP, now blooded
characters get a penalty instead.

While formerly Birthright characters had something in addition to the
core rules, now the special bloodlines will replace the advantage of
having one or more levels of classes which you will not have, because
you have a bloodline.

This disadvantage is not justified. The XP a scion loses over his career
adds up to large amounts of XP while the powers scions gain do not add
up to reflect this loss.

When we need to balance characters then the XP loss of scions should
reflect the gain.

And the best for this, when the gained ability is static, is to pay a
static amount of XP.

In Tome&Blood are several Prestige Classes who receive a "virtual" brew
potion feat to store spells in their blood (Blood Magus) or Sword (Spell
Sword).

A scion could during creation or when gaining a bloodline through
bloodtheft or investiture simply gain a "virutal" magic item creation
feat=Bloodline, which allows him to create magic items=blood abilitys
for which he pays the XP and perhaps the gp (ritual cost?) from the DMG
for the approbiate magical item.

IF the XP losses and costs for magical items in 3E are balanced to
reflect the posession of magical items vs. having more XP, then this
will balance scions with bloodabilites against those without.
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.

Shade
03-16-2003, 08:22 PM
>The simple fact of the matter is that bloodline needs to be incorporated
in a way that it feels like a part of the d20 System, not a separate system
that gets tacked on. And the easiest way for it to do that is to mesh in
with the existing tools in the system, namely skills, feats, and spells.

Simple fact according to who? That`s your opinion, not a fact. I disagree;
I think the bloodline system can and maybe should be modular, something you
can tack on to the existing system.

>To balance with the system as it is built, bloodline should not just grant
scions special powers with no kind of trade-off for commoners. It should,
however, open up many more OPTIONS to the scions.

I agree here. There should be a trade-off. But where we are in disagreement
is the size of the tradeoff. I think it should be small; you think it
should be large.

>But, as I was saying, I agree fully with geeman. The big changes in the
system from 2nd Edition to 3rd Edition call for big changes in the
Bloodline system, since it was built on 2nd Edition mechanics.

The only thing that depended on 2e mechanics were the effects of individual
blood abilities. Those are easily changed (50% MR changed to 25 SR or
whatever).

>One example I want to note is from the Forgotten Realms. In 2nd Edition,
noble-born drow gained extra special abilities for free, and in 3rd
Edition, those abilities must be purchased with feats. I`m not saying this
is the exact method that should be used, but it gives you an idea of how
the official designers took a look at a 2nd Edition mechanic and made it
work (and well) in 3rd Edition.

Not a bad idea, *IF* you buy into the need to integrate bloodlines with 3e
rules. I don`t.

************************************************** **************************
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.

Shade
03-16-2003, 08:46 PM
>Have you seen the stuff I posted about "2e bloodline in 3e style"?
>
>Gary

I have. I really like your ideas. 2e bloodline in 3e style would be a great
way to handle bloodline generation. My only concern is that the relative
frequency of bloodlines is off. Under the system as it stands, you only
need to roll a 14 (-2) to get a Great bloodline. Under the old rules, it
was only a 5% chance.

True should be taken off as a possibility, and great should be increased to
15 or 16. Major should be like 12-15, and the other 2 should be increased
accordingly. IMO of course.

I think overall your 2e bloodline in 3e style works much better than the
scion class idea, which is not intuitive at all and rather clunky.

************************************************** **************************
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.

Mourn
03-16-2003, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by Shade
Simple fact according to who? That`s your opinion, not a fact. I disagree;
I think the bloodline system can and maybe should be modular, something you
can tack on to the existing system.


But it can't be completely modular. If the system from 2nd Edition was dropped into 3rd Edition, it would not work. Why? Because that system is built on 2nd Edition mechanics, which are vastly different from 3rd Edition mechanics. Thus, it needs to be rewritten to work with the d20 System.

If you dropped it into any other game, like Vampire, it wouldn't work either. For one, the traits range from 1-5 or 1-10... with your Bloodline 60 or something for the Gorgon, it would break the system.

And there's no need to make it modular, because this isn't about a Birthright conversion for the Storyteller System or for GURPs of the free WINDOW engine. This is for the d20 System conversion of Birthright, and it should be written for the d20 System. Simple as that.


I agree here. There should be a trade-off. But where we are in disagreement
is the size of the tradeoff. I think it should be small; you think it
should be large.

Not necessarily. If the scion's benefit is a large benefit, then yes, there should be a large tradeoff. If the scions' benefit is small, such as a +2 bonus to a skill, then the tradeoff should be small.

My argument with the way the system worked in the document went both ways. According to it, a "powerful" scion could have less power than a weaker scion, but still be a higher ECL. That doesn't make sense. I am merely pushing for a cohesive system that makes use of the new d20 System mechanics, as opposed to making it a completely seperate system that isn't connected to the mechanics.


The only thing that depended on 2e mechanics were the effects of individual
blood abilities. Those are easily changed (50% MR changed to 25 SR or
whatever).

Actually, technically, the whole system was built on 2nd Edition mechanics because of the fact that 2nd Edition had *NO* core resolution system. It was a hodgepodge of various "simulators" that were hobbled together. Bloodline, in 2nd Edition, was tacked on, just like most of the other rules released by TSR. Bloodline, in 3rd Edition, should mesh with system and give the whole thing a feeling of consistency.

And what about new mechanics that 2nd Edition never had? New rules and ideas that would benefit the conversion, but wouldn't be used because "there's no reason to make it work with the d20 System."

And what about those blood abilities that were given vague descriptions in 2nd Edition? Some of them are given vague descriptions in 3rd Edition.


Not a bad idea, *IF* you buy into the need to integrate bloodlines with 3e
rules. I don`t.

If we're playing 3rd Edition, then mechanics should mesh with 3rd Edition.

geeman
03-16-2003, 09:43 PM
At 02:31 PM 3/16/2003 -0600, Shade wrote:

>My only concern is that the relative frequency of bloodlines is off. Under
>the system as it stands, you only need to roll a 14 (-2) to get a Great
>bloodline. Under the old rules, it was only a 5% chance.
>
>True should be taken off as a possibility, and great should be increased
>to 15 or 16. Major should be like 12-15, and the other 2 should be
>increased accordingly. IMO of course.

The way I explained this to my players is that the background feat that
would give the +2 on the bloodline strength score would only be available
if the DM wanted to make the possibility of players having true bloodlines
available. One of the things I`m sure a lot of BR fans have considered is
the idea of running a "return of the emperor" campaign in which the
bloodline of Roele returns somehow with the character in question being the
stereotypical "boy who must become a man/man who will become king" so
popular in fantasy fiction.

The actual descriptors for the bloodline strength, of course, don`t
actually mean much unless one adds some sort of number to them in order to
have a modifier for the purpose of DCs.... This might be a better table:

Score Strength Modifier
1+ Tainted +0
4+ Minor +1
10+ Major +2
14+ Great +3
20+ True +4

The modifiers could be flipped around a bit....

There is no way to get over 16 on the above table during character
generation using the standard ability score generation (3-18 -2)
suggested. At least, not without some sort of bonuses. On a table like
the one above the background feat I was thinking would add +2 to the
bloodline strength score check could be upgraded to +4, but I think a
better solution might be that the character might have to dedicate both his
feats (as a 1st level human) to get up to 20.

I`ve always thought there should be at least one, probably two more
bloodline strength categories. "Touched" which would represent a scion
with the barest minimum of bloodline score (not more than 2d6 in the
2e-->3e system) and "lesser" between Minor and Major. While that`s
certainly not BR canon it would allow for a slightly different table with
higher modifiers, and there`d be no need to require the optional bonus to
bloodline strength feat to be taken twice, unless one wanted to just make
it _that_ difficult in which case it could still be 20+ on the table below:

Score Strength Modifier
1+ Touched +0
3+ Tainted +1
6+ Minor +2
9+ Lesser +3
12+ Major +4
15+ Great +5
18+ True +6

Just out of curiosity... how many true bloodlines are out there? Anyone
have any thoughts on this?

>I think overall your 2e bloodline in 3e style works much better than the
>scion class idea, which is not intuitive at all and rather clunky.

So far 2e --> 3e is my favorite too, though I haven`t actually had the
opportunity to playtest it yet. I want to give the bloodline as an ability
score method a little more time.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
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.

Birthright-L
03-16-2003, 11:49 PM
From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
>
> But this fairness breaks down as soon as you start calculating ECLs. If
> one player buys Str, Dex and Con while another buys bloodline, and you
> only assign an ECL to the second one, that`s completely unfair and really
> nothing more than an admission that the point values in the buying system
> are wrong and you don`t feel like correcting them.
>

I say a general ECL system works fine with character point generation
methods. As long as the players had some idea what the campaign was going to
be about, and spent their character points building characters geared for
such situations, it doesn`t matter too much if that is combat, intrigue,
investigation or whatever. Naturally, a party geared for intrigue will be
worse at dungeoneering than a party geared for that, but that is always the
kind of balance the Dm has to handle.

/Carl


__________________________________________________ ___
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.

Athos69
03-17-2003, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by ConjurerDragon

The ECL´s for major or great scions do bother me.

Not only do non-blooded characters LOSE their bonus to XP, now blooded
characters get a penalty instead.

While formerly Birthright characters had something in addition to the
core rules, now the special bloodlines will replace the advantage of
having one or more levels of classes which you will not have, because
you have a bloodline.



I need to address this common misconception.

non-Blooded characters w/ 10% bonus to XP + Blooded characters at normal XP

EQUALS

non-Blooded characters at normal XP + Blooded characters with ECL XP penalty

There is still an XP gap there between both parties. All that has happened is that one group is receiving a penalty instead of the other group receiving a bonus.

Let's look at an XP progression with ECL, shall we?

To achieve a 5th (class) Level character -- unblooded characters require 10,000 XP total (1,000+2,000+3,000+4,000 XP). Blooded characters with an ECL of +1 require 14,000 XP total (2,000+3,000+4,000+5,000 XP), but they are considered a 6th level character for purposes of determining CR and encounter strength.

That's a 4,000 XP gap. A bit bigger than under 2nd Ed, but then again, you can'treally equate 2nd Ed XP with 3rd Ed. Vastly different animals those two.

-Mike

ryancaveney
03-17-2003, 01:38 AM
On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, Mourn wrote:

> But it can`t be completely modular. If the system from 2nd Edition
> was dropped into 3rd Edition, it would not work.

Yes, there will always need to be translation tables for the *output* of
the system (what is the exact game effect of any particular blood
ability), but there need never necessarily be any *input* system (how do
blood abilities get assigned to characters) at all other than tables 10 to
13 on pages 20 to 22 of the BR rulebook, used *verbatim*. Bloodline
abilility generation need never be changed in the slightest unless we want
to for some other reason. In fact, since there need be no underlying RPG
at all, there need be no translation table at all: only those blood
abilities defined as having an effect on the domain rules (Battlewise and
Courage(Great)) would need to be tracked.

As a matter of design philosophy, since the whole point of the overall
Birthright ruleset is to give procedures for running fantasy kingdoms, any
time the domain scale rules come into conflict with the terminology of the
RPG system you`d like to use to resolve adventure actions, *the domain
rules must win*.

Thus, no matter what RPG you play "on top of", whether it be 1e, 2e, 3e,
GURPS, Vampire, Ars Magica -- or Paranoia, Toon and MechWarrior for all I
care -- Prince Darien Avan`s bloodline will always always always be called
"Anduiras, great, 70" because 70 is the maximum number of RP he can gain
from provinces and holdings in a single domain turn. That and that alone
is the core bloodline mechanic which must invariably be preserved.

Vampire`s 1-5 and GURPS`s 2-12 and D&D`s 3-18 and Ars Magica`s -4 to +4
and RoleMaster`s 1-100 and Hero Wars` 13 to 10w4 matter not a whit. The
*sole* purpose of the bloodline score is to limit RP collection. For
point-buy character generation systems, you will have to figure out how
many points of which things in the rest of the system are the equivalent
cost of how many points of bloodline score, but the scale of the bloodline
score should never ever ever be changed because it is tied into the
regency point system (including via spending RP to increase bloodline and
gaining points by bloodtheft) which has *no* connection to any other part
of any gaming system. Bloodline scores *are* completely modular.

> And there`s no need to make it modular, because this isn`t about a
> Birthright conversion for the Storyteller System or for GURPs of the
> free WINDOW engine.

But generic conversions are always more elegant than specific conversions,
at least in so far as designing the most flexible system to cover all
possible bases goes. There`s no reason to change the blood rules in ways
that will make them harder to convert to any other system.

> According to it, a "powerful" scion could have less power than a
> weaker scion, but still be a higher ECL. That doesn`t make sense.

I`m glad you agree. I don`t think ECLs are the right way to go, but if
other people do, at least please determine the ECL from the particular set
of blood abilities chosen, not just the strength of the bloodline.

>
The only thing that depended on 2e mechanics were the effects
> of individual blood abilities. Those are easily changed (50% MR
> changed to 25 SR or whatever).

Here Lord Shade is absolutely correct. Blood abilities in the original BR
rules are generated completely separately from every other aspect of
character creation. You in fact do not need to have a character at all
in order to roll up blood abilities. Only the game *effects* of the
independently generated abilities actually *require* translation.

> If we`re playing 3rd Edition, then mechanics should mesh with 3rd
> Edition.

The output mechanics (having this blood ability has the same game effect
as having that feat), yes. The input mechanics (you must spend this 3e
feat to gain access to that blood ability), NO.


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.

ryancaveney
03-17-2003, 01:38 AM
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Athos69 wrote:

> There is still an XP gap there between both parties. All that has
> happened is that one group is receiving a penalty instead of the other
> group receiving a bonus.

Yes, this makes sense. The problem is not that the ECL idea changes the
inspiration or the direction or the name of the gap, it`s that it vastly
increases the size of the gap.

> That`s a 4,000 XP gap. A bit bigger than under 2nd Ed, but then
> again, you can`t really equate 2nd Ed XP with 3rd Ed. Vastly
> different animals those two.

But you can compare levels achieved. In most of the range of the 2e Xp
tables, XP needed *doubles* from one level to the next. That means most
of the time, even a scion with a *great* bloodline is only *one-tenth* of
a level behind, and doesn`t reach a whole level behind until about 18th or
19th level. He would not be two whole levels behind until level 28.

+2 ECL even for a great bloodline is just disproportionately huge.
And I pity the poor Orog at +3 ECL. Nothing is worth that penalty.


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.

Shade
03-17-2003, 04:45 AM
At 10:21 PM 3/16/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at:
http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1439
>
> Mourn wrote:
>
Originally posted by Shade
>Simple fact according to who? That`s your opinion, not a fact. I disagree;
>I think the bloodline system can and maybe should be modular, something you
>can tack on to the existing system.
>
>
>But it can`t be completely modular. If the system from 2nd Edition was
dropped into 3rd Edition, it would not work. Why? Because that system is
built on 2nd Edition mechanics, which are vastly different from 3rd Edition
mechanics. Thus, it needs to be rewritten to work with the d20 System.

Only the blood abilities themselves need to be reworked. The bloodline
`score` doesn`t depend on 2e mechanics in any way. It starts with a d100 roll.

>If you dropped it into any other game, like Vampire, it wouldn`t work
either. For one, the traits range from 1-5 or 1-10... with your Bloodline
60 or something for the Gorgon, it would break the system.

I think there is a misunderstanding here. If your bloodline is on a 1-100
scale, what difference does it make if strength is measured on a 1-5 scale,
a 3-18 scale, or a 100-300 scale? Your bloodline score is independent and
doesn`t directly interact with other stats in any way.

It interacts indirectly by determining the number of blood abilities you
have. The blood abilities THEMSELVES need to be modified as you go from
system to system, but the bloodline score itself doesn`t need to be. For
instance, say a 45 bloodline gets you the ability Heightened Ability in
D&D, Vampire, and Final Fantasy. The 45 bloodline score is the same in all
3 systems; but the exact mechanic for how Heightened Ability is different.
In D&D it gets you a +2 strength; in Vampire a +1 potence; in FF a +30
attack power, for example.

>And there`s no need to make it modular, because this isn`t about a
Birthright conversion for the Storyteller System or for GURPs of the free
WINDOW engine. This is for the d20 System conversion of Birthright, and it
should be written for the d20 System. Simple as that.

My point is, it doesn`t need any changing except for the descriptions of
blood abilities. A "surprised on a roll of 1" becomes a "+2 to spot and
listen."

>
I agree here. There should be a trade-off. But where we are in
disagreement
>is the size of the tradeoff. I think it should be small; you think it
>should be large.
>
>Not necessarily. If the scion`s benefit is a large benefit, then yes,
there should be a large tradeoff. If the scions` benefit is small, such as
a +2 bonus to a skill, then the tradeoff should be small.
>
>My argument with the way the system worked in the document went both ways.
According to it, a "powerful" scion could have less power than a weaker
scion, but still be a higher ECL. That doesn`t make sense. I am merely
pushing for a cohesive system that makes use of the new d20 System
mechanics, as opposed to making it a completely seperate system that isn`t
connected to the mechanics.

I see. Let me ask you this Mourn - are you opposed to the idea of paying XP
for each individual blood ability, rather than having a flat ECL for each
level of bloodline strength?

>
The only thing that depended on 2e mechanics were the effects of
individual
>blood abilities. Those are easily changed (50% MR changed to 25 SR or
>whatever).
>
>Actually, technically, the whole system was built on 2nd Edition mechanics
because of the fact that 2nd Edition had *NO* core resolution system. It
was a hodgepodge of various "simulators" that were hobbled together.
Bloodline, in 2nd Edition, was tacked on, just like most of the other rules
released by TSR.

I think this is a circular argument. So you`re saying that because 2e had
no core mechanics, and the bloodline system didn`t depend on that absence
of core mechanics, it was part of the 2e system of core mechanics?

>Bloodline, in 3rd Edition, should mesh with system and give the whole
thing a feeling of consistency.

I don`t think it is particularly necessary.

>And what about those blood abilities that were given vague descriptions in
2nd Edition? Some of them are given vague descriptions in 3rd Edition.

I agree that several if not all blood *abilities* should mesh with the 3e
rules.

>
Not a bad idea, *IF* you buy into the need to integrate bloodlines
with 3e
>rules. I don`t.
>
>If we`re playing 3rd Edition, then mechanics should mesh with 3rd Edition.

In your opinion.

************************************************** **************************
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.

doom
03-17-2003, 06:25 AM
> > I don`t like bloodline as an ability score
> > much at all. It has, however, been the most common one since 3e came out
> > and it appeared in Doom`s original conversion, so I think a lot of people
> > have gotten used to it.
>
> I very much doubt it. It has been the most loudly and shamelessly
> self-promoted, and it was maneuvered into the BRCS doc the same way, but I
> bet a lot of people just used the old tack-on system on top of 3e
> characters. I actually very much dislike that the `7 ability score`
> system got shoved in just because it was in PDF when the rest of us were
> publishing conversion stuff in html and email.

*sigh* I created my conversion manual for one reason only - for _my_
campaign. I released it to BR.net because I thought that others might
enjoy saving the time doing the same. It upsets me that _anyone_ finds
anything that I had a hand in "loudly and shamelessly self-promoted".
Certainly I`ll defend the intellectual positions that I publish
and subscribe to, but is this not the point of rational discourse?

I`m not certain exactly what it is that I`ve done that you find
disagreeable Daniel, but c`est la vie. You are welcome to use anything
from the original conversion or the parts that were used in the BRCS
that you`d like and to disregard the rest. You are welcome to tear any
of the work up on-line if you wish; several of your comments have been
of substantive worth and such discussion can only improve the work.

You are _not_ welcome to take potshots at me. It is unproductive,
unprofessional, and unbecoming. On second thought, since this is a
public forum, perhaps you are entitled to take potshots at me. I
certainly can`t stop you. Yet, I need not endure it.

I think that I`m going to take a hiatus from the list for a while. I
find that, for some odd reason, this comment actually upset me. Since
the entire purpose of these discussions (from my POV) is for enjoyment,
I think that is a signal that it is time for me to take a break for a
while.

I`ll be back in a few weeks.

- Doom

************************************************** **************************
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.

Mourn
03-17-2003, 07:40 AM
Originally posted by Shade
<snip comments>

This argument will just continue to repeat itself, as I am of the mind that the original system should be completely redone. Not just the blood abilities being updated, but the entire system being meshed into 3rd Edition. Therefore, I think we should take more looks at what we can agree on, and what compromises we can reach with other things, because if we can agree on certain things and get certain mechanics to a point where the community will agree on it, then we've made progress... and that progress may lead to other points where we can agree.


My point is, it doesn`t need any changing except for the descriptions of
blood abilities. A "surprised on a roll of 1" becomes a "+2 to spot and
listen."

It works... but it doesn't seem... right to me.

What do you think of it granting uncanny dodge? If you are rarely surprised, then being caught flat-footed is rare thing.

Surprise in 2nd Edition become being caught flat-footed in 3rd Edition.


I see. Let me ask you this Mourn - are you opposed to the idea of paying XP
for each individual blood ability, rather than having a flat ECL for each
level of bloodline strength?

Not at all. This is a good step. With all the comparison people make between blood abilities and magic items, XP expenditure is a logical step. However, I don't really think that each individual power should have an experience cost. I think all of the abilities of the appropriate levels should be looked at, and some reworked to balance against others of that level.

For example, there are some issues with Major Resistance (Charm and Poison). Charm grants a +4 bonus against Enchantment and a +4 bonus against the Fear ability. Poison grants you a +4 bonus against poison. Now, Charm grants you a +4 against an entire school of magic, while poison grants you the bonus against poison. While this seems alright, taking a look at some numbers shows some holes. For one, there are many more Enchantment spells than poisons. Further, in WoTC material, a +2 bonus against a particular school of magic requires the Arcane Defense feat (which in turn has the prerequisite of Spell Focus), while Poison Resistance feat grants a +4 bonus against poison. Both are minor abilities, but the Charm one is stronger. If this was reduced to a +2 bonus, it would balance far better.

However, I also think ECL is a good system, but the way it has been used thus far isn't right. The way the templates are written, the power levels of scions of equal bloodline strength can vary VASTLY, but according to the rules, they're the same. That doesn't sit well with me.

However, with the idea of Charisma being the primary ability score of blood abilities, I think that the templates can be reworked to take advantage of it, granting a number of abilities (the strength of which depends on your bloodline strength template) equal to Charisma, and then still base ECL off of the templates.

I also believe that all scions should have a Bloodmark... after all, divine heritage, though weak it may be, should show itself.


I think this is a circular argument. So you`re saying that because 2e had
no core mechanics, and the bloodline system didn`t depend on that absence
of core mechanics, it was part of the 2e system of core mechanics?

It is, but that's not what I was trying to accomplish. 2nd Edition was a collection of systems, most of which only related to each other in vague and contradictory ways. 3rd Edition was built to be a cohesive total, with each part of the system supporting the others. It works together to make the game balanced. When things for 2nd Edition were redone for 3rd Edition, they were not merely converted over, but were reworked to take complete advantage of the system and expand upon it.

For example, the High Level Campaigns in 2nd Edition added a bunch of new mechanics, and didn't really do much to expand upon the existing ones. The new 3e ELH takes the core system (and the classes and such) and expands upon them without contradicting them or even having to be a seperate, tacked-on system.


I don`t think it is particularly necessary.

Inconsistency is the best way to lose your audience. Ask TSR... oh wait, their inconsistency buried them, didn't it?


In your opinion.

So, in your opinion, when you're playing 3rd Edition, extra material should not mesh with the system?

Birthright-L
03-17-2003, 07:49 AM
From: "Athos69" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>

> Let`s look at an XP progression with ECL, shall we?
>
> To achieve a 5th (class) Level character -- unblooded characters require
10,000 XP total (1,000+2,000+3,000+4,000 XP). Blooded characters with an
ECL of +1 require 14,000 XP total (2,000+3,000+4,000+5,000 XP), but they
are considered a 6th level character for purposes of determining CR and
encounter strength.
>
> That`s a 4,000 XP gap. A bit bigger than under 2nd Ed, but then again,
you can`treally equate 2nd Ed XP with 3rd Ed. Vastly different animals
those two.
>

Still that misconception. A ECL modifier +1 character needs 15,000 XP to
reach level 5 - EXACTLY the same amount an ECL +0 character needs to reach
level 6. You need to have 1,000 XP to start play with an ECL modifier +1
character. In a campaign that starts at first elvel, ECL modifier +1
characters are not allowed. Of course, DMs can allow them anyway inder some
special rule, but this is how the rules work from scratch.



__________________________________________________ ___
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.

geeman
03-17-2003, 09:53 AM
At 01:03 AM 3/16/2003 -0500, Daniel McSorley wrote:

> > I agree with you on that one. I don`t like bloodline as an ability score
> > much at all. It has, however, been the most common one since 3e came out
> > and it appeared in Doom`s original conversion, so I think a lot of people
> > have gotten used to it.
>
>I very much doubt it. It has been the most loudly and shamelessly
>self-promoted, and it was maneuvered into the BRCS doc the same way, but I
>bet a lot of people just used the old tack-on system on top of 3e characters.

I wouldn`t really know what most people do in their campaigns, and though I
would prefer a system of bloodline that was closer to the original I don`t
think it has been particularly loudly or shamelessly
self-promoted. There`s been some debate on the subject, certainly, but
it`s been reasonable and even-handed. Maybe it`s just me, but the
opposition to the idea of an ECL for bloodline has been more vehemently
argued than bloodline as an ability score.

>I actually very much dislike that the `7 ability score` system got shoved
>in just because it was in PDF when the rest of us were publishing
>conversion stuff in html and email.

Given the amount of formatting Arjan apparently did, I doubt that was
really the issue.... I`m not up on PDF formatting in particular but
cutting and pasting text is generally not a lot of trouble. Doom`s version
was the first out there, so it had the benefit of primacy, which I think
was more of an influence than the format it was written in.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
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.

Shade
03-17-2003, 11:12 AM
At 08:40 AM 3/17/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at:
http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1439
>
> Mourn wrote:
>
Originally posted by Shade
><snip comments>
>
>This argument will just continue to repeat itself, as I am of the mind
that the original system should be completely redone. Not just the blood
abilities being updated, but the entire system being meshed into 3rd
Edition. Therefore, I think we should take more looks at what we can agree
on, and what compromises we can reach with other things, because if we can
agree on certain things and get certain mechanics to a point where the
community will agree on it, then we`ve made progress... and that progress
may lead to other points where we can agree.

Sounds good!

>
My point is, it doesn`t need any changing except for the
descriptions of
>blood abilities. A "surprised on a roll of 1" becomes a "+2 to spot and
>listen."
>
>It works... but it doesn`t seem... right to me.
>
>What do you think of it granting uncanny dodge? If you are rarely
surprised, then being caught flat-footed is rare thing.
>
>Surprise in 2nd Edition become being caught flat-footed in 3rd Edition.

In principle that makes sense, but 2 things to consider: UD is useful
outside of surprise situations (such as being attacked from behind), and
second, UD does not stop you from being flatfooted - it lets you keep your
Dex bonus to AC. It is a fine distinction, but an important one, like in
the case of the Flick of the Wrist/Iaijutsu w/ wakizashi combo (admittedly,
this won`t come up in BR, but something like it might).

As for the +2 spot/listen, I used transitive reasoning:

2e Alertness: surprised on a roll of 1
3e Alertness feat: +2 spot/listen
3e Alertness blood ability = 3e Alertness feat

>
I see. Let me ask you this Mourn - are you opposed to the idea of
paying XP
>for each individual blood ability, rather than having a flat ECL for each
>level of bloodline strength?
>
>Not at all. This is a good step. With all the comparison people make
between blood abilities and magic items, XP expenditure is a logical step.
However, I don`t really think that each individual power should have an
experience cost. I think all of the abilities of the appropriate levels
should be looked at, and some reworked to balance against others of that
level.

Ok, so what you mean here is that say, all minor abilities would cost
1000xp for instance, as opposed to Heightened Ability-minor costing 650 and
Enhanced Sense costing 750.

I would prefer to compare each blood ability directly to a magic item, and
derive the xp cost from that. This way WOTC has already done the work for
us, and we don`t have to worry quite as much about balancing within the
system.

I could see these 2 approaches being voted on. I prefer the latter, but
would not necessarily reject the former.

>For example, there are some issues with Major Resistance (Charm and
Poison). Charm grants a +4 bonus against Enchantment and a +4 bonus against
the Fear ability. Poison grants you a +4 bonus against poison. Now, Charm
grants you a +4 against an entire school of magic, while poison grants you
the bonus against poison. While this seems alright, taking a look at some
numbers shows some holes. For one, there are many more Enchantment spells
than poisons. Further, in WoTC material, a +2 bonus against a particular
school of magic requires the Arcane Defense feat (which in turn has the
prerequisite of Spell Focus), while Poison Resistance feat grants a +4
bonus against poison. Both are minor abilities, but the Charm one is
stronger. If this was reduced to a +2 bonus, it would balance far better.

Makes sense. I`m not opposed at all to this sort of tweaking.

>However, I also think ECL is a good system, but the way it has been used
thus far isn`t right. The way the templates are written, the power levels
of scions of equal bloodline strength can vary VASTLY, but according to the
rules, they`re the same. That doesn`t sit well with me.

I`ve found that in most cases, ECL just isn`t worth it - you lose too much
for what you get. 2e had the xp % penalty that worked alright in most
cases. ECL as a concept is okay, but from Savage Species to BRCS the
implementation is very flawed.

I will keep an open mind on the ECL issue. If we can really find a way to
balance it well without making drastic changes (like a scion class??? wtf?)
I would certainly reconsider it.

I still think the magic item=bloodline approach is better because this
allows for a lot of flexibility. A scion has the CHOICE to develop powers
if he wants to.

>However, with the idea of Charisma being the primary ability score of
blood abilities, I think that the templates can be reworked to take
advantage of it, granting a number of abilities (the strength of which
depends on your bloodline strength template) equal to Charisma, and then
still base ECL off of the templates.

I am strongly opposed to tying bloodline to charisma in any form or
fashion. I think it just makes Cha TOO powerful in the Birthright setting.
In a campaign that`s about rulership and diplomacy it is already pretty
powerful, no need to make it an absolutely critical stat.

>I also believe that all scions should have a Bloodmark... after all,
divine heritage, though weak it may be, should show itself.

I used to have a rule in my game where any character could pick up
bloodmark for free. However, I think that this should remain in the realm
of houserules.

>
In your opinion.
>
>So, in your opinion, when you`re playing 3rd Edition, extra material
should not mesh with the system?

I don`t think that it has to in the case of bloodlines. I do see your
point; I just don`t agree with it. Let`s agree to disagree for the time
being. :)

************************************************** **************************
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.

Birthright-L
03-17-2003, 12:11 PM
> > To achieve a 5th (class) Level character -- unblooded characters require
> 10,000 XP total (1,000+2,000+3,000+4,000 XP). Blooded characters with an
> ECL of +1 require 14,000 XP total (2,000+3,000+4,000+5,000 XP), but they
> are considered a 6th level character for purposes of determining CR and
> encounter strength.
> >
?? I`m a bit confused on this...why is the ECL +1 equivalent to 2
character levels when determining CR? This looks something like what I
saw in teh savage species book, but not quite. IN there. the characters
ECL was a combination of its monsterous HD + char level + modifier.

I thought ECL for a character was a total of their character level plus
modifier. So, a level 5 character with an ECL +1 would need the exp of a
level 6 character....if someone could explain this and quote a source, I`d
appreciate it.

Thanks
Sean

************************************************** **************************
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.

kgauck
03-17-2003, 01:11 PM
I`m more than a little irked that Doom has been criticized as a "shameless
self-promoter" who has "pushed his homebrew" into the BRCS.

Shameless: First off, what is the shame in sharing one`s creative effort?
Those people who put up web sites, mention them from time to time, or put
them in a signature, who post their ideas and writings, and who give us the
benefit of their labor are good for the hobby and the community. They (and
Doom in particular) have done nothing but benefit the rest of us with their
effort and creativity. This is shameful? Or is it shameful because they
don`t keep their work secret, showing a "proper" humility?

Self-promoter: Doom is fairly quiet on the list, doesn`t mention either his
conversion or his web site very often, and whose work as been promoted far,
far more by others than it has been by himself. This I take to be a sign of
a quality peice of work. The implied standard in such a criticism is that
we should not mention our own work to the group because its unseamly to draw
such attention to ourselves. That may conform to some Victorian sense of
decorum, but it doesn`t help the community or benefit anyone who has come to
this forum looking for gaming information, materials, or ideas for BR.

Homebrew: Someone is suggesting we try gaming ideas that were not pioneers
and tested on the gaming table? I would hope that the origin of all the
conversions and other ideas published here have a direct route to the gaming
table (or PBeM`s where appropriate). Its the gateway of first resort.
After that, Doom`s particular conversion ideas have been well recieved
(another indication of its utility to a wide membership), and other members
of the BRCS team (who outnumber Doom by a large number) embraced some of his
ideas as a group, which has acted as another gateway, before their inclusion
into the draft materials. The only way we can even identify which ideas
were Doom`s is because he did us all the favor of providing a conversion
manual, putting up a web site, and sharing his ideas here in this forum.
Its the existence of this paper trail which has allowed others to criticize
him for what can only amount to his useful and beneficial contributions.

If there is any shame to be had in any of this, I don`t think it lies with
Doom or any forum participant who puts forth effort and shares it with the
rest of us. Let`s consider this value of this creativity in the spirit in
which it was given.

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.

DanMcSorley
03-17-2003, 07:30 PM
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Gary wrote:
> I wouldn`t really know what most people do in their campaigns, and though I
> would prefer a system of bloodline that was closer to the original I don`t
> think it has been particularly loudly or shamelessly
> self-promoted. There`s been some debate on the subject, certainly, but
> it`s been reasonable and even-handed. Maybe it`s just me, but the
> opposition to the idea of an ECL for bloodline has been more vehemently
> argued than bloodline as an ability score.

Which is pretty dumb, because an ECL is the 3e replacement for the bonus/
penalty XP mechanics of 2nd edition. I don`t even know why an ECL is a
problem, because the munchkin powergamers can simply ignore the ECL
anyway.

Bloodline as a 7th ability score is both a wild divergence from the source
material, and a complete mismatch to the `ability score` type. Everyone
has ability scores. Not everyone has a bloodline, so it shouldn`t be an
ability score.

The 7th ability score conversion is a bad hack at best, and needs to be
dumped.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
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.

geeman
03-17-2003, 09:12 PM
At 02:11 PM 3/17/2003 -0500, Daniel McSorley wrote:

>On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Gary wrote:
> > I wouldn`t really know what most people do in their campaigns, and though I
> > would prefer a system of bloodline that was closer to the original I don`t
> > think it has been particularly loudly or shamelessly
> > self-promoted. There`s been some debate on the subject, certainly, but
> > it`s been reasonable and even-handed. Maybe it`s just me, but the
> > opposition to the idea of an ECL for bloodline has been more vehemently
> > argued than bloodline as an ability score.
>
>Which is pretty dumb, because an ECL is the 3e replacement for the
>bonus/penalty XP mechanics of 2nd edition. I don`t even know why an ECL
>is a problem, because the munchkin powergamers can simply ignore the ECL
>anyway.

I agree with your assessment of ECL for bloodline in a 3e conversion, but
my point there was that bloodline as an ability score hasn`t had nearly the
kind of shameless self-promotion that you`ve suggested. If anything the
opposite is true. I don`t like bloodline as any ability score--and _I
think_ I was the first person to say so on the boards/lists... at least my
post was the first critiquing the idea that I recall seeing after the
Playtest text came out. The responses from the folks who penned that text
to criticism has been measured and even-tempered.

>Bloodline as a 7th ability score is both a wild divergence from the source
>material, and a complete mismatch to the `ability score` type. Everyone
>has ability scores. Not everyone has a bloodline, so it shouldn`t be an
>ability score.
>
>The 7th ability score conversion is a bad hack at best, and needs to be
>dumped.

I remember downloading Doom`s original conversion many moons ago and
reading the section that converted bloodline into an ability
score. "Ooh... well, I`m not going to be using THAT," was my first
response. I immediately didn`t like it. I discussed the system with a
couple of fellow gamers, at least one of whom liked the idea. I still
think that person would be better off using an entirely different ability
score to reflect his ideas on how a character trait that has more in common
with "mana" or something similar, rather than trying to use bloodline
converted into an ability score and then changing that into a system that
was the basis for a different method of doing spellcasting... but I digress.

The point is that for a long while Doom`s original conversion that made
bloodline an ability score was all that was out there. It still is. I
didn`t like the idea, but I didn`t come up with something better. At
least, not for public consumption by the BR community--I wrote up enough to
get me through my own gaming sessions, but nothing even remotely complete
enough to legitimately represent a useable alternative system. Nor has
anyone else. No one else has even written up a conversion of the blood
abilities into a 3e format. I haven`t seen such an alternative. Without
such an alternative the complaints about bloodline as an ability score all
rather ring hollow.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
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.

Mourn
03-17-2003, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by Shade
Sounds good!

Glad you agree. Limited progress is better than no progress, after all.


In principle that makes sense, but 2 things to consider: UD is useful
outside of surprise situations (such as being attacked from behind), and
second, UD does not stop you from being flatfooted - it lets you keep your
Dex bonus to AC. It is a fine distinction, but an important one, like in
the case of the Flick of the Wrist/Iaijutsu w/ wakizashi combo (admittedly,
this won`t come up in BR, but something like it might).

Good point. What about allowing the scion to react during a surprise round, even if they would not be able to do so normally? The character can react before thinking. "Before we even knew the brigan's was upon us, his lordship already had their leader cloven in twain!"



As for the +2 spot/listen, I used transitive reasoning:

2e Alertness: surprised on a roll of 1
3e Alertness feat: +2 spot/listen
3e Alertness blood ability = 3e Alertness feat


It uses existing mechanics, which I never have a problem with.


Ok, so what you mean here is that say, all minor abilities would cost
1000xp for instance, as opposed to Heightened Ability-minor costing 650 and
Enhanced Sense costing 750.

I would prefer to compare each blood ability directly to a magic item, and
derive the xp cost from that. This way WOTC has already done the work for
us, and we don`t have to worry quite as much about balancing within the
system.

I could see these 2 approaches being voted on. I prefer the latter, but
would not necessarily reject the former.

Lemme give a bit more explanation, since the categories don't define themselves well to this. Say a blood ability grants that +2 Listen and +2 Spot. Using the system laid out in the Tome and Blood (pg 74), this is how that blood ability would break down.

Primary Ability - +2 Listen (Bonus squared x 20 gp)
Secondary Ability - +2 Spot (Second similar power = 3/4 power base price)

2^2 = 4 x 20 = 80 gp
80 gp * 3/4 = 60 gp
140 gp * 1/25 = 5.56 XP (round down to 5 XP).

5 XP for the Alertness feat, according to those rules.

The base price may have to be the one used..


Makes sense. I`m not opposed at all to this sort of tweaking.

Good. My biggest issues, honestly, are balance. Even if none of the methods for Bloodline I suggest get used, if balance is kept, them I'm satisfied.


I`ve found that in most cases, ECL just isn`t worth it - you lose too much
for what you get. 2e had the xp % penalty that worked alright in most
cases. ECL as a concept is okay, but from Savage Species to BRCS the
implementation is very flawed.

Then it just needs to rebalanced to give more powers for the ECL then. If ECL can't be balanced, then it should be dropped.


I will keep an open mind on the ECL issue. If we can really find a way to
balance it well without making drastic changes (like a scion class??? wtf?)
I would certainly reconsider it.

A regent class wouldn't be a bad thing, one that focuses on holdings (granting special abilities on domain adventures) and maybe even gaining bonus blood abilities.


I still think the magic item=bloodline approach is better because this
allows for a lot of flexibility. A scion has the CHOICE to develop powers
if he wants to.

Agreed. As long as a cohesive system can be hammered out, this works perfectly. It will represent the XP bonus commoners received, since scions would be spending XP on their abilities. Also NPC villain scions would be easier to customized, since you are limited by XP and DMs can give them as much XP as they need.


I am strongly opposed to tying bloodline to charisma in any form or
fashion. I think it just makes Cha TOO powerful in the Birthright setting.
In a campaign that`s about rulership and diplomacy it is already pretty
powerful, no need to make it an absolutely critical stat.

I think Charisma needs a bigger place in Birthright than other settings. Two core classes rely primarily on it (bard and sorcerer), one uses it moderately (paladin), and two more make minor use of it (cleric and rogue). The other classes, as written in the core books, don't really need Charisma. It's vastly underused by most players.

It represents force of personality and strength of character, which I think a scion should have, whether it be good or evil. I think tying it to Bloodline for terms of saving throw DCs and maybe access to abilities, like a spellcasting ability score, would work well, and not make it overly powerful.


I used to have a rule in my game where any character could pick up
bloodmark for free. However, I think that this should remain in the realm
of houserules.

That's true. Just my opinion on the matter.


I don`t think that it has to in the case of bloodlines. I do see your
point; I just don`t agree with it. Let`s agree to disagree for the time
being. :)

Well, we both understand where the other is coming from, and that's important for effective communication. Since it was not directly derived from any existing mechanics in 2nd, you find no reason to directly attach it to any existing mechanics in 3rd Edition. Reworking it to do so would require a lot more work than is being done now, because every little change would open up new holes in the system, and it would just continue.

Mourn
03-17-2003, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by geeman
Without such an alternative the complaints about bloodline as an ability score all rather ring hollow.

Agreed. If you think it's such a horrible system, then come up with an alternative.

Don't just knock a system without being able to provide anything of substance.

ryancaveney
03-17-2003, 09:57 PM
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, daniel mcsorley wrote:

> Which is pretty dumb, because an ECL is the 3e replacement for the
> bonus/penalty XP mechanics of 2nd edition.

It`s an excessive, too-heavy-handed replacement that to me really doesn`t
do the job very well, and in any case doesn`t make any in-game sense at
all. Actually, the previous edition XP penalties also didn`t make any
in-game sense at all in exactly the same way, so I didn`t like them then
either; but I didn`t get so worked up about them because the end effect
was so much smaller. My reasoning is this: being more powerful doesn`t
make you a slower learner. It just doesn`t. Therefore ECLs (and pretty
much all forms of XP fudging, actually) should be dumped entirely, and a
new balancing mechanism found.

Note, however, that I do support all sorts of wild games with XP at the
time of character generation -- just not once play has begun. Deciding
more powerful people will start having learned less is perfectly fine;
deciding they will be forced to learn less from the same relative
experience (I might accept using ECLs to modify XP awards, but I can never
accept using ECLs to modify XP expenditure) is not.

You may say: ECL is a 3e mechanic, so we should go with it.
I would respond: it is an inherently broken mechanic, so setting
designers should bend over backwards to avoid using it.

> I don`t even know why an ECL is a problem, because the munchkin
> powergamers can simply ignore the ECL anyway.

Even if I liked XP-fiddling mechanisms (which I don`t, unless perhaps
when they are linked to the Int stat, or something like RoleMaster`s
"self-discipline" stat), I would still object to ECLs in game-world design
terms. ECLs are for making people within a given party come out to
roughly the same power level at a given number of XP (which is a
moderately reasonable definition of intra-party balance), and for
calculating the CR of a monster with class levels (which is a fine way to
figure XP awards for defeating it). ECLs, however, suck at large-scale
demographics, because it makes no logical sense at all to say that given
exactly the same amount of battle experience *even calculated according to
their ECL-increased level*, a bunch of Orog warriors learn three levels`
less skills, feats, BAB, HD, etc. out of the deal than a bunch of human
warriors do. In-party, ECLs might be reasonable. Out-party, they`re not
at all reasonable.

I`m not talking about "munchkin power gamers", I`m talking about DM NPC
creatures of fairly low level. They are the ones most penalized by
including ECLs at all. I suppose you could say I shouldn`t apply them to
NPCs, and in fact that a party composed *entirely* of characters with ECL
adjustments could be treated easily by subtracting the lowest ECL from
everyone (e.g., a party of +2 ECL and +3 ECL characters would maintain
the same relative power balance if they spent XP as 0 ECL and +1 ECL
characters), but I`m generally pretty opposed to having different rules
for PCs and NPCs.

> Bloodline as a 7th ability score is both a wild divergence from the
> source material, and a complete mismatch to the `ability score` type.
> Everyone has ability scores. Not everyone has a bloodline, so it
> shouldn`t be an ability score. [...] it`s a bad parallel, and will
> result in thinking of it wrong, because bloodline is very little like
> an ability score. It`s much more variable than ability scores, it
> can`t be buffed or drained by spells, not everyone has one, it can`t
> be raised by spending your ability increase on it at every 4th level.
> It`s not an ability score at all.

Here I agree completely. It could conceivably be balanced against ability
scores in character generation, but that is in my mind an entirely
separate question. However it is balanced -- if at all -- it shouldn`t be
treated in play as an ability score, for exactly the reasons you state.
It doesn`t act at all like an ability score, so it is wrong to call it one.


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.

ryancaveney
03-17-2003, 10:12 PM
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Gary wrote:

> The point is that for a long while Doom`s original conversion that made
> bloodline an ability score was all that was out there. It still is.

That`s simply not true. The *original, unconverted* system in which
bloodline score is a number tacked on to blooded scions completely
independent of actual ability scores, and in which the number represents
precisely the maximum number of RP collectable per DT, is out there, and
always has been. I personally can`t see how any "conversion" of it is
necessary, or could ever be considered an improvement. Bloodline score
functions primarily (in fact almost solely) at the domain level, so it is
and of right ought to be completely free and independent of whatever RPG
system is used to run adventures (apologies to T. Jefferson).

> No one else has even written up a conversion of the blood
> abilities into a 3e format.

That is a completely separate thing! To play adventures using 3e, a
conversion of the effects of particular blood abilities into the new
game`s terminology is necessary. To play domain turns, any alteration of
the bloodline score itself makes things much worse.


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.

ryancaveney
03-17-2003, 10:49 PM
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Shade wrote:

> I would prefer to compare each blood ability directly to a magic item,
> and derive the xp cost from that. This way WOTC has already done the
> work for us, and we don`t have to worry quite as much about balancing
> within the system.

I personally don`t like having XP costs for blood abilities at all.

That said, of all the XP cost ideas yet presented, this is the one
that makes the most sense to me by far, and the only one to which
I am not utterly opposed.


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.

ryancaveney
03-17-2003, 10:49 PM
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Mourn wrote:

> So, in your opinion, when you`re playing 3rd Edition, extra material
> should not mesh with the system?

Perhaps this is the real core of the philosophical disagreement.

In my opinion, when I am playing *Birthright*, any aspects of 3rd Edition
or 2nd Edition or GURPS or Ars Magica or X or Y or Z which do not mesh
with my idea of what *Birthright* is supposed to be are to be immediately
altered or discarded entirely.

The setting always trumps the rules. The rules never trump the setting.


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.

Green Knight
03-17-2003, 10:51 PM
I’m not sure how many might be interested in this, but I HAVE tried a 3E
conversion (been lying dead for a while though), initially based on
Doom’s 3E conversion (- 7th ability score). I may have altered too many
abilities for it to be edible for the majority, but by all means checks
it out.

The design principles were:

1. Stick as close as possible to 2E for the system (but changing some
things, like bloodline score and strength being more closely linked).
2. Options supporting both rolling and buying ability scores (since I
offer both options to my players)
3. Use ECL to balance scions with commoners
4. Since ECL’s are relatively “wide” allow for a certain variance in
number and magnitude of blood abilities within on strength.
5. 1 point = 1 Rp collected
6. Change the abilities to work in a 3E context
7. Make abilities of the same magnitude of comparable power and utility
8. Offer as many abilities as possible at several magnitudes
9. Remove/alter “cheesy” (IMO) abilities (like Greater Regeneration
Invulnerability), that I think is better described as part of a
bloodtrait/form change.

...and some of the abilities are still unbalanced and needs to be
tweaked; but I never have time to do it, so here it the link (I’m not
posting as it is quite long).

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/roerules/fil...20Handbook/5-Fe (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/roerules/files/1-Scion%27s%20Handbook/5-Fe)
ats/51-Bloodlines/

Cheers
Bjørn

-----Original Message-----
From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion
[mailto:BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM] On Behalf Of Ryan B. Caveney
Sent: 17. mars 2003 22:56
To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
Subject: Re: Refocusing the bloodline discussion

On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Gary wrote:

> The point is that for a long while Doom`s original conversion that
made
> bloodline an ability score was all that was out there. It still is.

That`s simply not true. The *original, unconverted* system in which
bloodline score is a number tacked on to blooded scions completely
independent of actual ability scores, and in which the number represents
precisely the maximum number of RP collectable per DT, is out there, and
always has been. I personally can`t see how any "conversion" of it is
necessary, or could ever be considered an improvement. Bloodline score
functions primarily (in fact almost solely) at the domain level, so it
is
and of right ought to be completely free and independent of whatever RPG
system is used to run adventures (apologies to T. Jefferson).

> No one else has even written up a conversion of the blood
> abilities into a 3e format.

That is a completely separate thing! To play adventures using 3e, a
conversion of the effects of particular blood abilities into the new
game`s terminology is necessary. To play domain turns, any alteration
of
the bloodline score itself makes things much worse.


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.

************************************************** **************************
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.

geeman
03-18-2003, 01:32 AM
At 04:56 PM 3/17/2003 -0500, Ryan Caveney wrote:

> > The point is that for a long while Doom`s original conversion that made
> > bloodline an ability score was all that was out there. It still is.
>
>That`s simply not true. The *original, unconverted* system in which
>bloodline score is a number tacked on to blooded scions completely
>independent of actual ability scores, and in which the number represents
>precisely the maximum number of RP collectable per DT, is out there, and
>always has been.

The original, unconverted system is pretty well by definition not a conversion.

>I personally can`t see how any "conversion" of it is necessary, or could
>ever be considered an improvement.

The blood abilities of the original system clearly can`t be used for
3e. At the very least they have to be converted. If you want to play BR
in 3e those at least need to get redone.

>Bloodline score functions primarily (in fact almost solely) at the domain
>level, so it is
>and of right ought to be completely free and independent of whatever RPG
>system is used to run adventures (apologies to T. Jefferson).

There are some things that could definitely do with an update, though, and
it wouldn`t be a problem.

> > No one else has even written up a conversion of the blood
> > abilities into a 3e format.
>
>That is a completely separate thing! To play adventures using 3e, a
>conversion of the effects of particular blood abilities into the new
>game`s terminology is necessary.

I think that would constitute a conversion. It also begs the question...
where is it? Where`s such a conversion of the blood abilities?

>To play domain turns, any alteration of the bloodline score itself makes
>things much worse.

I haven`t seen a better system all around than the original, but it`s
rather difficult to prove a negative, so I can`t say there`s no better
possibility out there.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
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.

ryancaveney
03-18-2003, 02:54 AM
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Gary wrote:

> The original, unconverted system is pretty well by definition not a
> conversion.

Quite the contrary -- my thesis is that the original, unconverted system,
which in this case I define as solely the numerical range of bloodline
scores and the use to which they are put on the domain level of play,
needs no conversion at all, and indeed that any "conversion" is likely to
create more problems than it solves. The random bloodline and blood
ability score generation system as represented by tables 10 through 13 of
the original rulebook is a bit more scattershot than I would prefer, but
it too is inherently independent of any RPG system whatsoever, and as such
also does not strictly require any sort of conversion at all.

> The blood abilities of the original system clearly can`t be used for
> 3e. At the very least they have to be converted. If you want to play
> BR in 3e those at least need to get redone.

As I`ve already said, many times, I agree completely with this statement.
However, that does not change the fact that the *effects* of the blood
abilities are completely independent from the way those abilities are
assigned to characters. The ability effects portion of the draft
conversion guide I think shows great promise, as does the discussion of
specific changes to it continuing between Mourn and Lord Shade. It is the
change in the definition of bloodline score, not the change in the
descriptions of the blood abilities, to which I object. The need to
change ability effect mechanics is utterly irrelevant to the topic of
changing the numerical range of bloodline scores. It is at present the
ability generation system, not the ability effect descriptions, with which
I quarrel.

> There are some things that could definitely do with an update, though,
> and it wouldn`t be a problem.

So would you also change province and holding levels to span the range
3-18 instead of 0-10? There is no need to change the numbers assigned to
bloodline scores. It is gratuitous, unnecessary, and needlessly
cumbersome at the domain level. There is no pressing need to change it,
so it should be left alone.

> I think that would constitute a conversion. It also begs the question...
> where is it? Where`s such a conversion of the blood abilities?

I need not present one in order to argue against the redefinition of
bloodline score as a standard ability score, because I do have an
alternate system for that: the original one, which works perfectly well.
They are entirely separate issues.


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.

Shade
03-18-2003, 02:54 AM
>Good point. What about allowing the scion to react during a surprise
round, even if they would not be able to do so normally? The character can
react before thinking. "Before we even knew the brigan`s was upon us, his
lordship already had their leader cloven in twain!"

How about this: we have Alertness (minor) equal to the Alertness feat,
granting +2 spot/listen. Alertness (major) could give you Uncanny Dodge (UD
IMO is much better than Alertness), etc.

>Lemme give a bit more explanation, since the categories don`t define
themselves well to this. Say a blood ability grants that +2 Listen and +2
Spot. Using the system laid out in the Tome and Blood (pg 74), this is how
that blood ability would break down.
>
>Primary Ability - +2 Listen (Bonus squared x 20 gp)
>Secondary Ability - +2 Spot (Second similar power = 3/4 power base price)
>
>2^2 = 4 x 20 = 80 gp
>80 gp * 3/4 = 60 gp
>140 gp * 1/25 = 5.56 XP (round down to 5 XP).
>
>5 XP for the Alertness feat, according to those rules.
>
>The base price may have to be the one used..

Urk. I guess I need to read the magic item creation rules. How much extra
does it cost to have a "slotless" item? What if we did something like using
the GP cost instead of the XP?

Obviously it needs some testing. I`ll go check the DMG later tonight.

>
Makes sense. I`m not opposed at all to this sort of tweaking.
>
>Good. My biggest issues, honestly, are balance. Even if none of the
methods for Bloodline I suggest get used, if balance is kept, them I`m
satisfied.

Ok - going back to a somewhat philosophical point: in your opinion, were
scions balanced against commoners in 2nd edition?

>
I will keep an open mind on the ECL issue. If we can really find a
way to
>balance it well without making drastic changes (like a scion class??? wtf?)
>I would certainly reconsider it.
>
>A regent class wouldn`t be a bad thing, one that focuses on holdings
(granting special abilities on domain adventures) and maybe even gaining
bonus blood abilities.

Again, I don`t like the idea of it (we already have an Aristocrat) but I
will keep an open mind.

>I think Charisma needs a bigger place in Birthright than other settings.
Two core classes rely primarily on it (bard and sorcerer), one uses it
moderately (paladin), and two more make minor use of it (cleric and rogue).
The other classes, as written in the core books, don`t really need
Charisma. It`s vastly underused by most players.
>
>It represents force of personality and strength of character, which I
think a scion should have, whether it be good or evil. I think tying it to
Bloodline for terms of saving throw DCs and maybe access to abilities, like
a spellcasting ability score, would work well, and not make it overly
powerful.

You don`t think Charisma is already necessary enough in BR??? All of my
players are picking 14+ because they don`t want to be ugly and disliked! I
guess we are just coming from different types of groups.

In my opinion Charisma and to a lesser extent Intelligence are the 2 stats
that a regent cannot afford to crap on, even as is. More than that, though,
I am concerned about the large advantage it would give to sorcerer,
paladin, and bard (they have strong enough of an advantage as it is, IMO).
One player switched his character from a mage (2e) to a sorcerer (3e) so he
could put everything into charisma, which helped him both at the
adventuring/combat level and at the roleplaying level (which is everything
at the domain level of play).

************************************************** **************************
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.

Shade
03-18-2003, 02:54 AM
Gary,

I think you are misunderstanding Ryan`s point. When he is talking about the
2e system, he is referring to 3 things: derivation (ie Reynir), strength
(ie major), and score (ie 49). He is NOT referring to individual blood
abilities (ie Iron Will, Long Life).

Individual blood abilities (Iron Will, Long Life) CLEARLY need to be
converted to 3e.

Derivation, strength, and score don`t, because they don`t have any direct
impact on the 2e or 3e rules. Derivation determines what abilities you have
access to, and that`s all. Strength means almost nothing game-mechanic wise
but has a big impact in roleplaying terms. The only thing that score
determines is how many RP you can collect.

YES I know the score is used to determine the number and quality of blood
abilities you get, but I think both Ryan and I are in favor of
standardizing that system.


At 05:12 PM 3/17/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>At 04:56 PM 3/17/2003 -0500, Ryan Caveney wrote:
>
>> > The point is that for a long while Doom`s original conversion that made
>> > bloodline an ability score was all that was out there. It still is.
>>
>>That`s simply not true. The *original, unconverted* system in which
>>bloodline score is a number tacked on to blooded scions completely
>>independent of actual ability scores, and in which the number represents
>>precisely the maximum number of RP collectable per DT, is out there, and
>>always has been.
>
>The original, unconverted system is pretty well by definition not a
conversion.
>
>>I personally can`t see how any "conversion" of it is necessary, or could
>>ever be considered an improvement.
>
>The blood abilities of the original system clearly can`t be used for
>3e. At the very least they have to be converted. If you want to play BR
>in 3e those at least need to get redone.
>
>>Bloodline score functions primarily (in fact almost solely) at the domain
>>level, so it is
>>and of right ought to be completely free and independent of whatever RPG
>>system is used to run adventures (apologies to T. Jefferson).
>
>There are some things that could definitely do with an update, though, and
>it wouldn`t be a problem.
>
>> > No one else has even written up a conversion of the blood
>> > abilities into a 3e format.
>>
>>That is a completely separate thing! To play adventures using 3e, a
>>conversion of the effects of particular blood abilities into the new
>>game`s terminology is necessary.
>
>I think that would constitute a conversion. It also begs the question...
>where is it? Where`s such a conversion of the blood abilities?
>
>>To play domain turns, any alteration of the bloodline score itself makes
>>things much worse.
>
>I haven`t seen a better system all around than the original, but it`s
>rather difficult to prove a negative, so I can`t say there`s no better
>possibility out there.
>
>Gary
>
>************************************************** **************************
>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.

DanMcSorley
03-18-2003, 04:00 AM
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
> Quite the contrary -- my thesis is that the original, unconverted system,
> which in this case I define as solely the numerical range of bloodline
> scores and the use to which they are put on the domain level of play,
> needs no conversion at all, and indeed that any "conversion" is likely to
> create more problems than it solves.

For instance, the random-looking multipliers found in the current BRCS
domain rules- you can collect twice your bloodline in RPs, store 5x your
bloodline in your RP pool, spend 4x your current bloodline score in RPs to
raise it one point.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
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.

geeman
03-18-2003, 04:00 AM
At 08:41 PM 3/17/2003 -0600, Shade wrote:

>I think you are misunderstanding Ryan`s point. When he is talking about the
>2e system, he is referring to 3 things: derivation (ie Reynir), strength
>(ie major), and score (ie 49). He is NOT referring to individual blood
>abilities (ie Iron Will, Long Life).

Well, apparently, what people mean by "bloodline" is everything except
blood abilities. I think that`s bound to cause some confusion. When we
say "bloodline" I think it makes more sense for that to refer to the whole
kit and kaboodle, and when we want to talk about the individual components
of bloodline (strength, score, derivation or abilities) then we should use
those terms.

So having said that, I don`t think you can meaningfully divorce blood
abilities from derivation, strength and score because any conversion of the
blood abilities is going to interact with at least one of those factors in
such a way as to represent a pretty significant change from the original 2e
system. Will the blood abilities interact with score or strength for the
purpose of determining DCs to resist the effects of those blood
abilities? Will derivation be used as the basis for determining new, 3e
blood abilities? Will bloodline strength still be the basis for
determining the number and power of those bloodlines? Any one of those
represents a conversion to a 3e system (and any 3e system of bloodlines
that didn`t at least make some changes to Table 12 and 13 seems like a
terrible waste of an opportunity.) It needn`t change the way bloodline
score is used to collect RP, or derivation determines blood abilities, but
it`s still a conversion. Even if one did the minimum conversion possible
to blood abilities, I think you`ve still got what amounts to a conversion.

Still, the point is... where is that conversion? People are used to the
idea of bloodline as an ability score because it`s been the prevailing
system for quite a while. The choices have been to use bloodline as an
ability score or do everything on an ad hoc basis because even that minimal
conversion of the blood abilities that is to remain more true to the
original 2e system has not been presented. I`m sure plenty of people would
love to see it, and lots of folks are decrying the existing conversion, but
no one has penned it yet, or if they have I haven`t seen it....

Gary

************************************************** **************************
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.

DanMcSorley
03-18-2003, 04:00 AM
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Shade wrote:
> In my opinion Charisma and to a lesser extent Intelligence are the 2
> stats that a regent cannot afford to crap on, even as is. More than
> that, though, I am concerned about the large advantage it would give
> to sorcerer, paladin, and bard (they have strong enough of an
> advantage as it is, IMO).

Well, paladins and bards don`t have a huge advantage, they can rule
domains, and they`ll get RP from them, and their charisma scores will
help, but they can`t cast domain spells, so a paladin could get RPs from
his temples and law holdings, but wouldn`t be getting full use out of the
temples.

Which brings me to what you reminded me of, can Sorcerors cast domain
spells? Do those count against their number of spells known? Was this
covered in the BRCS doc, or missed?
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
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.

Shade
03-18-2003, 06:09 AM
At 10:43 PM 3/17/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Shade wrote:
>> In my opinion Charisma and to a lesser extent Intelligence are the 2
>> stats that a regent cannot afford to crap on, even as is. More than
>> that, though, I am concerned about the large advantage it would give
>> to sorcerer, paladin, and bard (they have strong enough of an
>> advantage as it is, IMO).
>
>Well, paladins and bards don`t have a huge advantage, they can rule
>domains, and they`ll get RP from them, and their charisma scores will
>help, but they can`t cast domain spells, so a paladin could get RPs from
>his temples and law holdings, but wouldn`t be getting full use out of the
>temples.

? A fighter or thief can`t cast domain spells either. What is your point?

The problem is that paladin/bard/sorc already use charisma as their prime
combat stat. They have a big advantage over other classes when blood
abilities also depend on charisma, effectively giving them "2 for the price
of 1." Other characters have to sacrifice their prime requisites to be good
at blood abilities, but Charisma classes don`t.

>Which brings me to what you reminded me of, can Sorcerors cast domain
>spells? Do those count against their number of spells known? Was this
>covered in the BRCS doc, or missed?

I houseruled that realm spells don`t count against spells known for
sorcerers. IMC sorcerers and wizards are basically identical at the realm
level of play.

************************************************** **************************
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.

Birthright-L
03-18-2003, 08:46 AM
From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>

> The choices have been to use bloodline as an
> ability score or do everything on an ad hoc basis because even that
minimal
> conversion of the blood abilities that is to remain more true to the
> original 2e system has not been presented. I`m sure plenty of people
would
> love to see it, and lots of folks are decrying the existing conversion,
but
> no one has penned it yet, or if they have I haven`t seen it....
>

Now for some self-promotion. I``ve done this, and played with it for two
years, though I`m not entirely comfortable with it, as outlined in previous
posts.

At this point, it exists only as a part of my Birthright website at
http://my.homeip.net/abbe/birthright/blood...lood-frame.html (http://my.homeip.net/abbe/birthright/bloodlines/blood-frame.html) It is
distributed over several pages, so it takes some time to read. It`s mostly
done as a reference work.

The basics of the system are very simple. You use attribute purchase points
to bye a bloodline strength, then you get bloodline abilities as a direct
function of your bloodline strength. I`ve done away with the different
categories of bloodline except as purely descriptive terms. The abilities
that need an attribute to be based upon use Charisma.

The main weaknesses of the system is that it does not improve enough over
levels. If I did it today, I would probably add that your blood abilities
develop over time - you only get to pick 5 points` worth of abilities per
character level. And I would make the spell-like abilities scale over
levels, having the current abilities as the benchmark for level 5 characters
or so - and let these powers grow more powerful on higher levels. Not a
single player IMC has elemental Command, and that is a bit of a shame.

I`m especially proud of my Blood Mark ability, that grants a very cheap
Charisma bonus. That makes it a great incentive for players to have a
bloodmark, which I think the material should encourage. It is a semi-flaw,
after all.

I also have a system of bloodtheft that works and results in occasional
unfortunate accidents - two of the players IMC are now seriously mutated,
and another has a number of weird psychological traits.

Enjoy!

/Carl


__________________________________________________ ___
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.

Birthright-L
03-18-2003, 08:46 AM
From: "Shade" <lordshade@SOFTHOME.NET>

> I houseruled that realm spells don`t count against spells known for
> sorcerers. IMC sorcerers and wizards are basically identical at the realm
> level of play.
>

More self-promotion:

IMC, each realm spell is really a ritualized and strengthened version of a
regular spell. So in order to cast "Bless Land", you have to be able to cast
"Bless Water". this makes the question of who can cast which realm spells
very simple.

Check it out at
http://my.homeip.net/abbe/birthright/realm...ealmspells.html (http://my.homeip.net/abbe/birthright/realmspells/realmspells.html)

/Carl



__________________________________________________ ___
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.

DanMcSorley
03-18-2003, 04:59 PM
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Shade wrote:
> ? A fighter or thief can`t cast domain spells either. What is your point?

Under the original rules, not the hodgepodge skill RP collection rules,
paladins got half RP from temples, but no realm spells. So their realm
wouldn`t be drastically overpowered even if they got a charisma bonus to
blood abilities. Bards, likewise, collected RPs from hardly anything.
Half from guilds, right?

> The problem is that paladin/bard/sorc already use charisma as their prime
> combat stat. They have a big advantage over other classes when blood
> abilities also depend on charisma, effectively giving them "2 for the price
> of 1." Other characters have to sacrifice their prime requisites to be good
> at blood abilities, but Charisma classes don`t.

I don`t think this is a problem. A paladin needs high Str and Con for
fighting, Wisdom to cast spells, and Charisma to turn undead, right? By
that logic, a fighter is better off than a paladin if charisma is the main
stat, because he doesn`t have to sink much into Wisdom.

Bards need charisma, but are generally considered underpowered anyway, so
if they get an extra point to the DCs of their blood abilities out of it,
I don`t think that breaks anything.

The only one this is a problem for is sorcerors, but see below.

> >Which brings me to what you reminded me of, can Sorcerors cast domain
> >spells? Do those count against their number of spells known? Was this
> >covered in the BRCS doc, or missed?
>
> I houseruled that realm spells don`t count against spells known for
> sorcerers. IMC sorcerers and wizards are basically identical at the realm
> level of play.

That might be too big of a free advantage to sorcerors, since their
difference from wizards is that they don`t know many spells but cast them
a lot.

Realm spells should probably count for this somehow. Either tieing them
to a regular spell like someone else suggested, or making them spells
known directly. A realm spell should really be a level 1-9 spell with a
very long casting time, pricey material components (measured in GBs), and
a RP cost and source required, rather like the focus rules.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
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.

ConjurerDragon
03-18-2003, 11:52 PM
Ryan B. Caveney wrote:

>On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Gary wrote:
>
>>There are some things that could definitely do with an update, though,
>>and it wouldn`t be a problem.
>>
>So would you also change province and holding levels to span the range
>3-18 instead of 0-10? There is no need to change the numbers assigned to
>bloodline scores. It is gratuitous, unnecessary, and needlessly
>cumbersome at the domain level. There is no pressing need to change it,
>so it should be left alone.
>
:-)
I like your example. And I definitely want that all province start at
level 8 (because 8 does not cost anything in a point-buy-system)...
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.

irdeggman
03-19-2003, 01:34 AM
Actually Daniel, there was nothing in the original BR rules that prevented a paladin from casting realm spells. They just gained them rather slowly so it wasn't generally useful. If using the sphere modification contained in the BoP it made it even more plausable.

The proposed rules for Realm spells are that the caster must be capable of gaining RP from the source (Sources for arcane casting and temples for divine casting) they must expend a significant amount of time for research and make a spellcraft check to learn the spell . This is similar, but not exactly the same, to the way characters can learn Epic Level spells. The number of reamlm spells a caster can know is equal to the number of ranks he has in knowledge (arcana) or knowledge (religion). These spells don't count against the number of spells that a sorcerer may know.:)

Shade
03-19-2003, 01:40 AM
At 11:46 AM 3/18/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Shade wrote:
>> ? A fighter or thief can`t cast domain spells either. What is your point?
>
>Under the original rules, not the hodgepodge skill RP collection rules,
>paladins got half RP from temples, but no realm spells. So their realm
>wouldn`t be drastically overpowered even if they got a charisma bonus to
>blood abilities. Bards, likewise, collected RPs from hardly anything.
>Half from guilds, right?

I`m not talking about the realm level. I`m talking about the adventuring
(or interpersonal/individual) level, where the vast majority of blood
abilities have an impact (except for battlewise).

>> The problem is that paladin/bard/sorc already use charisma as their prime
>> combat stat. They have a big advantage over other classes when blood
>> abilities also depend on charisma, effectively giving them "2 for the price
>> of 1." Other characters have to sacrifice their prime requisites to be good
>> at blood abilities, but Charisma classes don`t.
>
>I don`t think this is a problem. A paladin needs high Str and Con for
>fighting, Wisdom to cast spells, and Charisma to turn undead, right? By
>that logic, a fighter is better off than a paladin if charisma is the main
>stat, because he doesn`t have to sink much into Wisdom.

Is it our mandate to rebalance the core classes? Basically what you are
saying is this: in the core rules, Fighters require 2 stats (str/con), and
Paladins require 4. That may be, but in theory, the core classes are
supposed to be balanced vs each other. The paladin`s wider variety of
abilities (spellcasting, healing, turning) is balanced by the fact that he
has more stat dependencies. Now if you add blood abilities, in which every
character has to spend points in charisma to get decent effect, you`ve just
added to the # of stat dependencies for a fighter without adding a similar
stat dependency to a paladin.

>Bards need charisma, but are generally considered underpowered anyway, so
>if they get an extra point to the DCs of their blood abilities out of it,
>I don`t think that breaks anything.

Again, is it our mandate to rebalance the core classes? You`ve argued
against this very thing quite often.

>The only one this is a problem for is sorcerors, but see below.
>
>> >Which brings me to what you reminded me of, can Sorcerors cast domain
>> >spells? Do those count against their number of spells known? Was this
>> >covered in the BRCS doc, or missed?
>>
>> I houseruled that realm spells don`t count against spells known for
>> sorcerers. IMC sorcerers and wizards are basically identical at the realm
>> level of play.
>
>That might be too big of a free advantage to sorcerors, since their
>difference from wizards is that they don`t know many spells but cast them
>a lot.

"Casting them a lot" is completely irrelevant at the domain level of play,
with realm spells. Being able to cast a greater # of spells a day is a
useless ability when it takes you a month to cast a spell.

Battle spells, however, are a different story. Since you can cast several
of these in one day, I enforce the spells known restriction on sorcerers
for these spells. My rule is that if a sorcerer knows the basic spell (ie
magic missile) he can spend a research action to try to learn the battle
spell version of it "rain of magic missiles." IMC `cast battle spell` is
essentially a specialized metamagic feat, that instead of increasing the
spell level slot to memorize (which actually is something we should
consider) requires a research action and increased material components in
most cases. Since the sorcerer already burned a slot on magic missile, he
doesn`t have to burn a second slot on rain of magic missiles. Now if for
instance he didn`t learn Charm Person or a similar spell on the Charm
chain, he can never learn Charm Unit.

>Realm spells should probably count for this somehow. Either tieing them
>to a regular spell like someone else suggested, or making them spells
>known directly. A realm spell should really be a level 1-9 spell with a
>very long casting time, pricey material components (measured in GBs), and
>a RP cost and source required, rather like the focus rules.

************************************************** **************************
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.

Peter Lubke
03-19-2003, 08:53 AM
On Tue, 2003-03-18 at 07:47, Gary wrote:


The point is that for a long while Doom`s original conversion that made
bloodline an ability score was all that was out there. It still is. I
didn`t like the idea, but I didn`t come up with something better. At
least, not for public consumption by the BR community--I wrote up enough to
get me through my own gaming sessions, but nothing even remotely complete
enough to legitimately represent a useable alternative system. Nor has
anyone else. No one else has even written up a conversion of the blood
abilities into a 3e format. I haven`t seen such an alternative. Without
such an alternative the complaints about bloodline as an ability score all
rather ring hollow.

Ahem. Simply not true.
I have a perfectly usable alternative system - which I`ve shared. But no
one else seems to like it because it doesn`t have any 3e (or 2e)
features (it`s not sexy enuff). It`s completely add-on.

I do think that a Scion class would be better though. (But, here you are
right - no-one has done one).

But I don`t think that it`s a valid point to score with anyway. Just
because no-one has come up with an alternative does not make a proposal
good. All criticisms are still valid. But any new proposal must stand
the same tests.

************************************************** **************************
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.

geeman
03-19-2003, 05:46 PM
At 07:55 PM 3/19/2003 +1100, Peter Lubke wrote:

>>Without such an alternative the complaints about bloodline as an ability
>>score all
>>rather ring hollow.
>
>I have a perfectly usable alternative system - which I`ve shared. But no
>one else seems to like it because it doesn`t have any 3e (or 2e) features
>(it`s not sexy enuff). It`s completely add-on.

Have you a link to your system?

>But I don`t think that it`s a valid point to score with anyway. Just
>because no-one has come up with an alternative does not make a proposal
>good. All criticisms are still valid. But any new proposal must stand the
>same tests.

I don`t like bloodline as an ability score--I said so in the post you
quoted. My point was that because it has been the most fully articulated
system for 3e any other system has to be at least as well articulated in
order to be considered a valid alternative.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
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.

jericho
03-19-2003, 06:55 PM
I initially liked the idea of having bloodline as an ability score, but on converting the bloodlines and abilities for the PCs that I had created previously, they had far fewer blood abilities. None in fact.

I would prefer the idea of keeping it simple and using the original bloodline scores, multipliers for the blood abilities that grant you a bonus based on your bloodline score could be remapped.

The bloodline would be generated separately from your base ability scores. I definitely don't like the idea of spending ability points on your bloodline. For starting PCs, if they wanted to be blooded then they would have to spend a feat to get the divine bloodline. Does this balance them with a commoner as opposed to spending the ability points?

If not, then apply an ECL to major and great bloodline characters. I don't particularly like applying ECL to PCs, but it's better than telling them they can't be as strong, agile or smart as someone who doesn't have a bloodline.


J.