More ranting against the Blood Stat

[AnakinMiller]

> Sure its balanced, but it offends my sense that scions should be no less
> strong, smart, or tough than commoners, despite having blood abilities.
On
> the contrary, I think the advantages of aristocratic backround, blood
> powers, and money should give you greater advantages to aquire skills, if
> not ability scores. Now, I`ll accept that a character with advantages may
> not be as challenged by some encounters, but I`m against having scions
> balanced by making them weaker in terms of skills or attributes. They are
> the best, the divinely favored, and the privlidged.

Hear, Hear.

*Loud round of applause.*

While I am strongly against the +3 ECL, I despise the fact that the Scions
are forced between the choice of having say an awsome CHA, INT or BLD. The
Blood as the 7th ability score is a broken system. Where did this come
from? Doom`s conversion? I understand that Dr. Doom is on the d20 team
that wrote the rough draft of the system, but why did his homebrew hack get
made the official system? I am against any homebrew rules making it into
the "official" (I am really beginning to come around to the line of thinking
that this entire Official BR stuff is simply an ego trip.) unless they are
solid rules.

The revised and expanded court descriptions are a homebrewed item that is
solid enough to merit making the final cut. The Blood as a 7th ability
score is not. Not only do you penalize the Scions by adding ECLs to them,
now you force them to dedicate one of their better stat rolls to the 7th
ability score, there by making them weaker. Whats next? Make them buy
Blood Powers with all their feat slots?

If you want to "BALANCE" the inferior to the superior why not take the 2e
route and give someone a bonus when playing a nonblooded character, instead
of penalizing 95% of all characters that are rolled up in Birthright?

-Anakin Miller
-------------------------
"What was sundered, shall be remade.
What was stolen, shall be avenged. "
- Engraved on the Crown of Diemed

************************************************** **************************
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]

>While I am strongly against the +3 ECL, I despise the fact that the Scions
>are forced between the choice of having say an awsome CHA, INT or BLD. The
>Blood as the 7th ability score is a broken system. Where did this come
>from? Doom`s conversion? I understand that Dr. Doom is on the d20 team
>that wrote the rough draft of the system, but why did his homebrew hack get
>made the official system? I am against any homebrew rules making it into
>the "official" (I am really beginning to come around to the line of thinking
>that this entire Official BR stuff is simply an ego trip.) unless they are
>solid rules.

Anakin,

You have a lot of good ideas and I agree with a lot of your opinions but I
think we should all remember that the BR team members have spent a lot of
their personal time and effort to produce this document. They don`t get
paid for this and they won`t get paid for it - and it`s unfair to say that
they`re doing this just because of ego. They are just trying to do the best
they can... any of us that try to produce a conversion will be criticized
just as harshly.

Remember also that this is the 0.0 first draft - irdeggman has repeatedly
said that nothing is "official" or "finalized" yet. Travis Doom came up
with a detailed system and while I don`t like the system, it is not a bad
thing to include in the original draft because it gives us something to
critique in the hope of finding a better system.

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

[AnakinMiller]

Yes, I understand that the "volunteers" have dedicated their beloved
personal time and what not to this project. But the simple fact that they
volunteer to do this should not suddenly become the *Holy Shield* of can do
no wrongs.

The d20 draft was written by a small tight nit group that was chosen by
invitation only from a tiny peer base. The BR Online community was not
taken into consideration when the "Offical d20 Group was formed and through
out the design process of the Core Rules Document." Anytime questions where
asked, the party line was we`re working on it, it is great, but you can`t
know anything about it till its ready for release.

The Official Rules as they currently stand include riduculious homebrewed
rules that have no basis in 2e BR or core 3e d20/DnD. But these are going
to be the "official" d20 BR rules. Everyone seems to think that because
this group formed and wrote the "Official" d20 Birthright document that,
everyone should be kissing their feet.

The rules as they currently stand are broken. They doubly penalize the core
concept for any birthright campaign. I realize that some people do play
unblooded characters, but the vast majority of characters in any Birthright
Campaign are going to be blooded. Instead of offering a small incentive to
people who are willing to play an inferior concept, the ruleset now
penalizes people who do not play such a concept. All in the name of
"Balance".

All the while the online community tears into the document. A slew of
complaints have been leveled at the document and the only major response
from the "Official" design team is a set of polls designed and implimented
for the users of the Birthright.net Forums. Alot of us DON`T use the forums
and probally never will, but the design team has already stated that unless
you go to Birthright.net and use the polls they have established, your
opinion will not count in the final draft of the core rules.

This is not how a fan based community revival should be handled. The
DarkSun fan community has been involved with DS3e everystep of the way. Yes
it has taken longer to reach final draft than this BR d20 will, but the fans
have been instrumental in the design and development of the final product.
Their opinions and suggests have been woven into the product. You cannot
even begin to make the statements that the same holds true for the
"Official" BR d20.

I`ld be willing to wager, that no matter how many complaints and arguments
are levied against the 7th stat (BLD.), it will remain in the document and
will be the "Official" d20 BR way of gauging Bloodline strength.

-Anakin Miller
-------------------------
"What was sundered, shall be remade.
What was stolen, shall be avenged. "
- Engraved on the Crown of Diemed

************************************************** **************************
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]

This is starting to go the way of the flaming posts of the December 2002 to Jan 2003 time period.

It is counterproductive, and basically personnally insulting. See the other thread for Doom's comments (and others voicing theirs).

Let's get back to the project and not use personal attacks as a means of making a point. Generally I dismiss points that are tied to personal attacks as being unworthy of attention. If the person can't make a point without attacking someone on the personal level then . . . . Oh well.

There are polls out there for whether we should use the 7th ability, whether we should use some sort of scion template and whether we should use some type of ECL modifier.

When I posted the polls I mentioned that those who only use the mail listing would have to use the boards to vote. Basically it is the only way to quantify the data.

[Azrai]

Anakin,

in some points I agree with you. However, one has to consider the following aspects working on a conversion:

1. Try to stay close to the 2. Edition rules
2. Use the possibilities given by the 3. Edition and publish a conversion with a 3. Edition
flair
(3. Make improvements of the game system)

It is not easy to find the right way in-between.

I agree that some people here have a very self-confidently opinion, that there is a "hard core" of designer which are convinced of their work and that it is hard to push something different through. I also see that the voting is not really democratic, since the number of voting members is too small compared to the mentioned "hard core". IMO statements like " this is counterproductive" are also wrongly at this place. Things have to be discussed.

Personally I find the 7. ability not so bad (it violates the 1. aspect, but ...).

[irdeggman]

Some reasons for using the 7th ability score for blood abilites (not in order of importance):

1) It is a relatively easy concept to follw. Paralleling the normal ability scores and is hence more intuitively understandable. (This is not something that can't be changed as it is only an understanding thing and not a mechanics driver, although for 1st time players it would be a great benefit)

2) It makes it easy to apply a "modifier" to adjust the DC of blood abilities. (This is by far the most significant issue. If we decide to use a different concept for the blood score than we will still need to come up with some way to make a ready-to-use adjustment for DCs based on strength)

3) It gives those who wish to play a non-scion something to make a trade off with. (Many people have talked about running "split" campaigns where a player has 2 (or more) PCs to run with one of them being a scion/regent and the other not)

4) It will help to eliminate (or reduce) the need for DM's fiat when trying to have players start as regents. (The question to ask of any system is how often do I have to use DM's fiat to make things work? If the answer is that it is commonly used then the system is inherently broke and should be adjusted.)

5) By using an ability score (and the bonus spells advancement system) it is relatively easy to "create" a semi-universal mechanic to determine the amount (and strength) of blood abilities a scion is eligible to have.

Of all the reasons I listed number 2 is far and away the most significant and any system used needs to address it.

[irdeggman]

Azrai,
My comment on "counterproductive" was refering to personal attacks, which are always counterproductive, not to the discussion of the viability of the system or of any other system. Discussion is usually a productive thing as long as it is not personal but professional in nature.:)

[Ariadne]

Anakin,

you seem to be very diappointed with the 3rd ED material. Yes, there are several "new" things integrated, some completely different and about some WE STILL MUST DISCUSS. But: It might be better to specify problems instead banishing the whole product. IMO this is very good in general and the BR D20 team has spend about 3 years in creating it. If you're unsattisfied with the 7th ability, I can understand this. You still needn't to take all presented 3rd ED rules in YOUR campaign. Take what you want and cancel the rest. If you want the 2nd ED blood rules, stay with them...

[DanMcSorley]

On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, irdeggman wrote:
> Some reasons for using the 7th ability score for blood abilites (not
> in order of importance):
>
> 1) It is a relatively easy concept to follw. Paralleling the normal
> ability scores and is hence more intuitively understandable. (This is
> not something that can`t be changed as it is only an understanding
> thing and not a mechanics driver, although for 1st time players it
> would be a great benefit)

Except 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.

> 2) It makes it easy to apply a "modifier" to adjust the DC of blood
> abilities. (This is by far the most significant issue. If we decide to
> use a different concept for the blood score than we will still need to
> come up with some way to make a ready-to-use adjustment for DCs based
> on strength)

DCs didn`t vary by bloodline strength before. But blood abilities are
spell-like abilities of the character, and the normal method for setting
DCs for those in 3e is to treat them as spells cast by a sorceror of the
appropriate level. This is how dragons, fiends, etc set DCs for
spell-like abilities. So a blood ability which replicated a 7th level
spell would have a DC of 10 + spell level (7) plus charisma modifier.
This could be modified by derivation- scions of Anduiras might use wisdom
instead of charisma, for example.

> 3) It gives those who wish to play a non-scion something to make a
> trade off with. (Many people have talked about running "split"
> campaigns where a player has 2 (or more) PCs to run with one of them
> being a scion/regent and the other not)

That`s what ECLs or experience costs or whatever for blood abilities are
for.

> 4) It will help to eliminate (or reduce) the need for DM`s fiat when
> trying to have players start as regents. (The question to ask of any
> system is how often do I have to use DM`s fiat to make things work?
> If the answer is that it is commonly used then the system is
> inherently broke and should be adjusted.)

This reason is meaningless- how is it `DM`s Fiat` for the bloodline to be
a separate number like it was originally, but not if it`s an ability
score?

> 5) By using an ability score (and the bonus spells advancement system)
> it is relatively easy to "create" a semi-universal mechanic to
> determine the amount (and strength) of blood abilities a scion is
> eligible to have.

The mechanic for determining blood abilities will be equally arbitrary, no
matter what the final scale for bloodline scores is. The chart from 2nd
edition is just as valid as `bonus spell advancement`.
--
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.

[Mourn]

Originally posted by DanMcSorley
Except 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.

In the current document, it can be increased every 4 levels, but it may not remain as an ability score. That was just one method that someone came up with, and it works. Most of the other methods suggested don't work especially well, so we're testing out this one and others. If you have a better system, then by all means, suggest it.

DCs didn`t vary by bloodline strength before. But blood abilities are
spell-like abilities of the character, and the normal method for setting
DCs for those in 3e is to treat them as spells cast by a sorceror of the
appropriate level. This is how dragons, fiends, etc set DCs for
spell-like abilities. So a blood ability which replicated a 7th level
spell would have a DC of 10 + spell level (7) plus charisma modifier.
This could be modified by derivation- scions of Anduiras might use wisdom
instead of charisma, for example.

DCs didn't exist before, remember. Not all blood abilities are spell-like abilities, some are supernatural abilities. Also, most of the monster special ability DCs are determine by 10 + 1/2 HD + Ability mod (usually Con or Cha).

I do like the idea of different derivations favoring a different score, though.

The mechanic for determining blood abilities will be equally arbitrary, no
matter what the final scale for bloodline scores is. The chart from 2nd
edition is just as valid as `bonus spell advancement`.

Yes, but some of us would rather have the mechanics meshed into the existing system, with some tweaks and stretching of the system, not a separate system tacked on.

[irdeggman]

Many people have commented on how they use DM's fiat to "adjust" the bloodline strength of their players. My point on this was that if it required adjusted very often than the system needed to be adjusted so that it wasn't common practice for the DM to make these adjustments.

The ability and scion template system proposed would most definitely help to alleviate this DM fiat. If a player wants to be a scion he rolls (or using point buy) to create 7 ability scores. He then puts them where he wishes, if he wishes to be a powerful scion then he should logically place a high score there the same as if he wanted to be a powerful fighter (high strength and constitution). He then may choose a scion template (major gives him a +4 to his blood score, great a +8). Note that by using these increases he gains access to more abilities. The ECL scion templates also give him access to more hitpoints (based on his regency collection). I don't think most people really liked the 2nd ed rule of +10 hitpoints for a 0-level holding. The proposed system definitely ties the bonus hitpoints into the regent's ability to rule which seemed to make a lot more sense than the old system.

In one of my games I had a player who was extremely pissed off because he had rolled such a low blood score. I had told him he could be the regent of a province in Brechtur, but he insisted his roll made him ineffectual. Using the proposed system he wouldn't have had that problem.

Back to the scion ECL system. I posted a comment that on how would they stack up a with some of the other ECL races, Drow +3 ECL, Duergar +3 ECL, Thri-Kreen (+3/+5 ECL)? If they are looked at using a reasonable blood acore (say starting with an 11 or 12 before applying the template modifier) I think they come out pretty close.

[ryancaveney]

First, on the topic of self-promotion of homebrew rules. I do it all the
time, and I heartily encourage everyone else to do so as well! I want the
final conversion document to be a grand compendium of every conversion
idea that anyone anywhere has ever had, thoroughly indexed and
cross-referenced, with charts and tables to show differential impacts on
dozens or hundreds of game observables. I know that will never happen,
but I can dream! At the very least, I want to hear everyone`s house rules
for everything under the sun. I will never use 90% of what others post,
but the chance to steal *ahem* gratefully adopt that juicy 10% is the sole
reason I`m here, lying in wait for it (and occasionally trying to force
people into sharing ;). More data is always better.

Thank you, Dr. Doom, for sharing your work with us all these years and
encouraging us to rip it apart. I`m glad you`ve been around.


That said, there is a different grievance in this thread which should not
be lightly dismissed.

On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, Atarikid wrote:

> Yes, I understand that the "volunteers" have dedicated their beloved
> personal time and what not to this project. But the simple fact that
> they volunteer to do this should not suddenly become the *Holy Shield*
> of can do no wrongs.

This is indeed a simple statement of fact. Volunteer efforts are
extremely precious and heartily to be encouraged, but they are by no means
error-free; nor do they never bruise feelings.

> The d20 draft was written by a small tight nit group that was chosen
> by invitation only from a tiny peer base. The BR Online community was
> not taken into consideration when the "Offical d20 Group was formed
> and through out the design process of the Core Rules Document."
> Anytime questions where asked, the party line was we`re working on it,
> it is great, but you can`t know anything about it till its ready for
> release.

I know the makers of the document had their reasons for choosing this
course. However, I think the people left out of the making of this
document have at least as good a set of reasons for being angry about it.
What`s done is done, so we can`t go back and make everyone happy with the
situation, but I do feel that some recognition from the various parties
that there is legitimate disagreement over the best way to develop a joint
conversion -- indeed, whether there ever ought to be anything at all
labeled "official" -- would be a healing step.

I know the people who made this thing as a labor of love feel bad when
people left out of the making get pissed at them for being left out, but
I`ve got to say that you chose to make this problem for yourselves. It
was easy to predict when this all started that some people would get very
angry about the process. Therefore, I must agree that

> This is not how a fan based community revival should be handled.

Never releasing anything that everyone agrees on is far better IMO than
releasing even a "perfect" something (though of course we know such a
thing is impossible even in principle) at the price of such badly bruised
feelings in some quarters.


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]

On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Mourn wrote:
> DCs didn`t exist before, remember.

Sure they did, but it was a constant, a save vs rods/staff/wands or
paralysis/poison/death magic got easier as you went up in level. You`d
have to do a bit of subtraction to figure out what they were, but the
concept of rolling to beat a given number was there.
--
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.

[ryancaveney]

On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, irdeggman wrote:

> if it required adjusted very often than the system needed to be
> adjusted so that it wasn`t common practice for the DM to make these
> adjustments.

I know I`m endlessly repeating myself here, but there is a crucial point
which is too often being glossed over.

Just because you want to balance bloodline _against_ ability scores does
_not_ mean you need to make bloodline _into_ an ability score.

I might accept the former. I cannot accept the latter.

I heartily support some form of point-buy system to generate bloodline
scores deterministically, specifically in order to remove the gross
unfairness of the huge random variation in the standard table.

However, I think any change to the bloodline system which results in every
single blooded character presented in any 2e Birthright product not having
exactly the same bloodline score as they were printed with is a bad idea.

Generate bloodline scores however you want. I just think it is a terrible
plan to change the scale of the resulting bloodline scores.


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.

[irdeggman]

Another option would be to generate the score like any other ability, then double it to put it into the old range but keeping the halfed score for use with the ability modifer tables. A bit complicated but definitely doable.

[ryancaveney]

On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, irdeggman wrote:

> 1) It is a relatively easy concept to follw. Paralleling the normal
> ability scores and is hence more intuitively understandable.

I think it`s *less* intuitively understandable than "this is the maximum
number of RP you can gain per domain turn."

> 2) It makes it easy to apply a "modifier" to adjust the DC of blood
> abilities. (This is by far the most significant issue.

Divide by 5. Or ten. Or 7.382, if you like arithmetic. No worries.

> 3) It gives those who wish to play a non-scion something to make a
> trade off with.
> 4) It will help to eliminate (or reduce) the need for DM`s fiat when
> trying to have players start as regents.

Again I say, this is completely independent from having the number range
from 3 to 18 or 1 to 100 or pi to the inverse hyperbolic tangent of .999.

> 5) By using an ability score (and the bonus spells advancement system)
> it is relatively easy to "create" a semi-universal mechanic to
> determine the amount (and strength) of blood abilities a scion is
> eligible to have.

Starfox`s N points of abilities per K points of blood score is much easier
to both describe and use. It`s also a truly universal mechanic. It
should definitely be adopted.


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]

On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, irdeggman wrote:

> Another option would be to generate the score like any other ability,
> then double it to put it into the old range but keeping the halfed
> score for use with the ability modifer tables.

Possible. Note for reference that in standard BR rules, generating a
bloodline score from a given strength yields the following ranges:

tainted 4 - 14
minor 5 - 30
major 8 - 42
great 8 - 64

I don`t want to do anything in character generation that artificially caps
generated bloodline at just 36. Even the draft`s "great heritage" feat
only raises this to 2*(18+8) = 52. If you`re committed to this course,
I say triple or even quadruple is a better model than double. Or, rather,
since in the 3e DMG point-buy system you get an 8 for free, the best
conversion I can see is actually 6.5 * (Bld - 8), at which point making a
table to convert directly from stat buy points to bloodline score is
easier than introducing the concept of a Bld stat to begin with.


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.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "daniel mcsorley" <mcsorley@CIS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 1:20 PM


> the normal method for setting DCs for those in 3e is to treat them
> as spells cast by a sorceror of the appropriate level. This is how
> dragons, fiends, etc set DCs for spell-like abilities.

This makes the most sense for me. I`m kind of at a loss for a use for a
bloodline ability score modifier.

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.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 5:09 PM

> I heartily support some form of point-buy system to generate bloodline
> scores deterministically, specifically in order to remove the gross
> unfairness of the huge random variation in the standard table.

A wise man once wrote: "The setting always trumps the rules." In my current
campaign I have been lucky enough to have players who were happy to pick
character roles from my pre-existing campaign setting, so I was able to just
assign blood strength and some of the blood powers based on the family
connections of the PC`s to existing NPC`s. Players got to make some
selections to fulfil their character concepts. For me this is the most
satisfying way to handle bloodlines. If a new player wanted to create a
character from an area where I had no knowledge of the nobility, I`d be
inclined to just assign a minor bloodline and give the character 3d4+10
blood strength.

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.

[ryancaveney]

On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> A wise man once wrote: "The setting always trumps the rules."

*bow* Touche`.

> I have been lucky enough to have players who were happy to pick
> character roles from my pre-existing campaign setting, so I was able
> to just assign blood strength and some of the blood powers based on
> the family connections of the PC`s to existing NPC`s.

Such a situation is ideal, to be sure! I was only trying to suggest what
might be done by DMs who are not so marvellously fortunate. I agree that
the phrase you quote above is the higher law.


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]

At 06:09 PM 3/17/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, irdeggman wrote:
>
>> if it required adjusted very often than the system needed to be
>> adjusted so that it wasn`t common practice for the DM to make these
>> adjustments.
>
>I know I`m endlessly repeating myself here, but there is a crucial point
>which is too often being glossed over.
>
>Just because you want to balance bloodline _against_ ability scores does
>_not_ mean you need to make bloodline _into_ an ability score.
>
>I might accept the former. I cannot accept the latter.
>
>I heartily support some form of point-buy system to generate bloodline
>scores deterministically, specifically in order to remove the gross
>unfairness of the huge random variation in the standard table.
>
>However, I think any change to the bloodline system which results in every
>single blooded character presented in any 2e Birthright product not having
>exactly the same bloodline score as they were printed with is a bad idea.
>
>Generate bloodline scores however you want. I just think it is a terrible
>plan to change the scale of the resulting bloodline scores.

I really agree with Ryan here. If you want to remove the randomness, that
is totally cool - but the scale should remain the same. GT should still be
Reynir 49 and DA should still be Anduiras 70. Those numbers are only really
important on the domain level.

************************************************** **************************
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]

irdeggman 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=1445
>
> irdeggman wrote:
> Some reasons for using the 7th ability score for blood abilites (not in order of importance):
>
>1) It is a relatively easy concept to follw. Paralleling the normal ability scores and is hence more intuitively understandable. (This is not something that can`t be changed as it is only an understanding thing and not a mechanics driver, although for 1st time players it would be a great benefit)
>
You could as well use the BAB table if you want to use a 3E table.
e.g. Bloodline of 6 (2E 12) means 1 major, 1 minor ability ;-)

But it will still shift the existence of bloodlines and their
bloodabilitys which changes the persons and their bloodlines in the books.

>2) It makes it easy to apply a "modifier" to adjust the DC of blood abilities. (This is by far the most significant issue. If we decide to use a different concept for the blood score than we will still need to come up with some way to make a ready-to-use adjustment for DCs based on strength)
>
The DC to save against a Bloodability could be the same as for spells 10
+ the level of the blood abilty (minor/major/great of whatever).

>3) It gives those who wish to play a non-scion something to make a trade off with. (Many people have talked about running "split" campaigns where a player has 2 (or more) PCs to run with one of them being a scion/regent and the other not)
>
And why should his 2nd character be equal in power to his first?
Why can´t a servant simply be less powerful - or a longtime general MORE
powerful than the ruler?
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]

Originally posted by ConjurerDragon


irdeggman 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=1445
>
> irdeggman wrote:
> Some reasons for using the 7th ability score for blood abilites (not in order of importance):
>
>1) It is a relatively easy concept to follw. Paralleling the normal ability scores and is hence more intuitively understandable. (This is not something that can`t be changed as it is only an understanding thing and not a mechanics driver, although for 1st time players it would be a great benefit)
>
You could as well use the BAB table if you want to use a 3E table.
e.g. Bloodline of 6 (2E 12) means 1 major, 1 minor ability ;-)

But it will still shift the existence of bloodlines and their
bloodabilitys which changes the persons and their bloodlines in the books.
bye
Michael Romes


But the characters in the books all need to be changed anyway. They didn't have skills and feats in 2nd ed, the base class descriptions and abilities are substantially different, all characters get to apply a +1 ability modifier every 4th level, etc. So what is the difference if every character needs to be redone (mostly from scratch) anyways. This arguement is too simplistic in its approach. It might as well be "because I don't want to change them". You have expressed other valid reasons for not changing and they are much more cohesive than this one.:)

[Birthright-L]

From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>

> But the characters in the books all need to be changed anyway

A plea for simplicity, here!

Most of the characters from the books have a very simple format, that gave
scant but sufficient information to use them on the domain level of play.
Like this:

King Uldviik (MRj; F6; Re, major, 22; LN) (from Tribes, page 50)

This was enough. There was no need for anything more. No attributes, no
skills, just a class, a level, an alignment and some bloodline info. If the
character was to appear in a scenario, this would have to be expanded upon
greatly, but at the domain level, it was sufficient.

I liked that. I liked the fact that the system was simple and
straightforward. I would prefer if we did not HAVE to make a full write-up
for King Uldviik and all his innumerable compatriots that only got the
shorthand description. And in very few cases do I see a need to change the
information included in such a capsule for 3E.

Thus I`d like the bloodline information to stay on the same formula it was.
I`d like the domain system no more complex than that it can accommodate
realms being run by characters for whom this is all the information we have.
I can accept more detailed rules for PC realms, but NPC realms should be
kept simple.

/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.

[ConjurerDragon]

irdeggman 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=1445
>
> irdeggman wrote:
> Originally posted by ConjurerDragon
>irdeggman 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=1445
>>
>>irdeggman wrote:
>>Some reasons for using the 7th ability score for blood abilites (not in order of importance):
>>
>>1) It is a relatively easy concept to follw. Paralleling the normal ability scores and is hence more intuitively understandable. (This is not something that can`t be changed as it is only an understanding thing and not a mechanics driver, although for 1st time players it would be a great benefit)
>>
>You could as well use the BAB table if you want to use a 3E table.
>e.g. Bloodline of 6 (2E 12) means 1 major, 1 minor ability ;-)
>
>But it will still shift the existence of bloodlines and their
>bloodabilitys which changes the persons and their bloodlines in the books.
>bye
>Michael Romes
>
>
>But the characters in the books all need to be changed anyway. They didn`t have skills and feats in 2nd ed, the base class descriptions and abilities are substantially different, all characters get to apply a +1 ability modifier every 4th level, etc. So what is the difference if every character needs to be redone (mostly from scratch) anyways. This arguement is too simplistic in its approach. It might as well be "because I don`t want to change them". You have expressed other valid reasons for not changing and they are much more cohesive than this one.:)
>
Changing Bloodlines changes something that was independent from 2E
rules, as in 2E core there were no bloodlines.
To change the class data like feats/skills instead of non-/weapon
proficiencys is converting 2E to 3E.

So while I see it as good to use the new 3E rules to replace the 2E
stuff, I do not see the need to change a bloodline system that was an
addition to the core rules and not part of it.

As someone else already wrote, I was even confused by the simple 3E
bloodline is halve of the 2E bloodline.
But you still collect 3E bloodline X 2 RP which again equals the old 2E
RP collection... Why not stay with the simple max. RP collection =
bloodline as it is completely independent from any balance issues
between characters and is used only on the domain level of play?
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]

At 09:56 AM 3/19/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
>
>> But the characters in the books all need to be changed anyway
>
>A plea for simplicity, here!
>
>Most of the characters from the books have a very simple format, that gave
>scant but sufficient information to use them on the domain level of play.
>Like this:
>
>King Uldviik (MRj; F6; Re, major, 22; LN) (from Tribes, page 50)
>
>This was enough. There was no need for anything more. No attributes, no
>skills, just a class, a level, an alignment and some bloodline info. If the
>character was to appear in a scenario, this would have to be expanded upon
>greatly, but at the domain level, it was sufficient.
>
>I liked that. I liked the fact that the system was simple and
>straightforward. I would prefer if we did not HAVE to make a full write-up
>for King Uldviik and all his innumerable compatriots that only got the
>shorthand description. And in very few cases do I see a need to change the
>information included in such a capsule for 3E.
>
>Thus I`d like the bloodline information to stay on the same formula it was.
>I`d like the domain system no more complex than that it can accommodate
>realms being run by characters for whom this is all the information we have.
>I can accept more detailed rules for PC realms, but NPC realms should be
>kept simple.

I`d like to second Carl here. The only thing that needs to be changed
possibly is class.. some characters might pick up a PrC or some
multiclassing. Fulgar the Bold, for instance, should have his class levels
adjusted for 3e but everything else should stay the same. His RP collected
certainly shouldn`t change, so why change the bloodline?

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

[Tempest]

I just want to leave my opinion about bloodlines in this playtest version.

We are playing "normal" campaings in Cerilia, so I don't know if this new system is good or bad in regent style of games.

Bloodline as a seventh ability is good idea, but I have found one problem in our games. We are using "point buy"-system to create characters, so blooded characters are weaker, dummier, clumsier etc because they have to use points to buy their bloodline. This can avoided by giving, for example +0 points for minor bloodline to buy stats, +4 for major, +8 for great and +12 for true. It is then up to player if he/she want's to play dummier regent than commoners are. Old system where bloodline was randomly determined from 0 to NN was crappy. You could have great bloodline, but your only power might have been deep blue eyes and your friend could have major bloodline and he can teleport through water, heal with his hands and so on. Rrright... That old system has become a joke in our gaming group (I have dexterity of rhino or sight of the mole). Of course some of the blood abilities can be great roleplaying elements, but ad&d/d&d was/is heavily combat oriented playing system.
I think players should have possibility to affect their bloodline strenght, derivation and powers in character creation. IMO it makes playing characters more rewarding when blood abilities support the idea of the character. So vote that keep the idea of seventh ability and possibility to choose abilities.

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by Birthright-L (Carl Kramer)

This was enough. There was no need for anything more. No attributes, no skills, just a class, a level, an alignment and some bloodline info. If the character was to appear in a scenario, this would have to be expanded upon greatly, but at the domain level, it was sufficient.

I liked that. I liked the fact that the system was simple and straightforward. I would prefer if we did not HAVE to make a full write-up for King Uldviik and all his innumerable compatriots that only got the shorthand description. And in very few cases do I see a need to change the information included in such a capsule for 3E.
Remember: Not erveryone plays only domain games. If you prefer it, right, O.K. Nobody says something against that. But there is the other part, who prefers "normal" table roleplay with characters who have equipment, an attack and damage role and you know how they look like. For those it is nessessary to describe regents (and not to leave everything to the DM). If you don't use/ need this, O.K., but it's described for those, who think different...
BTW shorthand descriptions are really boring.



Originally posted by Tempest

Bloodline as a seventh ability is good idea, but I have found one problem in our games. We are using "point buy"-system to create characters, so blooded characters are weaker, dummier, clumsier etc because they have to use points to buy their bloodline.
You're right. That's why we don't use the point buy system and role 7 abilities (x3). So the regent can choose a high strength or bloodline. ;)

[kgauck]

When ever you add a new attribute, you need to increase the number of points
available. Let`s say I feel compelled to divide INT into Logic and
Intuition (or Deduction and Induction). The standard 25 point allocation is
no longer standard. I`ll come up with underpowered characters. I need to
figure out what I want the new Standard Array to look like. Let`s say I add
another "12", so the Standard Array looks like 15, 14, 13, 12, 12, 10, 8.
That means I need to add 4 more points to accomodate my new skill at the
level I want it at. But, what if my new skill were optional? If the Blood
Strength can be 0, I have a problem making new point buys, since my standard
base-line is 8, and my new score is 0. The solution to this is generally
going to be a mechanism that has an uneven conversion ratio.

Let`s say I added one new point to the standard allocation. Let`s say I
allow the conversion of 3 Blood points for every standard point as long as
my blood score is below 8. If I scale the table of point buys below 8,
allowing each increment to be purchased at half a point. I can buy 4 for a
point, 6 for two points, and 8 for three points. Of course I could ignore
the blood points and spend my one standard point on some standard attribute.
That puts a player in a choice to either taking a 12 and turning it into a
13, or having an 8 in blood score. An acceptable exchange, IMO, for the
extra powers of being blooded. Tweak the ratio of standard points to blood
points, as you see fit. 2:1 puts the choice between moving the 12 to 13, or
6 in the blood attribute. 4:1 give you a 9 in the blood attribute.

In any event, you can`t add attributes without adding allocation points
unless you actually want low scores in this new attribute, or some
substitute.

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.

[CMonkey]

Oh god, are we here again?

Originally posted by AnakinMiller
Yes, I understand that the "volunteers" have dedicated their beloved
personal time and what not to this project. But the simple fact that they
volunteer to do this should not suddenly become the *Holy Shield* of can do
no wrongs.


I'm afraid I'm not as understanding as Ryan; if you do the work you get to make the choice.

If you're not even willing to visit a website to log your opinion, I don't think it's likely you'll be producing a 200 page doc to rival the playtest one.

Petulance, bah.

CM.

[Raesene Andu]

Originally posted by kgauck

In any event, you can`t add attributes without adding allocation points
unless you actually want low scores in this new attribute, or some
substitute.


The d20 Birthright Rulebook adds an additional 7 allocation points (total of 32) to make up for the extra ability score (see pg. 11 of the BRCS).

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Raesene Andu" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 5:43 PM


> The d20 Birthright Rulebook adds an additional 7 allocation points (total
> of 32) to make up for the extra ability score (see pg. 11 of the BRCS).

The BRCS playtest manual makes the mistake of just adding allocation points,
which doesn`t solve the problem Tempest identified.

> We are using "point buy"-system to create characters, so blooded
> characters are weaker, dummier, clumsier etc because they have to
> use points to buy their bloodline.

Adding 7 points just creates attribute inflation when a player elects to be
unblooded. The bonus points either need to be much more valuable as blood
score than they are as the other ability scores (I mentioned a 3:1 ratio) or
need to be granted only with a scion template. Otherwise I can elect to be
unblooded and just take the standard array and increase my 8 and 10 to 12`s,
and so forth with my 7 points. There is a sizable group of players who will
insist that scions not be otherwise inferior just to compensate for being
blooded.

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.

[geeman]

At 12:43 AM 6/1/2003 +0200, Raesene Andu wrote:

>The d20 Birthright Rulebook adds an additional 7 allocation points (total
>of 32) to make up for the extra ability score (see pg. 11 of the BRCS).

I think the issue is really that given the same point allocation, a
character who spends points on his bloodline has fewer points to spend on
other ability scores and is, therefore, less strong, fast, wise, etc. than
he would be without a bloodline. That is counterintuitive to many people`s
idea of what a scion should be, and differs from how it worked in the
original materials. That is, "character plus bloodline" rather than
"character with bloodline factored in" if that makes any sense. So unless
one is going to give X points to commoners to spend on their ability scores
and X+7 to scions making bloodline an ability score winds up scaling the
range of disparity.

The issue is rating the value of the bloodline for ECL and CR
purposes. Otherwise there`s very little reason to make bloodline an
ability score. There`s the need to a modifier to set DCs, but that really
doesn`t happen all that much and even on those occasions when it does come
up there`s no real need to make bloodline an ability score in order to
assign a modifier to the system. That modifier could come from amny other
sources. Regardless of the utility of making bloodline an ability score
the thing about it to me is that 3e doesn`t use ability scores to balance
against one another in order to gauge the power of characters. It uses CR,
ECL and EL for such things. Making bloodline an ability score for a "3e
update" then doesn`t really add up since that`s not the way 3e does things....

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.

[Raesene Andu]

Of course most of the problem you are talking about can be solved simply by rolling a few dice. Personally, I hate all point buy systems and never use them in my own campaign. For me it is random or nothing!

This is, more than anything, a problem with the 3E rules, which places too much emphasis on ability scores. Where in 2E it was not overly important how high an ability score was, it is now vital. To be a high level wizard you now have to have a high intelligence, a sorcerer must have a high charisma, and so on.

Point buy systems, while giving players more choice, create problems like the one you have highlighted, and this is one of the reasons I hate them.

[Birthright-L]

If being a scion has an ECL modifier, then scions should not have worse
attributes than other characters - that is, scions should get extra
character points to spend on bloodline.

If being a scion lacks an ECL modifier, then scions should spend attribute
build points on their attributes in order to balance them against other
characters (this is the version I used).

Any other version abandons balance IMHO. Of course, individual DMs may
choose to abandon balance. As an example, I gave my prime scion a +20 bonus
on bloodline (1-100 scale). But this should not be a part of the rules. It
can be mentioned as an option in some notes or a sidebar, though.

/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.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Raesene Andu" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 2:20 AM


> Point buy systems, while giving players more choice, create problems
> like the one you have highlighted, and this is one of the reasons I hate
them.

Since one who finds a particular mechanic distasteful will not do the best
job constructing it, I`ll trust that another hand was behind the point buy
rules. :-)

The preference for a random ability score or a point buy is largely a matter
of taste. We can`t just write off a good point buy system just because no
one has bothered to produce a good one. Someone with a preference for such
a system is the one who needs to pen the final system. It should be
consistant with the random version in all of its extrinsic effects (for
example, if the random system uses a 7th attribute, the point buy must as
well), but otherwise use what mechanics best serve the virtues which make a
point buy system attractive to its partisans.

I see that Gary wants to revisit the very question of a 7th attribute, and
certainly this must preceed any real construction of an alternative
attribute system. I don`t use a 7th attribute, and I know that other`s
don`t either. But I am interested in seeing a viable point buy system in
whatever constitutes the final BRCS.

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.

[Birthright-L]

> Raesene Andu wrote:
> Of course most of the problem you are talking about can be solved simply
> by rolling a few dice. Personally, I hate all point buy systems and never
use
> them in my own campaign. For me it is random or nothing!

I don`t think that`s a way around the problem.

There is no fundamental difference between rolling seven ability scores and
"giving up" bloodline by placing your worst score in that category on one
hand, and putting zero attribute build points in your bloodline score on the
other. In both cases, your other attributes end up slightly better than they
would if you had rolled six ability scores or started out with a few build
points less.

The problem remains; if you have seven attributes, and dump one of them, you
get better scores in the other ones than you would if you only had those six
attributes.

/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.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Birthright-L

> Raesene Andu wrote:
> Of course most of the problem you are talking about can be solved simply
> by rolling a few dice. Personally, I hate all point buy systems and never
use
> them in my own campaign. For me it is random or nothing!

I don`t think that`s a way around the problem.

There is no fundamental difference between rolling seven ability scores and
"giving up" bloodline by placing your worst score in that category on one
hand, and putting zero attribute build points in your bloodline score on the
other. In both cases, your other attributes end up slightly better than they
would if you had rolled six ability scores or started out with a few build
points less.

The problem remains; if you have seven attributes, and dump one of them, you
get better scores in the other ones than you would if you only had those six
attributes.

/Carl


Alright this recent discussion is becoming regressive instead of progressive. There was a poll and the results were to present choices on which system for blood score should be used. After a long time of working on it, 4 different proposals were made - follow the thread below. There has been no discussion on any of the proposals instead the regression has been made to discuss the playtest version when in fact the discussion had been previously made and, as editor I commited to revising the blood score system based on the the decision of the group at large. Please comment on the proposals made this is the forward direction we need to go in if we as a community ever want to create anything instead of having endless debates over the same topic.

In general I have seen no one disagreeing with the fact that blood score needs to be captured as a separate number. The format of that number scale (3-18, 1-100, etc.) and how to determine it are up for discussion. That is what we should be discussing not whether or not what was in the playtest document should be used as is - that was never the intent - it was always intended to be a starting point and the playtest document was going to be revised to reflect the "desires" of the community.

As far as what is in the playtest document and what was intended (as written not any revisions) - any system used to generate ability scores should be used to generate the blood score. Do not use a separate system for blood score than is used for other ability scores, if this is done the choice of which ability score is more important to the character is removed. If a DM uses an increased point buy system (i.e., more points - there are several listed in the DMG) or an alternate system of rolling ability scores (some use 4d6, some use 5d6, some allow rerolls of 1s, etc.) this same system should be used for the blood score. The intent was that a player "chooses" whether or not he/she wants to play a "better" regent or a "better" standard classed character. The scion templates with ECLs all grant an addition to the blood score so that a player is getting something right from the start for his/her character. These were structured so that. unless the character had a really low blood score (below an 8) this bonus would grant at least 1 minor blood ability.


http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1613

So let's move forward instead of backwards.
([_]

[Mark_Aurel]

Of course most of the problem you are talking about can be solved simply by rolling a few dice. Personally, I hate all point buy systems and never use them in my own campaign. For me it is random or nothing!

This is, more than anything, a problem with the 3E rules, which places too much emphasis on ability scores. Where in 2E it was not overly important how high an ability score was, it is now vital. To be a high level wizard you now have to have a high intelligence, a sorcerer must have a high charisma, and so on.

Point buy systems, while giving players more choice, create problems like the one you have highlighted, and this is one of the reasons I hate them.

Rolling a few dice wouldn't necessarily solve any perceived problem - if you place a high stat in bloodline, you'll still end up with scions having slightly worse ability scores elsewhere. That was, in fact, the original idea.

Also, I think 3e places less emphasis on high ability scores than 2e did. In 2e, your ability scores basically didn't provide any substantial bonuses until you hit at least 15 or even 16, and they ramped up dramatically from there. In 3e, bonuses start earlier, at 12, and scales up more gradually, which makes having uber-high ability scores a bit less important or unbalancing. Overall, the difference between a fighter with a constitution of 14 and one with a constitution of 17 may be roughly the same in terms of bonuses, but there's somewhat of a psychological effect to it as well. In 2e, a Con of 14 was nothing, while a Con of 17 was very good. In 3e, a Con of 17 is still very good, but at least now a Con of 14 is good. Overall, 3e places far less emphasis on high ability scores, meaning most players will be more likely to be satisfied with characters who have primary scores in the range of 12-15, while in 2e, anything less than a 15 seemed almost unacceptable to some players (it's the "hey, why don't I get a bonus?" mentality). I've actually had a problem in some of my 3e games that some people used to ramp up ability scores a lot in 2e and still can't quite get their head around that 3e plays pretty ok even if your fighter "only" has a Strength of 14.

I think there's a satisfaction element to it - players want their characters to be heroic (unless you're either the type of self-righteous "role-player" who takes pride in his low ability scores, or you play a character for comic relief) and 2e didn't yield characters any bonuses until extremely high ability scores. Players thus couldn't fulfill their heroic fantasies without exceptionally high scores, which led to ability score inflation, or the desire for such, in a lot of games. 3e fixes this problem by lowering the "bonus threshold" and thus the point where ability scores become "good." You can, of course, pin the problem down as being a powergaming munchkin syndrome, but that too seemed to be far more prevalent in previous editions.

[ConjurerDragon]

Stephen Starfox wrote:

>If being a scion has an ECL modifier, then scions should not have worse
>attributes than other characters - that is, scions should get extra
>character points to spend on bloodline.
>If being a scion lacks an ECL modifier, then scions should spend attribute
>build points on their attributes in order to balance them against other
>characters (this is the version I used).
>Any other version abandons balance IMHO. Of course, individual DMs may
>choose to abandon balance. As an example, I gave my prime scion a +20 bonus
>on bloodline (1-100 scale). But this should not be a part of the rules. It
>can be mentioned as an option in some notes or a sidebar, though.
>/Carl
>
It should definitely be something mentioned, as some games are not
balanced, e.g. those games in which characters take over characters from
the Ruins of Empire book - those characters vary greatly in bloodline,
bloodstrenghts and bloodabilitys.

So if balance is an absolute issue, then no game could exist in which a
game is played that matches the Birthright books ;-)
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.

[Mark_Aurel]

Carl wrote:
If being a scion has an ECL modifier, then scions should not have worse
attributes than other characters - that is, scions should get extra
character points to spend on bloodline.

If being a scion lacks an ECL modifier, then scions should spend attribute
build points on their attributes in order to balance them against other
characters (this is the version I used).

Any other version abandons balance IMHO. Of course, individual DMs may
choose to abandon balance. As an example, I gave my prime scion a +20 bonus
on bloodline (1-100 scale). But this should not be a part of the rules. It
can be mentioned as an option in some notes or a sidebar, though.

That was actually the original idea in regards to the bloodline stat. To quickly run through its history:

Old BR.net boards - a lot of different methods are debated for how bloodlines should be implemented. I think it was Mourn who originally pitched the idea of a bloodline ability score. I tried it out in a conversion document of mine, and Doom adopted the idea into his manual. Later, it came into the playtest document.

As an aside, at one point, I'd worked on converting BR to Alternity, and used a similar system there for bloodlines, which is why the blood ability score originally rung a bell with me.

Now, the original idea of mine was to balance the bloodline by ability scores alone - basically, commoners would have to be exceptional characters in order to hang with scions. The idea at one point was also that blood ability scores would fall back to the standard statistical line - i.e. a "great" bloodline would be an 18, a "major" would be a 14, etc (following an Alternity-like standard); this too, was changed later.

Come the playtest document, the justification for the bloodline ability score changes somewhat to a mechanical one over a balance one, and a level adjustment is introduced in addition - essentially, a form of "double whammy." Basically, a relic left over from an earlier line of thinking, without having the same place in the newer version.

That's the basic history of the concept, I think. At this point, it's a concept that will be abandoned in favor of something else - but what that is, remains to be seen. There's been four different systems proposed in a document that irdeggman posted a while ago, but no more discussion or commentary based on that - which I think would be essential for the process to move forward a bit, while finding a certain level of comminity agreement (yeah, right). If you have time, please check out those proposals, and comment on them!

[kgauck]

19 pages is a bit much, when four paragraphs would probabaly produce a
greater participation in the discussion. That is, because complaints about
non-participation should be preceeded by low barriers to participation. I
have scanned the document, and don`t see where the discussion of blood
strength generation are. The 2e PHB mentioned six different ways to
generate ability scores each using about three sentences. If I weren`t
already happy with my own system, and thus not too terribly inclined to pour
through text explaining to me what a bloodline is, I might bother.

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.

[Mark_Aurel]

19 pages is a bit much, when four paragraphs would probabaly produce a
greater participation in the discussion. That is, because complaints about
non-participation should be preceeded by low barriers to participation. I
have scanned the document, and don`t see where the discussion of blood
strength generation are. The 2e PHB mentioned six different ways to
generate ability scores each using about three sentences. If I weren`t
already happy with my own system, and thus not too terribly inclined to pour
through text explaining to me what a bloodline is, I might bother.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com


Point taken. Sort of.

The four proposed methods are, in order:

A
Determines bloodline by rolling a seventh ability score and applying a scion level modifier. Pretty much the playtest version, except that the score is now doubled to match the old scores better.

B
You roll 2d6 to determine blooded template level. Results 2-3 Tainted, 4-6 Minor, 7-9 Major, 10-11 Great, 12 True. You get a blood score of 4d4/5d6/8d6/8d8/8d12 respectively, and an ECL of 1 for Major, 2 for Great, and 3 for a True bloodline. You pay for blood abilities by XP.

C
You generate a number similar to an ability score using the same dice-rolling method (though not interchangeable with an ability score), and subtract 2 to get a number from 1-16, then compare it to a table, where there's a separate step for every 2 points to find a level (i.e. tainted or great); then, you roll 1d6 for every point you had on the 1-16 scale to find your actual bloodline score, which will in turn provide you with a number of blood abilities and an ECL.

D
You pick a scion level (i.e. tainted, minor, major, great) and roll a bloodline score accordingly - 2d4+4/2d4+12/2d4+20/2d4+28. Major and Great scions can take a feat to add 50% to this score. In order to gain blood abilities, you must take scion levels. Blood abilities are feat-like in their acquisition (i.e. they have prerequisites and follow chains).

That's about as briefly as I can summarize it, and it may do more harm than good. I don't really want to comment too much on it, as I wrote one of the variants here and I'm trying to present the variants without any bias (I actually like a lot of elements of all of the methods, but some things are hard to put together).

[geeman]

At 03:08 AM 6/1/2003 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>I see that Gary wants to revisit the very question of a 7th attribute, and
>certainly this must preceed any real construction of an alternative
>attribute system.

Well, I don`t really want to revisit it at this point. I think it`s been
pretty well discussed, and I`ve illustrated my opinion stated on the issue
fairly voluminously, so it`s probably just be easier to refer to the
archives rather than restate it all again. As far as I`m concerned it`s a
done deal.

>I don`t use a 7th attribute, and I know that other`s
>don`t either. But I am interested in seeing a viable point buy system in
>whatever constitutes the final BRCS.

If I might engage in a little more shameless self-promotion.... Using the
BP system for bloodline does start off with determining bloodline strength
as a range from 1-16 (3-18 minus 2) which fits pretty easily into the point
buy system as an ability score without actually making it an ability
score. I think it`s a good "between step" between the two design philosophies.

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.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Mark_Aurel

Carl wrote:
If being a scion has an ECL modifier, then scions should not have worse
attributes than other characters - that is, scions should get extra
character points to spend on bloodline.

If being a scion lacks an ECL modifier, then scions should spend attribute
build points on their attributes in order to balance them against other
characters (this is the version I used).

Any other version abandons balance IMHO. Of course, individual DMs may
choose to abandon balance. As an example, I gave my prime scion a +20 bonus
on bloodline (1-100 scale). But this should not be a part of the rules. It
can be mentioned as an option in some notes or a sidebar, though.

That was actually the original idea in regards to the bloodline stat. To quickly run through its history:

Old BR.net boards - a lot of different methods are debated for how bloodlines should be implemented. I think it was Mourn who originally pitched the idea of a bloodline ability score. I tried it out in a conversion document of mine, and Doom adopted the idea into his manual. Later, it came into the playtest document.

As an aside, at one point, I'd worked on converting BR to Alternity, and used a similar system there for bloodlines, which is why the blood ability score originally rung a bell with me.

Now, the original idea of mine was to balance the bloodline by ability scores alone - basically, commoners would have to be exceptional characters in order to hang with scions. The idea at one point was also that blood ability scores would fall back to the standard statistical line - i.e. a "great" bloodline would be an 18, a "major" would be a 14, etc (following an Alternity-like standard); this too, was changed later.

Come the playtest document, the justification for the bloodline ability score changes somewhat to a mechanical one over a balance one, and a level adjustment is introduced in addition - essentially, a form of "double whammy." Basically, a relic left over from an earlier line of thinking, without having the same place in the newer version.


To expand on what Mark_Aurel has stated concerning the playtest evolution:

One of the reasons for having 7 ability scores was to have something that non-scions could have as a benefit that replaced the 10% exp point bonus they got in 2nd ed. By picking which 6 abilities to apply their 7 scores to they get the benefit. This benefit carries with them throughout their character's advancement.

The ECL modifier is based on something completely different - it was not to be the replacement for the 10% exp point bonus. It is a mechanic that 3rd ed uses to balance out more powerful races (and templates) with lesser powerful ones. Note that a character could still be a scion without taking an ECL template. The character would be entitled to only "minor" blood abilites and wouldn't receive any of the other regent benefits that an ECL'd template would grante (e.g., bonus hit points and extra starting funds). The ECL'd templates also grant a bonus to blood score so that an ECL'd scion would pretty much be guaranteed a blood ability of the appropriate level.


If I weren`t already happy with my own system, and thus not too terribly inclined to pour through text explaining to me what a bloodline is, I might bother.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

Kenneth, then don't feel obligated to waste your time reviewing and making comments on something that you have no desire or intention to use. It seems to me that your time would be better spent on topics that interest you. I mean that everyone has a limited amount of time to spend and we all should be spending it in on the things that hold the most interest to us and not wasting our energy on things that don't.:)

[Tempest]

My opinion about those four possible bloodline systems based on short desciption given by Mark Aurel:

A) My favourite from those. You can roll the dices for BL strenght or you can use point buy. Only thing I don't understand is why value is doubled? Does it have something to do with regent style of games? Normal 3 - XXX sound better for me (simplier, no multiplying, dividing, adding or subtracting). I thought again point buy system and bloodlines. I think that there should not be extra points for blooded to buy stats. The template itself gives +4 to blood ability for major bloodline and even more for more powerfull bloodlines. It is up to player if he/she wants to focus on bloodline on cost of worse "normal" stats. Another thing is that increasing bloodline is much easier than rest of stats. You must hack lot of people down to get one stat point (every four levels) but you can get lot of bloodline stat by killing just one bad guy.

B) I don't like rolling your own bloodline template level. It sounds funny that there might be party with few guys with true bloodline, few with great and few with major. Those guys should rule Boeruine, Mhoried or Avani rather than go around killing baddies. Of course DM can give alternative template to roll your template level, but I think ability to choose your template is much better. Everyone can play character they want in given limits. XP cost for is no good. For example temporal ability damage sound far better for me. No restrictions for each ability but more powerfull abilities consume more your stat.

C) After A this is second best. I don't like subtracting, adding, multiplying and decreasing and comparing values in different tables. Too complicated :) If I want to do that I can play Rolemaster. I believe basic idea of 3rd E is to be simply and easy to use and at the same time have much variation.

D) I don't like those "strange" values in bloodline. Normal 3d6 is best starting range. I don't like idea of scion levels either. Whole idea of "monster levels" in Savage Species stinks. Its back to basic redbox d&d where you could be fifth level dwarf :P How those guys introduce themselves to each other?

Tempest (3th level fighter and 5th level wizard): Hi, I'm Tempest, the great battlemage and you are..?
Kaz (6th level minotaur): I'm Kaz mighty minotaur!
Tempest: Ummm... So what you can do? I can swing my sword and cast powerful spells.
Kaz: I minotaur. I poke bad people with my horns and stuff like that. The thing that minotaurs do, you know...

Good idea is to chain bloolines and give some of them pre-requisities like feats are done. Little bit of the topic, I'm plannig to do completely different magic system for D&D. It would be based on spell seeds like epic spells. Spellcasters have seeds based on their level and combaining those seeds they can create spells. To cast a spell caster must success in spellcraft check agaist spells "to cast DC" (which is calculated from used seeds). Seeds would have pre-requisities and be chained like feats.

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by Raesene Andu

Of course most of the problem you are talking about can be solved simply by rolling a few dice. Personally, I hate all point buy systems and never use them in my own campaign. For me it is random or nothing!

Point buy systems, while giving players more choice, create problems like the one you have highlighted, and this is one of the reasons I hate them.

I'm completely same opinion...

[Lord Rahvin]

> C) After A this is second best. I don`t like subtracting, adding, multiplying and decreasing and comparing values in different tables. Too complicated :) If I want to do that I can play Rolemaster. I believe basic idea of 3rd E is to be simply and easy to use and at the same time have much variation.


It does seem a little complicated as presented what with the whole
subtracting 2 and all (that gets me every time!), but I think it would be
fairly fun for players, especially with all those die rolls! Players, for
some reason, tend to like the idea of rolling 10d6 for something and I`d
prefer to get it out of there system early, during character generation.
(Plus most of it should average out anyway...) As for complication in the
game, I don`t believe this system is overly complicated and even if it was,
I don`t think there`s any strict necessity in making character generation
non-complicated. You`re only going to be doing it once in a campaign
(sometimes twice), and usually you`re taking a lot of time on it anyway.


> Tempest (3th level fighter and 5th level wizard): Hi, I`m Tempest, the great battlemage and you are..?
> Kaz (6th level minotaur): I`m Kaz mighty minotaur!
> Tempest: Ummm... So what you do for living? I can swing my sword and cast powerful spells.
> Kaz: I minotaur. I poke bad people with my horns and stuff like that. The thing that minotaurs do, you know...


This is ludicrous, I completely agree. Tempest is just far too silly to
allow in any reasonable game... :)


> Good idea is to chain bloolines and give some of them pre-requisities like feats are done. Little bit of the topic, I`m plannig to do completely different magic system for D&D. It would be based on spell seeds like epic spells. Spellcasters have seeds based on their level and combaining those seeds they can create spells. To cast a spell caster must success in spellcraft check agaist spells "to cast DC" (which is calculated from used seeds). Seeds would have pre-requisities and be chained like feats.


This is cool. I remember I liked the Spell Seed idea in the Epic Level
Handbook but I didn`t look at it too closely and I tend not to read it
because, well, I hate the idea of epic level games. But if you write up
your alternate magic system, could you send me a copy? I`d appreicate it.
(The same goes for anyone out there with alternate magic systems...)


-Lord Rahvin

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

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Tempest

My opinion about those four possible bloodline systems based on short desciption given by Mark Aurel:

A) My favourite from those. You can roll the dices for BL strenght or you can use point buy. Only thing I don't understand is why value is doubled? Does it have something to do with regent style of games? Normal 3 - XXX sound better for me (simplier, no multiplying, dividing, adding or subtracting). I thought again point buy system and bloodlines. I think that there should not be extra points for blooded to buy stats. The template itself gives +4 to blood ability for major bloodline and even more for more powerfull bloodlines. It is up to player if he/she wants to focus on bloodline on cost of worse "normal" stats. Another thing is that increasing bloodline is much easier than rest of stats. You must hack lot of people down to get one stat point (every four levels) but you can get lot of bloodline stat by killing just one bad guy.


The number was doubled in order to put the blood score back in line with the 0-100 range of 2nd ed. Several people had commented on the fact the playtest version had forced them to readjust the blood score for listed NPCs. By doubling the initial score (and then adding in the bonus for any template/scion levels taken) the range is roughly resotred. While the multiplication may seem to be busy work it will allow the range to follow closer to the original (2nd ed) system.

The reason to a start with a number in the "normal" range was to have players make decisions and trade offs as to what they want their character to be best at. If they want a more powerful regent then put the higher score in the blood score and something else will suffer. It makes it fairly easy to use just about any ability generation system used for determining abilities just add an additional one to cover this. The blood score has the most impact in domain actions, even though it does have other benefits - it will determine the hit point bonus and of course the number (and type) of blood abilities available.

[Keovar]

I like the idea of having Bloodline as an ability score. With 4d6/drop lowest, it doesn't cost you anything, and with 32 point buy, you should be able to spend a few on raising it along with your other stats. If you want to play a commoner, the points you save by leaving your bloodline at 8 are a nice little compensation bonus, like the 10% experience bonus was in 2e.


*******
My rough draft take on the system...
---

9 and lower are unblooded, and for the most part there is no difference between 1 or 9, except when determining the chance for a commoner to absorb a bloodline through bloodtheft, to be successfully invested with a bloodline, or other ways to become a scion later in life. It's possible for someone to actually absorb some divine bloodline but not get enough to count as blooded (10 and over)

10 = 0 (just barely qualifying as a scion)

11 = 0.5 points to buy a tainted blood power

12 - 13 = 1 point to buy minor or lesser blood power(s)

14 - 15 = 2 points to buy major or lesser blood power(s)

16 - 17 = 3 points to buy major or lesser blood power(s)

18 - 19 = 4 points to buy great or lesser blood power(s)

20 - 21 = 5 points to buy great or lesser blood power(s)

22 - 23 = 6 points to buy great or lesser blood power(s)

24 - 25 = 7 points to buy great or lesser blood power(s)

26 -27 = 8 points to buy true or lesser blood power(s)

Etc...

---

Blood power levels

Tainted - cost: 0.5 - Bloodmark is the only one I can think of that should be demoted to this level, though there may be other ones that should be dropped as well, or new ones could be created.

Minor - cost 1 - most minor abilities would remain here, but should be reviewed for balance, since randomness will not be used as a balancing factor (it's a damn poor balance in the first place).

Major - cost 2 - Again, review needed. Since Ability increases would need to be +2, they should be moved to major.

Great - cost 4 - review for balance...

True - cost 8 - Invulnerability should be moved here, perhaps a couple others.

---

When converting NPCs, simply ignore the bloodline strength score, and give them a bloodline ability score that allows them to have all the appropriate powers in their description.

[Tempest]

I think this system that was introduced in playtest version works fine with me. Impression that those four other proposals gave me wasn't so good. I can multiply bloodstat or subtract two from it and compare result value to table and all those other things, but I don't like idea doing so. 2nd system was full of those subtracting and addings and I didn't like it then and I don't like it now. When you got +2 to saving throw in 2nd system was it +2 to roll or +2 to value that you had to beat? Is +2 to your AC good thing or bad thing in 2nd system? That kind of problems are history now in 3E system. Bigger the better. If any of those four proposals are in "official" version of BR 3E, I believe I still have right to use playtest version system :)
Complaining that Irdeggman told (people has to adjust bloodline strenghts of listed NPCs) can my opinion be ignored. You are now creating new system to BR and of course adjustments has to be done to old NPCs. Do they really think that they could change old BR to new one without making adjustements? What is the idea of making 3E version of BR if people doesn't accept changes in system? They should play 2nd version then. Old Bloodline system was something that could be translated from finnish to english as "pasted system". Something that didn't really fit in and felt little bit "separate" from everything else. Bloodlines and many other things have changed in 3E version and most of those changes are good changes in my opinion (like no stat bonusses for different human cultures). I think you should stuck with this playtest version of bloodlines, but it is just my opinion.

For Lord Rahvin: Sure, I can post it for you, but it might be that I don't ever actually manage to do it. I also had great idea to make Skills and Powers for 3E (more variation to classes), but never got it ready (I wrote about 20+ pages of it).

And lastly, I wan't to thank all those who had made this 3E version of BR. You have made great job, much better than I could have ever done! Finally we have interesting campaing setting for 3E D&D :)

[Mark_Aurel]

Okay, like I said before, posting simply a quick rundown of the generation methods for bloodline scores was bound to give the wrong impression.

You are now creating new system to BR and of course adjustments has to be done to old NPCs. Do they really think that they could change old BR to new one without making adjustements?

This has been my stance all along - that where necessary, a 2e subsystem needs to change where appropriate to match a 3e design philosophy better. The issue at stake is really that bloodline is a separate subsystem from a lot of other subsystems - and that was the way things were done in 2e. 3e has certain universal systems that all subsystems are made to conform to, instead - like the d20+modifier type rolls.

There are certain design goals that I think should be fulfilled to properly convert bloodline to 3e rules (and "spirit"):

- The rules mechanics need to be fully compatible with 3e rules - this isn't just in terms of parlance and mechanical terms, but also in terms of balance and core design philosophy. Preferably using existing mechanics in the established fashion.

- The bloodline score needs to interact with the domain rules the same way as before. Alternately, this part could be reworked as well to incorporate a different way of having it all interact - but I don't think that'd be desirable at all by most players.

- Bloodline should be subject to player choice, first and foremost. Players should be able to choose exactly what kind of bloodline and blood abilities they want, but it should be balanced out by a commensurate cost. No freebies. Rolling randomly to determine bloodline strength and abilities is a throwback, but a nod to those who like it that way.

- Blood abilities should still be somewhat recognizable, so as to ease conversion between systems.

- Bloodline conversions, of course, should fulfill all the standard goals of elegance, simplicity, and ease of use.

Of course, others may have different priorities than me, but I think I'm being fairly faithful to the spirit of the 3e rules here - which is what takes precedence when writing something for 3e, of course.

Of the bloodline attempts offered, I think they all have something to bring to the table in terms of mechanic solutions and fulfilling the design goals, and I think most of them are somewhat superior to the playtest rules, even if some modifications might be in order in a couple, due to a flawed understanding of 3e rules or costs, or simple typos.

I do not think a "bloodline ability score" falls within the "spirit of 3e," however. There's a lot of reasons for having it, but most of these reasons don't necessarily rest on mechanically sound ground, or they can easily be substituted. Primarily, a bloodline is not a trait of the same order or kind as an ability score is, and should not be measured against them - that that system's come about was more of "let's think of ways to avoid ECL" than anything else, and a mistake in the first place. It essentially placed more power in the hands of all PCs without invoking any form of counterbalance, which can have a significant, if not immediately visible, effect on 3e campaigns.

I really think that the final version should reflect 3e and "feel" like 3e rules - and not a set of house rules. I think most commentary given on this in public fora has been very helpful, and I would've hoped that people who'd taken the time to comment also would've taken the time to at least browse through the proposals and comment on those as well, as they stand, rather than whatever condensed version of each that can be reproduced here.

[Tempest]

I read those 25 pages of bloodline proposals and I must say that I cannot support any of those given options. IMO playtest version is best.

"A"
This has scion as class, an idea that I don't like at all. As I said earlier, it is like back to redbox dnd. And who would like start playing as scion who later becomes a rogue? Nobody. Player misses so many skill points that starting to play rogue later is doomed idea. Otherwise "A" seems OK. I don't like idea of multiplying bloodline strength, but if it has to be done, then do it.

"B"
In our games people hate experience costs (we have about 10-15 players in different groups). Nobody doesn't even consider creating scrolls even though character are 18th level. I don't know how it is with groups on opposite side of the ocean, but I think this is rather doomed idea. If you choose this one, I would suggest that change BL score roll less random (for example 3d6 for tainted, 5d6 for minor, 8d6 for major, 11d6 for great and 16d6 for true).

"C"
I don't know if it is my bad english or am I just stupid, but this was hard to understand. There is actually nothing wrong with this one IMO, but it is complex like hell. I wouldn't like this one to in "official rules", but if you do, please make it simplier so that even computer engineer can understand it.

"D"
Only thing wrong with this one is scion class. I don't like the idea as I have said earlier, but if you are going to do it, then do it like in "D" rather than using option "A" scion class. Feat like bloodlines is cool and good idea.

I am not telling to you which one you should choose, I'm just telling what I think is best of those.

I don't think I'm giving anything new to this topic anymore, so maybe I should shut up... :)

[Kalien]

I have just read through the Bloodline pdf and checked out the submitted proposals for determining Bloodlines. Like Tempest, I cannot support any of them as they stand - but unlike Tempest I don't think the Playtest version is superior.

IMO being a Blooded Scion should be a template with an ECL cost.

It should not be like the Playtest version where you take a feat to become a blooded scion and have this balanced out by allowing non-blooded characters to spend that feat "slot" on a standard feat. What happens when a non-blooded character gains a bloodline? They get the best of both worlds. It provides an encouragement to create a non-blooded characer and then rush off and commit bloodtheft.

It should not be a character class. Being a blooded scion isn't a career vocation like being a priest is. It is having the blood of the old gods running through your veins and giving you a connection to the land. You cannot go to some teacher and learn how to get a bloodline and how to use those powers - it is something that is innate. It does not determine your attack progression, saving throws, and what skills you can learn.

I've read through ideas people have had on templates and many have merits (though I have yet to see I'd adopt without changes).

My thuoghts are that:
Tainted and Minor templates should be ECL +1 - they allow you to run a domain, so even if you have no (or just one or two) blood abilities you enjoy beenfits greater than those of more ordinary people.
Major and Great templates should be +2 - more abilties means more power but there's not enough (IMO) to warrant giving Great bloodlines a +3 template.
True bloodlines are generally not available and so I'm not too worried about this. It only applies to original awnsheghlien and, in my experience, those players who seem to think almost all sidhe currently alive were also at Deismar. I have yet to see one elven ambassador in an online game who didn't claim to be present at Deismar (or at least one of their entourage being there).

Besides the possibility to a few additional hit points if the blooded scion gains a domain, I don't think the templates should offer anything other than blood abilities.

[geeman]

At 03:24 PM 6/4/2003 +0200, you wrote:

>"C"
>I don`t know if it is my bad english or am I just stupid, but this was
>hard to understand. There is actually nothing wrong with this one IMO, but
>it is complex like hell. I wouldn`t like this one to in "official
>rules", but if you do, please make it simplier so that even computer
>engineer can understand it.

A couple of people have commented on the complexity of the BP
system. Since I penned it I`m probably much too close to the situation to
see the issues clearly. I don`t think it`s _really_ any more complex than
the original, 2e system, though it does have at least one more step. Where
did it lose you? I`ll recant the steps

1. Roll bloodline Strength (3 to 18 minus 2). Compare to table to get
bloodline strength.

2. Roll d6 for each point of bloodline strength to get Bloodline
Score. Compare to table to get number of Bloodline Points (BP) for blood
abilities.

3. Determine Derivation.

4. Spend BP.

Which steps are too complex?

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.

[Tempest]

1. Roll bloodline Strength (3 to 18 minus 2). Compare to table to get
bloodline strength.

2. Roll d6 for each point of bloodline strength to get Bloodline
Score. Compare to table to get number of Bloodline Points (BP) for blood
abilities.

3. Determine Derivation.

4. Spend BP.

Which steps are too complex?

I think I have been too provocative. My apologies.

You should add that listing in the beginning of the chapter rather than end of it.

I had hard time undestanding table 1:Bloodline strenght and table 3: Bloodline Score. You tell that player should calculate his ECL from table 1&3. Using your examples, I got somewhat different results. Minor(6) BL with strenght of 20 totals 0.2 + 04 = 0.6 in my calculation. That is rounded up to +1 ECL, which is same as you got. The another example was great(15) BL with strenght of 58. In my calculations this is 0.7 + 1.6 = 2.3 resulting +2 ECL. Same as you have. So no harm done, but I don't know how to properly use those tables.

Another thing is that I don't think system is in "spirit" of 3e. There is no such complexity in 3e d&d anywhere else. Otherwise bloodline points is rather good idea, it gives more variation to blood abilities.

[Tempest]

I have one guestion for those who are planning to make "scion class" to d20 BR. How bloodtheft and usurpation work in that case? Does character gain new levels when he/she becomes blooded?

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Tempest


I have one guestion for those who are planning to make "scion class" to d20 BR. How bloodtheft and usurpation work in that case? Does character gain new levels when he/she becomes blooded?

In proposal A (I'm fairly sure it works similarly for proposal D): If a character becomes a scion through bloodtheft/usurpation he gains a blood score as laid out in the usurpation rules. He gets a scion class level 0 (proposal D) or the equivalent designation (minor. major, great/or scion template). Hence he can gain minor abilities, rule a province, etc. But the new scion does not gain any of the other benefits from additional scion class levels untils he takes those levels. The newly formed scion is just now eligible to take additional scion class levels. The ECL of the templates does not stack with scion class levels - either use templates or use scion class.

The reason for using a scion class is the same as for using monster class levels for ECLd races in Savage Species (if you don't have the book highly I recommend it - it is 3.5 forward compatable) is to allow an ECLd race to play in a 1st level campaign. When we put together the playtest document we missed the section in the DMG about not allowing ECLd races to be played unless everyone is allowed to start at the same equivalent level. Hence to allow a major template (ECL+1) all characters should be allowed to start play at 2nd level, etc.

This is the reason that both proposals that include a scion class have a very limited level advancement, they were designed to account for the ECL modifier of the equivalent templates (playtest proposals) but not be a full class in themselves (i.e., 20 level advancement).

[Tempest]

The reason for using a scion class is the same as for using monster class levels for ECLd races in Savage Species (if you don't have the book highly I recommend it - it is 3.5 forward compatable) is to allow an ECLd race to play in a 1st level campaign. When we put together the playtest document we missed the section in the DMG about not allowing ECLd races to be played unless everyone is allowed to start at the same equivalent level. Hence to allow a major template (ECL+1) all characters should be allowed to start play at 2nd level, etc.

Thanks! Now I can see how problematic this situation is. Maybe there has to be scion class althought it might sound stupid. About that Savage Species, I don't think I'm going to buy it. Idea of monster levels instead of ECLs is bad in my opinion.

In proposal A (I'm fairly sure it works similarly for proposal D): If a character becomes a scion through bloodtheft/usurpation he gains a blood score as laid out in the usurpation rules. He gets a scion class level 0 (proposal D) or the equivalent designation (minor. major, great/or scion template). Hence he can gain minor abilities, rule a province, etc. But the new scion does not gain any of the other benefits from additional scion class levels untils he takes those levels. The newly formed scion is just now eligible to take additional scion class levels. The ECL of the templates does not stack with scion class levels - either use templates or use scion class.

If we are looking at 2nd rules of BR we see that player could gain even a great bloodline after bloodtheft/usurpation. This could not be done in this "scion class" -system. I think there should be possibilty for this even thought it might sound stupid (gaining three levels with one kill). Or at least do this "scion class" so that it doesn't restrict what powers or bloodline strength you could have (tainted/minor/major/great) based on your "scion class level" otherwise it contradicts basic idea of bloodtheft/usurpation. Scion levels shouldn't also give you any new bloodline when you gain new level (if it gives, where does it come from?).

You guys are having big problem in your hands with this bloodline system. I wouldn't like to be in your pants... (Meaning that I would be ripping my head off if I was in your position making working bloodline system.)

Keep up good work, I'm confident that we will have great official 3E BR someday! ([_]

[geeman]

Tempest writes:


> I have one guestion for those who are planning to make "scion class"
> to d20 BR. How bloodtheft and usurpation work in that case? Does
> character gain new levels when he/she becomes blooded?

The way I did it with the Scion character class I wrote up was that
bloodline score operated pretty much like XP for the Scion class. That is,
where normal character classes required 1,000 then 3,000 then 6,000 XP to go
from 1st thru 4th levels, the Scion character class had it`s levels assigned
to bloodline score. So bloodline score 1-10 was a 1st level scion, 11-20
was 2nd, etc.

Generally, I found that incriments of 10 were too high to really equate to
an ECL given the stats I gave my Scion class (d4 HD, minimum BAB and save
progression--plus blood abilities in place of special abilities.) 1-7
probably would have been better. That`s what ended up being the increment
for points and the decimal values for ECL modifiers in the BP system. 1-7
also had a nice incremental correlation with the d6`s rolled in that system
since it made 2d6 about equal to 1 BP.

Anyway, it would appear that the bloodline as character class proposed in
the list of optional bloodline systems does is increase the maximum number
of levels the character can take in the class. That is, a character with a
minor bloodline can only take so many levels of the class while someone with
a great or true bloodline can take on appropriately more. A scion who
commits bloodtheft then, would not gain levels in the Scion class, but would
gain the ability to level up higher in that class as he gained more XP.

The benefit of bloodline as a character class a la Savage Species is pretty
much the same as its weakness. That is, it allows for a character to
experience his increase in power, and "learn" to use his powers in a
naturalistic kind of way that coincides with the basic leveling game
mechanic of D&D. The thematic drawback is that that`s not how it worked in
the original materials. Character`s didn`t have to level up into their
bloodlines. They gained all the powers automatically upon reaching
maturity, when they committed an act of bloodtheft or otherwise increased
their bloodline score. All in all, I like the idea as an option, but it is
a demonstrable shift in the setting`s fundamental workings, so I`d not
prefer it as the "default" system in a D20 rewrite.

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.

[Mark_Aurel]

A couple of people have commented on the complexity of the BP
system. Since I penned it I`m probably much too close to the situation to
see the issues clearly. I don`t think it`s _really_ any more complex than
the original, 2e system, though it does have at least one more step. Where
did it lose you? I`ll recant the steps

1. Roll bloodline Strength (3 to 18 minus 2). Compare to table to get
bloodline strength.

2. Roll d6 for each point of bloodline strength to get Bloodline
Score. Compare to table to get number of Bloodline Points (BP) for blood
abilities.

3. Determine Derivation.

4. Spend BP.

Which steps are too complex?

Gary


Ah. I commented on thus a while back, when there was a mess-up between various board access levels and the mailing list; I meant to send you a response then, but never got around to it.

Anyway, I really like your method for a number of reasons - and after reading through it thoroughly and trying to create a few test characters with it, it seems to play pretty ok as well. When I commented on the apparent complexity, it was from an initial reading without trying it out - it isn't really complex, but I think perhaps the way of laying out the "how to do" things could've been explained better if you put a quick summary of it like that at the start of the document.

It isn't really hard to use once you get into it, but nevertheless, it does involve a multi-step approach that doesn't necessarily lend itself well to quick PC generation. I'd like for the "official" version to be as simple as possible (i.e. preferably a "pick and roll" method), yet remain balanced - and balanced in the 3e sense, not "balanced" in the sense of invoking the law of averages.

Apart from that initial hurdle, there's a couple of more things I'm not necessarily fond of:

- The tie to ability scores for initial generation purposes - correct me if I've misunderstood you at this step or missed some blatantly obvious sentence that contradicts it.

- The partial ECLs. While I can see where the idea comes from, it's one that screams for potential abuse if you're going to let players have the freedom of choice that is practically constitutional to 3e. Of course, to beat on a stra