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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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.

[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 strawman, you could interject that it's the DM's job to prevent that, but that's not a good starting point for a system to be balanced and easily usable for anyone.

The thing I really like about your system is the way you implement blood abilities, giving a degree of choice and customization ability that definitely seems to fit 3e design philosophy very well.

It's a fun and playable system, I think, if handled well, but also a bit far off the beaten path - though I hope that especially elements of what I find to be the strong points of your version get implemented in the final BRCS version.

[Mark_Aurel]

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.


Okay, let's look at some of the issues here, starting with the core 3e philosophy: Players should have pretty much complete control over character creation choices, which means that these choices must be reasonably balanced against each other over the period of a campaign. The way to measure this power is by character level - which in 3e is more than a simple experience level. Character level measures "experience, wealth, and power" - to quote the PHB. 3e doesn't equate level with experience, as much as power, which is even more clear from the discussion in the DMG. I feel it's somewhat important to establish this fact before moving on - the concept of an "experience level" can seem a bit anachronistic in 3e terms, but a lot of people still subconsciously read it that way. The fact that more powerful races are assigned a character level, which adds together for a total effective character level, just goes to show this.

Okay, so logically, this means that scions should be represented in terms of levels. A level adjustment is really no different from a class in that regard - they both take up a character level, or a "power level." The main difference is really that a level that also grants hit dice, save progression, skills, and attack progression screws a character less over. The main flaw of races with high level adjustments courtesy of special abilities is their extremely low degree of survivability. This shouldn't be a problem for scions, however - scions are more powerful than commoners. A great scion with 4 levels of scion and 1 level of fighter isn't more experienced than a simple 1st-level fighter, and none of his stats necessarily suggests that - he's simply more powerful. Of course, the two likely wouldn't be in the same party of characters, since, going by 3e standards, characters should be internally balanced against each other. You won't have much fun being a 1st-level rogue in a 20th-level party - and the same holds true, though to a lesser extent, when it comes to smaller gaps in power.

Now, your main contention against the concept of scion levels seems to be the idea of class levels being "experience levels" more than they are power levels. It's not really about picking up scion as a "vocation," either, as much as balancing it out with regular characters - there's a difference between a monster or scion class, and a character class, and that is that one scales infintely, the other is limited to a certain number of levels. Scaling down a monster so you can play it at lower levels may not be for everyone's campaign, but I find that it's a very good idea in terms of the game itself.

Blood abilities are inborn, yes - but they aren't necessarily always there, and they do seem to be something that characters need to "get used to" before being able to fully tap into them. The sources I've seen seem (admittedly, primarily novelizations) to suggest that blood abilities tend to manifest in puberty and that scions then learn how to master or control their abilities - some less than others (Azrai). To use a couple of other examples: It seems to be a common assumption that the sorcerer has more "innate" magic than the wizard; of course, even if the sorcerer's talent has nothing to do with studying, he still has to level up to cast certain spells. Not a perfect parallel, of course, but the cases are still somewhat similar. A character with innate magical ability like the sorcerer can be interpreted as still has to be represented by a class in order to be playable. Another example of the level/experience fallacy is the "Elves are thousands of years old, so they should really all have a LOT of levels" trap - the fact that you're old and have experienced a lot doesn't automatically make you powerful in D&D terms.

The fact that an ability is "innate" doesn't mean it can't be trained or improved upon - that's part of D&D philosophy, in fact. Feats are being added that allows monsters to improve upon their innate supernatural and spell-like abilities, for instance, which would be much the same as "training" them. Sorcerers level up. Psion "wild talents" of 1e and 2e munchkin fame are simply being treated as characters who pick up a level of psion, even though those abilities, too, are inherent to characters (in perhaps a deeper sense than bloodlines are).

Next, as for scions and base attack and such - I think it makes sense that some scions, regardless of their blood abilities, still have tendencies towards some classes, based on their bloodlines. It does make sense (to me, at least) that scions of Anduiras might be more naturally talented fighters than others, for instance - without being more experienced at it, and without it being a real blood ability. Scions should be a bit more durable than similarly experienced non-scions as well, I think - better saves and more hit points - again, the example of a scion 3/fighter 1 vs the fighter 1 - the first isn't necessarily more experienced, but he's still certainly more powerful. They could have identical upbringings and training in every regard, and the former would probably be a bit better at everything - due to being a scion. Among PCs, though, this isn't reflected, since PCs should maintain an internal balance for the sake of fairness.

All this aside, what are the benefits of using a scion class over a template? A scion class allows you to play scions with a decent amount of blood abilities at 1st level, and it allows you to play a scaled-down version of a more powerful scion, again without starting the campaign at a higher level or forcing imbalanced PCs. It also balances out the blood abilities. The level adjustment values given in the playtest draft were way too harsh for what the scions actually gained, as you too point out - "regeneration" may be a blood ability, but it ain't regeneration - at least not in the monster sense. In terms of game balance, it's almost weak enough to be a feat (barring the 100-day regrow thing) - if you take toughness and endurance first. :P A scion class avoids the problem of low-level scions being too frail, and high-level scions falling behind too much in feat, ability, attack and save progressions in exchange for what eventually amounts to fairly paltry abilities. In short, a scion class solves a few of the essential problems caused by templates without doing things much differently, without short-changing scions, and still maintaining overall balanced.

I'm not really sure what else to say - I completely get your point about scions not needing to go to "scion school" to learn their abilities, but that was never the point, either - I think that just rests more in the eye of the beholder and the way you interpret the suggested game mechanics, than the game mechanics themselves.

[Kalien]

What I don't really like with the idea of a scion class is being pigeon-holed into which saves and attack progressions my character has, even if they don't in any way suit the character.

By way of example, why should my scion have a good Fort save if that scion is a wizard and avoids (and has always avoided) physical activity? If my scion has a studious upbringing I shouldn't be restricted to 2 skill points a level and a short list of class skills simply because they are a scion.

Of course, one could always develop a scion class for each bloodline derivation, in which case my scion above might have levels in a Vorynn-specific scion class that gives a good Will save rather than a good Fort save. They might also have a weaker Base Attack Progression that is compensated for by better class skills and skill points per level. (I agree that bloodline derivation should have an influence on character class, that scions with an Anduiras bloodline tend to be fighters more than any other adventuring class for example).

It's just that a single scion class is too generic and doesn't (IMO) encompass the differences between the bloodline derivations and what I consider to be their inherent tendencies.

At the same time, in 3e templates seem to be the accepted way of adding something like a bloodline to an existing character. It also seems to tap into the idea that game mechanics shouldn't double-up bonuses or penalties. If a scion suffers bloodtheft they loose all their blood abilities. That is a penalty (and a very large one in some cases). Having them also loose the most significant class features of a class they probably have several levels in is an added penalty in that if they had taken another class they would be much better off. One simple adventuring setback can strip the character of much of their power - and this is not something that any other class suffers. A wizard can have spellcasting powers temporarily nullified, for instance, but not loose all spellcasting abilities.

At the same time, a bloodline can be picked up midway through an adventure by bloodtheft. Committing bloodtheft but having to wait until progressing a level before the bloodtheft takes effect doesn't seem to fit too well to me. It's something that happens at the time of the bloodtheft - and a template can be added at any time.

[Birthright-L]

> Kalien wrote:
>
> By way of example, why should my scion have a good
> Fort save if that scion is a wizard and avoids (and
> has always avoided) physical activity? If my scion
> has a studious upbringing I shouldn`t be restricted
> to 2 skill points a level and a short list of class
> skills simply because they are a scion.
>

How is this different from every other class? If my
cleric is a studious one, why don`t I have all
knowledge skills as class skills? And why do I have
only 2 skill points per level?

Classes in DnD are abstractions. You can flesh them
out by changing your attributes and by multi-classing.
Studious characters have high Int scores.

A scion class can actually solve more skill problems
than it creates. Such a class should have access to a
wide range of social and administrative skills, as
well as some general and athletic skills, and have 4
skill points per level. Not all scions may use all
these skill - but not all rogues use Lip Reading or
Escape Artist, either.

A wizard is less likely to multi-class than almost any
other character. But a wizard is also less likely to
take an ECL race than any other character. However you
twist and turn, well-developed scions make poor
wizards.

In a way, I find this reasonable - a wizard puts every
ounce of his magic into his wizardry powers rather
than into the more general "scion" powers. Every
wizard is a scion, but most wizards fail to develop
their blood powers very highly.

But for this reasoning to work, blood powers must, at
least partially, be something that you CHOOSE to
develop - that is, it must be a scion class., separate
from your bloodline value. A cha´racter can have a
very high bloodline score, and still lack bloodline
abilities because they failed to develop in the scion
class. Making bloodline a static ECL modifier makes
ALL powerful scions bad spellcasters.

That way, Aubrae Avan (Darien Avan`s daughter from
Sword and Crown) can have a very high bloodline score
(70), and still lack all blood abilities. Presumably
she focused everything into her magic.

/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.

[Mark_Aurel]

Of course, one could always develop a scion class for each bloodline derivation, in which case my scion above might have levels in a Vorynn-specific scion class that gives a good Will save rather than a good Fort save. They might also have a weaker Base Attack Progression that is compensated for by better class skills and skill points per level. (I agree that bloodline derivation should have an influence on character class, that scions with an Anduiras bloodline tend to be fighters more than any other adventuring class for example).

It's just that a single scion class is too generic and doesn't (IMO) encompass the differences between the bloodline derivations and what I consider to be their inherent tendencies.


Look at variant D in the bloodline proposals document.

http://www.tuarhievel.org/Blood%20Score%20...sals%205-15.zip (http://www.tuarhievel.org/Blood%20Score%20Proposals%205-15.zip)


At the same time, in 3e templates seem to be the accepted way of adding something like a bloodline to an existing character. It also seems to tap into the idea that game mechanics shouldn't double-up bonuses or penalties. If a scion suffers bloodtheft they loose all their blood abilities. That is a penalty (and a very large one in some cases). Having them also loose the most significant class features of a class they probably have several levels in is an added penalty in that if they had taken another class they would be much better off. One simple adventuring setback can strip the character of much of their power - and this is not something that any other class suffers. A wizard can have spellcasting powers temporarily nullified, for instance, but not loose all spellcasting abilities.


There's actually a widening repetoire of ways to add unusual abilities to creatures and characters. The Fiend Folio and Savage Species uses a lot of prestige classes to reflect things like this - like the Fiend of Corruption (the "let me buy your soul - sign here" type) or the Fiend of Blasphemy. The real question when it comes to bloodlines is both what is most accurate and what is most balanced.

A template isn't inherently any different than a scion class - they're both ways to compensate for scion power by ways of character level. The main difference is simply that the scion class is a bit more versatile and gets a character hit points and an attack/save progression.

As for the bookish character, consider this - use the apprentice-level characters variant in the DMG. Play a bard/scion or cleric/scion or whatever other bookish class you had in mind. You'll have blood abilities at first level, and also the skills you want. It may be using a variant rule, but I nevertheless think it's a very good way of getting exactly what you're after here - and it's an effect that's not possible to achieve with a template. A template basically doesn't allow 1st-level characters with blood abilities. If it does, it better have some other cost, or you're staring straight at an imbalanced character.

In terms of losing blood abilities, for a scion class character, think of it in the same way as energy drain - it's a bit more complex than removing a template, but I don't really think it should come up all that often, either - if it does, I'd say that the campaign in question sounds very harsh. A scion only suffers bloodtheft upon dying, remember - and I've never been in a Birthright campaign where raising the dead was a common occurrence - some ban it outright. The only way for a living scion to lose bloodline is by means of divestiture (or maybe some of the spells in the accessories - they needed to pad those books out, after all). In terms of character loss, a template sets up pretty much the exact same type of penalty that a scion class does if it's lost - I think that's a bad argument for that reason. A character who loses a +2 template should lose just as much power as a character with two levels of scion in terms of power.


At the same time, a bloodline can be picked up midway through an adventure by bloodtheft. Committing bloodtheft but having to wait until progressing a level before the bloodtheft takes effect doesn't seem to fit too well to me. It's something that happens at the time of the bloodtheft - and a template can be added at any time.

This is based on an assumption that I consider a bad one, and one that will potentially unbalance a campaign. If you allow characters to gain a template without having to pay for it, then, yes, you are short-changing those who chose to start as such. As it is, becoming blooded through usurpation wasn't something that was even in the original rules - it's something that flavor materials have set up, and has since gotten some support in the various rules draft forms. As it is, a scion level system actually balances out becoming blooded through usurpation much better than simply adding a template would - simply adding a template is like giving out free levels. Using a scion class system, the character still has to level up in the scion class to gain the blood abilities, and thus remains balanced with the other characters. Nobody says that this can't be the case for the template, either, of course, but it doesn't support it equally as well. Now, if you look at the way variant D does scion levels, the scion will gain the full bloodline score upon committing bloodtheft - but he won't gain any blood abilities until he actually takes levels in the scion class. This, again, might seem to fit what happens in such an event - the character gains the power, but it takes a while for him to learn how to use it, which would seem to fit the description given in some cases. I don't think bloodlines come with user manuals.

Giving away free levels simply for slaying a scion or blooded monster seems way too large a benefit to be balanced.

[Tempest]

In terms of losing blood abilities, for a scion class character, think of it in the same way as energy drain - it's a bit more complex than removing a template, but I don't really think it should come up all that often, either - if it does, I'd say that the campaign in question sounds very harsh.

What about when derivation changes? First we "drain" those levels away and then we add equal or more levels in scion class of another derivation? This can be done, but it is little complex. We have to lower hitpoints, skill points, feats and saves and then pick new ones again. If player has started campaing as a wizards, then took three levels as scion and then continued to gain levels as wizard to character level 10, how is he supposed to remember what skills he did raised during those three scion levels and what feats he took. Just lowering highest skills isn't good idea, expecially if you have multiclassed character.

I think there should be pre-requisities for gaining scion levels. For example, character should have certain ammount of bloodline and somekind of "major bloodline" -template (gained through character creation or bloodtheft) before he could rise himself to second level in scion class. I think gaining levels in scion class shouldn't be based on you experience.
IMO, other way to do scion class is to have it raise levels based on characters bloodline and template he has, rather than raising levels based on experience. This way system would be more faithful 2nd "there can be only one" Highlander kind of bloodlines, eventhough it might be unbalancing. (And this would cause problems like how much character has experience after he has become blooded through bloodtheft.)


Now, if you look at the way variant D does scion levels, the scion will gain the full bloodline score upon committing bloodtheft - but he won't gain any blood abilities until he actually takes levels in the scion class. This, again, might seem to fit what happens in such an event - the character gains the power, but it takes a while for him to learn how to use it, which would seem to fit the description given in some cases. I don't think bloodlines come with user manuals.

This is true also, but I hate idea that bloodlines are somehow based on your experience rather than bloodline strenght.

[Mark_Aurel]

What about when derivation changes? First we "drain" those levels away and then we add equal or more levels in scion class of another derivation? This can be done, but it is little complex. We have to lower hitpoints, skill points, feats and saves and then pick new ones again. If player has started campaing as a wizards, then took three levels as scion and then continued to gain levels as wizard to character level 10, how is he supposed to remember what skills he did raised during those three scion levels and what feats he took. Just lowering highest skills isn't good idea, expecially if you have multiclassed character.


This really isn't any different than the complications that arise when multiclassed characters get level drained. In any case, it shouldn't be much of a problem in most cases - having characters alter or lose their bloodlines in such a way should be a pretty rare event - over the course of a campaign I think having it happen to one out of five characters once at most would be a good estimation. Bloodlines really aren't something you change around like clothes or steal like it was pocket change.


I think there should be pre-requisities for gaining scion levels. For example, character should have certain ammount of bloodline and somekind of "major bloodline" -template (gained through character creation or bloodtheft) before he could rise himself to second level in scion class. I think gaining levels in scion class shouldn't be based on you experience.
IMO, other way to do scion class is to have it raise levels based on characters bloodline and template he has, rather than raising levels based on experience. This way system would be more faithful 2nd "there can be only one" Highlander kind of bloodlines, eventhough it might be unbalancing. (And this would cause problems like how much character has experience after he has become blooded through bloodtheft.)


I'm not 100% sure if I quite get what you're driving at here, but I'll try. Like I've said earlier, character levels in 3e aren't "experience levels" - they're power levels. They measure character power, not character experience. Of course, progress is still measured in experience points, but, these too can be considered to be a bit more than they have been in previous editions - looking at the application of XP as spell components or for the creation of magic items, for instance. You could call them "soul points" and get much the same effect. Levels in the scion class doesn't necessarily have anything to do with experience - it has to do with power. A 1st-level character shouldn't be significantly more powerful than another 1st-level character. This is why powerful races and templates are balanced out by character level penalties - so those characters remain equally as powerful as other characters at that level. A 1st-level ogre fighter isn't necessarily any more experienced than a 1st-level human fighter, but he's definitely far more powerful.

3e really does differ a lot in terms of design philosophy and explanation of certain concepts like these from previous editions - overall, though, 3e makes more sense. One of the central concepts of 3e is that of player choice - randomized character traits are right out (ability score rolling is a sacred cow, though, but still subject to a few rules that doesn't quite leave it very random) - players are supposed to have control over their character's abilities and stats. In order for this to be possible, there must be balance between different choices, so one doesn't get better than another. Thus, as a point of rewriting the rules for Birthright for 3e, we can't accept a thesis that we should write imbalanced rules for 3e simply to duplicate the rules of a previous edition - we might as well stick to playing by those old rules entirely, then, if we're not going to change the rules where necessary to reflect the new system.

[Birthright-L]

The easy way is to do like it is already done with
spells - with a Bld of 11, you can use lvl 1 bloodine
abilities, Bld 12 allows level 2 abilities and so on.
This way you can learn a lot of abilities even with a
low bloodline - but not the powerful ones.

__________________________________________________ ___
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.

[RaspK_FOG]

Well, to me it seems that it should be as always (House Rules Rule!), but that does not mean that a player should not be able to have a baseline!

Anyway, I suggest that a solution like the one presented is given (semi-randomness, based on points taken from dice-roll; others can still prefer point-bying), and leave it as it is. Till now, it seems fine to me.

As for the Fortitude pumped up wizard, it seemed to me as a silly argument anyway: do you really know of any wizard who does not wish he had a higher Base Fortitude Save, or a bonus of any sort for that?

Furthermore, it is a part of role-playing to have a trait that does not necessarily fit/suit you! I can still remember the time when my first character, a neutral good, half-elven bard cast a cure moderate wounds spell on the downed cleric of our team, or the time he did the same trick to a vampire, while the aforementioned cleric and our paladin tried to hack him down. :P

[Razorbones]

I think the best way to add bloodlines to AD&D 3rd edition is a scion class.

It's the best for balance, since the bloodline powers (ability to collect RP, bloodline powers, prestige, etc) are a tradeoff to other powers gained in leveling another class.

Besides, it would help alleviate the sorcerer/magician problem of birthright 2nd ed. With a scion class, Birthright Wizards can be restricted to a few schools of magic and only scions can use the best schools of magic and realm spells.

Even more, a scion class puts out more clearly the importance of bloodlines then a mere ability. A bloodline ability makes it look like everyone is blooded. A scion class puts back the importance, prestige, advantages and disadvantages of bloodlines more clearly. Being a scion is dangerous business after all, which might not come out with bloodlines being blend with abilities.

If this is the path that is to be chosen (scion = class), then I think that we could debate methods of implementation further (scion class based on the bloodline derivation?). A scion class would make for some interesting possibilities, including the role-play of an evil scion with transformation rules, which is lacking at the moment (weak implementation in 2nd Ed).

[RaspK_FOG]

Well, the idea behind the scion class you present is not a new one (I am not saying you stole it; I hope there is no misunderstanding). Here is an excerpt from "Volo's Guide to All Things Magical", and particularly, an excerpt from the matter of spellfire:

Spellfire Experience

For game purposes, spellfire wielders are treated as if they have two classes. Experience points are awarded normally for adventures when no spellfire is used, but whenever spellfire is employed, all experience is split evenly between the characterís real class and a phantom "spellfire class" that advances without training or recognition and is used purely to determine the degree of control over spellfire the wielder possesses. The Wizard Experience Levels table given in the Playerís Handbook is used to measure a wielder's "spellfire level."

It should be noted that unlike true character classes, a spellfire
wielder can advance in level during an adventure, and use his or her improved abilities instantly, feeling the augmented control. Refer to Spellfire Unleashed, later in this chapter, for details of what powers each level in the spellfire class gives a user.

For the first adventure in which a spellfire wielder successfully manifests and uses a crown of fire (see Spellfire Unleashed), the "spellfire class" half of the experience points gained by a spellfire user are quadrupled. This only applies to the spellfire half-share, and only occurs for the initial use of - crown of fire ó not every time this power is used.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Razorbones

I think the best way to add bloodlines to AD&D 3rd edition is a scion class.

It's the best for balance, since the bloodline powers (ability to collect RP, bloodline powers, prestige, etc) are a tradeoff to other powers gained in leveling another class.

Besides, it would help alleviate the sorcerer/magician problem of birthright 2nd ed. With a scion class, Birthright Wizards can be restricted to a few schools of magic and only scions can use the best schools of magic and realm spells.

Even more, a scion class puts out more clearly the importance of bloodlines then a mere ability. A bloodline ability makes it look like everyone is blooded. A scion class puts back the importance, prestige, advantages and disadvantages of bloodlines more clearly. Being a scion is dangerous business after all, which might not come out with bloodlines being blend with abilities.

If this is the path that is to be chosen (scion = class), then I think that we could debate methods of implementation further (scion class based on the bloodline derivation?). A scion class would make for some interesting possibilities, including the role-play of an evil scion with transformation rules, which is lacking at the moment (weak implementation in 2nd Ed).

As long as you realize that the proposals for scions class basically only account for the equivalent ECL modifiers they would have. This is a direct correlary from Savage Species which present monster classes (for playing a monster character, like a centaur) such a they could be played at first level instead of having every PC start at elevated levels as pointed out in the DMG.

There were several proposals on the boards for creating a 20 level scion class which were all pretty much dismissed as detracting too much from the standard classes and there just not being enough "uniqueness" to make a scion class as a stand alone class.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG


Well, the idea behind the scion class you present is not a new one (I am not saying you stole it; I hope there is no misunderstanding). Here is an excerpt from "Volo's Guide to All Things Magical", and particularly, an excerpt from the matter of spellfire:

Spellfire Experience

For game purposes, spellfire wielders are treated as if they have two classes. Experience points are awarded normally for adventures when no spellfire is used, but whenever spellfire is employed, all experience is split evenly between the characterís real class and a phantom "spellfire class" that advances without training or recognition and is used purely to determine the degree of control over spellfire the wielder possesses. The Wizard Experience Levels table given in the Playerís Handbook is used to measure a wielder's "spellfire level."

It should be noted that unlike true character classes, a spellfire
wielder can advance in level during an adventure, and use his or her improved abilities instantly, feeling the augmented control. Refer to Spellfire Unleashed, later in this chapter, for details of what powers each level in the spellfire class gives a user.

For the first adventure in which a spellfire wielder successfully manifests and uses a crown of fire (see Spellfire Unleashed), the "spellfire class" half of the experience points gained by a spellfire user are quadrupled. This only applies to the spellfire half-share, and only occurs for the initial use of - crown of fire ó not every time this power is used.

Something similar was presented a while ago but was also generally considered to be just too cumbersome to implement. Two separate experience pools is a nightmare waiting to happen. There was a lot of "discussion" on how cumbersome the RP collection system in the playtest document was, this dual experience pool system would give that a race for complexity and truely unnecessary paperwork in a campaign setting that already has more bookkeeping than just about any other one that could be run (assuming that a domain level of play is being used).

Back to my previous post on the "reason" to use scion class levels (to account for the ECL modifier so that scion could be played in a 1st level campaign without imbalancing the party).

[Green Knight]

I've posted this before, or something similar...

There is really no difference between a level adjustment and class levels. Savage Species introduces the concept of "monster classes", which can easily be used in conjunction with Bloodlines giving level adjustments.

When creating a character with a bloodline, simply seclect a template of the appropriated power (tainted, minor, major, great, true). If bloodline improves (or even degrades), simply use the new appropriate template (rules for this also in SS).

The exact contents of the templates I will not go into, that can be debated ad infinitum. Just make sure that the benefits balance with the drawbackt (the level adjustment).

Example:
Tainted +0 ECL
Minor +1 ECL
Major +2 ECL
Great +3 ECL
True +4 ECL

So, assuming the party is to start at 1st level, characters can only have a tainted bloodline. But thats OK, because the DM and the player has decided that the character's lineage is of Great power, and the player is preapred to pick the required templates over time. Eventually, at 10th level, the character is a noble 2/fighter 5 with a great bloodline.

Simple, flexible, customizeable, and inline with current 3E mechs.

B

[ryancaveney]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Green Knight wrote:

> There is really no difference between a level adjustment and class
> levels.

Mostly. However, my taste for nitpicky pedantry requires me to say there
are a couple of significant differences. In the strictest terminological
sense, a level adjustment affects *only* XP, both reducing XP awards and
making XP expenditure more expensive -- it is introduced in order to make
up for some other goodies, which are not technically part of the level
adjustment (said goodies are generally part of a template, which also
contains a level adjustment). A class level is a package of goodies tied
to a specific XP penalty, theoretically balanced against each other.
ECLs are only used when tied to specific packages of goodies, however, so
this is not a major practical issue (I just think you should have said
something like "positive-ECL template" instead).

That said, I do understand what you meant; but even putting all word-games
aside, I still disagree with you in part. Here`s why.

The big practical difference is that the thing the level adjustment is
intended to balance can theoretically be *anything*, whereas all class
levels have certain things in common: e.g., they increase (even if only
fractionally) BAB, HD, saves, skill points, ability scores, and free
feats; some have other standard increases like uses of N per day
abilities, number of sneak attack dice, or spells per day. All classes
look more or less like all other classes at some basic level, and all
class levels are designed to build gradually upon other class levels
(though some kinds of classes complement each other more than others do).

A level adjustment can be applied for anything at all. However, given
just how very many different reinforcing bonuses are provided by a single
class level, I think most suggested ECL adjustments made (in both the
official rulebooks and fan-produced material) are far too large. To make
up for even just one class level, a package of powers that doesn`t give
all (or worse yet, any) of the above things has to be very impressive; and
to make up for three full class levels must be truly immense.

> Savage Species introduces the concept of "monster classes",
> which can easily be used in conjunction with Bloodlines giving level
> adjustments.

It`s not a terrible idea, but I definitely won`t be using them as written.
To me, XP really is *experience*, so I have significant philosophical
issues with altering its use. IMC, a full-grown giant with 10,000 XP has
five class levels in addition to full-giant status. I would calculate an
effective level for purposes of determining encounter challenge and thus
appropriate XP awards, but I would disregard the effective level utterly
when determining whether the character levels up with the XP he is given.
Also, gaining XP would not allow a juvenile giant to "level up" into a
higher-level giant -- only time can do that. I don`t care if this
interpretation of XP/ECL is unorthodox -- it`s the only one which makes
any sense at all to me personally, so it`s what I use.

> When creating a character with a bloodline, simply seclect a template
> of the appropriated power (tainted, minor, major, great, true). If
> bloodline improves (or even degrades), simply use the new appropriate
> template (rules for this also in SS).

Sounds good at first glance, but...

> The exact contents of the templates I will not go into, that can be
> debated ad infinitum. Just make sure that the benefits balance with
> the drawbackt (the level adjustment).

This is the kicker. Part of the problem is that no system yet presented
is at all balanced IMO -- none of the power packages suggested even
remotely justify the cost.

> Example:
> Tainted +0 ECL
> Minor +1 ECL
> Major +2 ECL
> Great +3 ECL
> True +4 ECL

Part of the problem here is the granularity of the level system. Gary has
tried to remedy this with fractional ECLs, which I think is a necessary
part of making them both useful and fair. However, I don`t think he goes
far enough -- in order to really make the balance work, there has to be an
observable game-play difference between a +1.2 and a +1.3 ECL. The rungs
on this ladder are just too far apart. To make ECL really work in any but
the most extreme cases, you need to interpolate the XP table. For example:

LVL XP LVL XP LVL XP

1.2 120 1.5 375 1.7 595
2.2 1320 2.5 1875 2.7 2295
3.2 3520 3.5 4375 3.7 4995
4.2 6720 4.5 7875 4.7 8695
5.2 10920 5.5 12375 5.7 13395

This is one of the great advantages of the 3e unified XP table: since all
classes use the simple formula XP to reach level N = 500 * N * (N-1), and
this formula gives good results when applied to any real number at least
one, you can easily calculate the XP needed to reach any level at all!
For example, level pi is reached at 3364 XP. =)

For an example of why I say this, let`s look at your sample numbers.
Unless you give a True bloodline so many blood abilities of such power
that a True Wiz 3 stands a 50/50 chance against a Tainted Wiz 7, it`s not
actually balanced in any useful way. Of course, if you do that, then a
True Ftr 3 might beat a Tainted Ftr 7 every time; this seems to indicate
that bloodline strength should have a significant effect on spellcasting
power. Asking about True Ftr 3 vs. Tainted Wiz 7 isn`t IMO all that
instructive, because the standard D&D game system itself doesn`t do that
good a job of balancing Ftr 7 vs. Wiz 7 anyway -- but that`s a different
debate. IMO, a more sensible pattern would look like Tainted/Minor +0,
Major/Great +1, True +2 -- even that is probably unbalanced, because it
does not deal with the issues that bloodline strength class does not
determine blood ability numbers or powers very firmly at all, and some
blood powers are just much more powerful than others. Again, something
like Gary`s fractional ECL system or Shade`s "blood powers are magic
items, pay XP once to acquire them" needs to be put in place to give the
system the level of detail it needs. In most cases, half a dozen minor
abilities do not add up to a whole class level`s worth of power.

> Simple, flexible, customizeable, and inline with current 3E mechs.

In concept, yes. Azrai, however, is in the details. =) This might be the
"system purist`s best" way to do it in principle -- but in practice I have
yet to see a set of numbers that didn`t seem badly broken. I`m not sure
it`s impossible, but it does appear rather difficult.


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.

[Mark_Aurel]

For an example of why I say this, let`s look at your sample numbers.
Unless you give a True bloodline so many blood abilities of such power
that a True Wiz 3 stands a 50/50 chance against a Tainted Wiz 7, it`s not
actually balanced in any useful way. Of course, if you do that, then a
True Ftr 3 might beat a Tainted Ftr 7 every time; this seems to indicate
that bloodline strength should have a significant effect on spellcasting
power. Asking about True Ftr 3 vs. Tainted Wiz 7 isn`t IMO all that
instructive, because the standard D&D game system itself doesn`t do that
good a job of balancing Ftr 7 vs. Wiz 7 anyway -- but that`s a different
debate. IMO, a more sensible pattern would look like Tainted/Minor +0,
Major/Great +1, True +2 -- even that is probably unbalanced, because it
does not deal with the issues that bloodline strength class does not
determine blood ability numbers or powers very firmly at all, and some
blood powers are just much more powerful than others. Again, something
like Gary`s fractional ECL system or Shade`s "blood powers are magic
items, pay XP once to acquire them" needs to be put in place to give the
system the level of detail it needs. In most cases, half a dozen minor
abilities do not add up to a whole class level`s worth of power.


The D&D system isn't balanced like that. The main factor in balancing is having each character be able to contribute relatively equally to a party over a given period of time or number of sessions - not have each character be exactly equal given deathmatch conditions. Over a set of varied deathmatch scenarios, the classes might be relatively equal. The idea is basically that in a party of four characters - a cleric, a fighter, a rogue, and a wizard - or any other composition - each character should have relatively equal airtime and prominence, given a reasonable mix of challenges and settings. If every setting is a tight, lit dungeon, the fighter will rule supreme. If every monster encountered is undead, the cleric will be the king of the hill. If every combat gives opportunities for flanking or hiding around, the rogue might be able to dish out more damage than the fighter. If facing vast hordes on an open field, the wizard will incinerate them at a nice pace. If given time to prepare for an encounter, the wizard will be the #1 guy on the block. If given no time to prepare and being taken by surprise, my money would rather be on the fighter or barbarian being the one to save the day.

Given the way the game has evolved, I think it's a fair assumption that the core classes actually are fairly balanced with each other in terms of "stage time" and ability to contribute meaningfully. Not perfectly, of course, and certainly not adapted to anyone's game in particular, but close enough to work well for most. It is also mostly on this basis that we should examine what an ECL or multiclass means for a character.

In terms of raw power, multiclass characters miss out, for the most part, barring twinked-out minmaxed combinations (often from shady d20 products). A wizard 10/rogue 10 is clearly less powerful than either a wizard 20 or a rogue 20. The multiclass character, though, is somewhat more versatile - though still not by enough to make up for the power gap, IMO. A wizard 10/rogue 10 might be closer to an 18th-level character in raw power than a 20th-level one, the obligatory equipment package notwithstanding. Of course, doling out "bonus levels" for taking weak multiclassing choices like this is mostly out of the question (and depends on way too many variables anyway) - hence we have some prestige classes, like the arcane trickster, that helps bridge the power gap between multiclassed and singleclassed characters. For this reason, I tend to be a bit creative when assigning CRs to NPCs as well - a 20th-level commoner (I have one in my campaign - the King of All Shepherds - looks conspicuously like Sean Connery) is clearly less of a challenge than a 20th-level warrior, who in turn is a bit less of a challenge than a 20th-level fighter, who again is probably less of a challenge than what a 20th-level spellcaster tends to be, who is usually less of a challenge than a CR 20 dragon from the MM. That doesn't mean the CR system doesn't work - just that there are elements that the sometimes simple formulas you assign to CR doesn't account for (but assumes DM input anyway). And the dragon CRs assume that you're prepared to face it - which is actually a bit dumb, IMO - they should give the dragon CRs on the same basis as other monsters.

Of course, on the same basis as CR, ECL can be hard to capture exactly. The formulas provided are mainly intended as starting points, and are far from accurate. For instance, for a PC to have poison isn't anywhere near as good an ability as for a monster - at least not on low levels - but it's an ability that scales extremely well. It's probably worth more to do 2d6 Con damage to a dragon at 20th level than an orc at 1st - the orc'll be dead in a round anyway, against the dragon, that's effectively 1d6xHD damage. Poison was pretty much the only way to kill the unerrataed Tarrasque. ECLs are also of different value, due to a certain lack of granularity. I wouldn't assign an ECL to a half-elf simply because I gave it a +2 bonus on Diplomacy and Gather Information, for instance. Which, of course, is the level of usefulness of some blood abilities in general. Characters with an ECL of +1 are of different value most of the time. Of course, given that some combinations work better with each other than others, the relative value of those +1 ECL races change too. An aasimar is a better +1 ECL match for a paladin than a wizard by far. An aasimar wizard probably wouldn't really be a very good character - but a paladin aasimar is worth the +1 ECL. Balance, in this case, must be based on the most minmaxed character possible - the paladin aasimar - he'd be overpowered if the aasimar ECL was instead determined with a wizard in mind and set to +0. For this reason, I can imagine there might be a few cases where a race with a higher ECL might actually be generally weaker than one with a lower ECL, but more powerful in a few specific cases. A race with a very high charisma bonus would be crap for fighters, but extremely good for bards or sorcerers.

Now, given this variety, I think trying to assign more "accurate ECLs" is probably not a very good idea in general unless you want to have separate fractional ECLs for every separate combination in the game - which would require a pretty long list for every monster, increasing the size of the description for every single monster to "phonebook." Given the definition of balance given above ("airtime per character"), this system'd further fall apart if applied to a game that fell outside the norm of - 37% dungeon exploration, 18% hack-n-slash, 22% negotiation and parleying; 12% undead, 6.5% dragons - or whatever other such distribution a "standard campaign balance value" would be based upon. Given all these factors, a more granular system is better left to the individual DM or campaign than to a product whose aim is to be fairly generic and immediately useful to as many as possible without being complex in an undue fashion.

Compensation and overall balance can come in many forms as well - perhaps there's a special prestige class that only aasimar wizards can take to balance out that it's a relatively weak choice. I find that in this regard, prestige classes can form an important addition to the system for balance purposes.

Now, looking at scions, estimating the level of power each character gains from blood abilities and having a bloodline is one thing - balancing them is another. Once again, the main thing to look at is the strongest combinations around and work from there. A rogue with divine wrath clearly doesn't gain as much benefit from it as a fighter - the rogue's combat stats aren't all that to begin with. The reverse is true for other powers, like shadow form, some of the enhanced senses, or unreadable thoughts.

What is the value of modifiers? For a fighter-type character, the main modifiers that matter are strength, constitution, and dexterity, and wisdom to a lesser extent. In melee, a common circumstance, I'd think, a fighter with a +2 to strength hits as much as a fighter that's one level higher, and does +1 more damage. In exchange for that, he has about 5.5 + Con mod less hp, somewhat worse saves, a couple of skill points less, he falls behind in feats, he falls behind in attacks per round, and he falls behind in ability improvement acquisition. All these things considered, a +2 to strength is probably not worth a full fighter level. Combined with something else, though, it easily is. If you also added in something like a +2 bonus to constitution, a +1 or +2 natural armor bonus, a few skill bonuses, or anything similar, you'd approach the level where it'd be worth an ECL - it shouldn't be a better option in raw numbers than the straight fighter (that'd start us on the nasty path of power escalation), but it should be a comparable option.

For blood abilities, there are few blood abilities that directly stack on top of existing character abilities like this - but there are a lot that expand a character's versatility, or all-around viability and "playtime." An ECL fighter with animal affinity and character reading might not be as good at fighting as a straight fighter, but he'd be useful in a few more situations, making him a more well-rounded character, and he might be overall equally useful. It is, of course impossible to gauge exactly, and boils down to the question of "would you always take this?" If you would, it's probably too good. It's better to have a system with a lot of equal options and some bad options, than a system with a few good options and lots of bad ones.

In terms of overall character balance, blood abilities should be likened most to multiclassing for this reason - it's a versatility thing, not a raw power thing. I'm not a great fan of trying to be _too_ exact in regard to balancing races or scions, however, as long as the most powerful options possible are balanced - it's a case where what's good for the goose may not be good for the gander.

Then there's the recurring issue of classes against straight ECLs - one of the advantages I see using a scion class is allowing a greater degree of versatility and granularity than using ECLs alone. Using ECLs alone wouldn't stretch far enough for all the bloodline strengths to be reflected without also creating imbalanced characters. Since, when it all boils down to it, I am actually pretty concerned with balance, and also retaining the integral aspect of 3e design that players get to choose, rather than trying to use randomness as a balancing tool, I think this is the better path of what is within the existing system. Designing some entirely new way of balancing things would make the BRCS look too much like a set of someone's house rules - unless that way fit seamlessly in with what came before.

As always, of course, I really don't care how anyone else plays their game - but having a common ground to discuss on is always nice. And I think I can say that you are indeed a nitpicking pedant.

[irdeggman]

Jan,

While lengthy, I think you did a very good job of explaining the overall reason and use of ECLs. I also agree with the reasoning of using a scion class to handle ECLs from being a scion and the point of "balance" as not being a "who can wup on whom" but more of an "equal game time and use to the party" issue.

It should be again pointed out that the proposed ECLs for scions (and subsequent use of scion class to handle them) are basically designed for a campaign that uses some domain level play and some adventure level play. It definitely breaks down when either extreme is used. If a campaign is using mostly domain level play the use of ECLs is drastically useless - then again so are characters with high abilities in Str, Con and probably Dex while high scores in Cha, Wis and Int are more valuable. In a campaign that uses mostly adventuring level of play the scion bonuses for hit points and interaction RP are lost although the effect on ECL is not near as drastic. So the point is to appeal to the masses that use some of each and not tailor a system to the extremes, which would end up leaving the majority dissatisfied.



Darn it Jan, when we agree so much I'm inclined to think of the Chris Rock quote on the state of the world - -

Chris Rock's quote of the day....

"You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named 'Bush', 'Dick', and Colon'.

Need I say more?"
;)

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG

Well, the idea behind the scion class you present is not a new one (I am not saying you stole it; I hope there is no misunderstanding). Here is an excerpt from "Volo's Guide to All Things Magical", and particularly, an excerpt from the matter of spellfire:

Spellfire Experience

For game purposes, spellfire wielders are treated as if they have two classes. Experience points are awarded normally for adventures when no spellfire is used, but whenever spellfire is employed, all experience is split evenly between the characterís real class and a phantom "spellfire class" that advances without training or recognition and is used purely to determine the degree of control over spellfire the wielder possesses. The Wizard Experience Levels table given in the Playerís Handbook is used to measure a wielder's "spellfire level."

It should be noted that unlike true character classes, a spellfire
wielder can advance in level during an adventure, and use his or her improved abilities instantly, feeling the augmented control. Refer to Spellfire Unleashed, later in this chapter, for details of what powers each level in the spellfire class gives a user.

For the first adventure in which a spellfire wielder successfully manifests and uses a crown of fire (see Spellfire Unleashed), the "spellfire class" half of the experience points gained by a spellfire user are quadrupled. This only applies to the spellfire half-share, and only occurs for the initial use of - crown of fire ó not every time this power is used.

Unfortunetely this is a purely 2nd edition reference. It roughly worked when every class in a multiclass character had their own set of experience points, it doesn't work well when there is one set of experience points per character. 3rd ed did very well in eliminated the multiple experince points tables and making everything more "balanced" in advancement.

[Peter Lubke]

Okay, let me sum this up. There`s no consensus on what people do like,
for they like different models for different reasons, and, while those
reasons are not always exclusive of other peoples reasons, often their
nominated model does not meet criteria other than their own.

e.g. Ryan states (quoted below) that in his opinion no system so far
presented is balanced.


> > The exact contents of the templates I will not go into, that can be
> > debated ad infinitum. Just make sure that the benefits balance with
> > the drawbackt (the level adjustment).
>
> This is the kicker. Part of the problem is that no system yet presented
> is at all balanced IMO -- none of the power packages suggested even
> remotely justify the cost.

> In concept, yes. Azrai, however, is in the details. =) This might be the
> "system purist`s best" way to do it in principle -- but in practice I have
> yet to see a set of numbers that didn`t seem badly broken. I`m not sure
> it`s impossible, but it does appear rather difficult.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to be all things to all men (and pleasing
women into the bargain is ... well, best left unmentioned). Partly, this
can be because two (or more) design criteria can have an effect on each
other. It`s important to have some understanding and agreement of what
design goals a solution is trying to achieve and the priority of each
goal.

As a tentative list only, I`d put forward the following: (at all roughly
the same priority)

(i) Something that works for either domain play or adventure play, and
for both types of play together in combination.

(ii) Something that allows for scions and non-scions to exist in a
balanced party, at any level of play from low level to high level.

(iii) Something that isn`t too different from the original that it loses
all the original flavor and feel. Also so that existing characters can
be ported across without too much change.

(iv) Something that`s not so complicated as to be confusing,
time-consuming, or require copious bookkeeping, but that is still rich
enough to provide a variety of game effects.

Does anyone have anything further before going into specifics?

************************************************** **************************
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 Peter Lubke

Okay, let me sum this up. There`s no consensus on what people do like,
for they like different models for different reasons, and, while those
reasons are not always exclusive of other peoples reasons, often their
nominated model does not meet criteria other than their own.

e.g. Ryan states (quoted below) that in his opinion no system so far
presented is balanced.


> > The exact contents of the templates I will not go into, that can be
> > debated ad infinitum. Just make sure that the benefits balance with
> > the drawbackt (the level adjustment).
>
> This is the kicker. Part of the problem is that no system yet presented
> is at all balanced IMO -- none of the power packages suggested even
> remotely justify the cost.

> In concept, yes. Azrai, however, is in the details. =) This might be the
> "system purist`s best" way to do it in principle -- but in practice I have
> yet to see a set of numbers that didn`t seem badly broken. I`m not sure
> it`s impossible, but it does appear rather difficult.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to be all things to all men (and pleasing
women into the bargain is ... well, best left unmentioned). Partly, this
can be because two (or more) design criteria can have an effect on each
other. It`s important to have some understanding and agreement of what
design goals a solution is trying to achieve and the priority of each
goal.

As a tentative list only, I`d put forward the following: (at all roughly
the same priority)

(i) Something that works for either domain play or adventure play, and
for both types of play together in combination.

(ii) Something that allows for scions and non-scions to exist in a
balanced party, at any level of play from low level to high level.

(iii) Something that isn`t too different from the original that it loses
all the original flavor and feel. Also so that existing characters can
be ported across without too much change.

(iv) Something that`s not so complicated as to be confusing,
time-consuming, or require copious bookkeeping, but that is still rich
enough to provide a variety of game effects.

Does anyone have anything further before going into specifics?


Yes, it needs to conform to the 3rd ed system.

House rules, should to the maximum extent possible be removed from the "core" rules. While this seems vague, it is supposed to be. The question always asked in the development group was - is this a house rules thing or an adaptation? If it is a house rules based item is it necessary in order to describe/capture something that can't readily be captured by the 3rd ed core systems? This will allow the greatest flexability to customize things for individual campaigns.

The definition of balanced party should be reference to each player, not compared to NPCs, i.e., will a player with a non-scion class/template feel equitable to one with one.

Item (i) should be to the maximum extent possible. I guess that means it is of lesser priority but still desirable.

These are all goals and not absolutes so it is possible that some will be met to a greater extent than will others.

Good start Peter.

([_]

[Mark_Aurel]

Wow, I was extremely sleepy when I wrote that.

Anyway, I tend to summarize what the bloodline system should achieve as follows:

1) It needs to fit 3e rules and rules philosophy. This means it should use existing subsystems where possible. A minimum of "system innovation" is a good thing for this purpose.

2) It should be simple and elegant - thus easy to learn, use and understand - and modify if required.

3) It should balance scions with other characters - at least on an adventure level of play, as well as accomodate the fact that scions will trump other characters on a domain level of play.

4) It should be fairly easy to port or convert characters from 2e to 3e - you'll probably need to redesign or tweak your character a bit to make it fit the new system, but, in all likelihood, you'd wind up doing that anyway.

So, granted, a system cannot be all things for everyone - I like discussing house rules, but I think people need to be stricter in separating their own house rules from what they think would work as a standard or bottom line system, given a 3e starting point.

Now, given the above goals, a system for bloodlines in 3e might incorporate any of the following:

- The bloodline score can stay relatively unchanged, though its method of generation needs to change to be less random to accomodate the fact that players are supposed to allow to choose.

- Blood abilites can remain similar, though their breakdown and relative power should be tweaked a bit to balance them internally. Using a feat-like format is the 3e standard for special miscellanous add-on abilities like blood abilities.

- Bloodlines need to be subject to player choice on all areas - that's the 3e standard. I note that in polls, there's a substantial group that likes random generation; while that may be very contrary to 3e philosophy and being pretty backwards-striving, a random generation system may still have a place as a variant or for quick NPC generation.

The following are the standard mechanics I can see being used to balance bloodlines:

- Feats. Not a good mechanic to use for this purpose, for a variety of reasons, but there is a certain precedence for it.

- ECLs. Generally a better way of balancing scions, though it does have a few identifiable drawbacks - it doesn't allow for 1st-level scions, it tends to make scions too weak at low levels (and blood abilities aren't all that useful higher up), it has a low level of granularity, which may mean introducing different levels of scions at identical ECLs, thus ruining real choice on the part of the players.

- Scion levels. Similar to ECLs, but fixes most of the ECL-specific problems, though it does introduce a potential "realism" problem of its own - that some people consider "classes" a "learned," rather than "innate" trait. For others, that may be desirable. In terms of mechanics, scion levels are still IMO simply an improvement upon ECLs for this purpose (and a level adjustment may be incorporated into a scion class as well). So far, I think scion levels allow for the best possible balance, thus being the best way to allow full player choice in true 3e spirit.

There are other methods and ways of balancing too - but in most cases, these fall outside the established system, and should be avoided. The tie between bloodlines and ability scores is an example of this.

[Peter Lubke]

On Sun, 2003-06-15 at 05:12, irdeggman wrote:

>
> > Does anyone have anything further before going into specifics?
> > [/quote]
>
> Yes, it needs to conform to the 3rd ed system.

That was my very first thought, but on reflection it`s not a goal - but
a means of expression, so I left it out. However, (on third thought and
because it will be important) perhaps it should be a constraint, such:

(v) Wherever possible and appropriate, the solution should use
established and accepted methods of implementation, e.g. 3e/d20
mechanics, rather than invent completely new ones. Where BR has itself
defined something, then use this (even if re-engineered) in preference
to building something completely new.

>
>
> House rules, should to the maximum extent possible be removed from the
> "core" rules. While this seems vague, it is supposed to be. The
> question always asked in the development group was - is this a house
> rules thing or an adaptation? If it is a house rules based item is it
> necessary in order to describe/capture something that can`t readily
> be captured by the 3rd ed core systems?

That`s not really all that vague. And really I should have read that
before writing (v), but they both say approximately the same thing.

>
> The definition of balanced party should be reference to each player, not
> compared to NPCs, i.e., will a player with a non-scion class/template
> feel equitable to one with one.

Hmmm, that`s what I did mean. Good Clarification.

>
> Item (i) should be to the maximum extent possible. I guess that means it
> is of lesser priority but still desirable.
>
> These are all goals and not absolutes so it is possible that some will be
> met to a greater extent than will others.([_]

************************************************** **************************
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: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 12:33 PM


> Does anyone have anything further before going into specifics?

X) that experience be sensible for its own sake, rather than just a
mechanism for acomplishing extrinsic goals (eg. balance).

Y) that experience be primarily a mechanism for restoring balance when a
variety of creatures, races, and scions interact with regular, non-blooded
humans.

Z) that experience needs to be based on the challange that a particular
encounter brought to bear the party in terms of its actual, not just
percieved punch.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

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

[DanMcSorley]

On Sat, 14 Jun 2003, Mark_Aurel wrote:
> The following are the standard mechanics I can see being used to balance
> bloodlines:
> - Feats. Not a good mechanic to use for this purpose, for a variety of
> reasons, but there is a certain precedence for it.
> - ECLs. Generally a better way of balancing scions, though it does have
> a few identifiable drawbacks - it doesn`t allow for 1st-level scions,
> it tends to make scions too weak at low levels (and blood abilities
> aren`t all that useful higher up), it has a low level of granularity,
> which may mean introducing different levels of scions at identical ECLs,
> thus ruining real choice on the part of the players.
> - Scion levels. Similar to ECLs, but fixes most of the ECL-specific
> problems, though it does introduce a potential "realism" problem of
> its own - that some people consider "classes" a "learned," rather
> than "innate" trait. For others, that may be desirable. In terms of
> mechanics, scion levels are still IMO simply an improvement upon ECLs
> for this purpose (and a level adjustment may be incorporated into a
> scion class as well). So far, I think scion levels allow for the best
> possible balance, thus being the best way to allow full player choice in
> true 3e spirit.

Of the three, ECLs are probably the best-understood, most common, and
easiest to ignore if a DM doesn`t want to use them. We should present
these as the default, and then offer a basic scion-class version and a
feat version as optional rules.
--
Daniel McSorley

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

[Peter Lubke]

On Sun, 2003-06-15 at 05:50, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
> Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 12:33 PM
>
>
> > Does anyone have anything further before going into specifics?
>
> X) that experience be sensible for its own sake, rather than just a
> mechanism for acomplishing extrinsic goals (eg. balance).
>
> Y) that experience be primarily a mechanism for restoring balance when a
> variety of creatures, races, and scions interact with regular, non-blooded
> humans.
>
> Z) that experience needs to be based on the challange that a particular
> encounter brought to bear the party in terms of its actual, not just
> percieved punch.
>
> Kenneth Gauck
> kgauck@mchsi.com
>

I take it that these are general principles, applicable to any situation
not just to an acceptable bloodline solution. As opposed to goals, these
are restraints under which the solution must be found?

Without rejecting your contrib here, I`m not sure that I agree - or
perhaps I don`t fully understand what you mean. But perhaps I do. I
think I agree with (X) and (Z), but just don`t understand where you are
going with (Y). [not that I have to agree, but do need to understand]

IMO, (and in my experience - oh bad pun), experience (XP) and ECLs etc
are good descriptive tools but poor management tools. Now, I certainly
run counter to mainstream thinking when I say that more experienced
players are better suited to play lower level characters (more correctly
lower ECL characters). i.e. a kind of reverse experience award. If
experience is awarded properly, it reflects the players ability rather
than the characters ability. But the improvement of the character is
seen as a reward to the player for a job well done. While this mechanism
works, it does not balance characters (or players). So regardless of
that point of view, XP and ECL adjustments are poor candidates for
controlling balance. Earned (c.f. awarded) XP does constitute a way of
measuring player performance, and ECLs are effective in determining
character and party strength so as to provide appropriate challenges.

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

[RaspK_FOG]

What most people do not realise is that a second class advancement, while more like 2e in style, since this is were it originated, is much more reasonable!

While ECL gives a static hindrance in level advancement (+1000 XP/level/ECL, or [+1000 XP * ECL]/level, it is the same), a second class gives a dynamic hindrance, since you would need to have twice the needed XP to advance a level! This would allow for new powers to be given on a new basis, but what I present here is only an aswer to something mentioned by another user, not my opinion!

Anyway, it has been told that balance is what makes a character useful. That trully is the point, since a thief will never be as good in some parts as a wizard. There can be no other kind of balance!

Furthermore, I strongly disagree with the "equal XP to advance a level, whatever your class is" logic, since a wizard would need more time and experience to muster his art, while a thief would never go through the same problems! Moreover, a high-level wizard is more powerful than most thiefs of equal, maybe even higher, level!

[Mark_Aurel]

X) that experience be sensible for its own sake, rather than just a
mechanism for acomplishing extrinsic goals (eg. balance).

Sounds like a house rulish interpretation, or a throwback interpretation of what XP "is." If I get you correctly.

Level in 2e = "Experience level." Level as a measure of "experience."

Level in 3e = "Character level." Level as a measure of "power."

"Experience points" retains the same name, but is used for a couple of other purposes beyond simple advancement, such as creating magic items - which is the opposite of what happened in 2e, when you earned XP for making magic items. Of course, there's a variant rule to satisfy those who don't like using XP for magic items and spells - power components. I tend to apply this rule, as it is also a flavorful one, and it helps making certain magic items harder, depending on my whim as a DM.

"Character augmentation points" might be a better way of describing what XP does in 3e. Some characters have different options for what to do with those points - either advancing a level or making magic items. With the introduction of Savage Species, XP can also be used to "buy" racial features directly - which is an extension of the ECL system in the DMG, where a character of a certain race got pegged with a level adjustment and effectively started at 0 XP at that level instead.

Of course, they still use the same term as before - experience points - which is probably a combination of it being a convenience, a sacred cow, not having thought issue through, easy to follow between editions, or whatever.


Y) that experience be primarily a mechanism for restoring balance when a
variety of creatures, races, and scions interact with regular, non-blooded
humans.

Ok.


Z) that experience needs to be based on the challange that a particular
encounter brought to bear the party in terms of its actual, not just
percieved punch.

Agreed. DM's prerogative to adjust, though it shouldn't screw players over for being clever and making an encounter less hard than it could've been.

[Mark_Aurel]

What most people do not realise is that a second class advancement, while more like 2e in style, since this is were it originated, is much more reasonable!

While ECL gives a static hindrance in level advancement (+1000 XP/level/ECL, or [+1000 XP * ECL]/level, it is the same), a second class gives a dynamic hindrance, since you would need to have twice the needed XP to advance a level! This would allow for new powers to be given on a new basis, but what I present here is only an aswer to something mentioned by another user, not my opinion!

If I understand you correctly, what you'd achieve here would essentially be undermining one of the basic tenets of 3e - the ability to roughly measure power by level. If a character's real power exceeds his level, you'd wind up with a character of effectively higher level anyway - which should be measured in the normal level system anyway, for the sake of determining things like how much XP the character earns (which is dynamic, depending on how powerful he is to begin with; you can only kill so many orcs before it stops being a useful experience), and what challenges to throw at the character to begin with.


Anyway, it has been told that balance is what makes a character useful. That trully is the point, since a thief will never be as good in some parts as a wizard. There can be no other kind of balance!

Furthermore, I strongly disagree with the "equal XP to advance a level, whatever your class is" logic, since a wizard would need more time and experience to muster his art, while a thief would never go through the same problems! Moreover, a high-level wizard is more powerful than most thiefs of equal, maybe even higher, level!

What's a thief? You mean rogue, right? Sure, a rogue will never be a spellcaster like a wizard. But saying that a high-level rogue is necessarily intrinsically less powerful than a wizard? That depends very much on the nature of the challenge at hand.

A high-level rogue can:

- Dish out insane amounts of damage that the wizard can't match. A 20th-level rogue might do as much as 4d8+32+40d6 damage in a round (just an example, not necessarily accurate) - a high-level wizard might cast something like a meteor swarm for 24d6 and a quickened, empowered fireball for a further 15d6 - both subject to saving throws, spell resistance, and elemental resistance, but also affecting more than one enemy. Still, when it comes to bringing down a single enemy, fighters, rogues and barbarians are probably better than wizards overall - depending on the nature of the enemy.
- Use any magic item the wizard can (Use Magic Device) and more. Their number of magical items should be pretty identical to that of the wizard overall; if not, their level should be higher.
- Completely avoid any damage the wizard might inflict with a lot of damaging spells.
- Have a lot of skills and special abilities that is useful in a variety of situations. The wizard might duplicate this with spells, but this'd lessen his abilities in other areas.
- Be a generally better combatant than the wizard.

In a combat of a wizard against a rogue, there's a good likelihood that the rogue will win initiative, and proceed to whack the flat-footed wizard to death before he can even act. Three or four sneak attacks in a series tend to have that effect.

Of course, the wizard is better at other things than the rogue is, but saying that one is more powerful or useful to a party overall probably isn't true.

[Peter Lubke]

On Sun, 2003-06-15 at 05:39, Mark_Aurel 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
>
> Mark_Aurel wrote:

May I summarize? (and can I get you off the fence on point (iv)? - or
did I get it right?)

>
> - The bloodline score can stay relatively unchanged, though its method of generation needs to change
> to be less random to accomodate the fact that players are supposed to
> allow to choose.

Design Constraint:
(i) Bloodlines to be less random (?preferably non-random?), so as to be
able to be chosen

>
> - Blood abilites can remain similar, though their breakdown and
> relative power should be tweaked a bit to balance them internally.
> Using a feat-like format is the 3e standard for special miscellanous
> add-on abilities like blood abilities.

Recommended Implementation:
(ii) Feats to implement Blood Abilities, with some tweaking for balance

>
> - Bloodlines need to be subject to player choice on all areas - that`s
> the 3e standard. I note that in polls, there`s a substantial group
> that likes random generation; while that may be very contrary to 3e
> philosophy and being pretty backwards-striving, a random generation
> system may still have a place as a variant or for quick NPC
> generation.

Alternative Lesser Implementation.
(iii) A random table for quick generation without choice, especially for
NPCs -- to complement (i)

>
> The following are the standard mechanics I can see being used to balance
> bloodlines:
>
> - Feats. Not a good mechanic to use for this purpose, for a variety of
> reasons, but there is a certain precedence for it.
>
> - ECLs. Generally a better way of balancing scions, though it does have
> a few identifiable drawbacks - it doesn`t allow for 1st-level scions,
> it tends to make scions too weak at low levels (and blood abilities
> aren`t all that useful higher up), it has a low level of granularity,
> which may mean introducing different levels of scions at identical
> ECLs, thus ruining real choice on the part of the players.
>
> - Scion levels. Similar to ECLs, but fixes most of the ECL-specific
> problems, though it does introduce a potential "realism" problem of
> its own - that some people consider "classes" a "learned," rather
> than "innate" trait. For others, that may be desirable. In terms of
> mechanics, scion levels are still IMO simply an improvement upon ECLs
> for this purpose (and a level adjustment may be incorporated into a
> scion class as well). So far, I think scion levels allow for the best
> possible balance, thus being the best way to allow full player choice
> in true 3e spirit.

I assume here that you are addressing the issue of character balance, in
respect of characters with bloodlines compared with other characters (be
they with or without bloodlines).

Preferred Implementation:
(iv) Scion Class

************************************************** **************************
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: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 3:18 PM


> Without rejecting your contrib here, I`m not sure that I agree - or
> perhaps I don`t fully understand what you mean. But perhaps I do. I
> think I agree with (X) and (Z), but just don`t understand where you are
> going with (Y). [not that I have to agree, but do need to understand]

I don`t agree with all of them either, its just the part of the xp
discussion I was paying more attention to.

Y would disgaree with X and Z, so its kind of my reading of the oppsoing
view. Z and X differ in their acceptance of ECL in any capacity.

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.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG

What most people do not realise is that a second class advancement, while more like 2e in style, since this is were it originated, is much more reasonable!

While ECL gives a static hindrance in level advancement (+1000 XP/level/ECL, or [+1000 XP * ECL]/level, it is the same), a second class gives a dynamic hindrance, since you would need to have twice the needed XP to advance a level! This would allow for new powers to be given on a new basis, but what I present here is only an aswer to something mentioned by another user, not my opinion!


Actually they are identical in exp requirements to advance. An ECL "boosts" the character's level accordingly. For example a 1st level character with a +1 ECl modifier is treated as a 2nd level character for all purposes of advancement. A 1st level character who takes 1 level of a scion class, say in addition to a single level of fighter is also considered a 2nd level character. Both require the exact same amount of experience in order to advance. The major difference is that the character who takes a level of scion class gains other benefits, for one the level "counts" towards gaining feats and ability adjustments, while the ECL'd character's "level" does not. The classed character gains certain "class-based" benefits, depending on how they are defined, but usually they entail saving throw bonuses, BAB and increaseed hit dice - while the ECL'd character gets none of those.

[DanMcSorley]

On Sat, 14 Jun 2003, RaspK_FOG wrote:
> Furthermore, I strongly disagree with the "equal XP to advance a level,
> whatever your class is" logic, since a wizard would need more time and
> experience to muster his art, while a thief would never go through the
> same problems! Moreover, a high-level wizard is more powerful than most
> thiefs of equal, maybe even higher, level!

That`s an interesting point of view, and completely irrelevant, because
the goal of the project is to make the BR rules work with 3e. Reworking
the experience rules of 3e is not at all within the scope of the project.
--
Daniel McSorley

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

[Green Knight]

I know what I would like to see. Templates for each bloodline strength, with level adjustments. Templates are a very common sight in 3E, and not a bad way of representing things. Also, perhaps equally important, the level adjustment can easily be ignored by those groups who think scions show have additional power compared to lesser men. A small sidebar on this topic would suffice.

There might even be an appendix in the BRCS called "Scions as classes", which should satisfy those who like to think of bloodlines in terms of classes.

[Peter Lubke]

On Sun, 2003-06-15 at 07:42, Mark_Aurel 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
>
> Mark_Aurel wrote:
> c items - which is the opposite of what happened in 2e, when you earned XP for making magic items. Of course, there`s a variant rule to satisfy those who don`t like using XP for magic items and spells - power components. I tend to apply this rule, as it is also a flavorful one, and it helps making certain magic items harder, depending on my whim as a DM.
>
> "Character augmentation points" might be a better way of describing what XP
> does in 3e. Some characters have different options for what to do with
> those points - either advancing a level or making magic items.
<SNIP>
>
> Of course, they still use the same term as before - experience points - which
> is probably a combination of it being a convenience, a sacred cow, not
> having thought issue through, easy to follow between editions, or
> whatever.

Yes, I totally agree. Even in 2e (and before that), XP was used to
"reward" players by increasing the abilities of their characters in the
quaint (but understandable) idea that higher level character would face
more difficult challenges (completely untrue and in fact quite the
opposite if anything). 3e has at least partially addressed this issue,
but not solved it completely. Retaining the name "experience points" is
somewhat misleading, but introducing some entirely new term may have
been even more confusing. "Character Augmentation points" is just as
valid applied to 2e- XP, although there was little choice in how they
could be applied.

>
>
Y) that experience be primarily a mechanism for restoring balance when a
> variety of creatures, races, and scions interact with regular, non-blooded
> humans.
>
> Ok.
>
>
Z) that experience needs to be based on the challange that a particular
> encounter brought to bear the party in terms of its actual, not just
> percieved punch.
>
> Agreed. DM`s prerogative to adjust, though it shouldn`t screw players over
> for being clever and making an encounter less hard than it could`ve
> been.

Agreed. Actually, a good DM should reward the player (but note: the
player, not the character - at least not directly). Indeed, this is a
good example of the strengths and challenges (am I allowed to say
flaws?) of the 3e system of measuring "effective" character and
encounter levels. Acknowledging that it is a great step forward by
allowing DMs to design "appropriately" scaled encounters, it cannot take
into account the players abilities - which are not measured by ECL in
98% of cases.

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

[Peter Lubke]

On Sun, 2003-06-15 at 08:44, Daniel McSorley wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2003, RaspK_FOG wrote:
> > Furthermore, I strongly disagree with the "equal XP to advance a level,
> > whatever your class is" logic, since a wizard would need more time and
> > experience to muster his art, while a thief would never go through the
> > same problems! Moreover, a high-level wizard is more powerful than most
> > thiefs of equal, maybe even higher, level!
>
> That`s an interesting point of view, and completely irrelevant, because
> the goal of the project is to make the BR rules work with 3e. Reworking
> the experience rules of 3e is not at all within the scope of the project.
> --
> Daniel McSorley

Yeah, Daniel is correct here. The discussion is interesting, and I think
everyone seems to be working around the same point, but it`s not
something we can change.

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

[Peter Lubke]

On Sun, 2003-06-15 at 06:03, Daniel McSorley wrote:
>
> Of the three, ECLs are probably the best-understood, most common, and
> easiest to ignore if a DM doesn`t want to use them. We should present
> these as the default, and then offer a basic scion-class version and a
> feat version as optional rules.
> --
> Daniel McSorley
^^^^^^^^ I will respond to this at the bottom of this post.

Might I suggest: (in broad strokes first, details to follow)

(a) That we adopt Marks suggestion to regard Blood Abilities as Feats,
but restrict them to blooded characters. Call them Blood Feats. These
Blood Feats should be graded as Minor, Major or Great.

(B) That we adopt four(4) Blooded Character Templates, representing
Tainted, Minor, Major and Great bloodlines - which allow access to Blood
Feats, but as alternatives rather than bonuses. Which if the Blood Feats
are balanced with respect to other Feats, should balance the characters.

&copy; That we adopt a new Character Class, Scion - which has extended
access to Blood Feats as its particular focus. Such characters would
potentially be even more powerful in Blood Feats than 2e blooded
characters but unlike them have no intrinsic "other" class. (Although
obviously they could multi-class) Which should allow for more powerful
Scions than ever before, but be graded by level.

(d) That we leave the bloodline score (points) and the domain mechanics
out of the character/adventure level game, as far as is possible. That
the issue of whether a character has a role as regent is irrelevant from
a design point of view (although obviously it has an effect during
adventure play, so could a great many other factors - e.g. wealthy
background, etc)

If after some discussion/modification/change we can agree that something
like the above can solve the issues and meet our design goals within the
constraints so far stated, then we can move on to more specific details
(the so-called nitty-gritty).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Daniel:
I can agree with you intentions, but I think that ECLs are, by your
own admission and for other reasons, the weakest possible solution to
any design goal (i.e. they are unenforceable). ECLs can be a good way of
"measuring" a character after creation, but are a poor way to go about
"designing" any character.
Yeah, I know they are an important breakthrough in extending XP as a
way of measuring and comparing two entities, but the idea of designing a
character to level is flawed itself. On the other hand creating an
instance of a character is important, and essential.
I don`t mean to leave ECLs out of it, but lets get it about right and
then grade each part as to its contribution to ECL and buy-points. Then,
if necessary, we can measure and tweak what we`ve done. Am I making any
sense?

Peter

************************************************** **************************
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 Peter Lubke


On Sun, 2003-06-15 at 06:03, Daniel McSorley wrote:
>
> Of the three, ECLs are probably the best-understood, most common, and
> easiest to ignore if a DM doesn`t want to use them. We should present
> these as the default, and then offer a basic scion-class version and a
> feat version as optional rules.
> --
> Daniel McSorley
^^^^^^^^ I will respond to this at the bottom of this post.

Might I suggest: (in broad strokes first, details to follow)

(a) That we adopt Marks suggestion to regard Blood Abilities as Feats,
but restrict them to blooded characters. Call them Blood Feats. These
Blood Feats should be graded as Minor, Major or Great.

(B) That we adopt four(4) Blooded Character Templates, representing
Tainted, Minor, Major and Great bloodlines - which allow access to Blood
Feats, but as alternatives rather than bonuses. Which if the Blood Feats
are balanced with respect to other Feats, should balance the characters.

&copy; That we adopt a new Character Class, Scion - which has extended
access to Blood Feats as its particular focus. Such characters would
potentially be even more powerful in Blood Feats than 2e blooded
characters but unlike them have no intrinsic "other" class. (Although
obviously they could multi-class) Which should allow for more powerful
Scions than ever before, but be graded by level.

(d) That we leave the bloodline score (points) and the domain mechanics
out of the character/adventure level game, as far as is possible. That
the issue of whether a character has a role as regent is irrelevant from
a design point of view (although obviously it has an effect during
adventure play, so could a great many other factors - e.g. wealthy
background, etc)

If after some discussion/modification/change we can agree that something
like the above can solve the issues and meet our design goals within the
constraints so far stated, then we can move on to more specific details
(the so-called nitty-gritty).
Peter


I think you misunderstood Jan's (MarK_Aurel) use of feats for blood abilities. He was basically talking about using the feat format. That is having certain prerequisites for taking certain blood abilities, including other blood abilities. This is different than the standard feat progression which would roughly translate into a blood ability per feat taken.

This leads to the other point - that of using scion classes. As I interpret what you are presenting you are looking towards a standard scion class (i.e., a 20 level one) that has a progression of blood feats gained as class abilities. Again I refer to several previous threads on the use of scion classes as a standard class and how it would reduce the effectiveness of the standard classes (e.g., fighter, wizard, etc.). Using scion classes to "handle" the ECL modifiers (ala Savage Species) is a system that could readily work, especially since taking the class levels is optional. Part of the "other" threads' discussions were that blood abilities should be gained as a function of bloodline score not as a function of a class level. This was pretty much the consensus opinion of the masses, although I don't think most minded that the bloodline strength (minor, major, great) would have some effect (hence the ECL modifiers originally proposed) as long as the biggest factor was the actual blood score itself. In fact some had even suggested doing away with the bloodline strengths totally and make everything a function of the blood score alone.

[Peter Lubke]

-----Original Message-----
From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion
[mailto:BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM] On Behalf Of irdeggman
Sent: Monday, 16 June 2003 3:17 AM
To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
Subject: Re: More ranting against the Blood Stat [36#1445]



I think you misunderstood Jan`s (MarK_Aurel) use of feats for blood
abilities. He was basically talking about using the feat format. That is
having certain prerequisites for taking certain blood abilities,
including other blood abilities. This is different than the standard
feat progression which would roughly translate into a blood ability per
feat taken.

I think I`m understanding in broad terms, perhaps not down to detailed
specifics. What I`m expecting is that it can be worked so that a
character would be able to have the equivalent of a minor blood ability
at 2nd to 4th level of any class, but must put some effort into gaining
that feat. By putting the effort into gaining a blood feat, they forgo
putting that effort elsewhere in gaining some other feat. And so on. One
prerequisites would be that the character have a Blooded template as
well.

This leads to the other point - that of using scion classes. As I
interpret what you are presenting you are looking towards a standard
scion class (i.e., a 20 level one) that has a progression of blood feats
gained as class abilities. Again I refer to several previous threads on
the use of scion classes as a standard class and how it would reduce the
effectiveness of the standard classes (e.g., fighter, wizard, etc.).

Most of the discussion has been focused around specific a
implementation of a Scion class as far as I have seen. And yes, as far
as that specific implementation is concerned it would. But I am not
talking about that particular implementation of a Scion class, but
whether "any" implementation of a Scion class could be viable and
comparable to other standard classes.

Using scion classes to "handle" the ECL modifiers (ala Savage Species)
is a system that could readily work, especially since taking the class
levels is optional.

This would become irrelevant as there would be no "special" conditions,
ergo no need for modifiers. A blooded character which does not take the
Scion class would be by default no "better" than an unblooded one, but
would have the potential to have some relatively unique ability(ies).
The Scion classed character would always have some of those relatively
unique abilities (i.e. Blood Abilities), but again would have the same
"value" as, for example, a rogue classed character.

Part of the "other" threads` discussions were that blood abilities
should be gained as a function of bloodline score not as a function of a
class level. This was pretty much the consensus opinion of the masses,
although I don`t think most minded that the bloodline strength (minor,
major, great) would have some effect (hence the ECL modifiers originally
proposed) as long as the biggest factor was the actual blood score
itself. In fact some had even suggested doing away with the bloodline
strengths totally and make everything a function of the blood score
alone.

Tieing blood abilities to bloodline score will inevitably cause
complications. Most of the difficulties being encountered stem from this
source at their base. I`m trying not to argue a particular point of
view, but to show that holding to a specific idea of how to implement
something can hold you back from achieving our goals in consensus.
Consider one of the earlier stated design goals: that domain and
adventure level should be independent as far as possible. Then: imagine
that there is no domain level of play (which is one extreme). Now: is
there a distinct and definite need for bloodline score? (at the adventure
level)

You know those sacred cows, we`re always talking about? Let`s throw one on
the barbie, should provide a good feast for everyone!

But, I`m not holding to a particular idea either. It seems to me that almost
everyone has some good idea that solves some particular objection, but that
there is no "unified" and "integrated" solution, leaving us with no
solution that is acceptable generally. About the only agreement so far seems
to be that "the Blood Stat sucks!". -- there`s a pun in there for someone
who can see it (Interview with a Vampire).

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

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by irdeggman

Actually they are identical in exp requirements to advance. An ECL "boosts" the character's level accordingly. For example a 1st level character with a +1 ECl modifier is treated as a 2nd level character for all purposes of advancement.
The only problem with it is, that he actually isn't a 2nd level character. It was always a horror for a player of a half-dragon, that he had power, but if he was hit once (especially by an undead), he was gone... Same with all ECL races/ classes/ whatever...

[geeman]

I`d like to contribute one POV to the discussion on reflecting bloodline in
3e (or just generally updating the concept.) To wit: Complexity is not the
problem people often make it out to be.

Now, before anybody disagrees with me on this let me clarify what I`m
talking about here. Of course any system that is so multifarious as to
defy easy understanding is a bad thing. A system that had advanced math
(even simple algebra isn`t really all that advanced, but I don`t think it
should be employed much in gaming) or circuitous steps is a problem. The
issue of complexity when it comes to bloodline really takes place during
the character generation portion of play when complexity is not such an
issue because it doesn`t slow the action. As long as the bloodline system
doesn`t interfere with combat, role-playing or activities at the domain
level any more than skills, feats, spellcasting or other features of
characters might then the complexity of the system is not really a
problem. Should the system of bloodline interfere with those aspects of
play, however, it needs to be streamlined, but when it comes to bloodline
the only times I really see that happening is bloodtheft when one then has
to address the effects of increased bloodline and possible changes to the
character`s abilities.

Another thing about the issue of complexity is that a more articulated or
detailed system is difficult to understand. Well, that may be true, but it
always takes a while to get used to a new set of rules. The learning curve
should be neither to steep or too flat, but in general complexity in
bloodline isn`t going to be any more difficult to grasp than any other core
aspect of characters. When it comes to such complexity we should also bear
in mind that bloodline is really at the heart of the BR setting--so paying
a bit of attention to it is worthwhile.

We should also bear in mind that what many people seem to call "complexity"
isn`t really complexity at all; it`s articulation. Several aspects of the
original bloodline system were not very well articulated or even address in
the original 2e rules. A system of 3e/d20 bloodline should address those
things. Inheritance, bloodtheft, RP storage, vassalage and other aspects
of bloodline could (and several really need to) be addressed in an update
of the bloodline concept. Of course, DMs are free to ignore or tweak such
articulations, but including them in an update should not be mistaken for
adding a new level of complexity.

Also, I`d like to suggest that in 3e EVERYTHING is more complex. Character
generation in 2e was pretty brief in comparison. The longest part (other
than inventory) was probably choosing spell lists for wizards or
illusionists and then what spells they were to memorize. In 3e one has to
pick feats, skills, record modifiers, etc. Given that 3e characters
themselves are more complex a more complex system of bloodline for 3e/d20
is pretty sensible.

Lastly, when developing a set of rules my experience has led me to believe
that the best plan of action is to throw everything one wants into the mix
and then streamline afterwards. It`s easier to see what you can lose after
you`ve got all the particulars in front of you. In the long run one spends
less time coming up with major changes later if one has gone through most
of the possibilities beforehand and discarded the ones that don`t
necessarily fit into the big picture.

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.

[Peter Lubke]

-----Original Message-----
From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion [
<mailto:BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM>
mailto:BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM] On Behalf Of Gary
Sent: Tuesday, 17 June 2003 12:59 AM
To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
Subject: Re: More ranting against the Blood Stat [36#1445]

... but when it comes to bloodline the only times I really see that
happening is bloodtheft when one then has to address the effects of
increased bloodline and possible changes to the character`s abilities.

... Inheritance, bloodtheft, RP storage, vassalage and other aspects of
bloodline could (and several really need to) be addressed in an update
of the bloodline concept. ...

Also, I`d like to suggest that in 3e EVERYTHING is more complex. ...

Gary

I think that the bloodline system at the 2e level was quite stilted and
rigid. I`d like to see a more variated, and richer set of possibilities.
As long as the pieces fit together well however, the system does not
need to be difficult to understand, regardless of complexity. That is,
if the pieces are themselves reasonably simple, and their interaction
consistant they will be simple to use.
_____

There are some issues which have effects at both the domain and
adventure level of play. Essentially these relate to a change in a
character with respect to bloodline. Changes in a regents domain should
have no effect on the character, even though there may be changes to
play as a result.
*

Succession - a natural and inevitable process by which control
of a domain is transferred as a result of the regency becoming vacant.
*

Investiture - a magical process which attempts to modify the
natural rules of succession and inheritance
*

Bloodtheft - an accidental or deliberate forced transfer of some
or all of a blooded characters bloodline to another through violent
death - violent disruption and usurption of inheritance and succession.
*

Inheritance - the natural process through which bloodlines
transfer to new individuals

Inheritance (by the above definition) is the effect that might change
the character at the adventure level of play. Of course, investiture is
coerced inheritance and bloodtheft is inheritance by violence -- but
it`s only the actual change to the bloodline that concerns us here. That
is, at the adventure level of play - the effect on blood abilities.

There is the issue of a change in derivation. That is, a character is
gaining a new derivation, or losing an existing one, or both.
Irrespective of how such a change can occur let us treat the situation
similarly. e.g. When a character loses an existing derivation, all Blood
Abilities would be wiped out, if any. The question remains as to how to
deal with the incoming bloodline.

Further, let me propose a rule of conservation of bloodline, that is:
that the magical divine essence of the discorporate gods cannot be
destroyed or created, but is only redistributed. This does not mean that
all this essence must be attached to entities, some may be freely
available.

On the assumption of a new bloodline derivation, there are two
possibilities. First, that the bloodline comes complete with blood
abilities - call this a knowledgeable transfer, and second where it does
not.

The other issue is a change in magnitude, that is where the derivation
stays the same but the power within that derivation is changed. Again,
we can have knowledgeable transfer or not. We can also have full
transfer or a partial transfer.

_____

Bloodtheft. This will be, in my opinion, the most difficult issue to
address, so let me tackle it straight away with my own suggestion.

I`d like to see a single act of bloodtheft have an impact, but would
like to discourage wanton rampages of bloodtheft. So, I`d limit
bloodtheft so that it is only effective against a character with a
greater bloodline strength. But I`d make a successful bloodtheft a
knowledgeable transfer, so that it has an immediate effect at the
adventure level (impact). So the potential gain, (it shouldn`t be a
foregone conclusion that each bloodtheft will work) will be one or
more bloodline powers.

But, then there`s the risk involved. There`s the obvious risk of
personal combat of course, but let`s extend that -- after all reward
and risk are like partners, you can`t have the one without the other.


Even a successful bloodtheft may pose some risk. E.g. a character with
a derivation of "X" may successfully perform bloodtheft on a character
with abloodline derivation of "Y". Sure they`ll always gain one bloodline
ability (or more), but they may extinguish their own derivation in the
process. Therefore the degree of risk is larger the greater the bloodline
strength of the attacker is.

Such a system would also mean that being like the Gorgon cannot gain from
further bloodtheft, As I see it, TRUE Bloodlines outrank great bloodlines
and so are always vulnerable to any character. Of course the probability
of a true bloodline subsuming the original should also be high.
e.g. killing the spider with bloodtheft is likely to just create a new
spider.

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