Rejected postinto BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM

[Birthright-L]

Your message cannot be distributed to the BIRTHRIGHT-L list because it exceeds
the maximum message size of 300 lines. This limit has been set by the list
owner and does not necessarily apply to the other lists hosted at
ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM. If you have any question, please contact the list owner,
who can be reached at BIRTHRIGHT-L-request@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM.

------------------------ Rejected message (348 lines) -------------------------
Return-Path: <APACHE@SAERS.COM>
Received: from doriath.saers.com (193.156.192.198) by oracle.wizards.com (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00F67598@oracle.wizards.com>; Thu, 1 May 2003 13:05:38 -0700
Received: by doriath.saers.com (Postfix, from userid 70)
id BC7F63F32; Thu, 1 May 2003 22:06:08 +0200 (CEST)
To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
Subject: RE: Racial writeups [2#1619]
From: LordRahvin <brnetboard@birthright.net>
Message-Id: <20030501200608.BC7F63F32@doriath.saers.com>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 22:06:08 +0200 (CEST)

This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1619

LordRahvin wrote:

Okay, maybe it was unfair of me to post this, after all. With some of my
previous posts, I tried to make the arguments fairly modular so that you
could use them or evaluate them without needing to know about all the other
rules that went along with it. I made no such effort this time. I
apologize. To be honest, I didn`t really expect anyone to reply to this
seriously -- I just posted it on the off-chance that there might be one guy
out there who might happen to find it useful.

But since it has gotten some serious attention, to which I am very grateful,
I`ll do my best to clear up some misunderstandings.

The first note was that this was not meant for the BR3e conversion, since I
don`t have any qualms about doing things differently from the PHB and having
different rules to give BR a different style. It`s not a conversion
document so much as a start-from-scratch birthright product drawing on rules
and inspiration from many d20 sources (including the BR3e document).

The following was basically the first part of some of the stuff that`s going
to be in my Race chapter. To choose your race, you must first choose a
cultural tempalte, and then based on that, you may choose special racial
abilities and disadvantages (such as low-light vision, etc.). The racial
templates primarily give you skill bonuses that scale with level (because I
think your choice of race should be more significant to character design
than in D&D, but should not just provide huge first level bonuses) and bonus
feats. Although I included ability score modifiers in the draft I posted, I
have no intention of using them because I don`t think they should be used in
a scaled point-buy system (ala, the DMG).

Although some of you have noted that some of these racial templates may
provide ECL modifiers, I don`t see any point in recording them if they *all*
have ECL modifiers. If all the choices of available races have the same ECL
modifier than there is no difference in having ECL 0 or ECL 3. (The sole
exception to this is the actual adventure-design and challenge-design
process. I`m already dealing with it, but there`s no point in posting any
of that yet. Character advancement itself is not hindered if all available
races have the same "ECL" modifier.)


> Are these in addition to the racial abilities, etc. described in the PHB? I’m assuming that they are since certain key elements aren’t addressed her, like darkvision for dwarves or lowlight vision for elves.

No, they`re not. I haven`t yet addressed things like lowlight vision and
darkvision, as that`s when the ECLs rack up and things get a little out of
hand. I`ll probably address this as a system that scales, too. (So that
dwarves will get tougher as they level up, etc.) All that will be posted
later.


> Using the “guidelines” presented in Savage Species (3.5 forward compatible) several of these races would receive an ECL modifier. I’ve listed my comments under each race with the page # and brief descriptor from SS as to why the ECL applies.

Thanks. I appreciate that. In the interest of space and redundency though,
I`m not going to be address them all individually.


> Anuirean:
> +1 ECL (unbalanced ability score, pg 11)

I don`t think the ability scores are unbalanced for the Anuirean. To be
honest though, I don`t really care. In the final draft, all ability score
adjustments will be taken out. (Though I think I may include an option to
raise your ability scores by taking a racial ability to do so.)


> +1 ECL (3 or more racial bonuses to skill checks checks, pg 12 – I’d apply this since the bonuses scale per level, so at 4th level the bonuses are +4 (+2 to Diplomacy and Ride)

Well... yes, but do you honestly believe that even at fourth level where you
have a whopping +4 spread out among your skills that it equals a whole
character level?! At 12th level, it`s a whole +8 and I`m still don`t think
it equals an ECL. Maybe when combined with the bonus feat... but still, no
hit die, no save increase, no BAB, no skill points...


>and also it’s tied into action die (By the way, what is this?) and regency rolls (I assume this is meant for domain actions? Otherwise I’m again confused as to what a regency roll is.)

Sorry. Extra rules. Previous posts.
There is no such thing as an action die in this system. What other systems
call an "action die" is called a "regency die" in this system, because only
blooded scions could have it (though they don`t have to be regents). The
amount of Regency Points that a scion has is a function of level and
adventure award (through domain power, bloodtheft, etc.). Spending a
Regency Point can be used to access certain high-powered class abilities and
blood abilities in place of the x/day mechanic. Enough collected Regency
Points can be used to increase your bloodline. A "regency die" refers to an
attempt to spend a Regency Point to improve the results of an attack roll,
skill check, or save attempt by adding "+1d6" to the d20 result. Anuireans,
as a cultural special ability, get a slight edge in doing this.

In hindsight, I don`t like this because it only applies to scions.


> +1 ECL (2 or more bonus feats, humans gain one and Anuireans gain a basic combat feat (what is a basic combat feat?) in addition)

One feat, and it has to be a Basic Combat feat. My current list of feats is
currently based on the Spycraft d20 product by AEG.
Basic Combat Feats include: Ambidexterity, Armor Group Proficiency, Luck of
Heroes, Agile Reposte, Confident Charge, Endurance, Combat Expertise, Great
Fortitude, Improved Disarm, Improved Initiative, Improved Two Weapon
Fighting, Increased Speed, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Mobility, Quick
Draw, Quick Healer, Run, Sidestep, Surge of Speed, Toughness, Two-Weapon
Fighting, Weapon Focus, Weapon Group Proficiency, Zen Focus, Zen Shot, and
Zen Mastery (good feats, stupid names).


> Comes to a total ECL modifier of +3. This is rather high.

Put the book down for a second. Go back and look at the Anuirean. Do you
honestly believe that someone would rather get this racial package than 3
levels in any combination of classes they want (not even including prestige
classes and that nonsense)? I don`t think so. Common sense could apply
here. Maybe a +1 ECL but certainly not even a +2.

That being said, however, I should note that one reason I`m trying to offer
scaling racial abilities is that the character classes themselves will be
weaker, per level, than their D&D counterparts, trading versatility for
power. These racial benefits that scale with level help to balance that.
At least that`s the idea.


> Why do Anuireans lose Con? They are a warrior race. It would be better to drop the Str and Con modifiers to ensure they are not being traded off for each other.

I don`t think any of us are ever going to agree on particular modifers, but
yeah, that seems fine to me. You yourself, however, mentioned that the
Brecht should recieve a higher Con benefit because they live in harsher
climate than Anuire and so since Anuirean live in such lush climate and
harsh climate = con, maybe the anuirean con penalty might make sense? But
either way, I don`t really like the modifiers much anyway. I included them
mostly because I thought the first responses I got to these templates would
be that races should have ability score modifiers...

> +1 ECL (3 or more racial bonuses to skill checks checks, pg 12 – I’d apply this since the bonuses scale per level, so at 4th level the bonuses are +4 (+2 to Bluff and Sleight of Hand)

I still don`t think that +4 bonus equals a +1 ECL. At the extreme, at 20th
level where the bonus is +12 maybe, but by then, I think it`s a pretty moot
point.

> +1 ECL (2 or more bonus feats, humans gain one and Brechts gain a basic skill feat (again what is this?)

One feat, and it has to be a Basic Skill feat. These are your typical +2/+2
feats, but they`re a little better because you can take Advanced Skill feats
that raise the bonuses and allow you to do more stuff. Also, the basic
skill feats improves your chances to get Critical Successes with the skills
they enhance. Basic Skill feats include: Alertness, Athletic, Field
Operative, Magician (sleight of hand stuff), Merchant, Mathematician, Mimic,
Ordinary Past, Outdoorsman, Persuasive, Militia Training, Scholarly, Speedy,
Stealthy, and Traveler.

> +1 ECL (initiative increase, I’d use the special attacks and qualities descriptor on pg 12 since this ability can’t be gained by taking a level in any class and it scales by level)

There is no way in hell an increase to initiative equals a +1 ECL. It`s a
pretty minor ability, even in D&D. That being said, however, I should note
that my class writeups have initiative bonuses, reputation bonuses, defense
bonuses, and wealth bonuses all based on level so a slight increase to
initiative isn`t something as exclusive as it is in D&D.


> Why do Brechts lose Con? They are seafarers and this is a very important attribute for that focus, also there is the climate of the Great Bay to take into mind – it is harsher than say Anuire.

This was the part I was mentioning above, under the Anuirean Con penalty
stuff.

> +1 ECL (3 or more racial bonuses to skill checks checks, pg 12 – Spot, Concentration and Appraise (PHB) checks)

Appraise, Concentration and Spot aren`t very useful. Certainly not enough
to warrant a +1 ECL.

> +1 ECL (bonus to Fortitude saves, I’d use the special attacks and qualities descriptor on pg 12 since this ability can’t be gained by taking a level in any class, it scales per level and it stacks with the dwarven save bonuses in the PHB)

It doesn`t stack. The dwarven PHB entry isn`t used.


> Comes to a total ECL modifier of +2. This is less than the human modifiers.

I`m curious as to whether you still feel this is true, even with the notes
I`ve added here.


> Why do dwarves only receive a +2 to Con and a –2 to Dex? Aren’t they more hardy than Rjurik and less dexterous than Anuireans?

Yeah, I`d buy that. The bonuses for demihumans should have probably been
doubled, and then balanced out appropriately, of course.

> Why a plus to Charisma? Dwarves are never portrayed as being any better at dealing with the other races than are the other races.

Yeah they are. Or at least dwarves are considered to be on friendly terms
with everyone, or at least rather neutral. In a world of constant warfare
and fierce racial hatreds, this is no minor feat. I felt that this would
warrant a charisma bonus. Also, the clan nature of dwarves suggests strong
loyalties and ruling a dwarf realm seems be an excersise in patience and
diplomacy and negotiation -- even more so than usual. Charisma seemed like
a good bonus.

> Why the minus to Intelligence? Dwarves are definitely not portrayed as being any less capable of learning than are the other races, and definitely are more knowledgeable than are the Vos 0 dwarves have a written language.

This was mostly a magical issue. Locked up in their mountain homes and
closed off from the world is just didn`t seem, as a race, that they`d be as
knowedgeable -- and then there`s the whole magic thing. It seemed more
appropriate than any other penalty I could have assigned. But yeah, I don`t
like the ability score modifiers either.


> +1 ECL (bonus to Will saves, I’d use the special attacks and qualities descriptor on pg 12 since this ability can’t be gained by taking a level in any class, it scales per level)

+1 to +6 bonus to Will hardly seems as effective as a special attack (like
breath weapon) or a special quality (like magic resistance or telepathy).

> Why do elves lose Charisma – this is quite the opposite to the literature and its descriptions of how they are capable of captivated most mortals.

Elves don`t seem very tolerant, as a whole. They`re described as chaotic
and kind of violent, and are constantly fighting with everyone who shares
their land except the halflings and dwarves. They just don`t seem like
they`d get a charisma bonus, and maybe would even get a penalty, but I still
intend to give them a special ability regarding captivation and such.

> What type of goblin? Cerilian goblins are comprised of goblins, hobgoblins and bugbears. Elite goblins are hobgoblins, which would generally be the dominant group.
>
> Per Savage Species the following are the ability adjustments for goblinoids: (Table A-55, pg 206 and 209)
> Goblin - +0ECL, -4 Str, +2 Dex, -2 Cha
> Hobgoblin - +1 ECL, +2 Dex, +2 Con
> Bugbear - +1 ECL, +4 Str, +2 Dex, +2 Con, -2 Cha

I`ll spend a little more thought on this when I have more books. It was
made just with my general opinion of what goblins would be like, rather than
on any official WotC monster entry.


> 1 ECL (skill checks, I’d use the special descriptor on pg 12 since these can’t be gained by taking a level in any class bonus to Tracking checks (this doesn’t really exist, track is a feat that gives bonuses to Wilderness Lore checks, and Disable Device checks these also scale per level.

In my rules writeup, Tracking is a skill, now. It can be done in any
terrain and is intelligence-based. Appraise is put into
Knowledge(business).

> +1 ECL (2 or more bonus feats, humans gain one and Khinasi gain a Special Equipment feat (again what is this?)

Special Equipment feats interact with the Wealth Point system. Basically,
there`s only a few Special Equipment feats -- they`ll provide you with
additional starting equipment to better afford that shiny plate mail or with
additional Special Item points that will allow you to get access to low-cost
(by D&D standards) magical items (that aren`t so low-cost in my campaigns
and can`t be purchased with conventional funds). This basically works
similiar to Spycraft`s Budget Point and Gadget Point system.



> +1 ECL (2 or more bonus feats, humans gain one and Rjurik gain any Stealth feat (again what is this?)
Stealth feats include: Break Fall, Hidden Run, Vertical Climb, Instant
Stand, Moving Target, Nimble Fingers (faster skill checks), Spider Walk, and
Traceless.


> +1 ECL (Massive Damage Threshold increase, I’d use the special attacks and qualities descriptor on pg 12 since this ability can’t be gained by taking a level in any class and it scales by level)

I honestly don`t know about the Massive Damage Threshold increase. I`m not
sure if it makes a good cultural special ability or if its balanced with the
others. To give you an idea of scale though, there`s a feat that gives you
a +4 to Massive Damage Threshold.


> +1 ECL (2 or more bonus feats, humans gain one and Vos gain a basic Pursuit feat (again what is this?)

The Pursuit feat will interact with my Pursuit rules which I`ll probably be
posting sometime next month. It`s based loosely on Spycraft`s vehicle rules
but are made for foot chases, horeback chases, fantasy aerial chases,
racing, evasion, and hunting. It`ll include more rules for terrain, special
tactics (feats), and expanded obstacle rules. This will basically be an
alternative form of abstract combat used when mapping is too inconvinient
and the characters are moving (say, from room to room) too quickly
(dispatching guards or chasing someone, etc.). Its abstract nature may lend
itself to mass combat rules too, but I don`t know yet.

Anyway, pursuit feats will be special maneuvers that can be accomplished in
this alternate specialized combat system and will primarily involve
maneuvers that are dangerous, risky, or threatening that could not otherwise
be done without feats.



> +1 ECL (4 extra hp, I’d use the special attacks and qualities descriptor on pg 12 since this ability can’t be gained by taking a level in any class and it scales by level) {This is a major bonus, far outpaces any of the other ones.}

You think so? The Vos seemed pretty weak without it, not gaining much in
the way of useful skills or impressive combat feats. One extra hp didn`t
seem that big a deal to me compared to an increase in Massive Damage, a
bonus to ambush attacks, or even a bonus to saving throws.


> Comes to a total ECL modifier of +3.

Again, I don`t think so. You applied a +1 effective character level for
having a bonus hitpoint per level. Yet, taking an actual character level
will give a minimum of one bonus hitpoint per level, as much as 10, and a
whole host of other abilities and bonuses. I don`t think your evaluation of
ECL modifiers is very accurate, even if you are basing them on published
WotC products.


> Why do Vos gain a bonus to Balance and yet lose Dexterity?

Hmmm. That is a bit of an irony there, isn`t it? I`ll look at that more
closely. It should be noted that Balance and Ride are the principle skills
involved in pursuits, which is sort of a forte of the Vos in this writeup.
I may later decide to have a Running skill instead.


> Why no half-elf?

I think half-elves are stupid.
That being said, I think you could make an adequitely half-breed by taking
the cultural template of one race and the biological abilities of another,
which is one reason I wanted to seperate those into different templates.


> If you ability modifiers are being included for humans then the modifiers for demi-humans need to be doubled in order to maintain the same proportions. For example, Cerilians dwarves are more sturdy than Rjurik, if each has a +2 Con modifier theen they (as a race) are the same. There are no racial min/max scores anymore.

Okay. I agree.

> As has been pointed out ability modifiers are biological, skills (and feats) are cultural.

Don`t agree. You can see my response in a previous post.

>For example a Vos who was raised in Anuire would have the biological ability adjustments of a Vos, but not the racial illiteracy of the Vos and would have the cultural skill/feat modifiers of the Anuirean culture.

I think an Anuirean raised in Vosgaard would have the same +2 Str modifier
as other Vos when he begins his adventuring career. And he would have
illiteracy if he was raised in an illiterate upbringing! Literacy isn`t
racial... or is it? I suppose it could be, but I don`t see any reason to
interpret it that way.

In my system, there aren`t really biological differences between Anuireans
and Vos -- they`re all cultural. But an elf (or half-elf, if you prefer)
raise among Anuirean humans would have the cultural template of Anuire
(above), but pick from the biological advantages of elves instead of humans.
(I haven`t finished this part yet, so I don`t have specific examples.)

-Lord Rahvin

[irdeggman]

When I put out the ECL modifiers I was just using the Savage Species lists, it does have the "acid test" which is when you compare the race result to the equivalent number of classes to see if either otpion is vastly more preferable. This was what you were referring to with when you did the comparisons. I hadn't meant to imply that these were the "absolute" ECLs only those from the strictest sense.

The Vos as written get +4 hitpoints at 1st level and an additional +1 at each level, yes this is vastly superior to any other benefit written and easily worth a +1 (probably even a +2 ECL).

Regarding elves and their charisma - just because they "look down" on everyone else doesn't mean that they aren't influential either by their force of personality or their just plain good looks.

Dwarves, while they seem to get along with everyone - don't interact much with anyone which is probably why they aren't at war with the other races, orogs excluded. Halflings get along with absolutely everyone so why didn't they get the charisma bonus?

The problem with not using ECL modifiers is a little more complex than you present it. It has a drastic effect on CR, EL and awards. Since the other creatures in the monster manual haven't received the same ECL adjustment the system becomes totally out of whack. Someone pointed out that they use the Wheel of Time system and create their own entire world (monsters included). When doing this the system can be built to incorporate the ECL modifiers such that everything balances out, but without that it becomes a massive bookkeeping nightmare.

The reference I made to Vos illiteracy was a cultural one, not a biological one. They weren't bred to not be able to read/write they just never did.

Will saving throw bonuses are a very formidable benefit since most offensive magic spells require a Will save. There are several key spells that use Reflex instead though, lightning bolt, fireball. Fortitude saves are mostly useful against conditions such as poison.

IMO if ability modifiers are used then favored classes should also be used as a balancing thing. But this is just my preference and I know a lot of people don't agree with it.

[LordRahvin]

Originally posted by irdeggman
When I put out the ECL modifiers I was just using the Savage Species lists, it does have the "acid test" which is when you compare the race result to the equivalent number of classes to see if either otpion is vastly more preferable. This was what you were referring to with when you did the comparisons. I hadn't meant to imply that these were the "absolute" ECLs only those from the strictest sense.

I wasn't trying to use an "acid test", I was trying to apply common sense. It's just a matter of looking at the way the game is played rather than how the DMG (or whatever) tells you the game should be played. The idea of an "ECL", and an "EL", and a "CR" is a good idea, a great idea in fact -- but D&D was the first application of this concept. They got it wrong, and they've been constantly trying to fix it ever since but they can't without contradicting what they've previously written. Maybe that will change in 3.5, I don't know. But I doubt it. I like the idea of ECL and CR and stuff, but scrictly basing your arguments on what the books say ECL and CR are, has no merit with me unless you can back it up with some solid arguments.

Look, I'd like to apologize if my previous post(s) sounded a bit harsh, it's just sometimes I'm utterly shocked by what I percieve to be blind dedication to published rulebooks, regardless of how those rules are used or why. As someone who takes great pride in seeing when rules properly help to run a gaming session, I tend to get upset with "bad rules", or interpretations of rules inappropriate to what they are representing. It take it more personally than I should.

I appreciate you trying to help me with the ECL stuff and everything else -- it's a lot more than I expected. But most of your suggestions didn't seem to make much sense in this case. You seem like a fairly smart guy, and you come off as someone who likes Birthright and enjoys the idea of designing workable game systems. Which is why it surpises me sometimes when you say or do something that seems counterproductive to that agenda. The saving throw bit below, for example...



Will saving throw bonuses are a very formidable benefit since most offensive magic spells require a Will save. There are several key spells that use Reflex instead though, lightning bolt, fireball. Fortitude saves are mostly useful against conditions such as poison.

Did I say something to imply that I had no idea what a saving throw is or what it's used for? You seem to have an opinion, and I want to know what it is, but it seems like I have to work hard to interpret your opinion beyond "I want to reply to what you are saying by quoting rules to you." I get frustrated by this.

I assume you're replying to my statement comparing the Vos hitpoint bonus with the saving throw benefits of Halflings and Dwarves, but I have no idea how to interpret your reply.

-------------



The Vos as written get +4 hitpoints at 1st level and an additional +1 at each level, yes this is vastly superior to any other benefit written and easily worth a +1 (probably even a +2 ECL).

Much more useful statement.
Let's ignore the +4 hitpoints at 1st level for a moment. Let's also ignore that this is made for an independant system and just talk D&D on this issue. Why would +1 hitpoint per level really matter? Yes, it manipulates average hitpoints of characters, but so what? We can already assume that a character can have below-average hitpoints or above-average hitpoints without impacting his ECL -- I had a 5th level Barbarian in my game once whose hitpoint rolls were pathetic. Likewise, although we assume that a fighter, upon leveling up, will get about 5-6 hitpoints, we're not shocked if he gets 10 nor does it influence his character in the slightest way. In fact, we could give him +5 hitpoints, and it wouldn't effect his estimate character power at all so long as the amount his hitpoints rolled did not exceed 5. If you accept all that, wouldn't it make sense to say that +1 hitpoint per level for this fighter would have no impact on his character level whatsoever so long as his average hitpoint rolls over time were 9 or less. Ryan can give us the exact probability on this happening, and it's probably increased for the lower hitdie classes (average of 3 or less on 1d4), but overall the probability of it is so unlikely as to be insignificant. Although the +1 hitpoint per level is a nice ability to have (as opposed to not having it), it doesn't seem to have much significance on overall character power the way some of the other special abilities do, and hence, it needs the +4 hitpoints at first level to balance it with the other abilities. (The +4 is much more significant, because its your maximum roll +4 rather than your average roll +1.)

All that being said though, I think hitpoints should be fixed and there should definitely be some ECL (or fractional ECL) for having more hitpoints. In this case, (partial?) ECL is worked into the beginning racial character package and is balanced out by the classes being weaker at 1st level and the challenge codes themselves being altered. What I'm looking to debate here isn't whether or not there should be an ECL (because the definition of what constitutes an effective character level should be different from campaign to campaign) but rather how this benefit compares with the benefits of the other races, and whether its appropriate to this race and whether or not it hinders playability in any way.


---------------


The problem with not using ECL modifiers is a little more complex than you present it. It has a drastic effect on CR, EL and awards. Since the other creatures in the monster manual haven't received the same ECL adjustment the system becomes totally out of whack.

I did mention that I was going to address that later. I also mentioned that the character classes are weaker than in typical D&D. I'll add to that by saying that magic is not as available in birthright, weaking characters below their ability to deal with monsters.

It does not, however, have as drastic an effect as you make it out to be. I believe that the CRs are off already, especially for Birthright games which tend to be lower-power and more restricted than typical D&D. So GMs are already using their, umm... "acid test", to determine whether monsters are an appropriate challenge. I think PC races with class levels tend to be the opponents of choice for most BR games, meaning that more work needs to be done establishing the CR of such charactes. D&D kind of whiffed on this, because monsters are the focus. I think that monsters are more rare in Birthright and tend to have the role of villains rather than random encounters, so more thought and "acid testing" is involved in determing their use in the game anyway -- and generally these tend to be very challenging to the PCs. Finally, I think adding guidelines as to how to determine CRs of "typical monsters" from the MM for BR characters would be a fairly straightfoward process, and generally I think all monstrous characters will have a much higher CR than their printed value in the MM based on the limitations of the BR setting and their use in campaigns.

-----------------------


Someone pointed out that they use the Wheel of Time system and create their own entire world (monsters included). When doing this the system can be built to incorporate the ECL modifiers such that everything balances out, but without that it becomes a massive bookkeeping nightmare.

Was it me? I'm the only one I know on this list who keeps drawing parellels between BR and the Wheel of Time rules.

-----------------------


IMO if ability modifiers are used then favored classes should also be used as a balancing thing. But this is just my preference and I know a lot of people don't agree with it.

I don't know what you're talking about; I'm guessing your making references to discussions you've had with other people. My own opinion on this: If every level of every class is theoretically balanced with eachother, there's no reason to have multiclassing restrictions. Only when the balance of a level of a given class goes up or down (as in the case of prestige classes) should retrictions be put in place. I find it amusing they did this in reverse in D&D -- the "lesser classes" have restrictions on how many you can have but you can have as many of the higher-powered "prestige classes" as you can meet requirements for.

Favored classes don't make a good balance mechanic because they don't provide a benefit -- they just increase the amount of depth or versatility you can add to your character. If they actually did something that effected your overall character power (e.g., if having a Favored Class:Fighter meant that you could level up higher as a Fighter or you'd be a more effective Fighter than someone else) than I'd be more inclined to agree.

I'm slightly amused that you put such emphasis on limiting ability score benefits to races, but opt to balance those benefits with a cultural aptitude containing very little in the way of game effect and nothing in biological rationale.

-----------------------------

Your initial interpretation of the power levels and usefulness of my racial writeups were based on incorrent data and insufficient information. Now that I've helped to clarify some of those issues and explain some of those mechanics, might I trouble you to go back and evaluate them again? Many of your ECL comments seemed to be derived from the idea that effects of these tempates stacked with stuff in the PHB, and now that I've explained that's not the case I think some of your comments/opinions might have changed. Beyond the ECL issue, I'd like any other opinions you have. (You can just assume that all BR campaigns will start at 4th level and require you to select a +3 ECL race, if it makes the evaluation easier for you.)

-Lord Rahvin

[ryancaveney]

On Fri, 2 May 2003, LordRahvin wrote:

> Why would +1 hitpoint per level really matter?

It`s less good than +2 Con (roughly half?), because it gives the same hit
point bonus, but not any skill or save bonus. BTW, this is another place
to point out that if you`re going to be factoring everything under the sun
into ECL, ability scores are much more important to include than mere hp.

> 5th level Barbarian in my game once whose hitpoint rolls were pathetic.

I try to avoid mechanics in which a single die roll affects a character`s
future forever after. Therfore, I like to have every character re-roll
their hp at the start of every session. It means every character has days
when they feel healthier than others, which seems reasonable to me in
gameworld reality, encourages some flexibility in play style and doesn`t
respond to one-time luck with IMO excessive reward or punishment.

> Likewise, although we assume that a fighter, upon leveling up, will
> get about 5-6 hitpoints, we`re not shocked if he gets 10 nor does it
> influence his character in the slightest way.

It may influence how the character is played -- e.g., two Ftr 3s who
differ only in that one has 12 hp and the other has 30 hp may make very
different choices -- but you are correct that it does not now interact at
all with the ECL system, and it would be a major pain to change that.

> In fact, we could give him +5 hitpoints, and it wouldn`t effect his
> estimate character power at all so long as the amount his hitpoints
> rolled did not exceed 5.

Sounds reasonable at first glance, but I`m not quite sure yet.

> +1 hitpoint per level for this fighter would have no impact on his
> character level whatsoever so long as his average hitpoint rolls over
> time were 9 or less. Ryan can give us the exact probability on this
> happening, and it`s probably increased for the lower hitdie classes
> (average of 3 or less on 1d4),

Good to know I`m needed. ;)

The probability that the total will exceed the maximum normally allowed
for the class does indeed increase with decreasing HD type (as you note,
10% vs 25% for +1 to the first roll of d10 vs. d4), but furthermore it
*decreases* with increasing *number* of HD. Note for example that if you
normally award maximum hp at first level, then every character will be
above their normal max at that point; OTOH, by the time you`re a Ftr 5
rolling the normal 10+4d10 (ignoring Con, which doesn`t change the answer)
plus an extra 5, the chance you will exceed 50 hp is only 1 in 300. In
fact, if you`re a Bbn 20, even at +4 per level (an extra 80 hp!) you have
only a 5% chance of totalling more than the normal maximum of 240!

This is an example of the general phenomenon that the more dice you add
together, the more likely it is for the total to be really close to the
average. I`m not convinced it`s the right way to look at the situation
(for example, a Bbn 20 at just +1/level has only about a one in a billion
chance of exceeding 240, but is also going to average 163.5 hp, more than
97% of normally-rolled barbarians) but it`s the math you asked for.

> overall the probability of it is so unlikely as to be insignificant.

At high levels, oh yeah. But is that really the right metric?

> Although the +1 hitpoint per level is a nice ability to have (as
> opposed to not having it), it doesn`t seem to have much significance
> on overall character power the way some of the other special abilities

Here I agree. Way less interesting than a spell-like effect, for example.
Actually, it is pretty much the same thing as the spell-like ability to
heal self for 1 hp per level per day, so it shouldn`t really cost any more
than that would.

> and hence, it needs the +4 hitpoints at first level to balance it with
> the other abilities. (The +4 is much more significant, because its
> your maximum roll +4 rather than your average roll +1.)

And since first-level characters have so few hp to begin with, having a
few extra right then can be really helpful, especially for surviving
critical hits (a greataxe crit has a better-than-even chance of taking a
Rog 1 from full health to instant death in one shot).

> All that being said though, I think hitpoints should be fixed and
> there should definitely be some ECL (or fractional ECL) for having
> more hitpoints.

The reason I said this would be a pain to implement is that number of HD
is already included in character level, and the fact that the classes have
different HD types has already been considered in balancing them against
each other. This means the fairest way I can see to calculate the
effective ECL due to hp is going to be a formula like K * (R - A), or even
K * (R - A) / A: R is the number of hp a given character actually has, A
is the average hp of someone with their exact class levels (and Con, if
you are also giving ECLs for ability scores), and K is some scaling
factor. (R-A) gives the number of hp by which they differ from an average
character of their type (because number of levels, HD type, and maybe Con
are -- or at least should be -- already accounted for); in this case, a
decent number for K strikes me as something pretty small, maybe in the
1/10 to 1/20 range (because a class level is so very much more than just
hp); maybe even 1/3 divided by your HD type. (R-A)/A will give a number
between a bit above -1 (you have the minimum number of hp you possibly
could) to a number a bit below +1 (you have the maximum number of hp you
possibly could); in this case, I`d be inclined to pick K between 1 and 2.


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 Fri, 2 May 2003, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
> BTW, this is another place to point out that if you`re going to be
> factoring everything under the sun into ECL, ability scores are much
> more important to include than mere hp.

Yeah, but ability scores are easy to balance to 0, according to the chart
in the DMG. It`s other, un-zeroed effects that end up going into an ECL.
--
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.

[Lord Rahvin]

>> BTW, this is another place to point out that if you`re going to be
>> factoring everything under the sun into ECL, ability scores are much
>> more important to include than mere hp.
>
> Yeah, but ability scores are easy to balance to 0, according to the chart
> in the DMG. It`s other, un-zeroed effects that end up going into an ECL.
> --

I think I mentioned it before on this list, but me and one of my players
generated a bunch of NPCs using the guidelines in Chapter 2 of the DMG using
the graduated point system. All of my players, by some bizzare chance of
fate, had recently generated really high ability scores and were just
breazing through my adventures so I wanted to calculate how much of an ECL
they had because of those high stats. We generated several versions of each
character, the first using 25 points (yeilding a slightly munchkined result
compared to the default array) and the second using 40 points. We then
tried 50, 60, 70, etc. and the result we ended up with after comparing them
was that every 25 points in the graduated-point system (DMG, p19-20)
resulted in an effective +1 ECL. Based on that, I was able to treat the
party as two levels higher for the purposes of EL and my adventure came out
much more smoothly.

-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.

[ryancaveney]

On Fri, 2 May 2003, daniel mcsorley wrote:

> Yeah, but ability scores are easy to balance to 0, according to the chart
> in the DMG. It`s other, un-zeroed effects that end up going into an ECL.

Yes -- unzeroed effects like the difference that exists between two
characters of the same classes and levels when one has no ability score
below 16 and the other has no ability score above 12. My point was that
before you start worrying about differences in hp, you should first worry
about differences in stats, perhaps in the way Gary has recommended of
giving an ECL for every N points above the standard array (and negative
ones for every N points below). If OTOH you feel that it`s not worth
worrying about stat differences, IMO it`s really not worth the trouble of
worrying about hp differences.

Sure, the ability as written does need to be balanced against something
else, but since it`s actually less powerful than a paladin`s lay on hands,
which is just one of the many, many features of that class, it is clearly
not worth a whole ECL on its own. In 2e Skills & Powers, where this
ability (use the next higher HD, which as I said is the same on average as
+1 hp per level) is directly selectable, it`s equivalent to less than
1/12th the build points necessary to construct a cleric.


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.

[geeman]

At 08:10 PM 5/2/2003 -0400, Daniel McSorley wrote:

>On Fri, 2 May 2003, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
> > BTW, this is another place to point out that if you`re going to be
> > factoring everything under the sun into ECL, ability scores are much
> > more important to include than mere hp.
>
>Yeah, but ability scores are easy to balance to 0, according to the chart
>in the DMG. It`s other, un-zeroed effects that end up going into an ECL.

It`s kind of difficult to get into this without writing a treatise on the
subject of ECL, class features and ability score modifiers, but in general
I`ve found that a +2 modifier should be the assumption when describing the
effects of ability scores on character stats. The EL, CR, ECL system
generally is "normalized" to the standard array when it comes to such
things, which usually gives an "average" bonus of +1 to ability scores. At
higher levels, of course, there are usually magic items that increase
ability scores, or in the case of encounters the monsters simply have
higher stats, so "averaging up" to +2 is a good standard. That is, when
talking about HD one should assume that a character with d8 dice will get
average hit points (4.5) and a +2 modifier from an ability score. It`s not
always the case, of course, since particular classes tend to have higher
scores than others by the nature of the class. The intelligence modifier
to skill points per level for a wizard, for example, is pretty regularly
going to be more than +2/level, but as a general assumption +2 works pretty
well.

If one wanted (and it makes a lot of sense when one sees the numbers) one
could then assign an ECL value to high ability scores.

When it comes to issues of ability scores modifying ECL I`d make a couple
of other points:

1. There should be tenth values, at least when computing the ECL
modifiers. One doesn`t have to keep those tenth values after determining
the ECL (though it seems to work just as well) but because many aspects of
character class don`t influence characters enough to be worth a whole ECL
modifier they can only really be accurately tracked if one uses a decimal.

2. There are three major categories of character features; combat stats,
special abilities/feats and skills. While it depends quite a bit on play
style each of these things is worth about the same amount during play (or,
at least, when coming up with character classes, ECLs and CRs.)

3. Savage Species does an excellent job of describing how ECL can factor
into the class system. Now, I think that book jumps through a few hoops in
order to fit several of the ideas expressed into some of the rather faulty
assumptions and mechanics of 3e/d20, but it does have some very good ideas
expressed on its own, and can be used to extend the thinking of how these
things might work for other characters. Again, a treatise is the only way
to very accurately describe how that might work, so I won`t go into too
much detail, but in general I think many aspects of the game are going to
turn to.

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: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 4:32 PM


> Dwarves, while they seem to get along with everyone - don`t
> interact much with anyone which is probably why they aren`t
> at war with the other races, orogs excluded.

I would question this interpretation of dwarves. The Royal Guild of
Baruk-Azhik operates in two human realms, and allows two human guilds in
Baruk-Azhik. Likewise dwarves are involved in the Copper & Coke in Brecht
Western Reaches. One of the royal candidates for the oldest Rjurik realm is
a dwarf. Dwarf wizards are either extreamly rare or non-existant. There is
admitedly little or not interaction between dwarves and humans in the realm
of temples. But among the guilds and the realms of war, dwarves seem no
less participatory than any other similarly sized realms.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

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

[geeman]

There`s nothing inherently wrong with giving ability score modifiers to
human characters. Many d20 products include them, particularly in things
like Polyhedron articles. Sometimes ability score modifiers are based on
nothing more than profession or a personal background. The "peasant" or
"worker" background might give a character +2 to constitution and -2 to
wisdom and charisma, or a "soldier--intelligence officer" might have
different ability score modifiers from "soldier--commando."

Generally, however, those ability score modifiers are used in d20
products/campaigns in which there are only human PCs and/or those in which
the majority of creatures will be human. Most "PC races" are, in fact,
just variants of human paradigms. An "elf" in the classic D&D sense might
be, in effect, an ectomorphic human with a feral/nativist background in
another campaign setting. That they have pointy ears, blue eyes and a
penchant for green clothing is really colour commentary that doesn`t much
affect game mechanical decisions like ability score modifiers.

Probably the best way of defining this issue would be to pose the following
questions:

1. Are the differences between the human racial subtypes significant enough
to justify an ability score bonus when describing one from the other? By
way of comparison would the average Vos healer and herbalist be +2 stronger
than the average Khinasi healer and herbalist? Would the average Anuirean
soldier by +2 more charismatic than the average Rjurik soldier?

2. Are such ability score modifiers consistent enough within the racial
subtype to justify that every member of that race would have those
bonuses? That is, does it make sense for all members of that racial
subtype despite their profession, character class, background or even
gender should have the ability score modifier?

3. How might the inclusion of ability score modifiers for racial subtypes
influence other racial templates? That is, since other PC races available
to BR PCs are, in reality, just gaming effect variations of what could be
described as humans in another campaign setting if one gives ability score
modifiers to humans then the ability score modifiers for other PC races
might want to be increased or otherwise altered in order to more accurately
reflect how they are different from the "typical" human type.

4. Are there enough combinations of ability score modifiers to reflect
those racial subtype differences. That is, if the Rjurik`s ability score
modifiers are not different enough from the Vos ability score modifiers (or
Anuirean/Vos, whatever) to make those races different then that`s a pretty
good indication that the ability score modifier isn`t necessary. While
this might sound silly, if several human races have ability score modifiers
that are similar then the ability score modifiers might not be a good way
to go since all it really does is shift PCs away from their die rolls into
a system in which no characters wind up with stats that are actually
related to the system used to generate ability scores.

5. This last one is a bit of a combination of #3 and #4. Ability score
modifiers for human racial subtypes should be compared to the racial
modifiers for other PC races. Modifiers for a human racial subtype that
were too close to another PC race`s modifiers might indicate that those
changes are unnecessary for humans. For example, if modifiers for the
Rjurik wound up being very similar to those for elves then the modifiers
for the Rjurik would probably not be necessary.

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.

[ConjurerDragon]

LordRahvin 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=1623
>LordRahvin wrote:
>
Originally posted by irdeggman
>
...

>[quote][b]The Vos as written get +4 hitpoints at 1st level and an additional +1 at each level, yes this is vastly superior to any other benefit written and easily worth a +1 (probably even a +2 ECL).
>Much more useful statement.
>Let`s ignore the +4 hitpoints at 1st level for a moment. Let`s also ignore that this is made for an independant system and just talk D&D on this issue. Why would +1 hitpoint per level really matter? Yes, it manipulates average hitpoints of characters, but so what? We can already assume that a character can have below-average hitpoints or above-average hitpoints without impacting his ECL -- I had a 5th level Barbarian in my game once whose hitpoint rolls were pathetic. Likewise, although we assume that a fighter, upon leveling up, will get about 5-6 hitpoints, we`re not shocked if he gets 10 nor does it influence his character in the slightest way. In fact, we could give him +5 hitpoints, and it wouldn`t effect his estimate character power at all so long as the amount his hitpoints rolled did not exceed 5. If you accept all that, wouldn`t it make sense to say that +1 hitpoint per level for this fighter would have no impact on his character level whatsoever so long
> as his average hitpoint rolls over time were 9 or less. Ryan can give us the exact probability on this happening, and it`s probably increased for the lower hitdie classes (average of 3 or less on 1d4), but overall the probability of it is so unlikely as to be insignificant. Although the +1 hitpoint per level is a nice ability to have (as opposed to not having it), it doesn`t seem to have much significance on overall character power the way some of the other special abilities do, and hence, it needs the +4 hitpoints at first level to balance it with the other abilities. (The +4 is much more significant, because its your maximum roll +4 rather than your average roll +1.)
>
>All that being said though, I think hitpoints should be fixed and there should definitely be some ECL (or fractional ECL) for having more hitpoints. In this case, (partial?) ECL is worked into the beginning racial character package and is balanced out by the classes being weaker at 1st level and the challenge codes themselves being altered. What I`m looking to debate here isn`t whether or not there should be an ECL (because the definition of what constitutes an effective character level should be different from campaign to campaign) but rather how this benefit compares with the benefits of the other races, and whether its appropriate to this race and whether or not it hinders playability in any way.
>

In the Birthright rules the option to "train" for hitpoints up to the
maximum value for your level and constitution exists. So a character can
achieve maximum hitpoints if he rolled low when levelling up.
If that rule is used, then the suggested +4 hitpoints at 1st level and
the +1 / level are added to the maximum and then they are worth more
then how you value them.
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.

[Birthright-L]

From: "Michael Romes" <Archmage@T-ONLINE.DE>

> In the Birthright rules the option to "train" for hitpoints up to the
> maximum value for your level and constitution exists. So a character can
> achieve maximum hitpoints if he rolled low when levelling up.
> If that rule is used, then the suggested +4 hitpoints at 1st level and
> the +1 / level are added to the maximum and then they are worth more
> then how you value them.


No, this is wrong. You are trying to prove that LordRahvin is wrong, which
he is, but you are going about it backwards.

A hp bonus is more valuable it he increase represents a larger percentage of
your hit points. Your fourth hit point increases your damage absoption
capacity by 33%, your 101:th hi oncreases it by 1%.

Thus, +4 hp at first level and then by +1 per level is worth a lot more to a
low-con mage than to a high-con barbarian. Increasing the hit points of a
very lucky (or well trained, according to the above rule) 3rd level
barbarian from 36 to 42 is an increase of only 16%. Increasing the hit
points of an unlycky third level wizard from 8 to 14 is an increase of 75%!


The idea that hit points are not worth anything if they do not take the
statistically likely outcome out of the realm of possible rolls is bad
science. Moving the statisticallty likely outcome of a hit-point roll
upwards IS significant. I claim that randomly rolling accumulating hit
points at every level is potentially very unbalancing; a barbarian who rolls
minimum hit points at levels 2 and 3 is crippled for life. If we want to
talk about hp balance, we have to assume die rolls close to average, or we
are caught in the same morass that affects the balance of random ability
scores.

/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.

[Lord Rahvin]

> No, this is wrong. You are trying to prove that LordRahvin is wrong, which
> he is, but you are going about it backwards.

Cool. Thanks. :)


> Thus, +4 hp at first level and then by +1 per level is worth a lot more to a
> low-con mage than to a high-con barbarian. Increasing the hit points of a
> very lucky (or well trained, according to the above rule) 3rd level
> barbarian from 36 to 42 is an increase of only 16%. Increasing the hit
> points of an unlycky third level wizard from 8 to 14 is an increase of 75%!

Yes, it`s a huge increase in *percentage* but that`s not saying all that
much. 1 hitpoint is still 1 hitpoint is still 1 hitpoint. You can make it
sound impressive by saying he has 75% more hitpoints, but that`s still only
6. Six hitpoints is not a huge game-breaking ability that everyone`s making
it out to be. I`ll respond more generally at the end, see below.

> The idea that hit points are not worth anything if they do not take the
> statistically likely outcome out of the realm of possible rolls is bad
> science. Moving the statisticallty likely outcome of a hit-point roll
> upwards IS significant.

Yes, I`d agree it has significance, that`s why I gave them the ability. If
it had no significance at all, there`d be no point.


>I claim that randomly rolling accumulating hit
> points at every level is potentially very unbalancing; a barbarian who rolls
> minimum hit points at levels 2 and 3 is crippled for life. If we want to
> talk about hp balance, we have to assume die rolls close to average, or we
> are caught in the same morass that affects the balance of random ability
> scores.

Ummm... okay. Yeah, I`d agree with that. Ryan gave an amusing alternative
to this that I want to bring up with my players as soon as possible. But
yeah, fixed hitpoints make much more sense to me. In my games I allow
players to either roll or take the average result (not rounded), but they
never take the average.

----------------------

Most people seem to be trying to explain the mechanics and math to me of
hitpoints in this issue. For the most part, I understand the mechanics
(though everyone`s math seems to have minor variations) but not the
significance of those mechanics or math.

+4 hp is a powerful ability. I`ll warrant that. After talking with my
players and the people on this list, I was thinking of lowering the first
level benefit to +2. I still hold that +1 hitpoints per level is not that
big a deal -- certainly not enough to warrant an ECL and within D&D hp don`t
seem to be valued all that much in terms of ECL.

My problem is after going and plugging this into the Racial Writeups, it
seems rather pathetic. What`s +2 hitpoints compared with a +1 Will save?
As it is I wasn`t even sure +4 hp balanced well with a +1 Will save. At 4th
level, the Will save is increased to +2 and the hp bonus (under the original
writeup) has accumulated 7 hitpoints. I think 7 hitpoints *might* be worth
a +2 Will save, but the Will save still sounds a little bit more impressive
to me. Lowering the hp bonus seems rather imbalanced.

-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.

[Birthright-L]

From: "Lord Rahvin" <lordrahvin@SOFTHOME.NET>

> My problem is after going and plugging this into the Racial Writeups, it
> seems rather pathetic. What`s +2 hitpoints compared with a +1 Will save?
> As it is I wasn`t even sure +4 hp balanced well with a +1 Will save. At
4th
> level, the Will save is increased to +2 and the hp bonus (under the
original
> writeup) has accumulated 7 hitpoints. I think 7 hitpoints *might* be
worth
> a +2 Will save, but the Will save still sounds a little bit more
impressive
> to me. Lowering the hp bonus seems rather imbalanced.
>
> -Lord Rahvin
>


I have no problem with this, which is why I did not post myself in response
to your original post.

/Carl

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

[ryancaveney]

Starfox wrote:

> > Thus, +4 hp at first level and then by +1 per level is worth a lot
> > more to a low-con mage than to a high-con barbarian.

Yes, this was my reasoning behind the formula I mentioned which involved
dividing by the avergae hp for a character of those class levels.
However, even to the poor little Wiz 1, +4 hp is nowhere near a whole
ECL`s worth of power-up. It`s still the case that most single hits have a
good chance to knock him down, and it doesn`t make him any better at doing
anything to anyone else. It`s an issue of figuring out which ability is
how much better or worse than which others, which is really almost more a
matter of taste than anything else, so I don`t think we`re going to get
very far towards agreement on this one. That said, I see both +1 hp/level
and +4 hp at first level as pretty minor powers. Heck, +3 hp is a feat.

> > The idea that hit points are not worth anything if they do not take
> > the statistically likely outcome out of the realm of possible rolls
> > is bad science. Moving the statisticallty likely outcome of a
> > hit-point roll upwards IS significant.

Yes, I agree. I felt a bit uneasy going in, but crunching the numbers
convinced me just how misleading a way to approach the issue that is.


On Sat, 3 May 2003, Lord Rahvin wrote:

> Yes, it`s a huge increase in *percentage* but that`s not saying all
> that much. 1 hitpoint is still 1 hitpoint is still 1 hitpoint.

Which is the reason for the formula I suggested which doesn`t divide by
the average. =) I can`t really make up my mind which is the better way to
do it, but I lean slightly towards this one (e.g., 20 excess hp = 1 ECL).
That said, bothering to do it at all is a really low priority for me.

> Six hitpoints is not a huge game-breaking ability

Definitely I agree.

> Ryan gave an amusing alternative to this that I want to bring up with
> my players as soon as possible.

I`m keen to hear how it goes...

> But yeah, fixed hitpoints make much more sense to me.

Fixing all hp/HD (players, NPCs and monsters) at 3/4 max has worked for
me. Makes combats last just a touch longer, and IMO improves balance.

> In my games I allow players to either roll or take the average result
> (not rounded), but they never take the average.

Never? Wow. I`d always take it -- but then I am rather risk-averse.

> (though everyone`s math seems to have minor variations) but not the
> significance of those mechanics or math.

Well, that`s why statisticians get such a bad rap. =) The answer depends
heavily on the exact way the question is phrased, and the best phrasing
for any particular purpose can be unclear.

> I still hold that +1 hitpoints per level is not that big a deal --
> certainly not enough to warrant an ECL and within D&D hp don`t seem
> to be valued all that much in terms of ECL.

Yes, certainly not. Given the skill points, BAB, saves, and 2.5-6.5
average hp per level, etc. which actual classes give, if you`re to assign
ECL for *just* hp, the number needs to be much bigger.

> What`s +2 hitpoints compared with a +1 Will save?

Diddley-squat. =)


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.

[Birthright-L]

IMC, saving throws have never been a very big issue.

The players have bought themselves plenty of Iron Will (the eblood ability)
and other save bonuses, which has made save-dependent attacks rather
ineffective. Add to this the fact that mages and monsters are rare in BR,
and the most frequent save my players have to make is a Fortitude save in a
party dominated by fighters.

Not many saving throws in a straight bash-down between fighters.

My player still like to prioritize their saves, but IMHO, they are
overevaluating them. Of course, since the campaign is rather heroic, the
short periods of failed Will saves when the PCs are not quite in control of
their axctions are highly frustrating. I guess that is why they do it.

/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 Lord Rahvin

> Thus, +4 hp at first level and then by +1 per level is worth a lot more to a
> low-con mage than to a high-con barbarian. Increasing the hit points of a
> very lucky (or well trained, according to the above rule) 3rd level
> barbarian from 36 to 42 is an increase of only 16%. Increasing the hit
> points of an unlycky third level wizard from 8 to 14 is an increase of 75%!
+4 hp is a powerful ability. I`ll warrant that. After talking with my
players and the people on this list, I was thinking of lowering the first
level benefit to +2. I still hold that +1 hitpoints per level is not that
big a deal -- certainly not enough to warrant an ECL and within D&D hp don`t
seem to be valued all that much in terms of ECL.

My problem is after going and plugging this into the Racial Writeups, it
seems rather pathetic. What`s +2 hitpoints compared with a +1 Will save?
As it is I wasn`t even sure +4 hp balanced well with a +1 Will save. At 4th
level, the Will save is increased to +2 and the hp bonus (under the original
writeup) has accumulated 7 hitpoints. I think 7 hitpoints *might* be worth
a +2 Will save, but the Will save still sounds a little bit more impressive
to me. Lowering the hp bonus seems rather imbalanced.

-Lord Rahvin


Here's another way to look at the hitpoint issue. An even challange rating encounter is supposed to consume about 25% of a party's assets (at least potentially). These assets include, spells available, magic items and hit points. So at 1st level a +4 hitpoints is more than a 25% increase in one of the assets. Hit points and spells are the 2 most easily measured assets and the 2 most often expended. A fighter with +2 hitpoints from Con would normally have 12 hitpoints then an additional 4 is a 33% increase to this total. This benefit tends to dimish in importance as levels go up, unless the character is a lowly wizard.

In essence what this benefit does is grant an improved toughness feat at 1st level (+4 hit points vice +3 from the feat) and then grants a bonus feat every 3rd level (toughness) scaled to every level (i.e., +1 hit point per level vice +3 every 3rd level).

The saving throw benefits grant less than a feat every 3rd level, since the corresponding feats only grant +2 (but aren't available to take multiple times, like toughness is). While on the surface this doesn't look to be balancing, does the bonus to the saving throws equate to an equivalent decrease in the consumption of a party's assets that the hit point bonus would? Generally no, occasionally yes. In almost all encounters the party will use their hit points but not have to make very many saving throws. In specialized encounters (e.g., against a group with several spellcasters present) the benefit to saving throws could very easily be greater - but these type of encounters are usually much less frequent.

So the bottom line is will the benefit provided increase the party's assets by 25% or more? If so, then there is definitely an ECL /balance issue involved.:)

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by LordRahvin

Look, I'd like to apologize if my previous post(s) sounded a bit harsh, it's just sometimes I'm utterly shocked by what I percieve to be blind dedication to published rulebooks, regardless of how those rules are used or why. As someone who takes great pride in seeing when rules properly help to run a gaming session, I tend to get upset with "bad rules", or interpretations of rules inappropriate to what they are representing. It take it more personally than I should.

I appreciate you trying to help me with the ECL stuff and everything else -- it's a lot more than I expected. But most of your suggestions didn't seem to make much sense in this case. You seem like a fairly smart guy, and you come off as someone who likes Birthright and enjoys the idea of designing workable game systems. Which is why it surpises me sometimes when you say or do something that seems counterproductive to that agenda. The saving throw bit below, for example...

IMO if ability modifiers are used then favored classes should also be used as a balancing thing. But this is just my preference and I know a lot of people don't agree with it

I don't know what you're talking about; I'm guessing your making references to discussions you've had with other people. My own opinion on this: If every level of every class is theoretically balanced with eachother, there's no reason to have multiclassing restrictions. Only when the balance of a level of a given class goes up or down (as in the case of prestige classes) should retrictions be put in place. I find it amusing they did this in reverse in D&D -- the "lesser classes" have restrictions on how many you can have but you can have as many of the higher-powered "prestige classes" as you can meet requirements for.

Favored classes don't make a good balance mechanic because they don't provide a benefit -- they just increase the amount of depth or versatility you can add to your character. If they actually did something that effected your overall character power (e.g., if having a Favored Class:Fighter meant that you could level up higher as a Fighter or you'd be a more effective Fighter than someone else) than I'd be more inclined to agree.

I'm slightly amused that you put such emphasis on limiting ability score benefits to races, but opt to balance those benefits with a cultural aptitude containing very little in the way of game effect and nothing in biological rationale.

I am not opposed to having ability modifiers for races but I do think that the logic that you applied to generate them was faulty. See some of the discussion on dwarves and not all abilities being equal below. I like using favored classes because they are a reflection of cultural differences, which is where you were placing the emphasis on ability modifiers. Hence the use of favored classes is a very definite cultural issue/benefit. What it does is gives some impetus to a culture having a predominance of a certain class. If cultures are so intertwined that they can freely interact then the use of favored classes is not a real viable option. This was one of the reasons that the core rules humans could have any class as a favored one. Favored classes also seems to be a D&D exclusive concept and thus I can see why you have trouble grasping why it is so significant. Wheel of Time does not incorporate this concept.


Your initial interpretation of the power levels and usefulness of my racial writeups were based on incorrent data and insufficient information. Now that I've helped to clarify some of those issues and explain some of those mechanics, might I trouble you to go back and evaluate them again? Many of your ECL comments seemed to be derived from the idea that effects of these tempates stacked with stuff in the PHB, and now that I've explained that's not the case I think some of your comments/opinions might have changed. Beyond the ECL issue, I'd like any other opinions you have. (You can just assume that all BR campaigns will start at 4th level and require you to select a +3 ECL race, if it makes the evaluation easier for you.)

-Lord Rahvin


It is very difficult to make substantial comments on this topic. The major fault with the premise is that these racial write-ups are a part of a self-contained campaign setting. This setting is not D&D, not Wheel of Time, not Star Wars, etc., but is in reality a conglomerate of several different systems (based on previous comments). Unless the entire system is presented it is relatively impossible to make any realistic commentary. I for one don’t have the time to review and comment on someone’s individually created setting. For one it would be foolish to critique someone’s vision, since that is creativity at its heart.

There are many campaign specific attributes contained in you post that were not explained initially and are necessary for an understanding, e.g.,

All of my comments are founded in the assumption that Birthright is a D&D campaign, like Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft and Dark Sun. D&D is a subset of the d20 system and is unique in several ways. Several of this have been mentioned by the 3.5 authors that will be maintained in the 3.5 products, the way armor works and the way magic works. D&D is pretty much the only d20 system in which there are no defense bonuses granted by class level. It is next to impossible for the at large group that this review was requested of to give an approval of someone’s individual campaign. If the campaign in its entirety was presented for review that would be a different matter, but then again it is not a D&D campaign but a D&D-like one (a medieval fantasy d20 RPG).

Another problem is that we have fundamentally differences of opinion of what constitutes a genetic (biological) commonality and what constitutes a cultural one. Are the different ability modifiers for the elven sub-races genetic or cultural? These should be treated the same as those for any human sub-race.


> Anuirean:
> +1 ECL (unbalanced ability score, pg 11)

I don`t think the ability scores are unbalanced for the Anuirean. To be honest though, I don`t really care. In the final draft, all ability score adjustments will be taken out. (Though I think I may include an option to raise your ability scores by taking a racial ability to do so.) -Lord Rahvin

Unless this is a regional feat then it would be genetic/biological since it would apply to a member of that race regardless of the culture in which they were raised.

A few comments on previous statements made by Lord Rahvin:

The reference (I didn’t quote this one since the discussion has crossed multiple threads and it is difficult to go back and forth to get the correct elements to quote) to not all ability scores being equal (see Table 2-7 in the DMG) and applying this to the initially proposed ability score adjustments for Anuireans (+2 Str, +2 Wis, +2 Cha, -2 Dex, -2 Con). The table is not supposed to be read backwards, that is if one is applying an ability increase then the corresponding decreases are listed on the right. A +2 to Wisdom and Charisma is not equal to a –2 in Dex. A +2 in Wisdom is offset by a –2 in Intelligence or Charisma, or Str, Dex or Con – although the latter 3 are considered a more drastic loss.


Regarding dwarves and charisma:


> Why a plus to Charisma? Dwarves are never portrayed as being any better at dealing with the other races than are the other races.

Yeah they are. Or at least dwarves are considered to be on friendly terms with everyone, or at least rather neutral. In a world of constant warfare and fierce racial hatreds, this is no minor feat. I felt that this would warrant a charisma bonus. Also, the clan nature of dwarves suggests strong loyalties and ruling a dwarf realm seems be an excersise in patience and diplomacy and negotiation -- even more so than usual. Charisma seemed like a good bonus.


Generally Cerilian dwarves are isolationists. I use the following references as a basis of my opinion:

BRRB
Dwarves (pg 5) – "Cerilian dwarves usually adhere to a friendly neutrality; thus, they are on good terms with most other races, including the elves. They’re masterful craftsmen and traders; dwarven caravans roam from Anuire to Vos laden with their goods. Dwarven arms and armor are the best in Cerilia, and it is not uncommon to see dwarves selling their services as mercenaries." {This is the only reference to Cerilian dwarves frequently roaming the lands trading, most of the other references imply (or state) that the dwarves prefer to have others bring goods to them.}

Atlas of Cerilia
Dwarves - "This is part of the reason that they prefer not to deal with outsiders – visitors distract the sentries."

Ruins of the Empire
Baruk-Azhik – Regent – "He acts friendly to proven friends of the dwarven cause and supports his people’s ventures enthusiastically, but finds little reason to seek companions outside his own race. He does not disdain humans, but he wants them to prove their worth before he trusts them with any task or treasure of value."
Trade Goods – "However, dwarven goods leave the kingdom only infrequently, as the dwarves tend to trade only among themselves."

Player’s Secrets of Baruk-Azhik
See timeline 530 "5 provinces of Baruk-Azhik seal their doors to the outside world"
(p 12) under culture "Because dwarves are insular in nature and never dwell outside their own realms, humans have had no real opportunities to learn their ways. Furthermore, human visitors to the dwarven realms are exceedingly rare; it would be safe to speculate that half the dwarven cities in Cerilia have never known a human footfall."
{While I don’t go with using the Player’s Secrets books as any sort of canon, this section is consistent with other sources’ description of dwarven behavior.}

Havens of the Great Bay
Daikhar Zhigun
"Less insular than their brethren to the east, the dwarves of Daikhar Zhigun still view outsiders warily."
The Overlook
The Dwarven Realm – "They welcome trade with other realms, but only a little at a time and after much negotiation."

Rjurik Highlands
Khurin-Azur
"Though trade contacts with the outside world are limited, a trickle of goods drifts in and out of the dwarven fortress."
Allies – "The dwarves, victims of the stubborn pride that is the bane of their race, have no allies in the world."
Tjorgrim Stonesoul – "Unlike most other dwarves, Tjorgrim has grown more tolerant of outsiders as he has aged. The decline of his people is unmistakable evidence, as far as the Stonelord is concerned, that the dwarves cannot continue to exist in isolation, and that human dominion over Cerilia is an unpleasant but unchangeable fact."

Legend of the Hero-Kings
Dwarven Steel – many references to "isolationism"


I generally like using the preponderance of evidence as to what the intent of something is; I also try to read the context in which any rules type of statement is used. I do agree with your assumption of dwarven behavior as far as they’re not receiving a Charisma penalty, like the PHB dwarves do.


I don`t think any of us are ever going to agree on particular modifers, but
yeah, that seems fine to me. You yourself, however, mentioned that the
Brecht should recieve a higher Con benefit because they live in harsher
climate than Anuire and so since Anuirean live in such lush climate and
harsh climate = con, maybe the anuirean con penalty might make sense? But
either way, I don`t really like the modifiers much anyway. I included them
mostly because I thought the first responses I got to these templates would
be that races should have ability score modifiers

Actually what I said was:


Why do Brechts lose Con? They are seafarers and this is a very important attribute for that focus, also there is the climate of the Great Bay to take into mind – it is harsher than say Anuire.

And


Why do Anuireans lose Con? They are a warrior race. It would be better to drop the Str and Con modifiers to ensure they are not being traded off for each other.

What I meant was that neither of them should have a Con penalty.


In summary, sorry for the long post, I think we need to agree to disagree and realize that it is probably not a good idea to ask a community at large to comment on the specifics of a specialized (self-contained) campaign without providing the campaign in it’s entirety. For example from your posts it can be determined that your campaign contains the following: action die (although you said you were going to drop this one); Basic Combat Feats; Class write ups that include level based – initiative bonuses, reputation bonuses, defense bonuses and wealth bonuses; tracking as a skill (although 3.5 is supposed to shift towards this handling of tracking); Appraise as Knowledge (business); Special Equipment Feat; Stealth Feats; Feat to increase Massive Damage Threshold; Pursuit Feats; the magic system you mentioned on another thread. What it almost appears to be is that you are seeking a group wise validation of your campaign – this is generally a bad idea. It is your campaign and you should run it as you see fit – you don’t need our permission to do this and should in no way think you need our validation for your concepts.
:)

[Lord Rahvin]

> The reference (I didn’t quote this one since the
> discussion has crossed multiple threads and it is
> difficult to go back and forth to get the correct
> elements to quote) to not all ability scores being
> equal (see Table 2-7 in the DMG) and applying this
> to the initially proposed ability score adjustments
> for Anuireans (+2 Str, +2 Wis, +2 Cha, -2 Dex, -2 Con).
> The table is not supposed to be read backwards, that is
> if one is applying an ability increase then the
> corresponding decreases are listed on the right. A +2
> to Wisdom and Charisma is not equal to a –2 in Dex.

Yes, I know. I was the one who first mentioned that. I`m not ignorant of
the rules, nor the significance behind these rules. Everytime I advocate a
certain rules change, people seem to leap the conclusion that I don`t
understand the rule. Looking at the Anuirean adjustments, I still feel that
they are balanced. The benefit is massive, and so is the penalty.

I`m told these "reverse table" modifiers were applied in the Star Wars
setting, and they seemed to work okay. After significant playtesting and a
complete revision of the rules, they still kept certain races with modifiers
similiar to those I posted. They`re not that broken; they survived both
revision and playtesting. It could be argued that Star Wars is a completely
different settings and such, but I feel that modern and sci-fi rules come
closer to the central concepts associated with Birthright themes than D&D
and Forgotten Realms do.

Regardless though, just looking at them, the Anuirean modifiers don`t seem
too imbalanced. I know the table wasn`t supposed to be "read backwards",
and I knew that while I was writing up the modifiers, but even so, they seem
to work. And that`s what I based it on. ("Acid Test"ing?)


> Regarding dwarves and charisma:

Thanks for the quotes on dwarves and stuff. I`m going to look over that
later. I`ve been meaning to compile a similiar list for awhile, but don`t
have access to all my books right now. Most of the quotes you made seem
like they could go both ways, intepreting either a +2 +0 or -2 modifier
depending on how you want to read it, except, ironically enough, for the
Player`s Secret quote which was pretty direct on the subject.


> What I meant was that neither of them should have a Con penalty.

Okay. An earlier post mentioned that the bonuses I picked were based on my
ideas of the races` concept, while the penalties were made strictly by rules
-- which penalties would balance with those bonuses. This is why some of
the penalties seem off, even to me, and one of the (many) reasons I don`t
like racial ability modifiers.


> In summary, sorry for the long post,

I like long posts. :)

> I think we need to agree to disagree and realize that
> it is probably not a good idea to ask a community at
> large to comment on the specifics of a specialized
> (self-contained) campaign without providing the
> campaign in it’s entirety.

Yeah, the "agreeing to disagree" part is fine by me. I never sought any
kind of concensus or approval; just discussions and comments to look at this
from a fresh perspective.


> What it almost appears to be is that you are seeking
> a group wise validation of your campaign – this is
> generally a bad idea. It is your campaign and you should
> run it as you see fit – you don’t need our permission to
> do this and should in no way think you need our validation
> for your concepts.

No, I already run campaigns my way. Sort of. My sessions are more like
constant playtesting where rules are constantly be tried and thrown out or
revised or discussed.

What I`m doing is presenting a fresh way of running a Birthright theme, free
form those D&D aspects that I feel are unneccessarily invasive. You`ve
summarized my intents pretty well in your last post, describing it as
not-D&D but similiar to D&D in that it`s a d20 fantasy roleplaying game,
created for the Birthright setting. It`s a completely enclosed system not
made to be used with other D&D products, but it combines many good ideas
from designers of many different d20 and non-d20 games, including D&D.

And yeah, it`s nowhere near completed. But I think there are people who
might be interested in a BR system like this, which is why I do it. And I
believe in regular progress updates.

-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.

[ryancaveney]

On Tue, 6 May 2003, Lord Rahvin wrote:

> My sessions are more like constant playtesting where rules are
> constantly be tried and thrown out or revised or discussed.

Which is exactly the way every campaign should be run, IMO! There is no
rules system which cannot be improved, and no way to improve without such
tinkering. To fix rules in stone is to knowingly settle for less. Hence
I find any attempt to construct a "final" conversion rather silly. No set
of rules can ever really be finished.

> not-D&D but similiar to D&D in that it`s a d20 fantasy roleplaying
> game, created for the Birthright setting.

Exactly the right approach! Always adapt the rules to the setting, not
the other way around. Thanks for all your work -- someday I hope actually
to manage reading it all. :} Just don`t stop sending it... huzzah for
archives, eh?


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.