Flavour Vs. Game-mechanics [Archive]

geeman

10-08-2003, 07:35 PM

At 07:05 PM 10/8/2003 +0200, RaspK_FOG wrote:

>I am here making an effort at clearing things up on a level of balancing

>two very different aspects of role-playing: Flavour, the

>distinct feeling that provides as with verisimilititude above all, and

>Game-Mechanics, that present us with game-balance.

I think a definition of "flavour" needs to be made first off. There is a

third category of material that needs to be presented. That is, there is

not only flavour text and game mechanics, there are also campaign

themes. Flavour text needn`t influence game mechanics, while portraying

the campaign themes in game mechanics is what makes something a D20 product

and an individual campaign setting.

Recently, it seems like certain things in the original materials that are,

essentially, campaign materials are being described as flavour

text. Sometimes the campaign material in question might conflict with

other campaign material--though I think that is more rare than has been

suggested--or there may not be a ready 3e/D20 method of portraying that

campaign material, but more often than not there`s no real reason to

redefine things as flavour for the purpose of the campaign setting as a

whole. In fact, in a few cases the redefinition seems to obscure several

aspects of the setting that are really pretty valuable for actual play.

What`s worse IMO is that in several cases it seems like campaign material

is dropped or altered in order to make things fit into the 3e/D20 set of

rules. Aside from the loss of several campaign themes, the 3e rules make

several attempts to describe how they can be changed for particular

campaigns, and it is one of the expressed purposes in developing the 3e/D20

system, so an effort to make campaign material fit into the rules rather

than adapting the rules to fit the campaign setting is an inverted way of

going about it. Portraying bloodline in 3e is probably the most obvious

example of what I`m going to dub "3e formalism" for the sake of this

issue. Making bloodline an ability score, a character class, a template,

etc. are all methods that have been used in order to incorporate the idea

into a 3e update. In fact, all one really needs is a way of accounting for

the granted powers that fits into 3e`s mechanics, not a completely new way

of portraying bloodline.

More significant is the redefinition of things that are pretty clearly

campaign material and meant to reflect certain campaign specific dynamics

into flavour text. The most obvious one in this case is the changes of the

BRCS that several people have expanded upon is in regards to one of the

most fundamental aspects of the BR setting; bloodline and bloodtheft. The

ideas expressed by several people, and apparently the Playtest document,

redefines bloodline as a sort of generic system of political influence

rather than the BR thematic role of bloodline--the product of an actual

divine power granted by exposure to energies released at the Battle of

Deismaar. Now, it needs to be noted that it`s fine to develop a generic

system of political influence that parallels that of BR. However, that`s

not what bloodline is meant to be in the campaign setting. This has led to

several overt game mechanical changes to the setting materials that may be

inspired by the original BR materials, but don`t reflect the original BR

materials` theme. Non-scions can be regents, bloodline is transferred as

the result of any demise hand-to-hand fight, bloodline can be gained by

non-scions by bloodtheft, etc. All of those things make sense (arguably)

if bloodline is a generic system of rulership, but none of these things

appeared in the original materials, not because we didn`t have 2e game

mechanics to portray them--which we didn`t then any more than we do

now--but because bloodline isn`t meant to be generic in the original

campaign materials.

In the long run the purpose of such flavor/colour commentary needs to be

defined. As in, what is flavour and, therefore, unlikely to be true vs.

what is actual campaign material vs. the game mechanical presentation of

both/either of those two things.

When it comes to issues of game balance I think the problem isn`t so much

how to balance things, but simply selling the concept of balance in the

first place. That is, there are several ways to balance things in

3e/D20. Templates, ECL, XP penalties, etc. The problem is that for a lot

of folks having characters that are out of balance appears to be the point

in developing them. Scions _should_ be out of balance, the thinking is, in

order to reflect their superiority over commoners. While I agree that that

is the case, game mechanically one uses some balancing factor not in order

to compensate other characters or penalize the scion, but in order to

situate the scion`s power in the game so that adventures and awards are

appropriately created and granted. One doesn`t balance in order to turn a

gaming session into a sort of all-encompassing level playing field. The

playing field can and in may cases should give a decided advantage to

certain characters. Balance, however, should be used to rate and account

for that advantage in relation to the rest of the system`s accounting for

levels, abilities, powers, etc.

Gary

RaspK_FOG

10-08-2003, 10:18 PM

I agree with your point of this thread being in need of a specification for what flavour is in contrast to campaign material. However, I have to disagree with your notion that the two are separate; in fact, campaign material encompasses both flavour and game-mechanics!

Let me recite a recent incident: I was discussing with one of my friends that I had not seen or spoken with for some time about the advantages of some 3.5e changes over their "old" 3e counterparts, especially concerning the ranger and bard classes, which were at last, in my humble opinion, best portrayed. When our conversation reached the matter of bards, initially referring to his loss of proficiency with the tower shield (only fighters get that now! B) ) and medium armour, both of which are logical, and his lack of arcane spell failure chance for wearing light armour ( :D ), we went on discussing how proper it was that Bardic Music was as level-based as other such abilities of similar character/prestige classes were (see the Virtuoso from Song and Silence, or the Gleeman from The Wheel of Time).

We then went on, considering how appropriate it was to give a variable DC for the bard's Suggestion ability, and other such tidbits, when we came to the matter of the Fascinate ability. I told him I loved the new version most because the bard can bedazzle an extra creature for every 3 class levels above 1st (when he initially acquires the ability), unlike the "strictly one creature" 3e theme. As I finished, he seemed extremely surprised: he told that's how it worked in 3e too! I told him he was wrong: "I was playing a bard in our party, if you don't remember." Actually, one of the few things I am proud of is good bardic role-playing, and most people who played in the party knew I remembered all rules on Bardic Music (what can I say, I really love the guys!), so he considered it, and I went to pick up the 3e book to show him. After he saw what I was referring to, he said: "Well, in the party I am currently playing, George (our old DM, by the way) uses the same ruling for bards as 3.5e!"

That would be acceptable, and it would have ended then and there, but my friend went on with his line of thought (he also likes bards): "You know, I think it's too bad that the rules don't allow for bards to fascinate anyone within a given range; that's pretty much what the actual effect really is, right?"

That is an example of putting flavour above game-mechanics. I agree that it sounds more realistic, but if a bard fascinated just about everyone within 30 feet, not 90 feet like the standard rules, it would be far too good...

Yair

10-08-2003, 10:33 PM

I think a definition of "flavour" needs to be made first off... That is, there is not only flavour text and game mechanics, there are also campaign themes
While this is true, I think what you are missing here and in the rest of the post is a change in paradigm between 2nd and 3rd edition. The "game theme" has changed, and the issues you raise are, I believe, largely due to the attempt by the d20 BRCS to write in accordance with the new theme.
I happen to agree with the new theme. The new theme is, I believe, that of options, which implies balanced options, and of uniformity in mechanics. I think that's a good theme, although it should be applied with caution.

For example:

Portraying bloodline in 3e is probably the most obvious example of what I`m going to dub "3e formalism" for the sake of this issue. Making bloodline an ability score, a character class, a template, etc. are all methods that have been used in order to incorporate the idea
into a 3e update. In fact, all one really needs is a way of accounting for the granted powers that fits into 3e`s mechanics, not a completely new way of portraying bloodline.
While I agree that in principle you could insert the 2nd Edition bloodline system pretty much as-is into the d20 BRCS, I don't agree that is necessarily the best way to go.
The idea is to mirror the flavor of the old bloodline concept, not neccesarily the mechanics. I am not saying any of the above ideas are the way to go, but they are all merely attempts to create a bloodline system using the tools 3e provides. Nothing wrong with that. Just because some rule was something in 2nd Edition is NOT a good enough reason to preserve it.
The new theme of consistency and repetition in rule systems motivated all these approaches, and generally I think it is a good one. As I said above, however, it must be used with caution. For example, I believe the bloodline-as-ability does sin in this regard. While it is balanced, sort of, I personally feel that it loses some of the flavor of what bloodlines are. Bloodlines aren't ability scores, they are divine essence. For that reason in my game have chosen not to use bloodline as a 7th ability score. I still use the same numbers, for convinience, but it just doesn't function as an ability score.

The same can be said as to non-regent rulers (Options are Good is a 3e philosophy), dwarf wizards (again), and many other "converting the setting to fit the rules" cases.

For the record, in general I think the d20 BRCS team did a good (and ardous!) job, and managed to write rules emphasising many of the themes of BR in a d20-friendly manner. While I don't always agree with their choices, they did a good job.
(As examples of pet peeves: non-blooded usurption rules would have never resulted in Deismaar, the flavor-change for dwarven wizardry is not well handled, the druids excel at the wizard's area - nature, and oh so many others. But these are small in compared to the enormous work which is the d20 BRCS.)

Yair

10-08-2003, 10:48 PM

RaspK_FOG

10-08-2003, 10:51 PM

I think that this has strayed a little too far... Yet this could be an interesting discussion, so I will make this our first issue of discussion:

Where do you think the BRCS has emphasised too much on flavour, and where has it gone astray from flavour to support mechanics, making the new Cerilia insipid and inoriginal?

Yair

10-08-2003, 11:53 PM

Where do you think the BRCS has emphasised too much on flavour, and where has it gone astray from flavour to support mechanics, making the new Cerilia insipid and inoriginal?
Just to give a few thoughts before I go to sleep:

Too Much Flavor: these are largely balance issues; I think every concept can be put in game mechanics, so the only vice possible here is to make the mechanics unbalanced.
- Some blood abilities being too powerful (most of the boodform/trait chains); it should have been handled with more care to game balance. Because they were in 2nd Edition, the abilties remained in 3e on expense of game balance.
- Some feats, the Great Heritage template, and other balancing gaffs (read: pet peeves) of mine.
- Minor bloodlines having no ECL. RIIIGHT, they are that weak...
- No Monks. Clinging to the flavor of 2E, we have decided to forgo this possiblity, creating less options in the game. (I am not entirely sure that was a bad call; it's certainly a reasonable one.)
- Wizards=Sorcerers socially. Again, for reasons of 2E flavor (there was no distinction in 2E, so we won't in 3E) we lose a potential for deepening the variety of the campaign - this time, in terms of setting rather than playability. (Again, I am not at all sure this was a bad choice, but it does emphasise flavor over mechanics).

Too Much Mechanics: where by that I mean where sticking to certain mechanics leads to lost concepts or ideas, which is not to mean that the change is not for the better overall. While flavor is great, a confusing and large ruleset isn't.
- Bloodline as ability score (I said why above)
- Lesser magic; in order to preserve the class abilities of bards and so on, this concept was somewhat damaged. There are good ideas in the d20 BRCS to handle this, but they are not carried out to fruition.
- Much the same can be said about ranger divine magic, and druids. To preserve the classes, the designers chose to undermine the nature=true magic theme. IIRC the situation was the same in 2E, but that doesn't make it right. As far as I am concerned, druids as true mages and rangers casting true magic is the proper rule to preserve BR flavor, and tradition be damned. As it stands, the current mechanics undermine what is one of the essential themes of BR (especially if druids are given source holdings!).
- Dwarves' lack of magic; a theme in 2E that disappeared in 3E, it added flavor that is now lost. The effect of true magic on dwarven society, or the possibility of dwarven magic, could have been more thoroughly explored.
- Dwarves and stone; they can be made more stone-like using 3E tools such as racial prestige classes and feats. Perhaps the atlas will take care of this.
- Halflings and shadows; now not every halfling can cross to shadow. I actually think that's a good choice, as it also adds new campaign ideas and options, but it does lose some of the 2E flavor of the race.
- Paladins for just a few gods. IIRC, the old version had paladins for nearly every god. Take a page out of The Book of the Rightous, and construct some Holy Warriors per faith. (I'm not certain it was a bad call, though: while less flavored, the extra rules will complicate the campaign while adding little.)
- Clerics are all the same; in 2E they had differences. (Again, for simplicity's sake, this may very well be a right choice, but I list it as it did lead to loss of flavor).

geeman

10-09-2003, 12:44 AM

At 01:53 AM 10/9/2003 +0200, Yair wrote:

> - Paladins for just a few gods. IIRC, the old version had paladins for

> nearly every god.

Only Haelyn, Cuircaen, Neserie and Avani had paladins in the original

materials, and only for Anuireans and Khinasi characters--though the second

half of that rule was broken pretty dramatically. I`ve argued that there

should be paladins (or similarly "holy warrior" classes) for all the BR

gods, and examples have come out several times in various D20 sources,

Dragon, etc. that could be used for BR pretty easily.

There does need to be some more attention to the specific class abilities

for paladins in the BRCS. More sail/water based powers for paladins of

Neserie, and some of the alignment restrictions might be reviewed a bit

here and there too. Lawful neutral paladins dedicated to Avani, for

instance, would support some of the published materials. I`m also not

particularly sure paladins of Moradin is a good compromise for a 3e version

of the original BR materials that made dwarven fighter/priest one of the

more attractive character class options, but if dwarven paladins are to

remain in the setting then the ability to summon a warhorse should be

replaced with some ability less bizarre for a stubby dwarven holy warrior.

Gary

geeman

10-09-2003, 01:06 AM

At 12:33 AM 10/9/2003 +0200, Yair wrote:

>
I think a definition of "flavour" needs to be made

> first off... That is, there is not only flavour text and game mechanics,

> there are also campaign themes

> While this is true, I think what you are missing here and in the rest of

> the post is a change in paradigm between 2nd and 3rd edition. The

> "game theme" has changed, and the issues you raise are, I

> believe, largely due to the attempt by the d20 BRCS to write in

> accordance with the new theme.

> I happen to agree with the new theme. The new theme is, I believe, that

> of options, which implies balanced options, and of uniformity in

> mechanics. I think that`s a good theme, although it should be applied

> with caution.

I think you`ve pegged one of the changes between 2e and 3e thematically

(and to an even greater extent D20) which is something that can be very

useful for BR purposes. Several aspects of 3e`s "increased options" theme

can and should be employed in BR, but in general I don`t think that`s one

of the major aspects that`s been incorporated into the BRCS, nor should it

be. There isn`t the free for all of races, templates, prestige classes and

monsters in BR that there is in 3e, and going with a "more 3e" version of

things would make things necessarily "less BR." Certain aspects of 3e`s

increased options make good sense for BR even though they`ve attracted a

lot of negative attention in the past. Free multi-classing for humans (and

all races) is one of the things that many folks were very vocal about when

it first came out--particularly with the way character class and regency

interact in BR--but there doesn`t seem to be much of an objection to it now.

I think many aspects of the "increased options" theme of 3e are good to

include in a BR update, but like any other aspect of such an update the

ones employed should be ones that either support BR themes or at least do

no harm to them.

>
Portraying bloodline in 3e is probably the most obvious example

> of what I`m going to dub "3e formalism" for the sake of this

> issue. Making bloodline an ability score, a character class, a template,

> etc. are all methods that have been used in order to incorporate the idea

> into a 3e update. In fact, all one really needs is a way of accounting

> for the granted powers that fits into 3e`s mechanics, not a completely

> new way of portraying bloodline.

> While I agree that in principle you could insert the 2nd Edition

> bloodline system pretty much as-is into the d20 BRCS, I don`t agree that

> is necessarily the best way to go.

I`m 100% with you on that one. In fact, I`m one of the maniacal fanboys

who has completely rewritten bloodline for my own use (dubbed the Bloodline

Point system) and I don`t think that system very much resembles the

original bloodline system except in some of its broadest terms. The thing

is, it doesn`t resemble any 3e mechanics very much either. It references

other D20 products tangentially, but far more closely than it does anything

in one of the core texts. In regards to how blood abilities are portrayed

it is generally a superior system--if I do say so myself. (The parts about

bloodline strength and bloodline score could use a little tweaking as they

appear to be overly complex for most people`s taste. I also went with a

3d6 method of determining strength as a sort of nod to the BRCS`s bloodline

as an ability score method of portraying things. I`m not really married to

the mechanics of bloodline strength and score, however, so some changes are

probably in order.)

A simple translation of the bloodline system that stuck as closely as

possible to the original one would be better than bloodline as an ability

score IMO. I even prefer the strangeness of Table 12: Blood Ability

Acquisition to the ability score method.

Gary

Raesene Andu

10-09-2003, 08:34 AM

Too Much Flavor: these are largely balance issues; I think every concept can be put in game mechanics, so the only vice possible here is to make the mechanics unbalanced.
- Some blood abilities being too powerful (most of the boodform/trait chains); it should have been handled with more care to game balance. Because they were in 2nd Edition, the abilties remained in 3e on expense of game balance.
- Some feats, the Great Heritage template, and other balancing gaffs (read: pet peeves) of mine.
- Minor bloodlines having no ECL. RIIIGHT, they are that weak...
- No Monks. Clinging to the flavor of 2E, we have decided to forgo this possiblity, creating less options in the game. (I am not entirely sure that was a bad call; it's certainly a reasonable one.)
- Wizards=Sorcerers socially. Again, for reasons of 2E flavor (there was no distinction in 2E, so we won't in 3E) we lose a potential for deepening the variety of the campaign - this time, in terms of setting rather than playability. (Again, I am not at all sure this was a bad choice, but it does emphasise flavor over mechanics).

Right, as the only member of the original developers who seems to still be around at I'll try to answer some of your points.

1. Bloodtrait/Bloodform
I don't think balance really comes into it with these two abilties. They are there for a specific reason, to provide for the transformation of characters into Awnsheghlien and Erhsheghlien (primarily NPCs too, not players). They are certainly powerful, but necessary. If you have any balance issues with other bloodline abilities let me know and I'll try to address them.

2. Feats/Great Heritage/No ECL for minor scions.
Some feats will be reworked in the revised BRCS. I don't have the full list on me, but there are a few that need changing. I have a lot of problems with the whole bloodline chapter (I personally do not use the 7th ability score and use a bloodline system very similar to the original). On that, I'd like to see something like the following as a means of determining bloodlines.

Strength....Range......Roll...........ECL......... Abilities
Tainted......1-10.........1d10........None.......1 minor
Minor.........11-20.......1d10.........+1..........2 minor, 1 major
Major.........21-40.......1d20.........+2..........3 minor, 2 major, 1 great
Great.........41-60.......1d20.........+3..........4 minor, 3 major, 2 great
True...........50+..........Special......Special.. .5 minor, 4 major, 3 great

I'm not saying that's the final version, but just something I came up with quickly. The main thing I'd like to see is some reduction in the amount of material you have to wade through to determine your bloodline. A simple table like this would work better.

3. No Monks
If you want Monks, then add them. End of story...

4. This is something of a concern in the whole 3E rules actually, sorcerers are really little more than wizards with different spellcasting rules. In the work I've been doing on Aduria I have actually dropped wizards all together and then created a wizard-like class called a Shadow Mage. Obviously there is more of a difference there, sorcerers draw on mebhaighl, shadow mages draw on awnmebhaighl, the magic of the shadow world to cast their spells.

Too Much Mechanics: where by that I mean where sticking to certain mechanics leads to lost concepts or ideas, which is not to mean that the change is not for the better overall. While flavor is great, a confusing and large ruleset isn't.
- Bloodline as ability score (I said why above)
- Lesser magic; in order to preserve the class abilities of bards and so on, this concept was somewhat damaged. There are good ideas in the d20 BRCS to handle this, but they are not carried out to fruition.
- Much the same can be said about ranger divine magic, and druids. To preserve the classes, the designers chose to undermine the nature=true magic theme. IIRC the situation was the same in 2E, but that doesn't make it right. As far as I am concerned, druids as true mages and rangers casting true magic is the proper rule to preserve BR flavor, and tradition be damned. As it stands, the current mechanics undermine what is one of the essential themes of BR (especially if druids are given source holdings!).
- Dwarves' lack of magic; a theme in 2E that disappeared in 3E, it added flavor that is now lost. The effect of true magic on dwarven society, or the possibility of dwarven magic, could have been more thoroughly explored.
- Dwarves and stone; they can be made more stone-like using 3E tools such as racial prestige classes and feats. Perhaps the atlas will take care of this.
- Halflings and shadows; now not every halfling can cross to shadow. I actually think that's a good choice, as it also adds new campaign ideas and options, but it does lose some of the 2E flavor of the race.
- Paladins for just a few gods. IIRC, the old version had paladins for nearly every god. Take a page out of The Book of the Rightous, and construct some Holy Warriors per faith. (I'm not certain it was a bad call, though: while less flavored, the extra rules will complicate the campaign while adding little.)
- Clerics are all the same; in 2E they had differences. (Again, for simplicity's sake, this may very well be a right choice, but I list it as it did lead to loss of flavor).

5. Lesser Magic
I orginally thought the idea of cutting the bard spell list to just lesser magic spells a good idea. It does require some work, and you would need to introduce some new spells (perhaps some unique to bards) to replace those lost, but it is something I thought would work. No one else went with that idea at the time, but if I'm left to work on the revision of the BRCS on my own, it may be something I consider adding. By the way, I'll set a tentative release date of the revised BRCS AND the Atlas of Cerilia of around january next year. Both book don't have many people still writing for them, so that has increased the time it will take to complete them.

6. Nature=True Magic and Rangers and Druids.
I concor with your thoughts on this. Already dicussing this on another thread though.

7. Dwarves and Halflings.
From what I've seen of the revisions so far, nothing much has changed, apart from the damage reduction thingy (DR 4/slashing or piercing now, or something like that).
Halflings I also like, not a lot of major changes needed there.

8. Paladins and priests.
I also like the idea of paladins for all religions. As for priests/clerics, I'd have to say that the 2E rules for these speciality priest were unbalanced, but I did like the differences between the religions. I'm proposing changing the domains for the clerics to make them more unique (and to restrict certain news spells that I'm working on just to clerics of a certain faith). Another option is to have a different list of class skills for different faiths, or something like that. The Atlas will also feature some prestige classes for specific religions, but not one for each...

Anyway, that's all I can post for now. I have to dash, Dr Who is coming on TV.

irdeggman

10-09-2003, 11:20 AM

Ian, while I wasn’t one of the original BRCS team members (Jan and I were added in the first expansion), I have been the only one to post regularly since the playtest document was issued for playtesting – at least twice a week and usually more frequently. It does appear as if the rest are on a walkabout. This has caused me delays in rewriting Chapt 2, since I really need some more info from Jan. Regarding the rewrite of Chap 2, in the next few days I’ll post a progress on the board so all you all (hey I live in Virginia) can see what I’m planning on doing. It is based on the polls and what people said they preferred.

I think some of this discussion was moved forward too quickly. For one, I don’t believe that everyone is on the same page when it comes down to defining what is campaign setting material, what are mechanics and what constitutes flavor. Really until then there will always be conflicting opinions and hence the discussions will focus towards "What I want or what I use based upon my own house-rules." This is to be expected due to the very individualistic focus of D&D itself – it is and always has been a game that promotes creating house-rules and individual campaign settings.

IMO (everything is my take on things not the way things are):

Campaign setting information is what sets apart one setting from another, or what deviates from the "core rules". Basically it is defining the size of the canvas and the materials to be used when creating a painting.

Examples of things that are and are not campaign setting information;
Dwarves can’t be wizards. In 2nd ed this is not setting material since this was the standard rule and dwarves were not allowed to be wizards at all. I have never seen a TSR 2nd ed setting that allowed them to be wizards.
Elves can’t be priests. In 2nd ed this is definitely a campaign setting material since the standard was that elves could be priests (its the same in 3rd ed).
Druids must be gain their power from Erik. This is also definitely campaign setting definition material. In 2nd ed (and 3rd ed) druids didn’t gain their powers from the gods but from nature itself.
Specific info on the Cerilian races, dwarves, elves, halflings are all campaign definition material since they are specific deviations from the core.
The fact that the old gods died, spilt their blood on those around which granted them abilities and leadership far above those that didn’t receive this divine gift and those who received the benefit of the old gods’ spilt blood could actually steal this gift from others. New gods arose to replace the expired ones. These are all campaign setting definition material.
The fact that magic (arcane) was divided into true and lesser magic and only those with the divine gift of blood or of elven blood could cast true magic is also campaign definition material since it also deviates from the core.
Priests of different gods have different focuses. This is campaign specific material, but this one also crosses into the mechanics issues.

Mechanics issues are those things that are tied into a specific game mechanic system. This would be the criteria used for judging the painting or if you use oils then you must do the following to prep the canvas and brushes, allow so much time to dry, etc.

Examples of things that are game mechanics issues:
Skills and feats in d20 vice proficiencies in 2nd ed.
Character level with no restrictions on multi-classing, except for those defined by the campaign setting material, in 3rd ed vice the restriction of classes and levels in 2nd ed.
Specialty priests in 2nd ed use of minor and major access to spheres and granted abilities while 3rd ed uses domains which have granted powers associated with them. Technically both are specialty priests, but 2nd ed and 3rd ed use different game mechanics to handle them.

Flavor issues are the things that fill the gaps. In the painting issue this would be eye appeal, since it depends on how it is viewed and by whom. Flavor issues are those things that have no game mechanics used to support or define them.

Examples of things that are flavor issues:

Dwarves eat rocks. This has no game mechanic issues involved and really adds nothing but color.
Stabbing through the heart in order to accomplish bloodtheft. There were no mechanics written that specified how this was to be done. There were mechanics specified as to how a transfer of blood score was done once this action was done but nothing really given to define how to do this.
Sayim. This has no real game mechanic involved, but it does add flavor towards the Khinasi philosophy of life.

Ruornil the Silver Prince

10-09-2003, 12:21 PM

Didn`t they have dwarven wizards in some of the old greyhawk stuff?

I`ve read novels where that happened.. err I think...

-----Original Message-----

From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion

[mailto:BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM] On Behalf Of irdeggman

Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 9:20 PM

To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM

Subject: Re: Flavour Vs. Game-mechanics [36#1997]

This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

You can view the entire thread at:

http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=1997

irdeggman wrote:

Ian, while I wasn`t one of the original BRCS team members (Jan and I

were added in the first expansion), I have been the only one to post

regularly since the playtest document was issued for playtesting - at

least twice a week and usually more frequently. It does appear as if

the rest are on a walkabout. This has caused me delays in rewriting

Chapt 2, since I really need some more info from Jan. Regarding the

rewrite of Chap 2, in the next few days I`ll post a progress on the

board so all you all (hey I live in Virginia) can see what I`m planning

on doing. It is based on the polls and what people said they preferred.

I think some of this discussion was moved forward too quickly. For

one, I don`t believe that everyone is on the same page when it comes

down to defining what is campaign setting material, what are mechanics

and what constitutes flavor. Really until then there will always be

conflicting opinions and hence the discussions will focus towards

"What I want or what I use based upon my own house-rules."

This is to be expected due to the very individualistic focus of D&D

itself - it is and always has been a game that promotes creating

house-rules and individual campaign settings.

IMO (everything is my take on things not the way things are):

Campaign setting information is what sets apart one setting from

another, or what deviates from the "core rules". Basically it

is defining the size of the canvas and the materials to be used when

creating a painting.

Examples of things that are and are not campaign setting information;

Dwarves can`t be wizards. In 2nd ed this is not setting material

since this was the standard rule and dwarves were not allowed to be

wizards at all. I have never seen a TSR 2nd ed setting that allowed

them to be wizards.

Elves can`t be priests. In 2nd ed this is definitely a campaign

setting material since the standard was that elves could be priests (its

the same in 3rd ed).

Druids must be gain their power from Erik. This is also definitely

campaign setting definition material. In 2nd ed (and 3rd ed) druids

didn`t gain their powers from the gods but from nature itself.

Specific info on the Cerilian races, dwarves, elves, halflings are

all campaign definition material since they are specific deviations from

the core.

The fact that the old gods died, spilt their blood on those around

which granted them abilities and leadership far above those that didn`t

receive this divine gift and those who received the benefit of the old

gods` spilt blood could actually steal this gift from others. New gods

arose to replace the expired ones. These are all campaign setting

definition material.

The fact that magic (arcane) was divided into true and lesser magic

and only those with the divine gift of blood or of elven blood could

cast true magic is also campaign definition material since it also

deviates from the core.

Priests of different gods have different focuses. This is campaign

specific material, but this one also crosses into the mechanics issues.

Mechanics issues are those things that are tied into a specific game

mechanic system. This would be the criteria used for judging the

painting or if you use oils then you must do the following to prep the

canvas and brushes, allow so much time to dry, etc.

Examples of things that are game mechanics issues:

Skills and feats in d20 vice proficiencies in 2nd ed.

Character level with no restrictions on multi-classing, except for

those defined by the campaign setting material, in 3rd ed vice the

restriction of classes and levels in 2nd ed.

Specialty priests in 2nd ed use of minor and major access to spheres

and granted abilities while 3rd ed uses domains which have granted

powers associated with them. Technically both are specialty priests,

but 2nd ed and 3rd ed use different game mechanics to handle them.

Flavor issues are the things that fill the gaps. In the painting issue

this would be eye appeal, since it depends on how it is viewed and by

whom. Flavor issues are those things that have no game mechanics used

to support or define them.

Examples of things that are flavor issues:

Dwarves eat rocks. This has no game mechanic issues involved and

really adds nothing but color.

Stabbing through the heart in order to accomplish bloodtheft. There

were no mechanics written that specified how this was to be done. There

were mechanics specified as to how a transfer of blood score was done

once this action was done but nothing really given to define how to do

this.

Sayim. This has no real game mechanic involved, but it does add

flavor towards the Khinasi philosophy of life.

************************************************** **********************

****

Birthright-l Archives:

http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html

RaspK_FOG

10-09-2003, 07:09 PM

Thank you for coming in, Raesene Andu and Irdeggman. I assure you that we appreciate your work on the setting. [Insert BIG thumbs up.]

kgauck

10-09-2003, 08:07 PM

----- Original Message -----

From: "Andrew Casey" <accasey@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>

Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 6:56 AM

> Didn`t they have dwarven wizards in some of the old greyhawk stuff?

> I`ve read novels where that happened.. err I think...

Perhaps you are recalling the savants of the dark dwarven gods Diirinka and

Diinkarazan. They were effectivly wizards in the direct service of their

gods.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

Yair

10-09-2003, 09:07 PM

I think some of this discussion was moved forward too quickly. For one, I don`t believe that everyone is on the same page when it comes down to defining what is campaign setting material, what are mechanics
and what constitutes flavor. Really until then there will always be conflicting opinions and hence the discussions will focus towards "What I want or what I use based upon my own house-rules."
I agree in principle, but... I want my house rules in :D

Actually, those look like excellent definitions, irdeggman.

Yair

10-09-2003, 09:12 PM

Raesene Andu wrote:

1. Bloodtrait/Bloodform
I don't think balance really comes into it with these two abilties. They are there for a specific reason, to provide for the transformation of characters into Awnsheghlien and Erhsheghlien (primarily NPCs too, not players). They are certainly powerful, but necessary. If you have any balance issues with other bloodline abilities let me know and I'll try to address them.

And lots of other things... but discussing all of this will kidnap the thread.
I'll start another.

Airgedok

10-12-2003, 10:11 AM

There is something to consider when you deal with the whole issue of flavour vs mechanics vs campaign setting and the overal philosophy of 3x edition rules.

Anytime you change the mechanics or flavour or setting so that it contradicts the rules or even flavour of 3x edition yo risk losing the people who joined 3e D&D. I quite Ad&D just after unearthed arcana for 1e came out. the reason was that there was no skills in the game (except for theives) and their was un reasoned restrictions in teh game all for teh sake of game balance which ironicaly could be bypassed via dual or multiclassing thus making the balanced arguement pretty weak. #e creates a system that provides more choice to teh player and helps eliminate teh cardboard cutouts that aD&D created, in both 1e and 2e. i came back to AD&D to try 2e but found that it was still teh "old" game with some minor changes. The spirit of the game was still the same.

3e changed the spirit of D&D and created a game that i could live with. BUT in so doing they hurt some of their die hard fan base but they gained far more people than they ever lost. The danger is if you return BR to the spirit of the restrictive nature of 2e rules you will lose the 3e fans of the BR setting and we do exist. The idea of dwarven wizards is greatly embraced by a vast majority of 3e players as it provides more flavour to game worlds because it creates more options and more possibilities. But others argue that the sameness of the races creates a loss of flavour.

Old doesnt equal better but likewise new doesnt equal better either. The team Will do the community a better service if they create a 3x edition birthright setting than create d20 rules for BR. This may seem like its the same thing but its is not nor are the differences subtle. I think you have to take the core spirit of 3e and create a BR setting to fit those rules than take the old 2e BR setting and add d20 rules for that system. Here is my reasoning.

The purests will likely prefer the 2e rules set over any rules using d20 simply because teh 2e rules are best at keeping the spirit and mechanics of teh old 2e setting. However the people who hate 2e and play 3e will really chafe at any 2e like limitations showing up in a 3e BR setting. I really hate the idea of alignment restrictions for elves harkens back to 2e limitations for me. (Mind you my group doesnt even use alignemnt uses all aligment based spells and changes them to be outsider or undead or unatural specific as opposed to evil, good, lawful or choatic speific. Makes for subtle morality plays and eliminates a role-playing tool that is designed more for children than grown adults.)

Balance is almost imposible to achieve in a BR setting. The reasoning behind it is that you have two seperate campaign types for the characters you have the regent level type of game and the adventure level type of game. What balances out for one is often not a balance for the other. The blood abilities of invulnerable are HUGE in the adventure setting but I'd rather have the ability of Enhanced sense (great)- [Masela] in the regent setting of the game. The ability to hear my characters name and anything said about my character provided both me and the speakers are ouside and within a 10 MILE radius. Is enormous add in the fact that I play mostly sidhelien and you can see the huge advantage this great power has over Invulnerability But again only in the regent campaign setting. In an adventure based game I'd rather be invulnerable. So how do you balance these two blood abilities? You cant and any attempt to do so would destroy the powers. Whats a great blood ability for adventuring is not a great ability in the regent level game and vise versa.

Feats also fall into this catagory Master admin. isnt really a great feat for an adventure based game but is a "must have" in a regent level based game.
How can you balance these two areas? What give you a benifit in one level of the BR setting provides you with little or no value in another level of the BR setting.

Which would you rather have the dodge feat or the master administator feat? The answer would really depend on if you are playing a party based adventure level game or a regent level game. This creates a problem with balancing feats. Skill based feats in an adventure level game are not really all that powerful even if you doubled their bonus. But in the regent game they are extremly powerful. Having a regent level character with a dodge feat that game you +2 ac bonus isnt all that great when such a feat would be so very powerful in and adventure level game.

So the question becomes is balance possible? or perhaps should you only try to balance the adventure level part of the game? is a scion's blood abilities really worth the level adjustments? I'd say no way. And even the optional rules in chapter 8 that give early leadersip or special equipment or bodyguards dont make up for 1 to 3 levels. and yet if you had a character with invulnerable even at a 3 level penalty you would be unbalanced. And what happens if you have a low blood score does the +4 or +8 really make up the difference since you cant use the major or great blood powers even with the bonus to the score? Perhaps a better way to deal with level adjustments is to place level adjustments to the actual power chosen NOT the blood strength level. So if you take less powerful blood powers you arent penalised 1 or 2 or 3 levels because your powers are not unbalancing.
Does a character the chooses alerntess, character reading and greater long life with an 18 blood score really equal a character with a ECL +2 penalty? Even with the modifiers given from the variant rules in chapter 8 isnt any 3rd level character going to be more powerful than this example? And those powers are far from useless. It just goes to show that making level adjustments based on blood strength is flawed and will always be flawed but making them based on the powers chosen, is likely to bear better fruit.

I dont claim to know the answers here but I see a problem with trying to balance a game who's scope is so great that at one end a feat or power is almost worthless but on the other end its a game breaker. The danger with balancing things to much is they lose all flavour. Take psionics the old rules where so unbalanced that most peope ignored the rules all together. Made psionics the uber weapon so that you either had to create a darksun setting where psionics where a dime a dozen or you just eliminated them all together like the dragon lance setting. Psionics has potential but their imbalance made them useless (ie no DM/Gm in his or her right mind would allow them is most campaigns) Now lets looks at 3e psionics. They ruined everything that was great about psionics in the old system and made them into just another spell system. Psyonics are simply spells in 3e that use spell points vs spell slots. All the flavour of psyonics is lost in teh new rules. While they are now balance and completely intergrateable into the 3e rules they have lost all flavour. The danger with blood powers is that you either balance them out so "perfectly" that they lose all the unique flavour of the powers or you go nuts on the other end create powers so over the top that they create super characters. The only way I see of creating a balaced approach is to tie the powers to a ECL rating and not blood strength.

ConjurerDragon

10-12-2003, 07:29 PM

Airgedok schrieb:

> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=1997

> Airgedok wrote:

> 3e changed the spirit of D&D and created a game that i could live with. BUT in so doing

>they hurt some of their die hard fan base but they gained far more

people than they ever lost.

> The danger is if you return BR to the spirit of the restrictive

nature of 2e rules you will

>lose the 3e fans of the BR setting and we do exist. The idea of

dwarven wizards is greatly

> embraced by a vast majority of 3e players

I would be really interested to know how much that are. Please provide

me with the absolute number of 3E players and the percentage of those

who greatly embrace dwarven wizards. As you state this as a fact, I

assume to give me both numbers is no problem to you? ;-)

>as it provides more flavour to game worlds because it creates more

options and more

>possibilities.

To provide more options does not necessarily add to flavour. Being able

to play the talking parrot of the half-celestial/half-minotaur

monk-pirate-assasin with snirfneblin parents is an option. One could

also play just about anything. However how much sense that would make is

the question. Would you play a Minotaur in a game-world that exactly

mirrors our own nowadays world (and expect anything else except to be

immediately captured and cut in pieces for science?).

Or even more fantastic: Playing the lasersword wielding monk of the

vulcan race - needless to say that I insist on playing him in the

Birthright setting, as 3E is all about options, isnt´t it?

>But others argue that the sameness of the races creates a loss of flavour.

That is a true statement. Races are described in a way that adds flavour

to a setting. Be it the immortal elves of Lord of the Rings or whatever.

You certainly can insist on playing for example in a Midgard setting an

elf, with a height of 1 meter 30 centimetres, who is fat and slow and

suffers from pneumonia since his birth while being awful at bowshooting

or with the sword, and looks exactly like Gollum. But why then should it

be an elf to begin with?

(Not that there are no clumsy sidhelien - I laughged about the one

sidhelien who stumbled over his own feet in the novel Greatheart...)

>(Mind you my group doesnt even use alignemnt uses all aligment based

spells and changes them to

> be outsider or undead or unatural specific as opposed to evil, good, lawful or choatic speific.

>Makes for subtle morality plays and eliminates a role-playing tool that is designed more for

>children than grown adults.)

Alignment is a tool that can be used regardless of age of the player. It

is a skeleton of behaviour to expect. A guideline an actor is given how

to perform on stage.

No Lawful or Evil character need to act the same, even in the same

situation. Even a good and evil character might act in the same

situation in the same way - just out of different motivations (I am the

good paladin of my god: I always rescue damsels in distress as opposed

to I am the evil rogue: I expect a huge reward for rescuing that lady

and safely returning her to her father the baron)

>The blood abilities of invulnerable are HUGE in the adventure setting but I`d rather have the

ability of Enhanced sense (great)- [Masela] in the regent setting of the

game. The ability to

hear my characters name and anything said about my character provided

both me and the speakers

are ouside and within a 10 MILE radius. Is enormous add in the fact

that I play mostly sidhelien

and you can see the huge advantage this great power has over

Invulnerability But again only in

the regent campaign setting. In an adventure based game I`d rather be

invulnerable. So how do

you balance these two blood abilities? You cant and any attempt to do

so would destroy the

powers.

Only how you perceive the powers and you DM interpretes them. I could

imagine a DM who thinks just like you that hearing anything spoken about

you in ten miles would be too good - so your character constantly hears

dozens of people speaking about him at the same time, barely able to

understand it mixed up as it is and fleeing to the barren wilderness

whenever he can to enjoy a few moments of peace from the voices in his head

You did assume that you only hear what you *wanted* to hear and what was

*interesting* for you, did you? ;-)

Perhaps I as the greedy and evil guilder planning to take over your

realm would pay 200 men to talk about you around the clock to drive you

insane and deny you any rest 24 hours a day... (while talking about you

only WITHOUT NAMING YOUR NAME - so you would hear nothing helpful for

you...)

You overrate the importance of that ability. The devil and most major

villains are rumoured to have that ability (even if in reality they only

have good spys) and so people avoid naming their names and use nicknames.

> I dont claim to know the answers here but I see a problem with trying to balance a game who`s

> scope is so great that at one end a feat or power is almost worthless but on the other end its

>a game breaker. The danger with balancing things to much is they lose all flavour. Take psionics

>the old rules where so unbalanced that most peope ignored the rules all together. Made psionics

> the uber weapon so that you either had to create a darksun setting where psionics where a dime a

> dozen or you just eliminated them all together like the dragon lance setting.

And the Birthright setting...

bye

Michael

RaspK_FOG

10-16-2003, 10:31 PM

Balance... the Scales of Power to most people that shall never rest in the middle... or maybe the Gallows of Truth?

First of all, this post and its remarks are not assaults directed at anyone from the site. Thank you.

It is interesting how much misconception I have seen over this one matter that could be so easilly figured out had people had the sense to overcome their own fears and raise the blindfold above their eyes... Before you shout my head off, I would like to propose a question: What is Balance?

I have heard outcries that Balance does not exist. I can accept this as much as that there is no real logic in anything: the truth of such calims is mostly strengthened by the claimers' irresponsibility to work based on pure, square logic, just as most people who refuse to accept the basic and golden rule of RPGs - YOU make the rules. Period. - criticise games for their rules. In fact, most of the latter I know of really do not take their time to do anything on their own - new rules, for example - or abuse rules as they see fit!

In the end, I understand that Balance also comes up as an issue even for those who accept its existence. For what is Balance, I ask one more?

As it seems, most people idealise the concept of Balance, thinking it is a rare quotient in the real world, one that, if achieved, allows a GM to work out his game without taking into account how powerful his players really are, since they are equally powerful!

But this is the trap they fall in: Balance is not about how many people can you pummel to the ground when compared with another character; if it was like that, a wizard would wield a sword just as easilly as a fighter, without being in need of taking the appropriate feat! That is the misconception most people realise they have made!

Balance, in truth, is how much can a character provide to an adventuring party. A bard, for example, rarely is a real threat to a wizard, fighter, or cleric, if he fights them alone. Balance is how much will he be able to help within his own limits in any given situation! Fighters are always helpful when it comes to muscle and strategy, barbarians to REAL muscle, rogues to slyness, rangers to stealth, wizards to versatility of magic, sorcerers to fire power, clerics to supporting others, druids to nature mastery, "holy warriors" to fighting their particular enemies (evil, good, law, chaos, outsiders, [whatever]), and bards at helping with anything and anyone, particulalry negotiations!

Osprey

10-18-2003, 02:06 PM

I've been thinking about the issue of balance relative to D&D lately. The discussion on feats and skills has brought up an interesting point concerning the D&D version of balance: it is EXTREMELY combat-focused. The 3.x rules focus on combat abilities as the primary measure of power for a given character or monster.

Take the feats, for example: ever notice that the most core feats with prerequisites are combat-specific? Improved Critical, Weapon Specialization, Improved 2-Weapon Fighting, the Archery feats, etc. Yet not a single skill-enhancing feat has a prerequisite. Thankfully, 3.5 did add a nice selection of "paired" skill-boosting feats (Stealthy, et al, adding +2 to 2 related skills), yet any of these is available at any time, as if they're very secondary in power, and it is not unbalancing for any character to take these at any time. To me, this speaks clearly to the fact that skills take a back seat to combat ability in D&D.

If we look closely, we'll see that spells and magic items were made (and remade) in a similar spirit. Ever notice how cheap an item is that adds +10 to a skill?!? That's like saying "You just added 10 levels of experience to your Hide skill thanks to that Cloak of Elvenkind!" Yet compare to the massive expense of a +5 weapon or even +5 armor, not to mention +10 weapons, which are strictly epic. The message here is loud and clear: "A character's combat abilities are the key issue when deciding game balance. Skills, on the other hand, may reach epic ("superhuman") proportions very early in the game, and that's OK."

So here we have a reiteration of a classic theme: D&D is, at its heart, a hack and slash game, with all the other aspects of adventuring and roleplaying a set of secondary "flavor elements" that can help flesh out the adventure. But the battles are what's important. That's why there are detailed rules for XP awards for victory in battle, but only vague guidelines for story based awards, and these are distinctly "optional."

Don't get me wrong: skill sets and points are obviously figured in to class balance, it's just they are considered of secondary importance compared to "what fighting stats, spells, and abilities can this character lend to a fight?"

Keep in mind that this entire post is really dedicated to interpreting the "spirit" of the D&D ruleset and where those designers have focused their attentions regarding game balance.

In Birthright, however, we cannot directly translate D&D and still keep things balanced on the political level. Social interactions are a key aspect of politics, and skills in general are of primary importance. Imagine the modest 5th level general who acquires a 2000gp Crown of Command (a "minor item" in D&D terms) that adds +10 to his Warcraft checks. Suddenly he's one of Anuire's greatest field commanders!

Skills are extremely important in Birthright, and in order to keep balance I believe a reorganization of rule priorities, and especially these magically enhanced bonuses, must be taken into account to keep the Birthright world balanced. Allowing magic items to mimic the bonuses from feats would be far more appropriate. At best, let them be similar to ability enhancers (+2/+4/+6), and have their costs reflect their utility in the game (not as valuable as ability enhancements, but more than the dirt-cheap rates that are currently set for them).

The Jew

10-18-2003, 03:23 PM

Osprey

10-18-2003, 03:36 PM

i completely agree with your post Osprey. An important note though, in 3.5e the cost of magical skill bonuses have been significantly increase. a +10 item now costs 10,000 gp. The rule is, the bonus squared X 100 gp.

Well, thanks be for that! That definitely helps to mitigate this particular imbalnce. Glad to hear they've improved on that issue.

kgauck

10-18-2003, 10:14 PM

----- Original Message -----

From: "Osprey" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2003 9:06 AM

> Skills, on the other hand, may reach epic (superhuman)

> proportions very early in the game, and that`s OK.

Skills operate on a scale that is flexible. Since the DM assigns DC`s what

constitutes superhuman is totally within his power to set. DC 40 jump could

mean an olyimpic jump to one DM and leaping tall buildings in a single bound

to another. Those DM`s who allow Player`s to start all their PC`s with

rogue, and have increased all the 2 skill ranks classes to 4 will probably

find my DC`s ridiculously low.

> In Birthright, however, we cannot directly translate D&D and still

> keep things balanced on the political level. Social interactions are a

> key aspect of politics, and skills in general are of primary importance.

> Imagine the modest 5th level general who acquires a 2000gp Crown

> of Command (a minor item in D&D terms) that adds +10 to his

> Warcraft checks. Suddenly he`s one of Anuire`s greatest field

> commanders

Part of this is the design flaw of Warcraft as a skill. Part of this is a

too generous approach of large skill bonuses which operate permenantly. I

prefer a good military commander to have to operate with four skills, not

one. Can you imagine a guilder getting away with guildcraft which allowed

him to use one skill for all activities? The more skills are required, the

more players have to choose what to be good at because they can`t be good at

everything. Even with a Crown of Command.

> Skills are extremely important in Birthright, and in order to keep

> balance I believe a reorganization of rule priorities, and especially

> these magically enhanced bonuses, must be taken into account to

> keep the Birthright world balanced.

I would prefer to see permenant magical items get re-adjusted as you

describe. I am less disturbed by one-shot items, since I think they have

their own built in limits. If a game required frequent skill checks in

compitition with other players then even a small bonus becomes a serious

advantage. The less often you check skills the larger a bonus has to be to

be meaningful. A +10 bonus makes sense if you roll a warcraft check once

per battle, and then get down to the real business of fighting. A +2/+2

bonus (like a feat granting +2 to tactics and +2 to command skills) when

those skills have to be used every time a captain makes a decision in battle

is just as valuable because its a constant application of advantage. I`d

rather see the +2/+2 Crown of Command for my own games than I would the +10

Crown.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

RaspK_FOG

10-18-2003, 11:29 PM

Considering the situation that is Birthright (low-magic campaign setting), it would be easy to further "increase" the cost of magic items.

That means that we could use the standards presented in DMG 3.5e (just check the prices; they are easy to figure out, but let me remind some of them:
Bonus on Skill checks: squared, by 100 gp (+5, +10, +15)
Bonus to Ability Score: squared, by 1.000 gp (+2, +4, +6)
Armour Enhancement: squared, by 1.000 gp (+1 to +5, virtual up to +10)
Bonus to Armour Class: squared, by 1.000 (bracers)/2.000 (ring) gp
Weapon Enhancement: squared, by 2.000 gp (+1 to +5, virtual up to +10)),
but we could be even dirtier ( ^_^ ) by using higher powers:

Instead of just squaring, then multiplying by 2.000 gp, we could assign a "square and multiply by 5.000 gp", or "cube and mutliply by 1.000 gp"...

geeman

10-20-2003, 06:53 AM

I`ve been somewhat slow to respond to this one, so I beg everyone`s kind

indulgence.

At 12:18 AM 10/9/2003 +0200, RaspK_FOG wrote:

>I agree with your point of this thread being in need of a specification

>for what flavour is in contrast to campaign material. However, I have to

>disagree with your notion that the two are separate; in fact, campaign

>material encompasses both flavour and game-mechanics!

I would differentiate between these terms a bit. Flavour text conveys

information about the personality, biases, culture, idiosyncrasies, etc. of

a situation in a way that is not directly related to game

mechanics. "Dervishes of the Hackenslash Wastes wield cruel, black weapons

with serrated blades" is flavour text that tells us these are not so nice

guys--or that they are regional sales representatives for the Ginsu

Corporation.

(What most people seem to mean by flavour text I usually call "colour

commentary" but I think there is even a smidge of a difference between

those two. Flavour text has more of a general, campaign meaning IMO, while

colour commentary is more directly related to individual characters. The

text at the beginning of each awnsheghlien description in BE:AoC is colour

commentary, while the Atlas of Cerilia would be better described as flavour

text. It`s not really a big difference--particular vs. general--but as

long as I`m being anal about defining terms I`d best point out the

distinction.)

Campaign material is information that conveys thematic material that has a

game mechanical effect. "Hackenslash dervishes wield scimitars, while

knights of the Bigbadguy Order wield longswords" is campaign material

because it tells us specific differences between humans of that type and of

another in the campaign.

Game mechanics are the actual gaming effects and stats. "Both scimitars

and longswords do 1d8 damage." There`s very little role-playing aspect of

that information.

From a game mechanical standpoint, there`s no reason to state that

characters wield scimitars or longswords. (In fact, since both do the same

damage in D&D there`s not all that much of a distinction anyway.) All we

really need know is that they do 1d8 damage. Usually games assign a damage

value to specific types of weapons, but several rules sets use an

abstracted damage system that doesn`t account for the types of weapons a

character might wield. It`s a game mechanical decision based on how the

designers want the rules to interact.

There are crossover elements to the concepts, of course. Certain aspects

of each term bleed into one another, but by and large there is a difference

between the three terms and how they might be employed. One major aspect

of flavour text or colour commentary is that they are usually wrong, or at

least they convey more information about personality, culture, attitude,

etc. than they convey about actual game mechanics. "Bob hates Joe" is

colour commentary. When it turns into "gnomes hate giants" it becomes

campaign material because it also accompanies a game mechanical

interpretation "and they gain a +2 on there attack rolls as a result of

this antipathy." "Joe is angry" vs "Joe can Rage."

If I were to boil this relationship down I suggest that colour commentary

is to role-playing what campaign material is to the game mechanics. It

gives us an indication of how we might play a character of a particular

race, culture, etc. while campaign material gives us an indication how

those things are going to be presented in the rules.

How does all this relate to BR? Well, if one can differentiate between

flavour and campaign material one can decide which need to be reflected in

game mechanics and which don`t. The most recent discussion that inspired

this definition of terms (whether dwarven roads are above ground or

subterranean) is IMO campaign material not flavour text and, therefore, we

need some sort of game mechanical way of reflecting that. Their roads

should cost more, take longer to build, should automatically be fortified,

etc. By defining it as colour commentary one assumes not only that it

needs no game mechanical presentation, but that it was intentionally

incorrect when written by the folks who put together the setting. It seems

pretty clearly not to be the latter, and because it is campaign material

rather than colour commentary it can have a more direct influence on the

rules, which is why it is important to make the distinction.

Gary

RaspK_FOG

10-20-2003, 09:02 PM

All in all, Gary, that's what I meant with the overlapping state of Campaign Material: it has both Flavour (that distinct feeling of realism that lends verissimilititude to a Campaign Setting) and Game Mechanics integrated into it, making the important leap from the former to the latter. The problem is defining what is Flavour, and should be kept for the sake of touch and style and what should be changed, since the team followed the path to d20 (a move I appreciate).

One of the things I would comment is the Dwarven Traits: I find that giving a dwarf damage reduction which can be bypassed only by bludgeoning weapons is a good idea, but I have a variant to propose, that of giving them a small amount of Natural Armour Bonus. While this is compatible with the flavour of Cerilian Dwarves, it is very different from the way things are handled in the BRCS now; still, I see no disruption in the way it would affect campaign material. (Not a lot, to be exact, since there is difference!)

DanMcSorley

10-20-2003, 09:50 PM

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, RaspK_FOG wrote:

> One of the things I would comment is the Dwarven Traits: I find that

> giving a dwarf damage reduction which can be bypassed only by

> bludgeoning weapons is a good idea, but I have a variant to propose,

> that of giving them a small amount of Natural Armour Bonus. While this

> is compatible with the flavour of Cerilian Dwarves, it is very different

> from the way things are handled in the BRCS now; still, I see no

> disruption in the way it would affect campaign material. (Not a lot, to

> be exact, since there is difference!)

This is a less-than-pointful variant. For one, the dwarves have

DR/slashing & piercing, it can be bypassed by those two types, not by

bludgeoning; this recreates the original 2nd edition rule of "dwarves take

half damage from blunt weapons" from the boxed set. Natural AC is both a

stronger ability (since most weapons are already sharp ones, DR versus

blunt ain`t that great), and doesn`t recreate the original intent of the

rule, which was that dwarves are physically dense, and blunt things hurt

them less.

--

Daniel McSorley

RaspK_FOG

10-20-2003, 10:07 PM

OK, Daniel, it was a mistake of mine (wrote "bypassed" when I meant to write "applied to"). Anyway, the idea for the variant lies in the fact that density would also affect slashing weapons as much as bludgeoning, and piercing - only a little - as well. Natural armour is not really that great as the character advances in levels (see Savage Species for a synopsis on that). Now, to support my idea, I would like to ask you one thing: why would muscle then provide a natural armour bonus? Surely becasue of its density! Now, if you would prefer to keep it to half damage, I would say it should apply to both bludgeoning and slashing (slashing weapons deal damage mainly by slicing or hacking through things, and density effectively reduces both such actions). Basing anything on the line of thought of: "It said so in AD&D 2e." is not much of a thing that should convince me.

geeman

10-21-2003, 01:07 AM

At 11:02 PM 10/20/2003 +0200, RaspK_FOG wrote:

>The problem is defining what is Flavour, and should be kept for the sake

>of touch and style and what should be changed, since the team followed the

>path to d20 (a move I appreciate).

Do you mean what the term "flavour" means, or which parts of the original

materials is flavourful?

While it can be sometimes arguable which aspects of the original materials

are flavour and which are campaign material, more often than not flavour

text is off-set in the texts in quotes, italics, etc. so _usually_ one can

decipher which is which without too much difficulty. Unfortunately, the

original BR materials weren`t terribly carefully edited and the

writing/compilation methods were sometimes intentionally (sometimes

accidentally) blurred. I can think of a few things that read like campaign

material, but were really flavour that have caused some trouble in the past

("there are no more than six or seven score true mages") but generally if

one wants to stay true to the original materials recognizing which is which.

Gary

teloft

10-21-2003, 03:14 AM

I see no need to tone the blood abilitys down, on the other hand, I think the blood migth sometimes show more power then I have seen in the discriptions.

I would like see something thet can corupt the purest of harts. and something so limber thet the regent migth liquify unwillingly.

As I see it, the human is of subtype Blodded, and blodded humans can have spell like abiletys just like LYCANTHROPES

where the bace animal type would be replaced with the type of blood you have.

then as with templets, you increas the Challenge Rating, and then there is the Level Adjustment, there you see, blodded characters have lower character level then others with the same Xp.

[I started this post to say: No need to incorperate anything, But ended at describing the blood ability as a Templet]

If blodd will be unformal Templet, then we can see blodded animals, monsters, and thus.

teloft

10-21-2003, 03:21 AM

damage reduction 5/pierching or slasing
Natural armor +1

but why would a dwarf have a wrhammer if hi is almost imune to bludgening damage

yesthis is how the new 3,5 damage reduction is handeld.

so if you have a magical Bludgeon weapon, is will not penetrade the damage reduction, but its only -5 per hit.

The Jew

10-21-2003, 03:38 AM

Originally posted by teloft@Oct 21 2003, 04:21 AM
but why would a dwarf have a wrhammer if hi is almost imune to bludgening damage

Because Dwarven Warhammers are meant to bash other races, usually Orogs, not Dwarves. They are a very orderly, highly lawful species, and it is one of the basic tenets of their religion that Dwarves not hurt each other.

kari

10-21-2003, 10:45 AM

well, thay cant. or 2 dwarfs figting, it would be a long battle.

irdeggman

10-21-2003, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by kari@Oct 21 2003, 05:45 AM
well, thay cant. or 2 dwarfs figting, it would be a long battle.
Why is this a bad thing? A dwaven brawl that goes on until one of those involved keels over from exhaustion doesn't seem unreasonable and it adds a great deal of color. In 2nd ed ition dwarves ony suffered half damage from blunt weapons so a fight betweendwarves using warhammers would likewise goon for a very long time.

teloft

10-21-2003, 10:37 PM

so it dosent mater what cind of magic you have on your warhammer (blunt), no mater how much masterwork is put into it, or whether it has been blessed, cursed or something of the like.

-5 on any blut damage.

then I can see a major feat of blood when the characteristics of the race are increased. so the dwarf would get -10 damage reduction if hit by a blunt weapon, (appled only on any blunt damage) this would include falling damage :) wount it?

Osprey

10-21-2003, 10:43 PM

then I can see a major feat of blood when the characteristics of the race are increased. so the dwarf would get -10 damage reduction if hit by a blunt weapon, (appled only on any blunt damage) this would include falling damage* wount it?

I would definitely apply it to falling damage; yet another reason why dwarves are such superior mountaineers! Soaking up damage from things like fists, slams (including bull rushes and shield bashes), and falling is exactly the sort of dwarven toughness I can envision. I think the DR 5/blunt is a great addition as a racial trait.

RaspK_FOG

10-22-2003, 05:53 AM

That's still better than half damage from bludgeoning (too good in my opinion). Anyway, I think it would be DR 5/non-bludgeoning, as the after-slash content is what bypasses the damage reduction.

Osprey

10-22-2003, 05:59 AM

Anyway, I think it would be DR 5/non-bludgeoning, as the after-slash content is what bypasses the damage reduction.

Oops, my bad. You know, I've noticed that this gets confused alot in the 3.5 published books, which doesn't really help me to keep it straight. [sigh]

irdeggman

10-22-2003, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by teloft@Oct 21 2003, 05:37 PM
so it dosent mater what cind of magic you have on your warhammer (blunt), no mater how much masterwork is put into it, or whether it has been blessed, cursed or something of the like.

-5 on any blut damage.

then I can see a major feat of blood when the characteristics of the race are increased. so the dwarf would get -10 damage reduction if hit by a blunt weapon, (appled only on any blunt damage) this would include falling damage :) wount it?
Since Ian brought it up the specific change to Cerilian dwaves we are batting about is

Racial Abilities: Cerilian dwarves have the following racial traits:
• +2 Constitution, -2 Dexterity.
• Medium-size (4’ to 4’6” tall); base speed of 20 feet. However, dwarves can move this speed even when wearing medium or heavy armor or when carrying a medium or heavy load.
• Darkvision: Dwaves can see in the dark up to 60 feet. Although they can function without light, Cerilian dwarves prefer illumination, and require it to perform most fine tasks.
• Stonecunning: +2 racial bonus to notice unusual stonework; automatically attempt to search when within 10 feet of unusual stonework, trapfinding (as rogue) for stonework traps only. A dwarf can also sense their approximate depth underground.
• Stability: Dwarves gains a +4 bonus on ability checks to resist bull rush and trip when standing on firm ground.
• +2 racial bonus on saves vs. poison, spells, and spell-like effects.
• +2 dodge bonus to AC against orogs and ogres.
• +2 racial bonus to appraise and craft checks related to stone and metal objects.
• Increased Density: A dwarf's dense body provides DR 3/slashing or piercing. Dwaves suffer a -4 penalty to swim and tumble checks.
• Automatic Language: Karamhul. Bonus Languages: Sidhelien, Orog, Ogrish, or any regional human dialect (Anuirean, Basarji, Low Brecht, High Brecht, Rjuven, or Vos).
• Favored Class: Fighter.

Now as far as whether or not this DR justifies an ECL or not. Originally the team proposed to make it a DR 1, but that seemed kind of pointless and not anything near the flavor of the the 2nd ed dwarves. In 3.5 the DR ranges start at 5 and generally go up to 15, so making it a 3 seemed to fit the bill pretty nicely and then adding in the penalties to swim and tumble seemed to be a good balance as well as fitting the typical impression of cerilian dwarves (they always were more dense than the standard dwarves).

As far as how DR works in 3.5

Per the MM pg 307 "A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks. Wounds heal immediately, or the weapon bounces off harmlessely (in either cast the opponent knows the attack was ineffective). The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even non magical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities."

Basically DR doesn't apply to falls and other incidental things, only to attacks and not to magic ones. As far as magic weapons, simply having an enhancement bonus no longer bypasses DR (as was done in 3.0) unless it is specifically listed as a property that bypasses the DR and then it is listed as magic which means that any enhancement would bypass it not +2 or some other level of enhancement.

Even skeletons in 3.5 no longer get the half damage from s/p weapons they used to (even n 3.0) the now get DR 5/ blugeoning.

teloft

10-23-2003, 02:53 AM

dont go sideways in to 3.5 I vote for 'DR 5/slashin or piershing' for the dwarfs. ofcours it is not so potent and powerfull, almost averyone thet have Blunt weapon are capable of doing other types of damages as well, ot at least to bring such weapon for the dwarf sloter. Im not wery keen on seing something else then thees 3 types: DR 5, DR 10, DR 15 ... / something common.

or just skipp the howl thing, and give them Natural armor..

:ph34r:

Athos69

10-23-2003, 01:48 PM

How about a compromise? DR 4/pierce or slash?

Raesene Andu

10-24-2003, 02:59 AM

Originally posted by Athos69@Oct 23 2003, 11:18 PM
How about a compromise? DR 4/pierce or slash?
Isn't DR 4/slashing or piercing what I originally put down at the start of this thread?

It just seemed like the right value to me.

RaspK_FOG

10-24-2003, 10:40 AM

If you want to check it down, you could simply try and check what the average value is for an one-handed martial bludgeoning weapon (by the way, there is only one such weapon, the warhammer) and then halve it, rounding down as normal. The number one comes up with is 4 (1d8, maximum 8, halved = 4). So, I think that Raesene Andu provided us with the best DR.

teloft

10-24-2003, 11:24 AM

somone woth strength mod of +2 would do 1d8+3 with the 2 hadnded warhammer the array would be 4 - 11..

My argument is thet if we are to use the simple version of DR,
the 5, 10, or 15. then lets do thet.

to have it 3 or 4 is something difrent from the trio. and therefore more complex.

:ph34r:

teloft

10-24-2003, 11:27 AM

and realy a DR vs Bludgening isint thet much of a advantage. Anyone woth some knowledge of dwarfs would know to bring something else, like a sword, to a masacure of dwarfs.

:ph34r:

Mourn

10-24-2003, 09:40 PM

I'd say give them DR equal to their Constitution modifier, overcome only by slashing weapons. Their flesh is dense and rigid enough to absorb the impact of hydrostatic shock (from piercing weapons) as well as the normal momentum from a bludgeoning weapon.

Thus, your average peasant dwarf would have a DR of 1/slashing, while your big-bad-hero-dwarf would have a DR of 5/slashing.

EDIT: Duh. I said piercing, when I meant slashing. All is fixed now.

geeman

10-25-2003, 01:28 AM

At 11:40 PM 10/24/2003 +0200, Mourn wrote:

> I`d say give them DR equal to their Constitution modifier, overcome

> only by piercing weapons. Their flesh is dense and rigid enough to absorb

> the impact of hydrostatic shock (from piercing weapons) as well as the

> normal momentum from a bludgeoning weapon.

>

> Thus, your average peasant dwarf would have a DR of 1/slashing, while

> your big-bad-hero-dwarf would have a DR of 5/slashing.

I have to say I rather like that.... I like the sliding scale effect it

creates and the fact that one can`t just take a 2x4 to an elderly dwarven

female unless she`s still somewhat hardy....

Gary

DanMcSorley

10-25-2003, 02:10 AM

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Mourn wrote:

> I`d say give them DR equal to their Constitution modifier, overcome

> only by piercing weapons. Their flesh is dense and rigid enough to

> absorb the impact of hydrostatic shock (from piercing weapons) as well

> as the normal momentum from a bludgeoning weapon.

Simple, effective, elegant. Makes descriptive sense- some dwarves are

tougher than others. Bloody brilliant. This is a keeper.

--

Daniel McSorley

Raesene Andu

10-25-2003, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by DanMcSorley@Oct 25 2003, 11:40 AM

Simple, effective, elegant. Makes descriptive sense- some dwarves are tougher than others. Bloody brilliant. This is a keeper.
I agree, a very neat solution to DR for dwarves.

I'll make the necessary changes to revised version of Chapter 1. Good work Mourn.

Mourn

10-25-2003, 11:55 PM

Originally posted by Raesene Andu+Oct 25 2003, 05:14 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Raesene Andu @ Oct 25 2003, 05:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--DanMcSorley@Oct 25 2003, 11:40 AM

Simple, effective, elegant.* Makes descriptive sense- some dwarves are tougher than others.* Bloody brilliant.* This is a keeper.

I agree, a very neat solution to DR for dwarves.

I'll make the necessary changes to revised version of Chapter 1. Good work Mourn. [/b][/quote]
Danke. Always glad to see good mechanics appreciated. :)

teloft

10-26-2003, 02:48 PM

so a dwarf with low con is so much more weaker then his cosens with higer con,

hig con already gives you more Hp, so its much harder to kill you. now to give thows with hig Hp more DR then thows with low Hp. This will make Con wery primery for any dwarf.

I like the idee, it works so fine, giving the dwarfs with low Con so many waknesses, basicly low Con = fragle as a human.

:ph34r:

RaspK_FOG

10-27-2003, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by Mourn+Oct 26 2003, 02:55 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mourn @ Oct 26 2003, 02:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Raesene Andu@Oct 25 2003, 05:14 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--DanMcSorley@Oct 25 2003, 11:40 AM

Simple, effective, elegant.* Makes descriptive sense- some dwarves are tougher than others.* Bloody brilliant.* This is a keeper.

I agree, a very neat solution to DR for dwarves.

I'll make the necessary changes to revised version of Chapter 1. Good work Mourn.
Danke. Always glad to see good mechanics appreciated. :) [/b][/quote]
Mourn, it is only natural that we would appreciate it! It is fabulous, not to mention really B) ! You have big thumbs up from my part for this one!

geeman

10-27-2003, 12:26 PM

It might be prudent to give dwarves DR 1+ Con bonus rather than just their

Con alone.

Gary

DanMcSorley

10-27-2003, 07:55 PM

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Gary wrote:

> It might be prudent to give dwarves DR 1+ Con bonus rather than just their

> Con alone.

I dunno, the average Con for dwarves is already 12, so even an average

dwarf has 1/sharp thingies DR. At that point, we`re down to tweaking, and

it`s hardly worth worrying about.

--

Daniel McSorley

irdeggman

10-27-2003, 09:33 PM

I'd say either (CON modifier or 5)/slashing or piercing anything else is nit picking, IMO. 5 is the standard DR but CON modifier is a very intriguing system that slides rather nicely (and diminishes with aging).

geeman

10-27-2003, 11:56 PM

At 02:37 PM 10/27/2003 -0500, Daniel McSorley wrote:

>I dunno, the average Con for dwarves is already 12, so even an average

>dwarf has 1/sharp thingies DR. At that point, we`re down to tweaking, and

>it`s hardly worth worrying about.

I suggested it because it`s such a mainstay of dwarves... I don`t think it

should ever be 0. No dwarves would have 0 DR if using the standard array,

but if one were rolling characters it`s a possibility.

The other thing that occurs to me, is that magic and certain special

abilities can raise ability scores, along with the ability score increases

of levelling up, so if one got +2-5 to one`s ability score a dwarf`s

constitution to go as the mid to upper twenties for a +7 to +9 bonus, maybe

even +10. In that context, is everyone still cool with that being the

basis for their DR?

Gary

Green Knight

10-27-2003, 11:56 PM

I vote for ((1 + CON bonus) times (square root of character level)).

This way we figure in both abilities and experience, making the ability

useful at all levels of play.

That would really improve the BRCS.

Cheers

Bjørn

DanMcSorley

10-27-2003, 11:56 PM

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, [iso-8859-1] Bjørn Eian Sørgjerd wrote:

> I vote for ((1 + CON bonus) times (square root of character level)).

> This way we figure in both abilities and experience, making the ability

> useful at all levels of play.

Die, die, die. Square root. Hah.

--

Daniel McSorley

RaspK_FOG

10-28-2003, 12:12 AM

Gary, there really is a way to go round such things:

A dwarf rarely has a Constitution sore of 11 or lower. Trust me on this one.
Players will further avoid making such characters.
Ability increases earned by levels would be a way around the problem you mentioned (low Con).
As for ability boosting thingies, there could be an extra line:
The number assigned to the DR takes only the dwarf's natural ability score into account; inherent and racial bonuses of course apply, since they are permanent, but no other bonus to Constitution applies for this ability.

geeman

10-28-2003, 12:41 AM

At 12:23 AM 10/28/2003 +0100, Bjørn wrote:

>I vote for ((1 + CON bonus) times (square root of character level)).

>This way we figure in both abilities and experience, making the ability

>useful at all levels of play.

Square roots aren`t terribly difficult math in the digital age, of course,

but I find it loses more people than it attracts if one goes much beyond

add, subtract, multiple and divide. Even decimal places and using more

than two of those operations or more than three operands seems make eyes

start to glaze over unless they have a nice, comfy section of a character

sheet to write those numbers.

Don`t get me wrong, I`m an old Megatraveller guy. Fire, Fusion and Steel

is one of the coolest RPG books of all time IMO. Most folks, however,

aren`t so keen on too much math.

Gary

geeman

10-28-2003, 01:16 AM

At 01:12 AM 10/28/2003 +0100, RaspK_FOG wrote:

> A dwarf rarely has a Constitution sore of 11 or lower. Trust me on

> this one.

> Players will further avoid making such characters.

> Ability increases earned by levels would be a way around the problem

> you mentioned (low Con).

OK, I`ll buy that. If it comes up in anyone`s playtesting then it could

pretty easily be changed.

> As for ability boosting thingies, there could be an extra line:

>
The number assigned to the DR takes only the dwarf`s natural

> ability score into account; inherent and racial bonuses of course apply,

> since they are permanent, but no other bonus to Constitution applies for

> this ability.

That might work. Would it be a problem if the DR went as high as 7-10? It

is, after all, a fairly easy one to avoid entirely with common weapons.

Gary

irdeggman

10-28-2003, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Oct 27 2003, 07:12 PM
Gary, there really is a way to go round such things:

A dwarf rarely has a Constitution sore of 11 or lower. Trust me on this one.
Players will further avoid making such characters.
Ability increases earned by levels would be a way around the problem you mentioned (low Con).
As for ability boosting thingies, there could be an extra line:
The number assigned to the DR takes only the dwarf's natural ability score into account; inherent and racial bonuses of course apply, since they are permanent, but no other bonus to Constitution applies for this ability.

Isn't there a rule that states no more than +5 enhancment bonus to abilities? The level up raising doesn't count, so this would mean that a dwarf can get no more than a +3 to his Con modifier from items (and spells by the way) depending on his initial score.

geeman

10-28-2003, 01:38 PM

At 12:07 PM 10/28/2003 +0100, irdeggman wrote:

> Isn`t there a rule that states no more than +5 enhancment bonus to

> abilities? The level up raising doesn`t count, so this would mean that a

> dwarf can get no more than a +3 to his Con modifier from items (and

> spells by the way) depending on his initial score.

Overall, I think the problem is just that a dwarf could have a total +8 to

+10 as a con modifier at least temporarily, which might be an imbalancing

factor if this DR option is being used.

While several of these options are interesting, and I might go with some

variation of them, I just gave dwarves DR 1 IMC and allowed them access to

a feat to raise it to DR 2 and that seemed to make everyone happy.

Gary

teloft

10-28-2003, 01:41 PM

I would alow con boosting to increas DR of dwarfs.

it is easely bypassed, so I would not even worry about a
dwarf with a DR of 15 not taking damage.

so if its DR of Con mod (with adjustments), bypassable with any sharp or pointy thigs.

lordofallandnothing

10-28-2003, 03:01 PM

i would personally only give them DR of 1/2 their con.modifierminimum of +1 which would be inneffective against piercing/slashing weapons.otherwise you are going to be seeing alot of dwarf barbarians running around.the barbarian at 20'th level only had a DR of 4/- i know that the dwarves DR is not quite the same but it is still highly effective.for a dwarf barbarian with an 18 constitution at level 20 would have a DR of 4/- against slashing and piercing weapons and a DR of 9 against bludgeoning attacks. to me that is too high.of course i might be totally off base here i have been up for 2 /2 days so far and am starting to get tired now lol

Osprey

10-28-2003, 03:49 PM

Isn't there a rule that states no more than +5 enhancment bonus to abilities? The level up raising doesn't count, so this would mean that a dwarf can get no more than a +3 to his Con modifier from items (and spells by the way) depending on his initial score.

As far as I know, that +5 limit applies only to the Inherent bonus (the permanent increase through magic). Definitely not through Enhancement bonuses (as wondrous items may add +2/+4/+6, and more at epic levels). I would agree with RaspK's add-in rule.

Osprey

10-28-2003, 03:51 PM

irdeggman

10-28-2003, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by Osprey@Oct 28 2003, 10:51 AM

i would personally only give them DR of 1/2 their con.modifierminimum of +1 which would be inneffective against piercing/slashing weapons.otherwise you are going to be seeing alot of dwarf barbarians running around.the barbarian at 20'th level only had a DR of 4/- i know that the dwarves DR is not quite the same but it is still highly effective.for a dwarf barbarian with an 18 constitution at level 20 would have a DR of 4/- against slashing and piercing weapons and a DR of 9 against bludgeoning attacks. to me that is too high.of course i might be totally off base here i have been up for 2 /2 days so far and am starting to get tired now lol

In 3.5 DR's don't stack, you use the better DR in a given situation if more than one applies.
Also a dwaven barbarian is pretty unlikely, especially in Birthright. Barbarians are required to be chaotic and dwarves are prone to not being chaotic; lawful and neutral mostly but almost never chaotic.

DanMcSorley

10-28-2003, 04:59 PM

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Osprey wrote:

> In 3.5 DR`s don`t stack, you use the better DR in a given situation if

> more than one applies.

They never did stack.

--

Daniel McSorley

teloft

10-28-2003, 05:05 PM

For simplisity I migth rule to have all dwarfs
DR 5 / sharp or ponty,

but I would also alow anything thet can harm a
golem or construct to harm the dwarf as well

:ph34r:

Edit:
call this ability: dwarfen blood, and have
it asosiaded with the '-2 dex'

:ph34r:

RaspK_FOG

10-29-2003, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by Osprey@Oct 28 2003, 06:49 PM

Isn't there a rule that states no more than +5 enhancment bonus to abilities? The level up raising doesn't count, so this would mean that a dwarf can get no more than a +3 to his Con modifier from items (and spells by the way) depending on his initial score.

As far as I know, that +5 limit applies only to the Inherent bonus (the permanent increase through magic). Definitely not through Enhancement bonuses (as wondrous items may add +2/+4/+6, and more at epic levels). I would agree with RaspK's add-in rule.
Thank you for the support there! :D

The Jew

10-29-2003, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by irdeggman@Oct 28 2003, 05:49 PM

Also a dwaven barbarian is pretty unlikely, especially in Birthright. Barbarians are required to be chaotic and dwarves are prone to not being chaotic; lawful and neutral mostly but almost never chaotic.
Barbarians are not required to be chaotic, they are not allowed to be lawful. I would imagine that dwarven barbarians are rare, but I could definetely see the queer dwarven craftman who berserks when entering combat against Orogs (which ate his family).

Osprey

10-29-2003, 07:17 PM

Barbarians are not required to be chaotic, they are not allowed to be lawful. I would imagine that dwarven barbarians are rare, but I could definetely see the queer dwarven craftman who berserks when entering combat against Orogs (which ate his family).

I've also always loved the Warhammer Fantasy idea of Dwarven Troll-Slayers and Giant-Slayers, an insane, psychotic bunch (cult?) of berserking warriors who take on enemies many times their size. High death-rate, of course, and held in fear and awe by their saner brethren, but those who survive become controversial folk heroes who are examples of some of the greatest dwarven warriors and what any normal dwarf should avoid at all costs. But there are always a few "not right in the head" individuals in every society - especially in the ones where law and order puts pressure on every individual to conform. *crack...*

Green Knight

10-29-2003, 08:25 PM

Oh please! Let`s have them dye their hair orange; get a load of

piercings and cover their bodies with tattoos too!

Seriously - this is something which might crop up in a scenario as a

unique NPC, but beyond that? I don`t see this fitting the BR dwarves at

all.

Cheers

Bjørn

-----Original Message-----

From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion

[mailto:BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM] On Behalf Of Osprey

Sent: 29. oktober 2003 20:18

To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM

Subject: Re: Flavour Vs. Game-mechanics [36#1997]

This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

You can view the entire thread at:

http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=1997

Osprey wrote:

Barbarians are not required to be chaotic, they are not allowed

to be lawful. I would imagine that dwarven barbarians are rare, but I

could definetely see the queer dwarven craftman who berserks when

entering combat against Orogs (which ate his family).

I`ve also always loved the Warhammer Fantasy idea of Dwarven

Troll-Slayers and Giant-Slayers, an insane, psychotic bunch (cult?) of

berserking warriors who take on enemies many times their size. High

death-rate, of course, and held in fear and awe by their saner brethren,

but those who survive become controversial folk heroes who are examples

of some of the greatest dwarven warriors and what any normal dwarf

should avoid at all costs. But there are always a few "not right

in the head" individuals in every society - especially in the ones

where law and order puts pressure on every individual to conform.

*crack...*

************************************************** **********************

****

Birthright-l Archives:

http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html

irdeggman

10-29-2003, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by The Jew+Oct 29 2003, 11:34 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (The Jew @ Oct 29 2003, 11:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--irdeggman@Oct 28 2003, 05:49 PM

Also a dwaven barbarian is pretty unlikely, especially in Birthright. Barbarians are required to be chaotic and dwarves are prone to not being chaotic; lawful and neutral mostly but almost never chaotic.
Barbarians are not required to be chaotic, they are not allowed to be lawful. I would imagine that dwarven barbarians are rare, but I could definetely see the queer dwarven craftman who berserks when entering combat against Orogs (which ate his family). [/b][/quote]
Good point.

I had confused the alignment requirements a monk must be lawful while a barbarian can't be lawful.

I've always had some problems with the barbarian class and trying to make it fit anywhere that isn't basically an uncivilized area (the class works very well for Vos).

I always had trouble justifying a character that didn't start out as a barbarian and then chose to become one. It just seems contradictory to the concept of the savage wilderness master that the barbarian seems to be. Add to that the character can switch to , say a wizard pick up all the class abilities of a wizard - including the ability to read/write and switch back to being a barbarian. I just have trouble with this concept. Ranger/barbarian/druid seem to work pretty well conceptually but barbarian/fighter/cleric/wizard just don't seem to cut it themeatically. Rogues can fit into either combination, depending on how they are structured.

So using my preconcieved notions of barbarians - a dwarf who had his wife killed by Orogs suddenly becoming a barbarian just doesn't seem to work. BR dwarves are very clan oriented, most definitely literate and civilized.

kgauck

10-29-2003, 10:29 PM

----- Original Message -----

From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 2:44 PM

> I always had trouble justifying a character that didn`t start out as a

> barbarian and then chose to become one. It just seems contradictory

> to the concept of the savage wilderness master that the barbarian

> seems to be.

I heartily agree. Barbarian represents more than just rage or wilderness,

it represents uncivilizied warrior. Its now pretty easy to get rage if you

want it, and certainly the ranger fits the wilderness niche. I require

Barbarians (as well as Aristocats) to start in the class, you cannot

multi-class into them.

> Add to that the character can switch to , say a wizard pick up all the

> class abilities of a wizard - including the ability to read/write and

switch

> back to being a barbarian. I just have trouble with this concept.

One thing I have done to prevent this kind of silliness, is to put a lot of

class abilities like this, which are gained simply by virtue have having a

class into into a special catagory which only attaches to the character when

he starts in that class. So our theoretical barbarian who becomes a wizard

doesn not gain the writing ability. In consequence I allow him to swap

scribe scroll for something else of equal heft. The same works for armor

and weapon proficency. The ranger who takes a level of fighter does not get

heavy armor. The rogue, gets no additional armor or weapons.

> So using my preconcieved notions of barbarians - a dwarf who had his

> wife killed by Orogs suddenly becoming a barbarian just doesn`t seem to

> work. BR dwarves are very clan oriented, most definitely literate and

civilized.

As I alluded earlier, there are other ways to get rage these days. He could

take a PrC with a revenge motif, or in this case I would allow him to take

Rage as a feat. As a role playing note, I`d ask him to start using it only

against, in this case, Orogs, but if the player wanted his character to give

into the rage (adrenalin addiction perhaps?) over time, I would allow him to

use it as an unrestricted feat after a while.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

lordofallandnothing

10-30-2003, 01:35 AM

i am sorry about the mess-up on the DR lol i feel silly now :)
as to dwarfs usually not being a barbarian i agree,but i have allowed players to play a dwarf barbarian especially in the birthright campaign just because of the constant battles that they have against the orogs and other evil denizens of the birthright underdark.what i do is that once they switch out of the barbarian class they cannot go back to it for any reason...i do not see any way (in my game anyways) that you can go from having the barbarian class to another class and then back to the barbarian class.i only allow players to take barbarian from first level up abd the only class that you can take with it without losing the ability to take more barbarian level is ranger,rogue if human or half-elf or half-orog,if you are an elf then the only classes that you can multi-classs with are rangers,druids,or rogues.and if you are a dwarf then you can only multi-class with ranger there are a few prestige classes i will let them take levels in(like the dwarven battlerager) as well without losing the ability to be able to take more levels of barbarian.this is not saying that you cannot take any class you want ,it just means tha if you take certain classes then you can no longer prgress in the barbarian class at all.

geeman

10-30-2003, 08:42 AM

At 03:52 PM 10/29/2003 -0600, irdeggman wrote:

> I always had trouble justifying a character that didn`t start out as a

> barbarian and then chose to become one. It just seems contradictory

> to the concept of the savage wilderness master that the barbarian

> seems to be.

IMO problem is that the 3e/3.5 barbarian combines two concepts; a "savage"

and a "berserker" and those really should be two separate classes. In

fact, the raging aspect of barbarians should be redefined as a general

"fanatic" since the ability to rage could also be used to reflect any

character whose zeal reaches a point of extraordinary proportions. Such a

class could be used to portray a much wider group of characters than the 3e

barbarian does. A "savage" class would similarly be useful for portraying

a set of uncivilized characters who are not of the northern European

type. The barbarian class doesn`t, for instance, strike me as very useful

for portraying a Yanomamo warrior or a Lakota war chief, so if the class

were split up it could be used to reflect any of those types of characters.

Gary

RaspK_FOG

10-30-2003, 08:50 AM

My solution to multi-class barbarians goes out like this:

I allow only few classes which pose no problem, like the bard, which no longer is very good to multi-class with, or the ranger.
Make it so that a character can only take barbarian levels if he already had some, or if he has a good reason to become more savage (say, like being left out of the campaign for a few months [maybe due to a real life issue] and being inserted again, saying he had to survive in the wild, etc.)
Not allow back-and-forth level acquisition for some classes (like the wizard, etc.)

Ming I

02-03-2004, 11:31 PM

Dwarven Toughness: DR 1+Con modifier/slashing should be a variant rule. As that is not the way it is done in 3/3.5.

Dwarven Toughness should be DR 5/slashing or piercing

Which is also not very common. For simplicity sake I would suggest this:

DR 5/piercing

Usually if you want to break apart a rock you hit it with something pointy. :)

And yes, I know others have suggested this. It just bothers me that the "official" Birthright Campaign Setting would have what appears to be house rulings, in it.

DanMcSorley

02-04-2004, 01:10 AM

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004, Ming I wrote:

> Dwarven Toughness: DR 1+Con modifier/slashing should be a variant

> rule. As that is not the way it is done in 3/3.5.

Bah. Who says how it is does in 3.5? Just because it hasn`t been done

before? Nobody else thought of it before.

> Dwarven Toughness should be DR 5/slashing or piercing

> Which is also not very common. For simplicity sake I would suggest this:

> DR 5/piercing

Those were the original ideas. The one based on Con bonus is a creative

and elegant solution.

--

Daniel McSorley

Ming I

02-04-2004, 02:05 AM

(DanMcSorley @ Feb 4 2004, 02:10 AM)
Bah.* Who says how it is does in 3.5?* Just because it hasn`t been done before?* Nobody else thought of it before.

Well, uhm, I guess the 3.5 developers say how it is done in 3.5. ;)

Now don't get me wrong, I think the idea is an interesting one, even a cool one, but it is clearly a variant option. Some dwarves are tougher than others, yes, but I could just as easily say, some elves have better vision than others. With that as a premise should we change low-light vision so that it is a variable effect based on wisdom (perception)?

geeman

02-04-2004, 03:10 AM

At 03:05 AM 2/4/2004 +0100, Ming I wrote:

>Now don`t get me wrong, I think the idea is an interesting one, even a

>cool one, but it is clearly a variant option. Some dwarves are tougher

>than others, yes, but I could just as easily say, some elves have better

>vision than others. With that as a premise should we change low-light

>vision so that it is a variable effect based on wisdom (perception)?

How might that be done? Range = 20` + Wis modifier? Something like

that? That might be cool....

IMO the DR = Con bonus is an inspired solution to the issue, and has a nice

parity to things like the solution to the "should BR elves be wizards or

sorcerers?" issue that so troubled the BR community before the BRCS came

out. Giving elves a racial bonus to charisma is a nice, neat solution. It

doesn`t limit elves, but gives them an inclination. It gives races

characteristics, but doesn`t make the characters with them carbon copies of

one another.

When it comes to how 3.5 handles things I don`t think we should be

concerned with making things as close to the system`s rules at all. Rather

when the rules don`t fit or can be altered to suit the campaign setting

then that should always be the first choice, right down to things like the

DR of dwarves. It`s really D20, not D&D that is the standard after all,

and D20 is meant to be customized for campaign settings.

Gary

Ming I

02-04-2004, 07:45 AM

How might that be done? Range = 20` + Wis modifier? Something like that? That might be cool....

I was kidding! But even if I wasn't, I would still say that that would be a variant rule and not the norm. :lol:

IMO the DR = Con bonus is an inspired solution to the issue, and has a nice parity to things like the solution to the "should BR elves be wizards or sorcerers?" issue that so troubled the BR community before the BRCS came out. Giving elves a racial bonus to charisma is a nice, neat solution. It doesn`t limit elves, but gives them an inclination. It gives races characteristics, but doesn`t make the characters with them carbon copies of one another.

This isn't really a question of whether or not the solution is creative, or inspired (i've already stated that I think it is), it is a question of whether something that is "not the norm" should be a variant rule or an official rule. I think it should be a variant one, but honestly haven't seen any responses as to why it shouldn't be.

When it comes to how 3.5 handles things I don`t think we should be concerned with making things as close to the system`s rules at all. Rather when the rules don`t fit or can be altered to suit the campaign setting then that should always be the first choice, right down to things like the DR of dwarves. It`s really D20, not D&D that is the standard after all, and D20 is meant to be customized for campaign settings.

If the general feeling is that people aren't concerned with adapting the system's rules and spirit to the campaign setting, then why do the conversion? Why wouldn't you just leave things as they are in 2nd edition and play with the house rules that I'm sure people have collected over the years?

IMHO, it's because people like playing in the d20 fantasy (which is easier than referring to 3e/3.5) world. If Hasbro/WotC/TSR ever did start publishing Birthright again, I'm certain that the campaign setting would be similar to the other d20 fantasy worlds (in terms of how things worked) and not filled with variable effects for standardized abilities?

It's just my personal preference, but I would like to see a d20 fantasy BRCS, that had the feel of d20 fantasy (options over restrictions), mixed with the feel of the 2e Birthright Campaign Setting. I would also like people to realize that ECLs and LAs only really become a concern when you weigh PC races against those standard races in the PHB. If all the standard races of a campaign setting are equally more powerful than those in the PHB then people shouldn't worry about ECLs and LAs (unless they are 'porting in characters from other campaign settings).

geeman

02-04-2004, 09:10 AM

At 08:45 AM 2/4/2004 +0100, Ming I wrote:

> This isn`t really a question of whether or not the solution is creative,

> or inspired (i`ve already stated that I think it is), it is a question of

> whether something that is "not the norm" should be a variant

> rule or an official rule. I think it should be a variant one, but

> honestly haven`t seen any responses as to why it shouldn`t be.

Personally, I`m in all ways satisfied with the descriptors "creative" and

"inspired" for just about anything, and would put the burden on the side of

the less creative and less inspired to argue why we should use VHS over

Betamax or Microsoft over LINUX (not that I want to spark either of those

two debates.)

>

> When it comes to how 3.5 handles things I don`t think we should be

> concerned with making things as close to the system`s rules at all.

> Rather when the rules don`t fit or can be altered to suit the campaign

> setting then that should always be the first choice, right down to things

> like the DR of dwarves. It`s really D20, not D&D that is the

> standard after all, and D20 is meant to be customized for campaign

> settings.

>

>

> If the general feeling is that people aren`t concerned with adapting the

> system`s rules and spirit to the campaign setting, then why do the

> conversion? Why wouldn`t you just leave things as they are in 2nd

> edition and play with the house rules that I`m sure people have collected

> over the years?

My answer is that because some things are very much better presented by a

conversion. D20 is a much better system to portray BR themes than 2e was

(or 3e/3.5 are, for that matter.) We can recognize that and use the D20

thinking in developing a campaign world if for no other reason than that is

precisely what the D20 system was meant to do. One should not, however,

adopt the same error in converting to a new system that was made

originally. That is, get wrapped up in the formula of the rules to the

point that the rules become the master of the setting rather than the other

way round.

>IMHO, it`s because people like playing in the d20 fantasy (which is easier

>than referring to 3e/3.5) world. If Hasbro/WotC/TSR ever did start

>publishing Birthright again, I`m certain that the campaign setting would

>be similar to the other d20 fantasy worlds (in terms of how things worked)

>and not filled with variable effects for standardized abilities?

That may be. I don`t know, however, that D20 fantasy is easier than

referring to 3e/3.5. There are, at least, whole manuals for D&D as opposed

to D20 as its own thing. We have some downloads to be sure, but on the

whole D20 is much more loose thing than D&D is, so I think referring to

existing documents is an "easier" method if that`s one is going for. From

a business standpoint it doesn`t strike me as anything WotC/Hasbro would

bother having any interest in delineating. Since they own both it wouldn`t

gain them anything by promoting one over the other in particular (unless

they sell one down the line or something.)

>It`s just my personal preference, but I would like to see a d20 fantasy

>BRCS, that had the feel of d20 fantasy (options over restrictions), mixed

>with the feel of the 2e Birthright Campaign Setting. I would also like

>people to realize that ECLs and LAs only really become a concern when you

>weigh PC races against those standard races in the PHB. If all the

>standard races of a campaign setting are equally more powerful than those

>in the PHB then people shouldn`t worry about ECLs and LAs (unless they are

>`porting in characters from other campaign settings).

I`ve been arguing for a more D20 approach for a while, so I certainly won`t

disagree with you on that. In general, I think any new D20 project is an

opportunity to review and revise the D20 rules themselves, including things

like ECL and level adjustments, and the thinking of the D20 developers was

apparently to throw the rules out as the gaming equivalent of open source

software, allowing others to modify and improve (or screw up) the system in

a free form "evolutionary" way. It`s arguable whether one can really apply

the same open source concepts to gaming that one can to software (we`ll

see) but it`s a pretty safe bet IMO that the era Gygax/TSR`s copyright

protectionism is going to be coming to an end in the coming years, so I`d

guess they are riding the right side of the wave on this one.

Gary

Birthright-L

02-04-2004, 09:30 AM

> It`s just my personal preference, but I would like to see a d20

> fantasy BRCS, that had the feel of d20 fantasy (options over

> restrictions), mixed with the feel of the 2e Birthright Campaign

> Setting.

There`s a big difference between d20 and 3.0/3.5. A lot of people are

using the d20 rules to promote options over restrictions without using

the 3.0/3.5 rules so strictly. To date, I know several Wotc products

that do this such as Wheel of Time and 20Modern/Urban Arcana. Non-wotc

products include Arcana Unearthed, Spycraft, and Moongoose is coming out

with a whole line of alternate d20 rulebooks that are genre-specific.

One can be d20 without being 3e. The 3.x rulebooks were the start of it

all, yes, but the d20 license has opened up whole new avenues for

expansion and creativity.

Without holding any super-strict compliance with the D&D books, one can

theoretically make a d20 fantasy Birthright that promotes options,

allows choices, has a flavorfull system of advancement, promotes game

balance and is overall easier to learn and play than the 2e AD&D game or

many other games.

Personally, I feel the D&D rules/outlook is far too restricting. Look

how many times we`ve seen a post like "we can`t do that because that`s

not how it`s done in 3e."

Summary: D&D is a ruleset. D20 is a system for establishing that

ruleset. We can have alternative rules that fit very nicely into d20

and possibly take better advantage of d20 mechanics -- I believe

Spycraft did this very well with (most of) their feats.

I`m not suggesting we should write the BRCS with this mentality, because

the design folks have already made it clear that their agendas are

different than mine or those who share my view. But I am suggesting

that it`s very unfair of you to tell someone who`s promoting a non-3e

rule that he should go back to 2e and his house rules and not bother

with d20.

The part of your post that I`ve quoted above is something I very much

agree with. But I don`t think D&D factors anywhere in there.

(I had meant for this to be a short post. Really, I did. I promise.)

--Lord Rahvin

Trithemius

02-04-2004, 10:10 AM

Ming I:

> Now don`t get me wrong, I think the idea is an interesting one, even a

> cool one, but it is clearly a variant option. Some dwarves are tougher

> than others, yes, but I could just as easily say, some elves have better

> vision than others. With that as a premise should we change low-light

> vision so that it is a variable effect based on wisdom (perception)?

Or we could all play Ars Magica instead?

--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

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

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

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

- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.

irdeggman

02-04-2004, 10:31 AM

I see the point of making the Con modifier as a variant vice the default and really have no problem with that since it would solve just about everybody's problems with it. And yes using a variable effect for DR is not 'in accordance with 3.5' in so far as WotC hasn't presented it in those terms, at least not yet. It does smack of house-rules in this regard and I would favor using it as an varaint because of that.

As far as listing it as DR (whatever)/slashing or piercing well this is in accordance with the rules, even though there aren't any examples of this combination out there there are plenty with combinations like holy and silver, or the like. The point of the DR rules is to list whatever bypasses the DR and they can be 'stacked'.

Sir Justine

02-04-2004, 01:28 PM

This isn't really a question of whether or not the solution is creative, or inspired (i've already stated that I think it is), it is a question of whether something that is "not the norm" should be a variant rule or an official rule. I think it should be a variant one, but honestly haven't seen any responses as to why it shouldn't be.

I understand what you said, and I could agree with it. But I don't.

For in my group we made a lot of house rules, that were house rules only before the 3.5 came out. Got it? Something we were alrealdy playing with as a house rule became official some time after...
This happened to me, and actually I'm pretty sure happened to others here who use house rules.

An example of what I'm saying: prestige classes are special classes with only 10 levels that have a prerequisite. If I made a prestige class with only 5 levels it wouldn't be "normal", it would be a "variant option", right? But Wizards made it, so this is official now! But I wouldn't be able to make a prestige with, say, 3 levels, for this would certainly be not "normal". But Wizards made it... (in Tome and Blood)

What I'm saying is that sometimes you don't make a rule because it wouldn't be like the official rules. But then comes Wizards and does a official rule that is just like the house rule you thought before!
In other words, I don't think we should refrain from doing a nice rule just because there is no rule like it in an official book. We can innovate too!

I know that D&D rules are good in general, so keeping Birthright rules like them would be a good thing, and also a "neutral" solution to the discussion. But I would really like some original ideas in the book.

Sir Justine

02-04-2004, 01:37 PM

I would also like people to realize that ECLs and LAs only really become a concern when you weigh PC races against those standard races in the PHB. If all the standard races of a campaign setting are equally more powerful than those in the PHB then people shouldn't worry about ECLs and LAs (unless they are 'porting in characters from other campaign settings).

No. ECLs and LAs should be a concern if the races are more powerful, even if between themselves they are balanced. That is because of the monsters! If the PCs races are more powerful and don't have a LA, NPCs with races like goblin or orog will be in a disadvantage.

Of course, if the increase in power level is small, and balanced within all the PC's races, there is no problem... But a major power increase needs to be paid for with a LA, or the monsters will become too weak.

DanMcSorley

02-04-2004, 03:30 PM

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004, Ming I wrote:

> This isn`t really a question of whether or not the solution is

> creative, or inspired (i`ve already stated that I think it is), it is a

> question of whether something that is "not the norm" should be

> a variant rule or an official rule. I think it should be a variant one,

> but honestly haven`t seen any responses as to why it shouldn`t be.

snip

> It`s just my personal preference, but I would like to see a d20 fantasy

> BRCS, that had the feel of d20 fantasy (options over restrictions),

> mixed with the feel of the 2e Birthright Campaign Setting. I would also

> like people to realize that ECLs and LAs only really become a concern

> when you weigh PC races against those standard races in the PHB. If all

> the standard races of a campaign setting are equally more powerful than

> those in the PHB then people shouldn`t worry about ECLs and LAs (unless

> they are `porting in characters from other campaign settings).

So, you want us to use the 3e rules that you like (constant DR) and ignore

the rules that you don`t like (LA and ECL). Makes much more sense now.

--

Daniel McSorley

irdeggman

02-04-2004, 06:40 PM

You know now that I look over things some more - there are examples of scaling DR. Take dragons for instance, while more of an incremental scale they do have a changing DR based soley on HD (or level or age whatever you prefer), so I guess that a scaling DR based on Con modifer isn't all that far off of the canon material.

I mean same dragon as it gets older gets better DR.

Just an observation, again I have no problem making the sliding DR a variant or not - I can see the argument either way.

jaldaen

02-04-2004, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by irdeggman@Feb 4 2004, 12:40 PM
I mean same dragon as it gets older gets better DR.
Unfortunately the dragons also increase in LA as they increase in age... ;-)

I don't even want to think about how that would work in regards to PC races... *shivers*

Take Care,
Joseph

irdeggman

02-04-2004, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by jaldaen+Feb 4 2004, 02:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jaldaen @ Feb 4 2004, 02:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-irdeggman@Feb 4 2004, 12:40 PM
I mean same dragon as it gets older gets better DR.
Unfortunately the dragons also increase in LA as they increase in age... ;-)

I don't even want to think about how that would work in regards to PC races... *shivers*

Take Care,
Joseph [/b][/quote]
So would a dwarf.

I mean in order to increase his Con modifier he would have to increase at least 3 levels (at 4th level you can gain an ability score increase) that would be 3 additional levels and a CR rating increase based on that increase with at best a +1 increase to his DR and then that wouldn't increase for another 4 levels. The dragon gets DR 5 at Young Adult (CR of 9, with 16 d12 in hit dice) then goes to DR 10 at Mature Adult (CR 14 and 22 d12 hit dice) - a slower increase in CR than a dwarf would get - for classed characters the CR is equal to the classs level.

1st level dwarf - max Con 18 +2 (for race) net of 20. Con modifier +5. DR as proposed would be 1 + Con modifer = DR 6/slashing or piercing. A little higher than the standard starting DR of 5 but not totally out of the 'normal' range.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not married to this method. I'm just trying to work out the numbers aloud. Off hand it just doesn't seem that far out of the 'norm'.

Ming I

02-04-2004, 08:45 PM

geeman wrote on Feb 4 2004 at 10:10 AM

That may be. I don`t know, however, that D20 fantasy is easier than referring to 3e/3.5. There are, at least, whole manuals for D&D as opposed to D20 as its own thing. We have some downloads to be sure, but on the whole D20 is much more loose thing than D&D is, so I think referring to existing documents is an "easier" method if that`s one is going for. From a business standpoint it doesn`t strike me as anything WotC/Hasbro would bother having any interest in delineating. Since they own both it wouldn`t
gain them anything by promoting one over the other in particular (unless they sell one down the line or something.)
I think you've misunderstood me here. I just didn't want to keep writing 3e/3.5 over and over so was referring to it, and all other fantasy setting variants as d20 Fantasy. I wasn't commenting on which specific set of rules to reference.

Birthright-L wrote on Feb 4 2004 at 10:30 AM

There`s a big difference between d20 and 3.0/3.5. A lot of people are using the d20 rules to promote options over restrictions without using the 3.0/3.5 rules so strictly. To date, I know several Wotc products that do this such as Wheel of Time and 20Modern/Urban Arcana. Non-wotc products include Arcana Unearthed, Spycraft, and Moongoose is coming out with a whole line of alternate d20 rulebooks that are genre-specific.

One can be d20 without being 3e. The 3.x rulebooks were the start of it all, yes, but the d20 license has opened up whole new avenues for expansion and creativity.
Yes there is a big difference. However Birthright is a D&D Campaign Setting, so mechanics and abilities should be similar (but not necessarily exactly the same) between the Campaign Settings. Can you make this point by using a 2nd edition Campaign Setting that has been redone in 3rd edition?

Birthright-L wrote:

I`m not suggesting we should write the BRCS with this mentality, because the design folks have already made it clear that their agendas are different than mine or those who share my view. But I am suggesting that it`s very unfair of you to tell someone who`s promoting a non-3e rule that he should go back to 2e and his house rules and not bother
with d20.
That's not what I said and my response was not in relation to the promotion of a non-3e mechanic. I was trying to address the idea that the system framework should be abandoned whenever somebody wants to make a house mechanic, official, rather than a variant option. If that was the case, then it would be easier to ignore conversion and simply continue to play using 2nd edition and incorporate house rules.

Looking back over the post I think I was caught up in a "call it a rule" storm. What I meant to say in nearly every instance was mechanic.

irdeggman wrote on Feb 4 2004 at 11:31 AM

As far as listing it as DR (whatever)/slashing or piercing well this is in accordance with the rules, even though there aren't any examples of this combination out there there are plenty with combinations like holy and silver, or the like. The point of the DR rules is to list whatever bypasses the DR and they can be 'stacked'.

You are absolutely correct! I just checked the Vampire entry in 3.5 and they have a similar mechanic: damage reduction 10/silver and magic. Still, it's hard to damage a rock by cutting or smashing it (unless the smashing implement is much larger than the rock it is smashing), but it is easy to pierce one. ;)

Sir Justine wrote on Feb 4 2004 at 02:28 PM

I understand what you said, and I could agree with it. But I don't.

For in my group we made a lot of house rules, that were house rules only before the 3.5 came out. Got it? Something we were alrealdy playing with as a house rule became official some time after...
This happened to me, and actually I'm pretty sure happened to others here who use house rules.

An example of what I'm saying: prestige classes are special classes with only 10 levels that have a prerequisite. If I made a prestige class with only 5 levels it wouldn't be "normal", it would be a "variant option", right? But Wizards made it, so this is official now! But I wouldn't be able to make a prestige with, say, 3 levels, for this would certainly be not "normal". But Wizards made it... (in Tome and Blood)

Prestige Classes never had to consist of 10 levels (as far as I know). These classes were a reward for achieving high-level and a tool to help in world building. A Prestige Class with one level would still be a Prestige Class (although not a very well thought out one). :D

Bottom line: It's my feeling that if a game mechanic accurately describes what you need it to for a setting, then you should use that mechanic unaltered. If it does the job of describing the effect, but you want to add some different flavor, then include the modified mechanic but make it a variant option. If the campaign setting concept has no current game mechanic that could emulate it, then make up something completely new that will work.

Sir Justine wrote on Feb 4 2004 at 02:37 PM

No. ECLs and LAs should be a concern if the races are more powerful, even if between themselves they are balanced. That is because of the monsters! If the PCs races are more powerful and don't have a LA, NPCs with races like goblin or orog will be in a disadvantage.

Of course, if the increase in power level is small, and balanced within all the PC's races, there is no problem... But a major power increase needs to be paid for with a LA, or the monsters will become too weak.
The second part of your statement is more what I meant. Clearly giving Elves powers like the ability to cast Limited Wish once/day, or Halflings the ability to teleport without error once/day and summon 2d6 huge shadow elementals 3x/week would require a level adjustment. But giving Dwarves DR 5, or Elves a number of flavor-based Exceptional abilities shouldn't evoke as much caution as it seems to.

DanMcSorley wrote on Feb 4 2004 at 04:30 PM

So, you want us to use the 3e rules that you like (constant DR) and ignore the rules that you don`t like (LA and ECL). Makes much more sense now.
That's not the case. Hopefully my responses have lifted the confusion over the matter.

Ming I

02-04-2004, 09:04 PM

irdeggman wrote on Feb 4 2004 at 07:40 PM
*
You know now that I look over things some more - there are examples of scaling DR. Take dragons for instance, while more of an incremental scale they do have a changing DR based soley on HD (or level or age whatever you prefer), so I guess that a scaling DR based on Con modifer isn't all that far off of the canon material.

I mean same dragon as it gets older gets better DR.

Just an observation, again I have no problem making the sliding DR a variant or not - I can see the argument either way.

But a Dragon's DR increase doesn't vary from a Dragon of the same type to another Dragon of the same type. It is constant for the entire species. Just like base SR doesn't vary for the Drow, or Fast Healing for a Blue Slaad.

If people want to use variable special qualities in this way, then they are well within their right to do so. As it is different from the way things usually work in d20 Fantasy versions of 2nd edition D&D Campaign Settings, and is a different mechanic than the way other similar abilities were handled when converted to d20 Fantasy, I'm simply asking that it be a variant rule in the BRCS.

geeman

02-04-2004, 10:20 PM

At 09:45 PM 2/4/2004 +0100, Ming I wrote:

>
geeman wrote on Feb 4 2004 at 10:10 AM

>

> That may be. I don`t know, however, that D20 fantasy is easier than

> referring to 3e/3.5. There are, at least, whole manuals for D&D as

> opposed to D20 as its own thing. We have some downloads to be sure, but

> on the whole D20 is much more loose thing than D&D is, so I think

> referring to existing documents is an "easier" method if

> that`s one is going for. From a business standpoint it doesn`t strike me

> as anything WotC/Hasbro would bother having any interest in delineating.

> Since they own both it wouldn`t

> gain them anything by promoting one over the other in particular (unless

> they sell one down the line or something.)

> I think you`ve misunderstood me here. I just didn`t want to keep

> writing 3e/3.5 over and over so was referring to it, and all other

> fantasy setting variants as d20 Fantasy. I wasn`t commenting on which

> specific set of rules to reference.

Fair enough.

>>One can be d20 without being 3e. The 3.x rulebooks were the start of it

>>all, yes, but the d20 license has opened up whole new avenues for

>>expansion and creativity.

>

>However Birthright is a D&D Campaign Setting, so mechanics and

>abilities should be similar (but not necessarily exactly the same) between

>the Campaign Settings. Can you make this point by using a 2nd edition

>Campaign Setting that has been redone in 3rd edition?

That`s a rather tough condition to meet since one of the things they did

when devising D20 was retire most of the 2e campaign settings. The only

one that isn`t part of the core rules (FR and GH) that I can think of is

the new are the Ravenloft or Dragonlance stuff, which I haven`t had a

chance to look at either yet (I played DL a lot years ago, and kind of

burned out on it, and RL was very much like an old homebrew of mine, so I

never DM`d it) so I can`t speak to whether or not it supports or refutes

the point. Some of the fan produced conversions, however, do use things

that I would describe as being more D20 than D&D. The Planescape and Dark

Sun conversions, for instance, do several things that I would describe as

D20. Meaning no disrespect to the folks who came up with those conversions

(or the BR design guys) but the nature of the fan-produced campaign

conversion in some ways seems to suffer from precisely this argument. Some

of the folks want to maintain as much similarity to 3e as possible, while

others are more willing to go out on a limb. From time to time, what would

appear to be house rules are described by their authors as being "the way

3e does things" when that`s not always the case. D&D is, in fact, often

silent on a lot of the issues that are campaign specific and "the way 3e

does things" is as often as not an interpretation on those occasions, and

sometimes not a very good one.

Having noted all that, this is one of the more consistent arguments

regarding a BR; that it is "a D&D setting." It`s not actually very

accurate since BR was originally not a D&D setting. It hit the RPG world

as a 2e setting, but it was in fact originally a novel by Rich Baker

adapted to 2e. It`s quite arguable IMO how successful a rules set 2e was

at portraying BR themes. D20 as a system has a lot more flexibility to it

and is IMO a much better platform from which to launch a campaign

world--which is, after all, its purpose.

>Prestige Classes never had to consist of 10 levels (as far as I

>know). These classes were a reward for achieving high-level and a tool to

>help in world building. A Prestige Class with one level would still be a

>Prestige Class (although not a very well thought out one). :D

The motivation and inspiration of prestige classes is something of a sore

spot for me, but for the sake of correctness there are several prestige

classes that have fewer than 10 levels, and though I generally ignore most

of the Epic Level of play, IIRC there are rules for taking levels beyond

the 10th for prestige classes in that text.

> Bottom line: It`s my feeling that if a game mechanic accurately

> describes what you need it to for a setting, then you should use that

> mechanic unaltered. If it does the job of describing the effect, but you

> want to add some different flavor, then include the modified mechanic but

> make it a variant option. If the campaign setting concept has no current

> game mechanic that could emulate it, then make up something completely

> new that will work.

I`ll buy that. In a few cases, I think it might make some sense to change

things for the sake of variation and shaking things up, but in general if

there`s not a reason to change something then it should be left alone. The

reason for changing something IMO can be pretty slight, though, and for the

most part I think majority of issues really are left alone by even the most

radical proponents of changing things (a category in which would include

myself, even though there are people who use rules that I think are way

further "out there" than my own.) Most of the fundamental aspects of

D&D/D20 remain unchanged in most people`s conversions. More often than not

people still play BR as a level based, character class driven system

that uses D20/D&D`s vocabulary, combat system, magic system, etc. Some

folks have experimented or adopted entirely different rules sets, however,

and seem to be perfectly happy with them, so the need to keep things close

to D&D is demonstrably less significant than I think often gets suggested.

Gary

Green Knight

02-04-2004, 11:00 PM

Gary wrote:

>Having noted all that, this is one of the more consistent arguments

>regarding a BR; that it is "a D&D setting." It`s not actually very

>accurate since BR was originally not a D&D setting. It hit the RPG

world

>as a 2e setting, but it was in fact originally a novel by Rich Baker

>adapted to 2e. It`s quite arguable IMO how successful a rules set 2e

was

>at portraying BR themes. D20 as a system has a lot more flexibility to

it

>and is IMO a much better platform from which to launch a campaign

>world--which is, after all, its purpose.

Isn`t this an exaggeration? BR was designed as an AD&D 2nd edition

campaign setting, by Rich Baker and others. Yes, they used elements from

his "novel", mostly as a model for Anuire I think, but the rest of the

stuff came from other sources.

Not book forced to comply with AD&D, but AD&D campaign inspired partly

by book. Important difference.

Cheers

Bjørn

irdeggman

02-05-2004, 12:51 AM

Originally posted by geeman@Feb 4 2004, 05:20 PM
At 09:45 PM 2/4/2004 +0100, Ming I wrote:

> [QUOTE]geeman wrote on Feb 4 2004 at 10:10 AM

>

That`s a rather tough condition to meet since one of the things they did

when devising D20 was retire most of the 2e campaign settings. The only

one that isn`t part of the core rules (FR and GH) that I can think of is

the new are the Ravenloft or Dragonlance stuff, which I haven`t had a

chance to look at either yet (I played DL a lot years ago, and kind of

burned out on it, and RL was very much like an old homebrew of mine, so I

never DM`d it) so I can`t speak to whether or not it supports or refutes

the point. Some of the fan produced conversions, however, do use things

that I would describe as being more D20 than D&D. The Planescape and Dark

Sun conversions, for instance, do several things that I would describe as

D20. Meaning no disrespect to the folks who came up with those conversions

(or the BR design guys) but the nature of the fan-produced campaign

conversion in some ways seems to suffer from precisely this argument. Some

of the folks want to maintain as much similarity to 3e as possible, while

others are more willing to go out on a limb. From time to time, what would

appear to be house rules are described by their authors as being "the way

3e does things" when that`s not always the case. D&D is, in fact, often

silent on a lot of the issues that are campaign specific and "the way 3e

does things" is as often as not an interpretation on those occasions, and

sometimes not a very good one.

Having noted all that, this is one of the more consistent arguments

regarding a BR; that it is "a D&D setting." It`s not actually very

accurate since BR was originally not a D&D setting. It hit the RPG world

as a 2e setting, but it was in fact originally a novel by Rich Baker

adapted to 2e. It`s quite arguable IMO how successful a rules set 2e was

at portraying BR themes. D20 as a system has a lot more flexibility to it

and is IMO a much better platform from which to launch a campaign

world--which is, after all, its purpose.

Gary
Actually the Dark Sun conversion is much too D&D for my taste. Instead of creating new cleric classes (something that the rules allow but that WotC has been remiss in pointing out and using) they defaulted to the D&D method of cleric with domains. Dark Sun was very much a specialized priesthood, much more so than any other campaign. The only divine casters that could cast raise dead or resurrection were druids or templars, now druids can cast raise dead (because the development team added it to their spell list to maintain some consistency) while all of the clerics can cast them both.

Based on posts and discussions with members of that team it would appear that WotC in their great wisdom is trying to 'advise' that the settings give up much of what made them unique and special and instead focus on being a variation of the generic D&D rules, see the Dragon ariticle on Birthright and you can see where they are going, by making the bloodlines/abilities basically a layered on effect for a generic setting.

Actually The Birthright novel Iron Throne came out after the release of the setting material and not the reverse. The Dark Sun campaign for example was much more keenly tied to the Prism Pentad series of novels, in fact Denning's psionics were the basis for what was used in the setting.

geeman

02-05-2004, 08:40 PM

At 11:34 PM 2/4/2004 +0100, Bjørn wrote:

> >Having noted all that, this is one of the more consistent arguments

> >regarding a BR; that it is "a D&D setting." It`s not actually very

> >accurate since BR was originally not a D&D setting. It hit the RPG world

> >as a 2e setting, but it was in fact originally a novel by Rich Baker

> >adapted to 2e. It`s quite arguable IMO how successful a rules set 2e was

> >at portraying BR themes. D20 as a system has a lot more flexibility to it

> >and is IMO a much better platform from which to launch a campaign

> >world--which is, after all, its purpose.

>

>Isn`t this an exaggeration? BR was designed as an AD&D 2nd edition

>campaign setting, by Rich Baker and others. Yes, they used elements from

>his "novel", mostly as a model for Anuire I think, but the rest of the

>stuff came from other sources.

>

>Not book forced to comply with AD&D, but AD&D campaign inspired partly by

>book. Important difference.

I`d characterize it more as a conflict between theme and the ability to

portray those themes with a given set of rules. There are, no doubt, many

aspects of the setting that were put into place to parallel 2e`s rules, and

I`m sure a lot of things developed for the setting when it was being put

into AD&D terms that did not necessarily come from the original

ideas. However, I don`t think that really vitiates the heart of the

matter, which is that 2e is only one possible way of portraying the basic

themes of BR--and probably not a very good one, particularly in comparison

to D20.

I would compare the situation to some of the other D20 settings based on

other non-RPG sources like Star Wars or WoT. Despite the fact that people

working on those settings have A LOT more information in the form of

original material there are still lots of things in the D20 versions of

those settings that are altered, invented or interpreted in the process of

creating the game version of the setting. There are whole teams of well

paid, creative people coming up with original Star Wars material. I bogged

down halfway through the second WoT book by RJ (an unusual thing for me, I

almost always power through a book once starting it....) Yet when turning

that material into a campaign setting one has to invent some items to round

out the campaign and change some things to make it playable as a

RPG--things like game balance or challenge ratings so GMs can design

adventures with some method.

BR, of course, has much less of that original material to start from before

it got converted, so it necessarily has even more of that kind of

interpretation going on--which is probably why this is such an issue. I

think we should have an eye towards the conflict, however, and recognize

that many things may not be BR themes, but are based on the AD&D rules

themselves. When it comes to RPGs my take on this kind of thing is that I

can always go back and play AD&D if I want to explore its themes

further. I want campaign material that differs from that stuff. When it

comes to playing D&D 3e/3.5 aren`t there other campaign settings (FR or GH)

that better exemplify the themes of those rules?

D20 is a good set of rules for doing that (maybe not the best, but its

geared towards that kind of use) and it`s better than AD&D was. I really

wonder what BR would look like had it been made a campaign setting under

D20`s rules rather than 2e. I don`t think the character classes would be

the same, I`m confident the magic system would be more drastically

altered. The basic D20 rules (combat, equipment, ECL, templates, etc.)

would still remain just as they do in other D20 settings, but most

everything else would be up for grabs, and the desire to make things look

like the D&D core rules wouldn`t exist.

IMO, there are a lot of things in BR that even D20 doesn`t handle very

well, and some things that appear to be sacred cows in a conversion that I

personally am not very concerned about. I have no expectation that the

majority of the folks in the BR community, for instance, would prefer "holy

warrior" class for each of the gods who have them rather than paladins a la

the core rules even though IMO that`s a basic BR theme that really should

be changed in a conversion. C`est la vie.

Gary