Dragon 315 And Bloodlines

[DanMcSorley]

Haven`t seen it yet. Theme is campaign classics, articles for old settings.



http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=70970



"Birthright: Bloodlines for D&D 3.5."



Anybody have the magazine? I guess subscribers are starting to receive it.

--

Daniel McSorley

[Eosin the Red]

Here is to crossing your fingers and hoping that they do it well.



The next question will be if it will be incorporated into the BRCS?



Anybody know who wrote the article?



Eosin



>

> Haven`t seen it yet. Theme is campaign classics, articles for old settings.

>

> http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=70970

>

> "Birthright: Bloodlines for D&D 3.5."

>

> Anybody have the magazine? I guess subscribers are starting to receive it.

> --

> Daniel McSorley

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Azrai]

The Dragon 315 is officially anounced as a "lost campaign source book". As one can see in the pre-release introduction, there will also be an "official" BIRTHRIGHT-BLOODLINE included.

What the h** does this mean? Did P-Publishing consult any fan-projects?

[DanMcSorley]

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Azrai wrote:

> The Dragon 315 is officially anounced as a "lost campaign source

> book". As one can see in the pre-release introduction, there will

> also be an "official" BIRTHRIGHT-BLOODLINE included. What the

> h** does this mean? Did P-Publishing consult any fan-projects?



We know, details of this were on enworld a couple days ago.



They didn`t ask anyone as far as I know, but why should they? They have

articles for a ton of settings in that issue, and I`m looking forward to

picking it up.



The bloodline system in there is a feat system, as I understand it you

spend a feat for a minor bloodline, and can then buy powers as additional

feats. Extra feats can raise you to major, and then great bloodline, and

each power has different effects depending on what your strength is.



For what it is, not bad. They didn`t need to do numerical strength

because that`s necessary only for domain games with RP and stuff. I

probably won`t use it, but hey, the more people that hear of birthright,

the more will google for it and find us all here :)



The word "official" in the press release bugs you? Who cares? It`s just

marketing.



--

Daniel McSorley

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by DanMcSorley@Dec 10 2003, 03:35 AM
The bloodline system in there is a feat system, as I understand it you spend a feat for a minor bloodline, and can then buy powers as additional feats.* Extra feats can raise you to major, and then great bloodline, and each power has different effects depending on what your strength is.

For what it is, not bad.
A feat system, great... :wacko:

IMO they better should have asked us... <_<

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Ariadne+Dec 10 2003, 08:41 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ariadne @ Dec 10 2003, 08:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--DanMcSorley@Dec 10 2003, 03:35 AM
The bloodline system in there is a feat system, as I understand it you spend a feat for a minor bloodline, and can then buy powers as additional feats.* Extra feats can raise you to major, and then great bloodline, and each power has different effects depending on what your strength is.

For what it is, not bad.
A feat system, great... :wacko:

IMO they better should have asked us... <_< [/b][/quote]
I agree with the should have asked. I don&#39;t have a lot of faith in the Dragon publishing company&#39;s method of handling things. They tend to make things "official" as a power trip and not from any &#39;real&#39; basis.

They are also including some info on Dark Sun - well Athas.org has already published the "Official" 3.5 rules for that campaign setting.

Athas.org and Birthright.net were given "permisision" from Wizards a long time ago to publish "official" material for the Dark Sun and Birthright settings.

Piazo has had a tendancy to make things that are not OGL when they publish them. I am greatly afraid that this will turn into one of those issues.

I&#39;ve just finished putting together the 3.5 update of Chap 2 and posted it for development team discussion (basically to make sure that I didn&#39;t overly mess anything up) prior to posting for general discussion. I would really like to post it before issue 315 hits the street in order to avoid any potential &#39;legal&#39; mumbo-jumbo that may arrise.

The development team specifically sent Rich Baker a copy of the BRCS prior to posting it for general discussion asking for any input. Basically he said he didn&#39;t have the time, but if he ever found any he&#39;d look it over and that basically the setting was ours, the fans.

Personnaly I think just posting blood abilities and making them independent of blood score or not even talking about them together does the entire concept a disservice. Now Rich Baker had previously said that if he were to write the blood ability info for 3.0 he would use a feat-based approach - this may be where Piazo is coming from but I haven&#39;t a clue and won&#39;t know until I see what they&#39;ve put together. It really should be just another option that can be used, one of those stand-alone articles that can be dropped into a campaign setting if desired. That&#39;s why I hate the "Official" label on something that is not capturing the entirety of the setting or the the effect. Bloodlines have more to do with them than just having blood abilites.

Gary brought up the issue as to whether or not the BRCS will adopt it since it is supposed to be official - well that will depend on how it is handled. If it is not OGL, then we can&#39;t do a thing with it except reference the Magazine (and force everyone to buy it in order to use), if it is OGL then more options open up.

OK, I&#39;ve vented for now. Let&#39;s see what the article looks like and what kind of restrictions on its use are implemented before we set fire to Piazo. I&#39;m still progressing down the path that was chosen (by the fans a while ago via the polls on Blood Score).

[RaspK_FOG]

Well, this could be an option, but it is ill thought, in my opinion, putting aside all other matters: how many blood abilities, for example, would one have? Up to 8, maximum? <_<

[DanMcSorley]

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, RaspK_FOG wrote:

> Well, this could be an option, but it is ill thought, in my opinion,

> putting aside all other matters: how many blood abilities, for example,

> would one have? Up to 8, maximum? <_<



If it`s all bought by feats, then as a human, you`d spend your 1st level

feat on a minor bloodline, then you could spend your 1st level human feat,

your 3,6,9,12,15, and 18th level feats on abilities, so seven.



Need to check the game store again for the magazine, but they probably

won`t have it until next week. Bah.

--

Daniel McSorley

[Benjamin]

OK, I&#39;ve got Dragon #315 right here, and I&#39;m NOT impressed.

It seems to me to be a half-assed attempt to bring Birthright into 3.5E. Here&#39;s why:

The system for bloodline abilities, as feats, is not really well explained. You buy a feat (Bloodline) to become blooded. OK, fine. You get a bloodline score of 1. You can increase your bloodline score by doing heroic events, such as slaying a dragon to save a village, but not just to slay it (which isn&#39;t heroic enough - clearly they never fought a Cerelian dragon). But the bloodline scores are barely mentioned in the write-up: if your bloodline goes to 11, then it becomes minor; 31 points for major; 51 points for great.

If you want to strengthen your bloodline the cheesy way, you buy a feat called Strengthen Bloodline, which gives you +10 bloodline points. Presto&#33;

So any 4th level fighter, with all his free feats, can be a great bloodline. Genius&#33;

If you want bloodline abilities, you have to buy them as feats. Well, your first bloodline ability is a free bonus feat when you buy Bloodline, but the rest of the powers are purchased feats. You can buy as many bloodlines as you want, provided you use feats for them. Not such a bad idea, really. Best one of the article.

Blood abilities are based on your bloodline strength. They only give Alter Appearance, Animal Affinity, Battlewise, Character Reading, Direction Sense, and Fear. Each one has a different effect based on bloodline level, minor through great (tainted lines get nothing).

And the final thing I wonder about is the reversion to killing blow through the heart to bloodtheft. It specifically says "This can only be done as a coup de grace action." A killer with a lower bloodline gets d6 bloodline points, a killer with higher gets 1 bloodline point. And regardless of strength, the killer picks up one of the victim&#39;s bloodline abilities for free, provided the ability can be used by the killer&#39;s derivation.

OK, sorry for the disjointed rant style. I thought I&#39;d let everyone know what the article says. If I&#39;m unclear, please ask for clarification.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Benjamin@Dec 11 2003, 11:25 AM
OK, I&#39;ve got Dragon #315 right here, and I&#39;m NOT impressed.

OK, sorry for the disjointed rant style. I thought I&#39;d let everyone know what the article says. If I&#39;m unclear, please ask for clarification.
Thanks for the synopsis. Is it OGL or not?

[geeman]

I`m a long-time subscriber, but I seem to get my copies of Dragon up to a

couple weeks after other people. There`s probably a gamer at my local post

office who intercepts my issues, so they don`t get delivered until he`s

read `em first and carefully placed them back in the plastic....



At 05:25 PM 12/11/2003 +0100, Benjamin wrote:



> If you want to strengthen your bloodline the cheesy way, you buy a feat

> called Strengthen Bloodline, which gives you +10 bloodline points. Presto&#33;

>

> So any 4th level fighter, with all his free feats, can be a great

> bloodline. Genius&#33;



Strengthen Bloodline isn`t a bonus fighter feat, is it?



> Blood abilities are based on your bloodline strength. They only give

> Alter Appearance, Animal Affinity, Battlewise, Character Reading,

> Direction Sense, and Fear. Each one has a different effect based on

> bloodline level, minor through great (tainted lines get nothing).



Well, that does make bloodline strength much more significant... maybe even

somewhat top heavy since it becomes, in effect, a single "stat" that

modifies subsequent powers.



> And the final thing I wonder about is the reversion to killing blow

> through the heart to bloodtheft. It specifically says "This can

> only be done as a coup de grace action." A killer with a lower

> bloodline gets d6 bloodline points, a killer with higher gets 1 bloodline

> point. And regardless of strength, the killer picks up one of the

> victim`s bloodline abilities for free, provided the ability can be used

> by the killer`s derivation.



Bloodtheft is a toughie. I don`t think anyone has presented a system of

commiting bloodtheft for D&D/D20 that really satisfies. A wonderfully

innovative system would have been welcome, but it`s not the kind of thing

that can be expected, so I`m inclined to cut `em a break on this one. The

d6/1 bloodline score issue is very similar to the original system--which

screams for a change IMO--but again I`m inclined to cut some slack on this

one since there`s still not IMO no one has presented particularly good way

of dealing with this aspect of bloodtheft either.



Did they address tighmaevril in the bloodtheft section?



Gary

[ConjurerDragon]

Benjamin 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=2&t=2130

>

> Benjamin wrote:

> OK, I`ve got Dragon #315 right here, and I`m NOT impressed.

> It seems to me to be a half-assed attempt to bring Birthright into 3.5E. Here`s why:

> The system for bloodline abilities, as feats, is not really well explained. You buy a feat (Bloodline) to become blooded. OK, fine. You get a bloodline score of 1. You can increase your bloodline score by doing heroic events, such as slaying a dragon to save a village, but not just to slay it (which isn`t heroic enough - clearly they never fought a Cerelian dragon). But the bloodline scores are barely mentioned in the write-up: if your bloodline goes to 11, then it becomes minor; 31 points for major; 51 points for great.

> If you want to strengthen your bloodline the cheesy way, you buy a feat called Strengthen Bloodline, which gives you +10 bloodline points. Presto&#33;





> So any 4th level fighter, with all his free feats, can be a great bloodline. Genius&#33;



Only if the fighter feats may be spent for this bloodline feats -

normally fighter feats may be spent only on specific list of "fighter"

feats, not just on any feats. If not allowed then the fighter has only

his characterlevel feats and perhaps his human feat to buy this new

blood feats.



Did the article mention if it is allowed?





> If you want bloodline abilities, you have to buy them as feats. Well, your first bloodline

ability is a free bonus feat when you buy Bloodline, but the rest of the

powers are purchased

feats. You can buy as many bloodlines as you want, provided you use

feats for them. Not such

a bad idea, really. Best one of the article.

> Blood abilities are based on your bloodline strength. They only give Alter Appearance,

Animal Affinity, Battlewise, Character Reading, Direction Sense, and

Fear. Each one has a

different effect based on bloodline level, minor through great (tainted

lines get nothing).

> And the final thing I wonder about is the reversion to killing blow through the heart to

bloodtheft. It specifically says "This can only be done as a coup

de grace action."

A killer with a lower bloodline gets d6 bloodline points, a killer

with higher gets 1

bloodline point. And regardless of strength, the killer picks up one of

the victim`s bloodline

abilities for free, provided the ability can be used by the killer`s

derivation.

> OK, sorry for the disjointed rant style. I thought I`d let everyone know what the article

says.

> If I`m unclear, please ask for clarification.



Mmmh, why would the Gorgon "harvest" bloodlines when he can slay ANY

minor scion and each time earn 1 point of bloodline strenght AND can add

a bloodability to his list if the slain scion had one fitting for the

Gorgons Azrai line?



I like the system of diminishing returns much better, which at some

point yields nothing if your bloodline strenght is too high above the

victims.

That at least explains the need to carefuly tend your enemies so that

they may raise their bloodlines to a point at which the Gorgon may

benefit from it...

bye

Michael

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by Benjamin@Dec 11 2003, 05:25 PM
OK, I&#39;ve got Dragon #315 right here, and I&#39;m NOT impressed.

It seems to me to be a half-assed attempt to bring Birthright into 3.5E. Here&#39;s why:

The system for bloodline abilities, as feats, is not really well explained. You buy a feat (Bloodline) to become blooded. OK, fine. You get a bloodline score of 1. You can increase your bloodline score by doing heroic events, such as slaying a dragon to save a village, but not just to slay it (which isn&#39;t heroic enough - clearly they never fought a Cerelian dragon). But the bloodline scores are barely mentioned in the write-up: if your bloodline goes to 11, then it becomes minor; 31 points for major; 51 points for great.

If you want to strengthen your bloodline the cheesy way, you buy a feat called Strengthen Bloodline, which gives you +10 bloodline points. Presto&#33;

So any 4th level fighter, with all his free feats, can be a great bloodline. Genius&#33;

Well, as Gary and Michael already said: Fighters normally can’t take those feats as bonus feats (if so it’s even worser). BUT: They can spend ALL level based feats on being blooded, so they still have a huge, unfair advantage&#33;



If you want bloodline abilities, you have to buy them as feats. Well, your first bloodline ability is a free bonus feat when you buy Bloodline, but the rest of the powers are purchased feats. You can buy as many bloodlines as you want, provided you use feats for them. Not such a bad idea, really. Best one of the article.

You really think so? Pfff, one single blood ability and the rest buyed expensively with feats? Not a good idea, this would prefer fighters again&#33; A more better idea would have been the original 2nd Ed system to roll abilities (or for free, whatever) after the bloodline strength is enhanced somehow (with feats or bloodtheft)...


Blood abilities are based on your bloodline strength. They only give Alter Appearance, Animal Affinity, Battlewise, Character Reading, Direction Sense, and Fear. Each one has a different effect based on bloodline level, minor through great (tainted lines get nothing).

OK. Sounds like they had no new idea here...



And the final thing I wonder about is the reversion to killing blow through the heart to bloodtheft. It specifically says "This can only be done as a coup de grace action." A killer with a lower bloodline gets d6 bloodline points, a killer with higher gets 1 bloodline point. And regardless of strength, the killer picks up one of the victim&#39;s bloodline abilities for free, provided the ability can be used by the killer&#39;s derivation.

Oh great&#33; Then the period of bloodtheft after Deismaar never ended and we have to rewrite the Cerilian history...


Generally, thanks for the quick and detailed information.

[DanMcSorley]

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Benjamin wrote:

> So any 4th level fighter, with all his free feats, can be a great

> bloodline. Genius&#33;



I`d imagine the "strengthen bloodline" feat is not on the list of fighter

bonus feats.



Thanks for the details.



--

Daniel McSorley

[kgauck]

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

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

Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 10:25 AM





> You can increase your bloodline score by doing heroic events, such as

> slaying a dragon to save a village, but not just to slay it (which

isn`t

> heroic enough - clearly they never fought a Cerelian dragon).



You should not get blood score just for being a combat machine, you should

get blood score for doing things that create political power, like saving a

village in a heroic fashion. The village becomes instantly committed, and

other villages will be favorably disposed. The key is the village, not the

dragon.



> So any 4th level fighter, with all his free feats, can be a great

bloodline. Genius&#33;



Does it say that these blooded feats are to be included in the list of

fighter bonus feats? If not, fighters have just as much access to them as

anyone else.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[geeman]

At 05:27 PM 12/11/2003 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:



>You should not get blood score just for being a combat machine, you should

>get blood score for doing things that create political power, like saving

>a village in a heroic fashion. The village becomes instantly committed,

>and other villages will be favorably disposed. The key is the village, not the

>dragon.



Even though I`d like to see more interaction between political and heroic

accomplishments in BR`s RP system, I still think scope of heroic actions

should play a part. Slaying a dragon (particularly a Cerilian one) is IMO

significant enough to warrant a bump, but the bump should be made more

significant based on the ramifications of the action. As in, +1 for the

dragon, +0 if slaying it saved a village, +1 if slaying it saved a town, +2

if slaying it saved a city, etc. It would fit better into the domain

level`s system of random event resolution/failure and seque into

translating adventure level results into the domain level in a way that

could be used to make adventures out of the domain level itself a la LotHK.



Gary

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by geeman@Dec 11 2003, 08:27 PM
At 05:27 PM 12/11/2003 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:



>You should not get blood score just for being a combat machine, you should

>get blood score for doing things that create political power, like saving

>a village in a heroic fashion. The village becomes instantly committed,

>and other villages will be favorably disposed. The key is the village, not the

>dragon.



Even though I`d like to see more interaction between political and heroic

accomplishments in BR`s RP system, I still think scope of heroic actions

should play a part. Slaying a dragon (particularly a Cerilian one) is IMO

significant enough to warrant a bump, but the bump should be made more

significant based on the ramifications of the action. As in, +1 for the

dragon, +0 if slaying it saved a village, +1 if slaying it saved a town, +2

if slaying it saved a city, etc. It would fit better into the domain

level`s system of random event resolution/failure and seque into

translating adventure level results into the domain level in a way that

could be used to make adventures out of the domain level itself a la LotHK.



Gary


I have to agree with Kenneth here blood score reflects the tie to the land and the people that a scion has. Killing a dragon (even a Cerilian one) is an act of individual accomplishment. Doing it to save a village, etc., is something that makes a hero greater in the eyes of the people and hence should have some reflection in his &#39;status&#39;, which is essentially measured by blood score.

To expand on this - a character gains exp for killing (or defeating the obstacle) a dragon - this is a measure of individual accomplishment and doesn&#39;t tie into blood score. Simply gaining levels doesn&#39;t translate into an increase in blood score (except for the scion class levels in the revised BRCS Chap 2, but that is only 2 class levels any way so it doesn&#39;t matter in the long run for this comparison).

Gary I do like the idea of scaling based on the &#39;level&#39; of the heroic deed.

Without having read the article yet (I think we have the same RPGer mail handler Gary) it looks like they have made gaining blood abilities (and probably blood score) more character level based instead of action based - which IMO is very bad and destroys the epic feel of the setting. But again, I need to read the article for myself before I pass on my final opinion on it.

Either way publishing anything about Birthright in Dragon is very good publicity for the setting, I only wish they would have mentioned the websites for the settings so that more stimulation could be applied. Hey that&#39;s where any substantial amount of &#39;new&#39; material is going to come from anyway, its going to come from the fans.

[geeman]

At 11:11 AM 12/12/2003 +0100, irdeggman wrote:



>I have to agree with Kenneth here blood score reflects the tie to the land

>and the people that a scion has. Killing a dragon (even a Cerilian one)

>is an act of individual accomplishment. Doing it to save a village, etc.,

>is something that makes a hero greater in the eyes of the people and hence

>should have some reflection in his `status`, which is essentially measured

>by blood score.

>

> To expand on this - a character gains exp for killing (or defeating the

> obstacle) a dragon - this is a measure of individual accomplishment and

> doesn`t tie into blood score. Simply gaining levels doesn`t translate

> into an increase in blood score (except for the scion class levels in the

> revised BRCS Chap 2, but that is only 2 class levels any way so it

> doesn`t matter in the long run for this comparison).

>

> Gary I do like the idea of scaling based on the `level` of the heroic deed.



My memory is a little hazy on this, but I can describe a slightly anecdotal

version of the story.... IIRC it was in an Internet chat or

something.... Anyway, many moons ago one of the original BR designers

(Baker, I think) was asked about the effect of a Cerilian dragon on a

battlefield using BR`s warcards. What would be its hits, melee value,

etc.? The designer half-jokingly/semi-seriously responded that a simple

table might better reflect the influence of a Cerilian dragon in a battleround.



d6 Result

1-5 Dragon destroys 1-3 companies.

6 Dragon gets bored and flies away.



My point is that a village doesn`t even really count at the domain level,

but the slaying of a dragon does. Villages don`t even raise to the domain

level by themselves. It takes dozens to equal population level 1 for a

province. Dragons in BR, however, are all by themselves a domain level

effect. Killing a dragon is such an epic and legendary act that it is

going to earn the slayer renown, influence, hero-worship, etc. It is, in

and of itself, something that is tied to the land and the people, whether

villagers are saved or not. Saving villagers in addition to slaying a

dragon (I haven`t had a chance to read the article yet, but I`m assuming

the idea is used to express great accomplishments, not just dragon killing

alone) is all well and good but by itself the village is pretty small

potatoes when it comes to the issue of bloodline.



I think what they are getting at are some guidelines for reflecting the

political influence of individual achievement--which is pretty close to

what bloodline does. It bridges the adventure/character level with the

domain/realm level, so giving a bloodline bump for individual acts that

have an influence at the domain level--like killing a dragon--seems sensible.



It is the collective "kismet" of the population that characters get their

RP from, and a character who kills a dragon is going to get a lot of

attention--with or without actually saving peasants--and that should

warrant some kind of award at the bloodline level. There are a few

guidelines for how to handle this kind of thing in the original BR

materials. Other than the regency loss section of the RB for random

events, but also the BoR`s section on increasing bloodline strength says

that characters must accomplish heroic deeds as part of a process of

proving to the DM that he worthy of an increase. Since it seems like this

article has somewhat equated bloodline strength and bloodline score it

might be that kind of thing they were trying to present with the

concept--we`ll know more when we actually get to read the

article.... Curse my postal carrier....



> Without having read the article yet (I think we have the same RPGer mail

> handler Gary) it looks like they have made gaining blood abilities (and

> probably blood score) more character level based instead of action based

> - which IMO is very bad and destroys the epic feel of the setting. But

> again, I need to read the article for myself before I pass on my final

> opinion on it.



It sounds like there might be one or two good ideas in the article. We`ll

see. But, hey, look at it this way, if its not terribly popular with the

BR community then at least there is no worry about whether it is OGL or

not, since it won`t need to go into any 3e update.... Unless there`s some

sort of "official" thing going on that I`m blissfully unaware of.



> Either way publishing anything about Birthright in Dragon is very good

> publicity for the setting, I only wish they would have mentioned the

> websites for the settings so that more stimulation could be applied. Hey

> that`s where any substantial amount of `new` material is going to come

> from anyway, its going to come from the fans.



True. The more the merrier. Personally, I was surprised that the

Dungeoncraft article that Dragon published a while back didn`t get more

attention from the BR community even though it specifically mentioned

BR. It was only tangentially related to BR, but still....



The thing that hooked me on BR from the get go was the "Seeking

Bloodsilver" adventure in Dungeon. Lots of little nuances to that

adventure that I really enjoyed, and that I had always found lacking in

D&D, or in any RPG, frankly. In fact, it brought me back to gaming on the

whole after a hiatus of a few years.... If it were up to me I`d see more

stuff like that in Dragon and Dungeon.



Gary

[Benjamin]

OK, to answer everyone&#39;s questions, the Strengthen Bloodline feat is not listed as being a general feat, bonus feat, fighter bonusfeat, free feat or any other type of feat. It&#39;s just a feat. So I would imagine, to correct myself from earlier, it can only be taken at normal feat levels, not as a fighter&#39;s bonus feat. But that isn&#39;t clear, which is another reason I don&#39;t like the article - it feels like they cut a lot to fit it into a few pages. In fact, none of the feats are very clear as to where they fit in. The article does say they are not balanced with other feats of 3.5E, only with other bloodline feats. So now we are running two different feat systems??

Sorry, geeman, they don&#39;t mention tighmaevril at all.

And I agree with the arguments that being a combat machine isn&#39;t worthy of earning bloodline points. However, killing a cerilian dragon takes near god-like powers, and anyone able to do that, IMHO, ought to get a few points out of it&#33; That was my only point with that comment.

[geeman]

At 02:30 PM 12/12/2003 +0100, Benjamin wrote:



> OK, to answer everyone`s questions, the Strengthen Bloodline feat is

> not listed as being a general feat, bonus feat, fighter bonusfeat, free

> feat or any other type of feat. It`s just a feat.



I should probably note that in standard 3e/3.5 there is no noble PC class,

and that the fighter was in the original 2e rules the class that most

province rulers took on, making it the default "noble" for the

setting. Making the feat one of the bonus fighter feats might make a

little sense in that it would allow the fighter class to continue that

role.... It`s not the best justification in the world, but it should

probably be mentioned.



> Sorry, geeman, they don`t mention tighmaevril at all.



Drat.



> And I agree with the arguments that being a combat machine isn`t worthy

> of earning bloodline points. However, killing a cerilian dragon takes

> near god-like powers, and anyone able to do that, IMHO, ought to get a

> few points out of it&#33; That was my only point with that comment.



Yeah, it sounds like its not a particularly well fleshed out idea as

presented in the article, but I think it could turn into something useful.



Gary

[DanMcSorley]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Benjamin wrote:

> OK, to answer everyone`s questions, the Strengthen Bloodline feat is

> not listed as being a general feat, bonus feat, fighter bonusfeat, free

> feat or any other type of feat. It`s just a feat. So I would imagine,

> to correct myself from earlier, it can only be taken at normal feat

> levels, not as a fighter`s bonus feat. But that isn`t clear,



It`s perfectly clear. Only if it specifically says a fighter can take it

as a bonus feat, can he do so. If they repeated the same text in EVERY

feat, ie "this feat is not a fighter bonus feat", THAT would be dumb.



--

Daniel McSorley

[kgauck]

The reason its neccesary to connect the dragon to the realm is because

heroic actions are only heroic in relation to those whose defence creates a

bond between hero and populace. An Anuirean king who kills a dragon

harrasing the Gorgon`s Crown could arguably have relieved the Gorgon of a

problem. A Brecht king who sails off to unknown parts of the world and

kills a dragon who was unknown to Cerilians has done something only

theoretical in protecting his people, and possibly something that will incur

draconic retribution. The act of killing the dragon is an act of individual

achievement. Who benefits from the death of the dragon is a required

question when assessing its heroic stature for blood strength. Sure a

dragon has the capacity to destroy 1-3 companies, but where was this threat

and was it considered something beyond remote?



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[kgauck]

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

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

Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 7:30 AM





> However, killing a cerilian dragon takes near god-like powers, and

> anyone able to do that, IMHO, ought to get a few points out of it&#33;

> That was my only point with that comment.



An easy way to accomplish this mechanically would be to give such creatures

(perhaps any ancient creature) a bloodline, so their death can qualify for

blood theft.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[geeman]

At 06:27 PM 12/12/2003 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:



>The reason its neccesary to connect the dragon to the realm is because

>heroic actions are only heroic in relation to those whose defence creates a

>bond between hero and populace.



You can`t get much more definitive of heroic actions than slaying a dragon,

whether the act is related towards the populace or not.... In fact,

several of the more memorable and legendary stories of dragon slaying don`t

mention the populace at all, but remain massively heroic acts of epic

proportion. While I do think that the scope of the act makes a

difference--village, town, city, province, etc. per the kind of bonus

outline I suggested--the actual act itself should be the starting point of

such a concept, especially since the idea of accomplishing the heroic deed

is the basis of the idea to begin with.



This is one of the interactions between adventure level events and domain

level effects that is only touched upon in the published materials, but I`d

suggest that having slain a dragon, or performing some other epically

heroic task might at least have the potential to effect the hero`s

bloodline as having committed bloodtheft on a scion with a tainted or even

minor bloodline might. There are indications that this is a theme in a

couple of places in the published materials (most of the effects are

negative, but they could just as easily be used as the basis for positive

awards) from which to derive some guidelines for how to handle this kind of

thing.



>An Anuirean king who kills a dragon

>harrasing the Gorgon`s Crown could arguably have relieved the Gorgon of a

>problem. A Brecht king who sails off to unknown parts of the world and

>kills a dragon who was unknown to Cerilians has done something only

>theoretical in protecting his people, and possibly something that will incur

>draconic retribution. The act of killing the dragon is an act of individual

>achievement. Who benefits from the death of the dragon is a required

>question when assessing its heroic stature for blood strength.



Since we`re talking about a bloodline increase, which is the BR equivalent

of an individual improvement based on heroic/divine qualities, the fact

that slaying a dragon (or something similar) is an individual

accomplishment is really part of the point. If it was a regency award

(which IMO would be possible as well) then the fact that the act is

individual vs. domain level might make some sense, and the issue of saving

the village by slaying the dragon might be more pertinent, but in this case

its the individual`s reward for an individual`s action. Most often the

individual rewards are in XP for 3e/3.5, but in the context of a BR

campaign in which bloodlines figure so prominently (and in the absence of a

system of reputation or fame) the reward for accomplishing epic campaign

themes should probably be represented in the bloodline system.



It would make sense, I guess, if one was going to have a system of

circumstantial bonuses for the size of the realm, that there could be

penalties to the same system.... -1 for slaying a dragon that harasses

enemy forces, -2 for slaying a dragon in the employ of a noble

kingdom.... Amongst events that are pretty unlikely to come up in the

first place I think it`d be pretty unusual for such a thing to happen, and

it would probably make more as much sense for a DM to ad hoc that aspect of

the situation as the context requires.



>Sure a dragon has the capacity to destroy 1-3 companies, but where was

>this threat

>and was it considered something beyond remote?



Other than to the 200-600 people in the companies, their supporting

infrastructure, extended families? I think that`s likely as many or more

people than the "village" being discussed in the first place, so if raw

impact upon the population is a factor then the threat is at least as

remote or immediate as it would be for the hamlet-sized impact....



Having said that, I don`t think that the requirement is that the threat has

to be immediate. It`s that the act is epic, not that danger is looming

that is significant. Sure, looming might be taken into consideration as a

factor in the accomplishment (along withe the size of a population rescued)

but its still not the core event that should trigger the reward. The

Gorgon may not be an _immediate_ threat to anyone--it`s been quite a while

since he rampaged--but someone who slew the Gorgon would reap huge

political and popular clout. If he slew the Gorgon while on one of his

periodic "harvests" of nearby scions then that`d probably be much more

significant, but it is still a factor in the event, not the determinate of

its significance that should be the primary consideration.



In any case, heroic deeds need not necessarily represent only those that

are performed in response to some outside threat. Slaying dragons can be

done proactively, and is an epic event whether the dragon is minding its

own business laying about on his horde (Sigmund) or chewing its way through

the countryside (St. George.) It might not be as rewarding as actually

saving a princess from the dragon`s clutches, but it still merits a reward

of the type being suggested.



Gary

[ConjurerDragon]

Gary schrieb:

> At 06:27 PM 12/12/2003 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>> The reason its neccesary to connect the dragon to the realm is because

>> heroic actions are only heroic in relation to those whose defence

>> creates a

>> bond between hero and populace.

>

> You can`t get much more definitive of heroic actions than slaying a dragon,

> whether the act is related towards the populace or not.... In fact,

> several of the more memorable and legendary stories of dragon slaying don`t

> mention the populace at all, but remain massively heroic acts of epic

> proportion. While I do think that the scope of the act makes a

> difference--village, town, city, province, etc. per the kind of bonus

> outline I suggested--the actual act itself should be the starting point of

> such a concept, especially since the idea of accomplishing the heroic deed

> is the basis of the idea to begin with.



A story which is quite contrary to the act of dragonslaying as a heroic

act for the purpose of commiting a heroic act, can be found in Dragon

241, "The Innkeepers Solution" in which a totally unheroic figure has to

face the problem of a dragon in a very unusual way. I liked this story

very much :-)



> This is one of the interactions between adventure level events and domain

> level effects that is only touched upon in the published materials, but I`d

> suggest that having slain a dragon, or performing some other epically

> heroic task might at least have the potential to effect the hero`s

> bloodline as having committed bloodtheft on a scion with a tainted or even

> minor bloodline might. There are indications that this is a theme in a

> couple of places in the published materials (most of the effects are

> negative, but they could just as easily be used as the basis for positive

> awards) from which to derive some guidelines for how to handle this kind of

> thing.



Slaying a dragon might very well be not heroic at all. Cerilian Dragons

are not the usual D&D monsters. Instead of dragons of all ages, sizes

and ECL´s that are listed in the Monsters Manual, Cerilian Dragons are

few, VERY few, all very powerful individual creatures. To portray them

as only the potential target of being slain for a heroic quest sounds

disturbing to me.





>> An Anuirean king who kills a dragon

>> harrasing the Gorgon`s Crown could arguably have relieved the Gorgon of a

>> problem. A Brecht king who sails off to unknown parts of the world and

>> kills a dragon who was unknown to Cerilians has done something only

>> theoretical in protecting his people, and possibly something that will

>> incur

>> draconic retribution. The act of killing the dragon is an act of

>> individual

>> achievement. Who benefits from the death of the dragon is a required

>> question when assessing its heroic stature for blood strength.

> Since we`re talking about a bloodline increase, which is the BR equivalent

> of an individual improvement based on heroic/divine qualities, the fact

> that slaying a dragon (or something similar) is an individual

> accomplishment is really part of the point. If it was a regency award

> (which IMO would be possible as well) then the fact that the act is

> individual vs. domain level might make some sense, and the issue of saving

> the village by slaying the dragon might be more pertinent, but in this case

> its the individual`s reward for an individual`s action. Most often the

> individual rewards are in XP for 3e/3.5, but in the context of a BR

> campaign in which bloodlines figure so prominently (and in the absence of a

> system of reputation or fame) the reward for accomplishing epic campaign

> themes should probably be represented in the bloodline system.



A bloodline reward for regents has a regency award for the future added

in, as the regent will be able to earn more RP (assuming that he

controls a realm of larger size than his prior bloodline would have

enabled him to collect RP).



However I personally would prefer a RP award IF there should be a reward

related to bloodline at all. That is because a few RP as reward will not

change much, but a few bloodline points as reward for a regent with an

already great bloodline will mean possibly the equivalent of several

hundreds of RP he would have to spent if he would have raised his

bloodline spending RP...



And the Gorgon would have a fine way to raise his bloodline to godly

heights with much less work than maintaining his enemies over years and

years and harvesting their bloodlines when they raise high enough to be

bloodthefted. He already subdued one dragon...





> It would make sense, I guess, if one was going to have a system of

> circumstantial bonuses for the size of the realm, that there could be

> penalties to the same system.... -1 for slaying a dragon that harasses

> enemy forces, -2 for slaying a dragon in the employ of a noble

> kingdom.... Amongst events that are pretty unlikely to come up in the

> first place I think it`d be pretty unusual for such a thing to happen, and

> it would probably make more as much sense for a DM to ad hoc that aspect of

> the situation as the context requires.



Players Secrets of Tuarhievel mention exacty that situation in that a

group of humans (certainly PC´s ;-)) sneaked into the realm and slayed a

dragon who kept stories and tales as a living library to the sidhelien

of Tuarhievel...



> In any case, heroic deeds need not necessarily represent only those that

> are performed in response to some outside threat. Slaying dragons can be

> done proactively, and is an epic event whether the dragon is minding its

> own business laying about on his horde (Sigmund) or chewing its way through

> the countryside (St. George.) It might not be as rewarding as actually

> saving a princess from the dragon`s clutches, but it still merits a reward

> of the type being suggested.

> Gary



Not all dragons are evil as they are in most stories. Even the Cerilian

dragon in the Five Peaks is more of a guardian of his mothers heart -

slaying him would be no heroic deed for any good PC IMO.

bye

Michael

[geeman]

At 06:30 PM 12/13/2003 +0100, Michael wrote:



>And the Gorgon would have a fine way to raise his bloodline to godly

>heights with much less work than maintaining his enemies over years and

>years and harvesting their bloodlines when they raise high enough to be

>bloodthefted. He already subdued one dragon...



It`d still be easier to harvest bloodlines than slay dragons. Aside from

there being only a few dragons around (a nonreplenishable supply) if

slaying a dragon amounts to the same as killing a scion with a tainted or

minor bloodline then the reward from the bloodline is relatively

small. The Gorgon could kill dozens of scions with such bloodlines before

breakfast, while going after a dragon might take him until lunchtime or

maybe even later into the afternoon....



>Not all dragons are evil as they are in most stories. Even the Cerilian

>dragon in the Five Peaks is more of a guardian of his mothers heart -

>slaying him would be no heroic deed for any good PC IMO.



It`s certainly not heroic in the sense that the person is a role-model, but

it`s heroic in the Herculean sense that it is a huge accomplishment beyond

the ability of typical people and something that would pretty well by

definition garner the person a lot of attention--and in BR that`s reflected

mostly by their bloodline at the adventure level of play. The morality of

the act would need to be taken into consideration, but since there are so

many possibilities there I still think some general modifiers would be apt

so the DM can have an idea on how to adjudicate that kind of thing.



I do think an RP award might be prudent too, and maybe that`d be the

simpler way to go. A non-regent could spend those RP to increase his

bloodline (if he had enough of them) while the regent could do what he

liked with them. Some method similar to that of the BRCS might be

used--though there shouldn`t be the same "regency explosion" of bloodtheft

for such a thing that is presented in that text. (I don`t think it should

be in there at all, but that`s another issue.)



Gary

[irdeggman]

All right I finally got my copy of Dragon #315 and wrote this e-mail to scalemail@paizo.com to express my opinions.

I encourage everyone to read the article and send their own opinions to Paizo. Without them they will be out of touch with their readers. The single biggest thing that bothers me is what I referenced in the Wyrm&#39;s Turn and Dragon&#39;s intention to publish their own "Official" Dark Sun 3.5 conversion even though the "Official" Dark Sun fan site already has - they took around 4 years to write it and had substantial feedback from the fans on the Athas.org site and on the posts that were seriously taken into account and adapted, they also had "feedback" from WotC that required some rewritting on their part to better fit into WotC plans - it just galls me that something like has happened. I don&#39;t forsee that happening to Birthright since it is not near as popular as is Dark Sun but you never know. How good would it be to have the "Official" rules only be available in a magazine?



Concerning Dragon #315

First off I’d like to thank you for touching on the various campaign settings of the past that have been relegated to the “forgotten” bin.

But since no good act goes unpunished here are my complaints:

Why did you include Ghostwalk in a magazine dedicated to “Campaign Classics”? It is a new setting that wasn’t around before 3rd edition. Also the inclusion of an article on Forgotten Realms seems kind of out of place since it has been updated very thoroughly to 3rd ed. The inclusion of these 2 articles seems to counter the point that others weren’t included or the articles were truncated due to space considerations.

The note in the Wyrm’s Turn really got my ire up.

"You know the best part? This issue is only a prelude to our next spectacular Dragon and Dungeon crossover event. In May 2004, we&#39;re going to release the Dark Sun campaign setting, revised for D&D 3.5&#33; Happily it will see print about the time the revised 3.5 Psionics Handbook hits the shelves, enabling you to explore Athas fully armed for its many perils."

Gosh I thought that the "official" DS 3.5 material was already published on by the Athas.org team after nearly 4 years of work and input by the many fans. This blatant disregard for this effort, and unless I&#39;m mistaken the previous agreement with WotC that the official fan site (Athas.org) could publish the "Official" 3.0/3.5 conversion material.

What a slap in the face to the dedicated fans of the setting.

Also Birthright.net, the “Official” fan site for Birthright has been working on an “Official” 3/3.5 conversion for over 2 years now. The playtest version was posted last February (and mentioned on Enworld.) This spawned the posting of the Birthright maps in the maps section of the Wizard’s D&D site.

While I have great respect for Ed Stark’s work in the past, there are several problems with the blood abilities article. For one there were 44 different blood abilities in the Book of Regency, this article reduced them down to 6. This doesn’t make for a very good translation of the originally published characters and creatures from the setting.

The Book of Regency also talked about the draw of evil and chaos for scions with Azrai blood so the statement that a scion of Azrai is no more or less predisposed to evil than a half-orc is rather misleading.

Editorially there is a great deal of confusion over blood points and bloodline score – the terms seem to be used interchangeably with no clear definition for what a blood point is.

None of the articles listed are posted as OGL so the opportunity to incorporate them into the “Official” conversions is non-existent. Bottom line is keep up the work, but pay respect and attention to the ”Official” fan sites, they are “Official” for a reason and listed as such on the Wizards boards so don’t overuse the “100% Official Dungeons & Dragons” statement.


Duane Eggert

[Vallariel]

Wheew&#33;
Now I really want to read Dragon 315. And the several following it to see if they print your letter. :D And what they have to say after it. ;)

[geeman]

OK, I got my copy of 315 today and here`s my take:



First, it`s awful thin. Just three pages. Yikes. The whole thing is

maybe a thousand words or so, including "The Creation of Birthright"

background insert. Other articles in the issue are similarly brief--though

I think only the Dragonlance article is shorter--and the authors certainly

have to be given some credit for trying to express some pretty extensive

concepts with such brevity, but it`s simply not enough to portray things

very well. As a couple of people have noted we only have six blood ability

"feats" in the article (along with two feats that grant bloodline itself

and increase bloodline score) and they aren`t really the more useful ones

that would give us an idea of how the other blood abilities might be

presented, nor are they the "sexier" ones--the choice to include the

Direction Sense blood ability, for instance, strikes me as

ill-considered. The article is so short it makes me question the size of

the font for the title, and the layout of the only graphic....



Second, I feel pretty comfortable saying that any of the existing

interpretations of bloodline for 3.5 suggested by various people in the BR

community are as viable as the one presented in the article. "Rule X" in

this article is that blood abilities should be represented by feats, which

is all well and good, but the idea doesn`t particularly lend itself to game

balance, accuracy, theme or relevance any more than several other

suggestions for bloodlines do. There is, for instance, no ECL information

in this article for all that a character could gain blood abilities that

could have to add up to ECL +1 easily if we use any of the articles on ECL

as a guide. A character class, templates, skills, etc. are all just as

apt, and I think in several cases probably more so than feats alone,

particularly since the interaction in this case with the bloodline score as

presented in the article is more than a little hazy.



Some specifics:



"Any creature with Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores of 3 or more

can be invested with a bloodline."



That does seem to exclude the genesis of a couple of the existing major

awnsheghlien. The Hydra and the Wolf, for instance, are based on animals

that have intelligence scores that are 1 or 2 respectively in 3.5 and

crocodiles have charisma scores of 2, meaning the Hydra is doubly

excluded. Of course, we can hypothesize that they were originally smarter

and/or more charismatic than typical animals, but in general it seems like

an unnecessary ruling, and I don`t know what it is based on other, perhaps,

a desire to keep bloodlines out of constructs--which also appears to happen

in the original BR materials, so the rule is problematic....



"While a scion of Azrai (the evil god) might be looked on with suspicion,

he is no more or less predisposed to evil than a half-orc."



I`m not sure who should be insulted there... scions of Azrai or

half-orcs? Aside from it being a theme of the setting that Azrai`s

bloodline actually is both physically and morally corrupting--at least,

more than I`ve heard orcish blood to be--it just seems like a banal

comparison and one that, like the ability score requirements, is unneeded

for a 3.5 update.



The language is also a bit weird. As has been noted the terms bloodline

strength and bloodline score aren`t very clearly defined (they weren`t in

the original materials either, but in a 3.5 update it seems like an effort

should be made to clarify them since one of the strengths of the 3e/3.5

materials is their careful use of vocabulary) plus we get a new term

"Active Range" which would appear to be the range of bloodline scores that

determine bloodline strength.



The rules on increasing bloodline strength have similar vagaries. As has

already been discussed, the issue of slaying dragons is mentioned and is

quite wishy-washy. The only thing that is clear is that "defeating a more

powerful blooded character or monster (blooded monsters are known as

"abominations") is always worth a bloodline point. Of course, it doesn`t

say what "defeating" or "more powerful" means, nor is the definition of

"abominations" really correct. If we try to use that standard as the basis

for determining what other types of heroic actions might warrant a

bloodline score point the difference between defeating a dragon and

defeating a dragon to save a town from destruction seems similarly

feeble. In general, the whole issue of increasing bloodline score from

heroic deeds alone needs to be either given more treatment or eliminated,

and I`m favoring elimination not just because it`s too abstract but also

because it contradicts the original setting`s method of increasing

bloodline score.



The bloodline score increase of bloodtheft, as has also been mentioned, is

handled poorly, or--to be fair--it is handled with no more aplomb than it

was originally. I think I missed something in that section, however, in

that it says bloodline is increased in "one of thre ways" but appears to

listly only two.... Unless Mr. Stark also meant the acquisition of a new

blood ability from the victim of bloodtheft. That is, BTW, a bad idea for

three reasons. First, it is in no way accounted for by ECL. Second, it

contradicts the existing concept of feats from what I can tell, since one

doesn`t just gain bonus feats in any similar manner in any of the D&D/D20

products I`ve seen. (I could be wrong about that, since I`ve not read

everything out there, but it seems like a bad way to go

mechanically.) Third, it doesn`t conform to the original BR materials in

any way.



The acquisition of blood abilities themselves by spending a feat is OK, I

guess, though equating bloodline strength (minor, major, great) with the

power of the blood ability doesn`t necessarily make much sense and grants

significant shifts in power. Since it was specifically mentioned that

taking the increased power of the scion into consideration at the beginning

of the article it seems like a very weird way of going about implementing

blood abilities since it doesn`t appear to be accounted for in any way.



In conclusion it is nice to see some sort of attention paid to the BR

setting, but I don`t think this article is going to resolve anything for

anyone. It might attract a very small number of people to the setting--but

I doubt it since it wasn`t particularly well written or exciting, and the

game mechanics presented were pretty underwelming. I haven`t fully

digested the whole issue yet, but as has also been noted some mention of

the fan sites for BR and the other campaign settings would have been

extraordinarily useful to people interested in obtaining more information

on them. Just a link to the WotC website that has links to the OOP

campaign settings would have been good.



Personally, I think a better strategy would have been to have an issue

dedicated to each of the settings.... They are, apparently, going to do

just that for Dark Sun next year. I don`t know what their thinking is for

the other settings.



Gary

[ConjurerDragon]

Gary schrieb:

...

> Some specifics:

> "Any creature with Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores of 3 or more

> can be invested with a bloodline."

>

> That does seem to exclude the genesis of a couple of the existing major

> awnsheghlien. The Hydra and the Wolf, for instance, are based on animals

> that have intelligence scores that are 1 or 2 respectively in 3.5 and

> crocodiles have charisma scores of 2, meaning the Hydra is doubly

> excluded. Of course, we can hypothesize that they were originally smarter

> and/or more charismatic than typical animals, but in general it seems like

> an unnecessary ruling, and I don`t know what it is based on other, perhaps,

> a desire to keep bloodlines out of constructs--which also appears to happen

> in the original BR materials, so the rule is problematic....



Perhaps they refered only to Investiture with "invested"? So that still

any creature can become blooded by other means, just not by the

Investiture ceremony?



> "While a scion of Azrai (the evil god) might be looked on with suspicion,

> he is no more or less predisposed to evil than a half-orc."

> I`m not sure who should be insulted there... scions of Azrai or

> half-orcs? Aside from it being a theme of the setting that Azrai`s

> bloodline actually is both physically and morally corrupting--at least,

> more than I`ve heard orcish blood to be--it just seems like a banal

> comparison and one that, like the ability score requirements, is unneeded

> for a 3.5 update.



Mmmh, perhaps no insult, but a sly try to push half-orcs into the

Birthright setting as a vanguard for gnomes and Cerilian

half-dragon/half-Minotaur Monks? ;-)

bye

Michael

[geeman]

At 05:44 PM 12/17/2003 +0100, Michael Romes wrote:



>Perhaps they refered only to Investiture with "invested"? So that still

>any creature can become blooded by other means, just not by the

>Investiture ceremony?



There`s also a sentence "To steal a bloodline, a creature with a bloodline

and Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores of 3 or more must kill a

blooded creature in a certain way:"... so it seems bloodtheft is also

excluded as a method, but I suppose you`re right it could still be other

weird, obscure ways not described in that text--or in the original BR

materials. One or two awnsheghlien would appear to have devoured their

bloodtheft victims rather than stabbed them through the heart, so maybe

something like that would be a better explanation.



>>"While a scion of Azrai (the evil god) might be looked on with suspicion,

>>he is no more or less predisposed to evil than a half-orc." I`m not sure

>>who should be insulted there... scions of Azrai or half-orcs?

>

>Mmmh, perhaps no insult, but a sly try to push half-orcs into the

>Birthright setting as a vanguard for gnomes and Cerilian

>half-dragon/half-Minotaur Monks? ;-)



Ah, yes, of course. I should have seen it....



Gary

[RaspK_FOG]

Originally posted by ConjurerDragon@Dec 18 2003, 12:13 AM
Mmmh, perhaps no insult, but a sly try to push half-orcs into the

Birthright setting as a vanguard for gnomes and Cerilian

half-dragon/half-Minotaur Monks? ;-)

bye

Michael

:lol:

[Vallariel]

I read our copy of 315 and I think the Birthright section is not helpful, nor even that interesting&#33;
However, it is good to see it included because it will remind others of the setting and maybe some of them will find their way here.

[kgauck]

The new issue of Dragon (316) is featuring espionage. There are articles

for players, for DM`s using espionage, one on gear, scrying, and non-rogues

participating in espionage. In addition the Wyrm`s turn is on the appeal of

espionage as a subject, and the Sage Advice discusses grappling.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com