Human bonuses [Archive] - Birthright.net

irdeggman

02-25-2004, 06:26 PM

Don't get so defensive, you asked for an opinion and you got one - I'm probably in agreement with that other 50% of your group.

I don't understand why a dwarf can't go anywhere and not be killed in Cerilia, at least the same places that a human wouldn't be killed. Dwarves don't generally travel much or deal with outsiders, but they are mostly welcome everywhere, including elven realms.

Halflings are welcome everywhere, that is they have no serious built-in animosity from/towards any of the other races.

So, basically there is a not an even balance between humans and these two races. Elves (and half elves for that matter) would definitely, IMO, have encounter issues - even though the canon material has an extremely high, IMO, occurence of half-elf regents in human lands.

Remember the logic in humans gaining these bonuses is their adaptability. It is generally thought, and I recall many articles (Dragon and the like) and other WotC/TSR books (I just can't recall the specific titles/locations right now) that talked about the fact that elves, due to their longevity have less of a drive to get things done quickly. Humans due to their short life and their inherent desire to change the environment to suit them do things quicker - hence the feat/skill bonuses.

2nd ed material usually granted elves a bonus proficiency in singing or entertainment, to reflect their preoccupation with these things.

I personnally favor having Birthright humans have a favored class based on their culture - Vos - barbarian, Anuirean - fighter (not cleric because of their affinity for nobility and leadership not the 2nd ed ability modifier), Brecht - rogue, Rjurik - ranger (almost druid, but there are not enough of them), Khinasi - wizard/magician (depending on whether or not the character is blooded) but this is something that was generally not well received and so didn't make it to the BRCS. Most thought it was too limiting for humans and that it took away their adapatability.

graham anderson

02-25-2004, 06:49 PM

i am not trying to get defensive i am trying to get my point across. i mean in relation to goblins and orogs with relation to dwarves and in the fact that humans are fairly xenophobic in general of other races.

i have read all the excuses that they have given for humans having extras but that is what they are excuses.

and if the flava comes from the background and it does why give humans bonuses to begin with.

i dont see the humans as being hamstrung what realy powerfull bonus does an elf get none. they have low light vision big deal

as it is humans and elves begin with the same amount of feats and skill points in my games which i see as being better for game ballance. now if someone wanted to play an ogre or something then we would still be talking levels as an ogre is a considerably more powerfull creature.

Green Knight

02-25-2004, 07:00 PM

The 100 year old elf probably shouldn`t be of the same ECL as the 20

year old human. That is the issue you`re addressing here, not what

special abilities humans should have or not have.

- The 20-year old human is a 1st level fighter with 10 INT and 12 skill

points.

- The 100-year old elf is a 4th level fighter/1st level sorcerer with

INT 12 and 24 skill points.

...or something like that.

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

From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion

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

Sent: 25. februar 2004 18:54

To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM

Subject: Re: Human bonuses [2#2296]

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=2296

graham anderson wrote:

i understand perfectly why humans are given the bonuses in the book i

do not use it because it is stupid to have a 20 year old human with more

skills than a 100 year old elf and yes it makes humans a little weaker

in a strait fight but not by much.

i give humans reaction bonuses and in game advantages

a human can go most places and not be killed on site but an elf or

dwarf cant

also humans as a race are more capable due to the birthright enviroment

of getting good reactions from people.

plus the vast majority of people you encounter and nations are human

these are all big advantages

a game is supposed to be about roleplaying not my guy is stronger than

yours

yes an elf in my game has a few advantages like low light vision but

the human gets big encounter bonuses

it should be pointed out that only one person has played a non human in

my game and the fava comes from your background and how you play the

character not how meny feats you have

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

****

Birthright-l Archives:

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

graham anderson

02-25-2004, 07:19 PM

thats partly what i am getting at

but i still dont agree with humans gaining the bonus abilities and no one has managed to explain to my satisfaction why they should have them except the obsesion some people have with power gaming and also the need to try and balance all the races(why). i also think that a bonus feet and skill points is worth a lot more than what most of the other races get making if anything humans overpowered.

Green Knight

02-25-2004, 07:20 PM

Elves are immortal for one...

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

From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion

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

Sent: 25. februar 2004 19:49

To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM

Subject: Re: Human bonuses [2#2296]

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=2296

graham anderson wrote:

i am not trying to get defensive i am trying to get my point across. i

mean in relation to goblins and orogs with relation to dwarves and in

the fact that humans are fairly xenophobic in general of other races.

i have read all the excuses that they have given for humans having

extras but that is what they are excuses.

and if the flava comes from the background and it does why give humans

bonuses to begin with.

i dont see the humans as being hamstrung what realy powerfull bonus

does an elf get none. they have low light vision big deal

as it is humans and elves begin with the same amount of feats and skill

points in my games which i see as being better for game ballance. now if

someone wanted to play an ogre or something then we would still be

talking levels as an ogre is a considerably more powerfull creature.

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

****

Birthright-l Archives:

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

graham anderson

02-25-2004, 07:31 PM

what about elves being immortal are you saying thats an advantage well yes it is but how often does that come into play in your games.

the Falcon

02-25-2004, 08:15 PM

Hey Graham, not to harry you or anything, but could you please use proper punctuation? I find it kinda hard to read your posts. I'm not demanding anything, just wondering if you could. Feel free to ignore me, but many thanks if you could. :)

geeman

02-25-2004, 08:20 PM

graham anderson writes:

> but i still dont agree with humans gaining the bonus abilities

> and no one has managed to explain to my satisfaction why they should

> have them except the obsesion some people have with power gaming and

> also the need to try and balance all the races(why). i also think

> that a bonus feet and skill points is worth a lot more than what

> most of the other races get making if anything humans overpowered.

I don`t think there is a particularly logical reason why humans get those

bonuses other than the aforementioned assumption that humans are by nature

more versatile than the other races, so their racial characteristics (a

bonus feat and more skill points) are variable. Personally, I`ve always

found this to be more a function of culture than race, per se, so in BR I

think those traits should be dedicated to things that express the

characteristics of the human culture. The bonus feat should be dedicated to

a background feat, while the skill points should be dedicated to a skill

that is in some way related to the culture of the character.

Lately, I`ve been wondering if it might not make sense to categorize weapons

by race. That is, have an additional column to indicate which races employ

which weapons. Most weapons would have "All" in the proposed "race" column,

but certain weapons (like the 3e Dwarven Urgosh) might be listed amongst the

martial weapons section, but have "Dwarf" listed in the proposed column.

That would mean for dwarves the weapon was martial while for all others its

use is exotic. That particular weapon might not be the best example, but if

one were to make something like longbows an "An, Elf, Rj" weapon, for

example, then characters of those races who were proficient with martial

weapons would use it per normal, while those not of those races would have

to use the Exotic Weapon feat to get normal access.

Gary

graham anderson

02-25-2004, 08:32 PM

sorry about the punctuation but i am pretty busy so i type and then i go without much of a thought or look over whats written down i will try and do better punctuation and spelling but its all down to time if i have it it will be punctuated well if dont it isn't.

graham anderson

02-25-2004, 08:40 PM

i tend to categorize weapons by race up to a point my self.
i dont have time to write them all out but

elves have longbows, elven blades(katanas) but not axes

rjurik axes, longswords , longbows but not rapiers,

the way i work it up to a point anyway is if they have any experiance with similar weapons in thier culture they can use an item but unusual weapons that they are not used to like axes for elves and rapiers for rjurik are different.

ConjurerDragon

02-25-2004, 09:20 PM

graham anderson 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=2296

>

> graham anderson wrote:

> i am not trying to get defensive i am trying to get my point across. i mean in relation to goblins and orogs with relation to dwarves and in the fact that humans are fairly xenophobic in general of other races.

>

> i have read all the excuses that they have given for humans having extras but that is what they are excuses.

>

> and if the flava comes from the background and it does why give humans bonuses to begin with.

>

> i dont see the humans as being hamstrung what realy powerfull bonus does an elf get none. they have low light vision big deal

>

> as it is humans and elves begin with the same amount of feats and skill points in my games which i see as being better for game ballance. now if someone wanted to play an ogre or something then we would still be talking levels as an ogre is a considerably more powerfull creature.

>

Graham could you please try to write at least the first character of

your sentences in capitals? I find it hard to concentrate on reading all

of your messages when everything is written small.

Low Light Vision is only one of the "extras" sidhelien receive. And if

you fight at dusk or dawn it can be a relevant advantage. As sidhelien

are very well suited for a sort of guerilla warfare with their abilitys

in forests they could for example ambush some human party/warband in the

early morning where the humans still receive penaltys for not being able

to see well.

The flavour that humans strive to achieve more in a limited time is

nicely mentioned in one of the Birthright novels (which I would suggest

to get all as they can give lots of ideas or help to imagine how Cerilia

might actually look like) where the Chamberlain and his (later)

sidhelien female lover are having a conversation ("The Iron Throne" by

Simon Hawke, p. 183 onward).

bye

Michael

Osprey

02-25-2004, 09:25 PM

Lately, I`ve been wondering if it might not make sense to categorize weapons
by race. That is, have an additional column to indicate which races employ
which weapons. Most weapons would have "All" in the proposed "race" column,
but certain weapons (like the 3e Dwarven Urgosh) might be listed amongst the
martial weapons section, but have "Dwarf" listed in the proposed column.
That would mean for dwarves the weapon was martial while for all others its
use is exotic. That particular weapon might not be the best example, but if
one were to make something like longbows an "An, Elf, Rj" weapon, for
example, then characters of those races who were proficient with martial
weapons would use it per normal, while those not of those races would have
to use the Exotic Weapon feat to get normal access.

Gary

It seems to me I've seen this idea somewhere else, but regardless it's a good one.

The 3.5 Noble that Raesene Andu posted for download allows nobles to be proficient with all culturally available weapons, like bastard swords for Anuirean nobles and Dwarven Waraxes (or the Urgosh) for dwarven nobles.

I'd be happy to see this extended to fighters, rangers, paladins, and barbarians, too! In other words, include it in the Cerilian versions of the warrior classes. That would be as far as I would take it, though...this allows clerics with the war domain to still have the advantage of proficiency in their deity's weapons (particularly useful fopr priests of Haelyn and Moradin, maybe Belinik), and keeps the non-warrior classes from getting free proficiencies with weapons that should be way out of their reach without some minimal amount of multiclassing. Like Anuirean wizards with bastard swords, or dwarven wizards with urgoshes - c'mon, make 'em take at least one level of fighter or noble!

graham anderson

02-25-2004, 09:39 PM

As i said about punctuation its a time thing but i will try.

I still dont think low light vision means that humans should get a bonus feat and skill points and as for humans achieving more in a limited time elves arent considered mature until what 50 i can't remember but something like that. Thats a lot of experience.

Yes i have the novels i have all the books it is the same arguments they allways try and use and they have never worked with me it is a poor attept to make all characters equal and in my opinion doesn't work. Humans are not that powerfull or shouldn't be thier main advantage is that they breed quickly like goblins but are better organized and a little more intelligent.

irdeggman

02-25-2004, 09:43 PM

Unless I'm mistaken no race 'gets along' with goblins. The only human land that has anything written otherwise is Mhoried.

Why would humans get along with Orogs? They are specifically mentioned as raiders of everyone.

So the bottom line is that dwarves and halflings are not hated by everyone and shouldn't suffer any encounter penalties except under certain circumstances. Humans also should suffer encounter penalties with each other. The Vos don't really get along with anyone. Anuireans tried to conquer the world and except for the Vos had many problems, so I guess they should have encounter penalties with the other humans also. Well the Brecht sort of absorbed their invaders but the Khinasi and Rjurik on the other hand would likely still have some resentment towards the Anuireans. The dwarves and Brecht get along really well, in fact the great bay is the one place where it specifically states they coexist, having to do with the dwarves sharing their undergound shelter during the harsh winters.

So I have yet to see why humans gain such a tremendous advantage in encounters with other races that they would should give up the bonuses the PHB grants them to balance out the mechanic advantages that the other races have. Heck just look at the skill advantages the other races have; pluses to listen, spot, appraise and craft checks. Almost all of these can come into play in encounter situations and not just combat oriented ones.

Now in my BR campaigns I never let players start out as elves, since we were playing in human lands. If they wanted to play a half-elf they had to give me a really good background history as to why they were there. The "My PC is trying to broker a deal with the humans to help gain better relations between the races" history didn't fly with me. In fact when one of my players tried to recruit a half-elf wizard as a Lt, he had to deal with a backlash of public opinion because he was being perceived as an "elf lover". Now this was all role-playing and required no adjustment to the benefits that any race had and still added the "desired" flavor to the campaign.

Osprey

02-25-2004, 09:59 PM

Crud...well my first attempt at his post got erased, so here's the 2nd draft:

I love humans having some racial advantages to represent their adaptability. Whether you agree or not is pretty subjective, as we're comparing humans to fantasy races of sentient beings. Where is there grounds for realistic comparison?

So it comes down to what you like. I like the idea that in a typical D&D world, humans are highly adaptable as a race, and very ambitious compared to longer-lived races. Hence an extra feat and skill point - more drive, more motivation, and the brains to take advantage of that drive. I personally think this is one of the best 3e revisions. It encourages players to play humans, which IMO leads to better roleplaying on average because humans are the easiest race for a player to identify with while putting themselves in an imaginary landscape. Playing non-humans tends to lead to racial stereotypes and generic characters, so as a DM I tend to discourage it unless the players are mature roleplayers who can handle that extra layer of character.

Keep in mind that all racial templates are designed around a foundational concept: game balance. The idea, frojm the standpoint of 3e designers, was to create a game where all PC's are more or less equal and given a fair sytem of rewards for overcoming challenges in a fantasy adventure game.

Now, if we're talking about balance in a more political, large-scale adaptation of D&D like many Birthright campaigns, we run into problems, because now we have to deal with the domain-level racial advantages and disadvantages, which are often quite different than things on a small scale. And the 3.x system of ability modifier balancing gets thrown completely out of whack because social skills become very valuable, and "weighting" Strength over Charisma or Wisdom is just stupid in a game that isn't as combat focused as the standard D&D adventure.

I see this little point as one of the biggest problems in converting 3.x races to the Birthright world.

But keep in mind that the whole level-balance system (with +ECL templates for more individually powerful races) is useful mainly for determining XP awards and balancing treasure awards. And in that sense I'd say it works fairly well.

Now, as for balances between races in Birthright...

I've written about elves extensively, and don't want to rehash all of it (check out the BRCS forum if you want to read more on that). But in brief, I'd say Mark Aurel's and Bjorn's suggestions to make the average elf a higher level character is one very easy, and nicely effective, way to distinguish them from humans.

My personal desire is to see elves removed from the list of PC races in Birthright and instead appear in a Cerilian Beastiary with stats for playing them as a "monster race" with a +2 or higher ECL template, giving them better ability bonuses (Dex, Cha, maybe Int) without the frailty penalties, Nature Affinity powers, etc. (Ming I had some decent writeups for some higher ECL elven templates in the BRCS Forum).

Strong negative reaction modifiers would be one of the elven template's disadvantages, especially in human and goblin lands. A good DM would play this to the hilt to discourage elven PC's from prancing around humans saying (in so many words), "Look how cool I am!" I wonder how they'd like a stoning every village or so?

-Osprey

graham anderson

02-25-2004, 10:11 PM

Humans trade with the goblins read the vos book khinasi book hell any of the books i am not saying you should wander into humanoid lands unprepaired or on your own but humans can safely enter these lands. elves and dwarves however are a different thing.

A small amount of animosity from the rjurik to the anuirians is diffrent from an elf being lynched.

If you would rather think of it as a negative rection for everyone else and humans get no bonus or negative.

Remember humans are frequently xenophobic not just against other races but against enemy nations as well.

kgauck

02-25-2004, 10:40 PM

> Lately, I`ve been wondering if it might not make sense to categorize

> weapons by race. That is, have an additional column to indicate

> which races employ which weapons.

I`ve long done so with regard to the several nations. In Anuire, the

bastard sword is a martial weapon, but neither of the composite bows is. So

on and so forth.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

graham anderson

02-25-2004, 10:42 PM

The comparison comes from the age of the characters. Elves and dwarves being older and more experienced.

I dont give out xp or treasure awards people gain a level when they have learned enough to merit a gain.

I dont have time to look up all the past posts.

Elves are pompus, elves are arrogant and thats the point. Thats where a lot of the negative reaction to elves comes from especialy in birthright. The anoying thing for everyong one else is that elves are smarter and better than everyone else and thier not afraid to say so.

kgauck

02-25-2004, 11:00 PM

I see 1st level as the point at which you start your adventuring career. I

could just tack on 3 levels of expert and put all the skill points in places

where "civilian" elves would put them. That has a serious effect on

advancement.

Instead I would just hand out a bunch of Lore ranks. Lore functions exactly

like Skill, except its only handed out by the DM because he wants to.

Normally I use it as part of some game rewards. Its also catagorized

differently, often. I sometimes give a Lore (White Witch) after an

adventure that deals with exposing or exploring the powers of the White

Witch. You can tack that lore rank on to any check that involves the White

Witch. Its also not limited to level, though outside of this elf example, I

can`t imagine handing them out with nearly the frequency that level limits

would be an issue.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

ConjurerDragon

02-25-2004, 11:00 PM

irdeggman 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=2296

>

> irdeggman wrote:

> Unless I`m mistaken no race `gets along` with goblins. The only human land that has anything written otherwise is Mhoried.

>

> Why would humans get along with Orogs? They are specifically mentioned as raiders of everyone.

>

> So the bottom line is that dwarves and halflings are not hated by everyone and shouldn`t suffer any encounter penalties except under certain circumstances. Humans also should suffer encounter penalties with each other. The Vos don`t really get along with anyone. Anuireans tried to conquer the world and except for the Vos had many problems, so I guess they should have encounter penalties with the other humans also.

>

The Anuireans should have encounter penalties with THEMSELVES. Imagine a

haughty, traditional noble from Boeruine, fresh assigned on his position

somewhere in the City of Anuire to serve Archduke Boeruine there, and

while travelling through the peaceful lands of Avanil totally

unintentional and casually mentioning to everyone he meets how good

Archduke Boeruine would be for emperor and how everyone can see that

Prince Avan is really a slimy diplomat ;-)

bye

Michael

ConjurerDragon

02-25-2004, 11:00 PM

graham anderson 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=2296

>

> graham anderson wrote:

> As i said about punctuation its a time thing but i will try.

>

> I still dont think low light vision means that humans should get a bonus feat and skill points

>

Low Light Vision gives enemys without it in moderate darkness a 10% miss

chance (3.0 PHB). So the elven ambush at dawn on the human party would

mean that the elven fighter normally attacks but the human fighter

misses 10% of the time more. I think that changed in 3.5, did it?

>and as for humans achieving more in a limited time elves arent considered mature until what 50 i can`t remember but something like that. Thats a lot of experience.

>

No that is age, not experience. Adulthood starts for the PHB elves, as

you use elves and not sidhelien, at 110 years and adventuring at 110+

depending on class. Only then do those 1st level characters go out into

the world and earn XP. Imagine an elf wearing diapers for 7 years ;-)

You realize that the sidhelien get a bonus to skills as well (+2 to

Listen, Search and Spot) and (only important at low levels) are immune

to sleep the "fireball" of low-level casters against low-level enemies?

>Yes i have the novels i have all the books it is the same arguments they allways try and use and they have never worked with me it is a poor attept to make all characters equal

>

Balanced. Not equal. There are differences but they *should* balance out.

> and in my opinion doesn`t work. Humans are not that powerfull or shouldn`t be thier main advantage is that they breed quickly like goblins but are better organized and a little more intelligent.

>

That is an advantage as a culture, but not for a player character -

unless you have created his whole family and he can call on the help of

his 3 brothes, 12 nephews, 4 uncles and his stepfathers 3 sisters all

the time if he needs help while the elven character is on his own...

bye

Michael

graham anderson

02-25-2004, 11:18 PM

Poeple do learn as they age come on are you trying to say a 100 year old doesnt know more than a 20 year old please.

Also so what if the sidhe get a couple of skill bonuses as i said before this is more than compensated by reaction adjustment.

As for sleep no spell should be to powerfull try memorizing a few different spells if you over specialize you make yourself vulnerable.

They do not have to BALANCE OUT people should not be exactly equal why are people so obsessed with having as much as the other player you are playing a character not power gaming or at least i hope your not.

Why should humans have an advantage as a player character beyond thier culture they have more nations and better relations with others.

Mark_Aurel

02-25-2004, 11:35 PM

They do not have to BALANCE OUT people should not be exactly equal why are people so obsessed with having as much as the other player you are playing a character not power gaming or at least i hope your not.

Wanting balance is not power gaming. In fact, it's quite the opposite. It's a way to prevent power gaming.

Let's put it like this: If every option is perfectly equal in value in all circumstances, people will play whatever they feel like, and be happy about it. If, however, options are of generally different value, people may feel penalized if they play what they feel like, and that is an inferior option to playing something else. Conversely, if options are of different value, people will start picking the 'best' options, rather than picking the options they truly feel best about playing.

Thus, if humans do not have any racial advantages, but the other races keep theirs, humans become an inferior option. Players will pick other races to get advantages. That's power gaming, basically. Meanwhile, the players who choose to play humans anyway may feel somewhat penalized for doing so.

If humans are an equal option to every other race, there can be no power gaming involved in picking a race. If, on the other hand, as you intend, humans become an inferior option mechanically, you're going to be the cause of power gaming.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to basically have equal rights and to be on an equal footing in the game. That is not power gaming. That is just wanting the game to be fair. There is something wrong with wanting to be better and more powerful than everyone else. That is not, however, what this is about. Humans aren't better than any other race going by the PHB. You, however, seems to want to make every other race better than humans.

*That* will lead to power gaming. Not keeping humans on an even footing.

RaspK_FOG

02-25-2004, 11:38 PM

OK, try this out for size: an elf should probably have PC classes even as an encounter, while most typical humans should be commoners. For those of you who find NPC classes absurd, I have to say I "generally" agree, but consider the overall much more powerful 10th-level fighter (PC) next to the 20th-level commoner (NPC, venerable human mayor :P ), and the consequences of spells who work based on Hit Dice... B)

Anyway, I really liked Osprey's work on the Sidhelien, and would prefer to see elves in the Beastiary, since monstrous characters or their appearance in said books is not discouraged these days (on the contrary)! And, truly, consider the BRCS elves or, even better, the point up to which the revision has come: elvish arcane-nature magic, the usual immortality, etc. And you tell me they have too little to compare with humans?! :blink: For one thing, roleplaying takes everything into account: I now am playing a middle-aged elven fighter in a non-BR campaign of one of my friends just for the feel of such a character, whom I really like.

graham anderson

02-25-2004, 11:56 PM

People don't go running for the other races in my games only one person has played a non human in that case an elf.

People here don't seem to think that humans being the dominant race is a benefit it is of huge advantage.

Most races have benefits and flaws that roughly balance out so why should humans gain additional benefits from a balanced begining.

Power gamers exist anyway they aim for certain prestige classes etc it is up to a dm to control them.

Just look at kobolds they are inferior to the other races but they exists in the books it just seems to be this thing about humans should be great and better than everyone else, why.

In my games i tend to have people begin at the same level but variations can happen from thier and if your players get upset about this i would look at who is playing in your games.

RaspK_FOG

02-26-2004, 12:18 AM

You insist that other races have inherent balancing factors that make their advantages less important, so I have a question to ask you: does it matter whether the elf is having a "reaction penalty" (and yes, I use reaction penalties even in my homebrew, non-BR campaign just because there is good reason to have them) if it does not become a PC within other non-elf PCs? Hardly. What if your elf is helping the people, has taken the Leadership feat, is a famous ruler, bears his insignia all the time (and, in case you use Reputation scores, is one of the most trusted people all over Aebrenis)?

graham anderson

02-26-2004, 01:15 AM

In the game your elf can try and change peoples attitudes but to change them throughout cerilia is a big undertaking. Leadership is affected in my games and a good example is the cohort if an elf trys to get an elven cohort he has the normal rating but a negative if he was to try and get a human cohort.

In game an individual elf might become a hero to a particulare nation gaining him a special status in that nation. I may even let an elf take a feat human friend at creation where he is well known and liked in a human land or area improoving peoples reactions to him while thier.

As for wearing insignia how meny people are going to know what it means.

Likewise with being a famous ruler it can help at times and not at others it depends on how famous , for what and where you are.

geeman

02-26-2004, 01:20 AM

At 04:20 PM 2/25/2004 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> > Lately, I`ve been wondering if it might not make sense to categorize

> > weapons by race. That is, have an additional column to indicate

> > which races employ which weapons.

>

>I`ve long done so with regard to the several nations. In Anuire, the

>bastard sword is a martial weapon, but neither of the composite bows is. So

>on and so forth.

Do you have this written up in weapon tables?

Gary

geeman

02-26-2004, 01:20 AM

At 12:19 AM 2/26/2004 +0100, graham anderson wrote:

> Poeple do learn as they age come on are you trying to say a 100 year

> old doesnt know more than a 20 year old please.

Actually, the last person I met who was approaching 100 could barely

remember her own name, so if that`s the standard then 20 year olds have

demonstrably more knowledge....

When it comes to reflecting the value of aging in BR in relation to elves

and blood abilities, I wonder if it might not be more sensible to do

something like the Blood History ability. That is, not necessarily assume

that characters who have been around for a long time will have levels or

other XP based functions (though aged characters gaining a level a century

sounds like a pretty reasonable assumption) but give them the ability to

remember from their own experience certain "historical" events. That

wouldn`t unduly imbalance them by itself, and would seem to make some sense

as far as play is concerned since it would give some sort of actual benefit

to that blood ability--which is rather lacking now that the aging effects

of D&D have been removed.

Gary

kgauck

02-26-2004, 01:40 AM

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

From: "graham anderson" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 3:39 PM

> Yes i have the novels i have all the books it is the same arguments

> they allways try and use and they have never worked with me it is

> a poor attept to make all characters equal and in my opinion doesn`t

> work. Humans are not that powerfull or shouldn`t be thier main

> advantage is that they breed quickly like goblins but are better

> organized and a little more intelligent.

The proper way to balance humans is to make them lower level, because that

is how we measure power in d20. Unbalanced races just create xp headaches

for encounters and future advancement. If you feel elves should be

profoundly more powerful, then go with Bjørn`s description above.

> - The 20-year old human is a 1st level fighter with 10 INT and

> 12 skill points.

>

> - The 100-year old elf is a 4th level fighter/1st level sorcerer

> with INT 12 and 24 skill points.

>

>...or something like that.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

tcharazazel

02-26-2004, 03:51 AM

heh, not bad for a first post. You sure know how to get people riled up... Tho it seems that more than 50% would think your idea of unbalancing the human with the other races is not a positive addition to gameplay. So, do humans start with an equivalent ECL per level when compared to other races? I mean are they basically something like 1/2 or 3/4 the effective power of a different race with equivalent level?

So basically if two characters have the same equipment, ranks in skills, ect and the only difference between then is their race would this hold true:

a level 5 elf rogue = a level 5 human rogue

the +2 dex/cha and -2 str/con an elf gets is rather nice for rogues as they commonly use dex to steal things and cha to talk their way out of the guards catching em.

Well you may not hold low light vision in high regard, tho for rogues sneaking around at night ect it would prove most useful, effectively removing a 10% miss chance.

The +2 to those listen, search, spot ect skill checks would mean that the elf would have a 10% advantage over the human. When you consider a 1 on a d20 = 5% and they would only have a max rank of 8 at 5th level. So every 5% you can get really matters.

The ability to walk through the forest, bushes ect as if it were a road, would deffinately be an distinct advantage when trying to sneak up on people, as humans would be slowed a lot more.

As for the immunity to sleep well that is a rather useful spell either sleep or command sleep ect and the +2 vs enchanting, well +2 would be like 10% as mentioned b4 to resist all those anoyin enchanting spells like charm person.

The fact the elf would never get sick naturally and not need to sleep, unless very exhausted, would make it easier for the elf to wait out opponents until they are tired and sneak in to attack.

SO to restate the question, does this lvl 5 elf rogue = the lvl 5 human rogue? If you answer no, then how do you balance them? If you opt to leave them unbalanced then why would anyone in your games choose to play a human?

I'm talking about people who make choices rationally after calculating the benefits and drawbacks of choosing a particular path. It would seem that roleplaying is all there is in your game, which is appropriate being this is an RGP, however, if your members go on adventures to deal with monsters, sneak through dungeons for treasure ect, then how much time will the humans be spending making use of their benefit to generally be more safe walking from city to city, tho in the example above a rogue rarely is welcome into a city no matter what race they are, heheh.

What I'm saying is if youre runing a campain that is primarily based on social interactions as opposed to adventuring then yeah the human benefit would seem to make for better balancing. However, if you're running more adventure based campains then I can't imagine you getting many humans in them, especially if you are keeping the players lower level and in a low magic world setting. Because in a low magic setting like BR racial advantages become even more pronounced.

ecliptic

02-26-2004, 04:47 AM

I was reading this and I am absolutely dumb founded. I mean I couldn't believe the ignorance of it all.

Poeple do learn as they age come on are you trying to say a 100 year
old doesnt know more than a 20 year old please.

An elf ages slower, they have less motivation to hurry up and learn everything they want to know. Matter of fact an elf may not even know what he wants to learn till the very time he decides that he wants to learn it. A human on the other hand starts dreaming about what he wants to be even from a very early age.
A human could learn more in 70 years then an elf would in 700 years. An elf also has a tendancy to not learn as much as they can about one topic all at once and readily try something else. Because that elf knows he has plenty of time to learn it. He may take a long break, enjoy the forest and do nothing but live among the trees alone for many many years. A human has the urge to do everything they can in the quickest possible time, because they know they don't have much time on the world. Humans also have an ability to adapt to his surroundings much easier. Drop a human in the alleys of a city, he can survive and adapt from a young age. Drop an elf in the alleys of a city and he will have a much harder time trying to adapt.

Also so what if the sidhe get a couple of skill bonuses as i said before this is more than compensated by reaction adjustment.

You just failed balancing 101. A social aspect of a game should never try to balance out a combat encounter or anyother aspect of the game that isn't social. That is vice versa aswell. This is outside of ability adjustments, because ability adjustments can effect any aspect of a game.

They do not have to BALANCE OUT people should not be exactly equal why are people so obsessed with having as much as the other player you are playing a character not power gaming or at least i hope your not.

Balance is not power gaming.

Why should humans have an advantage as a player character beyond thier culture they have more nations and better relations with others.

Why do elves have an advantage as a player to wonder through elven forests without the worry of an elf stabbing them in the back?

heh, not bad for a first post. You sure know how to get people riled up..

This is what we on other forums like to call a troll. His sole reason for posting this was to start an arguement. It isn't like he wanted to accomplish anything useful with his post.

People don't go running for the other races in my games only one person has played a non human in that case an elf.

Your players are incredibiliy stupid or you make it so hard on them to play anything but a human. So they probably feel forced to play a human.

People here don't seem to think that humans being the dominant race is a benefit it is of huge advantage.

It's not. Atleast not enough to take away everything the human gets as an advantage.

Most races have benefits and flaws that roughly balance out so why should humans gain additional benefits from a balanced begining.

What? The only thing that balances out for the other races is their ability stats. What in the Elf race balances out Low-light vision, Martial Weapon feats for the longsword, rapier, shortbow, and long bow. How about the passing within 5' of a secret door for a automatic search check? The +2 to Listen, Spot, and Search, and the immunity to sleep and +2 enhantment saving throw bonus?

What balanced beginning are you talking about? You completely stripped out all the balance that the races had.

Just look at kobolds they are inferior to the other races but they exists in the books it just seems to be this thing about humans should be great and better than everyone else, why.

Kobolds are monsters, they are meant for low level encounters. They are not meant to played as a race.

Osprey

02-26-2004, 06:11 AM

When it comes to reflecting the value of aging in BR in relation to elves
and blood abilities, I wonder if it might not be more sensible to do
something like the Blood History ability. That is, not necessarily assume
that characters who have been around for a long time will have levels or
other XP based functions (though aged characters gaining a level a century
sounds like a pretty reasonable assumption) but give them the ability to
remember from their own experience certain "historical" events. That
wouldn`t unduly imbalance them by itself, and would seem to make some sense
as far as play is concerned since it would give some sort of actual benefit
to that blood ability--which is rather lacking now that the aging effects
of D&D have been removed.

Gary

Hmmm, you may have something there, Gary ([proving that good things can come out of threads full of bickering! B) ]. The idea of elves having Lore as a racial ability (seperating this from the free skill bonuses part of the blood ability) could help account for a whole lot of generalized background knowledge, which meshes rather well with the idea that immature (meaning non-adult) elves play around at many things and master nothing before several centuries.

Mark_Aurel

02-26-2004, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by graham anderson@Feb 26 2004, 12:56 AM
People don't go running for the other races in my games only one person has played a non human in that case an elf.

People here don't seem to think that humans being the dominant race is a benefit it is of huge advantage.

Most races have benefits and flaws that roughly balance out so why should humans gain additional benefits from a balanced begining.

Power gamers exist anyway they aim for certain prestige classes etc it is up to a dm to control them.

Just look at kobolds they are inferior to the other races but they exists in the books it just seems to be this thing about humans should be great and better than everyone else, why.

In my games i tend to have people begin at the same level but variations can happen from thier and if your players get upset about this i would look at who is playing in your games.
What exactly does being the 'dominant race' benefit the player of a human character in a fight? Is he supposed to expect others to bend down before him because he's from the dominant race?

You present a case that because humans are 'dominant,' they have a huge advantage. How? What does it get them?

Let's see. They get lynched if they go to an Elven forest. They aren't safe in humanoid lands, that's for sure. Or awnshegh realms, for that matter. Oh, and let's not forget about the inter-human animosities that abound. Anuireans may not be quite secure in the lands they once held as colonies. Vos aren't exactly highly regarded by other humans, and if you're an outsider in Vosgaard, you'd better watch out. So, coming from Anuire, it seems, there's pretty much nowhere you can go without getting headhunted. In a bad way.

Now, halflings, on the other hand - no one minds those lovable little chaps. They get around more than humans do. Have you stripped them of all mechanical benefits to compensate for their ability to be get hunted by gnolls? Better slap an extra -2 to Charisma on them too, because they're so small.

Your argument seems to be this: 'Humans should be weak because they can trade with goblins.'

Would that be an accurate representation of your case?

No? There's always the 'realism' thing and how you don't buy how humans are fast learners. Others are already covering that, so there's no need for me to repeat it.

Maybe your players would be happier if humans couldn't trade with goblins, but you gave them their basic human benefits back instead.

Let's take a look at the power gaming issue again. Power gaming constitutes basically picking something for its mechanical benefits - and then picking the most powerful choice possible, regardless of appropriateness. It entails finding the most powerful combinations of mechanical effects you can and using them. Like I said before, though, a prerequisite for power gaming is that there be an imbalance in the system. If the system is basically sound, there won't be much 'power gaming' at all - at least not in a negative sense. If you deliberately imbalance the system, you also open it up to be abused.

The thing is, you seem to be trying to balance two entirely different spheres against each other - which is an outdated game design philosophy. 3rd edition tossed it out the window, pretty much. You don't balance game mechanic benefits with role-playing penalties. If elves are unpopular, fine. At least they don't get filled with arrows when they enter an elven forest. If humans can trade with goblins, fine. I'm sure the goblins have lots of nice things to sell.

Whatever you want to do is up to you - and whatever works for you is fine by me. However, I'm wondering why, exactly, you're bringing up this topic. In your initial post, it seemed to me that there was a dispute with some of your players, and you came here seeking advice - what other people thought about your removing the intrinsic human benefits. So far, the responses seem to me to have been pretty much unanimously negative in that regard. Yet, in the post I'm quoting, I don't quite get that impression.

It's not like it's the end of the world or anything. It just seems so - pointless to do what you've done.

Green Knight

02-26-2004, 07:50 AM

It gives humans versatility and flexibility, which are what humans are

portrayed as in 3E. You could even try to make up an explanation WHY

humans get this bonus. Something like: Humans are short-live, and so

rarely reach very high levels, but they live with intensity unknown to

longer-lived folk.

They don`t HAVE to have bonus skill points and a bonus feat, but if you

take it away, then you must give something back as well. Otherwise,

humans become the weaker race, and while some might actually like that

(from a roleplaying perspective or whatever) the majority won`t buy

that, preferring somewhat balanced races power-wise.

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

From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion

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

Sent: 25. februar 2004 20:19

To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM

Subject: Re: Human bonuses [2#2296]

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=2296

graham anderson wrote:

thats partly what i am getting at

but i still dont agree with humans gaining the bonus abilities and no

one has managed to explain to my satisfaction why they should have them

except the obsesion some people have with power gaming and also the need

to try and balance all the races(why). i also think that a bonus feet

and skill points is worth a lot more than what most of the other races

get making if anything humans overpowered.

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

****

Birthright-l Archives:

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

Green Knight

02-26-2004, 07:50 AM

This is all wrong (and why do you think this is a problem at all, if all

your players are human?).

Other races have advantages and disadvantages, which roughly balance out

when compared to the humans extra skill point and feat (and lets face

it, those are nice abilities to have at low level, but they aren`t

exactly extremely powerful). Your insistence that humans are in fact

MORE powerful than other races, must be dismissed as pure fantasy on

your part.

Most players are not power gamers. Most players want to have a good

time, and most players think they`re having a good time if the odds

aren`t against them in the first place.

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

From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion

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

Sent: 26. februar 2004 00:57

To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM

Subject: Re: Human bonuses [2#2296]

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=2296

graham anderson wrote:

People don`t go running for the other races in my games only one

person has played a non human in that case an elf.

People here don`t seem to think that humans being the dominant race is

a benefit it is of huge advantage.

Most races have benefits and flaws that roughly balance out so why

should humans gain additional benefits from a balanced begining.

Power gamers exist anyway they aim for certain prestige classes etc it

is up to a dm to control them.

Just look at kobolds they are inferior to the other races but they

exists in the books it just seems to be this thing about humans should

be great and better than everyone else, why.

In my games i tend to have people begin at the same level but

variations can happen from thier and if your players get upset about

this i would look at who is playing in your games.

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

****

Birthright-l Archives:

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

irdeggman

02-26-2004, 11:13 AM

Graham,

Make sure you don't take things personally. Even though it seems that people are making personal attacks by their posts, they really aren't, except for maybe one person but I won't go into that one - I'll leave it to the moderators {hint hint}.

Rule one of forums - most responses will be in the form of critiques. People tend to be critical of proposals and comment on the flaws they perceive in them. You generally won't get "Good idea I agree completely" as responses.

But what I see as an issue is that while you asked for opinions what you seemed to really be seeking is validation of you own opinion. Sometimes we need to step back and see what are we really trying to do. OK so much for the philosophy. We now return to our regulary scheduled program. ;)

Don E

02-26-2004, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by ecliptic+Feb 26 2004, 05:47 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ecliptic @ Feb 26 2004, 05:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I was reading this and I am absolutely dumb founded. I mean I couldn't believe the ignorance of it all.
[/b]
I don't think it is as much ignorance in this case as it is two completely different discussions. One side advocating a standard DnD balancing between the various player races. The other side is more of the philosphy that game numerical game balance is of less importance, and the GM should seek to make for an intresting game for all by using various roleplaying mechanisms, like role played interaction bonuses and variable reward systems.

Neither is the right or wrong solution, they are simply different games, and as such there will always be a dispute here that cannot be solved.

<!--QuoteBegin-graham anderson@Feb 26 2004, 12:56 AM
Just look at kobolds they are inferior to the other races but they exists in the books it just seems to be this thing about humans should be great and better than everyone else, why.
[/quote]
I agree that the Kobold is a much weaker race than the other player races as it is presented in the monster manual. I would guess there are other monsters out there that are just as bad if not worse when it comes to balance. That does not mean a single other race should be dragged down.

IMC I have solved the kobold problem partially by giving them a bonus feat and an ECL of -1. I know that is something that is not supported by the standard DnD rules and it might have some logical flaws to it, but it allows the race to be used as a player race if one wants to follow the 'balance paradigm' presented in the core rulebooks.

Cheers,
Don E

graham anderson

02-26-2004, 02:59 PM

Ok a reply to ecliptic

I would look at yourself before looking at others

As for aging a 70 year old human ha ha ha i taunt you with my zimerframe
You learn stuff even when you are just wandering about or talking with people and 700 year experiance of that is going to have you learn a lot. Humans are more adaptable but it is down to the roleplayer to do that, not all humans are adaptable.

Next unless you only play hackfests a game should contain a balance of social and non social actions. Indead one of the best games i have ever played in had no combat at all. Otherwise why pick a roque or bard. As for balancing 101 not everything is balanced in the books so why should humans be.

OK again you seam to totaly have missed the point about humans being the dominant culture fine an elf can wonder around in an elven forest but humans can go almost anywhere.

I was not trying to start an argument it works fine in my games and i was trying to find out if anybody else had tried to do something similar maybe in a slightly different way. But i was also interested to see if anybody had an argument for the humans having the bonuses that i had not heard and that might change my mind. Unfortunatly on that score i am just hearing same arguments i have heard before.
I think that some intersting things for me have come out of this such as discovering other people use racial weapon proficiency for instance.

Ok again i dont force them to play humans they choose characters based on a background thay have made up and a character they want to play which is more important to them than having a feat or some skill points. One made up a background of a former brecht mage guild member, another a highlander of mhoried etc. Why are my players stupid to choose character over power.

Humans being the dominant race does have a big enough benefit to remove the other benefits in my opinion so long as you are not playing a hackfest.

I have no problem with elves and dwarves geting a few bonuses above and beyond as they are elder races that live longer and in the case of the elves are more intelligent.

The sidhe dont detect secret doors and the balance is between combat and social interaction.

Kobold can be player characters like goblins who also get a bum stear look at unearthed arcana, savage species , races of faerun and there are plobably others i am missing. In my games no race is a monster they may have primitive and brutal cultures but they are not monster just to be killed. Just look at troll they are a real menace in vosgard and have thier own tongue and culture.

graham anderson

02-26-2004, 03:36 PM

Well i wasn't trying to rile people up although i seam to have done a good job of it.
There doesn't seam to be much support for it here indeed some people seem realy against it but a lot of the arguments are that humans are slightly weaker in a fight a game is usualy not just a hackfest but a balance of combat and social interaction where i give humans the advantage.

a fifth level elf roque is slightly better in a fight
but a fith level human roque is better at social interaction that is where the balance comes from.

I do use a low level, low magic setting and wizards also might be considered slightly weaker in my games but but they gain more fear and respect in game to compensate, people dont realy know what a wizard can do.

Its up to the players wether we play a hackfest or a social game i dont force them into either and we usually end up in the middle between the two.

The power gamers in my games are the ones that want the human benefits but not having them doesn't make them change to an elf.

I was not trying to start an argument it works fine in my games and i was trying to find out if anybody else had tried to do something similar maybe in a slightly different way. But i was also interested to see if anybody had an argument for the humans having the bonuses that i had not heard and that might change my mind. Unfortunatly on that score i am just hearing same arguments i have heard before.
I think that some intersting things for me have come out of this such as discovering other people use racial weapon proficiency for instance.

ok being good in a fight is not the be all and end all and people keep saying that i shouldn't make humans weaker in a fight why pick a bard or roque then they arn't great in a fight.

Again not all races balance out read the books.

I don't take anything personal irdeggman this is a debate and I realy am intersted to hear what other people think its just that they seam obsesed with how tough you are in a fight and to me that is the least important thing. I would be realy interested to hear any arguments that havent already been voiced but a lot of the responses are just the same thing again and again by all means make your point of view known but i am more ineterested in points of view and arguments that have not yet been voiced.

Like you don-e i have made alteration to the kobolds for my games giving them some of the advanteges dwarves have like a more dense body making them stronger for thier size and a few others.

Birthright-L

02-26-2004, 04:30 PM

> a fifth level elf roque is slightly better in a fight

> but a fith level human roque is better at social interaction that is

> where the balance comes from.

I`m not really against this per se, I just prefer if this balance was

reflected by actual game scores. For example, in my campaign I give all

elves a limited access to the Bardic Lore ability and I`ve made Bard the

favored class of elves. They can use bardic lore 1/day if they are not

bards, and an additional 2 times per day everytime they select a feat.

Their character level is used. This was the best way I found to reflect

elven immortality within the gam

It might be interesting to give all races something like this. For

example, a human might be able to re-roll reaction checks for

non-hostile creatures or receive a +5 bonus to Sense Motive checks 1/day

or more times if feats are selected. (Each culture could have a

different skill instead of Sense Motive.)

Halflings could use a similiar mechanic for their shadow world

sorceries. I don`t know about dwarves or orogs or goblins or half-wemic

kobolds...

But simply saying human NPCs have a -1 reaction adjustment against

nonhuman PCs seems good enough for me. Just some idea so we can start

to look at game effects and really compare balance.

One idea I like is to have quite a few "human only" feats that reflect

their social prowess. D20Modern had a few social-based and

intelligence-based abilities that might be useful for this purpose.

Elves could have feats that turn inherent resistances into immunities.

Dwarves... Well... They don`t really need exclusive feats.

Hmmm. I never realised if before but dwarf seems to be my basic vanilla

race rather than humans... I should work on that...

--Lord Rahvin

graham anderson

02-26-2004, 05:16 PM

I considered doing something similar myself at one time. Giving the elves bardic lore albeit a weaker version and giving the humans the bonus feat back if that feat was used in a background area like the feats in the wheel of time book. Like smooth talk +2 to diplomacy and sense motive(brecht lands) or saddleback +3 to ride(for khinasi nomads). I like the idea of regional feats like this as they arent to powerfull and they tend to be more social and cultural than combative. I might even use this in my next game regional background feats , yes its possible it gives the humans a couple of bonuses but not to meny in my eyes but i still dont like the extra skill points.

irdeggman

02-26-2004, 09:08 PM

Originally posted by graham anderson@Feb 26 2004, 12:16 PM
I considered doing something similar myself at one time. Giving the elves bardic lore albeit a weaker version and giving the humans the bonus feat back if that feat was used in a background area like the feats in the wheel of time book. Like smooth talk +2 to diplomacy and sense motive(brecht lands) or saddleback +3 to ride(for khinasi nomads). I like the idea of regional feats like this as they arent to powerfull and they tend to be more social and cultural than combative. I might even use this in my next game regional background feats , yes its possible it gives the humans a couple of bonuses but not to meny in my eyes but i still dont like the extra skill points.
Try 'forcing' the humans to use the bonus skill points (the first level ones that is - the bonus skill point per level is hardly overpowering) on regional skills only.

This is something that will end up in the revised Chap 1, the trade off being that any skill that has ranks bought in this manner (at first level) is considered a class skill from now on. So in effect a human character would use his 4 bonus skill points on regional/cultural skills but those would be considered class skills from now on. He wouldn't gain more than 4 'extra' class skills using this method and they are regional/cultural. Again this is similar to Wheel of Time concepts.

Expect to see the revised Chap 1 out for discussion sometime next week, my goal.

graham anderson

02-26-2004, 09:26 PM

I just don't like the idea of humans getting extra skill points or class skills a feat is more acceptable to me as it is a one of bonus.

RaspK_FOG

02-27-2004, 12:36 AM

One thing that has been misunderstood is that the extra skill points do not represent as much adaptability (that would be more class skills) as it does represent ease of learning: a human can learn faster than an elf. Period.

Now, for those of you who would like to see elves as monster characters, I have brewed the following idea; I hope you like it:

3 Hit Dice Humanoid

+2 Dex, +2 Cha

Immortal
Sidhelien Immunities
Sidhelien Resistances
Sidhelien bonus skill points (+12)
Infamy

Feats to choose from (all have a prerequisite of "elf"):
===================================

Feat Name Prerequisites Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leave no Path Survival 3 ranks Trackless Step.
Nature Mage Arcane spellcaster Add Nature Magic spells to your list.
Woodland Strider Survival 3 ranks Woodland Stride.

ecliptic

02-27-2004, 02:41 AM

There doesn't seam to be much support for it here indeed some people seem realy against it but a lot of the arguments are that humans are slightly weaker in a fight a game is usualy not just a hackfest but a balance of combat and social interaction where i give humans the advantage.

You also should never use a roleplaying aspect to balance a game mechanic aspect, ever.

Next unless you only play hackfests a game should contain a balance of social and non social actions. Indead one of the best games i have ever played in had no combat at all. Otherwise why pick a roque or bard.

A rogue has sneak attack, alot of other special abilites and alot of skills? A bard has nice illusion magic, bard knowledge comes in handy, and the only arcane caster that can heal.

As for balancing 101 not everything is balanced in the books so why should humans be.

Everything is pretty damned balance, I have yet to find something in the core rulebooks that is overly unbalancing to the game.

OK again you seam to totaly have missed the point about humans being the dominant culture fine an elf can wonder around in an elven forest but humans can go almost anywhere.

Exactly what is so special about this 'almost anywhere' place that results in humans becoming weaker then everyone else? I can run an entire campaign in just the elven lands and the neighboring enemy territories as easily as I can run an entire campaign in a humans kingdom and its neighboring enemy territories.

I was not trying to start an argument it works fine in my games and i was trying to find out if anybody else had tried to do something similar maybe in a slightly different way.

So you are trying to convince yourself what you are doing is right and justified.

But i was also interested to see if anybody had an argument for the humans having the bonuses that i had not heard and that might change my mind. Unfortunatly on that score i am just hearing same arguments i have heard before.

Your mind is so set on it, that it was even pointless to make this thread.

Ok again i dont force them to play humans they choose characters based on a background thay have made up and a character they want to play which is more important to them than having a feat or some skill points. One made up a background of a former brecht mage guild member, another a highlander of mhoried etc. Why are my players stupid to choose character over power.

You can advertently or inadverently make them feel like they have to. If all your campaigns take place in human lands for example.
You pretty much cheat your players by taking away the race balance of humans and basically force them to play the humans.

Humans being the dominant race does have a big enough benefit to remove the other benefits in my opinion so long as you are not playing a hackfest

Again, a roleplaying aspect should never balance a mechanical aspect.

I have no problem with elves and dwarves geting a few bonuses above and beyond as they are elder races that live longer and in the case of the elves are more intelligent.

Ever actually ask your players if they do have a problem? or are you the type of DM that is so arrogant and stubborn of your ways that its 'your way or no way'?

The sidhe dont detect secret doors and the balance is between combat and social interaction.

No they just have other things like immunity to disease, not having to sleep, and nature stride.

Kobold can be player characters like goblins who also get a bum stear look at unearthed arcana, savage species , races of faerun and there are plobably others i am missing. In my games no race is a monster they may have primitive and brutal cultures but they are not monster just to be killed. Just look at troll they are a real menace in vosgard and have thier own tongue and culture.

So are you going to just let anyone play a regular troll in your campaign? No balancing? or do you simply think that the fact that trolls are hated everywhere is enough balance?

Well i wasn't trying to rile people up although i seam to have done a good job of it.
There doesn't seam to be much support for it here indeed some people seem realy against it but a lot of the arguments are that humans are slightly weaker in a fight a game is usualy not just a hackfest but a balance of combat and social interaction where i give humans the advantage.

How social interaction works out is up to the DM and players, not the rule mechanics of races.

I do use a low level, low magic setting and wizards also might be considered slightly weaker in my games but but they gain more fear and respect in game to compensate, people dont realy know what a wizard can do.

So you get your players jumping say 'oOoOo look I am a mighty wizard, fear me!'? Unless they are generically wearing a wizards robe or pointy hat, exactly how are they going to ever know?

Its up to the players wether we play a hackfest or a social game i dont force them into either and we usually end up in the middle between the two.

Just from the actions of removing humans balance you are trying to force them in one type of game over the other.

The power gamers in my games are the ones that want the human benefits but not having them doesn't make them change to an elf.

Wanting the human benefits ISN'T power gaming. How many times does one have to explain to you on what power gaming is? If they were power gamers they would have played an elf. So obviously they aren't powergamers.

You simply cheat them out of what the human should have. You probably hurt their overall morale in the process.

Again not all races balance out read the books.

Your right, they don't gnomes need a little boost, aswell as half-orcs and half-elves.

its just that they seam obsesed with how tough you are in a fight and to me that is the least important thing.

It just sounds to me like it annoys you that we want a balanced system. Sorry but D&D is a system based on specific mechanics, not a guide to how to roleplay. Roleplaying is seperate, its up to the DM and players to do it.

I get it, you want mechanical change that fixes something you as a DM can't do. In the process you hamper your players ability to customize their character. Wether they wanted to dedicate their advantages in a socialistic skills such as Diplomacy or a more typical adventuring skills such as Hide. You take it away from them in a attempt to force them to do something you want them to do.

graham anderson

02-27-2004, 03:55 AM

Another reply to ecliptic

Is english your first language you seam to have some trouble understanding.

I refer you to my previous answers as you are just saying the same things try reading my answers again and maybe thinking this time.

I am not trying to convince my self its justified i believe in a birthright setting it is and as for who's mind is set i would look at your self before looking at others as i said before.

I do ask my players what they think how would i know who likes human benefits and who doesn't try reading the posts. Although its 50/50 on the human issue all people in my games are quite happy to have elves be a little more powerfull.

As for trolls i dont use the big powerfull regenerating trolls from the monster manual if you had read my other post you would know this. If someone came with a good character idea and background i would let them be a troll but if someone came and said i want to be a troll cos they are big and hard the answer will be no.

Try thinking its when a wizard cats a spell.

I am not trying to force them into a social or non social game its the same whatever system we play.

I am sorry it just sounds like you are a power gamer and the worst sort you are someone that will quote pages and lines in a book and argue with the dm when he disagrees with you or says its a house rule.

I think we should just agree that we have no common ground.

graham anderson

02-27-2004, 04:02 AM

How about elves not necesarily being monsters but having a higher starting level and more bonuses .

So that you give them some more bonuses but no elf is lower than 3rd level a bit more like the drow only not.

ecliptic

02-27-2004, 05:24 AM

I refer you to my previous answers as you are just saying the same things try reading my answers again and maybe thinking this time.

Obvious if you can't tell, I am not satisified with lame answers you gave and the sidestepping you seemed to enjoy doing.

I do ask my players what they think how would i know who likes human benefits and who doesn't try reading the posts. Although its 50/50 on the human issue all people in my games are quite happy to have elves be a little more powerfull.

If half of your gamers disagree with it, they obviously aren't too happy.

I am sorry it just sounds like you are a power gamer and the worst sort you are someone that will quote pages and lines in a book and argue with the dm when he disagrees with you or says its a house rule.

How can I be powergamer when I AM the DM? I don't actually ever play.

geeman

02-27-2004, 07:00 AM

At 06:24 AM 2/27/2004 +0100, ecliptic wrote:

>Obvious if you can`t tell, I am not satisified with lame answers you gave

>and the sidestepping you seemed to enjoy doing.

While we all appreciate a good argument around here (some more than others)

let`s try to at least have SOME substantive comments in posts, shall

we? When posts are entirely dedicated to deriding other posters they are

pretty easily recognized as being off topic. Essentially that means one

should present an argument to counter a "lame answer" rather than just

describe it as one.

Gary

Birthright-l Moderator

irdeggman

02-27-2004, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by graham anderson@Feb 26 2004, 04:26 PM
I just don't like the idea of humans getting extra skill points or class skills a feat is more acceptable to me as it is a one of bonus.
This seems tobe counter to the stance you make concerning humans interacting ability.

Most skills are not combat oriented ones. Many of them are definitely social interation ones. If you wished you could even force the humans to use their starting bonus skills on interaction skills. Then define what an interaction skill is - the list sould include Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive and the like. This puuts a focus on what you want to do - you would still apply circumstance bonuses/penalties to specific interactions and humans get something instead of the specifically vague interaction ones.

Again many people have pointed out that not all humans get along with each other, not all humans get along with goblins (you can't convince me that in the heartlands goblins aren't hated and feared by humans due to the presence of the Spiderfell). So in effect these are all things that must be put into play to balance the interaction between races/cultures.

For instance in Cwmb Bheinn (in Vosgaard) it is the one elven province that has good relations with humans.

In Tuarhievel the guilds are run by humans. Specifically the Stonecrown Coster guild, run by a FA.

If using the PS of Tuarhievel, there is a human sitting on the throne as guardian of her yet to be born child.

All in all there are far more political ramifications regarding the races than can be handled by a simple statement that humans can go anywhere without danger of being killed and hence get a tremendous inherent interaction bonus because of this.

All in all, even though you asked for opinions you do seem to have already set your mind on a path that you aren't really willing to consider to be flawed. I guess we will have to agree to disagree here. :D

graham anderson

02-27-2004, 01:21 PM

The fact that I use this should tell poeple that I think it is apropriate in birthright and elsewhere I wanted to find out what the people here thought but its the same arguments i have heard before over and over if i didn't agree with them to begin with why would i agree with them if people say them lots of times.

The only thing's that have realy come out of this is that i might look at a higher starting level elf but with additional bonuses and the humans might get a limited feat in my next game. Also that other people use racial weapon proficiencys.

People seem happy to play in my games and keep coming back so i have no reason to change what i see as a valid house rule that if you include me more than 50% of the people involved agree with.

I just don't see when the races aren't balanced that a human should be as good as an elf or dwarf it fundamentaly doesn't make any sense to me if you want to argue for it then you should balance all the races and not just humans by improoving the weaker races.

I don't think that a lot of people are understanding what i am trying to get at but as i said before we will just have to agree to disagree.

Mark_Aurel

02-27-2004, 02:30 PM

Graham, you seem to be contradicting yourself somewhat in order to defend your house rule.

Previously, you stated that you thought humans were balanced because they could 'go anywhere' and they were good at interaction - and that giving them their standard bonus feat and skill points would overpower them.

Now, you're stating you think elves and dwarves should be better than humans, because they're immortals and totally awesome and cool.

So, do you think

1) Humans are balanced by taking away their normal bonuses, and overpowered otherwise, or

2) Humans are weaker than the other races by taking away their normal bonuses?

Next, you seem to entirely disregard the arguments of those that disagree with you. 'I've heard it before,' you say. That you may have, but when people take the time to address your points, you should give somewhat more consideration than that. You also have a somewhat condescending tone going - you seem pretty much set on referring to anyone that disagrees with you as a 'power gamer.' I'm pretty sure that people that simply want the most basic standard bonuses given to humans by the book shouldn't possibly be called 'power gamers' just because their grinch DM is trying to take away one of the defining features of humans...

You seem to be quite content with a 50% approval rating from your players. I wonder - would the 50% that agrees with you be dissatisfied if humans got their normal bonuses? Would they object loudly and threaten to walk out of the game because their human characters got a bonus? Somehow, I doubt it. The overall satisfaction among your players might be higher if they got what they should have. And - you said your group had a single player of a non-human character - he wouldn't happen to be in the 50% that agrees with you, would he? If he is, that would mean that most of the people that are affected by your ruling disagrees with it.

Perhaps the most important question is: Does it make the game more fun for your players to take away their bonuses?

graham anderson

02-27-2004, 02:59 PM

I said we would just have to agree to dis agree but if you don't want to then here we go

a reply to mark auril

I am not contradicting my self

when i mention the weaker races being powered up it is because a few of you have tried to claim that all races are equal and i am replying to that again

I think that humans are more balanced and more realistic because of the way i do it

Also i think humans are overpowered compared to most races

I say they are saying the same things again and again because some people have more than one post with the same argument almost word for word

No i just refer to ecliptic as a power gamer or a tyrant gm if he prefers or if you mean in my games some of the players are self confessed power gamers thats what they like to do.

People in my games don't object loudly or threaten to walk out when i first implemented this i sat every one down and we talked about this and other house rules for an entire night before we began the first game.

People are very satisfied why do you think they keep asking me to dm

All that those who think humans should get bonuses said was that they liked the basic rules and would rather humans had the bonuses its not like we are at each others throats and the issue has never come up again. Note the fact it didn't stop people picking human characters.

The elf character was only in one of the games and yes he was one of the players that agreed with me so look at it another way no one who thought that humans should have the bonuses picked another race because they didn't get them.

I think it does make the game more fun and the success of the games should speak for its self.

As for a condesending tone i would try reading your own posts you might learn what condescending is.

RaspK_FOG

02-28-2004, 03:14 PM

I think we all have a measure of guilt in the matter of ruining the thread; it seems we forgot to take off our gloves and snap them at each other... Rather, we took out our BFGs, shot at any manners regarding threads, then jumped at each other side's throats; and that does include most of us.

In any case, Graham (I hope it does not insult you, my use of your first name), it seems the Birthright community in general does not angry with the idea you have, even if some people do want Sidhelien to be more powerful, including myself. Yet most of us do (some others don't) want elves to receive a level adjustment that fits their abilities. That's another matter however, since your suggestion was to remove the standard PHB human racial traits of 4 additional skill points at 1st level plus 1 additional skill point at all other levels plus 1 feat as a bonus feat at 1st level; raising the Sidhelien stats and lowering the humane stats are two different things. To the rest of us, let the matter be as it is.

My point of view in life is that, if I cannot change one's mind, so be it.
One last note, however, on my part: I do use reaction modifiers a lot, but this is still a matter of role-playing, not rules-keeping. If there is a human who becomes famous for saving a three-digit number of elves for whatever reason, he would never receive a penalty from most elves; there still are, however, many people (and, please, do not go on with your apotheosis of elves; it is unrealistic...) do hate others for what they were born! A disgusting but existent attitude: racism.