PDA

View Full Version : One little problem just noticed with Ch 2



tcharazazel
05-08-2004, 04:41 AM
Raesene,

Just was rereading Ch 2, and wanted to ask you if you will be altering the Bloodline scores for the NPCs in the atlas? Considering that PCs will be starting out with much lower bloodline scores compared to the BCRS, and 2e, it would be rather important otherwise PCs wil have a tough time trying to compete.

My point of reference for this question, is that in 2e the average blood score for a great bloodline for a starting character would be 36. Now with the new Ch 2 revision the average starting bloodscore would be 19. The average major bloodline in 2e is 28 while now its 15.

So, keeping Avan's bloodscore of 70 would be WAAAY beyond anything a PC could ever reach as a starting character. A less extreme example is the Elinie ruler Hassan Ibn Daouta with major bloodline of Basaia with a bloodscore of 47. Even, Rogr Aglondier with a minor bloodline of Masela has a bloodscore of 21. The typical bloodline scores in 2e range from 20-50... this is significantly different from the range for the new Ch 2 bloodline scores for starting players, who will range from 3-30. So, the upper end is scewed compared to 2e.

This begs the question, will you be halving the bloodscores of the NPCs or is the revised Ch2 just broken?

irdeggman
05-08-2004, 03:48 PM
Well let's see here,

Avan is not a starting character so the bloodline score a 1st level scion could have doesn't apply.

If he as being 'built' as a 1st level scion logic similar to the following could be applied:

Initial 3d6 score for blood score (15, since he is a scion a player would put a higher value here) double this to a 30 for initial score.

Add 2 levels of scion (he has a great bloodline) this adds +8 to a total of 38.

It could reasonably be assumed he has the great heritage template due to his family protecting the Imperial City add +4 to a total of 42.

Now he is a 9th level fighter who has ruled for a fairly long time so it is not out of the question that he has raised his bloodline score by good leadership a few times during his rule so add say 4 or 5 to reflect this to a total of 47.

There is the possibility of bloodtheft or ursurpation over the years so the possibility exists to raise it even more that way.

Also there is the investiture at his father's death which would have raised his bloodline score even higher at that time.

Now since his father was a prestigious ruler himself, Avan's initial bloodline score would most likely not have been determined as would a starting character since it would have been the average of his parents' scores at his birth, which would most likely have yielded a starting number of much higher than 30.

Bottom line since Avan's life as a ruler has not been documented it is entirely possible for him to end up with a 70 bloodline score by this point in his life. The present chap 2 allows an easier time of 'justifying' the 2nd ed bloodline scores for NPCs using this type of logic. One can't assume that an NPC regent is a starting level character that has had no story or adventures or situations that have caused him/her to advance. The 'missing' history could fairly reasonably be written to 'justify' the present conditions of the NPCs, like Avan for example.

Osprey
05-08-2004, 05:26 PM
Irdeggman,

I think the "double the starting ability score" part was missed.

But I have a few thoughts, though I know you don't want to re-edit anything in Chapter 2.

1st: It would be REALLY helpful if the process for determining starting bloodline was made much clearer. I think a table or large print section could help to define these parameters. The "double the starting ability score" part was just a sentence buried in a much larger paragraph. Also, this would map out the order of steps, such as "double the score first, then add any template modifiers."

2nd: The templates only add +4 (major), or +8 (great), possibly another +4 for Great heritage though very few if any PC's will ever actually start with this (and it can be torn away by a DM quite easily given its current conditions)...

Doesn't it seem like the differences in bloodline score between minor, major, and great bloodlines are now going to be a good deal less than in the original game? See, the template modifiers were left the same as in the BRCS, but the potency of bloodline scores was essentially halved, meaning the differences between the 3 bloodline strengths is going to be comparatively small. Was this in fact intentional, or something of an oversight within the conversion process? And will it still match up with the NPC's? Or should the templates be adding something like +8 for major, +16 for Great?
These numbers may sound high at first, but consider: in 2e a Great bloodline was 8d8 starting, or 8-64. Now the max. starting is (18x2)+8 (+12 for great heritage, but technically this is impossible in the official version of Anuire except for Avan, who isn't available as a PC), or 44 max. That's 20 below the original potential! Don't you think this discrepancy is something of a skewed result, or did you want to lower the upper end of PC starting bloodlines by that much?

At +16 for great bloodlines, we now have a 52 max. bloodline, which at least approaches the original numbers, while +8 for major would yield a 44 max., which is nicely close to the 2e amount of 8d6 (48 max.).

Consider carefully the domain effects of lowering the upper end of bloodline scores: domain collections will get capped even faster than before, especially as the Maximum Regency Reserves are now at an all-time low (20% lower than BRCS), bloodline growth through regency is 1/2 that of BRCS (this is fine by me in and of itself, but a problem with lower starting scores I think), and the upper-end NPC's with the original bloodline scores are going to over-muscle the PC's even more.

The problem with this 2-pronged power-down of bloodline scores from 2e is that domain sizes aren't going to change at all, which means it's going to be even more common than it already was for there to be domains much bigger than bloodline scores can really utilize - a trend I found somewhat annoying in the original game, and now it's going to get worse.
Larger starting bloodline scores for the major/great scions might help emphasize the differences between the bloodlines on a domain scale (a difference that is rather paltry in the current Ch. 2 system). I think this is important, as it was a prominent theme of 2e BR that great bloodlines could really take advantage of much larger realms.

Those are my thoughts on the matter. Sorry for bringing it all up again, but I think the domain effects of the Ch. 2 revision are now becoming more apparent as we consider the Ch. 5 domain rules and collections. As much as we'd like to finish one chunk and say "Presto, it is done and unalterable!", the reality is that every chapter is interrelated with every other chapter, and final editing and revision really must be allowed for as a result of the core ideas of every other chapter getting hammered out.

And a final brighter note :) : otherwise, as I've begun playtesting the other parts of Ch. 2 in my campaign, I must say they're working really well thus far. My players are really happy with the +2 permanent ability bonus for the Heightened Ability powers, I'm very happy with being able to force my players to roll randomly when they gain bloodline powers ;) , and the Scion Class Levels have worked out very nicely all in all (with the exceptionof Vorynn's, which I've modified to add to arcane caster levels now, and that has also been a real improvement for scions of Vorynn). So for the most part: an excellent product! Hoo-rah! :D

Osprey

Raesene Andu
05-08-2004, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by tcharazazel@May 8 2004, 02:11 PM
So, keeping Avan's bloodscore of 70 would be WAAAY beyond anything a PC could ever reach as a starting character. A less extreme example is the Elinie ruler Hassan Ibn Daouta with major bloodline of Basaia with a bloodscore of 47. Even, Rogr Aglondier with a minor bloodline of Masela has a bloodscore of 21. The typical bloodline scores in 2e range from 20-50... this is significantly different from the range for the new Ch 2 bloodline scores for starting players, who will range from 3-30. So, the upper end is scewed compared to 2e.
The NPCs will start with the same bloodline as they did in 2E. Simple reasoning behind this is that none are starting players, most received their bloodline from their predecessor.

Looking at your example, Darien Avan may have started with a lower bloodline but when he became prince of Avanil he was invested with the bloodline of his father, the same bloodline that has been built up over many centuries to the level it is today. Same with Ibn Daouta, his family has been ruling Elinie for a while. Rogr Aglondier didn't even have a bloodline before he became ruler of Ilien, he was a commoner.

So it effectivly doesn't matter what NPC's starting bloodline was, or even if they have one at all. The only thing that matters is what the bloodline they get when they become a regent is...

The rules in chapter 2 are only meant for start PC scions, not NPCs and PCs seem very capable of raising their own bloodline, after all they are the hero's of the story.

irdeggman
05-09-2004, 03:59 AM
1st: It would be REALLY helpful if the process for determining starting bloodline was made much clearer. I think a table or large print section could help to define these parameters. The "double the starting ability score" part was just a sentence buried in a much larger paragraph. Also, this would map out the order of steps, such as "double the score first, then add any template modifiers."

Could be, but the 'normal' method of character production is:

Ability scores (includes blood score)
Racial modifers
Class
Skills/feats
template additions

IIRC

Therefore things should be working the exact sameway as normal. And in reality no player character should be starting with the Great Heritage template, it should be used as a reward/motivation for players to play their characters as the great leaders that they are. Starting out with it is sort of like putting the cart before the horse if you see my drift.

[/quote]2nd: The templates only add +4 (major), or +8 (great), possibly another +4 for Great heritage though very few if any PC's will ever actually start with this (and it can be torn away by a DM quite easily given its current conditions)...[/quote]


The numbers were chosen to essentially ensure that a character would revieve a blood ability with the scion class (not they are not templates anymore but actual classes, which require a minimum exp level in order to obtain). The only scion template is the Great Heritage template which in order to keep it from adding a level adjustment it is one that can be lost as well as gained and is totally controlled by the DM.


Doesn't it seem like the differences in bloodline score between minor, major, and great bloodlines are now going to be a good deal less than in the original game? See, the template modifiers were left the same as in the BRCS, but the potency of bloodline scores was essentially halved, meaning the differences between the 3 bloodline strengths is going to be comparatively small. Was this in fact intentional, or something of an oversight within the conversion process? And will it still match up with the NPC's? Or should the templates be adding something like +8 for major, +16 for Great?

These numbers may sound high at first, but consider: in 2e a Great bloodline was 8d8 starting, or 8-64. Now the max. starting is (18x2)+8 (+12 for great heritage, but technically this is impossible in the official version of Anuire except for Avan, who isn't available as a PC), or 44 max. That's 20 below the original potential! Don't you think this discrepancy is something of a skewed result, or did you want to lower the upper end of PC starting bloodlines by that much?


At +16 for great bloodlines, we now have a 52 max. bloodline, which at least approaches the original numbers, while +8 for major would yield a 44 max., which is nicely close to the 2e amount of 8d6 (48 max.).


Actually they are a whole lot more balanced then they were in 2nd ed. In 2nd ed it was possible for someone with a tainted bloodline to have aa higher bloodline score than one with a great bloodline. 4d14 (4 to 16) versus 8d8 (8 to 64). With the current method the player 'chooses' whether or not he wants a higher bloodline score or a higher standard ability score. Once the scion levels are added then a bonus is applied which should, in most cases, make the scion with the higher bloodline strength end up with a higher bloodline score.


Consider carefully the domain effects of lowering the upper end of bloodline scores: domain collections will get capped even faster than before, especially as the Maximum Regency Reserves are now at an all-time low (20% lower than BRCS), bloodline growth through regency is 1/2 that of BRCS (this is fine by me in and of itself, but a problem with lower starting scores I think), and the upper-end NPC's with the original bloodline scores are going to over-muscle the PC's even more.

The problem with this 2-pronged power-down of bloodline scores from 2e is that domain sizes aren't going to change at all, which means it's going to be even more common than it already was for there to be domains much bigger than bloodline scores can really utilize - a trend I found somewhat annoying in the original game, and now it's going to get worse.
Larger starting bloodline scores for the major/great scions might help emphasize the differences between the bloodlines on a domain scale (a difference that is rather paltry in the current Ch. 2 system). I think this is important, as it was a prominent theme of 2e BR that great bloodlines could really take advantage of much larger realms.

But unlike the 2nd ed game, RP are not 'required' to be spent on any domain action, except for realm spells. Hence the need for having large amounts of RP in order to be an effective ruler is greatly reduced.

[/quote]Those are my thoughts on the matter. Sorry for bringing it all up again, but I think the domain effects of the Ch. 2 revision are now becoming more apparent as we consider the Ch. 5 domain rules and collections. As much as we'd like to finish one chunk and say "Presto, it is done and unalterable!", the reality is that every chapter is interrelated with every other chapter, and final editing and revision really must be allowed for as a result of the core ideas of every other chapter getting hammered out.


Which was why we waited to put out the entire BRCS-playtest as a a whole document instead of individual chapters. If I had advertised that everything was to be revisited and fine tuned after the entire product was revised in order to ensure that it meshed well together then people would have assumed that they would have another chance to get what they considered 'important' reinserted into the individual chapters - that is not going to happen, but the fine tuning for consistency will, of course be open for a good look.

[quote]And a final brighter note : otherwise, as I've begun playtesting the other parts of Ch. 2 in my campaign, I must say they're working really well thus far. My players are really happy with the +2 permanent ability bonus for the Heightened Ability powers, I'm very happy with being able to force my players to roll randomly when they gain bloodline powers , and the Scion Class Levels have worked out very nicely all in all (with the exceptionof Vorynn's, which I've modified to add to arcane caster levels now, and that has also been a real improvement for scions of Vorynn). So for the most part: an excellent product! Hoo-rah!


Thanks. You know you could have 'forced' them to roll randomly in the first version of Chap 2 also, that wasn't changed.

Osprey
05-09-2004, 07:52 AM
But unlike the 2nd ed game, RP are not 'required' to be spent on any domain action, except for realm spells. Hence the need for having large amounts of RP in order to be an effective ruler is greatly reduced.


Most actions, with the exception of Rule, were only 1 RP per action in 2e. That isn't a "great reduction" in RP expenditures. The bigger reduction in RP expenditures will actually come from skill and feat synergy bonuses. Though thank heavens Fortify is no longer a Domain action. Was that ever a pain! :o

So yeah, I do see your point here. Unfortunately, I'm so deep into my BRCS campaign that it really isn't worth it for me to try and convert the bloodline scores at this point, so I won't be able to playtest the revised 3.5 bloodline system. But I sure hope somebody is or will, because it definitely needs to get played out and reviewed before we know whether or not it really works better. Though you're starting to convince me it could be the best system yet.

The original reservation about the more powerful NPC's being too far over the PCs' heads still worries me though, as does the size of starting domains. If players cap their regency collections early on, there's much less incentive for them to push out and expand other than money (and this seems rather plentiful in the BRCS system, especially for temple and guild regents), and of course pure ambition (which I don't underestimate after seeing the hunger for power in my own players ;) ).

And here's another question: raising bloodline scores. I was reading the rev. Ch. 2, and here's a couple of things it says that either should be clarified, or maybe edited if unclear:


A scion’s bloodline score can be permanently increased by one point by spending a number of RP equal to the character’s target bloodline score, i.e., his current bloodline score plus one. This increase occurs automatically when a scion’s regency reserve exceeds the amount necessary for the increase for two successive domain turns (six months).

So does a regent with a 35 bloodline score have to make certain he has 36 RP (and never drops below this mark for any reason) from say, the start of Summer to the start of Winter, at which point it automatically goes up? Or can it be done voluntarily AND it happens automatically as well if the above conditions are met?


A scion's bloodline cannot increase more than two points per year.
For any reason? So if my PC bloodthefted someone and gained 2 points of bloodline, it would prevent his bloodline being raised through wise rulership until a year had passed? Or is this simply a lack of qualification in the writing? If the latter, then perhaps it should be reworded to indicate that a bloodline cannot be raised through spending RP more than twice a year.

What I'm starting to see as a trend is the revised system has multiple ways to limit bloodline scores from starting high AND growing quickly (especially compared to BCS, as the new system has essentially halved the rate of bloodline growth through rulership, and far more if the 2 points per year limit includes bloodtheft and great gains of regency).

Which is going to make those NPC's with higher-than-possible (for PC's) bloodline scores even more lopsidedly powerful-and PC's won't have a chance to match them on their own terms without a VERY long and successful reign, and only then if the NPC's are comparatively stagnant or unsuccessful rulers (an unlikely prospect for many of them).

I don't know how other DM's run their NPC's, but I tend to run mine as if they're just as ambitious, power-hungry, greedy, and capable as the PC's are. Which means they follow all the same rules, and are as dynamic as they can be within the limits of their political situations. Which means the ones in stable realms, and especially those with vassals, are almost guaranteed to keep going up by 2 bloodline points per year. Which means the PC's don't stand a chance of meeting or even approaching that kind of bloodline score unless they pull some amazing heroic tricks out of their hats, and then only if that 2 points per year limit doesn't apply to raises from usurpation/bloodtheft, investiture, and great gains of regency. If it does, well...they're just screwed.


You know you could have 'forced' them to roll randomly in the first version of Chap 2 also, that wasn't changed.

Yeah, I did when I first started my BRCS-based game, but I stopped after a while when people kept rolling Long Life when they (and I) didn't even want their PC's to have it. This was one of the reasons I was willing to revise the random tables for Ch. 2...and I'm much happier with their present incarnation, I must say. ;)

Osprey

irdeggman
05-09-2004, 08:16 PM
And here's another question: raising bloodline scores. I was reading the rev. Ch. 2, and here's a couple of things it says that either should be clarified, or maybe edited if unclear:


QUOTE
A scion’s bloodline score can be permanently increased by one point by spending a number of RP equal to the character’s target bloodline score, i.e., his current bloodline score plus one. This increase occurs automatically when a scion’s regency reserve exceeds the amount necessary for the increase for two successive domain turns (six months).



So does a regent with a 35 bloodline score have to make certain he has 36 RP (and never drops below this mark for any reason) from say, the start of Summer to the start of Winter, at which point it automatically goes up? Or can it be done voluntarily AND it happens automatically as well if the above conditions are met?


QUOTE
A scion's bloodline cannot increase more than two points per year.


For any reason? So if my PC bloodthefted someone and gained 2 points of bloodline, it would prevent his bloodline being raised through wise rulership until a year had passed? Or is this simply a lack of qualification in the writing? If the latter, then perhaps it should be reworded to indicate that a bloodline cannot be raised through spending RP more than twice a year.


The increase is automatic and the character ahs no say on whether or not it occurs. It also doesn't take a domain action, which it did in 2nd ed. The 2 point limit per year only applies to the paragraph that the sentence is in and that paragraph specifically is addressing raising bloodline score via good rulership. Usurpation is addressed (and stated that it is addressed in the section you are referenced) in the subsequent section. There is no limit to the amount by which a scion's bloodline score can increase via usurpation (or investiture covered in the Domain chapter) - neither one of the section addressing those methods of increasing bloodline score has a yearly limit for increases specified.



What I'm starting to see as a trend is the revised system has multiple ways to limit bloodline scores from starting high AND growing quickly (especially compared to BCS, as the new system has essentially halved the rate of bloodline growth through rulership, and far more if the 2 points per year limit includes bloodtheft and great gains of regency).

Actually it didn't halve the raising of bloodline scores through good rulership it is exactly the same only the numbers have changed (doubled to keep in line with the increased bloodline score of the revised Chap 2. As far as usurpation, I addressed that one above.



Which is going to make those NPC's with higher-than-possible (for PC's) bloodline scores even more lopsidedly powerful-and PC's won't have a chance to match them on their own terms without a VERY long and successful reign, and only then if the NPC's are comparatively stagnant or unsuccessful rulers (an unlikely prospect for many of them).

Well no PC should really have a shot at say Avan or Boureine when they first start out, if so the then the game is out of whack. It reminds me of how one of my players kept OOC planning to get the Gorgon and actually assuming his PC could win in a one-on-one fight while still only a 4-5th level character. The major NPCs have their hands full dealing with each other rather than the PCs. The PCs, at starting level, are nothing more than nats to them and until they actually make a name for themselves via their actions would they deserve much attention.



I don't know how other DM's run their NPC's, but I tend to run mine as if they're just as ambitious, power-hungry, greedy, and capable as the PC's are. Which means they follow all the same rules, and are as dynamic as they can be within the limits of their political situations. Which means the ones in stable realms, and especially those with vassals, are almost guaranteed to keep going up by 2 bloodline points per year. Which means the PC's don't stand a chance of meeting or even approaching that kind of bloodline score unless they pull some amazing heroic tricks out of their hats, and then only if that 2 points per year limit doesn't apply to raises from usurpation/bloodtheft, investiture, and great gains of regency. If it does, well...they're just screwed.

Except that they need to be dealing with their peers who are in a more evenly balanced place of power. Most of this is invisible to the PCs and only the actual wars would generally be commonly known.

tcharazazel
05-09-2004, 10:09 PM
ah cool, i missed that you double the score. makes it less of a discrepency at least, though it does still cut off the higher end of the bloodline score.


In 2nd ed it was possible for someone with a tainted bloodline to have aa higher bloodline score than one with a great bloodline. 4d14 (4 to 16) versus 8d8 (8 to 64).

Heheh, well with this new method a person can still have a minor bloodline [6-36]with a score higher than a great bloodline [14-44]. So in theory a tainted bloodline could still be higher than a great bloodline. Of course its not very likely though still possible.

With regard to the NPCs we seem to take for granted that the DM will be running EVERY single NPC regent in the game... which isnt a logical assumption to make. Most DMs would play those NPCs that were in the immediate area and maybe some that are just outside of it in the Region. So for those NPCs outside of these areas, DMs would likely just have them run automatically as a stable domain... rather like how you described the NPCs running on automatic in 2e and just having huge RP reserves when the PCs finally made contact with them. So, with that in mind wouldn't they just be rasing their bloodline up 2 every year? Thus, far surpassing the PCs?

irdeggman
05-10-2004, 12:56 AM
Originally posted by tcharazazel@May 9 2004, 05:09 PM
With regard to the NPCs we seem to take for granted that the DM will be running EVERY single NPC regent in the game... which isnt a logical assumption to make. Most DMs would play those NPCs that were in the immediate area and maybe some that are just outside of it in the Region. So for those NPCs outside of these areas, DMs would likely just have them run automatically as a stable domain... rather like how you described the NPCs running on automatic in 2e and just having huge RP reserves when the PCs finally made contact with them. So, with that in mind wouldn't they just be rasing their bloodline up 2 every year? Thus, far surpassing the PCs?
Yup, that's how I usually run them but I assume that they only gain a fraction of their potential RP every turn, the rest being spent on defending themselves from the other NPCs that I am also not running directly at the time. The NPCs not being active will still be competing against each other in one way or another hence it is not logical to assume that they are constantly gaining the max RP every turn.

Major NPCs perform major functions and major events, e.g., adventures, blood contests, assassination attempts, etc. Just because their performances aren't directly documented doesn't mean that they haven't happened. Pretty much whatever the PCs have been doing it is ony logical to assume that the major NPCs have done the same or similarly rated things - only usually for a longer period of time.

irdeggman
05-10-2004, 01:08 AM
Originally posted by tcharazazel@May 9 2004, 05:09 PM

Heheh, well with this new method a person can still have a minor bloodline [6-36]with a score higher than a great bloodline [14-44]. So in theory a tainted bloodline could still be higher than a great bloodline. Of course its not very likely though still possible.

There is really no such thing as a tainted bloodline anymore, there is a minor bloodline with a strength of less than 20 which is usually referred to as tainted since the scion has no manifestations.

There is no direct correlation between bloodline strength and bloodline score. If a scion with a great bloodline has a lower starting bloodline score (well after the 2 levels of scion class that he can take so at 3rd level) has a lower bloodline score than a scion with a minor bloodline it is because the player chose to have a lower score by placing a lower number in his starting blood ability score than the player with the PC with the minor bloodline. That is unless using random dice rolls and the player with the minor bloodline has extremely good luck - but oh well that happens with any ability score spread.

What this comes down to is that in almost all cases (taking into account the random spreads possible) it is up to the player and how he wants to play his character - it is his choice whether or not to use his highest rolls for his bloodline score or not.

tcharazazel
05-10-2004, 02:15 AM
Major NPCs perform major functions and major events, e.g., adventures, blood contests, assassination attempts, etc. Just because their performances aren't directly documented doesn't mean that they haven't happened. Pretty much whatever the PCs have been doing it is ony logical to assume that the major NPCs have done the same or similarly rated things - only usually for a longer period of time.

Ok, cool however, if they can up their bloodline by 1-2 times a year, its still likely to be more than the average PC who is trying to expand his provinces/holdings vs the NPC running on automatic (those far enough away to not be run by the DM) who is attempting to maintain his provinces/holdings.

With regard to the bloodscore:
Aye, provided the PC has a choice its very likely that a great bloodline will have a higher bloodscore than a minor. I was just pointing out that its Possible for someone with a "tainted" bloodline (and apparently it wasnt clear I knew what the new tainted bloodline was, I'l make sure to explain everything that I say in the future so there wont be that problem again) to have a higher bloodline score than a great bloodline. However, the lower end wasnt the main purpose of the discussion, just a counter to that point is all.


I am really curious about the reasons behind lowering the max possible bloodline score. I assume this is one of the reasons:


Well no PC should really have a shot at say Avan or Boureine when they first start out, if so the then the game is out of whack. It reminds me of how one of my players kept OOC planning to get the Gorgon and actually assuming his PC could win in a one-on-one fight while still only a 4-5th level character. The major NPCs have their hands full dealing with each other rather than the PCs. The PCs, at starting level, are nothing more than nats to them and until they actually make a name for themselves via their actions would they deserve much attention.


However, is this the only reason? Cause really, no PC will have a shot at Avan and Boureine as they have vassals, and well developed lands, while the PCs will likely start out with no vassals, lands in need of development, various problems securing their realm, and for some creating their realm ect. So catching up to Avan and Boureine isnt even in the picture unless they somehow manage to bloodtheft their way up the chain and cause Avan and Boureine to have several Great Losses in Regency.

This PC of yours seems... to have a death wish, heheh, so if he wants to try to take on the Gorgon, I say let him. It will teach him an obviously needed lesson, though maybe have him roll up a secondary character first ;) a 5th level character vs an epic character... wont even get past the guards

irdeggman
05-10-2004, 10:17 AM
QUOTE
Major NPCs perform major functions and major events, e.g., adventures, blood contests, assassination attempts, etc. Just because their performances aren't directly documented doesn't mean that they haven't happened. Pretty much whatever the PCs have been doing it is ony logical to assume that the major NPCs have done the same or similarly rated things - only usually for a longer period of time.


Ok, cool however, if they can up their bloodline by 1-2 times a year, its still likely to be more than the average PC who is trying to expand his provinces/holdings vs the NPC running on automatic (those far enough away to not be run by the DM) who is attempting to maintain his provinces/holdings.

The point I was trying to make was that they (the major NPCs) shouldn't have any greater opportunity, once the game is started - during pregame times that is a different issue - than the PCs to raise their bloodline score from good rulership. their RP battles would involve greater numbers since their opponents have similarly high RP pools to draw from.


With regard to the bloodscore:
Aye, provided the PC has a choice its very likely that a great bloodline will have a higher bloodscore than a minor. I was just pointing out that its Possible for someone with a "tainted" bloodline (and apparently it wasnt clear I knew what the new tainted bloodline was, I'l make sure to explain everything that I say in the future so there wont be that problem again) to have a higher bloodline score than a great bloodline. However, the lower end wasnt the main purpose of the discussion, just a counter to that point is all.

What do mean if they have a choice? Whatever method of generating ability scores is supposed to be the same method used to generate the initial bloodline ability score. Any other combination simply defies the precepts of the BRCS and the concepts of 3.5. A system of point buy or random generation can be used, many different variations here but the methods are all variations fo those two, but the player can always choose where to put his best (and worst) stats.




I am really curious about the reasons behind lowering the max possible bloodline score. I assume this is one of the reasons:


QUOTE
Well no PC should really have a shot at say Avan or Boureine when they first start out, if so the then the game is out of whack. It reminds me of how one of my players kept OOC planning to get the Gorgon and actually assuming his PC could win in a one-on-one fight while still only a 4-5th level character. The major NPCs have their hands full dealing with each other rather than the PCs. The PCs, at starting level, are nothing more than nats to them and until they actually make a name for themselves via their actions would they deserve much attention.


However, is this the only reason? Cause really, no PC will have a shot at Avan and Boureine as they have vassals, and well developed lands, while the PCs will likely start out with no vassals, lands in need of development, various problems securing their realm, and for some creating their realm ect. So catching up to Avan and Boureine isnt even in the picture unless they somehow manage to bloodtheft their way up the chain and cause Avan and Boureine to have several Great Losses in Regency.

The system was based on player's choice on whether or not to place a haigh value in his bloodline or not. It was also based on having a syatem taht accounts for both random and non-random methods of bloodline score determination.

Giving players too many blood abilities too quickly puts the CR system even more out of whack than the scion class level system can account for. A PC with a starting bloodscore of 70 would have 4/3/3 blood abilities at the start, worst case is 10 minor abilities. A bit much for a 1st level character without a level adjustment. But for a 9th level or so character it doesn't make as much of a difference and balances out much more.

The system of ursurpation is more player friendly than was the 2nd ed system so it is easier for a scion (specifically PC) to increase his bloodline score now than it was. By making the method of increasing bloodline score from good rulership automatic rather than the 2nd ed system of having to use a domain action, this also makes it easier to increase the bloodline score. So the present system was designed to correspond with PC growth and not have everything happen at 1st level. It will give the player's more satisfaction to see the effects of how their PC develops rather than have essentially no change by ruling wisely or haveing a blood dual, etc.

Osprey
05-10-2004, 12:46 PM
The system of ursurpation is more player friendly than was the 2nd ed system so it is easier for a scion (specifically PC) to increase his bloodline score now than it was. By making the method of increasing bloodline score from good rulership automatic rather than the 2nd ed system of having to use a domain action, this also makes it easier to increase the bloodline score. So the present system was designed to correspond with PC growth and not have everything happen at 1st level. It will give the player's more satisfaction to see the effects of how their PC develops rather than have essentially no change by ruling wisely or haveing a blood dual, etc.


But why the odd requirement of a minimum pool for 2 seasons running? Why not simply allow a bloodline increase by spending the necessary RP as a "free action," 2 times per year max? I think the constant minimum RP pool idea seems really arbitrary, and I'm waiting to hear a good explanation for this.

irdeggman
05-10-2004, 03:40 PM
I think I've answered the minimum pool concept a long time ago, just don't want to go to the effort of looking it up (like early last year). The idea of 2 consecutive seasons was to reflect the regent getting acclimated to the 'new' bloodline score. It takes time to get accustomed to the power being used.

The gain by usurpation is a sudden one and doesn't reflect this gradual growing into the greater power/responsibility concept.

Investiture is pretty much the direct intervention of the diety to get the increase.

The only method of increase that a regent has to earn is the one based on good rulership and that really can only be done by some type of consistant reflection of good stewardship, hence the 2 consecutive seasons.

I hope that helps explain where it came from.

Don E
05-10-2004, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by irdeggman@May 10 2004, 04:40 PM
The only method of increase that a regent has to earn is the one based on good rulership and that really can only be done by some type of consistant reflection of good stewardship, hence the 2 consecutive seasons.

Wouldn't the fact that the regent have spare RP be a sign enough of good rulership? Is this an example of a rule that was not broken being changed?

irdeggman
05-10-2004, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by Don E+May 10 2004, 12:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Don E @ May 10 2004, 12:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-irdeggman@May 10 2004, 04:40 PM
The only method of increase that a regent has to earn is the one based on good rulership and that really can only be done by some type of consistant reflection of good stewardship, hence the 2 consecutive seasons.

Wouldn&#39;t the fact that the regent have spare RP be a sign enough of good rulership? Is this an example of a rule that was not broken being changed? [/b][/quote]
Actually it is roughly the same as it waas in 2nd ed.

In 2nd ed a regent could raise his bloodlinescore by 1 by spending RP equal to the target value using a domain action. He could only do this once per domain turn (4 times a year). But his collection was limited by his current bloodline score so in effect he couldn&#39;t do it any more than twice a year.

The BRCS system has this occur automatically when the the regent&#39;s RP pool exceeds the amount necessary to raise his blodoline score for 2 consecutive months. He can only raise it by +2 a year and this increase is automatic.

What is the real difference except that the BRCS has it occur automatically (no action whatsoever)?

Now can we get off of the discussion of things that have already been decided and voted on and get back to the other 8 chapters that we need to get revised and completed?

The more time spent on this the less that is available for the work that is yet to be done.

Don E
05-10-2004, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by irdeggman@May 10 2004, 07:14 PM
What is the real difference except that the BRCS has it occur automatically (no action whatsoever)?

The simple fact that it is automatical. A wise regent might wish to save up RP if he see hard times coming ahead. But ooops, he saved too many and they disappeared. The following turn he has to reduce his bloodline to get the RP back, but at a 50% loss.


Now can we get off of the discussion of things that have already been decided and voted on and get back to the other 8 chapters that we need to get revised and completed?

The more time spent on this the less that is available for the work that is yet to be done.

I&#39;m afraid you will never see an end to the discussion of any BR topic. Even long before the 3e conversion started on this list people were discussing issues they had with BR, and there was hardly much chance to change the published material. Similarly people will continue to discuss what has been &#39;sanctioned&#39; on this site until the end of time. Or at least until somebdy starts publishing a new edition of BR :)

irdeggman
05-10-2004, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by Don E+May 10 2004, 02:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Don E @ May 10 2004, 02:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-irdeggman@May 10 2004, 07:14 PM
What is the real difference except that the BRCS has it occur automatically (no action whatsoever)?

The simple fact that it is automatical. A wise regent might wish to save up RP if he see hard times coming ahead. But ooops, he saved too many and they disappeared. The following turn he has to reduce his bloodline to get the RP back, but at a 50% loss.
[/b][/quote]
Yes and no to this one. The max pool is 2 times his bloodline score. This pool is comprised of all RP the regent acquires whether it is from his holdings, vassalege agreements or from ursupation (which in its present form can generate RP towards this pool).

The reason for this max pool was to have regents do something. They shouldn&#39;t be sitting on pots of RP it should be invested into something, expanding /defending the regent&#39;s realm or casting realm spells (which have the same effect). This was done to encourage players to play at being a regent and not to just sit there perfectly content to let the land run its own course. {I personally had several players who only wanted to be a regent for the extra hitpoints and starting magic item and wanted to leave their realm management to their Lts.}

This will also help alleviate the problem of NPCs suddenly having pots of RP that they can use against the PCs. This way everyone knows that the max they can have at any one time is 2X their bloodline score. Now what exactly their bloodline score is and what holdings they actually have should be up to the DM and usually kept as some kind of mystery to the players until they do some sort of investigation or challenge. Can&#39;t spell everything out for the players, it just isn&#39;t as fun without surprises :o

Don E
05-10-2004, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by irdeggman@May 10 2004, 09:36 PM
Yes and no to this one. The max pool is 2 times his bloodline score. This pool is comprised of all RP the regent acquires whether it is from his holdings, vassalege agreements or from ursupation (which in its present form can generate RP towards this pool).

The reason for this max pool was to have regents do something. They shouldn&#39;t be sitting on pots of RP it should be invested into something, expanding /defending the regent&#39;s realm or casting realm spells (which have the same effect). This was done to encourage players to play at being a regent and not to just sit there perfectly content to let the land run its own course. {I personally had several players who only wanted to be a regent for the extra hitpoints and starting magic item and wanted to leave their realm management to their Lts.}

This will also help alleviate the problem of NPCs suddenly having pots of RP that they can use against the PCs. This way everyone knows that the max they can have at any one time is 2X their bloodline score. Now what exactly their bloodline score is and what holdings they actually have should be up to the DM and usually kept as some kind of mystery to the players until they do some sort of investigation or challenge. Can&#39;t spell everything out for the players, it just isn&#39;t as fun without surprises :o
I agree with the cap on the RP pool. I think your arguments are very relevant, even though I feel the DM might have become a bit too lenient if somebody has the possiblity of accumulate hordes of RP :)

I still disagree with the automatic usage of RP to increase the bloodline score. With the cap on RP I think a regent who has managed to pacify his enemies enough so he is able to keep a significant RP pool should be allowed to. He might be expecting a concentrated effort from several enemies next turn, or he could be planning to make a dedicated effort to contest away his pet nemesis. Why shouldn&#39;t he be allowed to? I think the limit imposed already have taken care of the worste cases of abuse.

If one rules that the increase in bloodline score happens just before the next round of RP collection it alleviates the problem a bit. It would still be a significant disadvantage for a regent with a small domain, as he could see his RP pool disappear into a bloodline increase he does not "need". Even more so if combined with an already high bloodline score.

Cheers,
E

tcharazazel
05-10-2004, 10:29 PM
I think the cap on the RP pool is low, however, makes sense as RP is used less now. However, having the automatic bloodscore increase really can be a problem for regents who like to plan ahead... I could understand the reasoning if it were only scions of Azrai as they dont usually have control of their blood, ie the awnshegh, however the rest of the scions can control their blood, ie the ehrsheghlien. Thus, im not totally convinced of the reasoning behind not allowing, at least most scions, the choice to increase their bloodline.

soudhadies
06-13-2004, 06:31 PM
I&#39;m sorry to beat a horse everyone would most likely want laid to rest, but I don&#39;t think that the issue of the BRCS +4 major / + 8 Great to revised +4 major / +8 Great instead of + 8 / + 16 has been adequately addressed.

First of all, logic would seem to dictate that doubling the bloodability score from the BRCS to the revision would affect all the numbers related to it by either doubling or halving them. This has occured in most cases, such as the "blast radius" for usurpation, regency collection, and the regency cap (where 2 is a much prettier number than 2.5). However, this did not happen to the bonuses. So in the revision, a major bloodline has a bonus that would be equivalent of a +2 in the original BRCS and great one has a bonus of +4.

Not only does this dramatically reduce the power differential between the minor, major and great bloodlines numerically (a character who rolled a 10 for his score could collect 20, 28, or 36 RP per turn as a minor major or great scion in the BRCS, but with the revision the difference is only 20, 24, 28), but since the blood abilities progression in the revised version is essentially halved since it is the same progression table as in the BRCS, but tied exclusively to even numbers. This means that in general characters with major and great bloodlines will have fewer blood abilities in the new system.



The numbers were chosen to essentially ensure that a character would revieve a blood ability with the scion class ...


It would in the original BRCS this was the case, but not in the revision. In the original BRCS, a +4 step meant that either 1 or 2 blood abilities would be gained, and that tended to alternate so that a Great scion would end up with probably 3 extra abilities and a major scion would end up with 1 or 2 extra abilities.

In the revised table, since the progression is essentially halved, a +4 step means that a scion will gain 0 or 1 extra abilities. Not only does this mean that a new scion class level does not guarantee a new blood ability, but it also means that a major scion has about 50% chance of not gaining any extra blood abilities. About 75% of the time a great scion will gain only one ability, the other 25% meaning that he gains two.

Anyway, as I said, this is something that others have wanted laid to rest so feel free to ignore me on this one. I have other issues with the class thing, but since that is not as subtle as this, and it has been sanctioned, I&#39;ll leave it alone.

I&#39;m not sure you guys hear this often enough, but I would like to thank you profusely for all the effort that you put into this game. 95% of the work is beyond contest, but unfortunately its that 5% you get yelled at about time and again.

RaspK_FOG
06-14-2004, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by "Bearcat"
I&#39;m not sure you guys hear this often enough, but I would like to thank you profusely for all the effort that you put into this game. 95% of the work is beyond contest, but unfortunately its that 5% you get yelled at about time and again.
I suppose none could put it better... Thank you all, BRCS Team&#33; for a really B) hell of work you &#39;ve gone through till now&#33;

irdeggman
06-14-2004, 04:03 PM
I&#39;m sorry to beat a horse everyone would most likely want laid to rest, but I don&#39;t think that the issue of the BRCS +4 major / + 8 Great to revised +4 major / +8 Great instead of + 8 / + 16 has been adequately addressed.

First of all, logic would seem to dictate that doubling the bloodability score from the BRCS to the revision would affect all the numbers related to it by either doubling or halving them. This has occured in most cases, such as the "blast radius" for usurpation, regency collection, and the regency cap (where 2 is a much prettier number than 2.5). However, this did not happen to the bonuses. So in the revision, a major bloodline has a bonus that would be equivalent of a +2 in the original BRCS and great one has a bonus of +4.

Not only does this dramatically reduce the power differential between the minor, major and great bloodlines numerically (a character who rolled a 10 for his score could collect 20, 28, or 36 RP per turn as a minor major or great scion in the BRCS, but with the revision the difference is only 20, 24, 28), but since the blood abilities progression in the revised version is essentially halved since it is the same progression table as in the BRCS, but tied exclusively to even numbers. This means that in general characters with major and great bloodlines will have fewer blood abilities in the new system.


How does this version stack with the original BR in the number of blood abilities that the scions had there? I believe the revised system is actually closer to the original. The argument seems to be that the power of the BRCS-playtest should be preserved vice rebalanced.




The numbers were chosen to essentially ensure that a character would revieve a blood ability with the scion class ...




It would in the original BRCS this was the case, but not in the revision. In the original BRCS, a +4 step meant that either 1 or 2 blood abilities would be gained, and that tended to alternate so that a Great scion would end up with probably 3 extra abilities and a major scion would end up with 1 or 2 extra abilities.

In the revised table, since the progression is essentially halved, a +4 step means that a scion will gain 0 or 1 extra abilities. Not only does this mean that a new scion class level does not guarantee a new blood ability, but it also means that a major scion has about 50% chance of not gaining any extra blood abilities. About 75% of the time a great scion will gain only one ability, the other 25% meaning that he gains two.

This is the closest to a definite issue. The plusses added do not quite guarantee gaining a blood ability of the proper level. They do, however work out in a solid progression that does come closer to the original BR as far as number of abilities.


One other thing that people had mentioned as a potential problem with the BRCS-playtest was the DCs of the blood abilities. DC of 12/15/18 plus blood score modifier yields pretty high saves pretty quickly. The revised tables help a lot with this.

soudhadies
06-15-2004, 12:53 AM
How does this version stack with the original BR in the number of blood abilities that the scions had there? I believe the revised system is actually closer to the original. The argument seems to be that the power of the BRCS-playtest should be preserved vice rebalanced.


If this is what you are going for, then even the revised table is still somewhat problematic in this regard, at least as you get bloodline scores higher than the mid 30&#39;s. I tried making a conversion of Darien Avan last night for a game I&#39;m working on and he ends up with 10 abilities in the new system, while in the original material he only has five. A quick canvas of the NPC chapter of RoE reveals a pattern where after about the mid 30&#39;s peoples number of blood powers tends to double, while before then its just about right.



This is the closest to a definite issue. The plusses added do not quite guarantee gaining a blood ability of the proper level. They do, however work out in a solid progression that does come closer to the original BR as far as number of abilities.


Here we get to the root of the problem. Which is that at the moment Great bloodlines aren&#39;t all that "great". They&#39;re a tough sell right now because in exchange for a character level you get an small chance of gaining a bloodability and only a marginal boost in RP collection. The advantage gained is not worth the sacrifice made.

One solution would be to revise the table in a way that slows progression but conversely grants better regency collection to characters choosing major and great bloodlines. However, just halving the progression again shafts characters with smaller bloodlines because, as I said, the current table gets them about right.

Now my solution to this is going to go against the general precepts of a D20 ability table, but instead of having a linear ability progression we should have a sort of exponential one, with diminishing returns (sort of like a sine curve). So that as you go higher and higher in score, you gain bloodabilities less and less often, eventually reaching a what would for all intents and purposes be a cap (The original game had this at 7, even the Gorgon obeyed it). If I had to draw a 3E justification for this I would point to epic characters and attacks: Just as characters don&#39;t gain extra attacks after a certain point, characters with "epic" bloodlines shouldn&#39;t gain extra abilities.

What would this revision to the table do? Well first, it would more closely mirror blood ability progression in the original than either of the 3E tables have. More importantly is its effects of players and character generation. Major and Great bloodlines will have dramatic effect, but mostly only in regency collection. So that means that if you&#39;re a player, Major and Great bloodlines will tend to be more attractive if you&#39;re a regent but not so much if you&#39;re just a regular scion. That means that most Great and Major PC scions will be regents while the majority of Minor scions will not. Somehow this seems perversely logical.

Since I would not like to burden anyone with work I wouldn&#39;t do myself, I would be happy to run some numbers and come up with a table for you.



One other thing that people had mentioned as a potential problem with the BRCS-playtest was the DCs of the blood abilities. DC of 12/15/18 plus blood score modifier yields pretty high saves pretty quickly. The revised tables help a lot with this.


If I already depart from the standard for 3E in one regard, we shouldn&#39;t feel guilty about doing it again. I could either halve the progression or use the diminishing returns idea again (for internal consistency on the table).

irdeggman
06-15-2004, 04:08 AM
Bearcat,
While your proposals are interesting the chapter has been &#39;sanctioned&#39; and revisiting it at this time is totally counterproductive since there is so much more in the BRCS to be finished.

soudhadies
06-15-2004, 04:35 AM
As I said before in my first post, feel free to ignore me on this. I realize that the chapter has been sanctioned. Its my own damn fault for popping in so late in the game.

Any suggestions for somewhere I can focus my meddling?

Osprey
06-15-2004, 07:21 AM
Any suggestions for somewhere I can focus my meddling?

Yep, see what you think of the proposed revisions for Key Skills for Domain Actions (Ch 5). Some new voices giving approval or constructive criticism, or even flat out rejection (hopefully with some good alternatives proposed) would be very helpful there.

I&#39;m sure Irdeggman can point you in a few other directions too. ;)

Cheers,
Osprey

irdeggman
06-15-2004, 10:16 AM
Chap 1 was recently revised. There was a revision to it for the classes:

http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2674

Which only one person has commented on so far.

There has been a lot of discussion on the skills and feats section of Chap 1 (revision) also.

soudhadies
06-17-2004, 06:36 AM
Okay, umm. I realize that what I&#39;m about to say will inspire the urge to gut me, but try to hold off on that for a moment :unsure:.

I was skimming through the old posts in the FAQ to get up to speed somewhat on everything that has been going on, and I followed the link that you gave for the WotC class/scion thingie (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sp/20030824a). And the new scion classes don&#39;t conform with that.

I hope I&#39;m allowed to quote the webpage(if not someone tell me and I&#39;ll pull the quote), but it says in the last bulleted point/general rule:



Unlike standard character classes (and the "monster classes" from Savage Species), most template classes do not increase Hit Dice, base attack bonus, base saving throw bonuses, or skill points with level. They also do not affect when a character acquires feats, since feat acquisition is based on HD, not ECL. However, some of these aspects of the character can be affected indirectly by alterations in Hit Die type, ability score changes, special attacks or qualities, bonus feats, and so on.


A quick canvas of the Savage Progressions archives showed this to be the case, although lycanthropes were allowed to take racial levels in the animals that they could morph into.

I know that nothing can be done about it now. I just felt remiss in not mentioning it.

irdeggman
06-17-2004, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat@Jun 17 2004, 01:36 AM
Okay, umm. I realize that what I&#39;m about to say will inspire the urge to gut me, but try to hold off on that for a moment :unsure:.

I was skimming through the old posts in the FAQ to get up to speed somewhat on everything that has been going on, and I followed the link that you gave for the WotC class/scion thingie (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sp/20030824a). And the new scion classes don&#39;t conform with that.

I hope I&#39;m allowed to quote the webpage(if not someone tell me and I&#39;ll pull the quote), but it says in the last bulleted point/general rule:

A quick canvas of the Savage Progressions archives showed this to be the case, although lycanthropes were allowed to take racial levels in the animals that they could morph into.

I know that nothing can be done about it now. I just felt remiss in not mentioning it.
This was known when the scion class&#39; were written. Which is why I never said they were just like the SS progressions only that they were &#39;like&#39; or &#39;based on&#39; them.

The reason for making the scion classes have HD, BAB, etc. is for playability. If they didn&#39;t have them then they really wouldn&#39;t be playable - a class taken at character creation that doesn&#39;t have any hit points? - I shudder to think what would have happened to me if I had tried to propose that one.

The scion class&#39; class abilities themselves are much less than those of a standard class because of the &#39;bonus&#39; things that happen (and are openended as the character gets stronger). Things like gaining more blood abilities and the bonus hit point bonus (if that variant is used) scales with RP collection.

soudhadies
06-17-2004, 05:40 PM
Ah. That makes sense then. Did that appear in the FAQ anywhere? (Some of the threads tend to lose their topical nature along the way ;) )

irdeggman
06-17-2004, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat@Jun 17 2004, 12:40 PM
Ah. That makes sense then. Did that appear in the FAQ anywhere? (Some of the threads tend to lose their topical nature along the way ;) )
Actually I&#39;m not certain if it was specifically brought up or not. There were other scion class proposals - Lord Rhavin specifically had some, but they were regular class style (i.e., 20 levels). So this was one of the considerations when makint the present version.

And yes I&#39;ve noticed our propensity to drift from the main topic as we proceed down any discussion.

soudhadies
06-17-2004, 11:11 PM
I think I get it now (correct me if I&#39;m wrong).

The scion classes are like miniature mutant prestige classes. Prestige classes because of the prerequisites for level taking, but different because they can be taken at character generation. They are sort of like offshoots of the Noble Class in that they prepare a character for regency, rulership or at least high society. They do this by allowing the character, not to increase their bloodline score, but to tap their innate potential which was previously unused. The skills, feats and HD are derived from their preparation for rulership (as per the noble class example above), and not from a Savage Species-like progression of bigger meaner monsters (i.e. its not racial or derived from the bloodlines themselves, but based on other efforts, which are merely guided by the tendencies of the bloodline derivation). All this meaning that they are a blend of three different class concepts (moster as the original basis, prestige, and template).

Osprey
06-18-2004, 04:17 AM
I don&#39;t think the scion classes are so much about training for rulership as they are about tapping the inner power of one&#39;s bloodline. If you notice, every single aspect of the scion classes is based on derivation. So a major scion of Brenna takes one level of Scion of Brenna, they focus on exploring their divine power and connection ot Brenna&#39;s essence. What does this mean? Faster reflexes, an affinity for roguish skills, a bit more endurance (hp), a boost to one&#39;s Leadership as the divine power within becomes apparent to everyone without, and most especially, Major blood powers of Brenna become available.

See the connection? By tapping into one&#39;s divine power and exploring its full potential,a scion does become better prepared to be a ruler, but this need have nothing to do with the sort of training a noble recieves. Did you notice Administrate as a designated class skill for any of the scion classes? Yeah, me neither. Every skill is appropriate to the bloodline derivation, not to being regents in general. There will be numerous scions who are not regents, and many of those will never be regents either. But there&#39;s no reason they can&#39;t be strong leaders and potent adversaries in general, especially as they develop the more powerful blood abilities.

Osprey

soudhadies
06-18-2004, 04:55 AM
I see I didn&#39;t express my idea as much as I could have. The idea was that the abilities gained are not derived from the bloodline itself, but by focused training guided by the bloodline (Giving in to the urges of one&#39;s blood in kind of the same way Awnsheghlien do). To me the distinction is important to me because the skills, hp and feats were derived from the bloodline that would mean they were essentially extra bloodabilities. If they are derived from training then they are representative of character experience and growth. To me at least (this isn&#39;t addressed in the chapter) this also means that if a scion is Divested they are allowed to keep their HP, skills, and feats from the class.

irdeggman
06-18-2004, 09:26 AM
By George I think he&#39;s got it.

Yes Bearcat that is a pretty good way of looking at it.