Blooded Level Adjustment

[Magian]

Each campaign setting is unique and has its own quirks. Some campaign settings have rules that enhance characters beyond the scope of the core rulebooks balance system. Conan game setting introduces more attribute increases, Dark Sun allows for characters to have psionic talents, and Birthright has its bloodlines.

Bloodlines are far more enhancing than the other two examples and could easily justify a level adjustment rule. On the other hand bloodlines are not meant to be balanced by a restricting adventure system. They go above and beyond the normal mortal's abilities and are quite unbalancing. That is what makes the Birthright setting unique and it makes scions the stuff of legend, for good reason. Therefore I find it hard to personally accept a system that hinders a blooded character's level advancement even if they turn awnshegh or ershegh along the way.

The blooded are supposed to rise above the adventuring life and establish domains to rule, or at least it is easier for them than the unblooded. The bloodline is not engrained into the normal physics of a world, but are instead of godstuff. Therefore by nature they are unbalancing and all attempts to integrate them into the adventure system of 3 or 3.5 to me seem unnecessary.

[soudhadies]

Its not as if they weren't considered unbalancing in 2e either. That is, afterall, why nonblooded characters got that 10% experience bonus. The funky xp thing was generally how 2e tried to acheive balance (each class having its own table for example). The balance principles of 3E are based upon the actual power of a character at each level, and differences that throw off the balance of power are fixed by adjusting the level instead of the XP as in 2e.

What does this mean for the BRCS? Well, since we can't adjust the relationship between blooded vs. unblooded on the same side of the scale as before. That is, make the correction on the side of the unblooded characters, which would in essence give them a negative level adjustment, which just doesn't work very well when it comes to calculating XP required (especially for a 1st level character). The adjustment has to be made on the other side of the scale: by adding a level adjustment/class level/whatever to scions.

Besides, Chapter 2 has been sanctioned so the question is relatively moot since it won't change the BRCS. The good news is that you can still do it the way you want, especially if we're dealing with what is personally acceptable. I've got my own adaptations of it already, such as a Bloodline table that makes sense to me and a scion template class built exclusively on the Savage Progressions model. I'm sure others have or will have their own versions as well.

I think that ultimately the BRCS will be less of a standardization document for those of us that have played the original game, and more of a starting off point, because we all have such different interpretations of what it should be. This is not to denegrate the efforts of the team: I really do appreciate having 90% of the work done for me, but with the parts I personally disagree with I'll make my changes and have no regrets. Plus it brings the setting to a whole new generation of people who may not have seen it before and don't have the original books to work with. For those people, without previous opinions the BRCS provides a comprehensive rulebook, which is important.

[irdeggman]

Well put Bearcat.

The BRCS was never intended to be the end all absolute 3.5 BR setting. It was intended to give people a starting point and some sort of standardization to use, at least for discussion and comparisons. It was never intended to remove the DM's ability to tailor things to his liking.

Oh yeah, if you lookat the 2 "officia" Dark Sun 3.5 conversion - the one from the fansite at Athas.org and the one from Dragon/Dungeon magazine you will see that they indeed balance things. One has LA built in and the other requires feats to pick up the wild psionic talents. Welcome to the world of 3.5 where balance is the norm.

[Magian]

Originally posted by irdeggman@Jul 1 2004, 07:39 PM
Welcome to the world of 3.5 where balance is the norm.
Um, yeah that is why I conceded the point that it is already justified for those other two examples to be balanced. That is to say both Conan and Dark Sun.

[Raesene Andu]

I personally do not use level adjustments for blooded characters in my 3E Birthright campaign, I find the whole idea more trouble than it is worth. So far, has not caused any balance issues, but then of all my players, only one PC has a blood abilities that he uses a lot .

[Magian]

Originally posted by Bearcat@Jul 1 2004, 06:58 PM
Besides, Chapter 2 has been sanctioned so the question is relatively moot since it won't change the BRCS.

Plus it brings the setting to a whole new generation of people who may not have seen it before and don't have the original books to work with. For those people, without previous opinions the BRCS provides a comprehensive rulebook, which is important.
"Relatively Moot"

Sure depending on your personal priorities. You sound as though you have moved on from this issue as resolved it personally. Thank you for your advice but this question seems to me to be quite relavent to this section of the forum.

BRCS and possible changes for it? This point seems a little off point since this is not the BRCS forum where proposals are made for changes. In fact I accept that it wont change, nor do I really care.

Here we go again with the bringing the new generation of gamers to Birthright speech again.

Those of us who have played Birthright since it came out definitly have our own ideas regarding new things like the BRCS and we will all have different takes. I appreciate that otherwise I wouldn't participate in this forum, mostly reading and keeping to myself. However it seems here the response to my question is more to make the issue null and void or unable to be resolved. Whether these are true or not my intent was in the hopes of seeing other takes on this issue than those of people who are interested in maintaining a rigid adherence to the balance system. We can all look up in the books and tweak a template here add a feat there quite easily. Frankly I am bored of that for bloodlines and I was hoping to see if anyone else out there has come up with something DIFFERENT from the standard board discussions.

[RaspK_FOG]

It may well be so, Magian, but your initial post did not make such a thing apparent. In any case, if people think you try (even inadvertently so) to invalidate their work, they will react; and, by the way, I think that it was also sanctioned, that part regarding scion levels. In such a system, a blooded character can achieve his potential at any point, without becoming unbalancing for the campaign; if your objection comes to that, allow me to say that doing things otherwise would be unfair to other players who would like to play typical non-blooded adventurers.

[soudhadies]

BRCS and possible changes for it? This point seems a little off point since this is not the BRCS forum where proposals are made for changes. In fact I accept that it wont change, nor do I really care.


I apologize for misinterpreting your purpose in beginning this thread. I made a mental connection that since you were adressing an argument against a principle that is used in the BRCS, that you were seeking to address the BRCS directly. I see, as I go over your post, that this isn't exactly the case (although it can be read that way, hence my mistake).

However, If you disregard the last two paragraphs (and the mention of the BRCS in paragraph 2) of my post, I still make a good argument for what seems to be the prevailing view (It was sanctioned, but low voter turn out leaves the actual public sentiment uncertain, but you snooze you lose. I know I did).

If I may add another point, it seems to me that level adjustments are neccessary because PCs are not the only blooded characters. Thus the challenges that they face and the rewards that they receive would be skewed downwards when facing blooded enemies. A fifth level fighter is not as much of a challenge as a fifth level fighter with Major Regeneration. How do you reflect this in terms of experience rewards for the PCs? Well, in 2E I would probably fall back upon that funky table in the DMG that I could use to work out an XP value for the scion. In 3E I would give the scion a higher CR through a level adjustment.

The only real alternative that there is to a Level Adjustment (and by level adjustment I mean anything that raises a CR be it class levels, templates, or whatever) is to take the approach that you advocate, which is to say "to heck with balance".

The problems arise again however, when creating challenges for the characters. Continuing my earlier example of the two fifth level fighters, the blooded fighter with Major Regeneration will not be as challenged by the same monsters that prove a challenge to the unblooded fighter. Why should he get the same XP when he has an easier time of it? Certainly that is what happened in 2E, but the XP tables were exponential there rather than linear as they are in 3E (hence a character reaching 20th level at 190,000 xp instead of several million).

3E is kinda like a house of cards, in that upsetting the balance in one aspect can have implications elsewhere. So balance is probably desirable, but how it takes form is something that is certainly debatable.

One way around the issue would be a partial-Level Adjustment. A sort of compromise between the two opinions. In this method, you would apply the level adjustment when determining the level of the character when distributing XP, but not for xp required to level or anything like that. This way, you would balance the XP a character receives to the level of his power, but still not interfere with level progressions.



Here we go again with the bringing the new generation of gamers to Birthright speech again.


Is there something wrong with bringing in new players? I added that as kind of an afterthought/sidebenefit to the main point that I was being saved the trouble of doing most of the conversion work. I didn't realise it was a controversial issue.

[irdeggman]

Again Bearcat well put.

3.5 is indeed a 'house of cards' in that everything is (and what isn't is being worked towards being - see the Savage Progressions thread from the WotC site) balanced and fits together in a predefined way.

If one thing is changed, for example just having scions be more powerful without some way of tying that in to other things like level advancement, EL, CR, etc then the 'system' fails or requires more and more 'house rules' to 'fix' the 'house rules' that were originally inserted. It becomes a self perpetuating cycle.

The way I view balance in 3.5 is not in terms of characters and NPCs but from a player view point. Is one player's character being given something that makes him more powerful than another? How would the player on the lesser end of this deal feel? Would he be upset and feel like he has been shafted by the system?

For example 2 players generate PCs. (Assuming no LA or means of balancing power level is in place). 1 player's character ends up with a great bloodline and sufficiently high bloodline strength to gain 1 great and 2 major and 2 minor blood abillities (I just 'made up' the spread here, since it is relatively moot as to what system is being used or the exact breakdown of blood ability gaining). The other player ends up with a PC with a minor bloodline and 1 minor blood ability.

Now which player is getting the raw end of this deal? How would he/she feel about the situation?

Now lets apply some LA methodology to the situation.

The first PC having a great bloodline has, say a +2 LA while the 2nd PC has a +0 one. What this would translate to is that the 2nd PC would be entitled to take 2 extra character levels to make up for this LA. So the end result would be one player has a 1st level (i.e., 1 class level) PC with a great blood lines and several blood abilities and the other one has a 3rd level (i.e., 3 class levels) PC with a minor bloodline and 'few' blood abilitites.

So 'balance' has been maintained and both players feel like they got an even deal.

This discussion doesn't even address the issue of how to determine an appropriate challenge for the characters (especially the one with the great bloodline).

So if it is not intended to keep balance between players then ignore anything having to do with ECL and LA adjustments in any publications and rely on total random methodology to determine abilities, etc. But be prepared for resentment among players, since it will be very hard to avoid given the inherent 'competetion' between players.

There are numerous methods to account for this 'balance' but all of them assume that the intent is to have balanced characters.

[geeman]

At 06:30 AM 7/2/2004 +0200, Magian wrote:



>Frankly I am bored of that for bloodlines and I was hoping to see if

>anyone else out there has come up with something DIFFERENT from the

>standard board discussions.



I came up with a little system of balancing bloodline by considering its gp

value in relation to a character`s inventory. It does not, therefore,

directly hinder the character`s level advancement in the standard way that

LA does. It does still balance the situation by changing the XP "payoff"

values since the character is considered higher level for the purpose of

determining such things. I`d compare it to a method of determining the

challenges and awards for a low level character with a very powerful magic

item in his inventory without changing any of the fundamental aspects of

character class, and levelling up.



Frankly, this is one of the weird, glaring holes in 3e/3.5. Magic items

are such a feature of the system, there is information on how much

characters are supposed to have "on average" in their inventory, and the

whole challenge/award system is based on the assumption that characters

will use 25% of their "resources" in an "average" encounter, yet there is

no way to compute what the differences might be for determining the

challenge and awards if characters do not have the "average" resources at

their disposal.



Also, I`m afraid my gp value of bloodline information is again tied to my

homebrew rules that reflect bloodline using points, so the math is based on

that system.



Gary

[Magian]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Jul 2 2004, 01:11 AM
It may well be so, Magian, but your initial post did not make such a thing apparent. In any case, if people think you try (even inadvertently so) to invalidate their work, they will react; and, by the way, I think that it was also sanctioned, that part regarding scion levels. In such a system, a blooded character can achieve his potential at any point, without becoming unbalancing for the campaign; if your objection comes to that, allow me to say that doing things otherwise would be unfair to other players who would like to play typical non-blooded adventurers.
If I want to attack anyone's work it will be quite clear.

[Magian]

Originally posted by Bearcat@Jul 2 2004, 01:45 AM


Here we go again with the bringing the new generation of gamers to Birthright speech again.


Is there something wrong with bringing in new players? I added that as kind of an afterthought/sidebenefit to the main point that I was being saved the trouble of doing most of the conversion work. I didn't realise it was a controversial issue.
Not at all bring as many new players as you like. I just don't share the sentimental value that you do.

[Magian]

Originally posted by irdeggman@Jul 2 2004, 03:18 AM
The way I view balance in 3.5 is not in terms of characters and NPCs but from a player view point...

...Now which player is getting the raw end of this deal? How would he/she feel about the situation?
Yes I agree this is a very good reason for the balance system. It does pose a major problem for what I am proposing with my question of necessity.

Yet I do think that the bloodline system transcends the normal balance since characters are usually born with them or at least inherit them from invest or theft. Though yes it is a game and games tend to need balance in order for fun, I don't think real life (RL) is balanced and we can still have fun with it also. Therefore within the mechanics of the game, those of us who wish to stay true to them I agree and accept your justification for going ahead with level adjustment (LA) for bloodlines and perhaps bloodform and bloodtrait after effects.

However no matter how bad I feel about not being born to a rich family no real form of compensation will ever come my way to make the playing field equal on a scale of rich vs. poor. Therefore I feel a birthright like a bloodline (usually a birthright) does give unfair advantages and justly so. Even if we give all players a chance to roll for a bloodline and some get none, some get minor, and maybe another gets major, using the chance system can be justified even without using LA for a so called balance.

The reasoning I have for a bloodline to transcend the normal mechanics is because firstly it is of divine origin, thereby not confined to normal restraints. Even if you consider using rules to balance outsiders (outerplanars) they do not even reach the level of power that the essence of the gods let alone the gods themselves. Secondly it is mostly a domain level system that is used for a level of play that is beyond class and party level balance system. And thirdly it is what makes a player character (PC) unique to birthright and its setting. It allows for a chance as a pretty cool advantage over that of other settings.

It seems we have established thus far that it is not necessary for LA when using bloodlines. It is a matter of choice seems to be the consensus. Therefore I would like to see what other ideas there are for using bloodlines without LA.

Bearcat came up with an idea of using a pseudo LA which is an interesting idea. Any others out there?

[RaspK_FOG]

Originally posted by "Magian"
If I want to attack anyone's work it will be quite clear.
What I meant is that people will react even if they think that you might be indirectly "attacking" their work, whether there is any such intention or not.

[Magian]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Jul 3 2004, 09:51 AM
What I meant is that people will react even if they think that you might be indirectly "attacking" their work, whether there is any such intention or not.
I thought you were quite clear the first time.

[Ksaturn]

Here is an example...
a 1st level paladin(of haylen) regent Great scoin(of Andurias) goes adventuring with three 3rd level PCs with no/minor BLs. (All experience calculated normally, thus no hinderance on advancement potential)

If any problems handle them as they come.

(just a thought)

[soudhadies]

I had a sudden thought today on this subject. It seems to me that the need for the level adjustment also derives from choice, which is given to Players on a greater level in the BRCS than in the original campaign. By this I mean that now the rules make provisions for allowing players to choose their bloodlines and bloodabilites and for players to automatically gain bloodabilities as the bloodline score increases.

Thus if you don't have the Level Adjustment (in the form of a level adjustment or class level), then you lose any effective counter to parties of major/great bloodlines. If you use the level Adjustments, then there is a tradeoff on the part of the players and so you make those line rarer (players who value them more will be willing to sacrifice more to get them, others won't).

So if you eliminate the level adjustment then you need to take an action that eliminates completely the rational decision making that goes into a bloodline as it appears in the BRCS, and you should do it on every level. This means that players should probably roll their bloodlines on the tables that appear in the original rule book for derivation, strength, and points. I would also recommend using the table used to determine whether a character gains bloodabilities as well. When it comes to handing out the actual abilities I would probably use the random ability tables in the BRCS, as that would ensure Players got 3E compatible abilities (and save a lot of rerolling, one of the major problems with the original tables).

In summary: Eliminating LAs while allowing players control of their bloodlines opens up the system for major abuses. Counter this by removing any control the players have over their bloodlines by randomizing it completely.

Or of course the alternative would be to give the DM complete control of bloodline developement. But that opens up the probability of player resentment, while randomization makes things seem fairer on the surface (until you're stuck with a tainted bloodline while Rufus down the road has a great one).

[Magian]

Originally posted by Bearcat@Jul 6 2004, 03:57 PM
In summary: Eliminating LAs while allowing players control of their bloodlines opens up the system for major abuses. Counter this by removing any control the players have over their bloodlines by randomizing it completely.

That is a good point. To me it seemed very arbitrary to use level adjustment (LA) with bloodlines. The reason being is because I do use the random rolling system for both strength and blood abilities. Therefore I agree with your conslusion. We are free to use either system and neither is necessarily better it is a matter of preference. Thanks Bearcat, btw have you made any new war cards?

[soudhadies]

Thanks Bearcat, btw have you made any new war cards?


No problem. I'm glad I could finally get to the root of the problem. And no, I can't say that I have done any work with war cards. Why do you ask?

[Ksaturn]

Well.... i think letting them DM control it is a good way to go too but I'ma DM so i guess that doesn't matter 2 much.... plus i never played in a campaign that was controlled by an 'unfair' DM....

But instead of complete control i would probably give them choices as whole templates... like for a certain (preset by DM) group of Blood abilities/line strenth/& lvl-Exp...

(Slightly edited so i don't look like a moron)

[tcharazazel]

There are random tables for the Blood abilities in the sanctioned Ch 2, that you can download. Using that should give you the whole story, heh.

[RaspK_FOG]

I have to say that Bearcat offered a neat solution that should be introduced in the books as a BIG note.

[Raesene Andu]

Originally posted by Bearcat@Jul 7 2004, 07:27 AM
things seem fairer on the surface (until you're stuck with a tainted bloodline while Rufus down the road has a great one).
Actually IMC Rufus only has a minor bloodline...

Seriously though, I did something very similar to this with my campaign, using the original rules for rolling bloodline derivation, strength, and score, as well as the random tables from the Book of Regency for determining each player's bloodline abilities. Then I used the blood ability descriptions from the BRCS. I did not use level adjustments at all.

So far, after roughly 8 months of play testing, the player's bloodline have not caused any balance issues what-so-ever. Had my player's been allowed to choose their blood abilties, then it would have been a different story all together.

Of course, every campaign is different, but I can't imagine changing the way I run bloodlines.

[Magian]

Originally posted by Raesene Andu@Jul 8 2004, 12:26 AM
Of course, every campaign is different, but I can't imagine changing the way I run bloodlines.
Great Awnshegh think alike.

[RaspK_FOG]

Originally posted by Magian@Jul 8 2004, 10:37 AM
Great Awnshegh think alike.
:lol: Like I said, the idea strikes me as neat... Maybe I'll copy you all and run something like that soon enough, but I want to give my players the complete guide or they will go for my head in no time... :(