Awnshegh Build to use for the BRCS

[irdeggman]

All right people have had enough time to look over the 2 proposals and some have even made specific comments on them and voiced their choice for which one to use.

It is time to pick one to focus on. That way we won't be spending time working out details on 2 different systems when only one can be used as the base for the BRCS.

Choosing a method now is not saying that the exact way it is written is what wil be used, only that is the format/process we will focus on. We as a group will then comment and revise it until we get something that works to most of our liking.

[irdeggman]

Here is the pdf version.

[irdeggman]

Here is the word version.

[RaspK_FOG]

Should we make any remarks here or not? I think there should be some space for people who want to speak their minds a bit more specifically, but I want push it.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Jul 22 2004, 02:09 PM
Should we make any remarks here or not? I think there should be some space for people who want to speak their minds a bit more specifically, but I want push it.
No problem.

This wasn't meant to stiffle things, only to keep people from spending too much time trying to make fixes/changes to a system before we decide which one to use.

[Athos69]

I like Option 2, but I find it too cumbersome for general use. Could we post the winner of this poll as the 'standard' method, and the other as a Variant?

[RaspK_FOG]

Originally posted by irdeggman+Jul 22 2004, 10:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (irdeggman @ Jul 22 2004, 10:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RaspK_FOG@Jul 22 2004, 02:09 PM
Should we make any remarks here or not? I think there should be some space for people who want to speak their minds a bit more specifically, but I want push it.
No problem.

This wasn&#39;t meant to stiffle things, only to keep people from spending too much time trying to make fixes/changes to a system before we decide which one to use. [/b][/quote]
What I meant was whether or not should we post our opinion here, so that we don&#39;t clatter the poll up.

Basically, I think the Ua system is clean, transparent, and mostly smooth, but seems to me that it is a little towards making things work backwards: instead of making the thing work for the core rules, it tries to bend the core rules to work for it; while I realise why that is, I still don&#39;t feel comfortable with it.

On the other hand, the 20-level class approach is interesting, has that punch to it that says: "I am using the rules and bear with it, cause I have potential&#33;", but I think the formatting/wording/[whatever] make the whole thing too heavy&#33;

I choose Option No.2 over Option No.1, but I expect it to get better and simpler.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Athos69@Jul 22 2004, 02:49 PM
I like Option 2, but I find it too cumbersome for general use. Could we post the winner of this poll as the &#39;standard&#39; method, and the other as a Variant?
This is one of those cases where there can not be a variant approach.

There really can only be method for building awnshegh in the BRCS. The &#39;other&#39; method can be posted on the Royal Library for those that are interested though.

Personally I think that both systems can work and both have their own advantages and disadvantages.

The 2nd system accounts for the system (in the 2nd ed books) for the 2 methods of becoming an awnshegh, while the first method makes the assumption that a scion must have the bloodform blood ability in order to make the transformation. It also doesn&#39;t assume that the bloodform blood ability is required for the transformation - something that the 2nd ed material did not specifically state (that is it didn&#39;t state that the bloodform blood ability was required, but did have that it hastened the change).

On the other hand the first method allows for the transformation to be outside of the class system so that the awnsheghlien in 2nd ed can maintain their character class levels without becoming extremely high level. My estimate for the Gorgon is somewhere around 10 levels of awnshegh class (using the 2nd method) {Gary tell me how close I am on this one}. So in order to maintain approximately the same relative class levels of fighter and wizard he had in the 2nd ed material (at least close to it) he would end up being somewhere around 30+ level (off the cuff without checking my books.)

Both proposals, as written will need tweaking and editing regardless - so keep that in mind.

Fiftyone is writing the awnsheghlien up for the BRCs and he needs to have a single system to use so that the material presented in the BRCS is consistent.

[fiftyone]

AHHHHHHHH&#33;

I can&#39;t decide&#33;

But both are usuable&#33;

What to vote for&#33;?

[geeman]

At 10:16 PM 7/22/2004 +0200, irdeggman wrote:



>My estimate for the Gorgon is somewhere around 10 levels of awnshegh class

>(using the 2nd method) {Gary tell me how close I am on this one}.



At a guess I`d say that`s about right, but I really can`t say until I`ve

tried it. I don`t know what the awnshegh levels of stony skin, and a death

ray from the eyes would be....



>So in order to maintain approximately the same relative class levels of

>fighter and wizard he had in the 2nd ed material (at least close to it) he

>would end up being somewhere around 30+ level (off the cuff without

>checking my books.)



Some of his fighter levels might translate into awnshegh class levels

pretty well. In fact, several of the awnsheghlien that are portrayed as

fighters in the original materials would appear to _really_ have levels in

an awnshegh character class IMO. The Gorgon should, of course, still have

several levels as a fighter in order to portray him as one of (the) premier

warriors of Cerilia, but at F25 (per BE) in the "low-level" BR setting that

still leaves a lot of wiggle room.



Gary

[the Falcon]

I voted for Option 1, because I really like its system much more than that of Option 2. I think the system of Option 2 is needlessly complicated without its added complexity really enhancing gameplay in any way. However, I also think a lot of the Traits (as Option 1 calls them) and Disadvantages of Option 2 could perhaps be incorporated into Option 1 to make it more versatile and interesting.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by the Falcon@Jul 23 2004, 07:10 AM
I voted for Option 1, because I really like its system much more than that of Option 2. I think the system of Option 2 is needlessly complicated without its added complexity really enhancing gameplay in any way. However, I also think a lot of the Traits (as Option 1 calls them) and Disadvantages of Option 2 could perhaps be incorporated into Option 1 to make it more versatile and interesting.
I agree that many things of option 2 could be incorporated into option 1 (some already were before I put them out).

Likewise I think that some things from option 1 could be incorporated into option 2.


If option 2 is the one to be used IMO several things would need to be tweaked (BAB progression and hit dice for instance). I&#39;m not entirely sold on the fact that all awnsheghlien get a good BAB, d10 hit dice and good Ref and fort saves. Some seem to me to be not warrior oriented (see magian, hag, etc.) But this could be worked out in the final version.

I&#39;m also not too keen on forcing all awnsheghien to take disadvantages. There are some of the published 2nd ed ones that clearly have them and some that don&#39;t. Again this could probably be tweaked in the final work up.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by geeman@Jul 22 2004, 06:40 PM
Some of his fighter levels might translate into awnshegh class levels

pretty well. In fact, several of the awnsheghlien that are portrayed as

fighters in the original materials would appear to _really_ have levels in

an awnshegh character class IMO. The Gorgon should, of course, still have

several levels as a fighter in order to portray him as one of (the) premier

warriors of Cerilia, but at F25 (per BE) in the "low-level" BR setting that

still leaves a lot of wiggle room.



Gary


I&#39;m not too certain on this, by losing fighter levels he loses fighter bonuse feats (very important IMO). Also didn&#39;t he have several wizard levels (per the monster cards from the box set) and sources that he controlled?

Regardless, not everything can be exactly as it was in 2nd ed. We just have to resolve ourselves to the fact that some things have to change to match the 3.5 mechanics and just try to capture the flavor/feel of the characters in question, IMO.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Jul 22 2004, 02:57 PM

Basically, I think the Ua system is clean, transparent, and mostly smooth, but seems to me that it is a little towards making things work backwards: instead of making the thing work for the core rules, it tries to bend the core rules to work for it; while I realise why that is, I still don&#39;t feel comfortable with it.


It doesn&#39;t really bend things all that much more than does option 2.

The major change in option 1 from the UA bloodlines is the transformations occuring at the levels where a character would take the &#39;empty&#39; bloodline class levels (per the UA). The optional disadvantages work similar to the system in UA (not bloodlines but in another part of the book) so it is combining optional variations in an &#39;official&#39; WotC book and then tweaking (as mentioned already).

The 2nd option (class level based) invokes several changes from core system it is paralleling. Making a saving throw to &#39;avoid&#39; taking awnshegh levels and mandatory disadvantages for example.

I think it just comes down to what people are more comfortable with, since they both can be made to work.

[RaspK_FOG]

The concept of making a saving throws to avoid taking levels was connected with taintedness even from 3e days - see both Oriental Adventures and Unearthed Arcana; this makes for the fact that you have to resist going on such a path&#33;

On the other hand, the UA bloodline mechanics make me feel uncomfortable due to their inheritance: while they resemble monster and template levels, they work so differently that they make me uncomfortable with how the provided mechanic bends the core mechanic. It is true, class features are nothing more than a consistent way of bending the rules, but in this case I feel as if the rules are bent a little to much.

[geeman]

At 04:33 PM 7/23/2004 +0200, irdeggman wrote:



>I`m not entirely sold on the fact that all awnsheghlien get a good BAB,

>d10 hit dice and good Ref and fort saves. Some seem to me to be not

>warrior oriented (see magian, hag, etc.)



I did the White Witch (not the most warrior-like character) using awnshegh

class levels and that seemed to work out pretty well. In the long run,

nobody "sees" things like BAB, hit points or saving throw bonuses, and

while it might seem counterintuitive that individual character would have

access to something like the BAB progression normally reserved for

"warrior" classes really doesn`t redefine the character as warrior oriented

per se.



Gary

[RaspK_FOG]

I will agree with Gary; nobody wants a warrior when he can get a fighter. The reason are the bonus feats the fighter gets which really make him good; otherwise he is nothing&#33;

[fiftyone]

I just voted option 1, but if option 2 is selected, for BAB and save progression just say that attaining the 1st awnshegh level the character/npc gets 3 good selections. BAB to average is 1, BAB to good is a 2nd and 1 left for one good save. etc, poor BAB & 3 good saves, average BAB and 2 good saves.

Selecting the will save as good could describe the uber awnshegh that havnt necessarily gone completely insane yet.

edit: I suppose hit dice could be incorporated into that aswell, but i&#39;d still rather determine hit die by creature type. Even if it is sketchy.

[the Falcon]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Jul 24 2004, 01:15 AM
The concept of making a saving throws to avoid taking levels was connected with taintedness even from 3e days - see both Oriental Adventures and Unearthed Arcana; this makes for the fact that you have to resist going on such a path&#33;
I do not own a copy of OA, but the Taint in UA works a bit different from what you suggest.
In the Taint system you have to make saves to avoid increasing your taint score, not to avoid gaining any tainted class levels.
The character can then later use his taint score to qualify for a tainted prestige class, which can alleviate the drawbacks of the Taint.
In one example of those prestige classes, the tainted sorcerer, the character&#39;s Taint score effectively functions as a new ability score.

mmm... If bloodline scores are implemented as ability scores, I wonder if we could use the Taint system as a basis for their game mechanical workings? Especially if carrying the taint of Azrai causes drawbacks which can then be alleviated by taking on awnshegh levels, thus creating a game mechanic for being unable to resist the lure of Azrai?

[geeman]

I`m trying to stay out of rooting for one method over another here--aside

from being the yahoo who wrote option #2, I`ve already pretty much

described my opinion, but I am curious if I could get a little more

explanation on what is complicated about that option so I can either

improve it or clarify the text. What is confusing those who find the

character class method difficult? Is it something in the character class

itself? The extensive system of transformations and/or disadvantages? The

saving throw leading up to taking levels in that class or the "template"

associated with "instant awnsheghlien"?



Thanks,

Gary

[geeman]

At 01:36 PM 7/24/2004 +0200, the Falcon wrote:



>If bloodline scores are implemented as ability scores, I wonder if we

>could use the Taint system as a basis for their game mechanical workings?

>Especially if carrying the taint of Azrai causes drawbacks which can then

>be alleviated by taking on awnshegh levels, thus creating a game mechanic

>for being unable to resist the lure of Azrai?



It reads to me like the Taint system could replace the saving throw method

of portraying when a scion takes awnshegh levels. There are a lot of

nuances to the original awnsheghlien "system" that don`t appear to be used

in such a method, but one could add them or otherwise tweak Taint to be

closer to the temptation of Azrai`s bloodline. I`m not so sure it would be

particularly superior to a Will save in game mechanical or thematic terms,

but it would be an interesting experiment.



Gary

[the Falcon]

Originally posted by geeman+Jul 24 2004, 09:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (geeman &#064; Jul 24 2004, 09:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I`m trying to stay out of rooting for one method over another here--aside
from being the yahoo who wrote option #2, I`ve already pretty much
described my opinion, but I am curious if I could get a little more
explanation on what is complicated about that option so I can either
improve it or clarify the text.[/b]Ah, I always thought you were a houyhnhnm, but it turns out you are the one on the right and not on the left. ;)

<!--QuoteBegin-geeman@Jul 24 2004, 09:20 PM
What is confusing those who find the
character class method difficult? Is it something in the character class
itself? The extensive system of transformations and/or disadvantages? The
saving throw leading up to taking levels in that class or the "template"
associated with "instant awnsheghlien"?[/quote] Each and every level of the class is so similar to the next, that the whole progression simply becomes meaningless. There is no rhyme or reason, no theme, just 20 levels of ever more of the same. If we are going to use classes to build awnsheghlien, may I suggest using something like six different awnshegh classes of 10 levels each? In the d20 Modern fashion: Strong Awnshegh, Fast Awnshegh, Tough Awnshegh, Smart Awnshegh, Dedicated Awnshegh, and Charismatic Awnshegh—maybe. :D That way, you can build each awnshegh class around a theme, which adds more flavour and guidance to choosing abilities. Unique, customized awnsheghlien can then still be made by multiclassing. How about that?
Your list of transformations/disadvantages tries to be all-encompassing, which is an effort doomed to fail from the start. You will never be able to cover every possible awnshegh trait. What we&#39;re left with is a humongous list that is simply unusable to me, because I just can&#39;t see the forest for the trees here.
Ah, the Instant Awnshegh Template. Just add one cup of water, er, divine blood. ;) Where is it, anyway? I can&#39;t seem to be able to find a full description for it in the text.

I hope you found those comments useful.

[the Falcon]

Originally posted by geeman@Jul 24 2004, 09:20 PM
It reads to me like the Taint system could replace the saving throw method
of portraying when a scion takes awnshegh levels. There are a lot of
nuances to the original awnsheghlien "system" that don`t appear to be used
in such a method, but one could add them or otherwise tweak Taint to be
closer to the temptation of Azrai`s bloodline. I`m not so sure it would be
particularly superior to a Will save in game mechanical or thematic terms,
but it would be an interesting experiment.
A short and fast recap of the Taint system, to get you up to speed: Initial exposure to tainted place/object gives 1d3 points of taint.
For every 24 hours spent in tainted place/spent carrying tainted object, character must make Fort save, DC 10, +5 per 24 hours of exposure (multiple simultaneous exposure stack). If character fails save, taint score increases by 1.
Alternatively, Fort save can be replaced with Will save.
Character&#39;s taint score applies as penalty to Con and Wis scores.
Tainted character experiences Con & Wis loss in variety of ways, from mild nausea, joint pain or disorientation to rotting flesh, severe skeletal warping and irresistable murderous urges. Effects are categorized according to wether character is mildly, moderately or severely tainted. Character who has lost 25% of Con is mildly tainted; 50% of Con moderately tainted; 75% severely tainted.
Once a character&#39;s taint score reaches 10, he can acquire Tainted Prestige Classes.
Tainted Sorcerer prestige class uses Taint score as key ability for spellcasting, which means bonus spells, spell DCs, etc., are based on Taint score, instead of Int/Cha/etc. Also, whenever a tainted sorcerer gains a new level and wishes to advance a level in some other class, she must succeed on a Will save, DC 10 + taint score. If she fails, she must advance a level as tainted sorcerer instead.
With a little adjustment, rephrasing and tweaking, this might be perfect for use with Azrai&#39;s bloodline and awnsheghlien (prestige) classes.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by the Falcon@Jul 24 2004, 05:23 PM
With a little adjustment, rephrasing and tweaking, this might be perfect for use with Azrai&#39;s bloodline and awnsheghlien (prestige) classes.
While in many ways an awnshegh prestige class makes sense, I am loathe (read that as very strongly against) including a prestige class as required for anything in the BRCS.

Prestige classes are purely optional per the DMG and the BRCS should maintain this stance. Presenting prestige classes that may be used is different than presenting prestige classes that must be used.

When were were developing the BRCS-playtest we played around with a corruption point system (similar to Dark Side points in d20 Star Wars) but couldn&#39;t come up with a clean system to use. Even though the taint system in UA is closer, it still becomes somewhat unwieldy when trying to work out a system that reflects a gradual transformation (which is what we are all talking about for awnsheglien). The taint system is based on time and exposure to tainted places and objects - what we need is a system that captures actions (evil actions promote the transformation process) and use of certain signature blood abilities, and IMO the strength of the Azrai bloodline (minor/major/great/true) and possible even the bloodline score. This makes the taint system of UA hard to adapt without a lot of work, IMO.

No, I think that either of the two systems presented would work best - although both require some work to get it just right.

[Ariadne]

I wanted to vote for Method 1 (based on UA bloodline system), but accidently clicked view results. So please add my vote mentaly to version 1...

I really like this idea, because it causes nearly no trouble and an awnshegh still can choose the class, it wishes...

[First Horseman]

Wow&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; What can I say. Too be honest I say that Method Two would work best.

It&#39;s easier to incorprate with Npc and Pc who&#39;ve got levels in what ever class they may have, They can choose more options on what tpye of enhancements and coruptions they would like or fits best with the character.

I like how the Awnshegh and the Ershegh could work of one standard class table which makes it simple to use.(Even though the transformations and the disadvantages class features do take up 3 whole pages when choosing blood abilities) The UA Awnshegh level table for determining the bloodline strength of an Awnshegh with signature blood abilities would be pretty interesting to use, but I would rather use one colum instead three different colums to determine the transformation and bloodabilities. But if we choose to use Method two, does this mean the Scion of Azrai will be out or will it be kept?


First Horseman :D

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by First Horseman@Jul 26 2004, 12:37 AM
But if we choose to use Method two, does this mean the Scion of Azrai will be out or will it be kept?

Scion of Azrai stays.

One of the &#39;prerequisities&#39; of these proposals was that they work seemlessly (well as close as possible) with the mechanics already sanctioned in Chap 2.

Neither option really voids the use of the scion classes.

[Ridder]

I voted for method 1.

Method 2 tries to force too many disadvantages (I guess you could take both Ability Score Bonus and Ability Score Penalty to cancel each other out, but that seems silly). And while having some example powers would be nice in method 1, I think the guidelines for making your own are more helpful.

Worse, because the save DC increases faster than Will save bonus (barring major Wisdom increases), characters in method 2 will eventually get stuck in a rut, unable to take levels as anything but awnsheghlien. It can happen even to low-level characters. It&#39;s fine to say that at that point the character has been completely corrupted by the taint of Azrai, but they should still be able to advance in other classes.

Method 1 seems overpowered, maybe. Awnsheghlien with strong Bloodform pick up really big bonuses for (sort of) free.

[the Falcon]

Originally posted by Ridder@Jul 27 2004, 12:37 AM
Method 1 seems overpowered, maybe. Awnsheghlien with strong Bloodform pick up really big bonuses for (sort of) free.
I think the first table of Option 1 could use a bit of improvement on that part.
How about this?

Column 1: 5 × Minor
Column 2: 5 × Minor; 5 × Major
Column 3: 5 × Minor; 5 × Major; 10 × Great
In that order.

That would be more in keeping with UA, anyways.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by the Falcon+Jul 27 2004, 05:47 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (the Falcon @ Jul 27 2004, 05:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Ridder@Jul 27 2004, 12:37 AM
Method 1 seems overpowered, maybe.* Awnsheghlien with strong Bloodform pick up really big bonuses for (sort of) free.
I think the first table of Option 1 could use a bit of improvement on that part.
How about this?

Column 1: 5 × Minor
Column 2: 5 × Minor; 5 × Major
Column 3: 5 × Minor; 5 × Major; 10 × Great
In that order.

That would be more in keeping with UA, anyways. [/b][/quote]
Heck I don&#39;t mind revising it, in fact that was part of the end in mind i the begining. But I don&#39;t really want anyone to spend a lot of time going over the &#39;tweaking&#39; until it is decided which system to use.

This was supposed to be a vote on the system, not the specifics of the system.

[geeman]

In regards to the disadvantages presented in option 2, I think this is one

of those things that might come as a shock to the system for two main reasons.



First, though the negative effects of transformation is described in much

of the original BR text, it was not often portrayed game mechanically. In

fact, I think one would be hard pressed to find an awnshegh (or even an

ershegh) that didn`t have several disadvantages of the type described in

that system. Nonetheless, it is without a lot of precedent in the actual

rules, so it is "new" and that always requires a bit more time and effort

to digest.



Second, most of the time 3e/3.5/D20 does not give characters things like

disadvantages as part of their actual progression. There are, of course,

many "disadvantages" in various game mechanics ranging from character

classes to templates, and they are used in some cases more for purposes of

characterization rather than game balance. I`d suggest that much of the

time that`s the case here. Though it can be tempting to min/max such

characters (or any character, I suppose) in the case of awnsheghlien and

ersheghlien the idea is to give the specific effects related to their

transformation in a regular, definable way. Without such a system it

becomes a system of DM fiat or ad hoc decision making to explain, for

instance, why a character transformed into a pegasus can`t still wield a

longsword, wear rings, etc.



Gary

[fiftyone]

Well, option 2 has a good lead now.

Not that it&#39;s over, just examining a bit.

I think tailoring each awnshegh individually is important. Allowing the architects to choose whether the beast has a high BAB or high saves, hit dice etc; I look back at my previous note on that with the addition of more points or &#39;good choices&#39; to adjust hit dice aswell, perhaps.

The current transformations and disadvantages for Option 2 are just too specific. I like the idea of keeping it vague; incorporating the Option 1 traits/disadvantages as transformations (but toning them down, some severely w/ the inclusion of hit dice and the other adjustments) and disadvantages would be ideal in my mind.

The problem with that is all awnshegh will have access to at minimum, a free feat equivalent abilty (atleast) at every level. Perhaps breaking the class up into something like three 10 level prestige classes, (vague) like Awnshegh, Greater Awnshegh and True Awnshegh. Allowing the &#39;transformations&#39; to progress only so far for the lower class, and having requirments for the higher classes be the next step in bloodline strength (and/or bloodform) and say 3-4 levels in the previous awnshegh class.

That could provide the true distinction between say, the Gorgon and Rhoubhe Manslayer. The Manslayer would most likely have only progressed partially thru the second tier awnshegh class, while the Black Prince would likely be heavily into the last. Not using the card statistics, 25 level 2nd edition Gorgon and 16/15 Rhuobhe, thier experience was only a few hundred thousand apart and in high level 2nd edition AD&D, that wasn&#39;t much.

bleh, gotta go write some more for my dnd grp tomorrow, peace&#33;

- Fiftyone

[RaspK_FOG]

Look, the only real class I have ever seen on a razor edge was a prestige class I had made that represented someone who truly gumbles his life... :wacko:

[Osprey]

I find myself sitting on the fence on this issue, probably because right now my vote would be “other.” I’m somewhat in favor of the BRCS idea of monster advancement based on a creature type, something Fifty-One seems to be favoring as well. It opens up far more basic variety among the awnshegh and ershegh.

My basic understanding from the core rules has always been that awnshegh are far more powerful than their un-changed peers – they become not only monstrous, but potent.

Here I run into the inherent problem with a 3e approach – that awnshegh need to be assigned a level equivalent, and that this level should be power-balanced with equivalent PC levels.

Here’s one possible alternative: allow awnshegh levels of power to add to a creature’s CR but not necessarily their character levels, thus keeping character level consistent with their normal xp progression.

The second alternative is simply giving them more power per level in a class. These monster levels should be a good deal stronger than normal class levels, and in this specific campaign, the price of becoming inhuman should be obvious. Birthright is a human-dominated world; to become an awnshegh is to be hated, feared, and despised, hunted by would-be heroes and zealots. Ershegh also suffer from the stigma forged by the awnshegh and by human fears, the fear of the different and powerful.

For any PC or NPC human to become a monster means in effect losing most or all of one’s former life, once the transformation becomes apparent. THIS is a severe disadvantage built right in to the campaign setting. This stands as a powerful campaign-specific balancer for otherwise “unfair” levels of power. Physical and mental disadvantages should still be built in, but for the most part these should be natural tradeoffs of transformation. It might be neat to require a Will save whenever a disadvantage is gained. If the save fails, the character acquires a random negative trait (including levels of insanity or nasty physical mutations/aberrations) [insert table here].

I am in favor of the idea that becoming awnshegh through bloodtheft may involve a transformation of some previous character levels to monster or awnshegh levels. Perhaps one previous level may be converted every time a new awnshegh level is gained (up to 2/awnshegh level with great bloodtrait/form, 3/a.l. with true bloodtrait/form), representing a hastened transformation at the price of one’s humanity (represented by class levels).

However we decide to go on this, I would like to see a set of mechanics that represent some of these dramatic elements of transformation. To this end, I prefer something organic enough that it smoothly translates without intense study. Currently, I’m not certain if either of the presented choices fill this role. I think the class system could stand to be opened up and streamlined, while the template system definitely needs more filling out with some concrete options and examples. Both have decent potential as viable systems, but neither seems a comfortable tool for a DM to use at this point. I find it difficult to say go ahead with either system when I feel both need some major revision to become what I would want to see in the rev. BRCS.

Some summary specifics: Geeman, I think concentrating your level system would do wonders – taking all that detail and ‘chunking’ it into bigger pieces would make the awnsheghlien more impressive and easier for a DM to construct. While I commend your attention to detail on the one hand, I also think it might be too complex for a “user friendly guide to building awnshegh.”


And for a final idea: What if awnshegh could convert permanment bloodline power into moster levels? Sort of the opposite of bloodline powers acquired from awnshegh levels / HD, this would be levels gained from bloodline. Perhaps losing a number of RP-worth of bloodline in exchange for the XP necesarry to gain a monster level. Hmmm, an idea I’ve been playing with, thought I’d throw it out there and see what you think.

Osprey

[irdeggman]

I&#39;m closing this poll. The results are very inconclusive, especially if adding in Ariadne&#39;s vote to Method 1 which will make it 11 votes for method 1 and 12 votes for method 2.


Which method should be used for Awnshegh?
1) Method 1 (based on UA bloodline system) [ 10 ] [45.45%]
2) Method 2 (based on a 20 level class system) [ 12 ] [54.55%]
3) Abstain [ 0 ] [0.00%]
Total Votes: 22


Adjusted results:

Method 1 [11] [47.8%]
Method 2 [12] [52.2%]
Total votes; 23

Basically I don&#39;t see much chance for an adequate separate between the methods even if the poll is allowed to run on.

What I think the next step is would be for the 2 methods to be taken back and reworked. Maybe if they are made clearer people can make a more defined choice. Some have suggested using one as the default method and the other as a variant - the problem is that the 2 methods end up with awnsheghlien with vastly different character levels, if i read things correctly. This would cause problems overall IMO.

I won&#39;t be available to rework method 1, since I am going to start my sabbatical real soon (really I mean it this time). I would suggest that the Falcon take over reworking method 1, if that is alright with you and Gary rework method 2. If you e-mail me the results I can post them - although I think Gary can do that now too (especially since he seems to have gotten his hands on a pdf creater).

[geeman]

I have a proposal that might help people decide. After revising the

methods we should post a few (probably four) awn-/ersheghlien, a version

each using either method. That way folks can see the processes in practice.



I`ve written up the White Witch using the character class method. She`s

the only character I know of that has had either of these methods

applied. Though she is not particularly transformed, I think that`s got a

certain value as an example since it shows how transformation might be

portrayed in stages, so that one (or one like her) might be a useful

example. Rhoubhe isn`t particularly transformed either, and might be a

more interesting character to work on. We really ought to do the Gorgon

and probably one of the other more transformed awnsheghlien that is based

on something with less levels in fewer character classes. That is, the

Gorgon is already multi-classed, so an example of a more "single-minded"

character would be a good contrast. I`d suggest the Hydra or the Boar

since they are pretty good representatives of "animal-based"

awnsheghlien. A fourth awnshegh write up might be a new, original

character so folks can get a look at how each method might work for their

own campaigns. I could write up an entirely new one to use for such a

purpose, but it would probably be simpler to just pick one of the ones I`ve

posted in the past....



What characters would people like to see portrayed?



Gary