Portraying Bloodline

[geeman]

I'd like to continue the discussion of how to portray bloodline in a 3e update of BR that begain in the "Scion Class Question" thread. So far, the methods presented have been: the scion character class in the BRCS update, a series of feats, an XP penalty or a level adjustment, template or mechanic that amounts to something very similar.

They all have their merits and demerits, and I'm going to try to break the issue up into four major broad areas.

1. Front-loading. The argument here is that without some sort of way of balancing bloodline scions will be front-loaded, their abilities will be disproportionate to their character levels, particularly at low-levels.

2. Back-loading. This concern has been expressed for both the character class and the XP penalty methods. Characters who employ either of those methods wind up foregoing a level or two of a particular character class (or a level or two entirely) in order to pay for their blood abilities.

3. Balance. The method used to balance blood abilities should be commensurate with some existing 3e mechanic. This criticism of the feat method is (IIRC) based on the perception that blood abilities are (or quickly can be) more powerful than any feat, so using feats is not appropriate.

4. Parity. This is a very broad issue, but it needs to be mentioned that it is important to a lot of people that there be some sort of existing 3e game mechanic that the system references.

When determining what should be employed, I would suggest the following criteria for reviewing a set of game mechanics derived from discussion recently in the "Pikemen w/ Shield Training" thread. Rules should be judged on reality, flavour, simplicity, elegance and balance. No one of those criteria is any more significant in general than the others, though in certain cases one might be more important in a particular situation. For instance, in this topic the issue of "balance" is probably of more importance than "reality" since there are few if any scions running around in the real world Earth, and the mundane leadership and aristocracy we deal with often don't work very well as BR examples.

Now, when it comes to these methods, I'm currently most in favor of the XP penalty idea for several reasons. It strikes me as being superior to the other suggestions in all five categories described above. First, when it comes to balance issues, I think the criticisms that have been levelled against the idea are numerically valid, but invalid in practice. That is, the issue of a 5-20% penalty meaning a character will lag behind other PCs in a mixed party of scions and commoners is correct when one examines only the simple math, but as has been pointed out the simple math does not really relate to how XP awards are given. CR scales with character level and while a scion will definitely have a lower XP total than other characters in a mixed party, his lag will not be as drastic as has been suggested.

Furthermore, I think the suggestion that he will lag parallels the same criticism levelled at the scion as character class issue. It doesn't really have a very dramatic game mechanical effect until characters get into upper levels. The same criticism could (and has been) levelled against multi-classing, multi-classing penalties, and several other aspects of the 3e system. It also fails to take into account what I like to call "the reality of the game" that many people ignore. That is, the 20th level wizard is disproportionately powerful... but getting to 20th level might not happen if the character doesn't take a level or spend feats on things not directly related to his class in order to survive actual adventures. Viewing characters "in situ" (as it were) at 15-20th level in order to gauge balance fails to account for the fact that characters are supposed (especially in BR) to begin as low-level PCs and then be developed into higher level ones. Such characters often wind up very different from those created by DMs as "monsters" for PCs to deal with.

Lastly, when it comes to the issue of losing ability at high level that argument is made in a slightly different shade against the scion as character class system. The argument against scion as character class is that characters must forego their high level abilities, which from a "power gamer" is not the way to go. Now, I really think this argument is innappropriate to BR for several reasons that have been already mentioned, so I'll not reiterate them, but I mention it in order to point out that it strikes me as odd to prefer scions as character class rather than an XP penalty for this reason. The argument against an XP penalty applies to scion as a character class in a very similar way.

The most serious argument against XP penalty is IMO that it front-loads the character. To that I can only suggest that characters might get the equivalent of a LA for the purpose of designing adventures if the DM really things that's necessary, but the penalty is, in effect, an incremental LA. Instead of a full level it represents about 20-60% of a character level, which I think is about appropriate to the actual power gained. The math works both ways in this case.

As I noted in the previous thread, the idea is much simpler than any other suggestion. It would make for a few sentences in a BR update text rather than a character class write up. It relates to the original BR "low-level" theme better than any of the other suggestions. Its really is balanced if considered as a whole (at least as much as scion as character class is) and it has a nice elegance. So one the whole it is the superior method.

Gary

[Sorontar]

I do not support any particular methodology, but I was wondering if for the %XP penalty version, why don't you decrease the penalty directly relative to the XP level.

non-blooded = full XP
blooded = XP - (20 - CharLevel)% XP

e.g. Fighter non-blooded gets 1000 XP from an encounter
Fighter 1 blooded gets 1000 - (19% of 1000) = 810 XP
Fighter 6 blooded gets 1000 - (14% of 1000) = 860 XP
Fighter 15 blooded gets 1000 - (5% of 1000) = 950 XP
Fighter 20 blooded gets 1000 XP

That way, by the time you get up to high levels where you are mega-powerful by your class, it is a small percentage. Once you reach level 20, the penalty is no longer applied when awarding new XP (but still applies for old XP).

Ideally, use your Bloodline score/strength/whatever as the threshold instead of 20. I don't know if that would be feasible. If your Bloodscore increased during the game, so would your penalty from that point onwards (ie, it would take even longer to reach the threshold because you have just become even more powerful that others).

Sorontar

ps. Should a similar penalty/system apply for individuals with seeming powers for the ShadowWorld, or has that not really been well developed enough to bother start discussing it? I ask this because our AD&D BR adventures had 2 unblooded PCs. One who was a half-elf that was "tainted" physically and mentally by his interaction with the SW, and the othjer was a halfling who has been practising manipulating the SW. Both were given the 10% bonus XP for not being blooded. The rest of the party were blooded but no regents.

[ploesch]

I was all over in the original thread, and I came full circle through the process. As I stated initially, and throughout, Scion levels are the Best method for balancing in all ways.

First, the Scion level takes care of Balancing Blooded versus un-blooded characters. Minor Scions can't take a level, but Major and great must, which is a balancing factor to their expanded power.

Scion levels also balance Scions versus the Environment. The additional CR effectively represents the Scions additional power allowing less work for the GM to balance encounters.

The main argument against Scion Levels is that a caster (wizards and Sorcerers in particular) lose power in that they delay their acquisition of spells by a level or more. This is deemed a greater loss than other classes. With EVERY system, including 2E BR, this is the case except for the Feat tree. It's front-loaded with the Scion Levels, Spread out with the XP modifier (2E and 3E), and front loaded with the additional negative of losing HP, Skills and BAB with the LA templates. Front loading the penalty is appropriate, the most benefit of scion levels is at lower levels, so it is appropriate to penalize the lower levels.

I like the feat tree, but in practice it does little to balance a blooded versus unblooded or even Minor versus great blood lines. I definetely think this should be included as a variant, but a warning should be placed about balance.

No matter how much I think about it, I always come back to the Scion classes being the best overall way to handle the blooded characters. It isn't perfect, but it is workable, and overall the best way to do things. I say this as someone that doesn't like how Scion Levels make being blooded feel more like a commodity than a spark of divine essence.

I have to point out again, XP mod. and LA templates have the same overall effect as scion levels. They all will make the Blooded scion less powerful in their chosen field as their unblooded counterparts. The only difference is when the limiting factor comes into play. As I said, front loading it makes the most sense. LA templates make the least sense, as they have the same negative effect as Scion levels, and none of the benefits.

That's my rant, I can expand on anything if anyone needs me to.

[gazza666]

As I pointed out in the other thread, the overall effect of the XP penalty seems to be to impose no penalty at all at low levels (where the scion powers are most unbalancing) and a significant penalty at high levels (where the scion powers are largely inconsequential) - front loading, to use your terminology.

There is an existing mechanic in Unearthed Arcana for level adjustments that achieves, IMHO, a much preferable result. Let's say we call a minor bloodline +1 LA. For a minor bloodline, the PC gets to 3rd level (ECL 4), spends 3000XP, and removes his level adjustment from that point onwards. Because of the way CR XP awards work, he'll catch up to some extent from this point onwards. If you think those XP costs are too high, then lower them - that's a much easier change than applying an across the board XP penalty which ends up just frontloading the abilities, IMHO.

Having said that it might appear I'm in favour of the template approach. While I do think the template approach was the most elegant, the scion class approach is not such a terrible method either and works reasonably well for non-spellcasters (who are no worse off than with a LA). Using the RAW, spellcasting powergamers are just not going to bother with the scion levels - but that's absolutely fine; I'm not going to bother with prestige classes that don't give full spellcasting progression either. Not all options are equally attractive to all players.

[Sigmund]

My opinion is that scion levels, while fine for all but the spellcasting classes, impose such a disproportionate penalty on especially low level spellcasters that it makes the acquisition is any blood powers higher than minor completely undesirable. This would mean that the only characters required to be blooded would be the least likely to have anything higher than minor powers. It makes no sense to me. I don't even care about the highest level spells...it just seems off to me that a 3rd level wizard of the Avan line, for example, would actually only be casting as a 1st level wizard. Even with great blood powers, the "balance" seems to go so far the other way that the character probably wouldn't survive an adventure with other 3rd levels, and most certainly wouldn't be very useful, at least not as a wizard. The player would be better off playing an unblooded magician at that point. This penalty would actually be much less detrimental at higher levels I would think.

[gazza666]

This penalty would actually be much less detrimental at higher levels I would think.
I disagree completely. At low levels the great bloodline powers probably offset the loss of 2nd or maybe even 3rd level spells.

At high levels, though, they're nothing more than cute little talents - certainly not worth a 9th level spell, and probably not worth a 5th or 6th.

[RaspK_FOG]

Well, that's arguable; Divine Wrath certainly is worth more than most 6th-level spells, especially for the cleric or wizard king who gains more useful benefits due to the diversity of his talents, and the same can be told of other great abilities as well.

[Sigmund]

Great blood abilities, in certain situations and conditions, can have a more powerful effect than individual spells. Other great blood abilities would have very little direct effect on the game at the adventuring level (like Long Life, or Home Hearkening). Any of them would have limited numbers of uses or conditions on their use (like Divine Wrath at the great level). Using the scion class doesn't prevent a 3rd level character from having great blood abilities.... the character would have actually gained them at 2nd level. A 3rd level fighter scion of Anduiras actually gives up no BAB progression, and still gets great blood abilities along with bonus HPs and other goodies. Meanwhile, even the 3rd level wizard scion of Vorynn get's not even half-progression in spells for the (most likely) one great blood ability. Also, any of the derivation's scion classes would have much less of an impact on the non-casting classes with regards to the main feature/function of the class. It's just this uneven effect that doesn't sit well with me.

While the feat tree I'm working into my campaign isn't perfect, it at least avoids delaying class progression for any class, has the same cost to acquire for each class (the cost being feat slots), and has the added benefit of delaying actual access to the most unbalancing blood powers until at least 3rd level (instead of 2nd like the scion class), and possibly even 6th level for some. The inclusion of one more minor power feat would delay the great power acquisition even further if they are found to be unbalancing a person's campaign

It has been argued that this still favors the fighter, but I don't agree. Yes, fighters get more bonus feats but that's because bonus feats are the fighter's class feature. They don't get spells, wild shapes, Uncanny Dodge, or Bardic Knowledge, they get feats instead. These feats are specific feats relating to mundane (as opposed to magical) combat. I would not include bloodline feats in any class list of bonus feats simply because bloodline feats don't have anything to do with any specific class directly. this means even the fighter and wizard would have to use their non-class feat progression to gain bloodline feats. While not strictly accurate in modelling the original system as it relates to blood ability acquisition, it is the best compromise IMO.

[Sigmund]

In typing my last post I have discovered another issue with the scion class. It's really nothing more than another base class that has only 2 levels. This means a 2nd level character can have access to what amounts to class features that allow the character to Mass Charm Monster and Confuse (Charm Aura), 1d6-1 CON damage at a touch (major level of Death Touch), Hypnotic Pattern and Fear (Divine Aura), etc. On top of these they get bonus HPs and weapon and armor use. How does this prevent these powers from unbalancing a low level campaign? The effect I see it having is that all great blooded characters would still get unbalancing powers pretty much front-loaded.

[irdeggman]

Great blood abilities, in certain situations and conditions, can have a more powerful effect than individual spells. Other great blood abilities would have very little direct effect on the game at the adventuring level (like Long Life, or Home Hearkening). Any of them would have limited numbers of uses or conditions on their use (like Divine Wrath at the great level). Using the scion class doesn't prevent a 3rd level character from having great blood abilities.... the character would have actually gained them at 2nd level. A 3rd level fighter scion of Anduiras actually gives up no BAB progression, and still gets great blood abilities along with bonus HPs and other goodies. Meanwhile, even the 3rd level wizard scion of Vorynn get's not even half-progression in spells for the (most likely) one great blood ability. Also, any of the derivation's scion classes would have much less of an impact on the non-casting classes with regards to the main feature/function of the class. It's just this uneven effect that doesn't sit well with me.



And the 3rd level wizardf with 2 scion class levels gets roughly 6-9 levels worth of wizard hit dice in bonus hit points. He also trades up in HD size for those 2 levels. The wizard gives up - around 2 spell per day by giving up those levels. In exchange he can gain some pretty significant blood abilites. For example the the ones that are equivalent of much hihger level spells than 2nd level ones are:

Charm Aura (equal to charm monster, mass) 3x/day

Divine Aura (hypnotic pattern) 1/day

Divine Wrath (as mentioned)

Elemental Control (summoon monster V) 1/day and an extra spell (dependant on derivation)

Enhanced Sense (derivation dependant - detect evil at will, shadow sense, vision can penetrate normal and magical darkness up to 60 ft, scrying, greater 1/day)

Healing (cure serious wounds or neutralize poison 1/day)

Light of Reason (sunlight once per day)

Major Resistance (derivation specific - but can get SR 16 ampoung choices)

Protection from Evil (continuous Magic Circle against Evil)

Resistance (derivation specific but can get permanent freedom of movement when in water and water breathing)

Shadow Form (can turn into a shadow 1/day for 1 min/level)

Touch of Decay (can rust metal and other substances 1/day)

Travel (derivation specific) - but no chance of getting messed up unlike transportation spells)

Whither Touch (1d12 damage plus save each day to avoid 1d4 damage - 1/week)

There are some serious spell like abilities there.

The fighter trades down in hit die size. The bonus hit points he recieves is roughly only half as many levels worth in relative class hit dice.

[irdeggman]

In typing my last post I have discovered another issue with the scion class. It's really nothing more than another base class that has only 2 levels. This means a 2nd level character can have access to what amounts to class features that allow the character to Mass Charm Monster and Confuse (Charm Aura), 1d6-1 CON damage at a touch (major level of Death Touch), Hypnotic Pattern and Fear (Divine Aura), etc. On top of these they get bonus HPs and weapon and armor use. How does this prevent these powers from unbalancing a low level campaign? The effect I see it having is that all great blooded characters would still get unbalancing powers pretty much front-loaded.

Since they seem to cause someone to alternate betwen not powerful enough (as in they cast a spellcaster too much) and too powerful (as in they allow high level spells at low levels) it would appear to me that they are indeed about right power-wise.

They may not seem right or sit well with everyone, but power-wise they are porbably about right.

[Sigmund]

Since they seem to cause someone to alternate betwen not powerful enough (as in they cast a spellcaster too much) and too powerful (as in they allow high level spells at low levels) it would appear to me that they are indeed about right power-wise.

They may not seem right or sit well with everyone, but power-wise they are porbably about right.

Actually, short of denying great blood abilities completely or at least until higher levels are reached, heavily modifying either the abilities themselves or the entire way bloodline works, or giving everyone great bloodlines (none of which are realistic or desirable solutions for everyone), I'd submit that great blood abilities have never and are not now about right power-wise. I most definitely don't envy ya'all in the choices you had to make in developing the raw for BR 3.5 :)

I do understand your reasoning, and it seems to be a mostly fair trade-off in the purely numerical sense (although I'm still not convinced it is in actuality). It just doesn't make any sense to me in the suspension of disbelief area. Using feats and delaying acquisition of major and great blood powers until higher levels I can explain away, even if it is a minor change from the original setting material. Requiring levels seems, to me and my players (I talked to them about it last night), to imply the abilities require training and/or practice to acquire. This seems to be a larger change, for what seems to me no appreciable gain in balance issues. Whether the numbers seem to work out or not, using the scion class allows a 2nd level character to gain access to all those powerful abilities you listed, whether that player aspires to be a wizard or a fighter later on. So while the 2nd level fighter is doing his/her fighter thing, and the 2nd level wizard is Sleeping and/or Magic Missile-ing away, the 2nd level scion is fighting fairly well, while also potentially able to mass charm, or turn into a shadow. Plus, on top of the great ability(s), the scion will also likely have major and minor powers to bring to bear too. How is this balanced? Am I missing something?

I concede...a 3rd level PC with 2 levels of scion and 1 of wizard will not always result in a weak character, but it will result in a weak wizard that will always be a weaker wizard than a comparable one with a minor bloodline. This seems to result in the minor bloodline wizard actually beginning to become more powerful overall than the great bloodline one as their levels advance, experience being equal. This also doesn't sound right to me.

I also concede that I am coming at this issue exclusively from the adventuring level of BR. I have done no research or thinking into how the raw balances or works out at the regency/domain-play level. To be fair, ya'all warned me in the raw that the scion levels were designed with at least 50% domain-play in mind and that it would work less well for my style of almost purely adventuring play. I just want ya'all to know I understand that I might not being giving the scion class system the full credit it deserves. I'm just expressing my concerns, as they come to me. That I am not the only one who shares some of these opinions/concerns helps me at least to believe that I'm not arbitrarily nit-picking.

[Mikal]

And the 3rd level wizardf with 2 scion class levels gets roughly 6-9 levels worth of wizard hit dice in bonus hit points. He also trades up in HD size for those 2 levels. The wizard gives up - around 2 spell per day by giving up those levels. In exchange he can gain some pretty significant blood abilites. For example the the ones that are equivalent of much hihger level spells than 2nd level ones are:

Charm Aura (equal to charm monster, mass) 3x/day

Divine Aura (hypnotic pattern) 1/day

Divine Wrath (as mentioned)

Elemental Control (summoon monster V) 1/day and an extra spell (dependant on derivation)

Enhanced Sense (derivation dependant - detect evil at will, shadow sense, vision can penetrate normal and magical darkness up to 60 ft, scrying, greater 1/day)

Healing (cure serious wounds or neutralize poison 1/day)

Light of Reason (sunlight once per day)

Major Resistance (derivation specific - but can get SR 16 ampoung choices)

Protection from Evil (continuous Magic Circle against Evil)

Resistance (derivation specific but can get permanent freedom of movement when in water and water breathing)

Shadow Form (can turn into a shadow 1/day for 1 min/level)

Touch of Decay (can rust metal and other substances 1/day)

Travel (derivation specific) - but no chance of getting messed up unlike transportation spells)

Whither Touch (1d12 damage plus save each day to avoid 1d4 damage - 1/week)

There are some serious spell like abilities there.

The fighter trades down in hit die size. The bonus hit points he recieves is roughly only half as many levels worth in relative class hit dice.

You neglect to mention the wizard also is held back two levels in gaining new spell level power, and in the case of Sorcerers, almost denies them 9th level casting.

Thematically and mechanically speaking, scion levels should give spellcasting levels. After all, you NEED to be blooded (if not elven) to even CAST true magic. As such, there's a strong tie between such magic and blood, and no reason thematically to not allow scion classes to have the "increases existing spellcasting level +1" modifier.

[gazza666]

If you give full spellcasting progression, then the balance swings too far the other way. Fighters and rogues must give up a little bit to take scion levels (a feat, some skill points, whatever); a sorcerer gives up absolutely nothing (and a wizard gives up little).

Fundamentally, if there is one type of D&D character that doesn't really need great bloodline powers to seem impressive, it is spellcasters. That's why I don't really care that much that the scion levels are unattractive to spellcasters in the RAW - virtually anything is unattractive compared to higher level spells.

[Mikal]

If you give full spellcasting progression, then the balance swings too far the other way. Fighters and rogues must give up a little bit to take scion levels (a feat, some skill points, whatever); a sorcerer gives up absolutely nothing (and a wizard gives up little).

True, but to be honest the scion class itself does little as a class, outside of the blood boost. If anything, mechanically speaking, it's a mix power wise between a decent PrC and a crappy PrC. Allowing spellcasters to retain their full power with the class bumps it up a tad. Perhaps to balance it against spellcasters it could be "+1 to existing spellcasting level or Bonus Feat", as some PrCs currently have.


That's why I don't really care that much that the scion levels are unattractive to spellcasters in the RAW - virtually anything is unattractive compared to higher level spells.

As I said earlier, the mechanics were only part of my reasoning. The other was thematics: True magic can only be achieved via two ways: being blooded, or being an elf. It makes little thematic sense that a class that enhances your blood doesn't also enhance your magic.

[ploesch]

not to be rude, but what are you smoking Mikal? :)

Perhaps you are confused as to what you actually are supposed to get for the Scion class, I know I was at first, and it took help from this community for me to see the light.

Reposted from the last thread.


* Skills that are forever considered class skills. One or two that are of your own choice.
* HP, not just from the class, but bonus HP = to the lower of 1/2 Bloodscore OR RP collected per season, adjusted seasonally.
* Depending on class and derivation, Saving throws and BAB you would not normaly get.
* Depending on class and derivation, access to weapons and armor you would normally have to spend a feat to get.
* Higher levels of Blood Abilities depending on Blood Strength and Score.
* An Heirloom(useful non-charged magic item) or 2500G.
* All the Mundane items you want and a mount to carry them.
* Boost to Bloodscore likely giving more powers.

Now, while wizards are rarely in melee, they do tend to need more HP at lower levels because they run out of spells rather quickly, so must rely on lower damage melee or ranged weapons. The BAB and Extra HP are a larger bonus for wzards than any other class as they help them to survive those crucial lower levels when their spell power isn't great. The BAB also helps them be a little more effective when out of spells and using bow or sling. The scion classes also, in general, gives them better armor and weapon selection than they would normaly be allowed, which can be important in a low magic world.

/steps off of soap box

OK, if none of that is new to you, or helpful, sorry for wasting the ink.

[gazza666]

Actually I can see Mikal's point.

I acknowledge everything in that list, ploesch - but it's not enough to make me want to take scion levels as a wizard, sorcerer, druid, or cleric. If you removed all of that list except blood ability access, lowered the BAB progression to +1/2, made it d4 hp (with no bonus), and only good Will saves, but you added full spellcasting progression - then I'd take it as a wizard or sorcerer, sure.

I don't really care that it's not attractive to spellcasters, but I do disagree with the assertion that there is sufficient compensation for the loss of spellcasting. (At least not from a powergaming perspective, and if we're talking about mechanics then that seems a fair perspective to take).

[irdeggman]

Actually, short of denying great blood abilities completely or at least until higher levels are reached, heavily modifying either the abilities themselves or the entire way bloodline works, or giving everyone great bloodlines (none of which are realistic or desirable solutions for everyone), I'd submit that great blood abilities have never and are not now about right power-wise. I most definitely don't envy ya'all in the choices you had to make in developing the raw for BR 3.5 :)

I do understand your reasoning, and it seems to be a mostly fair trade-off in the purely numerical sense (although I'm still not convinced it is in actuality). It just doesn't make any sense to me in the suspension of disbelief area. Using feats and delaying acquisition of major and great blood powers until higher levels I can explain away, even if it is a minor change from the original setting material. Requiring levels seems, to me and my players (I talked to them about it last night), to imply the abilities require training and/or practice to acquire. This seems to be a larger change, for what seems to me no appreciable gain in balance issues. Whether the numbers seem to work out or not, using the scion class allows a 2nd level character to gain access to all those powerful abilities you listed, whether that player aspires to be a wizard or a fighter later on. So while the 2nd level fighter is doing his/her fighter thing, and the 2nd level wizard is Sleeping and/or Magic Missile-ing away, the 2nd level scion is fighting fairly well, while also potentially able to mass charm, or turn into a shadow. Plus, on top of the great ability(s), the scion will also likely have major and minor powers to bring to bear too. How is this balanced? Am I missing something?

Well requiring 3 feats in order to get great blood abilities requires a PC to be at least 3rd level (and then only if human, non-humans would required to be 6th level). So this essentially works the same as the "acquiring experience and training" issues.

I would again point out that the concept that leveling implies (or requires) training is not part of the core WotC philosophy. In fact it goes against many of the philosophies of published material.

Most published adventures assume that the PCs do not require time to gain benefits of leveling up. Age of Worms is a prime example. {I really think that would make an interesting one to convert to BR}.

[irdeggman]

I now that I have pointed out the Frequently asked questions pinned thread before as a source of past discussions on this subject but here are some more pertinent threads (and informatin):


http://www.birthright.net/showthread.php?t=1312&highlight=Powers%3A (http://www.birthright.net/showthread.php?t=1312&highlight=Powers%3A)

Started in 2003

Poll results (from 2003):

http://www.birthright.net/showthread.php?t=1343&highlight=Powers%3A (http://www.birthright.net/showthread.php?t=1343&highlight=Powers%3A)

Summary:

Final Chapter 2 poll results are (I've closed them, as I said I would):

Should the blood ability score be treated as a 7th ability type score?

Yes, I like the concept and treatment. 58% (18)
No, I object! 42% (13)

Should scion templates be used to represent the strength of bloodline derivation?

Yes, I agree 56% (19)
No, I object! 44% (15)

Should ECLs be used for the different bloodline strengths?

Yes, I agree 65% (24)
No, I object! 35% (13)

How I read the poll results (the line I drew for a clear majority was to be close to twice as many in favor as opposed, roughly 66% of the vote in the polls given):

A majority likes the 7th ability score use to treat the blood ability score. This is only a simple majority and not a clear majority so the proposal needs to be revamped, an alternate needs to be developed or 2 separate systems need to be presented, one as a variant.

To proceed along the path of developing another viable system the following are points that need to be addressed by any system developed:

(1) It has to be simple. At least no more complicated than the 3rd edition standard systems used, e.g., skills and feats, class advancement, spell casting, etc.

(2) The system has to be compatible with both a random based system and a planned development system (a point buy system is an example of a planned development system).

(3) The system has to mesh with 3rd edition mechanics.

(4) This one is mine and not necessarily a set in stone precept from a rule standpoint, it just makes things easier game mechanics-wise. The system should lend itself to adaptation to increasing the DCs of blood abilities that require them (similar to spell DCs).


A majority likes the scion as a template concept to represent the strength of a bloodline, again only a simple majority. The same actions as needed for the blood score above need to be taken.


A clear majority, almost 2 to 1 for like the use of ECLs for different bloodline strengths.

This is something to maintain in our minds as we pursue the above two tasks. This clearly can’t be totally addressed until the previous two issues are addressed.

[gazza666]

To be pedantic, I think you mean "LA" rather than "ECL" there.

[Sigmund]

Well requiring 3 feats in order to get great blood abilities requires a PC to be at least 3rd level (and then only if human, non-humans would required to be 6th level). So this essentially works the same as the "acquiring experience and training" issues.

I would again point out that the concept that leveling implies (or requires) training is not part of the core WotC philosophy. In fact it goes against many of the philosophies of published material.

Most published adventures assume that the PCs do not require time to gain benefits of leveling up. Age of Worms is a prime example. {I really think that would make an interesting one to convert to BR}.

While many feats do simulate training, there are many feats that do not. Many feats simulate a character's natural aptitudes manifesting themselves.

The oncept that leveling implies (or requires) training many not be a part of WotC philosophy, but the implication is there none the less. When my character's skills with weapons, his ability to defend himself, and his level of proficiency at bluffing, riding a horse, and weaving baskets all increase, it indicates to me at least a small amount of practice and discovery has taken place. To say otherwise would be a serious blow to suspension of disbelief IMO.

It seems to me that published adventures do not require time to gain benefits of leveling for two reasons. The first is for simplicity's sake. The second is because a quantity of practice and self-training is assumed to be occuring during the glossed-over free times of the character each day. I point to the rational behind the wizard's gaining of two spells each level to support my view.

I am not that familiar with Age of Worms, but the name sounds as if dragons are involved, and since dragons are seriously scary for PCs and fun for DMs I suspect you might be right. :D

[irdeggman]

While many feats do simulate training, there are many feats that do not. Many feats simulate a character's natural aptitudes manifesting themselves.

The oncept that leveling implies (or requires) training many not be a part of WotC philosophy, but the implication is there none the less. When my character's skills with weapons, his ability to defend himself, and his level of proficiency at bluffing, riding a horse, and weaving baskets all increase, it indicates to me at least a small amount of practice and discovery has taken place. To say otherwise would be a serious blow to suspension of disbelief IMO.


DMG pgs 197+ talks about options for how PCs improves, inlcuding how to learn (and improve) skills, class abilities, and feats.

There is no prequisite for having to train to level up and the very first thing that is done when leveling up is to choose a class. Although the character level benefits are gained in parallel.


It seems to me that published adventures do not require time to gain benefits of leveling for two reasons. The first is for simplicity's sake. The second is because a quantity of practice and self-training is assumed to be occuring during the glossed-over free times of the character each day. I point to the rational behind the wizard's gaining of two spells each level to support my view.

My point was that they re-enforce the WotC default stand that it takes no time or training to gain benefits a character gets when leveling up.


I am not that familiar with Age of Worms, but the name sounds as if dragons are involved, and since dragons are seriously scary for PCs and fun for DMs I suspect you might be right. :D

This the recently completed Adventure Path in Dungeon/Dragon magazine. Adventure Paths are actually entire campaigns that run PCs from 1st to 20th level though a series of approximately 12 published adventures.

It actually has nothing to do with dragons whatsoever.


It does, however have to do with raising a "dead" evil god. . . .

[Sigmund]

DMG pgs 197+ talks about options for how PCs improves, inlcuding how to learn (and improve) skills, class abilities, and feats.

There is no prequisite for having to train to level up and the very first thing that is done when leveling up is to choose a class. Although the character level benefits are gained in parallel.

And I didn't say there was a prerequisite for having to train to level up. What I said was the training is assumed to have occured during the day-to-day activities of the character throughout the previous level. It's just a half-hearted attempt to maintain suspension of disbelief yet introduce simplicity and expediency to the leveling process IMO.



My point was that they re-enforce the WotC default stand that it takes no time or training to gain benefits a character gets when leveling up.

And my point was that the system doesn't say it takes no time or training to gain benefits when leveling up. Quite the contrary actually. What is says is that the time and training required to level up don't need to be RPed or accounted for.

Pg. 58 of the PHB, Experience and Levels section, Training and Practice subsection

"Characters spend time between adventures training, studying, or otherwise practicing their skills. This work consolidates what they learn on adventures and keeps them in top form. If, for some reason, a character can't practice or train for an extended time, the DM may reduce XP awards or even cause the character to lose experience points."


This the recently completed Adventure Path in Dungeon/Dragon magazine. Adventure Paths are actually entire campaigns that run PCs from 1st to 20th level though a series of approximately 12 published adventures.

It actually has nothing to do with dragons whatsoever.


It does, however have to do with raising a "dead" evil god. . . .

Bummer, although dead evil gods are cool too I suppose. I like dragons better ;) I did very much like the Shackled City adventure path.

Edit: Forgot to include my point about feats. I concede that most feats do seem to simulate training, especially the ones that are arranged in "trees". My only defense is that, although they are really crappy comparisons, the skill bonus feats simulate potential natural aptitudes a character might have, thereby demonstrating that not all feats are meant to simulate training (and also keep in mind I'm just looking in the PHB for the examples because there are just too many damn feats to sort through otherwise ;) ).

[DanMcSorley]

On 9/14/06, gazza666 <brnetboard@birthright.net> wrote:
> gazza666 wrote:
> I acknowledge everything in that list, ploesch - but it`s not enough to make me want to
> take scion levels as a wizard, sorcerer, druid, or cleric. If you removed all of that list
> except blood ability access, lowered the BAB progression to +1/2, made it d4 hp (with no
> bonus), and only good Will saves, but you added full spellcasting progression - then I`d
> take it as a wizard or sorcerer, sure.

Of course you would. Full spellcasting progression, normal hit
points, BAB, and saves for a wizard, PLUS special abilities? It`s
strictly better than either base class.

It`s not supposed to be. Classes are supposed to be roughly
equivalent with each other, in terms of utility. So it should have at
least one skipped level of spellcasting progression, in exchange for
the extras it grants.

Spellcasters aren`t forced to take it if they don`t want to. And the
munchkins won`t.
--
Daniel McSorley

[irdeggman]

Bummer, although dead evil gods are cool too I suppose. I like dragons better ;) I did very much like the Shackled City adventure path.


Can you say Azrai and a potential tie in to the Cold Rider? That is where I saw the immediate tie in.

[Sigmund]

Can you say Azrai and a potential tie in to the Cold Rider? That is where I saw the immediate tie in.

Now that's a cool concept. As soon as I read the text concerning the Cold Rider, I immediately thought, "So Azrai didn't die..." I'm 99.9% sure that in my campaign, whether I end up making him the Cold Rider, or having the Cold Rider just be his main flunky, Azrai will have survived Deismar by retreating to the Shadow World and using it to slowly regain his strength until he's ready to reassert himself (Sauron anyone?). I'd be very surprised if I was the only one doing this :) The reason I haven't looked into Age of Worms and won't is because one of my players has had a subscription to Dragon for years, so he's already looked through the adventure paths (he also DMs).

[irdeggman]

It occurs to me that several people, especially those fairly new to the boards/mailserv, who might not know some of the effort the community has gone through to get where the BRCS is at the present.

The “project” was started sometime in 2001 with an initial group assembled based on their postings and other non-tangibles.

IIRC there were about 10 or so people in this initial group. Most got involved in other things, like real life, and dropped out. More were added later on. 2 of the final 3 that ended up actually putting together the BRCS-playtest were in the additions (me and Mark_Aurel). Doom was the primary editor at that time and the main driver for keeping the project running. Eternal thanks go to the man for that.

It took between 18 months and 2 years before the BRCS-playtest was posted. There were a lot of rather pointed and accusatory posts just before then accusing the “team” of not being responsive to posts.

The BRCS-playtest was posted in Feb 2003. IIRC the actual date was Feb 5th, but I say it was the 4th (just because that is my birthday).

Around March of 2003 I started postings to work on revising Chap 2 since 3.5 was getting ready to be issued and people were hearing about it from WotC and Dragon magazine previews.

This discussion and revision of Chapter 2 took about a year. There were many, many polls and accompanying discussions. The “final” product was the result of these discussions and polls. I don’t want anyone thinking it was something I did all on my own and tried to force down everyone’s throat.

I was criticized several times for using such a methodical approach that took so long. My stance was that it was more important to get something that the majority could use than it was to just get something out – which is pretty much what would happen without interaction with the group at large.

IIRC Chap 2 was “sanctioned” in March of 2004.

Then work went on for Chap 1 following the same formula. IIRC it didn’t take as long for discussion but some of the “concepts” were fairly drastic and required some serious re-writing – like the noble and magician classes and the variant paladin classes.

Chap 1 was “sanctioned” in Feb 2005.

As a reminder – people can use the Search feature on the top of the boards to help locate “old” discussion topics. There were some in the BRCS-discussion and the Royal Library threads that might prove useful that I did not provide links to.

[Sigmund]

On 9/14/06, gazza666 <brnetboard@birthright.net> wrote:
> gazza666 wrote:
> I acknowledge everything in that list, ploesch - but it`s not enough to make me want to
> take scion levels as a wizard, sorcerer, druid, or cleric. If you removed all of that list
> except blood ability access, lowered the BAB progression to +1/2, made it d4 hp (with no
> bonus), and only good Will saves, but you added full spellcasting progression - then I`d
> take it as a wizard or sorcerer, sure.

Of course you would. Full spellcasting progression, normal hit
points, BAB, and saves for a wizard, PLUS special abilities? It`s
strictly better than either base class.

It`s not supposed to be. Classes are supposed to be roughly
equivalent with each other, in terms of utility. So it should have at
least one skipped level of spellcasting progression, in exchange for
the extras it grants.

Spellcasters aren`t forced to take it if they don`t want to. And the
munchkins won`t.
--
Daniel McSorley


One of my several problems with the scion class system to try to balance the setting is that I can't understand why BAB, skills, or any of the other class-related features should be tied to bloodline. It seems to me that default assumption is that all scions are going to automatically also be regents, or at least major aristocracy. I find fault with this because the setting itself states that most scions are not regents, and describes many blooded families that have fallen on hard times, and blooded scions manifesting among the basest of commoners for various reasons. Then there's the Vos.

I read the earlier thread, but I haven't seen why just a simply LA based on the bloodline strength/level can't be used. As I've already described, the scion class actually does little to prevent front-loading, which seems to be the main (and maybe only) downside to LA for scions. The LA would improve the concept by using a system already in place in 3.5 for the very purpose of balancing characters with powerful abilities, and would separate the class features from bloodline since the two are not related in any way outside of balance issues. Maybe this is what the template from Savage Species does, but I do not have, nor will I be getting Savage Species, so I'm not very familiar with the mechanic. In the DMG on page 172 in the Monsters as Races section, a LA system is described that seems to be designed just for this purpose. Although the section talks about and was originally designed for playing monsters as PCs, the purpose of the system is actually just to balance the superior natural abilities of monsters to the PC races from the PHB to prevent the monster PC from overshadowing the other PCs during play. This is exactly what is needed for blooded PCs as well.

[Sigmund]

As one of the people irrdeggman referred to in the above post that is new here I'd just like to say that I appreciate all the effort that has gone before, and I regret not being here to contribute to the discussions on it's development. I sincerely hope that the present discussion is not completely irritating you all, as that is certainly not my intent, although after all the work you have put into this project I would most certainly understand if it is. I would also understand if you locked this thread and topic down as unproductive to an issue that's already been decided. I would just like to say, though, that I'm thoroughly enjoying the discussion, am finding it very useful in refining, and perhaps even completely changing, how I view and intend to approach the issue in my own game... even if it's by just house-ruling. If you would be willing to indulge any "johnny-come-latelys" like me I would, and do, appreciate it very much.

[ploesch]

One of my several problems with the scion class system to try to balance the setting is that I can't understand why BAB, skills, or any of the other class-related features should be tied to bloodline. It seems to me that default assumption is that all scions are going to automatically also be regents, or at least major aristocracy. I find fault with this because the setting itself states that most scions are not regents, and describes many blooded families that have fallen on hard times, and blooded scions manifesting among the basest of commoners for various reasons. Then there's the Vos.

I read the earlier thread, but I haven't seen why just a simply LA based on the bloodline strength/level can't be used. As I've already described, the scion class actually does little to prevent front-loading, which seems to be the main (and maybe only) downside to LA for scions. The LA would improve the concept by using a system already in place in 3.5 for the very purpose of balancing characters with powerful abilities, and would separate the class features from bloodline since the two are not related in any way outside of balance issues. Maybe this is what the template from Savage Species does, but I do not have, nor will I be getting Savage Species, so I'm not very familiar with the mechanic. In the DMG on page 172 in the Monsters as Races section, a LA system is described that seems to be designed just for this purpose. Although the section talks about and was originally designed for playing monsters as PCs, the purpose of the system is actually just to balance the superior natural abilities of monsters to the PC races from the PHB to prevent the monster PC from overshadowing the other PCs during play. This is exactly what is needed for blooded PCs as well.

LA templates are the worse solution. They have all the downsides of the Scion Classes and none of the advantages. You are still considered levels higher, you still effectively lose levels, so the caster issues persist, the slower leveling in primary class persists. The only positive thing about LA templates is that they feel more like a divine spark than a commodity. Everyone still effectively loses levels, and in this case they really lose them since they do not gain HP, BAB or skills from the template.

I'm not a powergamer, but Blooded abilities and the scion bonuses alone do not make up for the loss of one or two levels. Which is exactly what happens with LA templates.

Whether it's a "20 wizard/2 Scion" or "20 wizard with +2 LA template" it takes the same ammount of XP to get there. That fact has been the largest part of our discussion, and peoples issue with the class.

[Sigmund]

LA templates are the worse solution. They have all the downsides of the Scion Classes and none of the advantages. You are still considered levels higher, you still effectively lose levels, so the caster issues persist, the slower leveling in primary class persists. The only positive thing about LA templates is that they feel more like a divine spark than a commodity. Everyone still effectively loses levels, and in this case they really lose them since they do not gain HP, BAB or skills from the template.

I'm not a powergamer, but Blooded abilities and the scion bonuses alone do not make up for the loss of one or two levels. Which is exactly what happens with LA templates.

Whether it's a "20 wizard/2 Scion" or "20 wizard with +2 LA template" it takes the same ammount of XP to get there. That fact has been the largest part of our discussion, and peoples issue with the class.

It seems to me the main difference in the LA and the class would be, at 1st level, a scion and a commoner would both still have a base class. For example. A 1st level commoner fighter would be a 1st level fighter. A 1st level blooded fighter would still be a 1st level fighter. The only difference would be in how many XPs it would take for each character to go from 1st level to 2nd level. The commoner could gain a 2nd level of fighter after acquiring 1000 XP. The blooded character would not be able to gain another level until acquiring, for example, 3000 XP if his/her LA was +2. The point is they would both increase all the features of their class solely through gaining levels in their chosen class(es), it would just take the blooded character more XP to do it which would simulate the scion having an easier time of acquiring the XP due to the blood powers the character can bring to bear on overcoming obstacles.

Also, I know for sure this specific arguement has been pursued in the older threads because I remember reading it, so if the LA out of the DMG is essentially the same as the SS templates we can probably just read the older threads and let this issue go in the present, which I'm perfectly willing to do. I was just asking because I wasn't completely sure if the LA and the templates were the same thing.

Edit: After thinking a bit more about it, I do understand what you're saying about progression now. Whether through multi-classing with scion, or delayed advancment due to LA, the spellcaster is still going to be behind his/her commoner associates in development. That is a good point, although I still like that LA uncouples class feature progression from bloodline, especially from the POV of npcs, it wouldn't be helpful from a major or great blooded PC's point of view

[irdeggman]

One of my several problems with the scion class system to try to balance the setting is that I can't understand why BAB, skills, or any of the other class-related features should be tied to bloodline. It seems to me that default assumption is that all scions are going to automatically also be regents, or at least major aristocracy. I find fault with this because the setting itself states that most scions are not regents, and describes many blooded families that have fallen on hard times, and blooded scions manifesting among the basest of commoners for various reasons. Then there's the Vos.


The various BAB, saving throw progressions, skills and abilites were chosen (after much on-line discussion) for each derivation based on the things that "define" it. Each derivation has certain aspects that are associated with it due to the deity from which they were derived - the class features were an attempt to capture this. They were not chosen randomly.

The assumption that all scions are of nobility is not there. That is the purpose of the noble class. The assumption that a scion has certain aspects that set him apart from commoners is an assumption. There are certain things that are common to all bloodlines and reflect a certain aspect gained from the spark of divinity. Pluses to Leadership score is one.



I read the earlier thread, but I haven't seen why just a simply LA based on the bloodline strength/level can't be used. As I've already described, the scion class actually does little to prevent front-loading, which seems to be the main (and maybe only) downside to LA for scions. The LA would improve the concept by using a system already in place in 3.5 for the very purpose of balancing characters with powerful abilities, and would separate the class features from bloodline since the two are not related in any way outside of balance issues. Maybe this is what the template from Savage Species does, but I do not have, nor will I be getting Savage Species, so I'm not very familiar with the mechanic. In the DMG on page 172 in the Monsters as Races section, a LA system is described that seems to be designed just for this purpose. Although the section talks about and was originally designed for playing monsters as PCs, the purpose of the system is actually just to balance the superior natural abilities of monsters to the PC races from the PHB to prevent the monster PC from overshadowing the other PCs during play. This is exactly what is needed for blooded PCs as well.

Try this link (from a recently closed thread).

I included 2 articles for the WotC on Savage Progressions. Basically it outlines why and how to use LA races and templates as classes. Mostly to account for not suddenly gaining a LA while other PCs remain lower level. It also provides a means for allowing use of a LA race at 1st level - something that normally can't be done. This process is also becoming the "standard" in WotC products now so the scion "class" system is consistent with it.

http://www.birthright.net/showpost.php?p=35663&postcount=26

[Mikal]

not to be rude, but what are you smoking Mikal? :)

Perhaps you are confused as to what you actually are supposed to get for the Scion class, I know I was at first, and it took help from this community for me to see the light.

Reposted from the last thread.

Now, while wizards are rarely in melee, they do tend to need more HP at lower levels because they run out of spells rather quickly, so must rely on lower damage melee or ranged weapons. The BAB and Extra HP are a larger bonus for wzards than any other class as they help them to survive those crucial lower levels when their spell power isn't great. The BAB also helps them be a little more effective when out of spells and using bow or sling. The scion classes also, in general, gives them better armor and weapon selection than they would normaly be allowed, which can be important in a low magic world.

/steps off of soap box

OK, if none of that is new to you, or helpful, sorry for wasting the ink.

...And this addresses my points as to how the scion classes could be better balanced for spellcasters (and then for other classes again) with the addition of 'Increases exisiting spellcasting level +1 or bonus feat" or the thematic concerns I addressed how?


Well requiring 3 feats in order to get great blood abilities requires a PC to be at least 3rd level (and then only if human, non-humans would required to be 6th level). So this essentially works the same as the "acquiring experience and training" issues.

A 6th level being who's done nothing in their life except focus on their blood abilities, rather then trying to focus other aspects of their life, which actually favors classes that recieve bonus feats over those that don't.

[ploesch]

I keep rewriting this post as I think about what I'm trying to say.

Everytime it comes down to one thing. To create balance, you should have to give up something, or delay progression of class abilities to gain the additional power Blood Powers give.

If you don't agree with that statement, then you don't care about balance. I believe the community, for the most part, wants some type of balance. The official rules should seek to have balance.

Why?
Because the PC's should be balanced against eachother, not just for unblooded versus blooded but minor versus Major versus great, and the PC's should be balanced against the environment, if for no other reason than to ease the Game Masters job some. BRCS taxes Game Masters more than other settings as it is.

So, if you don't care about balance, throw out the Scion Levels in your game, and do what you want. Leave them or another balancing mechanic in the Official rules.

This thread should be about mechanics that can be offered as a better alternative to balance classes, but it's not shaping up that way. I've said my peace, as I've thought about it, the Scion levels seem to be the best way to do this.

[gazza666]

LA templates are the worse solution. They have all the downsides of the Scion Classes and none of the advantages. You are still considered levels higher, you still effectively lose levels, so the caster issues persist, the slower leveling in primary class persists. The only positive thing about LA templates is that they feel more like a divine spark than a commodity. Everyone still effectively loses levels, and in this case they really lose them since they do not gain HP, BAB or skills from the template.
Actually, I disagree somewhat.

The thing about the LA solution is that everyone suffers equally. Look at it from the powergaming perspective (the correct perspective when analysing mechanics): a fighter will take Scion of Anduiras, and end up losing (on average) 2 hp and 1 feat. A rogue will take Scion of Brenna and end up losing 8 skill points and 1d6 of Sneak Attack, but will come out 2hp better off. A wizard who takes any of the classes ends up with (probably) a better BAB and a few extra hit points, which does not in any way compensate for 2 lost levels of spellcasting.

(I'm assuming for the moment here that the scions aren't regents, but the point remains the same in any case - all that changes is a linear addition of hit points).

So effectively, for those other than spellcasters, they either don't suffer very much (fighters) or gain something useful in exchange (rogues - hp for a rogue are not irrelevant, since rogues are likely to be in melee), in addition to whatever powers they get from their blood. Spellcasters gain something of little value to them in exchange for what they lose (as I've pointed out - the proof is in the pudding, as any spellcasting scion would gladly trade the BAB and hit points for full spellcasting progression).

If you make it a LA+1 or LA+2 (major and great), which was the Playtest version, then every class loses 2 levels of class features. You cannot argue that this isn't absolutely fair. It is true that it still impacts spellcasters worse, but then you're just into the fact that spellcasting class feature progression (ie higher level spells) is just flat out better than non-spellcasting class feature progression - which is something that D&D has always had.

In summary: one of the main arguments against scion levels is that they provide benefits useful to nonspellcasters but not spellcasters. This argument does not apply to a LA template, as level adjustments do not apply benefits to anyone regardless of class.

As an added bonus: there is an existing mechanic in Unearthed Arcana for "buying off" level adjustments as you rise in level, so you don't suffer as much at higher levels when the blood powers are merely cute rather than useful.

Indeed, in many ways I think that scion class levels are the worst of both worlds, as they stick you with the non-spellcasting levels and at the same time boost the non-spellcasters more than the spellcasters. But the reality of the situation is that it is hard to conceive of a balanced way to make scion powers (major+) attractive to spellcasters, and if accept this as the case, you might as well make them attractive to nonspellcasters.

[Sigmund]

The various BAB, saving throw progressions, skills and abilites were chosen (after much on-line discussion) for each derivation based on the things that "define" it. Each derivation has certain aspects that are associated with it due to the deity from which they were derived - the class features were an attempt to capture this. They were not chosen randomly.

The assumption that all scions are of nobility is not there. That is the purpose of the noble class. The assumption that a scion has certain aspects that set him apart from commoners is an assumption. There are certain things that are common to all bloodlines and reflect a certain aspect gained from the spark of divinity. Pluses to Leadership score is one.




Try this link (from a recently closed thread).

I included 2 articles for the WotC on Savage Progressions. Basically it outlines why and how to use LA races and templates as classes. Mostly to account for not suddenly gaining a LA while other PCs remain lower level. It also provides a means for allowing use of a LA race at 1st level - something that normally can't be done. This process is also becoming the "standard" in WotC products now so the scion "class" system is consistent with it.

http://www.birthright.net/showpost.php?p=35663&postcount=26


I appreciate the link, and I like the system it presents. The problem that keeps coming to mind to me in this BR application though is both the little it actually seems to do to balance, as well as the BAB and such. A ranger gaining 2 levels of wereboar would be an appropriate situation in which to apply increases in BAB and other class type features, as becoming a wereboar I could easily see making one a much more powerful combatant and tougher individual all around. Gaining a bloodline, however, seems to me to not really have anything to do with such mundane things. A straight LA would not seem to require time, and wouldn't directly add class features that seem inappropriate to a character's chosen profession. Also, I agree with gazza666 about all classes losing and gaining equally with the LA, but not the class. Also, attractive or not, arcane casters are stuck with being blooded. Whether PCs or NPCs, some of them are bound to come from great bloodlines. Since wizards with great bloodlines are supposed to be powerful, I can't see hampering them with levels of a class that does nothing for their profession when a better way to simulate their innate powers can be found.

There's another way to look at my objections. To me, a class implies a job. So having to take 2 levels of scion to get a great bloodline seems to me like asking the character to work as a scion for two levels worth of XP just to gain access to their "natural" powers. On top of that, it's asking the aspiring arcane caster to work as a scion before becoming an arcane caster, all the while learning skills and developing abilities that have very little to do with being an arcane caster, simply because they come from or have inherited a great bloodline... something a character with a minor bloodline wouldn't even have to do. It just seems like a punishment.

[gazza666]

To be fair, there's nothing at all forcing someone with a major or great bloodline taking major or great powers. You can always substitute minor abilities instead.

[geeman]

Some interesting insights and comments on this subject, and after
reviewing them I think I`m back to my original way of balancing
bloodline. I had liked the idea of a percentage penalty because in
the long run the criticisms of that idea are the same ones that are
used for LA, a character class or a set of feats. That is, all those
ideas (including the XP penalty) have more to do with the character
expending or foregoing the XP he gains in order to "justify" his
bloodline when that bloodline isn`t really there to be "justified" in
that sense. It should be balanced in some way with game mechanics
for several reasons. DMs need to adjudicate adventures fairly,
giving out an appropriate CR award, adventures need to be designed
logically, which needs a way of accounting for bloodline,
etc. However, all the methods suggested turn bloodline into either
an adjunct of the class system, meaning the character must expend his
class features or even class levels in order to gain access to what
is originally supposed to be an inherit power (hence the word "birth"
in the term "birthright") or in the case of the XP penalty accept a
slower than normal class progression. These are all really just
slightly different shades of the same process. None of them
accurately portray the concept as originally presented in which a 1st
level character had the powers of his bloodline from the get
go. That was and is the point.

This discussion has been useful, however, since it`s articulated most
of the issues having to do with the problem, and that`s put me back
to the way I had set up accounting for bloodine in the first place:
as a factor in the inventory of the character. Giving a character a
bloodline is like giving him a magic item that is inappropriate for
his level per the table in the DMG that lists the gp value of
characters by their level. The difference between giving a PC a
permanent spell on his person and a minor bloodline is
negligible. Other blood abilities scale up in power from those
typically made permanent, but the idea remains the same. They should
be accounted for in a way comparable to magic item since that is how
they are employed.

So, the long and short of this is that I think bloodline should be
assigned a gp value and factored into a scion`s inventory. His
effective character levels are the average of this actual character
levels and that of a character whose inventory his actual inventory
is equal to. This addresses all of the issues having to do with
character class and losing class abilities because the character will
lose none. He will gain less XP at lower levels than he might
normally, but when his character levels do increase the value of his
assumed inventory will as well, meaning that at the upper levels a
scion with even a very powerful bloodline will not be penalized
(unless he also has a lot of magic items in his inventory.)

Gary

[irdeggman]

There's another way to look at my objections. To me, a class implies a job. So having to take 2 levels of scion to get a great bloodline seems to me like asking the character to work as a scion for two levels worth of XP just to gain access to their "natural" powers. On top of that, it's asking the aspiring arcane caster to work as a scion before becoming an arcane caster, all the while learning skills and developing abilities that have very little to do with being an arcane caster, simply because they come from or have inherited a great bloodline... something a character with a minor bloodline wouldn't even have to do. It just seems like a punishment.

So the class levels for a drow are "jobs"?

Or the racial paragon class levels of Unearthed Arcana?

Sorry the argument just doesn't quite work.

Classes were chosen instead of LA templates in order to capture the LA (which people thought was appropriate to have for bloodlines pretty overwhelmingly by the way) in amnner that allows for PCs to play at the same time.

For example (and I have brought this one up several times in the past) if one PC starts with the a LA bloodline and another does not then the two are not balanced unless their relative ECL is used as the starting point.

And if yuo start at a 1st level game then a 1st level PC with a +1 LA is not a 1st level PC he is a 2nd level one by the definition of ECL.

The reason that hitpoints, BAB, etc. were added to the scion classes was
to make them a more palatable choice than say the no hit dice class levels of several of the template class levels. While this makes them more powerful in comparison to the savage progression class levels it was more easily ported into a BR setting and was generally perceived as the "best" option available.

[irdeggman]

It appears that at least some people believe this is an opportunity to rewrite what was already "sanctioned". They are not about performing "minor" tweaks either - they revolve around complete restructuring.

It is not, the matter is closed. I have laid out the process and evolution that went into getting to where the chapter is now and that was extremely detailed, lengthy and democratic process.

I will lay down my editorial foot here.

Discussion of how someone can handle things differently in their own game is a different matter and that is pretty much what the boards and community was all about from the beginning - how are people doing things and what can they "steal" from each other to make their game a more enjoyable one.:)


The BRCs contains quite a lot of information and suggestions as to how things can be modified to cpature different "feels" and different "styles" of gameplay. There has been a lot of criticizm in the past for having too many variants, sidebars and background disccusions in the BRCS as it is not.

[gazza666]

So, the long and short of this is that I think bloodline should be
assigned a gp value and factored into a scion`s inventory.
I think that approach has a lot to recommend it, actually.

The one stumbling block here is that regents can smash the gp per level limit fairly easily with the use of the Finance action. Outright forbidding the Finance action doesn't strike me as a particularly unpalatable option, though.

[Sigmund]

To be fair, there's nothing at all forcing someone with a major or great bloodline taking major or great powers. You can always substitute minor abilities instead.

While true, this isn't really the point. The raw comes across to me as a kind of penalty for any character manifesting major or great powers. I'm just trying to hash out a less penalyzing system. Criminy this is a hard issue to deal with :( I really can understand why this has been so picked apart mechanically, as really everyone posting to this thread has valid issues. Despite my earlier assertion that the feat tree was for me, I'm no longer sure. I'm becoming very seriously tempted to remove all major and great powers and have only minor powers for everyone, but it would require some serious npc reworking.

[Sigmund]

So the class levels for a drow are "jobs"?

Or the racial paragon class levels of Unearthed Arcana?

Sorry the argument just doesn't quite work.

Classes were chosen instead of LA templates in order to capture the LA (which people thought was appropriate to have for bloodlines pretty overwhelmingly by the way) in amnner that allows for PCs to play at the same time.

For example (and I have brought this one up several times in the past) if one PC starts with the a LA bloodline and another does not then the two are not balanced unless their relative ECL is used as the starting point.

And if yuo start at a 1st level game then a 1st level PC with a +1 LA is not a 1st level PC he is a 2nd level one by the definition of ECL.

The reason that hitpoints, BAB, etc. were added to the scion classes was
to make them a more palatable choice than say the no hit dice class levels of several of the template class levels. While this makes them more powerful in comparison to the savage progression class levels it was more easily ported into a BR setting and was generally perceived as the "best" option available.


No, "drow" is not a job. Really though, "scion" is not a race either. I, however, am coming full circle I think, and I'm about ready to just go with the raw and try to let go of my objections. It's the dang wizard that keeps tripping me up though. I just can't help thinking that all things being equal, a 10th level wizard with a minor bloodline is going to be more powerful overall than an 8th level wizard/ 2nd level scion with the great bloodline, and that makes little sense to me. Maybe I'll just try working out some npcs using half spell progression.

[Sigmund]

I have a question. In starting a new campaign, does the raw intend that all characters start at 1st level, including a PC lucky enough to be allowed a major or great bloodline, who would start as a 1st level scion along with the class features that go along with it? Or does the raw intend that if a character is allowed, say, a major bloodline, then all characters would start at 2nd level, with the major blooded scion as a scion 1/ whatever 1?

[irdeggman]

I have a question. In starting a new campaign, does the raw intend that all characters start at 1st level, including a PC lucky enough to be allowed a major or great bloodline, who would start as a 1st level scion along with the class features that go along with it? Or does the raw intend that if a character is allowed, say, a major bloodline, then all characters would start at 2nd level, with the major blooded scion as a scion 1/ whatever 1?

The RAW doesn't dictate starting levels of the game - no more than the PHB dictates what level a generic D&D game starts at. That is up to the DM. The use of scion class levels provides a mechanic that can be used for games that start at 1st level and for those that start at higher levels.

The player "picks" a derivation and strength. {Default method is not random determination}

The strength (minor, major or great) allows access to scion class levels - that can be taken at any time a normal class level can be taken.

I had posted several suggestions for ways to handle a scion that starts with with a major (or great) strength and then gains a level of scion class (which allows access to higher level blood abilities). The RAW does not specifically address this issue and leaves it to the GM to work out in a manner that suits his game.

[DanMcSorley]

On 9/15/06, Sigmund <brnetboard@birthright.net> wrote:
> I have a question. In starting a new campaign, does the raw intend that all characters start at
> 1st level, including a PC lucky enough to be allowed a major or great bloodline, who would
> start as a 1st level scion along with the class features that go along with it? Or does the raw
> intend that if a character is allowed, say, a major bloodline, then all characters would start at
> 2nd level, with the mjor blooded scion as a scion 1/ whatever 1?

The intention of the scion class is to allow both. Compare that to a
Level Adjustment, with which the only way to start with a level
adjustment is the second option; LAs preclude the first.
--
Daniel McSorley

[Sigmund]

On 9/15/06, Sigmund <brnetboard@birthright.net> wrote:
> I have a question. In starting a new campaign, does the raw intend that all characters start at
> 1st level, including a PC lucky enough to be allowed a major or great bloodline, who would
> start as a 1st level scion along with the class features that go along with it? Or does the raw
> intend that if a character is allowed, say, a major bloodline, then all characters would start at
> 2nd level, with the mjor blooded scion as a scion 1/ whatever 1?

The intention of the scion class is to allow both. Compare that to a
Level Adjustment, with which the only way to start with a level
adjustment is the second option; LAs preclude the first.
--
Daniel McSorley


That is true, I hadn't looked at it that way actually. For PCs in my campaign, the great bloodline will not be an option the vast majority of the time, I discuss it mainly from an npc PoV. Keeping that in mind, I'd like to ask any DMs what they intend, using scion class levels, for starting levels. I'm now thinking of just using the scion class and starting everyone at 2nd level if one of the PCs wants a major bloodline. That is if I use 3.5 to play BR, which I'm right now leaning toward due to lack of time for converting BR to True20. I like the feat system, but the one objection I've heard that resonates with me is that many blood powers at the great or even major level are much more powerful than any other feats. If I do eventually convert to True20 though the feat system will be the definite way to go for bloodlines.

Perhaps it might be helpful to also hear how the use of scion levels have gone in actual play, if any players or DMs have used the mechanic in a game and wouldn't mind sharing their experiences.

[irdeggman]

I guess it depends on the game being run.

If using the 2nd ed material as a starting point then the NPC regents are most likely higher level than the PCs.

If doing a complete remake of the published setting (i.e., the 2nd ed material) so that the domains are not what they were in the starting point there then it still depends on what the Dm wants to do.

If trying to come up with NPC encounters - well then it depends on what EL you are trying to have.

[ploesch]

Gazza666, I get your point about LA templates treating everyone equally, and you are 100% right there. With LA templates everyone starts off with less power.

The reason I don't like them is that, IMO the Scion bonuses alone are not enough of an incentive to take an LA template. LA Templates have all the negative aspects of Scion Classes and few of the benefits.

Negative aspects:
You are effectively higher level, Higher CR, and Need more Experience to level.
This is the same as losing level progression.

In addition,
You don't gain Skills
You don't gain Dice of HP
You don't gain Saves
You don't gain BAB

So, by using templates instead of levels, it may even the play field between the players some, but it does not even them out versus the Environment. Especially in a case where someone has a high blood strength, but low Blood Score. The guy with the great blood line that rolled poorly, so only has a final blood score of 24, but has to take a +2 LA so that he can get great powers down the road. With Scion levels he could even wait till later to pick up the scion level further balancing himself.

I do like the feel of LA templates better, from an RP standpoint they feel more like divine spark then levels do, but I still feel the levels are better balance wise.

Anyway, we probably won't change eachothers mind, and we aren't going to get the books changed, so lets depart friends.

[geeman]

At 03:32 AM 9/15/2006, irdeggman wrote:

>It appears that at least some people believe this is an opportunity
>to rewrite what was already "sanctioned". They are not about
>performing "minor" tweaks either - they revolve around complete restructuring.
>
>It is not, the matter is closed. I have laid out the process and
>evolution that went into getting to where the chapter is now and
>that was extremely detailed, lengthy and democratic process.
>
>I will lay down my editorial foot here.

Has anyone actually mentioned changing the already "sanctioned"
BRCS? I don`t think anyone has said or even implied anything like that.

But, you know, now that you mention it.... A wiki version of
things. Can`t wait for that to get going.

Gary

[gazza666]

Negative aspects:
You are effectively higher level, Higher CR, and Need more Experience to level.
This is the same as losing level progression.

(snip!)

A few points:

Using a Savage Species inspired progression, you could ensure that someone with a great bloodline could take it in pieces, so they don't have to take the whole LA at once if they want a few class levels first. Of course this duplicates what the scion class levels allow you to do.
Using Unearthed Arcana, you can buy off a LA. You can't buy off scion levels.
In a very real sense, being a scion is most similar to a template (with some aspects of "inherited template" and some of "acquired template"), and D&D already has well defined rules for such characters; being a scion is not mechanically all that different from being a vampire, a lich, etc.


However, please note that while I think that is the "purest" means of doing it, I 100% support the scion class levels. There is almost nothing fair that you can do to make sacrificing spellcasting levels attractive; you might as well make scion class levels attractive to non-spellcasters. I think the idea of making it effectively part of your inventory is actually the most interesting idea (though probably rightly rejected as overly complex for the core rules). In fact, that idea is so cool I'm wondering if it might be a way to simulate LA stuff in other D&D settings as well, such as my home brew campaign.