View Full Version : Starting the 4e conversion
aluman
06-06-2008, 01:28 AM
While not the most active here (mostly due to detesting straight DnD in 3.X), I was fortunate in getting my 4th ed DnD books early (up to now I had used AGoT with some modifcations for Birthright).
Here is some thoughts for BR 4e
1. Warlocks need to be replaced or removed, they don't fit slightly.
2. Eladrin's Fey Step actually reminds me a bit of the halfling abilities.
3. Human subraces could get a +2 to what they used to get a +1 to, but detracts minorly from the 'good at everything specalist at nothing' that they push for 4e Humans.
Blood Abilities
With the increase in feats gained in 4e, it Could be possible to use feats to simulate blood abilities, make extensive feat chains. In fact having 4 tier chain (like how Multiclassing works) is fairly reasonable. Each feat could replace an ability with blood power from the feat (or enhance an exsisting ability).
Another solution is to not worry about it and more or less bring back the method in 2e. Balance while its still there is less 'everything must equate' its more of a 'everyone must be useful.'
Pabloj
06-06-2008, 01:57 AM
Just In case you missed my first/introductory post: Hi, my name is Pablo! Nice to meet you all.
I would very much like to help in this effort, since I love Birthright and Im really liking the look of 4th Edition. Still, I have very little time to devote to this, so I will contribute with my 2 cents whenever I can.
Since Iīm already at this, I have a first idea/thought to share: I believe it will be really hard to come up with powers/feats that run smoothly with 4E mechanics. They have playtested this system for months, and even before the books were on the streets, people started finding loopholes and exploits. And we are just looking at the core rule book, with tons of splatbooks coming.
I believe that it might be better to completely separate the blooded mechanics from the core mechanics: letīs make the blooded abilities matter only on realm level, or on army battles and such. It will save us a lot of headaches trying to figure balanced powers/feats, and we might even have them invalidated with further 4E development. In this a way we will "futureproof" this unique Birthright mechanics for when a 4.5th, 5th and 6th editions come out.
Personally, I was never much into 3x editions, so I will gladly wok from 2nd edition sources. Still, it would be a shame not to take advantage of the tons of work people made to do the 3x conversion.
aluman
06-06-2008, 02:00 AM
My issue with that is, it removes a lot of what made adventuring in Cerillia unique.
Pabloj
06-06-2008, 02:37 AM
Mhhh, you still would have Regents and scions, deciding the fate of their nations with their rulling and their blood abilities. It is stil quite unique. You just would not have blooded abilities on normal "party" gaming.
Sorontar
06-06-2008, 03:24 AM
Birthright is different things for different people. My campaign is purely adventuring these days, but the Seeming/Blood abilities etc all play a significant part of the story and do influence the PC actions.
And we generally do not do regent things at all. As far as the party knows, there are no regents in the party, just agents of regents. And not all party members are blooded.
So blood abilities should still be able to used at the adventure/encounter level. But I like the idea of some abilities having different affects at different levels. For example, diplomacy may give the character alertness about the cultural tendencies of a community which they enter. This could help them 1) talk to a town official (per encounter) 2) be generally well received by people at a market/in a village (per day) 3) get a new treaty (domain level).
Sorontar
kgauck
06-06-2008, 05:04 AM
However there is a natural compromise here.
1) Adventure powers are taken as feats, along a talent tree for each derivation
2) Free powers are given 2e style for domain level play.
Good roleplay might suggest that the domain powers provide some guide to good feat selections, but I'm not sure that's required.
Vicente
06-06-2008, 05:49 AM
Or when you take feats to swap powers for blood abilities (a tree for each derivation) you get also some minor effect for domain play. Maybe not at heroic level, but it could be a possibility in paragon or epic levels.
kgauck
06-06-2008, 06:05 AM
That's fine, but its indistinguishable from the position offered earlier that blood powers are just feats.
Green Knight
06-06-2008, 07:10 AM
Here we go again...brings back memories of various 3E conversions.
What I'd like to see is a 'quick and dirty' 4E conversion published fairly quickly - that tries to keep as close to 4E as possible, even if it means 'changing' BR.
But I'd also like to see a more fleshed-out 4E BIRTHRIGHT, where as much of the flavor of BR is preserved, even if it means introducing new concepts to 4E.
kgauck
06-06-2008, 09:49 AM
Not only do we need a 3-4 conversion, but a direct 2e to 4e conversion, since the core materials and source inspiration is 2nd edition. I don't think I've written a stat block in six months, since it seems pointless to convert a character from 2 to 3, only as 4 dawns.
Thelandrin
06-06-2008, 10:12 AM
While acceptance of 3rd Edition over 2nd Edition was by far the great majority, I think that many people will stay with 3rd Edition, so it seem a little silly just to abandon everything 3E simply because of the genesis of 4th Edition.
kgauck
06-06-2008, 10:30 AM
When 3rd edition came out, people all talked of sticking with 2nd edition, which was the edition the setting was written in. I expect the same now. In fact I think the barrier from 2nd to 3rd was higher, because of the fact that BR is written in 2e. Plus, new people who happen on BR are far more likely to be playing the current edition than playing in some vestigial edition.
Green Knight
06-06-2008, 12:32 PM
Even if some people stick with 3E (I may do just that - at least for a time) a 4E conversion is in order.
Lawgiver
06-06-2008, 01:09 PM
Even if some people stick with 3E (I may do just that - at least for a time) a 4E conversion is in order.
Agreed. And by the time any real fruit is available from the project it will be about the time many stalwart 3E players begin to dabble into/research 4E a little more heavily (18-24 mo).
Pabloj
06-06-2008, 01:50 PM
I havenīt received my books yet (being in South America means I will have to wait some weeks to get them :( ), but from what I read in En World and other forums, the 4E DMG has pretty good and clear rules to build and customize almost everything. In this respect, it seems that the numbers-sytem in 4E is much more solid and balanced, having clear guidlines to correlate and compare things.
Also, from what I read, it is pretty pointless to build NPCs using PCīs building methods. As opposed to 3e, where everything is comparable rules wise to everything else, 4E is much more "pc oriented", being the minions rules the most clear example of it. So translating important NPCs and monsters (like the everpresent Gorgon), should be quite easy.
Rowan
06-06-2008, 01:59 PM
By "conversion," do you mean converting the classes, characters and monsters, monsters, equipment, skills and feats, spells, and bloodlines? In other words, the adventure-level stuff?
Or do you mean "converting" the realm-level play rules?
It seems to me that only the adventure-level stuff needs a hard-and-fast conversion, and that this should actually be pretty easy.
Any revision to realm-level play rules should be done carefully and given an appropriate amount of time to incorporate input and changes that will make game play better. In fact, no revision of these rules seems necessary for 4e, though we may now have played with BRCS long enough to identify and make some improvements on that basis.
Pabloj
06-06-2008, 02:17 PM
I must say Im not familiar with 3x realm rules. As for your question, 4E has some really cool mechanics like skill challenges, which would be great to integrate into domain rules.
Rowan
06-06-2008, 04:00 PM
The skill challenges require multiple rolls and successes to determine if something is achieved and to what extent it is achieved--similar in some ways to the White Wolf system. Incorporating this aspect of skill challenges would be fine for small tabletop RPGs where the addition of many extra rolls isn't a big deal. It would, however, be crippling for large games, particularly PBEMs. If realm rules revision goes this route, then we would definitely need to create a separate set of rules for the PBEM community and games with large numbers of players.
The other aspect of skill challenges that I'm aware of is just assigning them levels of difficulty and appropriate XP. This could indeed be derived into a formula for determining XP for succeeding at realm level actions. For instance, perhaps Ruling a level 3 holding to a level 4 holding is adjusted to be an adequate level 4 challenge, thereby earning the appropriate XP. Realm actions would act as either additional encounters, or have the multiplier effect akin to multiple monsters of the same level. Then again, it could be argued that regents should only gain XP for those actions they are personally involved in, which (depending on how you interpret Realm actions) would keep it limited to a single action for a single holding.
Vicente
06-06-2008, 05:31 PM
Not only do we need a 3-4 conversion, but a direct 2e to 4e conversion, since the core materials and source inspiration is 2nd edition. I don't think I've written a stat block in six months, since it seems pointless to convert a character from 2 to 3, only as 4 dawns.
I'm pretty sure Wizards has stated 3e can't be converted to 4e and that the conversion was something they didn't even want to try. Things in 4e are the way they wanted to get an easier and more balanced system, no matter if on 2e or 3e they were that way or not (for example Dragons don't have spells. And they killed several other "sacred crows" in the process).
So more than "Conversion" I would call it plainly Birthright 4e: how the concept X (domain actions, bloodline,...) from Birthright is expressed in 4e no matter how it was expressed in older editions.
My 2 cents :)
Pabloj
06-06-2008, 06:50 PM
So more than "Conversion" I would call it plainly Birthright 4e: how the concept X (domain actions, bloodline,...) from Birthright is expressed in 4e no matter how it was expressed in older editions.
Totally agree on this. We should use 2nd edition as source and inspiration and build things using 4E system and paradigm.
It just came to me that it will be perfectly reasonable to add a "power source" to the BR setting: Blood. Just as "Martial" fuels the cool fighter moves and "Arcane" fuels the wizardīs magic, "Blood" can fuel blooded abilities, being either adventuring or domain powers.
Or we could just work on feats, and ignore the above.
bbeau22
06-06-2008, 07:28 PM
There is a lot to look at. I don't have the books yet but will in the next week or two. We should give it at least a few weeks of release before we start the conversion. We need to have a solid understanding of the rules before jumping in. That being said ... I am not opposed to throwing out ideas on how we might tackle it now.
- Skill conversion is pretty easy. BR specific skills can be grouped into the larger skill selections they have. The DC for success would have to change according the new rules. People can't stack skills anymore like they could.
- Races are always a bit different for BR than the Player's Handbook. We have 5 different races of humans to account for. If 4th edition gives human a bonus feat we will just have to pick that feat for each race. If 4th edition gives them +1 to skill checks we will just have to give each race a +2 on certain skill types. Really it isn't too hard.
- For domain actions lets try to base it off of 3rd edition rules we got. They are balanced well and will probably fit into a 4th edition more cleanly than the old 2nd edition rules.
- Blood Scores, abilities, and powers are going to be the pain of it. For people who haven't read my previous emails .... try reading or looking up how the Star Wars Saga Edition handles Jedi and Jedi powers. Might be a good model to work from.
-BB
Wilenburg
06-06-2008, 07:29 PM
I would use a combination of 2nd and 3rd edition, from the 3rd edition has a lot of good base comcepts like feats the blood abilities can be used in combination of the two addition. As for a quick and dirty for character development I think the easiest way to proceed is to work on the following order
1) determined Blood abilities and Bloodline Scores, and Usurpation and Vestirue Rules
2) Races unique to Cerilia
3) Skills, Feats and Talent tree additions to the current Classes
4) Making New Classes Unique to Cerilia
5) Items Unique to Cerilia and Abilities (if Realm Level item then it should be addresses at the Realm Level)
With these we can make cerilia usable at the adventuring level
For campaign Level should work on the Following ways
1) Determine the Realm Level actions
2) Determine Collection of GB and RP
3) Determine the way armies are used
4) Determine the use of Realm Spells and Realm Level Blood Abilities.
5) Items Realm Level abilites
For Atlas Level
1) Break down Cerilia into Regions
2) Determine MOnsters Stats and abilities (Including Awnsheigh)
3) Other important NPC
4) Make sure it is 3.X and 4th edition Compatible
The should work and the source for all of the editions and stats should be put in twice one as 3rd edition and one 4th edition then the community as a whole can use the atlas as one source book instead of making two books with relatively the same information.
But as for the atlas we should make 2 types
1) quick and dirty with 2 pg description for each realm
2) Detailed version like the one that the Atlas team was working on before it fell apart (which I would like to revive and get the ball going again) except this time make it more a forum based instead of just a small team to work on it since cerilia is a very big content. With this way we can use all of the people but have a couple of people to work on formatting it into a consistent format.
Cheers all.
I say we finish the whole BR as it is, and then we can make our own 5E.
Some play with 2E rules, others with 3E, some mix it (I do). Add a 4E and you will never get anything done because you'd be arguing about weather it's a proficiency, a skill, an ability or a power. You'd need a math equation to work it out.
BR is made for 2E and I like to play it that way, maybe put in couple of 3E rules just to enhance some points, but generally it's 2E for me. I'm happy when some new fan material kicks in and my face turns sour when I see a good PS totally converted to some 67th E that I must rethink over for weeks until I can incorporate it in a game.
Fearless_Leader
06-06-2008, 07:52 PM
Understandably, a lot of players remained with 2E. Equally as understandable, some will remain with 3.xE. Nonetheless, I believe it is absolutely essential to begin work on a 4E conversion, so as to keep the setting relevant and to continually recruit new players (I don't know how many players were first exposed to BR through the 3E conversions, especially the BRCS, but it is a non-zero number). Whatever the case, there are now a substantial number of players that don't own any of the hard copy products. Further, from a strictly legal standpoint, the official WOTC endorsed BR website will likely need to make the conversion in order to keep its status.
I will likely begin working on a simple conversion, along the lines of the old conversion manuals that came out before the BRCS, sometime in the near future - for the simple reason that those I play with are eagerly making the switch. My philosophy for such conversions is to keep as much of the setting unaltered as possible, and to change the rules as need be. I believe that it would be a simple matter to convert blood powers into at-will, encounter, and daily powers. The races from the base setting will need some conversion, but this shouldn't pose any major problems. The biggest issue, I believe, is in the classes. Some of the class powers are simply not compatible with a setting that is rare-magic and tends toward gritty realism.
bbeau22
06-06-2008, 08:21 PM
Sounds good. I have started converting the old powers to just that. At Will, per encounter and per day. We could even include a per week for Birthright. I will post of course once it is complete to give people an idea of what we are talking about.
The real question on blood powers is how do people access them. Do we stick to the old 3rd edition access or make it more 4th edition friendly. Using the feat system to take powers might be the answer. We could also call each derivation a Paragon Path that the character has access to. They could take these more powerful powers there. Sorry if I am using the term wrong.
I am looking forward to the process.
-BB
OK, so wiki has to be tripled. One page for 2E, one for 3E, one for 4E. I hope there will be someone with enough time and will to convert pages to all E's. For example, there will be original 2E page and it will link to a 3E and 4E converted material. It's settled then. :)
AndrewTall
06-06-2008, 08:55 PM
Rey, much of the wiki is 'fluff' rather than 'crunch' - so relatively little should need to be in triplicate - not that we have much 2e anyway.
To me the key questions 4e raises are:
1. Do we have a totally separate (but using a similar mechanic) realm system including bloodline abilities etc to show how scions are far more able than / different to the unblooded, etc without impacting adventure play at all.
2. Do we have adventure level powers for the blooded? If so are they additional to the skills/feats/abilities of standard 4e characters, or are they swaps, in which case do we restrict to one kind of swap or allow the blooded a few extra alternatives across the board.
3. Do we restrict powers for unblooded, weakly blooded, etc characters - much like spell selections were used to mage spellcasters different. I'm not at all familiar with 4e but if the powers can be grouped nil/low/medium/high magic for example, we could restrict them to unblooded/minor bloodline/major bloodline/great bloodline etc - the mechanic would still be 4e, still balanced, but the scions would get the 'cool stuff' and be visually more intimidating - even though the unblooded would be just as effective.
I'd hope that domain play can go with the 3e system - aside from RP collection it shouldn't require any alteration, although some people had feats affecting realm play also. The 2e system randomness was a pain, although I preferred the court system (3e gets too bulky with actions everywhere).
Rowan
06-06-2008, 09:01 PM
Rey, there is a certain inevitability here that is a fact of life. Fearless_Leader has spoken of it in terms of keeping BR relevant and also in "official" fansite legal requirements, and is probably correct.
Adventure terms at least will need to be expressed in 4e primarily. A wiki allows anyone to create content of any edition, and some people will likely not convert their fan contributions. No big deal. Most fan contributions are story-driven, anyway. There is no need to convert all content to one or all versions.
bbeau, I think we may want to expand bloodlines beyond the "Paragon Path" paradigm. The various powers (at-will, encounter, per day, per week/month in BR time scale) are all assigned levels to help administer both how they are acquired and how powerful they are.
This being the case, we could either assign levels to the bloodline powers (something akin to Minor powers being equivalent to the Heroic tier 1-10; Major = 11-20/Paragon tier; Great =21-30/Epic-or-whatever-they-call-it tier). Or we could use powers of similar levels as guidelines, but rather than breaking them down into 10 levels each, continue to assign them to Minor, Major, and Great (perhaps equivalent to 5th level, 15th level, and 25th level powers).
The trouble with levels is that while I would actually kind of like bloodline powers to become more emphasized by allowing them to be more numerous or powerful, I would not want to see them tied to character level. An Avan prince, whether a green squire or a veteran knight, has a mighty bloodline, and that should be reflected in their blood powers. It will help us keep a low level setting, as well, with the emphasis more on Bloodline and deeds than on level.
Rey, much of the wiki is 'fluff' rather than 'crunch' - so relatively little should need to be in triplicate - not that we have much 2e anyway.
That is true. But it seems that the work will never get finished in any E. :)
Rey, there is a certain inevitability here that is a fact of life. Fearless_Leader has spoken of it in terms of keeping BR relevant and also in "official" fansite legal requirements, and is probably correct.
He is right, I'll confirm that. And we can all hope that BR line will be reactivated and the hard work of the fans confirmed as the equal. Or forever roam the Shadow World of the net.
Rowan
06-06-2008, 10:39 PM
I don't think the work can or will ever be finished, so long as we want a living world. :)
Wilenburg
06-06-2008, 10:55 PM
I think we can but it will be take us nearly the rest of our lives to complete it, but the fun.
kgauck
06-07-2008, 12:50 AM
From the main page of the wiki:
The free Birthright info source anyone can edit.
Started in 2006, BRWiki now has over 4,416 pages.
New to the wiki? Scroll down!
And by 2006, we mean December. So in 18 months, we've added roughly 8 pages a day.
Those who propose that a 4e version would not be complete before some distant date, like a 5th edition, are radically underestimating the speed at which a wiki can be used to present data and improve it up to a high quality form.
The only thing that will slow down a 4e conversion is doing it some place other than the wiki.
aluman
06-07-2008, 02:55 AM
However there is a natural compromise here.
1) Adventure powers are taken as feats, along a talent tree for each derivation
2) Free powers are given 2e style for domain level play.
Good roleplay might suggest that the domain powers provide some guide to good feat selections, but I'm not sure that's required.
I like this idea.
aluman
06-07-2008, 03:30 AM
However there is a natural compromise here.
1) Adventure powers are taken as feats, along a talent tree for each derivation
2) Free powers are given 2e style for domain level play.
Good roleplay might suggest that the domain powers provide some guide to good feat selections, but I'm not sure that's required.
I kind of like this idea.
aluman
06-07-2008, 03:31 AM
Kgauck> I like the idea of Domain Level being randomly determined and adventuring ones being a feat collection.
kgauck
06-07-2008, 03:38 AM
I like the idea of Domain Level being randomly determined and adventuring ones being a feat collection.
It allows "an Avan prince, whether a green squire or a veteran knight," to still be a capable prince, to have, "a mighty bloodline, and that should be reflected in their blood powers," without making the adventure level of play turn out absurdly.
Sure the ability to rule should be a bloodline thing, not a level thing, but putting yourself at personal risk in sidhe towers, in orog caves, or on the battlefield should be a level thing.
aluman
06-07-2008, 03:55 AM
It allows "an Avan prince, whether a green squire or a veteran knight," to still be a capable prince, to have, "a mighty bloodline, and that should be reflected in their blood powers," without making the adventure level of play turn out absurdly.
Sure the ability to rule should be a bloodline thing, not a level thing, but putting yourself at personal risk in sidhe towers, in orog caves, or on the battlefield should be a level thing.
Agreed. Thats part of what set me off on 3.X of DnD and BR in DnD form. It was impossible for a low level ruler to be effective, and this wasn't the fault of the BRCS it was a flaw (in my mind) of 3.X there was no seperation of 'Adventure Power' and 'NonAdventure Power'
Green Knight
06-07-2008, 04:38 AM
From the main page of the wiki:
And by 2006, we mean December. So in 18 months, we've added roughly 8 pages a day.
Those who propose that a 4e version would not be complete before some distant date, like a 5th edition, are radically underestimating the speed at which a wiki can be used to present data and improve it up to a high quality form.
The only thing that will slow down a 4e conversion is doing it some place other than the wiki.
If only I can understand how to add an NEW page to the wiki...oh, the mysteries of the wiki continues to be beyond my feeble intellect :(
kgauck
06-07-2008, 04:53 AM
Type in a title for your new page in the search engine (sometimes you'll find a very similar page), the search results will say something like:
Search results
From BrWiki
You searched for Albrecht Graben
There is no page titled "Albrecht Graben". You can create this page.
Click on either of the red links, and you are at a new page titled whatever you put in the search engine.
There are some naming conventions, basically you want straightforward nouns, we avoid articles unless its necessary for clarity, The Banshegh for the awnie, for instance. You'll pick up the formatting as you see how editors come in behind you and add such things. You can make it easier on them by using the help pages or reading Andrew's wiki guide, but its pretty easy.
AndrewTall
06-07-2008, 07:28 AM
The easy way to make a page is to look at an existing page that is in the general area you want to write on. Then just edit it to add a link on the desired item, then save out and click on the link.
So if you want to add a page for Aubrae Avan, look at Prince Avan, edit his page to add the fact he has a daughter, and put her name in the link brackets '[[' and ']]'. When you save his page, you then just need to click on her name and the wiki will automatically make her page for you - type away and off you go.
kgauck
06-07-2008, 08:05 AM
The reason I like the search engine method, is that it will show that there is already a page for Aubrae Avan. Another reason I like to use the search engine is that if someone else has referred to my subject, in this case Aubrae, on another page, I want to look at those pages and see what's already been written. I may want to add it, edit it, or link to it.
Thelandrin
06-07-2008, 01:42 PM
I would also advise looking at the potential category to see how similar articles are entitled and laid out. For instance, if you were going to write-up an awnshegh, you'd check the Category for Awnsheghlien. That should help you with consistency.
AndrewTall
06-07-2008, 01:45 PM
That makes sense Kenneth - I've done quite a lot of converting other people's stuff so other pages on the same subject wasn't an issue - but being able to copy the base page for formatting and so on was. Uploading Rasene Andu's Aduria for example (part done like so many other things) went a lot more quickly by creating the index, then doing one realm slowly, then using that one realm as a template for all the others.
That said using realm / character / etc templates is key to keep the overall format anyway.
Getters
06-08-2008, 09:25 AM
I just whated to make it clere it is very unlikely I would be converting my games to 4e I would hope the infomation for the 3.5 dose not disapere under the rush for 4e?
AndrewTall
06-08-2008, 09:33 AM
I've added a link on the main page of the wiki for the 4e conversion - it can be made more prominent later.
http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php/4e_conversion_draft
As I haven't finished reading 4e yet the index and template will probably need a lot of work - make your own changes or let me know. :(
Getters: as far as I am aware nothing is going to be deleted on the site - and any conversion will take months minimum to get past the arguing stage - so don't worry, 3.5e isn't going anywhere. :)
Thelandrin
06-08-2008, 09:48 AM
The 3.5 rules are definitely not going anywhere and I think it is highly unlikely that the number of 4th Ed pages will even be noticeable for weeks to come.
hazard
06-08-2008, 10:29 PM
How wont to play simplified version of WOW on monopoly board. Not me. The Grate Wizards are in deep tumble (i mean trouble). this 4th e is for retarded - yo-gi-oh kid players. Money destroyed D&D and our beloved Birthright. Until they bankrupt and give right for publishing to this site and Funs at all. I am going to CP 2020 world.
I will play memorial Birthright session using 3.5 "THE grate job" conversion once a year
Goodbye comrades (& D&D) till 5th edition.
Ugrush
06-09-2008, 04:07 AM
Me im getting off, been playing a long time. and no more conversions for me or new books 3.5 is my last stop. I have a small fortune in material's and magazines and many many other things so Bon Voyage!
irdeggman
06-09-2008, 11:12 AM
Be real careful with how any 4th ed material is presented on the wiki (and these boards).
WoTC has made it real clear that the SRD for 4th ed will not be the same structure. It will be more of a writers guide but essentially no real mechanics. So it is impossible to play the game without the books now.
It is also impossible (from a legal perspective) to write "conversion" or "update" of BR too.
We (this site and mail serv) has now "lost" its "official" status. WoTC made that clear in an e-mail to the "official" site owners (and that Arjan shared quite a while ago. Therefor we no longer have the "protection" when it comes to 4th ed material.
So as far as I understand it - any 4th ed material posted (other than "discussions" on how someone would theoretically go about it) is pretty much "illegal now".
And since the "SRD" (or its equivalent will not be posted by WotC until later this year it is far too early to even attempt a "project".
I did get my books last week and have quickly browsed through them. In general I like it, but I am still not sold on the "selling" of the 4th ed system and how it interalates with anyone trying to publish (or post) things. Pretty much you can either support 3.5 or 4th ed but not both under the same "licence".
Once the SRD (or its equivalent) comes out IMO people can post specific NPCs (and such) that meet the 4th ed mechanics but they can't post 4th ed mechanics in their documents. Which will cause all kinds of issues in the future IMO.
Be real, real careful on what getws posted on the Wiki with regard to 4th ed material. I don't want this site (and Arjan) to end up on the wrong end of WotC's ire.
Getters
06-09-2008, 01:23 PM
the answer to that then is dont. Keep the site complaty 3ed that why you dont viloute any laws of coperight.
Sorontar
06-10-2008, 12:09 AM
It should be noted that most of the new content of the Wiki is generally about locations/provinces etc., which is pretty much system-independent, and regents and their families, which could be entered as AD&D or D&D3,and later converted. In these two areas, the more the merrier. I feel that the larger the "atlas" part of the setting, the more attractive it will be to people (especially since politics is such a key part of Birthright).
The question really is whether we are a bit premature discussing rule updating before the SRD is released?
Sorontar.
kgauck
06-10-2008, 01:23 AM
Let's think about what the wiki is for. Its not a way for people to play the game without buying the core books. That's not our job, and trying to do that job is both silly and would be the kind of thing that would irk WOC.
Our job is to describe the BR setting. If there is no change between the core material and what happens in Cerilia, we need not discuss the topic. In many cases, because the 3.x rules were so open, setting publishers were tempted to make a stand-alone game using core materials. WOC doesn't want that to happen any more. Good. I don't want to spend my time explaining how rituals work. Our mission is to fill a gap that is left because WOC never picked up the BR setting after TSR was purchased. The locations, characters, histories, and special rules that exist only for this setting are the purpose we have before us.
If we make BR accessible to the 4th edition, by writing up characters in the new format, we drive sales of the core books and we help WOC.
If we explain how saving throws work, what an at-will power is, how spells work, then we are doing the job of the core books and suppressing sales.
If we stick to describing the setting, we are, as Sorontar has said, mostly system independent. Going totally system independent wouldn't be hard at all. To the extent that we mention 4e at all, it should be in a way that assumes you need the core books to play the game.
Every published BR product says:
This domain sourcebok is an accessory for the BIRTHRIGHT campaign setting. You or your Dungeon Master need the BIRTHRIGHT boxed set to play as well as the AD&D Players Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide.
Well, this site is what passes for the boxed set these days, and we still should require that no matter what game system you're using, you have the materials, because that's not what we provide.
Vicente
06-10-2008, 07:47 AM
Completely agreed. As long as the conversion doesn't take out the need of the Corebooks you aren't doing anything that will make Wizards angry.
In the ENWorld forums there's a 40+ pages thread where people are posting power cards to download with the full text of the Players Handbook ripped and nothing has happened yet (and it's quite hard to miss that big thread :p).
Green Knight
06-11-2008, 01:19 PM
I've leafed through the Core books and that Keep adventure now and there is no denying that the game is well thought through, and balance-wise it may be a great leap forward. But that said it also reminds me very much about about a computer game (WoW comes to mind) - it all very smooth and epic and cinematic and whatnot.
I'm not entirely convinced that 4ed is a good fit for BR - at least not without major changes...and those 2ed die-hards that didn't want 3E in the first place...4ed is even worse :)
kgauck
06-11-2008, 01:29 PM
I was taking to Trithemius about conversion just this morning, and he doesn't even thing D&D is the right system, let alone 4e the best edition. Clearly this is a matter of taste, and hopefully, everyone can find something to enjoy in BR. 4e'ers too.
Vicente
06-11-2008, 01:53 PM
I've leafed through the Core books and that Keep adventure now and there is no denying that the game is well thought through, and balance-wise it may be a great leap forward. But that said it also reminds me very much about about a computer game (WoW comes to mind) - it all very smooth and epic and cinematic and whatnot.
Off-topic, but I'm really tired of hearing the WoW thing :p If you want to compare DnD combat to a computer game, please at least compare it to Guild Wars, a game about teamplay, not to WoW, a game about soloing during 2345623 hours and where everyone goes his own way on a Battleground because working together or doing the idiot or doing nothing just gives the same rewards ;)
bbeau22
06-11-2008, 02:36 PM
Someone burned out on WoW? I hear what you are saying about it and I have been playing it far longer than I care to admit. The battlegrounds and Arena is a very broken part to the game.
The simple idea of needing tank, healer, DPS is copied to some degree in 4th edition. In WOW the tank has abilities to keep aggro on him, in 4th edition fighters and paladin can mark enemies almost forcing them to attack them. Healer is a healer in both but 4th Edition improved on the idea by making healers be able to do lots of stuff other than healing. Striker certainly falls into the DPS spot. Doing lots of burst damageon one target.
But there is where the comparisons should end. 4th edition really doesn't have anything else in common with WOW.
What I don't about the comparison is that it it typically noted as a bad thing. And when people say it they are saying that 4th edition is like a video game, which really is doing it a diservice. A lot of thought and balance was but into this edition.
-BB
irdeggman
06-11-2008, 03:52 PM
What I don't about the comparison is that it it typically noted as a bad thing. And when people say it they are saying that 4th edition is like a video game, which really is doing it a diservice. A lot of thought and balance was but into this edition.
-BB
And yet it is and was designed with that in mind.
Respawning/refreshing, per combat abilities etc. are all inspired by PC (and console) games. It is a fact and trying to dismiss that is really a waste of time.
Now that does not mean it is bad, it only means that is true.
Personally there is a lot of things I don't like about the 4th ed concepts but there are a lot of things I do like.
And for the final comparison to see what WotC's intent really was take a look at the DI and virtual table top game. IMO it was designed to lure PC gamers and will most likely fail in the long run due to the limitations of the system and the fact that it just can't keep up with the "quality" of the PC games.
Nope WotC had a clear market in mind with these changes and that marker was the video gamers. Again this has nothing to do with how well the game is designed only the focus and market that was in mind when it was being done.
Wilenburg
06-11-2008, 05:47 PM
True I have too agree that it does remain me of an console rpg, but if they do the source books right they can expand on the concepts going more/combination of what traditional rpg'ers think as well as mmo players expect in an rpg.
Green Knight
06-11-2008, 06:05 PM
Take one simple little thing like classes...the Fighter is still the Fighter, right? No, he is not. Not just the fighter, but every class (perhaps save the old primary spellcasters) are MUCH more fantastic than before. Hey, I think the 4ed Fighter is pretty cool, but the only BR campaign that he'll fit into is my EPIC campaign (and barely even that). The BR fighter to me is a professional soldier or some such...but the 4ed one is a console-fighter-type. Not a bad thing, but not very BR. And that really bothers me.
Capricia
06-11-2008, 06:08 PM
I was taking to Trithemius about conversion just this morning, and he doesn't even thing D&D is the right system, let alone 4e the best edition. Clearly this is a matter of taste, and hopefully, everyone can find something to enjoy in BR. 4e'ers too.
Trithemius has hated D&D for years.. if he had embraced 4e then I'd take it as a sign of Armageddon. :D
Vicente
06-11-2008, 06:14 PM
I have a level 60 hunter on WoW (well, had, suscription is cancelled, I'm now concentrated on Eve Online, I like much more sandbox games).
I continue thinking than the direct comparison of DnD to WoW is very close minded. There are very talented designers in other fields (computer games, board games,...) and if they have good ideas and they fit your field there's no logical reason not to take them.
About the powers per encounter and things like that. Some blood powers could be used X times / Y unit of time, now some skills can be used 1 time / 1 encounter. Wizards just found a way to keep track of skill uses that involves less management than the system we had before. Nothing new under the sun, they just polished an old idea.
MMORPGs roles were taken from roleplaying games, it's quite fun to hear that DnD is taking that idea from them when MMORPGs were the ones that copied it... The iconic DnD wizard casts fireballs, meteor swarms,... (AoE), the iconic cleric heals and resurrects (healer), the iconic figher goes to melee with the tough monsters (tank), the iconic rogue hides and stabs (DPS),...
Of course they probably took some inspiration in other fields, but people are blowing it out of proportion. Wizards already made a step on digital programs in 3e and failed miserably but saw potential. I agree they are going to fail again because DDI is useful, but there are far better and cheaper programs to play a RPG game online (Fantasy Grounds etc etc).
There's a lot of market for that kind of programs (just look how many of them are out there) and it has nothing to do with MMORPGs, it's a natural need of players who can't get together to play.
Lawgiver
06-12-2008, 01:35 PM
Take one simple little thing like classes...the Fighter is still the Fighter, right? No, he is not. Not just the fighter, but every class (perhaps save the old primary spellcasters) are MUCH more fantastic than before. Hey, I think the 4ed Fighter is pretty cool, but the only BR campaign that he'll fit into is my EPIC campaign (and barely even that). The BR fighter to me is a professional soldier or some such...but the 4ed one is a console-fighter-type. Not a bad thing, but not very BR. And that really bothers me.
But the fighter from 4e is a PC and a hero not the average grunt.
So... I think we need to pull back and reflect a bit.
Is the reason to convert to 4e simply wanting to "stay current"?
What are the consequences/benefits of going to 4e?
What are the consequences/benefits of going to an entirely different game system (Traveller, Savage Worlds)?
Rowan
06-12-2008, 02:26 PM
As with any rules set in any RPG, it's all how you interpret the rules into the story. We could provide BR flavor guidelines for the various powers, but consider that even the Fighter's powers can really just be represented by different swings of a sword or axe, striking a different part of their foe, etc. It's not about some fancy technique, just about different footwork and bladework--not even just one type of swing, but each attack option can be represented by many different descriptions of how it is carried out.
It's really not that hard. Anyone that is having trouble fitting the powers into the gritty BR setting, bring up the power and we'll discuss it.
Well, I've addressed why I think 4e won't be a problem to integrate into the story. As for why we're doing it anyway, it is to keep the game fresh and alive and attracting new blood. If we do not, I can guarantee BR will only survive among die hard veterans. And many of us will have converted to 4e anyway, because it will be easy to parallel our other games and play groups, and because it has certain streamlining advantages over 3e.
BR will not only not grow significantly if it goes to another game system, but much of its existing D&D fan base will abandon our efforts here, as we will no longer be relevant to them. I don't want to learn another system, anyway. 4e is enough. I've played in too many systems and don't really care to branch out anymore; I expect other people are the same.
Refuse to update to 4e and we'll probably lose our "official" fansite status, and BR will slowly wither and die. Abandon D&D and BR will quickly wither and die.
Accept a little inevitability here; it's a fact of life :)
Lawgiver
06-12-2008, 05:20 PM
If we do not, I can guarantee BR will only survive among die hard veterans.
Isn't that what it's already doing? :D
kgauck
06-12-2008, 05:27 PM
Consideration of other systems for the setting is good, but it just doesn't seem sensible to ignore 4e, since D&D is the giant system and 4e is its current incarnation. This must be a situation where we hope 1000 flowers bloom.
Green Knight
06-12-2008, 06:39 PM
Example of silliness: Minions - have 1 hp. Either live or they die. Probably good for cinematic combat, not good for my sense of internally-consistent-game-world (it doesn't have to be realistic as such, only consistent).
bbeau22
06-12-2008, 06:41 PM
I also think that many things are corrected in 4th edition.
- Speeds up gameplay. I hate being bogged down with 2-3 hour long single combats.
- Fighters are more interesting and balanced for higher levels.
- Clerics no longer have to waste their spells on healing between combats.
- Wizards aren't over-powered at high level (instant kill spells.)
By no means is it perfect, but I like the improvements above.
-BB
Getters
06-12-2008, 07:57 PM
4e following on form above
-can be play by ever 10 year old in the world welcome wizards to Game workshop style of packaging and money makeing.
I'm all for them trying to cut us for money but aming the rules so any 10 year old can understand them and reverting the game as some thing akin to a bord game make me sick.
Rowan
06-12-2008, 08:19 PM
Consistency and simplicity of the rules is a good thing as long as they can still describe all the situations you want/need them to. So far 4e seems to describe even more situations (such as skill challenges) better than any previous edition with simpler, more balanced rules.
It's also pretty easy to fix things about 4e that you don't like, easier than other editions, I think. I agree that the 1hp Minions was a stupid move. The concept was that these foes should drop with one hit. Sounds fair, since most people in combat would drop with one hit of a sword; extra hp beyond that actually reflects the fact that you have a strong will to fight, you're avoiding a solid hit and are harder to knock off guard sufficiently to strike a mortal blow (the significant, life-threatening blow not falling until the final one that drops you below zero; healing surges would represent getting back in the fight, getting your guard back up, shrugging off the pain and dazing effect of non-lethal wounds).
So the concept with minions can be adjusted pretty easily to bring it back in line, I think. Figure an average damage that a character can dish out at a given level in a single attack and give a minion of that level that many hit points. That way, 5th level characters fighting a 15th level minion are still challenged. Meanwhile, the minion's disregard for their own safety is still reflected by it being fairly easy to knock them out.
kgauck
06-12-2008, 08:42 PM
Minions are just people who ought to drop with one hit, without the need for tracking hp. If you have them as much as 2 hp, you'd have to do bookkeeping anytime someone did 1 hp damage. Is that worth it for the extra consistency and realism? That's a call each DM needs to make on their own. In a lot of ways its a return of the 0-level character.
I can appreciate the simplicity of not tracking every skeleton when you're 5th level characters chasing down a an evil spectral scion who holds a grudge against your family. Most people I imagine they think of as minions are skill bundles as far as I'm concerned. I don't expect people to fight the blacksmith, but I do want to know if he can fabricate what the players want. Frankly I don't know how often I'll use minions, but its nice to have the option (as though I never would have thought of hand-waving minor NPC deaths before).
AndrewTall
06-12-2008, 09:25 PM
Feng Shui deals with the minion problem by splitting people into 'name characters' and 'mooks'. Mooks drop if you hit them by more than a set number - anything less and their wounds don't affect them, anything more and they are down - you only track damage for the people you cared enough about to name.
That said what works from a book-keeping point of view fails miserably from a realism perspective - I'd rather exterminate by DM whim...
Autarkis
06-13-2008, 01:40 AM
Lets not use realism on a D&D site. I think the gods of logic would cause it to implode.
kgauck
06-13-2008, 05:09 AM
The 4e Standard Array is 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10.
The array suggested for PC's in 3.5 was 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. This is a noticeable power up. I prefer the old array, but wonder if its worth it to embrace a different array for the setting because its gritty and of a lower power than some other settings. In the old point buy system this was a 25 point buy. Its a 17 point buy under the new system.
Then on top of this, racial ability modifications aren't neutral, they are all bonuses. So, in practical terms ability scores are much higher, which makes more a more fantastic set of PC's.
irdeggman
06-13-2008, 11:07 AM
Then on top of this, racial ability modifications aren't neutral, they are all bonuses. So, in practical terms ability scores are much higher, which makes more a more fantastic set of PC's.
In addition you get ability score increases more frequently and to a greater effect.
+2 at every 4th level and when making the switch between "power levels" you get a +1 to all ability scores.
kgauck
06-13-2008, 11:36 AM
Some of the cumulative stuff doesn't bother me so much. One of the problems I had with 3.x was that you hadto get into mid level before you had enough powers to do interesting things (other than take a whack at an opponent) or enough skills to be able to do something that the guy next to you couldn't do untrained with a modicum of luck.
So I can certainly see some upsides. One of them is that I won't feel the pressure to bump NPC's up a few levels to give them the air of competence. I can easily see play sticking to heroic levels with only the most brightly shining stars breaching the paragon boundary.
Thelandrin
06-13-2008, 01:15 PM
I think the idea of all the stat boosts is that you no longer have enhancement bonuses to abilities. Then again, it could also be just to make everyone more powerful and individually even harder still for "balance".
kgauck
06-13-2008, 01:23 PM
True, though since BR tended to do away with a lot of these magical enhancements anyway, some of these stat boosts seem gratuitous. Now its also true that we back-ended some stat boosts in the form of bloodline bonuses directly or indirectly. If all the PC's were blooded I don't see any problem with just describing some of this as the consequence of blood.
I'll have to see characters in play doing familiar BR things.
Rowan
06-13-2008, 02:17 PM
I like more frequent ability score bonuses. The traditional ability scores all represent attributes that should be readily increasable over time through training or life experience. In some ways, these increases make more sense than level ups. A hard life on the road with a lot of combat or a lot of training should increase all of a person's physical ability scores pretty rapidly, to a certain above-norm level. Study and meditation and so forth do enhance your mental skills and acuity. Frequent social interaction does increase your charisma. 3e's 5 ability score points over 20 levels is just too few to represent these increases, IMO; 4e's I think is much closer, though unless many characters are getting into the paragon tier, still perhaps too slow.
Vicente
06-13-2008, 02:49 PM
Take into account that there aren't items capable of increasing attributes on 4e while those weren't very uncommon on previous DnD editions (attribute enhancement items require a level 8 caster in 3e).
Same with spells: Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace and Endurance are level 2 spells.
kgauck
06-13-2008, 02:52 PM
Well said, and true enough. I am just fond of the more marginal character getting by on the wits of the player rather than the stout plenitude of ability scores. I rather think it may just be a bit of a paradigm shift, since 4e seems to have shorn away so many things that used to be based on the attributes, and now the attributes are employed more directly. It is elegant, that's for sure.
Autarkis
06-14-2008, 04:08 AM
Well, most characters in Birthright are below level 10. The majority of rulers are about level 3 to 5, with some exceptions. Attribute boosts from levels should be minimized by this and those that are moving into the 'paragon' levels probably by that level are on the track to something great.
Thelandrin
06-14-2008, 12:50 PM
Well, I'm all for 4E tieflings being in Birthright. They could be described as a tribe of humans (ethnicity unknown) who either made a pact with Azrai or whom became individually blooded. All tieflings would be Azrai, Tainted, 1-5 as a default.
Dragonborn most definitely do not fit into Birthright.
kgauck
06-14-2008, 01:20 PM
Maybe dragonborn are really hydrakin, a race that dwells in the Harrowmarsh but was never described much.
Thelandrin
06-14-2008, 02:09 PM
Well, maybe, but then the entire PHB write-up would need to be stripped away and replaced with some stuff about the Hydrakin. They would probably need to be renamed too.
kgauck
06-14-2008, 02:22 PM
Yeah, I'd call them hydrakin. ;-)
AndrewTall
06-14-2008, 04:21 PM
Well, maybe, but then the entire PHB write-up would need to be stripped away and replaced with some stuff about the Hydrakin. They would probably need to be renamed too.
Well, part of the campaign would be stripping away the PHB write up of all the races - it doesn't fit for any of them really. Part of the joy of a setting is that you twist the norm, not chaning 'human' to anuirean or 'eldarin' to 'sidhe' would be like having paladins in Dark Sun.
I can see dragonborn as either awnie offspring, tough hydrakin, beastmen of aduria, refugees/invaders from the shadow world or a cerilian dragons attempt to create a servant / successor race.
Tea leafs similarly could be many things if you want them - but with awnies around looking non-human in an evil fashion may result in early mortality as people decide not to wait for the tea leafs clearly divinely maimed heritage to prove true...
AndrewTall
06-14-2008, 04:27 PM
Lets not use realism on a D&D site. I think the gods of logic would cause it to implode.
As Ken has correctly accused me, I am a simulationist at heart. If the game lacks realism the rules need to be fixed ;) I can handle magic bending the laws of physics, but it needs to do so consistently, etc.
As for stats, the problem I see is that high level PC's will be simply better than any npc - go to the sage and the party wizard might have 5+ intelligence on the guy, but then I'm having general issues with 4e in terms of non-combat stuff...
Elton Robb
06-14-2008, 04:55 PM
As Ken has correctly accused me, I am a simulationist at heart. If the game lacks realism the rules need to be fixed ;) I can handle magic bending the laws of physics, but it needs to do so consistently, etc.
As for stats, the problem I see is that high level PC's will be simply better than any npc - go to the sage and the party wizard might have 5+ intelligence on the guy, but then I'm having general issues with 4e in terms of non-combat stuff...
So am I. ;)
I prefer something fun and dangerous. Most magic, I've been told, are either rituals or powers. Which kind of sucks something awful for me. I used Advanced d20 Magic quite successfully in many games, having the Dynamic Spellcasting rules made it easier and much more dramatic when casting spells. It also added some danger to spellcasting.
I also prefer a little realism. ;)
kgauck
06-14-2008, 05:42 PM
3rd edition in distinction to 4e seems to have been the edition for simulationists. Lots of crunchy rules for all kinds of complicated things that satisfy one's sense of realism, probability, and simulation. How much money is in this town, you know, in terms of its GDP? 3e will tell you. What if I practiced lying just a bit less to focus on persuasion. 3e says go right ahead. I want to make my own armor! 3e can do it. Can I recruit followers of any race? Sure in 3e, every creature is treated as a character and is built with the same rules. Simulationists are concerned with strategic thinking and whether or not the work makes sense.
4th edition is the game for the gamist type of player. Tactical thinking and combat orientation is the name of the game. Economics? who cares! All skills are the same, its level/2. No bookkeeping! Crafting? Forget about it. Rules for joining societies and earning a living doing something other than killing stuff and looting the dead? Sure simulationists in exile will provide OGL products to sooth those of you forced to join a 4e campaign. Poor simulationists.
Simulationists are concerned with the idea that a being has a life away from the PC's and want everything to make sense whether the PC's come to town or not. 3e helped provide a context for all of that.
Gamists could care less. When a character or location gets its screen time, we need to know precious little about it except how it can kill me and what I need to do to kill it. Everything else we can forget.
Well, since we've had a simulationist edition, and now we have a gamist edition. I suppose the next great fashion in role playing will be the return of the story telling gamer who was so dominant before 3rd edition but was playing in other systems (often from White Wolf who remains the 2nd largest game publisher). So story tellers and character actors, you can mark your calendars now for 5th edition.
Simulationists, you have four choices. Stick with 3.x, houserule 4e, play some other system, or wait for the 6th edition when the wheel of fate again smiles on you.
Me? I'm a simulationist. I'm the guy who writes pages on BR characters who lived 80 years ago. Why? Because your PC has an heirloom weapon, and its not enough to just say it once belonged to your grandfather, I need to know who he was and what things he did, and who he knew, because then I can tell who will recognize the sword based on their own family history. In my circles, that's one of the coolest parts of the adventure. Kicking in a door and getting initiative on the ogre? Not so much.
Tracking whether or not I've used my power to push an enemy back two squares? That's bookkeeping. Buying the ogre's skill points was character development. Even if the ogre will be dead before the players leave the room.
Thelandrin
06-14-2008, 07:44 PM
I'm a simulationist myself, which is probably why I dislike 4th Edition. It definitely runs cleaner, simpler and easier for players to get into, which is all great if it wasn't called Dungeons & Dragons :(
kgauck
06-14-2008, 08:22 PM
I strongly suspect Birthright attracts a disproportionate number of simulationists and a disproportionately small number of gamists. I'm not sure whether storytellers are about average or whether they are present in this setting in larger numbers than average.
That said, I also think our setting has a lot to offer all kinds of gamers, so doing a brief conversion document makes sense.
geeman
06-14-2008, 09:17 PM
Regarding what 4e races to include in a BR 4e update my suggestion
would be: none. There should be 4e updates of BR races, but there`s
not particular need to include races in BR just because they exist in
the 4th edition of the game. Tieflings and dragonborn have no
particular relationship to anything in BR, and are about as
appropriate to the setting as Romulans and cyborgs.
Of the new races in 4e the closest to one that could be justified
including in a BR update are the Eladrin, using them and the Feywild
as a metaphor for the Sie in the SW. Of course, they would not be
called Eladrin any more than we should change the SW into the
Feywild, and their stats should be altered to fit BR better, and
their characteristics should differ, and they probably wouldn`t have
Fey Step, though one could justify some sort of Shadow ability. So
if they don`t look much like Eladrin anymore that`s because they
aren`t. They would have to be altered to fit BR. Similarly, the
rest of the 4e races should be changed enough to fit the setting that
anyone playing as a 4e purist would no longer recognize them. Even
humans in BR are badly portrayed by standard, 4e humans.
Specifically, dragonborn do not strike me as a very good fit for
Hydrakin. There not a particularly big need to outline that race to
begin with--nobody has done much with them in the past--but that
aside they are different in kind as well as characteristics. I find
+2 Charisma to be a pretty strange characteristic for the spawn of a
mutated crocodile.... They should not, of course, have dragon
breath. Bonus to history checks? For an isolated swamp race? Unlikely.
Similarly, tieflings are a bad idea for inclusion in a 4e update of
the setting material. They don`t even have a tenuous comparison to
an existing BR race. An unknown tribe of humans strikes me as a very
weak justification.
These things are equivalent to the arguments for including monks and
gnomes in Birthright. Those two are not, thankfully, included in the
current 4e texts, so we`re not regurgitating that argument again
here, but instead we have these two "spawn of creatures that don`t
exist in the setting at all" to address. Not every bad idea in the
core D&D texts needs to be reflected in the setting material,
folks. If it doesn`t fit in BR we shouldn`t bother with it any more
than we should insist the 4e materials include bloodlines.
Gary
bbeau22
06-14-2008, 09:27 PM
I was always on the assumption that races wouldn't be added just because they are in the players handbook. There is no reason for most of them and they certainly don't fit in anyway.
Eladrin is the closest thing that might fit and I wouldn't include it in the core side of races. Maybe include it in with the monsters section or varient for those that want to work them in.
Every campaign setting has a race list of what is included and not included. Ours is no different. Dragonborn might work great for Dragonlance but doesn't make sense here.
-BB
Wilenburg
06-15-2008, 04:18 AM
as with 4th edition with simplier rules means that it can be built into a more sophisticated system, that people can grasp.
This is said when a person learns math (I know it is academic)
When kids are in early grade they do fill in the blank 2 + ____ = 4 ok then when in junior high then put it into 2x=4 ok then again in high school 2x=(4-y)+x
Why can not birthright be built into a way to accomodate all of the way people have built up the math quest so the gamer can have an easy rules then another set built on the easy rules as intermediate and then the simulation gamers can make more complex rules (or hard)
As for crafting that can be done through skills and feats with a dc rules that is not hard for people to do since third edition provided a very excellent template
As for followers why not this is an appropraite system for it, as again 3rd edition modified a little bit can easily handle followers since followers are just another type of monster.
As for armies they can be handled like third addition and like a 4th edition encounter with the stats like a monster in the simplier system for the adventuring armies and like third edition for more compex fights on the campaign level.
Every one is looking for what limits it and why it is bad and why it is good after looking and reading rpgs for over 10 years each system rules are limit to the way it is defined is only limited to the way the gm is hence the rules are a guide line and gary has it right buy picking and choosing what is good from 4th and going the 3rd (to paraphrase his comment) with that thinking why can not work the opposite way from going from 3rd to 4th, but make it more friendly on small levels and have rules for people that wanted a more complex 4th edition.
So far we have agreed on 3 things in the forums are pretty consistent
1) that 4th edition is more of mmo type but it also balance between then 3rd
2) 3rd was more complex
3) that we all want to convert it to the next edition
with that said characters have not change overall blood abilities are the hardest thing for us to decided on and the way humans should be dealt with is the hardest.
Classes well that has been a quiet so far and it is not that bad the way it has been dealt with as for special abilities we can come up with more (even some that have a prerequsite based off of bloodline this would solve the encounter level and tie the bloodline to the adventure levels and some may require a blood ability to use as well).
here is my 2 cent worth, and in my opion we are still doing good for the first week the book has been out with ideas so I like to say good job for all contributers (lots of good arguements and comments)and lets keep up the good work and hopefuly buy the end of the month we can have a rough draft of the ideas for everyone to use and test.
greegan
06-15-2008, 06:41 AM
This is not necessarily a reply but a suggestion on the 4th E topic.
There's enough material available in the current 3.5 campaign and 4th E to write a few Dragon articles. Why don't you all get together and collaborate on some BR rules that can be used with a generic DnD 4E campaign? This could certainly be something that could have a series of articles.
I may be deluding myself into believing its that simple, but it could work...
Also, can you imagine how a BR campaign could run using the Insider? Hmmm
G
bbeau22
06-15-2008, 07:00 PM
as with 4th edition with simplier rules means that it can be built into a more sophisticated system, that people can grasp. ...
4th edition is more of an MMO in the terms they use to describe classes, and built-balance, but otherwise it is a gaming system like anything else.
People like to point out the flaws of 4th edition but ignore the flaws of 3.5. Namely over powered classes, flawed 4 encounter per day set-up, 2 hour single encounter combat. The system they designed is primary a combat system, but for the most part that is what every system is. They felt, as I felt, role-players are going to role-play anyway. Skills are still there and skill challenge is a great way to actually use skills in a non-combat setting that wasn't there for 3.5.
I am up for creating a nice system for 4th edition but if we are going to make a set of rules for 4th edition we have to embrace the ideals they were going for in the new system.
1. They worked very hard on balancing all classes and races, we should be doing the same. I can accept if everyone wants to have blooded characters as better than everyone else, but it would be a contradiction to 4th edition.
2. Keep things as simple as possible as a core set of rules, then have additions to add wrinkles and more complicated actions. Right now if someone new downloaded the playtest rules, would probably take them a week to just read them nevermind understanding them.
3. If it is possible to use a 4th edition mechanic then use it, instead of creating a new mechanic and another level of complication. Some places this can't be helped. The entire domain tracking is a new mechanic that can't be avoided.
I know plenty will disagree with me. I hope at least you see my point and keep it in mind when coming up with a 4th edition system.
-BB
AndrewTall
06-15-2008, 08:49 PM
I am up for creating a nice system for 4th edition but if we are going to make a set of rules for 4th edition we have to embrace the ideals they were going for in the new system.
1. They worked very hard on balancing all classes and races, we should be doing the same. I can accept if everyone wants to have blooded characters as better than everyone else, but it would be a contradiction to 4th edition.
I agree with this one - playing a 'weak' character is no fun. If every PC is a scion then having an edge over the plebs is fine, but otherwise things can go rifts... Balancing bloodline strengths could also be an issue.
That said I could handle a 'if you play unblooded you get <bonus> as you have proved yourself above the norm' it all depends really on what benefits being blooded brings. If the benefits are just a wider range of abilities then the power-up is minimal effectively being a minor multiclassing at best, if its an add-on then balancing gets harder.
2. Keep things as simple as possible as a core set of rules, then have additions to add wrinkles and more complicated actions. Right now if someone new downloaded the playtest rules, would probably take them a week to just read them nevermind understanding them.
4e is simple? Reading the combat rules I'm figuring combat taking at least twice as long as usual with all the funky powers and stuff flying around, unless the dm's npc's are to become famous for always using power 'x' or feat 'y'. At least we only had to worry about the spellcasters having multiple options before, now everyone is involved even at low level - and the poor dm will have a nervous breakdown playing without a battlemap unless they have a bunch of players who accept the dm winging it on who gets hit by burst A and suchlike.
My expectation is that 4e will rapidly clutter with abilities and feats just as 3e cluttered with prestige classes, spells and feats - it won't stay simple for long.
3. If it is possible to use a 4th edition mechanic then use it, instead of creating a new mechanic and another level of complication. Some places this can't be helped. The entire domain tracking is a new mechanic that can't be avoided.
Well, 4e mechanics seems pretty similar to 3e so far, although I've read to read the dmg. The base mechanic - roll d20, add ability, add local modifier, roll vs DC is identical to 3e and pretty similar to some parts of 2e. Various tweaks simplify book-keeping but I never found book-keeping a problem in practice so those seem fairly pointless. I should confess however that I'm a maths geek turned accountant so possibly am not representative of the normal gamer.
Domain tracking at least should be fairly simple - all holdings go L0 to L10 (except possibly sources). The key issue is GB - 4e economics are broken from a read of the PHB (even if you remove buying/selling magic items you need to fix the ritual costs) - and more importantly unless we multiply everything up it is bound to come in fractions. Maybe we can swap 4e gp for sp and beef the value of Gb by 10 or something...
I know plenty will disagree with me. I hope at least you see my point and keep it in mind when coming up with a 4th edition system.-BB
It all sounds good, the disputes will likely be over where the line is drawn when disputes arise between 4e (combat focused) and BR (story and politics focused). I'd expect to beef up the 'non-combat' skills and go into more detail on skill challenges, maybe try to get away from the 'everyone is as good at everything' POV that 4e seems to have taken on.
To me the time consuming part is going to be identifying the 'common magic' areas so I can move back to the 'magic rare but powerful' feel of BR - most fighter feats are fine, and winging spellcaster feats as scion only is doable in a pinch, but I'd like to have a magician style caster if possible. Hopefully wizards have already done some tables of abilities/feats by magic grade that I can look up...
Vicente
06-15-2008, 09:19 PM
4e is simple? Reading the combat rules I'm figuring combat taking at least twice as long as usual with all the funky powers and stuff flying around, unless the dm's npc's are to become famous for always using power 'x' or feat 'y'. At least we only had to worry about the spellcasters having multiple options before, now everyone is involved even at low level - and the poor dm will have a nervous breakdown playing without a battlemap unless they have a bunch of players who accept the dm winging it on who gets hit by burst A and suchlike.
4e combat is to be played with a battlemap, without it combat will become pretty hard as you say. But in general combat rules (action types, special maneuvers,...) are easier to understand on 4e.
My expectation is that 4e will rapidly clutter with abilities and feats just as 3e cluttered with prestige classes, spells and feats - it won't stay simple for long.
Agreed, they have to sell something :p
Domain tracking at least should be fairly simple - all holdings go L0 to L10 (except possibly sources). The key issue is GB - 4e economics are broken from a read of the PHB (even if you remove buying/selling magic items you need to fix the ritual costs) - and more importantly unless we multiply everything up it is bound to come in fractions. Maybe we can swap 4e gp for sp and beef the value of Gb by 10 or something...
Well, you may want to disregard the PHB costs in general. Probably Wizards started thinking like "everyone starts with 1 armor, 1 weapon, some basic equipment,..." and they ended with a 50gp Plate.
It all sounds good, the disputes will likely be over where the line is drawn when disputes arise between 4e (combat focused) and BR (story and politics focused). I'd expect to beef up the 'non-combat' skills and go into more detail on skill challenges, maybe try to get away from the 'everyone is as good at everything' POV that 4e seems to have taken on.
More than everyone is good at everything I think the 1/2 level mechanic wants to allow everyone to be able to help if needed in skill challenges using the Aid Another action. On 3e you picked some skills (class + int modifier) and those were the only good skills you had, anything out of that list and you were totally useless.
bbeau22
06-15-2008, 11:09 PM
I had a good idea .... at least I think it is. Since 4th edition uses defense ....
I was thinking realm defense or holding defense vs. espionage. For the longest time I feel it was clunky with being secret or not being secret and spending regency to effect another nation.
A home regent can spend gold or regency, have feats or skills to assist in countering espionage actions against their holdings. They would create a defense that resembles defenses like will defense, AC. If the regent that tries an espionage action needs to beat the defense to succeed. He has no idea how much effort the regent as spent on defense.
Fighters would get bonus to law defense, Guilder/rogue bonus to guild defense etc ... so trying to mess with a law holding from a fighter regent would be alot more difficult than messing with law holdings from a priest.
I am on fire this evening. :D
-BB
kgauck
06-15-2008, 11:43 PM
I thought the way Dynamic Organizations worked (pg 166 PHB II) was the ideal template for this kind of thing. I think BR offered more natural modifiers than the system as presented, but I started with Dynamic Organizations.
So a law, guild, or certain temple holdings had espionage as their main function and would provide both the offense and defense of a domain for espionage.
A domain couldn't take more offensive espionage actions than it had dedicated holdings (and the holding in question couldn't be doing something else), but could always defend the domain.
gregdman
06-20-2008, 04:30 AM
Totally agree on this. We should use 2nd edition as source and inspiration and build things using 4E system and paradigm.
It just came to me that it will be perfectly reasonable to add a "power source" to the BR setting: Blood. Just as "Martial" fuels the cool fighter moves and "Arcane" fuels the wizardīs magic, "Blood" can fuel blooded abilities, being either adventuring or domain powers.
I completely agree with Pablo. "Blood" as a power source would work precisely within the new mechanics, is simple and extremely flexible!
-Greg
Mirviriam
06-20-2008, 06:45 AM
Sorry I disappeared here, but got two jobs & a new girlfriend(my other project is still in planning stages for an application)...she's anxious to get to bed so this one will be short...
Any discussion of using xml tags to allow us to mark rules, npcs etc for import into pbem like systems? The code is normally invisible to websits so the look of the wiki will not be altered.
This could allow for your rule conversions to have multiple rulesets for 2nd, 3rd, 4th for npc's:
<npc 2nd>
<npc name>The Gorgon</npc name>
<npc description>Tall mo'fo</npc name>
<npc stats>
<npc bloodline-score>80</npc bloodline-score>
<npc bloodline-str>STRONG</npc bloodline-str>
<npc lvl>20/19/whatever</npc lvl>
<npc hp>Eighthundred billion</npc hp>
</npc stats>
<npc item>bag o'tricks</npc item>
<npc item>bag of chips</npc item>
2 cookies</npc items>
</npc 2nd>
You could classify spells the same way...
<spell> -> lets computers know a new spell starts
<2nd> -> lets computer know first version is second edition
<spell name>Big boomer</spell name> -> sets the name within the 2nd edition version of spell
<spell damage>10d8</spell damage> -> gives 2nd edition style damage for spell
</2nd> -> lets the computer know the 2nd edition part of the spell is done
<3rd>
repeat what you saw in 2nd but with the right values for 3rd
</3rd>
<spell desc>it really shakes things up</spell desc> -> sets description which will apply to all versions
...say you need an extra description added to only one version, inside the edition wrapper (term for the <2nd> or the <3rd> with their matching </2nd> or </3rd>...
<extra desc>also leaves charged ruins behinds...boom?</extra desc>
Just throwing that out there, because then different DM's could add all different versions of the rulesets into wiki at will (no time restrictions)
ThatSeanGuy
06-20-2008, 08:38 PM
Howdy.
Man, I missed a lot. Ah well. First, I like that people are talking about introducing new concepts into 4E instead of taking concepts away to satisfy a system that's two editions old. This is, I think, the right idea: if a campaign setting's first thought is, 'We take this, this, and this away from the game.', it's starting on a negative note, and chances are we'll end up with more negative ideas than positive ideas. Like, an earlier suguestion about dropping Warlocks: is it really a great idea to go, "No, drop a core class." right out of the park? Fey exist, stars exist, infernal creatures exist, and the whole idea of magic coming from a pact with a greater being, honestly, feels more midevial than the classic D&D-style wizard. Why not just say that the first Warlocks were the disciples of Azari's easier, more aggressive style of magic, and it was eventually "stolen" from Azari when ways to make different, less malevolent pacts was discovered by clever heroic types?
But I'm getting off track. The first thing I know I want to think about is: What is the core idea of Birthright? You play a heroic king. Keeping this in mind, I think it translates really well into 4E's tiered system. Let me give an example;
Heroic Tier: A local leader. You bring a country together, and can rise to lead a hunk of your region of Cerilia. A good example of a party of hero-kings at this level would be the Diemend breakway states.
Paragon Tier: Regional leader. The paragon levels can chronicle your advancement from a local ruler to a major nation and potential unifier of your people. A good example of a paragon domain might be Muden or Daingau, both of which would be a logical starting point for a second attempt at a united Brecht League.
Epic Tier: World leader. Having united your people behind your banner, it's time to step into Roele's shoes, battle the strongest tyrants and most horrible awnshaeghen, and try to forge a perminant peace with the elves, dwarves, and other proud peoples who a wise king would rather have as allies than enemies.
Naturally, a campaign doesn't have to be like this, but I think that makes a logical "standard" campaign idea: it fits with Birthright's story of a Cerilia that's fighting to struggle out of its Dark Age and, something very important, encourages party-based play, something really important in 4E. By having a "standard" campaign in mind, as long as it is a broad one, we can design the converted mechanics according to a goal instead of kinda flailing around.
Some other thoughts: Why not tie class role into what kind of leader you are? Defenders are just that, weather kings, generals, or religious champions, they focus on metaphorically defending the realm. They're great at stopping up hostile influence, and creating bullwarks that an invader has to fight through before getting at the invader's real target, weather it be a fortified castle or a metaphorical wall of red tape and paperwork. Leaders are inspiring figures who strengthen their followers and companions; becides the obvious agitate actions, you've got everything from improving crop yeilds to encouraging population expansion to constructing wonders and pieces of art that keep the people strong in the face of adversity. Strikers are direct and to the point, from espionage to mundane invasions to diplomatic missions, they're doers, and most effective when allowed to concentrate on offense. Finally, Controllers are the guys who balance the billion other things that can happen to a country, using works of magic or military showmanship to quell rebellions, sooth a neighbor's bruised ego, search for enemy spies or hunt down bandits...
Wall of text aside; I think paying attention to a class's party role could be a great way to revitalize the rulership part of the game, and make it feel like the adventuring part-a group activity you and your friends can work as a team to excell at.
kgauck
06-20-2008, 09:50 PM
First, I like that people are talking about introducing new concepts into 4E instead of taking concepts away to satisfy a system that's two editions old. This is, I think, the right idea: if a campaign setting's first thought is, 'We take this, this, and this away from the game.', it's starting on a negative note, and chances are we'll end up with more negative ideas than positive ideas.
Its not to satisfy a system that is two editions old, its to remain true to the setting which is system independent. Diluting the setting is easy. Having a setting that is special and different requires a bit more thought. By which I take you mean, negative ideas. The good ones.
ShadowMoon
06-20-2008, 10:19 PM
Its not to satisfy a system that is two editions old, its to remain true to the setting which is system independent. Diluting the setting is easy. Having a setting that is special and different requires a bit more thought. By which I take you mean, negative ideas. The good ones.
totally agreed
irdeggman
06-21-2008, 04:21 PM
totally agreed
Ditto
Let's not make 4th ed BR another Eberron or Realms. It is a setting of its own - let's look for what makes it "unique" and try to maintain that.
Wilenburg
06-21-2008, 07:22 PM
the feature that I most like is that it is a stretegy game as well as and rpg rolled into one with fairly simple rules even in 2nd ed (which had 2 to many variation of rules for its own good), 3rd which had to many places to find rules, all builds should try to be consists for a base brcs book, phb, dmg, and mm, and then all other books like thaele, shadow world and so on can be done to build upon those books with unique classes but the basic brcs shoud be based from Cerilia, but add new stuff into additional books.
So instead of arguing of which is allowed and what is not lets look at it this way there are 3 continents and 1 plane to work with, only one has any major detail, one has a book an that is bloos spawn, which is the only shadow world book out.
next question should the main information come from the campaign setting, Cities of the sun, havens of the great bay, tribes of the heartless waste, Rjurik Highlands, Book of Magecraft, Book of Priestcraft, Book of Regency, blood enemies abmonation of cerilia, and the naval battles, Sea of Cerilia.
In 4th I have not notice any rules dealing with water and that could lead to a swashbuckler type class, all people have to do is keep it simple and the easiest method is that we create a basic idea of stuff for a brsc, this is still a work in progress
here is a continent I have been working on:
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 Races
Dwarves, Cerilia
Elves, Cerilia
Half-Elves
Halfling, Cerilia
Humans, Anuireans
Humans, Khinasi
Humans, Brecht
Humans, Rjurik
Humans, Vos
Chapter 3 Classes
Cleric
Fighter
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Warlock
Warlord
Wizard
Chapter 4 Bloodline
Chapter 5 Skill and Feats
Chapter 6 Gods
Haelyn
Erik
Cuiraecen
Nesirie
Ruornil
Sera
Avani
Eloele
Laerme
Kriesha
Belinik
Moradin
Kartathok
The Cold Rider
Powers of Darkness
Chapter 7 Equipment and Magic Items Unique to Cerilia
Chapter 8 Domain Ruling Rules
Chapter 9 Strategic Combat Rules
Chapter 10 Creatures of Cerilia
Chapter 11 History of Cerilia
Chapter 12-34 can be a brief description of Cerilia
(this would be how I would do but then again this would be bulky but it was and idea not a concrete method)
fbaker4
08-06-2008, 05:55 PM
And tried out the ideas in practice?
bbeau22
08-06-2008, 08:18 PM
Its not to satisfy a system that is two editions old, its to remain true to the setting which is system independent. Diluting the setting is easy. Having a setting that is special and different requires a bit more thought. By which I take you mean, negative ideas. The good ones.
This is the sticking point of course. I do not think any person posting on this board is saying they don't want to stay true to the original setting, it is a matter of perception on what is staying true.
In my mind the setting is mostly about the story and history and not about how classes are balanced. It is about different ruling powers battling each other for supremecy in the world. It is about a group of people that have gifted powers taken by the old gods that elevate them above others.
If those above remain in place, I am fine with much of the other stuff changing. Does it really matter in the overall setting if we use the rules that govern the elves in the PH4 and not some homebrew verison? They are still the same elves, same personalities, and can be described the same way as before.
Does it really matter if Warlocks are now part of the world where they weren't before? Does it honestly change anything? They would be rare enough that it might not even be a blip on the radar.
There are certainly core changes that need to be discussed as a whole. How blood powers work in 4th edition rules? Does there need to be changes in the ruling system to resemble 4th edition or can we get away with keeping it mostly the same? How will classes include abilities to rule a domain. We need to spend a majority of our time on that and not sweat the small stuff. If someone wants to change elves, then let them, and include as a variant on Wiki.
Where we are going to have the most trouble in deciding new rules are the people that aren't sold on 4th edition but want to create a 4th edition rule set. Instead of embracing the rules and creating a world that compliments 4th edition, they will create a Birthright system that is mostly still 3.5 but put a coat of 4th edition paint over it. It might look like 4th edition, but the guts of the system are still squarely based on 3.5.
I will finish this new wall of text with saying I have a great amount of respect for everyone that involves themselves with the site and keeping it alive. I am sure we will come up with a great 4th edition system ... for those that actually plan on moving their campaigns into it.
-BB
kgauck
08-07-2008, 02:42 AM
Its not a binary situation of "respects the setting" or "doesn't respect the setting", its more of a question of a hierarchy of goods. When confronted with "this makes more sense in 4th edition" but that "makes more sense in Birthrigtht" which do you choose.
Embracing 4th edition at the expense of setting is what is worrisome, and is the dilution I was concerned about. Commitment to 3.5 really something different.
In my mind the setting is mostly about the story and history.
I don't agree. I think story is story, and you can keep the BR story no matter how you play. Setting to me is "how the world works", which is instrumentalized by mechanics. Currently in 4e, the mechanics concentrate so much on combat, which I think is a smaller part of BR than other settings or other kinds of games. But further, BR is a political game, and the game doesn't support articulation there.
The skill system means everyone more or less has the same skills. Not only does that limit non-combat interactions, but it also reduces the depth of political interactions. Consider the sample skill challenge "The Negotiation" on pg. 76-77 of the DMG. You have a Duke, the party of adventurers wants his support and patronage to accomplish some adventuring goal. In the standard D&D adventurers as outsiders model, this level of depth works fine. But in BR, frankly this kind of interaction strikes me as the number one type of game activity. So if the game mechanics offer too much articulation on combat, and not enough on nobles and adventurers interacting, we have a setting problem, because the setting calls for lots and lots of such interactions.
Then we can start looking at such things like how ubiquitous is magic. Too much magic can be a problem.
Warlocks are not a problem. I think we've always had warlocks but had to simply describe wizards as drawing power from shadow world patrons.
It may be the case that 4e will gradually add the kinds of skills and powers that are appropriate to a BR setting, but as things are now, 4th edition (which is a superior system from a gamist perspective, better balanced, easier to play, quicker to play) is designed for a style of play which ignores what is distinctive about BR. So, my recommendation is to wait and see what the new supliments offer in this regard. Meanwhile thinking about 4e and what might or might not be done seems great, but if 4e is to address some of this stuff, "embracing the rules and creating a world that compliments 4th edition" needs to use rules and mechanics that may not even exist now.
Today, the question for 4th edition is more like, what does a Brecht fighter look like, what does an Anuirean fighter look like. Does the cleric class work for the gods we have? Some of this will suggest at the very least what works and what needs a tweak. Moving too fast will just mean that new things published will contradict early conversion. Its worth giving thought to, but only in a tentative way.
irdeggman
08-07-2008, 11:05 AM
In my mind the setting is mostly about the story and history and not about how classes are balanced. It is about different ruling powers battling each other for supremecy in the world. It is about a group of people that have gifted powers taken by the old gods that elevate them above others.
If those above remain in place, I am fine with much of the other stuff changing. Does it really matter in the overall setting if we use the rules that govern the elves in the PH4 and not some homebrew verison? They are still the same elves, same personalities, and can be described the same way as before.
But BR (the setting) is also about where the elves come from (descended from the Sie and elements) and how they think and behave. BR elves are also immortal (something completely different than the "core" elves and translates into a much greater and complex cultural identity.
It is also about where the halflings come from (shadow world) and why they are "different" than the "core" halflings.
Does it really matter if Warlocks are now part of the world where they weren't before? Does it honestly change anything? They would be rare enough that it might not even be a blip on the radar.
It depends on how you capture thier "power source". The core warlocks seem to have a power source that doesn't directly translate into the BR setting. Demonic or fey. In BR there really aren't any "demons" in the core rules sense (remember only 2 planes for the setting). Likewise fey are also at least slightly different. BR elves while having many fey-like characteristics have an origin that puts them as "something else".
There are certainly core changes that need to be discussed as a whole. How blood powers work in 4th edition rules? Does there need to be changes in the ruling system to resemble 4th edition or can we get away with keeping it mostly the same? How will classes include abilities to rule a domain. We need to spend a majority of our time on that and not sweat the small stuff. If someone wants to change elves, then let them, and include as a variant on Wiki.
These are mostly game mechanics which should be the focus. But, as Kenneth points out, the setting contains things that make it unique and not just a series of game-mechanics. That is the thing to keep in mind and keep true to, not necessarily the mechanics but the flavor and themes.
Where we are going to have the most trouble in deciding new rules are the people that aren't sold on 4th edition but want to create a 4th edition rule set. Instead of embracing the rules and creating a world that compliments 4th edition, they will create a Birthright system that is mostly still 3.5 but put a coat of 4th edition paint over it. It might look like 4th edition, but the guts of the system are still squarely based on 3.5.
Yup - exactly what happened with the 3.5 ruleset.
Something to keep in mind is that BR was a very unique setting.
There were many things that were different from the core material.
Elves could not be priests and had no gods.
No gnomes (not an issue in 4th ed - yet).
Humans were 5 different subraces each with their own culture and physical characteristics - to the extent that they were physically different in the way that subraces of elves were physically different (i.e., had different ability mods).
Paladins had to worship a specific deity.
Druids were all priests of Erik.
Like Kenneth I worry over the WotC trend towards generic settings and losing much of the uniqueness that the old settings had.
While I understand this from a marketing stance, I don't like it from a role-playing one. Setting being different is what I really liked about 2nd ed.
Dark Sun and Birthright were very different from Forgotten Realms and Grey Hawk.
Even Eberron which has a lot of very unique aspects took the "adding on" syndrome by "allowing" anything in any of the 3.5 rules to be in the setting. How they added in Elan (as fallen/ex- Kalashtar) served as an example of something that really, really irked me.
bbeau22
08-07-2008, 08:06 PM
[QUOTE=irdeggman;46952]But BR (the setting) is also about where the elves come from (descended from the Sie and elements) and how they think and behave. BR elves are also immortal (something completely different than the "core" elves and translates into a much greater and complex cultural identity.
I understand this and agree. But after reading the rules for elves in the PH4 I see no reason why the rules they have can't simply be applied to BR elves. BR elves will still be immortal, still behave and think the same way elves have in Birthright. They would just have the same class features as the PH4
It is also about where the halflings come from (shadow world) and why they are "different" than the "core" halflings.
I agree that the halflings are very different and would have to be handled accordingly.
It depends on how you capture thier "power source". The core warlocks seem to have a power source that doesn't directly translate into the BR setting. Demonic or fey. In BR there really aren't any "demons" in the core rules sense (remember only 2 planes for the setting). Likewise fey are also at least slightly different. BR elves while having many fey-like characteristics have an origin that puts them as "something else".
My question for you is how can scions summon elementals? What plane does the elementals come from? In the Khourane player secrets they describe the fortress of El-Sirad as having Hell Hounds roaming the property. There are many more examples. I agree that Birthright is a very unique in how they deal with two planes but having warlocks pull from some demonic source doesn't change much. They can even pull their power from the Shadow world and it wouldn't change the core abilities of the Warlock. In our version we would say Warlocks channel power from the shadow world and not from demons ... but are otherwise the same.
These are mostly game mechanics which should be the focus. But, as Kenneth points out, the setting contains things that make it unique and not just a series of game-mechanics. That is the thing to keep in mind and keep true to, not necessarily the mechanics but the flavor and themes.
I certainly agree with this.
Yup - exactly what happened with the 3.5 ruleset.
Something to keep in mind is that BR was a very unique setting.
There were many things that were different from the core material.
Elves could not be priests and had no gods.
No gnomes (not an issue in 4th ed - yet).
Humans were 5 different subraces each with their own culture and physical characteristics - to the extent that they were physically different in the way that subraces of elves were physically different (i.e., had different ability mods).
Paladins had to worship a specific deity.
Druids were all priests of Erik.
Like Kenneth I worry over the WotC trend towards generic settings and losing much of the uniqueness that the old settings had.
While I understand this from a marketing stance, I don't like it from a role-playing one. Setting being different is what I really liked about 2nd ed.
Dark Sun and Birthright were very different from Forgotten Realms and Grey Hawk.
Even Eberron which has a lot of very unique aspects took the "adding on" syndrome by "allowing" anything in any of the 3.5 rules to be in the setting. How they added in Elan (as fallen/ex- Kalashtar) served as an example of something that really, really irked me.
I would never be for adding in classes and races that make no sense for Birthright and never claimed I would want that. I used the example of the Warlock, and to be honest I am fine if it is in or out and I see arguements of both, but I would never allow Dragonborn in the Birthright setting. Gnomes aren't in Birthright and I would never choose to include them. That is changing the core setting and feel of the campaign.
Are people thinking I want to just take 4th edition and apply everything in the book to Birthright? I hope people don't think so. Everything you listed unique above I would never change or want to change in a million years. I am mostly concerned with making sure we use the new system of levels, paragon paths, feats and powers and do our best to make that type of system work for Birthright.
-Brian
bbeau22
08-07-2008, 09:16 PM
Its not a binary situation of "respects the setting" or "doesn't respect the setting", its more of a question of a hierarchy of goods. When confronted with "this makes more sense in 4th edition" but that "makes more sense in Birthrigtht" which do you choose.
Embracing 4th edition at the expense of setting is what is worrisome, and is the dilution I was concerned about. Commitment to 3.5 really something different.
I don't agree. I think story is story, and you can keep the BR story no matter how you play. Setting to me is "how the world works", which is instrumentalized by mechanics. Currently in 4e, the mechanics concentrate so much on combat, which I think is a smaller part of BR than other settings or other kinds of games. But further, BR is a political game, and the game doesn't support articulation there.
The skill system means everyone more or less has the same skills. Not only does that limit non-combat interactions, but it also reduces the depth of political interactions. Consider the sample skill challenge "The Negotiation" on pg. 76-77 of the DMG. You have a Duke, the party of adventurers wants his support and patronage to accomplish some adventuring goal. In the standard D&D adventurers as outsiders model, this level of depth works fine. But in BR, frankly this kind of interaction strikes me as the number one type of game activity. So if the game mechanics offer too much articulation on combat, and not enough on nobles and adventurers interacting, we have a setting problem, because the setting calls for lots and lots of such interactions.
Then we can start looking at such things like how ubiquitous is magic. Too much magic can be a problem.
Warlocks are not a problem. I think we've always had warlocks but had to simply describe wizards as drawing power from shadow world patrons.
It may be the case that 4e will gradually add the kinds of skills and powers that are appropriate to a BR setting, but as things are now, 4th edition (which is a superior system from a gamist perspective, better balanced, easier to play, quicker to play) is designed for a style of play which ignores what is distinctive about BR. So, my recommendation is to wait and see what the new supliments offer in this regard. Meanwhile thinking about 4e and what might or might not be done seems great, but if 4e is to address some of this stuff, "embracing the rules and creating a world that compliments 4th edition" needs to use rules and mechanics that may not even exist now.
Today, the question for 4th edition is more like, what does a Brecht fighter look like, what does an Anuirean fighter look like. Does the cleric class work for the gods we have? Some of this will suggest at the very least what works and what needs a tweak. Moving too fast will just mean that new things published will contradict early conversion. Its worth giving thought to, but only in a tentative way.
Most of what you write makes sense to me, but I don't agree that the skill system from 3.5 is better than 4th edition. There was some major limitations in it that failed to represent the true knowledge and ability of an adventurer.
My biggest problem with 3.5 skills was the lack of many classes to get skills. If I remember correctly warriors, wizards and clerics all only got two skill points to spend. I always believed then that many adventuring characters would have more abilities, knowledge and skills that the rules let them have.
A warrior that has been adventuring for 10 years and had relationships with different priests good and bad would have a better basic understand of religion than a 0 in the skill would indicate.
Lets say that same warrior is level 20 and is recognized as one of the most powerful warriors in the whole realm. Don't you think his diplomacy should be slightly higher than the 0 he would get. His reputation alone should allow for a better than 0 change to effect the outcome of diplomatic event, even if he is fairly uncharismatic.
Same goes for a priest. A priest has been through dozens of dungeons slaying much of the evil of the world, would most likely be able to jump 10 feet with a running start, even if in a combat situation. He has defeated a ancient black dragon, I am pretty sure 10 feet of a jump, even rushed, would be nothing to him.
Now with 4th edition there is still plenty of room to allow people to specialize in certain skills much like they do 3.5. You first still have class skills that will give you a +5 to a certain number of skills. You still get your ability modifer to a skill group. You can take feats that increase certain skills. None of this is being taken away, the new rules simply allow adventurers to have more skills than they had before, and for the most part I think this is a great thing.
On the other side 3.5 skills weren't working perfect for Birthright either. Highly skilled classes made far better rulers than none skilled classes, to the point that a rogue could be a better landed regent than a warrior because he could have the skills to get max regency not just from law but guilds, province and temples for that matter. It isn't a great situation that a generic NPC class was a better ruling class than most other classes. I liked the second edition idea that each class was good at ruling a specific domain.
-BB
Thelandrin
08-08-2008, 12:33 AM
Since when has age, combat experience and knowledge of powerful spells automatically got anything to do with your acrobatic ability?
irdeggman
08-08-2008, 01:26 AM
There are many more examples. I agree that Birthright is a very unique in how they deal with two planes but having warlocks pull from some demonic source doesn't change much. They can even pull their power from the Shadow world and it wouldn't change the core abilities of the Warlock. In our version we would say Warlocks channel power from the shadow world and not from demons ... but are otherwise the same.
The Shadow World isn't necessarily evil based. It is founded on the seeming (or illusion more specifically).
So making a connection between demonic powering and seeming powering isn't a great fit either.
A better fit for warlock powering is from Azrai (and since he was a god of magic it could still be arcane based and not divine). I wouldn't allow the star pact though since it implies a more cross plane type of knowledge (which doesn't quite mesh with BR). Fey and Infernal pacts could be done in some other way (not demons but like I mentioned Azrai - and could be used to capture the Lost in a better light, IMO).
Personnally I love warlocks and have since the class was introduced. I do think it is a greater stretch to force fit them into BR (but it could be done if someone really wanted to - you will just end up with a lot of warlocks since IMO). I think I would force them to be blooded or elves though to match the pwer requirments for channeling powerful arcane magic inherent in the setting (and elves would favor fey powering - with some notable exceptions (Rhoube for example)).
bbeau22
08-08-2008, 01:52 AM
Since when has age, combat experience and knowledge of powerful spells automatically got anything to do with your acrobatic ability?
Well the core of D&D since the very first edition was that you gain experience through adventuring. And by adventuring, you get more powerful spells if you were a wizard or better fighting techniques if you were a warrior.
In that process of adventuring you not only stumble across other knowledges that you wouldn't typically get and most likely get more fit then someone who sat in a chair all day. Many of the dungeons out there include climbing, jumping, swimming or flat out carrying heavy backpacks and walking for long miles.
That is how I relate acrobatic ability, not really to age or combat experience so much as being exposed to situations that require acrobatics, which will give you a better natural ability to overcome those obsticles as they present themselves in the future.
If you never had to jump over a 10 foot ledge in your life, you are going to be pretty scared the first time. But lets say you have jumped over a 10 foot ledge 29 or 30 times in your life ... the 30th time will be fairly easy.
I believe in the 3.5 rules there is nothing that can account for this natural experience character get that adventure. I think the 4th edition allowing all character to have some of this ability that is based off of experience (level) is a good idea and doesn't shackle a character with just one or two good skills.
Is this not sound rational? It gets more players more involved in more aspects of the game. It allows everyone in the group to have a meaningful impact on aspects of the game they would normally have to sit and watch. Now some classes will still be superior than others, as it should be.
-BB
bbeau22
08-08-2008, 01:55 AM
The Shadow World isn't necessarily evil based. It is founded on the seeming (or illusion more specifically).
So making a connection between demonic powering and seeming powering isn't a great fit either.
A better fit for warlock powering is from Azrai (and since he was a god of magic it could still be arcane based and not divine). I wouldn't allow the star pact though since it implies a more cross plane type of knowledge (which doesn't quite mesh with BR). Fey and Infernal pacts could be done in some other way (not demons but like I mentioned Azrai - and could be used to capture the Lost in a better light, IMO).
Personnally I love warlocks and have since the class was introduced. I do think it is a greater stretch to force fit them into BR (but it could be done if someone really wanted to - you will just end up with a lot of warlocks since IMO). I think I would force them to be blooded or elves though to match the pwer requirments for channeling powerful arcane magic inherent in the setting (and elves would favor fey powering - with some notable exceptions (Rhoube for example)).
Well right now the shadow world does have a bit of currupting factor to it. That wasn't always the case but currently no one wants to hang out there.
-BB
kgauck
08-08-2008, 03:20 AM
Lets say that same warrior is level 20 and is recognized as one of the most powerful warriors in the whole realm. Don't you think his diplomacy should be slightly higher than the 0 he would get. His reputation alone should allow for a better than 0 change to effect the outcome of diplomatic event, even if he is fairly uncharismatic.
I think the skill system worked marvelously, and that the objections you mentioned were desirable design features, not defects. Our fighter could have spent one of his feats on Skill Focus. The feat has no prerequisite.
A Fighter 20 is someone who consistently refused to improve his skills at the expense of his feat progression, BAB. If this person really valued skills more when presented with this opportunity cost, they would have selected at the very least a level of scout or rogue.
Why not have a game system that can simulate both breadth and depth of knowledge (including a knowledge of techniques represented by feats)? If someone wants to spend all of their learning on becoming the absolute master of a few fighting techniques (pure fighter), I say great. If that character wants to broaden his learning to include some knowledge skills, such as religion, or to take some interactions skills, like Diplomacy, I say there ought to be a cost to it. An opportunity cost. Given limited resources of time and experience, will you learn to better defeat your enemies or to persuade them?
The third edition gave us a marvelous tool of multi-classing so that one could get exactly the mix of this and that which we wanted. A fighter 20 is someone who optimized fighting at the expense of everything else.
On the other side 3.5 skills weren't working perfect for Birthright either. Highly skilled classes made far better rulers than none skilled classes, to the point that a rogue could be a better landed regent than a warrior because he could have the skills to get max regency not just from law but guilds, province and temples for that matter. It isn't a great situation that a generic NPC class was a better ruling class than most other classes. I liked the second edition idea that each class was good at ruling a specific domain.
That highly skilled classes make for better rules makes sense to me. Governing is a skill based activity. Of course the rogue who can Administrate, Lead, and has Knowledge (History) has fewer skill ranks left over for disarming traps, escaping from bonds, and swinging from chandeliers.
If one wants to govern, take a governing class. I mean, if any fighter was a good ruler, then it might well be the case that half the men on watch tonight are as capable of running the realm as the Baron. That strikes me as absurd. If you want to govern, put down the sword for ten minutes in a row and think about finance, administration, politics, history, law, and so on. This is why there is a noble class. My own noble class was designed for running domains. Most of the other noble classes I saw were some combination of fighter and diplomat, fighter and ruler, fighter and rogue. Likewise with spellcasters. Take a governing class. If you want to be the best spellcaster you possible can at your level of experience, why in the world do you think you don't have to give anything up to get that other stuff?
I generally find that with a properly designed noble class, the scholar class from the Medieval Players Handbook, and of course the old trusty rogue, I'm pretty much set to multi-class anyone into someone who can rule a domain.
I recommend that players who want to be good at governing should have at least 1/3 of their character levels as a governing class, and that if they want to be good at adventuring, they should not have more than 2/3's in these.
Core D&D is not about governing, so it will never produce classes optimized for governing. Birthright needed (needs) to have classes for that purpose. Conversion to 4e would be much easier if abilities and powers suited to governing were not entirely foreign to 4e.
kgauck
08-08-2008, 03:24 AM
Well right now the shadow world does have a bit of currupting factor to it. That wasn't always the case but currently no one wants to hang out there.
I don't think so. If one knows how to navigate the place, one can hang out in the faerie areas of the place and dwell with the fey in a place much more like the faewild than shadowfell.
irdeggman
08-08-2008, 10:47 AM
Well right now the shadow world does have a bit of currupting factor to it. That wasn't always the case but currently no one wants to hang out there.
-BB
But what the world "feels" like or has "become" is not what the power source is, it is more a reflection of "rulership" than anything else. The power source of the SW is clearly "the Seeming" and the Seeming is not inherently "evil" or "demonic" is is everchanging and morpheous (e.g., illusion based). To me making it anything else is missing the point of the BR SW totally.
irdeggman
08-08-2008, 10:50 AM
I find myself agreeing more and more with Kenneth and his assessment of 4th ed and BR.
Note that neither of us has said it is a bad system or mechanic (and both have said it has advantages and improvements over previous systems) but only how well it (from a mechanics standpoint) can capture the feel of BR.
Pretty much any game mechanic system can be used to capture BR - some just require a lot more work than others.
kgauck
08-08-2008, 10:57 AM
The power source of the SW is clearly "the Seeming" and the Seeming is not inherently "evil" or "demonic" is is everchanging and morpheous (e.g., illusion based).
Indeed. One can easily imagine what the spirit/faerie world might have been like when the Sie and fey were the dominant beings of what is now the Shadow World. They too wield the seeming, and many powers of the fey seem to draw on the seeming directly.
The corruption of Azrai didn't make anything new, it just took what was there and bent it to a dark end.
bbeau22
08-08-2008, 01:19 PM
I think the skill system worked marvelously, and that the objections you mentioned were desirable design features, not defects. Our fighter could have spent one of his feats on Skill Focus. The feat has no prerequisite.
A Fighter 20 is someone who consistently refused to improve his skills at the expense of his feat progression, BAB. If this person really valued skills more when presented with this opportunity cost, they would have selected at the very least a level of scout or rogue.
Why not have a game system that can simulate both breadth and depth of knowledge (including a knowledge of techniques represented by feats)? If someone wants to spend all of their learning on becoming the absolute master of a few fighting techniques (pure fighter), I say great. If that character wants to broaden his learning to include some knowledge skills, such as religion, or to take some interactions skills, like Diplomacy, I say there ought to be a cost to it. An opportunity cost. Given limited resources of time and experience, will you learn to better defeat your enemies or to persuade them?
The third edition gave us a marvelous tool of multi-classing so that one could get exactly the mix of this and that which we wanted. A fighter 20 is someone who optimized fighting at the expense of everything else.
I don't want to seem to be getting down on 3.5 skill system. I thought it was a huge advance from 2nd edition and love almost every aspect about it. I thought I explained my point best with this ...
I believe in the 3.5 rules there is nothing that can account for this natural experience character get that adventure. I think the 4th edition allowing all character to have some of this ability that is based off of experience (level) is a good idea and doesn't shackle a character with just one or two good skills.
Is this not sound rational? It gets more players more involved in more aspects of the game. It allows everyone in the group to have a meaningful impact on aspects of the game they would normally have to sit and watch. Now some classes will still be superior than others, as it should be.
That highly skilled classes make for better rules makes sense to me. Governing is a skill based activity. Of course the rogue who can Administrate, Lead, and has Knowledge (History) has fewer skill ranks left over for disarming traps, escaping from bonds, and swinging from chandeliers.
If one wants to govern, take a governing class. I mean, if any fighter was a good ruler, then it might well be the case that half the men on watch tonight are as capable of running the realm as the Baron. That strikes me as absurd. If you want to govern, put down the sword for ten minutes in a row and think about finance, administration, politics, history, law, and so on. This is why there is a noble class. My own noble class was designed for running domains. Most of the other noble classes I saw were some combination of fighter and diplomat, fighter and ruler, fighter and rogue. Likewise with spellcasters. Take a governing class. If you want to be the best spellcaster you possible can at your level of experience, why in the world do you think you don't have to give anything up to get that other stuff?
I generally find that with a properly designed noble class, the scholar class from the Medieval Players Handbook, and of course the old trusty rogue, I'm pretty much set to multi-class anyone into someone who can rule a domain.
I recommend that players who want to be good at governing should have at least 1/3 of their character levels as a governing class, and that if they want to be good at adventuring, they should not have more than 2/3's in these.
Core D&D is not about governing, so it will never produce classes optimized for governing. Birthright needed (needs) to have classes for that purpose. Conversion to 4e would be much easier if abilities and powers suited to governing were not entirely foreign to 4e.
My only problem with making a class that is superior in ruling a domain, is how it interacts with what has already been created. Almost every ruling leader in the Birthright books is either a wizard, fighter, cleric or rogue. If you create a noble class that is better at ruling a domain you are now saying every other ruler in the land is inferior to ruling their domains.
Also if we do make an updated verison for 4th edition, multi-classing isn't a real option. You can get some abilities from another classes but you are more or less locked into the character type you created.
My suggestion would be to have full array of feats and powers that any ruling character can choose from that aid in running a realm. This would allow for any class to be an acceptable ruler. This also still follows your idea that if they start loading up on realm feats and powers that means they put down their sword for 10 minutes and actually worked on it, making them weaker fighers but better rulers.
This also gets around the idea of having a superior ruling class and also allows for what NPC rulers we got to be customized for their lands. Some rulers might actually be poor rulers but strong fighters or powerful priests, and others are much better at ruling countries. The DM will be able to make these descisions for each character without having to change them into a multiclass character.
And perhaps we are looking at one of the strengths of the 4th edition system. In 3.5 the only true way to customize a class was with the limited amount of feats to choose from if you weren't a fighter, multiclassing to get the abilities you wanted, and taking skills. With many classes only getting a few skill points and feats the only option to make them unique was to multi-class. This is one of the reason why they kept adding prestige classes.
With 4th edition we can very easily have ruling powers at all levels for characters to choose from instead of what they can choose from in their class. Also with characters getting a large number of feats they can also be used to make your character more unique.
-BB
kgauck
08-08-2008, 02:07 PM
I love multi-classing. I rather find 4e a bit inflexible. Far more flexible than 2e to be sure, but I am a big fan of multi-classing. I like the way it works better. This is probabaly just a matter of taste.
My only problem with making a class that is superior in ruling a domain, is how it interacts with what has already been created. Almost every ruling leader in the Birthright books is either a wizard, fighter, cleric or rogue. If you create a noble class that is better at ruling a domain you are now saying every other ruler in the land is inferior to ruling their domains.
Well, I think its more sensible to just change what classes people have based on their character concept. Given the richer class pallet of 3e, confining oneself to those available in 2e seems too limiting.
epicsoul
08-08-2008, 03:26 PM
I love multi-classing. I rather find 4e a bit inflexible. Far more flexible than 2e to be sure, but I am a big fan of multi-classing. I like the way it works better. This is probabaly just a matter of taste.
Well, I think its more sensible to just change what classes people have based on their character concept. Given the richer class pallet of 3e, confining oneself to those available in 2e seems too limiting.
Interesting. My thoughts on 4e are in another thread, but you have just prompted a new thought.
In many ways, 4e is a return to 2e if you want to use it for Birthright. How so? Well, the amount of proficiencies gained in 2e were minor (and improvement of proficiencies was negligible), the class choices were not as many, the multi-classing was not as common/available.
In fact... would not the 2e BR rules actually "fit" 4e better in many ways than the BRCS? The game was basically designed along the idea that a certain class would be the head of a particular domain. Why not bring that back?
A few edits just as 2e did would be in order - probably not having the warlock, as has been mentioned. 2e BR did away with the monk and the psionicist, after all. There is precedent.
bbeau22
08-08-2008, 04:16 PM
I love multi-classing. I rather find 4e a bit inflexible. Far more flexible than 2e to be sure, but I am a big fan of multi-classing. I like the way it works better. This is probabaly just a matter of taste.
Well, I think its more sensible to just change what classes people have based on their character concept. Given the richer class pallet of 3e, confining oneself to those available in 2e seems too limiting.
And just as a side thought as I was reading your response. You mentioned how nobles might make better rulers. I think there is a real chance that someone that was born noble and grew up in a pampered lifestyle might be less equiped to run a country than someone that had it rough. They might have a feeling in entitlement that would lead them to not listen to advisers or be able to speak to the common man when needed.
And to your point above. I think we are ultimately after the same thing but going about it two different ways. Noble was already created for 3.5 and it does work well with multiclassing. As we begin to look at a 4th edition verison we will just have to revist the noble class and see if it makes as much sense. Because of the limitation to multiclassing and other classes can't dip into it like they could in 3.5, we may have to change the class up a bit to be more in line with others.
-BB
Thelandrin
08-08-2008, 04:22 PM
The common man? Are we trying to go with the "ruler as pop star" approach? I would imagine that in mediaeval times it would in fact be most unusual if the rulers ever listened to their peasants at all!
bbeau22
08-08-2008, 04:25 PM
Interesting. My thoughts on 4e are in another thread, but you have just prompted a new thought.
In many ways, 4e is a return to 2e if you want to use it for Birthright. How so? Well, the amount of proficiencies gained in 2e were minor (and improvement of proficiencies was negligible), the class choices were not as many, the multi-classing was not as common/available.
In fact... would not the 2e BR rules actually "fit" 4e better in many ways than the BRCS? The game was basically designed along the idea that a certain class would be the head of a particular domain. Why not bring that back?
A few edits just as 2e did would be in order - probably not having the warlock, as has been mentioned. 2e BR did away with the monk and the psionicist, after all. There is precedent.
Good insight. There are certain rules that were applied to 2nd edition that could be reapplied to 4th.
- Instead of skills for regency we can go back to classes like 2nd edition. Like a priest will get full regency from temples and half from law. Because skills don't work the same anyway it makes this move easy.
-BB
bbeau22
08-08-2008, 04:38 PM
The common man? Are we trying to go with the "ruler as pop star" approach? I would imagine that in mediaeval times it would in fact be most unusual if the rulers ever listened to their peasants at all!
No not so much common man. Just because you were born a noble doesn't mean you are going to take the noble class. I was thinking more like a noble that was actually a warrior or a priest instead. Having to actually train, study. I know you can study as a noble, I was just commenting on how some nobles are in no way more prepared to rule than a common man.
I have talked about before about adding backgrounds to all characters. Different backgrounds might give different advantages. Noble background might have certain feats only available to them to make them better rulers. Most people playing a ruler in Birthright would have this background, but i know many of my players like to have different backgrounds and maybe their are some advantages to them.
In my current campaign right now I have three characters all from different types of backgrounds. One is a noble but really grew up as a diplomat. Another was blooded but didn't grow noble but spent his life as a pirate. The last was a character born on the isle of the serpent.
In the above examples backgrounds could include ...
The Noble diplomat can choose from a noble background or diplomat background.
The pirate would choose the sailor background.
The man born on the isle could have a commoner or fish out of water background.
Now I am tossing ideas out there.
-BB
kgauck
08-08-2008, 06:20 PM
I think there is a real chance that someone that was born noble and grew up in a pampered lifestyle might be less equipped to run a country than someone that had it rough.
Sure, its the classic sub-optimal build, or to put it another way, a character optimized to be good at gambling, wenching, hunting, and amusing one's self, rather than anything else. To make it worse, use the Aristocrat NPC class. I've built a few characters like this, as troublesome siblings.
Invest in things like Bluff, Ride, Handle Animal, Profession (Gambler), Sense Motive, then a smattering of Diplomacy, Appraise, Knowledge (Nobility), Perform (Etiquette), and Survival (for hunting), and call it a day.
You can also make earnest, but ineffective characters, who have way too many ranks in things like Art and Architecture. They make the capital city and the palace beautiful, but can't run the city or the country.
When I build a character I intentionally try and optimize them for something, but that something isn't always useful. Certainly a carouser should be optimized for successful carousing.
AndrewTall
08-08-2008, 11:22 PM
Shadow-world power source
The power does not actually need to draw from 'the entire world' - I can easily see one warlock drawing power from the dark corrupted areas dominatlated by the Lost, another drawing from the vibrant areas of the Seelie, a third from the chaotic maelstrom of the most wild areas of the seeming, and a fourth from the dead empty lands of the 'classic' shadow world envisaged prior to the release of later products. Each of these could be modelled with a different pact, abilities, etc. You might have to rename the pact depending on whether it is with one of the Lost, a Seelie, etc but that shouldn't be a problem.
Skills
2 skill points a level was a problem for fighters and so on, but if the character put a high score into int instead of into stn (say) they would wind up with half a dozen reasonable skills not just 2 - the only question is whether the fighter wanted to be a 'I have swung a sword for the past 5 years and never done anything else - fear me in battle' or 'I've swung a sword, but I've also led troops, planned seiges, negotiated alliances, arranged supply convoys, etc - fear me in war' type of warrior. I like the 4e idea that the character will pick up at least some minimal skill in any given area as they progress - but 3e handled that well for all but the most crunch-focused munchkin by letting the PC spend minimal / some / many / lots of skill points depending on how much of the action they had done.
Personally I'd have liked to split the skills into 'combat' and 'non-combat', and puffed up skills in the second slot - that would let some characters focus on 'craftsman, peasant, etc' stuff rather than 'noble' stuff. This is more of a 'background build' sort of approach than the traditional D&D approach which has always been purely class based, but it works well for other systems.
Rowan
08-09-2008, 04:34 AM
Ken mentioned something about 4e multiclassing. I agree that it is inflexible. I fixed that by allowing that first multiclassing feat to grant access to any powers from the new class, so that you can fill your allotment of powers from either class. It's a more powerful variant, considering that this opens 4e up to some serious strategizing of complementary powers. I'm willing to go with that, though, partly because I'm generally more fond of classless games that allow anyone to choose to learn whatever they want their characters to learn.
As for regent-focused classes, I don't like the idea because it doesn't mix well with the normal classes. I think you make a monster character if you want a non-standard-class NPC. You could create a generic class and let PCs choose from that, too, but it would need to be pretty bland, allowing you to customize more by selecting rulership powers.
I do think that special feats and weekly/monthly/seasonal/or annual powers ought to be created for rulers, that anyone has access to. I would allow a certain number of these feats and powers as extra, on top of adventure-powers. Restrict that benefit to scions or not, I don't think it matters much. You could also allow additional access to these rulership abilities in lieu of adventure feats and powers, but that will lead to characters that don't mix well with those optimized for different things; this may matter depending upon the type of game you are playing.
AndrewTall
08-09-2008, 06:41 AM
Since the cross-over between a ruler class and a 'normal' class would be so minimal, I would suggest creating a series of social 'background' classes from noble to peasant, progression either directly linked to the 'standard' class, tracked separately, or whatever. This would avoid creating 'weak' cross-class PC's that function poorly in comparison to 'pure' classes.
Those PCs that do not want to be rulers could be equally skilled in other social areas of more interest to their back story or in-game interest. The problem with BR compared to other games is that the ruler will also have an active game-play role compared to the 'craftsman' PC or the 'wildman' PC etc which could leave PC's with a non-ruler background class feeling left out.
kgauck
08-09-2008, 06:55 AM
My preference for a noble class relates to 3e multi-classing. For 4e, a noble talent tree seems more suitable.
irdeggman
08-09-2008, 08:55 AM
Shadow-world power source
The power does not actually need to draw from 'the entire world' - I can easily see one warlock drawing power from the dark corrupted areas dominatlated by the Lost, another drawing from the vibrant areas of the Seelie, a third from the chaotic maelstrom of the most wild areas of the seeming, and a fourth from the dead empty lands of the 'classic' shadow world envisaged prior to the release of later products. Each of these could be modelled with a different pact, abilities, etc. You might have to rename the pact depending on whether it is with one of the Lost, a Seelie, etc but that shouldn't be a problem.
But now you've split what are esentially different planes (despite the name "world" into different "realms" and would then by extrapolation thus have on Cerilia have regents draw from realm power soutces.
Now realm power sources is an interesting idea for realm spells and such but that too would apply to the Shadow World and thus mix two different power sources (warlocks and regents drawing from the same thing - so a warlock - regent would be double dipping). Mechanically this just doesn't work for me.
irdeggman
08-09-2008, 08:57 AM
My preference for a noble class relates to 3e multi-classing. For 4e, a noble talent tree seems more suitable.
IMO this is the way to go.
A regent would be a better regent by giving up being better at something else. This doesn't restrict him from being a regent but makes him choose to be better at somethiing he focused on instead. This fits into the current 4th ed system very, very well.
I told you I was finding myself agreeing with more and more on 4th ed.
fbaker4
08-09-2008, 06:20 PM
To work out, concretely, how some of these all will work in practice?
bbeau22
08-09-2008, 06:42 PM
IMO this is the way to go.
A regent would be a better regent by giving up being better at something else. This doesn't restrict him from being a regent but makes him choose to be better at somethiing he focused on instead. This fits into the current 4th ed system very, very well.
I told you I was finding myself agreeing with more and more on 4th ed.
Whoo Whoo. This is certainly the way I would like to go about it.
One of the ways to do it is to do the backgrounds like people have said and have one of them be "Noble" background. This would allow the noble character to have access to certain feats and powers that can replace class powers.
Also the best part about this is we can create non-combat feats for other backgrounds too as we have time. Artisan, Peasent, soldier. Some might give unique abilities to help ruling also that a noble might not have, although the noble one would probably have the most.
-BB
irdeggman
08-09-2008, 08:37 PM
One of the ways to do it is to do the backgrounds like people have said and have one of them be "Noble" background. This would allow the noble character to have access to certain feats and powers that can replace class powers.
-BB
I have problems with this one.
In that there is no direct tie to being blooded.
Being from a noble background does not mean being a scion. There are many nobles who weren't blooded.
IM being noble has a lot to do with having "privedge" and access to things that others do not. This acces could come from tradition of the family or from being in a family that has a lot of money (i.e., the nuveau rich).
Not all scions come from such backgrounds and not all people from such backgrounds are scions.
To follow the regent talent tree one should ahve to be a scion, IMO.
bbeau22
08-09-2008, 09:53 PM
I have problems with this one.
In that there is no direct tie to being blooded.
Being from a noble background does not mean being a scion. There are many nobles who weren't blooded.
IM being noble has a lot to do with having "privedge" and access to things that others do not. This acces could come from tradition of the family or from being in a family that has a lot of money (i.e., the nuveau rich).
Not all scions come from such backgrounds and not all people from such backgrounds are scions.
To follow the regent talent tree one should ahve to be a scion, IMO.
I just came back from a long run and was thinking about this. When I say a noble might have advantages of having access to feats and powers because of what you just said ... being privelged and having access to things other do not. Hear are some of my ideas .... really just stream of thought while running.
I was thinking that each background would have one starting ability that they would get automaticly. This would give even a low level character some benfit as a ruler. Here is what I was thinking.
- Noble -
- Starting ability - +1 Court level. A noble knows what other nobles expect from a fine court and thus can predict the needs of others with better consistancy than someone not from a fine noble house. Their court is considered 1 level higher in all cases.
- Feat Access - Expert Diplomat - Growing up a noble is taught to behave in all upper class events. Other nobles can sense if a person is uncomfortable or unfamilier in a situation and might not react as positive to the character. +2 for all diplomatic affairs that the scion is personally involved with.
- Commoner -
- Starting ability - Hero of the People - Many commoners and peasents enjoy to see one of their own make it big. Because of this a regent that came from a commoner background they have stronger bond with the people giving them a bonus to loyalty. All loyalty rolls are considered +2 higher than actually rolled.
- Feat access - Lay of the land - A commoner was once friends with many people in the land and speak their language. A ruler with a commoner background gets a +2 to all gather information checks within their own borders.
- Merchant -
- Starting ability - A merchant understand how to make a business more profitable. They see opportunity where others see nothing. A ruler with a merchant background can take one guild under their control and it is considered one level higher for all positive aspects.
- Feat access - A merchant understand the very competitive nature of business. They have learned how to apply the tricks used to undercut other guilds and apply it to other aspects of a realm. A ruler with a merchant background gets a +1 on all contest checks that do not include a guild.
Thats is all I can up with so far. I believe their should be a Scion background also. This can apply to a blooded individual that is not only a noble but any other class. A character can only have one background so many character might have an option of taking either a noble background or a scion background depending how they want to build their character.
-BB
bbeau22
08-09-2008, 10:15 PM
- Scion -
- Prereq - Blooded
- Starting ability - Rulers that have blooded their whole lives understand very well its effects on non-blooded people. They have honed this skill over time to get non-blooded people to do more for them without even realizing it. A Scion background ruler gets a +1 on all rule actions because those working for him try a little harder.
- Feat access - Know their own - A ruler that has been blooded their whole lives and understands its effects can sense other blooded individuals within a just a few seconds. When a character with the scion background speaks to another blooded person, they will know they are blooded within a few seconds.
bbeau22
08-09-2008, 10:30 PM
- Soldier -
- Starting Ability - A soldier understand what it took to get himself motivated to fight and not surrender. As a ruler he can motivate his troops better than most rulers. Any unit on the battlefield that he is the general of get a +1 to all moral checks.
- Feat Access - Make a Better Soldier - A ruler with a soldier background have a better understanding of what troops are capable off thus making training them easier. This ruler gets a +1 on check to train troops or making unit units for his land.
kgauck
08-10-2008, 05:37 AM
Not all scions come from such backgrounds and not all people from such backgrounds are scions.
Since Bloodline provides its own useful mechanics (such as Regency) for governing, looking at class alone might just be useful. Not only does it provide for different backgrounds having different effects, but a non-scion who had a noble background still makes a useful adviser, lieutenant, or court official. A court is probabaly full of such noble figures, both blooded and unblooded, to carry out the many tasks of government.
AndrewTall
08-12-2008, 03:26 PM
But now you've split what are esentially different planes (despite the name "world" into different "realms" and would then by extrapolation thus have on Cerilia have regents draw from realm power soutces.
Now realm power sources is an interesting idea for realm spells and such but that too would apply to the Shadow World and thus mix two different power sources (warlocks and regents drawing from the same thing - so a warlock - regent would be double dipping). Mechanically this just doesn't work for me.
I was thinking more about a 'patron' with whom to make the pact which would permit the channeling of true magic without harm rather than a power source - all magic is powered by (awn)mebhaighl afterall. It wouldn't be double dipping then, so much as single dip with the appropriate flavouring by patron type.
geeman
08-14-2008, 03:23 PM
I`m going to combine a few ideas here:
First, I don`t know if one could objectively describe the SW as
"evil" or corrupting per se. I`m sure most intelligent creatures
from the world of light would view it as such, but one really should
consider that the world of light would appear similarly "evil" to a
native of the SW.
That said, Azrai would appear to have gained his power from the SW,
and the nature of his power was/remains corruption and evil. The
seeming is, also, a "creative" force, but also one that is
essentially based on illusions or "lies" from the POV of most
people. The denizens of the shadow world are generally of the type
who embrace what most "light-siders" would view as a warped
perspective. We assume that the plane of negative energy (back in
2e) was evil and that`s the source of many undead. Undead are more
prolific in the SW than the world of light.
So on the whole there are a lot of indications of a fundamentally
"evil" force or forces in the SW, but none are particularly
definitive enough to say that the SW itself is fundamentally
evil. If one were to argue that it is a slow, creeping sort of evil
that can often go unrecognized and often looks more like a pragmatic
neutrality than actual evil then I think it`d be hard to disagree
with such an assessment. That is, it`s the serial murderer who is
the "Angel of Death" doctor who kills the aged and dying in a
hospital rather than, say, Jeffrey Dahmer. Or, maybe, the slow,
impersonal evil of a massive corporate entity based on a culture of
environmental destruction compared to the evil of a late 19th century
company like the East India Corporation that had it`s own private
army and slaughtered/oppressed natives.
Second, regarding a 4e conversion:
I`m not converting to 4e. However, I will gleefully steal from that
system the things that work well for BR or that simply work well as
game mechanics. For instance, I like the take on the skill
system. Most of that can port straight back to 3.5. Similarly, the
way 4e handles hit points can be retroactively used in
3.5. Conversely, as a few folks have noted, I`m finding the 4e way
of handling multi-classing to be a bit limited.
I posted a little thing asking folks what kinds of things they think
would be good to use in a set of rules that we can call "3.6" for
BR. What things from 4e do you plan on using? What things from 4e
are you certain you don`t want to use?
Gary
fbaker4
08-19-2008, 04:56 PM
Masterwork items:
I know that BR is a low-magic place, and I like that. The masterwork items in 3.x seemed a great fit. Any thoughts on MW items in BR in general, since they clearly weren't in 2nd? And additionally, any though to MW items in 4e?
Rowan
08-20-2008, 03:10 PM
The d20 Wheel of Time setting reflected low magic (in terms of low magic items) by allowing a broader range of mw items. I believe mastercraft stuff could yield up to a +3 modifier (to attack and damage). I don't mind that at all, though I'm not sure +3 is necessary.
I'd say varying degrees of masterwork stuff, along with special steel (produced by humans) or superior adamantine (moraskorr from dwarves) or mithril (from elves) could produce weapons of such quality as to contend with magic weapons, though without being magical. Same with armor and tools (instead of just a +2 bonus, perhaps it could range from +1 to +4).
There is, after all, no need to require a magical explanation for high-performance equipment.
Some examples that I've played with before:
--For weapons, choose an appropriate damage type and scale an available additional bonus based on ability scores, like Mighty Mw Longbows do with Str. So hammers and axes could add in more Str bonus, Swords could take advantage of either Str or Dex, light weapons could use Dex, etc. This bonus could be added to attack or damage, but keep in mind that attack bonuses are more valuable than damage bonuses.
--For armor, include some DR, if you don't already with a variant. Change up the movement restrictions on med and hvy armor for some well-made suits, or alter the max Dex bonus and armor check penalty more.
--For tools, clothing, and other equipment, they could either generally provide a range of skill bonuses (lanterns to Spot checks, cloaks to Hide checks, etc.), or provide some other useful function (lanterns can Dazzle people, cloaks can give 10% miss chance in low light or underbrush).
There was at least one Dragon Magazine that expanded mastercraft stuff for weapons and armor. It generally manipulated basic statistics like weight, armor value, what the skill check applied to, even minor energy resistance or damage.
fbaker4
08-20-2008, 03:35 PM
Those are good ideas - what do you think about using them in BR? with 4e?
Rowan
08-20-2008, 07:44 PM
Both are a good fit. The same 3.5e bonuses for these items should work fine in 4e without conversion.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.