dundjinnmasta's Birthright 4e Conversion Thread

[dundjinnmasta]

I am currently working on converting 4e to Birthright as such I want to share the proceedings with this community. Anyone that wants to loan me a hand or give constructive criticism is welcomed but that doesn't mean that I will adapt the ideas but it is nice to have variety.

Alot of the fluff will be pulled from both the original campaign and the updated 3e playtest rules.

[dundjinnmasta]

Reserved for Racial Modification from the Core Rules

Current Racial Modifications
Dragonborn (Removed) - Unknown replacement at current.
Dwarf (Not Modified) - Possible changes in the future to make them more in line with Cerilian Dwarves.
Eladrin (Replaced) - Replaced by the Sidhelien
Elf (Replaced) - Replaced by the Sidhelien
Half-Elf (Not Modified) - Possible Changes in the future to make them more in line with Cerilian Half-Elves.
Halfling (Replaced) - Replaced by the Cerilian halflings.
Human (Not Modified) - Possible Change in the future to add the five Cerilian subraces of humans.
Tiefling (Removed) - Replaced by Goblins, Hobgoblins, Bugbears.
Goblins (Not Modified) - Use Goblins, Hobgoblins, Bugbears from the Monster Manual; Possible Change in the future to make them more in line with Cerilian goblins.

Current Progress
Sidhelien Text document Added - Missing two adventurer fluff for a rogue and a wizard.
Races Modifications added
Cerilian halflings added - missing the three sample adventurer fluff.
Anuireans added.
12/25 - Anuireans removed.

[dundjinnmasta]

Reserved for Class Modification from the Core Rules

[dundjinnmasta]

Reserved for Skill and Feat Modifications from the Core Rules

[dundjinnmasta]

Reserved for Birthright specific system modifications from the Core Rules.

[dundjinnmasta]

Reserved for Author Commentary on the conversion process.



Racial Modifications: I removed Dragonborn and Tieflings because there is literally none of them within the Birthright canon and I do not feel that adding them is a good idea and based on articles in Dragon magazine it seems to be my choice to disallow races even if they are "Core". The reason for adding Shadow Walk (Fey Step) to halflings is based on their second edition routes of being able to "Dimension Door" three times per week and it seems to me that they would have just been bending the shadow world and passing through it instanteously and since alot of old things got an upgrade I went ahead and used what I saw as an upgraded version of this.




Sidhelien: I was caught between which race to use eladrin or elves and thought about just allowing both that are just seen as Sidhelien much like goblinoid variations are all just goblins. This can still be an option for easily conversion of the material but in the end I wanted something that combined both the eladrin and elf into the Sidhelien. I considered between giving them Wild Step and a power based on Infernal Wrath (Tiefling) called gheallie Sidhe but instead went with a more powerful version of wild step and ultimately closer in flavor to the pass without trace (2e) or Nature Stride (3e) based on the Water Gensei's Swiftcurrent racial power from Forgotten Realms Player's Guide. I followed the ability modifiers of the old Sidhelien and was caught on the later skill bonuses but just settled on Perception and Arcana over History and Nature though it was a hard decision and one I am not completely set on.


Cerilian Halflings: I tried to get them as close to the 2e as possible and decided on an ability where they pretty much instantly pass though the shadow world like their Dimension Door and Shadow Walk ability of 2e. Originally was going to go with the Fey Step as the bases for the power but then I found Shadar-kai Shadow Jaunt ability from the MM and it seemed almost a perfect fit to my mind. I changed their ability modifiers to be more inline with 2e and therefore it changes their 'favored' class make-up making them extremely good rangers, and puts the cleric class with it's wisdom key as a better class choice then the former Warlock choice.


Obviously 2e Anuireans had a bonus to wis and I seen alot of people trying to give the Anuireans a +2 to Cha but I thought their "diplomatic" side was better served by the + to diplomacy and then the ability to grant diplomatic increases to their companions like a half-elf. Since they are a warrior race as well the +2 strength made good sense to me and their +2 str, +2 wis makes them good for paladins aka knights.

[irdeggman]

Human (Not Modified) - Possible Change in the future to add the five Cerilian subraces of humans.



Having different human "cultures" is an essential part of the setting. Whether you make them separate races or merely put in "variant" skill/feat structures - something must address the fact that they are so different. It is a major part of what drives the setting.

[Thelandrin]

I completely agree. I won't be playing 4E, but you cannot not have separate human subraces in Cerilia.

[dundjinnmasta]

That is one decision that I am struggling on at this moment which is whether to force the humans to use their +2 mod in a culture related stat and define their free skill OR make five completely new races based on the human subraces. I am leaning towards the first because building a new race can certainly be a daunting task! It took me quite a few hours to get Sidhelien together but that was my first race to ever build in 4e.

[bbeau22]

That is one decision that I am struggling on at this moment which is whether to force the humans to use their +2 mod in a culture related stat and define their free skill OR make five completely new races based on the human subraces. I am leaning towards the first because building a new race can certainly be a daunting task! It took me quite a few hours to get Sidhelien together but that was my first race to ever build in 4e.

There are a couple of ways to make the conversion ... some are hard and some arn't so hard.

- Force the +2 stat into different spots depending on location. Vos +2 Str, Brecht +2 Dex, Anuire +2 Charimsa, Khansi +2 Int ... something like that. Those were just off the top of my head.

- Instead a free feat of their choice give them a regional feats instead, but allow the +2 to any stat remain.

- To get into more detail you could treat them more like a typical race and have a +2 to two different stats and give them bonus skills depending on their area.


I would think keep it simple at first but include a variant that might have more flavor.

[kgauck]

Mechanical differences can be helpful, but the cultural differences are mostly role play.

[Green Knight]

That is one decision that I am struggling on at this moment which is whether to force the humans to use their +2 mod in a culture related stat and define their free skill OR make five completely new races based on the human subraces. I am leaning towards the first because building a new race can certainly be a daunting task! It took me quite a few hours to get Sidhelien together but that was my first race to ever build in 4e.

The versatile +2 stat bonus for humans...and their other abilities...makes the race very versatile. If you take that away and replaced it with something fixed, then you're seriously undermining the whole racial concept.

[kgauck]

The notion of humans as Mr. Versatility is a concept that belongs in vanilla D&D, not BR.

[bbeau22]

To take it a step further. To keep true to 4th edition.

- Keep the basic human set up as is. But to further seperate the different types of humans offer regional feats that humans have access to depending on where they are from. Create say 2 or 3 regional feats per area.

Make their starting feat a choice of whatever regional feat they have access to. They have the option to take the other regional feats at any point in their adventuring life or not at all.

[Wilenburg]

after taken a quick skim through the new forgotten realms player's guide, Here is an idea to deal with the humans
1) make each of the humans a different race (which I think is the best approach)
2) to make each of the races of humans different is buy using backgrounds to flesh put a paticurlar area avanil gets a list of feats which are specific for avanil and so on.
3) this can be done to the none human realms as well
4) humans should be treated differently from the core books.

[irdeggman]

The notion of humans as Mr. Versatility is a concept that belongs in vanilla D&D, not BR.


I agree totally.

[Sir Tiamat]

I agree totally.

The versatility of Humans is part of the game balance. The other Races get a fixed +4


If I were to run a 4th campain I would fix the scores for most NPC's, but allow the floater for PC characters and some NPC's... For example, Anuireans have a tendency towards wisdom, but some individuals have other strenghts...

[kgauck]

Why is this not true for elves, dwarves, halflings, goblins (a race that certainly looks diverse), or anyone else? If ever humans were ready to wear hats (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlanetOfHats) in a setting, BR would be that setting.

So I will ask, is this a PC's are special situation, where if you did an elf campaign you might allow free floating bonus? Or allow Sidhelien to select either elves or eladrin?

Or is this a humans are special type of thing?

I'm perfectly happy to dispense with tropes and declare that all Brecht are not nautical guilders who are basically Han Solo variations who never abandon luck, wealth, and smuggling. But why then re-impose the trope of versatility on all humans? IMC, guilders wear their hat as lucky, merchant scoundrels, but actual Brecht you encounter often subvert the trope. Brecht nobles who are fighters on horseback, or scholarly wizards (Brecht wearing Anuirean and Khinasi hats respectively!) are common as encounters, especially when outside of Brechtur.

But as much as I like to subvert tropes, I don't want to discredit them. While not all Brecht are rapier wielding rogues, they aren't bastard sword wielders either. I don't go from one of the lightest to one of the heaviest swords.

I'm not a fan of mechanical fixes that force tropes, but I'm not against them either. What I do not want is that elves, dwarves, et al are given mechanical hats and humans are mechanically versatile. I'd rather see Brecht have a +2 Dex and use that creatively (more than just rapiers) than see Brecht be "versatile humans" and select any bonus to create any character type.

The versatile human is a hat just as much as hard-drinking, honorable, miner is for dwarves. Its not a game balance issue, its a trope. You can balance Brechts against Anuireans, dwarves, and so on with the right advantages for each of the five nations.

[Rowan]

If you do force the ability bonus based on region/ancestry, then there should be two +2s available, just like all other races that have forced ability bonuses. For instance:

Anuirean: +2 Wis, +2 Cha
Brecht: +2 Dex, +2 Cha
Khinasi: +2 Int, +2 Wis
Rjurik: +2 Con, +2 Wis
Vos: +2 Str, +2 Con

I'd like to see a mirror of the backgrounds from Player's Guide to Faerun, but even more significant. Someone proposed having almost background classes to accommodate the non-adventuring side of BR, since adventure balance is lost if you force characters to sacrifice adventure powers for non-adventure (domain rulership) powers and vice versa (competing for the same feat and power slots, for example). I like that idea, though perhaps it is more easily related to the Templates (as long as they don't give hp or as many hp) and provide domain-playlevel powers appropriate to the background--Farmer, Frontiersman, Artisan, Merchant, Clergy, Noble, whatever.

[bbeau22]

If you do force the ability bonus based on region/ancestry, then there should be two +2s available, just like all other races that have forced ability bonuses. For instance:

Anuirean: +2 Wis, +2 Cha
Brecht: +2 Dex, +2 Cha
Khinasi: +2 Int, +2 Wis
Rjurik: +2 Con, +2 Wis
Vos: +2 Str, +2 Con

I'd like to see a mirror of the backgrounds from Player's Guide to Faerun, but even more significant. Someone proposed having almost background classes to accommodate the non-adventuring side of BR, since adventure balance is lost if you force characters to sacrifice adventure powers for non-adventure (domain rulership) powers and vice versa (competing for the same feat and power slots, for example). I like that idea, though perhaps it is more easily related to the Templates (as long as they don't give hp or as many hp) and provide domain-playlevel powers appropriate to the background--Farmer, Frontiersman, Artisan, Merchant, Clergy, Noble, whatever.

I am with you on this as a few others I think agree about backgrounds. They serve as a great way to help define a character at creation. I would even go as far as to say they can get some sort of bonus depending on the background. Noble might get a bonus to diplomacy. Frontiersman would get a bonus to survival. It shouldn't be huge, but certainly a perk for helping define your character.

If you remove the ability of humans to put their +2 wherever they want, then you would have to give them +4 instead like you listed very nicely above.

The other side that is important are regional feats or powers. As Ken said above not every Brecht is a swashbuckling sailor ... but if we put in a couple of well placed feats that only Brecht people can take, then it makes Brecht folks easier at becoming swashbuckling sailors but not a requirement.


-BB

[bbeau22]

I have also been meaning to start a list like this but haven't had a chance with two small babies to take care of.

When I get a chance I will start up a Wiki.

[dundjinnmasta]

Reading back and forth. I am having problems with deciding... as I read good arguments for leaving the humans with the floater and going for "culture" feats or making each subrace into a complete race and removing the vanilla floater as I have had the gnawing thought that forcing the floater into a stat and forcing a skill would make humans weaker because their strength is in them being versatile.

Leaving the floater in place and using culture feats does seem easier and could explain "subraces" born away from their own race but I am attempting at this point to make a new race for each subrace, more work for me but probably best. I am just trying to find which race to best balance them against.

[irdeggman]

The versatility of Humans is part of the game balance. The other Races get a fixed +4


As Kenneth pointed out that is true for "vanilla" campaigns but not so for a "setting" like BR.


If I were to run a 4th campain I would fix the scores for most NPC's, but allow the floater for PC characters and some NPC's... For example, Anuireans have a tendency towards wisdom, but some individuals have other strenghts...

Kenneth's question on this one is accurate to gain a perpective.

Another one is what type of BR game do you play?

Is it FR with bloodlines and domain actions overlaid or do you run it as the original material laid out?

From historical posts there are a lot of people who do the former (FR with bloodlines and domain actions overlaid) and consider that "Birthright".

Basically, IMO, they are confusing game mechanics with setting design.

Bloodlines and domain actions are game mechanics that could be exported if desired. They do not define the setting, they are however mechanics that showcase the setting design.

[Green Knight]

The notion of humans as Mr. Versatility is a concept that belongs in vanilla D&D, not BR.

Untrue IMO, but nevermind. The main point is that a reduced flexibility needs to be compensated to avoid weakening the race with regards to game balance...we can't have any of THAT!

[bbeau22]

Reading back and forth. I am having problems with deciding... as I read good arguments for leaving the humans with the floater and going for "culture" feats or making each subrace into a complete race and removing the vanilla floater as I have had the gnawing thought that forcing the floater into a stat and forcing a skill would make humans weaker because their strength is in them being versatile.

Leaving the floater in place and using culture feats does seem easier and could explain "subraces" born away from their own race but I am attempting at this point to make a new race for each subrace, more work for me but probably best. I am just trying to find which race to best balance them against.

We on this board have that effect on people. There are always great opinions and you get a good look at how different people run Birthright. It is a testament to a great campaign setting.

3rd edition humans had a bit of versatile with having a free feat at first level and 4th edition took it to the next level with stats points also.

- Switch them to a +4 stat race. Give them a fixed +2/+2 per region.
- For their bonus feat at first level limit it to feats that are regional based (created by us new) or feats in the players handbook that fits each region the best. For example ...

Khanasi

Bonus feats choices: Armor prof (leather), Expanded Spellbook (wizard), Ritual Caster (wizard only), Skill Focus (Arcana, Diplomacy or History)

Then toss in some unique regional feats to the list. I am in a bit of a rush so my creative thinking isn't working too well. Will try to come up with some later.


The rest can remain the same. Now my set up isn't perfect and probably not quite balanced yet ... this is just to give you an idea of what I am thinking.

-BB

[WickerNipple]

I'm also converting BR into 4th ed at the moment, and just gave my players the racial fixed +2 in addition to the floater. (But no stacking the fixed + floater.)

Since all my players are Human, I didn't feel the need to balance out the fact that this technically overpowers humans compared to the other races.

(And also, since I've always felt BR was a Human-centric game, I don't really mind players feeling a mechanical encouragement to play them.)

If I were writing my conversion for publication and decided I didn't want that mechanical encouragement, I would remove the human bonus feat to compensate, and replace it with +2 to 2 skills dependent on race.

Anuirean: Insight / Diplomacy
Brecht: Streetwise / Diplomacy
Khinasi: Arcana / History
Rjurik: Nature / Perception
Vos: Nature / Intimidate

[irdeggman]

Untrue IMO, but nevermind. The main point is that a reduced flexibility needs to be compensated to avoid weakening the race with regards to game balance...we can't have any of THAT!

At one time I suggested giving a bonus feat to humans (from a list of cultural specific ones) in order to adjust for the fixed ability bonus.

But it should also be noted that in 4th ed ability score adjustments at 1st level have a much lesser effect than it did in 3.5 and much less than 2nd ed. This is because of how frequently (and how much) the ability score "increases" are in the leveling up process.

[kgauck]

It is also true that every race invented from here on out will be given +2 to two fixed ability scores, and a set of distinct special abilities, instead of the human bonus feat, bonus skill, bonus power, and unlimited +1 save bonus. If every race other than human can be constructed this way, why not BR humans as well?

[irdeggman]

It is also true that every race invented from here on out will be given +2 to two fixed ability scores, and a set of distinct special abilities, instead of the human bonus feat, bonus skill, bonus power, and unlimited +1 save bonus. If every race other than human can be constructed this way, why not BR humans as well?


I am not sure about the "every race from now on will be given +2 to two fixed ability scores" though. I wouldn't place a bet on that pattern being followed for very long, based on WotC history of adaptation.

The rest is very true - it is all a "complete package" and should be treated as such. They should have somethings that give "synergy" to abilities that are tied to the race - that seems to be the essential part of the core rules on races (which is mostly missing from the "vanilla" humans due to their emphasis on adaptation and not on racial focus (which is more in line with the original BR material - that is racial focus).

[kgauck]

That's true, we might see a +4 in one ability for some races in future. What I really meant was that we won't see the versatile human again, because its not necessary for balance. There are other ways to make a balanced race.

Point taken.

[dundjinnmasta]

posted the first attempt at the Anuireans as well as the reason I designed them the way I did.

[irdeggman]

posted the first attempt at the Anuireans as well as the reason I designed them the way I did.


Why Str and not Cha?

To logic seems week to me for a race with a lot of diplomatic skill to not have their ability bonus reflect that.

[bbeau22]

If you want to keep it with one physical attribute and one mental attribute then replace Wisdom with Charisma. Out of the three physical attributes none fit perfectly for Aunurians but Strength would probably be the best.

So there is my vote. +2 Charisma and +2 Strength.

-BB

[Green Knight]

Anuireans had a bonus to Wis in the original material. They are also quite religious and cleric should be a good fit for Anuirean characters. Keep Wis.

For physical, go with Str.

[kgauck]

For Anuireans, I prefer

Ability Scores +2 Wisdom, +2 Charisma
Skill Bonuses: +2 Diplomacy, +2 Insight

I wonder are people looking at Anuireans and deciding what bonuses that the Anuireans should get, or are they picking a set of classes, and then selecting the bonuses that are good for those classes?

[bbeau22]

I didn't realize in the original material that Anuireans had wisdom as a bonus. I stand corrected there.

If it if acceptable to have two non-physical stats then Wisdom and Charisma might be the way to go.

-BB

[WickerNipple]

There is no reason Anuireans as a culture should have Strength as a racial modifier.

If you're proving both stats for each Human race (though I'd still prefer one a floater), I'd give them each:

Anuirean - Wis/Cha ~~~ Insight / Diplomacy
Brecht - Dex/Cha ~~~ Streetwise / Diplomacy
Khinasi - Int/Wis(?) ~~~ Arcana / History
Rjurk - Con/Wis ~~~ Nature / Perception
Vos - Str/Con ~~~ Nature / Intimidate

[dundjinnmasta]

Anuirean are good at diplomacy, yes; But according to all the material they are excel as a war-like race with Knights and Fighters aplenty. There is no indication that they should have bonuses to CHA except in a case where they used diplomacy to conquer instead of their armies which they apparently did quite abit more. The +2 "CHA" only comes out to a +1 to diplomacy but it also adds to alot of other skills so them being adapt at diplomacy is better shown with the +2 diplomacy skill. Also their knowledge of diplomacy and history is also suited to granting their 'groups' a bonus to diplomacy in a very "Don't say something like this to the Regent" or "This Regent had been a great warrior in his prime so treat him with the respect of a warrior." etc. It seems that alot of people want to overlook the fact that the Anuirean are warriors and worshippers of a Warrior God over diplomats.


The Anuireans were once the overlords of nearly the entire continent. Following the lead of Emperor Roele, they dominated the other cultures of the land, and it seemed certain that they would be the ones to bring the disparate bloodlines together and unite the land forever. However, the death of Michael Roele (the last ruler of a 1,000-year dynasty) changed all of that. The Anuireans as a whole are now no more and no less powerful as the other peoples of Cerilia.

Still, the Anuireans have the advantage over their comrades, in that they have the lushest part of Cerilia to work from. The weather is temperate, the fields yield a bountiful harvest, and there's a plentiful supply of goods coming through the former capital of the Empire. It's no wonder that the Anuireans were able to dominate Cerilia for centuries.

Anuirean leaders are usually warriors, or at least cultivate a warlike aspect. After all, the chief god of Anuire is Haelyn, the god of war. Also, every Anuirean ruler knows that Roele established his Empire by taking over one kingdom at a time, and every regent thinks she can duplicate the feat. This means that the Anuireans' advantage over the neighboring cultures is wasted because the small kings spend their time squabbling among each other.

Anuirean cultural traits: The Anuireans are a stubborn, proud, and warlike people who respect social order and take great pains to maintain a demeanor appropriate to their rank and duties. Reserved and formal, Anuireans are sensitive to even slight changes in body language and mannerisms. Furthermore, the dealings and alliances of noble families are favored topics of continuous discussion throughout Anuirean
lands.

There is nothing within the above that suggests a single bonus to CHA. They are are warlike people, their regents are warriors, they follow the god of war, and the old empire conquered most domains and thus STR is the best fit for them as a warrior people.

[kgauck]

Soldiers and diplomats are the same people. Its not either/or, but rather both/and. Plus CHA is the skill for governing. Vos fight a lot. The Anuireans built and maintained an empire. And it wasn't a lot of fighting. They mostly showed up, fought a battle or two and then negotiated terms of Imperial suzerainty.

And there is no skill for warcraft. Plus their patron is not just god of war, but also justice, law, and rulership. This is a god, and a culture that rules, not just conquers. They need the skills for that.

I read that block quote and reply that none of that would have been possible without charismatic leaders, and charismatic subordinates to deal with the day to day affairs. I would drop WIS before I dropped CHA.

[dundjinnmasta]

CHA is a skill for making people do what you want. I would most definitely argue against it being a skill of "Governing" as it maybe a skill to get people to do things you want them to do in a way you want them to do but to actually plan out the logistics of something would most definitely fall in the realm of wis or int.

[kgauck]

I'd still prefer one a floater

I'm not sure I see the need for a floater. If you take the standard array or point buy your stats in the first place the only advantage of a floater is to more easily build a min-max character outside the cultural norms (since racial ability adjustments are assigned after assigning scores). I think min-maxing should be easier within those norms. Either way you can may the normal range pf powerful characters, its really just about getting that 18 at a more reasonable price.

[kgauck]

Politics is 10% planning and 90% negotiating. Charisma is the core skill.

[WickerNipple]

There is nothing within the above that suggests a single bonus to CHA. They are are warlike people, their regents are warriors, they follow the god of war, and the old empire conquered most domains and thus STR is the best fit for them as a warrior people.

The trouble I see it dundjin is you're taking the notion that many Anuireans are warriors and giving them Strength because it's the best stat for Fighters. This doesn't really follow.

A racial bonus exists to illustrate the needs and the development of a society. You can view the stats the races have by this point in the timeline as a form of Darwinism.

Anuirean leaders are often warriors, certainly - but the core stats they need to survive in their highly evolved and involved society aren't physical ones. This is a not a society where the physically strong inherently wins out over or preys upon the weak. Their cultural norm favors diplomacy, trade, negotiation - and the majority of power to be found within the Anuirean lands is found in the boardroom or the vestry, not the battlefield.

Two more points on the subject:

First, given 4th ed classes, I'd argue Warlord, not Fighter would the core Anuirean regent class.

Second, giving Anuireans (or anyone else, for that matter), a +2 to Str is essentially saying "they are as strong as the Vos". The Vos as a culture are stronger than the other humans on the continent. There's not much way to avoid that.


I'm not sure I see the need for a floater.

There isn't necessarily one. But they're fun, imo, and give players more of an opportunity to flavor their characters. It also still gives the impression of versatility re: Humans that many players have come to expect out of them. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, and imo lets us appease both sides - those that see humans as flexible, and those that see Birthright humans as distinctive races.

In many ways, I think the floater is even more valuable in BR as it emphasizes the core stat for each race - and then allows the player to develop the character in the way they deem fit. Player Characters by their nature tend to sit slightly outside the norm for their race - and very few settings separate players as much from "normal people" as BR does.

[irdeggman]

Anuireans follow the god of "noble" war, "rulership" and "law".

The god of war in the way you are viewing things is Cuircean.

Diplomacy is the skill most accurately associated with lawful rulership (hence Charisma).

Strength is the ability most associated with forceful coercion (there have been variations that had Intimidate be tied to Str for this specific purpose).


All human races in Cerilia have been associated with war at one time or another. The Brecht went for the more "stealthful" version via absorbing the cultures and being the economic power behind the throne - but even they have a long history of war. So saying that because a race is associated with war they should have an ability bonus to Str is an oversimplification (and hence all human races should have it).

[irdeggman]

First, given 4th ed classes, I'd argue Warlord, not Fighter would the core Anuirean regent class.

I agree with this.



There isn't necessarily one. But they're fun, imo, and give players more of an opportunity to flavor their characters. It also still gives the impression of versatility re: Humans that many players have come to expect out of them. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, and imo lets us appease both sides - those that see humans as flexible, and those that see Birthright humans as distinctive races.

Hmm that is the point of assigning abilities scores where you wish them. And the base mechanic in 4th ed is not the random dice roll method of generating ability scores anymore.


In many ways, I think the floater is even more valuable in BR as it emphasizes the core stat for each race - and then allows the player to develop the character in the way they deem fit. Player Characters by their nature tend to sit slightly outside the norm for their race - and very few settings separate players as much from "normal people" as BR does.

I see it as a way to minimize the core stat for each race. Because players will invariably min-max their way around that by using the floater to makie up for a score they minimized to keep things balanced.

[WickerNipple]

I see it as a way to minimize the core stat for each race. Because players will invariably min-max their way around that by using the floater to makie up for a score they minimized to keep things balanced.

Players are going to min/max their way around things anyway.

Keeping the floater plus the original stat mod from 2nd edition lets us keep true to both the spirit of the original game and the 4th ed representation of Humans. I like that, and I don't think it hurts Birthright in the slightest.

Not opposed to going the route of assigned stats though, see earlier post with how I see those.

[DerekSTheRed]

This is my first time to post on these forums but I love BR and I have a lot of ideas on 4E BR that I want to share. As I read through the 4E core setting it reminded me so much of Birthright that I've decided to start running a 4E home game set in Birthright soon. I am very interested in any conversion ideas. Allow me to suggest some ideas I had.

1. Sidhelien are divided up into to Elves and Eladrin. After much thought I think the best explanation would be to say all Sidhe in the Aelvinnwode are Eladrin and all others (like Rhoube or the inhabitants of the Sielwode) are elves. The Eladrin/Elf split in 4E is based around the Eladrin's proximity to the Feywild or portals to the Feywild. I think the story of Torele Anviras going into the Aelvinnwode and returning a century later not a day older could be explained by saying he wandered into the Feywild.

2. Humans don't need to be changed mechanically based on their subrace. I think the way the FRPG does character backgrounds is best. Give a free minor ability to each region in addition to racial features. Little things, like a +2 to diplomacy skills for Anuireans, don't change the outcome of fights and will maintain balance yet add flavor to the regional differences.

3. Blood abilities could be modeled after the FRPG's Spellscarred. It's a multi-class only class. You spend a feat at first level to become blooded and receive a minor ability based on the bloodline. After that you can spend a feat to swap a class power with a blood power (for a max of 3 swapped powers at 10th level). Then you have a paragon path just for blooded characters who've taken all the feats to that point. Each bloodline would have their own set of powers and at each level you can choose from a physical power based off of str, dex or con, or a mental power based off of int, wis, or cha. In all cases you would choose your highest stat of the choices.

4. Aduria was never described in detail. It would be possible to place Tieflings and/or Dragonborn on that continent and not conflict with existing canon. GMs or players would have to give a reason why the two races are suddenly showing up in other parts of the world, but I have a lot of faith in creative GMs and players to come up with something that works for them. Dropping them completely won't exactly hurt my feelings however.

5. I think you should give halflings the choice on racial features. I don't think they should have to choose the shadow walk ability since not all halflings in BR can open portals to the shadow world. Allowing them to pick the luck ability or the shadow ability means more choices for halfling players which is good IMO.

5. Realm spells would pretty much be more expensive and more time consuming rituals that require sources as part of their components.

Reading through the posts so far, it seems there are 2 ways to do the conversion. Change the setting to fit the new edition, or change the edition to fit the setting. I personally think the 2 fit close enough the few changes would need to be made at all. My personal preference is to add choices to the existing rules that fit the BR flavor, and then say most of the characters in the BR use those new choices. This is why I don't think it necessary to change the Human races to fit flavor. You can get flavor in other ways that don't involve changing the rules. Why create more work then necessary?

Derek

[dundjinnmasta]

Some people are okay with just the minor flavor changes to the edition to make it feel like the setting while other people are not. I haven't updated anything because I haven't been able to work on it but I started the project because I wasn't trying to jam Birthright in 4e which I could have done as you outlined above but I was trying to adapt 4e to Birthright. Some people are even more touchy about it then me and feel that Birthright should remain its own unique setting within the fourth edition and therefore the edition needs to be altered to fit the setting.

[irdeggman]

4. Aduria was never described in detail. It would be possible to place Tieflings and/or Dragonborn on that continent and not conflict with existing canon. GMs or players would have to give a reason why the two races are suddenly showing up in other parts of the world, but I have a lot of faith in creative GMs and players to come up with something that works for them. Dropping them completely won't exactly hurt my feelings however.

Except for the fact that there is only 1 race of dragons and their number is extremely limited - so a history for the race of dragonborn is lacking.

Tieflings are the result of a human pact with the devils - and devils and demons didn't exist in BR. {See the 2nd ed rulebook AD&D monsters in Cerilia (pg 89}


5. I think you should give halflings the choice on racial features. I don't think they should have to choose the shadow walk ability since not all halflings in BR can open portals to the shadow world. Allowing them to pick the luck ability or the shadow ability means more choices for halfling players which is good IMO.

Actually in 2nd ed all halflings had that ability - see 2nd ed rulebook pg 8.

Now the ability to open up portals large enough for armies to pass through was written in the first novel but never in any of the 2nd ed rules. The BRCS (3.5 rulesset) added it based on the novel and that people in general thought it fit as an optional feat.

The question is do you go back to the 2nd ed original rules and materials in order to make any conversion or do you go to the BRCS and convert a conversion?

I would always go back to the source myself.

[dundjinnmasta]

I have definitely been trying to use the 2e Birthright material for conversion but alot of the BRCS is good for adding the fluff to it.

[DanMcSorley]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 4:22 PM, irdeggman <brnetboard@birthright.net> wrote:
> Except for the fact that there is only 1 race of dragons and their number is extremely limited - so a history for the race of dragonborn
> is lacking.

Oh, come on. If somebody wants to add a given race to their setting,
it`s fairly trivial. I like orcs, I added them to my game.

Let`s see, dragonborn. At the battle of Deismaar, a number of dragons
are recorded as fighting, on both sides. Smouldering Ponaren, an old
but not especially wise dragon, fought for Azrai, and mighty was his
wrath. Some accounts place him as the steed of Azrai for at least
part of the battle, others claim he bore Belinik on his back.

When the Deis got Maared, Ponaren was too close, and unable to flee
like most of his cousins. A contingent of warriors, both Azraite and
not, were partially shielded from the cataclysm by his bulk. The
overwhelming surge of magical energy did not empower Ponaren (and
indeed, no dragon seems to have received a bloodline at Deismaar;
there are competing theories as to why), but was altered by its
passage through his powerful soul. Those troops behind Ponaren
received some of his essence, and have bred true over the centuries.

Dragonborn are most common in Aduria, where they are known as tough
mercenaries. Occasionally some hero arises from them and tries to
forge a nation of dragonfolk, but perhaps the jealous nature of their
dragon ancestors prevent them from joining together- no such kingdom
has outlived its founder.

--
Daniel McSorley

[bbeau22]

I don't have any problem with people adding Dragonborn to their campaign ... but I wouldn't include it in the offical rules ... if they ever get created. I would actually think it would be smart to address the races that aren't offical as alternate rules and maybe lend advice on how to add them if you so desire.

-BB

[irdeggman]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 4:22 PM, irdeggman <brnetboard@birthright.net> wrote:
> Except for the fact that there is only 1 race of dragons and their number is extremely limited - so a history for the race of dragonborn
> is lacking.

Oh, come on. If somebody wants to add a given race to their setting,
it`s fairly trivial. I like orcs, I added them to my game.


Fair enough.

Let's see 1 race of Cerilian Dragons with breath weapon of fire/acid (called venom in 2nd ed).

Dragonborn get a breath weapon of either acid, cold, fire, lightning, or poison {player's choice at creation}.

If following 2nd ed material at all then the race needs to be rewritten such that cold, lightning and poison are not options.

Now if all you want to do is apply bloodlines and domain actions to a generic 4th ed game - feel free, but that is not the same as a "BR setting" game. It may be a BR-like game but that is like saying a heavily house-ruled game is RAW-like.

Somethings are essential to keeping the "feel" of the original setting. There are things that are completely different, like classes that didn't exist in 2nd ed (the BRCS addressed how to handle barbarians and sorcerers because of this).

[Gallowglacht]

I gave a quick scan of the subjects and a couple of ideas sprung to mind. Hope nobody minds a newb butting in.

For humans; The heart and soul of the setting, balenced yet often second or third best in a class in 4th edition. I would add a +2 to a defined stat based on culture and a floating +2 to any other stat. Add the +2 skill bonus' by culture and leave the rest as is. Makes 'em a tiny bit more powerfull, makes humans a good choice for all roles, possibly most popular and still leaves other options viable for those who want the others.

Humans a touch more powerfull, more popular, still balanced.

In another thread I saw a worry about how to handle Magicians. Magicians can just be any class, or NPC that use rituals, right?

[Arkanuz]

what about other derivation ..

playing further with the idea of eladrin and elves beeing different sect of the sidhelin ..

What about Thifelings beeing Azrai tainted ?
Dragonborn the other half of it (don´t have it at the top of my mind)

u can play the thiefling horns and appearance a bit down .. or do what you like with it .. but explain it all as it beeing tainted with the blood of Azrai.

but whatever you do both should be rare, as BR is mainly human world.

regards,
Arkanuz,

[Rowan]

I'd relegate additional races (Tieflings, Dragonborn) to Aduria, tainted as you say by Azrai. They would be virtually unknown in Cerilia, then, and you wouldn't need to worry about them. But they would help populate Aduria, if you want to expand play to there, without having to come up with a bunch of new Adurian races.

[dundjinnmasta]

I've decided to change focus because I wanted to get a few things finished up for my own tabletop birthright 4e game that I want to start in January but I am not to concerned about stock character classes/races at this time since it is my own game. I will be working on atleast two multiclasses (Scion and Regent) along with updating the Domain system.

On another note I removed the Anuireans because I agreed with making humans just slightly more powerful in Birthright and thus leaving them as is but giving each subrace an additional +2 to an ability score based on their 2e ability score benefits.

Anuirean: +2 Wis
Brecht: +2 Dex
Khinasi: +2 Int
Rjurik: +2 Con
Vos: +2 Str

[dundjinnmasta]

I figured out how I am going to do Bloodline Abilities. I am going to model it as a multi-class only class but have additional non-common abilities be picked up with feats like Channel Divinity (where you need to be a worshipper of a certain deity to get a Channel Divinity ability but in this case you have to be of a certain Bloodline derivation).

[Mathew_Freeman]

I figured out how I am going to do Bloodline Abilities. I am going to model it as a multi-class only class but have additional non-common abilities be picked up with feats like Channel Divinity (where you need to be a worshipper of a certain deity to get a Channel Divinity ability but in this case you have to be of a certain Bloodline derivation).

This strikes me as a very good way of dealing with the Bloodline abilities issue. Modelling it on Channel Divinity in terms of power would be a great way of giving players options, rather than raw power.

Plus, you could then extrapolate this by supplying several Paragon Paths depending on the various Bloodlines, which then lead into (possibly) additional feat choices.

[dundjinnmasta]

Ultimately what I would love to see done with Bloodlines would be done the following way.

Scion Multiclass (Feudal Lords campaign setting did an excellent Noble Multi-class that I would consider using for this purpose!)
== Bloodline Feats (ala Channel Divinity)
== Paragon Path (One for Each Bloodline? One just called Great Scion, maybe?)
== Epic Destinies (True Scion? Awnsheghlien & Ehrsheghlien?)

[Mathew_Freeman]

Ultimately what I would love to see done with Bloodlines would be done the following way.

Scion Multiclass (Feudal Lords campaign setting did an excellent Noble Multi-class that I would consider using for this purpose!)
== Bloodline Feats (ala Channel Divinity)
== Paragon Path (One for Each Bloodline? One just called Great Scion, maybe?)
== Epic Destinies (True Scion? Awnsheghlien & Ehrsheghlien?)

I would suggest that several Paragon Paths would be better, as it would allow you to customise them more towards the strengths of the different bloodlines. Plus, you could (eventually) even have more than one for each Bloodline, allowing different foci depending on what aspect of the Line you were emphasising.

However, you could also have one named Great Scion that emphasised the divine spark over any particular aspect, perhaps with some radiant themed powers.

[bbeau22]

You are on the right path and think that if you want to really mix 4th edition into Birthright you have to do it that way. I was going to simply have different paths for each bloodline leading up through epic. Break up the minor, major and great abilities between them.

I also think you need to create powers that are specific to Birthright. Like a bonus "+2 to ruling law" ability that can be used once every three months type of thing depeding on your class.

This way, someone that wants to excel at rulership will have to sacrifice combat abilities. It will be nice to see two warriors that are level 10 and one could crush the other because one has fought many battles while the other ruled up some law. They are both still warriors at the core though.

The creatures or people with true bloodlines I am not sure how to deal with but they certainly have to be special cases. I will think about it some more.

-BB

[Sir Tiamat]

[...]This way, someone that wants to excel at rulership will have to sacrifice combat abilities. It will be nice to see two warriors that are level 10 and one could crush the other because one has fought many battles while the other ruled up some law. They are both still warriors at the core though.[...]

Though realistic, in my experience this can be less fun in a mixed group. In one of the campains I ran, we ran into difficulties because the ruler-characters felt useless in combat situations and the non-ruler characters felt usseless in domain play: they basically could not contribute anything when in a situation in which they had not specialized.

Fourth has some drawbacks, but I think that the way fourth handles balance has many merrits. The philosophy that characters should have a distinct but equally important role within each situation is a major improvement for the old situation in which a character had a larger role or smaller to play depending on the situation.

I think that fourth edition Birthright domain play should consist of additional situations in which players have distinct but equal roles, instead of forcing players to specialize in a situation-specific role. Having distinct but roughly equal roles in various situations will simply be more fun.

[kgauck]

Fourth has some drawbacks, but I think that the way fourth handles balance has many merrits. The philosophy that characters should have a distinct but equally important role within each situation is a major improvement for the old situation in which a character had a larger role or smaller to play depending on the situation.


That's because 4e envisions only one situation: combat. So, its much easier to balance all characters as equal, but different, combatants. If combat is simply not a part of one's birthright game, 4e itself is the over-specialized and useless entity at the table.

I can see applying the principle of everyone being different but equal only when the game is basically reduced to one thing. Instead, the thing that has made BR so interesting has been the many different spheres of activity in which the game can take place. The idea that it doesn't matter what you're good at because its always useful makes no sense to me.

I wonder why a character optimized for ruling decided to wander away from court and start adventuring. Either the player received no feedback that he was building poorly, or should have used another character for this adventure, or accepted that his character is not all things to all people in all circumstances.

Omnicompetance isn't so much a feature as it is a bug.

[bbeau22]

Ken,

I am with you, but I do see some benefit to having a system where everyone can actually play. Perhaps part of the problem was the way skills were implemented in 3.5. The lack of skills on some classes precluded them from being a factor for certain part of adventures. I didn't see the reason why Warriors got such few skills while others got an over-the-top amount.

But I am a big fan of choice and consequence. Even in the current campaign, I try to include adventures every so often to keep my players honest about their combat skills. Most go so heavy into blood powers that they do become weak in combat ... but 3.5 is fairly kind and the feats they blow on bloodpowers doesn't have a major effect on their combat prowess.

In 4th edition, it is mainly a combat system but I think it can be VERY adaptable to a domain level style of play. Have options to replace powers with rulership powers. Instead of a new holy strike you get a new holy temple growing power. Those priests that have spent their days fighting evil on the fringes of society are a very powerful priests, but can only wield influence by reputation and those around them. A powerful priest ruler wields far more power in influencing the flock, but probably can't slay the dragon that is attacking the village. Would need help.

I think it makes for a more dynamic relationship between people.

-BB

[kgauck]

I am with you, but I do see some benefit to having a system where everyone can actually play. Perhaps part of the problem was the way skills were implemented in 3.5. The lack of skills on some classes precluded them from being a factor for certain part of adventures. I didn't see the reason why Warriors got such few skills while others got an over-the-top amount.

Because every class is not suited to every situation, some classes should be precluded from being a factor in certain parts of adventures. The solution to this was the heart of 3x, multiclassing. No BR PC should be a fighter full stop. Fighters exist in Cerilia, but they are single focused, all-I-do-is-fight bodyguards and soldiers. On the other hand, fighter makes a fine dipping class to stiffen up a character.

There are many types of campaigns, from the pure combat dungeon crawls, to the combat free courts of intrigue and politics. So classes tend to reflect pure archtypes and you have to multiclass to get the end result you're looking for. But with multiclassing its easy for each DM to tell players what proportions of combat and non-combat to expect over the game. As such its easy make the 100% combat character, the 75% combat, the 66% combat, 50% combat and so on.


Most go so heavy into blood powers that they do become weak in combat ... but 3.5 is fairly kind and the feats they blow on bloodpowers doesn't have a major effect on their combat prowess.

Are blood powers balanced or better than combat powers? Do they use blood powers so often that combat is irrelevant? Either the players are doing this to themselves, or the DM is withholding useful information about how the world works. Either way, its not a system problem (unless the powers are unbalanced) its the people playing the game.


Those priests that have spent their days fighting evil on the fringes of society are a very powerful priests, but can only wield influence by reputation and those around them. A powerful priest ruler wields far more power in influencing the flock, but probably can't slay the dragon that is attacking the village. Would need help.

I think you've just recreated the problem above where the leader types become weak in combat.

After all its easy to make a Fighter with one feat every third level and 4 skill ranks per level, if you want to avoid extreme builds. 4e characters can't trade all their combat skill for non-combat, but in 3e you could have created or limited them to classes whose design philosophy was a good match for you campaign to begin with.

Because I have never had a major NPC in combat where I rolled for them individually, and am content to have combat free games.

The Gavin Tael in the 4e Major NPC thread can be summarized for me as

TRAINED SKILLS
Streetwise, Athletics, Intimidate, Endurance.

ABILITY SCORES
Str 20, Con 16, Dex 14, Int 12, Wis 13, Cha 12, Bld 25

Done. Everything else will never be used by me. And this part of 4e is so blunt and dull all I can do is throw up my hands, because I can't play with this. Apparently Gavin Tael is a spymaster to rival Guilder Kalien, and for some fluff we can describe him as athletic. The first part is simply not plausible, the second is fluff. So I really have a character who has a 12 INT, a 13 Wis, and 12 Cha, and a Bld of 25, which should be toast confronted with a character who is a skilled diplomat, financier, scholar, theologian, or anything other than a spymaster, I guess.

As far as I am concerned this character is useless, and even at 9th level would never have anything to do were he a PC. Unless I took the spymaster thing seriously. And then he's good at one thing.

[tpdarkdraco]

There are many good points raised. In my experience 4e is more aimed at combat for characters and even though there are Skill Challenges now the roleplaying has taken a back seat.

What I plan on doing for my 4e conversion is go back to 2e BR. Bloodlines & abilities were random rolled if the player chose to have a bloodline. This was then additional on top of the normal character. PC's who did not have a bloodline then recieved 10% extra xp then blooded characters to make up for these extra abilities and wealth they might have. I am going to convert the current Blood abilities and treat them like a magic item. You are the magic item with these extra powers.

I have also looked at the Noble multiclass from Fedual Lords and it is still orientated towards combat. On the other hand the Fedual Lords - Adventurers Guide has other good role playing info that I plan to convert to BR. They have your background which can have different benefits like the Noble gets an income/lvl gain as taxes from their land. There are also allegences that you can have and being sworn to your local lord can give you a benefit. Plenty of role playing extras.

Also just a general comment of adventurers vs ruler. When I was DM my campaign I had rulers and adventurers and I can't say I had much of a problem with the differences they could do. Even if they had taken skills to be a better ruler and not adventurer. They still pulled their weight in combat or they might have been a slightly better ruler then the other PC.

[dundjinnmasta]

Simply put: Rulers in BR are ment to be adventurers. It says in the 2e BR campaign so the fact that "4e is all combat" is irrelevant to me because they are suppose to be adventurers and therefore good at combat. I plan to use adventures along side of the domain system and if there is a point where the characters come into contact with other regents then a fight may or may not break out so I got the combat information all nice and handled infront of me.

4E is the engine for the game when things get ugly and everything descends into combat then the system comes into play and I will be using it. I doubt that I am going to offer "non-combat" powers though I may allow these as feats because there are examples of non-combat feats (Skill Focus & Skill Training, right off the top of my head).

I have not decided how I would like to see the Domain system work at this point but I have a few visions for it. The first one is similar to how the Alchemy & Ritual system works but I think this would be best used on the Realm Magic system. I would likely modelled a domain system closer to the 2E system then the 3.x system.

Speaking of combat! I just recently got ahold of the Hard Boiled Ideas: Armies pdf from Bad Egg and I think there is definite potential to use it for a 4E BR mass combat system (aka War!).

[kgauck]

I don't have a problem with adventuring, I have a problem with every obstacle being combat. My players went places and did things, and I prefer a heroic Arthurian tint for BR, but most of their activities took place among other people, and so killing people would have had serious consequences. Adventuring doesn't have to mean combat. See my extended adventure of Njalgrim's Doom on the wiki.

[Vicente]

Speaking of combat! I just recently got ahold of the Hard Boiled Ideas: Armies pdf from Bad Egg and I think there is definite potential to use it for a 4E BR mass combat system (aka War!).

Can you elaborate a little more on this? I'm pretty interested on that pdf myself :)

[Sir Tiamat]

That's because 4e envisions only one situation: combat. So, its much easier to balance all characters as equal, but different, combatants. If combat is simply not a part of one's birthright game, 4e itself is the over-specialized and useless entity at the table. [...]As for 4th as a combat system, I see that in fourth is a system that has put its focus on regulating combat. However this does not mean that 4th is only for combat, because other areas of play - though arguably more important than combat - simply need less regulation to work. Therefore seeing fourth as combat oriented is not entirely fair because even though it more heavily regulates combat than other areas, these other areas are just as much presented in a fourth campaign. However, I can understand that if combat is totally absent from your game, 4th seemingly has little to offer compared to 3rd. I say seemingly, because - though I really like 3rd because of its variety - the 4th streamlined, balanced, and to each his/her glory approach to combat offers great opportunities for another birthright-specific area that requires regulation: the domain level of play.

The struggle for influence between ruling powers on the domain level is very similar to combat. The fourth combat system can provide us with excellent design ideas for a streamlined, balanced and to each his/her own glory approach to domain level play. For as a (tabletop) player and DM I want easy domain rules that engage all players equally, so we do not have four one-on-one sessions. And that these rules allow for each action to be role-played when the situation arises. I think a domain system based on the fourth combat system could be a great step towards these goals.

[Sir Tiamat]

I don't have a problem with adventuring, I have a problem with every obstacle being combat. My players went places and did things, and I prefer a heroic Arthurian tint for BR, but most of their activities took place among other people, and so killing people would have had serious consequences. Adventuring doesn't have to mean combat. See my extended adventure of Njalgrim's Doom on the wiki.


Nobody says it does, combat is simply the part of adventuring that requires most regulation. :)

Apart from domain conflict that is ;)

[Sir Tiamat]

Ken,

I am with you, but I do see some benefit to having a system where everyone can actually play. Perhaps part of the problem was the way skills were implemented in 3.5. The lack of skills on some classes precluded them from being a factor for certain part of adventures. I didn't see the reason why Warriors got such few skills while others got an over-the-top amount.

But I am a big fan of choice and consequence. Even in the current campaign, I try to include adventures every so often to keep my players honest about their combat skills. Most go so heavy into blood powers that they do become weak in combat ... but 3.5 is fairly kind and the feats they blow on bloodpowers doesn't have a major effect on their combat prowess.

In 4th edition, it is mainly a combat system but I think it can be VERY adaptable to a domain level style of play. Have options to replace powers with rulership powers. Instead of a new holy strike you get a new holy temple growing power. Those priests that have spent their days fighting evil on the fringes of society are a very powerful priests, but can only wield influence by reputation and those around them. A powerful priest ruler wields far more power in influencing the flock, but probably can't slay the dragon that is attacking the village. Would need help.

I think it makes for a more dynamic relationship between people.

-BB


If we are serious about fourth, I suggest we should seriously consider splitting adventuring and ruling powers entirely.

Fourth has its own merits and if we swap out adventure powers – i.e. at-will, encounter, utility, and daily powers, for similar “ruling powers” we will simply create a less fun 3rd edition. However if we take the 4th adventure powers as given and add an extra layer of “ruling powers” along the lines of 4th edition we will end up with a actual fourth edition birthright setting. Does adding extra “ruling powers” to the 4th adventure powers create omnipotent chars so to speak?

Not necessarily so. I would like a system in which a character does not get better at ruling a domain because he had successful adventures, nor get better at adventuring for ruling a domain. A system in which the player is better either at ruling or adventuring; not depending on the choices he or she made during character building, but rather the actual experience they acquired during the campaign.

I propose each character in 4th edition birthright to have two separate experience tracks: one for the adventurer on which we base HP, AC, Defences, powers etc. as per the Players Handbook; and one ruler experience track in which we put all birthright specific abilities related to the domain and domain rule – regency gain, domain preference, domain conflict powers, ruling skills etc. all preferably based on the fourth edition system.

For example young Luqian starts out his career a 1st level wizard/ 1st level guilder, at a later point in the campaign he could be a 2nd level wizard/ 7th level guilder; 4th level wizard/ 4th level guilder or a 8th level wizard/ 1st level guilder depending on how the campaign evolves and the choices the players themselves make: do they take a hands-on approach to actively solve problems, or do they rule from the throne like chess players pulling strings and using their domains to solve their problems.

I am convinced that creating an additional level of play to go alongside the adventure level is the way to go for those of us that are serious about 4th edition Birthright. I for one would gladly share thoughts and contribute towards this goal, and hope there are still a few people left on this forum that are serious about a fourth edition birthright ;)

[kgauck]

Nobody says it does, combat is simply the part of adventuring that requires most regulation. :)

Apart from domain conflict that is ;)

I disagree. Skill challenges have been reduced to a coin flip. AFAIC, the skill system is the game, and combat is something to do once in a while to change things up to add some dramatic tension. Frankly, I'd rather resolve combat with a coin flip and keep the skills system.

That's the point of my critique of the Gavin Tael write up. As a 9th level character, he's either a +4 on a skill or +9. All of the range of choices from zero to combination of synergies, feats, and specific items is gone. The skills system is now so simplified, with few skills and no skill points, that you can't build a game on the skills system and ignore combat.

The number of skills has been reduced, the choices involved in which skills to be good at is remarkably reduced to almost nothing, so that skills and adventures based on skills are no longer a viable way to play a game.

[dundjinnmasta]

I must regress that the original write-up for Gavin Tael was a mistake. A) it didn't use NPC rules (which is moot if Gavin Tael is a PC which I understand) but also B) I didn't use the correct ability score systems and instead I pulled the scores from the wiki-writeup which granted I probably shouldn't have done.

Even with those mistakes there isn't just a +4 or a +9 to the skill rolls. His skills vary more then that and may vary even greater if I used the correct ability score methods for 4E.

Now to address Sir Tiamat. That is definitely adding a complex level which probably isn't a bad thing except you are keeping track of two different character sheets. I personally wouldn't build it that way because I definitely lean more towards the 2E view that Regents ARE adventurers and should be quite successful adventurers at that. I am interested in the idea if I saw it complete so I wanted to see it get alittle more attention...

Guild Holding Regents = Guilder Class
Law Holding Regents = ? Class
Temple Holding Regents = ? Class
Source Holding Regents = ? Class
Province Holding Regents = ? Class

[Sir Tiamat]

[...]Now to address Sir Tiamat. That is definitely adding a complex level which probably isn't a bad thing except you are keeping track of two different character sheets. I personally wouldn't build it that way because I definitely lean more towards the 2E view that Regents ARE adventurers and should be quite successful adventurers at that. I am interested in the idea if I saw it complete so I wanted to see it get alittle more attention...

Guild Holding Regents = Guilder Class
Law Holding Regents = ? Class
Temple Holding Regents = ? Class
Source Holding Regents = ? Class
Province Holding Regents = ? Class
First, I definitely agree with you that regents - especially PC regents - should be adventurers or hero-kings so to speak. I would not like a campaign in which regents never left their throne rooms. However, I would like to see a distinction between the regent that spent half of his life on horseback and the regent that spent most of his time in various courts. While at the same time keeping a roughly similar division of adventuring and ruling abilities within the party. Moreover, I want to keep the core rules as intact as possible, apart from a few necessary changes - like player races and bloodlines - that should not be too unbalancing.

Second, the class I propose is actually a merger of the regent’s abilities and the domain. So the “ruler level” of a character would both represent the ruling of the regent and the ability of the regent’s court and domain. The names of these classes are obviously less relevant, though I admit that a good name can be a major selling-point. ;) see some of my rough thoughts below. As you can see it still needs a lot of work and I will privide more structure later.


----------------------------

General principles:
Holdings will have Hitpoints, 10/lvl for example. If a holding is reduced to 0 hitpoints it wil have lost a level. Lvl 7 holding has 70 hp when reduced to 0 it wilhave become a lvl 6 holding with 60 hp. Can also be used for rule...

Domains have ability scores and defences

Attacks are aimed at other domains

All other domain actions are skills/skill challanges or utility powers

A regent will get better at ruling a larger domain as (s)he gains more ruling levels

-Guild Holding Regents = Guilder Class
-Law Holding Regents =(Feudal) Lord Class
-Temple Holding Regents =Cardinal/ Bishop Class
-Source Holding Regents = Archmage Class
-I do not know whether province rule would require a separate class: I consider the province ruler to be the legitimate ruler, but whether this ruler can wield actual power depends on the other holdings, especially law.

Domains will have ability scores, for example:
• Force
• Bureaucracy
• Devotion, commitment, loyalty
• Responsiveness, awareness
• Secrecy
• Morale??, authority , divine right, bloodline??

And also Defences:
Fortification
Loyalty
….
…..

Attacks (political battles between Holdings or realms)Contest holding (varies)
Block Trade
Seize
Assault
Arrest
Assassinate
Agitate
Pestilence (arcane)
Plant spy
Bribe
Blackmail
smuggle


Realm Skills: (½level + ability mod. +5 training)
Choose 4 per realm? Should skills be independent of holding level?? Possibly because it is something a realm and ruler can do… use utility powers for holding actions?
1. Administrate
2. Engineering [bureaucracy]
3. Diplomacy [bureaucracy]
4. Intimidate [force]
5. Bluff (merge with subterfuge?) [secrecy]
6. Gather information [responsiveness]
7. Insight (merge with awareness?) [responsiveness]
8. Awareness (spot) [responsiveness]
9. Subterfuge (stealth) [secrecy]
10. Harness arcane [bloodline??]
11. Harness divine [devotion]
12. Harness natural [devotion]
13. Finance [bureaucracy]
14. Tactics?? [Force]
15. Lead?? [devotion]
16. Authority ?? [force]

[B]Actions (skill challenge?)
Build: engineering, administrate, force
Create holding: gather info, subterfuge, diplomacy, administrate
Create trade route: subterfuge, diplomacy, administrate, finance
Diplomacy: Diplomacy, Intimidate, Bluff, gather information
Rule holding: engineering, administrate, diplomacy, intimidate, lead
Rule province: administrate, diplomacy, intimidate, gather info, lead
Move troops: administrate, awareness, subterfuge
Gain popularity: administrate, gather info, lead
Decree: administrate, intimidate, awareness
Loan or lend: Finance, diplomacy, administrate
Cast realm spell: harness arcane, divine, natural
Smuggle (a utility because dependent on holding level?): subterfuge, awareness, bluff