Bloodline

[Mourn]

Originally posted by AnakinMiller
I disgree here, but that is simply my opinion. Birthright is the game of Lords and Rulers not the rable.

Not all lords and rulers are scions, though, and not all scions are lords and rulers.

I understand that 3e is supposed to be all balance happy, but damnit a 10th level scion should be more powerful than a 10th level peasant.

If a 10th-level scion is more powerful than a 10th-level peasant, then the scion is not 10th level. Which is where the ECL adjustment discussion comes in. If a 10th-level scion is as powerful as an 11th-level peasant, then the 10th-level scion should have an ECL adjustment of +1.

Again, an argument to break the system, and ruin its sense of logic and consistency for no better reason than "just because."

If the odds where not stacked in favor of the scions then why in hell do they rule by divine right? Kings are the leaders because they are above the common man.

Again, not all kings are scions, and not all scions are kings. They rule by divine right because the blood in their veins gives them greater ability to do so. However, just because this blood gears them towards leadership over others does not mean that balance can just be ignored.

If you don't like balance, just go back and play 2nd Edition. 3rd Edition is written to make sense, and two characters of the same character level being of the same equivalent power level makes sense.

[DanMcSorley]

On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Atarikid wrote:
> I disgree here, but that is simply my opinion. Birthright is the game of
> Lords and Rulers not the rable. I understand that 3e is supposed to be all
> balance happy, but damnit a 10th level scion should be more powerful than a
> 10th level peasant.

He is- he`s ECL 11 or 12 though.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 04:36 PM 3/14/2003 -0600, Anakin Miller wrote:

>I understand that 3e is supposed to be all balance happy, but damnit a
>10th level scion should be more powerful than a 10th level peasant. If
>the odds where not stacked in favor of the scions
>then why in hell do they rule by divine right? Kings are the leaders
>because they are above the common man.

A balanced system does not mean balanced characters. In a balanced system
characters with the same amount of XP "spent" on them (for character levels
and ECL adjustments for things like templates) would be balanced against
each other. 3e already isn`t balanced. There are NPC classes that are
powered down version of the regular classes, and there are prestige classes
that generally represent a powering up of character. Both of those things
are IMO a bad idea because it makes levels themselves something of a rating
that has no real meaning. The relative power of characters is best
represented by levels (or just raw XP) in which the actual character
classes are balanced against one another. One could then still have a
character (like a king) who was more powerful than another character (like
a peasant) by making their XP levels different from one another.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Trevyr]

First of all, to those of you who remember me from before I fell off the
face of the earth, I`d just like to say `hi` and `it`s nice to be back.`

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion
> [mailto:BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM]On Behalf Of Mourn

> If you don`t like balance, just go back and play 2nd Edition.
> 3rd Edition is written to make sense, and two characters of the
> same character level being of the same equivalent power level makes sense.

I think part of the conflict here is a confusing of levels. BR has these two
inherent levels, the domain level and the character level, that standard 3e
doesn`t have. So on the one hand, the Scion is MEANT to be unbalanced on the
domain level, because he has all the power and the commoner doesn`t. Which
is fine, that`s their shtick. And that I think is the heart of what Anakin
is getting at. The complication comes because the inherited system of
Bloodlines makes scions not only more powerful at the domain level, but also
at the character level, the "here it is, just you and the monster, in a
battle to the finish" level. It`s this level that 3e is balanced at, and it
makes a certain amount of sense to retain balance at this level in BR. I
think it is entirely reasonable that scions have an ECL modifier. And I also
think it is entirely reasonable to have the ECL dumped on the character for
free if the character manages to gain a bloodline. I would tend to think of
that as a reward for good role-play--which it should be if a character has
gotten to the point where he has a chance of gaining a bloodline, either
through investiture or through defeating a featured enemy.

Mark V.
new address: vander@biology2.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Mourn]

Originally posted by Trevyr
First of all, to those of you who remember me from before I fell off the
face of the earth, I`d just like to say `hi` and `it`s nice to be back.`

I've been here since '01 and haven't seen you before... so.. welcome back! It's always good to see a new(old) face on these boards. It makes discussions more lively.

I think part of the conflict here is a confusing of levels. BR has these two
inherent levels, the domain level and the character level, that standard 3e
doesn`t have.

I think your use of the word "level" here will add some confusion. I believe you are using it to refer to the scale of the game, whether you are running domain actions or if you are running a character in an adventure.

In the d20 System, the term level is 'a measure of advancement or power applied to several areas of the game. See caster level, character level, class level, and spell level.' I hate to sound like a stickler, but the terminology should be used correctly, and any new terms should take the old terms into account. When I think of the term "Domain Level" I think "A measure of a domain's power."

After all, conflicting and confusing terminology was a big problem with 2nd Edition. When the same book would refer to existing rules and terms in a multitude of manners, consistency is lost and a lot of people can become easily confused.

So on the one hand, the Scion is MEANT to be unbalanced on the
domain level, because he has all the power and the commoner doesn`t. Which
is fine, that`s their shtick. And that I think is the heart of what Anakin
is getting at.

But we're mainly discussing things related to characters, not domains. I hardly ever employ domain rules, as I prefer to run games focusing on the characters, not their holdings.

He wants the scion to be more powerful on ALL fronts with no balance in the system. So, simply because one player decides to be a scion and the other one decides to be a commoner, the scion gets extra advantages (granting an ECL) and the commoner gets nothing but the shaft. The rules and mechanics should balance the two against eachother. The commoner would have more versatility, but the scion would have extraordinary abilities.

The complication comes because the inherited system of Bloodlines makes scions not only more powerful at the domain level, but also at the character level, the "here it is, just you and the monster, in a battle to the finish" level. It`s this level that 3e is balanced at, and it makes a certain amount of sense to retain balance at this level in BR. I think it is entirely reasonable that scions have an ECL modifier.

Agreed here. The system should be balanced.

And I also think it is entirely reasonable to have the ECL dumped on the character for free if the character manages to gain a bloodline. I would tend to think of that as a reward for good role-play--which it should be if a character has gotten to the point where he has a chance of gaining a bloodline, either through investiture or through defeating a featured enemy.

I fail to see how making a successful coup de grace to commit bloodtheft (a check that nearly every character in the game can succeed at) becomes good roleplaying.

And I fail to see how it is reasonable to grant one character abilities to justify up to a +3 level adjustment without balancing against the other players.

Also, about suddenly dropping a bloodline on a character... the character shouldn't instantly have a ton of blood abilities... spending your entire life without a shred of magical ability, then pooof you're a scion, and you suddenly know how to use all these special abilities? I think not... a skills/feats system shows that even if you get the Bloodline through other means (investiture, bloodtheft), you must learn what you have.

This system also allows characters that want to focus on being a scion to really focus on it, by spending their available skills and feats on these blood powers. If the scion wants to be a better fighter, then he'd focus more on his fighting prowess.

I'll draw a comparison to the Wishsong of Shannara (great book). Brin Ohmsford has the wishsong, a powerful singing ability that allows her to reshape reality through magic, which is inherent in her blood. However, she actually has to learn to control this ability or she can't really even use it. So both Brin and a scion have innate potential (shown in my example system as a feat which grants you a Bloodline score), but both have to learn to control and use their abilities (shown in my system to be the bloodline skills and feats).

Ciao.

[Mourn]

Originally posted by geeman
... 3e already isn`t balanced. There are NPC classes that are
powered down version of the regular classes, and there are prestige classes
that generally represent a powering up of character...

NPC classes are balanced in the Challenge Rating system. A 1st-level of any of the NPC classes is a CR 1/2 not a CR 1. A 2nd-level is only a CR 1.

Also, prestige classes that "boost" power usually have ridiculous requirements and some even have drawbacks to gain these powers.

[geeman]

At 04:52 AM 3/15/2003 +0100, Mourn wrote:

>

Originally posted by geeman
>... 3e already isn`t balanced. There are NPC classes that are
>powered down version of the regular classes, and there are prestige classes
>that generally represent a powering up of character...

>
>NPC classes are balanced in the Challenge Rating system. A 1st-level of
>any of the NPC classes is a CR 1/2 not a CR 1. A 2nd-level is only a CR 1.

That`s not particularly useful for the purposes of this discussion, I`m
afraid. What we`re comparing is the relative power of classes against one
another, not the way those classes are rated for the purpose of XP
awards. Unless, that is, you`re saying we should apply fractional ECL
adjustments like the fractional CR ratings.... That`d be interesting.

>Also, prestige classes that "boost" power usually have ridiculous
>requirements and some even have drawbacks to gain these powers.

That`s certainly the rationale, though the actual prestige class write ups
follow it rather irregularly. This issue has been debated around here
before, so I won`t go repeat any of those arguments. I`ll just not that if
you do a careful analysis of many prestige classes you`ll find they usually
represent a greater powering up scale for characters of equal levels than
the standard PC classes. They are usually a bargain for the requirements
and drawbacks. That`s not always the case, of course, since they seem to
be developed without much of a system, and there on several occasions the
prestige classes reflect a lower power scale for various reasons, mostly
the primacy of human or "standard" character races (elves, dwarves, etc.)
vs other humanoids.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[AnakinMiller]

> First of all, to those of you who remember me from before I fell off the
> face of the earth, I`d just like to say `hi` and `it`s nice to be back.`

Nice to some faces I remember from my time on the list. I dropped off the
face of the world in summer 2000 myself.

> I think your use of the word "level" here will add some confusion. I
believe you are using it to refer to the scale of the game, whether you are
running domain actions or if you are running a character in an adventure.
>
> In the d20 System, the term level is `a measure of advancement or power
applied to several areas of the game. See caster level, character level,
class level, and spell level.` I hate to sound like a stickler, but the
terminology should be used correctly, and any new terms should take the old
terms into account. When I think of the term "Domain Level" I think "A
measure of a domain`s power."

What? Get real. Domain level play is an incorrect term? I smell a rules
lawyer...... When I hear domain level I don`t think of the Power Level of
said domain, I think of the level of play that occurs on a domain wide
scale. If someone gets that confused then I only want to know how they
managed to digest the Player`s Handbook, because it must be on the level of
astro physics to them.

> After all, conflicting and confusing terminology was a big problem with
2nd Edition. When the same book would refer to existing rules and terms in a
multitude of manners, consistency is lost and a lot of people can become
easily confused.

You`re the first I`ve ever heard make an argument that Domain Level is a
confusing term.

>

So on the one hand, the Scion is MEANT to be unbalanced on the
domain level, because he has all the power and the commoner doesn`t. Which
is fine, that`s their shtick. And that I think is the heart of what Anakin
is getting at.

Thank you Mark. A true man after my own heart.

> But we`re mainly discussing things related to characters, not domains. I
hardly ever employ domain rules, as I prefer to run games focusing on the
characters, not their holdings.

But Birthright is about the Domain Level play. It has been and always will
be. That was the entire concept to the product line. The campaign where
every PC starts out as a Lord and leader of a Kingdom, Guild, Temple or
Source Network. If you leave out the domain play then why exactly do you
game in Cerilia?

> He wants the scion to be more powerful on ALL fronts with no balance in
the system. So, simply because one player decides to be a scion and the
other one decides to be a commoner, the scion gets extra advantages
(granting an ECL) and the commoner gets nothing but the shaft. The rules and
mechanics should balance the two against eachother. The commoner would have
more versatility, but the scion would have extraordinary abilities.

Well if you feel a commoner gets nothing but the shaft don`t play an
unblooded commoner. Its your choice to play an inferior concept. The
Scion should outshine an unblooded counterpart end of story.

> I fail to see how making a successful coup de grace to commit bloodtheft
(a check that nearly every character in the game can succeed at) becomes
good roleplaying.

Well in a hack-n-slash scenario I guess blood theft would not be good
roleplay but in my campaign a player spent almost a year real time setting
up the various alliances and favors that where needed to take out the regent
of the nearby domain. The leader was taken down, a puppet vassal installed
as the regent. A divesture was performed. The peace was kept and the PC was
made out to be a hero who acted out of kindness and good intentions. The
amount of roleplay that went into this was monumental.

> And I fail to see how it is reasonable to grant one character abilities to
justify up to a +3 level adjustment without balancing against the other
players.
>
> Also, about suddenly dropping a bloodline on a character... the character
shouldn`t instantly have a ton of blood abilities... spending your entire
life without a shred of magical ability, then pooof you`re a scion, and you
suddenly know how to use all these special abilities? I think not... a
skills/feats system shows that even if you get the Bloodline through other
means (investiture, bloodtheft), you must learn what you have.

Why not? I fail to see why it should take years to manifest powers. A
Scion has the blood of dead gods coursing through him. It is because of
this that he develops marvelous powers. This isn`t like finding a strange
magic blade in some ruins and having to determine the powers of the weapon
through trial and error. You have divine essence ripping through you,
manifesting powers.

> This system also allows characters that want to focus on being a scion to
really focus on it, by spending their available skills and feats on these
blood powers. If the scion wants to be a better fighter, then he`d focus
more on his fighting prowess.

I don`t like the idea of a regent having to waste feat slots on individual
powers. While I personally dislike the blood as an ability score, I do not
prefer the approach to make it a feat/skill based system. Why not leave it
as it was? A totally seperate system?

-Anakin Miller
-------------------------
"What was sundered, shall be remade.
What was stolen, shall be avenged. "
- Engraved on the Crown of Diemed

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 11:38 PM 3/14/2003 -0600, Anakin Miller wrote:

> > I think your use of the word "level" here will add some confusion. I
>believe you are using it to refer to the scale of the game, whether you are
>running domain actions or if you are running a character in an adventure.
> >
> > In the d20 System, the term level is `a measure of advancement or power
>applied to several areas of the game. See caster level, character level,
>class level, and spell level.` I hate to sound like a stickler, but the
>terminology should be used correctly, and any new terms should take the old
>terms into account. When I think of the term "Domain Level" I think "A
>measure of a domain`s power."
>
>What? Get real. Domain level play is an incorrect term?

3e is much more careful and particular regarding its use of vocabulary than
2e was. I recall a while ago reading about how the word "level" is
overused in D&D and Gygax et al considered changing the vocabulary so that
one had a 5th "rank" character entering the 6th "depth" of a dungeon, and
casts a 4th "power" spell on it or some such thing. When it comes "domain
level" there`s a bit of a double whammy in that "domain" is also used to
describe divine spells. "Realm level" is probably a more descriptive a term.

>Birthright is about the Domain Level play. It has been and always will
>be. That was the entire concept to the product line. The campaign where
>every PC starts out as a Lord and leader of a Kingdom, Guild, Temple or
>Source Network. If you leave out the domain play then why exactly do you
>game in Cerilia?

Even without the domain level of play Cerilia is a solid campaign
setting. I play BR primarily at the adventure level. None of the PCs in
my campaigns ever start out already at the head of a domain. Even on those
occasions where I`ve had them inherit a domain later I`ve always made them
adventure beforehand. After characters get a domain I still prefer to
adventure out their domain actions rather than simply roll them per the
domain rules, and I use their success at the adventure level to give
modifiers or influence the DC of the domain action.

Regardless of that, however, the domain/realm/whatever level vs the
adventure level is really a situational condition, isn`t it? That is, one
type of character might be more useful than another at the realm level,
just as a ranger is generally more useful in an outdoor adventure and a
cleric more useful against undead. Situational conditions really shouldn`t
figure directly into a system of ECL since they can (and do) change so easily.

> > He wants the scion to be more powerful on ALL fronts with no balance in
>the system. So, simply because one player decides to be a scion and the
>other one decides to be a commoner, the scion gets extra advantages
>(granting an ECL) and the commoner gets nothing but the shaft. The rules and
>mechanics should balance the two against eachother. The commoner would have
>more versatility, but the scion would have extraordinary abilities.
>
>Well if you feel a commoner gets nothing but the shaft don`t play an
>unblooded commoner. Its your choice to play an inferior concept. The
>Scion should outshine an unblooded counterpart end of story.

The problem is that in an unbalanced system the idea of an "inferior
concept" throws off the purpose in coming up with balancing factors like
ECL, or rewards based on the factors that comprise EL. In effect, it
"breaks" the system.

A DM tells his players he`d like to do character generation with 5th level
characters. Everyone will use the standard array, and "average" hit
points. One character chooses to be blooded, the other doesn`t. In a
balanced system neither of these characters would be more powerful than the
other. The would have different abilities, of course, but all things being
equal they would be as effective in play as every other 5th level character.

Some people think that scions should be more powerful, level for level, ECL
for ECL, than any other characters in the setting. I can understand the
desire to do that thematically, but I don`t think it makes any sense from
the POV of the rules. Game mechanically, however, one can simply add a few
levels (or ECLs) to make a character who is thematically more powerful
stand out amongst other characters.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Shade]

At 11:34 AM 3/14/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at:
http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1429
>
> irdeggman wrote:
> One problem with the feat based proposal is the group that wants to
determine blood abilities randomly, which is why the variant was included
in the proposed version. While I don`t believe this is the majority of
the those playing, I do believe that a sufficient number have expressed the
desire for the randomness to justify a variant system to accomodate it.

Agreed. Bloodlines and abilities will continue to be randomly generated in
my group (reasoning to come in a following post).

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.