Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 56
  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Malden, MA
    Posts
    761
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, Mourn wrote:

    > But it can`t be completely modular. If the system from 2nd Edition
    > was dropped into 3rd Edition, it would not work.

    Yes, there will always need to be translation tables for the *output* of
    the system (what is the exact game effect of any particular blood
    ability), but there need never necessarily be any *input* system (how do
    blood abilities get assigned to characters) at all other than tables 10 to
    13 on pages 20 to 22 of the BR rulebook, used *verbatim*. Bloodline
    abilility generation need never be changed in the slightest unless we want
    to for some other reason. In fact, since there need be no underlying RPG
    at all, there need be no translation table at all: only those blood
    abilities defined as having an effect on the domain rules (Battlewise and
    Courage(Great)) would need to be tracked.

    As a matter of design philosophy, since the whole point of the overall
    Birthright ruleset is to give procedures for running fantasy kingdoms, any
    time the domain scale rules come into conflict with the terminology of the
    RPG system you`d like to use to resolve adventure actions, *the domain
    rules must win*.

    Thus, no matter what RPG you play "on top of", whether it be 1e, 2e, 3e,
    GURPS, Vampire, Ars Magica -- or Paranoia, Toon and MechWarrior for all I
    care -- Prince Darien Avan`s bloodline will always always always be called
    "Anduiras, great, 70" because 70 is the maximum number of RP he can gain
    from provinces and holdings in a single domain turn. That and that alone
    is the core bloodline mechanic which must invariably be preserved.

    Vampire`s 1-5 and GURPS`s 2-12 and D&D`s 3-18 and Ars Magica`s -4 to +4
    and RoleMaster`s 1-100 and Hero Wars` 13 to 10w4 matter not a whit. The
    *sole* purpose of the bloodline score is to limit RP collection. For
    point-buy character generation systems, you will have to figure out how
    many points of which things in the rest of the system are the equivalent
    cost of how many points of bloodline score, but the scale of the bloodline
    score should never ever ever be changed because it is tied into the
    regency point system (including via spending RP to increase bloodline and
    gaining points by bloodtheft) which has *no* connection to any other part
    of any gaming system. Bloodline scores *are* completely modular.

    > And there`s no need to make it modular, because this isn`t about a
    > Birthright conversion for the Storyteller System or for GURPs of the
    > free WINDOW engine.

    But generic conversions are always more elegant than specific conversions,
    at least in so far as designing the most flexible system to cover all
    possible bases goes. There`s no reason to change the blood rules in ways
    that will make them harder to convert to any other system.

    > According to it, a "powerful" scion could have less power than a
    > weaker scion, but still be a higher ECL. That doesn`t make sense.

    I`m glad you agree. I don`t think ECLs are the right way to go, but if
    other people do, at least please determine the ECL from the particular set
    of blood abilities chosen, not just the strength of the bloodline.

    >
    The only thing that depended on 2e mechanics were the effects
    > of individual blood abilities. Those are easily changed (50% MR
    > changed to 25 SR or whatever).
    Here Lord Shade is absolutely correct. Blood abilities in the original BR
    rules are generated completely separately from every other aspect of
    character creation. You in fact do not need to have a character at all
    in order to roll up blood abilities. Only the game *effects* of the
    independently generated abilities actually *require* translation.

    > If we`re playing 3rd Edition, then mechanics should mesh with 3rd
    > Edition.

    The output mechanics (having this blood ability has the same game effect
    as having that feat), yes. The input mechanics (you must spend this 3e
    feat to gain access to that blood ability), NO.


    Ryan Caveney

    ************************************************** **************************
    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.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Malden, MA
    Posts
    761
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Athos69 wrote:

    > There is still an XP gap there between both parties. All that has
    > happened is that one group is receiving a penalty instead of the other
    > group receiving a bonus.

    Yes, this makes sense. The problem is not that the ECL idea changes the
    inspiration or the direction or the name of the gap, it`s that it vastly
    increases the size of the gap.

    > That`s a 4,000 XP gap. A bit bigger than under 2nd Ed, but then
    > again, you can`t really equate 2nd Ed XP with 3rd Ed. Vastly
    > different animals those two.

    But you can compare levels achieved. In most of the range of the 2e Xp
    tables, XP needed *doubles* from one level to the next. That means most
    of the time, even a scion with a *great* bloodline is only *one-tenth* of
    a level behind, and doesn`t reach a whole level behind until about 18th or
    19th level. He would not be two whole levels behind until level 28.

    +2 ECL even for a great bloodline is just disproportionately huge.
    And I pity the poor Orog at +3 ECL. Nothing is worth that penalty.


    Ryan Caveney

    ************************************************** **************************
    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.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    317
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    At 10:21 PM 3/16/2003 +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=1439
    >
    > Mourn wrote:
    >
    Originally posted by Shade
    >Simple fact according to who? That`s your opinion, not a fact. I disagree;
    >I think the bloodline system can and maybe should be modular, something you
    >can tack on to the existing system.
    >
    >
    >But it can`t be completely modular. If the system from 2nd Edition was
    dropped into 3rd Edition, it would not work. Why? Because that system is
    built on 2nd Edition mechanics, which are vastly different from 3rd Edition
    mechanics. Thus, it needs to be rewritten to work with the d20 System.

    Only the blood abilities themselves need to be reworked. The bloodline
    `score` doesn`t depend on 2e mechanics in any way. It starts with a d100 roll.

    >If you dropped it into any other game, like Vampire, it wouldn`t work
    either. For one, the traits range from 1-5 or 1-10... with your Bloodline
    60 or something for the Gorgon, it would break the system.

    I think there is a misunderstanding here. If your bloodline is on a 1-100
    scale, what difference does it make if strength is measured on a 1-5 scale,
    a 3-18 scale, or a 100-300 scale? Your bloodline score is independent and
    doesn`t directly interact with other stats in any way.

    It interacts indirectly by determining the number of blood abilities you
    have. The blood abilities THEMSELVES need to be modified as you go from
    system to system, but the bloodline score itself doesn`t need to be. For
    instance, say a 45 bloodline gets you the ability Heightened Ability in
    D&D, Vampire, and Final Fantasy. The 45 bloodline score is the same in all
    3 systems; but the exact mechanic for how Heightened Ability is different.
    In D&D it gets you a +2 strength; in Vampire a +1 potence; in FF a +30
    attack power, for example.

    >And there`s no need to make it modular, because this isn`t about a
    Birthright conversion for the Storyteller System or for GURPs of the free
    WINDOW engine. This is for the d20 System conversion of Birthright, and it
    should be written for the d20 System. Simple as that.

    My point is, it doesn`t need any changing except for the descriptions of
    blood abilities. A "surprised on a roll of 1" becomes a "+2 to spot and
    listen."

    >
    I agree here. There should be a trade-off. But where we are in
    disagreement
    >is the size of the tradeoff. I think it should be small; you think it
    >should be large.
    >
    >Not necessarily. If the scion`s benefit is a large benefit, then yes,
    there should be a large tradeoff. If the scions` benefit is small, such as
    a +2 bonus to a skill, then the tradeoff should be small.
    >
    >My argument with the way the system worked in the document went both ways.
    According to it, a "powerful" scion could have less power than a weaker
    scion, but still be a higher ECL. That doesn`t make sense. I am merely
    pushing for a cohesive system that makes use of the new d20 System
    mechanics, as opposed to making it a completely seperate system that isn`t
    connected to the mechanics.

    I see. Let me ask you this Mourn - are you opposed to the idea of paying XP
    for each individual blood ability, rather than having a flat ECL for each
    level of bloodline strength?

    >
    The only thing that depended on 2e mechanics were the effects of
    individual
    >blood abilities. Those are easily changed (50% MR changed to 25 SR or
    >whatever).
    >
    >Actually, technically, the whole system was built on 2nd Edition mechanics
    because of the fact that 2nd Edition had *NO* core resolution system. It
    was a hodgepodge of various "simulators" that were hobbled together.
    Bloodline, in 2nd Edition, was tacked on, just like most of the other rules
    released by TSR.

    I think this is a circular argument. So you`re saying that because 2e had
    no core mechanics, and the bloodline system didn`t depend on that absence
    of core mechanics, it was part of the 2e system of core mechanics?

    >Bloodline, in 3rd Edition, should mesh with system and give the whole
    thing a feeling of consistency.

    I don`t think it is particularly necessary.

    >And what about those blood abilities that were given vague descriptions in
    2nd Edition? Some of them are given vague descriptions in 3rd Edition.

    I agree that several if not all blood *abilities* should mesh with the 3e
    rules.

    >
    Not a bad idea, *IF* you buy into the need to integrate bloodlines
    with 3e
    >rules. I don`t.
    >
    >If we`re playing 3rd Edition, then mechanics should mesh with 3rd Edition.

    In your opinion.

    ************************************************** **************************
    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.

  4. #24
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    USA.
    Posts
    626
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    > > I don`t like bloodline as an ability score
    > > much at all. It has, however, been the most common one since 3e came out
    > > and it appeared in Doom`s original conversion, so I think a lot of people
    > > have gotten used to it.
    >
    > I very much doubt it. It has been the most loudly and shamelessly
    > self-promoted, and it was maneuvered into the BRCS doc the same way, but I
    > bet a lot of people just used the old tack-on system on top of 3e
    > characters. I actually very much dislike that the `7 ability score`
    > system got shoved in just because it was in PDF when the rest of us were
    > publishing conversion stuff in html and email.

    *sigh* I created my conversion manual for one reason only - for _my_
    campaign. I released it to BR.net because I thought that others might
    enjoy saving the time doing the same. It upsets me that _anyone_ finds
    anything that I had a hand in "loudly and shamelessly self-promoted".
    Certainly I`ll defend the intellectual positions that I publish
    and subscribe to, but is this not the point of rational discourse?

    I`m not certain exactly what it is that I`ve done that you find
    disagreeable Daniel, but c`est la vie. You are welcome to use anything
    from the original conversion or the parts that were used in the BRCS
    that you`d like and to disregard the rest. You are welcome to tear any
    of the work up on-line if you wish; several of your comments have been
    of substantive worth and such discussion can only improve the work.

    You are _not_ welcome to take potshots at me. It is unproductive,
    unprofessional, and unbecoming. On second thought, since this is a
    public forum, perhaps you are entitled to take potshots at me. I
    certainly can`t stop you. Yet, I need not endure it.

    I think that I`m going to take a hiatus from the list for a while. I
    find that, for some odd reason, this comment actually upset me. Since
    the entire purpose of these discussions (from my POV) is for enjoyment,
    I think that is a signal that it is time for me to take a break for a
    while.

    I`ll be back in a few weeks.

    - Doom

    ************************************************** **************************
    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.

  5. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    99
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by Shade
    <snip comments>
    This argument will just continue to repeat itself, as I am of the mind that the original system should be completely redone. Not just the blood abilities being updated, but the entire system being meshed into 3rd Edition. Therefore, I think we should take more looks at what we can agree on, and what compromises we can reach with other things, because if we can agree on certain things and get certain mechanics to a point where the community will agree on it, then we've made progress... and that progress may lead to other points where we can agree.

    My point is, it doesn`t need any changing except for the descriptions of
    blood abilities. A "surprised on a roll of 1" becomes a "+2 to spot and
    listen."
    It works... but it doesn't seem... right to me.

    What do you think of it granting uncanny dodge? If you are rarely surprised, then being caught flat-footed is rare thing.

    Surprise in 2nd Edition become being caught flat-footed in 3rd Edition.

    I see. Let me ask you this Mourn - are you opposed to the idea of paying XP
    for each individual blood ability, rather than having a flat ECL for each
    level of bloodline strength?
    Not at all. This is a good step. With all the comparison people make between blood abilities and magic items, XP expenditure is a logical step. However, I don't really think that each individual power should have an experience cost. I think all of the abilities of the appropriate levels should be looked at, and some reworked to balance against others of that level.

    For example, there are some issues with Major Resistance (Charm and Poison). Charm grants a +4 bonus against Enchantment and a +4 bonus against the Fear ability. Poison grants you a +4 bonus against poison. Now, Charm grants you a +4 against an entire school of magic, while poison grants you the bonus against poison. While this seems alright, taking a look at some numbers shows some holes. For one, there are many more Enchantment spells than poisons. Further, in WoTC material, a +2 bonus against a particular school of magic requires the Arcane Defense feat (which in turn has the prerequisite of Spell Focus), while Poison Resistance feat grants a +4 bonus against poison. Both are minor abilities, but the Charm one is stronger. If this was reduced to a +2 bonus, it would balance far better.

    However, I also think ECL is a good system, but the way it has been used thus far isn't right. The way the templates are written, the power levels of scions of equal bloodline strength can vary VASTLY, but according to the rules, they're the same. That doesn't sit well with me.

    However, with the idea of Charisma being the primary ability score of blood abilities, I think that the templates can be reworked to take advantage of it, granting a number of abilities (the strength of which depends on your bloodline strength template) equal to Charisma, and then still base ECL off of the templates.

    I also believe that all scions should have a Bloodmark... after all, divine heritage, though weak it may be, should show itself.

    I think this is a circular argument. So you`re saying that because 2e had
    no core mechanics, and the bloodline system didn`t depend on that absence
    of core mechanics, it was part of the 2e system of core mechanics?
    It is, but that's not what I was trying to accomplish. 2nd Edition was a collection of systems, most of which only related to each other in vague and contradictory ways. 3rd Edition was built to be a cohesive total, with each part of the system supporting the others. It works together to make the game balanced. When things for 2nd Edition were redone for 3rd Edition, they were not merely converted over, but were reworked to take complete advantage of the system and expand upon it.

    For example, the High Level Campaigns in 2nd Edition added a bunch of new mechanics, and didn't really do much to expand upon the existing ones. The new 3e ELH takes the core system (and the classes and such) and expands upon them without contradicting them or even having to be a seperate, tacked-on system.

    I don`t think it is particularly necessary.
    Inconsistency is the best way to lose your audience. Ask TSR... oh wait, their inconsistency buried them, didn't it?

    In your opinion.
    So, in your opinion, when you're playing 3rd Edition, extra material should not mesh with the system?
    I walk this fine thread...

    Mourn

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    BR mailing list
    Posts
    1,538
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    From: "Athos69" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>

    > Let`s look at an XP progression with ECL, shall we?
    >
    > To achieve a 5th (class) Level character -- unblooded characters require
    10,000 XP total (1,000+2,000+3,000+4,000 XP). Blooded characters with an
    ECL of +1 require 14,000 XP total (2,000+3,000+4,000+5,000 XP), but they
    are considered a 6th level character for purposes of determining CR and
    encounter strength.
    >
    > That`s a 4,000 XP gap. A bit bigger than under 2nd Ed, but then again,
    you can`treally equate 2nd Ed XP with 3rd Ed. Vastly different animals
    those two.
    >

    Still that misconception. A ECL modifier +1 character needs 15,000 XP to
    reach level 5 - EXACTLY the same amount an ECL +0 character needs to reach
    level 6. You need to have 1,000 XP to start play with an ECL modifier +1
    character. In a campaign that starts at first elvel, ECL modifier +1
    characters are not allowed. Of course, DMs can allow them anyway inder some
    special rule, but this is how the rules work from scratch.



    __________________________________________________ ___
    Gå före i kön och få din sajt värderad på nolltid med Yahoo! Express
    Se mer på: http://se.docs.yahoo.com/info/express/help/index.html

    ************************************************** **************************
    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.
    NOTE: Messages posted by Birthright-L are automatically inserted posts originating from the mailing list linked to the forum.

  7. #27
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    At 01:03 AM 3/16/2003 -0500, Daniel McSorley wrote:

    > > I agree with you on that one. I don`t like bloodline as an ability score
    > > much at all. It has, however, been the most common one since 3e came out
    > > and it appeared in Doom`s original conversion, so I think a lot of people
    > > have gotten used to it.
    >
    >I very much doubt it. It has been the most loudly and shamelessly
    >self-promoted, and it was maneuvered into the BRCS doc the same way, but I
    >bet a lot of people just used the old tack-on system on top of 3e characters.

    I wouldn`t really know what most people do in their campaigns, and though I
    would prefer a system of bloodline that was closer to the original I don`t
    think it has been particularly loudly or shamelessly
    self-promoted. There`s been some debate on the subject, certainly, but
    it`s been reasonable and even-handed. Maybe it`s just me, but the
    opposition to the idea of an ECL for bloodline has been more vehemently
    argued than bloodline as an ability score.

    >I actually very much dislike that the `7 ability score` system got shoved
    >in just because it was in PDF when the rest of us were publishing
    >conversion stuff in html and email.

    Given the amount of formatting Arjan apparently did, I doubt that was
    really the issue.... I`m not up on PDF formatting in particular but
    cutting and pasting text is generally not a lot of trouble. Doom`s version
    was the first out there, so it had the benefit of primacy, which I think
    was more of an influence than the format it was written in.

    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.

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    317
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    At 08:40 AM 3/17/2003 +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=1439
    >
    > Mourn wrote:
    >
    Originally posted by Shade
    ><snip comments>
    >
    >This argument will just continue to repeat itself, as I am of the mind
    that the original system should be completely redone. Not just the blood
    abilities being updated, but the entire system being meshed into 3rd
    Edition. Therefore, I think we should take more looks at what we can agree
    on, and what compromises we can reach with other things, because if we can
    agree on certain things and get certain mechanics to a point where the
    community will agree on it, then we`ve made progress... and that progress
    may lead to other points where we can agree.

    Sounds good!

    >
    My point is, it doesn`t need any changing except for the
    descriptions of
    >blood abilities. A "surprised on a roll of 1" becomes a "+2 to spot and
    >listen."
    >
    >It works... but it doesn`t seem... right to me.
    >
    >What do you think of it granting uncanny dodge? If you are rarely
    surprised, then being caught flat-footed is rare thing.
    >
    >Surprise in 2nd Edition become being caught flat-footed in 3rd Edition.

    In principle that makes sense, but 2 things to consider: UD is useful
    outside of surprise situations (such as being attacked from behind), and
    second, UD does not stop you from being flatfooted - it lets you keep your
    Dex bonus to AC. It is a fine distinction, but an important one, like in
    the case of the Flick of the Wrist/Iaijutsu w/ wakizashi combo (admittedly,
    this won`t come up in BR, but something like it might).

    As for the +2 spot/listen, I used transitive reasoning:

    2e Alertness: surprised on a roll of 1
    3e Alertness feat: +2 spot/listen
    3e Alertness blood ability = 3e Alertness feat

    >
    I see. Let me ask you this Mourn - are you opposed to the idea of
    paying XP
    >for each individual blood ability, rather than having a flat ECL for each
    >level of bloodline strength?
    >
    >Not at all. This is a good step. With all the comparison people make
    between blood abilities and magic items, XP expenditure is a logical step.
    However, I don`t really think that each individual power should have an
    experience cost. I think all of the abilities of the appropriate levels
    should be looked at, and some reworked to balance against others of that
    level.

    Ok, so what you mean here is that say, all minor abilities would cost
    1000xp for instance, as opposed to Heightened Ability-minor costing 650 and
    Enhanced Sense costing 750.

    I would prefer to compare each blood ability directly to a magic item, and
    derive the xp cost from that. This way WOTC has already done the work for
    us, and we don`t have to worry quite as much about balancing within the
    system.

    I could see these 2 approaches being voted on. I prefer the latter, but
    would not necessarily reject the former.

    >For example, there are some issues with Major Resistance (Charm and
    Poison). Charm grants a +4 bonus against Enchantment and a +4 bonus against
    the Fear ability. Poison grants you a +4 bonus against poison. Now, Charm
    grants you a +4 against an entire school of magic, while poison grants you
    the bonus against poison. While this seems alright, taking a look at some
    numbers shows some holes. For one, there are many more Enchantment spells
    than poisons. Further, in WoTC material, a +2 bonus against a particular
    school of magic requires the Arcane Defense feat (which in turn has the
    prerequisite of Spell Focus), while Poison Resistance feat grants a +4
    bonus against poison. Both are minor abilities, but the Charm one is
    stronger. If this was reduced to a +2 bonus, it would balance far better.

    Makes sense. I`m not opposed at all to this sort of tweaking.

    >However, I also think ECL is a good system, but the way it has been used
    thus far isn`t right. The way the templates are written, the power levels
    of scions of equal bloodline strength can vary VASTLY, but according to the
    rules, they`re the same. That doesn`t sit well with me.

    I`ve found that in most cases, ECL just isn`t worth it - you lose too much
    for what you get. 2e had the xp % penalty that worked alright in most
    cases. ECL as a concept is okay, but from Savage Species to BRCS the
    implementation is very flawed.

    I will keep an open mind on the ECL issue. If we can really find a way to
    balance it well without making drastic changes (like a scion class??? wtf?)
    I would certainly reconsider it.

    I still think the magic item=bloodline approach is better because this
    allows for a lot of flexibility. A scion has the CHOICE to develop powers
    if he wants to.

    >However, with the idea of Charisma being the primary ability score of
    blood abilities, I think that the templates can be reworked to take
    advantage of it, granting a number of abilities (the strength of which
    depends on your bloodline strength template) equal to Charisma, and then
    still base ECL off of the templates.

    I am strongly opposed to tying bloodline to charisma in any form or
    fashion. I think it just makes Cha TOO powerful in the Birthright setting.
    In a campaign that`s about rulership and diplomacy it is already pretty
    powerful, no need to make it an absolutely critical stat.

    >I also believe that all scions should have a Bloodmark... after all,
    divine heritage, though weak it may be, should show itself.

    I used to have a rule in my game where any character could pick up
    bloodmark for free. However, I think that this should remain in the realm
    of houserules.

    >
    In your opinion.
    >
    >So, in your opinion, when you`re playing 3rd Edition, extra material
    should not mesh with the system?

    I don`t think that it has to in the case of bloodlines. I do see your
    point; I just don`t agree with it. Let`s agree to disagree for the time
    being. :)

    ************************************************** **************************
    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.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    BR mailing list
    Posts
    1,538
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    > > To achieve a 5th (class) Level character -- unblooded characters require
    > 10,000 XP total (1,000+2,000+3,000+4,000 XP). Blooded characters with an
    > ECL of +1 require 14,000 XP total (2,000+3,000+4,000+5,000 XP), but they
    > are considered a 6th level character for purposes of determining CR and
    > encounter strength.
    > >
    ?? I`m a bit confused on this...why is the ECL +1 equivalent to 2
    character levels when determining CR? This looks something like what I
    saw in teh savage species book, but not quite. IN there. the characters
    ECL was a combination of its monsterous HD + char level + modifier.

    I thought ECL for a character was a total of their character level plus
    modifier. So, a level 5 character with an ECL +1 would need the exp of a
    level 6 character....if someone could explain this and quote a source, I`d
    appreciate it.

    Thanks
    Sean

    ************************************************** **************************
    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.
    NOTE: Messages posted by Birthright-L are automatically inserted posts originating from the mailing list linked to the forum.

  10. #30
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    I`m more than a little irked that Doom has been criticized as a "shameless
    self-promoter" who has "pushed his homebrew" into the BRCS.

    Shameless: First off, what is the shame in sharing one`s creative effort?
    Those people who put up web sites, mention them from time to time, or put
    them in a signature, who post their ideas and writings, and who give us the
    benefit of their labor are good for the hobby and the community. They (and
    Doom in particular) have done nothing but benefit the rest of us with their
    effort and creativity. This is shameful? Or is it shameful because they
    don`t keep their work secret, showing a "proper" humility?

    Self-promoter: Doom is fairly quiet on the list, doesn`t mention either his
    conversion or his web site very often, and whose work as been promoted far,
    far more by others than it has been by himself. This I take to be a sign of
    a quality peice of work. The implied standard in such a criticism is that
    we should not mention our own work to the group because its unseamly to draw
    such attention to ourselves. That may conform to some Victorian sense of
    decorum, but it doesn`t help the community or benefit anyone who has come to
    this forum looking for gaming information, materials, or ideas for BR.

    Homebrew: Someone is suggesting we try gaming ideas that were not pioneers
    and tested on the gaming table? I would hope that the origin of all the
    conversions and other ideas published here have a direct route to the gaming
    table (or PBeM`s where appropriate). Its the gateway of first resort.
    After that, Doom`s particular conversion ideas have been well recieved
    (another indication of its utility to a wide membership), and other members
    of the BRCS team (who outnumber Doom by a large number) embraced some of his
    ideas as a group, which has acted as another gateway, before their inclusion
    into the draft materials. The only way we can even identify which ideas
    were Doom`s is because he did us all the favor of providing a conversion
    manual, putting up a web site, and sharing his ideas here in this forum.
    Its the existence of this paper trail which has allowed others to criticize
    him for what can only amount to his useful and beneficial contributions.

    If there is any shame to be had in any of this, I don`t think it lies with
    Doom or any forum participant who puts forth effort and shares it with the
    rest of us. Let`s consider this value of this creativity in the spirit in
    which it was given.

    Kenneth Gauck
    kgauck@mchsi.com

    ************************************************** **************************
    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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.