More ranting against the Blood Stat

[RaspK_FOG]

Well, the idea behind the scion class you present is not a new one (I am not saying you stole it; I hope there is no misunderstanding). Here is an excerpt from "Volo's Guide to All Things Magical", and particularly, an excerpt from the matter of spellfire:

Spellfire Experience

For game purposes, spellfire wielders are treated as if they have two classes. Experience points are awarded normally for adventures when no spellfire is used, but whenever spellfire is employed, all experience is split evenly between the characterís real class and a phantom "spellfire class" that advances without training or recognition and is used purely to determine the degree of control over spellfire the wielder possesses. The Wizard Experience Levels table given in the Playerís Handbook is used to measure a wielder's "spellfire level."

It should be noted that unlike true character classes, a spellfire
wielder can advance in level during an adventure, and use his or her improved abilities instantly, feeling the augmented control. Refer to Spellfire Unleashed, later in this chapter, for details of what powers each level in the spellfire class gives a user.

For the first adventure in which a spellfire wielder successfully manifests and uses a crown of fire (see Spellfire Unleashed), the "spellfire class" half of the experience points gained by a spellfire user are quadrupled. This only applies to the spellfire half-share, and only occurs for the initial use of - crown of fire ó not every time this power is used.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Razorbones

I think the best way to add bloodlines to AD&D 3rd edition is a scion class.

It's the best for balance, since the bloodline powers (ability to collect RP, bloodline powers, prestige, etc) are a tradeoff to other powers gained in leveling another class.

Besides, it would help alleviate the sorcerer/magician problem of birthright 2nd ed. With a scion class, Birthright Wizards can be restricted to a few schools of magic and only scions can use the best schools of magic and realm spells.

Even more, a scion class puts out more clearly the importance of bloodlines then a mere ability. A bloodline ability makes it look like everyone is blooded. A scion class puts back the importance, prestige, advantages and disadvantages of bloodlines more clearly. Being a scion is dangerous business after all, which might not come out with bloodlines being blend with abilities.

If this is the path that is to be chosen (scion = class), then I think that we could debate methods of implementation further (scion class based on the bloodline derivation?). A scion class would make for some interesting possibilities, including the role-play of an evil scion with transformation rules, which is lacking at the moment (weak implementation in 2nd Ed).

As long as you realize that the proposals for scions class basically only account for the equivalent ECL modifiers they would have. This is a direct correlary from Savage Species which present monster classes (for playing a monster character, like a centaur) such a they could be played at first level instead of having every PC start at elevated levels as pointed out in the DMG.

There were several proposals on the boards for creating a 20 level scion class which were all pretty much dismissed as detracting too much from the standard classes and there just not being enough "uniqueness" to make a scion class as a stand alone class.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG


Well, the idea behind the scion class you present is not a new one (I am not saying you stole it; I hope there is no misunderstanding). Here is an excerpt from "Volo's Guide to All Things Magical", and particularly, an excerpt from the matter of spellfire:

Spellfire Experience

For game purposes, spellfire wielders are treated as if they have two classes. Experience points are awarded normally for adventures when no spellfire is used, but whenever spellfire is employed, all experience is split evenly between the characterís real class and a phantom "spellfire class" that advances without training or recognition and is used purely to determine the degree of control over spellfire the wielder possesses. The Wizard Experience Levels table given in the Playerís Handbook is used to measure a wielder's "spellfire level."

It should be noted that unlike true character classes, a spellfire
wielder can advance in level during an adventure, and use his or her improved abilities instantly, feeling the augmented control. Refer to Spellfire Unleashed, later in this chapter, for details of what powers each level in the spellfire class gives a user.

For the first adventure in which a spellfire wielder successfully manifests and uses a crown of fire (see Spellfire Unleashed), the "spellfire class" half of the experience points gained by a spellfire user are quadrupled. This only applies to the spellfire half-share, and only occurs for the initial use of - crown of fire ó not every time this power is used.

Something similar was presented a while ago but was also generally considered to be just too cumbersome to implement. Two separate experience pools is a nightmare waiting to happen. There was a lot of "discussion" on how cumbersome the RP collection system in the playtest document was, this dual experience pool system would give that a race for complexity and truely unnecessary paperwork in a campaign setting that already has more bookkeeping than just about any other one that could be run (assuming that a domain level of play is being used).

Back to my previous post on the "reason" to use scion class levels (to account for the ECL modifier so that scion could be played in a 1st level campaign without imbalancing the party).

[Green Knight]

I've posted this before, or something similar...

There is really no difference between a level adjustment and class levels. Savage Species introduces the concept of "monster classes", which can easily be used in conjunction with Bloodlines giving level adjustments.

When creating a character with a bloodline, simply seclect a template of the appropriated power (tainted, minor, major, great, true). If bloodline improves (or even degrades), simply use the new appropriate template (rules for this also in SS).

The exact contents of the templates I will not go into, that can be debated ad infinitum. Just make sure that the benefits balance with the drawbackt (the level adjustment).

Example:
Tainted +0 ECL
Minor +1 ECL
Major +2 ECL
Great +3 ECL
True +4 ECL

So, assuming the party is to start at 1st level, characters can only have a tainted bloodline. But thats OK, because the DM and the player has decided that the character's lineage is of Great power, and the player is preapred to pick the required templates over time. Eventually, at 10th level, the character is a noble 2/fighter 5 with a great bloodline.

Simple, flexible, customizeable, and inline with current 3E mechs.

B

[ryancaveney]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Green Knight wrote:

> There is really no difference between a level adjustment and class
> levels.

Mostly. However, my taste for nitpicky pedantry requires me to say there
are a couple of significant differences. In the strictest terminological
sense, a level adjustment affects *only* XP, both reducing XP awards and
making XP expenditure more expensive -- it is introduced in order to make
up for some other goodies, which are not technically part of the level
adjustment (said goodies are generally part of a template, which also
contains a level adjustment). A class level is a package of goodies tied
to a specific XP penalty, theoretically balanced against each other.
ECLs are only used when tied to specific packages of goodies, however, so
this is not a major practical issue (I just think you should have said
something like "positive-ECL template" instead).

That said, I do understand what you meant; but even putting all word-games
aside, I still disagree with you in part. Here`s why.

The big practical difference is that the thing the level adjustment is
intended to balance can theoretically be *anything*, whereas all class
levels have certain things in common: e.g., they increase (even if only
fractionally) BAB, HD, saves, skill points, ability scores, and free
feats; some have other standard increases like uses of N per day
abilities, number of sneak attack dice, or spells per day. All classes
look more or less like all other classes at some basic level, and all
class levels are designed to build gradually upon other class levels
(though some kinds of classes complement each other more than others do).

A level adjustment can be applied for anything at all. However, given
just how very many different reinforcing bonuses are provided by a single
class level, I think most suggested ECL adjustments made (in both the
official rulebooks and fan-produced material) are far too large. To make
up for even just one class level, a package of powers that doesn`t give
all (or worse yet, any) of the above things has to be very impressive; and
to make up for three full class levels must be truly immense.

> Savage Species introduces the concept of "monster classes",
> which can easily be used in conjunction with Bloodlines giving level
> adjustments.

It`s not a terrible idea, but I definitely won`t be using them as written.
To me, XP really is *experience*, so I have significant philosophical
issues with altering its use. IMC, a full-grown giant with 10,000 XP has
five class levels in addition to full-giant status. I would calculate an
effective level for purposes of determining encounter challenge and thus
appropriate XP awards, but I would disregard the effective level utterly
when determining whether the character levels up with the XP he is given.
Also, gaining XP would not allow a juvenile giant to "level up" into a
higher-level giant -- only time can do that. I don`t care if this
interpretation of XP/ECL is unorthodox -- it`s the only one which makes
any sense at all to me personally, so it`s what I use.

> When creating a character with a bloodline, simply seclect a template
> of the appropriated power (tainted, minor, major, great, true). If
> bloodline improves (or even degrades), simply use the new appropriate
> template (rules for this also in SS).

Sounds good at first glance, but...

> The exact contents of the templates I will not go into, that can be
> debated ad infinitum. Just make sure that the benefits balance with
> the drawbackt (the level adjustment).

This is the kicker. Part of the problem is that no system yet presented
is at all balanced IMO -- none of the power packages suggested even
remotely justify the cost.

> Example:
> Tainted +0 ECL
> Minor +1 ECL
> Major +2 ECL
> Great +3 ECL
> True +4 ECL

Part of the problem here is the granularity of the level system. Gary has
tried to remedy this with fractional ECLs, which I think is a necessary
part of making them both useful and fair. However, I don`t think he goes
far enough -- in order to really make the balance work, there has to be an
observable game-play difference between a +1.2 and a +1.3 ECL. The rungs
on this ladder are just too far apart. To make ECL really work in any but
the most extreme cases, you need to interpolate the XP table. For example:

LVL XP LVL XP LVL XP

1.2 120 1.5 375 1.7 595
2.2 1320 2.5 1875 2.7 2295
3.2 3520 3.5 4375 3.7 4995
4.2 6720 4.5 7875 4.7 8695
5.2 10920 5.5 12375 5.7 13395

This is one of the great advantages of the 3e unified XP table: since all
classes use the simple formula XP to reach level N = 500 * N * (N-1), and
this formula gives good results when applied to any real number at least
one, you can easily calculate the XP needed to reach any level at all!
For example, level pi is reached at 3364 XP. =)

For an example of why I say this, let`s look at your sample numbers.
Unless you give a True bloodline so many blood abilities of such power
that a True Wiz 3 stands a 50/50 chance against a Tainted Wiz 7, it`s not
actually balanced in any useful way. Of course, if you do that, then a
True Ftr 3 might beat a Tainted Ftr 7 every time; this seems to indicate
that bloodline strength should have a significant effect on spellcasting
power. Asking about True Ftr 3 vs. Tainted Wiz 7 isn`t IMO all that
instructive, because the standard D&D game system itself doesn`t do that
good a job of balancing Ftr 7 vs. Wiz 7 anyway -- but that`s a different
debate. IMO, a more sensible pattern would look like Tainted/Minor +0,
Major/Great +1, True +2 -- even that is probably unbalanced, because it
does not deal with the issues that bloodline strength class does not
determine blood ability numbers or powers very firmly at all, and some
blood powers are just much more powerful than others. Again, something
like Gary`s fractional ECL system or Shade`s "blood powers are magic
items, pay XP once to acquire them" needs to be put in place to give the
system the level of detail it needs. In most cases, half a dozen minor
abilities do not add up to a whole class level`s worth of power.

> Simple, flexible, customizeable, and inline with current 3E mechs.

In concept, yes. Azrai, however, is in the details. =) This might be the
"system purist`s best" way to do it in principle -- but in practice I have
yet to see a set of numbers that didn`t seem badly broken. I`m not sure
it`s impossible, but it does appear rather difficult.


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.

[Mark_Aurel]

For an example of why I say this, let`s look at your sample numbers.
Unless you give a True bloodline so many blood abilities of such power
that a True Wiz 3 stands a 50/50 chance against a Tainted Wiz 7, it`s not
actually balanced in any useful way. Of course, if you do that, then a
True Ftr 3 might beat a Tainted Ftr 7 every time; this seems to indicate
that bloodline strength should have a significant effect on spellcasting
power. Asking about True Ftr 3 vs. Tainted Wiz 7 isn`t IMO all that
instructive, because the standard D&D game system itself doesn`t do that
good a job of balancing Ftr 7 vs. Wiz 7 anyway -- but that`s a different
debate. IMO, a more sensible pattern would look like Tainted/Minor +0,
Major/Great +1, True +2 -- even that is probably unbalanced, because it
does not deal with the issues that bloodline strength class does not
determine blood ability numbers or powers very firmly at all, and some
blood powers are just much more powerful than others. Again, something
like Gary`s fractional ECL system or Shade`s "blood powers are magic
items, pay XP once to acquire them" needs to be put in place to give the
system the level of detail it needs. In most cases, half a dozen minor
abilities do not add up to a whole class level`s worth of power.

The D&D system isn't balanced like that. The main factor in balancing is having each character be able to contribute relatively equally to a party over a given period of time or number of sessions - not have each character be exactly equal given deathmatch conditions. Over a set of varied deathmatch scenarios, the classes might be relatively equal. The idea is basically that in a party of four characters - a cleric, a fighter, a rogue, and a wizard - or any other composition - each character should have relatively equal airtime and prominence, given a reasonable mix of challenges and settings. If every setting is a tight, lit dungeon, the fighter will rule supreme. If every monster encountered is undead, the cleric will be the king of the hill. If every combat gives opportunities for flanking or hiding around, the rogue might be able to dish out more damage than the fighter. If facing vast hordes on an open field, the wizard will incinerate them at a nice pace. If given time to prepare for an encounter, the wizard will be the #1 guy on the block. If given no time to prepare and being taken by surprise, my money would rather be on the fighter or barbarian being the one to save the day.

Given the way the game has evolved, I think it's a fair assumption that the core classes actually are fairly balanced with each other in terms of "stage time" and ability to contribute meaningfully. Not perfectly, of course, and certainly not adapted to anyone's game in particular, but close enough to work well for most. It is also mostly on this basis that we should examine what an ECL or multiclass means for a character.

In terms of raw power, multiclass characters miss out, for the most part, barring twinked-out minmaxed combinations (often from shady d20 products). A wizard 10/rogue 10 is clearly less powerful than either a wizard 20 or a rogue 20. The multiclass character, though, is somewhat more versatile - though still not by enough to make up for the power gap, IMO. A wizard 10/rogue 10 might be closer to an 18th-level character in raw power than a 20th-level one, the obligatory equipment package notwithstanding. Of course, doling out "bonus levels" for taking weak multiclassing choices like this is mostly out of the question (and depends on way too many variables anyway) - hence we have some prestige classes, like the arcane trickster, that helps bridge the power gap between multiclassed and singleclassed characters. For this reason, I tend to be a bit creative when assigning CRs to NPCs as well - a 20th-level commoner (I have one in my campaign - the King of All Shepherds - looks conspicuously like Sean Connery) is clearly less of a challenge than a 20th-level warrior, who in turn is a bit less of a challenge than a 20th-level fighter, who again is probably less of a challenge than what a 20th-level spellcaster tends to be, who is usually less of a challenge than a CR 20 dragon from the MM. That doesn't mean the CR system doesn't work - just that there are elements that the sometimes simple formulas you assign to CR doesn't account for (but assumes DM input anyway). And the dragon CRs assume that you're prepared to face it - which is actually a bit dumb, IMO - they should give the dragon CRs on the same basis as other monsters.

Of course, on the same basis as CR, ECL can be hard to capture exactly. The formulas provided are mainly intended as starting points, and are far from accurate. For instance, for a PC to have poison isn't anywhere near as good an ability as for a monster - at least not on low levels - but it's an ability that scales extremely well. It's probably worth more to do 2d6 Con damage to a dragon at 20th level than an orc at 1st - the orc'll be dead in a round anyway, against the dragon, that's effectively 1d6xHD damage. Poison was pretty much the only way to kill the unerrataed Tarrasque. ECLs are also of different value, due to a certain lack of granularity. I wouldn't assign an ECL to a half-elf simply because I gave it a +2 bonus on Diplomacy and Gather Information, for instance. Which, of course, is the level of usefulness of some blood abilities in general. Characters with an ECL of +1 are of different value most of the time. Of course, given that some combinations work better with each other than others, the relative value of those +1 ECL races change too. An aasimar is a better +1 ECL match for a paladin than a wizard by far. An aasimar wizard probably wouldn't really be a very good character - but a paladin aasimar is worth the +1 ECL. Balance, in this case, must be based on the most minmaxed character possible - the paladin aasimar - he'd be overpowered if the aasimar ECL was instead determined with a wizard in mind and set to +0. For this reason, I can imagine there might be a few cases where a race with a higher ECL might actually be generally weaker than one with a lower ECL, but more powerful in a few specific cases. A race with a very high charisma bonus would be crap for fighters, but extremely good for bards or sorcerers.

Now, given this variety, I think trying to assign more "accurate ECLs" is probably not a very good idea in general unless you want to have separate fractional ECLs for every separate combination in the game - which would require a pretty long list for every monster, increasing the size of the description for every single monster to "phonebook." Given the definition of balance given above ("airtime per character"), this system'd further fall apart if applied to a game that fell outside the norm of - 37% dungeon exploration, 18% hack-n-slash, 22% negotiation and parleying; 12% undead, 6.5% dragons - or whatever other such distribution a "standard campaign balance value" would be based upon. Given all these factors, a more granular system is better left to the individual DM or campaign than to a product whose aim is to be fairly generic and immediately useful to as many as possible without being complex in an undue fashion.

Compensation and overall balance can come in many forms as well - perhaps there's a special prestige class that only aasimar wizards can take to balance out that it's a relatively weak choice. I find that in this regard, prestige classes can form an important addition to the system for balance purposes.

Now, looking at scions, estimating the level of power each character gains from blood abilities and having a bloodline is one thing - balancing them is another. Once again, the main thing to look at is the strongest combinations around and work from there. A rogue with divine wrath clearly doesn't gain as much benefit from it as a fighter - the rogue's combat stats aren't all that to begin with. The reverse is true for other powers, like shadow form, some of the enhanced senses, or unreadable thoughts.

What is the value of modifiers? For a fighter-type character, the main modifiers that matter are strength, constitution, and dexterity, and wisdom to a lesser extent. In melee, a common circumstance, I'd think, a fighter with a +2 to strength hits as much as a fighter that's one level higher, and does +1 more damage. In exchange for that, he has about 5.5 + Con mod less hp, somewhat worse saves, a couple of skill points less, he falls behind in feats, he falls behind in attacks per round, and he falls behind in ability improvement acquisition. All these things considered, a +2 to strength is probably not worth a full fighter level. Combined with something else, though, it easily is. If you also added in something like a +2 bonus to constitution, a +1 or +2 natural armor bonus, a few skill bonuses, or anything similar, you'd approach the level where it'd be worth an ECL - it shouldn't be a better option in raw numbers than the straight fighter (that'd start us on the nasty path of power escalation), but it should be a comparable option.

For blood abilities, there are few blood abilities that directly stack on top of existing character abilities like this - but there are a lot that expand a character's versatility, or all-around viability and "playtime." An ECL fighter with animal affinity and character reading might not be as good at fighting as a straight fighter, but he'd be useful in a few more situations, making him a more well-rounded character, and he might be overall equally useful. It is, of course impossible to gauge exactly, and boils down to the question of "would you always take this?" If you would, it's probably too good. It's better to have a system with a lot of equal options and some bad options, than a system with a few good options and lots of bad ones.

In terms of overall character balance, blood abilities should be likened most to multiclassing for this reason - it's a versatility thing, not a raw power thing. I'm not a great fan of trying to be _too_ exact in regard to balancing races or scions, however, as long as the most powerful options possible are balanced - it's a case where what's good for the goose may not be good for the gander.

Then there's the recurring issue of classes against straight ECLs - one of the advantages I see using a scion class is allowing a greater degree of versatility and granularity than using ECLs alone. Using ECLs alone wouldn't stretch far enough for all the bloodline strengths to be reflected without also creating imbalanced characters. Since, when it all boils down to it, I am actually pretty concerned with balance, and also retaining the integral aspect of 3e design that players get to choose, rather than trying to use randomness as a balancing tool, I think this is the better path of what is within the existing system. Designing some entirely new way of balancing things would make the BRCS look too much like a set of someone's house rules - unless that way fit seamlessly in with what came before.

As always, of course, I really don't care how anyone else plays their game - but having a common ground to discuss on is always nice. And I think I can say that you are indeed a nitpicking pedant.

[irdeggman]

Jan,

While lengthy, I think you did a very good job of explaining the overall reason and use of ECLs. I also agree with the reasoning of using a scion class to handle ECLs from being a scion and the point of "balance" as not being a "who can wup on whom" but more of an "equal game time and use to the party" issue.

It should be again pointed out that the proposed ECLs for scions (and subsequent use of scion class to handle them) are basically designed for a campaign that uses some domain level play and some adventure level play. It definitely breaks down when either extreme is used. If a campaign is using mostly domain level play the use of ECLs is drastically useless - then again so are characters with high abilities in Str, Con and probably Dex while high scores in Cha, Wis and Int are more valuable. In a campaign that uses mostly adventuring level of play the scion bonuses for hit points and interaction RP are lost although the effect on ECL is not near as drastic. So the point is to appeal to the masses that use some of each and not tailor a system to the extremes, which would end up leaving the majority dissatisfied.



Darn it Jan, when we agree so much I'm inclined to think of the Chris Rock quote on the state of the world - -

Chris Rock's quote of the day....

"You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named 'Bush', 'Dick', and Colon'.

Need I say more?"
;)

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG

Well, the idea behind the scion class you present is not a new one (I am not saying you stole it; I hope there is no misunderstanding). Here is an excerpt from "Volo's Guide to All Things Magical", and particularly, an excerpt from the matter of spellfire:

Spellfire Experience

For game purposes, spellfire wielders are treated as if they have two classes. Experience points are awarded normally for adventures when no spellfire is used, but whenever spellfire is employed, all experience is split evenly between the characterís real class and a phantom "spellfire class" that advances without training or recognition and is used purely to determine the degree of control over spellfire the wielder possesses. The Wizard Experience Levels table given in the Playerís Handbook is used to measure a wielder's "spellfire level."

It should be noted that unlike true character classes, a spellfire
wielder can advance in level during an adventure, and use his or her improved abilities instantly, feeling the augmented control. Refer to Spellfire Unleashed, later in this chapter, for details of what powers each level in the spellfire class gives a user.

For the first adventure in which a spellfire wielder successfully manifests and uses a crown of fire (see Spellfire Unleashed), the "spellfire class" half of the experience points gained by a spellfire user are quadrupled. This only applies to the spellfire half-share, and only occurs for the initial use of - crown of fire ó not every time this power is used.

Unfortunetely this is a purely 2nd edition reference. It roughly worked when every class in a multiclass character had their own set of experience points, it doesn't work well when there is one set of experience points per character. 3rd ed did very well in eliminated the multiple experince points tables and making everything more "balanced" in advancement.

[Peter Lubke]

Okay, let me sum this up. There`s no consensus on what people do like,
for they like different models for different reasons, and, while those
reasons are not always exclusive of other peoples reasons, often their
nominated model does not meet criteria other than their own.

e.g. Ryan states (quoted below) that in his opinion no system so far
presented is balanced.


> > The exact contents of the templates I will not go into, that can be
> > debated ad infinitum. Just make sure that the benefits balance with
> > the drawbackt (the level adjustment).
>
> This is the kicker. Part of the problem is that no system yet presented
> is at all balanced IMO -- none of the power packages suggested even
> remotely justify the cost.

> In concept, yes. Azrai, however, is in the details. =) This might be the
> "system purist`s best" way to do it in principle -- but in practice I have
> yet to see a set of numbers that didn`t seem badly broken. I`m not sure
> it`s impossible, but it does appear rather difficult.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to be all things to all men (and pleasing
women into the bargain is ... well, best left unmentioned). Partly, this
can be because two (or more) design criteria can have an effect on each
other. It`s important to have some understanding and agreement of what
design goals a solution is trying to achieve and the priority of each
goal.

As a tentative list only, I`d put forward the following: (at all roughly
the same priority)

(i) Something that works for either domain play or adventure play, and
for both types of play together in combination.

(ii) Something that allows for scions and non-scions to exist in a
balanced party, at any level of play from low level to high level.

(iii) Something that isn`t too different from the original that it loses
all the original flavor and feel. Also so that existing characters can
be ported across without too much change.

(iv) Something that`s not so complicated as to be confusing,
time-consuming, or require copious bookkeeping, but that is still rich
enough to provide a variety of game effects.

Does anyone have anything further before going into specifics?

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

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Peter Lubke

Okay, let me sum this up. There`s no consensus on what people do like,
for they like different models for different reasons, and, while those
reasons are not always exclusive of other peoples reasons, often their
nominated model does not meet criteria other than their own.

e.g. Ryan states (quoted below) that in his opinion no system so far
presented is balanced.


> > The exact contents of the templates I will not go into, that can be
> > debated ad infinitum. Just make sure that the benefits balance with
> > the drawbackt (the level adjustment).
>
> This is the kicker. Part of the problem is that no system yet presented
> is at all balanced IMO -- none of the power packages suggested even
> remotely justify the cost.

> In concept, yes. Azrai, however, is in the details. =) This might be the
> "system purist`s best" way to do it in principle -- but in practice I have
> yet to see a set of numbers that didn`t seem badly broken. I`m not sure
> it`s impossible, but it does appear rather difficult.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to be all things to all men (and pleasing
women into the bargain is ... well, best left unmentioned). Partly, this
can be because two (or more) design criteria can have an effect on each
other. It`s important to have some understanding and agreement of what
design goals a solution is trying to achieve and the priority of each
goal.

As a tentative list only, I`d put forward the following: (at all roughly
the same priority)

(i) Something that works for either domain play or adventure play, and
for both types of play together in combination.

(ii) Something that allows for scions and non-scions to exist in a
balanced party, at any level of play from low level to high level.

(iii) Something that isn`t too different from the original that it loses
all the original flavor and feel. Also so that existing characters can
be ported across without too much change.

(iv) Something that`s not so complicated as to be confusing,
time-consuming, or require copious bookkeeping, but that is still rich
enough to provide a variety of game effects.

Does anyone have anything further before going into specifics?

Yes, it needs to conform to the 3rd ed system.

House rules, should to the maximum extent possible be removed from the "core" rules. While this seems vague, it is supposed to be. The question always asked in the development group was - is this a house rules thing or an adaptation? If it is a house rules based item is it necessary in order to describe/capture something that can't readily be captured by the 3rd ed core systems? This will allow the greatest flexability to customize things for individual campaigns.

The definition of balanced party should be reference to each player, not compared to NPCs, i.e., will a player with a non-scion class/template feel equitable to one with one.

Item (i) should be to the maximum extent possible. I guess that means it is of lesser priority but still desirable.

These are all goals and not absolutes so it is possible that some will be met to a greater extent than will others.

Good start Peter.

([_]