View Poll Results: Which Proposal should be pursued for inclusion in the BRCS?
- Voters
- 18. You may not vote on this poll
Results 1 to 10 of 35
-
07-20-2003, 08:26 PM #1
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
- Posts
- 3,945
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Here is the vote for which proposal to pursue for blood score.
The link for the proposals is http://www.tuarhievel.org/Blood%20Score%20...sals%205-15.zip
I included a listing for a combination of 2 proposals - so if you think that is the best way to go, then post which combination you'd like to see. This is not referring to variants but rather a combined proposal, for example proposal A with the scion class descriptions more like those in proposal D, or something like that.
I will be looking for a clear majority, something along the lines of twice as many favoring one orf the proposals. It is also entirely possible that more than one would be selected, one default and one as a variant.
Note that this is really independent of anything that 3.5 might affect so don't worry about 3.5's impact on the blood score - although it may affect the blood abilities themselves, but we'll deal with that bridge when we come to it.Duane Eggert
-
07-21-2003, 09:44 AM #2
I would prefer the revised BRCS (your) version as my favourite.
Otherwise geeman's idea is nice too...May Khirdai always bless your sword and his lightning struck your enemies!
-
07-24-2003, 12:15 PM #3
- Join Date
- May 2002
- Location
- Glasgow, Scotland
- Posts
- 120
- Downloads
- 10
- Uploads
- 0
I have voted for D - the feat like approach.
The revised BRCS version loses much of it's inherent simplicity by doubling the stat for no real reason other than a sense of backwards compatibility.
The experience points method relies on probability balancing for its bloodline strength - this is against the tenents of 3rd edition as seen in the revision of psionics.
The blood-points system would seem to have the most potential, and I do like the clear descriptions of what you get for you for your invested points in each ability. However the inclusion of fractional ECLs, redundant arithmetic and multiple generated attributes (strength, score, points) make the system opaque and initially confusing. If this system was simplified and re-written for clarity, even at the expense of simulation accuracy, it would be a clear winner for me, but for the moment, no.
Finally, I selected the feat-like approach - but reluctantly. This is solely because of the inclusion for the Scion class - which I am wholly against. I would be much happier if the Noble class gained access to these feats, and the template method was used, but as is it is the lesser evil of the four choices.
CM.
-
07-24-2003, 08:30 PM #4
3 +0200, CMonkey wrote:
>The blood-points system would seem to have the most potential, and I do
>like the clear descriptions of what you get for you for your invested
>points in each ability. However the inclusion of fractional ECLs,
>redundant arithmetic and multiple generated attributes (strength, score,
>points) make the system opaque and initially confusing. If this system was
>simplified and re-written for clarity, even at the expense of simulation
>accuracy, it would be a clear winner for me, but for the moment, no.
As for the multiple steps in generating attributes, I don`t think there`s
much to do about that. Pretty much all the proposals as well as the
original system had that. I`d really hate to eliminate a step by doing
something like equating bloodline strength with bloodline score since I
think that`s one of the faults of the playtest`s system of bloodline being
an ability score. By themselves the steps (3d6-2, d6 x Bloodline Strength
value, spend BP on blood abilities) are bit more effort to go to than other
systems--mostly in the area of spending BP, but since that`s one of the
points in the system I don`t think there`s much for it. Maybe an example
of character generation would help....
The decimal ECL aspect of the blood ability point system, however,
definitely seems to be the thing people take issue with most. That`s
understandable, I suppose, if for no other reason than because it`s the
thing that departs most from the typical 3e/d20 rules. The math is really
quite simple, but I think it`s just too much of a departure from the rules
set for most people`s taste, particularly since it covers just that single
aspect of BR characters. If decimal values were included in the standard
stuff for characters in 3e, or if it accompanied a whole system of variable
XP (which is how I envision it--picture things like a 1st level spell slot
equal to a 0.1 modifier on XP required to take a level, 2nd level 0.2,
etc.) then I think it would be more acceptable and more easily digested,
but on its own I think people find it too much detail in the name of
accuracy and balance than is warranted.
One possibility is making the ECL modifier for bloodline scores based on
the "average" bloodline strength that one needs to get that score and just
round them to whole numbers. Or, I suppose, just assign values--which
appears to be how most ECLs are set anyway.... Using an "average" ECL
modifier Table 3 would look like this:
Table 3: Bloodline Score
Bloodline Bloodline Maximum
Score Points Abilities ECL
1-7 0 0 0
8-14 1 1 0
15-21 2 1 1
22-28 3 2 1
29-35 4 2 1
36-42 5 2 1
43-49 6 3 2
50-56 7 3 2
57-63 8 3 2
64-70 9 4 2
71-77 10 4 3
78-84 11 4 3
85-91 12 5 3
92-98 13 5 3
99-105 14 5 4
That way there`s just the one number. Would something like that be better?
Gary
-
07-25-2003, 12:57 PM #5
- Join Date
- May 2002
- Location
- Glasgow, Scotland
- Posts
- 120
- Downloads
- 10
- Uploads
- 0
Would something like that be better?
Thinking about it, I agree with your argument that it's not more complex, just more different and that is the problem - but unfortunately I think you're stuck with making it simpler than the more familiar systems to compensate.
On the "redundant arithmetic" I mentioned: why 3d6 - 2 ? The 3d6 (or 4d6-drop-1 nowadays) is the most "comforting" of the familiar D&D generation mechanics. Why not just have the table start at 3?
On clarity and formatting: you can summarise the generation in less than 10 words ("3d6-2, d6 x Bloodline Strength value, spend BP on blood abilities") and yet in your proposal the reader has to scan 3 pages before they hit the step-summary. Consider on the first page a dominating boxout, reading something like this:
- Determine heritage strength. This will also determine your bloodline modifier. See Section 1.
- Determine bloodline score. This will also determine your maximum number of blood abilities and the bloodpoints (BP) you can spend on them. See Section 2.
- Determine your bloodline derivation. This will determine which blood abilities you can select from. See Section 3.
- Spend bloodpoints (BP) on blood abilities. See Section 4.
Note that I've re-named bloodline strength to heritage strength (heresy! and bloodline points to bloodpoints. This is because, with bloodline strength, bloodline modifier, bloodline score and bloodline points, it seems like there must be redundancy in the system (4 stats for the one attribute?) even though they all serve different purposes. Plus for beginners it is hard to remember which does what when they all have very similar names.
As to the section references, each section could similarly start with a summary boxout with the detail, exceptions and additions in the body text around it.
Hope this all seems constructive!
CM.
-
07-25-2003, 01:01 PM #6
- Join Date
- May 2002
- Location
- Glasgow, Scotland
- Posts
- 120
- Downloads
- 10
- Uploads
- 0
By the way Geeman, have you not voted for your own proposal?
CM.
-
07-25-2003, 08:59 PM #7
3 +0200, CMonkey wrote:
>Would something like that be better?
> Yes, I think it would.
>
> Thinking about it, I agree with your argument that it`s not more
> complex, just more different and that is the problem - but unfortunately
> I think you`re stuck with making it simpler than the more familiar
> systems to compensate.
>
> On the "redundant arithmetic" I mentioned: why 3d6 - 2 ? The
> 3d6 (or 4d6-drop-1 nowadays) is the most "comforting" of the
> familiar D&D generation mechanics. Why not just have the table start at 3?
I did it that way for two reasons. The first is because the Bloodline
Score is based on that Bloodline Strength value (d6 rolled once for each
point of that 3d6-2) so making it a simple 3d6 would result in the minimum
bloodline score also being a range of 3d6 (3-18) rather than something
closer to the original BR bloodline system in which it could range as low
as 1. Second, I included a feats in that system that effectively adds +2
to one`s bloodline strength, cancelling the -2, and returning things to the
3-18 "standard." In my sometimes munchkinny gaming group I fully expected
the players to make use of that feat.
I could still keep it 3d6 and have the bloodline score then rolled up by
rolling a number of dice equal to that value -2. It`s purely cosmetic, but
if it would make more in keeping with D&D methods it`d be a good change.
To be honest, making bloodline "look 3e" is not IMO a very needful or even
a very wise goal. The whole bloodline strength = 3d6 thing was a bit of a
nod towards the first bloodline update by Travis Doom that is, by and
large, the same one in the BRCS playtest. I don`t much like making
bloodline an ability score (in fact, I really think it`s a Bad Idea) but at
that time it seemed to be what everyone wanted to see. I wrote it up in
deference to that, just to see what would come out. Later, I found I kind
of liked the way that aspects of the system worked. The math fell into
line and the dice were mostly the nice cubey ones that I like so much. So
I ended up using it in the later expansion of the bloodline system that
included bloodline points.
Rules mechanically, I think the Bloodline Point stuff more resembles
several D20 texts that have come out in the years between 3.0 and 3.5. (Is
Savage Species 3.4?) Some of the really basic inspiration for it was from
the way the superhero d20 games Four Colors to Fantasy and Mutants &
Masterminds dole out super powers. Anyone familiar with either of those
two systems will probably feel much more at home with blood ability points.
>On clarity and formatting: you can summarise the generation in less than
>10 words ("3d6-2, d6 x Bloodline Strength value, spend BP on blood
>abilities") and yet in your proposal the reader has to scan 3 pages
>before they hit the step-summary. Consider on the first page a dominating
>boxout, reading something like this:
>- >
- Determine heritage strength. This will also determine your
> bloodline modifier. See Section 1.
> - Determine bloodline score. This will also determine your
> maximum number of blood abilities and the bloodpoints (BP) you can spend
> on them. See Section 2.
> - Determine your bloodline derivation. This will determine which
> blood abilities you can select from. See Section 3.
> - Spend bloodpoints (BP) on blood abilities. See Section 4.
>
There is a little "Bloodline Determination Checklist" in there that has
those basic steps in, perhaps, more detailed form in order to accommodate
the various details like feats, the requirement of a random method of blood
ability determination, etc. Here it is:
Bloodline Determination Checklist
Below is a step-by-step guide to determining bloodline.
1. Determine bloodline strength using whatever method the DM assigns (3d6,
4d6 ignore lowest, point buy, etc.) Subtract 2 from that total for a range
of 1-16, and add any bonus from the Ancient Bloodline feat. Compare that
result to Table 1: Bloodline Strength on page 10 to get your bloodline
modifier (bld.)
2. Determine your bloodline score by rolling d6 for every point of your
bloodline strength. Compare the result to Table 3: Bloodline Score on page
11 to get the number of bloodline points (BP) you may have and the maximum
number of blood abilities possible for your character.
3. Determine your bloodline derivation. (Either roll randomly on Table 4:
Bloodline Derivation on page 11 or choose one at the DM`s option.)
4. Spend bloodline points (BP) on blood abilities.
I`m not really much of a formatting/editting guy, I`m afraid, so I
generally defer to people who have more of a sense for layout and design
than I. Having said that, a box out for those steps would be a good
thing. Moving it up to the front might also be a good plan. In that
bloodline proposals document I think the goal was to format everything as
closely like each other as possible, however, just to let people focus on
the ideas rather than the look of the thing. The original Bloodline Point
System document (I don`t know if that`s still available on birthright.net)
was more complete and formatted in a way that sort of mimics the original
BR materials. At least, I used the Bebris font for titles....
> Note that I`ve re-named bloodline strength to heritage strength
> (heresy!) and bloodline points to bloodpoints. This is because, with
> bloodline strength, bloodline modifier, bloodline score and
> bloodline points, it seems like there must be redundancy in the
> system (4 stats for the one attribute?) even though they all serve
> different purposes. Plus for beginners it is hard to remember which does
> what when they all have very similar names.
Yeah, the vocabulary is a bit confusing, particularly in the original
materials in which IIRC they sometimes refer to "bloodline strength score"
meaning bloodline strength and things like that. I tried to stay as close
as possible to the original terminology but using "strength" and "score" to
designate the difference between the two. It`s easiest to think of the
different aspects of bloodline as "strength, score, abilities and
points." Unfortunately, if one says "strength" without modifying it with
"bloodline" then one can confuse that with the ability score strength, etc.
Lately, I started thinking that "bloodline strength value" might better
designate the 1-16 number than simply "bloodline strength." I tried to
define each of those terms separately in the introduction, but only the
first occurrence of the term is italicized, and probably nothing cries out
for a glossary quite so loudly.... "Heritage" is an interesting and quite
possibly better term to use overall, so I`ll have to think on that a bit.
> As to the section references, each section could similarly start with a
> summary boxout with the detail, exceptions and additions in the body text
> around it.
>
> Hope this all seems constructive
Very. Thanks.
At 03:01 PM 7/25/2003 +0200, CMonkey also wrote:
> By the way Geeman, have you not voted for your own proposal?
Heh. You know, I don`t recall.... I _think_ I did. Frankly, I`m not
really concerned with whether it makes it into BRCS or not. The stuff I
put out into the BR community is stuff I write for my own purposes. I put
it out there because it might be of help or interest to someone someplace
or because I`m curious what other people`s opinions might be on the
subject. Getting into the BRCS stuff would be nice, but it`s not that big
a deal to me. Not to disparage the work of the design team (some of their
material is IMO inspired) but I probably spend as much time rereading the
br-l archives than I do their BRCS and the archives are also more likely to
influence my table top game.
However, having seen the film _Election_ I think I probably should at least
vote for myself, so I`ll make sure I have.
Gary
-
07-31-2003, 07:22 PM #8
After reviewing the proposals (now that I finally was able to download them properly), here are my thoughts and suggestions:
I like Mark Aurel's idea that Charisma can substitute for a Bloodline Score modifier. After all, the 3e PHB describes Charisma as one's inner power, and it further encourages scions to have a high Charisma - which they should.
In general, I like the BRCS playtest version as is. Most of the proposals seem to make things more complicated, not less so. So far (in my own playtesting) I haven't found it to unbalance the game or make for ridiculous amounts of math. Some of the proposals look like ways to make the bloodline scores synonomous with the original 2e edition.
I'm generally a fan of random ability score generation, so I don't run into the "being penalized by starting points" problem that others have talked about with a seventh ability score.
I definitely like the idea of scion class levels (from proposal A) to help balance out the ECL adjustments. Just giving the scions some skill points and hp for each level, along with the existing blood abilities and regent bonus HP, goes a long way toward making those extra levels feel worthwhile.
I wouldn't cry if the Great Heritage template disappeared. I think True Bloodlines end up competing with Great Heritage for the same spot. Aren't Great bloodlines already representative of a great heritage?
If scions of Great bloodlines regained access to the bloodline abilities that Great Heritage scions get (like Divine Wrath and Regeneration), it would vindicate their rarity and "greatness," rather than playing them off as 3rd rate (behind Great Heritage-Great and True bloodlines).
On the other hand, a power like Invulnerability should definitely be limited to True Bloodlines. It's a truly legendary quality, right out of myths and legends, and thus should be limited to the legendary figures of Cerilia.
As for Bloodtrait and Bloodform as prerequisites: don't the abilities gained from monster levels already justify many of the special powers inaccessible to normal scions? Why give them exclusive access to blood abilities? I recommend keeping it really simple, and making powers available based solely on the four bloodline strength templates (Minor, Major, Great, True).
That's my 2 cents (well, maybe 3...).
-Osprey
-
08-01-2003, 09:19 AM #9
- Join Date
- May 2002
- Location
- Glasgow, Scotland
- Posts
- 120
- Downloads
- 10
- Uploads
- 0
Originally posted by Osprey@Jul 31 2003, 07:22 PM
In general, I like the BRCS playtest version as is. Most of the proposals seem to make things more complicated, not less so.
Unfortunately, dispite winning the last poll, they're determined to change it
Heyho.
CM.
PS.
(Sorry about using "Ooo" and "Woo" in the same sentence. That was excessive. )
-
08-01-2003, 04:11 PM #10
Yeah well, you can't win 'em all, aye? Still, I can see a less drastic change being appropriate. There are good points to the proposals, I'm just a little miffed at the insistence on making blood scores like the old 2e ones. Is it really a problem to just halve the old scores to make them compatible with new ones? Or are there other problems there that I'm not aware of?
Osprey
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks