Good And Evil In Anuire

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by geeman@Sep 27 2003, 01:55 AM

However, I suppose the description of sielshegh as "stones with a

bloodline" is apt in that the powers of sielshegh gems could be used as a

model for the inanimate object`s version of a bloodline, but we should be

kind of careful applying that sort of thing since there were so many suits

of armor, weapons, belt buckles, shoes, holy symbols, codpieces, corpses,

etc. lying around the Battle of Deismaar that could have been similarly

imbued should they be aligned to a god in whatever way it was that the gems

were aligned to the gods that allowed for their empowerment. (I have a

couple of ideas for what might align a codpiece, but apparently the new

additions D20 license will prevent any such material.)



Gary

OK Gary so you have addressed the gems what about the other items imbued with a bloodline?

Blood Sword
Blood Armor

The results of the Blood Bank spell

All store a bloodline in an object - hence theobject now has a bloodline.

I have to agree with Ryan on this one, blood is a means of transferring and keeping the divine energy that was released. I would extrapolate that the media is the thing that is most dear to the creature/object, hence blood for living things. Icor for undead and the material itself for items (you could even use an elemental equivalent if desired).

I would also extrapolate that Tieghmaervril would have the same effect on an object as it does on a living creature due to the material's affinity for absorbing and transferring the power of the blood. With the new rules in 3.0/3.5 for item hardness and hit points it is fairly easy to explain mechanically - pretty much the same way as it works on scions. Use the write up in the BRCS instead of the 2nd ed one for blow through the heart, since it required rules for how to handle that which didn't exist in 2nd ed at the time. It took the Player's Option: Combat and Tactics to codify a system for critical hits (and locations).

[Osprey]

> Imbued with divine energy? OK, but not a bloodline, at least not in a
> literal sense. There`s no way a PC would smash a sielshegh and have
> it bleed all over the ground.
>
> Metaphysically, I think it`s important to clarify that the blast at
> Deismaar was a massive blast of divine energy, not a gory
> explosion of divine blood.

I`m having a hard time reconciling these statements. Why in one case do
you seem to think the physical container of the magical energy is more
important than the energy itself, but in the other you disagree? Since
you`re happy with the gods not literally spraying blood everywhere, I find
it hard to see why you are disappointed that liberating identical energy
from rocks wouldn`t literally spray blood either. To me, although the
energy is often transmitted between living creatures through their blood,
it is not actually *part of* the blood, and is more important than the
literal blood; for example, I don`t think bloodline investiture requires a
transfusion, and I don`t think you do either. In fact, depending on how
seriously one takes some of the more esoteric theories about elves and
dwarves, it is entirely possible that one or both of those races don`t
have actual blood, but have "bloodlines" anyway because they are imbued
with the same energy, albeit in a slightly different medium.


Ryan Caveney

Actually, I agree with what you're saying here. I see blood as being the "easiest" receptacle for divine energy. The container IS important; the sielshegh are gems of a specific type, for instance (rubies for Anduiras, topaz for Basaia, etc.), just as humans carry that energy within the blood. I think elves and dwarves probably still have hearts and blood, and would carry that energy within their blood.

Gems and objects carrying divine energy, such as the sielshegh, is a pretty straightforward concept: they enhance existing bloodlines (and could probably boost the successor gods' powers, too). An item carrying an actual Bloodline is a bit trickier, and it's there I see things getting sticky regarding HOW an object manages to store such a thing. I like the idea of Blood Armor - an item storing a dormant bloodline released only by a descendant.

But the Blood Sword, with an active bloodline, definitely pushes the rules, and it would be good to come up with an explanation of how an object could do this.

-Osprey

[geeman]

At 03:35 PM 9/27/2003 +0200, irdeggman wrote:



>OK Gary so you have addressed the gems what about the other items imbued

>with a bloodline?

>

> Blood Sword

> Blood Armor



I could make a few suggestions using the text on the Sielsheghlien as a

guide. First, there`s an issue of proximity to "ground zero" of the

explosion at Deismaar. Sielshegh gems were supposedly created from "the

remnants of rock where the gods stood and brought their full power to bear

against Azrai" according to the BoM. The description of how people gained

a bloodline indicates in some cases that all one had to do was be on the

battlefield to get a bloodline. Though that could be debated a bit since

nobody really knows how large the battlefield was, nor how many people

participated. In the past speculation has ranged pretty drastically IIRC

from a few thousand on either side to a few hundred thousand, and opinions

on the distance at which one gained a bloodline can be similarly broad.



According to the "legend" of sielshegh gems, however, in the BoM text

"where the gods stood" would seem to indicate that these stones were much

closer than people who became blooded. If the immediate blast radius is

"ground zero" for Deismaar, I`d suggest that the area in which stones could

become imbued with magical energy and become sielsheghlien is even smaller;

like the immediate proximity of the gods themselves or the area with them

and the mortals who inherited their bloodline as the perimeter. Within

that zone certain stones could gain magical power. It`s still not a

bloodline in the sense that a character can be blooded--because inanimate

objects lack a life force they don`t become blooded per se. It`s rather

more like those items become capacitors for blooded characters, heightening

or somehow increasing their powers.



One could use a similar justification for other inanimate objects gaining

powers that interact with a scion`s bloodline. That is, items that were in

very close proximity to the blast could have gained some sort of

powers. This would limit the number of them considerably, and also provide

a ready background for them in that they would most likely be the personal

items of the mortals who ascended. Haelyn`s helmet, for instance, could

become The Bloodhelm; the BR equivalent of an artifact or other unique

magic item. Things like that.



Second, is the issue of what kinds of items would have become

empowered. The sielshegh were presumably all stones whose original

composition leant themselves to each of the derivations and absorbed the

appropriate energy. Jacinths for Brenna, sapphires for Masela, etc. The

stones that became sielsheghlien were not necessarily of the appropriate

type and color before the explosion. They might have been ordinary,

non-precious rocks before the blast. They were, after all, made magical by

the blast, so it`s possible that they were also transformed into gemstones

by the same energies that made them magical like a chunk of coal crushed

into a diamond in the palm of a being of godly power--a fantasy story standby.



In that context, I`d like to float one theory: Sielshegh could be the

remnants of actual jewelry worn by the gods and/or the mortals who ascended

at the BoD. Each of the gods (or their avatars, or their most closely

associated mortal follower) might have favored a particular type of

gemstone, and thus those gems might have been magicked in the explosion.



It`s not an unreasonable assumption that the sielsheghlien actually were

gemstones before the blast, however, so I say we go with that not only

because it`s pretty logical, but also because it works in context of other

inanimate objects. That is, only the appropriate objects would have been

given magical properties. Erik`s staff, for instance, might have powers of

Reynir`s bloodline. His shield, however, might not since something like

that would be more appropriate to Anduiras` knightly/heraldic sphere of

influence.



Last, one should probably take into account the hardness of such items in

that they would have to be able to survive the blast. It probably wouldn`t

make sense for items that were not stone, iron or of similar density to

gain powers. The flowing robes of Basaia, for instance, don`t seem

particularly apt as items strong enough to survive the blast, nor would

something like leather goods, paper (scrolls or books), etc. A length of

rope held by one of these characters would probably not survive the

explosion. A set of armor doesn`t seem particularly apt to me either in

that most metal armor is made up of so many different pieces, and would not

likely survive intact. A piece or two (helms, shield, a gauntlet, boot,

etc.) might be more appropriate than a whole suit.



Other items that might make sense: rings and most types of jewelry,

bracers, bone or bone fragments including teeth, weapons like daggers or

hardened wooden weapons (like a druid`s staff) and sheaths for bladed

weapons if made of appropriately hard material.



> The results of the Blood Bank spell



I`d suggest that in the case of this spell it`s not really an item that

becomes blooded, it`s just that that item becomes the temporary totemic

focus of the bloodline in place of the scion/regent`s heart. The bloodline

will still transfer to an heir upon the death of the person who normally

"houses" the bloodline, but it is the life force of the scion that actually

maintains it. One can`t transfer the bloodline to another person through

the container, so it`s not really the container itself that is imbued with

magical power.



Having said that... I don`t much care for this spell. As the basis for a

magic item then I can perhaps see it, but as a 4th level divine spell it`s

just a little too whacky IMO. Plus, spells with durations in the weeks

strike me as a bad idea in general, particularly in 3e/3.5.



>All store a bloodline in an object - hence theobject now has a bloodline.

>

>I have to agree with Ryan on this one, blood is a means of transferring

>and keeping the divine energy that was released. I would extrapolate that

>the media is the thing that is most dear to the creature/object, hence

>blood for living things. Icor for undead and the material itself for

>items (you could even use an elemental equivalent if desired).



Honestly, I`m still waffling on the issue of undead with bloodlines. I

mean, there`s a certain logic to it, but the absence of blooded undead in

the BR materials would seem to beg a rationale for NOT having them rather

than an inclusion. I do like the symmetry with certain undead conditions

(the stab through the heart aspect of vampires, for instance) and I can see

how this kind of thing might interact with the Shadow World`s denizens, but

I`m still not convinced undead should be able to gain the power of the gods

in the same way living beings can. Maybe it has something to do with the

paths that either beings are on in regards to ascension and immortality;

undead "peeking" (if you will) at demi-lichdom while the living in D&D

generally are not assumed to have any such maximum limitation and in BR, of

course, we have a pantheon of former mortals to exemplify that difference.



>I would also extrapolate that Tieghmaervril would have the same effect on

>an object as it does on a living creature due to the material`s affinity

>for absorbing and transferring the power of the blood. With the new rules

>in 3.0/3.5 for item hardness and hit points it is fairly easy to explain

>mechanically - pretty much the same way as it works on scions.



Could you elaborate on this a bit? How would you use the new 3.5 hardness

rules to reflect absorbing power or those items taking on a bloodline?



Gary

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by geeman@Sep 27 2003, 02:30 PM
At 03:35 PM 9/27/2003 +0200, irdeggman wrote:



>OK Gary so you have addressed the gems what about the other items imbued

>with a bloodline?

>

> Blood Sword

> Blood Armor



I could make a few suggestions using the text on the Sielsheghlien as a

guide. First, there`s an issue of proximity to "ground zero" of the

explosion at Deismaar. Sielshegh gems were supposedly created from "the

remnants of rock where the gods stood and brought their full power to bear

against Azrai" according to the BoM. The description of how people gained

a bloodline indicates in some cases that all one had to do was be on the

battlefield to get a bloodline. Though that could be debated a bit since

nobody really knows how large the battlefield was, nor how many people

participated. In the past speculation has ranged pretty drastically IIRC

from a few thousand on either side to a few hundred thousand, and opinions

on the distance at which one gained a bloodline can be similarly broad.



According to the "legend" of sielshegh gems, however, in the BoM text

"where the gods stood" would seem to indicate that these stones were much

closer than people who became blooded. If the immediate blast radius is

"ground zero" for Deismaar, I`d suggest that the area in which stones could

become imbued with magical energy and become sielsheghlien is even smaller;

like the immediate proximity of the gods themselves or the area with them

and the mortals who inherited their bloodline as the perimeter. Within

that zone certain stones could gain magical power. It`s still not a

bloodline in the sense that a character can be blooded--because inanimate

objects lack a life force they don`t become blooded per se. It`s rather

more like those items become capacitors for blooded characters, heightening

or somehow increasing their powers.



One could use a similar justification for other inanimate objects gaining

powers that interact with a scion`s bloodline. That is, items that were in

very close proximity to the blast could have gained some sort of

powers. This would limit the number of them considerably, and also provide

a ready background for them in that they would most likely be the personal

items of the mortals who ascended. Haelyn`s helmet, for instance, could

become The Bloodhelm; the BR equivalent of an artifact or other unique

magic item. Things like that.



Second, is the issue of what kinds of items would have become

empowered. The sielshegh were presumably all stones whose original

composition leant themselves to each of the derivations and absorbed the

appropriate energy. Jacinths for Brenna, sapphires for Masela, etc. The

stones that became sielsheghlien were not necessarily of the appropriate

type and color before the explosion. They might have been ordinary,

non-precious rocks before the blast. They were, after all, made magical by

the blast, so it`s possible that they were also transformed into gemstones

by the same energies that made them magical like a chunk of coal crushed

into a diamond in the palm of a being of godly power--a fantasy story standby.



In that context, I`d like to float one theory: Sielshegh could be the

remnants of actual jewelry worn by the gods and/or the mortals who ascended

at the BoD. Each of the gods (or their avatars, or their most closely

associated mortal follower) might have favored a particular type of

gemstone, and thus those gems might have been magicked in the explosion.



It`s not an unreasonable assumption that the sielsheghlien actually were

gemstones before the blast, however, so I say we go with that not only

because it`s pretty logical, but also because it works in context of other

inanimate objects. That is, only the appropriate objects would have been

given magical properties. Erik`s staff, for instance, might have powers of

Reynir`s bloodline. His shield, however, might not since something like

that would be more appropriate to Anduiras` knightly/heraldic sphere of

influence.



Last, one should probably take into account the hardness of such items in

that they would have to be able to survive the blast. It probably wouldn`t

make sense for items that were not stone, iron or of similar density to

gain powers. The flowing robes of Basaia, for instance, don`t seem

particularly apt as items strong enough to survive the blast, nor would

something like leather goods, paper (scrolls or books), etc. A length of

rope held by one of these characters would probably not survive the

explosion. A set of armor doesn`t seem particularly apt to me either in

that most metal armor is made up of so many different pieces, and would not

likely survive intact. A piece or two (helms, shield, a gauntlet, boot,

etc.) might be more appropriate than a whole suit.



Other items that might make sense: rings and most types of jewelry,

bracers, bone or bone fragments including teeth, weapons like daggers or

hardened wooden weapons (like a druid`s staff) and sheaths for bladed

weapons if made of appropriately hard material.



> The results of the Blood Bank spell



I`d suggest that in the case of this spell it`s not really an item that

becomes blooded, it`s just that that item becomes the temporary totemic

focus of the bloodline in place of the scion/regent`s heart. The bloodline

will still transfer to an heir upon the death of the person who normally

"houses" the bloodline, but it is the life force of the scion that actually

maintains it. One can`t transfer the bloodline to another person through

the container, so it`s not really the container itself that is imbued with

magical power.



Having said that... I don`t much care for this spell. As the basis for a

magic item then I can perhaps see it, but as a 4th level divine spell it`s

just a little too whacky IMO. Plus, spells with durations in the weeks

strike me as a bad idea in general, particularly in 3e/3.5.



>All store a bloodline in an object - hence theobject now has a bloodline.

>I would also extrapolate that Tieghmaervril would have the same effect on

>an object as it does on a living creature due to the material`s affinity

>for absorbing and transferring the power of the blood. With the new rules

>in 3.0/3.5 for item hardness and hit points it is fairly easy to explain

>mechanically - pretty much the same way as it works on scions.



Could you elaborate on this a bit? How would you use the new 3.5 hardness

rules to reflect absorbing power or those items taking on a bloodline?



Gary

Gary, several things

Hardness and item hitpoints would be used as in when a Tieghmaervril weapon 'breaks' a blooded item it absorbs the bloodline just as if it would against a scion. Hardness is sort of like a DR for items, Tieghmaervril could be said to bypass this DR for blooded items in this case.

Swords of Blood were created after Mt Deismaar as per the writeup in the BoR so their being formed in the same manner as Sielshegh gems just doesn't work.

Bloodbank spell was only given as a 2nd ed reference as part of the original question as to where the idea for creating blooded items came from. There isn't currently a BRCS spell that really covers this effect.

[geeman]

At 03:28 AM 9/29/2003 +0200, irdeggman wrote:



>Hardness and item hitpoints would be used as in when a Tieghmaervril

>weapon `breaks` a blooded item it absorbs the bloodline just as if it

>would against a scion. Hardness is sort of like a DR for items,

>Tieghmaervril could be said to bypass this DR for blooded items in this case.



OK, but how does that relate to the act of bloodtheft on the object? I

mean, such an item has to be completely "killed" (reduced to 0 hp) by an

attack in order to release the power, but what is the "stab through the

heart" analogy that could be used for an inanimate object?



>Swords of Blood were created after Mt Deismaar as per the writeup in the

>BoR so their being formed in the same manner as Sielshegh gems just

>doesn`t work.

>

>Bloodbank spell was only given as a 2nd ed reference as part of the

>original question as to where the idea for creating blooded items came

>from. There isn`t currently a BRCS spell that really covers this effect.



The effects of the Swords of Blood is very similar to the Blood Ward spell,

and would be more closely associated with that spell--the "totemic"

description of that spell as differentiated from actually creating a

blooded device. While the powers of the swords are, of course, broader

than just that of those spells, that`s pretty easily associated with

similar magic item creation methods in 3e/3.5, and I`d suggest again that

the item in question doesn`t really have a bloodline per se. It merely is

the receptacle for that bloodline in a way that might be analogous to the

way the "jar" becomes the focus of the soul in the Magic Jar

spell. Bloodlines are transferrable, but the item that acts as the

container for that bloodline isn`t "blooded" in the sense that I think was

suggested earlier in the thread. It is "magicked" but not the inanimate

equivalent of a scion.



Gary

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by geeman@Sep 29 2003, 04:06 AM
At 03:28 AM 9/29/2003 +0200, irdeggman wrote:



>Hardness and item hitpoints would be used as in when a Tieghmaervril

>weapon `breaks` a blooded item it absorbs the bloodline just as if it

>would against a scion. Hardness is sort of like a DR for items,

>Tieghmaervril could be said to bypass this DR for blooded items in this case.



OK, but how does that relate to the act of bloodtheft on the object? I

mean, such an item has to be completely "killed" (reduced to 0 hp) by an

attack in order to release the power, but what is the "stab through the

heart" analogy that could be used for an inanimate object?

Gary

Gary - I had suggested using the write up from the BRCS-playtest instead of the one from 2nd ed for tieghmaervril and bloodtheft. Which means that when the item is destroyed the bloodline is released. You seem to constantly be changing between 2nd and 3rd ed terminiology and usage. There are currently no rules in 3/3.5 covering blows through the heart. The info presented in the BRCS-playtest also doesn't address blows through the heart. As I had previously pointed out it pretty much took the release of Player's Option: Combat and Tactics to present a detailed system and this was issued after the Birthright setting came out. IMO the 'blow through the heart' was placed there for effect and color since there was no mechanic in existance at the time to address it.

Many people had their own house rules for critical hits and locations but there really wasn't an 'official' system issued until PS:C&T, which was an 'optional' book.

[Osprey]

Stabbing a person through the heart with a mortal blow:

The easiest solution is requiring a Coup de Grace. In my own campaign, I found this was the typical way in which such bloodtheft occurs. The enemy is rendered unconscious (0 to -9 HP), and a character takes a full round action to drive a blade through the heart. Game over.

For conscious opponents, it's much trickier. Here was my solution:

Hitting the heart is a Called Shot. Like striking an object, this provokes an attack of opportunity. This can only be accomplished with a piercing melee weapon.
Based on size (heart = Diminutive), the defender gets a +4 AC bonus against this attack. If a DM would rule that Bloodtheft requires a "direct hit through the center of the heart," they could make it a Fine target and give a +8 AC bonus. I think this is a bit harsh, however, and go with +4.

Against mortal opponents (where the heart is a vital area), such a hit would count as a critical hit, and do appropriate damage based on the weapon type.

A failed attempt is a normal miss (kind of harsh, but such attacks shouldn't be too risk-free).

If the damage is enough to take the victim to -10 HP or lower, then Bloodtheft occurs as per the BRCS rules for death by a stab through the heart.

For a more challenging (hard-to-accomplish) set of rules, check out Ravenloft's rules for staking Vampires through the heart (I don't have the info here - sorry). The mechanics should be fairly synonomous.

-Osprey

[Osprey]

And for a truly viscious campaign that features Bloodtheft, here's a feat that might be possible:

Bloodthief
Description: The character has become a specialist in stabbing victims through the heart when committing Bloodtheft.

Prerequisites:
Minimum Base Attack Bonus: +8
The character must have committed Bloodtheft by stabbing a scion through the heart.

Benefits: The character does not suffer attacks of opportunity when attempting to stab an opponent through the heart.

[geeman]

At 11:52 AM 9/29/2003 +0200, irdeggman wrote:



>

At 03:28 AM 9/29/2003 +0200,

> irdeggman wrote:<>

> <>

> >Hardness and item hitpoints would be used as in when a Tieghmaervril<>

> >weapon `breaks` a blooded item it absorbs the bloodline just as if it<>

> >would against a scion. Hardness is sort of like a DR for items,<>

> >Tieghmaervril could be said to bypass this DR for blooded items in this

> case.<>

> <>

> OK, but how does that relate to the act of bloodtheft on the object? I<>

> mean, such an item has to be completely "killed" (reduced to 0

> hp) by an<>

> attack in order to release the power, but what is the "stab through

> the<>

> heart" analogy that could be used for an inanimate object?<>

> Gary<>

>

> Gary - I had suggested using the write up from the BRCS-playtest instead

> of the one from 2nd ed for tieghmaervril and bloodtheft. Which means

> that when the item is destroyed the bloodline is released. You seem to

> constantly be changing between 2nd and 3rd ed terminiology and

> usage. There are currently no rules in 3/3.5 covering blows through the

> heart. The info presented in the BRCS-playtest also doesn`t address

> blows through the heart. As I had previously pointed out it pretty much

> took the release of Player`s Option: Combat and Tactics to present a

> detailed system and this was issued after the Birthright setting came out.

>

>IMO the `blow through the heart` was placed there for effect and color

>since there was no mechanic in existance at the time to address it.



Ouch. This is one of the drastic and fundamental changes from the original

setting`s text that I don`t think the BRCS has done a very good job

with. I didn`t realize this was the result of someone on the team thinking

that the text on the subject was really just colour text, though. I

thought it was just something that hadn`t been addressed because it`s a

difficult thing to turn into game mechanics, but since this appears to have

been the thinking I`m going to address the issue in some detail.



The requirement of the physical act of stabbing a scion through the heart

in order to release the power of their bloodline is spelled out pretty

clearly by the original setting material. It`s part of the general theme

of bloodlines that includes everything from the actual name of the concept

to how it is transferred and a whole slew of basic BR concepts. While it`s

true that there were no good game mechanics to reflect stabbing someone in

the heart in the 2e rules, a similar lack of such mechanics for 3e is not a

legitimate reason to eliminate the idea from the campaign material. In

fact, it illustrates that it was a purposeful addition rather than

something that should be ignored in an update since it would have been much

easier to just ignore the idea the first time around.



Bloodtheft by stabbing a scion through the heart is not colour text, it`s

campaign material. Colour text is material that conveys things like the

attitude of NPCs, or general role-playing effects like physical

descriptions, monologues by important personages that convey personality,

etc. It`s things that convey thematic information beyond simple rules and

guidelines. Tone, mood, feel, context, and even things like motivation and

purpose could be defined as colour text. The verbiage of the Planescape

setting is colour text, berk.



"Gurk lives in a small, dark cave with the sound of dripping water

constantly reminding him of his loneliness and isolation" is colour

text. "If subjected to light based attacks, Gurk is rendered blind" is not

colour text. It`s a theme of the character that should be reflected by

game mechanics. Similarly, "King John wears wears a purple cloak and blue

breeches, his hair has gone grey and his eyes are a piercing blue" is

colour text, while "like all nobles of Cerilia, if King John is stabbed

through the heart it will release the power of his bloodline" is campaign

material. That we don`t have really good game mechanics to reflect how to

work it is a problem, but not a good reason to change or ignore the

campaign material.



The change in the BRCS is at least similar to another BR theme; the

explosion at Mount Deismaar. Bloodtheft in the update is more like the

release of the Quickening in Highlander--except that it affects and

possibly empowers just about anybody in the room, not just the immortals,

and in this case I think it creates several problems.



For instance, I don`t know that the change from stabbing through the heart

to "death by violent means and his blood is literally spilt" is that strong

a theme. First of all, there has to be the somewhat odd proviso that the

scion`s death must be in hand-to-hand combat so that someone doesn`t kill a

scion from a distance with a crossbow and watch the resulting explosion

like a fireworks display. That change seems to be somewhat unnecessary

given the splatter-like Highlander effect now attributed to usurpation, but

it does make it a bit more like the original stab through the heart

method. Also, it`s too open to weird events. A scion pushed from a castle

tower, for instance, would both bleed and technically dies as a result of

hand-to-hand combat, so he`d go off like like a little blooded hand grenade

on impact, and that`s just not very elegant (in several senses of the

word.) Also, it makes for a weird bludgeoning v. slashing/piercing weapons

issue. Does a scion killed by a hammer provoke usurpation? What are the

chances of a contusion that also breaks the skin? I don`t think we really

need that table....



Also, I just don`t think we need the description of the physical sensation

of usurpation. The BRCS actually describes the effects of someone with a

low bloodline dying as being felt as "a slight tingling perceptible only to

those in the immediate area of effect." That`s a bit silly. Ooh, did

someone tickle me or was that a minor noble getting murdered? If we really

have to have some sort of description of the feeling of usurpation or

bloodline, the word "tingle" should probably be avoided.



Other changes that should probably be reconsidered (other than the name

Usurpation since that word has many more political implications than

murderous ones--a problem for the political emphasis of BR) are the method

bloodline derivation can change when the act is committed. The original

version of this is IMO better; only Azrai`s blood is corrupting. It

conveys more significance to the affect of that derivation, and makes more

sense given the history of the setting. Gaining a bloodline through

bloodtheft is also badly done. While I like the idea and approve of the

effort to reflect what has happened in the case of several awnsheghlien,

the Playtest`s mechanics need serious consideration. A DC 20 check using

character level as a bonus is far too easy. Scions would have a very short

life expectancy given the number of people who would be willing to bludgeon

them into unconsciousness and kill them in the hope of gaining a bloodline

if that method is used. Even Joe Teenage Commoner has a 1 in 20 chance of

gaining a bloodline that way.



In the spirit of suggesting an alternative rather than simply criticizing,

an opposed roll might be more appropriate. If one were to try to keep the

"stab through the heart" method in place in 3e there are several ways that

it might be done, one or two of which have been noted. An opposed roll is

an option. There are different values that could be used for such a check;

BAB, Reflex bonus, strength or dexterity might be appropriate things from

which to get a bonus. (I personally favor a wisdom based skill check, but

that method would probably be of interest only to me and a few other

polyskillaholics.) Gaining a bloodline for non-scions through bloodtheft

could be the result of a critical success on that opposed roll. A

"natural" 20 followed by a successful check against the original opposed

value. That would make it much more rare and not something that just any

commoner is going to give a shot.



There are a few other fundamental things about the BRCS`s handling of

bloodline that should probably be reviewed and revised, most of which

appear to be based on decisions about what could be reflected using the

rules rather than campaign material, and if given some attention they will

probably not survive a rewrite. For example, the way bloodline score is

handed down to offspring. According to the BRCS Playtest bloodline is an

ability score, and because of that bloodline score is not strictly the

average of the parents` bloodline score as was originally written, and that

makes sense... if bloodline is an ability score. As an ability score why

shouldn`t it vary a bit? After all two intelligent people do not

necessarily have intelligent children, so why should two highly blooded

characters have offspring that is similarly blooded? Such things are more

of a tendency than anything else, so there should be some text reflecting that.



Bloodline as an ability score would appear to be one of the things that is

going to be changed in the official version of the BRCS, and I`d like to

suggest that the system of bloodtheft should be too. It`s a better

reflection of campaign themes if the original stab through the heart method

of bloodtheft is preserved--even if that means we only have the coup de

grace method of bloodtheft in the BRCS since folks on the team seem so

reluctant to include new rules and methods that aren`t strictly included in

the 3e/3.5 rules.



>Many people had their own house rules for critical hits and locations but

>there really wasn`t an `official` system issued until PS:C&T, which

>was an `optional` book.



I think people still have their house rules for bloodtheft since the issue

has still never been satisfactorily addressed.



Gary

[kgauck]

I regard stabing through the heart as color. Or maybe its an idea that`s

widely believed, but not actually true. Either way, I think its goofy, and

instead restrict bloodtheft to fights of dramtic importance, honor, and

defence of the realm. Oh yeah, and DM fiat. Dueling is basically a

struggle for blood power between nobles. Bloodtheft is not all or nothing,

unless the circumstances of the fight allows the winner to sieze the loser`s

whole realm.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com