Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 65
  1. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    72
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I did notice that you added regional prerequisites to master admin where not existend before and to military Genius. I find this to be a bit "out of order" Almost all regions would promote and support the value of a mster administrator except perhaps the Vos but even then a master administrater would be respected because they could field a larger army and thus a skill that the vos would try to nurture. Military Genius is again another feat that all cultures and races would nurture ant support with equal vigor. The other cultures couldnt afford not to support such an genius. And a Genius shouldnt be rank related a military genius can have little traning ans still be a genius. For the most part i agree with the rank system allowing other cultures to gain the ability at a later level but I just question these two feats changes.

    I also noticed that some of the changes can really hurt some regents that are not given class skills for some of these skills. Which means they could be barred from using a feat until 7th level or 13th level. When you consider that most skill effecting feats are a show of "natural talent" not training, while combat skills are a show of training not talent. Its a dicotomy that means you have to take into effect what type of feat you are looking at. this is further "proven" by the type of prerequisites that combat type feats have base attack and level required(metamagic), But there are no prerequisites for skill based feats. This strengthens the principle that combat feats are based on improved traning but skills feats are innate "special" abilities, because increased traning for skills is represented by skill ranks. Perhaps you should eliminate the prerequists for the "prpoer" culture and reduce the skill ranks needed to 5+ for the "wrong" culture. This is more inline with teh spirit behind teh 3x edition rule sets. At least how they view skill based feats in teh core rules.

    Also why the idea of "successfully" dealing with the regent action 3 times to get regent focus? When you learn more through failure than you ever do from success. It also go against the whole prinsiple of skill based feats in the core rules being about inate ability and not training.

  2. #12
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,475
    Downloads
    34
    Uploads
    8
    My argument concerning skill-based feats was focused around the BRCS feats called "Master xxx." And in all honesty, I think Military Genius was just a cooler name for the same class of feats. It could have just as easily been called "Master Strategist."

    I think these particular skills ARE learned from experience. I was really thinking from a more realistic perspective, not from a D&D perspective. Your point concerning the 3e trend is well-taken, but I must say that I think D&D focuses on combat skills as the "important" measure of experience, whereas skills definitely take a secondary role. The designers seemed to be far more concerned with game balance in the combat area, but were basing skills and their prerequisites on an adventuring model.

    The inherent conflict between D&D and the Birthright setting is that a political arena is different than an adventure setting. In politics, skills are essential, and combat ability comes into play only in the rare violent encounter or war. Unless you live in a land with violent borders, of course.

    Getting back to skills: IRL, do you ever see rookies learning the advanced "tricks of the trade" and showing incredible expertise? Raw talent already has a representation: ability scores. Specialist feats are just that: specialties. And specialization at 1st or 2nd level should, IMO, be possible only after a degree of actual experience has allowed the character to learn the basics.

    Rank 5 has always represented "basic competence" in my opinion. Journeyman status, if you will. And what apprentice has the the time or energy to be a Master Administrator or Master Merchant?

    Military Genius: all cultures would value these, but not all cultures would cultivate them to the same degrees. Anuire and Vosgaard have always been the decidedly militant human cultures in Cerilia. While every culture has their military heroes and geniuses, they only appear more frequently in militant cultures. This seems like simple logic to me.

    The same goes for Master Administrator. While every culture would love to have them around, the realistic requirements are things like mathematics, economics, logistics, etc. Now really, do you think that those are the strongpoints of the Vos or Rjurik cultures? The Khinasi and Anuireans would be the decidedly strong cultures in that respect, and the Brecht as well because of their mercantile focus.

    Remember, in this proposal the feats ARE available to every culture, but higher prerequisites for cultures without predilictions for those skills means the actual frequency of those feats will be higher in some cultures than in others. It's simply harder to find the right training, academic resources, and experience to become a Master Administrator in Rjurik than it is in Khinasi.

    As for Regent Focus: although failure does teach, you'll never become a specialist at something until you learn to do it right, and then learn to do it really, REALLY well. And that only happens through repetition - the right way.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    883
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Osprey schrieb:

    > This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

    > You can view the entire thread at:

    > http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...ST&f=36&t=1994



    > Osprey wrote:

    ...

    > Military Genius: all cultures would value these, but not all cultures would cultivate them to

    the same degrees. Anuire and Vosgaard have always been the decidedly

    militant human cultures in

    Cerilia. While every culture has their military heroes and geniuses,

    they only appear more

    frequently in militant cultures. This seems like simple logic to me.



    Not to me. Yes, both are militant. But while I see Anuireans as eager to

    lead large armies into battle and employing complicated moves (Hannibals

    Cannae tactics?) I just can´t see a Vos warlord doing the same.



    Vos are barbarians. Brutal Warlords rule the land through their personal

    ruthlessness. Perhaps comparable to china before 2nd worldwar with

    warlords in every corner. More concerned that noone can challenge them

    from within that leading a united army outside. No empire or even large

    realm that could field a really large army comparable to that of Anuire.

    The only time they really united - for a very short time - and had an

    army in need of a military genius or master strategist would have been

    the battle of lake ladan against the Brecht...

    bye

    Michael

  4. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    72
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I'm not saying that the vos are shining examples of administrators but I am saying that any Vos leader that could organise a army to a greater size than his conterpart with the same resources would be respected because his ability to field an army larger then his enemies is a desireable skill set. Almost any culture would respect the master administrator for what the master administrator can do from being better organized and that is simply more. He can do more. What exactly he does more of is based on both the culture and teh individual regent but any regent that could do more than his counter part is going to has such a skill supported.

    I present that what master XXX really represents isnt special training but talant. You equate talant with ability score as do I but we all know that there are different types of geniuses. One genius is math would need a high INT but while he maybe a genius in maths doesnt mean that when he tries chemisrty he'll be a genius in that field even with teh same level of training yet he has teh same ability score. I put forward that skill feats are more representive of talent than they are with advance training. i put forward that skill levels and synergy bonuses are more along the ideas of advance training.

    Neither of use in right or wrong in concept but i do say that your changes go against the spirit of how 3e views feats.

    I also conceed that Birthright has major balance problems as you mentioned. Whats desireable for an adventer level play in not the same things desired in regent level play. I also conceed that D&D has given "non-combat" aspects of the game a very minor second tier rating. But unless you remove skills from the level based system you'll always have a problem with their second tier status. What makes someone knowledgeable and skilled doesnt make one a "better fighter" or rather the two are not nessisarily tied together. D&D doesnt tie skills with combat ability. They are two seperate aspects. Feats are what you use to improve your combat ability beyond the automatic level increase like base to hit bonus.

    I have no problem with adding training based feats for skills so long as the talant feats are either peserved or added. Yet how do you stop doubling up in feats? Or is there perhaps a better way to show advance training with better synergy bonuses? Perhaps +2 at 5randks and +3 at 10randks and +4 15+ ranks. i dont know i just dont like the trend you are setting. Perhaps I'm too "hide bound" to the old spirit of teh core skill feats.

  5. #15
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by Airgedok@Oct 13 2003, 01:46 AM
    I'm not saying that the vos are shining examples of administrators but I am saying that any Vos leader that could organise a army to a greater size than his conterpart with the same resources would be respected because his ability to field an army larger then his enemies is a desireable skill set. Almost any culture would respect the master administrator for what the master administrator can do from being better organized and that is simply more. He can do more. What exactly he does more of is based on both the culture and teh individual regent but any regent that could do more than his counter part is going to has such a skill supported.
    Except that being a master administrator involves booking skills of some kind. It is impossible to figure out ways to shave costs unless one has a knowledge and a system that keeps track of them in the first place. Vos have no written language and generally a wary of anyone who "writes" things down as this is seen as something that wizards (and priests) do and neither is a group that the general Vos populus trusts or has much respect for. They will fear the priests but they don't respect them.
    Duane Eggert

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    california
    Posts
    317
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    adiminstrate is an int based skill, right?
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

  7. #17
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,475
    Downloads
    34
    Uploads
    8
    Yes, Administrate is INT-based.

  8. #18
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,475
    Downloads
    34
    Uploads
    8
    I present that what master XXX really represents isnt special training but talant. You equate talant with ability score as do I but we all know that there are different types of geniuses. One genius is math would need a high INT but while he maybe a genius in maths doesnt mean that when he tries chemisrty he'll be a genius in that field even with teh same level of training yet he has teh same ability score. I put forward that skill feats are more representive of talent than they are with advance training. i put forward that skill levels and synergy bonuses are more along the ideas of advance training

    Neither of use in right or wrong in concept but i do say that your changes go against the spirit of how 3e views feats.

    I also conceed that Birthright has major balance problems as you mentioned. Whats desireable for an adventer level play in not the same things desired in regent level play. I also conceed that D&D has given "non-combat" aspects of the game a very minor second tier rating. But unless you remove skills from the level based system you'll always have a problem with their second tier status. What makes someone knowledgeable and skilled doesnt make one a "better fighter" or rather the two are not nessisarily tied together. D&D doesnt tie skills with combat ability. They are two seperate aspects. Feats are what you use to improve your combat ability beyond the automatic level increase like base to hit bonus.

    I have no problem with adding training based feats for skills so long as the talant feats are either peserved or added. Yet how do you stop doubling up in feats? Or is there perhaps a better way to show advance training with better synergy bonuses? Perhaps +2 at 5randks and +3 at 10randks and +4 15+ ranks. i dont know i just dont like the trend you are setting. Perhaps I'm too "hide bound" to the old spirit of teh core skill feats.
    I think there is some merit to what you say. In truth, feats are a broad catch-all category of specilties and combat tricks. However, to say they represent "natural talent" is a mistake - feats are only available to chracters based on their levels of experience. That's not a coincidence. Anything based on levels in D&D is, by definition, based on experience, and thus, acquired skill rather than inborn talent. One could always argue that a 1st-level character always get 1 or 2 starting feats (representing natural talent), but I could also argue that these are the first tricks or advanced skills/specialties they learn in their class-based profession. A 1st level character isn't untrained, they represent the result of a standard period of training to turn out a baseline professional (sort of like a modern-day high school graduate who is supposedly prepared to join the workforce; never mind the reality of whether or not they're really prepared, I'm just comparing 2 theoretical constructs with similar thoughts behind both).

    So in the end, Airgedok, I'm sticking to my guns on this one. I think most feats do in fact represent occupational/professional specialties and the byproducts of long, hard experience (ex: Iron Will) rather than natural talent. If you want to call a character's starting feat(s) natural talent, you're welcome to do so: that's part of a player's character background, and can generally be explained any way the player or DM likes.

    -Osprey

  9. #19
    Senior Member RaspK_FOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Moschato, Athens, Greece
    Posts
    1,128
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    Osprey could not have put it any better: a Feat is nothing else but a feat! Feats in real life are accomplishments, and accomplishments are not repeatedly achieved through sheer luck or talent! The best example that represents this is a feat from The Wheel of Time; one kind of that world's channelers are wilders, who must reach a certain emotional state to be able to cast "Weaves", as they call spells, and that condition is called a "Block". While female wilders can take the feat Remove Block (or something like that) at 3rd level, a male wilder can take it at 1st level! In the end, it represents not talent, but the ability to achieve something others cannot. And I like the fact that male and female channelers are different from one another in that world. Another interesting adoption of such flavour and the Birthright rules, this time, is to use the theme from Ursula le Guien's Earthsea, where women cannot wizards, but men cannot become more connected to the Earthen powers (I assume you could say men cannot become clerics). Both, however, can become magicians.

  10. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    72
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by Osprey@Oct 14 2003, 01:00 AM
    I present that what master XXX really represents isnt special training but talant. You equate talant with ability score as do I but we all know that there are different types of geniuses. One genius is math would need a high INT but while he maybe a genius in maths doesnt mean that when he tries chemisrty he'll be a genius in that field even with teh same level of training yet he has teh same ability score. I put forward that skill feats are more representive of talent than they are with advance training. i put forward that skill levels and synergy bonuses are more along the ideas of advance training

    Neither of use in right or wrong in concept but i do say that your changes go against the spirit of how 3e views feats.

    I also conceed that Birthright has major balance problems as you mentioned. Whats desireable for an adventer level play in not the same things desired in regent level play. I also conceed that D&D has given "non-combat" aspects of the game a very minor second tier rating. But unless you remove skills from the level based system you'll always have a problem with their second tier status. What makes someone knowledgeable and skilled doesnt make one a "better fighter" or rather the two are not nessisarily tied together. D&D doesnt tie skills with combat ability. They are two seperate aspects. Feats are what you use to improve your combat ability beyond the automatic level increase like base to hit bonus.

    I have no problem with adding training based feats for skills so long as the talant feats are either peserved or added. Yet how do you stop doubling up in feats? Or is there perhaps a better way to show advance training with better synergy bonuses? Perhaps +2 at 5randks and +3 at 10randks and +4 15+ ranks. i dont know i just dont like the trend you are setting. Perhaps I'm too "hide bound" to the old spirit of teh core skill feats.
    I think there is some merit to what you say. In truth, feats are a broad catch-all category of specilties and combat tricks. However, to say they represent "natural talent" is a mistake - feats are only available to chracters based on their levels of experience. That's not a coincidence. Anything based on levels in D&D is, by definition, based on experience, and thus, acquired skill rather than inborn talent. One could always argue that a 1st-level character always get 1 or 2 starting feats (representing natural talent), but I could also argue that these are the first tricks or advanced skills/specialties they learn in their class-based profession. A 1st level character isn't untrained, they represent the result of a standard period of training to turn out a baseline professional (sort of like a modern-day high school graduate who is supposedly prepared to join the workforce; never mind the reality of whether or not they're really prepared, I'm just comparing 2 theoretical constructs with similar thoughts behind both).

    So in the end, Airgedok, I'm sticking to my guns on this one. I think most feats do in fact represent occupational/professional specialties and the byproducts of long, hard experience (ex: Iron Will) rather than natural talent. If you want to call a character's starting feat(s) natural talent, you're welcome to do so: that's part of a player's character background, and can generally be explained any way the player or DM likes.

    -Osprey
    Well thats a flaw in the system of all level based systems. They create a unrealistic balance system via leveling that is 90% combat based and then add on skills. The feat system is obviously a combat oriatated system designed to provide increased combat ability. The skill feats again are add ons. You create a continued disservice to teh system by tieing skills to levels even more. Knowledge and skill isnt tied to combat prowess. And yet in D&D because they made skills tied to level they made the two artifically connected. I can be more skilled and knowlegable and not be any better in combat than i was a year ago. But any increase in level makes me better in combat. First off I'm a higher level so spells effect me differently second my saves will likely increase. By base attack again will at least have a 50% chance of increase. More hit points ect. Yet this is in no way a good representation of how knowledge/skills as presented in D&D are in the "real world". My ability to run a nation shouldnt be tied to my effectiveness on teh field of battle. Even the commoner and adept and expert all still have the combat frame work will skills added on.

    You now want to increase this relationship but in so doing break against the spirit of skill based feats in teh core rules. There is not level or skill prereq feat in the game that deals with skill bonuses. The only feats that have prereq are combat based feats. Every single skill based feat has no prereq. So not only do we strengthen a flaw to level based systems we do it in a manner that ignores the conventions that govern feats. This doesnt sound like an improvement.

    There must be a better way.

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.