Results 11 to 20 of 65
Thread: Brcs Feats And Skills
-
10-12-2003, 07:43 AM #11
- 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.
-
10-12-2003, 01:54 PM #12
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.
-
10-12-2003, 07:29 PM #13
- 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
-
10-13-2003, 06:46 AM #14
- 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.
-
10-13-2003, 01:39 PM #15
- 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.
Duane Eggert
-
10-13-2003, 06:11 PM #16
- 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.
-
10-13-2003, 09:27 PM #17
Yes, Administrate is INT-based.
-
10-14-2003, 01:00 AM #18I 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.
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
-
10-16-2003, 05:44 PM #19
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.
-
10-21-2003, 11:38 AM #20
- 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.
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
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)
Bookmarks