Blood As Templet

[lordofallandnothing]

that is why i like my system so much for cause the feat gives you a bloodline strength of tainted and 1 bloodline point which basically means that at first level you are blowing a feat to hopefully be able to recoup your loss later on once you get your bloodline points up higher. i am fairly sure that my players do not like this too much but most of them still choose to be blooded
basically when you gain the tainted blood template it has a CR+0 just like the dang spellfire template in forgotten realms and that is alot more powerful and that is rated as a +0 template as well and it is ALOT more powerful then mine especially at lower level they justify the fact that it is a CR+0 template by the fact that a first level character has to blow a feat on it.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by kgauck@Oct 28 2003, 09:41 AM
----- Original Message -----

From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 6:52 AM





> The absolute biggest problem is trying to start a 1st level

> campaign with +1 (or more) ECL templates.

>

> If a DM allows one player to play an ECL +2 character (effective

> level 3) and says that another can only play a 1st level one then this

> is blatently unfair to the players.



How is this unfair? Why would a DM say another player can only play a 1st

level character? What is preventing everyone from being blooded? Why isn`t

ECL self-balancing? I don`t see a problem.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

If you use a random system then not everyone starts with the same ECL&#39;d template. This has been pointed out by Azrai and others that use pure random generation systems.

You are absolutely correct in that the only method to balance this is by allowing everyone to start at the highest ECL (which is what was specified in the DMG in relation to ECL&#39;d races). But, I pointed out that you couldn&#39;t start a first level campaign using ECLs.

[ConjurerDragon]

Kenneth Gauck schrieb:

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 6:52 AM

>>The absolute biggest problem is trying to start a 1st level

>>campaign with +1 (or more) ECL templates.

>>

>> If a DM allows one player to play an ECL +2 character (effective

>>level 3) and says that another can only play a 1st level one then this

>>is blatently unfair to the players.

>

> How is this unfair?

Because a ECL 3 character is more powerful than a ECL 1 character. And

some people desperately wish to have balance in all situations and

between everyone.



> Why would a DM say another player can only play a 1st

> level character?

Perhaps because he would share my opinion that blooded characters ARE

more powerful than unblooded and balance in that theme is a moot point

as Birthright is "meant" to be played by blooded PC regents and not

unblooded PC underlings, servants or peasants. ;-)





> What is preventng everyone from being blooded?

If I extrapolate from the email then the DM starts all PC´s as

firstlevel characters but some have +2 ECL (blooded) and the unblooded

has not.

bye

Michael

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 10:57 AM





> If you use a random system then not everyone starts with the same

> ECL`d template. This has been pointed out by Azrai and others that

> use pure random generation systems.



If you want a specific outcome, then maybe a random system isn`t the best

way to go about it. This requires explicit statement?



> You are absolutely correct in that the only method to balance this is

> by allowing everyone to start at the highest ECL (which is what was

> specified in the DMG in relation to ECL`d races). But, I pointed out

> that you couldn`t start a first level campaign using ECLs.



Huh? I would never write such nonsense. The idea that all characters

should be equal in power is silly. What purpose does it serve to use a

cookie cutter to create balance? As a DM I don`t need for everyone to be of

the same level to give them important things to do in the game. Experience

and thus advancement is already accounted for by the character level system.

Using encounters that are closer to the lower ECL characters is a much

better balancing tool, for a variety of reasons.



I`ve introduced new players into games at 1st level, seen uneven game

attendence create uneven advancement, and seen characters die and players

start over with first level characters. Varied level parties are not a

problem. In fact, widely spaced parties create all kinds of excellent

gaming opportunities. This kind of balance is the worst kind of meta-game

thinking and is a total red herring.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[geeman]

At 12:00 PM 10/28/2003 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:



>This kind of balance is the worst kind of meta-game thinking and is a

>total red herring.



Well, it`s not a _total_ red herring. I think you missed the fundamental

aspect of the issue; that it is during character generation. The bloodline

as template issue has two effects in that regard. First, as was noted it

interferes with creation of 1st level characters (unless one only uses +0

ECL templates.) Starting out at 1st level is a mainstay of the game, and

not an unreasonable thing for one to want to do in a low-level themed

setting like BR. Second, it`s not unreasonable for a DM to want to start

out players on an equal footing. If levels become uneven later because of

player attendance, character death, uneven XP awards for various in-game

activities, etc. then that`s fine, but that`s a bit different from having

things uneven from the get go, which is an issue when assigning ECL. It

can, of course, be interesting to play parties of characters with different

levels, and even during character generation balance isn`t entirely

possible, but it`s not an unreasonable thing to try for at the beginning of

a campaign. Neither of these things will bring the house of cards down,

but it`s not a red herring, nor is it really meta-game thinking per se.



Gary

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by kgauck@Oct 28 2003, 01:22 PM
> You are absolutely correct in that the only method to balance this is

> by allowing everyone to start at the highest ECL (which is what was

> specified in the DMG in relation to ECL`d races). But, I pointed out

> that you couldn`t start a first level campaign using ECLs.



Huh? I would never write such nonsense. The idea that all characters

should be equal in power is silly. What purpose does it serve to use a

cookie cutter to create balance? As a DM I don`t need for everyone to be of

the same level to give them important things to do in the game.
Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

I&#39;m sorry if I misinterpreted your earlier statement
"How is this unfair? Why would a DM say another player can only play a 1st level character?"

Which I thought seemed to be saying the same thing I was that characters should be starting at the same character level.


By giving all players something to do, regardless of their relative level - you are essentially inserting a level balancer by using DM fiat. And I applaud your intentions as a DM for trying to keep everyone involved.

Characters that are of lower level than the rest of the party tend to have less to do and fewer options in what they can do and this by the very design of the game forces a good DM to do what you do to keep the players&#39; interested.

The very first character I ever played (in 1st edition) was a 1st level wizard adventuring with a group of 5+ characters. So after my character cast his sleep spell I was forced to basically carry whatever the remainder of the group choose not to. If I didn&#39;t play with another group later on I might not have ever been hooked. There was nothing as boring as a low level wizard in 1st (or even 2nd) ed. No bonus spells (my character had like a 12 Int - down side of the 3d6 in order rules of the time).

So the bottom line is it is very important to have a balance between what the starting characters can do, whether this is done mechanically (via balanced levels) or via positive DM management of the game.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>

Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 1:21 PM





> I think you missed the fundamental aspect of the issue; that it is during

> character generation.



The player who joins late and starts at first level is generating a

character. The player whose character died and generates a new character at

first level is generating a character. Tell me again what I am missing?



> The bloodline as template issue has two effects in that regard. First, as

> was noted it interferes with creation of 1st level characters (unless one

> only uses +0 ECL templates.) Starting out at 1st level is a mainstay of

> the game, and not an unreasonable thing for one to want to do in a low-

> level themed setting like BR. Second, it`s not unreasonable for a DM to

> want to start out players on an equal footing.



Starting at 1st level, as opposed to 2nd level, is an utterly arbitrary

standard. Especially, when much of what makes you 2nd level isn`t class

abilities, but blood abilities.



In the majority of encounters, a 1st level character with a blooded template

and a 1st level character without will not be significantly different.

Playing with such variety is hardly an obstacle hard to overcome. There

will typically be more difference between classes in a given encounter than

between the blooded and unblooded character.



> Neither of these things will bring the house of cards down,

> but it`s not a red herring, nor is it really meta-game thinking per se.



Two people who meet are unaware of their levels. Only the player thinks in

terms of their levels. What`s not mega-game thinking regarding levels?



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Osprey]

Starting at 1st level, as opposed to 2nd level, is an utterly arbitrary
standard. Especially, when much of what makes you 2nd level isn`t class
abilities, but blood abilities.

In the majority of encounters, a 1st level character with a blooded template
and a 1st level character without will not be significantly different.
Playing with such variety is hardly an obstacle hard to overcome. There
will typically be more difference between classes in a given encounter than
between the blooded and unblooded character.

This was exactly the reasoning behind making those blooded ECL&#39;s actual scion character levels. Giving them a few hit points, skill points, and the advantage of having those levels count towards feats and ability raises re. total character levels really helps balance out the discrepencies between the relatively minor advantages of blood abilities compared to the much greater powers of full character class levels. I consider most blood abilities to be "a little something extra," and the advantage that represents really diminishes at higher levels. I recently adopted the scion class in my own campaign, and am really quite happy with the greater sense of balance between blooded and unblooded chatacters of equal level.

The only thing that&#39;s a sticking point for me is that starting scions would all have the same number of skill points (I use 4+Int per level) at 1st level,regardless of actual character class later on. My house rule adaptation was to only give "per level" skill points until the scions gained their first actual character class level, at which point they recieved the starting skill points relative to their actual profession of choice. Otherwise blooded rogues, nobles, bards (3.5), and rangers (3.5) really lost out in starting skills, although the others (fighters, clerics, mages) actually gained extra skills.

[Green Knight]

Under the original BR rules, you could have a great bloodline but with a very low point score (and thus fewer abilities). So you could start a first level character with a great bloodline, but only give him a high enough score to give a +0 level adjustment. As he advances in level, he learns more about his divine heirtage (increase score), picking up level adjustments along with regualr class levels.



Cheers

Bjørn



-------------------------------------------------

WebMail fra Tele2 http://www.tele2.no

-------------------------------------------------

[geeman]

At 04:52 PM 10/28/2003 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:



> > I think you missed the fundamental aspect of the issue; that it is during

> > character generation.

>

>The player who joins late and starts at first level is generating a

>character. The player whose character died and generates a new character at

>first level is generating a character. Tell me again what I am missing?



I listed two things: First, that it`s not unreasonable for a DM to want

characters to begin at 1st level. Yes, that is an utterly arbitrary

standard, but so what? It`s just one of the many arbitrary standards the

DM establishes as the basis for his campaign. Starting off at 1st level

isn`t so much the standard of D&D anymore, but it`s still a common thing,

and not unreasonable for a DM to arbitrarily set that standard at 1st level

rather than 2nd, 3rd or 4th, particularly in BR since the setting is

"low-level" thematically. Using bloodline as a template that assigns an

ECL value prevents a DM from saying he wants to have a campaign in which

players are both scions and 1st level.



Second, it`s not mandatory that all PCs begin at the same power level, but

it`s not an unreasonable thing for the DM to want to do for lots of

reasons. Some of those reasons might not actually have a direct

role-playing relationship, but that doesn`t mean they should be

ignored. DMs should be able to establish whatever standards they like, and

that should be supported by the rules when reasonable. The relative power

of PCs can change dramatically during play by various means (individual XP

awards, character death, gaining access to magic items, not to mention some

of the inequities of the class system) but it`s not a bad idea for all

players to start off at roughly the same level of power not only to foster

a general sense of fair play but also in order for everyone to judge their

progression from a common point. That`s where the fundamental "blatantly

unfair" comments come from. Personally, I avoid random character

generation for exactly this reason.



Several people have suggested that scions should have to learn how to use

their blood abilities rather than suddenly be gifted with them when they

reach an age of majority. I`ve always liked the idea, but not found a good

mechanic for doing something like that until the Savage Species text came

out--IMO the most innovative thing to come out of WotC since the 3e

release. An approach along those lines is a good idea, and would address

the situation here. Someone can still play imbalanced characters in a

party if one chooses, but a system to gauge and portray a scion other than

templates would still be useful to people who want to take a different

approach.



>In the majority of encounters, a 1st level character with a blooded template

>and a 1st level character without will not be significantly different.

>Playing with such variety is hardly an obstacle hard to overcome. There

>will typically be more difference between classes in a given encounter than

>between the blooded and unblooded character.



Well, that`s basically true. We`re talking about the difference between an

effective character level or two, so it`s not like characters are getting

scaled completely out of play. A few ECL can make a difference, but that`s

mostly based on the circumstances of play. However, I`m afraid it`s still

not the issue. Playing variety isn`t a problem at all. In fact, it`s

something to be encouraged. The problem is still that during character

generation the DM has to either decide not to play scions with an ECL

adjustment, go with 2nd or higher level PCs or have players generate

characters that have different power levels. A means of making things more

evenly distributed is a legitimate thing to do in order to address the issue.



> > Neither of these things will bring the house of cards down,

> > but it`s not a red herring, nor is it really meta-game thinking per se.

>

>Two people who meet are unaware of their levels. Only the player thinks in

>terms of their levels. What`s not mega-game thinking regarding levels?



That by itself isn`t meta-game thinking. Meta-game thinking is when one

bases a character`s actions on "the logic" that they are playing a RPG

rather than on the logic that they are in a particular game world. It

needn`t have anything in particular to do with character levels at

all. One has to take oneself "out of the game" and base in-game activities

on that. That is, when players think all mazes must have a minotaur based

on their recognition that they are engaged in a game where minotaurs are

standard maze dwellers if their PCs would not have that kind of

information. A player who looks at the number of d4`s that the DM rolls

when he is hit by a NPC wizard`s _Magic Missile_ and then uses some magical

device that he knows will be effective on his opponent`s character level is

meta-gaming. Not wanting to use templates so that one can start PCs off at

1st level isn`t meta-gaming.



Unfortunately, "meta-gaming" has become one of the pejorative terms of D&D

that often gets more attention than it deserves. Even the DMG makes very

little hay about it, describing the problem in mild terms. Coming up with

a way of determining bloodline that doesn`t affect the power scale at 1st

level isn`t meta-gaming. It`s meta-gaming neutral. A DM or player might

make decisions based on that game mechanic or they might not. The reality

is that it`s pretty easy to role-play out what would be meta-gaming in the

absence of some in-character play. Even the most min/maxed, munchkinned PC

can be covered up with good role-playing. As DMs we need to be able to see

past that to the manipulation of the rule that is being covered up.



Furthermore, in this case it`s an unfair rhetorical device to describe this

situation as meta-gaming because of the nature of the discussion. A

character flees combat with a group of trolls. Is he a coward or is he

unable to take on a CR X encounter? When asked why he fled the player

might say "I`m only 2nd level" and the DM then think the player is

meta-gaming. Unfortunately, in this situation the player was asked a

meta-question by the DM, and he responded in a meta-gaming fashion, so it`s

the kind of thing that forms a self-fulfilling prophecy. Players and DMs

should be able to make that kind of assessment without being accused of

meta-game thinking. Were he asked by the DM in-character he could respond

in-character. Since this is a discussion about the game mechanics it`s

going to have a game mechanical tone, so labelling it meta-gaming is

inaccurate.



Gary