Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34
  1. #21
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    388
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Benjamin wrote:

    > OK, to answer everyone`s questions, the Strengthen Bloodline feat is

    > not listed as being a general feat, bonus feat, fighter bonusfeat, free

    > feat or any other type of feat. It`s just a feat. So I would imagine,

    > to correct myself from earlier, it can only be taken at normal feat

    > levels, not as a fighter`s bonus feat. But that isn`t clear,



    It`s perfectly clear. Only if it specifically says a fighter can take it

    as a bonus feat, can he do so. If they repeated the same text in EVERY

    feat, ie "this feat is not a fighter bonus feat", THAT would be dumb.



    --

    Daniel McSorley

  2. #22
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    The reason its neccesary to connect the dragon to the realm is because

    heroic actions are only heroic in relation to those whose defence creates a

    bond between hero and populace. An Anuirean king who kills a dragon

    harrasing the Gorgon`s Crown could arguably have relieved the Gorgon of a

    problem. A Brecht king who sails off to unknown parts of the world and

    kills a dragon who was unknown to Cerilians has done something only

    theoretical in protecting his people, and possibly something that will incur

    draconic retribution. The act of killing the dragon is an act of individual

    achievement. Who benefits from the death of the dragon is a required

    question when assessing its heroic stature for blood strength. Sure a

    dragon has the capacity to destroy 1-3 companies, but where was this threat

    and was it considered something beyond remote?



    Kenneth Gauck

    kgauck@mchsi.com

  3. #23
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    ----- Original Message -----

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

    Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 7:30 AM





    > However, killing a cerilian dragon takes near god-like powers, and

    > anyone able to do that, IMHO, ought to get a few points out of it&#33;

    > That was my only point with that comment.



    An easy way to accomplish this mechanically would be to give such creatures

    (perhaps any ancient creature) a bloodline, so their death can qualify for

    blood theft.



    Kenneth Gauck

    kgauck@mchsi.com

  4. #24
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    At 06:27 PM 12/12/2003 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:



    >The reason its neccesary to connect the dragon to the realm is because

    >heroic actions are only heroic in relation to those whose defence creates a

    >bond between hero and populace.



    You can`t get much more definitive of heroic actions than slaying a dragon,

    whether the act is related towards the populace or not.... In fact,

    several of the more memorable and legendary stories of dragon slaying don`t

    mention the populace at all, but remain massively heroic acts of epic

    proportion. While I do think that the scope of the act makes a

    difference--village, town, city, province, etc. per the kind of bonus

    outline I suggested--the actual act itself should be the starting point of

    such a concept, especially since the idea of accomplishing the heroic deed

    is the basis of the idea to begin with.



    This is one of the interactions between adventure level events and domain

    level effects that is only touched upon in the published materials, but I`d

    suggest that having slain a dragon, or performing some other epically

    heroic task might at least have the potential to effect the hero`s

    bloodline as having committed bloodtheft on a scion with a tainted or even

    minor bloodline might. There are indications that this is a theme in a

    couple of places in the published materials (most of the effects are

    negative, but they could just as easily be used as the basis for positive

    awards) from which to derive some guidelines for how to handle this kind of

    thing.



    >An Anuirean king who kills a dragon

    >harrasing the Gorgon`s Crown could arguably have relieved the Gorgon of a

    >problem. A Brecht king who sails off to unknown parts of the world and

    >kills a dragon who was unknown to Cerilians has done something only

    >theoretical in protecting his people, and possibly something that will incur

    >draconic retribution. The act of killing the dragon is an act of individual

    >achievement. Who benefits from the death of the dragon is a required

    >question when assessing its heroic stature for blood strength.



    Since we`re talking about a bloodline increase, which is the BR equivalent

    of an individual improvement based on heroic/divine qualities, the fact

    that slaying a dragon (or something similar) is an individual

    accomplishment is really part of the point. If it was a regency award

    (which IMO would be possible as well) then the fact that the act is

    individual vs. domain level might make some sense, and the issue of saving

    the village by slaying the dragon might be more pertinent, but in this case

    its the individual`s reward for an individual`s action. Most often the

    individual rewards are in XP for 3e/3.5, but in the context of a BR

    campaign in which bloodlines figure so prominently (and in the absence of a

    system of reputation or fame) the reward for accomplishing epic campaign

    themes should probably be represented in the bloodline system.



    It would make sense, I guess, if one was going to have a system of

    circumstantial bonuses for the size of the realm, that there could be

    penalties to the same system.... -1 for slaying a dragon that harasses

    enemy forces, -2 for slaying a dragon in the employ of a noble

    kingdom.... Amongst events that are pretty unlikely to come up in the

    first place I think it`d be pretty unusual for such a thing to happen, and

    it would probably make more as much sense for a DM to ad hoc that aspect of

    the situation as the context requires.



    >Sure a dragon has the capacity to destroy 1-3 companies, but where was

    >this threat

    >and was it considered something beyond remote?



    Other than to the 200-600 people in the companies, their supporting

    infrastructure, extended families? I think that`s likely as many or more

    people than the "village" being discussed in the first place, so if raw

    impact upon the population is a factor then the threat is at least as

    remote or immediate as it would be for the hamlet-sized impact....



    Having said that, I don`t think that the requirement is that the threat has

    to be immediate. It`s that the act is epic, not that danger is looming

    that is significant. Sure, looming might be taken into consideration as a

    factor in the accomplishment (along withe the size of a population rescued)

    but its still not the core event that should trigger the reward. The

    Gorgon may not be an _immediate_ threat to anyone--it`s been quite a while

    since he rampaged--but someone who slew the Gorgon would reap huge

    political and popular clout. If he slew the Gorgon while on one of his

    periodic "harvests" of nearby scions then that`d probably be much more

    significant, but it is still a factor in the event, not the determinate of

    its significance that should be the primary consideration.



    In any case, heroic deeds need not necessarily represent only those that

    are performed in response to some outside threat. Slaying dragons can be

    done proactively, and is an epic event whether the dragon is minding its

    own business laying about on his horde (Sigmund) or chewing its way through

    the countryside (St. George.) It might not be as rewarding as actually

    saving a princess from the dragon`s clutches, but it still merits a reward

    of the type being suggested.



    Gary

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    883
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Gary schrieb:

    > At 06:27 PM 12/12/2003 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

    >> The reason its neccesary to connect the dragon to the realm is because

    >> heroic actions are only heroic in relation to those whose defence

    >> creates a

    >> bond between hero and populace.

    >

    > You can`t get much more definitive of heroic actions than slaying a dragon,

    > whether the act is related towards the populace or not.... In fact,

    > several of the more memorable and legendary stories of dragon slaying don`t

    > mention the populace at all, but remain massively heroic acts of epic

    > proportion. While I do think that the scope of the act makes a

    > difference--village, town, city, province, etc. per the kind of bonus

    > outline I suggested--the actual act itself should be the starting point of

    > such a concept, especially since the idea of accomplishing the heroic deed

    > is the basis of the idea to begin with.



    A story which is quite contrary to the act of dragonslaying as a heroic

    act for the purpose of commiting a heroic act, can be found in Dragon

    241, "The Innkeepers Solution" in which a totally unheroic figure has to

    face the problem of a dragon in a very unusual way. I liked this story

    very much :-)



    > This is one of the interactions between adventure level events and domain

    > level effects that is only touched upon in the published materials, but I`d

    > suggest that having slain a dragon, or performing some other epically

    > heroic task might at least have the potential to effect the hero`s

    > bloodline as having committed bloodtheft on a scion with a tainted or even

    > minor bloodline might. There are indications that this is a theme in a

    > couple of places in the published materials (most of the effects are

    > negative, but they could just as easily be used as the basis for positive

    > awards) from which to derive some guidelines for how to handle this kind of

    > thing.



    Slaying a dragon might very well be not heroic at all. Cerilian Dragons

    are not the usual D&D monsters. Instead of dragons of all ages, sizes

    and ECL´s that are listed in the Monsters Manual, Cerilian Dragons are

    few, VERY few, all very powerful individual creatures. To portray them

    as only the potential target of being slain for a heroic quest sounds

    disturbing to me.





    >> An Anuirean king who kills a dragon

    >> harrasing the Gorgon`s Crown could arguably have relieved the Gorgon of a

    >> problem. A Brecht king who sails off to unknown parts of the world and

    >> kills a dragon who was unknown to Cerilians has done something only

    >> theoretical in protecting his people, and possibly something that will

    >> incur

    >> draconic retribution. The act of killing the dragon is an act of

    >> individual

    >> achievement. Who benefits from the death of the dragon is a required

    >> question when assessing its heroic stature for blood strength.

    > Since we`re talking about a bloodline increase, which is the BR equivalent

    > of an individual improvement based on heroic/divine qualities, the fact

    > that slaying a dragon (or something similar) is an individual

    > accomplishment is really part of the point. If it was a regency award

    > (which IMO would be possible as well) then the fact that the act is

    > individual vs. domain level might make some sense, and the issue of saving

    > the village by slaying the dragon might be more pertinent, but in this case

    > its the individual`s reward for an individual`s action. Most often the

    > individual rewards are in XP for 3e/3.5, but in the context of a BR

    > campaign in which bloodlines figure so prominently (and in the absence of a

    > system of reputation or fame) the reward for accomplishing epic campaign

    > themes should probably be represented in the bloodline system.



    A bloodline reward for regents has a regency award for the future added

    in, as the regent will be able to earn more RP (assuming that he

    controls a realm of larger size than his prior bloodline would have

    enabled him to collect RP).



    However I personally would prefer a RP award IF there should be a reward

    related to bloodline at all. That is because a few RP as reward will not

    change much, but a few bloodline points as reward for a regent with an

    already great bloodline will mean possibly the equivalent of several

    hundreds of RP he would have to spent if he would have raised his

    bloodline spending RP...



    And the Gorgon would have a fine way to raise his bloodline to godly

    heights with much less work than maintaining his enemies over years and

    years and harvesting their bloodlines when they raise high enough to be

    bloodthefted. He already subdued one dragon...





    > It would make sense, I guess, if one was going to have a system of

    > circumstantial bonuses for the size of the realm, that there could be

    > penalties to the same system.... -1 for slaying a dragon that harasses

    > enemy forces, -2 for slaying a dragon in the employ of a noble

    > kingdom.... Amongst events that are pretty unlikely to come up in the

    > first place I think it`d be pretty unusual for such a thing to happen, and

    > it would probably make more as much sense for a DM to ad hoc that aspect of

    > the situation as the context requires.



    Players Secrets of Tuarhievel mention exacty that situation in that a

    group of humans (certainly PC´s ;-)) sneaked into the realm and slayed a

    dragon who kept stories and tales as a living library to the sidhelien

    of Tuarhievel...



    > In any case, heroic deeds need not necessarily represent only those that

    > are performed in response to some outside threat. Slaying dragons can be

    > done proactively, and is an epic event whether the dragon is minding its

    > own business laying about on his horde (Sigmund) or chewing its way through

    > the countryside (St. George.) It might not be as rewarding as actually

    > saving a princess from the dragon`s clutches, but it still merits a reward

    > of the type being suggested.

    > Gary



    Not all dragons are evil as they are in most stories. Even the Cerilian

    dragon in the Five Peaks is more of a guardian of his mothers heart -

    slaying him would be no heroic deed for any good PC IMO.

    bye

    Michael

  6. #26
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    At 06:30 PM 12/13/2003 +0100, Michael wrote:



    >And the Gorgon would have a fine way to raise his bloodline to godly

    >heights with much less work than maintaining his enemies over years and

    >years and harvesting their bloodlines when they raise high enough to be

    >bloodthefted. He already subdued one dragon...



    It`d still be easier to harvest bloodlines than slay dragons. Aside from

    there being only a few dragons around (a nonreplenishable supply) if

    slaying a dragon amounts to the same as killing a scion with a tainted or

    minor bloodline then the reward from the bloodline is relatively

    small. The Gorgon could kill dozens of scions with such bloodlines before

    breakfast, while going after a dragon might take him until lunchtime or

    maybe even later into the afternoon....



    >Not all dragons are evil as they are in most stories. Even the Cerilian

    >dragon in the Five Peaks is more of a guardian of his mothers heart -

    >slaying him would be no heroic deed for any good PC IMO.



    It`s certainly not heroic in the sense that the person is a role-model, but

    it`s heroic in the Herculean sense that it is a huge accomplishment beyond

    the ability of typical people and something that would pretty well by

    definition garner the person a lot of attention--and in BR that`s reflected

    mostly by their bloodline at the adventure level of play. The morality of

    the act would need to be taken into consideration, but since there are so

    many possibilities there I still think some general modifiers would be apt

    so the DM can have an idea on how to adjudicate that kind of thing.



    I do think an RP award might be prudent too, and maybe that`d be the

    simpler way to go. A non-regent could spend those RP to increase his

    bloodline (if he had enough of them) while the regent could do what he

    liked with them. Some method similar to that of the BRCS might be

    used--though there shouldn`t be the same "regency explosion" of bloodtheft

    for such a thing that is presented in that text. (I don`t think it should

    be in there at all, but that`s another issue.)



    Gary

  7. #27
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    All right I finally got my copy of Dragon #315 and wrote this e-mail to scalemail@paizo.com to express my opinions.

    I encourage everyone to read the article and send their own opinions to Paizo. Without them they will be out of touch with their readers. The single biggest thing that bothers me is what I referenced in the Wyrm&#39;s Turn and Dragon&#39;s intention to publish their own "Official" Dark Sun 3.5 conversion even though the "Official" Dark Sun fan site already has - they took around 4 years to write it and had substantial feedback from the fans on the Athas.org site and on the posts that were seriously taken into account and adapted, they also had "feedback" from WotC that required some rewritting on their part to better fit into WotC plans - it just galls me that something like has happened. I don&#39;t forsee that happening to Birthright since it is not near as popular as is Dark Sun but you never know. How good would it be to have the "Official" rules only be available in a magazine?



    Concerning Dragon #315

    First off I’d like to thank you for touching on the various campaign settings of the past that have been relegated to the “forgotten” bin.

    But since no good act goes unpunished here are my complaints:

    Why did you include Ghostwalk in a magazine dedicated to “Campaign Classics”? It is a new setting that wasn’t around before 3rd edition. Also the inclusion of an article on Forgotten Realms seems kind of out of place since it has been updated very thoroughly to 3rd ed. The inclusion of these 2 articles seems to counter the point that others weren’t included or the articles were truncated due to space considerations.

    The note in the Wyrm’s Turn really got my ire up.

    "You know the best part? This issue is only a prelude to our next spectacular Dragon and Dungeon crossover event. In May 2004, we&#39;re going to release the Dark Sun campaign setting, revised for D&D 3.5&#33; Happily it will see print about the time the revised 3.5 Psionics Handbook hits the shelves, enabling you to explore Athas fully armed for its many perils."

    Gosh I thought that the "official" DS 3.5 material was already published on by the Athas.org team after nearly 4 years of work and input by the many fans. This blatant disregard for this effort, and unless I&#39;m mistaken the previous agreement with WotC that the official fan site (Athas.org) could publish the "Official" 3.0/3.5 conversion material.

    What a slap in the face to the dedicated fans of the setting.

    Also Birthright.net, the “Official” fan site for Birthright has been working on an “Official” 3/3.5 conversion for over 2 years now. The playtest version was posted last February (and mentioned on Enworld.) This spawned the posting of the Birthright maps in the maps section of the Wizard’s D&D site.

    While I have great respect for Ed Stark’s work in the past, there are several problems with the blood abilities article. For one there were 44 different blood abilities in the Book of Regency, this article reduced them down to 6. This doesn’t make for a very good translation of the originally published characters and creatures from the setting.

    The Book of Regency also talked about the draw of evil and chaos for scions with Azrai blood so the statement that a scion of Azrai is no more or less predisposed to evil than a half-orc is rather misleading.

    Editorially there is a great deal of confusion over blood points and bloodline score – the terms seem to be used interchangeably with no clear definition for what a blood point is.

    None of the articles listed are posted as OGL so the opportunity to incorporate them into the “Official” conversions is non-existent. Bottom line is keep up the work, but pay respect and attention to the ”Official” fan sites, they are “Official” for a reason and listed as such on the Wizards boards so don’t overuse the “100% Official Dungeons & Dragons” statement.


    Duane Eggert
    Duane Eggert

  8. #28
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Victoria BC Canada
    Posts
    38
    Downloads
    37
    Uploads
    0
    Wheew&#33;
    Now I really want to read Dragon 315. And the several following it to see if they print your letter. And what they have to say after it.
    O hark, O hear&#33; How thin and clear,
    And thinner, clearer, farther going&#33;
    O sweet and far from cliff and scar
    The Horns of Sielwode faintly blowing&#33;

  9. #29
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    OK, I got my copy of 315 today and here`s my take:



    First, it`s awful thin. Just three pages. Yikes. The whole thing is

    maybe a thousand words or so, including "The Creation of Birthright"

    background insert. Other articles in the issue are similarly brief--though

    I think only the Dragonlance article is shorter--and the authors certainly

    have to be given some credit for trying to express some pretty extensive

    concepts with such brevity, but it`s simply not enough to portray things

    very well. As a couple of people have noted we only have six blood ability

    "feats" in the article (along with two feats that grant bloodline itself

    and increase bloodline score) and they aren`t really the more useful ones

    that would give us an idea of how the other blood abilities might be

    presented, nor are they the "sexier" ones--the choice to include the

    Direction Sense blood ability, for instance, strikes me as

    ill-considered. The article is so short it makes me question the size of

    the font for the title, and the layout of the only graphic....



    Second, I feel pretty comfortable saying that any of the existing

    interpretations of bloodline for 3.5 suggested by various people in the BR

    community are as viable as the one presented in the article. "Rule X" in

    this article is that blood abilities should be represented by feats, which

    is all well and good, but the idea doesn`t particularly lend itself to game

    balance, accuracy, theme or relevance any more than several other

    suggestions for bloodlines do. There is, for instance, no ECL information

    in this article for all that a character could gain blood abilities that

    could have to add up to ECL +1 easily if we use any of the articles on ECL

    as a guide. A character class, templates, skills, etc. are all just as

    apt, and I think in several cases probably more so than feats alone,

    particularly since the interaction in this case with the bloodline score as

    presented in the article is more than a little hazy.



    Some specifics:



    "Any creature with Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores of 3 or more

    can be invested with a bloodline."



    That does seem to exclude the genesis of a couple of the existing major

    awnsheghlien. The Hydra and the Wolf, for instance, are based on animals

    that have intelligence scores that are 1 or 2 respectively in 3.5 and

    crocodiles have charisma scores of 2, meaning the Hydra is doubly

    excluded. Of course, we can hypothesize that they were originally smarter

    and/or more charismatic than typical animals, but in general it seems like

    an unnecessary ruling, and I don`t know what it is based on other, perhaps,

    a desire to keep bloodlines out of constructs--which also appears to happen

    in the original BR materials, so the rule is problematic....



    "While a scion of Azrai (the evil god) might be looked on with suspicion,

    he is no more or less predisposed to evil than a half-orc."



    I`m not sure who should be insulted there... scions of Azrai or

    half-orcs? Aside from it being a theme of the setting that Azrai`s

    bloodline actually is both physically and morally corrupting--at least,

    more than I`ve heard orcish blood to be--it just seems like a banal

    comparison and one that, like the ability score requirements, is unneeded

    for a 3.5 update.



    The language is also a bit weird. As has been noted the terms bloodline

    strength and bloodline score aren`t very clearly defined (they weren`t in

    the original materials either, but in a 3.5 update it seems like an effort

    should be made to clarify them since one of the strengths of the 3e/3.5

    materials is their careful use of vocabulary) plus we get a new term

    "Active Range" which would appear to be the range of bloodline scores that

    determine bloodline strength.



    The rules on increasing bloodline strength have similar vagaries. As has

    already been discussed, the issue of slaying dragons is mentioned and is

    quite wishy-washy. The only thing that is clear is that "defeating a more

    powerful blooded character or monster (blooded monsters are known as

    "abominations") is always worth a bloodline point. Of course, it doesn`t

    say what "defeating" or "more powerful" means, nor is the definition of

    "abominations" really correct. If we try to use that standard as the basis

    for determining what other types of heroic actions might warrant a

    bloodline score point the difference between defeating a dragon and

    defeating a dragon to save a town from destruction seems similarly

    feeble. In general, the whole issue of increasing bloodline score from

    heroic deeds alone needs to be either given more treatment or eliminated,

    and I`m favoring elimination not just because it`s too abstract but also

    because it contradicts the original setting`s method of increasing

    bloodline score.



    The bloodline score increase of bloodtheft, as has also been mentioned, is

    handled poorly, or--to be fair--it is handled with no more aplomb than it

    was originally. I think I missed something in that section, however, in

    that it says bloodline is increased in "one of thre ways" but appears to

    listly only two.... Unless Mr. Stark also meant the acquisition of a new

    blood ability from the victim of bloodtheft. That is, BTW, a bad idea for

    three reasons. First, it is in no way accounted for by ECL. Second, it

    contradicts the existing concept of feats from what I can tell, since one

    doesn`t just gain bonus feats in any similar manner in any of the D&D/D20

    products I`ve seen. (I could be wrong about that, since I`ve not read

    everything out there, but it seems like a bad way to go

    mechanically.) Third, it doesn`t conform to the original BR materials in

    any way.



    The acquisition of blood abilities themselves by spending a feat is OK, I

    guess, though equating bloodline strength (minor, major, great) with the

    power of the blood ability doesn`t necessarily make much sense and grants

    significant shifts in power. Since it was specifically mentioned that

    taking the increased power of the scion into consideration at the beginning

    of the article it seems like a very weird way of going about implementing

    blood abilities since it doesn`t appear to be accounted for in any way.



    In conclusion it is nice to see some sort of attention paid to the BR

    setting, but I don`t think this article is going to resolve anything for

    anyone. It might attract a very small number of people to the setting--but

    I doubt it since it wasn`t particularly well written or exciting, and the

    game mechanics presented were pretty underwelming. I haven`t fully

    digested the whole issue yet, but as has also been noted some mention of

    the fan sites for BR and the other campaign settings would have been

    extraordinarily useful to people interested in obtaining more information

    on them. Just a link to the WotC website that has links to the OOP

    campaign settings would have been good.



    Personally, I think a better strategy would have been to have an issue

    dedicated to each of the settings.... They are, apparently, going to do

    just that for Dark Sun next year. I don`t know what their thinking is for

    the other settings.



    Gary

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    883
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Gary schrieb:

    ...

    > Some specifics:

    > "Any creature with Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores of 3 or more

    > can be invested with a bloodline."

    >

    > That does seem to exclude the genesis of a couple of the existing major

    > awnsheghlien. The Hydra and the Wolf, for instance, are based on animals

    > that have intelligence scores that are 1 or 2 respectively in 3.5 and

    > crocodiles have charisma scores of 2, meaning the Hydra is doubly

    > excluded. Of course, we can hypothesize that they were originally smarter

    > and/or more charismatic than typical animals, but in general it seems like

    > an unnecessary ruling, and I don`t know what it is based on other, perhaps,

    > a desire to keep bloodlines out of constructs--which also appears to happen

    > in the original BR materials, so the rule is problematic....



    Perhaps they refered only to Investiture with "invested"? So that still

    any creature can become blooded by other means, just not by the

    Investiture ceremony?



    > "While a scion of Azrai (the evil god) might be looked on with suspicion,

    > he is no more or less predisposed to evil than a half-orc."

    > I`m not sure who should be insulted there... scions of Azrai or

    > half-orcs? Aside from it being a theme of the setting that Azrai`s

    > bloodline actually is both physically and morally corrupting--at least,

    > more than I`ve heard orcish blood to be--it just seems like a banal

    > comparison and one that, like the ability score requirements, is unneeded

    > for a 3.5 update.



    Mmmh, perhaps no insult, but a sly try to push half-orcs into the

    Birthright setting as a vanguard for gnomes and Cerilian

    half-dragon/half-Minotaur Monks? ;-)

    bye

    Michael

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.