Results 21 to 30 of 34
Thread: Dragon 315 And Bloodlines
-
12-12-2003, 03:53 PM #21
- 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
-
12-13-2003, 04:41 AM #22
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
-
12-13-2003, 04:41 AM #23
----- 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!
> 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
-
12-13-2003, 01:25 PM #24
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
-
12-13-2003, 06:02 PM #25
- 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
-
12-13-2003, 06:56 PM #26
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
-
12-16-2003, 06:14 PM #27
- 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's Turn and Dragon'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'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're going to release the Dark Sun campaign setting, revised for D&D 3.5! 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'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 EggertDuane Eggert
-
12-16-2003, 09:01 PM #28
- Join Date
- May 2003
- Location
- Victoria BC Canada
- Posts
- 38
- Downloads
- 37
- Uploads
- 0
Wheew!
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! How thin and clear,
And thinner, clearer, farther going!
O sweet and far from cliff and scar
The Horns of Sielwode faintly blowing!
-
12-17-2003, 10:30 AM #29
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
-
12-17-2003, 09:13 PM #30
- 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)
Bookmarks