Unearthed Arcana and what it brings to the table

[Birthright-L]

> I think this Gary-hating thing has gone too far!

>

> I hereby start the counter-hate-Gary movement. Dedicated to hating all

> Gary-haters.



If only we had a suitable mass-combat system to resolve this

conflict...



-Lord Rahvin

Proud sponsor of the "I Hate Gary" Second Regional Charter Foundation`s

4th Annual Celebrities-Without-A-Home Charity Auction.

[geeman]

At 10:11 PM 2/21/2004 +0100, Bjeorn wrote:



>I hereby start the counter-hate-Gary movement. Dedicated to hating all

>Gary-haters.



Personally, I love the Gary haters. Having noted that, let`s try to abide

by "I hate Gary" rule #2 and post SOMETHING Birthright related in posts

dedicated to hating Gary (or hating those who hate Gary, or loving anybody

in either category--or hating those who love hating any of them.)



When it comes to this particular discussion of UA, is it just me or does

the system of alternate class abilities look very similar to the system of

trees from D20 Modern but just not _called_ trees and lacking somewhat in

the systematic approach of class trees? Would it be more effective to just

go ahead and call them trees and work with that mechanic?



I`ve long thought that there should be something in BR to reflect the

differences between the humans, and a few for elves, dwarves, goblins,

gnolls and orogs would also make a certain sense. (Probably don`t need a

lot for gnolls....) Generally, I`ve limited that thinking to doing things

like modifying the list of bonus fighter feats to ones pursuant to each

particular race (an Anuirean package, a dwarf package, etc.) but the UA

stuff is very interesting and could be used to extend the concept. In BR,

would it make sense to have some of the UA optional class abilities (or

other new ones) exclusive to particular races to exemplify the differences

between, say, Rjurik barbarians and Vos barbarians?



Gary

[Birthright-L]

> At some stage, it`d be nice to know who Gary is - but as this is an

> internet forum, facts are not absolutely necessary for construction of

> an opinion. :blink:



Just do a google search for "Gary". It`ll tell you all you need to

know.



(...and Birthright is a cool game and should use the spell template

system in Arcana Unearthed for realm spells... happy?)



--Lord Rahvin

[ecliptic]

I hear people say this is a 'community' project. So show me where the community has accomplished anything. If it is a community project, then where is the constant updates on what the development team decides? How about putting the entire pdf up in editable form? When you let the community do anything, its nothing but arguements. You got the people that should never switch from 2nd edition, to the people that actually want to have the campaign setting progress.

There is nothing to even suggest its going anywhere.

The bloodline section I don't find to personally fit the Birthright idea of a bloodline all that well - while it is supposedly inspired by Birthright, the implementation is a good step away from Birthright, and it doesn't 'do' all the things the Birthright bloodline system should do, especially with regards to ruling realms. Mechanically, it looks fine and balanced, and I suppose you could make it fit the setting with some effort. Personally, I'd say the material that was published in Dragon is far superior in terms of how well it fits with the setting and the rules, if you're looking for something with an 'official' stamp given out by WotC or a WotC licensee.

To you people, short of using the same old system, nothing fits. So you people want it so complicated, that basically forces no one to ever want to use it.
The entire old system was based on gambling, thats it. You gambled away your experience bonus in hope to get alot of cool powers. Then later look for people with bloodlines to kill to increase your power. All this ontop of your normal class abilities. It added to the already power gamer's system of 2nd edition AD&D. There was nothing good about the system that should even be held onto.
That absolutely overpowered system does not fit at all with 3rd edition D&D.

Wounds/vitality, armor as DR and so forth are classic variants, of course, which a lot seem to think fits the setting better. Of course, the wounds/vitality system in UA is full of holes.

I have yet to spot any holes in it. Yes theres differences, but theres not any holes. You can't go in expecting that trolls will be just as tough as they were.

When it comes to this particular discussion of UA, is it just me or does
the system of alternate class abilities look very similar to the system of
trees from D20 Modern but just not _called_ trees and lacking somewhat in
the systematic approach of class trees? Would it be more effective to just
go ahead and call them trees and work with that mechanic?

Which ones are you talking about? The Generic classes are set up similar to d20 modern classes. But all the class alternate abilities is just doing something for the DM that the DM doesn't have to worry about. Making up seperate abilites for a player that wants a different kinda class. Player can't go in and without the DMs permission just start taking those abilities.

I`ve long thought that there should be something in BR to reflect the
differences between the humans, and a few for elves, dwarves, goblins,
gnolls and orogs would also make a certain sense. (Probably don`t need a
lot for gnolls....) Generally, I`ve limited that thinking to doing things
like modifying the list of bonus fighter feats to ones pursuant to each
particular race (an Anuirean package, a dwarf package, etc.) but the UA
stuff is very interesting and could be used to extend the concept. In BR,
would it make sense to have some of the UA optional class abilities (or
other new ones) exclusive to particular races to exemplify the differences
between, say, Rjurik barbarians and Vos barbarians?

I think thats going too far, and to a point its ridiculous. Why take a way a player's ability to customize their character? Why say 'because you chose this, you cant choose this'? You might aswell make the character for them.

[Mark_Aurel]

To you people, short of using the same old system, nothing fits. So you people want it so complicated, that basically forces no one to ever want to use it.
The entire old system was based on gambling, thats it. You gambled away your experience bonus in hope to get alot of cool powers. Then later look for people with bloodlines to kill to increase your power. All this ontop of your normal class abilities. It added to the already power gamer's system of 2nd edition AD&D. There was nothing good about the system that should even be held onto.
That absolutely overpowered system does not fit at all with 3rd edition D&D.

You obviously have no idea whatsoever about my game design philosophy, so I'd appreciate it if you excluded me completely from the 'you people' of your statement (whoever they are).

I have yet to spot any holes in it. Yes theres differences, but theres not any holes. You can't go in expecting that trolls will be just as tough as they were.

Try this one: How much does a character with 0 Wound points who's made his save to be disabled have to fear from being cut with a sword, hit with a fireball or hail of arrows? That's a pretty big, gaping hole for you. Of course, you can plug it. There was actually a whole thread at ENWorld devoted to the weaknesses of the particular Vitality/Wounds system WotC adapted for UA, though. WotC has actually published superior Vitality/Wounds systems to the one in UA in other books.

[ecliptic]

You obviously have no idea whatsoever about my game design philosophy, so I'd appreciate it if you excluded me completely from the 'you people' of your statement (whoever they are).

I guarantee you want blood theft, which is impossible without overpowering the system itself.

Try this one: How much does a character with 0 Wound points who's made his save to be disabled have to fear from being cut with a sword, hit with a fireball or hail of arrows? That's a pretty big, gaping hole for you. Of course, you can plug it. There was actually a whole thread at ENWorld devoted to the weaknesses of the particular Vitality/Wounds system WotC adapted for UA, though. WotC has actually published superior Vitality/Wounds systems to the one in UA in other books.

I don't consider that a hole. Different, yes. Because in D&D, one single attack can easily kill you. Much easier then in any other system. In this VP/WP, they don't include the Armor as Damage Reduction rules, nor do they include Defense. It's an entire system on itself made to use with the rules straight out of the Player's Handbook.

[irdeggman]

Having spent a lot of time over the past couple of days looking over the UA bloodlines system, because well its of the most concern to me, I don't think it ports very well into BR.

Here are the reasons:

1) It gives abilities based solely on character level. The blood abilities of 2nd ed were based on the Blood score of the individual, not necessarily on the strength of his bloodline. This is the biggest reason and the most important.

If you try to port in the UA BR bloodline system without using the blood score then many things have problems. The blood score itself is of significant importance since it is the mechanic used at the domain system of play. If the two are not related in some way it makes for a very disjointed system and if a separate system is added on to account for the domain level of play then the mechanic becomes exceptionally awkward and unwieldy. If only because there are 2 separate mechanics where one could work.

2) The mechanic requires taking levels of bloodline. These are empty levels. That is they don't provide any hitpoints, BAB, Saving Throw Bonuses, skill points or abilities. Basically they are a way to level out a level adjustment. I personally don't think this will set well with the masses who play the game. Now this is just a perception and not a flaw with the system.

3) The system is really based on picking up traits of different races, usually monster races like dragons or trolls. It is not set up to pick up traits of gods. They are of a whole other level of play.

I also have problems with the "Official" 3.5 Birthright blood line system of Dragon #315. It misses too many things. As the letter I wrote, which wasn't published by the way - neither was any of the negative letters that were written (great spin doctoring I guess). It skips over the fact that the draw of Azrai is towards evil, it specifically says it isn't.

If a scion had 5 blood abilities it would require 5 feats to obtain them. This is pretty substantial and would pretty much eliminate the effectiveness of notable NPCs from 2nd ed like Avan and Boeroune. The article only presented a handful of abilities. What was it 7, while the BoR had 32 listed.

No, I pretty much think that the method presented in the revised Chapt 2 is still superior to any others I've seen. I'm going to incorporate/address the few comments I've gotten on it and post it as a 'final' version of the chapter pretty soon. That means no changes except for editorials. It has been out for comment for a while now, more than enough time to be digested.

[Birthright-L]

> you chose this, you cant choose this`? You might aswell make the

> character for them.



I`ve always wanted to try that. Just hand out a bunch of characters and

scream, "let`s play!"...



--Lord Rahvin

[ecliptic]

1) It gives abilities based solely on character level. The blood abilities of 2nd ed were based on the Blood score of the individual, not necessarily on the strength of his bloodline. This is the biggest reason and the most important.

If you want ANY kinda balance and simplicity to it, then this is how it SHOULD be. People need to quit living in the past, if people want the overpowered version, go play 2nd edition. Nothing is stopping you.

If you try to port in the UA BR bloodline system without using the blood score then many things have problems. The blood score itself is of significant importance since it is the mechanic used at the domain system of play. If the two are not related in some way it makes for a very disjointed system and if a separate system is added on to account for the domain level of play then the mechanic becomes exceptionally awkward and unwieldy. If only because there are 2 separate mechanics where one could work.

You are trying to port a system from old edition and expect it to work with something from 3rd edition.

2) The mechanic requires taking levels of bloodline. These are empty levels. That is they don't provide any hitpoints, BAB, Saving Throw Bonuses, skill points or abilities. Basically they are a way to level out a level adjustment. I personally don't think this will set well with the masses who play the game. Now this is just a perception and not a flaw with the system.

These 'masses' should have never left 2nd edition.

3) The system is really based on picking up traits of different races, usually monster races like dragons or trolls. It is not set up to pick up traits of gods. They are of a whole other level of play.

Those bloodlines are examples, matter of fact it gives nice little rules on how to create your own.

[geeman]

At 12:54 AM 2/22/2004 +0100, ecliptic wrote:



>To you people, short of using the same old system, nothing fits. So you

>people want it so complicated, that basically forces no one to ever want

>to use it.



IMO the bloodline system in the BRCS Playtest was not particularly

complex. In fact, if anything it was too simplistic for my taste. I`d

like about as much more complexity in a 3e update of the bloodline system

as 3e added to the skill system.



>The entire old system was based on gambling, thats it. You gambled away

>your experience bonus in hope to get alot of cool powers. Then later look

>for people with bloodlines to kill to increase your power. All this ontop

>of your normal class abilities. It added to the already power gamer`s

>system of 2nd edition AD&D. There was nothing good about the system

>that should even be held onto.

> That absolutely overpowered system does not fit at all with 3rd edition

> D&D.



While I generally agree with your conclusion that the original bloodline

system doesn`t fit very in 3e (which is why portraying it in an update is

tough...) I should note that one got more than just a chance at cool powers

(some of which weren`t all that cool) in the original bloodline

system. One also got access to the domain level, which was really the

heart of the 2e BR materials.



It should probably also be noted that the much lauded balancing tools of 3e

are sometimes rather shoddily employed. It`s certainly got more balancing

that 2e did, but 3e has some pretty heavily imbalancing things that it

uses, and a dramatically inclined power scale, so it doesn`t necessarily

follow that an overpowered system does not at all fit with 3e....



>

Wounds/vitality, armor as DR and so forth are classic variants,

> of course, which a lot seem to think fits the setting better. Of course,

> the wounds/vitality system in UA is full of holes.

>

>

> I have yet to spot any holes in it. Yes theres differences, but theres

> not any holes. You can`t go in expecting that trolls will be just as

> tough as they were.



I don`t know which holes Mark meant there, but IMO the holes in the V/W

system have to do making wound points equal to con score since it gives

them too broad a range to be an effective value. Also, the use of size in

that system turns things into a fraction or multiplier, which are very hard

to balance in the CR system in a way that actually relates to the threat of

the creature. The use of vitality points really works well in support of a

"magic power" system (in the Star Wars version one can spend vitality to

operate various Force powers) but in the absence of such a system they`re

of questionable value in comparison to hit points.



Personally, I use a pretty heavily modified V/W system for BR, mostly

because I think it fits better with the BR theme of bloodtheft.



>

When it comes to this particular discussion of UA, is it just me

> or does

> the system of alternate class abilities look very similar to the system of

> trees from D20 Modern but just not _called_ trees and lacking somewhat in

> the systematic approach of class trees? Would it be more effective to just

> go ahead and call them trees and work with that mechanic?

>

>

> Which ones are you talking about? The Generic classes are set up similar

> to d20 modern classes. But all the class alternate abilities is just

> doing something for the DM that the DM doesn`t have to worry about.

> Making up seperate abilites for a player that wants a different kinda

> class. Player can`t go in and without the DMs permission just start

> taking those abilities.



I`m not sure I`m understanding your description here. The alternate class

abilities are just creating for the DM separate abilities for a player that

wants to play a different kind of class? Is that right? If so, isn`t that

what trees do within the D20 Modern class system? Wouldn`t it make as much

sense to just use that tree system? (Maybe even a bit more sense because

it is an actual system.)



>

I`ve long thought that there should be something in BR to reflect the

> differences between the humans, and a few for elves, dwarves, goblins,

> gnolls and orogs would also make a certain sense. (Probably don`t need a

> lot for gnolls....) Generally, I`ve limited that thinking to doing things

> like modifying the list of bonus fighter feats to ones pursuant to each

> particular race (an Anuirean package, a dwarf package, etc.) but the UA

> stuff is very interesting and could be used to extend the concept. In BR,

> would it make sense to have some of the UA optional class abilities (or

> other new ones) exclusive to particular races to exemplify the differences

> between, say, Rjurik barbarians and Vos barbarians?

>

> I think thats going too far, and to a point its ridiculous. Why take a

> way a player`s ability to customize their character? Why say `because you

> chose this, you cant choose this`? You might aswell make the character

> for them.



I`m going to fall back on the "campaign material supercedes core rules"

argument for this one. Essentially, the campaign material as related to

the various human races would be related to the abilities of the various

character classes, so to the question "Why?" I answer "theme." Having

particular abilities dedicated to specific races conveys the campaign

themes expressed by those races. The Brecht might have abilities related

to their nautical theme, the Khinasi abilities related to their magical

inclinations, the Anuireans abilities connected to their culture of

chivalry and knighthood, etc.



Also, I should point out that there`s really no danger of players losing

their ability to customize their character unless one also mandates that

they play a particular race, character class(es), choose their trees for

them, and basically take over their character progression up to (and

possibly including) the point where they roll the dice. It`s like the

"restriction" on BR wizards that requires them to have a bloodline or be of

elven heritage. Since players can simply choose to be either of those

things, "restrictions" based on racial characteristics are really a

non-issue. Aside from that, if properly designed there would still be a

lot of customization possible within such a system.



Gary