One little problem just noticed with Ch 2

[soudhadies]

I'm sorry to beat a horse everyone would most likely want laid to rest, but I don't think that the issue of the BRCS +4 major / + 8 Great to revised +4 major / +8 Great instead of + 8 / + 16 has been adequately addressed.

First of all, logic would seem to dictate that doubling the bloodability score from the BRCS to the revision would affect all the numbers related to it by either doubling or halving them. This has occured in most cases, such as the "blast radius" for usurpation, regency collection, and the regency cap (where 2 is a much prettier number than 2.5). However, this did not happen to the bonuses. So in the revision, a major bloodline has a bonus that would be equivalent of a +2 in the original BRCS and great one has a bonus of +4.

Not only does this dramatically reduce the power differential between the minor, major and great bloodlines numerically (a character who rolled a 10 for his score could collect 20, 28, or 36 RP per turn as a minor major or great scion in the BRCS, but with the revision the difference is only 20, 24, 28), but since the blood abilities progression in the revised version is essentially halved since it is the same progression table as in the BRCS, but tied exclusively to even numbers. This means that in general characters with major and great bloodlines will have fewer blood abilities in the new system.

The numbers were chosen to essentially ensure that a character would revieve a blood ability with the scion class ...

It would in the original BRCS this was the case, but not in the revision. In the original BRCS, a +4 step meant that either 1 or 2 blood abilities would be gained, and that tended to alternate so that a Great scion would end up with probably 3 extra abilities and a major scion would end up with 1 or 2 extra abilities.

In the revised table, since the progression is essentially halved, a +4 step means that a scion will gain 0 or 1 extra abilities. Not only does this mean that a new scion class level does not guarantee a new blood ability, but it also means that a major scion has about 50% chance of not gaining any extra blood abilities. About 75% of the time a great scion will gain only one ability, the other 25% meaning that he gains two.

Anyway, as I said, this is something that others have wanted laid to rest so feel free to ignore me on this one. I have other issues with the class thing, but since that is not as subtle as this, and it has been sanctioned, I'll leave it alone.

I'm not sure you guys hear this often enough, but I would like to thank you profusely for all the effort that you put into this game. 95% of the work is beyond contest, but unfortunately its that 5% you get yelled at about time and again.

[RaspK_FOG]

Originally posted by "Bearcat"
I'm not sure you guys hear this often enough, but I would like to thank you profusely for all the effort that you put into this game. 95% of the work is beyond contest, but unfortunately its that 5% you get yelled at about time and again.

I suppose none could put it better... Thank you all, BRCS Team! for a really B) hell of work you 've gone through till now!

[irdeggman]

I'm sorry to beat a horse everyone would most likely want laid to rest, but I don't think that the issue of the BRCS +4 major / + 8 Great to revised +4 major / +8 Great instead of + 8 / + 16 has been adequately addressed.

First of all, logic would seem to dictate that doubling the bloodability score from the BRCS to the revision would affect all the numbers related to it by either doubling or halving them. This has occured in most cases, such as the "blast radius" for usurpation, regency collection, and the regency cap (where 2 is a much prettier number than 2.5). However, this did not happen to the bonuses. So in the revision, a major bloodline has a bonus that would be equivalent of a +2 in the original BRCS and great one has a bonus of +4.

Not only does this dramatically reduce the power differential between the minor, major and great bloodlines numerically (a character who rolled a 10 for his score could collect 20, 28, or 36 RP per turn as a minor major or great scion in the BRCS, but with the revision the difference is only 20, 24, 28), but since the blood abilities progression in the revised version is essentially halved since it is the same progression table as in the BRCS, but tied exclusively to even numbers. This means that in general characters with major and great bloodlines will have fewer blood abilities in the new system.

How does this version stack with the original BR in the number of blood abilities that the scions had there? I believe the revised system is actually closer to the original. The argument seems to be that the power of the BRCS-playtest should be preserved vice rebalanced.

The numbers were chosen to essentially ensure that a character would revieve a blood ability with the scion class ...




It would in the original BRCS this was the case, but not in the revision. In the original BRCS, a +4 step meant that either 1 or 2 blood abilities would be gained, and that tended to alternate so that a Great scion would end up with probably 3 extra abilities and a major scion would end up with 1 or 2 extra abilities.

In the revised table, since the progression is essentially halved, a +4 step means that a scion will gain 0 or 1 extra abilities. Not only does this mean that a new scion class level does not guarantee a new blood ability, but it also means that a major scion has about 50% chance of not gaining any extra blood abilities. About 75% of the time a great scion will gain only one ability, the other 25% meaning that he gains two.

This is the closest to a definite issue. The plusses added do not quite guarantee gaining a blood ability of the proper level. They do, however work out in a solid progression that does come closer to the original BR as far as number of abilities.


One other thing that people had mentioned as a potential problem with the BRCS-playtest was the DCs of the blood abilities. DC of 12/15/18 plus blood score modifier yields pretty high saves pretty quickly. The revised tables help a lot with this.

[soudhadies]

How does this version stack with the original BR in the number of blood abilities that the scions had there? I believe the revised system is actually closer to the original. The argument seems to be that the power of the BRCS-playtest should be preserved vice rebalanced.

If this is what you are going for, then even the revised table is still somewhat problematic in this regard, at least as you get bloodline scores higher than the mid 30's. I tried making a conversion of Darien Avan last night for a game I'm working on and he ends up with 10 abilities in the new system, while in the original material he only has five. A quick canvas of the NPC chapter of RoE reveals a pattern where after about the mid 30's peoples number of blood powers tends to double, while before then its just about right.

This is the closest to a definite issue. The plusses added do not quite guarantee gaining a blood ability of the proper level. They do, however work out in a solid progression that does come closer to the original BR as far as number of abilities.

Here we get to the root of the problem. Which is that at the moment Great bloodlines aren't all that "great". They're a tough sell right now because in exchange for a character level you get an small chance of gaining a bloodability and only a marginal boost in RP collection. The advantage gained is not worth the sacrifice made.

One solution would be to revise the table in a way that slows progression but conversely grants better regency collection to characters choosing major and great bloodlines. However, just halving the progression again shafts characters with smaller bloodlines because, as I said, the current table gets them about right.

Now my solution to this is going to go against the general precepts of a D20 ability table, but instead of having a linear ability progression we should have a sort of exponential one, with diminishing returns (sort of like a sine curve). So that as you go higher and higher in score, you gain bloodabilities less and less often, eventually reaching a what would for all intents and purposes be a cap (The original game had this at 7, even the Gorgon obeyed it). If I had to draw a 3E justification for this I would point to epic characters and attacks: Just as characters don't gain extra attacks after a certain point, characters with "epic" bloodlines shouldn't gain extra abilities.

What would this revision to the table do? Well first, it would more closely mirror blood ability progression in the original than either of the 3E tables have. More importantly is its effects of players and character generation. Major and Great bloodlines will have dramatic effect, but mostly only in regency collection. So that means that if you're a player, Major and Great bloodlines will tend to be more attractive if you're a regent but not so much if you're just a regular scion. That means that most Great and Major PC scions will be regents while the majority of Minor scions will not. Somehow this seems perversely logical.

Since I would not like to burden anyone with work I wouldn't do myself, I would be happy to run some numbers and come up with a table for you.

One other thing that people had mentioned as a potential problem with the BRCS-playtest was the DCs of the blood abilities. DC of 12/15/18 plus blood score modifier yields pretty high saves pretty quickly. The revised tables help a lot with this.

If I already depart from the standard for 3E in one regard, we shouldn't feel guilty about doing it again. I could either halve the progression or use the diminishing returns idea again (for internal consistency on the table).

[irdeggman]

Bearcat,
While your proposals are interesting the chapter has been 'sanctioned' and revisiting it at this time is totally counterproductive since there is so much more in the BRCS to be finished.

[soudhadies]

As I said before in my first post, feel free to ignore me on this. I realize that the chapter has been sanctioned. Its my own damn fault for popping in so late in the game.

Any suggestions for somewhere I can focus my meddling?

[Osprey]

Any suggestions for somewhere I can focus my meddling?

Yep, see what you think of the proposed revisions for Key Skills for Domain Actions (Ch 5). Some new voices giving approval or constructive criticism, or even flat out rejection (hopefully with some good alternatives proposed) would be very helpful there.

I'm sure Irdeggman can point you in a few other directions too.

Cheers,
Osprey

[irdeggman]

Chap 1 was recently revised. There was a revision to it for the classes:

http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...showtopic=2674

Which only one person has commented on so far.

There has been a lot of discussion on the skills and feats section of Chap 1 (revision) also.

[soudhadies]

Okay, umm. I realize that what I'm about to say will inspire the urge to gut me, but try to hold off on that for a moment :unsure:.

I was skimming through the old posts in the FAQ to get up to speed somewhat on everything that has been going on, and I followed the link that you gave for the WotC class/scion thingie (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sp/20030824a). And the new scion classes don't conform with that.

I hope I'm allowed to quote the webpage(if not someone tell me and I'll pull the quote), but it says in the last bulleted point/general rule:

Unlike standard character classes (and the "monster classes" from Savage Species), most template classes do not increase Hit Dice, base attack bonus, base saving throw bonuses, or skill points with level. They also do not affect when a character acquires feats, since feat acquisition is based on HD, not ECL. However, some of these aspects of the character can be affected indirectly by alterations in Hit Die type, ability score changes, special attacks or qualities, bonus feats, and so on.

A quick canvas of the Savage Progressions archives showed this to be the case, although lycanthropes were allowed to take racial levels in the animals that they could morph into.

I know that nothing can be done about it now. I just felt remiss in not mentioning it.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Bearcat@Jun 17 2004, 01:36 AM
Okay, umm. I realize that what I'm about to say will inspire the urge to gut me, but try to hold off on that for a moment :unsure:.

I was skimming through the old posts in the FAQ to get up to speed somewhat on everything that has been going on, and I followed the link that you gave for the WotC class/scion thingie (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sp/20030824a). And the new scion classes don't conform with that.

I hope I'm allowed to quote the webpage(if not someone tell me and I'll pull the quote), but it says in the last bulleted point/general rule:

A quick canvas of the Savage Progressions archives showed this to be the case, although lycanthropes were allowed to take racial levels in the animals that they could morph into.

I know that nothing can be done about it now. I just felt remiss in not mentioning it.

This was known when the scion class' were written. Which is why I never said they were just like the SS progressions only that they were 'like' or 'based on' them.

The reason for making the scion classes have HD, BAB, etc. is for playability. If they didn't have them then they really wouldn't be playable - a class taken at character creation that doesn't have any hit points? - I shudder to think what would have happened to me if I had tried to propose that one.

The scion class' class abilities themselves are much less than those of a standard class because of the 'bonus' things that happen (and are openended as the character gets stronger). Things like gaining more blood abilities and the bonus hit point bonus (if that variant is used) scales with RP collection.