Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 51
  1. #21
    Senior Member Sigmund's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    101
    Downloads
    137
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by irdeggman
    Well requiring 3 feats in order to get great blood abilities requires a PC to be at least 3rd level (and then only if human, non-humans would required to be 6th level). So this essentially works the same as the "acquiring experience and training" issues.

    I would again point out that the concept that leveling implies (or requires) training is not part of the core WotC philosophy. In fact it goes against many of the philosophies of published material.

    Most published adventures assume that the PCs do not require time to gain benefits of leveling up. Age of Worms is a prime example. {I really think that would make an interesting one to convert to BR}.
    While many feats do simulate training, there are many feats that do not. Many feats simulate a character's natural aptitudes manifesting themselves.

    The oncept that leveling implies (or requires) training many not be a part of WotC philosophy, but the implication is there none the less. When my character's skills with weapons, his ability to defend himself, and his level of proficiency at bluffing, riding a horse, and weaving baskets all increase, it indicates to me at least a small amount of practice and discovery has taken place. To say otherwise would be a serious blow to suspension of disbelief IMO.

    It seems to me that published adventures do not require time to gain benefits of leveling for two reasons. The first is for simplicity's sake. The second is because a quantity of practice and self-training is assumed to be occuring during the glossed-over free times of the character each day. I point to the rational behind the wizard's gaining of two spells each level to support my view.

    I am not that familiar with Age of Worms, but the name sounds as if dragons are involved, and since dragons are seriously scary for PCs and fun for DMs I suspect you might be right.

  2. #22
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Sigmund
    While many feats do simulate training, there are many feats that do not. Many feats simulate a character's natural aptitudes manifesting themselves.

    The oncept that leveling implies (or requires) training many not be a part of WotC philosophy, but the implication is there none the less. When my character's skills with weapons, his ability to defend himself, and his level of proficiency at bluffing, riding a horse, and weaving baskets all increase, it indicates to me at least a small amount of practice and discovery has taken place. To say otherwise would be a serious blow to suspension of disbelief IMO.

    DMG pgs 197+ talks about options for how PCs improves, inlcuding how to learn (and improve) skills, class abilities, and feats.

    There is no prequisite for having to train to level up and the very first thing that is done when leveling up is to choose a class. Although the character level benefits are gained in parallel.

    It seems to me that published adventures do not require time to gain benefits of leveling for two reasons. The first is for simplicity's sake. The second is because a quantity of practice and self-training is assumed to be occuring during the glossed-over free times of the character each day. I point to the rational behind the wizard's gaining of two spells each level to support my view.
    My point was that they re-enforce the WotC default stand that it takes no time or training to gain benefits a character gets when leveling up.

    I am not that familiar with Age of Worms, but the name sounds as if dragons are involved, and since dragons are seriously scary for PCs and fun for DMs I suspect you might be right.
    This the recently completed Adventure Path in Dungeon/Dragon magazine. Adventure Paths are actually entire campaigns that run PCs from 1st to 20th level though a series of approximately 12 published adventures.

    It actually has nothing to do with dragons whatsoever.


    It does, however have to do with raising a "dead" evil god. . . .
    Last edited by irdeggman; 09-14-2006 at 01:56 PM.
    Duane Eggert

  3. #23
    Senior Member Sigmund's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    101
    Downloads
    137
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by irdeggman
    DMG pgs 197+ talks about options for how PCs improves, inlcuding how to learn (and improve) skills, class abilities, and feats.

    There is no prequisite for having to train to level up and the very first thing that is done when leveling up is to choose a class. Although the character level benefits are gained in parallel.
    And I didn't say there was a prerequisite for having to train to level up. What I said was the training is assumed to have occured during the day-to-day activities of the character throughout the previous level. It's just a half-hearted attempt to maintain suspension of disbelief yet introduce simplicity and expediency to the leveling process IMO.


    My point was that they re-enforce the WotC default stand that it takes no time or training to gain benefits a character gets when leveling up.
    And my point was that the system doesn't say it takes no time or training to gain benefits when leveling up. Quite the contrary actually. What is says is that the time and training required to level up don't need to be RPed or accounted for.

    Pg. 58 of the PHB, Experience and Levels section, Training and Practice subsection

    "Characters spend time between adventures training, studying, or otherwise practicing their skills. This work consolidates what they learn on adventures and keeps them in top form. If, for some reason, a character can't practice or train for an extended time, the DM may reduce XP awards or even cause the character to lose experience points."

    This the recently completed Adventure Path in Dungeon/Dragon magazine. Adventure Paths are actually entire campaigns that run PCs from 1st to 20th level though a series of approximately 12 published adventures.

    It actually has nothing to do with dragons whatsoever.


    It does, however have to do with raising a "dead" evil god. . . .
    Bummer, although dead evil gods are cool too I suppose. I like dragons better I did very much like the Shackled City adventure path.

    Edit: Forgot to include my point about feats. I concede that most feats do seem to simulate training, especially the ones that are arranged in "trees". My only defense is that, although they are really crappy comparisons, the skill bonus feats simulate potential natural aptitudes a character might have, thereby demonstrating that not all feats are meant to simulate training (and also keep in mind I'm just looking in the PHB for the examples because there are just too many damn feats to sort through otherwise ).
    Last edited by Sigmund; 09-14-2006 at 02:28 PM.

  4. #24
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    388
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    On 9/14/06, gazza666 <brnetboard@birthright.net> wrote:
    > gazza666 wrote:
    > I acknowledge everything in that list, ploesch - but it`s not enough to make me want to
    > take scion levels as a wizard, sorcerer, druid, or cleric. If you removed all of that list
    > except blood ability access, lowered the BAB progression to +1/2, made it d4 hp (with no
    > bonus), and only good Will saves, but you added full spellcasting progression - then I`d
    > take it as a wizard or sorcerer, sure.

    Of course you would. Full spellcasting progression, normal hit
    points, BAB, and saves for a wizard, PLUS special abilities? It`s
    strictly better than either base class.

    It`s not supposed to be. Classes are supposed to be roughly
    equivalent with each other, in terms of utility. So it should have at
    least one skipped level of spellcasting progression, in exchange for
    the extras it grants.

    Spellcasters aren`t forced to take it if they don`t want to. And the
    munchkins won`t.
    --
    Daniel McSorley

  5. #25
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Sigmund
    Bummer, although dead evil gods are cool too I suppose. I like dragons better I did very much like the Shackled City adventure path.
    Can you say Azrai and a potential tie in to the Cold Rider? That is where I saw the immediate tie in.
    Duane Eggert

  6. #26
    Senior Member Sigmund's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    101
    Downloads
    137
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by irdeggman
    Can you say Azrai and a potential tie in to the Cold Rider? That is where I saw the immediate tie in.
    Now that's a cool concept. As soon as I read the text concerning the Cold Rider, I immediately thought, "So Azrai didn't die..." I'm 99.9% sure that in my campaign, whether I end up making him the Cold Rider, or having the Cold Rider just be his main flunky, Azrai will have survived Deismar by retreating to the Shadow World and using it to slowly regain his strength until he's ready to reassert himself (Sauron anyone?). I'd be very surprised if I was the only one doing this The reason I haven't looked into Age of Worms and won't is because one of my players has had a subscription to Dragon for years, so he's already looked through the adventure paths (he also DMs).

  7. #27
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    It occurs to me that several people, especially those fairly new to the boards/mailserv, who might not know some of the effort the community has gone through to get where the BRCS is at the present.

    The “project” was started sometime in 2001 with an initial group assembled based on their postings and other non-tangibles.

    IIRC there were about 10 or so people in this initial group. Most got involved in other things, like real life, and dropped out. More were added later on. 2 of the final 3 that ended up actually putting together the BRCS-playtest were in the additions (me and Mark_Aurel). Doom was the primary editor at that time and the main driver for keeping the project running. Eternal thanks go to the man for that.

    It took between 18 months and 2 years before the BRCS-playtest was posted. There were a lot of rather pointed and accusatory posts just before then accusing the “team” of not being responsive to posts.

    The BRCS-playtest was posted in Feb 2003. IIRC the actual date was Feb 5th, but I say it was the 4th (just because that is my birthday).

    Around March of 2003 I started postings to work on revising Chap 2 since 3.5 was getting ready to be issued and people were hearing about it from WotC and Dragon magazine previews.

    This discussion and revision of Chapter 2 took about a year. There were many, many polls and accompanying discussions. The “final” product was the result of these discussions and polls. I don’t want anyone thinking it was something I did all on my own and tried to force down everyone’s throat.

    I was criticized several times for using such a methodical approach that took so long. My stance was that it was more important to get something that the majority could use than it was to just get something out – which is pretty much what would happen without interaction with the group at large.

    IIRC Chap 2 was “sanctioned” in March of 2004.

    Then work went on for Chap 1 following the same formula. IIRC it didn’t take as long for discussion but some of the “concepts” were fairly drastic and required some serious re-writing – like the noble and magician classes and the variant paladin classes.

    Chap 1 was “sanctioned” in Feb 2005.

    As a reminder – people can use the Search feature on the top of the boards to help locate “old” discussion topics. There were some in the BRCS-discussion and the Royal Library threads that might prove useful that I did not provide links to.
    Duane Eggert

  8. #28
    Senior Member Sigmund's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    101
    Downloads
    137
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by DanMcSorley
    On 9/14/06, gazza666 <brnetboard@birthright.net> wrote:
    > gazza666 wrote:
    > I acknowledge everything in that list, ploesch - but it`s not enough to make me want to
    > take scion levels as a wizard, sorcerer, druid, or cleric. If you removed all of that list
    > except blood ability access, lowered the BAB progression to +1/2, made it d4 hp (with no
    > bonus), and only good Will saves, but you added full spellcasting progression - then I`d
    > take it as a wizard or sorcerer, sure.

    Of course you would. Full spellcasting progression, normal hit
    points, BAB, and saves for a wizard, PLUS special abilities? It`s
    strictly better than either base class.

    It`s not supposed to be. Classes are supposed to be roughly
    equivalent with each other, in terms of utility. So it should have at
    least one skipped level of spellcasting progression, in exchange for
    the extras it grants.

    Spellcasters aren`t forced to take it if they don`t want to. And the
    munchkins won`t.
    --
    Daniel McSorley

    One of my several problems with the scion class system to try to balance the setting is that I can't understand why BAB, skills, or any of the other class-related features should be tied to bloodline. It seems to me that default assumption is that all scions are going to automatically also be regents, or at least major aristocracy. I find fault with this because the setting itself states that most scions are not regents, and describes many blooded families that have fallen on hard times, and blooded scions manifesting among the basest of commoners for various reasons. Then there's the Vos.

    I read the earlier thread, but I haven't seen why just a simply LA based on the bloodline strength/level can't be used. As I've already described, the scion class actually does little to prevent front-loading, which seems to be the main (and maybe only) downside to LA for scions. The LA would improve the concept by using a system already in place in 3.5 for the very purpose of balancing characters with powerful abilities, and would separate the class features from bloodline since the two are not related in any way outside of balance issues. Maybe this is what the template from Savage Species does, but I do not have, nor will I be getting Savage Species, so I'm not very familiar with the mechanic. In the DMG on page 172 in the Monsters as Races section, a LA system is described that seems to be designed just for this purpose. Although the section talks about and was originally designed for playing monsters as PCs, the purpose of the system is actually just to balance the superior natural abilities of monsters to the PC races from the PHB to prevent the monster PC from overshadowing the other PCs during play. This is exactly what is needed for blooded PCs as well.

  9. #29
    Senior Member Sigmund's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    101
    Downloads
    137
    Uploads
    0
    As one of the people irrdeggman referred to in the above post that is new here I'd just like to say that I appreciate all the effort that has gone before, and I regret not being here to contribute to the discussions on it's development. I sincerely hope that the present discussion is not completely irritating you all, as that is certainly not my intent, although after all the work you have put into this project I would most certainly understand if it is. I would also understand if you locked this thread and topic down as unproductive to an issue that's already been decided. I would just like to say, though, that I'm thoroughly enjoying the discussion, am finding it very useful in refining, and perhaps even completely changing, how I view and intend to approach the issue in my own game... even if it's by just house-ruling. If you would be willing to indulge any "johnny-come-latelys" like me I would, and do, appreciate it very much.

  10. #30
    Senior Member ploesch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    182
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Sigmund
    One of my several problems with the scion class system to try to balance the setting is that I can't understand why BAB, skills, or any of the other class-related features should be tied to bloodline. It seems to me that default assumption is that all scions are going to automatically also be regents, or at least major aristocracy. I find fault with this because the setting itself states that most scions are not regents, and describes many blooded families that have fallen on hard times, and blooded scions manifesting among the basest of commoners for various reasons. Then there's the Vos.

    I read the earlier thread, but I haven't seen why just a simply LA based on the bloodline strength/level can't be used. As I've already described, the scion class actually does little to prevent front-loading, which seems to be the main (and maybe only) downside to LA for scions. The LA would improve the concept by using a system already in place in 3.5 for the very purpose of balancing characters with powerful abilities, and would separate the class features from bloodline since the two are not related in any way outside of balance issues. Maybe this is what the template from Savage Species does, but I do not have, nor will I be getting Savage Species, so I'm not very familiar with the mechanic. In the DMG on page 172 in the Monsters as Races section, a LA system is described that seems to be designed just for this purpose. Although the section talks about and was originally designed for playing monsters as PCs, the purpose of the system is actually just to balance the superior natural abilities of monsters to the PC races from the PHB to prevent the monster PC from overshadowing the other PCs during play. This is exactly what is needed for blooded PCs as well.
    LA templates are the worse solution. They have all the downsides of the Scion Classes and none of the advantages. You are still considered levels higher, you still effectively lose levels, so the caster issues persist, the slower leveling in primary class persists. The only positive thing about LA templates is that they feel more like a divine spark than a commodity. Everyone still effectively loses levels, and in this case they really lose them since they do not gain HP, BAB or skills from the template.

    I'm not a powergamer, but Blooded abilities and the scion bonuses alone do not make up for the loss of one or two levels. Which is exactly what happens with LA templates.

    Whether it's a "20 wizard/2 Scion" or "20 wizard with +2 LA template" it takes the same ammount of XP to get there. That fact has been the largest part of our discussion, and peoples issue with the class.
    When you play the game of thrones you win or you die.
    George R. R. Martin - A song of Ice and Fire

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.