Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 37 of 37
  1. #31
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    At 11:32 PM 12/8/2004 +0100, in the "Chap 1 for discussion" thread

    irdeggman wrote:



    >>I don`t know what the current rules on using Det Magic on a Blood item

    >>are, but this might let you sense Blood as a magical school equivalent?

    >

    >Creating a new school to cover blood abilities is to me simply the wrong

    >way to go. I`ve had this argument with Gary many, many times but have yet

    >to give in. There are exactly 8 schools of magic (plus universal, which

    >is everything else). This is a fundamental precept of the D&D magic system.



    At 06:22 AM 12/10/2004 +0100, The Jew wrote:



    >You are right the playtest did halve the bloodscores. But the outcry from

    >the rigid old players unable to handle any sort of modernisation :P has

    >reinstated the original rules.



    Interesting to have past threads result in such weirdly opposed

    viewpoints. Wanting to change things too much and being opposed to

    modernization so quickly in such rapid succession.... Whiplash. Since I`m

    the bozo who probably made the most noise on both those issues and they

    have been brought up again I feel obliged to reiterate my positions.



    First, the assertion that the eight schools are a fundamental precept of

    the D&D magic system is at best highly dubious, and most likely simply a

    fabrication. In fact, that interpretation appears to be the result of an

    elaboration upon what is really just the method used to organize the spell

    lists and descriptions in the 3e texts. In a set of works dedicated to

    spelling out things in painstaking detail there`s no mention of the schools

    of magic being designed to be so used. That aside, there`s no reason to

    maintain the eight schools of magic in campaign material and, in fact, not

    a lot of reason to maintain them in any other circumstance other than for

    organizational purposes. That`s especially the case if there`s a good

    reason to go with something that fits into the themes of the setting

    better--and uses all the other game mechanics that actually are in the text.



    In regards to the halving method for bloodline score: While I applaud the

    efforts to update the system so that 3e gamers can play BR, the decision to

    halve bloodline score for the purpose of making it fit into the ability

    score game mechanic was... well, not the best choice. The only solid

    justification for it that I could see was so that one could balance

    bloodline using the ability score point buy system, and that was a pretty

    sketchy method of achieving game balance. It`s really not a matter of

    modernization of the setting. It`s a matter of making a workable system

    for those 3e gamers to use. Halving bloodline score for the purpose of

    character generation so that one could then double it for the remainder of

    play in order to get the actual number is a goofy mechanic, and just as a

    methodology turning bloodline into an ability score didn`t really make a

    lot of sense.



    Gary

  2. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    california
    Posts
    317
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    On your first point I agree with your basic logic, but do not see any reason to make the change. The current schools cover all magic, and divine magic (which blood abilities are inhereted from) fit within that system. So I don't see any need to create a new school. It also creates complications. Would a spell which protects against enchantments then protect against a blood ability which acts like an enchantment? Its like adding psionics, uninteded loopholes and complications will start appearing as all the original game mechanics and rules clash with this new exception.

    As far as the bloodlines. I actually agree with you. I was just answering Bokeys question and decided to throw in a little verbal bomb to tickle the sensibilities of several posters.
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

  3. #33
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    There are so many problems with putting things into multiple schools - which is something Gary has been advocating since, well forever.

    And most of these have been listed before:

    It totally screws up specialization restrictions. If a spell is in multiple schools it is still restricted if any one of them is on the specialist's opposition school list.

    It totally messes up spell focus and other related feats. Suddenly a character can slip in a spell not on the school list by having it appear in multiple schools.

    It totally messes up some prestige classes due their concepts (able to cast X level spells from the evocation (or conjuration) school, etc.)

    There are absolutely no examples of spells being in multiple schools in any WotC product to date, including the CA. Gary at one point brought up Ghostwalk and ghost spells, but as the text in the book stated it isn't a school. The description makes it more like a new list or domain list if you want to simplify the issue. This is similar to what happened with the elf/haf-elf nature spell affinity in the latest version of Chap 1.

    IMO the basic reason that Gary has such a hard time with the schools as written is that he has a hard time understanding what the base connection is between spells that are in the same school. I understand his logic and problems here, but I can accept something like this just to make the game mechanics work easier and pretty much because it was always that way in pretty much all versions of D&D so I'm used to it.

    Now how the heck Gary got his reply to a different thread to end up attached to this one? :huh:
    Duane Eggert

  4. #34
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    At 12:27 AM 12/11/2004 +0100, irdeggman wrote:



    >Now how the heck Gary got his reply to a different thread to end up

    >attached to this one? :huh:



    That`s an interesting little SNAFU. It looks like the original subject

    line "Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] (d20 Atlas) Deciding on Regent's Vitals

    [2#2808]" was too long so the numbers that note thread and location on the

    birthright.net message boards (the digits in brackets at the end of the

    subject line) when sent from the birthright-l mailing list got cut off. I

    would guess it got put here because it`s the most recent thread.



    I`m going to try to get my response to this post to go back to the original

    location....



    G

  5. #35
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    At 03:58 PM 12/11/2004 +0100, Hrandal wrote:



    >In the first tabletop BR game I ran, Lasica tricked one of the PCs in to

    >"dishonouring" her so that she could avoid marrying Guilder Kalien. Of

    >course, Heirl Diem was outraged, and a swift shotgun wedding ensued. She

    >was one of my favourite NPCs to play - smart, waspish and constantly

    >pushing her PC husband to expand his realm.Also, the relationship between

    >Heirl Diem and his new son in law was wonderful to behold - the baron was

    >constantly fighting down the urge to strangle the Khorien lad on sight for

    >seducing his daughter and ruining his diplomacy.



    Wow, that sounds like it was an awful lot of fun to game out. Some questions:



    1. As the son-in-law what was the PC`s role in the realm? Did he control

    holdings/provinces in Diemed, act as a LT, vassal and/or did he already

    have his own realm? I`m just curious how one might adjudicate the

    Vassalage potential of the in-laws....



    2. Shouldn`t it be "heavy crossbow wedding"?



    Gary

  6. #36
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    Crud, I think the previous post got sent to the wrong thread.... Let me

    try it again.



    At 03:58 PM 12/11/2004 +0100, Hrandal wrote:



    >In the first tabletop BR game I ran, Lasica tricked one of the PCs in to

    >"dishonouring" her so that she could avoid marrying Guilder Kalien. Of

    >course, Heirl Diem was outraged, and a swift shotgun wedding ensued. She

    >was one of my favourite NPCs to play - smart, waspish and constantly

    >pushing her PC husband to expand his realm.Also, the relationship between

    >Heirl Diem and his new son in law was wonderful to behold - the baron was

    >constantly fighting down the urge to strangle the Khorien lad on sight for

    >seducing his daughter and ruining his diplomacy.



    Wow, that sounds like it was an awful lot of fun to game out. Some questions:



    1. As the son-in-law what was the PC`s role in the realm? Did he control

    holdings/provinces in Diemed, act as a LT, vassal and/or did he already

    have his own realm? I`m just curious how one might adjudicate the

    Vassalage potential of the in-laws....



    2. Shouldn`t it be "heavy crossbow wedding"?



    Gary

  7. #37
    Administrator Green Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,018
    Downloads
    20
    Uploads
    0
    Me too. Since the paladin had such a low caster level (hlaf his class

    level), he would only get to cast pretty basic spells anyway.



    B
    Cheers
    Bjørn
    DM of Ruins of Empire II PbeM

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.