Blood Abilities

[geeman]

At 06:47 AM 6/27/2008, irdeggman wrote:

>>It looks like your poll is becoming the most one-sided poll in the
>>history of BR.net!
>
>I wonder why, since the 2nd ed (and by extrapolation the BRCS)
>versions had blood abilites that had an affect on the adventure
>level of play and on the domain level of play (although there were
>always much fewer that had an affect on the domain level).

This is one of those situations in which I think the original BR
materials represents a really good first edition of gaming
material. That is, the original authors came up with some cool
ideas, outlined their breadth to us nicely, but hadn`t fully thought
of how they might mesh with the rest of the campaign, new game
mechanics, etc. Upon reflection, it makes perfect sense that a blood
ability that can affect an adventure or even an encounter could, over
time and regularly performed, influence a domain action. Anything
that could make the series of adventure level encounters and events
that all add up to a domain action go a little easier should be
reflected by a modifier or domain level effect. That`s the case for
ALMOST all blood abilities. An argument could be made that certain
things--a bonus to a strength check, for example--might not have any
particular domain level effect, though one could be justified if one
were going to go that way....

Gary

[AndrewTall]

Mechanically I favour using feats/abilities for adventure level play possibly with some rituals, that would automatically leave the adventure level balanced. I'd then have domain level abilities run off a completely separate mechanic.

From a simulationist viewpoint I see, and like, Geeman's idea of direct links between the adventure and domain levels. This could work if abilities were strongly themed and thus require no direct 1:1 correlation between abilities/feats taken at adventure level and domain level abilities i.e. a domain power of courage could be reflected in several feats and abilities based arund resisting fear, inspiring courage, etc.

In practice though it could be difficult to do this - particularly if we want to do different things at domain level to adventure level, so from a simplicity viewpoint I'd leave the two areas separate.

[Wilenburg]

I think a combination of both should be possible one for what would be classic version rules and the second will be brcs 3.0 which had the basic idea for feats as a rule.

I would like to do one that is both and a new one that is point base bases off of bld and great, lesser, tainted versions of to keep it with the spirit of 4th and of the original.

the next poll would be should blood abilities be one of the following

3.0 rule base feats
2nd edition rules base, random
point system
other please explain.

The reason for these polls is to get a census of what people would like to see for the new version and give everyone a chance to get a direction before rules are completely written up for the new edition.

there are going to be a lot of polls for this and since the begginning or next year in march is when phb2 for 4th is going to be released, with that things would be revaluated with some of the classes and anything else that is introduce. But personally I would like to keep it down to as few reference books as possible. hence why i would like to create a br druid and bard that is our own and magician as well. Noble will be interesting as well but these are things to worry about after bloodline is establish and the races are determined, because they are the basic of charcter creation. phb has a lot of classes to start adding is not high as races are.

Domain rules and Warfare are also high because they have a high feel for the game and it is what makes BR into one of the most interesting worlds out there.

[Sorontar]

I think that forum conversations over the years have established that no-one really likes the Warfare rules, and that those who use warfare in their campaign tend to use some non-Birthright specific system to decide wars. Therefore, sorting out new/better rules for warfare is very low on the priority list IMHO.

Sorontar

[Wilenburg]

I agree I more want character development that was just a general list of what needs to be besides my idea of dealing wit warfare is to make all of the army units into monsters and use it like that because it is nice that they use squares and grids to make fights as warfare to be eay if terrain rules are developed around that concept.