Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678
Results 71 to 76 of 76
  1. #71
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    165
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck View Post
    That's because 4e envisions only one situation: combat. So, its much easier to balance all characters as equal, but different, combatants. If combat is simply not a part of one's birthright game, 4e itself is the over-specialized and useless entity at the table. [...]
    As for 4th as a combat system, I see that in fourth is a system that has put its focus on regulating combat. However this does not mean that 4th is only for combat, because other areas of play - though arguably more important than combat - simply need less regulation to work. Therefore seeing fourth as combat oriented is not entirely fair because even though it more heavily regulates combat than other areas, these other areas are just as much presented in a fourth campaign. However, I can understand that if combat is totally absent from your game, 4th seemingly has little to offer compared to 3rd. I say seemingly, because - though I really like 3rd because of its variety - the 4th streamlined, balanced, and to each his/her glory approach to combat offers great opportunities for another birthright-specific area that requires regulation: the domain level of play.

    The struggle for influence between ruling powers on the domain level is very similar to combat. The fourth combat system can provide us with excellent design ideas for a streamlined, balanced and to each his/her own glory approach to domain level play. For as a (tabletop) player and DM I want easy domain rules that engage all players equally, so we do not have four one-on-one sessions. And that these rules allow for each action to be role-played when the situation arises. I think a domain system based on the fourth combat system could be a great step towards these goals.

  2. #72
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    165
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck View Post
    I don't have a problem with adventuring, I have a problem with every obstacle being combat. My players went places and did things, and I prefer a heroic Arthurian tint for BR, but most of their activities took place among other people, and so killing people would have had serious consequences. Adventuring doesn't have to mean combat. See my extended adventure of Njalgrim's Doom on the wiki.

    Nobody says it does, combat is simply the part of adventuring that requires most regulation.

    Apart from domain conflict that is

  3. #73
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    165
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by bbeau22 View Post
    Ken,

    I am with you, but I do see some benefit to having a system where everyone can actually play. Perhaps part of the problem was the way skills were implemented in 3.5. The lack of skills on some classes precluded them from being a factor for certain part of adventures. I didn't see the reason why Warriors got such few skills while others got an over-the-top amount.

    But I am a big fan of choice and consequence. Even in the current campaign, I try to include adventures every so often to keep my players honest about their combat skills. Most go so heavy into blood powers that they do become weak in combat ... but 3.5 is fairly kind and the feats they blow on bloodpowers doesn't have a major effect on their combat prowess.

    In 4th edition, it is mainly a combat system but I think it can be VERY adaptable to a domain level style of play. Have options to replace powers with rulership powers. Instead of a new holy strike you get a new holy temple growing power. Those priests that have spent their days fighting evil on the fringes of society are a very powerful priests, but can only wield influence by reputation and those around them. A powerful priest ruler wields far more power in influencing the flock, but probably can't slay the dragon that is attacking the village. Would need help.

    I think it makes for a more dynamic relationship between people.

    -BB

    If we are serious about fourth, I suggest we should seriously consider splitting adventuring and ruling powers entirely.

    Fourth has its own merits and if we swap out adventure powers – i.e. at-will, encounter, utility, and daily powers, for similar “ruling powers” we will simply create a less fun 3rd edition. However if we take the 4th adventure powers as given and add an extra layer of “ruling powers” along the lines of 4th edition we will end up with a actual fourth edition birthright setting. Does adding extra “ruling powers” to the 4th adventure powers create omnipotent chars so to speak?

    Not necessarily so. I would like a system in which a character does not get better at ruling a domain because he had successful adventures, nor get better at adventuring for ruling a domain. A system in which the player is better either at ruling or adventuring; not depending on the choices he or she made during character building, but rather the actual experience they acquired during the campaign.

    I propose each character in 4th edition birthright to have two separate experience tracks: one for the adventurer on which we base HP, AC, Defences, powers etc. as per the Players Handbook; and one ruler experience track in which we put all birthright specific abilities related to the domain and domain rule – regency gain, domain preference, domain conflict powers, ruling skills etc. all preferably based on the fourth edition system.

    For example young Luqian starts out his career a 1st level wizard/ 1st level guilder, at a later point in the campaign he could be a 2nd level wizard/ 7th level guilder; 4th level wizard/ 4th level guilder or a 8th level wizard/ 1st level guilder depending on how the campaign evolves and the choices the players themselves make: do they take a hands-on approach to actively solve problems, or do they rule from the throne like chess players pulling strings and using their domains to solve their problems.

    I am convinced that creating an additional level of play to go alongside the adventure level is the way to go for those of us that are serious about 4th edition Birthright. I for one would gladly share thoughts and contribute towards this goal, and hope there are still a few people left on this forum that are serious about a fourth edition birthright

  4. #74
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Tiamat View Post
    Nobody says it does, combat is simply the part of adventuring that requires most regulation.

    Apart from domain conflict that is
    I disagree. Skill challenges have been reduced to a coin flip. AFAIC, the skill system is the game, and combat is something to do once in a while to change things up to add some dramatic tension. Frankly, I'd rather resolve combat with a coin flip and keep the skills system.

    That's the point of my critique of the Gavin Tael write up. As a 9th level character, he's either a +4 on a skill or +9. All of the range of choices from zero to combination of synergies, feats, and specific items is gone. The skills system is now so simplified, with few skills and no skill points, that you can't build a game on the skills system and ignore combat.

    The number of skills has been reduced, the choices involved in which skills to be good at is remarkably reduced to almost nothing, so that skills and adventures based on skills are no longer a viable way to play a game.

  5. #75
    I must regress that the original write-up for Gavin Tael was a mistake. A) it didn't use NPC rules (which is moot if Gavin Tael is a PC which I understand) but also B) I didn't use the correct ability score systems and instead I pulled the scores from the wiki-writeup which granted I probably shouldn't have done.

    Even with those mistakes there isn't just a +4 or a +9 to the skill rolls. His skills vary more then that and may vary even greater if I used the correct ability score methods for 4E.

    Now to address Sir Tiamat. That is definitely adding a complex level which probably isn't a bad thing except you are keeping track of two different character sheets. I personally wouldn't build it that way because I definitely lean more towards the 2E view that Regents ARE adventurers and should be quite successful adventurers at that. I am interested in the idea if I saw it complete so I wanted to see it get alittle more attention...

    Guild Holding Regents = Guilder Class
    Law Holding Regents = ? Class
    Temple Holding Regents = ? Class
    Source Holding Regents = ? Class
    Province Holding Regents = ? Class

  6. #76
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    165
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by dundjinnmasta View Post
    [...]Now to address Sir Tiamat. That is definitely adding a complex level which probably isn't a bad thing except you are keeping track of two different character sheets. I personally wouldn't build it that way because I definitely lean more towards the 2E view that Regents ARE adventurers and should be quite successful adventurers at that. I am interested in the idea if I saw it complete so I wanted to see it get alittle more attention...

    Guild Holding Regents = Guilder Class
    Law Holding Regents = ? Class
    Temple Holding Regents = ? Class
    Source Holding Regents = ? Class
    Province Holding Regents = ? Class
    First, I definitely agree with you that regents - especially PC regents - should be adventurers or hero-kings so to speak. I would not like a campaign in which regents never left their throne rooms. However, I would like to see a distinction between the regent that spent half of his life on horseback and the regent that spent most of his time in various courts. While at the same time keeping a roughly similar division of adventuring and ruling abilities within the party. Moreover, I want to keep the core rules as intact as possible, apart from a few necessary changes - like player races and bloodlines - that should not be too unbalancing.

    Second, the class I propose is actually a merger of the regent’s abilities and the domain. So the “ruler level” of a character would both represent the ruling of the regent and the ability of the regent’s court and domain. The names of these classes are obviously less relevant, though I admit that a good name can be a major selling-point. see some of my rough thoughts below. As you can see it still needs a lot of work and I will privide more structure later.


    ----------------------------

    General principles:
    Holdings will have Hitpoints, 10/lvl for example. If a holding is reduced to 0 hitpoints it wil have lost a level. Lvl 7 holding has 70 hp when reduced to 0 it wilhave become a lvl 6 holding with 60 hp. Can also be used for rule...

    Domains have ability scores and defences

    Attacks are aimed at other domains

    All other domain actions are skills/skill challanges or utility powers

    A regent will get better at ruling a larger domain as (s)he gains more ruling levels


    -Guild Holding Regents = Guilder Class
    -Law Holding Regents =(Feudal) Lord Class
    -Temple Holding Regents =Cardinal/ Bishop Class
    -Source Holding Regents = Archmage Class
    -I do not know whether province rule would require a separate class: I consider the province ruler to be the legitimate ruler, but whether this ruler can wield actual power depends on the other holdings, especially law.

    Domains will have ability scores, for example:
    • Force
    • Bureaucracy
    • Devotion, commitment, loyalty
    • Responsiveness, awareness
    • Secrecy
    • Morale??, authority , divine right, bloodline??

    And also Defences:
    Fortification
    Loyalty
    ….
    …..

    Attacks (political battles between Holdings or realms)Contest holding (varies)
    Block Trade
    Seize
    Assault
    Arrest
    Assassinate
    Agitate
    Pestilence (arcane)
    Plant spy
    Bribe
    Blackmail
    smuggle


    Realm Skills: (½level + ability mod. +5 training)
    Choose 4 per realm? Should skills be independent of holding level?? Possibly because it is something a realm and ruler can do… use utility powers for holding actions?
    1. Administrate [bureaucracy]
    2. Engineering [bureaucracy]
    3. Diplomacy [bureaucracy]
    4. Intimidate [force]
    5. Bluff (merge with subterfuge?) [secrecy]
    6. Gather information [responsiveness]
    7. Insight (merge with awareness?) [responsiveness]
    8. Awareness (spot) [responsiveness]
    9. Subterfuge (stealth) [secrecy]
    10. Harness arcane [bloodline??]
    11. Harness divine [devotion]
    12. Harness natural [devotion]
    13. Finance [bureaucracy]
    14. Tactics?? [Force]
    15. Lead?? [devotion]
    16. Authority ?? [force]

    Actions (skill challenge?)
    Build: engineering, administrate, force
    Create holding: gather info, subterfuge, diplomacy, administrate
    Create trade route: subterfuge, diplomacy, administrate, finance
    Diplomacy: Diplomacy, Intimidate, Bluff, gather information
    Rule holding: engineering, administrate, diplomacy, intimidate, lead
    Rule province: administrate, diplomacy, intimidate, gather info, lead
    Move troops: administrate, awareness, subterfuge
    Gain popularity: administrate, gather info, lead
    Decree: administrate, intimidate, awareness
    Loan or lend: Finance, diplomacy, administrate
    Cast realm spell: harness arcane, divine, natural
    Smuggle (a utility because dependent on holding level?): subterfuge, awareness, bluff
    Last edited by Sorontar; 04-27-2009 at 12:14 AM. Reason: formatting

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. [BIRTHRIGHT] Is there anything to BR besides a 3E conversion?
    By Birthright-L in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-16-2003, 01:55 AM
  2. [BIRTHRIGHT] ArM4 conversion of clerics
    By Trithemius in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-04-2003, 01:37 AM
  3. The Nature of Divinity in BR [was:[BIRTHRIGHT] Conversion
    By geeman in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-03-2002, 05:41 PM
  4. The Nature of Divinity in BR [was:[BIRTHRIGHT] Conversion
    By Trithemius in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-03-2002, 05:41 PM

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.