Bloodlines - 2nd Edition/v.3.5/BRCS

[Sorontar]

Quoting the BRCS:Introduction

Material relating to regional areas, such as domain statistics, Organizations, prestige classes, NPC statistics, and other material tied to regional areas will be released in the d20 Atlas of Cerilia.

So Elton where in the BRCS have prestige classes been linked to Great bloodlines? Or are you referring to forum dicsussions about how Great bloodlines would best fit into D&D3.5 (and the BRCS)?

I have no views on whether the BRCS works well in D&D3.5 or not. I do not play 3.5 and haven't memorised the BRCS. I just want the BrWiki to make sense to a new reader and in a sense "hang together" when the reader moves around.

We all have different views about D&D at large and play the game differently. Personally I think that Birthright is too Anuire-centric. All I ask is that we try and work out how to best manage the BrWiki and its content so there is fluidity within it that enables us all to look at a page, know what we are looking at and allow us to take the content away and manipulate it for our own nefarious purposes within our own campaigns.

Sorontar

[Thelandrin]

That's a fairly sweeping statement, Elton, particularly seeing as Darien and Aeric have two of the highest human bloodlines around. Perhaps you could clarify your statement?

For my part, I'm not wildly fond of the scion prestige classes, but I do think that they do provide a useful level for balancing characters, if you choose to use them. Then again, a more useful thing would have been to balance the blood powers between themselves, but that's a different issue.

[irdeggman]

I wish this particular point on 3.x were true. Most characters are genengineered by their players right up to level 20. There is no true organic growth on the part of a character. A 3.x characters life is completely planned out for him.

By the players - not by the "system" or randomness.

3.5 is all about player choices not forced (or random) choices, when it comes to character development.

I have one player who does exactly what you say and another who much prefers to be flexible and has only broad overal concepts that may change as events transpire. Like you (as your post infers) I prefer the latter and not the former.

[irdeggman]

I have no objection to identifying whether a character is BRCS, 3.5, or 2e.

My objection was (and is) to being told that I had a choice between BRCS and 2e, that combining 3.5 and non-BRCS bloodline was a problem. Labeling it doesn't bother me, prohibition bothers me.

I don't recall saying there was a prohibition only that the default 3.5 version would be the BRCS. Which means if there is no label then it is default. This would avoid confusion quite a bit instead of introducing it.

The reason that I and others have used the term rump to describe those who participated in the BRCS project is to highlight that it had only the approval of those participating and had no claims to represent the whole community. Attempts to parlay official status as being Wizard's promise not to sponsor a competing version into some kind of obligation to acknowledge this particular document likewise are rejected.

Interesting and plainly an incorrect statement.

But what do mean "involved" - reading the posts, writing, commenting on what was written?

Basically there was only 1 person actively writing the revisions to chapter 1 and 2 (me) Osprey provided a lot of assistance in development of the noble class.

People who walk out on the whole project are effectively voting no to the whole project. That fact that some people will continue with the project doesn't mean that it reflects the participation of the whole community.

Other than the fact that those dedicated to writing this project left mostly becasue of real life issues you mean?

Doom left because of the birth of his son and I will argue with anyone on this site over his love of BR and dedication to preparing a standard - even though he admitted he would be using a heavily house-ruled version. He did think as did we all that a set standard was important. Several "vocal" people on these boards had quite the contrary opinion and felt that there should be no such thing ever period.

[irdeggman]

I don't like the BRCS. I left development over the PRCs linked to a Great bloodline. Aeric is my favorite NPC in the BR canon. *The Magian is my favorite Awnie since I can play him as a good guy. *Aeric, I can play differently. Making him [Aeric] conform to the BRCS makes me think that I'd unman him.

Both Aeric and Darien would be Impotent under the BRCS. That would be a tragedy to the setting as a whole.

I have no idea what you are refering to at all.

There has never in any version of development of Chapter 2 been a version that tied prestige classes to a great bloodline.

For balance issues (basically the CR system which is at the core of 3.5) there has been a "level adjustment" from the playtest version that was converted into scion classes (more akin to what was done in Savage Species) in the sanctioned version.

[irdeggman]

And you say the wiki is confusing!

I guess it would be except for the pinned thread at the top of this section called latest version of the BRCS by chapter or do you consider that too confusing. Heck I even inlcuded a word version of the latest version of every chapter so people could morre readily incorporate their house-rules for their game.

I'm sorry that I have been so confusing in how I attempted to layout the logical structure for finding what is the most updated version and how to use them.

I guess the wiki is much clearer.



http://www.dndworlds.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2628

[irdeggman]

Alright after looking things over (and based on my personal quality control/problem analysis training) - here is where the problem lies with the confusion on stats for NPCs on the wiki.

Basically the wiki is structured poorly with little overall cohesion. Anyone can write anything in any format (i.e., from any source) and insert it anywhere but the BRCS section.

It appears that the BR Lore section was intended to cover the overall realm descriptions (basically no rules information necessary) but somewhere along the line people started making links to the BRCS information and inserting 2nd ed material so that it is relatively impossible to tell what is attempted to be said and from what perspective.

IMO this section should include no rules based information and basically Atlas type of stuff - flora, fauna overall descriptions, etc.

Holding levels while important cause an issue due to different types in 3.5 (and many house-rules) - so I would suggest relying on 2nd ed material since that does not change. And this is clearly essential - make it clear on the wiki that the information should be that way.

Reference to NPCs should either be soley 2nd ed or sent to a different page with breakdowns by source material (2nd, BRCS, house-rule mixture of things, etc). It would be entirely possible to have 4 or 5 different interpreations of what Avan should be like, but that is fine as long as they are all clearly labeled as to which set of rules were used in development.

Regardless of which set of rules you favor the information should be useful for anyone - and as it appears now it is not. Let's face it most people will play their BR game with various degrees of house-rules and tailoring. It is a habit forced upon us when the setting was suddenly dropped and we left to our own devices. Old habits are hard to break.

[Sorontar]

It appears that the BR Lore section was intended to cover the overall realm descriptions (basically no rules information necessary) but somewhere along the line people started making links to the BRCS information and inserting 2nd ed material so that it is relatively impossible to tell what is attempted to be said and from what perspective.

IMO this section should include no rules based information and basically Atlas type of stuff - flora, fauna overall descriptions, etc.

I am not sure what you meant by "people started making links to the BRCS". Are you meaning that one non-BRCS has wiki url links to a BRCS page, or are you meaning that people are making assumptions that everything on the BrWiki is "true to the BRCS"? Or somthing else?

Wikis are good at coordinating ideas together and bad at structuring due to their fluent design. Pendantic mods like me are helpful to make sure that pages look the same and have lots of wiki urls. Categories help group things together. But not everyone who contributes writes the same way not do they run their campaigns the same way. Hence the BrWiki is going to always be a hodgepodge of ideas, but the least we can do is put them all in some sort of order.

How I see the BrWiki working well is that it has managed to get lots of the information in the original sourcebooks together in one place, in the same basic coordination (re categories etc) and then it has added a bit more. The problem is when people add ideas that "presently" break the mould (e.g. using new classes, different rulesets). Sometimes these are the only pages for this NPC so there is no "normal" alternative. Overtime, they may become the norm.

But with the nature of wikis, no page is ever finished, unless it it is locked from normal editting (e.g. BRCS pages once I add them).

A good set of pages that have alternatives are those on Vorostokov and the variants of Vaesin Isilviere.

As for whether the "Atlas" sections should have "rules" stuff.... I think they have to, but it should follow the same standards as the NPCs etc. If it breaks the mould, then mark it as so.

The big problem is working out what this "mould" is, and I think that the BRCS is a good candidate.

That said, the main NPCs I have been contributing to always have missing or unfinished bits (e.g. Feats, Skills). I think that they should be marked somehow.

Sorontar

[AndrewTall]

Basically the wiki is structured poorly with little overall cohesion. Anyone can write anything in any format (i.e., from any source) and insert it anywhere but the BRCS section.

Which is surely the point? The recognition that nothing is perfect and so anyone can work on any area of interest? Would you really want to bar any enhancements to areas? If so what is perfect? And why?

The structure? What are you looking for? The structure is a main index, linking down to sub indices, every page cross referencing every other whenever relevant, all sorted by category - frequently by several such categories, unless trying to read in a purely linear fashion I'd say that the structure is ideal - we may want to change some of the indices, make them more or less prominent, but the overall concept makes finding everything easy.

I have no trouble finding anything I want, the wiki main page separates out major topics - geography and history at the top, brcs in the middle, indices to pure fanbased stuff at the bottom - and navigating is simple - click on the link you want to explore, breadcrumb back. Somewhat better than 'go to the index at the back, hunt for a cross reference, etc that a linear document sticks you with.

At the bottom of each page are categories telling you the sort of page, again these are linked so that you can easily find all pages on similar topics.

At the top of each contentious or pure player page is a space for a banner laying out the issue - with a simple clearly stated colour scheme that hopefully people are using.

Where precisely lies the confusion?


The NPC point you specifically raise is not a structural flaw, it simply needs a footer added to the pages, this is easy to do. The same issue on hanner sidhe was fixed within what, a week of notification?

Given the alternative where most pages are locked and new pages are rigorously prescribed - and thus very little gets added - I'd say that the wiki is well ahead of any competitor.

Compare the enhancements to brcs since it came out, to the additions to the wiki in the last 2 years - I'd suggest that the wiki, 'new kid on the block' though it is, had had more work done on it than brcs and atlas by a significant margin and is more accessible to boot.

It appears that the BR Lore section was intended to cover the overall realm descriptions (basically no rules information necessary) but somewhere along the line people started making links to the BRCS information and inserting 2nd ed material so that it is relatively impossible to tell what is attempted to be said and from what perspective.

The main page indices listed under 'br lore' are precisely that - indices covering the geography and history of BR - but of course if you dig down you will find x-refs, add-on's etc which divert to other pages.

You appear to be confusing the main page index links with categories. The index links do not proscribe content, they merely point down to general pages, which in turn point down to more pages of relevance to the previous link. Any wiki page will link to any relevant page whenever someone thought that a link would be beneficial - so yes you can flit from one area to another, that is the whole point, the wiki is not meant to be read linearly. If you read Anuire you can go to Avanil or Vosgaard equally easily depending on whether you want to drill down or compare another region. If you read Avanil you can go to a major NPC or to a summary of plots with equal ease - again depending on what you want to look at. This is surely a plus? Why make someone read dozens of pages they aren't interested in to get to the bit that they want? Why make them go back to the main page and down another set of indices to get to a page they saw earlier rather than link directly?

Navigation is simple so I can't see anyone getting lost. Non-fluff pages, like brcs are generally all titled with a banner to show that they are not 'generic br' pages, some pages have yet to be done, but anyone who finds one can easily add the banner if the absence bothers them.

I don't get the last point. Why is it hard to understand what people are trying to say or from what perspective? If the page appears biased add the observation banner or report it, similarly if it should have any other banner and doesn't. Most fluff is fairly easy to identify as neutral or otherwise, most crunch will rapidly be identified as 'the system I'm using' or 'something to fiddle with'

IMO this section should include no rules based information and basically Atlas type of stuff - flora, fauna overall descriptions, etc.

Mostly already true for the category although clearly not of the main index pages - although they are not meant to be categories, they use an alternative navigational system. If you find a BR lore category page that contains no br lore, and just rules stuff then delete the cat or report it to a mod for them to fix it. If the page is mixed and it bother you, split it into two pages that are individually pure and cross link them. The pages themselves however can - and must - link whenever possible meaning that if you click on a lore index then you can very swiftly get far from a lore category page if you want to. If you only want to see lore pages then click on a lore category and search from that, not from the main page.

Holding levels while important cause an issue due to different types in 3.5 (and many house-rules) - so I would suggest relying on 2nd ed material since that does not change. And this is clearly essential - make it clear on the wiki that the information should be that way.

Maximum holding levels are the same in every system I've seen - the only impact tends to be to income outputs from the holdings which is secondary. Greenknight adds Manors, some people talk about awnmebhaighl, criminal levels, etc but that's about it. I expect that all domains going up are very close to 2e in facade - but don't think that 3e (of any kind) would vary them really - the changes are mostly to the outcome of the holdings, not the holding levels themselves.

Reference to NPCs should either be soley 2nd ed or sent to a different page with breakdowns by source material (2nd, BRCS, house-rule mixture of things, etc). It would be entirely possible to have 4 or 5 different interpreations of what Avan should be like, but that is fine as long as they are all clearly labeled as to which set of rules were used in development.

Agree, ideally the stat blocks themselves would be on a separate page with the main page just fluff and social stuff with links to 2e, brcs, ogl+2e blood, etc.

Regardless of which set of rules you favor the information should be useful for anyone - and as it appears now it is not.

OGL plus 2e abilities is easy to convert to 3e and vice versa so the pages are useful now surely? Pure 2e would be a harder conversion, and 4e a killer. A tag would make sure that people knew they had to convert but frankly anyone using a major npc without tailoring them is beyond my understanding anyway.

[AndrewTall]

Ok, as an example of straight-conversion damn balance just get the number of powers right, I knocked up a spreadsheet showing the gain per 2e, best and worst case, my possibly cock-eyed 'reasonable case', and then a translation to 3e mechanics.

I figure by allowing feats to be used to expand blood powers so you can then account for anomalies.

With only 6 abilities, and likely only 1-4, I don't see a major power issue - particularly if the brcs powers are used as they knocked down the freaks to a degree.

Bloodline is, it should be remembered, not just a good thing. If your L1 PC has a bloodline of 90 then they may have 6 powers, but they are likely to be expected to walk on water, brave dragon's dens, and the like by the peasants - and be the automatic enemy or pawn of every noble going.