Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 42
  1. #11
    Senior Member Arentak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Joliet, Illinois, United States
    Posts
    101
    Downloads
    11
    Uploads
    0
    I think having a seperate ruling class adds another level of complexity to an already complex game. For those who love RoE type complication, go for it. For the masses, I think a simpler system is a better system.

    Each class gets either a favored holding or a secondary holding type which they gain half regency from.

    Level doesn't have to matter at all, although I do like scaling bonuses based on tier.

    If level doesn't matter at all, then why does it matter if you call yourself a Warlock 3, or a Master Guilder 3, seriously?

  2. #12
    I just recently find a nice little pdf from RPGNOW called Feudal Lords: Noble. It even has "bloodline" powers and is a multiclass only class. I am convinced that the way to good with both Scion and Regent would be as a multiclass and then you have ALL three types of people represented in Birthright 4e: Normal, Blooded Scion, and Regent (obviously blooded but their powers will be slightly different in scope from the Scion to show the difference).

  3. #13
    Senior Member Arentak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Joliet, Illinois, United States
    Posts
    101
    Downloads
    11
    Uploads
    0
    As long as the multi-class system is 4e Compliant and not some bizaare leftover of the past like Fighter 11/Realm Regent 13, then I'm fine with that.

    It minorly diminishes the adventuring ability of the regents, by forcing them to give up their Paragon Path in favor of multiclassing into regent.

  4. #14
    You could go with Power Source rather than class?

    Martial favour Law and Guild.
    Divine favour Law and Temple.
    Arcane favour Source.

  5. #15
    Senior Member Elton Robb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    587
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Personally, I think the best way to update Birthright to 4e is to design Birthright as a "ROLEPLAYING GAME" and not a "Setting."

    Birthright would be it's own roleplaying game aside from 4e, since 4e is totally different in its approach. Shoeing in Birthright to work around 4e when it was initially designed as a 2e setting would create problems. I think the best way to handle it is not tack on the world on to 4e, but to design a new game to go with the setting.

    The more I read threads like this, the more I come to realize that Birthright is unique in its own way. To use Birthright as intended, you need a new game system to handle the rules. I suggest we stick with 3e, or better yet, look at other game systems to design a better game. Birthright can be made to fit 4e, but since I don't have 4e but have some understanding of its design principles -- 4e and Birthright can not fit without some redesign of one or the other.
    Regent of Medoere

  6. #16
    As someone that is both familiar with Birthright 2e, Birthright 3e/3.5e, and 4e I disagree. 4e is feels way closer to 2e then the 3era ever did and I do not feel that either will have to change at all in theory. In truth I think 2e was way simpler then the BRCS because there was very little extra to the 2e.

  7. #17

    Classes accessible for newbies...

    Quote Originally Posted by Elton Robb View Post
    Birthright would be it's own roleplaying game aside from 4e, since 4e is totally different in its approach. Shoeing in Birthright to work around 4e when it was initially designed as a 2e setting would create problems. I think the best way to handle it is not tack on the world on to 4e, but to design a new game to go with the setting.

    The more I read threads like this, the more I come to realize that Birthright is unique in its own way. To use Birthright as intended, you need a new game system to handle the rules. I suggest we stick with 3e, or better yet, look at other game systems to design a better game. Birthright can be made to fit 4e, but since I don't have 4e but have some understanding of its design principles -- 4e and Birthright can not fit without some redesign of one or the other.
    Yeah, I guess I won't be donating/burning my 2ed books in a whyle... The original 2ed was far from perfect, but I've always felt some security in being able to go back to a printed rule.

    To get back to the Class/Regency proposal: I would try to fit the 4ed classes into full/half regency -- and NOT create new ruling classes; Imagine "new" players, who conceivably know nothing other than 4ed: They would probably have an easier learning-curve if they had direct translation of their favorite class/character. The best thing we can do is make Birthright accessible; and make it simple...

    "I always knew that my dwarven warlord had blue blood -- I just never expected to see him ruling the country!"
    "Careful, young blood-rock, you may soon find that resting from dungeon-crawling is as eventful and equaly challenging of an adventure!"
    "How so Master Jan? My dwarf need two weeks of restand he'll be back underground as soon as..."
    "Well, it so turns out that your domain has a Radom Event; and he'll have to trouble with demands from local merchants..."
    (...)

  8. #18
    Site Moderator AndrewTall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    2,388
    Downloads
    30
    Uploads
    0
    The problem with avoiding non-adventure classes is that the 4e player needs to redesign their character plan completely to add the Br elements, instead of a simple add-on for domain play only they need to consider trade-offs in feats and abilities taken which means a geometric rather than arithmetic increase in complexity. Limited-write up ruling classes which have no impact on combat-play are simple by comparison, any complexity added will be minor as the choices will be fewer in number than trying to reverse engineer the existing classes.

    The trouble with the 'base it on class' approach is that is makes a sweeping assumption that rulership is effective based on the particularly class, and likely the level. 3e's skill based system was far superior to 2e in that regard if marginally more complicated. Why should a fighter who has never commanded men be better than a noble at generalship simply because the fighter has spent 2 years killing trolls? Using the existing level system for rulership forces all NPCs to have significant adventure level expertise and that indicates a bizarre world build - just how many ruins / goblin raiders are there out there? I'd say that the simplicity drive is overdone - players who can't handle tracking a few extra feats/skills certainly can't hope to track dozens of NPCs and political interactions so they wont play anyway.


    I'd prefer, if building a system, that we make it completely independent of the system - I don't see 4e lasting to be frank, and certainly it is heading in the wrong perspective from a BR perspective.

    The work is surely not that complicated:
    * List of skills for each holding
    * List of feats to affect bloodline and holding ability
    * Basic system for skill and feat progression.
    * Alternate powers at adventure level for each bloodline - optional if you want an adventure level impact of bloodline only.

    I'd personally like to see a wholesale expansion to provide a rules basis for story and simulationist (i.e. role not roll) play in 4e, but that's a bit more ambitious and I know that some people see that sort of play as old fashioned and irrelevant

  9. #19
    4e will last as long as 3e/3.5e did, there is no doubt in my mind. The system is simply more powerful then the older systems ever were and it has potential for so much but for those that don't give it a chance it is a moot point.

    As far as 4e Simulationist go there just isn't much but there are some simple rules here or there. The biggest that I know of is the Advanced Player's Guide by Expeditious Retreat Press that makes a Crafting System that is very similiar to the Ritual System. The Adventure's Vault has an alchemy system that is based on the Ritual System.

    The new 4e multi-class only rules are very similiar to Kits from 2e and is very powerful in creating new optional things. The first of the multiclass classes were the Spellscarred from the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide and as I stated before there is an Feudal Lord: Nobles pdf on RPGNOW that is the same as the Spellscarred and I believe could even be used stock for a "Scion" class for BR with their "Bloodline" abilities.

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by AndrewTall View Post
    The problem with avoiding non-adventure classes is that the 4e player needs to redesign their character plan completely to add the Br elements (...)
    Agreed; it would be bad for them to re-design: we just need a "small" add-on. Here is the current use case: I co-DM a group of guys playing 4ED: they ALREADY have characters (we're in our fourth game, and some have switched, but others are sticking to theres -- and you know how emotional people get about changing THEIR character). My intent would be to slowly lead them into a BR like setting/game (most likely based on Narnia) each would have holdings; some of them are familiar with BR mechanics others not! Ideally all I'd do a series of some sort of adventures for them to "learn" the ropes (Leadership/Administration skills mainly, but I can already imagine warfare and diplomacy being in the cards...)
    Sure, someone "born" into the role of a sovereign could probably be of a "Noble" class (if we go with the new class idea), or even a Warlord-based-general-kit (if we go with new class-available skill sets).


    (...)
    Limited-write up ruling classes which have no impact on combat-play are simple by comparison, any complexity added will be minor as the choices will be fewer in number than trying to reverse engineer the existing classes (...)
    So essentially I could go to them and offer that they start a second "noble/ruler class" (leaving the problem of being a scion/blooded asside) - But then I know some of my guys are going to be fumming about wasting time on multi-classing. I know it's a poor excuse; I think I might as well just "give" them a bloodline, and bloodline-based skills (that had been something I had used a long time ago): since bloodline may increase with awesome deeds so could they "learn" administration etc... Then only the Full/Half regency thing would be in question;and that can simply be aligned on class.
    Again, you guys can say I'm REALLY over-simplifying, but in order to isolate the BR-based skills, using the bloodline as the basis makes sense.

    "Master Jan, Now that my dwarf has received the gift of Azrai; I wish for him to establish a fief in the northern hills; so that he may spy upon the goings-on at Caer Paravel!"
    "Indeed, if you so wish, he has learned new skills in leading the black dwarves away from danger; he is now a skilled leader. But his bloodline is still weak, and he will need to be stronger in order to master the workings of administration which are critical to ruling over a strong realm!"
    "Fear not Master Jan... This is only the start!"

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Proposal for Support Units
    By Gwrthefyr in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-12-2007, 06:23 AM
  2. regency
    By Mantyluoto in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-27-2003, 10:37 PM
  3. Proposal: an alternative bloodline system
    By Shade in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-22-2003, 09:51 PM
  4. Regency vs Class
    By Slaine the Horned God in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 10-17-2002, 07:31 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.