Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21
  1. #1
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,178
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    7

    War & Conquest-1st draft

    Here's a first draft of the War and Conquest text I've been working on. My hope with this is to replace what I have always seen as an awkward system, warcards, with one that is more in keeping with the domain level of play.

    Any errors folks might find or comments they might make are likely to be influential in version 1.1.

    http://www.birthright.net/forums/dow...?do=file&id=17

    Good Gaming,
    Gary
    Last edited by geeman; 11-23-2010 at 01:35 AM. Reason: Replacing the uploaded file with link to file in Downloads/Supplements section.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    BR mailing list
    Posts
    1,562
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I posted this query in the Battle Cards thread, but it seems a good
    idea to reiterate it here:

    Does anyone happen to have a list of all (or just many) of the
    warcards? I just need stats for them, not the actual warcards.

    I`m working on a supplement to _War and Conquest_ that has stats for
    the unusual and/or unique warcards in the setting. All the warcards
    that represented knights, strange units, spawn of awnsheghlien,
    etc. If anyone has all of them in one place that`d be a big help.

    Thanks,
    Gary

  3. #3
    Special Guest (Donor)
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    538
    Downloads
    10
    Uploads
    0
    I've been reading the text and first, congrats on it, nice work and nice wording (I really like that).

    Now, some comments and questions on it.

    Bastions: I'm not clear if a bastion protects a single holding (like the old fortified holdings) or all the holdings of a regent (given the line "Bastions can be raised to a maximum level equal to the highest holding controlled by a regent in that province) or something else.

    Forager Special Quality: this ability is just too good, making it nearly mandatory for big armies. I would probably add the requeriment "Army smaller than X". This way, smaller armies aren't so tempted to take it (as they have other abilities to take) and bigger armies can't use it (big armies are so big they can't forage in a efficient way).

    Range: for a system that aims to make things so abstract, Range feels too complicated I think. I think 4 (Long, Medium, Short, Melee), 3 (Long, Short, Melee) or even 2 ranges (Range, Melee) would be enough in such an abstract system.

    Also, Range skills are like Forager, too good. They can get a little expensive, so maybe not so useful for smaller armies, but bigger ones are going to get Archers nearly always. I'm not sure on what would be the best way to handle it (Adding a Ranged Attack ability and doing two attack rolls every combat round, one for range and one for melee? Decreasing the Attack and Defense of the army to acknowledge for the Archers inferior melee abilities? Not sure).

    Advantage Points: what's their effect? (I think hey add +1 to rolls, but not sure, I can't find it in the text).

    That's it I think. Regards,

    Vicente

  4. #4
    Junior Member Arawn76's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Cymru
    Posts
    23
    Downloads
    12
    Uploads
    0
    It looks interesting, although I'll need to review in more detail when home.

    However whilst I like the idea of removing the cards from the game you take a 5-10(?) page ruleset and increase its size by a factor of 3-5.

    For me BR has never been a war game and the simplistic (overly so in some ways) rules in the box suffice to let us dabble in war without it ever sharing centre stage.

    I'll have a better read but from a quick glance I'd say you need to drop a lot of the exposition and tighten down the rules a little.

    Even as a first draft I definitely think you have a better foundation for a set of war rules than the core box set. I just question whether the best goal is simplicity or complexity.

    Please take the above with a pinch of salt and with the generous dose of admiration for an impressive piece of work. Hopefully I'll have something more constructive to offer once I can spend some time familiarising myself with the text in detail.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    BR mailing list
    Posts
    1,562
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    At 01:36 AM 9/24/2009, Vicente wrote:

    >I`ve been reading the text and first, congrats on it, nice work and nice wording (I really like that).


    Thanks.

    >Bastions: I`m not clear if a bastion protects a single holding (like the old fortified holdings) or all the holdings of a regent (given the line "Bastions can be raised to a maximum level equal to the highest holding controlled by a regent in that province) or something else.


    In the original rules, regents had to fortify each holding. The text in this draft is a bit vague, because I was mulling over whether a bastion built by a regent with two holdings in the same province should protect both holdings, but in retrospect I like the original rule better, so I`ll clarify that in the 2nd draft.

    Should a regent be able to create a bastion to protect a source holding? I don`t recall that being addressed in the original rules. A 2nd draft of this text might include a note....

    >Forager Special Quality: this ability is just too good, making it >nearly mandatory for big armies. I would probably add the requirement "Army smaller than X". This way, smaller armies aren`t so tempted to take it (as they have other abilities to take) and bigger armies can`t use it (big armies are so big they can`t forage in a efficient way).


    I came to the same conclusion as I was going through the text. How does a nice, simple -2 to their effective level when determining maintenance costs sound?

    >Range: for a system that aims to make things so abstract, Range feels too complicated I think. I think 4 (Long, Medium, Short, Melee), 3 (Long, Short, Melee) or even 2 ranges (Range, Melee) would be enough in such an abstract system.


    The reason range turned out the way it did was to deal with the order of attacks at the melee level. Hand weapons to polearms to pikes. I didn`t want to ignore that pikes should attack before lances or that lances should attack before swords. I had a similar issue with longbows versus shortbows.

    >Also, Range skills are like Forager, too good. They can get a little expensive, so maybe not so useful for smaller armies, but bigger ones are going to get Archers nearly always. I`m not sure on what would be the best way to handle it (Adding a Ranged Attack ability and doing two attack rolls every combat round, one for range and one for melee? Decreasing the Attack and Defense of the army to acknowledge for the Archers inferior melee abilities? Not sure).


    If you come up with something I`d like to hear it. As it is, I really want to avoid having two attack stats. It`d be simple enough to include, but it changes the way the special quality costs work, would double the time of combat, add a stat to what is now a very simple record keeping set, and require an elaboration on the combat descriptions to address who gets to decide where attacks go.

    >Advantage Points: what`s their effect? (I think hey add +1 to rolls, but not sure, I can`t find it in the text).

    Quite right. It doesn`t actually say "spending 1 advantage point is +1 to a check" (which is what it was supposed to be.)

    I`ve not had a chance to playtest these rules yet, so I don`t know how advantageous advantage points are going to turn out to be, nor how long combat will take, how effective morale will be, etc. We`ll see....

    Gary
    Last edited by Thelandrin; 09-24-2009 at 03:54 PM. Reason: Vertical space & clarity.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    BR mailing list
    Posts
    1,562
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    At 02:14 AM 9/24/2009, Arawn76 wrote:

    >However whilst I like the idea of removing the cards from the game you take a 5-10(?) page ruleset and increase its size by a factor of 3-5.


    The length is a valid concern. Do keep in mind, however, that a lot of this text is colour commentary. Of twenty-eight total pages at least nine pages are formatting and layout--covers, title pages, graphics, etc. Four pages are descriptions of the special qualities, which is done mostly for the sake of... well, I just kind of like it. Four pages are rewrites of the original domain rules that are just revisions to use the vocabulary of this system rather than warcards. Two pages are rewrites of realm spells done for the same reason. There`s a couple pages of new rules, plus the actual system. The meat of the system is really 5-6 pages, which is comparable to the original warcard system.

    Oh, and, uh.... Well, the original warcard rules were published with a tiny font. I know it sounds like I`m being persnickity here, but I use a 12-point font in this document. If I put it into a font comparable to that used in the Rulebook it actually cuts the text down by four pages. I use the 12-point font because its meant for folks who are going to read a PDF file and its easier on the eyeballs. (On the other hand, the Rulebook does have ginormous margins, and a generous formatting layout.)

    Also, to be fair, should we exclude the pages and pages of warcards themselves from a page count of that system? Gods know I`m finding it a big PitA to leaf through my sets of warcards to find the ones I want to portray using these rules....

    >For me BR has never been a war game and the simplistic (overly so in some ways) rules in the box suffice to let us dabble in war without it ever sharing centre stage.

    My hope is that this will serve that same function, but allow those who want to really go to war to do so with a little more ease.

    >Even as a first draft I definitely think you have a better foundation for a set of war rules than the core box set. I just question whether the best goal is simplicity or complexity.

    I like simple rules that can be elaborated. In that context, I`d suggest that this system isn`t really complicated, its just got a lot that can be added. Again, the stack of actual warcards really should be taken into consideration when comparing....

    >Please take the above with a pinch of salt and with the generous dose of admiration for an impressive piece of work. Hopefully I`ll have something more constructive to offer once I can spend some time familiarising myself with the text in detail.

    No problem. I appreciate the comments.

    Gary
    Last edited by Thelandrin; 09-24-2009 at 03:58 PM. Reason: Vertical space & clarity.

  7. #7
    Special Guest (Donor)
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    538
    Downloads
    10
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Birthright-L View Post
    In the original rules, regents had to fortify each holding. The text in this draft is a bit vague, because I was mulling over whether a bastion built by a regent with two holdings in the same province should protect both holdings, but in retrospect I like the original rule better, so I`ll clarify that in the 2nd draft.
    I like more that each holding has to be fortified separately. Fortifying several holdings with a single bastion will bost non-landed regents, not sure if that's a good or bad thing, but I don't like it right now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Birthright-L View Post
    Should a regent be able to create a bastion to protect a source holding? I don`t recall that being addressed in the original rules. A 2nd draft of this text might include a note....
    I think source holdings can't be contested by military force, so not sure if fortifying them is useful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Birthright-L View Post
    I came to the same conclusion as I was going through the text. How does a nice, simple -2 to their effective level when determining maintenance costs sound?
    Far better than my idea. Should there be a minimum cost or armies can cost 0GB to maintain? (I think there should be a minimum, anything with 0GB cost feels open to exploits).

    Quote Originally Posted by Birthright-L View Post
    The reason range turned out the way it did was to deal with the order of attacks at the melee level. Hand weapons to polearms to pikes. I didn`t want to ignore that pikes should attack before lances or that lances should attack before swords. I had a similar issue with longbows versus shortbows.
    My problem with this is: in your system you have transformed an army into an abstract mass of troops, not determining their numbers, formations,... When an army has the "Archers" quality it means some part of that abstract mass is equipped with longbows. But suddenly, when two abstract masses fight each other they do it in an orderly way that allows ranges to be preserved during the whole engagement and all the army fights at the range of a small part of it.

    That's more or less my reasoning to why I find them strange given the current system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Birthright-L View Post
    If you come up with something I`d like to hear it. As it is, I really want to avoid having two attack stats. It`d be simple enough to include, but it changes the way the special quality costs work, would double the time of combat, add a stat to what is now a very simple record keeping set, and require an elaboration on the combat descriptions to address who gets to decide where attacks go.
    I can agree with not adding a second combat stat. But so far I haven't come with anything really good to despict missiles in this system. Maybe some sort of special effect like "Cavalry, Heavy".

    Quote Originally Posted by Birthright-L View Post
    Quite right. It doesn`t actually say "spending 1 advantage point is +1 to a check" (which is what it was supposed to be.)

    I`ve not had a chance to playtest these rules yet, so I don`t know how advantageous advantage points are going to turn out to be, nor how long combat will take, how effective morale will be, etc. We`ll see....
    Not sure if +1 will be important enough or not, seems a little small (specially for big armies). But no idea without playtesting.

    Btw, I forgot, but it would be nice if you could add one or two combat examples at the end of the rules.
    Last edited by Vicente; 09-24-2009 at 06:14 PM.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Mirviriam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Where the moon cuts the wind.
    Posts
    249
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    Exellent looking presentation!

    I only play devils advocate, so forgive me for a bunch of suggestions & only one compliment

    I would recommend dropping all materials covered in the BirthRight book.

    Simply because while pushing the books value - it repeats and eliminates the need for a core/source/whatever you want to call it book. Of course keep sections you need to dispute or compare the new version too.

    Also, while GM/DM/GP/RP are pretty common, I would recommend highly, that outside of Tables/Graphics, that you spell out "BR" as "Birth Right" & the GM/DM/GP/RP abbreviations. Very highly recommend it.

    I noted, that zebec didn't specify if a vessel or not in the description...beginning players might not reference the table immediately to try & figure it out.

    Not sure on balance issues as I just read & still tired.

    EDIT: I forgot the reason I actually hit the reply...Flying Horde spell needs to assign D&D style flying class attributes (A-E I believe). This will help decide what level of wind spells, distance, evasion from siege level attacks etc, but more importantly speed (distance they can travel per hour).

    EDIT2: I'm going to post something I wrote this spring when looking over Kguard's post - just brainstorming haven't had any time to refine these, no spell check not even finished formulas:

    Magic seal - fortification receives magic reduction or resistance. Several versions exist per style of the caster, each caster must specify if going magic reduction or resistance unless taking the fourth version of the spell, it may not be changed till the end of each month for 1 RP, 1 GP & only the move between resistance to reduction can be changed (once you select what is protected, it can't be expanded). First is localized version cast as on the fly prevention. An area(20' x 20' per level of a wall/tower/gate) determined by level of the caster receives maximum resistance. Second, all doors, gates, porticullis, draw bridges, gate houses receive one less level than maximum. Third, all towers, gatehouses gates & porticullis receive 2 less than maximum. Fourth, the entire fortification in one contiguous area, no larger than a mile squared or within visual site of tallest structure gains the magic seal, minimum damage reduction & magic resistance of 25%. Further more with the last option, no area of effect spells cast without battlecaster feat will go off inside of the seal's domain.

    A seal can be broken if not of the first type. The last style must have a breach physically made in each wall allowing the power to drain away over the course of the month. The second and third styles will fail piece by piece as they are physicall breached sufficiently to allow an enemy unit to occupy them or reduced to complete rubble.

    *I never expanded this one - it was going to have a table detailing something along the lines of damage reduction (25/20/15/5), if spell resistance (35%/28%/20%/10%)

    I meant for spell resistance simply to keep the fortification in tact, the damage reduction to protect the infantry inside & upto the limit the fort ensorced.

    Anti-Elemental ward - (Cost ? / ?) - protects a single fortification on a contiguous rock bed (thus limiting which fortifications can be protected). Blocks summoned elemental entities, divine creatures accessing elemental attacks etc. Greater blood abilities at a minus -5 to everything & 20% chance any attacks (physical/metaphysical) will fail. Built in two parts, first physical construction paid for by 5GP per level of fort protecting & the spell itself 2GP per level protecting & 5RP per level.

    Nefarious Haze - (Cost ? / ?) - obscures distance measurements, artillary can't range in on a fortification. 75% chance of miss and 50% chance reduction of fortification level will fail for greater than level 4 fortifications.

    Lightning Rod - (Cost ? / ?) - tower protection that grounds electrical attacks. Chain it too a power storage?

    Blessings - Unbelievably pure springs, Caine's magnificant mansion (banquet halls which always over flow - feeding fortification as long as they are within the walls, constitution checks to live if leaving premise & not eating a regular meal...other side effects?)

    Statis food storage - prevent from going bad?

    Flying fortified guild holdings - (Cost 15GP per level / 15 RP initially - addition per week ? / ?) - Restrict to single class guilder and mage whom is vassalled. Moving provinces drains RP from guilder, mage loses RP as upkeep or becomes grounded. Can land softly on zero power. Cost reduction to move if the item acts as barge in large rivers or at sea, still susceptable to swamping at sea based on construction type, complete submersion cancels spell, rain will not cause the end.

    Ritual of the great balance - (Cost: Priceless, RP to fuel) - From antiquity the ceremony which allowed the gorgon's first defeat. Prevents the instant power reduction in any blooded whom touch a null orb. Nul orbs may be moved only by priest/cleric whom finishes rituals of old. Touching one will cause immediate permenant reduction of the blood strength (no less than down to tainted). Holding or touching a second time will turn scion in to a permenant blood grounding, preventing any attempts at them ever regaining their birthright via bloodtheft. Requires five priests of different gods each paying their individual cost. The item once moved negates all blood abilities except those in the procession whom are directly touching the vessel within a 5 mile radius (which can be constructed to no larger than 10x5 feet). Any action to defend oneself breaks the ritual & it must be recast. Any members left touching vessel are not considered to be touching the nul orb. Cost is determined by the level of the nul stone (each level of nul stone reduces one level of blood strength)

    sanctum rituals - (? / ?) - A favorite of old...the conscious will of the magic in the land is tapped to dampen all non-domain spells in a certain area. RP bids to pierce, but leave the spell in place?

    Moon bridge - (? / ?) - Crossing of wardings via a bridge of silver light. No clouds in sky, allows # units based on phase of the moon.

    Warding fence - (? / ?) - create warding with only one side.

    Cloud Bridge - (? / ?) - Creates a bridge over rivers or lakes based on the caster's level. Not usable else where, but not dispersable with less than domain spell.

    Tradewinds - (? / ?) - A blessing to all sailors and river path finders. Improves returns of a fleets catch & accelators the speed travelled.

    Wind's screaming defense - ( ? / ? ) - Province wide winds which mess with weather, spells, air travel susceptable to such. Air warding?

    The deepest alliance (? / ?) - the province regent, source regent or druid & priest combine their powers to impose additional costs on domain spells entering, happening or already existing in domain. All spells must be paid the additional amount or fail.
    Last edited by Mirviriam; 09-25-2009 at 09:38 AM.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    BR mailing list
    Posts
    1,562
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    At 10:58 AM 9/24/2009, Vicente wrote:

    >>In the original rules, regents had to fortify
    >>each holding. The text in this draft is a bit
    >>vague, because I was mulling over whether a
    >>bastion built by a regent with two holdings in
    >>the same province should protect both holdings,
    >>but in retrospect I like the original rule
    >>better, so I`ll clarify that in the 2nd draft.
    >
    >I like more than each holding has to be
    >fortified separately. Fortifying several
    >holdings with a single bastion will bost
    >non-landed regents, not sure if that`s a good or
    >bad thing, but I don`t like it right now.

    Yeah, part of the problem is that a Stronghold
    (née Castle in the published rules) protects the
    province and its controlling regent`s holdings,
    while a Bastion (fortified holding) protects only
    that holding. From the POV of a game mechanic,
    these structures are comparable to
    holdings. They are even described specifically
    as holdings--at least, castles are. When
    holdings interact, they do so in a general way
    under the control of their regent. So the logic
    was that if a regent controls a Law(2) and a
    Guild(4) in a province, and constructs a
    Bastion(3) in that same province it should
    protect both holdings, just the way the province
    ruler, who likely controls a law holding in his
    province (but could have others) will have both
    the province itself and his holding(s) defended
    by a Stronghold. Presumably, the manifestation
    of his law holdings (or whatever else he has) are
    either in the stronghold itself or can easily take refuge there.

    I can see, and agree with, the idea as originally
    presented in the BR text. It`s just that as one
    sits down and starts to pen a set of game
    mechanics, one sometimes gets into the
    construction of the rules themselves rather than
    what they are really meant to portray, so I put
    it in that context for a while. I could make an
    argument justifying a regent using a Bastion(3)
    to defend both his Law(2) and Guild(4) in one
    province, but it seems more sensible that he`d
    have to construct more than one Bastion or a
    castle to combine the function that way.

    Re: The Forager Special Quality

    >>I came to the same conclusion as I was going
    >>through the text. How does a nice, simple -2
    >>to their effective level when determining maintenance costs sound?
    >
    >Far better than my idea. Should there be a
    >minimum cost or armies can cost 0GB to maintain?
    >(I think there should be a minimum, anything
    >with 0GB cost feels open to exploits).

    Even without that quality, it is possible to
    raise a Levy(1) which would cost 1/2 a GB. Some
    folks (like me) might want to charge that
    fraction of a gold bar, but the original
    materials tended to shy away from fractions or
    decimal points, so 1GB should be the minimum. That`ll be in the next draft.

    >>The reason range turned out the way it did was
    >>to deal with the order of attacks at the melee
    >>level. Hand weapons to polearms to pikes. I
    >>didn`t want to ignore that pikes should attack
    >>before lances or that lances should attack
    >>before swords. I had a similar issue with longbows versus shortbows.
    >
    >My problem with this is this: in your system you
    >have made an army an abstract mass of troops,
    >not determining their numbers, formations,...
    >When an army has a "Archers" quality it means
    >some part of that abstract mass is equipped with
    >longbows. But suddenly, when two abstract masses
    >fight each other they do it in an orderly way
    >that allows ranges to be preserved during the
    >whole engagement and all the army fights at the range of a small part of it.
    >
    >That`s more or less my reasoning to why I find
    >them strange given the current system.

    I associated the range values A-G with terms like
    Archers, Bowmen, Crossbowmen, Darts, etc. because
    it was amusing to do so, but they`re really just
    supposed to be a "first to last" range rating,
    not necessarily actual bows. Technically, the
    Archers special quality could be used to portray
    a band of soldiers freakishly accurate with
    throwing daggers, or a unit made up of stone
    giants tossing rocks, or the inclusion of a few
    balista in a unit. I tried to disassociate the
    descriptors from the actual meaning of the range
    value in the descriptive text for each of
    them: "The archers special ability includes a
    wide range of missile weapons, but the standard
    is the longbow as employed by the most skillful
    soldier." But its probably inevitable that folks
    would make the connection more strongly than I
    had intended given the titles are so specific.

    >>Quite right. It doesn`t actually say "spending
    >>1 advantage point is +1 to a check" (which is what it was supposed to be.)
    >
    >I`ve not had a chance to playtest these rules
    >yet, so I don`t know how advantageous advantage
    >points are going to turn out to be, nor how long
    >combat will take, how effective morale will be, etc. We`ll see....
    >
    >Not sure if +1 will be important enough or not,
    >seems a little small (specially for big armies).
    >But no idea without playtesting.

    I`m going to see about a little testing in the
    next week or two. The number of points awarded
    during the advantage portion of the combat round
    is amongst the easiest possible changes to make
    to these rules, though, so that shouldn`t be a problem.

    >Btw, I forgot, but it would be nice if you could
    >add one or two combat examples at the end of the rules.

    Good idea.

    Gary

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    BR mailing list
    Posts
    1,562
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    At 01:35 AM 9/25/2009, Mirviriam wrote:

    >Exellent looking presentation!
    >
    >I only play devils advocate, so forgive me for a bunch of
    >suggestions & only one compliment

    No problem.

    >I would recommend dropping all materials covered in the BirthRight book.
    >
    >Simply because while pushing the books value - it repeats and
    >eliminates the need for a core/source/whatever you want to call it
    >book. Of course keep sections you need to dispute or compare the
    >new version too.

    I thought the only things from the Rulebook I included were those
    parts that specifically dealt with warcards to military units, or
    fortifications since that plays a role in the combat resolution
    section.... Was there something in particular you saw that seemed
    outside that scope?

    >Also, while GM/DM/GP/RP are pretty common, I would recommend highly,
    >that outside of Tables/Graphics, that you spell out "BR" as "Birth
    >Right" & the GM/DM/GP/RP abbreviations. Very highly recommend it.

    I found the "BR" where it should be Birthright. Thanks. That`s one
    of those things I type so quickly now after so long hanging out with
    the rest of the awnsheghlien around here that I don`t even notice anymore....

    The D&D 3.5 and 4e texts do use the abbreviation DM quite a
    lot.... Does it bother anyone else?

    >I noted, that zebec didn`t specify if a vessel or not in the
    >description...beginning players might not reference the table
    >immediately to try & figure it out.

    The new text reads: "Zebec: Designed by the Khanasi for combat rather
    than trade and commerce, zebecs are formidable vessels with sleek
    lines and large deck fortifications fore and aft."

    >Not sure on balance issues - I saw the bastions thing - I`ll poke
    >around & comment on that later

    Thanks in advance.

    Gary

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. War and Conquest
    By Birthright-L in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 08-27-2009, 05:44 AM
  2. Draft 0.0 The battle
    By ConjurerDragon in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-10-2003, 10:56 PM
  3. Draft 0.0 Ley Lines
    By ConjurerDragon in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-09-2003, 06:24 PM
  4. Draft 0.0 errors
    By ConjurerDragon in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-08-2003, 03:56 PM
  5. Draft 0.0 opinions
    By ConjurerDragon in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-07-2003, 10:13 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.