Rejected postinto BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM

[ConjurerDragon]

LordRahvin wrote:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1623
>LordRahvin wrote:
>[quote][b]Originally posted by irdeggman
>
...

>

The Vos as written get +4 hitpoints at 1st level and an additional +1 at each level, yes this is vastly superior to any other benefit written and easily worth a +1 (probably even a +2 ECL).

>Much more useful statement.
>Let`s ignore the +4 hitpoints at 1st level for a moment. Let`s also ignore that this is made for an independant system and just talk D&D on this issue. Why would +1 hitpoint per level really matter? Yes, it manipulates average hitpoints of characters, but so what? We can already assume that a character can have below-average hitpoints or above-average hitpoints without impacting his ECL -- I had a 5th level Barbarian in my game once whose hitpoint rolls were pathetic. Likewise, although we assume that a fighter, upon leveling up, will get about 5-6 hitpoints, we`re not shocked if he gets 10 nor does it influence his character in the slightest way. In fact, we could give him +5 hitpoints, and it wouldn`t effect his estimate character power at all so long as the amount his hitpoints rolled did not exceed 5. If you accept all that, wouldn`t it make sense to say that +1 hitpoint per level for this fighter would have no impact on his character level whatsoever so long
> as his average hitpoint rolls over time were 9 or less. Ryan can give us the exact probability on this happening, and it`s probably increased for the lower hitdie classes (average of 3 or less on 1d4), but overall the probability of it is so unlikely as to be insignificant. Although the +1 hitpoint per level is a nice ability to have (as opposed to not having it), it doesn`t seem to have much significance on overall character power the way some of the other special abilities do, and hence, it needs the +4 hitpoints at first level to balance it with the other abilities. (The +4 is much more significant, because its your maximum roll +4 rather than your average roll +1.)
>
>All that being said though, I think hitpoints should be fixed and there should definitely be some ECL (or fractional ECL) for having more hitpoints. In this case, (partial?) ECL is worked into the beginning racial character package and is balanced out by the classes being weaker at 1st level and the challenge codes themselves being altered. What I`m looking to debate here isn`t whether or not there should be an ECL (because the definition of what constitutes an effective character level should be different from campaign to campaign) but rather how this benefit compares with the benefits of the other races, and whether its appropriate to this race and whether or not it hinders playability in any way.
>

In the Birthright rules the option to "train" for hitpoints up to the
maximum value for your level and constitution exists. So a character can
achieve maximum hitpoints if he rolled low when levelling up.
If that rule is used, then the suggested +4 hitpoints at 1st level and
the +1 / level are added to the maximum and then they are worth more
then how you value them.
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

From: "Michael Romes" <Archmage@T-ONLINE.DE>

> In the Birthright rules the option to "train" for hitpoints up to the
> maximum value for your level and constitution exists. So a character can
> achieve maximum hitpoints if he rolled low when levelling up.
> If that rule is used, then the suggested +4 hitpoints at 1st level and
> the +1 / level are added to the maximum and then they are worth more
> then how you value them.


No, this is wrong. You are trying to prove that LordRahvin is wrong, which
he is, but you are going about it backwards.

A hp bonus is more valuable it he increase represents a larger percentage of
your hit points. Your fourth hit point increases your damage absoption
capacity by 33%, your 101:th hi oncreases it by 1%.

Thus, +4 hp at first level and then by +1 per level is worth a lot more to a
low-con mage than to a high-con barbarian. Increasing the hit points of a
very lucky (or well trained, according to the above rule) 3rd level
barbarian from 36 to 42 is an increase of only 16%. Increasing the hit
points of an unlycky third level wizard from 8 to 14 is an increase of 75%!


The idea that hit points are not worth anything if they do not take the
statistically likely outcome out of the realm of possible rolls is bad
science. Moving the statisticallty likely outcome of a hit-point roll
upwards IS significant. I claim that randomly rolling accumulating hit
points at every level is potentially very unbalancing; a barbarian who rolls
minimum hit points at levels 2 and 3 is crippled for life. If we want to
talk about hp balance, we have to assume die rolls close to average, or we
are caught in the same morass that affects the balance of random ability
scores.

/Carl

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Lord Rahvin]

> No, this is wrong. You are trying to prove that LordRahvin is wrong, which
> he is, but you are going about it backwards.

Cool. Thanks. :)


> Thus, +4 hp at first level and then by +1 per level is worth a lot more to a
> low-con mage than to a high-con barbarian. Increasing the hit points of a
> very lucky (or well trained, according to the above rule) 3rd level
> barbarian from 36 to 42 is an increase of only 16%. Increasing the hit
> points of an unlycky third level wizard from 8 to 14 is an increase of 75%!

Yes, it`s a huge increase in *percentage* but that`s not saying all that
much. 1 hitpoint is still 1 hitpoint is still 1 hitpoint. You can make it
sound impressive by saying he has 75% more hitpoints, but that`s still only
6. Six hitpoints is not a huge game-breaking ability that everyone`s making
it out to be. I`ll respond more generally at the end, see below.

> The idea that hit points are not worth anything if they do not take the
> statistically likely outcome out of the realm of possible rolls is bad
> science. Moving the statisticallty likely outcome of a hit-point roll
> upwards IS significant.

Yes, I`d agree it has significance, that`s why I gave them the ability. If
it had no significance at all, there`d be no point.


>I claim that randomly rolling accumulating hit
> points at every level is potentially very unbalancing; a barbarian who rolls
> minimum hit points at levels 2 and 3 is crippled for life. If we want to
> talk about hp balance, we have to assume die rolls close to average, or we
> are caught in the same morass that affects the balance of random ability
> scores.

Ummm... okay. Yeah, I`d agree with that. Ryan gave an amusing alternative
to this that I want to bring up with my players as soon as possible. But
yeah, fixed hitpoints make much more sense to me. In my games I allow
players to either roll or take the average result (not rounded), but they
never take the average.

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

Most people seem to be trying to explain the mechanics and math to me of
hitpoints in this issue. For the most part, I understand the mechanics
(though everyone`s math seems to have minor variations) but not the
significance of those mechanics or math.

+4 hp is a powerful ability. I`ll warrant that. After talking with my
players and the people on this list, I was thinking of lowering the first
level benefit to +2. I still hold that +1 hitpoints per level is not that
big a deal -- certainly not enough to warrant an ECL and within D&D hp don`t
seem to be valued all that much in terms of ECL.

My problem is after going and plugging this into the Racial Writeups, it
seems rather pathetic. What`s +2 hitpoints compared with a +1 Will save?
As it is I wasn`t even sure +4 hp balanced well with a +1 Will save. At 4th
level, the Will save is increased to +2 and the hp bonus (under the original
writeup) has accumulated 7 hitpoints. I think 7 hitpoints *might* be worth
a +2 Will save, but the Will save still sounds a little bit more impressive
to me. Lowering the hp bonus seems rather imbalanced.

-Lord Rahvin

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

From: "Lord Rahvin" <lordrahvin@SOFTHOME.NET>

> My problem is after going and plugging this into the Racial Writeups, it
> seems rather pathetic. What`s +2 hitpoints compared with a +1 Will save?
> As it is I wasn`t even sure +4 hp balanced well with a +1 Will save. At
4th
> level, the Will save is increased to +2 and the hp bonus (under the
original
> writeup) has accumulated 7 hitpoints. I think 7 hitpoints *might* be
worth
> a +2 Will save, but the Will save still sounds a little bit more
impressive
> to me. Lowering the hp bonus seems rather imbalanced.
>
> -Lord Rahvin
>


I have no problem with this, which is why I did not post myself in response
to your original post.

/Carl

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

Starfox wrote:

> > Thus, +4 hp at first level and then by +1 per level is worth a lot
> > more to a low-con mage than to a high-con barbarian.

Yes, this was my reasoning behind the formula I mentioned which involved
dividing by the avergae hp for a character of those class levels.
However, even to the poor little Wiz 1, +4 hp is nowhere near a whole
ECL`s worth of power-up. It`s still the case that most single hits have a
good chance to knock him down, and it doesn`t make him any better at doing
anything to anyone else. It`s an issue of figuring out which ability is
how much better or worse than which others, which is really almost more a
matter of taste than anything else, so I don`t think we`re going to get
very far towards agreement on this one. That said, I see both +1 hp/level
and +4 hp at first level as pretty minor powers. Heck, +3 hp is a feat.

> > The idea that hit points are not worth anything if they do not take
> > the statistically likely outcome out of the realm of possible rolls
> > is bad science. Moving the statisticallty likely outcome of a
> > hit-point roll upwards IS significant.

Yes, I agree. I felt a bit uneasy going in, but crunching the numbers
convinced me just how misleading a way to approach the issue that is.


On Sat, 3 May 2003, Lord Rahvin wrote:

> Yes, it`s a huge increase in *percentage* but that`s not saying all
> that much. 1 hitpoint is still 1 hitpoint is still 1 hitpoint.

Which is the reason for the formula I suggested which doesn`t divide by
the average. =) I can`t really make up my mind which is the better way to
do it, but I lean slightly towards this one (e.g., 20 excess hp = 1 ECL).
That said, bothering to do it at all is a really low priority for me.

> Six hitpoints is not a huge game-breaking ability

Definitely I agree.

> Ryan gave an amusing alternative to this that I want to bring up with
> my players as soon as possible.

I`m keen to hear how it goes...

> But yeah, fixed hitpoints make much more sense to me.

Fixing all hp/HD (players, NPCs and monsters) at 3/4 max has worked for
me. Makes combats last just a touch longer, and IMO improves balance.

> In my games I allow players to either roll or take the average result
> (not rounded), but they never take the average.

Never? Wow. I`d always take it -- but then I am rather risk-averse.

> (though everyone`s math seems to have minor variations) but not the
> significance of those mechanics or math.

Well, that`s why statisticians get such a bad rap. =) The answer depends
heavily on the exact way the question is phrased, and the best phrasing
for any particular purpose can be unclear.

> I still hold that +1 hitpoints per level is not that big a deal --
> certainly not enough to warrant an ECL and within D&D hp don`t seem
> to be valued all that much in terms of ECL.

Yes, certainly not. Given the skill points, BAB, saves, and 2.5-6.5
average hp per level, etc. which actual classes give, if you`re to assign
ECL for *just* hp, the number needs to be much bigger.

> What`s +2 hitpoints compared with a +1 Will save?

Diddley-squat. =)


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

IMC, saving throws have never been a very big issue.

The players have bought themselves plenty of Iron Will (the eblood ability)
and other save bonuses, which has made save-dependent attacks rather
ineffective. Add to this the fact that mages and monsters are rare in BR,
and the most frequent save my players have to make is a Fortitude save in a
party dominated by fighters.

Not many saving throws in a straight bash-down between fighters.

My player still like to prioritize their saves, but IMHO, they are
overevaluating them. Of course, since the campaign is rather heroic, the
short periods of failed Will saves when the PCs are not quite in control of
their axctions are highly frustrating. I guess that is why they do it.

/Carl

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Lord Rahvin

> Thus, +4 hp at first level and then by +1 per level is worth a lot more to a
> low-con mage than to a high-con barbarian. Increasing the hit points of a
> very lucky (or well trained, according to the above rule) 3rd level
> barbarian from 36 to 42 is an increase of only 16%. Increasing the hit
> points of an unlycky third level wizard from 8 to 14 is an increase of 75%!
+4 hp is a powerful ability. I`ll warrant that. After talking with my
players and the people on this list, I was thinking of lowering the first
level benefit to +2. I still hold that +1 hitpoints per level is not that
big a deal -- certainly not enough to warrant an ECL and within D&D hp don`t
seem to be valued all that much in terms of ECL.

My problem is after going and plugging this into the Racial Writeups, it
seems rather pathetic. What`s +2 hitpoints compared with a +1 Will save?
As it is I wasn`t even sure +4 hp balanced well with a +1 Will save. At 4th
level, the Will save is increased to +2 and the hp bonus (under the original
writeup) has accumulated 7 hitpoints. I think 7 hitpoints *might* be worth
a +2 Will save, but the Will save still sounds a little bit more impressive
to me. Lowering the hp bonus seems rather imbalanced.

-Lord Rahvin

Here's another way to look at the hitpoint issue. An even challange rating encounter is supposed to consume about 25% of a party's assets (at least potentially). These assets include, spells available, magic items and hit points. So at 1st level a +4 hitpoints is more than a 25% increase in one of the assets. Hit points and spells are the 2 most easily measured assets and the 2 most often expended. A fighter with +2 hitpoints from Con would normally have 12 hitpoints then an additional 4 is a 33% increase to this total. This benefit tends to dimish in importance as levels go up, unless the character is a lowly wizard.

In essence what this benefit does is grant an improved toughness feat at 1st level (+4 hit points vice +3 from the feat) and then grants a bonus feat every 3rd level (toughness) scaled to every level (i.e., +1 hit point per level vice +3 every 3rd level).

The saving throw benefits grant less than a feat every 3rd level, since the corresponding feats only grant +2 (but aren't available to take multiple times, like toughness is). While on the surface this doesn't look to be balancing, does the bonus to the saving throws equate to an equivalent decrease in the consumption of a party's assets that the hit point bonus would? Generally no, occasionally yes. In almost all encounters the party will use their hit points but not have to make very many saving throws. In specialized encounters (e.g., against a group with several spellcasters present) the benefit to saving throws could very easily be greater - but these type of encounters are usually much less frequent.

So the bottom line is will the benefit provided increase the party's assets by 25% or more? If so, then there is definitely an ECL /balance issue involved.:)

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by LordRahvin

Look, I'd like to apologize if my previous post(s) sounded a bit harsh, it's just sometimes I'm utterly shocked by what I percieve to be blind dedication to published rulebooks, regardless of how those rules are used or why. As someone who takes great pride in seeing when rules properly help to run a gaming session, I tend to get upset with "bad rules", or interpretations of rules inappropriate to what they are representing. It take it more personally than I should.

I appreciate you trying to help me with the ECL stuff and everything else -- it's a lot more than I expected. But most of your suggestions didn't seem to make much sense in this case. You seem like a fairly smart guy, and you come off as someone who likes Birthright and enjoys the idea of designing workable game systems. Which is why it surpises me sometimes when you say or do something that seems counterproductive to that agenda. The saving throw bit below, for example...

IMO if ability modifiers are used then favored classes should also be used as a balancing thing. But this is just my preference and I know a lot of people don't agree with it

I don't know what you're talking about; I'm guessing your making references to discussions you've had with other people. My own opinion on this: If every level of every class is theoretically balanced with eachother, there's no reason to have multiclassing restrictions. Only when the balance of a level of a given class goes up or down (as in the case of prestige classes) should retrictions be put in place. I find it amusing they did this in reverse in D&D -- the "lesser classes" have restrictions on how many you can have but you can have as many of the higher-powered "prestige classes" as you can meet requirements for.

Favored classes don't make a good balance mechanic because they don't provide a benefit -- they just increase the amount of depth or versatility you can add to your character. If they actually did something that effected your overall character power (e.g., if having a Favored Class:Fighter meant that you could level up higher as a Fighter or you'd be a more effective Fighter than someone else) than I'd be more inclined to agree.

I'm slightly amused that you put such emphasis on limiting ability score benefits to races, but opt to balance those benefits with a cultural aptitude containing very little in the way of game effect and nothing in biological rationale.

I am not opposed to having ability modifiers for races but I do think that the logic that you applied to generate them was faulty. See some of the discussion on dwarves and not all abilities being equal below. I like using favored classes because they are a reflection of cultural differences, which is where you were placing the emphasis on ability modifiers. Hence the use of favored classes is a very definite cultural issue/benefit. What it does is gives some impetus to a culture having a predominance of a certain class. If cultures are so intertwined that they can freely interact then the use of favored classes is not a real viable option. This was one of the reasons that the core rules humans could have any class as a favored one. Favored classes also seems to be a D&D exclusive concept and thus I can see why you have trouble grasping why it is so significant. Wheel of Time does not incorporate this concept.

Your initial interpretation of the power levels and usefulness of my racial writeups were based on incorrent data and insufficient information. Now that I've helped to clarify some of those issues and explain some of those mechanics, might I trouble you to go back and evaluate them again? Many of your ECL comments seemed to be derived from the idea that effects of these tempates stacked with stuff in the PHB, and now that I've explained that's not the case I think some of your comments/opinions might have changed. Beyond the ECL issue, I'd like any other opinions you have. (You can just assume that all BR campaigns will start at 4th level and require you to select a +3 ECL race, if it makes the evaluation easier for you.)

-Lord Rahvin

It is very difficult to make substantial comments on this topic. The major fault with the premise is that these racial write-ups are a part of a self-contained campaign setting. This setting is not D&D, not Wheel of Time, not Star Wars, etc., but is in reality a conglomerate of several different systems (based on previous comments). Unless the entire system is presented it is relatively impossible to make any realistic commentary. I for one don’t have the time to review and comment on someone’s individually created setting. For one it would be foolish to critique someone’s vision, since that is creativity at its heart.

There are many campaign specific attributes contained in you post that were not explained initially and are necessary for an understanding, e.g.,

All of my comments are founded in the assumption that Birthright is a D&D campaign, like Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft and Dark Sun. D&D is a subset of the d20 system and is unique in several ways. Several of this have been mentioned by the 3.5 authors that will be maintained in the 3.5 products, the way armor works and the way magic works. D&D is pretty much the only d20 system in which there are no defense bonuses granted by class level. It is next to impossible for the at large group that this review was requested of to give an approval of someone’s individual campaign. If the campaign in its entirety was presented for review that would be a different matter, but then again it is not a D&D campaign but a D&D-like one (a medieval fantasy d20 RPG).

Another problem is that we have fundamentally differences of opinion of what constitutes a genetic (biological) commonality and what constitutes a cultural one. Are the different ability modifiers for the elven sub-races genetic or cultural? These should be treated the same as those for any human sub-race.

> Anuirean:
> +1 ECL (unbalanced ability score, pg 11)

I don`t think the ability scores are unbalanced for the Anuirean. To be honest though, I don`t really care. In the final draft, all ability score adjustments will be taken out. (Though I think I may include an option to raise your ability scores by taking a racial ability to do so.) -Lord Rahvin

Unless this is a regional feat then it would be genetic/biological since it would apply to a member of that race regardless of the culture in which they were raised.

A few comments on previous statements made by Lord Rahvin:

The reference (I didn’t quote this one since the discussion has crossed multiple threads and it is difficult to go back and forth to get the correct elements to quote) to not all ability scores being equal (see Table 2-7 in the DMG) and applying this to the initially proposed ability score adjustments for Anuireans (+2 Str, +2 Wis, +2 Cha, -2 Dex, -2 Con). The table is not supposed to be read backwards, that is if one is applying an ability increase then the corresponding decreases are listed on the right. A +2 to Wisdom and Charisma is not equal to a –2 in Dex. A +2 in Wisdom is offset by a –2 in Intelligence or Charisma, or Str, Dex or Con – although the latter 3 are considered a more drastic loss.


Regarding dwarves and charisma:

> Why a plus to Charisma? Dwarves are never portrayed as being any better at dealing with the other races than are the other races.

Yeah they are. Or at least dwarves are considered to be on friendly terms with everyone, or at least rather neutral. In a world of constant warfare and fierce racial hatreds, this is no minor feat. I felt that this would warrant a charisma bonus. Also, the clan nature of dwarves suggests strong loyalties and ruling a dwarf realm seems be an excersise in patience and diplomacy and negotiation -- even more so than usual. Charisma seemed like a good bonus.

Generally Cerilian dwarves are isolationists. I use the following references as a basis of my opinion:

BRRB
Dwarves (pg 5) – "Cerilian dwarves usually adhere to a friendly neutrality; thus, they are on good terms with most other races, including the elves. They’re masterful craftsmen and traders; dwarven caravans roam from Anuire to Vos laden with their goods. Dwarven arms and armor are the best in Cerilia, and it is not uncommon to see dwarves selling their services as mercenaries." {This is the only reference to Cerilian dwarves frequently roaming the lands trading, most of the other references imply (or state) that the dwarves prefer to have others bring goods to them.}

Atlas of Cerilia
Dwarves - "This is part of the reason that they prefer not to deal with outsiders – visitors distract the sentries."

Ruins of the Empire
Baruk-Azhik – Regent – "He acts friendly to proven friends of the dwarven cause and supports his people’s ventures enthusiastically, but finds little reason to seek companions outside his own race. He does not disdain humans, but he wants them to prove their worth before he trusts them with any task or treasure of value."
Trade Goods – "However, dwarven goods leave the kingdom only infrequently, as the dwarves tend to trade only among themselves."

Player’s Secrets of Baruk-Azhik
See timeline 530 "5 provinces of Baruk-Azhik seal their doors to the outside world"
(p 12) under culture "Because dwarves are insular in nature and never dwell outside their own realms, humans have had no real opportunities to learn their ways. Furthermore, human visitors to the dwarven realms are exceedingly rare; it would be safe to speculate that half the dwarven cities in Cerilia have never known a human footfall."
{While I don’t go with using the Player’s Secrets books as any sort of canon, this section is consistent with other sources’ description of dwarven behavior.}

Havens of the Great Bay
Daikhar Zhigun
"Less insular than their brethren to the east, the dwarves of Daikhar Zhigun still view outsiders warily."
The Overlook
The Dwarven Realm – "They welcome trade with other realms, but only a little at a time and after much negotiation."

Rjurik Highlands
Khurin-Azur
"Though trade contacts with the outside world are limited, a trickle of goods drifts in and out of the dwarven fortress."
Allies – "The dwarves, victims of the stubborn pride that is the bane of their race, have no allies in the world."
Tjorgrim Stonesoul – "Unlike most other dwarves, Tjorgrim has grown more tolerant of outsiders as he has aged. The decline of his people is unmistakable evidence, as far as the Stonelord is concerned, that the dwarves cannot continue to exist in isolation, and that human dominion over Cerilia is an unpleasant but unchangeable fact."

Legend of the Hero-Kings
Dwarven Steel – many references to "isolationism"


I generally like using the preponderance of evidence as to what the intent of something is; I also try to read the context in which any rules type of statement is used. I do agree with your assumption of dwarven behavior as far as they’re not receiving a Charisma penalty, like the PHB dwarves do.

I don`t think any of us are ever going to agree on particular modifers, but
yeah, that seems fine to me. You yourself, however, mentioned that the
Brecht should recieve a higher Con benefit because they live in harsher
climate than Anuire and so since Anuirean live in such lush climate and
harsh climate = con, maybe the anuirean con penalty might make sense? But
either way, I don`t really like the modifiers much anyway. I included them
mostly because I thought the first responses I got to these templates would
be that races should have ability score modifiers

Actually what I said was:

Why do Brechts lose Con? They are seafarers and this is a very important attribute for that focus, also there is the climate of the Great Bay to take into mind – it is harsher than say Anuire.

And

Why do Anuireans lose Con? They are a warrior race. It would be better to drop the Str and Con modifiers to ensure they are not being traded off for each other.

What I meant was that neither of them should have a Con penalty.


In summary, sorry for the long post, I think we need to agree to disagree and realize that it is probably not a good idea to ask a community at large to comment on the specifics of a specialized (self-contained) campaign without providing the campaign in it’s entirety. For example from your posts it can be determined that your campaign contains the following: action die (although you said you were going to drop this one); Basic Combat Feats; Class write ups that include level based – initiative bonuses, reputation bonuses, defense bonuses and wealth bonuses; tracking as a skill (although 3.5 is supposed to shift towards this handling of tracking); Appraise as Knowledge (business); Special Equipment Feat; Stealth Feats; Feat to increase Massive Damage Threshold; Pursuit Feats; the magic system you mentioned on another thread. What it almost appears to be is that you are seeking a group wise validation of your campaign – this is generally a bad idea. It is your campaign and you should run it as you see fit – you don’t need our permission to do this and should in no way think you need our validation for your concepts.
:)

[Lord Rahvin]

> The reference (I didn’t quote this one since the
> discussion has crossed multiple threads and it is
> difficult to go back and forth to get the correct
> elements to quote) to not all ability scores being
> equal (see Table 2-7 in the DMG) and applying this
> to the initially proposed ability score adjustments
> for Anuireans (+2 Str, +2 Wis, +2 Cha, -2 Dex, -2 Con).
> The table is not supposed to be read backwards, that is
> if one is applying an ability increase then the
> corresponding decreases are listed on the right. A +2
> to Wisdom and Charisma is not equal to a –2 in Dex.

Yes, I know. I was the one who first mentioned that. I`m not ignorant of
the rules, nor the significance behind these rules. Everytime I advocate a
certain rules change, people seem to leap the conclusion that I don`t
understand the rule. Looking at the Anuirean adjustments, I still feel that
they are balanced. The benefit is massive, and so is the penalty.

I`m told these "reverse table" modifiers were applied in the Star Wars
setting, and they seemed to work okay. After significant playtesting and a
complete revision of the rules, they still kept certain races with modifiers
similiar to those I posted. They`re not that broken; they survived both
revision and playtesting. It could be argued that Star Wars is a completely
different settings and such, but I feel that modern and sci-fi rules come
closer to the central concepts associated with Birthright themes than D&D
and Forgotten Realms do.

Regardless though, just looking at them, the Anuirean modifiers don`t seem
too imbalanced. I know the table wasn`t supposed to be "read backwards",
and I knew that while I was writing up the modifiers, but even so, they seem
to work. And that`s what I based it on. ("Acid Test"ing?)


> Regarding dwarves and charisma:

Thanks for the quotes on dwarves and stuff. I`m going to look over that
later. I`ve been meaning to compile a similiar list for awhile, but don`t
have access to all my books right now. Most of the quotes you made seem
like they could go both ways, intepreting either a +2 +0 or -2 modifier
depending on how you want to read it, except, ironically enough, for the
Player`s Secret quote which was pretty direct on the subject.


> What I meant was that neither of them should have a Con penalty.

Okay. An earlier post mentioned that the bonuses I picked were based on my
ideas of the races` concept, while the penalties were made strictly by rules
-- which penalties would balance with those bonuses. This is why some of
the penalties seem off, even to me, and one of the (many) reasons I don`t
like racial ability modifiers.


> In summary, sorry for the long post,

I like long posts. :)

> I think we need to agree to disagree and realize that
> it is probably not a good idea to ask a community at
> large to comment on the specifics of a specialized
> (self-contained) campaign without providing the
> campaign in it’s entirety.

Yeah, the "agreeing to disagree" part is fine by me. I never sought any
kind of concensus or approval; just discussions and comments to look at this
from a fresh perspective.


> What it almost appears to be is that you are seeking
> a group wise validation of your campaign – this is
> generally a bad idea. It is your campaign and you should
> run it as you see fit – you don’t need our permission to
> do this and should in no way think you need our validation
> for your concepts.

No, I already run campaigns my way. Sort of. My sessions are more like
constant playtesting where rules are constantly be tried and thrown out or
revised or discussed.

What I`m doing is presenting a fresh way of running a Birthright theme, free
form those D&D aspects that I feel are unneccessarily invasive. You`ve
summarized my intents pretty well in your last post, describing it as
not-D&D but similiar to D&D in that it`s a d20 fantasy roleplaying game,
created for the Birthright setting. It`s a completely enclosed system not
made to be used with other D&D products, but it combines many good ideas
from designers of many different d20 and non-d20 games, including D&D.

And yeah, it`s nowhere near completed. But I think there are people who
might be interested in a BR system like this, which is why I do it. And I
believe in regular progress updates.

-Lord Rahvin

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

On Tue, 6 May 2003, Lord Rahvin wrote:

> My sessions are more like constant playtesting where rules are
> constantly be tried and thrown out or revised or discussed.

Which is exactly the way every campaign should be run, IMO! There is no
rules system which cannot be improved, and no way to improve without such
tinkering. To fix rules in stone is to knowingly settle for less. Hence
I find any attempt to construct a "final" conversion rather silly. No set
of rules can ever really be finished.

> not-D&D but similiar to D&D in that it`s a d20 fantasy roleplaying
> game, created for the Birthright setting.

Exactly the right approach! Always adapt the rules to the setting, not
the other way around. Thanks for all your work -- someday I hope actually
to manage reading it all. :} Just don`t stop sending it... huzzah for
archives, eh?


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.