Tainted Bloodline?

[Azrai]

Do you think that minor, major greater and true bloodlines are enough? Would'nt the tainted derivation be a reasonable addition?

Why is it excluded?

[Mark_Aurel]

It isn't, really. The equivalent of 2e "tainted bloodlines" in 3e are bloodlines so low that they don't provide any blood abilities; you can consider a bloodline of 9 or lower to be "tainted" in general. Beyond that, the rules as they are does not support this as a separate category.

[Ariadne]

I don't cry about removing the tainted bloodline. Most rolled anew, if they got one...

[geeman]

At 07:42 PM 2/5/2003 +0100, Mark_Aurel wrote:

> It isn`t, really. The equivalent of 2e "tainted bloodlines" in 3e are
> bloodlines so low that they don`t provide any blood abilities; you can
> consider a bloodline of 9 or lower to be "tainted" in general. Beyond
> that, the rules as they are does not support this as a separate category.

I`ll write up a more thorough analysis in the next couple of days, but this
is one aspect of the bloodline system that I don`t much like. Generally, I
just don`t think casting bloodline into the format of an ability score is
the way to go. I understand that it is a legacy of Doom`s original
conversion, but I`ve never thought it really made much sense. Aside from
it being a dramatic and largely unnecessary change from the original system
one loses several things by putting the concept into the ability score
mechanic, tainted bloodlines being just one of those things. Given that a
bloodline of any sort would allow access to true magic this is a pretty
significant difference between the original idea of a bloodline and how it
is being portrayed in this rules set. I`ve had many wizards who had only a
tainted bloodline since that`s the minimum required. Using this conversion
those characters would have to be more much "significantly blooded" than
was the original intention or is really necessary.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
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]

Actually Gary they wouldn't. Anyone can be blooded, the distinction is in what they gain. As Mark pointed out the 2nd ed "tainted" essentially gave very little bonus. There are ECLs for major and higher bloodlines, the minor bloodline still gives access to minor blood abilities, the blood score can still increase and grant access to more (only limit is they must be minor) - anyone with a bloodline (of any strength) can be a wizard. It just seems to be kind of useless to mark a distinction between a minor and tainted bloodline. Marraiges will be arranged on strength (no one is going to arrange to marry into a lower {minor or weak minor (aka tainted)} bloodline without risk of diluting the line).

By using an additional ability score for this mechanic it helps to update the old 10% experience point bonus that non-blooded characters received. They can simply choose to apply their best scores into abilities that fit their adventuring class. Ability scores are more of a permanent benefit than an experience point award.

So if a player wishes to run a wizard (and not be an elf or half elf) he rolls (or assigns points) to 7 ability scores. He can then arrange them where he wishes in order to create the type of character he desires. If he wishes to be blooded, then he keeps his blood ability score and can thus be a wizard - essentially he has chosen a minor scion template with a lower blood score, otherwise he is non-blooded and disgards his lowest score.

[ConjurerDragon]

Ariadne 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=1266
>
> Ariadne wrote:
> I don`t cry about removing the tainted bloodline. Most rolled anew, if they got one...
>
Is there a sense in rolling at all, if you do not keep what you roll?
Then better use the point-buy variant if you cheat yourself in rolling
until you get something you want.
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.

[spehar]

Certainly the flexability is nice. Both systems have benefits but most people, most of the time want to make their own character. In the game I'm running I've long wondered whether the 32-point buy system was to much. Since I run the low magic, low powered campaign world 32-points seems appropriate to counter the extreme lack of magic.

Either way you make your characters, its all good, as long as its fun.

Mike Spehar

[Gavin Cetaine]

Originally posted by geeman


At 07:42 PM 2/5/2003 +0100, Mark_Aurel wrote:

> It isn`t, really. The equivalent of 2e "tainted bloodlines" in 3e are
> bloodlines so low that they don`t provide any blood abilities; you can
> consider a bloodline of 9 or lower to be "tainted" in general. Beyond
> that, the rules as they are does not support this as a separate category.

I`ll write up a more thorough analysis in the next couple of days, but this
is one aspect of the bloodline system that I don`t much like. Generally, I
just don`t think casting bloodline into the format of an ability score is
the way to go. I understand that it is a legacy of Doom`s original
conversion, but I`ve never thought it really made much sense. Aside from
it being a dramatic and largely unnecessary change from the original system
one loses several things by putting the concept into the ability score
mechanic, tainted bloodlines being just one of those things. Given that a
bloodline of any sort would allow access to true magic this is a pretty
significant difference between the original idea of a bloodline and how it
is being portrayed in this rules set. I`ve had many wizards who had only a
tainted bloodline since that`s the minimum required. Using this conversion
those characters would have to be more much "significantly blooded" than
was the original intention or is really necessary.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
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.



Actually, I have to disagree about the format conversion. The d20 system is all about one rule -- roll the d20 and remember that higher is better. By adapting the old bloodline system into a stat, Doom brought it into line with that rule. Yes, the old system could have been kept, but then you run into conformity issues.

Another important aspect of 3rd ed DnD that you might have noticed is "choices." By converting the system into a stat, the option of choosing your own powers has been provided and characters of equal strengths are now 'equal' in powers. The randomness of extreme rolling has been removed to provide for more balanced scions. This doen't mean that you have to pick your powers, the random tables are there. You have the option to use them.

You obviously have access to the old system, so you have the choice to use that instead of the new one. But remember that BR has been off the market for years and that some of us late comers (and all those potential players out there) don't necessarily have the old stuff. Since a system had to be provided for us in the conversion, shouldn't that system be based on the same concepts of the d20 system?

[Mark_Aurel]

Okay, the current bloodline system is terrible. Just like democracy. Just like Churchill said. It's terrible, but there isn't really any evils around that are lesser. I'm going to go through the reasons, in brief:

-Mechanical compatibility; the ability mechanic in 3e is used for several things in 3e - setting DCs is a pretty important thing. If bloodline wasn't there, this'd default to charisma. Why should bards and paladins have better bloodline abilities than members of other classes? The other alternative would be flat DCs, which doesn't really exist in 3e.
-Balance. 3e balances characters, level by level. 2e "balanced" things by using a system where you'd get random abilities, and "balance" the powerful ones by making them rare. That wouldn't really work in 3e.
-Character design decisions. 3e gives you much more control over character design than 2e did - when there were subsystems for new abilities in 2e, such as blood abilities, red steel abilities, wild talents, or whatever, they were random and "balanced" by randomness. Class abilities were rarely customizable to the extent they are in 3e (particularly through feats); 3e is still a class-based system, of course, but it keeps simplicity while allowing a greater level of choice.

That's the Player Character part. Bloodlines create a further headache, of course, because it's a mechanic that interfaces with two different aspects of the world - both player characters and the domain rules.

There's numerous examples of alternate ways to do bloodlines and blood abilities; some of the more immediate ways are:
-Keep the old system and screw balance. Doesn't work, because it goes contrary to 3e balance and mechanics.
-Keep the old system, but change the balance a bit - mix the ability of picking bloodline strength (tainted-great) with a random roll of dice to generate starting bloodline value. Doesn't work either, because it introduces yet another single roll that can screw your character, or make him overpowered.
-Use blood abilities as feats or templates, perhaps with salient divine abilities in mind. Doesn't work either - doesn't interface with the domain rules properly.
-Use the bloodline ability score as is, use a feat/template system ala salient divine abilities, remove RP from the system altogether, use bloodline ability modifier as a modifier to all domain-related rolls instead. Doesn't work - sacrifices what is a true sacred cow for the BR domain system, the RP pool.
-Use random generation in a manner similar to Omega World (recent issue of Polyhedron); this would be more balanced than the old random generation, but would still leave the issues of domain interaction, and player choice in designing characters (easy enough to pick, though).

I'm fairly eager to see criticism of the system as is - but I also think presenting an alternative is good, and especially keeping in mind the design goals of this part:

-Keep the bloodline system interactive with domains;
-Balance in 3e fashion;
-Character choice in 3e fashion;
-Keep 3e rules for things like DCs in mind;
-Don't give something for nothing (i.e. don't create another random value that is balanced only against itself - aka the old bloodline strength score);
-Keep the sacred cows around and don't change _too_ much (i.e. the blood abilities themselves, RP)

Since the conception of the bloodline ability score system, I've also toyed with a lot of other systems in a theorethical fashion; some turned out to work fairly well in a 3e mechancial fashion, but they also deviate extensively from what the original system made them.

To repeat myself, I'd be very interested to see this debate continue - especially if good alternatives that keep in mind the design goals are presented. I could present some discarded alternatives myself, if that'd help the discussion be more fruitful.

[geeman]

At 03:05 PM 2/7/2003 +0100, Gavin Cetaine wrote:

>Actually, I have to disagree about the format conversion. The d20 system
>is all about one rule -- roll the d20 and remember that higher is
>better. By adapting the old bloodline system into a stat, Doom brought it
>into line with that rule. Yes, the old system could have been kept, but
>then you run into conformity issues.

The domain rules with the original bloodline system used a single d20 roll,
and bloodline only rarely entered directly into that. Bloodline wasn`t an
ability score in that system, and it doesn`t need to be now. To me making
bloodline an ability score puts it into a 3e-like format, which might be
easier for many people to digest, but it doesn`t really need to go that
direction, and there are several game mechanical reasons why it shouldn`t.

>Another important aspect of 3rd ed DnD that you might have noticed is
>"choices." By converting the system into a stat, the option of choosing
>your own powers has been provided and characters of equal strengths are
>now `equal` in powers. The randomness of extreme rolling has been
>removed to provide for more balanced scions. This doen`t mean that you
>have to pick your powers, the random tables are there. You have the
>option to use them.

Couldn`t one still do so without turning bloodline into an ability
score? In fact, one of the weird things about reflecting bloodline as an
ability score is that provisions for a random method weren`t included in
the BR 3e document. There are dozens of methods for rolling random ability
scores, so converting bloodline to an ability score without assuming some
sort of die-roll method of performing character generation seems a little
out of whack to me.

>You obviously have access to the old system, so you have the choice to use
>that instead of the new one. But remember that BR has been off the market
>for years and that some of us late comers (and all those potential players
>out there) don`t necessarily have the old stuff. Since a system had to
>be provided for us in the conversion, shouldn`t that system be based on
>the same concepts of the d20 system?

So you haven`t seen the original bloodline system? There certainly were
faults to the original bloodline system but it was pretty simple. A 3e
version that was more in-line with the original wouldn`t be that much of a
leap for anybody. You could, in fact, keep it with probably a lot less
conversion than reflecting bloodline as an ability score required.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by ConjurerDragon

> Ariadne wrote:
> I don`t cry about removing the tainted bloodline. Most rolled anew, if they got one...
>
Is there a sense in rolling at all, if you do not keep what you roll? Then better use the point-buy variant if you cheat yourself in rolling until you get something you want.
No, I don't prefer a point-buy-system, because you get too much disadvantages, if you freely choose the abilities (and your other abilities might be too low without rolling) ;)

I prefer a moderate to low magic (but not abilities) campaign...


@Mark_Aurel: No, the bloodline system isn't terrible! It's a little bit on young feet, but the general idea is cool...

[DanMcSorley]

On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Gavin Cetaine wrote:
> Actually, I have to disagree about the format conversion. The d20
> system is all about one rule -- roll the d20 and remember that higher
> is better. By adapting the old bloodline system into a stat, Doom
> brought it into line with that rule. Yes, the old system could have
> been kept, but then you run into conformity issues.

A good point.

> You obviously have access to the old system, so you have the choice to
> use that instead of the new one. But remember that BR has been off
> the market for years and that some of us late comers (and all those
> potential players out there) don`t necessarily have the old stuff.
> Since a system had to be provided for us in the conversion, shouldn`t
> that system be based on the same concepts of the d20 system?

That`s an interesting argument, but that`s not what they did. It kept the
Doom-3e conversion trait of shoehorning bloodline into a 3d6 stat, but
then tried to keep the traits of the old system. So you end up with wierd
artifacts and pointless modifiers to try to keep the feel of the old
system. Stuff like `regents can collect 2x their bloodline in RP every
turn` and `regents can only accumulate 5x their bloodline in RP` and my
personal favorite, `to raise your bloodline score, spend 4x your current
score in RP.` That one doesn`t even resemble the original second edition
rule, which was RP = current score +1, it just seems like a random
multiplier pulled out of a hat.

If you`re going to make bloodline a stat, say simply this:
Old bloodlines convert into new bloodlines by dividing by 2.
Max RP collection in a turn = your bloodline (and by domain power,
obviously).
To raise your bloodline, spend RP = current score +1.
There shouldn`t be a max accumulation of RP by default, that should be a
variant.

Simpler, and truer to the original system.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
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.

[DanMcSorley]

On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Mark_Aurel wrote:
> -Mechanical compatibility; the ability mechanic in 3e is used for
> several things in 3e - setting DCs is a pretty important thing. If
> bloodline wasn`t there, this`d default to charisma. Why should bards
> and paladins have better bloodline abilities than members of other
> classes?

Because charisma represents force of personality, which is a pretty good
map to force of divine will.

> -Use blood abilities as feats or templates, perhaps with salient
> divine abilities in mind. Doesn`t work either - doesn`t interface
> with the domain rules properly.

I don`t see why not. If you have a bloodline score, you can have a
domain. Keep the blood abilities separate from the domain rules. Blood
abilities could then be feats, with prereqs like `bloodline of 25+`.


> -Keep the bloodline system interactive with domains;

But do blood abilities have to be? They pretty much weren`t in the old
system. I admit I`m coming around to the ability score version of
bloodlines, it does seem elegant.

I`d say nix the multiple bloodline templates. Your strength is based on
your score- if you have a 1-10, tainted. 11-20, minor. 21-30, major.
31-40, great, and 41+, true. Multiplied by two, those map pretty well to
the old values. So you get an ECL based on your bloodline score. Ah,
damn, that`s going to mess up XP if your bloodline drops a category during
play. Hmm.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Mark_Aurel]

I don`t see why not. If you have a bloodline score, you can have a
domain. Keep the blood abilities separate from the domain rules. Blood
abilities could then be feats, with prereqs like `bloodline of 25+`.

My earlier statement was in error a bit; I meant feat-like, something a character would gain in addition to regular feats; I've looked at the "blood abilities as feats" variant in the past as well; the problem it presents isn't one of balance, but "realism" - I don't see a compelling reason to make blooded fighters less skilled than unblooded fighters, for instance, and it would also favor members of the fighter class to an extent. Not quite sure if you meant one or the other, though.


I`d say nix the multiple bloodline templates. Your strength is based on
your score- if you have a 1-10, tainted. 11-20, minor. 21-30, major.
31-40, great, and 41+, true. Multiplied by two, those map pretty well to
the old values. So you get an ECL based on your bloodline score. Ah,
damn, that`s going to mess up XP if your bloodline drops a category during
play. Hmm.

That's another angle to examine it from, and also a good one - the problem it presents is that starting characters would be severely limited in the blood ability value they could begin with; i.e. 18 would be the most. However, it'd avoid little quirks such as a character taking an ECL, getting a BLD of 4, and ending up with a bloodline score of 8 - essentially an ECL with nothing to show for, even though it was by choice. It'd be a rather strange choice, of course, but it is possible. Hmmm.

[Green Knight]

While not a bad idea, I just don`t see the point of introducing the 7th
ability score. It seems very out of place to me; it did so with v3.08,
and it still does.

Why does it seem odd? Because it changes something that didn`t need
changing, into something that is very similar (its still a linear power
scale of sorts), but not very true to the original BR material (which
was 1 bloodline strength = 1RP collected, very neat). I`m not saying
that the bloodline rules didn`t need a workover, but I don`t think this
new way of measuing them is at at neat.

I still use a system similar to the old one, but with a thorough update.
I`m not going to push that one on anyone (it is available at Ruins of
Empire if anyone is interested), but here are some key issues.

1. Assigning ECL to each bloodline strength. Tainted +0, minor +1, major
+2 etc.
2. After that it is "merely" a matter of balancing the number and power
of the blood abilities you get to conform to the ECL modifier in
question.
2a. Make up a table that make sure people get about the "right" number
of abilities.
2b. Make all abilities within one magntitude catagory about equal in
power and balance the magntitude categories with each other.
3. Make some sort of mechanic for interfacing blood abilities with the
core system. For example: blood abilities are spell-like abiliites
unless otherwise noted, minor abilities are the eqivalent of 2nd level
spells, add the "bloodline modifier" (either equal to the Ecl or some
other mechanic) to the save DC against abilities.
4. Finished! You have a system similar to the old one, but balanced in
power by the relatively useful ECL mechanic.

But hey, this isn`t very unlike what we got! Right you are; but it
measures bloodline strength along the same lines as the orininal system
(including retaining 1BS = 1 RP), retains the tainted line (a favourite
of mine), and just plain corrects the imbalances of the old system.

In short: Why change something good into something which is remarkably
similar, but isn`t in line with the original material?

************************************************** **************************
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.

[geeman]

At 03:42 PM 2/7/2003 +0100, you 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=1266
>
> Mark_Aurel wrote:
> Okay, the current bloodline system is terrible. Just like democracy.
> Just like Churchill said. It`s terrible, but there isn`t really any
> evils around that are lesser.

An off-topic anecdote. A few years ago I toured Blenheim palace
(Churchill`s family`s ancestral home--nice place too... if you like
opulence) with a couple of friends of mine, one of whom was an history
professor, the other an English literature professor. There was a big
exhibit dedicated to the life of Winston Churchill describing him in
glowing terms, and the English professor asked "What`s the big deal with
this Churchill guy anyway? He was just the prime minister, right?"

Shocked the History professor said, "What? He`s possibly the most
important person of the 20th century!"

The English professor was unimpressed. "No, no. The most important person
of the 20th century was James Joyce."

A lesson in emphasis defining outlook, I suppose.

>I`m going to go through the reasons, in brief:
>
>-Mechanical compatibility; the ability mechanic in 3e is used for several
>things in 3e - setting DCs is a pretty important thing. If bloodline
>wasn`t there, this`d default to charisma. Why should bards and paladins
>have better bloodline abilities than members of other classes? The other
>alternative would be flat DCs, which doesn`t really exist in 3e.

You could still use wisdom, intelligence or charisma just like spell
effects and note which ability score is used in the description of the
blood ability where necessary. There`s another way of doing this that I`ll
just have to be cryptic about for a while, I`m afraid....

>-Balance. 3e balances characters, level by level. 2e "balanced" things
>by using a system where you`d get random abilities, and "balance" the
>powerful ones by making them rare. That wouldn`t really work in 3e.

Balance is a tightrope. In this case, though, I don`t think it`s
particularly well served by making bloodline an ability score. Offhand,
I`d say that because one can buy bloodline for the same cost as other
ability scores given the suggested 32-point method that creates something
of an imbalance issue to begin with. What I`m afraid I`ll find is weird,
min/maxed characters. When my group meets this weekend my plan is for
everyone to generate several characters and throw them into a quicky domain
level scenario to playtest this stuff, so we`ll see.

>-Character design decisions. 3e gives you much more control over character
>design than 2e did - when there were subsystems for new abilities in 2e,
>such as blood abilities, red steel abilities, wild talents, or whatever,
>they were random and "balanced" by randomness. Class abilities were
>rarely customizable to the extent they are in 3e (particularly through
>feats); 3e is still a class-based system, of course, but it keeps
>simplicity while allowing a greater level of choice.

That`s true, but it really goes more to whether or not you should be able
to choose your derivation, blood abilities and bloodline strength (with
appropriate balance issues factored in) rather than whether or not
bloodline should be reflected as an ability score, doesn`t it?

When it gets right down to it, I don`t know if reflecting bloodline as an
ability score is all that much more of a balanced or substantially more
"3e" way of doing it. In the spirit of making a suggestion for improving
that method rather than simply critiquing... I have a whole different
method of reflecting bloodline that, I think, is both "more 3e," more
easily balanced, and fits into the domain system a little better. BUT...
it`s part of a larger document, and part of my whole system of changes to
the domain level of play that I`ve been working on for as long as I can
remember--a process I assure you makes my sympathize with the amount of
work that the BR 3e design team has put into this document. It includes a
method of determining blood abilities that are broader than those in the
original materials based on points rather than the more simple X ability
for Y score in the original rules. I`ll see about getting it into some
sort of shape that would make sense outside of my little gaming group.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
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.

[DanMcSorley]

Originally posted by Mark_Aurel
My earlier statement was in error a bit; I meant feat-like, something a character would gain in addition to regular feats; I've looked at the "blood abilities as feats" variant in the past as well; the problem it presents isn't one of balance, but "realism" - I don't see a compelling reason to make blooded fighters less skilled than unblooded fighters, for instance, and it would also favor members of the fighter class to an extent. Not quite sure if you meant one or the other, though.

Blooded fighters could be less skilled than unblooded fighters because they spent energy and training time learning to use their bloodline abilities.

It wouldn't favor members of the fighter class, everyone gets the same progression of general feats, at 1st, 3rd, 6th, 9th, etc levels. The fighter class feats can only be spent on fighter feats, not general ones.

[ConjurerDragon]

DanMcSorley 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=1266
>DanMcSorley wrote:
>
Originally posted by Mark_Aurel
>My earlier statement was in error a bit; I meant feat-like, something a character would gain in addition to regular feats; I`ve looked at the "blood abilities as feats" variant in the past as well; the problem it presents isn`t one of balance, but "realism" - I don`t see a compelling reason to make blooded fighters less skilled than unblooded fighters, for instance, and it would also favor members of the fighter class to an extent. Not quite sure if you meant one or the other, though.
>Blooded fighters could be less skilled than unblooded fighters because they spent energy and training time learning to use their bloodline abilities.
>It wouldn`t favor members of the fighter class, everyone gets the same progression of general feats, at 1st, 3rd, 6th, 9th, etc levels. The fighter class feats can only be spent on fighter feats, not general ones.
>
I also see no reason, and would not like to see it that a blooded
fighter is less skilled than an unblooded fighter - having lower ability
scores due to the unblooded able to use his highest rolls for ability
rather than bloodline, o.k., but less skilled due to spending feats for
bloodlines? No.

I like the novels from Birthright, even with the many flaws in them
(mentioned Vos in Rjurik region in one novel) but the development of
bloodabilities of Michael Roele for example was not trained or spent
time on, but developed without him taking any special effort simply over
time (Courage from early on, later Divine Wrath, Iron Will...).

As Aebrynnis is a secluded world and does not interact with other worlds
unless under the most exceptional circumstances, there is no reason to
have bloodabilitys in addition to the normal feats instad of requiring
spending normal feats to gain bloodabilities.
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]

I for one agree with the "bloodline as an ability" approach. If you get more
rolls/more points to spend on abilities, you can chhose if you want to place
a high roll/many points into bloodlines.

What I dont like is the variable ECL modifier. If you get more points to
psend, then I find it very unfair that those who choose to spend their
points on bloodline get both lower attributes in general and a lower level.
You pay for the ability twice. The same goes for those whoroll
sevenattributes and then put a good one into bloodline.

If the bloodline abilities are so strong as to make thie absolutely
necesarry, perhaps they should be toned down or made more level-dependent.



__________________________________________________ ___
Gratis e-mail resten av livet på www.yahoo.se/mail
Busenkelt!

************************************************** **************************
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.

[DanMcSorley]

On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Michael Romes wrote:
> As Aebrynnis is a secluded world and does not interact with other worlds
> unless under the most exceptional circumstances, there is no reason to
> have bloodabilitys in addition to the normal feats instad of requiring
> spending normal feats to gain bloodabilities.

That`s an awful line of reasoning. A better reason not to do them as
feats is that there is already an ECL for having a bloodline. Probably
either would work, but not both together.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
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.

[DanMcSorley]

On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Stephen Starfox wrote:
> What I dont like is the variable ECL modifier. If you get more points
> to psend, then I find it very unfair that those who choose to spend
> their points on bloodline get both lower attributes in general and a
> lower level. You pay for the ability twice.

The number of attribute points is the same for both cases. So they don`t
have lower attributes, they`re putting points into the bloodline. If you
spend zero points on it, you`ll still have an 8, which is plenty to start
a small domain, and it can be raised later in play much easier than other
attributes.

Likewise, the ECL is also optional, since Minor Scion is a +0 ECL
template.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Gavin Cetaine]

Originally posted by geeman

>Actually, I have to disagree about the format conversion. The d20 system
>is all about one rule -- roll the d20 and remember that higher is
>better. By adapting the old bloodline system into a stat, Doom brought it
>into line with that rule. Yes, the old system could have been kept, but
>then you run into conformity issues.

The domain rules with the original bloodline system used a single d20 roll,
and bloodline only rarely entered directly into that. Bloodline wasn`t an
ability score in that system, and it doesn`t need to be now. To me making
bloodline an ability score puts it into a 3e-like format, which might be
easier for many people to digest, but it doesn`t really need to go that
direction, and there are several game mechanical reasons why it shouldn`t.

*****

>You obviously have access to the old system, so you have the choice to use
>that instead of the new one. But remember that BR has been off the market
>for years and that some of us late comers (and all those potential players
>out there) don`t necessarily have the old stuff. Since a system had to
>be provided for us in the conversion, shouldn`t that system be based on
>the same concepts of the d20 system?

So you haven`t seen the original bloodline system? There certainly were
faults to the original bloodline system but it was pretty simple. A 3e
version that was more in-line with the original wouldn`t be that much of a
leap for anybody. You could, in fact, keep it with probably a lot less
conversion than reflecting bloodline as an ability score required.


I'm sorry. I thought the idea was to convert BR into a 3rd ed DnD (and thereby a d20) compatible system. Yes, we are building this "conversion" in order to continue playing in one of our favorite worlds while moving on into a more streamlined game system. We are also trying to do this in a way that will attract future players who may not be familiar with 2nd ed mechanics. There is a fine balance between "compatability" and "purist" issues that needs to be found and maintained.

Actually, I have seen and used the old random generator tables. Yes, it was a fairly simple system that often rewarded characters with either squat for voluntarily taking on an experience penalty or way too much power for a mere 10% penalty. I'm not going to lie about the fact that I actually prefer "point buy" systems and other features that keep PC's balanced against each other. And although I can check out these materials right now, I don't actually own any of them myself because they were off the market before I was introduced to the world. If I were to, say, move within the next year, I would lose access to the hard-copies of that information.

I admit that I'm biased. IMO The "extra stat system" rewards players based on how much they want to trade for the power. If you want great powers, then take the +2 ECL and have a level 1 character while your minor and non-blooded buddies are 3rd level. You get your cool powerful abilities and they get more class related power. There's none of that nothing for something or, oh my, what good rolls you have nonsense.

Okay, I'm stepping of the soap-box. :) Next?

[doom]

On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 01:17:24PM -0500, daniel mcsorley wrote:
> That`s an interesting argument, but that`s not what they did. It kept the
> Doom-3e conversion trait of shoehorning bloodline into a 3d6 stat, but
> then tried to keep the traits of the old system. So you end up with wierd
> artifacts and pointless modifiers to try to keep the feel of the old
> system. Stuff like `regents can collect 2x their bloodline in RP every
> turn` and `regents can only accumulate 5x their bloodline in RP` and my
> personal favorite, `to raise your bloodline score, spend 4x your current
> score in RP.` That one doesn`t even resemble the original second edition
> rule, which was RP = current score +1, it just seems like a random
> multiplier pulled out of a hat.

In the v0.0 BRCS the d20-ish BLD score is 50% of the 2e-ish bloodline
score. Increasing the d20 score by +1 is thus roughly equivalent to
increasing the old score twice. As the # of RP per increase was equal
to the OLD score, the appropriate multipler for the same degree of
increase is x4. It isn`t pulled out of a hat, but neither is it intuitively
obvious.

> There shouldn`t be a max accumulation of RP by default, that should be a
> variant.
> Simpler, and truer to the original system.

Probably correct here. When possible, we tried to address all of the
common or recurring problems of which we were aware. The point of this
change was basically to answer questions relating to "how many RP does
regent X have?" or "The gorgon probably has a million RP by now! No
one can defeat him in a regency battle!" The maximum RP rules but a
very definately limit on how much a regent can "sand bag" and helps to
relieve GMs of a fair bit of book keeping (in theory). Still, this would
be equally valid as a varient rather than as the default.

- Doom

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Eosin the Red]

> Mark_Aurel wrote:
> Okay, the current bloodline system is terrible.
>

I have not thought the issue through completely and it will have drawbacks just like any other system but what about PRESTIGE RACES.

Instead of races - use bloodlines. There are ways to derive a "Bloodline Score" - It is inherently balanced due to XP requirements and pre-req`s. The whole system really seems built to be plugged into BR. Change the sculpt self feat into "Sculpt Bloodline" and then start to balance blood abilities against magic items. It is a brand new system - but deserved to be evaluated.

************************************************** **************************
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.

[geeman]

At 12:28 AM 2/8/2003 +0100, Gavin Cetaine wrote:

>I thought the idea was to convert BR into a 3rd ed DnD (and thereby
>a d20) compatible system. Yes, we are building this "conversion" in
>order to continue playing in one of our favorite worlds while moving on
>into a more streamlined game system. We are also trying to do this in a
>way that will attract future players who may not be familiar with 2nd ed
>mechanics. There is a fine balance between "compatability" and
>"purist" issues that needs to be found and maintained.

My argument is that making bloodline an ability score isn`t a compatibility
issue. Bloodline has too many aspects that do not `port into the ability
score mechanic in the first place. Sure, people might digest it more
easily, but if it doesn`t fit into the rest of the domain system (which
doesn`t exist in 3e) then it needs to be rethought. As I mentioned before,
the bloodline system of 2e worked with a d20 roll, so converting bloodline
into an ability score in order to make it compatible with 3e mechanics is
not necessary. In this case, making bloodline an ability score might seem
like a 3e mechanic, but if it`s not a very good reflection of the concept
then it doesn`t serve the setting. Keeping the bloodline system separate
from the ability score mechanic doesn`t force so many aspects of the
setting into the ability score system.

>Actually, I have seen and used the old random generator tables. Yes, it
>was a fairly simple system that often rewarded characters with either
>squat for voluntarily taking on an experience penalty or way too much
>power for a mere 10% penalty. I`m not going to lie about the fact that I
>actually prefer "point buy" systems and other features that keep PC`s
>balanced against each other. And although I can check out these materials
>right now, I don`t actually own any of them myself because they were off
>the market before I was introduced to the world. If I were to, say, move
>within the next year, I would lose access to the hard-copies of that
>information.
>
>I admit that I`m biased. IMO The "extra stat system" rewards players
>based on how much they want to trade for the power. If you want great
>powers, then take the +2 ECL and have a level 1 character while your minor
>and non-blooded buddies are 3rd level. You get your cool powerful
>abilities and they get more class related power. There`s none of that
>nothing for something or, oh my, what good rolls you have nonsense.

I don`t think any of that really addresses the issue. I wholeheartedly
agree that the original bloodline system needs revision, but because
characters sometimes got squat out of rolling randomly for the original
bloodline system is a fault with that system doesn`t mean bloodline should
be reinterpreted as an ability score. Using an ability score system does
make it easier to use a point buy character generation system (which I
generally prefer too) but given the math of the system one could do the
same without reflecting bloodline as an ability score. I`ve had people
spend points on a modified bloodline system for a while now, but those
points were determined according to bloodline strength and the access it
gave characters to blood abilities. Using a point buy system with
bloodline is problematic when it comes to balanced characters since the
value of bloodline is probably higher than any other ability score. You
get neat blood abilities, access to the domain level, arcane magics, etc.
all of which differ quite a bit from the "balance" of other ability
scores. I`ll have to read this more carefully to write up a more thorough
critique, but off-hand it doesn`t strike me as being any more balanced in
actuality than a system of bloodline that differs from the 3e ability score
mechanic.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
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.

[DanMcSorley]

On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Dr. Travis Doom wrote:
> In the v0.0 BRCS the d20-ish BLD score is 50% of the 2e-ish bloodline
> score. Increasing the d20 score by +1 is thus roughly equivalent to
> increasing the old score twice. As the # of RP per increase was equal
> to the OLD score, the appropriate multipler for the same degree of
> increase is x4. It isn`t pulled out of a hat, but neither is it
> intuitively obvious.

So how would ripping out the modifiers change the system?

BRCS draft- you can collect max 2xbloodline every turn. Raising a point
costs 4x current bloodline. Assuming appropriate domain power, this can
be done every two turns if you spend no RP on other things. Probably
every three turns in real play at best, since you`re going to want to have
RP to spend on actions. Domain power is likely to be a limiting factor on
collection.

No modifiers: max collection = bloodline. Raising 1 point costs current
score + 1. Can be done at best every other turn, probably more like once
every three turns since you`re collecting half as many RPs, so they`re
much more valuable for domain actions. Bloodline is almost certainly the
limit on collection except for very small domains.

Doing it with no modifiers seems about the same in my head. It would also
eliminate the need for a RP reserve cap, since many fewer RPs are
collected.

> > There shouldn`t be a max accumulation of RP by default, that should be a
> > variant. Simpler, and truer to the original system.
>
> Probably correct here. When possible, we tried to address all of the
> common or recurring problems of which we were aware. The point of this
> change was basically to answer questions relating to "how many RP does
> regent X have?" or "The gorgon probably has a million RP by now! No
> one can defeat him in a regency battle!" The maximum RP rules but a
> very definately limit on how much a regent can "sand bag" and helps to
> relieve GMs of a fair bit of book keeping (in theory). Still, this would
> be equally valid as a varient rather than as the default.

Wow, I thought the problem you were trying to solve was people hoarding
RPs for use in a crucial bidding attack or something. A RP cap seems like
overkill just to figure out how many RPs an NPC has. A side bar stating
"the DM can track the RP tallies of NPCs, or just assume they have RPs
approximately equal to their bloodline for an important RP bidding war"
would have solved that problem.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
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.

[doom]

On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 12:57:03AM -0500, daniel mcsorley wrote:
> > very definately limit on how much a regent can "sand bag" and helps to
> > relieve GMs of a fair bit of book keeping (in theory). Still, this would
> > be equally valid as a varient rather than as the default.
>
> Wow, I thought the problem you were trying to solve was people hoarding
> RPs for use in a crucial bidding attack or something. A RP cap seems like
> overkill just to figure out how many RPs an NPC has. A side bar stating
> "the DM can track the RP tallies of NPCs, or just assume they have RPs
> approximately equal to their bloodline for an important RP bidding war"
> would have solved that problem.

Its basically the same problem. I just stated it from the DM`s
perspective (does this NPC have a tone of RP "hoarded").

- Doom

************************************************** **************************
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: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
>
> ...the
> value of bloodline is probably higher than any other ability score. You
> get neat blood abilities, access to the domain level, arcane magics, etc.
> all of which differ quite a bit from the "balance" of other ability
> scores.
>

I`m not so sure. IMHO, the basic assumption in BR is that all the PCs are
blooded, and the system is callibrated on this. NOT having a bloodline is a
disadvantage that merited an an almost negligible xp bonus (a 10% bonus is a
logarithmic system is basically nothing).

* Some of the blood abilities were very good, but many were crap, and
statistically, they didn`t add much

* Access to the domain level: this is the default level of play in
Birthright. NOT having access to this level of play is a disadvantage. In
FR, any character is a potential king - in BR, only a few can become rulers,
the rest have a disadvantage. It can be claimed that the monetary benefits
of being a monarch gives great power, but that is not directly related to
bloodline - not all blooded characters are rulers.

* Access to arcane magic: once again, it is a disadvantage NOT to have
access to arcane magic - the default is that you do have access. And far
from all characters use this option.

The only unbalancing thing about bloodline strength are the blood ablities,
and those can be scaled so that the cost in creation points / high stat
allocations even things out. Thus i dont like a playable Magician class
(since all PCs with an interest in arcane magic will have at least a tainted
bloodline) and I don`t like ECL modifiers for bloodlines.


__________________________________________________ ___
Gratis e-mail resten av livet på www.yahoo.se/mail
Busenkelt!

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Mark_Aurel]

I`m not so sure. IMHO, the basic assumption in BR is that all the PCs are
blooded, and the system is callibrated on this. NOT having a bloodline is a
disadvantage that merited an an almost negligible xp bonus (a 10% bonus is a
logarithmic system is basically nothing).


Not really - one of the design goals here was to support non-blooded PCs as well as blooded ones. The original BR tried to do this to some extent, but I think the current method works better.

One other question for everyone here - are bloodline abilities balanced with each other at the same level? Are there some abilities you see as being chosen more or less often? If so, which, and what fix do you propose? I.e. what abilities are too strong and too weak? Is there a different way to balance them?

[ConjurerDragon]

daniel mcsorley wrote:

>On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Dr. Travis Doom wrote:
>
>>In the v0.0 BRCS the d20-ish BLD score is 50% of the 2e-ish bloodline
>>score. Increasing the d20 score by +1 is thus roughly equivalent to
>>increasing the old score twice. As the # of RP per increase was equal
>>to the OLD score, the appropriate multipler for the same degree of
>>increase is x4. It isn`t pulled out of a hat, but neither is it
>>intuitively obvious.
>>
>So how would ripping out the modifiers change the system?
>BRCS draft- you can collect max 2xbloodline every turn. Raising a point
>costs 4x current bloodline.
>
Actually it would have to be 4X bloodline + 2 cost in RP then, as the
old 2E was bloodline +1 cost in RP.

> Assuming appropriate domain power, this can
>be done every two turns if you spend no RP on other things. Probably
>every three turns in real play at best, since you`re going to want to have
>RP to spend on actions. Domain power is likely to be a limiting factor on
>collection.
>
Using the +1 cost in RP would prevent that theoretically, as you have to
spend the RP income of 2 full seasons +1 to raise your bloodline.

However i you can raise your bloodline that often you certainly have
killed all other regents opposing you before, have you?
Else it is practically impossible to spend that much RP without losing
your domain to your enemys.
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.

[irdeggman]

Why are ECLs associated with the scion templates?


Whether or not an actual ECL is applied to scions, the DM must invoke a virtual one to make up for their increased power as compared to other (non-blooded) characters. This is important when determining the appropriate CR for encounters. There are 3 things that contribute to the increased power of scions; (1) blood abilities, (2) increased hit points and (3) better starting equipment (e.g., starting magic items).

Individually none of these, except for higher power (great and some major) blood abilities, provide enough of an increase to warrant an ECL on their own. When combined, however, the effect is such that an ECL is necessary in order to maintain the correct balance. A scion with only the minor scion template (no actual template, but the scion must use his extra ability roll for this purpose) does not gain an ECL, but also doesn’t gain any blood abilities greater than minor nor do they gain better starting equipment or bonus hit points.

This concept was also used to help give non-blooded characters a bonus to make up for this. Players running non-blooded character get to roll 7 ability scores and assign the highest 6 to their chosen abilities. Between the 2 advantages, an extra ability score and the ECLs, non-blooded characters get to make up for their “loss” of the 10% experience bonus they had in 2nd edition BR.

To sum up the above are the reasons that ECLs were assigned to the various scion templates. Some other bonuses were added (such as a one time increase in the bloods score for the ECL templates) to help balance out the ECL rating.:)

[Birthright-L]

From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>

> This concept was also used to help give non-blooded characters a bonus to
make up for this. Players running non-blooded character get to roll 7
ability scores and assign the highest 6 to their chosen abilities. Between
the 2 advantages, an extra ability score and the ECLs, non-blooded
characters get to make up for their "loss" of the 10% experience bonus they
had in 2nd edition BR.
>
>

This seems terriblly, terribly expensive.


__________________________________________________ ___
Gratis e-mail resten av livet på www.yahoo.se/mail
Busenkelt!

************************************************** **************************
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.

[usermaatre]

Some Thoughts about Tainted Bloodlines

1. Having a tainted bloodline is not a waste. True, you may get no special abilities, but you get the most rock-and-roll ability of all--the potential to rule a domain.

1.1. Many of the minor nobles and courtiers will have tainted bloodlines. Any collecting
RP will have to have some score.



2. In the spirit of converting blood abilities into a d20 system I suggest the following:

Making the bloodline score a seventh ability produces similarities to the ability score for spellcasters. Blooded characters have access to blood abilities in an analogous way to wizards having access to arcane spells.

However, wizards have access to 9 levels of spells; blooded characters have access to 3 levels of blood abilities: minor, major and great. (Incongruity #1) I would resist the urge to overlay the two. Access to casting a 2nd level spell 1/day may be a minor blood ability, but not all minor blood abilities mimic low-level spells.

3e introduced the idea of 0-level spells (cantrips and orisons) and they are useful and meaningful for spellcasters, whereas cantrips and orisons were less useful in 2e.

I would suggest that there be blood abilities (provisionally called Tainted abilities) that are analogous to 0-level spells. Heck, one of them might be the ability to cast Mend 1/day. (Personally, I would put the Bloodmark ability in the Tainted category.)

I am not suggesting this merely to mimic 3e as much as possible.

Characters with a bloodline strength greater than zero can rule domains. However, from my earlier analogy to spellcaster ability scores, a spellcaster cannot cast a spell without a score of 10. (This is the second incongruity.) Since a wizard or cleric with an Intelligence or Wisdom respectively of 10 can cast 0-level spells, then a Blooded character with a Bloodline score of less than 12 should be able to do minor, but useful tricks too.

3. Should the Bloodline ability limit the maximum realm-spell level in a similar way to Int, Wis, & Cha in 3e? Do you have to have a 19 Bloodline ability score to cast 9th level realm spells? Should you?


4. I would not make it too difficult to raise the Bloodline ability score. I did an experiment with 16 individuals with bloodline scores ranging from 19 to 46. In 4 generations I had so badly diluted all of the bloodlines that I drew several conclusions.

If there were no way to raise bloodline score the following would occur:

A. There would be no marriages between families with great differences in their scores. No one can afford the dilution of the family's power by half of their combined total.

B. There would be a lot of intra-family marriage. Not like the Egyptian royal families where half-brother/half-sister combinations were very common. Nor like the European royal family inbreeding. The most common would be full-brother/full-sister, mother/son or uncle/niece, etc. Of course the uncle/niece would be doubly so because the grandparents would likely have been brother and sister. The people that you are most likely to have similar scores to are your own relatives.

C. The only way to alleviate the royal incest problem is to marry into families that have similar scores, which would be relatively easy for families with a low score, but the Archdukes of Boeruine and Princes of Avanil are going to have great difficulty finding scores with similar power. The number of such families will be small and then they will become so intermarried that they will in effect be a superfamily with all of the problems of royal incest. (which is what happened in Europe)

D. Bloodtheft is a useful way to complicate this problem as are great heroic deeds. But neither can be perennially used as a family strategy for maintaining a strong bloodline. At least not with anywhere near the kind of results that arranged marriages provide.

E. The bloodline derivation comes from the parent with the greater score. I would also make the bloodline score come from the parent with the greater score modified by the lesser score in a small way.

There are five steps in bloodline strength: Tainted, Minor, Major, Great and True. If the parents belong to the same category do not subtract anything from the higher Bloodline score of the parent and assign that score to the child. For every step difference between two parents subtract 1 point from the Bloodline score and assign it to the child. For example, should a True woman marry a Minor man then the child would have a score that was 4 less than mum's score. If both parents were Minor then the child would have the Bloodline score of the parent with the higher score. If dad were Major and mum were Minor, then junior would have a bloodline ability score one less than dad's score.

You would still have to work to keep your bloodline strong, but marrying your mother wouldn't be an attractive option.

This issue is important because the bloodline ability score is now a seventh character stat. Since the score is roughly half of what it was in 2e, the percentile increments between two numbers is 5% on a d20. This is a lot! and if the old formula that junior has a score of half of the total of her parents, then every bloodline will be tainted very quickly and only the PC will have blood abilities.

Usermaatre