Draft 0.0 Blood Abilities and Templates

[ConjurerDragon]

Divine Wrath Bloodability, p. 44/45

As I see it, the Divine Wrath is comparable to the Barbarian Rage + Damage
Reduction.

However as a great ability the Divine Wrath should not be easily defeated by
a mortal enemy who attacks to trigger the Divine Wrath and then runs e.g. 15
rounds away to avoid the Wrath and then attack really when the Wrath runs out.

(not likely if the blooded is a wizard who can then cast maximized spells,
but consider him a fighter here)

Would it be too much to add the Barbarians "Fast Movement" or something
similar for the duration of the Wrath, so that an enemy can´t easily outrun
the scion as soon as the Wrath is triggered?


Blooded Scion Template (p. 35)
Scions with the Major/Great Template gain extra Hitpoints according to RP
collected.

Minor scions gain none.

2E had 10 extra points for regents only, not all scions - but no
bloodlinestrenght was excluded, all regents got them.

My opinion is based on what is written about the Gorgon. Prince Raesene has
somewhere been mentioned to be the first to notice that the rule of land
makes blooded beings tougher.

The dillema is that taking the ECL of the Great Scion Template not
automatically gives you the extra hitpoints, you need to rule something.
A player who creates a Great Scion character who is no regent (e.g. simply
to summon Air Elementals during adventurs) will not get this advantage while
still being penalized by the full ECL penalty.

A scion of a minor/weak/tainted line had the 10 points in 2E, no none.

I suggest to change this so, that ALL regents receive additional hitpoints
according the RP collected. Minor scions will naturally receive less RP as
they have less bloodline to collect RP, so they will have less extra hitpoints.

And scions who don´t rule should have less ECL because they have not extra
hitpoints.
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]

The biggest problem with no ECL if not a regent is that once a character becomes a regent he now has an ECL. Others have pointed out that this "floating" scale is real hard to ejudicate and can make for a paperwork nightmare. Just a point of discussion not a defense or indication that I'm not open to change anything that's written.

[teloft]

I like siple paperwork.

but on other notes.

Here I was thinking how it would be for the one with the divine warth to be alowed an extra move action, or the equalient of a haste spell but with the ability to stack with a haste spell.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by teloft@Mar 12 2004, 10:57 AM
I like siple paperwork.

but on other notes.

Here I was thinking how it would be for the one with the divine warth to be alowed an extra move action, or the equalient of a haste spell but with the ability to stack with a haste spell.
This is a game buster. It would essentially give the PC 3 standard actions in a round when used with Haste. One of the main reasons they (WotC) adjusted the Haste spell in 3.5 was that it allowed characters too broad of actions and quickly become gamebusting in applications.

It also doesn't really reflect the descriptions of what Divine Wrath gave - see the fiction books for some color description of Michael Roele under the affect of Divine Wrath.

I've gotten the revised random generation tables from Osprey and after I apply a few minor tweaks I'll post the revised Chapt 2 for sanctioning this weekend.

[Ming I]

Here's my suggestion for Divine Wrath:

Divine Wrath (Great)
Derivations: Andurias, Basaia, Masela

When a character with this ability is moved to anger, she becomes a terrible enemy. Her body is imbued with righteous determination, and the mere sight of her angry visage terrifies her enemies. The divine wrath can never be summoned voluntarily; it comes over the scion only when she battles someone who has wronged someone, or something she cares deeply about.

This condition grants the character the following: +1 base attack bonus, and +1 morale bonus to weapon damage rolls. The scion gains an additional +1 bonus in each of these areas for every two levels past 1st.
+2 competence bonus to all saving throws. The scion gains an additional +1 bonus every three levels past 1st.
DR 1/-. The scion gains an additional +1 to her damage resistance every 5 levels past 1st.
All spells cast by the scion are maximized (as per the metamagic feat)
The scion gains the Frightful Presence (Ex) ability to a radius of 10 feet. Any character who succeeds at a Will save (DC 10 + 1/2 the scion's character level + charisma modifier) is unaffected by this ability for the rest of the encounter. On a failure the creature becomes panicked for 2d6 rounds.
The divine wrath lasts ten rounds plus one round/level.

-----

I had this idea that if Great blood abilities (and maybe Major ones too) were scaleable they wouldn't be so unbalancing at lower levels. For example a 6th level character with this version of Divine Wrath, and a 14 Charisma would have these 'gifts': +3 base attack bonus (giving any character using the average or poor BAB chart an extra attack), and +3 to weapon damage rolls
+3 competence bonus to all saving throws
DR 2/-
All spells maximized
and the Frightful Presence ability with a Will save DC of 14 to overcome it
What do people think about the scaleable blood abilities idea?

[irdeggman]

Actually I was mistaken in refering to gaining 3 std actions (only if using eh 3.0 version of haste). But it needs to be more than a simple extra move action of even an added effectof haste. It is supposed to be a souped up rage-type ability.

[irdeggman]

Just to make myself clear on the subject of 'new options' for blood abilities.

I will not spend another 8 months of my time running additional polls to determine what people want. I ran some already - I asked people what variants they wanted, got feedback, took the authors of those proposals and worked with them and prepared a presentation of variants and then called for a vote on which ones to pursue which determined the path of the revised Chap 2.

It then got revised and posted for discussion in Nov. I just posted it for sanctioning. I will not participate in another vast rewrite and failure to make progress towards completion that will only be thrown away and reopened up when someone new to the boards shows up with 'new and improved ideas' or 'what do you think of this?'

I mean no offense to you Ming I, you are just the most recent example of this philosophy.

[Osprey]

So um, Irdeggman, what will you do if the rev. Ch. 2 doesn't get sanctioned, as it seems to be a close race at the moment? Will that then be the time ot throw your hands up in the air and say, "Fine, YOU try to come up with something everyone approves of!" [Not that I'd blame you - I might well do the same thing in your position! :o ] But really, if the chapter is closed for revision, you might want to mention to the community the consequences of CH 2 (or any other chapter in the future) not being sanctioned.

Osprey

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Osprey@Mar 13 2004, 09:19 AM
So um, Irdeggman, what will you do if the rev. Ch. 2 doesn't get sanctioned, as it seems to be a close race at the moment? Will that then be the time ot throw your hands up in the air and say, "Fine, YOU try to come up with something everyone approves of!" [Not that I'd blame you - I might well do the same thing in your position! :o ] But really, if the chapter is closed for revision, you might want to mention to the community the consequences of CH 2 (or any other chapter in the future) not being sanctioned.

Osprey
Chap 2, unlike any of the other chapters has gone through the most scrutiny. It, IMO, typifies whether or not the project can work currently.

It was "requested" by the group at large to do a chapter at a time - this was done.

It was "requested" by the group at large to develop alternitives to the system presented in the BRCS-playtest. They were developed by fans and submitted to be presented to the group at large to determine which options/variants to use for the Chapt 2 revision. There were polls to determine which were the most liked variantes. The results of the polls were used to develop the revised version.

This version was presented in Nov for additional discusssion. There were a few issues banted about, most notably long life and its frequency. Some wanted to change the ability itself while even more didn't want to since they felt it would degrade the ability to the point of making it undesirable.

So following step-by-step methodolgy, input and voting the revised version should be sanctioned since it was what people said they wanted. If it is not then that means that people don't mean what they said and hence any discussion on anything towards making any type of 'official' product is rendered useless.

None of the other chapters have gone through this process yet. But if it doesn't work then why bother at all?


If people don't see this then what good would it do to give my position any additional weight?

I see this sanctioning as more of a sanctioning of the process rather than any one piece of work.

[Osprey]

Fair enough. Good to know. :)

[Ming I]

Originally posted by irdeggman
Just to make myself clear on the subject of 'new options' for blood abilities.

I will not spend another 8 months of my time running additional polls to determine what people want. I ran some already - I asked people what variants they wanted, got feedback, took the authors of those proposals and worked with them and prepared a presentation of variants and then called for a vote on which ones to pursue which determined the path of the revised Chap 2.

It then got revised and posted for discussion in Nov. I just posted it for sanctioning. I will not participate in another vast rewrite and failure to make progress towards completion that will only be thrown away and reopened up when someone new to the boards shows up with 'new and improved ideas' or 'what do you think of this?'

I mean no offense to you Ming I, you are just the most recent example of this philosophy.
No offense taken irdeggman. I, like Osprey, would probably feel the same way if I was in your position. As it is, I don't do much posting in the d20 Birthright playtest comments forum anymore because I honestly haven't had the chance to playtest a lot of the ideas in it.

In truth, I think I've only seen two or three posts (though there are probably so many more) that actually mention playtesting any of the ideas that are presented in the d20 BCS. I'm not faulting any of the posters, because I think it would be disrupting and chaotic to roll up new characters every week, or month, or whatever to properly playtest all the new ideas.

I thought that an adventure that put some of these rule ideas into practice would be a good idea but I know that I don't have the time to write one. However, an adventure would give players a chance to test out the ideas as written and give you feedback on them.

My Birthright group tends to change and expand upon the playtest material instead of just using it "as is". For example one of the players had the Alertness blood ability. We looked at the d20 BCS, and didn't see any similarity between the old version and the new one, so we immediately changed it to be the Uncanny Dodge ability and have played it that way ever since. I'd guess that a lot of other people have changed or tweaked the blood-abilities (and other aspects of the system) until they are happy with them (that's just human nature).

Unless you're going to structure a way to thoroughly playtest (as written) each of the new or modified ideas presented in the d20 BCS, and receive feedback on them, I would save yourself the hassle and release the document as is. I know that you're only doing what people say they wanted, but how common is it that people actually know what they want? :P

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Ming I@Mar 14 2004, 02:13 PM

I thought that an adventure that put some of these rule ideas into practice would be a good idea but I know that I don't have the time to write one. However, an adventure would give players a chance to test out the ideas as written and give you feedback on them.

Unless you're going to structure a way to thoroughly playtest (as written) each of the new or modified ideas presented in the d20 BCS, and receive feedback on them, I would save yourself the hassle and release the document as is. I know that you're only doing what people say they wanted, but how common is it that people actually know what they want? :P
The problem with making an adventure to playtest the BRCS, other than the sheer effor in attempting it, is that it would skew any results. I mean that the adventure would have been written by the developers with a clear end in mind with already developed preconceived notions in how things work - hence it would have been inherently flawed, IMO.

[Ming I]

Originally posted by Irdeggman

The problem with making an adventure to playtest the BRCS, other than the sheer effort in attempting it, is that it would skew any results. I mean that the adventure would have been written by the developers with a clear end in mind with already developed preconceived notions in how things work - hence it would have been inherently flawed, IMO.
I'm not sure if it would actually be inherently flawed. I think you just secretly like typing "inherently flawed", whenever you see one of my ideas. (just kidding!) :lol:

Designers usually have clear ends in mind, or preconceived notions on how things work. If they didn't, nothing would ever get done. The adventure idea would just provide "focused playtesting", rather than waiting for an opportunity in an existing game to playtest game mechanic a, b, and/or c.

[geeman]

At 06:24 PM 3/16/2004 +0100, Irdeggman wrote:



>The problem with making an adventure to playtest the BRCS, other than the

>sheer effort in attempting it, is that it would skew any results. I

>mean that the adventure would have been written by the developers with a

>clear end in mind with already developed preconceived notions in how

>things work - hence it would have been inherently flawed, IMO.



I think coming up with a playtest adventure is really a good idea. It is,

of course, more work, but it`s kind of the point in coming up with the

campaign materials in the first place, isn`t it? Such an adventure should

probably be set in Anuire, and be modelled after the adventures in the back

of the campaign expansions, since they employ both adventure and domain

level effects--the best way to go about a BR campaign IMO. It`s probably

another 4k-6k words, but would give prospective playtesters a place to

start, and could be "published" as a separate document from the actual

setting document.



I`m sure everyone would like to see new, original materials, but one option

might be to update one of the existing adventures in the back of the 2e

campaign expansions to the new rules. That might be a little less work and

still accomplish the basic goal.



Another option is to come up with some bare bones, "Rumours and Adventure

Hooks" for the new rules that have to do with specific areas of Cerilia

like the stuff at the beginning of each region in the campaign

expansions. I write up those bits on how to use the various new

awnsheghlien and ersheghlien that I post which mimic those aspects of the

original BR materials. It`s less work (and they are fun to write.) I`d

volunteer to scribble up some for the Playtest... but I still only seem to

want to write up new awnsheghlien and ersheghlien for BR lately, and I`m

not as familiar with the various aspects of the Playtest to be the guy who

should do that, to be frank.



Gary

[Osprey]

Well, Ming, personally I think the best playtesting is done without too much preconcieved stuff, especially in the case of the BRCS project. This is because the BRCS was a complete campaign revision, which means it is broadly applicable to a wide scope of applications. There is a vast variety of BR campaigns - some are striclty adventure campaigns, some are mainly domain-level campaigns, and all of them can occur in different areas of Cerilia, which will have a significant effect on the flavor and specifics of any type of roleplaying. Finally, add in the fact that every DM will customize the world to suit his or her particular vision of the BR world. What you end up with is immense diversity...and the BRCS trying to please everyone as a base 3.x conversion sytem to work from. Truly, I have become very a real admirer and sympathizer of the BRCS team...even if I disagree on various aspects of the conversion and how I think it could best be done.

In my view, the most important job for the team is making a converted system that is smoothly compatible with the base system (now 3.5 D&D), true to the original setting where possible, and where things have been revised or added (the latter being rare), a marked improvement over the original. This last part, of course, is the really difficult part, and the one that has generated the most debate and heckling over what is best.

All in all, though, what is important is that the BR community who wants to use such a conversion has a common source of reference, and that new players and DM's familiar only with the D&D core rules can use the BRCS and Atlas to run a complete BR campaign without having to find/acquire out-of-print materials.

As these are (I believe) the primary goals of the BRCS and Atlas projects, they should be the basis for playtesting. And almost any BR campaign using the BRCS material can be useful in providing feedback as to whether or not those goals are being met. Because every such game serves as one more example of a real-life use of the material in a running game - which is all playtesting really is.

Having such basic guidelines in mind is all I believe is needed - a DM and players, aware of these goals from the start and perhaps reminded of them periodically, should be able to provide lots of useful feedback throughout a campaign, along with suggestions for what they changed and thought worked better (though I admit that in this case, there is stiff resistance to change much of anything unless the issue gets overwhelming support from the BR community here, which I'll refrain from judging as for better or worse).

Personally, I started a campaign with the BRCS playtest rules last winter/spring of 2003, and it has continued through to the present, a little over 1 year now, with an average of 1 5-hour session per week, a break for 2-1/2 months in the summer, and an occasional extra session every month or two plus some 1-on-1 sessions between me (the DM) and individual players. Sometimes these are to resolve domain events, sometimes just to flesh out characters and backgrounds. But the whole experience has generated a wealth of playtesting feedback, creative ideas and alternatives to the BRCS base, and many questions as to how things work or what areas could use improvement. It may be that only 1 or 2 of these ideas/ critiques actually make it into the revision directly, but a lot more can be shared on BR.net and used by other people, and a lot more also may have more subtle influences on the final form of the BR revision. The only real bummer is having major rules changes when a campaign is so far along, such as happened with the Bloodline scores... :( In such a case I ended up ignoring the revision and keeping the BRCS version for my current campaign because it would have required such a major overhaul to the entire campaign.

Well, anyways that's all for my ranting. Cheers!

Osprey

[teloft]

Originally posted by irdeggman+Mar 12 2004, 05:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (irdeggman &#064; Mar 12 2004, 05:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-teloft@Mar 12 2004, 10:57 AM
I like siple paperwork.

but on other notes.

Here I was thinking how it would be for the one with the divine warth to be alowed an extra move action, or the equalient of a haste spell but with the ability to stack with a haste spell.
This is a game buster. It would essentially give the PC 3 standard actions in a round when used with Haste. One of the main reasons they (WotC) adjusted the Haste spell in 3.5 was that it allowed characters too broad of actions and quickly become gamebusting in applications.

It also doesn&#39;t really reflect the descriptions of what Divine Wrath gave - see the fiction books for some color description of Michael Roele under the affect of Divine Wrath.

I&#39;ve gotten the revised random generation tables from Osprey and after I apply a few minor tweaks I&#39;ll post the revised Chapt 2 for sanctioning this weekend. [/b][/quote]
sorry for delay.
I was thinking 3.5

so when you have the extra one move or the one action (not spellcasting or such, but one attack if I remeber)

So by combining the 2, you get the 3rd ed haste spell. with only sligth game busting, and only 2 actions. not 3.

I also would inrtuduce a haste penalty, when moving so fast its hard to know what you dooing, a -2 penalty on everything thet needs finess, but thet can be counterd by seeing into the futuer, or some divinations spells related to true strike. This penalty applyes only when taking to many haste actions in a row. The hasted one can thow on the other hand get a bonus to actions and stuff like thet by taking a feat, using there haste action for refogusing. giving you the true edge of the battle, with no haste penaltyes applying to you... (thees are housrule stuff thow)

Divine Wrath grants you this automaticly

Kari

[RaspK_FOG]

This is more or less the definition of the benefit granted by haste in 3e: you got an extra partial action, meaning you chose whether you wanted to get a move action or a standard action; additionally, let me remind you where the whole problem lies with this notion here: a standard action is the casting time of most spells.

If you want to grant a benefit similar to that (for house rules, as it goes), I suggest you grant an additional attack action every 4 character levels that can be used only for attacking.


For those of you who suggest that Divine Wrath can actually be slobbered by hit-and-run tactics, let me remind you that some particularly characteristic melee weapons can be thrown ("Oops&#33;"); not to mention the fact that anyone who triggers Divine Wrath (which in my opinion should work out of one&#39;s round, much like Instantaneous Rage or Reactive Counterspell) will probably be affected by the scion&#39;s Frightful Presence ability... "How so?", you ask.

Well, it&#39;s simple: the other character does not trigger Divine Wrath upon attacking the scion;simply seeing the bastard will suffice. So, hit-and-run tactics would most probably get such a character killed before he realises what hit him&#33;

[Ming I]

Originally posted by RaspK_Fog Apr 1 2004@ 07:02 AM
For those of you who suggest that Divine Wrath can actually be slobbered by hit-and-run tactics, let me remind you that some particularly characteristic melee weapons can be thrown ("Oops&#33;"); not to mention the fact that anyone who triggers Divine Wrath (which in my opinion should work out of one&#39;s round, much like Instantaneous Rage or Reactive Counterspell) will probably be affected by the scion&#39;s Frightful Presence ability... "How so?", you ask.

Well, it&#39;s simple: the other character does not trigger Divine Wrath upon attacking the scion;simply seeing the bastard will suffice. So, hit-and-run tactics would most probably get such a character killed before he realises what hit him&#33;
Just to clarify, the d20 BCS doesn&#39;t give the character the Frightful Presence ability, that was just my suggestion. Though seeing it again I would change it from Frightful Presence within 10 feet, to Frightful Presence within 25 feet + 5 feet/2 levels. The BCS gives the character a fear gaze attack, which is similar to the way it was done in 2nd edition.

[Osprey]

This is more or less the definition of the benefit granted by haste in 3e: you got an extra partial action, meaning you chose whether you wanted to get a move action or a standard action; additionally, let me remind you where the whole problem lies with this notion here: a standard action is the casting time of most spells.


heh, yeah...well, if they didn&#39;t want extra spells with Haste they should have come up with a better system than the 3.5 revision, which stripped haste down to a purely fighting spell. I liked the Partial Action thing, and I didn&#39;t mind spellcasters getting 2, maybe 3 (with quicken) spells a round...though I&#39;ve yoinked Time Stop out of my campaign to prevent THAT particular overlap for high-level casters (I once played an epic wizard with such capabilities...15 spells later...it was gross).

I like most of 3.5, but I feel in many ways they iverreacted to the power of the 3.0 magic system and just swung the other way, to weakening it too much in key ways. This is just my opinion, of course, but I reckon I&#39;ll always be playing a conglomeratioon of 3.0 and 3.5 now...thanks WOTC&#33; Hey, you take what you like, right? :D

[RaspK_FOG]

Originally posted by Osprey@Apr 1 2004, 07:29 PM
heh, yeah...well, if they didn&#39;t want extra spells with Haste they should have come up with a better system than the 3.5 revision, which stripped haste down to a purely fighting spell. I liked the Partial Action thing, and I didn&#39;t mind spellcasters getting 2, maybe 3 (with quicken) spells a round...though I&#39;ve yoinked Time Stop out of my campaign to prevent THAT particular overlap for high-level casters (I once played an epic wizard with such capabilities...15 spells later...it was gross).

I like most of 3.5, but I feel in many ways they iverreacted to the power of the 3.0 magic system and just swung the other way, to weakening it too much in key ways. This is just my opinion, of course, but I reckon I&#39;ll always be playing a conglomeratioon of 3.0 and 3.5 now...thanks WOTC&#33; Hey, you take what you like, right? :D
First off, I&#39;d like to point out that, well, haste was always the top notch spell in 3e; hell, I can&#39;t think of a sorcerer who didn&#39;t have haste as one of his spells&#33; Think of it: +4 haste bonus on AC, 2× movement, and an extra partial action? That hurts&#33; And while in 3.5e it has been stomped, you have to agree that targeting 1 creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 feet apart (any creatures up to your level that stand within a 15-foot radius circle) is sweet...

That&#39;s the whole point in 3.5e spell-casting... I mean, what could a DM fling at his players? If they were poisoned, a single endurance would suffice for the best part of a day&#33; On the other hand, identify and magic weapon (std. and greater) spells have been given a boost to make them more useful. Check out all spells differences, since some are rather obscure...