Chap 2 Blood Score Proposals (Revised)

[irdeggman]

Here is the vote for which proposal to pursue for blood score.

The link for the proposals is http://www.tuarhievel.org/Blood%20Score%20...sals%205-15.zip (http://www.tuarhievel.org/Blood%20Score%20Proposals%205-15.zip)

I included a listing for a combination of 2 proposals - so if you think that is the best way to go, then post which combination you'd like to see. This is not referring to variants but rather a combined proposal, for example proposal A with the scion class descriptions more like those in proposal D, or something like that.

I will be looking for a clear majority, something along the lines of twice as many favoring one orf the proposals. It is also entirely possible that more than one would be selected, one default and one as a variant.

Note that this is really independent of anything that 3.5 might affect so don't worry about 3.5's impact on the blood score - although it may affect the blood abilities themselves, but we'll deal with that bridge when we come to it.

[Ariadne]

I would prefer the revised BRCS (your) version as my favourite.

Otherwise geeman's idea is nice too...

[CMonkey]

I have voted for D - the feat like approach.

The revised BRCS version loses much of it's inherent simplicity by doubling the stat for no real reason other than a sense of backwards compatibility.

The experience points method relies on probability balancing for its bloodline strength - this is against the tenents of 3rd edition as seen in the revision of psionics.

The blood-points system would seem to have the most potential, and I do like the clear descriptions of what you get for you for your invested points in each ability. However the inclusion of fractional ECLs, redundant arithmetic and multiple generated attributes (strength, score, points) make the system opaque and initially confusing. If this system was simplified and re-written for clarity, even at the expense of simulation accuracy, it would be a clear winner for me, but for the moment, no.

Finally, I selected the feat-like approach - but reluctantly. This is solely because of the inclusion for the Scion class - which I am wholly against. I would be much happier if the Noble class gained access to these feats, and the template method was used, but as is it is the lesser evil of the four choices.

CM.

[geeman]

3 +0200, CMonkey wrote:



>The blood-points system would seem to have the most potential, and I do

>like the clear descriptions of what you get for you for your invested

>points in each ability. However the inclusion of fractional ECLs,

>redundant arithmetic and multiple generated attributes (strength, score,

>points) make the system opaque and initially confusing. If this system was

>simplified and re-written for clarity, even at the expense of simulation

>accuracy, it would be a clear winner for me, but for the moment, no.



As for the multiple steps in generating attributes, I don`t think there`s

much to do about that. Pretty much all the proposals as well as the

original system had that. I`d really hate to eliminate a step by doing

something like equating bloodline strength with bloodline score since I

think that`s one of the faults of the playtest`s system of bloodline being

an ability score. By themselves the steps (3d6-2, d6 x Bloodline Strength

value, spend BP on blood abilities) are bit more effort to go to than other

systems--mostly in the area of spending BP, but since that`s one of the

points in the system I don`t think there`s much for it. Maybe an example

of character generation would help....



The decimal ECL aspect of the blood ability point system, however,

definitely seems to be the thing people take issue with most. That`s

understandable, I suppose, if for no other reason than because it`s the

thing that departs most from the typical 3e/d20 rules. The math is really

quite simple, but I think it`s just too much of a departure from the rules

set for most people`s taste, particularly since it covers just that single

aspect of BR characters. If decimal values were included in the standard

stuff for characters in 3e, or if it accompanied a whole system of variable

XP (which is how I envision it--picture things like a 1st level spell slot

equal to a 0.1 modifier on XP required to take a level, 2nd level 0.2,

etc.) then I think it would be more acceptable and more easily digested,

but on its own I think people find it too much detail in the name of

accuracy and balance than is warranted.



One possibility is making the ECL modifier for bloodline scores based on

the "average" bloodline strength that one needs to get that score and just

round them to whole numbers. Or, I suppose, just assign values--which

appears to be how most ECLs are set anyway.... Using an "average" ECL

modifier Table 3 would look like this:



Table 3: Bloodline Score

Bloodline Bloodline Maximum

Score Points Abilities ECL

1-7 0 0 0

8-14 1 1 0

15-21 2 1 1

22-28 3 2 1

29-35 4 2 1

36-42 5 2 1

43-49 6 3 2

50-56 7 3 2

57-63 8 3 2

64-70 9 4 2

71-77 10 4 3

78-84 11 4 3

85-91 12 5 3

92-98 13 5 3

99-105 14 5 4



That way there`s just the one number. Would something like that be better?



Gary

[CMonkey]

Would something like that be better?
Yes, I think it would.

Thinking about it, I agree with your argument that it's not more complex, just more different and that is the problem - but unfortunately I think you're stuck with making it simpler than the more familiar systems to compensate.

On the "redundant arithmetic" I mentioned: why 3d6 - 2 ? The 3d6 (or 4d6-drop-1 nowadays) is the most "comforting" of the familiar D&D generation mechanics. Why not just have the table start at 3?

On clarity and formatting: you can summarise the generation in less than 10 words ("3d6-2, d6 x Bloodline Strength value, spend BP on blood abilities") and yet in your proposal the reader has to scan 3 pages before they hit the step-summary. Consider on the first page a dominating boxout, reading something like this:

Determine heritage strength. This will also determine your bloodline modifier. See Section 1.
Determine bloodline score. This will also determine your maximum number of blood abilities and the bloodpoints (BP) you can spend on them. See Section 2.
Determine your bloodline derivation. This will determine which blood abilities you can select from. See Section 3.
Spend bloodpoints (BP) on blood abilities. See Section 4.


Note that I've re-named bloodline strength to heritage strength (heresy!) and bloodline points to bloodpoints. This is because, with bloodline strength, bloodline modifier, bloodline score and bloodline points, it seems like there must be redundancy in the system (4 stats for the one attribute?) even though they all serve different purposes. Plus for beginners it is hard to remember which does what when they all have very similar names.

As to the section references, each section could similarly start with a summary boxout with the detail, exceptions and additions in the body text around it.

Hope this all seems constructive!

CM.

[CMonkey]

By the way Geeman, have you not voted for your own proposal?

CM.

[geeman]

3 +0200, CMonkey wrote:



>
Would something like that be better?

>

> Yes, I think it would.

>

> Thinking about it, I agree with your argument that it`s not more

> complex, just more different and that is the problem - but unfortunately

> I think you`re stuck with making it simpler than the more familiar

> systems to compensate.

>

> On the "redundant arithmetic" I mentioned: why 3d6 - 2 ? The

> 3d6 (or 4d6-drop-1 nowadays) is the most "comforting" of the

> familiar D&D generation mechanics. Why not just have the table start at 3?



I did it that way for two reasons. The first is because the Bloodline

Score is based on that Bloodline Strength value (d6 rolled once for each

point of that 3d6-2) so making it a simple 3d6 would result in the minimum

bloodline score also being a range of 3d6 (3-18) rather than something

closer to the original BR bloodline system in which it could range as low

as 1. Second, I included a feats in that system that effectively adds +2

to one`s bloodline strength, cancelling the -2, and returning things to the

3-18 "standard." In my sometimes munchkinny gaming group I fully expected

the players to make use of that feat.



I could still keep it 3d6 and have the bloodline score then rolled up by

rolling a number of dice equal to that value -2. It`s purely cosmetic, but

if it would make more in keeping with D&D methods it`d be a good change.



To be honest, making bloodline "look 3e" is not IMO a very needful or even

a very wise goal. The whole bloodline strength = 3d6 thing was a bit of a

nod towards the first bloodline update by Travis Doom that is, by and

large, the same one in the BRCS playtest. I don`t much like making

bloodline an ability score (in fact, I really think it`s a Bad Idea) but at

that time it seemed to be what everyone wanted to see. I wrote it up in

deference to that, just to see what would come out. Later, I found I kind

of liked the way that aspects of the system worked. The math fell into

line and the dice were mostly the nice cubey ones that I like so much. So

I ended up using it in the later expansion of the bloodline system that

included bloodline points.



Rules mechanically, I think the Bloodline Point stuff more resembles

several D20 texts that have come out in the years between 3.0 and 3.5. (Is

Savage Species 3.4?) Some of the really basic inspiration for it was from

the way the superhero d20 games Four Colors to Fantasy and Mutants &

Masterminds dole out super powers. Anyone familiar with either of those

two systems will probably feel much more at home with blood ability points.



>On clarity and formatting: you can summarise the generation in less than

>10 words ("3d6-2, d6 x Bloodline Strength value, spend BP on blood

>abilities") and yet in your proposal the reader has to scan 3 pages

>before they hit the step-summary. Consider on the first page a dominating

>boxout, reading something like this:

>

> Determine heritage strength. This will also determine your

> bloodline modifier. See Section 1.

> Determine bloodline score. This will also determine your

> maximum number of blood abilities and the bloodpoints (BP) you can spend

> on them. See Section 2.

> Determine your bloodline derivation. This will determine which

> blood abilities you can select from. See Section 3.

> Spend bloodpoints (BP) on blood abilities. See Section 4.

>



There is a little "Bloodline Determination Checklist" in there that has

those basic steps in, perhaps, more detailed form in order to accommodate

the various details like feats, the requirement of a random method of blood

ability determination, etc. Here it is:



Bloodline Determination Checklist

Below is a step-by-step guide to determining bloodline.



1. Determine bloodline strength using whatever method the DM assigns (3d6,

4d6 ignore lowest, point buy, etc.) Subtract 2 from that total for a range

of 1-16, and add any bonus from the Ancient Bloodline feat. Compare that

result to Table 1: Bloodline Strength on page 10 to get your bloodline

modifier (bld.)



2. Determine your bloodline score by rolling d6 for every point of your

bloodline strength. Compare the result to Table 3: Bloodline Score on page

11 to get the number of bloodline points (BP) you may have and the maximum

number of blood abilities possible for your character.



3. Determine your bloodline derivation. (Either roll randomly on Table 4:

Bloodline Derivation on page 11 or choose one at the DM`s option.)



4. Spend bloodline points (BP) on blood abilities.



I`m not really much of a formatting/editting guy, I`m afraid, so I

generally defer to people who have more of a sense for layout and design

than I. Having said that, a box out for those steps would be a good

thing. Moving it up to the front might also be a good plan. In that

bloodline proposals document I think the goal was to format everything as

closely like each other as possible, however, just to let people focus on

the ideas rather than the look of the thing. The original Bloodline Point

System document (I don`t know if that`s still available on birthright.net)

was more complete and formatted in a way that sort of mimics the original

BR materials. At least, I used the Bebris font for titles....



> Note that I`ve re-named bloodline strength to heritage strength

> (heresy!) and bloodline points to bloodpoints. This is because, with

> bloodline strength, bloodline modifier, bloodline score and

> bloodline points, it seems like there must be redundancy in the

> system (4 stats for the one attribute?) even though they all serve

> different purposes. Plus for beginners it is hard to remember which does

> what when they all have very similar names.



Yeah, the vocabulary is a bit confusing, particularly in the original

materials in which IIRC they sometimes refer to "bloodline strength score"

meaning bloodline strength and things like that. I tried to stay as close

as possible to the original terminology but using "strength" and "score" to

designate the difference between the two. It`s easiest to think of the

different aspects of bloodline as "strength, score, abilities and

points." Unfortunately, if one says "strength" without modifying it with

"bloodline" then one can confuse that with the ability score strength, etc.



Lately, I started thinking that "bloodline strength value" might better

designate the 1-16 number than simply "bloodline strength." I tried to

define each of those terms separately in the introduction, but only the

first occurrence of the term is italicized, and probably nothing cries out

for a glossary quite so loudly.... "Heritage" is an interesting and quite

possibly better term to use overall, so I`ll have to think on that a bit.



> As to the section references, each section could similarly start with a

> summary boxout with the detail, exceptions and additions in the body text

> around it.

>

> Hope this all seems constructive



Very. Thanks.



At 03:01 PM 7/25/2003 +0200, CMonkey also wrote:



> By the way Geeman, have you not voted for your own proposal?



Heh. You know, I don`t recall.... I _think_ I did. Frankly, I`m not

really concerned with whether it makes it into BRCS or not. The stuff I

put out into the BR community is stuff I write for my own purposes. I put

it out there because it might be of help or interest to someone someplace

or because I`m curious what other people`s opinions might be on the

subject. Getting into the BRCS stuff would be nice, but it`s not that big

a deal to me. Not to disparage the work of the design team (some of their

material is IMO inspired) but I probably spend as much time rereading the

br-l archives than I do their BRCS and the archives are also more likely to

influence my table top game.



However, having seen the film _Election_ I think I probably should at least

vote for myself, so I`ll make sure I have.



Gary

[Osprey]

After reviewing the proposals (now that I finally was able to download them properly), here are my thoughts and suggestions:

I like Mark Aurel's idea that Charisma can substitute for a Bloodline Score modifier. After all, the 3e PHB describes Charisma as one's inner power, and it further encourages scions to have a high Charisma - which they should.

In general, I like the BRCS playtest version as is. Most of the proposals seem to make things more complicated, not less so. So far (in my own playtesting) I haven't found it to unbalance the game or make for ridiculous amounts of math. Some of the proposals look like ways to make the bloodline scores synonomous with the original 2e edition.

I'm generally a fan of random ability score generation, so I don't run into the "being penalized by starting points" problem that others have talked about with a seventh ability score.

I definitely like the idea of scion class levels (from proposal A) to help balance out the ECL adjustments. Just giving the scions some skill points and hp for each level, along with the existing blood abilities and regent bonus HP, goes a long way toward making those extra levels feel worthwhile.

I wouldn't cry if the Great Heritage template disappeared. I think True Bloodlines end up competing with Great Heritage for the same spot. Aren't Great bloodlines already representative of a great heritage?

If scions of Great bloodlines regained access to the bloodline abilities that Great Heritage scions get (like Divine Wrath and Regeneration), it would vindicate their rarity and "greatness," rather than playing them off as 3rd rate (behind Great Heritage-Great and True bloodlines).

On the other hand, a power like Invulnerability should definitely be limited to True Bloodlines. It's a truly legendary quality, right out of myths and legends, and thus should be limited to the legendary figures of Cerilia.

As for Bloodtrait and Bloodform as prerequisites: don't the abilities gained from monster levels already justify many of the special powers inaccessible to normal scions? Why give them exclusive access to blood abilities? I recommend keeping it really simple, and making powers available based solely on the four bloodline strength templates (Minor, Major, Great, True).

That's my 2 cents (well, maybe 3...).
-Osprey

[CMonkey]

Originally posted by Osprey@Jul 31 2003, 07:22 PM
In general, I like the BRCS playtest version as is. Most of the proposals seem to make things more complicated, not less so.
Ooo! That makes two of us! Woo!

Unfortunately, dispite winning the last poll, they're determined to change it :(

Heyho.

CM.

PS.
(Sorry about using "Ooo" and "Woo" in the same sentence. That was excessive. :rolleyes: )

[Osprey]

Yeah well, you can't win 'em all, aye? Still, I can see a less drastic change being appropriate. There are good points to the proposals, I'm just a little miffed at the insistence on making blood scores like the old 2e ones. Is it really a problem to just halve the old scores to make them compatible with new ones? Or are there other problems there that I'm not aware of?
Osprey

[Arius Vistoon]

i voted for combinaison of method but i wiant voted for C method..oups !

i prefer the C method but the bloodline score seems high no ?
follow method A and follow method B

On the base of method C
optionnal bloodline ( touched and lesser ) , feat and bloodline abilities with bloodline point is good
i see good the change below
And modify the table 3:blloodline score ( for high bloodline points), step by 6 not by 7
And reduce the generation of average bloodline point ( 3D6-2->9->9d6->32 bloodline score !!! in average !), by for example *50% ( 16) or *75% (24)
Add, The detect bloodline strenght of method B is very nice...
And the Hit point bonus of method A but under the form of a feat ( prerequise bloodline strengt > minor )

that'all, it's my opinion

[Seraphina]

the system as is, I think the ECLs on the templates

may need tinkering, but otherwise it works fine by me.



Seraphina

DM of Birthright d20 - King of the Giantdowns

http://members.tripod.com/bithrightd20

[RaspK_FOG]

I support the use of Charisma as a substitue for Bloodline score: it is interesting that most people do not associate it with strength and appealing of character! I mean, so many undead get a bonus to Charisma, I thought people would get the insinuation!

Anyway, my preferences are that either option A or option D are followed:

1) The Bloodline score solution gives a lot of ideas and open themes that can make everything very interesting, and the mechanic seems to work fine with me. One mistake though: since option A's scion class gives a Hit Die every level (that was what I once mentioned in a thread), level 3's Base Attack Bonus should be +3, not +2, otherwise the Base Saves would not have increased accordingly.

2) I like the idea of the scion class (and Charisma) a lot, allowing a more flexible effective "ECL" than option A, where your ECL is set. I was told it was based on "Savage Species" (a book I have not yet read) which explains the idiosyncratic 3rd level attributes, but I like the idea none-the-less, if not even more.

[RaspK_FOG]

Oops! :blink: Change 1)'s 3rd level issue to a 4th level one... Really sorry!!!

[Nightmare]

I'd have to say that the gist of Option D appeals to me the most. The reason for this is that it does away with the template system, but retains it at the same time, in the form of a class. I think that the basic reason for this class is much better than the class proposed in Option A. There is still some work needing to be done. E.g. why multiply the bloodline score by 1.5?? If the reason is stated I missed it. The scion class variants need work too, but the basic idea seems sound.

I also like the idea of "buying" powers, as in option C. So maybe a combination of the two. I am planning a new campaign in a couple of months, and can tell you with absolute certainty, that I will be looking into this.

If combining the two options, one could imagine that the scion class is responsible for the Bloodpoints for buying powers. I think that would be working very well.

Alternately I think the table by Geeman where the bloodline score is responsible for the ECL modifier is quite interesting.

As a final note, although I am sure that there many interesting improvements in 3.5, I sincerly hope that the BRCS will support 3ed first and foremost. I have no intention of investing i 3.5 myself, as it is my understanding that 3.5 is more of a revised edition which includes errata. With very few exceptions I like 3ed as it is, and see no reason to dole more money than strictly necessary. But that is just me ;)

If the BRCS takes 3.5 into accound, I would like to request that sections where the content would differ, depending on 3ed and 3.5, state it clearly or states two ways of doing it, or maybe some third possibility.

[Mark_Aurel]

I'd have to say that the gist of Option D appeals to me the most. The reason for this is that it does away with the template system, but retains it at the same time, in the form of a class. I think that the basic reason for this class is much better than the class proposed in Option A. There is still some work needing to be done. E.g. why multiply the bloodline score by 1.5?? If the reason is stated I missed it. The scion class variants need work too, but the basic idea seems sound.

Not 100% sure on what you mean by the 1.5 multiplication - the point of option D is to use basically similar bloodline scores to the 2e system, and are thus higher than those of the playtest version, and not "ability scores." If you're referring to the Great Heritage feat, the reason is to put the initial bloodlines generated in a certain range, whilst also enabling the possibility of a much higher maximum bloodline score level, to account for people roughly as high as Avan and Boeruine, for instance.

If you could point out more specific areas of where you think the scion class variants need work, that'd be great.


As a final note, although I am sure that there many interesting improvements in 3.5, I sincerly hope that the BRCS will support 3ed first and foremost. I have no intention of investing i 3.5 myself, as it is my understanding that 3.5 is more of a revised edition which includes errata. With very few exceptions I like 3ed as it is, and see no reason to dole more money than strictly necessary. But that is just me

Well, the stated goal is to keep the materials current. That said, I don't think you should have a problem using that material at all - for the purposes of what we're making, I don't think there'll be substantial differences between the original and revised editions - most of those differences are just in the referenced materials (the PHB) anyway, not in the BRCS.

[zukie51262]

I have only scan some of these post and here is my problem.

1) Bloodlines are inhereted from generations, based on your characters mother and father right. So then some of these powers will or maybe not manifest themselfs during childhood. So the Feat, and Experiance thing is out the window, because if I run two PC a male and Female and they marry (there both blooded) then of course there child is blooded and no roll is needed for bloodline strength or dervianation.

I feel the original rules weaken the person who is blooded and those who choose not to be blooded well they off to a good start. So what I did was give everyone 32 points to distribute, (i feel birthright is a high powered campaing if you dont then try running in the sword of role sometime), and if the PC wishes to be blooded the he rolls 3d6, and the first number that is 8 or greater is his bloodlind score.

I really dont put any restriction on players that want to be blooded, I mean this is birthright and its what its all about right. To top it all off its more fun for me to mess with the blooded regents being the DM (he he yes I can be evil snicker snicker).

And Finally the Feat for being blooded, now thats a waste of a feat, first of all some poor soul standing in the right place at the right time, bang hes blooded and he automatically gains the bloodline feat, where the poor mage had to use his only feat for being blooded at first level. that sucks.

Again this is Birthright your players are sopose to rub elbows with the royality maybe even marry one, If I wanted to be a commoner working my way up the mage guild then i can play Forggotten Realms, or Greyhawk.

Well thanks for listening

[Mark_Aurel]

1) Bloodlines are inhereted from generations, based on your characters mother and father right. So then some of these powers will or maybe not manifest themselfs during childhood. So the Feat, and Experiance thing is out the window, because if I run two PC a male and Female and they marry (there both blooded) then of course there child is blooded and no roll is needed for bloodline strength or dervianation.

I think you're under some misconceptions as to the intents of the various methods here - I don't think any of the authors intended for blood abilities not to be inheritable (i.e. father has character reading, son has character reading), simply that a mechanical balance must be struck between blooded and unblooded characters (blooded characters shouldn't be any better than unblooded characters of the same character level).



And Finally the Feat for being blooded, now thats a waste of a feat, first of all some poor soul standing in the right place at the right time, bang hes blooded and he automatically gains the bloodline feat, where the poor mage had to use his only feat for being blooded at first level. that sucks.

Sure it sucks - but that's what happens when you give away goodies for free. What you really should do is have the guy who gains a bloodline at some later point pay for it with his next feat before he's allowed to use his blood abilities, if you go that route.

[zukie51262]

so then an new born baby is born blooded and has a feat.

[Ariadne]

I made a brainstorming on those ECL's for bloodlines again. IMO they are still unfair for scions/ nonregents. So I have an idea, but I don't know if somebody did have it already:

Bloodline ECL:
Minor +0/+0
Major +1/ +0
Great +2/ +1
True +3/ +2

The last ECL number is for non-regent characters. They don't get several advantages, regents get (example extra hit points)...

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "zukie51262" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 10:45 PM





> so then an new born baby is born blooded and has a feat.



Each character gets one feat when the character is created.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[geeman]

At 05:45 AM 8/30/2003 +0200, zukie51262 wrote:



> so then an new born baby is born blooded and has a feat.



While there`s no expressed reference to this kind of thing, it`s generally

accepted that bloodlines don`t kick in until a character reached his/her

"age of majority" or otherwise matures to some sort of adult stage of

life. Otherwise characters with the Long Life blood ability would remain

infants for a very long time, and the inability of children to control

their emotions would lead to truly amazing tantrums from their Divine Wrath

ability. I`ve never considered when beginning feats kick in before, but it

might be prudent to employ the same logic so that toddlers don`t have

Toughness that would be available should their feats kick in before they

are old enough to have character levels. A feat based system of bloodline

then could be game mechanically justified by not allowing characters to get

their bloodline until their get their feats, which doesn`t happen until

they come of age.



Gary

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Ariadne@Aug 30 2003, 04:16 AM
I made a brainstorming on those ECL&#39;s for bloodlines again. IMO they are still unfair for scions/ nonregents. So I have an idea, but I don&#39;t know if somebody did have it already:

Bloodline ECL:
Minor +0/+0
Major +1/ +0
Great +2/ +1
True +3/ +2

The last ECL number is for non-regent characters. They don&#39;t get several advantages, regents get (example extra hit points)...
So how do you stop a scion from being a regent without an ECL being added? For example a character has a Major bloodline (+0 ECL in your example) but at first doesn&#39;t want to be a regent. He then becomes a regent - does he gain the level adjustment at that time. {The new phrasing in 3.5 is for level adjustment with ECL being the actual Effective Character Level not a modifier.}

In a campaign that has no regent PCs it would be easier to make the flat out adjustment (a house rule if you will). Actually in this case it really shows the advantage of using scion class levels instead of level adjustments. If the players are not playing regents then they just don&#39;t take the "extra" scion class levels that refelect it.

And I don&#39;t think that there is (or should really be) a scion with a True bloodline that isn&#39;t a regent. They are sort of super strongly tied to the land.

The important thing with the level adjustments for scion is to balance them with a non-blooded character being played. Ask the question, will the player playing the non-blooded character feel like he is getting "ripped off" by not having the one playing the scion have to take a level adjustment of some sort? It shouldn&#39;t be assumed that all players will be running scions, some actually choose to run non-scions and some campaigns have "special" rules that take this into account - for example in one of my previous ones there were 2 sides being played simultaneously. Each player had 2 characters - one was a regent in one of the 2 sides and the other was non-blooded. This way when we played in one region everyone could do something.

[Mark_Aurel]

so then an new born baby is born blooded and has a feat.

I just reskimmed the four drafts, and none of them require a feat to be blooded as far as I can tell - though some allow you to improve bloodlines/abilities with feats, but that&#39;s a very different matter, so I&#39;m not really sure what you&#39;re even referring to in the first place.

However, in general, I&#39;d put it like this - if a method did _require_ a feat, I&#39;d guess it&#39;d be to have the character learn to tap or use his blood abilities, not a cost for the bloodline itself; thus:

Newborn baby born blooded - check.

Newborn baby born with a feat - no.

Newborn baby having blood abilities - no.

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by irdeggman@Aug 30 2003, 05:04 PM
So how do you stop a scion from being a regent without an ECL being added? For example a character has a Major bloodline (+0 ECL in your example) but at first doesn&#39;t want to be a regent. He then becomes a regent - does he gain the level adjustment at that time. {The new phrasing in 3.5 is for level adjustment with ECL being the actual Effective Character Level not a modifier.}
Naturally, if a scion BECOMES a regent, take the ECL of the regent form. Otherwise, a regent who looses his regent status, should loose his ECL too...

Yes, say you have got a level loss through whatever if you loose your regent status...

[zukie51262]

ROFLOL ECL well heres my opiaon, in my group its non existance (we dont use it or ever will), You have penelized being blooded to much, loss of a feat, ECL&#39;s and purchase points for starting abilities. Is this birthright or forgotten realms

[Mark_Aurel]

ROFLOL ECL well heres my opiaon, in my group its non existance (we dont use it or ever will), You have penelized being blooded to much, loss of a feat, ECL&#39;s and purchase points for starting abilities. Is this birthright or forgotten realms

Again - which of the proposed methods make you take a feat to be blooded? It seems to me you haven&#39;t read them very thoroughly.

How do you propose to balance scions if you don&#39;t use ECLs or feats? I think I know what you&#39;ll say, but it should be interesting nonetheless...

[ryancaveney]

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, irdeggman wrote:



> > Bloodline ECL:

> > Minor +0 / +0

> > Major +1 / +0

> > Great +2 / +1

> > True +3 / +2



I still think going off the template, instead of the actual score, is a

big mistake. What is it about a scion that makes them more powerful?

The blood abilities. Therefore it is the blood abilities themselves which

should give the ECL adjustment. This is especially important if you roll

ability scores randomly -- in that case, a True scion who rolls 3 will

have only a Bld 15, giving one minor and one major ability; whereas a

Major scion who rolls 18 will have a total starting Bld of 22, yielding

two minor and three major blood abilities. This is obviously a much

bigger advantage, yet costs two *fewer* ECLs! This is a serious bug.



A much better way to do it is by ranges of the Bld score; my first

off-the-cuff suggestion would be something like



Bld ECL

0-20 +0

21-30 +1

31-40 +2

41-50 +3



and so on.



> So how do you stop a scion from being a regent without an ECL being

> added?



I don`t think you can balance regents vs. non-regents in any meaningful

way. Blood abilities are an inherent, non-removable part of a character,

which make him personally more powerful in adventure settings. Being a

regent means you can afford much better equipment than other characters of

your level and can bring three hundred men at arms on an adventure, but

personally you could still be just a first-level fighter and thus

mincemeat for anything you met without your phalanx of guards. Regents

are capable of havng people killed whom they would never be able to face

on their own; their power level is of a completely different kind than

that involved in standard D&D adventures, and really cannot be balanced on

the same scale.





Ryan Caveney

[zukie51262]

Ok first let me say this, GREAT JOB TO ALL who worked and put this together and i love this form so nothing i say is ment to put down, talk down or even insult anyone here, damn i kinda need you all you people to help me with some great ideas and pull my head out of my a** like now.

I have been playing birthright since it came out so in this old mans head a lot of old rules are still there. (hits self in head *bad head, bad head)

Now i feel like a newbie, damn, I know i read somewhere in order to be blooded you had to take the feat - Blooded scion, (Proably and old draft somewhere) so here i am eating crow now. and after doing some research (which should have been done on my part in the first place), I can understand why the point buy system is set up this way.

So my apology to all here, but i still stand firm on my opion on ECL&#39;s Yes being blooded is a great gift but again thats what its all about right running regents and a DM (like me gets to mess with the regents holdings).

Well thanks for setting me straight and keep up the great work face may be red but im still here he he.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "zukie51262" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 2:59 PM





> ROFLOL ECL well heres my opiaon, in my group its non existance

> (we dont use it or ever will), You have penelized being blooded to much,

> loss of a feat, ECL`s and purchase points for starting abilities. Is this

> birthright or forgotten realms



Why penalize characters for gaining levels? Why not have a flat xp table?



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[QuestingMage]

I haven&#39;t played D&D in many years now, but I still enjoy reading the novels, and keeping up with the rules. When I skimmed the magic item creation rules in 3rd edition DMG, I was hooked, and bought all the books, even though I don&#39;t play. I remember in 1st and 2nd edition rules the guidlines for creating a +1 flaming sword were like, "Requires the lower left incisor of an adult red dragon, and one and half pints of moonbeam juice." Which didn&#39;t tie into the rules at all. Mark Aurel had a very good point in the Mainboard&#39;s playtesting thread: 2ed was a set of cohabiting but fundamentally different subsystems. The new system, where the cost of a magic weapon is its bonus squared times 2,000 gp, and the cost to create is 1/2 the market value in materials, and 1/25th the market value in XP is brilliant.

None of the bloodline rules that I read "clicked" for me the way the magic creation rules did. But I think this is because the Birthright campaign violates some of the assumptions of the core 3e rules. Please allow me to explain.

First, I sincerely hope I&#39;m not offending anyone. I love the world of Birthright, and am very impressed with the quality and quantity of material produced by the Birthright fanbase. But after looking at the new 3.5 edition of the rules, it is clear that the D&D world is being driven more towards exact accounting identities and away from the vaguer but more heroic worldview of the earlier editions. It is very difficult for me to imagine that WOTC will allow Birthright to be reintegrated into core without having to chop off some of what makes Birthright distinctive. Now, on to the core of my argument.

Scions are essentially living artifacts. This is why creating rules for bloodline strength is so difficult. Folding the power of artifacts into a system designed to make all characters equal is like trying to square the circle. Two of the axioms of D&D game design are:

All characters are created equal.
Power is the result of successfully overcoming obstacles.

Yes, of course there are exceptions, with the random generation of ability scores being the most notable. But more broadly, a great deal of effort has gone into insuring that that all characters, and all classes, are created equal. The D&D rules are an interesting mixture of democratic and aristocratic tendencies. Much effort is expended keeping the core and prestige classes in balance with each other, but no one really cares that a 5th level mage with Craft Magic Arms and Armor blows away a 5th level commoner with Craft Farm Implements in terms of power and wealth.

So, adventurers as a class are superior to non-adventurers as a class, but within the class of adventurers, strict equality rules. This is because all players are adventurers. Also, in terms of progession, HPs, base attack bonuses, skills and saves are heroicially oriented--tied to the accomplishments of the character. But the rules are very wary of inherent ability bonuses, prefering the technical (ie magical) over the inherent. For example, a Tome of Clear Thought +2 costs 55,000 gp, but a headband of Intellect +2 costs only 4,000. Similarly, artifacts are placed "beyond the rules" in the senses that characters cannot create them, and they cannot be discovered randomly.

"Artifacts are very powerful. Rather than magic equipment, they are the sorts of legendary relics that whole campaigns can be based around. Each could be the center of a whole series of adventures--a quest to recover it, a fight against an opponent wilding it, a mission to cause its destruction, and so on.
"No table has been included for you to randomly generate specific artifacts, since these items should only enter a campaign through deliberate choice on your part."
DMG 3.0 pg. 236

True and Great bloodlines seem to me to precisely fit the description of artifacts described above. Is it even theoretically possible to incorporate the Birthright worldview into strict 3e rules? Maybe True and Great bloodlines should be barred from use by player characters? Maybe no characters should be allowed Great or True bloodlines at creation, but only achieve them through repeated heroic efforts. But that would contradict the fact that bloodlines are inherited.

Or maybe Birthright campaigns should be Regent-only or non-Regent only affairs. That would solve the game balance issues by redefining the reference set, like the distinction between adventurers and commoners embedded in the core rules.

What do the rest of you think?

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by QuestingMage@Aug 31 2003, 11:46 AM

Scions are essentially living artifacts. This is why creating rules for bloodline strength is so difficult. Folding the power of artifacts into a system designed to make all characters equal is like trying to square the circle. Two of the axioms of D&D game design are:


True and Great bloodlines seem to me to precisely fit the description of artifacts described above. Is it even theoretically possible to incorporate the Birthright worldview into strict 3e rules? Maybe True and Great bloodlines should be barred from use by player characters? Maybe no characters should be allowed Great or True bloodlines at creation, but only achieve them through repeated heroic efforts. But that would contradict the fact that bloodlines are inherited.


I thought that there were words on Great and True bloodlines in the proposals (pg 2 of the proposal):

Great bloodlines are rare; less than one scion in a hundred has a great bloodline. Only the greatest heroes of Deismaar were worthy of bloodlines of such strength and, even then, only if they happened to be in close proximity to one of the gods when they perished. Scions of great bloodlines often have exceptionally powerful manifestations.

For the DM: Playing a Great Bloodline
While the rules would allow every player to play a scion with a Great bloodline this is not wise. Having a Great bloodline entails a lot of responsibility that goes with the power. Scions with Great bloodlines are descendents of great rulers. They are born to rule, even if they are not destined to succeed their parent due to circumstances (birth order, etc.) they are destined to become great rulers in their own right. The land itself tends to call them to an appropriate domain for rulership.

Commoners and minor regents seeking favors and other things that demand their attention often besiege them. Awnshegh and blood-seeking scions often pursue scions with great bloodlines with evil intent. Scions with great bloodlines do not generally spend a lot of time adventuring after their youth except on quests of epic proportions. Their responsibilities tend to draw them elsewhere.

Due to the detail and attention that a great bloodline draws it is very difficult for a non-experienced player to handle the task, especially in a non-domain level based campaign.

True bloodlines are unique. Only the greatest heroes of Deismaar, those who were the both physically and philosophically closest to the expiring gods, were granted True bloodlines. Only these surviving heroes or their direct heirs through bloodline investiture have True bloodlines. There are believed to be less than a dozen true bloodlines existent.

Powerful awnshegh or ehrshegh currently possesses all known True bloodlines. These individuals are near demigods and are rumored to be able to grant a divine connection that allows their followers access to divine magic. Some True scions are rumored to have other divine abilities beyond the ken of most mortals.

[RaspK_FOG]

Without being offended, I would like to point out a few things:

1) As far as I know, WotC will have no say over what comes out of the effort of this fan-work. While the company gave the permission to give out the 3e (more like the 3.5, now) version for Birthright, they will have no say over the final thing.

2) Balance has always been a very tricky issue... I, for one, strive to work on a new system that will give more balance, but I digress. What really is meant as "balanced player character classes" (thus excluding NPC classes) is the usefullness of such a character in any given party.
While true that a half-elf/human bard is the best 5th member of any party that has a cleric, a rogue, a fighter, and a wizard (preferrably of the following races, respectively: human/dwarf, halfling/elf/human/half-elf, dwarf/human/elf/gnome, elf/human), that does not mean he is equal to any of these classes&#33;

[QuestingMage]

Powerful awnshegh or ehrshegh currently possesses all known True bloodlines. These individuals are near demigods and are rumored to be able to grant a divine connection that allows their followers access to divine magic. Some True scions are rumored to have other divine abilities beyond the ken of most mortals.

Irdeggman, thanks for your comments. I did read this in the proposals, and it struck me as odd that no known humans in Cerilia have True bloodlines, but that 1st level characters are free to choose them, if they&#39;re willing to accept the restrictions. The appearance of a True bloodline would be sure to be the talk of most of the courts in Cerelia, setting in motion a chain of events very similar to the quote I took from the DMG re: Artifacts

Artifacts are very powerful. Rather than magic equipment, they are the sorts of legendary relics that whole campaigns can be based around. Each could be the center of a whole series of adventures--a quest to recover it, a fight against an opponent wilding it, a mission to cause its destruction, and so on.
At a minimum, the appearance of a True bloodline would spark hundreds of bloodline theft plots, and merely staying alive would become the sole goal of the scion with the True bloodline. Additionally, there would be dozens of plots of different stripes to coopt the player with the true bloodline as an heir, an ally or a stud/brood mare. Any "realistic" play involving the sudden appearance of a Great or True bloodline would immediately consume the campaign, to the detriment of the other players.

I think a better game mechanic would be to say that (among PCs at least) no one can start with a bloodline higher than Major. The bloodline can still be inherited, through a straight line of descent, but it just wouldn&#39;t manifest at puberty. Maybe Great and True bloodlines only manifest after some truly heroic achievement. Or perhaps the strength lies buried, and only some deep trauma would bring it out. Like being reduced to -8 HP. Or being paralyzed by magical fear. Or even a combination of the two&#33;

Just as regular bloodlines do not manifest at birth (with the exception of bloodmarks), but only at puberty, maybe True and Great bloodlines only manifest at adulthood. Or maybe the full strength of these elite bloodlines only manifests once the scion has become a regent, and the power of the land courses through her veins.

Now, I freely admit that this is my personal preference. I think it would be more satisfying, and less disruptive, to have the full power of G&T bloodlines only manifest later in the adventuring career.

On second thought, it wouldn&#39;t even have to be later. The example percolating in the back of my mind which just appeared is the ascension of King Kelson in Deryni Rising by Kathryn Kurtz. Kelson didn&#39;t acquire his powers until he stepped on the portrait of Saint Camber on the Cathedral floor during the ceremony of his investure. Maybe in most historical cases, the two step process of puberty and full awakening happened so close toghether that few people noticed.

And there doesn&#39;t even have to be a conflict with previous material. Just state that the families with these bloodlines never recorded this little quirk of the bloodline activation, because there were strong incentives not to.

What do the rest of you think about about a two step acquisition process for Great and True bloodlines?

[QuestingMage]

Irdeggman wrote:
And I don&#39;t think that there is (or should really be) a scion with a True bloodline that isn&#39;t a regent. They are sort of super strongly tied to the land.
I was just re-reading this thread, and noticed that this supports my "true bloodlines only activate upon becoming a regent" scenario. :D