My 5 Month Birthright Playtest

[Mainboard]

Greetings everyone!

Ok, its been since late February that I started my 3e Birthright campaign, I would like to point out my observations so far. Most of my players are old 2nd edition Birthright players so please keep this in mind. I will not go into detail what the campaign was about, this is just our impressions on how the "system" worked for us. I ran 6 players 4 were Regents the other 2 played "lieutenants".

First observation. The Domain system need to be retooled more. There needs to be either a more free form and simplified domain action system or a clarified and expanded action and resolution list. There have been many times that I have had to make DM calls on the actions that players would have during the session. So far it reads and plays domains just like the Original BR.

Second impression. Everyone dislikes the Template system for BR. We think it was much more fun to have random bloodline strengths and scores (ranging from 1 to 100 aka a percentage of you blood) and give unblooded PC's +20% xp. My players think that trying to make BR "fit" into 3e loses some of the flavor. Also, Birthright's Bloodlines were powerful and it seems like the playtest is alot more limited than in the original BR.

Example: Two of my players in the middle of my campaign confused and upset that they had to "lose" a level because of usurpation. They started with tainted bloodlines and then, through bloodtheft, eventually gained enough to become major bloodlines. They then had to "add" the Major scion template and lose a level, let me tell you they did not like that one bit.

Third Impression. The bloodline abilities were good, they worked out well. The Regency earned and collected worked out all right. The domain magic worked well but the battle magic "feat" we did not like. Also the races seem a bit underpowered compared to their 2nd edition counterparts.

Overall: We think this was a wonderful albeit low-powered attempt at creating birthright in the third edition, though it needs to be powered back up. We were first attracted to BR in the first place because of "Having the blood of the gods in you".

Suggestions: Improve the Races and their starting abilities. There was nothing wrong with the old bloodline scores or random strengths, we suggest to bring them back in a similar fashion. If you have to have a structured limit on bloodlines, make the bloodlines like racial levels like in Arcana Unearthed this way it is a choice on what bloodline strength you will start with, but that is IF you must.

This is what we are going to do in the meantime. We will tailor the magic system after something like Arcana Unearthed that way you have blooded wizards like Magisters with access to both complex and simple spells then you have magicians that have only simple spells. Then we will tailor the UA classes for BR (Think of Nesirie's priests as Sea Witches ^_^) and use the playtest for the Regency and Domains but modify the Domain spells. We will try going back to the original random bloodline scores and strengths with the new 3e Bloodline abilities. Once we have done this we will playtest this for a few months and by that time we should have a good grasp of if this will work or not.

[irdeggman]

Thanks for the feedback. Have you checked out the proposed revisions to the blood scores?


http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php...=ST&f=36&t=1815 (http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=1815)

A and D both include scion classes which are like the racial levels.

[DanMcSorley]

Mainboard wrote:

> First observation. The Domain system need to be retooled more. There

> needs to be either a more free form and simplified domain action system

> or a clarified and expanded action and resolution list. There have been

> many times that I have had to make DM calls on the actions that players

> would have during the session. So far it reads and plays domains just

> like the Original BR.



This needs more explanation. You said "it needs to be more free-form or

more structured." That`s not a suggestion, that`s the entire realm of

possibility. :)



> Second impression. Everyone dislikes the Template system for BR. We

> think it was much more fun to have random bloodline strengths and scores

> (ranging from 1 to 100 aka a percentage of you blood) and give unblooded

> PC's +20% xp. My players think that trying to make BR

> "fit" into 3e loses some of the flavor. Also, Birthright's

> Bloodlines were powerful and it seems like the playtest is alot more

> limited than in the original BR.



Your problem is with the ECL, not the template. Having "Blooded" be a

template which gives a random bloodline score is as valid a template as

the ones in the original playtest version. The ECL would still be

necessary, though, because a character with several bloodline powers is

more powerful than a non-blooded character. Percentile XP bonuses isn`t a

very good mechanic compared to that.



Giving an XP bonus to "baseline" characters is a flat bad idea. They`re

the baseline for a reason. If more powerful characters exist, like

scions, /they/ get compared to the baseline and adjusted as appropriate,

not the "unblooded first level human fighter".



> Example: Two of my players in the middle of my campaign confused and

> upset that they had to "lose" a level because of usurpation.

> They started with tainted bloodlines and then, through bloodtheft,

> eventually gained enough to become major bloodlines. They then had to

> "add" the Major scion template and lose a level, let me tell

> you they did not like that one bit.



That one is your own fault, because that`s not how templates and ECLs

work. :) Suppose you are a rogue, level 3, with 4000 xp accumulated, and

you gain a +1 ECL template. You shouldn`t suddenly become a 2nd level

rogue! You`re a third level rogue, with 4000 experience, but your

character level is 4, and you will have to accumulate up to 10,000

experience before you level up. Party encounters will need to be scaled

up slightly to reflect the higher average party level, and everything will

work out fine.



> Third Impression. The bloodline abilities were good, they worked out

> well. The Regency earned and collected worked out all right. The domain

> magic worked well but the battle magic "feat" we did not like.



Why?



> Also the races seem a bit underpowered compared to their 2nd edition

> counterparts. Overall: We think this was a wonderful albeit low-powered

> attempt at creating birthrigh t in the third edition, though it needs to

> be powered back up.



The races are already rather overpowered, with magical abilities and DR

and such available to them. Cerilian elves, dwarves, and halflings are

dangerously close to needing a +1 ECL of their own. If you want to ignore

ECLs and power them up more, go for it and have fun, but it can`t be like

that in a version of the setting that gets released for general use.



--

Daniel McSorley

[DanMcSorley]

Mainboard wrote:

> The domain magic worked well but the battle magic "feat" we

> did not like.



Also, have you seen the "War Spells" article in Dragon 309? Written by

SKR, I believe, and fits in neatly as far as I can tell with the war

system from Malhavoc`s "Cry Havoc" book. If we could just reference those

and move on, that would be ideal as far as I`m concerned.



--

Daniel McSorley

[Mainboard]

Daniel McSorley wrote: This needs more explanation. You said "it needs to be more free-form or more structured." That`s not a suggestion, that`s the entire realm of
possibility.

Ok bluntly, the system needs to be completely reworked and redone from the ground up. My suggestion is to make it into a board game, period. :ph34r: That way you can have clear rules on war and domains. BTW thats what it plays like right now except not as smoothly.


Daniel McSorley wrote: Your problem is with the ECL, not the template. Having "Blooded" be a template which gives a random bloodline score is as valid a template as the ones in the original playtest version. The ECL would still be necessary, though, because a character with several bloodline powers is more powerful than a non-blooded character. Percentile XP bonuses isn`t a very good mechanic compared to that. Giving an XP bonus to "baseline" characters is a flat bad idea. They`re the baseline for a reason. If more powerful characters exist, like scions, /they/ get compared to the baseline and adjusted as appropriate, not the "unblooded first level human fighter"

No, my problem is I LIKE the old system and I do not think it need to be d20ed to death. Man, you must have never played in 2nd edition Birthright, because if you had you would know that Birthright is supposed to BE powerful. I personally do not want to play 3E with a birthright add on. I want to play the game where the Gods fought on Mt. Deismaar and died showering the land with their divine blood giving mere mortals the power of the GODS! I feel that if you want to worry about ECL's and templates go play in the Realms. BR is about power and responsibility of use with those powers, not rules and "baseline" characters.


Daniel McSorley wrote: That one is your own fault, because that`s not how templates and ECLs work. :) Suppose you are a rogue, level 3, with 4000 xp accumulated, and you gain a +1 ECL template. You shouldn`t suddenly become a 2nd level rogue! You`re a third level rogue, with 4000 experience, but your character level is 4, and you will have to accumulate up to 10,000 experience before you level up. Party encounters will need to be scaled up slightly to reflect the higher average party level, and everything will work out fine.

I understand templates VERY well (they were in 1st edition back in 1979 when I started playing AD&D) it just next to impossible to actually incorporate them into some form of role playing without sugar coating it. Additionally, I know it was my fault that they were upset. But, they would have never have played the playtest if they had heard about that in the first-place. :/


Daniel McSorley wrote: The races are already rather overpowered, with magical abilities and DR and such available to them. Cerilian elves, dwarves, and halflings are dangerously close to needing a +1 ECL of their own. If you want to ignore ECLs and power them up more, go for it and have fun, but it can`t be like that in a version of the setting that gets released for general use

Dude, try looking at Midnight its a released d20 product doing fantastically, it won the Gold Ennie at GenCon, and every one of the races are an ECL of +1 not even counting Heroic Paths! I think you are sorely mistaken about things being overpowered. Most of Birthright's success when it was released for second edition was the fact that IT IS more powerful than a standard. I don't know about you but I want Birthright, not an altered PH with Domain rules.

Anyway,

To irdeggman: Yup I took a look at it and showed it to my players the other day, but unfortunately we didn't like any of them. See the problem is in second edition, bloodlines were separate additional thing. As far as we are concerned the bloodlines were perfect, although more abilities would have been great. The only problem we had with BR was the Domain and War rules, they needed to be reworked and fixed.

Personally I think using templates or making classes for bloodlines are adding undue complexity to a system that does not need to be fixed. You could add to it, sure, but not reworked, I think thats a waste of time, no offense intended. Although, we did like the idea of buying bloodline abilities with XP (Like in spellware in DragonStar) is nice and would work well, as long as there is no class for it and no ECL involvement. Heck, you could even make bloodlines level based like the Heroic Paths in Midnight setting by FFG. As long as it is an "add-on" and not a option, class, prestige class, race, feat or template we will be fine. ;)

Otherwise I still say make blood abilities a separate thing and focus on improving the Domain and Battle rules which is where the real problem lies.

[Raesene Andu]

Firstly, I'd like to thank you for your comments. One the main reasons for releasing the playtest document when we did was for the comments of the BR community and any future revisons are to be based on these comments. So thanks for taking the time to post your comments, they are most welcome by the BR designers and we will do the best to ensure that your concerns are addressed.

Now, on to your suggestions.




Ok bluntly, the system needs to be completely reworked and redone from the ground up. My suggestion is to make it into a board game, period. :ph34r: That way you can have clear rules on war and domains. BTW thats what it plays like right now except not as smoothly.

I would concur that the domain chapter needs some serious alteration and editing. That chapter was the last added to the playtest document, and the least tested. It is also likely to be the most edited in the upcoming release. The simplification and clarification of the domain rules are one of the priorities in the next release of the BRCS. I don't know if we will go as far as turning BR into a board game, but there are likely to be significant changes. If you have specific concerns about a particular section of the domain rules, now is a good time to let us know, so we can address those concerns before the 2nd release is completed.


No, my problem is I LIKE the old system and I do not think it need to be d20ed to death. Man, you must have never played in 2nd edition Birthright, because if you had you would know that Birthright is supposed to BE powerful. I personally do not want to play 3E with a birthright add on. I want to play the game where the Gods fought on Mt. Deismaar and died showering the land with their divine blood giving mere mortals the power of the GODS! I feel that if you want to worry about ECL's and templates go play in the Realms. BR is about power and responsibility of use with those powers, not rules and "baseline" characters.

Personally, I agree with you on this. There has been a tendancy to d20 things to death in some cases, the bloodline rules are a good example. There are two schools of thought on this matter. Firstly, mine and yours which think that the 3rd (or 3.5 now) edition rules should be modified to suit BR, and then there is the other which says that BR should be modified to the d20 rules. Which is right? That is a good question. I know which one won out in the end, but I'm sure the other designers are not immune to a campaign to move toward modifying the d20 system for BR if enough people want that. After all, the d20 Birthright Rulebook is primarily being written for use by the BR community and it is the BR community that has the final say on the rules. As the old saying goes, the customer is always right. So let us know what you want and we will try to write to that. The playtest document was only ever going to be a first release of the new BR campaign setting, and it will be modified based on the comments and ideas of the BR community.


Dude, try looking at Midnight its a released d20 product doing fantastically, it won the Gold Ennie at GenCon, and every one of the races are an ECL of +1 not even counting Heroic Paths! I think you are sorely mistaken about things being overpowered. Most of Birthright's success when it was released for second edition was the fact that IT IS more powerful than a standard. I don't know about you but I want Birthright, not an altered PH with Domain rules.

I concur with this. When designing the playtest rules there has been a tendancy to cut down of the power of some of the races (specifically the dwarves and their 1/2 damage from bludgeoning damage) to better align them with 3rd edition rules. Personally, I would prefer to see the power of all the races bumped up to a ECL+1 rather than see them cut to become pale shadows of the 2nd Edition races. Rest assured I will argue this point continuously.


Ok, lets finish this with a call for more comment like this. If you have been using the playtest rules and have a comment/suggestions/dislike them please let us know. After all, we can't fix the problem if you don't know about it.

[Fearless_Leader]

I suppose everyone runs their games differently, but I've never used experience bonuses, templates, ECL for blooded characters, or challenge ratings in Birthright. I still use the system of random blood assignment from the 2nd edition rules and give out XP awards based purely on my own judgement of the scenario.

[Mark_Aurel]

Personally, I agree with you on this. There has been a tendancy to d20 things to death in some cases, the bloodline rules are a good example. There are two schools of thought on this matter. Firstly, mine and yours which think that the 3rd (or 3.5 now) edition rules should be modified to suit BR, and then there is the other which says that BR should be modified to the d20 rules.

Actually, I generally find this a false argument. It's not about subverting BR to the 3e rules - it's about using the 3e rules to emulate BR in the best possible way. Now, BR was written with the 2e rules. What should be done to give BR the best possible 3e rules treatment, is to divorce the setting and flavor material completely from the rules text, and then write anew from the ground up, based on the setting itself, and the flavor material - and then use the 2e rules as a corrective influence or mine them for ideas. Then comes the matter of applying the 3e rules correctly, and not making up new things, or patching on old ideas. Saying that templates should be tossed out and one should use experience bonuses to balance things out instead is a bit like saying initiative should be rolled on a d10 and there should be a rod/staff/wand save - you might as well play the old version of the rules, if you don't like the implication of the new ones.

Now, I'm not suggesting that anyone's campaigns slavishly adhere to the rules as they are - rather, my point is that the rules need to be written to the exact specifications of 3e so as to be fully compatible with the standards of that rules set (even if it can differ in a lot of particularities, like alternate classes, spellcasting methods, feats, and so on) - and then people can modify that to death as they like. The *worst* possible thing to do, however, would be to make something stuck in the middle void between editions, because we adhered to trying to implement the 2e BR *rules* in a 3e way, and not the flavor and tone of the setting itself. Were it up to me alone, I might make more radical alterations than the ones being made. As it is, that is mostly for my own campaign.

Templates is generally the default 3e tool for adding new abilities or powers to a creature or character.

[Birthright-L]

r />


>
Personally, I agree with you on this. There has been a tendancy to d20 things to death in some cases, the bloodline rules are a good example. There are two schools of thought on this matter. Firstly, mine and yours which think that the 3rd (or 3.5 now) edition rules should be modified to suit BR, and then there is the other which says that BR should be modified to the d20 rules.

>

> Actually, I generally find this a false argument. It`s not about subverting BR to the 3e rules - it`s about using the 3e rules to emulate BR in the best possible way. Now, BR was written with the 2e rules. What should be done to give BR the best possible 3e rules treatment, is to divorce the setting and flavor material completely from the rules text, and then write anew from the ground up, based on the setting itself, and the flavor material - and then use the 2e rules as a corrective influence or mine them for ideas. Then comes the matter of applying the 3e rules correctly, and not making up new things, or patching on old ideas. Saying that templates should be tossed out and one should use experience bonuses to balance things out instead is a bit like saying initiative should be rolled on a d10 and there should be a rod/staff/wand save - you might as well play the old version of the rules, if you don`t like the implication of the new ones.



...or we could create rules that fit Birthright without worrying one wit

about implications of D&D rules. In fact, we could even retroactively

remove all the rules of D&D and their implications, leaving only those that

truly add to a Birthright flavor. It was published as a AD&D setting, but

it wasn`t originally AD&D, it was a novel by Rich Baker. It was adapted to

AD&D, and not it`s being adapted to D&D, and it`s a great setting with a

great story. There`s no reason we can`t remove the D&D elements altogether

and play it under a different system that better captures Birthright`s

flavor, or create a new system altogether with Birthright as our primary

inspiration.



Using the 3e rules to emulate a Birthright setting is one way to go, and it

seems to be a fairly popular one. But this is far from the only or even the

best possible approach to creating a Birthright setting. The idea that we

have to be in this race to have the most up-to-date rules for D&D applied to

Birthright is absurd. Rather than trying to adapt everything to 3e rules,

or use 3e rules to emulate the Birthright setting, is seems to me that we

should be focussing on the differences that make Birthright stand out. D&D

3e (and 3.5e) had a lot of really great ideas, and we should feel free to

borrow from them liberally, along with other d20 publishers that can

contribute great inspiration.



d20 opens up the possibility of escaping D&D altogether, and exploring for

ourselves the numerous possibilities open for Birthright, both from our own

innovation and from that of the entire d20 communitiy. Not only does this

mean making new classes, races, feats, spells, etc., but also the potential

for exploring all new options such as different magic systems, combat

options, advancement rules, challenge rating systems, poison/desease rules,

and things that aren`t in D&D such as customized abilities, background

rules, class/heritage/caste rules, and of course the exclusive BR-related

aspects of bloodlines and domain rules.



Now, I`m not necessarily saying everything should be re-written, but it

really seems foolish to limit ourselves by simply what`s in D&D and what`s

not. I think it would be a more productive expenditure of our energies to

instead focus on what would or would not add to Birthright as an independant

stand-alone system, that would be structured in such a way so that the

community can easily add skills, spells, blood abilities, domain actions,

etc.



The d20 design crew has made it clear that this is not their agenda. You

very accurately described the public agenda of the design team as "applying

the 3e rules correctly, and not making up new things", but I don`t think

this agenda is necessarily shared with everyone or even the majority of

Birthright fans. Although I understand why you want to do this, and why

others would want you to, it`s not a false argument, as you say. There are

opposing "schools of thought" on this issue and your methods are not the

only way to go. Not by a long shot.



-Lord Rahvin

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Birthright-L@Aug 9 2003, 05:25 AM
...or we could create rules that fit Birthright without worrying one wit

about implications of D&D rules. In fact, we could even retroactively

remove all the rules of D&D and their implications, leaving only those that

truly add to a Birthright flavor. It was published as a AD&D setting, but

it wasn`t originally AD&D, it was a novel by Rich Baker. It was adapted to

AD&D, and not it`s being adapted to D&D, and it`s a great setting with a

great story. There`s no reason we can`t remove the D&D elements altogether

and play it under a different system that better captures Birthright`s

flavor, or create a new system altogether with Birthright as our primary

inspiration.




I have to disagree with this premise. Birthright is a D&D game. The original was an AD&D 2nd ed game. This makes it have to follow certain conventions. While I know that your basis comes strongly from WoT, that is not a D&D game nor is d20 Modern nor Star Wars d20. They are, however all d20 mechanics just not the specific mechanics of D&D. They don't "require" the use of the D&D PHB, MM and DMG in order to play while Birthright does.

Also making it something other than D&D is more likely to cause a reaction at WotC. They haven't given up the setting yet, so technically they could "nix" anything we put together. IMO this would be much more likely if differed vastly from the core D&D rules. We just haven't had the attention from WotC that the Dark Sun group has had, most likely due to Wizards' still feeling that Dark Sun is potentially a viable product line while Birthright is not. The Dark Sun group was told to publish only 3.0 (and now 3.5) compatable material in their updates.

[Mark_Aurel]

d20 opens up the possibility of escaping D&D altogether, and exploring for
ourselves the numerous possibilities open for Birthright, both from our own
innovation and from that of the entire d20 communitiy. Not only does this
mean making new classes, races, feats, spells, etc., but also the potential
for exploring all new options such as different magic systems, combat
options, advancement rules, challenge rating systems, poison/desease rules,
and things that aren`t in D&D such as customized abilities, background
rules, class/heritage/caste rules, and of course the exclusive BR-related
aspects of bloodlines and domain rules.

You probably know the frame of reference my initial comments came from - the BRCS is basically a D&D-compatible book, with particular modifications to suit BR. On a personal level, I might want to take certain things a bit further. That said, to keep things honest and workable, it should all work within the existing rules - if, for nothing else, for a common baseline.

For that matter, I might be reading more into your "escape from D&D" line than I should, but I personally don't see a compelling reason to do so. Even 2e Birthright used the typical D&D assumptions - you advance in levels, and you have hit points, and spells are Vancian. The game is basically what you make of it, and replacing one abstraction for another doesn't help much unless it is one that is generally easier to use (as 3e streamlined mechanics dramatically). Further, you can do quite a lot within the existing D&D framework without having to change mechanics or descriptive devices substantially. You can introduce a lot of new elements and still call it D&D - Oriental Adventures is still D&D, yet it has different classes, lots of new Prestige Classes, feats, spells, equipment, spell lists, monsters, and so on - all of which are modular add-ons to the existing rules system, but changes the flavor of the game substantially. To "go d20," you'd need to redefine certain subsystems of the game, like having a different hit point system, redefining the magic system, change the combat rules, and so on. You can argue that to your interpretation of BR, that would be appropriate, and I'd understand completely - however, someone else might have a completely different interpretation or simply not care, and then that'd have to be considered too.

One of my favorite golden rules for game design has always been to use the existing rules as they are to the fullest extent possible, only inventing new rules when absolutely necessary - not to invent rules for their own sake.

One thing that has been discussed has been the adding of more variant rules to the final version of the BRCS. If there's any particular ideas, though not too extensive (no 20 page essays on a "realistic" Rolemaster-style hp system, for instance), I'm sure something might be crammed in or considered.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Mark_Aurel@Aug 9 2003, 06:41 AM
One thing that has been discussed has been the adding of more variant rules to the final version of the BRCS. If there's any particular ideas, though not too extensive (no 20 page essays on a "realistic" Rolemaster-style hp system, for instance), I'm sure something might be crammed in or considered.
Jan is absolutely on target with this one. Variants are generally a good idea and help give GMs more options to draw from, but a whole book's worth would be unweildy.

Mainboard,

I think I understand your point. What I get out of it is that your group is basically going to continue to play 2nd ed Birthright, but they just want a "better" domain system to use than the original one.

Now this is a very viable course of action and I know that there are a lot of others out there who, for one reason or another, don't wish to embrace 3rd/3.5 into their Birthright campaigns. Pretty much any domain rules can be overlayed on to a 2nd ed system. The real issue would be to try to incorporate the DC and skill concepts, since they really weren't as clearly defined in 2nd ed. Skills did not have ranks which is a big advantage IMO for 3rd/3.5 D&D.

Unfortunately this project was designed to bring Birthright into 3rd/3.5 ed D&D. Which by its very nature changes the way things need to be looked at. Options and player's choices are at the heart of the new D&D. This colors everything that is done. So this project will never be exactly what you want, although I think that you will find something in it you can use for your campaign and that is the best that can be hoped for with any project.

Keep plugging away and good gaming.

[Mainboard]

Originally posted by irdeggman@Aug 9 2003, 08:28 AM
Unfortunately this project was designed to bring Birthright into 3rd/3.5 ed D&D. Which by its very nature changes the way things need to be looked at. Options and player's choices are at the heart of the new D&D. This colors everything that is done. So this project will never be exactly what you want, although I think that you will find something in it you can use for your campaign and that is the best that can be hoped for with any project.

Ok, there is my problem in the nutshell. Why must you stay with "traditional" 3e ways of doing things? I think that will hinder BR far more than making birthright.... Birthright. One point to bring up, how many "Standard" and "By the Book" d20 settings are selling well vs ones that have been modified and altered in a direction COMPLETELY different then what d20 was supposed to do? I can only think of 2, Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms, even then Greyhawk is not doing so well. FR is getting a boost in popularity right now because of Neverwinter Nights. Besides those examples, the rest have some type of altered system that does not follow the "standard" way of doing things, some change the whole system (think M&M)! So please do not use "we need to make it 3e" as an excuse.

On a side note, who CARES if WotC gives you the "permission" to do this or that? You will not see an increase in your fan base sticking with the "traditional" methods, there is WAY too much competition for that. You are going to have to create something that is going to blow people way, and this is not it (with revisions or not), no offense. I'm sure you have worked very hard on the birthright project, and no one would want to start all over. But I think the direction that it's going will do nothing more than make BR just another d20 system, like it is right now.

Many people that I know WANT something similar to what they played in 2nd edition. Last night I asked a few people outside my group about what if bloodline strengths and scores were done in a traditional sense similar to the second edition style. But, what if you had to pay for the abilities using experience points? And the only way of buying blood abilities was to find a priest with the "Investiture" feat? They were hesitant at first but the idea caught on and was well received. If you could keep it THAT simple then, I believe, it will do fantastically.

One last thing, the projects goal should be to make BR compatible with 3e without having to reinvent the core mechanic "a.k.a. bloodlines" and make everything d20. The main problem that birthright HAS HAD the WHOLE time is the domains and strategic battles! They are the main thing that should be worked on, because it IS broken! Except for converting the races and blood abilities (only) to be compatible in 3e, I don't understand why you have to change and power down the ONLY things that ACTUALLY WORKED WELL in the whole system! Geeze you don't "bring" BR to 3e and make something that does not feel nor play like BR, you make 3e work with BR and the naysayers be damned.


P.S. If WotC pulls your license, demands that you stop working on BR, and/or forces you to surrender all the material that you have come up with so far to them because it's getting way to popular and they want to publish it....

Isn't that the point?

[void]

On the topic of domain action changes, i think investiture needs to be changed so it doesn't require a priest. Since elves don't have any priests, it is kind of hard for elven realms to expand. My elven regent is trying to reclaim the elven lands of old, and is currently using a dwarven priest to invest conquered realms. I think there should at least be an option for elven wizards to invest.

Mainboard,
You should be slightly more concerned for the interests of Wizards of the Coast. Birthright a registered trademark of Wotc, as is all the setting material. Should we switch to a d20 system they dont like, or a non d20 system, and they revoked their permission, Birthright would have to be renamed, and the setting created entirely anew. Each domain, the history of the world, everything. As the creators of this awesome campaign setting, they have a right to a modicom of control over their intellectual property.

[Mainboard]

Originally posted by void@Aug 9 2003, 11:03 AM
Mainboard,
You should be slightly more concerned for the interests of Wizards of the Coast. Birthright a registered trademark of Wotc, as is all the setting material. Should we switch to a d20 system they dont like, or a non d20 system, and they revoked their permission, Birthright would have to be renamed, and the setting created entirely anew. Each domain, the history of the world, everything. As the creators of this awesome campaign setting, they have a right to a modicom of control over their intellectual property.

I am not suggesting going to a non d20 product. I am interested in RETURNING to what made birthright, Birthright. BR is its own world and rules, thats why its not called Cerilia: a Forgotten Realms Expansion. The Bloodlines and how they work are unique to BR, changing this for no other reason then to make them more compatible with 3e rules ruins the feel and overall tone of the setting (The same goes for the Races). The FR system is different from GreyHawk's system and both are VASTLY different from Dragonlance and how it deals with the rules. Each setting does things differently from the others, thats what makes them unique. I feel that powering down BR is a crime and that the project is fighting a needless uphill battle. To return and build on the foundation that is already made, just makes sense.

BTW on the issue of WotC and their control, my suggestion is to USE what is already there in the original books and convert bloodlines and races to KEEP what is there. You can EXPAND on this but its a really bad idea to 3e/3.5 or d20 it to death. Bloodlines were OUTSIDE the normal rules framework, they had no levels/kits/s&p/attributes in 2nd edition. It does not matter how well things "fit" into prestige classes or feats because its Birthright and it should NOT be adapted to fit rules, instead it should be the other way around. In the end how could they NOT approve a setting that CHALLANGES what players think of 3e AND gives them a better "upgrade" on the game they love?

And pardon me for saying this void (and I am not trying to be harsh) but, I am more interested in BR being fun and true to its roots than "correct" for 3.0 or 3.5.

[Mark_Aurel]

I am not suggesting going to a non d20 product. I am interested in RETURNING to what made birthright, Birthright. BR is its own world and rules, thats why its not called Cerilia: a Forgotten Realms Expansion. The Bloodlines and how they work are unique to BR, changing this for no other reason then to make them more compatible with 3e rules ruins the feel and overall tone of the setting (The same goes for the Races). The FR system is different from GreyHawk's system and both are VASTLY different from Dragonlance and how it deals with the rules. Each setting does things differently from the others, thats what makes them unique. I feel that powering down BR is a crime and that the project is fighting a needless uphill battle. To return and build on the foundation that is already made, just makes sense.

So if I were to use Storyteller rules (you know, Vampire, Mage, etc) or maybe Runequest in Cerilia, I would still have to use the bloodline rules literally as written in the 2e BR Rulebook to retain the *flavor* of Cerilia? That doesn't make sense at all - essentially, you're making the basic flaw of confusing the game mechanics in the original materials for flavor material, rather than looking at the flavor material itself and how to implement that in a different rules system. 3e is a different system from 2e and has certain standards for how things are done that 2e didn't have - there's the concept of "character level," for instance - a given character of a certain level is supposed to be around a certain level of power; anything else would make levels meaningless. Thus, characters with power beyond what their experience indicates (like scions) are given extra 'effective levels' (ECLs) to show their true level of power. That's just one example.

Now, how different mechanically was BR from those other settings you mention in 2e?



And pardon me for saying this void (and I am not trying to be harsh) but, I am more interested in BR being fun and true to its roots than "correct" for 3.0 or 3.5.

Okay - let's go to the root of some of the system discussion here. Any roleplaying system attempts to mechanically emulate a more complex reality. Let's put forth some basic theories here:
1. No roleplaying system is absolutely perfect for every purpose, regardless of complexity.
2. All roleplaying systems can theorethically be used to mimic anything - however, the level of functionality will be different.
3. What we have here is two components:
3-1: The world of Cerilia.
3-2: The 3e rules.
4. The purpose of the BRCS is to combine 3-1 and 3-2, *not* to make up an entirely new system, simply convert the 2e Rulebook, or simply put the 2e Rulebook out using different words.

Thus, there's a limited mandate for what the rules we write and publish as the official 3e BR rules. I know there's a fair share of dissatisfied people, and there's a share of overall satisfied people, and there's a share of people who don't care. The people who don't care is probably the largest group by far, while the dissatisfied group is the most vocal. From what I've seen, it consists mainly of people who do things their own way anyway, which is fine, there are those that just complain as a general principle, and there are those that go on a crusade to get something changed, and there are a few who seem to really want to write it themselves.

Now, in seeking feedback, there are several useful forms. There's generic design-level feedback, about which way to proceed in general, and what the consensus is on a few specific issues. Then there's feedback that's more immediately useful on a practical level, and which I tend to consider more as actual 'feedback' to what has been made, not just a discussion around it - and that's the type of feedback that goes into written mechanic specifics, adherence to certain rules, rules contradictions, and so on. In all cases, though, I think the given feedback should be grounded in a certain level of understanding of how the rules work - both 2e and 3e and/or other systems or games in general. Feedback on a rulebook from people who don't quite understand the rules isn't very helpful.

Anyway, that was a tangential little rant.


Bloodlines were OUTSIDE the normal rules framework, they had no levels/kits/s&p/attributes in 2nd edition. It does not matter how well things "fit" into prestige classes or feats because its Birthright and it should NOT be adapted to fit rules, instead it should be the other way around. In the end how could they NOT approve a setting that CHALLANGES what players think of 3e AND gives them a better "upgrade" on the game they love?

The thing is, there was no general "rules framework" for previous editions of D&D - it was a patchwork of subsystems that worked fairly independently and differently from each other - initiative was rolled one way, saving throws another, wrestling was handled different than regular melee combat, not to mention proficiencies - in that game, when you wanted something new, you invented a new subsystem. All the 2e rulebooks are full of it, more or less - the bloodline system was no exception to this - saying it was a different type of add-on system ignores the simple fact that there was no form of standardized method for creating add-on systems in 2e. 3e, by contrast, has several different standards that allow players to customize characters more than they could in 2e - but in a standardized fashion. It only makes sense that bloodlines are implemented in the way 3e does pretty much everything of the kind - with ECLs and templates or levels, not as a straight add-on. There's no point in trying to invent a new subsystem of rules for 3e when the existing subsystems will work perfectly well, with minor modifications.

Finally, define what would "CHALLANGE" what players think of 3e, and what a "better" "upgrade" means to you a bit better. I suspect I know the answer, but I could be wrong.

[Raesene Andu]

Originally posted by void@Aug 10 2003, 02:33 AM
On the topic of domain action changes, i think investiture needs to be changed so it doesn't require a priest. Since elves don't have any priests, it is kind of hard for elven realms to expand. My elven regent is trying to reclaim the elven lands of old, and is currently using a dwarven priest to invest conquered realms. I think there should at least be an option for elven wizards to invest.

Elven regents do have special rules for investiture. They do not require a priest regent to cast an investiture spell and may simply choose to crown a successor, designate an heir, etc. Elven regents involved in the investiture are required to spend an action, but success is automatic unless the transfer in against the will of one of the regents, in which case it follows the normal rules for divestiture (but does not require a priest to perform the ceremony).

Elves have a much closer relationship with the land and are able to mystically tranfer regency while other races must use regent priests to perform a ceremony of investiture to initiate the transfer or regency from one regent to another.

Hope that clears things up a litte for you.

[Raesene Andu]

Originally posted by Mainboard@Aug 10 2003, 05:43 AM
BTW on the issue of WotC and their control, my suggestion is to USE what is already there in the original books and convert bloodlines and races to KEEP what is there. You can EXPAND on this but its a really bad idea to 3e/3.5 or d20 it to death. Bloodlines were OUTSIDE the normal rules framework, they had no levels/kits/s&p/attributes in 2nd edition. It does not matter how well things "fit" into prestige classes or feats because its Birthright and it should NOT be adapted to fit rules, instead it should be the other way around. In the end how could they NOT approve a setting that CHALLANGES what players think of 3e AND gives them a better "upgrade" on the game they love?

On the Issue of WotC and their control, I'd have to ask "what control exactly are we talking about?" To the best of my knowledge WotC has exercised absolutely no control over the content of material released by Birthright.net, apart from setting down guidelines about not asking for money for the material we create and release, and ensuring that this material is only available from Birthright.net (as the official Birthright webpage). Arjan can correct me if I'm wrong on this, but for the entire time I've been involved with this project not one single person on the payroll of WotC has exercised any creative control over what the BR developers have been writing. The only people who have done that have been the BR developers themselves.

Personally, I think that WotC doesn't really care that much what sort of material we create as long as no one is making any money from it. So we have freedom to pretty much create what we want, write what we want, and so on. Now, of course, you have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise nothing ever gets done, but there is no reason why the BR rules cannot be kept seperate the 3/3.5 rules, especially the bloodline, domain, and war rules. I have to agree with Mainboard here, the original bloodline/domain rules were always outside the normal rules framework, with only the races and classes as part of the 2E rules system.

However, before we all say great, let's do that, look at the main reason that this was changed, and that is the issue of game balance. A great scion with several blood abilities is obviously more powerful than a commoner with none. In 2E, that difference was handled with an XP bonus, which does not work as well in 3E, so an ECL system was used, giving major scions +1 ECL, great scions +2 ECL, and true scions +3 ECL. Does that work? That appears to be the point we are debating at the moment.

If we were only talking about simply the bloodline strength, not the blood abilities that go with it, then we wouldn't be having this debate, things would have stayed as they were. But the power of a scion's blood abilities do make them more powerful than standard characters, and under the old random system of bloodline generation you often had the case of one player rolling well and ending up with a much more powerful bloodline than the other players. It happened in my first campaign, and I imagine most people who have DMed Birthright campaigns will have encountered this situation. Now personally I just dealt with the problem by making the more powerful bloodline more attractive to blood hunters out to steal a scions bloodline and as a result the character with the powerful bloodline always seemd to be the first attacked when the party encountered someone intent on a little bloodtheft. This worked well IMO, but it is only a roleplaying solution, not a rules one and 3E seems to NEED a rule solution to everything, hence the ECL for blooded scions. 3E does really suit a certain sort of player/DM, but this probably isn't the place to get into my pet peeves over the 3E rules.

Does the ECL solution work? Personally, I think it doesn't do a bad job. Obviously there are some tinkering that could be done to improve things, which is the reason that the whole playtest document was released when it was, to give everyone a chance to look at the rules and make comments about what they think should be changed. The bloodline system is one part of the BRCS that has caused the most comments, and probably rightly so, as it underwent the most changes. It is also the chapter likely to undergo the most changes in the 2nd release of the rules.

[geeman]

nk there`s a mistaken impression here in that making

the BRCS fit into the D&D 3e rules is the goal of the conversion

process. At the very least, the BRCS project says "Birthright D20" on the

cover, not "Dungeons & Dragons 3e -- Birthright Edition." I keep saying

that 3e is designed and developed to support the core settings FR and GH,

which seems to upset people, but this is exactly the reason why I keep

pointing it out. 3e is not particularly apt to describe the themes and

ideas for BR. A more D20 approach would be much more productive and true

to Birthright. The strong parts of the BRCS are IMO the ones that differ

the most strongly from 3e into a more D20 system.



What`s worse is that it appears the "D&D 3e -- BR Edition" thinking is

being embraced so strongly that some very detailed and even some rather

Kabbalistic interpretations of that system of rules are being used to

justify some of what gets included in the BRCS. A few months ago I said

that the more things look like 3e the less they will look like Birthright,

and I think this is a good example of how that statement is correct.



Gary

[RaspK_FOG]

Well, I might have not had as much of a Birthright experience in my life as I have other games, but I have to agree with Mark Aurel that the idea of making the game 3e/3.5 is the thing to lead on right now...

The idea of playing the game in a whole new d20 level incorporates within itself a whole new bundle of trouble. For example, what is it that makes hit points the way they work? Are critical hits going to remain the same?

When you walk on the other side of the matter at hand, you will have to reconsider everything under a new light. For example, both real life and the wonderful novel "The Falcon and the Wolf" present us with an issue: wounds bleed, and critical wounds kill you. According to this reasoning, any wound could make you lose 1 additional and cumulative hit point per round due to blood loss for every 5 hit points of damage. That means that a hit that deals 13 hit points of damage makes you lose another 2 hit points every round until you are healed. Also, critical would be a lot different, maybe like the ones presented in ICE's Middle Earth (talk about hard criticals)!

The point is that you should think that the game was D&D, even if it was introduced as AD&D. For your information, and truly a funny point, take Ursula le Guin's (sorry if spelled wrong) Earth-sea series and try to transfer it in any d20/D&D system... Birthright, however strange that may sound, seems to be the best to build such a campaign on! There is no issue if it should be made a new d20 thingy unless you are glad and ready to work from the start (all the way to the beginning!) and change mostly everything! It's bad form to say that it was a novel transfered for the AD&D 2nd Edition, and then go on and say it was just transfered, only to rant that it should be more 2e like! You just ruin your own argument, right then and there!

ECLs and extra XPs: You mean you are glad to give more XP? Boy, would I like to be in your game sessions? :lol: ! As if the new rules didn't make advancement easy (only 190.000 XP to reach 20th level for all classes), you also give them extra XP?!? Not to mention that adding a template never lowers your actual level, only gives you more effective levels (that can hurt a lot too, but not that much, you know)!

Racial Advantages and Overal Power: I can understand you people want the power (sounds like He-Man, doesn't it? :lol: ), but I am not sure if most players would appreciate a full ECL 1, even if this means making the races even cooler than they already are... Seriously now, I can still remember one of my friends (who never heard of Birthright until recently by me) and who just loves elves and halflings; well, I basically mentioned how the two really were interpreted in 3e (leaving out the 2e equivalents) and he was almost drooling! ;)

[geeman]

-0600, Lord Rahvin wrote:



>In fact, we could even retroactively remove all the rules of D&D and their

>implications, leaving only those that truly add to a Birthright

>flavor. It was published as a AD&D setting, but it wasn`t originally

>AD&D, it was a novel by Rich Baker. It was adapted to AD&D, and not it`s

>being adapted to D&D, and it`s a great setting with a great

>story. There`s no reason we can`t remove the D&D elements altogether and

>play it under a different system that better captures Birthright`s flavor,

>or create a new system altogether with Birthright as our primary inspiration.



I just wanted to chime in to say that in addition to making some very good

points, the post in which the above quote is from was also very well

written. This is email (or a message board) and as such those things

aren`t usually big considerations or something that folks should worry

overmuch about. It was, however, a pleasure to read something so well

articulated. Kudos.



Gary

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by void@Aug 9 2003, 12:03 PM
On the topic of domain action changes, i think investiture needs to be changed so it doesn't require a priest. Since elves don't have any priests, it is kind of hard for elven realms to expand. My elven regent is trying to reclaim the elven lands of old, and is currently using a dwarven priest to invest conquered realms. I think there should at least be an option for elven wizards to invest.

Actually I don't believe that the requirement for a priest to conduct the ceremony of investitute is required. Pgs 106/107 of the BRCS-playtest don't specifically mention it and as I recall this was delibeate to account for the cases you mentioned. Without the proper public showing however wind, an adverse domain attitude adjustment could result though (DM's call on this one).

[QuestingMage]

I haven'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'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't tie into the rules at all. Mark Aurel had a very good point in the Mainboard'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'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?

[ryancaveney]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, QuestingMage wrote:



You`ve made two nearly identical posts, and I read the mailing list, so

I`ll respond only to the first one.



> I think this is because the Birthright campaign violates some of the

> assumptions of the core 3e rules.



You`re not alone in that opinion. The general feeling on the natural

consequence of that is that core 3e cannot be used to model Birthright

very well without significant changes to at least one of them. The big

arguments are over which specific bits of what to change.



> 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.



Then we should be happy not to try to reintegrate it, as I want nothing

distinctive chopped off! Of course, then there are arguments over what

exactly is disctinctive, and what constitutes chopping it off...



> Scions are essentially living artifacts. This is why creating rules

> for bloodline strength is so difficult.



I don`t see it that way at all. Scions do have some inherent magical

powers, but detect lie or cure light wounds once per day, even teleport

once per week, is on the level of a fairly minor magic item, not an

artifact. Only the Gorgon and his fellow True Azrai awnsheghlien, with

multiple great blood abilities each, have anywhere near artifact level

power, and even then I don`t think most of them get that far. Most scions

get only a few minor magic items. Sure, they don`t take up a space and

can`t be removed, so in some ways they`re like a sorcerer level, but they

generally don`t ever *improve* with level like a real sorcerer would.



Yes, a 1st-level character with a handful of blood abilities is often a

level or two more powerful than a 1st-level character with no blood

abilities. However, a 10th-level character with that same handful of

blood abilities is generally *not* a whole level more powerful than a

10th-level character with no blood abilities; a few minor differences in

treasure collected could easily equalize things or even reverse them. In

view of this, I would recommend a level adjustment that started big but

slowly died away -- perhaps something like "a scion with X number of blood

abilities is always considered at least a 4th level character for purposes

of determining experience earned."



> All characters are created equal.



That may be the goal, but it sure isn`t the result. 3e may have tried

harder to be balanced than previous editions did, but it did not achieve

anywhere near complete success.



> Power is the result of successfully overcoming obstacles.



Which is fundamentally opposed to the entire Birthright core concept of

literal Divine Right of Kings. Therefore, to model BR properly, this

aspect of 3e, if it really exists, simply must be abandoned.



> 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.



I care. I think it illustrates a fundamental flaw in the design concept,

or at least the way said concept is often described. As long as this is

true, level simply cannot mean anywhere near an actual equality of power.

It must mean something much more like an equality of expenditure of effort

in learning to reach that point, which is what I always thought the name

"experience points" was meant to convey (but apparently is no longer what

D20 means by XP, since it wants you to *spend* them to conduct research).

Whatever 3e may claim about balance, it will never really be balanced

until a Commoner 5 is exactly the same power as a Wizard 5 -- which seems

not only impossible, but also not really worth all that much effort. In

some ways, the existence and design of the NPC classes is an admission

that this goal can never actually be reached. I would not get so worked

up about this issue if so many proponents of 3e didn`t spend so very much

time hyping the nonexistent balance of the new system. Don`t get me wrong

-- I like 3e a lot. I think it`s a great game. It`s just nowhere near

actually balanced, despite frequent claims to the contrary.



> So, adventurers as a class are superior to non-adventurers as a class,

> but within the class of adventurers, strict equality rules.



No it doesn`t. So they claim, but no it doesn`t. Even if it does hold in

certain very narrowly-defined circumstances (the stereotypical dungeon

crawl) -- though I am not convinced even of this -- any significant change

from those default circumstances totally ruins any balance which may have

existed. Case in point: a perfectly sensible Birthright campaign may very

well consist of *nothing* but court intrigue. Fighters are almost

entirely useless in such a setting, where Rogues and Bards rule the roost.



> "Artifacts are very powerful. Rather than magic equipment, they are

> the sorts of legendary relics that whole campaigns can be based around."



Blood abilities are often very weak. Most of them, as magic items, would

cost less than 10,000 gp. Even the most powerful is equivalent to a Ring

of Regeneration (Caster level 15; 90,000 gp), a Bowl of Commanding Water

Elementals (Caster level 13; 100,000 gp), or similar big-ticket but very

much *non-artifact* items. They are also quite common. According to the

Birthright rulebook, one person in a hundred is blooded, and such people

"usually" have blood abilities. That makes them immensely more common

than wizards, and thus possibly more common than normal DMG magic items!



> "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."



But in Cerilia, scions are everywhere. There are certainly tens of

thousands, maybe even a million of them. Some of them rule great

kingdoms, but some of them are nothing more than minor functionaries of

middle-class businessmen, or prosperous farmers, or even poor, homeless

wanderers ekeing out a meagre existence in the forest. Practially *every*

minor nobleman ought to have some bloodline by now. Artifact is

completely the wrong analogy for the vast majority of blooded scions.



> True and Great bloodlines seem to me to precisely fit the description

> of artifacts described above.



True, perhaps. Great, not really. Yes, there aren`t many, but the

child of a bastard of a bastard of Darien Avan`s great-grandfather would

have a great bloodline (though possibly of strength only 9, but in the

rules this is a possible result for a great bloodline!), and very well

might have no idea.



> Is it even theoretically possible to incorporate the Birthright

> worldview into strict 3e rules?



If not, then I think it is 3e which must be changed, not Birthright, when

the two are combined. To do otherwise means the result isn`t really

Birthright anymore -- and as some of the other settings have shown, D20

can be twisted and turned in all sorts of ways yet remain "official"!



> 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,



Well, those are two of the campaign styles suggested in the rules, but not

the only ones. In the ones which mix the two, you basically have to have

a party where people are content with the fact that only one of them is

king, and there is really nothing which can ever be done to truly balance

that. For some people, that`s great, for others it`s not -- but no rule

can be written which would make it work out any easier for anyone.





Ryan Caveney