Unearthed Arcana and what it brings to the table

[ecliptic]

For months, nay years I have seen so much argueing on this forum. One person wants something done one way and ofcourse another person completely disagrees with that other person. I mean this has gone nowhere, fast.

Now that bloodline rules are officially printed in a Dungeons & Dragons book, and that material is Open Game Content. I think its time to settle. This argueing hasn't really accomplished anything. Sometimes, you simply got to settle and then let everyone else do house rules. Some act like if it isn't done their way, then they are still stuck with the what it says in the pdf.

Stuff that has been brought to the table that I see as useful to Birthright.

Generic Classes, Expert, Spellcaster, and Warrior. I think these could be expanded upon for example add Noble to it. How many times have I seen the discussion of wether or not elves should have druids, or wizard, or both? That same arguement has been going on for awhile. Well if we simply designate generic classes as core to the Birthright setting. It solves the problem, and if others dont like it, they can house rule it.

Defense, VP/WP/, Armor Damage Reduction. Just a suggestion, as Birthright has always been more gritty then normal D&D, atleast how I have seen it. This may do well to not only show that, but to distance itself from other campaign settings.

There is other stuff that could work.

[RaspK_FOG]

Indeed, you are right that some of the things that have been so heavilly discussed over all this time should not have been so...

In any case, I'd like to address what you mention here: I am integrating the following variant rules in my campaign that I now design (so as to mention an example of house rules plus variant rules application): Vitality & wound points.
1s on attack rolls count as a -10 penalty, critical fumble occurs only if your BAB is not at least +10.
20s on attack rolls count as a roll of 30.
Armour piercing, armour damage reduction, and defence bonus.
Sovereign Stone's spell-casting system, with a more medieval/D&D magic style (not-elemental related, but form based [arcane, nature, and clergy magic, the last two accounting as divine magic]), and using my own variants of the base classes.
Aside from that, BR has always been a bit of a more "militantly proper" setting than GH, and especially FR, and some of the Unearthed Arcana rulings could be very useful (imagine an artillery unit that deals 1d4 wound point damage on a clear shot, but has all the penalties it had in BR 2e [need of cleaning the cannon every time the unit made a natural attack roll of 1, and so on] ^_^ ). However, it is really another "house rule" matter or, to put it in the best way, a variant on the original rulings.
Another example of things that have been thought over (but not on a level they would make it in the BRCS) include Defence bonuses, armour piercing weapons, etc.

[ecliptic]

Out of all that should be blamed, its the authors of it. They never put their foot down and say "this is how its going to be, if you dont like it house rule it". Instead they are too worried about offending people.

The writers either need to start cracking down and getting it done (which should have been done along time ago), or they should hand the project over to someone else.

[Birthright-L]

I disagree.

There was some contention at first, but the authors have made it quite

clear what their intentions for the BRCS are. I`m not saying I agree

with those intentions, but I think they`ve been well established.



--Lord Rahvin

[ecliptic]

Oh yeah? Then explain why it isn't out. The last update was a year ago. I can write an entire novel in less then a year. I am sure it doesn't take them that long to do some rewriting in something they already have practically written up.

They should hand it off to someone else if they can't actually get it done.

[Ariadne]

I really like the variant class abilities presentes in Unearthed Arcana. I already use the "nature aspect" variant of a druid and the rage variant for a barbarian.

I also like the changes in class abilties. Perfectly fitting for a cleric of Cuiraécen for example is: Lose the turn undead ability, gain the smite evil ability and Aura of Courage of a paladin (if chanelling positive energy)...

[Birthright-L]

> Oh yeah? Then explain why it isn`t out. The last update was a year

> ago. I can write an entire novel in less then a year. I am sure it

> doesn`t take them that long to do some rewriting in something they

> already have practically written up.

>

> They should hand it off to someone else if they can`t actually get it

> done.



I agree with your second point, not your first. There`s no reason the

team shouldn`t "hand it off" or otherwise if they feel its necessary,

nor do I think there should be stopping anyone from taking what`s

already written and finishing their own version for distribution among

the birthright community.



But it really doesn`t matter if you thing the BRCS is progressing too

slowly or not. And The Team has been plenty courteous in apologizing

for the delays and I`m sure being active on these boards slows their

progress some. As does the more modular design we as a community

requested, where we work out an issue before moving on to the next. I

don`t really follow the BRCS progress, but I think there`s been some

work on bloodlines that`s been going on recently.



I myself have been working the same amount of time on my own adaption of

Birthright, but I`ve got nothing even close to a finished product as

this team has produced.



There`s been no evidence that this team can`t "get it done", though

perhaps they can`t do it to everyone`s liking (such as mine).



In summation, I believe your accusations directed toward the BRCS team

are unkind and unfair. They`ve established a goal and they`ve sought to

meet it. Now if I have a problem with its content or you have a problem

with its development, that really has nothing at all to do with the

BRCS`s vision, motiivation, or ability. Not only is it outside our

jurisdiction to set such standards of judgement, but I think by all

commonly acceptable standards they`ve done a decent job.



If they take the next ten years to make another page or they just drop

it all now and declare they`re done as is, they`ve done an decent job at

giving life to their initial vision and should feel proud.



--Lord Rahvin

[kgauck]

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

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

Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 9:47 PM





> I really like the variant class abilities presentes in Unearthed Arcana.



I`ll certainly have to take a look during my March visit to the game store.

Along simialr lines, I pikced up Fantasy Flight`s _Wildscape_, part of their

Legends and Lairs series. Its a handbook for wilderness adventures and

chartacers. They produce nearly a dozen druid and ranger varients (not

whole class write ups, but modular lists you can plug in).



Some other goodies include special terrain types and basic terrain rules.

For example, special forest types include faerie, gloom, opression, and and

sentience. Once can immediatly plug these into the Spiderfell (Oppression

and Sentience), Sielwode (Faerie), and so forth.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[CMonkey]

Ecliptic: you had me initially, but you go too far. Yes, the project may have stalled in part due to the team&#39;s inability to arbitrate with finality but you must be aware of the many other reasons. Further I will not "blame" them for their idealistic need to adhere to the concept of a "community project", I sympathise with them.

I understand your frustration, but, ultimately, there is no-one to vilify here. Your core statements, time to settle, publish and be damned, etc I agree with but your tone is too much.

CM.

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by ecliptic@Feb 21 2004, 04:17 AM
Oh yeah? Then explain why it isn&#39;t out. The last update was a year ago. I can write an entire novel in less then a year. I am sure it doesn&#39;t take them that long to do some rewriting in something they already have practically written up.

They should hand it off to someone else if they can&#39;t actually get it done.
Moderator advisery: Ecliptic, please soften your words. There is no need to attack somebody on this board...

[ConjurerDragon]

ecliptic schrieb:



>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=2283

>

> ecliptic wrote:

> Oh yeah? Then explain why it isn`t out. The last update was a year ago. I can write an entire novel in less then a year.

>

Today is Februarry 21st 2004.

Would someone please note in his calendar for the 21st February 2005 to

remind me that I can go and download the excellent written and exciting

new Birthright novel that our friend here has written and uploaded for

free for us to read?

bye

Michael

[Mark_Aurel]

Originally posted by ecliptic@Feb 21 2004, 04:17 AM
Oh yeah? Then explain why it isn&#39;t out. The last update was a year ago. I can write an entire novel in less then a year. I am sure it doesn&#39;t take them that long to do some rewriting in something they already have practically written up.

They should hand it off to someone else if they can&#39;t actually get it done.
My dear ecliptic, I&#39;d be happy to let you know that anyone that doesn&#39;t suffer from some form of physical handicap could probably hack out a novel in less than a year. In fact, I think most people could even manage to hack out multiple novels in a year.

If you ever were to find yourself in a context where you&#39;d have to work in what is called, with a somewhat pedestrian fashion, a &#39;team,&#39; you might be surprised to learn that you might spend more time debating the overall project, coming up with ideas, and revising drafts than you actually would hacking new material. Your payment for all those hours also comes out to &#036;0. Congrats. That might mean other commitments will occasionally take priority. Like, work. You might even want to play games, not just write rules for them.

Now, would your post be considered an application to join the team? If so, I&#39;d advise you to 1) show your ability to work in a team context over a long period of time (you must obviously be very good at this) and 2) you should hack out some material to show off how good you actually are.

So, either start making your hackwork, or kindly moderate your tone a bit.

If you wish to complain about tardiness, please direct your complaints primarily at me, since I&#39;m the tardiest tard there is.

[Mark_Aurel]

More in general as to what Unearthed Arcana brings to the table, I&#39;d say it&#39;s a whole lot - not the least of which is a very strong reaffirmation of the sections on creating or customizing stuff set forth in the core books, such as &#39;customizing your character.&#39;

Since the material is all OGL, it may be well worth a good, long look as to what is suitable to adapt for the BRCS, if not as a standard rule, then as a variant.

The bloodline section I don&#39;t find to personally fit the Birthright idea of a bloodline all that well - while it is supposedly inspired by Birthright, the implementation is a good step away from Birthright, and it doesn&#39;t &#39;do&#39; all the things the Birthright bloodline system should do, especially with regards to ruling realms. Mechanically, it looks fine and balanced, and I suppose you could make it fit the setting with some effort. Personally, I&#39;d say the material that was published in Dragon is far superior in terms of how well it fits with the setting and the rules, if you&#39;re looking for something with an &#39;official&#39; stamp given out by WotC or a WotC licensee.

Now, the incantations section looks like an interesting alternatative mechanic for incorporating realm spells - extending the casting time a fair bit, of course, and allowing for longer breaks.

Wounds/vitality, armor as DR and so forth are classic variants, of course, which a lot seem to think fits the setting better. Of course, the wounds/vitality system in UA is full of holes.

I haven&#39;t taken too much of a look at the rules for reputation and honor and such, but they seem to be a bit soft, and not really have all that much mechanical significance.

Taint might fit as an alternatative way of handling Azrai bloodlines.

Some of the Spelltouched feats might be cool as blood abilities.

Unearthed Arcana brings a whole lot to the table, not the least of which is apparently a push towards a more open game philosophy from WotC. Game design-wise, it&#39;ll hopefully have a positive effect on the various online D&D communities as well.

[ConjurerDragon]

Ariadne schrieb:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at:
> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=2283
>
> Ariadne wrote:
>


Originally posted by ecliptic@Feb 21 2004, 04:17 AM
Oh yeah? Then explain why it isn`t out. The last update was a year ago. I can write an entire novel in less then a year. I am sure it doesn`t take them that long to do some rewriting in something they already have practically written up.
>
> They should hand it off to someone else if they can`t actually get it done.
> Moderator advisery: Ecliptic, please soften your words. There is no need to attack somebody on this board...
>
Except Gary of course... [crowd cheering in the background: We hate
Gary....] ;-)
bye

Michael

[ConjurerDragon]

Mark_Aurel schrieb:



>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php...=2&t=2283<br (http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=2283<br) />
>

> Mark_Aurel wrote:

>
Originally posted by ecliptic@Feb 21 2004, 04:17 AM
Oh yeah? Then explain why it isn`t out. The last update was a year ago. I can write an entire novel in less then a year. I am sure it doesn`t take them that long to do some rewriting in something they already have practically written up.

>

> They should hand it off to someone else if they can`t actually get it done.

> My dear ecliptic, I`d be happy to let you know that anyone that doesn`t suffer from some form of physical handicap could probably hack out a novel in less than a year. In fact, I think most people could even manage to hack out multiple novels in a year.

>

>

I can´t. Even considering the much less difficult stuff that we had to

write back at school I had my greatest problems when it came to writing

good essays or whatever was needed...



> If you ever were to find yourself in a context where you`d have to work in what is called, with a somewhat pedestrian fashion, a `team,` you might be surprised to learn that you might spend more time debating the overall project, coming up with ideas, and revising drafts than you actually would hacking new material.

>

You are making assumptions here if you don´t know ecliptic personally....



> Your payment for all those hours also comes out to &#036;0. Congrats.

>

From my side they could have the eternal worship as demi-gods if they

manage to actually get something that is reasonable, and the majority of

the community likes it :-)

bye

Michael

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by ConjurerDragon@Feb 21 2004, 06:20 PM

Except Gary of course... [crowd cheering in the background: We hate Gary....] ;-)

Tssss, tssss, tssss ;)

[geeman]

At 05:49 PM 2/21/2004 +0100, Michael wrote:



>Except Gary of course... [crowd cheering in the background: We hate

>Gary....] ;-)



Hey, that`s not very... oh... yeah, right.



Gary

[ConjurerDragon]

Ariadne schrieb:



>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php...=2&t=2283<br (http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=2283<br) />
>

> Ariadne wrote:

>
[QUOTE=ConjurerDragon,Feb 21 2004, 06:20 PM]

> Except Gary of course... [crowd cheering in the background: We hate* Gary....] ;)


> Tssss, tssss, tssss ;)

>

I can stand 3 Tsssss - but to send it twice is too much for me I

surrender...

Just in case: It was your intention to send your message twice and you

don´t have some virus on your PC that did this?



Something completely different: Has someone else noticed that the small

snail that "Spongebob" (the TV cartoon) keeps as pet is named Gary? ;-)

bye

Michael

[Green Knight]

I MUST protest.



I think this Gary-hating thing has gone too far!



I hereby start the counter-hate-Gary movement. Dedicated to hating all

Gary-haters.



Cheers

Bjørn



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

From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion

[mailto:BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM] On Behalf Of Gary

Sent: 21. februar 2004 21:39

To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM

Subject: Re: Unearthed Arcana and what it brings to the table [2#2283]



At 05:49 PM 2/21/2004 +0100, Michael wrote:



>Except Gary of course... [crowd cheering in the background: We hate

>Gary....] ;-)



Hey, that`s not very... oh... yeah, right.



Gary



************************************************** **********************

****



Birthright-l Archives:

http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html

[CMonkey]

Originally posted by The Green Knight@Feb 21 2004, 09:40 PM
I MUST protest.

I think this Gary-hating thing has gone too far&#33;
I hereby start the counter-hate-Gary movement. Dedicated to hating all Gary-haters.

I think it&#39;s become obvious that we need a poll.

If we get a two thirds majority in favour of hating someone else, we can then take submissions from the community as to who we should hate instead; otherwise we can all be generic Gary haters and anyone who doesn&#39;t like it, can house rule it.

CM.

PS.

At some stage, it&#39;d be nice to know who Gary is - but as this is an internet forum, facts are not absolutely necessary for construction of an opinion. :blink:

[Birthright-L]

> I think this Gary-hating thing has gone too far!

>

> I hereby start the counter-hate-Gary movement. Dedicated to hating all

> Gary-haters.



If only we had a suitable mass-combat system to resolve this

conflict...



-Lord Rahvin

Proud sponsor of the "I Hate Gary" Second Regional Charter Foundation`s

4th Annual Celebrities-Without-A-Home Charity Auction.

[geeman]

At 10:11 PM 2/21/2004 +0100, Bjeorn wrote:



>I hereby start the counter-hate-Gary movement. Dedicated to hating all

>Gary-haters.



Personally, I love the Gary haters. Having noted that, let`s try to abide

by "I hate Gary" rule #2 and post SOMETHING Birthright related in posts

dedicated to hating Gary (or hating those who hate Gary, or loving anybody

in either category--or hating those who love hating any of them.)



When it comes to this particular discussion of UA, is it just me or does

the system of alternate class abilities look very similar to the system of

trees from D20 Modern but just not _called_ trees and lacking somewhat in

the systematic approach of class trees? Would it be more effective to just

go ahead and call them trees and work with that mechanic?



I`ve long thought that there should be something in BR to reflect the

differences between the humans, and a few for elves, dwarves, goblins,

gnolls and orogs would also make a certain sense. (Probably don`t need a

lot for gnolls....) Generally, I`ve limited that thinking to doing things

like modifying the list of bonus fighter feats to ones pursuant to each

particular race (an Anuirean package, a dwarf package, etc.) but the UA

stuff is very interesting and could be used to extend the concept. In BR,

would it make sense to have some of the UA optional class abilities (or

other new ones) exclusive to particular races to exemplify the differences

between, say, Rjurik barbarians and Vos barbarians?



Gary

[Birthright-L]

> At some stage, it`d be nice to know who Gary is - but as this is an

> internet forum, facts are not absolutely necessary for construction of

> an opinion. :blink:



Just do a google search for "Gary". It`ll tell you all you need to

know.



(...and Birthright is a cool game and should use the spell template

system in Arcana Unearthed for realm spells... happy?)



--Lord Rahvin

[ecliptic]

I hear people say this is a &#39;community&#39; project. So show me where the community has accomplished anything. If it is a community project, then where is the constant updates on what the development team decides? How about putting the entire pdf up in editable form? When you let the community do anything, its nothing but arguements. You got the people that should never switch from 2nd edition, to the people that actually want to have the campaign setting progress.

There is nothing to even suggest its going anywhere.


The bloodline section I don&#39;t find to personally fit the Birthright idea of a bloodline all that well - while it is supposedly inspired by Birthright, the implementation is a good step away from Birthright, and it doesn&#39;t &#39;do&#39; all the things the Birthright bloodline system should do, especially with regards to ruling realms. Mechanically, it looks fine and balanced, and I suppose you could make it fit the setting with some effort. Personally, I&#39;d say the material that was published in Dragon is far superior in terms of how well it fits with the setting and the rules, if you&#39;re looking for something with an &#39;official&#39; stamp given out by WotC or a WotC licensee.


To you people, short of using the same old system, nothing fits. So you people want it so complicated, that basically forces no one to ever want to use it.
The entire old system was based on gambling, thats it. You gambled away your experience bonus in hope to get alot of cool powers. Then later look for people with bloodlines to kill to increase your power. All this ontop of your normal class abilities. It added to the already power gamer&#39;s system of 2nd edition AD&D. There was nothing good about the system that should even be held onto.
That absolutely overpowered system does not fit at all with 3rd edition D&D.


Wounds/vitality, armor as DR and so forth are classic variants, of course, which a lot seem to think fits the setting better. Of course, the wounds/vitality system in UA is full of holes.


I have yet to spot any holes in it. Yes theres differences, but theres not any holes. You can&#39;t go in expecting that trolls will be just as tough as they were.


When it comes to this particular discussion of UA, is it just me or does
the system of alternate class abilities look very similar to the system of
trees from D20 Modern but just not _called_ trees and lacking somewhat in
the systematic approach of class trees? Would it be more effective to just
go ahead and call them trees and work with that mechanic?


Which ones are you talking about? The Generic classes are set up similar to d20 modern classes. But all the class alternate abilities is just doing something for the DM that the DM doesn&#39;t have to worry about. Making up seperate abilites for a player that wants a different kinda class. Player can&#39;t go in and without the DMs permission just start taking those abilities.


I`ve long thought that there should be something in BR to reflect the
differences between the humans, and a few for elves, dwarves, goblins,
gnolls and orogs would also make a certain sense. (Probably don`t need a
lot for gnolls....) Generally, I`ve limited that thinking to doing things
like modifying the list of bonus fighter feats to ones pursuant to each
particular race (an Anuirean package, a dwarf package, etc.) but the UA
stuff is very interesting and could be used to extend the concept. In BR,
would it make sense to have some of the UA optional class abilities (or
other new ones) exclusive to particular races to exemplify the differences
between, say, Rjurik barbarians and Vos barbarians?

I think thats going too far, and to a point its ridiculous. Why take a way a player&#39;s ability to customize their character? Why say &#39;because you chose this, you cant choose this&#39;? You might aswell make the character for them.

[Mark_Aurel]

To you people, short of using the same old system, nothing fits. So you people want it so complicated, that basically forces no one to ever want to use it.
The entire old system was based on gambling, thats it. You gambled away your experience bonus in hope to get alot of cool powers. Then later look for people with bloodlines to kill to increase your power. All this ontop of your normal class abilities. It added to the already power gamer&#39;s system of 2nd edition AD&D. There was nothing good about the system that should even be held onto.
That absolutely overpowered system does not fit at all with 3rd edition D&D.

You obviously have no idea whatsoever about my game design philosophy, so I&#39;d appreciate it if you excluded me completely from the &#39;you people&#39; of your statement (whoever they are).


I have yet to spot any holes in it. Yes theres differences, but theres not any holes. You can&#39;t go in expecting that trolls will be just as tough as they were.

Try this one: How much does a character with 0 Wound points who&#39;s made his save to be disabled have to fear from being cut with a sword, hit with a fireball or hail of arrows? That&#39;s a pretty big, gaping hole for you. Of course, you can plug it. There was actually a whole thread at ENWorld devoted to the weaknesses of the particular Vitality/Wounds system WotC adapted for UA, though. WotC has actually published superior Vitality/Wounds systems to the one in UA in other books.

[ecliptic]

You obviously have no idea whatsoever about my game design philosophy, so I&#39;d appreciate it if you excluded me completely from the &#39;you people&#39; of your statement (whoever they are).


I guarantee you want blood theft, which is impossible without overpowering the system itself.


Try this one: How much does a character with 0 Wound points who&#39;s made his save to be disabled have to fear from being cut with a sword, hit with a fireball or hail of arrows? That&#39;s a pretty big, gaping hole for you. Of course, you can plug it. There was actually a whole thread at ENWorld devoted to the weaknesses of the particular Vitality/Wounds system WotC adapted for UA, though. WotC has actually published superior Vitality/Wounds systems to the one in UA in other books.

I don&#39;t consider that a hole. Different, yes. Because in D&D, one single attack can easily kill you. Much easier then in any other system. In this VP/WP, they don&#39;t include the Armor as Damage Reduction rules, nor do they include Defense. It&#39;s an entire system on itself made to use with the rules straight out of the Player&#39;s Handbook.

[irdeggman]

Having spent a lot of time over the past couple of days looking over the UA bloodlines system, because well its of the most concern to me, I don&#39;t think it ports very well into BR.

Here are the reasons:

1) It gives abilities based solely on character level. The blood abilities of 2nd ed were based on the Blood score of the individual, not necessarily on the strength of his bloodline. This is the biggest reason and the most important.

If you try to port in the UA BR bloodline system without using the blood score then many things have problems. The blood score itself is of significant importance since it is the mechanic used at the domain system of play. If the two are not related in some way it makes for a very disjointed system and if a separate system is added on to account for the domain level of play then the mechanic becomes exceptionally awkward and unwieldy. If only because there are 2 separate mechanics where one could work.

2) The mechanic requires taking levels of bloodline. These are empty levels. That is they don&#39;t provide any hitpoints, BAB, Saving Throw Bonuses, skill points or abilities. Basically they are a way to level out a level adjustment. I personally don&#39;t think this will set well with the masses who play the game. Now this is just a perception and not a flaw with the system.

3) The system is really based on picking up traits of different races, usually monster races like dragons or trolls. It is not set up to pick up traits of gods. They are of a whole other level of play.

I also have problems with the "Official" 3.5 Birthright blood line system of Dragon #315. It misses too many things. As the letter I wrote, which wasn&#39;t published by the way - neither was any of the negative letters that were written (great spin doctoring I guess). It skips over the fact that the draw of Azrai is towards evil, it specifically says it isn&#39;t.

If a scion had 5 blood abilities it would require 5 feats to obtain them. This is pretty substantial and would pretty much eliminate the effectiveness of notable NPCs from 2nd ed like Avan and Boeroune. The article only presented a handful of abilities. What was it 7, while the BoR had 32 listed.

No, I pretty much think that the method presented in the revised Chapt 2 is still superior to any others I&#39;ve seen. I&#39;m going to incorporate/address the few comments I&#39;ve gotten on it and post it as a &#39;final&#39; version of the chapter pretty soon. That means no changes except for editorials. It has been out for comment for a while now, more than enough time to be digested.

[Birthright-L]

> you chose this, you cant choose this`? You might aswell make the

> character for them.



I`ve always wanted to try that. Just hand out a bunch of characters and

scream, "let`s play!"...



--Lord Rahvin

[ecliptic]

1) It gives abilities based solely on character level. The blood abilities of 2nd ed were based on the Blood score of the individual, not necessarily on the strength of his bloodline. This is the biggest reason and the most important.


If you want ANY kinda balance and simplicity to it, then this is how it SHOULD be. People need to quit living in the past, if people want the overpowered version, go play 2nd edition. Nothing is stopping you.


If you try to port in the UA BR bloodline system without using the blood score then many things have problems. The blood score itself is of significant importance since it is the mechanic used at the domain system of play. If the two are not related in some way it makes for a very disjointed system and if a separate system is added on to account for the domain level of play then the mechanic becomes exceptionally awkward and unwieldy. If only because there are 2 separate mechanics where one could work.


You are trying to port a system from old edition and expect it to work with something from 3rd edition.


2) The mechanic requires taking levels of bloodline. These are empty levels. That is they don&#39;t provide any hitpoints, BAB, Saving Throw Bonuses, skill points or abilities. Basically they are a way to level out a level adjustment. I personally don&#39;t think this will set well with the masses who play the game. Now this is just a perception and not a flaw with the system.


These &#39;masses&#39; should have never left 2nd edition.


3) The system is really based on picking up traits of different races, usually monster races like dragons or trolls. It is not set up to pick up traits of gods. They are of a whole other level of play.


Those bloodlines are examples, matter of fact it gives nice little rules on how to create your own.

[geeman]

At 12:54 AM 2/22/2004 +0100, ecliptic wrote:



>To you people, short of using the same old system, nothing fits. So you

>people want it so complicated, that basically forces no one to ever want

>to use it.



IMO the bloodline system in the BRCS Playtest was not particularly

complex. In fact, if anything it was too simplistic for my taste. I`d

like about as much more complexity in a 3e update of the bloodline system

as 3e added to the skill system.



>The entire old system was based on gambling, thats it. You gambled away

>your experience bonus in hope to get alot of cool powers. Then later look

>for people with bloodlines to kill to increase your power. All this ontop

>of your normal class abilities. It added to the already power gamer`s

>system of 2nd edition AD&D. There was nothing good about the system

>that should even be held onto.

> That absolutely overpowered system does not fit at all with 3rd edition

> D&D.



While I generally agree with your conclusion that the original bloodline

system doesn`t fit very in 3e (which is why portraying it in an update is

tough...) I should note that one got more than just a chance at cool powers

(some of which weren`t all that cool) in the original bloodline

system. One also got access to the domain level, which was really the

heart of the 2e BR materials.



It should probably also be noted that the much lauded balancing tools of 3e

are sometimes rather shoddily employed. It`s certainly got more balancing

that 2e did, but 3e has some pretty heavily imbalancing things that it

uses, and a dramatically inclined power scale, so it doesn`t necessarily

follow that an overpowered system does not at all fit with 3e....



>
Wounds/vitality, armor as DR and so forth are classic variants,

> of course, which a lot seem to think fits the setting better. Of course,

> the wounds/vitality system in UA is full of holes.

>

>

> I have yet to spot any holes in it. Yes theres differences, but theres

> not any holes. You can`t go in expecting that trolls will be just as

> tough as they were.



I don`t know which holes Mark meant there, but IMO the holes in the V/W

system have to do making wound points equal to con score since it gives

them too broad a range to be an effective value. Also, the use of size in

that system turns things into a fraction or multiplier, which are very hard

to balance in the CR system in a way that actually relates to the threat of

the creature. The use of vitality points really works well in support of a

"magic power" system (in the Star Wars version one can spend vitality to

operate various Force powers) but in the absence of such a system they`re

of questionable value in comparison to hit points.



Personally, I use a pretty heavily modified V/W system for BR, mostly

because I think it fits better with the BR theme of bloodtheft.



>
When it comes to this particular discussion of UA, is it just me

> or does

> the system of alternate class abilities look very similar to the system of

> trees from D20 Modern but just not _called_ trees and lacking somewhat in

> the systematic approach of class trees? Would it be more effective to just

> go ahead and call them trees and work with that mechanic?

>

>

> Which ones are you talking about? The Generic classes are set up similar

> to d20 modern classes. But all the class alternate abilities is just

> doing something for the DM that the DM doesn`t have to worry about.

> Making up seperate abilites for a player that wants a different kinda

> class. Player can`t go in and without the DMs permission just start

> taking those abilities.



I`m not sure I`m understanding your description here. The alternate class

abilities are just creating for the DM separate abilities for a player that

wants to play a different kind of class? Is that right? If so, isn`t that

what trees do within the D20 Modern class system? Wouldn`t it make as much

sense to just use that tree system? (Maybe even a bit more sense because

it is an actual system.)



>
I`ve long thought that there should be something in BR to reflect the

> differences between the humans, and a few for elves, dwarves, goblins,

> gnolls and orogs would also make a certain sense. (Probably don`t need a

> lot for gnolls....) Generally, I`ve limited that thinking to doing things

> like modifying the list of bonus fighter feats to ones pursuant to each

> particular race (an Anuirean package, a dwarf package, etc.) but the UA

> stuff is very interesting and could be used to extend the concept. In BR,

> would it make sense to have some of the UA optional class abilities (or

> other new ones) exclusive to particular races to exemplify the differences

> between, say, Rjurik barbarians and Vos barbarians?

>

> I think thats going too far, and to a point its ridiculous. Why take a

> way a player`s ability to customize their character? Why say `because you

> chose this, you cant choose this`? You might aswell make the character

> for them.



I`m going to fall back on the "campaign material supercedes core rules"

argument for this one. Essentially, the campaign material as related to

the various human races would be related to the abilities of the various

character classes, so to the question "Why?" I answer "theme." Having

particular abilities dedicated to specific races conveys the campaign

themes expressed by those races. The Brecht might have abilities related

to their nautical theme, the Khinasi abilities related to their magical

inclinations, the Anuireans abilities connected to their culture of

chivalry and knighthood, etc.



Also, I should point out that there`s really no danger of players losing

their ability to customize their character unless one also mandates that

they play a particular race, character class(es), choose their trees for

them, and basically take over their character progression up to (and

possibly including) the point where they roll the dice. It`s like the

"restriction" on BR wizards that requires them to have a bloodline or be of

elven heritage. Since players can simply choose to be either of those

things, "restrictions" based on racial characteristics are really a

non-issue. Aside from that, if properly designed there would still be a

lot of customization possible within such a system.



Gary

[kgauck]

Modules used to come with pre-fab characters that a DM could hand out prior

to play. Its not a bad idea, depending on what you want to get out of the

gaming experience. Since I make the setting the arbiter of all that is

possible, I certainly have no problem limiting the list of all that is

possible depending on the cultural background you pick for yourself (because

you picked this you can`t pick that).



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Birthright-L]

> You are trying to port a system from old edition and expect it to work

> with something from 3rd edition.



I think that sounds like a nice mission statement for the BRCS. :) It

needs to be touched up a little...



> These `masses` should have never left 2nd edition.



::shrug:: The masses disagree.





--Lord Rahvin

[kgauck]

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

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

Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 6:39 PM



> 1) It gives abilities based solely on character level. The blood

abilities

> of 2nd ed were based on the Blood score of the individual, not

> necessarily on the strength of his bloodline. This is the biggest reason

> and the most important.



Looking back on your post here:

http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=2282

you write "Basically a scion can have a bloodline without taking any scion

class levels, but he would not gain any blood abilities greater than minor

strength, wouldn`t gain any of the other regent benefits."



It seems to me you are already pretty close to the UA model. Perhaps not

basing abilities solely on character level, but really how different are the

systems?



> If you try to port in the UA BR bloodline system without using the

> blood score then many things have problems. The blood score itself

> is of significant importance since it is the mechanic used at the domain

> system of play.



A minor issue at best.



> If the two are not related in some way it makes for a very disjointed

> system and if a separate system is added on to account for the domain

> level of play then the mechanic becomes exceptionally awkward and

> unwieldy. If only because there are 2 separate mechanics where one

> could work.



Very disjointed? Exceptionally awkward and unwieldy? All because we add a

single score? If I propose a Reputation score will it make the game very

disjoined (because of the existence of a Charisma ability), exceptionally

awkward and unwieldy? All of this strikes me has hyperbolic or perhaps even

special pleading. You may not like the system, but I don`t think its the

end of the world if we add one additional score for domain play that has no

use at the character level. If this were really a problem, its time to

start talking about how disjoined and awkward Gold Bars are.



> 3) The system is really based on picking up traits of different races,

> usually monster races like dragons or trolls. It is not set up to pick

> up traits of gods. They are of a whole other level of play.



Is troll regeneration really such a different kettle of fish from divine

regeneration? Is it really such a problem that the specific setting of BR

can`t make use of this more general product?



> I also have problems with the "Official" 3.5 Birthright

> blood line system of Dragon #315. It misses too many things. [...]

> It skips over the fact that the draw of Azrai is towards evil, it

> specifically says it isn`t.



Does the penultimate "it" refer to BR materials or the Dragon article?

Either way, I think a good case can be made either way from the BR

materials. I tend to see bloodlines as pretty persuasive in the psychology

of characters. Nevertheless, the game was designed so that someone who

rolled a bloodline of Azrai didn`t have to play evil. The most they seem to

require is some role play acknowledgement, nothing more. On the other hand,

we have entire rules for becoming an abomination. You can cut this both

ways.



> If a scion had 5 blood abilities it would require 5 feats to obtain

> them. This is pretty substantial and would pretty much eliminate

> the effectiveness of notable NPCs from 2nd ed like Avan and

> Boeroune.



Adapting their very high bloodlines is inevitably going to cause some

consternation. Maintaining their character power for the setting requires

more than just a strait level conversion at 1:1 in any event.



> The article only presented a handful of abilities. What

> was it 7, while the BoR had 32 listed.



I`m sure the limitations of space in a magazine has something to do with

this. This is nitpicking. Of all the things that needed conversion, blood

abilities were the easiest. OK, maybe gear was easier. That`s a close one.



> No, I pretty much think that the method presented in the

> revised Chapt 2 is still superior to any others I`ve seen.



This may very well be, and when the new update is posted, I`ll certainly be

in a possition to judge for myself, but from the criticisms here, the case

is certainly not proved. I almost get the sense that having spent so much

time working to produce what is the revised chapter 2, you may be unusually

resistant to alternative approaches. Nothing wrong with a little

ontological commitment, but it doesn`t mean I have to be committed.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by ecliptic@Feb 21 2004, 07:35 PM
I don&#39;t consider that a hole. Different, yes. Because in D&D, one single attack can easily kill you. Much easier then in any other system. In this VP/WP, they don&#39;t include the Armor as Damage Reduction rules, nor do they include Defense. It&#39;s an entire system on itself made to use with the rules straight out of the Player&#39;s Handbook.
Evidently you have not played Star Wars d20 or Alternity. I have and both have a much deadly system than does D&D.

The DR rules for the VP/WP system are pretty shaky. A critical bypasses all damage reduction regardless of whether or not the attacks would normally do so. While this still requires a confirmed critical, it does weaken the DR system.

[irdeggman]

----- Original Message -----
From: "irdeggman"
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 6:39 PM

> 1) It gives abilities based solely on character level. The blood
abilities
> of 2nd ed were based on the Blood score of the individual, not
> necessarily on the strength of his bloodline. This is the biggest reason
> and the most important.

Looking back on your post here:
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php...=ST&f=36&t=2282 (http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=2282)
you write "Basically a scion can have a bloodline without taking any scion
class levels, but he would not gain any blood abilities greater than minor
strength, wouldn`t gain any of the other regent benefits."

It seems to me you are already pretty close to the UA model. Perhaps not
basing abilities solely on character level, but really how different are the
systems?


Well for one, with a minor bloodline a character is not required to take a scion class level while the bloodline of UA requires him to take a bloodline level, albeit by 12th level.

And gaining abilities based solely on character level is pretty much a major difference here.


> If you try to port in the UA BR bloodline system without using the
> blood score then many things have problems. The blood score itself
> is of significant importance since it is the mechanic used at the domain
> system of play.

A minor issue at best.


I have to disagree here. That is the single largest problem and in no way a minor one. The domain level of play was based on blood score, the numerical progression. This gave a reason to increase one&#39;s bloodscore. Either by bloodtheft or by good rulership. That was one of the most essential parts of the game, one of the ones that made it Birthright. If this doesn&#39;t have a place and the only thing that matters is character level then there is no drive to be the last scion standing so to speak.

You might as well play FR and just adventure constantly for all the difference there would be.




> If the two are not related in some way it makes for a very disjointed
> system and if a separate system is added on to account for the domain
> level of play then the mechanic becomes exceptionally awkward and
> unwieldy. If only because there are 2 separate mechanics where one
> could work.

Very disjointed? Exceptionally awkward and unwieldy? All because we add a
single score? If I propose a Reputation score will it make the game very
disjoined (because of the existence of a Charisma ability), exceptionally
awkward and unwieldy? All of this strikes me has hyperbolic or perhaps even
special pleading. You may not like the system, but I don`t think its the
end of the world if we add one additional score for domain play that has no
use at the character level. If this were really a problem, its time to
start talking about how disjoined and awkward Gold Bars are.


But they are supposed to be related. If they are not related somehow, well what is the point?



> If a scion had 5 blood abilities it would require 5 feats to obtain
> them. This is pretty substantial and would pretty much eliminate
> the effectiveness of notable NPCs from 2nd ed like Avan and
> Boeroune.

Adapting their very high bloodlines is inevitably going to cause some
consternation. Maintaining their character power for the setting requires
more than just a strait level conversion at 1:1 in any event.

It wasn&#39;t just about converting their bloodlines it was about the characters themselves. They are powerful fighters and rulers. Using the feats necessary to build that type of character instead on blood abilities leaves a bad taste in my mouth.



> The article only presented a handful of abilities. What
> was it 7, while the BoR had 32 listed.

I`m sure the limitations of space in a magazine has something to do with
this. This is nitpicking. Of all the things that needed conversion, blood
abilities were the easiest. OK, maybe gear was easier. That`s a close one.

You are right it was nit picking. I was angry about the whole dragon issue thing. Their 100% official label, what they are doing with Dark Sun and pretty much I expected something better from Ed Stark. The feat concept isn&#39;t really that bad. But the structure laid out struck me as not being especially well thought out, 1 blood ability (with multiple levels) per feat. It is like they (WotC) are forcing the standard concept down everyone&#39;s throats so that any setting type of issue can just be a layer onto Forgotten Realms instead of its own unique setting. I know circular arguments.



> No, I pretty much think that the method presented in the
> revised Chapt 2 is still superior to any others I`ve seen.

This may very well be, and when the new update is posted, I`ll certainly be
in a possition to judge for myself, but from the criticisms here, the case
is certainly not proved. I almost get the sense that having spent so much
time working to produce what is the revised chapter 2, you may be unusually
resistant to alternative approaches. Nothing wrong with a little
ontological commitment, but it doesn`t mean I have to be committed.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com




Yes I admit a little bias. But then again I still haven&#39;t seen a system that works better. Every system I&#39;ve seen needs at least as much effort put into it as was put into the revised chap 2 version. I for one, don&#39;t have that kind of time - nor do I want to go through all the comments/discussions and adjustments all over again.

[ecliptic]

IMO the bloodline system in the BRCS Playtest was not particularly
complex. In fact, if anything it was too simplistic for my taste. I`d
like about as much more complexity in a 3e update of the bloodline system
as 3e added to the skill system.

That entire system is just bad.


I don`t know which holes Mark meant there, but IMO the holes in the V/W
system have to do making wound points equal to con score since it gives
them too broad a range to be an effective value.

What?



Also, the use of size in
that system turns things into a fraction or multiplier, which are very hard
to balance in the CR system in a way that actually relates to the threat of
the creature.


They give basic balancing CR adjustments, which from testing works quite well. You can&#39;t go in expecting the &#39;same thing as D&D with Hit Points, but this time you get 2 different numbers&#39;. It&#39;s going to be different, thats the point of having them.


The use of vitality points really works well in support of a
"magic power" system (in the Star Wars version one can spend vitality to
operate various Force powers) but in the absence of such a system they`re
of questionable value in comparison to hit points.

Um VP/WP are better simply because they are more dangerous. Players have to think before they attack.


I`m not sure I`m understanding your description here. The alternate class
abilities are just creating for the DM separate abilities for a player that
wants to play a different kind of class? Is that right?

It&#39;s for DMs that want to let their players play &#39;this class but a little different&#39;. Customability is one of the major perks of playing a fighter, you can&#39;t get rid of that if you keep the fighter around.


If so, isn`t that
what trees do within the D20 Modern class system? Wouldn`t it make as much
sense to just use that tree system? (Maybe even a bit more sense because
it is an actual system.)


D20 modern classes are GENERIC, the only theme they are suppose to fit is "I am highly Charismatic&#33;". Thats it. With D20 Modern you are pretty much expected to go into an Advance Class.


I`m going to fall back on the "campaign material supercedes core rules"
argument for this one. Essentially, the campaign material as related to
the various human races would be related to the abilities of the various
character classes, so to the question "Why?" I answer "theme." Having
particular abilities dedicated to specific races conveys the campaign
themes expressed by those races. The Brecht might have abilities related
to their nautical theme, the Khinasi abilities related to their magical
inclinations, the Anuireans abilities connected to their culture of
chivalry and knighthood, etc.


I&#39;m going to fall back on the "reducing the fighter customization ability severly short changes the fighter".


Also, I should point out that there`s really no danger of players losing
their ability to customize their character unless one also mandates that
they play a particular race, character class(es), choose their trees for
them, and basically take over their character progression up to (and
possibly including) the point where they roll the dice. It`s like the
"restriction" on BR wizards that requires them to have a bloodline or be of
elven heritage. Since players can simply choose to be either of those
things, "restrictions" based on racial characteristics are really a
non-issue. Aside from that, if properly designed there would still be a
lot of customization possible within such a system.


Sorry but yes there is. Cause then DM has to decide wether he actually wants to start a campaign setting strictly in Anuirean lands because one of the players may not be happy of having his fighter character restricted.

Everyone whos ever played Birthright? Definitely can&#39;t say that. In my local gaming shop we constantly played Birthright. Yet now noone plays and most of them have seen this sight and scowl at what they are doing to the 3rd edition rules and Birthright as a whole. Now we simply play in other worlds.


Evidently you have not played Star Wars d20 or Alternity. I have and both have a much deadly system than does D&D.

I play Star Wars every other week. Sorry but D&D with VP/WP system and not using the a DR system is much more deadly.


The DR rules for the VP/WP system are pretty shaky. A critical bypasses all damage reduction regardless of whether or not the attacks would normally do so. While this still requires a confirmed critical, it does weaken the DR system.

What DR rules for the VP/WP system? You miss the fact that each seperate rules variant isn&#39;t meant to be used with another rules variant? That each variant in UA is built to work with the Core Rulebooks, not with the variant next to it in the book?


I have to disagree here. That is the single largest problem and in no way a minor one. The domain level of play was based on blood score, the numerical progression. This gave a reason to increase one&#39;s bloodscore. Either by bloodtheft or by good rulership. That was one of the most essential parts of the game, one of the ones that made it Birthright. If this doesn&#39;t have a place and the only thing that matters is character level then there is no drive to be the last scion standing so to speak.


Why in hell are you people planning on using the exact same domain rules from 2nd edition? See this is the problem your running into. You should have thrown out ALL rules based on 3rd edition.


You might as well play FR and just adventure constantly for all the difference there would be.

Which FR? 2nd edition or 3rd? Atleast they appropriately moved over.


It wasn&#39;t just about converting their bloodlines it was about the characters themselves. They are powerful fighters and rulers. Using the feats necessary to build that type of character instead on blood abilities leaves a bad taste in my mouth.


No matter what you do, they are going to be limited in power. It HAS to be balanced with everything else.


You are right it was nit picking. I was angry about the whole dragon issue thing. Their 100% official label, what they are doing with Dark Sun and pretty much I expected something better from Ed Stark. The feat concept isn&#39;t really that bad. But the structure laid out struck me as not being especially well thought out, 1 blood ability (with multiple levels) per feat. It is like they (WotC) are forcing the standard concept down everyone&#39;s throats so that any setting type of issue can just be a layer onto Forgotten Realms instead of its own unique setting. I know circular arguments.


Oh you mean forcing the 3rd edition rules down your throat. Heaven forbid they would do such a thing&#33; Go play 2nd edition.


Yes I admit a little bias. But then again I still haven&#39;t seen a system that works better. Every system I&#39;ve seen needs at least as much effort put into it as was put into the revised chap 2 version. I for one, don&#39;t have that kind of time - nor do I want to go through all the comments/discussions and adjustments all over again.


I am starting to see part of this whole problem, the developers stubborness and lack of will to actually work on it.

[CMonkey]

The use of vitality points really works well in support of a "magic power" system (in the Star Wars version one can spend vitality to operate various Force powers) but in the absence of such a system they`re of questionable value in comparison to hit points.

Ooo, now there&#39;s the edge of something interesting. If a WP/VP system can be adopted then the use of blood powers can become intrinsically linked to vitality points - an excellent balancing factor and one that would add interesting in game choices. (yes I can enthrall all the peons, but it&#39;ll leave me weak if the two scions in the crowd just come up and slap me...)

It would require some benchmarking, but with systems such as Star Wars and Alternaty (whatever that is) to crib from, it shouldn&#39;t be too hard...

CM.
(Attempt #2: to hijack thread in a more harmless direction)

[kgauck]

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

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

Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 10:45 PM



> Yes I admit a little bias. But then again I still haven`t seen a

> system that works better. Every system I`ve seen needs at

> least as much effort put into it as was put into the revised chap

> 2 version. I for one, don`t have that kind of time - nor do I

> want to go through all the comments/discussions and

> adjustments all over again.



That is an argument I can accept. I have no reason to suspect that anything

that comes along now will be so good that we will all throw away what we

have done (both each in our own and in the BRCS) and grasp the new. At some

point one really must decide that all that will follow will probabaly be as

good and no better than what is, and move on.



> gaining abilities based solely on character level is

> pretty much a major difference here.



Its a different mechanic, but how meaningful is it. The fact that people

play BR in so many game systems suggests to me that the mechanics don`t have

implications, the setting does.



> I have to disagree here. That is the single largest problem and in

> no way a minor one. The domain level of play was based on blood

> score, the numerical progression. This gave a reason to increase

> one`s bloodscore. [...] If this doesn`t have a place and the only thing

> that matters is character level then there is no drive to be the last

> scion standing so to speak.



I missed the drive to be last scion standing in the first place. ;-)

I think you want some way to measure the size of one`s optimal domain, but

there are lots of ways to do it. Perhaps most relevant here is that the BR

system itself have us a two-part system to start with, so going to w two

part system by using a UA bloodline and then a realm rating for your

character isn`t all that different than getting your blood powers from a

catacgorical measure of bloodstrength, but controling your realm by a

numberical score partly derived from the catorgy.



> You might as well play FR and just adventure constantly for all the

> difference there would be.



I think FR is way more a question of setting and style than it is mechanics,

so that I can play vanilla D&D and be far removed from FR, and I can by by

the BR rules no matter how they are written and put it right smack in the

middle of Faerûn.



> But they are supposed to be related. If they are not related

> somehow, well what is the point?



A question non-ruling scions must ask themselves several times a day. ;-)

They woulnd`t be hard to connect. Where there is a will...



> It wasn`t just about converting their bloodlines it was about the

> characters themselves. They are powerful fighters and rulers.

> Using the feats necessary to build that type of character instead

> on blood abilities leaves a bad taste in my mouth.



In the D&D system as it is, its hard to be maximal in two things. Every

time you opt to improve one power you are slighting another. People like

Avan and Boeruine need to be good at 3 or 4 things in my estimation

(minimally fighting, commanding, ruling, and maybe other things like

intrigue, charm, &c too). No matter how you mix it up, there is going to be

a problem of opportunity costs. In designing nobles, as opposed to

adventuring scions, there are certain blood abilities that are far more

attractive. Direction sense is far more useful to adventurers than it is to

rulers. Detect is so valuable as a ruler, you encounter so many more people

tempted to lie to you than you do as a ruler than you do on many adverures.

Good character design will actually make Avan and Bouruine stronger with

bloodline feats with fewer balancing problems. Granted this is more of an

issue if you want to play them or characters like them than it is if you

just want them as might adversaries or NCP powers.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[kgauck]

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

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

Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 12:03 AM



> I`m going to fall back on the "reducing the fighter

> customization ability severly short changes the fighter".



Depending on what kind of custimization restrictions there, I`m not buying

this argument. If I decide that Anuireans are not good archers and have all

my cultural and technological reasons, Anuirean fights still make just as

good knights, swordsmen, fencers, and every other style of combat I don`t

restrict. They are just as powerful, just slightly less diverse.



If a DM announced that all the PHB feats were open to all character but that

certain other feats of his own design, of other settings, and other

supliments were available as he saw fit according to setting, I`d say he was

totally on the righ track.



> Sorry but yes there is. Cause then DM has to decide wether he

> actually wants to start a campaign setting strictly in Anuirean lands

> because one of the players may not be happy of having his fighter

> character restricted.



(Using my example above) So if I want to play a super-archer why can`t I

just play a Rjurik in this strictly Anuirean campaign? Certainly there are

foriegn folk described in the published materials, and unless the campaign

presumed we are all peasants, we almost certainly have the means to travel

as we please.



> Why in hell are you people planning on using the exact same

> domain rules from 2nd edition? See this is the problem your

> running into. You should have thrown out ALL rules based on

> 3rd edition.



Domain rules have nothing to do with which edition you play, they have

absolutly no interface with character rules at all. Its totally a distinct

system tacked on, and it tacks on just as well to basic D&D as it does to 2e

as it does to 3.5.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[geeman]

At 07:03 AM 2/22/2004 +0100, ecliptic wrote:



>
I don`t know which holes Mark meant there, but IMO the holes in

> the V/W

> system have to do making wound points equal to con score since it gives

> them too broad a range to be an effective value.

>

> What?



IMO, the standard range of constitution scores (3-18+) does not make for an

effective value when used as wound points. It`s too broad. It`s

comparable to having a -10 optional rule that ranged from -3 to -20 (or

whatever.) When combined with the multiplier (or fraction) based on size

for several races it makes for a very broad set of numbers that I don`t

think are very useful, especially since what often happens in D&D is the

constitution scores of monsters tend to be increased in a way that seems to

be done in order to reflect their relative size, not their actual toughness

in relationship to other characters. Plus, it`s a rather strange use of

the ability score mechanic itself. Normally modifiers are the factor that

influences stats--using the ability score itself is a somewhat odd way to go.



I use a base wound point system in which wound points are based on size and

then modified by constitution bonus. It makes for more "natural" numbers

and is in keeping with how ability score modifiers work rather than having

a one time use of straight ability score numbers as a game stat.



>


>Also, the use of size in that system turns things into a fraction or

>multiplier, which are very hard to balance in the CR system in a way that

>actually relates to the threat of the creature.

>

>

> They give basic balancing CR adjustments, which from testing works quite

> well. You can`t go in expecting the `same thing as D&D with Hit

> Points, but this time you get 2 different numbers`. It`s going to be

> different, thats the point of having them.



I don`t expect it to be the same thing as D&D.... I don`t, however, think

the V/W system is very accurately portrayed in the guidelines for CR. It`s

not the most egregious thing ever, but in my playtesting the basic idea

that four encounters with the appropriate CR using V/W don`t have the same

mathematical result as hit points in which combat is somewhat more

predictable. It`s probably the nature of that unpredictability itself that

is the issue.



>
The use of vitality points really works well in support of a

> "magic power" system (in the Star Wars version one can spend

> vitality to

> operate various Force powers) but in the absence of such a system they`re

> of questionable value in comparison to hit points.

>

> Um VP/WP are better simply because they are more dangerous. Players have

> to think before they attack.



I`d agree with that, plus I`d add a few things. V/W is better because it

has a more "verisimilitude" than hit points (which are really odd when it

gets right down to it) it`s got a much more intelligently designed system

of results for physical damage, the return of vitality and wound points

(healing) makes more sense. Plus, in BR we have a better starting point

for portraying things like bloodtheft. It`s just a better way to go overall.



However, what I was getting at isn`t the whole V/W system there. If you

take a look the comment was about vitality points alone (and made a bit

more sense in the context of the whole paragraph.) Vitality points _by

themselves_ are not particularly more sensible than hit points. The speed

with which one gets vitality points back makes sense in the context of a

system in which they are spent to activate Force skills, but its debatable

whether they make sense in comparison to hit point as an abstract way of

computing "avoidance of substantial physical harm" in that sense. In fact,

there`s not a lot of difference from a "realistic" standpoint. To be

honest, the more gritty "realism" of V/W over hit points is really pretty

marginal.... Using a V/W system characters can no longer take as much

damage per se as an ancient dragon... they`re merely as vital as

one. There`s still a wink and a nod in there.



D&D uses hit points or vitality to represent the ability to avoid being

actually wounded in combat. Other system do things like just having the

attacker actually miss.... That`s really the more "realistic" way to go IMO.



>
I`m going to fall back on the "campaign material supercedes

> core rules" argument for this one. Essentially, the campaign

> material as related to the various human races would be related to the

> abilities of the various character classes, so to the question

> "Why?" I answer "theme." Having particular abilities

> dedicated to specific races conveys the campaign themes expressed by

> those races. The Brecht might have abilities related to their nautical

> theme, the Khinasi abilities related to their magical inclinations, the

> Anuireans abilities connected to their culture of chivalry and

> knighthood, etc.

>

>

>I`m going to fall back on the "reducing the fighter customization

>ability severly short changes the fighter".



This is the most common objection to campaign materials. I`ve never

actually seen it work out to be a problem, but many vociferous people seem

to chafe at having to pick feats and class abilities that reflect campaign

material rather than go off in whatever direction they like.... I can only

reiterate that this is one of the functions of campaign material. In BR

only blooded characters or those with elven heritage can cast true magic (a

major restriction compared to 3e) but that`s fundamental to the setting. A

few "restrictions" (and I have to note again that it really is much more

minor than you`re suggesting) on fighters to reflect the regional styles

and capacities of the various races of Cerilia is not going to end the

fighter`s utility as a class. I`ve done it. It`s not that big a deal.



>
Also, I should point out that there`s really no danger of players

> losing

> their ability to customize their character unless one also mandates that

> they play a particular race, character class(es), choose their trees for

> them, and basically take over their character progression up to (and

> possibly including) the point where they roll the dice. It`s like the

> "restriction" on BR wizards that requires them to have a

> bloodline or be of

> elven heritage. Since players can simply choose to be either of those

> things, "restrictions" based on racial characteristics are

> really a

> non-issue. Aside from that, if properly designed there would still be a

> lot of customization possible within such a system.

>

>

> Sorry but yes there is. Cause then DM has to decide wether he actually

> wants to start a campaign setting strictly in Anuirean lands because one

> of the players may not be happy of having his fighter character restricted.



I don`t see how that`s follows.... This hypothetical DM would still have

to mandate exactly what class, race and choices his players made. Deciding

where to base campaign can influence player`s choices in developing his PC

(though in my experience not all that much) but there`s no reason why a DM

can`t allow players to take characters of any race/class while centering a

campaign anywhere in Cerilia.



Aside from that, if you consider the differences between the various human

races it makes very little sense to concern oneself over whether a burly

Vos fighter has available to him the option to fight in the dainty,

dancer-like Brecht "Black Strike" style as part of his character class

levels, nor does it make a whole heck of a lot of sense to give the Khinasi

access to Orog fighting styles, or to allow Dwarves to fire longbows with

the facility that might be better ascribed to Cerilian elves. Even with

such "restrictions" players who want their PCs to have access to such feats

(or trees) would have the ability to do so through the feats they have

available every 3rd level like any other character, so if someone really

wants to play the goblin knight who learns feats that are part of the

Anuirean fighter`s list then one still can do it.



Gary

[Mark_Aurel]

> I don`t know which holes Mark meant there, but IMO the holes in the V/W
> system have to do making wound points equal to con score since it gives
> them too broad a range to be an effective value. Also, the use of size in
> that system turns things into a fraction or multiplier, which are very hard
> to balance in the CR system in a way that actually relates to the threat of
> the creature. The use of vitality points really works well in support of a
> "magic power" system (in the Star Wars version one can spend vitality to
> operate various Force powers) but in the absence of such a system they`re
> of questionable value in comparison to hit points.

> Personally, I use a pretty heavily modified V/W system for BR, mostly
> because I think it fits better with the BR theme of bloodtheft.

The hole I was referring to is this: Once a character is disabled at 0 Wound points (only able to take a move or standard action) there&#39;s nothing an enemy can do to hurt him further. The character can basically just stand there and soak up damage forever at that point.

[irdeggman]

"Evidently you have not played Star Wars d20 or Alternity. I have and both have a much deadly system than does D&D. "

I play Star Wars every other week. Sorry but D&D with VP/WP system and not using the a DR system is much more deadly.

Yes the UA VP/WP system is much more deadly than Star Wars. But still not as deadly as Alternity. But your original comment didn&#39;t state that you were referring to D&D using the UA VP/WP system just that the generic (implied by omission) D&D system was more deadly.




"The DR rules for the VP/WP system are pretty shaky. A critical bypasses all damage reduction regardless of whether or not the attacks would normally do so. While this still requires a confirmed critical, it does weaken the DR system. "

What DR rules for the VP/WP system? You miss the fact that each seperate rules variant isn&#39;t meant to be used with another rules variant? That each variant in UA is built to work with the Core Rulebooks, not with the variant next to it in the book?

How about on pg 118 where it refers to Damage Reduction? "Damage reduction functions normally, reducing damage dealt by attacks. However, any critical hit automatically overcomes a creature&#39;s damage reduction, regardless of whether the attack could normally do so."

This is not the section on armor and DR this is the section on VP/WP and how to incorporate it into the existing set of rules, with sections on fast healing, natural healing, etc. This is all part of the same variant. Whereas the variant for armor as damage reduction starts on pg 111 and also includes descriptions of how to handle natural healing, fast healing, etc. for that variant.

[Birthright-L]

Damage Reduction? "Damage reduction functions normally, reducing

damage dealt by attacks. However, any critical hit automatically

overcomes a creature`s damage reduction, regardless of whether the

attack could normally do so."



No one else likes this idea? I think it adds to criticals in a very

nice way.



--Lord Rahvin

[kgauck]

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

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

Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 5:27 AM





> The hole I was referring to is this: Once a character is disabled

> at 0 Wound points (only able to take a move or standard action)

> there`s nothing an enemy can do to hurt him further. The character

> can basically just stand there and soak up damage forever at that

> point.



The system I use (fom Star Wars) is that 0 Wounds represents dying. As a

homebrew addition, I figure that vitality is the product of a constitution,

in the way that Con modifies vitality, so I impose a -1/level vitality

penalty for every two wounds lost. Its like re-calculating the Con bonus to

VP based on the new Con (wounds remaining).



Let`s say a Rogue 5 with a 12 Con and 23 hp is attacked by an archer who

scores a confirmed critical against him. If the attacking weapon were a

shortbow, so he takes 1d6 wound damage. If he takes 4 wounds, he loses 10

vitality because of the wounds. Now he has 8 Wounds and 13 Vitality.



Because a Wound 0 Character is suffering an effective -5/level vitality

penalty, very few character have any vitality left when they hit 0 Wounds.

I have seen cases where a fighter type character has made above average

rolls in Vitality and so at 1 Wound remaining still has a handful of

Vitality to allow him to act. Those that do so strike me to be like

soldiers and firemen who have taken fatal wounds and continue to save lives

by their actions for a few minutes.



No additional penalty is imposed if because of the withdrawal of VP, the VP

total goes negative.



I don`t actually re-calculate Con bonus, for book-keeping ease, when wounds

are done, I just impose a wound penalty which acts like a VP modifier. I do

this also because after healing, I want to make sure wounded character have

a lower VP ceiling. If the rogue in my example takes no further VP damage,

he can`t get above 13 VP without either a healing spell to cure a wound

point(s) or time to recover through natural healing.



Wounds are a serious business.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Lysander]

(It&#39;s been a LONG while since I&#39;ve last posted - like what you&#39;ve done with the site&#33; ;) You can&#39;t tell from the email list, hehe)

Ecliptic, you refer to Second Edition as if it was a bad thing&#33; :D

Now, to each his own, but there&#39;s a number of things - mechanic-wise - that keep any campaign I run (BR, FR, *anything*) grounded in 2E/S&P rules. I&#39;m also a Reverse Engineer - I&#39;ll drag back 3/3.5 features I like, beat it over the head with the 2E rulebook until it submits, and then pronounce my house-ruled item good.

Why&#39;s it taken so long? Well, to quote the immortal Lone Star: WELCOME TO REAL LIFE. :lol: Notwithstanding the 3E conversion being done here, I started a campaign handbook for my players (and lay out what I wanted accomplished, etc) a year ago. Guess what? It&#39;s 1/3 to 1/2 done. Why? Real Life intruded, and I put it aside for a FR project I&#39;m working on with another DM. Work situations, work demands, change. And now, on the FR project, there&#39;s two of us (not a whole committee) that have to coordinate. At least, the BRCS project is working with "one" (if you count 3E, 3.5E and d20 as one) set of rules - not crossing between 3E and heavily house-ruled 2E to make sure a character in one isn&#39;t too grossly distorted in the other.

So, cut &#39;em some slack. Or, do a write-up yourself, and submit it for a vote, or at least discussion, rather than trying to flay they guys working on the BRCS for not meeting your timetable. Writing is easy, writing GOOD takes time.

(Oh, personal aside: strarth/Chris, if you&#39;re around still, contact me. :ph34r: )

Lysander

[ecliptic]

Yes the UA VP/WP system is much more deadly than Star Wars. But still not as deadly as Alternity. But your original comment didn&#39;t state that you were referring to D&D using the UA VP/WP system just that the generic (implied by omission) D&D system was more deadly.


I can&#39;t help it you don&#39;t read all my posts.


How about on pg 118 where it refers to Damage Reduction? "Damage reduction functions normally, reducing damage dealt by attacks. However, any critical hit automatically overcomes a creature&#39;s damage reduction, regardless of whether the attack could normally do so."


and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. That is again assuming DR reduces VP and WP done.


Ecliptic, you refer to Second Edition as if it was a bad thing&#33;

There is.


At least, the BRCS project is working with "one" (if you count 3E, 3.5E and d20 as one) set of rules - not crossing between 3E and heavily house-ruled 2E to make sure a character in one isn&#39;t too grossly distorted in the other.

So, cut &#39;em some slack.

Uh no I won&#39;t. Most of the thing is done, it has been for along time. Yet they still haven&#39;t completed it. Like you said, it is one. So infact it should be easier.


Or, do a write-up yourself, and submit it for a vote, or at least discussion, rather than trying to flay they guys working on the BRCS for not meeting your timetable. Writing is easy, writing GOOD takes time.


Developers only use what they think is best, voting doesn&#39;t help.

[kgauck]

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

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

Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 5:41 PM



> Developers only use what they think is best, voting doesn`t help.



Do what for whom? There were plenty of conversions downloadable here before

BRCS got into the act of making an official document. Part of what

motivated them was not to just make another conversion, but create a 3e

standard which the whole community could refer to as a standard (whether or

not they actually used it). Another part of this was to create a nice

document that might serve to attract new players, but its really only going

to do that if existing players regard it as somewhat authoritative.



When introducing new players to BR played in 3e, I can either hand these

players the old 2e rulebook and then explain my own conversion to them, or I

could hand them the BRCS and explain my own homebrew differences. The

choice I make in this regard has to do with which creates less work for me.

Hence the BRCS team has a strong incentive to figure out what I and everyone

else wants, because otherwise its not going to be recognized as a standard

or used to introduce new players. So using polls is an essential part of

their mission.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[ecliptic]

For anything to ever been considered the standard, official or not. The entire system needs balanced, it needs a large overhaul. It needs to be as simple as possible. That means everything, including the Domain rules. All the 2nd edition information but the background information needs to be taken and thrown out the window. The developers and everyone else needs to quit holding onto the past so much as it hampers progression. Instead of creating something that allows new players to get started in Birthright, they want to create something for themselves.

[kgauck]

ecliptic, your program is so broad, what you are really suggesting is that

the team should be inventing a setting from the ground up. Until you just

did so, no one to my knowledge has suggested that the BRCS team make that

its project.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Birthright-L]

> For anything to ever been considered the standard, official or not.

> The entire system needs balanced, it needs a large overhaul. That means

> everything, including the Domain rules.



I thought the domain rules had some great changes and balances in

there. I`m still marvelling over the ingenious of court actions.



Have you read the BRCS document?



Instead of creating something that allows new players to get started in

Birthright, they want to create something for themselves.



I disagree. But... Even if that were true, what`s wrong witht that?

That`s certainly my goal for my own BR adaption that I`ve been working

on... To create something for myself and whoever might find it useful.

Granted, there`s nothing even remotely "official" about mine... ;)



--Lord Rahvin

[ecliptic]

ecliptic, your program is so broad, what you are really suggesting is that
the team should be inventing a setting from the ground up. Until you just
did so, no one to my knowledge has suggested that the BRCS team make that
its project.

They are trying to convert rules and mechanics, which should NEVER be done. 3rd edition is a whole new ballpark and completely different then 2nd edition. They need to completely scrap everything that isn&#39;t descriptive and background text and work on a whole new way to adapt the story to the mechanics. If part of the story needs to change and evolve to fit the mechanics, then thats what should happen.


Have you read the BRCS document?

Uhm... yes.


I disagree. But... Even if that were true, what`s wrong witht that?
That`s certainly my goal for my own BR adaption that I`ve been working
on... To create something for myself and whoever might find it useful.
Granted, there`s nothing even remotely "official" about mine... ;)


Theirs IS suppose to be official, if they wanted to create for themselves alone they should have never accepted the ability to make it official. Theirs is going to be looked at by people thinking about trying to run Birthright. Yours is not. They have a responsibility to make it work good with 3rd edition. They have the responsiility to make it simple. You have no responsibilites other then make yourself happy and the players you DM for.

[bulletmagnet]

I must admit there is some truth in all of this.Third edition does not feel anythin like second.It is much more geared to the young power gamers out there who spend hours upon hours playing their Ps2 or Xbox trying to max out characters in a final fantasy game.Dont get me wrong i like most of the clarifications.However i still have a problem with dwarf wizards and people who want to play their halfdemon half wemic fighter/paladin/druid/monk combos.EVERY Bright game we tried in our group failed because of the 3rd edition "power factor" I quit when the dm allowed the wizrd to make boots of striding and spring for the entire party nad we no longer needed horses because our movement was faster.It is however too early to say anything about the Brcs since it is a work in progress.

[Ming I]

I must admit there is some truth in all of this.Third edition does not feel anythin like second.It is much more geared to the young power gamers out there who spend hours upon hours playing their Ps2 or Xbox trying to max out characters in a final fantasy game.Dont get me wrong i like most of the clarifications.However i still have a problem with dwarf wizards and people who want to play their halfdemon half wemic fighter/paladin/druid/monk combos.EVERY Bright game we tried in our group failed because of the 3rd edition "power factor" I quit when the dm allowed the wizrd to make boots of striding and spring for the entire party nad we no longer needed horses because our movement was faster.It is however too early to say anything about the Brcs since it is a work in progress.


Your problem with 3rd edition doesn&#39;t seem to be one of "power factor", but with your DM. He or she would be the one who allowed/disallowed various races or combinations of classes. He or she chose to dismiss the idea that magic items are supposed to be rare in the land of Cerilia.

But I digress.... ;)

Since the thread is entitled "Unearthed Arcana and what it brings to the table" I will end my post by bringing up a few ideas that I would like to see explored in the d20 Fantasy Revamp: explore the idea of spellpoints for Birthright
explore the idea of actually changing the classes

[RaspK_FOG]

Ecliptic, I am sorry to say so, but your perspective suffers from a number of inherent (as in, from their very foundation) illogical assumptions:
Time is something we cannot control; it passes on its own, and if there were such a thing as the Shadow-world in real life, I might as well become a scientist who would study it (in order to learn how to control it)&#33;
Yes, in the aforementioned time-related note, I meant that people need time. And I do work on 2 novels for the past 4 years, but none has been finished: you see, I do not have the time to work on all their details...
Whether it is 0 dollars, euro, yen, drachmes, dinnars, crowns, schoellings, pfoennig, franks, or whatever one receives for "fun-work" (also known as hobbies, habits, etc.), you have to agree that work rarely does not become a priority.
Want to know the holes in the Vitality/Wound point system? Here are two already mentioned, with their explanation (for you seem to have not yet understood them), and one others have not yet spotted: Mark noted the fact that once you are at 0 WP, you can fight on and on... Think of a bloody pulp with a Fortitude save as high as Mount Everest fighting on long after his tendon, flesh and skin has been cleaved clean off his shuttered bone...
Why should DR not work against wound points? DR represents the ability to soak up real damage otherwise done to your body&#33;
And my note: an axe, while being most unwieldy, will generally be far worse than a sword if it does hit home... UA presents no rules on that, and now unwieldy weapons with a critical threat range of 20 are simply useless&#33; And what about extra dice of damage? The rules have nothing coherent to say, except for a rogue&#39;s sneak attack, but otherwise...

And honestly, while generally being calm, I cannot stand ungrateful people: the BRCS team has taken many more hours of sheer consideration than any of us has ever taken.

[ecliptic]

Mark noted the fact that once you are at 0 WP, you can fight on and on... Think of a bloody pulp with a Fortitude save as high as Mount Everest fighting on long after his tendon, flesh and skin has been cleaved clean off his shuttered bone...


In D&D, unlike other games with VP/WP, you can do alot more damage. This is a fail safe to keep them from dying from one attack. Because unlike other VP/WP system, this assumes armor does not give you damage reduction.


Why should DR not work against wound points? DR represents the ability to soak up real damage otherwise done to your body&#33;


So does Vitality. Vitality represents your ability to roll with the blow, turning a fatal blow into bruises and scratches, and luck. Damage reduction makes it easier for you to accomplish that.
If you get a critical, it means you hit a vital area, hence it goes through your damage reduction. I don&#39;t care how tough your skin and muscle is, if you get kicked in the nuts, your going down.


And my note: an axe, while being most unwieldy, will generally be far worse than a sword if it does hit home... UA presents no rules on that, and now unwieldy weapons with a critical threat range of 20 are simply useless&#33; And what about extra dice of damage? The rules have nothing coherent to say, except for a rogue&#39;s sneak attack, but otherwise...


Wtf are you babbling on about? I guarantee you that if you take someone that has fully mastered a battle axe, and someone that has fully mastered a sword one will not overpower the other just because of the weapon they chose. Plus I don&#39;t get where you ever thought an axe is suppose to be unwieldly. Ever use one? They are made for battle, if they were unwieldly many people in the past would have never chose it over a sword.


Everything in the VP/WP system for D&D is there to fundamently make it work with D&D core rulebooks without some outside rules. It&#39;s not perfect, nothing is.

[Birthright-L]

> Wtf are you babbling on about? I guarantee you that if you take

> someone that has fully mastered a battle axe, and someone that has

> fully mastered a sword one will not overpower the other just because of

> the weapon they chose.



Well... mathmatically speaking, the sword *is* better in the PHB. Has

to do with averages or such... Ryan?



--Lord Rahvin

[Mark_Aurel]

> In D&D, unlike other games with VP/WP, you can do alot more damage. This is a
> fail safe to keep them from dying from one attack. Because unlike other VP/WP
> system, this assumes armor does not give you damage reduction.

But it is still a hole the size of England in the system. Once you reach 0 wound points, there&#39;s nothing an enemy can do to hurt you further. Sure, you may consider that a &#39;failsafe.&#39; Isn&#39;t it just a tiny teeny bit ironic that the supposed grim &#39;n gritty system actually makes it potentially harder for a PC to die, though? You stated previously that there were no holes in it.

Your Rules-Fu is weak.

[RaspK_FOG]

Originally posted by ecliptic@Feb 25 2004, 01:15 AM



Everything in the VP/WP system for D&D is there to fundamently make it work with D&D core rulebooks without some outside rules. It&#39;s not perfect, nothing is.

In D&D, unlike other games with VP/WP, you can do alot more damage. This is a fail safe to keep them from dying from one attack. Because unlike other VP/WP system, this assumes armor does not give you damage reduction.
That&#39;s irrelevant, since it is based on the assumption that this or that (in this case, the non-application of damage reduction on suits of armour) occurs.


So does Vitality. Vitality represents your ability to roll with the blow, turning a fatal blow into bruises and scratches, and luck. Damage reduction makes it easier for you to accomplish that.
Doesn&#39;t that mean damage reduction should be interpreted as additional vitality points, since it does work the same way?


If you get a critical, it means you hit a vital area, hence it goes through your damage reduction. I don&#39;t care how tough your skin and muscle is, if you get kicked in the nuts, your going down.
Oh, come on, leave people&#39;s nuts alone, OK? Any doctor can tell you that not only will only half your foes (this is the median of the general populace) will go down after such a blow, but even a kid can tell you the truth: kicks in the nuts are not critical hits, they are dirty hits&#33;


Wtf are you babbling on about? I guarantee you that if you take someone that has fully mastered a battle axe, and someone that has fully mastered a sword one will not overpower the other just because of the weapon they chose. Plus I don&#39;t get where you ever thought an axe is suppose to be unwieldly. Ever use one? They are made for battle, if they were unwieldly many people in the past would have never chose it over a sword.
If you wanna say "fuck", dude, do it in my face and cut the acronymic attitude, for God&#39;s sake&#33; And believe me, an at least 4-pound, iron, forward-balanced, trumpet head, mounted on a foot-long, light, wooden haft lacks a lot of wieldiness compared to an up to 6-pound, steel, hilt-balanced, long blade, not to mention you do not put yourself so much at risk. On the other hand, the reason that makes an axe unwieldy compared to a longsword or rapier (not that much compared to a romphaea [bastard sword] or, even worse, a broadsword, and certainly not a greatsword, but that&#39;s another thing) also makes any solid hit dealt by the weapon deadlier, since it can cleave through much easier than the sword.

[kgauck]

> Wtf are you babbling on about? I guarantee you that if you take

> someone that has fully mastered a battle axe, and someone that has

> fully mastered a sword one will not overpower the other just because of

> the weapon they chose.



Normally the axe has the advantage here. On Conquest, the axe got in

numerous cuts against zero for the sword. The problems with the axe are

that its a 100% offence weapon. Its more tiresome to use (which might

reduce vitality), but in terms of who is likely to get in a serious blow,

the advantage is entirely with the axe. The problem with the axe rise when

defense becomes an issue, such as when an opponent has reach, or when faced

by multiple opponents. Properly everyone should get a 1d6 sneak attack

against a flanked axeman.



D&D just doesn`t take differences in weapons into account. There are d6

weapons, d8 weapons, and so on. 3e is a bit better about having different

characteristics, but more or less all the weapons fight the same. I`ve

already abandoned so much of standard D&D by thorough homebrewery, if I ever

found a system that really did a fine job reflecting the different fighting

styles of different weapons and was still simple and elegant to use (how`s

that for shooting the moon?) I`d end up switching.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[ConjurerDragon]

Kenneth Gauck schrieb:

...



>D&D just doesn`t take differences in weapons into account. There are d6

>weapons, d8 weapons, and so on. 3e is a bit better about having different

>characteristics, but more or less all the weapons fight the same. I`ve

>already abandoned so much of standard D&D by thorough homebrewery, if I ever

>found a system that really did a fine job reflecting the different fighting

>styles of different weapons and was still simple and elegant to use (how`s

>that for shooting the moon?) I`d end up switching.

>

"Das schwarze Auge" (Realms of Arkania?) a german roleplayinggame has

such differences between attack and defence.

bye

Michael

[kgauck]

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

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

Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 11:06 PM





> "Das schwarze Auge" (Realms of Arkania?) a german roleplayinggame has

> such differences between attack and defence.



Danke.



Was ist "role playing game" auf Deutch?



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by kgauck@Feb 25 2004, 08:10 AM
Was ist "role playing game" auf Deutch?

Rollenspiel :D

[the Falcon]

Originally posted by kgauck@Feb 25 2004, 09:10 AM
Was ist "role playing game" auf Deutch?
Das Rollenspiel. (Spiel is pronounced something like "shpeel".)
Oh, and it&#39;s "Deutsch", with an S.

(Edit: Damn you, Ariadne&#33; You beat me to the punch. :P)

[the Falcon]

Oh, and I don&#39;t know if you care, but it&#39;s "het rollenspel" in Dutch. :)

[kgauck]

Viele dank. Mein Deutsch ist eine rostige Sache. Auch die meisten meiner

Übersetzung beschäftigten Regierungsstellen. Amtmann, Befehlbuch, Gericht,

Gerichtsverwandte, Bürgermeister, Oberamtmann, Waldmeister, Schreiberamt,

Bischof, Dekan, Richter, Landschaft, Landrecht, Hofkriegsrat, keine

Rollenspiel in meiner Arbeit.



By the way, I`ll make sure all your names are removed from the Stazi files.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[RaspK_FOG]

Und was koennen wir machen fur die Leute, die keine Deutsch koennen? :P

Ein andere Ding: wie kann ich Umlaut in WindowsXP schrieben? Danke schoen&#33;

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by the Falcon@Feb 25 2004, 01:41 PM
(Edit: Damn you, Ariadne&#33; You beat me to the punch. :P)
:D

[ConjurerDragon]

Ariadne schrieb:



>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php...=2&t=2283<br (http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=2283<br) />
>

> Ariadne wrote:

>
Originally posted by kgauck@Feb 25 2004, 08:10 AM
Was ist "role playing game" auf Deutch?

>

> Rollenspiel :D

>

But don´t ever mention that you are a "Rollenspieler" in Germany to

anyone besides your most trusted maillistmembers such as Ariadne and me

- where in the USA you might be assumed by the uninitiated to worship

Satan by playing D&D in Germany to be a "Rollenspieler" would be

understood by the average people (who know nothing about D&D/AD&D or DSA

Das schwarze Auge) as someone who has some kinky sexual preferences as

for example being into playing roles (submissive, dominant, nurse and

patient) ;-)

bye

Michael

[ConjurerDragon]

Kenneth Gauck schrieb:

Some Corrections:



>Viele dank.

>

Vielen Dank.



>Mein Deutsch ist eine rostige Sache.

>

"Mein deutsch ist etwas eingerostet." means roughly the same but would

sound better in german.



>Auch die meisten meiner Übersetzung beschäftigten Regierungsstellen.

>

Hä?



>Amtmann, Befehlbuch,

>

Befehlbuch??



>Gericht, Gerichtsverwandte

>

???



>Bürgermeister, Oberamtmann, Waldmeister

>

You know that that Waldmeister something to eat do you? ;-)



>Schreiberamt,

>Bischof, Dekan, Richter, Landschaft, Landrecht, Hofkriegsrat, keine

>Rollenspiel in meiner Arbeit.

>

>By the way, I`ll make sure all your names are removed from the Stazi files.

>

Stazi? Is that a mixture of Stasi and Nazi?

Never thought that Kenneth has access to that files... ;-)

bye

Michael

[the Falcon]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Feb 25 2004, 07:55 PM
Ein andere Ding: wie kann ich Umlaut in WindowsXP schrieben? Danke schoen&#33;
Okay, I&#39;m not even going to try to answer that one "auf Deutsch". ;)

To answer your question, you&#39;ll have to enable the US-International keyboard.
In your control panel, open Regional and Language Options.
Go to the Languages tab and click Details.
In the dialog window Text Services and Input Languages click Add.
As Keyboard Layout/IME, select United States-International and click OK.
Click OK again.

In right end of your taskbar you should now have a keyboard button. You can use it to switch between US and US-International.
When using US-International, you can place a trema on any vowel by first typing a " (double-quote) and then the vowel.

PS: My German&#39;s a bit rusty, but isn&#39;t it "ein anderes Ding"?
Ariadne?

[the Falcon]

ConjurerDragon, are you aware of the fact that often (if not always) when you post, it completely screws up the layout of all the posts below yours? Also, the lay-out of your owns posts often doesn&#39;t look quite right. Any idea why? Are you posting from the mailing list?

[graham anderson]

how about the tainted mage

the lost anybody it could be a good idea, wizards without a bloodline who tap into the shadow world as a prestige class for magicians

it could maybe do with a couple of tweaks but i like the idea

[kgauck]

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

From: "the Falcon" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 3:13 PM



> In right end of your taskbar you should now have a keyboard button.

> You can use it to switch between US and US-International.



That`s probabaly the clever way to do it, I just grab special characters out

of MS Works Word Processor. That`s how I wrote Cancellieråd and

Røykenskappa in my recent "orphan" posts. It also allows me to write

Tælshore.

§-)

My guess is that all of that is also enabled by the US-International

keyboard.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[ConjurerDragon]

the Falcon schrieb:



>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=2283

>

> the Falcon wrote:

> ConjurerDragon, are you aware of the fact that often (if not always) when you post, it completely screws up the layout of all the posts below yours?

>

No. How so?



> Also, the lay-out of your owns posts often doesn`t look quite right. Any idea why? Are you posting from the mailing list?

>

Yes, most of the time. Only rarely do I login to the webpage and post there.

bye

Michael

[geeman]

the Falcon writes:



> To answer your question, you`ll have to enable the US-International keyboard.



Doesn`t the Character Map have umlauted vowels (and most any other accented

character one might need) as symbols? That`s how I`ve done it in the past

when writing words in Sp, Ger or Fr.



Gary

[Birthright-L]

> Doesn`t the Character Map have umlauted vowels (and most any other

> accented

> character one might need) as symbols? That`s how I`ve done it in the

> past

> when writing words in Sp, Ger or Fr.



Not everyone installed the character map during their install of

Windows.



--Lord Rahvin

[RaspK_FOG]

The problem I have is that I had been accustomed to the shortcuts and key-combinations that existed up to Windows98, my previous operating system, but now whenever I press [^]+[e], I get "^e", not "ê", and I find using the character map rather annoying some times... :(

Oh, as for my earlier mistake: yes, it is as you say, I just mistyped the word.

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by the Falcon+Feb 25 2004, 10:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (the Falcon @ Feb 25 2004, 10:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RaspK_FOG@Feb 25 2004, 07:55 PM
Ein andere Ding: wie kann ich Umlaut in WindowsXP schrieben? Danke schoen&#33;
Okay, I&#39;m not even going to try to answer that one "auf Deutsch". ;)

To answer your question, you&#39;ll have to enable the US-International keyboard.
In your control panel, open Regional and Language Options.
Go to the Languages tab and click Details.
In the dialog window Text Services and Input Languages click Add.
As Keyboard Layout/IME, select United States-International and click OK.
Click OK again.

In right end of your taskbar you should now have a keyboard button. You can use it to switch between US and US-International.
When using US-International, you can place a trema on any vowel by first typing a " (double-quote) and then the vowel.

PS: My German&#39;s a bit rusty, but isn&#39;t it "ein anderes Ding"?
Ariadne? [/b][/quote]
Jup, indeed. It is “ein anderes Ding” as well as the plural of “Umlaut” is “Umlaute” and it’s “schreiben “(to be exactely), but so what. :D


To answer that post “auf Deutsch”: :D

Um deine Frage zu beantworten, solltest du die US-Internationale Tastatur einstellen. Unter „Systemsteuerung“ öffne das Feld „Ländereinstellungen“.
Gehe nun zu „Sprachen“ und klicke „Details“
Im Fenster „Sprache hinzufügen“ klicke „hinzufügen“
Im Menübereich „Tastatur“, wähle United States-International und klicke auf OK
Wiederhole die Eingabe „OK“

Well, not perfectly copied, but you should be able to understand it :P

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by ConjurerDragon+Feb 25 2004, 09:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ConjurerDragon @ Feb 25 2004, 09:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Kgauck+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Kgauck)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Auch die meisten meiner Übersetzung beschäftigten Regierungsstellen.[/b]
Hä?
[/b]
Why hä? It’s pretty easy: He wanted to say: Die meißten meiner Übersetzungen beschäftigen sich mit Regierungsstellen ;)


Originally posted by Conjurer_Dragon


Originally posted by Kgauck
Amtmann, Befehlbuch,

Befehlbuch??
Vermutlich Befehlsbuch. If it’s something for the army, why not?


Originally posted by Conjurer_Dragon

>Gericht, Gerichtsverwandte

???
You have won&#33; Gericht, OK, but Gerichtsverwandte??? Maybe Gerichtsbeamte...

<!--QuoteBegin-Conjurer_Dragon@

>Bürgermeister, Oberamtmann, Waldmeister

You know that that Waldmeister something to eat do you? ;) [/quote]
Waldmeister is some green stuff to drink, that has been forbidden in Germany, because it’s suspected to cause cancer. The guy in the forrest is a Förster...

<!--QuoteBegin-Conjurer_Dragon

>Schreiberamt,
>Bischof, Dekan, Richter, Landschaft, Landrecht, Hofkriegsrat, keine
>Rollenspiel in meiner Arbeit.

>By the way, I`ll make sure all your names are removed from the Stazi files.

Stazi? Is that a mixture of Stasi and Nazi?
Never thought that Kenneth has access to that files... ;) [/quote]
*Sarcasm switched off* ;)

[bulletmagnet]

Thanks for staying on topic,teaching us german 101 and destroying a good thread.

[kgauck]

Befehlbuch is the copybook of mandates, edicts, and orders.

Gerichtsverwandte is a justice of the court



> Waldmeister is some green stuff to drink, that has been forbidden

> in Germany, because it`s suspected to cause cancer. The guy in the

> forrest is a Förster



Is it absinth, that greenish drink so favored in the 19th century made from

wormwood?

You can find Walsmeisteren in Swabia. Although most of my work is just in

southern Germany (Swabia, Bavaria, Austria) you can see regional differences

between how offices are constructed and which are the prefered constructions

vary.



For this same reason, when I devise two realms in the same cultural area, I

vary the names of the same post, I shift power on the margins between two

posts, and I will radically alter the powerbase of any given post. So

Stjordvik has a Chamberlain and a High Marshal as its two powerful offices.

Elsewhere you`ll find Marshal of the Horse, Field Marshal, President of the

Marshalsency, Captain General, High Captain, Commander, Royal Commander, and

so on, and these will be of varying power. In a realm like Svinik I am

liable to make the military commander a smaller figure, put him in the

second rank, and have a foriegn and domestic policy advisor as the top two.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[kgauck]

Que sera sera, nô tres du future pas à voir



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[ConjurerDragon]

Ariadne schrieb:



>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=2283

>

>

...



>Auch die meisten meiner Übersetzung beschäftigten Regierungsstellen.[/QUOTE]

> Hä?

> [/QUOTE]

> Why hä? It’s pretty easy: He wanted to say: Die meißten meiner Übersetzungen beschäftigen sich mit Regierungsstellen ;)

>

Und ich dachte er würde Regierungsstellen mit Übersetzungen beschäftigen...



>Amtmann, Befehlbuch, [/QUOTE]

>

> Befehlbuch?? [/QUOTE]

> Vermutlich Befehlsbuch. If it’s something for the army, why not?

>

Ich habe in Richtung "Auftragsbuch" gerätselt, da ja Befehl=Order, aber

Order auch Auftrag heißen kann...



> >Gericht, Gerichtsverwandte

>

> ??? [/QUOTE]

> You have won&#33; Gericht, OK, but Gerichtsverwandte??? Maybe Gerichtsbeamte...

>

> >Bürgermeister, Oberamtmann, Waldmeister

>

> You know that that Waldmeister something to eat do you? ;) [/QUOTE]

> Waldmeister is some green stuff to drink, that has been forbidden in Germany, because it’s suspected to cause cancer. The guy in the forrest is a Förster...

>

Waldmeister can be some sort of green Jelly-Pudding in germany. Isnt´t

the "forbidden green drink suspected to cause cancer" Absinth?

bye

Michael

[ConjurerDragon]

Kenneth Gauck schrieb:



>Befehlbuch is the copybook of mandates, edicts, and orders.

>Gerichtsverwandte is a justice of the court

>

The term "Gerichtsverwandte" tells me nothing.



>You can find Walsmeisteren in Swabia. Although most of my work is just in

>southern Germany (Swabia, Bavaria, Austria)

>

[cough] Austria is a part of germany again?

bye

Michael

[kgauck]

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

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

Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 11:30 AM





> [cough] Austria is a part of germany again?



Again? I study the 18th century, who needs an again? From say, 900 to

almost 1900 (well, 1866/71) Austria was a part of Germany. If I were

refering to Germany as a geographical area, I might have included a large

part of Switzerland. Modern borders tell me where jurisdictions end right

now, they are not very useful for any kind of historical analysis.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Ming I]

The North American version of "Das Schwarze Auge" is called The Dark Eye and is produced by Fantasy Productions. You should be able to get a copy of the book through any distributor or retailer that stocks Fast Forward Entertainment products.

Here is the website for The Dark Eye:

The Dark Eye webpage (http://www.thedarkeyerpg.com/)

According to previous posts, you should be able to find information on differences between attack and defense there.

As for the Vitality/Wound Point issue, Mark Aurel mentioned that it had holes that could be easily plugged, but instead of trying to plug them, a number of people jumped on ecliptic in an attempt to prove, i&#39;m guessing here, that humans are fallible? Well you can now count me as one of the true believers: humans are clearly fallible. :lol:

My suggestion for a plug for the Vitality/Wound Point issue is:

Whenever a character, whose vitality point total equals 0, takes wound damage they must make a DC 15 Fortitude save. If she succeeds on the save, she is merely disabled. If she fails, she falls unconscious and begins dying.

If a character takes enough damage to reduce her wound total to 0, she is dead.

Would this work? Have I missed something?

[kgauck]

Thanks for the heads up on the Dark Eye web site.



Regarding zero Wound Points, I imagine that having 0 WP is rather like Luke

Skywalker after his run in with the snow monster on Hoth. Barely alive, but

able to bable about whatever hallucinations you see.



Zero Vitality should be like exhaustion after a race, the higher the

vitality potential of the character, the longer the race (but the same level

of exhaustion). Unable to function for a short period of time, but rapid

recovery.



Going by the Star Wars model where I get my own VP/WP model, damage after VP

goes to WP on a 1:1 basis. Failing a Fortitude save for 0 VP would mean

feignting, perhaps, but not dying. The risk of dying, IMO, requires 0 WP.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Ming I]

You&#39;re very welcome about the Dark Eye web site.

If you have 0 VP by the system in Unearthed Arcana any damage you take would be WP damage. If you take WP damage you have to make a Fortitude check to shake off being stunned but if you make it you could be in the position that many have complained about, being reduced to 0 WP and basically being unkillable. My suggestion allows heroes to "keep fighting the good fight" but when 0 WP rolled around the sword had to be passed.

Wound Points represent how much physical damage a character can withstand. It doesn&#39;t seem right that when the total physical damage that you can withstand is 0 you can still do things? 0 WP = dead as far as I&#39;m concerned (and I think you agree with me Kenneth...even though you&#39;re doing so in a way that is confusing me at this early hour. :D)

For clarity sake I would be willing to amend my proposal to the following:

If a character takes enough damage to reduce her wound point total to less than 0, she is dead.

[RaspK_FOG]

Good ideas, but I have a better one&#33;

(Man in the background says: "Here he goes again...", shaking his head.)

If a character reaches below 0 WP, he must make a Will save; failure indicates death. However, making the check raises as an undead being ( :P ) of appropriate power (vampires, liches, mummies, zombies [for that pure warrior who did show some willpower after all], the usual stuff).

:lol: Just kidding.

[irdeggman]

Jan is exactly correct in his assessment of a glaring hole in the UA VP/WP system. This is something that they failed to properly translate in their update from the Star Wars system.

In Star Wars (the recognized source of this system) a character suffers the similar penalties when he take WP damage, but he can continue to receive WP damage from subsequent attacks even if he is at 0 WP. At -10 WP a character is dead end of story, the plot is over, the curtain has fallen, etc.

Basically what we have been doing here is trying to house-rules an inherent flaw in the system.

There are a few places that they seemed to have done some poor editing check when they published UA. But I haven&#39;t noticed a tremedous amount, so WotC is continuing to put out &#39;improved quality&#39; products since 3rd ed. They may not suit everyone and not as written, but mostly - except the times Jan has pointed out, they are internally consistent. Well, I have problems with the entire FR line in that regard, but that could be seen as personal and that that setting is &#39;supposed&#39; to follow its own internal consistency and not necessarily that of the core book.

Another major conceptual error is in the section on Bell Curve rolls. Taking 20 and taking 10, when they state that taking 16 (replacing taking 10) takes 10 times as long which is contrary to the take 10 rules which don&#39;t take any longer to take 10. They then go on to state that the rules for taking 10 remain unchanged. A common error in application, that people have assumed that taking 10 takes ten times as long, that seems to have slipped into the designers at this point.

[teloft]

:ph34r:

[ecliptic]

Another major conceptual error is in the section on Bell Curve rolls. Taking 20 and taking 10, when they state that taking 16 (replacing taking 10) takes 10 times as long which is contrary to the take 10 rules which don&#39;t take any longer to take 10. They then go on to state that the rules for taking 10 remain unchanged. A common error in application, that people have assumed that taking 10 takes ten times as long, that seems to have slipped into the designers at this point.

Taking a 16 isn&#39;t considered taking a 10. Matter of fact I don&#39;t even know how you came to that conclusion. Taking a 16, and taking an 18 can&#39;t be compared to the original taking a 20. For the fact that is very hard to actually ever roll a pure 18, where it is easier to roll a 16. &#39;The rules for taking 10 remains unchanged&#39; means just that, you STILL can take a 10.

My VP/WP system:

Reach 0 VP you are fatigued.

If WP is taken you must make a saving throw 15 + WP damage or become stunned. Also must make a saving throw 10 + WP damage or get knocked out.

Reach 0 WP you are considered dying, reach negative 10 WP and you are dead.

Armor is damage reduction for WP and does not grant defense.

Still thinking on it.

[the Falcon]

Originally posted by kgauck@Feb 26 2004, 09:30 PM
----- Original Message -----

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

Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 11:30 AM





> [cough] Austria is a part of germany again?



Again? I study the 18th century, who needs an again? From say, 900 to almost 1900 (well, 1866/71) Austria was a part of Germany. If I were refering to Germany as a geographical area, I might have included a large part of Switzerland. Modern borders tell me where jurisdictions end right now, they are not very useful for any kind of historical analysis.
In an earlier post, you said that "most of [your] work is just in southern Germany (Swabia, Bavaria, Austria)" (emphasis mine), which sort of implies you are physically located there. I think that&#39;s what Michael was getting at. To tell the truth, I also thought that was what you meant.

[tcharazazel]

[QUOTE]
Taking a 16, and taking an 18 can&#39;t be compared to the original taking a 20. For the fact that is very hard to actually ever roll a pure 18, where it is easier to roll a 16.

um, technically the odds for rolling a number on a d20 is 5%. So unless you meant 16+ vs 18+ there is no difference.

I agree with you that taking 16 or taking 18 is not the same as taking 10 tho, and really they are better compared to taking 20. For example, you could make a house rule to say that u can take 16 or take 18 or whatever, so long as you use the same formula that they used in PHB for taking 20. It would take you 2 min or 20 rounds for a task that would normally take one round. Hence, for taking 16 it would take 16 rounds and take 18 would take 18 rounds. However, doing so would really be like bending the rules of reality, heh, because logically rolling a 20 = 5% the same for any number, so for the rule to actually work you just accept that in 16 rounds it would be very likely to roll a 16-20 and the person is willing to just make it a 16 instead.

In case this isnt clear enough, the reason it takes less time to take 16 than to take 20, is because the likelyhood to roll a 16+ = 25% while to roll just a 20 = 5%. The reason why its 16+ and not just 16 is because the person is not rolling for just a 16 really, as its logical to assume the goal is to just succeed in a skill check, then a 16-20 would ensure that the check is successful.

However, if you wanted to just have it be exactly 16 or 18 then it would take 2min just like taking 20 as the odds would show that after rolling 20 times youre likely to have rolled the 1 number you were wanting to roll.

The reasons why I&#39;m saying that taking 16 ot taking 18 isnt the same as taking 10, incase you havent figured it out yet, is twofold 1st the math involved taking 10 = 55% taking 16 = 25% and taking 18 = 15% (using the idea that taking 10 = 10+, ect) and 2nd the idea for taking 10 is that its only used with untrained skills like jumping, climbing, ect. that are considered routine so it seems logical that most people would be able to focus enough to get a slightly better than average result provided they can concentrate to do so.

[kgauck]

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

From: "the Falcon" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 1:20 PM



> In an earlier post, you said that "most of [your] work is just in

> southern Germany (Swabia, Bavaria, Austria)" (emphasis mine),

> which sort of implies you are physically located there. I think that`s

> what Michael was getting at. To tell the truth, I also thought that was

> what you meant.



This is a prepositional problem. My use of the word "in" here desribed a

field, not a place. My work is in S. Germany the same way it is in the 18th

century, in intellectual history, or in the annales method.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[kgauck]

One should keep in mind that results above the number one hoped to get are

still acceptable. So when one "takes 16" any number above 15 satisfies the

conditions, which means you have a 25% chance, not a 5% chance. This

implies the task takes four times as long as the standard task.



Consider crafting. Craftsman will prefer to take 10 because it eliminates

the occasional failure. So they won`t attempt tasks for which they cannot

take 10 at normal prices, because now they must figure in some failures, and

thsi will increase material costs. Alternatly, they could "take 20" and

assume 20 tries, including time and materials to create the object. That

would be very expensive. If the craftsman could instead "take 16" and

assume 4 tries, that would allow him to anticipate prices and charge

accordingly. Or you could just roll the standard d20 and see how long its

takes the craftsman and base your costs on this.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Green Knight]

I though we were talking bell curves here?



I.e. taking an 18 on 3d6 would men you should spend 6x6x6 amounts of

time, so instead they allow you to take 16, which is still a good roll

using 3d6, but not so exceptional as taking 18.



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

From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion

[mailto:BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM] On Behalf Of tcharazazel

Sent: 28. mars 2004 22:44

To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM

Subject: Re: Unearthed Arcana and what it brings to the table [2#2283]



This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

You can view the entire thread at:

http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=2283



tcharazazel wrote:

[QUOTE]

Taking a 16, and taking an 18 can`t be compared to the original taking

a 20. For the fact that is very hard to actually ever roll a pure 18,

where it is easier to roll a 16.



um, technically the odds for rolling a number on a d20 is 5%. So unless

you meant 16+ vs 18+ there is no difference.



I agree with you that taking 16 or taking 18 is not the same as taking

10 tho, and really they are better compared to taking 20. For example,

you could make a house rule to say that u can take 16 or take 18 or

whatever, so long as you use the same formula that they used in PHB for

taking 20. It would take you 2 min or 20 rounds for a task that would

normally take one round. Hence, for taking 16 it would take 16 rounds

and take 18 would take 18 rounds. However, doing so would really be like

bending the rules of reality, heh, because logically rolling a 20 = 5%

the same for any number, so for the rule to actually work you just

accept that in 16 rounds it would be very likely to roll a 16-20 and the

person is willing to just make it a 16 instead.



In case this isnt clear enough, the reason it takes less time to take

16 than to take 20, is because the likelyhood to roll a 16+ = 25% while

to roll just a 20 = 5%. The reason why its 16+ and not just 16 is

because the person is not rolling for just a 16 really, as its logical

to assume the goal is to just succeed in a skill check, then a 16-20

would ensure that the check is successful.



However, if you wanted to just have it be exactly 16 or 18 then it

would take 2min just like taking 20 as the odds would show that after

rolling 20 times youre likely to have rolled the 1 number you were

wanting to roll.



The reasons why I`m saying that taking 16 ot taking 18 isnt the same as

taking 10, incase you havent figured it out yet, is twofold 1st the math

involved taking 10 = 55% taking 16 = 25% and taking 18 = 15% (using the

idea that taking 10 = 10+, ect) and 2nd the idea for taking 10 is that

its only used with untrained skills like jumping, climbing, ect. that

are considered routine so it seems logical that most people would be

able to focus enough to get a slightly better than average result

provided they can concentrate to do so.



************************************************** **********************

****



Birthright-l Archives:

http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html

[RaspK_FOG]

Kgauck, that&#39;s what Tcharazazel said a bit earlier on...

In any case, I actually love the "take [whatever]" ruling, since it allows for more variability&#33; I am going to see how it fares on my table as soon as possible (next Sunday, that is) and give some feedback...

One point, though, I agree that using this suggested method is both more realistic and more rewarding for players: a clever player will adjust the supposed die roll to his needs and not spend as much as he would (both in time and sources) if he called for "taking 20".


The formula, for those that don&#39;t like doing the math, is this:

20 / (21 - Desired roll) × Time needed for successful attempt
For example, if you would like to "take 12" to break a door in your house that has stuck open, you need: 20 / (21 - 12) × 1 round = 20 / 9 rounds = 2,22... rounds, which roughly equals 2 rounds and a move action (ad hoc).

[tcharazazel]

Well, true I wasn’t referring to the bell curve of a 3d6 system, because I never use it. However, if you decide to use 3d6 then taking 20 is never going to apply, and would be logically replaced with taking 18. The odds on rolling an 18 by using 3d6 is a little more complicated to calculate than the regular d20 a number = 5%, however, not too hard to do. Rolling an 18 with 3d6 = 0.4629%. Now to calculate rolling a 16 with 3d6 is definitely more complicated, and the result = 2.7777%. And to roll a 16+ with 3d6 = 4.6297%. Actually taking 20 would be more accurately replaced with taking 16 considering they are much closer percentages (5% and 4.6297%). On a side note as taking 10 in the d20 system = 55% chance its roughly equivalent to taking 10 in a 3d6 system = 50%.

So, it certainly is more difficult to roll a 16+ with 3d6 (no big surprise there) which you can see when u look at the bell curve of probability for the 3d6, however, the major problem is trying to thus equate rules made for a d20 system into a 3d6 system, namely the taking 10 and taking 20 rules.

Ok, our purpose here is to determine if multiplying the result by 10 to take 16 would make sense. Now looking at the probabilities... heh, the likelihood of rolling a 16+ with 3d6 is less than that of rolling a 20 on a d20. So, actually it should take approx 20 times as long to take 16 really with the 3d6 system. And if you wanted to take 18... heh, approx .5% chance which basically equates to taking 200 times as long to get...

Damn, I&#39;m glad Osprey uses a d20 system, cause that would just suck... 20 min to take 18 for a task that could take 1 round normally... ouch imagine searching a room… could take days…

So, I can understand why they said it would only take 10 times as long when taking 16, even though its not following the math, because really if time is an issue then they will be interrupted and nevery finish the check, so a GM shouldnt let them even bother, unless you want them to get caught searching a room for example. As for those fanatics who keeps track of every min of every day the PCs are playing, then its definitely falling in favor of the PCs. Heh, if you prefer to be a stickler then screw em and make the rules harsh and that it would take 20 times as long to take 16 and 200 times as long to take 18. I&#39;m sure your masochistic PCs would love you exercising your sadistic desires upon them. As a sadist myself though, I would probably just flay you slowly, and have a bbq to determine if you taste as good as the aboriginal peoples…

For those people who don’t like figuring out the math or wonder where the numbers come from, here is a simple website that lists probabilities to roll numbers with 3d6 Probability of Scoring Results on 3d6 (http://www.ogmiosproject.org/articles/3d6results.html)

[RaspK_FOG]

Err... OK, I get your point there, but I truly think that was a bit off topic; no offence meant.


In any case, this reminds me of the most common issue I had to deal with when talking to people about weapons in d20, with the following issue: why weapons who have the same maximum damage on a normal hit (1d8 and 2d4, 1d12 and 2d6) are better the more dice you roll for damage...

Most people associate larger numbers with greater values; it is a matter of human physiopsychology, because the human mind is - generally - largely evolved to act based on optical stimuli. However, mathematics can prove wrong most people who think a greataxe (1d12) is better in most cases than a greatsword (2d6).

The probability of rolling a natural 1 on 1d12 is equal to the probability of rolling any natural number on 1d12; the frequency diagram is represented as a flat line:

Chance by 12 for 1d12 &#40;listed number has a chance of ×/12&#41;

6
5
4
3
2
1 *- *- *- *- *- *- *- *- *- *- *- *-
_____________________________________
* *1 *2 *3 *4 *5 *6 *7 *8 *9 10 11 12

On the other hand, a roll of 2d6 gives the following frequency diagram:

Chance by 36 for 2d6 &#40;listed number has a chance of ×/36&#41;

6 * * * * * * * * -
5 * * * * * * *- * * -
4 * * * * * - * * * * * -
3 * * * *- * * * * * * * * -
2 * * - * * * * * * * * * * * -
1 *- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -
_____________________________________
* *2 *3 *4 *5 *6 *7 *8 *9 10 11 12

What happens here is that, well, a roll of 1 actually never occurs, so you are better off from the start&#33; Secondly, 2s and 3s are less common on 2d6 than on 1d12, with the backdraw that the same goes, literally, with 12s and 11s, while 4s and 10s have the same probability in both rolls. Thridly, however, and this is the really good part, 2d6 will roll any number from 5 to 9 a lot more than 1d12, with 7s being the champions for a probability of 1 every 6 rolls&#33; A little bit of statistics proves that "good rolls" (from 4 to 10) will come up 10 times out of 12, compared to 7 out of 12; or that rolling equal to or higher than half will come up 7 times out 12 compared to 6 out of 12&#33;

[tcharazazel]

Heh, sorry Rasp that post was response to Green Knight&#39;s question.

And as for what you just posted :) well this is the reason u get the best odds when you play craps at a casino.