Scion class question

[epicsoul]

Hmmm... well, on the old page, we had a discussion about the impact of resurrection magic and scion class levels - that it made sense to lose the level of scion should you ever be raised.

Another ugly one just reared its head IMC. A minor bloodline character was just invested with a major bloodline. Not bloodthefted, mind you, but invested.

What happens here? I have ruled that the very next level must be the scion level in this case, and that until they level up, they do not get the full benefits (including major blood abilities!) of their bloodline. This accounts for the fact that the blood is partly latent within them at this time - it also means that their bloodline is currently 4 points lower than it will be once they level up.

Obviously, this gets interesting for commoners inheriting bloodlines of significance too. Especially if they somehow inherited a great line (yeah, I know the odds are so minimal that this should not ever happen).

Any thoughts, or comments? Perhaps a different viewpoint on how I should handle this?

[ploesch]

I agree actually. This is basically what I did in the game I'm running, except with characters being born with bloodlines. I wouldn't allow them to use their Blood abilities until they had the appropriate number of levels of scion. I did not lower their Blood points based on not having the scion levels though, I feel the Scion levels are a permanent increase, a reward for the dedication the regent shows in cultivating their bloodline. I don't feel this is out of line since otherwise the scion classes are fairly weak.

[irdeggman]

You cannot gain major blood abilities until you have 1 level of scion class.

Being invested with a major bloodline allows access to that level. Until you take it you gain none of the benefits of having that scion class level (no regency benefits, no class skills, no major blood abilities). If the character chooses to not take that scion class level he is choosing to turn his back on what his potential is.

You are not invested with blood abilities - only the potential to access them.

[Lee]

In a message dated 9/3/06 7:41:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET writes:

<< Another ugly one just reared its head IMC. A minor bloodline character
was just invested with a major bloodline. Not bloodthefted, mind you, but
invested.

What happens here? I have ruled that the very next level must be the scion
level in this case, and that until they level up, they do not get the full
benefits (including major blood abilities!) of their bloodline. This accounts
for the fact that the blood is partly latent within them at this time - it also
means that their bloodline is currently 4 points lower than it will be once
they level up.

Obviously, this gets interesting for commoners inheriting bloodlines of
significance too. Especially if they somehow inherited a great line (yeah, I know
the odds are so minimal that this should not ever happen).

Any thoughts, or comments? Perhaps a different viewpoint on how I should
handle this? >>

I`m agreeing with you. That`s a really big life-adjustment to make: new
powers, new insights, etc. If they want the bennies, that PC will have to
suck it up and take the level, just like someone who "took" it at first level.
FWIW, I`m a DM who makes his players play out at least a little bit, the
next class they are working toward. The 3e ability to hack, hack, hack all
week, and say, "hey, look, I`m a druid!" on Sunday bothers me no end.

Lee.

[Starmage21]

You cannot gain major blood abilities until you have 1 level of scion class.

Being invested with a major bloodline allows access to that level. Until you take it you gain none of the benefits of having that scion class level (no regency benefits, no class skills, no major blood abilities). If the character chooses to not take that scion class level he is choosing to turn his back on what his potential is.

You are not invested with blood abilities - only the potential to access them.

which doesnt make a lick of sense in the "fluff" of the game. A class level denotes training and effort to manifest those blood abilities, whereas in the books those abilities manifest innately at puberty(with the exception of some abilities which manifest at birth, such as Bloodmark). They take no training to use.

Much like WotC suggests that LA should be tacked on immediately, the scion levels should be tacked on as soon as the power is gained(either at puberty or when a mundane becomes a scion through bloodtheft/usurpation).
It is in this case that I believe that the level adjustments of the previous edition of the BRCS were better. The entire party has blood abilities to some extent anyway, making the power increase of the PCs(who were always better than the average D&D PC anyway) that much less significant.

[Cuchulainshound]

I tend to agree with SM21, at least ass far as the original flavour of the game went. By changing Scion to a required Class Level, it changes how Bloodlines feel, and manifest- cool, but it IS a significant change in the Colour of the game world.

When a Scion relinquishes their Bloodline to a Successor, what of that level? I suppose it becomes like a level of Paladin when his oath is broken- largely wasted.

I guess in the end it matters little- when building a high-level character, it actually helps slightly. I guess I'm just conservative, and since it didn't seem broken, it didn't seem like it needed fixing.:cool:

[ploesch]

I tend to agree with SM21 also. In 2E Blood Abilities had the mystic/Divine feeling they were intended to. That's the one thing that has bugged me about 3E, instead of feeling Divine, Blood Abilities feel like any commodity a player might want to use.

Through careful Roleplaying and House Rules, I've tried to keep that feeling in the game.

However, I do agree with the Mechanics of using the scion level. Sure, it does have an effect on the feel of blood abilities, but the mechanics of it work well, especially in the area of balance. I always felt that Scions had too man advantages over non-scions, and this does serve well to balance that out.

Still, IMO, we have to tread carefully to preserve the original feel of what a Bloodline is, while still being fun.

[irdeggman]

which doesnt make a lick of sense in the "fluff" of the game. A class level denotes training and effort to manifest those blood abilities, whereas in the books those abilities manifest innately at puberty(with the exception of some abilities which manifest at birth, such as Bloodmark). They take no training to use.

Much like WotC suggests that LA should be tacked on immediately, the scion levels should be tacked on as soon as the power is gained(either at puberty or when a mundane becomes a scion through bloodtheft/usurpation).
It is in this case that I believe that the level adjustments of the previous edition of the BRCS were better. The entire party has blood abilities to some extent anyway, making the power increase of the PCs(who were always better than the average D&D PC anyway) that much less significant.


Here are examples of where WotC has put out things that don't follow that logic.

The Savage Progression series on the WotC site. Which covers how to gain templates mid-level - and is a very good example of a similar thing to how a character can gain a bloodline after 1st elvel.


Characters are not required to complete all the levels of a given template class in uninterrupted succession. For example, a character who takes a level of wereboar could then take a level of fighter and a level of rogue (or any other combination of other class levels) before taking another level of wereboar. A character must still take the first level of wereboar before taking the second, just as with a normal class.The paragon racial clases contained in Unearthed Arcana. These are means where a character can become the epitomy of his race. These levels are not required to be taken immediately or in a consecutive series (i.e., without taking any other classes between).
Racial substitution levels. A character is not required to take any of them. And if they take one they are not required to take any of the others.
"Training" is not something that is "core" in the 3.5 rules. Training is actually a variant contained in the DMG (pg 197+).

The scion classes were designed to follow the level progressions that have become the norm in D&D and to account for the inherent EL associated with increased power.
They were also designed to be consistent with the player's choice concept. If a player chooses to to not "embrace" the strengths of his PC then so be it- he will never be as strong or capable as he could be.

[irdeggman]

When a Scion relinquishes their Bloodline to a Successor, what of that level? I suppose it becomes like a level of Paladin when his oath is broken- largely wasted.


Treat it as a level loss. There are already rules for that. The use of scion class levels makes for a smoother transition this way then via use of LA templates.

[geeman]

At 10:59 AM 9/4/2006, Starmage21 wrote:

>>You cannot gain major blood abilities until you have 1 level of scion class.
>
>which doesnt make a lick of sense in the "fluff" of the game. A
>class level denotes training and effort to manifest those blood
>abilities, whereas in the books those abilities manifest innately at
>puberty(with the exception of some abilities which manifest at
>birth, such as Bloodmark). They take no training to use.

I`ve never bought the blood abilities as character class game
mechanic either for the reason you state plus a few having to do with
issues of bloodline alone. A character who loses his bloodline is
similarly weird to handle game mechanically, for example, and the
setting itself is supposed to be "low-level" so using levels to
express one of the setting`s basic properties seems the wrong way to
go. It works for other BR-specific concepts. Even prestige classes
(a subject that I personally find to be misused more often than used
well in D20) make sense for BR. But bloodline as a character class
doesn`t really fit IMO. A template works better. A system of
accounting for bloodline as if it were a part of inventory, the way
character`s might account for other permanent magical abilities that
they purchase, is the best fit.

Nonetheless, these arguments have been made before.... The system of
balancing bloodline was subjected to a pretty rigorous review process
and voted on, so the majority of folks prefer it.

Gary

[geeman]

At 03:10 PM 9/4/2006, irdeggman wrote:

>>When a Scion relinquishes their Bloodline to a Successor, what of
>>that level? I suppose it becomes like a level of Paladin when his
>>oath is broken- largely wasted.
>
>Treat it as a level loss. There are already rules for that. The use
>of scion class levels makes for a smoother transition this way then
>via use of LA templates.

I could be misreading the
<http://www.birthright.net/member.php?u=5954>Cuchulainshound`s
comment, but I think the point there was not how the situation would
be handled game mechanically, but that using character class levels
to reflect that loss is somewhat odd. That is, if one has a problem
with scions levelling up to use what was originally their innate
ability then one will have a similar problem with how the bloodline
as character class issue handles the problem of losing that
bloodline. The character had to earn experience and, effectively,
spend them on the class to learn to use his bloodline. Should he
voluntarily give up his bloodline its not just that power he gives
up, but the XP he spent to learn to use it in the first place. It
turns bloodline into a sword AND a skill rather than a sword
alone. To extend the metaphor, if you hand over your sword you
essentially also lose your skill at fencing as well. Should the
character regain his bloodline does he have to level up again?

Gary

[Sorontar]

So if the Vos Paladin of Haelyn NPC, Teodor, doesn't ever use his blood abilities due to them being from the Azrai line, does that mean he doesn't have any Scion levels at all??
Because if don't use them, you can never "train" on how to call them forth.

Sorontar.

[geeman]

At 05:12 PM 9/4/2006, Sorontar wrote:

>So if the Vos Paladin of Haelyn NPC, Teodor, doesn`t ever use his
>blood abilities due to them being from the Azrai line, does that
>mean he doesn`t have any Scion levels at all??
>
>Because if don`t use them, you can never "train" on how to call them forth.

That`s a very interesting question/situation because it does point
out a few dynamics of Azrai`s bloodline that should be
addressed. Azrai`s bloodline as described in Teodor`s description
and in a couple other places of the original BR materials is
inherently corrupting. I don`t know where this is reflected anywhere
in the existing materials other, perhaps, than in the likelihood of
Azrai`s bloodline to corrupt that of other scions who commit
bloodtheft. However, the effect of awnsheghlien transformation is
another example of how that dynamic can play itself out, as are some
of the indications that those of Azrai`s bloodline are constantly
tempted (read: forced alignment shift) by their bloodline. In Teodor
the Unlikely Paladin`s case, I`d suggest that the issue is really
more a matter of that last. That is, as he levels up he must resist
the temptation to become evil that his bloodline directs him
towards. He would, therefore, lose his paladinhood not just by using
his blood abilities, but because his bloodline itself corrupts him over time.

It`s debatable whether using his blood abilities or not would
increase the corrupting effect of his bloodline, but off the cuff I
think that "yes" is the most likely response most folks would
give. It`s such a mainstay of fantasy/sci-fi that it fits right into
the concept.

In any case, here`s the table/system I use for this
issue. Characters with the blood of Azrai must make a Will save when
they level up to determine whether their bloodline has corrupted
them. The DC of that save is their target character level plus any
of the modifiers listed below:

TABLE 5: CORRUPTION CHECK MODIFIERS
Modifier Condition
+1 For two levels taken (voluntarily or involuntarily) in the
awnshegh character class.
+1 Each BP spent on the Bloodform blood ability.
+1 If you have any of the following "signature" blood abilities
of Azrai: death touch, fear, regeneration, touch of decay, wither
touch. This modifier is cumulative for each of those blood abilities
you have.
+2 If you became an awnshegh as the result of bloodtheft (ie.
have the awnshegh template.)
+2 If you have taken the Major Transformation feat.
+1 Character`s alignment is already chaotic.
+1 Character`s alignment is already evil.

A scion of Azrai who has earned enough XP to take a 7th level, for
instance, must make a DC 7 Will save to avoid taking that level as an
awnshegh. If that same character already has two levels as an
awnshegh, and the Fear blood ability then he must make a DC 10 check.

Failing this check means you must take a level in the awnshegh
character class rather than in a character class of your choice, or
your alignment changes one step towards chaotic evil. That is, a
lawful good character becomes either lawful neutral or neutral
good. Whether to take an awnshegh level, change alignment or what
the alignment change will be is the player`s choice as long as such
an alignment change is possible. A scion of Azrai who is already
chaotic evil must take an awnshegh level if he fails this check upon
leveling up. In some cases (and with the DM`s approval) your
alignment may change to one that is based on the theme of your
transformation. An alignment change based upon an awnsheghlien theme
can never be one of the good alignments. If you fail this check by 5
or more you must both take a level in the awnshegh character class
and your alignment changes one step towards chaotic evil.

Hope that makes some sense,
Gary

[irdeggman]

So if the Vos Paladin of Haelyn NPC, Teodor, doesn't ever use his blood abilities due to them being from the Azrai line, does that mean he doesn't have any Scion levels at all??
Because if don't use them, you can never "train" on how to call them forth.

Sorontar.

This is just another example of how "well" the 2nd ed rules worked. Per the rules Vos could not be paladins (only Anuireans and Khinasi could).

Also we need to remove from out thought process the concept of "training" as being an inherent part of level progression. In the 3.5 rules it is not and in fact the rules (core rules) are designed so that "training" is not part of them at all. "Experience" and "training" are different things and not intertwined in the core rules - as I pointed out there are variant rules to cover how the two can be tied together though.

There are several possibilities here.

It is never mentioned as to "how" he got his bloodine.

Did he start with one and then have it courrupted by bloodtheft? {He is described as being dedicated to destroying awnies}

Did he gain his bloodline from bloodtheft? {Another pretty viable option}

Was he born with his Azrai bloodline? {Probably the least possible due to how the Vos are described, how they "transfer bloodlines to the worthy" and how a paladin of Haelyn would be so out of place in the Heartless Wastes that he would most likey have had his bloodline "offered" up to someone more worthy.}

Now using BRCS mechanics he can have either 1 level of scion class or not.

If he had no levels of scion bloodline then he would be limited to 2 blood abilities (both minor). Which would knock down his resistance (major) to resistance (minor). If he did have 1 level of scion class he would have the blood abilities as listed. Both option are viable and play out only slightly different game wise.

Scion class levels give certain benefits. Access to higher than minor blood abilities, bonus HP if a regent (not applicable to this PC). Bonus class always skills, regent benefits (if used) {again not applicable to this NPC}, etc. In the case of this NPC IMO it better fits if he doesn't ahve any scion class levels.

Now remember that the entirety of game mechanics in 2nd ed was different than those of 3.5 so those must be kept in mind when looking at things. That is an overall picture of how things interrelate and function must be kept in mind. The 3.5 rules are so inherently tied together that if one house-rules one aspect then there is almost always a domino effect on the other parts of the game that weren't forseen - I have seen this happen numerous times when someone makes what they consider a "minor" tweak and eventually end up making large changes via house-rules to maintain the "balance" of the game.

This problem didn't exist in 2nd ed because the entire system (2nd ed) was not balanced at all.

[RaspK_FOG]

Kudos to irdeggman, here. Guys, check up on the DMG for a moment: there is a whole chapter dedicated to how should a DM reflect any demands for training, making obvious how levels (NOT Hit Dice) denote an increase in the character's experience and overall power, unlike Hit Dice, which denote toughness and general aptitude for survival.

[Cuchulainshound]

(G-man- on the nosey.)

The test here is to take two identical Scions, recently blooded or no- one takes a level of Scion, one a level of... oh, Noble. Do the game mechanics reflect a good "feel" for the differences those choices should yield? Similarly with the Blood of Azrai, similarly with "losing/relinquishing" one's bloodline.

And, then compare that with identical situations using templates, which imo more accurately reflect the cathartic change, (but their flaw lies with problems with ECL's after the fact, how the "next" level is attained, etc.)

(And I can't give my opinion, because the DAMN VERSION CONFLICTS WON'T LET ME OPEN THE FRIGGIN' DOCUMENT! AAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGHHHHHH...)

Ahem. (Better, for now.)

I missed 2nd ed- went from AD&D into other games, and didn't return until 3rd, but... from what I've seen and heard, I won't disagree.

If the minority opinion can present a compelling arguement for why Templates are better than Levels... we're still the minority opinion. The ONLY reason to change would be flaws, in mechanics or game-feel, that arise during play-testing. Short of that, as this is a consensus process, we can pursue this as an intellectual excercise, but can't hold high hopes of changing anything.

[ThatSeanGuy]

This is just another example of how "well" the 2nd ed rules worked. Per the rules Vos could not be paladins (only Anuireans and Khinasi could).

Yeah, I think that's a case of crappy editing, or maybe the authors trying to say, "Okay, we don't mean /always/. Just, like, usualy."-I mean, Khinasi not being able to be Paladins of Cuirecaen or Nesrie makes even less sense than the whole cultural cutoff in the first place. Especialy when there're more Nesrie temple holdings in Khinasi than in Anuire! (I think. Its been a bit.)

Anyway, it was a dumb rule, and I'm glad its gone in BRCS. Sure, you're more likely to find a Rujurk "holy warrior" being a Ranger dedicated to Erik, but a hard restriction always felt silly to me. Heck, I'd allow Goblin paladins of Cuirecaen(I'm probably spelling this horrible. Need to get my book back.), but perhaps this is because I'm a hippy.

[Cuchulainshound]

That was also back in the day when D&D Core Rules blurred the distinction between pure "game mechanics" and individual "world flavour". 'nuff said on that mistake. :cool:

[RaspK_FOG]

Actually, templates are fine for the most part, unless you hit the ever-present obstacle: progression of power.

In 2e, power was entirely relative; most monsters have no ability scores what so ever, for example, which has given me quite a headache when I want to reiterate a 2e adventure book in 3e (a literal hell). Likewise, various issues crop up in this field as well: in 2e, you simply got the thing and *POOF* you got all the powers like that. In 3e, that's what a template does.

You'll probably wonder where's the problem by now. Well, believe it or not, the greatest arises from gameplay: while templates are nicely worked out for NPCs, genetic traits or sudden transformation, it lends poorly to any character gaining any sort of power that does not somehow set him so apart from the party that he usually is removed or challenged due to this very change. Thus, Wizards of the Coast thought of a simple solution to the problem: we are going to build an abstract system that allows the acquisition of "monster" Hit Dice and Level Adjustment through the acquisition of levels in a "monster" class.

While this does not always help the world's verisimilitude (in fact, it slightly degrades it, due to our view on the various mythoi), it lends a bit of realism: everyone has to "discover" his new capacity of action and/or reaction to properly adjust (i.e. use) his mannerisms. A work around to both problems is to grant the player a minor effect that he can't control, or grant automatic conditions earlier. For example, Gaelin in "The Falcon and the Wolf" has the blood abilities to heal faster, as well as Divine Wrath (Anduiras bloodline). Had he obtained these abilities at some point in his life (for the sake of the argument), Divine Wrath is a better candidate logic-wise for a sudden manifestation, wherease faster healing makes more sense in terms of reduced effectiveness at lower levels to compensate for non-existence until one attains the proper level.

[irdeggman]

Also it is impossible to maintain balance between players when using LA templates and starting at 1st level. How would you feel if you could only have 1st level human fighter while your "friend" got to play a 1st level fighter at the same time (ECL 3). Both are 1st level fighters but one has the equivalent of LA template.

[Starmage21]

sure it is. If you have an all drow party in a game involving mostly drow, then you can ignore the +2 LA from being drow, because its already balanced against the rest of the party(IE: theyre all drow).

[RaspK_FOG]

:rolleyes: Actually, that's wrong: the LA is not there to adjust the characters' power in relation to other party members, but to the world itself; a party consisting of 1st-level drow characters and coming face to face with 1st-level encounters is getting off the hook a party consisting of 1st-level human characters would be facing, getting more wealth, etc.!

[Cuchulainshound]

Also it is impossible to maintain balance between players when using LA templates and starting at 1st level. How would you feel if you could only have 1st level human fighter while your "friend" got to play a 1st level fighter at the same time (ECL 3). Both are 1st level fighters but one has the equivalent of LA template.
Um, with respect, that arguement doesn't hold spit.

A 1st level character and an identical character that is Blooded are NOT going to be "balanced." That's what being Blooded is all about, by definition- the blood-essence of a freakin' GAWD runs through your veins, ferkrysake!

"The young Achilles sets off with several of his childhood companions..."

If a GM wanted that situation, he clearly doesn't want "to maintain balance", and players shouldn't expect it. Is that "fair"? No, it's gross favoritism to let one player be Blooded and the rest not. But if that's the set-up the GM wants, then that's what you get.

A more accurate picture is painted using the current rules- to create a pair of "starting" characters, one 1st level and one 1st level Blooded, the latter has to start off at either 2nd or 3rd level (depending on his Bloodline, and whether he "has lived up to his full potential").

When you compare Blooded and non-blooded characters, you shouldn't expect any equitable comparison.

[irdeggman]

sure it is. If you have an all drow party in a game involving mostly drow, then you can ignore the +2 LA from being drow, because its already balanced against the rest of the party(IE: theyre all drow).

Since I said human 1st level fighter versus a drow 1st level fighter. . . .

[Sigmund]

I find myself agreeing with Cuchulainshound on this issue. Let me make clear that I haven't yet DMed my BR campaign and I'm not even sure if I'm going to use DnD at all to run it, but based on what I've read, both of the various edition rules and the posts in this thread, I find the scion class leaving a bad taste in my mouth. To be fair, I prefer "lighter" rules, which is why I'm seriously leaning toward True20 as the rules I'm going to use for my BR campaign. However, IMO from even a flavour standpoint, Blooded characters have always struck me as being intended to stand above even other adventurers. That's why they are described as being rare, and accorded such respect. I remember reading in the 2e setting that there are thought to be no more than 150 true wizards in all of Cerilia....that's pretty frickin' rare. This says to me that Scions are exceptional individuals who shouldn't, IMO, be "balanced" with commoners or the normal challenges that commoners face. Also, what I haven't seen mentioned so far is the downsides that being blooded should carry. Blooded characters are going to become well known, indeed famous (or infamous) even, much more quickly than commoners. This, IMO, will have the old west gunfighter effect of drawing every rogue, awnsheigh, and wanna-be thug out gunning for the Scion. Having the Scion with his blood powers in the group means that the GM has a perfect opportunity, I daresay even responsibility, to throw challenges at the group that a group of common-born adventurers wouldn't have to face. They'll need that little bit of extra power, at least IMC they will.

Another downside is that the regents who rule in the areas that the Scion will travel through will most certainly keep a close eye on the group if they get wind of a Blooded individual travelling and adventuring in the area. If I were regent you can bet your buttocks I'd watch anyone who could be a potential threat to my power.

As I see it, being a Scion in BR is much like being a movie star in today's world. No privacy, people trying to take advantage of you all the time, constant intrusions on your time from people who "need help only you can provide", scary people lurking about trying to hurt you, and the uncertainty of never knowing who to truely trust.

[irdeggman]

Um, with respect, that arguement doesn't hold spit.

A 1st level character and an identical character that is Blooded are NOT going to be "balanced." That's what being Blooded is all about, by definition- the blood-essence of a freakin' GAWD runs through your veins, ferkrysake!

Alright. Run the numbers for 1st level characters. A first level scion will have a bloodline of no higher than 36. If he rolled an 18 and put that in is blood score (then doubled it). If he did not take a scion class level he would have 4 minor blood abilites. Compare those to say the spell like abilities of a gnome (in the core rules). Pretty much "minor" blood abilities will not place the characters out of balance substanationally.

If he could take 1 scion class level then he could have 2 minors and 2 major blood abilities, bonus hit points and any of the regent benefets (listed as variants in Chap 8) - like extra starting funds to purchase things like a "magic weapon". If he could take 2 scion class levels he could have 2 minors, 1 major and 1 great as well as the extra hit points and other regent benefits.

A starting character has to choose where to put his ability rolls. If he chooses to place that 18 in his blood score slot then he has "decided" not to place it into an ability that works for adventureing instead.

Sorry but the "spit" is indeed pretty well balanced here.


"The young Achilles sets off with several of his childhood companions..."


If a GM wanted that situation, he clearly doesn't want "to maintain balance", and players shouldn't expect it. Is that "fair"? No, it's gross favoritism to let one player be Blooded and the rest not. But if that's the set-up the GM wants, then that's what you get.

And nothing can be done rules wise to "force" the balance if a DM chooses to play things that way can it?


A more accurate picture is painted using the current rules- to create a pair of "starting" characters, one 1st level and one 1st level Blooded, the latter has to start off at either 2nd or 3rd level (depending on his Bloodline, and whether he "has lived up to his full potential").

When you compare Blooded and non-blooded characters, you shouldn't expect any equitable comparison.

In second ed this was very much the case but with the advant of "balance" in 3.0 this is no longer true.

IMO you have missed the entire point of racial levels and template levels as a means to insert a semblence of balance into a game. Again, by "balance" I mean that 2 players will both feel that each has roughly the same starting point as each other.

If 1 player starts off 3 levels higher than another I can guarantee that there will be some hurt feelings at that gaming table. If not then there is some real good medication in play there.:D

From the intro to "Gaining a Template Mid-campaign" articles (which I have placed a link to earleir- but have attached the files as Word documents here for ease of use).


But what if an established character gains a template in the middle of the campaign? Many of the templates presented in the Monster Manual are acquired, which means a character can gain them during the course of a game. What happens when your 10th-level ranger is attacked by a lycanthrope, gains the wereboar template, and thereby jumps from ECL 10 to ECL 12? Suddenly your ranger is more powerful than the other PCs, and balancing encounters becomes much more difficult for the DM. An encounter that's challenging for the ranger's allies is easy for him, and one that's challenging for him can be deadly for his allies. Such an imbalance can also make the other players jealous or resentful of the templated character. Fortunately, there is a solution.

The same logic applies when looking at scions.

[DanMcSorley]

On 9/6/06, Cuchulainshound <brnetboard@birthright.net> wrote:
> Um, with respect, that arguement doesn`t hold spit.

Be less hostile, please.

> A 1st level character and an identical character that is Blooded are NOT going to be
> "balanced." That`s what being Blooded is all about, by definition- the blood-essence of a
> freakin` GAWD runs through your veins, ferkrysake!

So you admit that a scion is more powerful than his level would
otherwise indicate, and some mechanical notation that he is more
powerful in the game would be useful. Great.

> "The young Achilles sets off with several of his childhood companions..."
>
> If a GM wanted that situation, he shouldn`t want "to maintain balance", and players
> shouldn`t expect it. Is that "fair"? No, it`s gross favoritism to let one player be Blooded
> and the rest not. But if that`s the set-up the GM wants, then that`s what you get.

You`re right. If the GM is a bad GM, he can ruin the players` fun.
The rules should not encourage this, however.

> A more accurate picture is painted using the current rules- to have create a pair of
> "starting" characters, one 1st level and one 1st level Blooded, the latter has to start off at
> either 2nd or 3rd level (depending on his Bloodline, and whether he "has lived up to his full
> potential").
>
> When you compare Blooded and non-blooded characters, you shouldn`t expect any
> equitable comparison.

If they`re both PCs, or in competition with PCs, they need to be
mechanically balanced. It wouldn`t be fair for one player to start
out with a 3rd level character and the other to start out with a 1st
level character, would it? The same applies to scions and nonscion
characters.

Listen. We`re not saying a 1st level scion should be just as tough as
a 1st level nonscion adventurer. We`re admitting that the scion is
tougher, and putting in a game artifact that reflects this.
--
Daniel McSorley

[geeman]

At 01:19 PM 9/6/2006, Sigmund wrote:

>I remember reading in the 2e setting that there are thought to be no
>more than 150 true wizards in all of Cerilia....

Argh. If there`s anything in the original materials that I actually
_hate_ it`s that one. I hate it worse than battlespells or the
warcard system (pthoo!) It`s so vague as to be meaningless (what
does "true wizard" mean?) and the number is so low that it makes the
already artificially small population numbers of Cerilia shrink down
to nearly nothing.... Oh, well.

Gary

[irdeggman]

At 01:19 PM 9/6/2006, Sigmund wrote:

>I remember reading in the 2e setting that there are thought to be no
>more than 150 true wizards in all of Cerilia....

Argh. If there`s anything in the original materials that I actually
_hate_ it`s that one. I hate it worse than battlespells or the
warcard system (pthoo!) It`s so vague as to be meaningless (what
does "true wizard" mean?) and the number is so low that it makes the
already artificially small population numbers of Cerilia shrink down
to nearly nothing.... Oh, well.

Gary

Yeah. I think we mostly came to the conclusion that this number must only be non-elves. In that perspective it is probably pretty decent, well at least not too hard to swallow.

[Autarkis]

At 01:19 PM 9/6/2006, Sigmund wrote:

>I remember reading in the 2e setting that there are thought to be no
>more than 150 true wizards in all of Cerilia....

Argh. If there`s anything in the original materials that I actually
_hate_ it`s that one. I hate it worse than battlespells or the
warcard system (pthoo!) It`s so vague as to be meaningless (what
does "true wizard" mean?) and the number is so low that it makes the
already artificially small population numbers of Cerilia shrink down
to nearly nothing.... Oh, well.

Gary
True Wizard meant someone who could cast spells and was a Wizard. Magician is the only magical throwing template (excluding Bard) that a non-blooded could take. In essence, a watered down illusionist. And based on the way the Scion levels are, it kinda sucks for Blooded Wizards or Priests since they need to dump 1 to 2 levels that do not benefit their spell progression. The classes are "melee" centric.

Personally, I would give the Scion levels as "shadow levels." You get the benefit from them but does not effect how much exp you need to go up a level.

[irdeggman]

True Wizard meant someone who could cast spells and was a Wizard. Magician is the only magical throwing template (excluding Bard) that a non-blooded could take. In essence, a watered down illusionist. And based on the way the Scion levels are, it kinda sucks for Blooded Wizards or Priests since they need to dump 1 to 2 levels that do not benefit their spell progression. The classes are "melee" centric.

Personally, I would give the Scion levels as "shadow levels." You get the benefit from them but does not effect how much exp you need to go up a level.

No they do not need to take any scion class levels in order to be able to cast true magic.

In order to cast true magic a character needs to be either of elven blood (an elf or half-elf) or be a scion. A scion without any scion class levels is limited to only minor blood abilities and gains no bonus hit points for RP collection nor any regent benefits. But they can still cast true magic and use sources to cast Realm spells.

A cleric/druid likewise only needs to be blooded in order to cast realm magic.

So it is very possible to be a true wizard without any scion class levels at all.

In fact I can see a tendency for players running wizard characters to be scions, minimize their blood score (and max out their Int), take no levels of scion class, have only minor blood abilities (if any), have no bonus hit points nor regent benefits and still be a true wizard who can be relatively powerful on the realm spell level. All of this while fighter PCs go the other way because they tend to be the landed regents and have more need for RP and the like.

[Autarkis]

Out of all the classes, Priests and Wizards get the most bang for their buck in regards to RP (and need it more), specifically because of Realm Spells. They don't need to take scion levels but then without them you don't have the Birthright feel. I guess I always liked the flavor of 2nd edition.

A spell casting character who wants the full potential of his blood abilities will fall short versus a Warrior-type who wants the full potential of his blood abilities.

[geeman]

At 06:34 PM 9/6/2006, Autarkis wrote:

>>Argh. If there`s anything in the original materials that I actually
>>_hate_ it`s that one. I hate it worse than battlespells or the
>>warcard system (pthoo!) It`s so vague as to be meaningless (what
>>does "true wizard" mean?) and the number is so low that it makes the
>>already artificially small population numbers of Cerilia shrink down
>>to nearly nothing.... Oh, well.
>
>True Wizard meant someone who could cast spells and was a Wizard.

Unfortunately, that definition is both doesn`t work and is
redundant. As irdeggman has pointed out, the comment totally ignores
the presence of Cerilian elves among whose numbers those "who could
cast spells and was a Wizard" (as opposed to those wizards who can`t
cast spells?) must number in the thousands. If it just said
"wizards" then your definition would be correct, but the resulting
numbers so far off as to make the comment ridiculous. In fact,
that`d be better because there`d be not need to deal with it as the
statement could simply be shown to be false on its face.

Quite a while back, I did a rough count of the number of characters
with wizard levels and there are more 150 wizards given write-ups, so
on its face the statement is incorrect. What`s more even further
back in the archives I did a "Cerilian Census" that took stock of the
number of characters of class and their levels in sort of a massive
continental demographic based on numbers presented in the Muden
sourcebook, and amongst the human races there must be thousands of
wizards unless one puts the percentage of characters able to take the
class down so far as to be really ridiculous. I don`t recall the
percentage exactly, but it`s something less than one in a hundred
scions become wizards.

The only way it becomes close to a legitimate statement is if:

1. Elves are ignored (and in the 3e update, which apparently allows
anyone with a bloodline to take wizard levels all other Cerilian
races must also be ignored.)

2. "True wizards" are differentiated from all wizards by defining
them as only those characters with five or more levels in the wizard
class as that is the point at which they can cast 3rd level arcane
spells, or "true" magic.

Then it could get close to correct, though it seems to me most
reasonable projections still had the number of characters with 5+
levels as a wizard around 500 or something. (It was quite a while
ago, so I`m not going to pull that off the top of my head.)

That sentence is really just an expression of theme. It`s colour
commentary meant to express the scarcity of the class, not present
actual data based on the realities of the setting. Unfortunately,
they got specific by stating an actual number in their general
comment leading to a persistent regurgitation of that number even
though it can`t really be correct even after some serious tap dancing
to fix definitions to fit the number.

Gary

[dalor]

I agree...isn`t there some way to allow scions to
simply be an acquired template? This would require a
character to gain more experience for their levels;
but a 10th level wizard would at least then still be a
10th level wizard.


Anthony Edwards

--- Autarkis <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET> wrote:

> Out of all the classes, Priests and Wizards get the
> most bang for their buck in regards to RP (and need
> it more), specifically because of Realm Spells. They
> don`t need to take scion levels but then without
> them you don`t have the Birthright feel. I guess I
> always liked the flavor of 2nd edition.
>
> A spell casting character who wants the full
> potential of his blood abilities will fall short
> versus a Warrior-type who wants the full potential
> of his blood abilities.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[RaspK_FOG]

OK, once more with more feeling:
A scion is any person who bears a bloodline etc. No scion needs to attain any levels in the scion class in order to attain any levels in the wizard class, much like elves, half-elves and dragons: they have the innate capacity to do other things, they just don't get some of the benefits of having a bloodline (e.g. great blood abilities).

[irdeggman]

Another way to look at this is to follow the 3.0/3.5 approach that every character makes choices as to what path he follows.

A character can be extremely good at a few things by focusing on them or he can be a jack of all trades and master of none.

The scion levels are another means to reflect this.

If a player wants to run a character that is a good regent then he needs to give up some of his other potential in order to focus on that.

Taking scion class levels allows a character to be a better regent (by increasing his RP collection and benefits from being a regent (the hit points and regency benefits).

But this forces a sdecision by taking away attention on the "adventuring" level of play.

Any character that is giving up levels in a core class is giving up potential in those classes by focusing on domain level of play. Fighters lose prescious bonus feats (HD, BAB, etc.) Barbarians, rangers, paladins all lose special class benefits. Spellcasters lose caster levels. Rogues lose skill points and special class abilities.

The "choice" process in "career path" is also reflected in the way RP is collected by forcing regents to put skill points into the approriate skills to maximimize RP collection. These are skill points that can't be allocated into more adventure level appropriate skills.

As part of the 3.5 philosophy it is all about "choice".

[Autarkis]

The problem, or at least my problem, is that 3.5 is about "choice" but the feel of bloodlines is not about "choice." They are a divine manifestation of traits that your ancestors have had for generations (barring bloodtheft.) I understand how 3.5 works and how they revolve around ECL for advancement and encounters, but I just feel 3.5 contradicts the original intention of the Birthright setting.

And to mister large font, I think everyone understands the definition of scion. You would be dense not to. The problem is in regards to your ability to access those powers and how BRCS implemented Scion classes. For example, two players wish to play in an epic feeling campaign (spanning from the days of Deisimar to today) and both want to maximize their Long Life (and other miscellaneous abilities). The Fighter can get two levels of Scion (Anduiras) and not effect his core class effectiveness. The Wizard will get two levels of Scion (Anduiras) but will not be able to be as effective as the Fighter since he will be 2 levels lower from his core class capabilities.

[DanMcSorley]

On 9/7/06, Autarkis <brnetboard@birthright.net> wrote:
> The problem, or at least my problem, is that 3.5 is about "choice" but the feel of
> bloodlines is not about "choice." They are a divine manifestation of traits that your
> ancestors have had for generations (barring bloodtheft.) I understand how 3.5 works and
> how they revolve around ECL for advancement and encounters, but I just feel 3.5
> contradicts the original intention of the Birthright setting.

Even in the 2nd edition version, they tried to balance the (clearly
more powerful) scion characters with nonscions by giving unblooded
characters an experience bonus. This was a tacked-on solution,
because AD&D 2e had no built-in character balancing mechanism. 3e
does: Level Adjustments and special/"racial" levels. So birthright
for 3e uses it.

--
Daniel McSorley

[irdeggman]

The problem is in regards to your ability to access those powers and how BRCS implemented Scion classes. For example, two players wish to play in an epic feeling campaign (spanning from the days of Deisimar to today) and both want to maximize their Long Life (and other miscellaneous abilities). The Fighter can get two levels of Scion (Anduiras) and not effect his core class effectiveness. The Wizard will get two levels of Scion (Anduiras) but will not be able to be as effective as the Fighter since he will be 2 levels lower from his core class capabilities.

Actually a fighter (with any derivation but Anduiras derivation) would lose +1 from his BAB.

He would also lose (or potentially lose) fighter bonus feats and slow his progression to gaining feats that have prerequisites of fighter level (like specialization).

A wizard with 2 levels of scion class Anduiras will get greater HD (2d8 instead of 2d4) and better Fort saves (the wizard's bane of existance). He can also claim warcraft as class skill (for ever) - which specifically aids in casting battle magic.

Now let's pick another derivation and see what happens.

Vorynn for instance.

A fighter with a Vorynn bloodline (and 2 levels of scion class).

Loses +1 to BAB, gets 2d6 instead of 2d10 for HD, potentially loses fighter bonus feats (and delays access to fighter class dependent ones), gets a worse Fort save but gets a good Will save (the fighter's bane) and gains access to some cantrips.

Wizard: same saving through progression, better BAB, better HD (2d6 vice 2d4), some extra casting of cantrips can choose UMD as a class skill.

Yup some trade offs (but that is always the case in any decision made when building a character).

A wizard with 2 scion class levels will have slower access to his spells and gain fewer spells per day. He will still have access to 9th level spells though. He will lose his 20th level wizard bous feat.

A fighter with 2 scion class levels will have slower access to fighter level specific feats and will lose his 20th level fighter bonus feat.

Yes spellcasters are the most penalized when it comes to multiclassing - but this will also have tehe same effect if using a LA template since the character will still not exceed 18th level either and will not gain any HD or other class like benefits in the process.

[RaspK_FOG]

Actually, some of the earlier posts seem to contradict that statement, Autarkis (and I resent your referring to me as "mister large font," but at least you did not type it as "mr Large Font"); the reason I actually did that is that there seemed to be some people who still contradicted what irdeggman said.

Now, as to your point, nobody ever said otherwise; however, it is only how much we try and assimilate instead of contradicting that defines one's attitude towards one thing or another. A person I know is vehemently against the lack of wizards' proficiency with the sword at 1st level(I am being dead serious): no matter how I point out that a character may switch some class features with others as long as he has his DM's approval (as pointed out in the PHB) or how he may very well acquire Martial Weapon Proficiency (longsword), as the rules normally handle personal training in the use of a weapon, he still feels the wizard is cheated and won't ever have the point gotten across to him. Why? Because he believes (and belief is a stronger statement than thought, you know) that this is against the nature of reality - he doesn't get that he either has to switch the combat prowess he would normally have (switching proficiencies) or acquire a new one (purchasing a feat), even if that is the way things go on in real life. Likewise, I have people who have argued that you should probably be able to know any language in the setting no matter the region and race you belong to, which is similarly absurd...

In this issue, both irdeggman and I state that, whether we like it or not, there is an issue of balance; balance does not deal with how powerful a character is (that would mean that every character would have to be equally powerful in all areas, and that's certainly no going to happen), but with how helpful he can generally be to a party of diverse talents. In this regard, a scion without any levels in the scion class is almost as capable as any other person without a bloodline and/or LA in the game, whereas his classed/templated version is more potent. This makes such a scion improper for a companion of equal levels, as it warrants a LA.

Now, there are two ways to handle that: either entirely disregard the argument over flavour, which cannot truly be captured without blatantly throwing any semblance of balance off the window, or try and work along the lines of the argument and fix along as much as you can. What do you prefer? Note that either case, in the end, is fine by me: everyone's table is his table, but constant arguments won't get as anywhere, and, last time I checked, we were all trying to move this forward. See where this is going?

I certainly don't have an issue with a simple add-on template: it really speeds character creation; the problem arises in campaign development and management, and it's a BIG flaw. So, if you all have any ideas that deal with both issues (flavour and mechanics), I would really like to check them up.

[ploesch]

I have said before, and will likely say again. I don't like the "feel" of Scion levels. They make being blooded, and having Blood abilities feel more like a commodity than being of divine origin.

However, I do agree it is the best way to balance Blooded vs. non-blooded.

The one argument I see over and over is that using Scion levels puts Scions ata disadvantage. Using LA Templates doesn't? They actually put scions at the same disadvantage level wise, experience wise, and in addition, they put scions at an HP, BAB, and Skill point disadvantage.

Scion levels also give the players choices in how they roleplay. The can decide to what level they practice their Blood Abilities.

If you want to have the same effect as templates, then let players take the correct scion levels in addition to Character levels at first level, start them off at 0 xp, and call it a day. That makes it essentially the same as LA templates, but with a bonus.

Now, if what you want is to have simple templates with no Level Adjustment, then your really throwing Balance out the window completely. This idea is really unfair to non-Blooded PC's. Maybe you've never played a game where PC's were unblooded, but it really isn't fair to them, and can create some bad feelings, or put a bad taste in their mouth about this campaign setting. making them feel like they HAVE to be blooded to compete.

In the end, I was initially against the scion levels after reading the playtest, then the adjusted rules. After thinking about it some, and playing I found the scion levels are not only more in line with the feel of 3.5, but they are better balanced.

[ThatSeanGuy]

Now, if what you want is to have simple templates with no Level Adjustment, then your really throwing Balance out the window completely. This idea is really unfair to non-Blooded PC's. Maybe you've never played a game where PC's were unblooded, but it really isn't fair to them, and can create some bad feelings, or put a bad taste in their mouth about this campaign setting. making them feel like they HAVE to be blooded to compete.

Part of me says, "Well, um, why /wouldn't/ you play a scion in Birthright?", since being a low-blooded lieutenant with no chances of regency covers the 'trusty squire' thing. While there are, obviously, reasons even if they're as simple as personal preference or wishing to stick out, it doesn't entierly make sense to me that you'd put a lot of thought into avoiding what could arguably be called the setting's signature mechanic.

The other part of me says that I'm being a little silly, because it does make sense as a prestige class/template/whatever one wants to call it. My only real issue is that I'd let people take Major or Great powers with a Minor Bloodline, because doing away with that takes away cool scenes like the weak willed, weak blooded Scion suddenly snapping and flying into a Divine Wrath or Berserker Rage episode, but I think that essentialy amounts to something you can easily house rule either way-Scion still gives important benefits to anyone who seriously wants to be a regent, y'know?

Edit: Made a sentence a little clearer.

[ploesch]

Part of me says, "Well, um, why /wouldn't/ you play a scion in Birthright?", since being a low-blooded lieutenant with no chances of regency covers the 'trusty squire' thing. While there are, obviously, reasons even if they're as simple as personal preference or wishing to stick out, it doesn't entierly make sense to me that one would design the setting around what could be argued is the signature mechanic.

The other part of me says that I'm being a little silly, because it does make sense as a prestige class/template/whatever one wants to call it. My only real issue is that I'd let people take Major or Great powers with a Minor Bloodline, because doing away with that takes away cool scenes like the weak willed, weak blooded Scion suddenly snapping and flying into a Divine Wrath or Berserker Rage episode, but I think that essentialy amounts to something you can easily house rule either way-Scion still gives important benefits to anyone who seriously wants to be a regent, y'know?

Well, we tend to play cooperative games. So while one character may play the country's regent, and another may play one of the temple regents, and another may play the guild regent, 1 or 2 others may prefer to be non-regents, and some may not even want to be blooded. The first BR campaign we played, i was the only one that wanted to be a regent of any kind, and only one other even wanted to be blooded, of the 5 of us. Future campaigns were different, but there was almost always one person that wanted to make their own way without the crutch of starting with Blood abilities and a domain.

Could be RP reasons, personal preference, mny reasons to start unblooded, and therefore Blooded characters should be balanced with unblooded ones, IMO.

[cvgawde]

I may have missed something in the original text of the class and all the descriptors (I tend to gloss over things that aren't printed). If a character has a theoretical bloodline score of 36 and doesn't initially take any levels of scion then he has access to four blood abilities.

Let's say after becoming a 6th-level fighter that scion now wishes to fully tap into that divine power he's known was running through his veins. His 7th character level is the scion, major. Does this character now reroll his blood abilities altogether? Does he only reroll two and if so how do we select which two skills are lost? Or is this character SOL and has to live with the 4 minor abilities?

[Cuchulainshound]

That's something that has crossed my mind more than once.

It would be "nice" if every ability had a minor/major/great progression, for just such a situation.

(Likewise if a regent "spent" bloodscore to raise temporary regency points, and lost an ability.)

[ploesch]

I may have missed something in the original text of the class and all the descriptors (I tend to gloss over things that aren't printed). If a character has a theoretical bloodline score of 36 and doesn't initially take any levels of scion then he has access to four blood abilities.

Let's say after becoming a 6th-level fighter that scion now wishes to fully tap into that divine power he's known was running through his veins. His 7th character level is the scion, major. Does this character now reroll his blood abilities altogether? Does he only reroll two and if so how do we select which two skills are lost? Or is this character SOL and has to live with the 4 minor abilities?
I would leave that up to the player.

Let them develop 2 powers into major from minor if possible, or keep what they got, or 2 of their powers could be replaced by all new powers. As long as both player and GM agree, it's not an issue.

I'm a jerk, so if they have the potential (high enough strength) to have greater than minor abilities, but choose not to develop them (don't take the scion level(s)) then I don't let them have them.

So, in your example, with a bloodscore of 36 you get 2 minor, 1 Major and one great, since you didn't mention strength, I will cover all possibilities. What i would do, if they choose to be Minor Scion, they would get all 4 minor abilities at character creation. If they choose to be a Major Scion, then they would get their 2 minor abilities at first level, and 2 Major when they take their first level of scion. If they choose to be a great scion, then they would get 2 minor at creation, 1 major when they took their first level of scion, and the 1 great ability once they took their second level of Scion. This would encourage them to take those levels, and represents the Scion spending time to develop their powers, and explore her own potential.

If a player was creative and came to me at character creation and said i want my great ability to be Animal affinity, I might let them take that great ability at character creation, but just as a minor ability, so they'd have 3 abilities to start. Or if the player prefered, when they took their first level of scion, they would increase animal affinity to major and develop a new minor ability.

Of course, none of this is in the rules, it's just what I would do. I don't think the rules spell it out for you, and I think that's a good thing as it lets you make the flavor of your game what you want it to be.

[irdeggman]

I may have missed something in the original text of the class and all the descriptors (I tend to gloss over things that aren't printed). If a character has a theoretical bloodline score of 36 and doesn't initially take any levels of scion then he has access to four blood abilities.

Let's say after becoming a 6th-level fighter that scion now wishes to fully tap into that divine power he's known was running through his veins. His 7th character level is the scion, major. Does this character now reroll his blood abilities altogether? Does he only reroll two and if so how do we select which two skills are lost? Or is this character SOL and has to live with the 4 minor abilities?

No you didn't miss anything.

This is partly by design and partly by oversight.

How this is handled is inherently up to the style of game being run. This is why I was/am loathe to insert too many details in the BRCS on this.

There are really many different ways to handle this.

First off the default method is "choosing" blood abilities and not randomly rolling them (that is a variant rule).


The rules talk about how to handle things when his score increases.



If a character’s score increases to the point where a new ability is gained, then select an ability of the appropriate level from the tables below. If the character already possesses the ability at a lower level of strength, then an ability of the appropriate strength should be selected to replace the lower ability as well. The character should always end up with the appropriate number of Great, Major, and Minor abilities as indicated on Table 2-2: Bloodline Score.

So this concept can logically be applied when he takes a scion class level. That is you "update" abilities first.

The rules as written don't state that a scion must take all of the blood abilities he is eligible for at creation (or when he first becomes elible for them). So another possibility is to not claim any major or great abilities until the appropriate scion class level has been taken (basically hold them in reserve to claim later).

Another possibility is to allow the player to "swap" out a minor for a major or a major/minor for a great when the class level is taken.

If random method of determination is used then it is also possible to re-roll and replace as necessary.

What I would do is allow a scion to have the correct amount of blood abilites (albeit at lower levels) when he starts. Then when he takes a scion class level and is eligible for higher level abilities I would have him upgrade an eligible blood ability. If he had no abilites that were upgradable then I would let him swap out a lower level ability for a higher level one.

Regardless of the method used it is important for the DM and players to understand how it going to be handled at character creation so they can "plan" on how to handle it when the time comes.

Remember the default rule is also that the player chooses what his derivation and strength is at creation (the random determination method is a variant rule). So since the default rule has the player knowing exactly how many scion class levels he is going to be able to take, either holding the abilities in reserve or taking upgradable ones both work.

[cvgawde]

That all sounds good. I too prefer more discretionary devices with regards to game mechanics, especially in ones as subjective as blood abilities. I suppose my preference would be to offer the "reserve" ability option if they're eventually planning to become major or great and take the levels of scion or if they take it without any forethought the ability upgrades you mentioned would be the best method for my campaign.

[ploesch]

That all sounds good. I too prefer more discretionary devices with regards to game mechanics, especially in ones as subjective as blood abilities. I suppose my preference would be to offer the "reserve" ability option if they're eventually planning to become major or great and take the levels of scion or if they take it without any forethought the ability upgrades you mentioned would be the best method for my campaign.

I think you might still be missing something here.

You choose/roll your Bloodline strength at character creation, and it is an epic feat/deed to increase your bloodline strength, and should only occur at most once per generation. So it's not as simpe as "I take a Scion Level" to go from Minor to Major or Major to great. Your strength is already in place, the scion levels represent the work you've done to explore your potential.

If I am wrong about you missing it, then I am sorry.

When we were first talking about moving to 3ed BRCS one of my players said "So why wouldn't every character just take a Great bloodline, so you can have the scion levels when you want to?" That question caused me to require the Blooded Scion feat to even be blooded, and to allow you to start as your chosen profession, but you must take your scion levels at the first availablility, in other words, your 2nd and 3rd (if you have it) levels must be scion levels if you didn't start at 1st level. You can still start at 1st level as whatever class, but by 3rd level you have to have taken all the scion levels you can. This encourages some diversity in Bloodlines.

[RaspK_FOG]

I believe that the manifestation of powers is good in the case of a blood ability that does not have a lower power version (in game terms, holding 1 power in reserve is what I would be doing if he chose Divine Wrath, for example); on the other hand, I particulalry like the upgrade method for eligible powers.

[irdeggman]

I think you might still be missing something here.

You choose/roll your Bloodline strength at character creation, and it is an epic feat/deed to increase your bloodline strength, and should only occur at most once per generation. So it's not as simpe as "I take a Scion Level" to go from Minor to Major or Major to great. Your strength is already in place, the scion levels represent the work you've done to explore your potential.

If I am wrong about you missing it, then I am sorry.

When we were first talking about moving to 3ed BRCS one of my players said "So why wouldn't every character just take a Great bloodline, so you can have the scion levels when you want to?" That question caused me to require the Blooded Scion feat to even be blooded, and to allow you to start as your chosen profession, but you must take your scion levels at the first availablility, in other words, your 2nd and 3rd (if you have it) levels must be scion levels if you didn't start at 1st level. You can still start at 1st level as whatever class, but by 3rd level you have to have taken all the scion levels you can. This encourages some diversity in Bloodlines.

Actually I believe he was asking about what happened if he took a level scion class and coould then hav access to major (or great) blood abilities but his score would have allowed him to have major (or great) abilites but he hadn't taken the appropriate scion class level yet.

He didn't state that the character already had the appropriate strength or not though. That is the prequisite for taking the scion class levels in the first place. And as you pointed out taking the class level doesn't increase your strength but having the approprioate strength allows you to have access to the class level.

[Sigmund]

Although I still don't like the idea of Scion class levels as a requirement for gaining blood powers, I do understand the point of balance being made. I confess I have no alternatives coming to me that would preserve flavor and balance. I have never been concerned with preserving (mechanical) balance all that much in my campaigns, as I've described, I usually try to use RPing to "balance" things.

That being said, I was wondering....would it make the character too powerful to let the scion class levels stack with spell-casting classes for the purposes of spell progression? Being that most of my campaigns are lower-level, with characters rarely reaching past 13-15th level before retiring, it's not the upper level spells that I'm worried about. It's that a 5th level wizard or cleric who has had to take 2 levels of scion just to develop his/her blood abilities is going to be seriously handicapped spell-progression-wise. I think this is what bothers me the most honestly. Yes, blood ablities can be very handy, and I know any of my players who play a scion would want to develop them, but I doubt they would if they are spellcasters of any kind. Right now I still favor just requiring scions to only need to take the Blooded Scion feat at 1st levels to have access to all their powers, and balance be darned :)

[cvgawde]

I think you might still be missing something here.

You choose/roll your Bloodline strength at character creation, and it is an epic feat/deed to increase your bloodline strength, and should only occur at most once per generation. So it's not as simpe as "I take a Scion Level" to go from Minor to Major or Major to great. Your strength is already in place, the scion levels represent the work you've done to explore your potential.

If I am wrong about you missing it, then I am sorry.

When we were first talking about moving to 3ed BRCS one of my players said "So why wouldn't every character just take a Great bloodline, so you can have the scion levels when you want to?" That question caused me to require the Blooded Scion feat to even be blooded, and to allow you to start as your chosen profession, but you must take your scion levels at the first availablility, in other words, your 2nd and 3rd (if you have it) levels must be scion levels if you didn't start at 1st level. You can still start at 1st level as whatever class, but by 3rd level you have to have taken all the scion levels you can. This encourages some diversity in Bloodlines.


I think you're right about me missing the point, I forgot about that minor detail.

My campaigns usually start players at 1st level so they are often unable to initially gain the two levels of scion required for a great bloodline. Few of my players ever want to handicap themselves at low levels by missing out on spellcasting or other class-related abilities necessary for a balanced party (two levels without any magic could be intensely painful).

Since most players in Birthright have a burning desire to be blooded and in some cases it makes little sense to have everyone as minor, to restrict class abilities for the first level or two for those that want to take a major or great bloodline can really harm the flavor of the campaign. I mean if a PC regent rules a temple how do we justify the level 2 High Priest of Haelyn with the great bloodline that can't even cast divine magic? Or the level 1 source regent that won't be able to even utilize their source for another 2 levels? In these cases I've found it often wise to let the characters 'sit'on their scion levels for when they can take them without damaging their class features and harming the flavor of the campaign.

I've always been of the idea that your bloodline strength wasn't a static quality and that over time previously untouched power could manifest itself spontaneously. They certainly choose their bloodline and roll their scores at the onset of the campaign but I usually let them hold off on any sort of levels that can open up new abilities to them.

[Sigmund]

At 01:19 PM 9/6/2006, Sigmund wrote:

>I remember reading in the 2e setting that there are thought to be no
>more than 150 true wizards in all of Cerilia....

Argh. If there`s anything in the original materials that I actually
_hate_ it`s that one. I hate it worse than battlespells or the
warcard system (pthoo!) It`s so vague as to be meaningless (what
does "true wizard" mean?) and the number is so low that it makes the
already artificially small population numbers of Cerilia shrink down
to nearly nothing.... Oh, well.

Gary

Well, whether it's loved, hated, vague, or precise...it's in the book. It says to me, strictly accurate or not, that blooded individuals are meant to be rare and exceptional, which is why I included it in my post. It says to me that scions are meant to be a step above the masses in ability. Therefore, in my campaigns, both ones that I intend to run and ones I've played in, balancing blooded and nonblooded characters has never been a priority, and it never seemed to need to be. I played a wizard in a BR campaign who had a major bloodline, and I was 1 of only 2 characters in the group of 6 that was blooded at all and I don't recall anyone at the table ever complaining that either of us was more powerful...or overshadowing the others. We still all had our strengths and weaknesses. No matter how many blood powers I had, or how powerful they were, I was never going to be as good at toe to toe combat as the fighter, or as stealthy and skilled as the rogue.

[irdeggman]

Although I still don't like the idea of Scion class levels as a requirement for gaining blood powers, I do understand the point of balance being made. I confess I have no alternatives coming to me that would preserve flavor and balance. I have never been concerned with preserving (mechanical) balance all that much in my campaigns, as I've described, I usually try to use RPing to "balance" things.

That being said, I was wondering....would it make the character too powerful to let the scion class levels stack with spell-casting classes for the purposes of spell progression? Being that most of my campaigns are lower-level, with characters rarely reaching past 13-15th level before retiring, it's not the upper level spells that I'm worried about. It's that a 5th level wizard or cleric who has had to take 2 levels of scion just to develop his/her blood abilities is going to be seriously handicapped spell-progression-wise. I think this is what bothers me the most honestly. Yes, blood ablities can be very handy, and I know any of my players who play a scion would want to develop them, but I doubt they would if they are spellcasters of any kind. Right now I still favor just requiring scions to only need to take the Blooded Scion feat at 1st levels to have access to all their powers, and balance be darned :)

Well +1 to existing caster level would be rather meaningless if a scon must take scion class levels 1st. You have no caster level to add to.;)

There was a bit of discussion about having the Vorynn scion class have a +1 caster level benefit instead of the bonus 0-level spells. But the point I brought up caused the biggest issues. It also makes easier being a spellcaster (and BR is supposed to have fewer true casters than a normal campaign). The scion levels will help to enforce this. I would not however allow the free caster level progress for other derivations, since they really aren't tied to magic.

The Behind the curtain: Basis for scion class levels section in Chap 2 gives some examples of modifications that can be made. The one that comes to mind is to reduce the scion class level requirements to 1 for great and allow major to have no class level requisite. This will only slow your spellcaster progression by a single level (which anyone wishing to be a decent ruler should be willing to swallow).

Now having said that. The beneifts of being a regent (bonus hit points and regent benefits) should give a +1 LA (especially for wizards). Those bonus hit points are a huge benefit for a class with low HD. So if you wanted to make a house-rule, I would have the scion class be required in order to gain those benefits and then not for the other "level".

Something else to consider is that great bloodlines are supposed to be "rare". Requiring a character to take 2 levels in scion class to get full benefits also helps to reflect this.

[irdeggman]

Here is another possbility (for a house-rule):

Add a feat to allow the scion class levels to "stack":

Practiced Scion [General]

Your scion class levels stack with another class to improve the class abilities of that class.
Prerequisite: Blooded individual.
Benefit: Your scion class levels stack with the levels of the chosen class for purposes of gaining class abilities. If you have no levels in the applicable class yet this benefit applies in the future. That is you must first take a level in the applicable class before this benefit applies. If you have not taken any scion class levels yet this benefit applies once they are taken. For example if choosing wizard as the applicable class then scion class levels stack with wizard class levels when determining caster level, gaining new spells, number of spells per day, gaining wizard bonus feats, improving familiar abilities that are dependent on wizard class levels, etc.
Normal: Class levels do not stack.
Special: You may select this feat more than once. Each time you take this feat, it applies to a different class.

[Sigmund]

I like this feat...I don't mind at all making players use up feats to gain greater abilities...that's what feats are for after all. Since IMC my PCs aren't not going to start as regents, and might never become regents, I'm looking at the options to use the Scion class in my type of campaign and still not liking what I see. Having only one level of Scion instead of two doesn't appeal to me. I wouldn't mind making players have to determine bloodline strength and powers randomly, but I could do that without the scion class. Therefore, I am probably going to just use the Blooded Scion feat, and disallow starting with a great bloodline for the reasons already laid out in the rules. Still, the Scion class combined with this Practiced Scion feat seem to be a fine tool in more standard BR campaigns. I wonder...were feats granting access to different levels of blood abilities ever considered? What I mean is like having the Blooded Scion feat to even have a bloodline, then requiring feats like Blood Abilities (Minor), Blood Abilities (Major), etc. This would make having access to the different levels of powers kinda like having access to differing levels of weapons without having to use a class.

[irdeggman]

I wonder...were feats granting access to different levels of blood abilities ever considered? What I mean is like having the Blooded Scion feat to even have a bloodline, then requiring feats like Blood Abilities (Minor), Blood Abilities (Major), etc. This would make having access to the different levels of powers kinda like having access to differing levels of weapons without having to use a class.

See the following link:

http://www.birthright.net/showthread.php?t=2016&highlight=blood+ability+feats (http://www.birthright.net/showthread.php?t=2016&highlight=blood+ability+feats)

Basically Dragon magazine did it in issue #315. They revisited "old" settings with an "update" to 3.5 rules. They only did portions of things though. BR got a once over for blood abilites but really no tie in to score, or RP or how bloodlines interrelates with domain level of play, etc.

They also did their "official" version of defiling magic for Dark Sun which had follow ups in Dungeon and another Dragon magazine with Paizo's complete "official" rules, not to be confused with the other set of "official" rules at Athas.org. Basically this "push" for Dark Sun was a springboard for the Expanaded Psionics Handbook that was released at the same time.



A couple of other threads (from the WotC boards) on the feat like system.


http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=128954 (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=128954)


http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=201717 (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=201717)

[gazza666]

Now having said that. The beneifts of being a regent (bonus hit points and regent benefits) should give a +1 LA (especially for wizards). Those bonus hit points are a huge benefit for a class with low HD. So if you wanted to make a house-rule, I would have the scion class be required in order to gain those benefits and then not for the other "level".

With all due respect, it's not worth a 9th level spell (which, ultimately, it costs you).

Virtually nothing is worth giving up spellcasting progression for. But that is not a fault of the scion class system (the same problem exists if you make them templates), nor even a fault of the specific scion classes that exist - it's just that non-spellcasting classes don't have the same exponential rate of power growth that spellcasters have, which is a fault of D&D3e in general (if it is to be termed a fault at all).

[Sigmund]

With all due respect, it's not worth a 9th level spell (which, ultimately, it costs you).

Virtually nothing is worth giving up spellcasting progression for. But that is not a fault of the scion class system (the same problem exists if you make them templates), nor even a fault of the specific scion classes that exist - it's just that non-spellcasting classes don't have the same exponential rate of power growth that spellcasters have, which is a fault of D&D3e in general (if it is to be termed a fault at all).

I agree with this and it is at the root of both my difficulties with including the scion class, and my desire to attempt to convert BR to True20. However, I'm finding it very worthwhile to explore potential systems for using 3.5 in my specific BR campaign...thanks for all of ya'all's input and patience with a late-comer to the scene :)

After reading the threads on Dragon's treatment of BR, I can understand why members here were annoyed....it seemed to be both a slap in the face and a pretty crappy system to boot.

My idea was to leave the bloodline rules pretty much intact as ya'all have written them, only replacing the scion class with a feat tree to gain access to the bloodlines. So, in my theoretical system, a PC would be required to take Blooded Scion at 1st level to have a bloodline at all. The bloodline strength, derivation, and abilities would all be chosen/determined according to the raw, then the PC would be required to take Blood Power (minor), (major), etc.. up to the level of power they want in order to actually gain the use of their powers. The Blood Power feats would all have Blooded Scion as prereq, as well as the lower Blood Power feats....so to gain access to great powers, a PC would need the Blooded Scion, Blood Power (minor), and Blood Power (major) feats first, then take Blood Power (great). This would also allow for increases in strength down the road, as the PC could just then take the next feat(s) needed when they can to gain access to powers. Also, it wouldn't be so many feats that only a fighter could realistically do it, it would allow full class progression for spellcasters (and anyone else really), would simulate the time/effort needed for characters to hone their abilities by taking up feat slots non-blooded characters use for more directly class-related feats, and still allow players to decide if they want to develop their blood abilities or leave them latent and pursue them at a later time.

I understand that this probably won't have the balancing effect that the official rules need, but the more I think on it, the more I like the "feel" of it. If I decide to go with it in my campaign I'll be sure to post how it goes in actual application. In the meantime, I'd love to hear opinions/alternatives/revisions to the idea, as well as to the scion class in the raw.

P.S. Also, I would probably ban great bloodlines for beginning characters unless it fit the story.

[irdeggman]

With all due respect, it's not worth a 9th level spell (which, ultimately, it costs you).

Virtually nothing is worth giving up spellcasting progression for. But that is not a fault of the scion class system (the same problem exists if you make them templates), nor even a fault of the specific scion classes that exist - it's just that non-spellcasting classes don't have the same exponential rate of power growth that spellcasters have, which is a fault of D&D3e in general (if it is to be termed a fault at all).

Depends.

1 scion class level costs you 1 9th level and 1 8th level spell (per day). You still know as many as you could have (unless you are a sorcerer that is).

If playing a regent then you gain probably around 15-18 hit points. Using the set hit point advancement that is like getting hit points for 7 to 9 levels. These apply all the time.

If using the standard of 4 encounters per day then what real value is 2 spells? They are tremendously valuable if there is only a single high level encounter, but when broken down into multiple encounters their actual value breaks down dramatically.

You still have access to those spell levels. That means you can use scrolls with the spells on them for augmenting your daily casting.

If not playing a regent then things are different. You only get a d6 (or better) instead of a d4. Depending on the derivation things can get better with saving throws and such.

[Starmage21]

I agree with this and it is at the root of both my difficulties with including the scion class, and my desire to attempt to convert BR to True20. However, I'm finding it very worthwhile to explore potential systems for using 3.5 in my specific BR campaign...thanks for all of ya'all's input and patience with a late-comer to the scene :)

After reading the threads on Dragon's treatment of BR, I can understand why members here were annoyed....it seemed to be both a slap in the face and a pretty crappy system to boot.

My idea was to leave the bloodline rules pretty much intact as ya'all have written them, only replacing the scion class with a feat tree to gain access to the bloodlines. So, in my theoretical system, a PC would be required to take Blooded Scion at 1st level to have a bloodline at all. The bloodline strength, derivation, and abilities would all be chosen/determined according to the raw, then the PC would be required to take Blood Power (minor), (major), etc.. up to the level of power they want in order to actually gain the use of their powers. The Blood Power feats would all have Blooded Scion as prereq, as well as the lower Blood Power feats....so to gain access to great powers, a PC would need the Blooded Scion, Blood Power (minor), and Blood Power (major) feats first, then take Blood Power (great). This would also allow for increases in strength down the road, as the PC could just then take the next feat(s) needed when they can to gain access to powers. Also, it wouldn't be so many feats that only a fighter could realistically do it, it would allow full class progression for spellcasters (and anyone else really), would simulate the time/effort needed for characters to hone their abilities by taking up feat slots non-blooded characters use for more directly class-related feats, and still allow players to decide if they want to develop their blood abilities or leave them latent and pursue them at a later time.

I understand that this probably won't have the balancing effect that the official rules need, but the more I think on it, the more I like the "feel" of it. If I decide to go with it in my campaign I'll be sure to post how it goes in actual application. In the meantime, I'd love to hear opinions/alternatives/revisions to the idea, as well as to the scion class in the raw.

P.S. Also, I would probably ban great bloodlines for beginning characters unless it fit the story.

Feat starving is just as bad, or sometimes worse as we aready have. Everyone gets those 7 character feats fromm 1-20 but not everyone gets bonus feats from their classes. Wizards gain 4 more, fighters 11 more, rogues(potentially) 4 more, and humans gain 1 more on top of those.
Having played(and enjoyed) Star Wars D20 for some time, I dont mind burning a single feat to gain access to a few powers(in this case minor, since you have to take scion classes on top of it to gain appropriately leveled powers). The problem with this comparison is, there are no classes that automatically give you those feats.


The difference between the class system we have now, and the old LA system, is that you gain the benefits of levels(hit dice, BAB, saves, skills, and some bonuses to your blood score for more abilities), but it becomes that much harder to tack those onto the fluff.
Using blood abilities never required practice. Theyre more innate than sorcerer's casting spells. What bugs me the most about this is that the rules dont mesh with the fluff, or even carry on a tradition(of D&D).

It may be a bit radical, especially to those of you who think things need balance, but the majority of blood abilities do not have a significant effect on combat. For those abilities that do not affect combat(where true balance is needed), I see no reason to include level adjustments or class levels regardless of the range of their power.
Having the power to control or befriend all lions(Andurias Animal Affinity) doesnt help you when there are no lions around. A Bloodmark does nothing for you in a fight but to get you singled out by intelligent enemies who might have a lust for your power. Maybe you see my point.
It is my opinion that you just cast the idea of balance aside for this particular campaign setting. Blood abilities always were something extra that the Birthright PC received over those in other campaign worlds.

You also might consider the supposed lack of magic items in the Birthright Campaign Setting. Given the right amount of work on the DM's part, none of the powers received by scions would really need any balancing, given that they arent going to be wielding +5 Vorpal swords when they reach level 20(like the basic D&D 3.5e game assumes and bases their CR calculations on). They could be lucky to have +3 swords, and armor made from Mithril or Adamantine(whatever it's name is in this game).

[irdeggman]

It may be a bit radical, especially to those of you who think things need balance, but the majority of blood abilities do not have a significant effect on combat. For those abilities that do not affect combat(where true balance is needed), I see no reason to include level adjustments or class levels regardless of the range of their power.
Having the power to control or befriend all lions(Andurias Animal Affinity) doesnt help you when there are no lions around. A Bloodmark does nothing for you in a fight but to get you singled out by intelligent enemies who might have a lust for your power. Maybe you see my point.
It is my opinion that you just cast the idea of balance aside for this particular campaign setting. Blood abilities always were something extra that the Birthright PC received over those in other campaign worlds.


The following non-minor only blood abilities that have an effect in combat:

Berserker’s Blood
Charm Aura
Courage
Death Touch
Divine Aura
Divine Wrath
Elemental Control
Enhanced Sense (Good to avoid surprise)
Healing
Invulnerability (Special)
Light of Reason
Major Regeneration (Special)
Major Resistance
Persuasion
Protection from Evil
Regeneration (Special)
Resistance
Shadow Form
Touch of Decay
Whither Touch


There are several minor only blood abilties that have an effect on combat - like Alertness and Heightened Ability for example.

One of the biggest complaints before was that blood abilities don't have much of an efect on the non-adventuring level - which is one of the things adressed in the behind the curtain sidebar.

[kgauck]

I hardly consider combat the be all or end all of combat. Many adventures are skills based adventures in which combat plays a minor role. Second, I've re-balanced the classes because of this, typically by weaking them in combat, to account for their excellence elsewhere. The rogue's sneak attack is now a +1 damage, spell lists have been altered to make spell casters less combat oriented. One of the most powerful blood abilities a ruler can have is the ability to detect lies. Even though its effect for me is only a +10 to all sense motive checks, only substantially more powerful characters or the most devious liars can even decieve such a ruler. Likewise Character Reading, Persuasion, and Bloodmark are profound in their power. If the style of play in a BR campaign tends more towards governing than towards combat, social skills will be the more important ones.

[Sigmund]

Feat starving is just as bad, or sometimes worse as we aready have. Everyone gets those 7 character feats fromm 1-20 but not everyone gets bonus feats from their classes. Wizards gain 4 more, fighters 11 more, rogues(potentially) 4 more, and humans gain 1 more on top of those.
Having played(and enjoyed) Star Wars D20 for some time, I dont mind burning a single feat to gain access to a few powers(in this case minor, since you have to take scion classes on top of it to gain appropriately leveled powers). The problem with this comparison is, there are no classes that automatically give you those feats.




I don't see where it's feat starving. If the feats gave no return and were only required to gain access to more useful feats down the tree I might agree, but I personally don't see gaining access to blood abilities as feat starving. Most blooded characters will only need to use 2 feats (Blooded Scion and Blood Power (minor) ). A few might take that extra feat to gain major powers, and a very select few might be blessed with a great bloodline. Each of the bloodline feats would grant access to special abilities above and beyond class abilities... just like any other feats. I might not be too concerned with balance, but I'm not going to just grant a 1st level character free access to major blood powers without sacrificing anything in return. What I'm seeking is a compromise between the balancing rules as written, and the flavour I'm seeking for my campaign which is closer to the setting as originally designed. In the case of the feats, I'm so far thinking that the sacrifice of a bit of balance for flavour, and a bit of flavour for balance, is about right for my campaign. As for official rules, I feel the dev team as probably right to place their priority with balance because we who have played in BR before can always house rule to gain more of the original flavour, but those new to BR who we can hopefully attract, and who might not be as familiar with the original flavour, would be better served by a balanced set of rules that would allow the setting to be enjoyable for a variety of players/playstyles.

As I've said, the main reason I'm not just going with the scion class is that I'm not going to be running regents to start with, and so in the beginning the only reason my PCs would be likely to create blooded characters would be to gain access to true magic as, once again for campaign reasons, I will be restricting access to elves as a PC race.

[Cuchulainshound]

Being that most of my campaigns are lower-level, with characters rarely reaching past 13-15th level before retiring, it's not the upper level spells that I'm worried about.
In a game system that runs from 1-20, and a world that operates toward the bottom 2/3 of that span, could I suggest that "mid-level" might be more appropriate? Just a suggestion.


With all due respect, it's not worth a 9th level spell (which, ultimately, it costs you).

Virtually nothing is worth giving up spellcasting progression for.
Spoken like a true power-gamer, who would never consider trading away caster levels for something so petty as "color" or "flavour" in a character.

However, as with most of the House Rules that Sigmund listed above, to each their own. There is nothing wrong with one form or another of gaming, so long as players enjoy themselves.

And while I may not share the same impetus, I share the position. Whether it's caster-levels, or other aspects of the character, it's an inarguable fact that the Scion levels DO put it on hold for one or more levels...


It's that a 5th level wizard or cleric who has had to take 2 levels of scion just to develop his/her blood abilities is going to be seriously handicapped spell-progression-wise.
This is a truth, regardless of playstyle.

Further, regardless of what "class" a Scion is pursuing, apparently becoming Blooded means that they can't pursue their expected skill progression, unless that bloodline's skills happen to coincide with their normal class skill choices.

A Guilder with a Bloodline of Voryn? A Cleric or Magus with a Bloodline of Masela? Too bad. See ya in a level or two...

"Poor Alphonse, ever since becoming Blooded, his progress just hasn't been up to snuff. Shame, that... but have you seen him glow at sunset?!" :rolleyes:

In many myths and stories, after being "touched", the heroic figure, be they military or religious, goes on some form of journey or retreat. Whether spiritual or physical, they expand to fill the new shoes they're wearing- that's great for some stories. But not BirthRight.

Altho' both Levels and Templates produce effectively-identical results by 20th level, few BR games ever approach that high. Low-mid level characters don't always have the luxury to toss one level in the air, much less two. In BirthRight, to force a character to put their careers on hold for some bonus abilities is a painfully double-edged sword, and a dubious trade-off. The immediate delay can be crippling in competitive games, and frustrating in adventuring ones. Casters effetively "lose" casting power, and all but the luckiest characters take a hard detour from badly needed skill ranks.

Both these points are paradoxical with what "Blooded" should signify for a character. A character should not suddenly stop progressing for the sake of "fulfilling" some powers that are supposed to be gifts in the first place.

I-man- you said that you didn't want to interfere with some aspects of the game, and wanted to let the GM's make their own decisions. If a GM wants to "balance" blooded and non-blooded characters, it's up to them what that means- levels aren't the answer.

NO WHERE in the BRCS is it implied that non-Blooded characters are in any way equal to the level of Blooded. There is nothing "fair" or "balanced" about an X level Blooded Character vs an equal Level non-blooded, nor should there be!
Ymmv.

[gazza666]

Spoken like a true power-gamer, who would never consider trading away caster levels for something so petty as "color" or "flavour" in a character.
Correct, because colour and flavour don't have to be mechanically represented. I can roleplay colour and flavour; I don't need to be mechanically penalised for doing so.

Whether or not you fall on the side of the fence that sees any consideration of power level to be an abomination or not is irrelevant, really - game balance is what it boils down to. A non-spellcaster loses much less than a spellcaster when taking scion class levels. You are therefore penalising a spellcasting player who takes them for flavour or colour reasons.

Now, it's not the end of the world. If you think it's cool to do so, then that's all the reason you need. But the fact that some players are prepared to put up with a weaker character does not mean that it's not reasonable to point out that it is a considerably suboptimal choice.

And as I said before - I'm not advocating that scion levels should grant caster level progression. I don't really think it's that big a deal - those playing spellcasters that are prepared to accept the lowering of their power by taking scion levels will take them, and those that are not will just ignore them. That's fine. Not all character options are equally attractive to all character types.

[irdeggman]

I don't see where it's feat starving. If the feats gave no return and were only required to gain access to more useful feats down the tree I might agree, but I personally don't see gaining access to blood abilities as feat starving. Most blooded characters will only need to use 2 feats (Blooded Scion and Blood Power (minor) ). A few might take that extra feat to gain major powers, and a very select few might be blessed with a great bloodline. Each of the bloodline feats would grant access to special abilities above and beyond class abilities... just like any other feats. I might not be too concerned with balance, but I'm not going to just grant a 1st level character free access to major blood powers without sacrificing anything in return. What I'm seeking is a compromise between the balancing rules as written, and the flavour I'm seeking for my campaign which is closer to the setting as originally designed. In the case of the feats, I'm so far thinking that the sacrifice of a bit of balance for flavour, and a bit of flavour for balance, is about right for my campaign. As for official rules, I feel the dev team as probably right to place their priority with balance because we who have played in BR before can always house rule to gain more of the original flavour, but those new to BR who we can hopefully attract, and who might not be as familiar with the original flavour, would be better served by a balanced set of rules that would allow the setting to be enjoyable for a variety of players/playstyles.


Just as a suggestion.

You might want to lower your feat progression one step.

A feat to be blooded and another to gain blood power (Minor)?

Unless your definition of "minor" is different - I read this as the feat that makes you blooded only gives you a bloodline and derivation but no abilities.

If it went:

Blooded scion. - allows a character to have a bloodline, derivation and score. He has a minor bloodline and access minor blood abilities.

Blood Power (major) - prerequisite: blooded scion. A scion has a major bloodline and can now access major blood abilities.

Blood Power (great) - prerquisite: blooded scion, blood power (minor), blood power (major). A scion has a great blood line and can access great blood abilities.

I'd also throw in at the blood power (major) level - the regent benefits - bonus hit points and any of those other ones in Chap 8 allowed.

[ploesch]

You know, if you have a campaign where every PC is Blooded, then Balance can be thrown out the window. If that isn't going to be the case, then there should be a trade-off to being blooded.

IMO, if you aren't willing to pay a cost to be Blooded, then you are just a power gamer out for yourself and damn everyone else. As a matter of fact, the entire "I have to give up something to be Blooded" argument goes out the window since being a mino strength scion costs you nothing. Since giving up levels seems to be the argument, especially for casters, then you have no argument. Your only argument is "I want to be more than a minor scion without giving up anything" in which case, your just a power-gamer. The point of Balancing Blooded Vs. non-Blooded is not as much to balance the PC's vs. the Environment, but to balance a Blooded PC vs. and unblooded one.

Granted, LA templates or Scion Levels also Balance them versus the environment also. For this purpose, Scion levels are far superior, as the Blood abilities themselves don't make up for an entire level of any class, But HP, BAB, Saves and Skills along with other Scion bonuses and Blood Abilities do, not to mention the bonus Money or Magic item to start, and all the mundane equipment a starting character could want.

As I've said before, in different ways, Scion Levels are the absolute BEST way to to balance Blooded versus un-Blooded individuals. I just don't like the feel of them as much. It just makes Being Blooded feel more like a comodity than Divine essence.

I have to say, I really, really like the idea of a feat tree Sigmund put forward. They serve as a Worthy Balancing Mechanism, but allow Players to take full advantage of their classes. 3 feats as IRdeggman pointed out is all that would be needed, and very few Scions should need to take more than one or two.

I will be talking to my players and seeing if this is how they'd like to implement Blood abilities in our game.

/clap for Sigmund! Hip Hip Hooray!

I know that Chapters 1 and 2 are now Sanctioned, but perhaps we should open it back up for disciusion. Following the path of feats is in keeping with the flavor and Style of 3.5E and closer t 2E BRCS. It also brings back the feel of divinity, for me at least.

[Cuchulainshound]

Correct, because colour and flavour don't have to be mechanically represented.
When two entirely different viewpoints end up agreeing with the same conclusion, that should say something.

Maybe it's now written in stone and won't be reopened, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be.

(Could someone provide a link to those previous discussions/debates on Templates vs Levels, or point us in the direction of the archives or whatever, for those of us who arrived after the fact?)

[geeman]

At 11:13 AM 9/9/2006, ploesch wrote:

>You know, if you have a campaign where every PC is Blooded, then
>Balance can be thrown out the window. If that isn`t going to be the
>case, then there should be a trade-off to being blooded.

"Balance" between PC is important, but it is also important for the
DM in determining CR when designing adventures and for awarding
XP. A good way of accounting for bloodline keeps the system
commensurate with that aspect of the game too.

Gary

[irdeggman]

(Could someone provide a link to those previous discussions/debates on Templates vs Levels, or point us in the direction of the archives or whatever, for those of us who arrived after the fact?)

They were on the pinned thread for BRCS FAQ above.

But since the boards have moved servers a few times - a lot of the links were broken and no longer work.

I just updated the Chap 2 ones though so they should be working now.

Just for information there is a search tool that can be used to find things you might want to check out. It is in the user bar at the top.

http://www.birthright.net/showthread.php?t=2189

[gazza666]

IMO, if you aren't willing to pay a cost to be Blooded, then you are just a power gamer out for yourself and damn everyone else.

Not so much "damn everyone else", but rather "why wouldn't I?" But most power gamers, while they certainly would take advantage of a powerup with no cost involved, would also have no problem with recognising that it was a loophole.

As the resident power gamer, I 100% agree that minor bloodlines are fairly cheap to have. In the playtest rules, there was a slight cost - nonblooded characters effectively got 32 points to spend on 6 abilities, while blooded characters had to spread it amongst 7 - but I'm not sure that applies anymore (what is the standard method for bloodline score now - generate as per playtest rules and then double it? I'll assume that's the procedure for the sake of argument). It's not a real cost in any case; one of the minor bloodline abilities is to boost a score by 2. If you spend 2 of your 32 points on bloodline score you end up with a 20 bloodline strength, enough for one minor ability. Boosting your primary ability score from 16 to 18 costs 8 points, so you're 6 points ahead of the non-blooded character.

(The above power gaming analysis has probably disgusted most of you - my apologies for that).

So anyway, there's a definite balance problem if you're going to mix blooded and nonblooded characters in the same campaign, even if none of the blooded guys are regents. Having to give up a feat, imposing a template, or requiring them to take a scion level goes some way to rebalancing things. I'd be in favour of it. The only reason it hasn't come up in our campaign is because all the PCs are regents, and thus the relative power level is the same.

[Sigmund]

In a game system that runs from 1-20, and a world that operates toward the bottom 2/3 of that span, could I suggest that "mid-level" might be more appropriate? Just a suggestion.

While this is true, I describe my campaigns as "lower-level" because while I have had PCs reach 12thish level, the vast majority retire around 8thish. I have yet to run 3.5, and most of my campaigns were 2nd edition, so maybe that will change. It's just semantics really anyway, and my point stands that the 2 scion levels severely damage spell progression for spellcasters.

While scion levels might make it easier for Dms to balance campaigns, and nonblooded to balance blooded, for clerics and wizards, it's going to delay their spell progression possibly to the point where it will interfere with their effectiveness in an adventuring party. They are going to be behind in spell levels, caster levels, spell save DCs, spell durations, AoEs, etc.. Are even great blood abilities going to be worth it? For adventuring campaigns this is a serious consideration. I especially am trying to keep wizards in mind. Clerics can be clerics without being blooded, but to have a PC wizard who isn't an elf, the PC must be blooded. For the wizard with a major bloodline or better, under the raw, they are going to be forced to sacrifice either their blood abilities, or their class progression.... and that would be all true magic users who are not elves.

[Sigmund]

Just as a suggestion.

You might want to lower your feat progression one step.

A feat to be blooded and another to gain blood power (Minor)?

Unless your definition of "minor" is different - I read this as the feat that makes you blooded only gives you a bloodline and derivation but no abilities.

If it went:

Blooded scion. - allows a character to have a bloodline, derivation and score. He has a minor bloodline and access minor blood abilities.

Blood Power (major) - prerequisite: blooded scion. A scion has a major bloodline and can now access major blood abilities.

Blood Power (great) - prerquisite: blooded scion, blood power (minor), blood power (major). A scion has a great blood line and can access great blood abilities.

I'd also throw in at the blood power (major) level - the regent benefits - bonus hit points and any of those other ones in Chap 8 allowed.


Perhaps you're right. I guess I'm still thinking "tainted" would be just the Blooded Scion feat. I'll have to give it some thought.

[gazza666]

For the wizard with a major bloodline or better, under the raw, they are going to be forced to sacrifice either their blood abilities, or their class progression.... and that would be all true magic users who are not elves.
I agree, but that's really not something you can reasonably blame on Birthright. There are similar problems if you have a player that wants to play something like a half-celestial wizard or cleric - spellcasting classes are disproportionately weakened by anything that disrupts their spellcasting progression. The problem is that while warrior and rogue types tend to get linearly more powerful (or, at most, polynomially more powerful) spellcasters get exponentially more powerful, perhaps even more so at low levels than high levels (the difference between a wizard of 4th level and 5th level - 3rd level spells, in other words - is marked).

That's just Dungeons and Dragons - it's been like that since the original white box.

[ploesch]

I have to point out once again. IT IS YOUR CHOICE TO LOSE CHARACTER LEVELS TO SCION LEVELS.

I don't know how you can complain about a choice you make. If you are a Wizard and don't want to sacrifice spell progression for Blood abilities, then choose to be a minor scion, and you don't have to sacrifice anything.

If you CHOOSE to have great Blood Powers, then you should have to give something up.

Otherwise, why stop there. Wizards should be able to wear Full Plate, and get extra feats, BAB and HP of a fighter, and the Monks special abilities. Wait, what's that I hear, it would be unbalanced? Geez, I think that's been the point. You can be just as effective a wizard with a minor Bloodline as a Great one. If you have to have the great bloodline, then be prepared to make sacrifices for that choice. If you aren't, then all you want is free power, that is not balanced. PC to PC balance is important.

[gazza666]

I don't know how you can complain about a choice you make. If you are a Wizard and don't want to sacrifice spell progression for Blood abilities, then choose to be a minor scion, and you don't have to sacrifice anything.
Well, let's see. Let's change things up a bit. We'll have clerics and wizards as per normal D&D rules, but we'll remove fighters and rogues, replacing them with warriors and experts instead. That's not unbalanced at all, because you choose to be a warrior or expert instead of a spellcaster... ;)

The point is not that spellcasters are forced to give up spellcasting progression and take scion levels - obviously they are not in any way forced to do this. Rather, the point is that the choice is not equal. A fighter or rogue (for example) gives up much less than a spellcaster does, but gets the same powers as the spellcaster who has sacrificed relatively much more.

However, I freely admit that if scion class levels gave full spellcasting progression then the balance would swing too far the other way. The end result is that spellcasting scions that exploit their blood abilities - in other words, they take the appropriate levels in a scion class - are making a (very) suboptimal choice compared not only to their non-blooded spellcasting buddies, but also to their scion fighter and rogue compatriots. One could suggest that this was counter-intuitive (especially for clerics; intuition would suggest that clerics - closer to the gods than most classes - would be in the best position to exploit alternate source of divine energy such as blood abilities). But it's probably still the best solution, as most of the alternatives are worse.


Otherwise, why stop there. Wizards should be able to wear Full Plate, and get extra feats, BAB and HP of a fighter, and the Monks special abilities.
It's not the same, though. Compare a 1st level fighter and a 1st level wizard, both of whom have a Great bloodline of Anduiras. If the fighter takes the next 2 levels in Scion of Anduiras, the only class feature he loses is a single feat. The wizard, by comparison, has a lot more hit points than a 3rd level wizard would have, and has a BAB of 1 point higher, but he's still casting one 1st level spell per day. If you had a party of 3rd level characters that needed a fighter, you would probably not consider the fact that the scion only had 1 bonus feat instead of 2 was much of a detriment, but the wizard wouldn't look nearly as attractive.

OK, yes, they'd have those lovely blood abilities to compensate. And chosen carefully, at 3rd level that might well be more valuable than the loss of a 2nd level spell. But the blood abilities are relatively static, and the cost is forever. At 20th level, the fighter is still only down 1 feat, and given the power of great blood abilities, even at 20th level he's still probably better off than a pure 20th level fighter would be. The wizard is down 2 9th level spells per day, and for most of his career he has been 1 whole spell level behind.

Nobody is suggesting that some sort of sacrifice is inappropriate to "pay" for the blood abilities. The issue is that it costs more for some characters than others. Again, though, there's no easy solution to that; anything that costs spellcasting progression is (arguably) prohibitively expensive for spellcasters, just because spellcasting progression is so much more powerful than any other class feature.


You can be just as effective a wizard with a minor Bloodline as a Great one.
And yet if you substitute "fighter" or "rogue" for wizard there, the statement is no longer true. That's the issue. There's no solution, but that doesn't mean it isn't a problem (albeit nothing worth losing sleep over).

[geeman]

I just wanted to chime in with a couple comments about the issue of
the scion class levels vs. wizard levels.

First off, I don`t think it`s really a fair comparison. When it
boils down to it the 3e magic system is not balanced. It`s not worth
giving up those last few levels of the wizard class for scion levels
because nothing is. Ninth level spells are, short of some--not even
all--artifacts, the most powerful thing in the game, even when
compared to the powers of bloodline. Now, personally, I think that`s
a direct commentary on how the screwy the 3e magic system is. After
all, if one would rather have a wizard level than something that
equates to the legacy of godly power that bloodline represents then
it`s pretty clear there`s something funky going on, but the overall
point here is that the comparison itself is flawed not because the
choice is incorrect but because the system that choice is based on is
off-kilter. D&D 3e is a better system to portray the majority of BR
standards and situations, but in this particular case I think using a
3e version of character class as balance illustrates how it doesn`t
do everything well.

Second, one should really bear in mind that BR is meant to be a low
level setting. Spell levels at the upper end are clearly more
powerful than bloodline, but the general premise is that characters
are going to remain at the lower end of the level system. To a large
extent, this is again a 3e problem since 3e characters tend to level
up faster than they used to for various reasons, but the point here
is that the comparison is again flawed because it discounts one of
the more significant aspects of the setting; players shouldn`t be
confronted with the more standard, D&D, Forgotten Realms, metagaming
thinking that goes "do I want my wizard to have to wait a few levels
to get those 8th or 9th level spells." It should be clear that
getting to such a level is extremely unlikely in the first place.

Lastly, I`ve mentioned before that I don`t personally see bloodline
as a character class. The merits of balancing the scion class with
its demerits, and the mechanic itself as function winds up more in
the negative than the positive, so from a more pragmatic standpoint I
think the argument is somewhat moot since the bloodline system can be
accounted for more easily and in a way that it more in-line with the
original concept by assigning it a gp value and assuming that it will
be treated as inventory rather than use the somewhat obtuse system of
LA, a character class, templates or whatever. The major problem with
the "bloodline as inventory" method is that it requires DMs and
players to employ mathematical functions that have been largely
expunged from D&D. One must bare the unholy "devisor" in order to
determine functional level and that`s just not the way things are
done nowadays. (It works well enough for me, though.)

Gary

[Sigmund]

I have to point out once again. IT IS YOUR CHOICE TO LOSE CHARACTER LEVELS TO SCION LEVELS.

I don't know how you can complain about a choice you make. If you are a Wizard and don't want to sacrifice spell progression for Blood abilities, then choose to be a minor scion, and you don't have to sacrifice anything.

If you CHOOSE to have great Blood Powers, then you should have to give something up.

Otherwise, why stop there. Wizards should be able to wear Full Plate, and get extra feats, BAB and HP of a fighter, and the Monks special abilities. Wait, what's that I hear, it would be unbalanced? Geez, I think that's been the point. You can be just as effective a wizard with a minor Bloodline as a Great one. If you have to have the great bloodline, then be prepared to make sacrifices for that choice. If you aren't, then all you want is free power, that is not balanced. PC to PC balance is important.


You really didn't have to point that out again. I'm confident that all of us currently posting to, and reading, this thread are mindful of the fact that taking levels in any class is a choice. My issue is that only the true wizard of non-elven origin is forced to sacrifice one or the other to even have his/her PC be that class. A non-elven character CAN NOT be a true wizard without being blooded. If they pay for a major bloodline at chargen, they MUST sacrifice their primary class feature to take advantage of it. If the DM happens to be using random bloodline generation, and the wizard player is lucky enough to roll major bloodline or better, they once again MUST sacrifice their primary class feature to have use of it. Again, what bothers me is that the true magic user is the ONLY class that MUST be blooded to belong to the class, yet they are penalised the severest by the raw for it.

I don't blame BR for it. I don't blame DnD, WotC, TSR, EGG, the BR.net dev team, or even Sandy Claws for it....it's a sticky problem. I'm just presenting my take on it and trying to come up with a solution that will fit my campaign, yet not give away too much "free" power, making the blooded PCs overshadow non-blooded in actual play. Being that it's been awhile since I Dmed, I'm glad I have this forum to work out issues like this beforehand with input from wiser and more experienced DMs than I :)

[ploesch]

My issue is that only the true wizard of non-elven origin is forced to sacrifice one or the other to even have his/her PC be that class.
But, according to the 3E rulesyou choose your Blood level, and you only ned to be blooded to be a true wizard. So once again, it comes to choice.

IF, in your game, you choose to randomly determine Blood lines, levels and powers, then I would suggest doing away with scion levels altogether, OR making them optional and only requiring the Blooded Scion feat to get the random rolls to detrmine strength, derivation, and ALL your powers. The Scion Levels just giving the other bonuses, and not being required to represent your ability to access powers. It seems to me if you are going for more of a 2E style, where your Bloodline strength derivation and powers are randomly determined, then the Scion levels are somewhat out of place. Perhaps that is your true Issue, not BRCS, but your GM mxing styles.

If you play how the game as "intended" then you choose your bloodline strength, and derivation and powers. So choosing to be of a higher bloodline than Minor as a Wizard is your choice. You don't need to be more than a minor Scion to be a true wizard, and anything more you should accept the choice you made.

Maybe we've been talking apples and oranges the whole time, and you literaly don't have a choice in your game because of random generation. But if we are talking by the rules, then there is always a choice.

As for Wizards giving up more than a fighter when taking Scion levels, well, that is true, but only when considering say 8th+ level spells. Arguably wizards gain more benefit than any other class at lower levels taking Scion levels, better HP and BAB than normal when they tend to be using normal atacks more often. Especially if we are talking 2 levels of scion where you can take great powers, but even at one level, and major powers there are some incredible abilities.

[Sigmund]

But, according to the 3E rulesyou choose your Blood level, and you only ned to be blooded to be a true wizard. So once again, it comes to choice.

IF, in your game, you choose to randomly determine Blood lines, levels and powers, then I would suggest doing away with scion levels altogether, OR making them optional and only requiring the Blooded Scion feat to get the random rolls to detrmine strength, derivation, and ALL your powers. The Scion Levels just giving the other bonuses, and not being required to represent your ability to access powers. It seems to me if you are going for more of a 2E style, where your Bloodline strength derivation and powers are randomly determined, then the Scion levels are somewhat out of place. Perhaps that is your true Issue, not BRCS, but your GM mxing styles.

If you play how the game as "intended" then you choose your bloodline strength, and derivation and powers. So choosing to be of a higher bloodline than Minor as a Wizard is your choice. You don't need to be more than a minor Scion to be a true wizard, and anything more you should accept the choice you made.

Maybe we've been talking apples and oranges the whole time, and you literaly don't have a choice in your game because of random generation. But if we are talking by the rules, then there is always a choice.

As for Wizards giving up more than a fighter when taking Scion levels, well, that is true, but only when considering say 8th+ level spells. Arguably wizards gain more benefit than any other class at lower levels taking Scion levels, better HP and BAB than normal when they tend to be using normal atacks more often. Especially if we are talking 2 levels of scion where you can take great powers, but even at one level, and major powers there are some incredible abilities.


True, a player only needs to be blooded to be a true magic user. My issue is that no other class needs to be blooded at all. Why should the one class that needs to be blooded suffer the most for it? If a player wanted their PC to have higher BAB and more HPs then I submit that perhaps they wouldn't be wanting to play a wizard. In my experience, player play wizards so they can cast spells. Since, in BR, wizards who are not elves must be blooded to even be wizards, why must wizard players be the only ones to have to make the hard choice of either settling for minor blood powers, or sacrificing their primary class feature's progression to gain what other classes can gain for what is a much less severe penalty.... especially when for other classes to even be blooded is simply another choice much like race or alignment....if they want it they can take it, or not.

Also, as I have previously stated, the loss of high level spell slots is actually the least of a wizard's sacrifices... it is much more punishing for the low level wizard.

Also, I would contend that BR was originally "intended" to be random... that is the system presented in the original setting rules. It has only been changed to fit in more with 3.x . Keep in mind, once again, that I am not trying to "blame" anyone for anything. I'm just trying to hammer out a system that I feel would work in my campaign.... official or not. I don't happen to like the idea of scion levels. Whether they provide balance or not I feel they force players, most especially arcane casters, to sacrifice too much for what they gain.

As I've already asserted, I will most likely be using the feat tree that I posted in my campaign, although I'm still trying to decide whether to grant minor ability usage to the Blooded Scion feat, or require an extra Blood Powers (minor) feat for them. IMO the feat tree requires a player to make a choice... to sacrifice some feats they might otherwise have taken in order to use their blood powers, without forcing them to sacrifice abilities that actually define their chosen class.

[ploesch]

True, a player only needs to be blooded to be a true magic user. My issue is that no other class needs to be blooded at all. Why should the one class that needs to be blooded suffer the most for it? If a player wanted their PC to have higher BAB and more HPs then I submit that perhaps they wouldn't be wanting to play a wizard. In my experience, player play wizards so they can cast spells. Since, in BR, wizards who are not elves must be blooded to even be wizards, why must wizard players be the only ones to have to make the hard choice of either settling for minor blood powers, or sacrificing their primary class feature's progression to gain what other classes can gain for what is a much less severe penalty.... especially when for other classes to even be blooded is simply another choice much like race or alignment....if they want it they can take it, or not.

Also, as I have previously stated, the loss of high level spell slots is actually the least of a wizard's sacrifices... it is much more punishing for the low level wizard.

Also, I would contend that BR was originally "intended" to be random... that is the system presented in the original setting rules. It has only been changed to fit in more with 3.x . Keep in mind, once again, that I am not trying to "blame" anyone for anything. I'm just trying to hammer out a system that I feel would work in my campaign.... official or not. I don't happen to like the idea of scion levels. Whether they provide balance or not I feel they force players, most especially arcane casters, to sacrifice too much for what they gain.

As I've already asserted, I will most likely be using the feat tree that I posted in my campaign, although I'm still trying to decide whether to grant minor ability usage to the Blooded Scion feat, or require an extra Blood Powers (minor) feat for them. IMO the feat tree requires a player to make a choice... to sacrifice some feats they might otherwise have taken in order to use their blood powers, without forcing them to sacrifice abilities that actually define their chosen class.
Actually, I think that is perfectly within the flavor of Birthright where True Wizards are supposed to be rare. All the more reason for them to be rare since they have to give up some spell progression.

Right, in 2E Birthright level of being blooded was random, and your strength determined your Blood Points. There also wern't any disadvantages for Blooded Scions, it was the opposite way, there were advantages given to non-Blooded PC's. It was a kind of balance, and by the time say level 10 was reached the non-blooded PC would typically be a level higher than a blooded one, maybe, but not likely, 2 levels higher than a mage since mages required the most XP to level.

But like I said if you are going to stick with Random determination, then I would suggest not using the Scion levels or making them completely optional.

Also, like I said before, I really like your idea of using feats. However, I think the Feats work better without the random system. If you are set on Randomly generating feats, I would at most require 3 feats, one for each level of Blood Powers. But just one feat, taken at character creation, is fair enough. Being randomly required to take feats would be annoying to me.

[Sigmund]

Actually, I think that is perfectly within the flavor of Birthright where True Wizards are supposed to be rare. All the more reason for them to be rare since they have to give up some spell progression.

Right, in 2E Birthright level of being blooded was random, and your strength determined your Blood Points. There also wern't any disadvantages for Blooded Scions, it was the opposite way, there were advantages given to non-Blooded PC's. It was a kind of balance, and by the time say level 10 was reached the non-blooded PC would typically be a level higher than a blooded one, maybe, but not likely, 2 levels higher than a mage since mages required the most XP to level.

But like I said if you are going to stick with Random determination, then I would suggest not using the Scion levels or making them completely optional.

Also, like I said before, I really like your idea of using feats. However, I think the Feats work better without the random system. If you are set on Randomly generating feats, I would at most require 3 feats, one for each level of Blood Powers. But just one feat, taken at character creation, is fair enough. Being randomly required to take feats would be annoying to me.


Ok, I see what you're saying, and I can agree. I will most likely let players choose and use the feat tree. I am not set on using the random system, I simply considered it as an alternative to the scion class. Since I will not be using the scion class, I might rename it regent class for my campaign and require it of regents in order to access regent benefits. In the case of a ruling regent, it would make more sense to me that the PC might not have the time to develop their adventuring class due to their regent duties/abilities demanding their time and effort.

[ThatSeanGuy]

As I've already asserted, I will most likely be using the feat tree that I posted in my campaign, although I'm still trying to decide whether to grant minor ability usage to the Blooded Scion feat, or require an extra Blood Powers (minor) feat for them.

I really think minor powers should just come along with the Blooded Scion feat, if you're using a feat tree. I mean, most minor powers are just that-they're nice, and they can be pretty interesting, but I think access to them without any other benefits is kind of overdoing it. Major and Great, more likely.

How would you handle improving say, Animal Affinity, from a Minor to Major power under this system?

[Sigmund]

I really think minor powers should just come along with the Blooded Scion feat, if you're using a feat tree. I mean, most minor powers are just that-they're nice, and they can be pretty interesting, but I think access to them without any other benefits is kind of overdoing it. Major and Great, more likely.

How would you handle improving say, Animal Affinity, from a Minor to Major power under this system?

Not sure yet to be honest. I imagine if a PC improved their blood strength from minor to major, and wanted to have the animal affinity improve, I'd allow them to select another related minor power. All the feats do is grant access to that level of power. For example, if a PC gained strength through the death of another scion and it raised their level to major strength, I'd have them simulate this by taking the Blood Power (major) feat, and then choosing a major power (or raising a minor power and choosing a minor power). I imagine I might even let them do this in the middle of a level, and then basically use up their next feat slot, but grant them access to the feat early once again to simulate the immediacy and spontenaety of blood powers.

Also, the reason I'm still on the fence about granting minor powers to the Blooded Scion feat is because in the original setting there are characters that are blooded, but don't have any blood powers. I set the feats at minor, major and great so that characters could be created who are blooded and can be regents, but just barely. For example, Jorrik the Wanderer, from the Rjurik Highlands supplement, is listed as having a bloodline of Vorynn, tainted, 11 and no blood powers. If the Blooded Scion feat alone grants access to minor powers, then why would any character not take at least a minor power? However, if an extra feat is required to get minor powers, some characters might be blooded to grant access to true magic or regency, but not want to give up the extra feats for blood powers. This is my thinking on the Blood Powers (minor) feat.

[ploesch]

For example, Jorrik the Wanderer, from the Rjurik Highlands supplement, is listed as having a bloodline of Vorynn, tainted, 11 and no blood powers.
Here's the thing, he doesn't have any powers because his Score is so low, granted, in 2E with that score he would have had a chance at one minor blood power, but only a slim one. Under the 3E system, you don't gain your first Minor Power until you have a Bloodscore of 20. So, even under 3E Rules, Jorrik the wanderer would have no blood powers, it's just that in 3E he doesn't have any as a matter of course, while in 2E he just didn't have the luck. He might even still be reffered to as tainted, since he would be a minor scion with a score less than 20, eventhough there technically isn't a tainted Strength in 3E BRCS.

I think that's why most of use are saying 3 feats total, instead of 4, but I see where you are coming from, and you have to decide whats best for your game. Here's another consideration, all things being equal. If you use 4 feats, Only humans would be able to start with Minor powers, other races wouldn't get their powers until 3rd level, and even humans wouldn't be able to get major powers until 6th level, 9th level for everyone else. With 3 feats everyone could start with Minor Powers, and humans would have al their powers by at most 3rd level, other races 6th level, which is much more reasonable, IMO. However, you have to consider what is best for your game. Maybe you don't want people to have great powers until 6th or 9th level.

[Sigmund]

Here's the thing, he doesn't have any powers because his Score is so low, granted, in 2E with that score he would have had a chance at one minor blood power, but only a slim one. Under the 3E system, you don't gain your first Minor Power until you have a Bloodscore of 20. So, even under 3E Rules, Jorrik the wanderer would have no blood powers, it's just that in 3E he doesn't have any as a matter of course, while in 2E he just didn't have the luck. He might even still be reffered to as tainted, since he would be a minor scion with a score less than 20, eventhough there technically isn't a tainted Strength in 3E BRCS.

I think that's why most of use are saying 3 feats total, instead of 4, but I see where you are coming from, and you have to decide whats best for your game. Here's another consideration, all things being equal. If you use 4 feats, Only humans would be able to start with Minor powers, other races wouldn't get their powers until 3rd level, and even humans wouldn't be able to get major powers until 6th level, 9th level for everyone else. With 3 feats everyone could start with Minor Powers, and humans would have al their powers by at most 3rd level, other races 6th level, which is much more reasonable, IMO. However, you have to consider what is best for your game. Maybe you don't want people to have great powers until 6th or 9th level.


Actually, you're right...I just wasn't thinking about the strength score. I agree, put the way you did about how high in level characters would need to be, eliminating the minor level feat makes the most sense. So, my tree will be:

Blooded Scion
Blood Powers (Major)
Blood Powers (Great)

Also, to qualify for a great bloodline, it must be needed to advance the storyline, or the player better have a damn good backstory to sell me on it :)

This means the majority of blooded characters in my campaign will have access to their full blood potential by 3rd level...that sounds just right to me.

[gazza666]

I have some reservations about this.

If it's to balance scions against other scions, no real problem - I don't think feats are quite as elegant as scion levels, but they're not awful.

However, if it is intended that giving up a feat is enough to balance even minor blood abilities against non-scions, then I feel that this system is somewhat overpowered. I'm not aware of any feat that grants comparable power to even minor bloodline abilities - certainly not great bloodline abilities. That means from a balance perspective scions are still getting a much better deal than non-scions.

It's a pretty sticky problem, though, to balance scions against non-scions without going so far so as to make scions seem unattractive. I wouldn't want to mix the two, personally.

[ploesch]

I have some reservations about this.

If it's to balance scions against other scions, no real problem - I don't think feats are quite as elegant as scion levels, but they're not awful.

However, if it is intended that giving up a feat is enough to balance even minor blood abilities against non-scions, then I feel that this system is somewhat overpowered. I'm not aware of any feat that grants comparable power to even minor bloodline abilities - certainly not great bloodline abilities. That means from a balance perspective scions are still getting a much better deal than non-scions.

It's a pretty sticky problem, though, to balance scions against non-scions without going so far so as to make scions seem unattractive. I wouldn't want to mix the two, personally.
I do tend to agree with ou on that point Gazza. Perhaps we can come up with a bonus for un-blooded characters.

To me the Feats have a better overall feel than the level system, but they don't quite balance unblooded versus blooded. I know this contradicts what I've said before, but I've had a little more time to think about it, and another session with my group to talk about it. They actually said they like the Levels better, but none of them are playing wizards, and they all got decent items as heirlooms, so would take the scion levels anyway. :)

I realy don't know what would make up for it. Perhaps additional feats?

[cvgawde]

In 2e we would give a 15% experience bonus to unblooded characters. It was agreed that in 3e since an unblooded character lacked in the abilities granted to scions that they would gain an experience bonus in this forum of play as well, since their encounters were often more difficult than for their blooded counterparts.

[geeman]

cvgawde writes:

> In 2e we would give a 15% experience bonus to unblooded characters. It
> was agreed that in 3e since an unblooded character lacked in the
> abilities granted to scions that they would gain an experience bonus in
> this forum of play as well, since their encounters were often more
> difficult than for their blooded counterparts.

You know, I really wonder if that`s not just the simplest and most
reasonable solution to the balancing bloodline issue. I was never happy
with the BR 2e 10% method, but mostly because I don`t think it was
realistic, and seemed a rather poor fit in that the range of benefits from
bloodline could be so drastic. A scion with a paltry little tainted
bloodline has the same "penalty" (or doesn`t get the same benefit) as does a
scion with a great, or even "True" bloodline, so Rogr Aglondier`s bloodline
is supposedly balanced with the Gorgon`s....

But what if rather than giving commoners a 10% (or in your case 15) bonus,
they paid a penalty based on their bloodline strength. 5-20% for tainted,
minor, major and great bloodlines. Boom. Simple and easy.

Of course, it does require people to whip out the old calculator to do the
kind of math that 3e seems to avoid. (I honestly don`t relate to the 3e
avoidance of anything but addition and subtraction.) However, it seems like
a much easier way of dealing with bloodline than a character class, or any
of the other standard 3e methods like adjustments or templates.

Why not a simple XP penalty that scales up from 5-20% for scions?

Gary

[DanMcSorley]

On 9/11/06, Birthright Owner <geeman@softhome.net> wrote:
> Why not a simple XP penalty that scales up from 5-20% for scions?

Because such a penalty makes next to no difference at low levels, and
is most significant at high levels. Conversely, blood abilities tend
to be most significant at low levels, and less at high levels.

At low levels, a 10% experience penalty will rarely result in a scion
being a level lower than a non-scion- it is expected that about 13
encounters will level up a party, so it takes between 1 and 2 extra
encounters for a scion to level up compared to a non-scion. By the
time they reach high levels, though, if you`ve been 10% behind every
time experience is calculated, you`re a full level behind- to reach
20th level, you need 190,000 xp; the scion will by that time have
accumulated 171,000 xp, and reach 19th level just as everyone else
reaches 20th.

Blood abilities tend to be most useful at low levels, because they
give an extra supernatural or spell-like ability that is usually
usable once or a few times per day, and has a low to moderate in-game
effect. The scion will effectively get the ability for free at low
levels, and will still have it at high levels, when it is much less
useful, but he`s still being penalized the same for it.

--
Daniel McSorley

[geeman]

Daniel McSorley writes:

> Blood abilities tend to be most useful at low levels, because they
> give an extra supernatural or spell-like ability that is usually
> usable once or a few times per day, and has a low to moderate in-game
> effect. The scion will effectively get the ability for free at low
> levels, and will still have it at high levels, when it is much less
> useful, but he`s still being penalized the same for it.

I hear this argument made from time to time regarding various 3e situations,
and it makes a certain amount of sense. It`s the rationale behind allowing
sorcerers to restructure their spells in 3.5, for example, and gets used to
describe how templates should or shouldn`t be employed.

However, I have to point out that the same could be said for a broad range
of 3e issues from feats to the spell system. Many things in the system at
low levels are outweighed by things employed at high levels--it`s just
another shade of the issue regarding taking scion levels versus access to
high level spells for wizards. A feat chosen at 6th level might not seem
all that useful when the same PC is 16th. That`s just the way the character
sheet crumples.

The argument also discounts a more important issue for BR purposes and that
is that it only considers the adventure level of play. PCs are more than
likely to become regents or gain access to the domain level of play, which
is not accounted for in the current incarnation of the rules (nor was it,
really, in 2e.) A straight penalty would at least consider that scions are
able to take advantage of a whole new level of play which reaps them various
adventure level benefits.

Lastly, I still think it`s important to recognize that BR is _supposed_ to
be a "low-level" setting, so the issue with diminishing value of blood
abilities (bloodline score remains just as valuable) should not really be at
issue as it might be in another setting. At least, the argument is as
problematic as the one regarding wizards or characters of any class having
to forego their high level abilities for scion levels that have a
diminishing payoff.

At least with a percentage payoff, however, those diminishing returns are
less substantial than they are using class levels. At the highest rate of
penalty, as you noted, a character will be a full level behind at upper
levels, but using character levels he`s 1+ levels "behind" in class
abilities. It strikes me as being more of a six/half-dozen issue.

Gary

[DanMcSorley]

On 9/11/06, Birthright Owner <geeman@softhome.net> wrote:
> I hear this argument made from time to time regarding various 3e situations,
> and it makes a certain amount of sense. It`s the rationale behind allowing
> sorcerers to restructure their spells in 3.5, for example, and gets used to
> describe how templates should or shouldn`t be employed.
>
> The argument also discounts a more important issue for BR purposes and that
> is that it only considers the adventure level of play.

As it should. Levels and other game statistical artifacts are
balanced around adventures and character vs character vs monster
balance. Character level has next to no influence on domain vs domain
balance; far more important for domains are RP and GB income,
holdings, and provinces, which likewise don`t directly influence
adventuring balance. When you fight an orog, it doesn`t matter if you
rule Anuire or Ilien. When you go to war, though, it matters deeply,
and your character level is much less important.

A game where those two were much more tightly linked would be awesome,
but Birthright has never quite been that game, and in fact wasn`t
designed to be so. In the original rules, character level made almost
no difference at the domain level, save for realm spells. You could
very easily and effectively rule a realm at 1st level, and be just as
effective as a higher-level character in most ways. The 3e rules use
more skill checks and feats, so character level has more impact on the
domain rules in this version of the setting.

> At least with a percentage payoff, however, those diminishing returns are
> less substantial than they are using class levels. At the highest rate of
> penalty, as you noted, a character will be a full level behind at upper
> levels, but using character levels he`s 1+ levels "behind" in class
> abilities. It strikes me as being more of a six/half-dozen issue.

Using the scion class levels, you`re only partially behind in class
abilities. You still gain BAB, hit points, skills, and so on. If
scion levels don`t progress spellcasting, they probably should at
about a half rate or so, since losing spellcasting is so detrimental
to characters.

--
Daniel McSorley

[Sigmund]

I have some reservations about this.

If it's to balance scions against other scions, no real problem - I don't think feats are quite as elegant as scion levels, but they're not awful.

However, if it is intended that giving up a feat is enough to balance even minor blood abilities against non-scions, then I feel that this system is somewhat overpowered. I'm not aware of any feat that grants comparable power to even minor bloodline abilities - certainly not great bloodline abilities. That means from a balance perspective scions are still getting a much better deal than non-scions.

It's a pretty sticky problem, though, to balance scions against non-scions without going so far so as to make scions seem unattractive. I wouldn't want to mix the two, personally.

I'm going to try using the feats, because I'm not trying to balance scions and non-scions mechanically. I'm willing (at least until I playtest) to trade a little balance for a system that "feels" more like the flavour I'm trying to express in my campaign. Also, I think the Birth feats from Dragon magazine #340, some of the spell-granting feats from Complete Arcane, and others from Complete Arcane and Complete Divine (like Arcane Disciple) can rival minor blood powers in utility and effect. A major power or two would be quite useful, but would cost 2 feats, not one, and would need me to account for them in creating challenges, but I feel I'm up to the task. Great powers are only going to be gained in-game, or needed for a specific story for the PCs to ever get them.

Scions should get a better deal than non-scions (at least they should seem to) IMO. At least where my campaign is concerned, however, one should stay mindful of the old adage to "be careful what you wish for", because being blooded has it's down-sides too.

Also, honestly, I'm trying to create a system that works in 3.5 DnD, but that I could also easily port over to True20 if I decide to use it instead. Given that True20 eliminates all classes but the three basics (warrior, expert, and adept), and turns DnD class abilities into feats, I think the feat system will translate better as well as fit the game's design better.

All this means, I guess, that the feats probably won't work for everyone, or even maybe most. I'm going to try them though.

I think the problem is so sticky because it's really never had a solution. It is kinda frustrating because the scion class is very close to being the best solution, but it's unfortunate down-side is the biggest down-side (IMO) for the one class that is forced by the setting to absolutely need the extra rules in the first place.

[irdeggman]

I think the problem is so sticky because it's really never had a solution. It is kinda frustrating because the scion class is very close to being the best solution, but it's unfortunate down-side is the biggest down-side (IMO) for the one class that is forced by the setting to absolutely need the extra rules in the first place.

You keep coming back to this one. The assumption is that in order to play a wizard a character must take a scion class level - this is false.

It only matters if the wizard is trying to have major or great blood abilities. It does not matter one whit if all the player is trying to accomplish is to have a character capable of becoming a wizard and casting true magic.

If you are not playing on the domain level of play the scion class levels have less of an effect (that is the regent level benefits don't come into play and that is accountable for at least one of the 2 levels IMO).

As I pointed out there is already a "suggestion" in Chap 2 for dropping down the LA for adventure only level of play. This essentially allows a character to have a major bloodline, major blood abiliites and be a wizard for no level adjustment at all.

The "suggestion" provides guidelines, but since it is already a variant then it is readily house-rules material in the first place.

The problem I see is the same one that players have with Prestige Classes that don't offer a full caster progression. They hate them. But this is, IMO, usually due to the fact that the player wants to maximize his character and not have any drawbacks or tradeoffs while at teh same time gaining "Prestige Class" abilities.

A wizard regent with a single scion class level (minimum of 2nd level) will most likely gain 12-18 hit points. For a low level wizard that is absolutely HUGE - that is somewhere around 5-9 levels worth of hit points, not counting the scion class level that at the minimum is a trade up of d6 for d4 HD. For a fighter on the other hand it is only slightly good, it is somewhere around 2-3 levels worth of hit points.

[irdeggman]

Also, honestly, I'm trying to create a system that works in 3.5 DnD, but that I could also easily port over to True20 if I decide to use it instead. Given that True20 eliminates all classes but the three basics (warrior, expert, and adept), and turns DnD class abilities into feats, I think the feat system will translate better as well as fit the game's design better.

All this means, I guess, that the feats probably won't work for everyone, or even maybe most. I'm going to try them though.


I think that is the real driver to this issue. It will most likely work best because of it too.

[irdeggman]

I'm going to try using the feats, because I'm not trying to balance scions and non-scions mechanically. I'm willing (at least until I playtest) to trade a little balance for a system that "feels" more like the flavour I'm trying to express in my campaign. Also, I think the Birth feats from Dragon magazine #340, some of the spell-granting feats from Complete Arcane, and others from Complete Arcane and Complete Divine (like Arcane Disciple) can rival minor blood powers in utility and effect. A major power or two would be quite useful, but would cost 2 feats, not one, and would need me to account for them in creating challenges, but I feel I'm up to the task. Great powers are only going to be gained in-game, or needed for a specific story for the PCs to ever get them.


The "challenge" issue is probably the root of why the scion class system works the best overall, IMO. It is easier to handle appropriate CR and award exp based on the challenge difficutly to PCs. Those with higher levels have less difficulty and thus get less xp.

[irdeggman]

On 9/11/06, Birthright Owner <geeman@softhome.net> wrote:
> I hear this argument made from time to time regarding various 3e situations,
> and it makes a certain amount of sense. It`s the rationale behind allowing
> sorcerers to restructure their spells in 3.5, for example, and gets used to
> describe how templates should or shouldn`t be employed.
>
> The argument also discounts a more important issue for BR purposes and that
> is that it only considers the adventure level of play.

As it should. Levels and other game statistical artifacts are
balanced around adventures and character vs character vs monster
balance. Character level has next to no influence on domain vs domain
balance; far more important for domains are RP and GB income,
holdings, and provinces, which likewise don`t directly influence
adventuring balance. When you fight an orog, it doesn`t matter if you
rule Anuire or Ilien. When you go to war, though, it matters deeply,
and your character level is much less important.

Daniel McSorley

Yes there is a lesser effect on domain level of play. But there is still one. The class level allows for higher ranks in the appropriate skills that affect RP collection and domain action result checks. It is also easier to track when a character gets character level feats, and everyone knows that feats are worth their weight in Gold Bars.:)

[geeman]

Daniel McSorley writes:

>> The argument also discounts a more important issue for BR purposes and
>> that is that it only considers the adventure level of play.
>
> As it should. Levels and other game statistical artifacts are
> balanced around adventures and character vs character vs monster
> balance. Character level has next to no influence on domain vs domain
> balance; far more important for domains are RP and GB income,
> holdings, and provinces, which likewise don`t directly influence
> adventuring balance. When you fight an orog, it doesn`t matter if you
> rule Anuire or Ilien. When you go to war, though, it matters deeply,
> and your character level is much less important.
>
> A game where those two were much more tightly linked would be awesome,
> but Birthright has never quite been that game, and in fact wasn`t
> designed to be so. In the original rules, character level made almost
> no difference at the domain level, save for realm spells. You could
> very easily and effectively rule a realm at 1st level, and be just as
> effective as a higher-level character in most ways. The 3e rules use
> more skill checks and feats, so character level has more impact on the
> domain rules in this version of the setting.

The point raised in the text above was not that problem is character levels
influencing (or that they should be balanced somehow) at the domain level,
but the reverse. That is, characters who participate at the domain level
have advantages at the adventure level that are not accounted for in any
way. If you take two characters of equal character level, ability scores,
etc. and give one a bloodline and a domain that character is going to be
advantaged more than the other in actual adventure level play. He can call
on resources unavailable to the other, characters he interacts with who are
under his authority are more likely to recognize his influence, etc. The
simple fact of a bloodline and a domain represent an adventure level effect
that should be accounted for.

>> At least with a percentage payoff, however, those diminishing returns are
>> less substantial than they are using class levels. At the highest rate
>> of
>> penalty, as you noted, a character will be a full level behind at upper
>> levels, but using character levels he`s 1+ levels "behind" in class
>> abilities. It strikes me as being more of a six/half-dozen issue.
>
> Using the scion class levels, you`re only partially behind in class
> abilities. You still gain BAB, hit points, skills, and so on. If
> scion levels don`t progress spellcasting, they probably should at
> about a half rate or so, since losing spellcasting is so detrimental
> to characters.

It`s still striking me as 6/half-dozen. Lose a character level (when one
gets to the upper end of the standard 20 level system) or lose the higher
end effects of the same class by taking a level or two in a class that is
unassociated with the normal character progression. In practice, a simple
percentage does the same thing with just a few sentences in the sourcebook
that the whole scion character class does.

Gary

[Sigmund]

You keep coming back to this one. The assumption is that in order to play a wizard a character must take a scion class level - this is false.

It only matters if the wizard is trying to have major or great blood abilities. It does not matter one whit if all the player is trying to accomplish is to have a character capable of becoming a wizard and casting true magic.

If you are not playing on the domain level of play the scion class levels have less of an effect (that is the regent level benefits don't come into play and that is accountable for at least one of the 2 levels IMO).

As I pointed out there is already a "suggestion" in Chap 2 for dropping down the LA for adventure only level of play. This essentially allows a character to have a major bloodline, major blood abiliites and be a wizard for no level adjustment at all.

The "suggestion" provides guidelines, but since it is already a variant then it is readily house-rules material in the first place.

The problem I see is the same one that players have with Prestige Classes that don't offer a full caster progression. They hate them. But this is, IMO, usually due to the fact that the player wants to maximize his character and not have any drawbacks or tradeoffs while at teh same time gaining "Prestige Class" abilities.

A wizard regent with a single scion class level (minimum of 2nd level) will most likely gain 12-18 hit points. For a low level wizard that is absolutely HUGE - that is somewhere around 5-9 levels worth of hit points, not counting the scion class level that at the minimum is a trade up of d6 for d4 HD. For a fighter on the other hand it is only slightly good, it is somewhere around 2-3 levels worth of hit points.


It might be someone's assumption, but it's not mine. I talk about spell users because only spell users completely lose their primary class feature by taking scion levels. I'm also only speaking from my own POV. If I personally wanted to gain hps when I'd level, I'd play a fighter. Why must spell casting characters be the only ones to completely lose progression in their prime class feature just to gain major blood powers? Do fighters completely halt BAB progression to gain major blood powers? No. Do rogues completely lose all skill progression to gain major blood powers? No.

I grant you, a 3rd level wizard forced to take 2 levels of scion to gain access to his "birthright" is going to have lots more hps. That means that after he casts his meager few spells he'll last a tiny bit longer trying to beat on an enemy with his stick (staff), or stand around providing little but color commentary for most of the rest of the day. Is even a great blood power going to be worth it to the adventuring scion? I wouldn't pay the price for it. On the flip side, a 3rd level fighter with 2 levels of scion is going to still be pretty good at what he does. He has his weapon feats, he has his armor feats, he has a decent BAB. Plus, he gets great blood powers. Well worth it IMO. So the effect is, my fighter players would clamor to be blooded with the highest bloodline they can get, while my wizard players will have few if any powers and lament the absolute requirement to waste a feat just to use true magic down the road.

I don't really like either of the "suggestions" for adventuring campaigns in Chap 2. Just because I won't start with regent PCs doesn't mean I will never have regent PCs. I'd like to find a system that works for both in my campaign...which is why I'm heavily leaning on using feats instead of a class. As I have said before, YMMV.

[Sigmund]

I think that is the real driver to this issue. It will most likely work best because of it too.

Indeed. True on both counts. I am in no way advocating to replace the offical system, I'm just trying to come up with a house rule that works best for me and my game.

[Sigmund]

The "challenge" issue is probably the root of why the scion class system works the best overall, IMO. It is easier to handle appropriate CR and award exp based on the challenge difficutly to PCs. Those with higher levels have less difficulty and thus get less xp.

I can't argue with this. I do like the suggestion of including maybe even half spell progression to the scion class though....maybe the 1st level doesn't add spell prgression, but the 2nd (great) level does? Still too much?

[Cuchulainshound]

Do fighters completely halt BAB progression to gain major blood powers? No. Do rogues completely lose all skill progression to gain major blood powers? No.
But, depending on the derivation, it can be close to it, for all intents and purposes.


The problem I see is the same one that players have with Prestige Classes that don't offer a full caster progression. They hate them. But this is, IMO, usually due to the fact that the player wants to maximize his character and not have any drawbacks or tradeoffs while at the same time gaining "Prestige Class" abilities...
I think the problem is that many of us don't buy your premise, that:
1) ...becoming a Scion is the same as gaining a "prestige class" (it's not anything like),
2) ...that being Blooded should come with drawbacks and tradeoffs, or at least not ones added merely to chase some mythical "balance" (nothing of the kind is ever hinted at)
3) ...that growing in some random direction (hit points, unwanted skills) is as good for story purposes as the direction the character would have otherwise gone. (Characters should keep growing as their players wish. Trading competance for "color" is not practical for Regents.)
The powergamer thing may make it worse with powergamers, but I don't consider myself a powergamer, and I don't like it because these levels have nothing to offer some character progressions. They are empty placeholders, and add (very) little color in the form of a couple non-optimal skills, but (with rare exceptions of coincidence) nothing that makes the character a better Regent, which IS the goal of most characters, IC, regardless if there's a powergamer or not behind them.

Scions are closer to Gandalf in the LotR than "Prestige Classes". Gandalf was not human, he was not balanced with the rest of the party. When he met Saruman etc, then he was balanced with them- and that's the story, and the concept as written.


...Others who did not so perfectly mirror the old gods still absorbed some of their energy. Abilities they had never possessed before were suddenly at their fingertips, aching to be used. These survivors came to be known as blooded scions...
If a GM creates a story with mixed non/blooded characters, those are the hands that're being dealt. That's how the IG effect is described in the introduction and Chapter 2- why create mechanics that go directly against that?

I just don't understand the point. My mileage clearly does vary greatly.

[gazza666]

The problem I see is the same one that players have with Prestige Classes that don't offer a full caster progression. They hate them. But this is, IMO, usually due to the fact that the player wants to maximize his character and not have any drawbacks or tradeoffs while at teh same time gaining "Prestige Class" abilities.

Prestige classes are supposed to be "power ups". They are supposed to be more powerful and more attractive options than simply taking another level of a base class.

Prestige classes aimed at spellcasters that don't offer full caster progression break this basic contract. Therefore, they are deservedly hated.

No prestige classes are necessary from a roleplaying perspective. You can take the same sorts of skills, feats, magical items, spells, and so forth - and just roleplay that you're actually (eg) an Adept of the Skin or a Blood Magus. The only point in creating these as a prestige class is to grant abilities that you couldn't get otherwise - and if you have to give up more than you would gain, it's just not worth it.

Virtually every non-spellcasting prestige class offers qualitatively better abilities than what the character gives up to enter the prestige class. It is not unreasonable or "munchkinny" to expect - nay, demand - that spellcasting prestige classes do the same.

If you think that spellcasters are too powerful, then that's an argument I personally would agree with - but it hasn't nothing to do with prestige classes or major/great scion abilities per se.

If non-spellcasters don't have to give up very much to take scion levels, then the argument is that spellcasters shouldn't either. At its core, this is a pretty compelling argument; the problem is the same as it is with prestige classes. Spellcasting classes have very few class features other than spellcasting (druids are the exception; sorcerers are the extreme case, with nothing other than a familiar). You've got to trade something.

[Sigmund]

But, depending on the derivation, it can be close to it, for all intents and purposes.


I think the problem is that many of us don't buy your premise, that:
1) ...becoming a Scion is the same as gaining a "prestige class" (it's not anything like),
2) ...that being Blooded should come with drawbacks and tradeoffs, or at least not ones added merely to chase some mythical "balance" (nothing of the kind is ever hinted at)
3) ...that growing in some random direction (hit points, unwanted skills) is as good for story purposes as the direction the character would have otherwise gone. (Characters should keep growing as their players wish. Trading competance for "color" is not practical for Regents.)
The powergamer thing may make it worse with powergamers, but I don't consider myself a powergamer, and I don't like it because these levels have nothing to offer some character progressions. They are empty placeholders, and add (very) little color in the form of a couple non-optimal skills, but (with rare exceptions of coincidence) nothing that makes the character a better Regent, which IS the goal of most characters, IC, regardless if there's a powergamer or not behind them.

Scions are closer to Gandalf in the LotR than "Prestige Classes". Gandalf was not human, he was not balanced with the rest of the party. When he met Saruman etc, then he was balanced with them- and that's the story, and the concept as written.


If a GM creates a story with mixed non/blooded characters, those are the hands that're being dealt. That's how the IG effect is described in the introduction and Chapter 2- why create mechanics that go directly against that?

I just don't understand the point. My mileage clearly does vary greatly.


QFT. I find myself agreeing with everything said here. Scions, and especially regent scions, are the top shelf in BR society. This is also why it was suggested originally to perhaps create different "sets" of PCs so that sometimes one set of players had the regent PCs for a couple sessions, then they could switch to set 2 and a different set of players then had the regent PCs, etc.. Also, I keep having to stress that there are downsides to being blooded that can't be quantified readily by the rules, that must be RPed...and this truely suits me fine. Just the inclusion of a blooded PC into an adventuring group can provide a great deal of material for me as DM to work with in challenging the group. One of the greatest things about this side of the campaign is that the more powerful a PC's blood abilities are, the easier it will be to challenge that PC AND allow non-blooded PCs to shine. How effective would even a rogue with a great bloodline be? They'd most likely have a bloodmark, be well-known, and consequently recognised/watched everywhere they go. That means, the sneaking, espionage, subterfuge, bluffing, etc. will all need to be done by the blooded PC's mates. That's just one quick example off the top of my head. How about a bloodmarked PC trying to travel through Kiergard? Or who get's accosted by Eirat the Troublesome while sailing towards Ariya? This situations are handled differently with the inclusion of blooded PCs, in ways that have little or nothing to do with their specific powers. Great RP material and a great perk of the setting. More balance, IMO, isn't really needed for my campaign.

[Sigmund]

Prestige classes are supposed to be "power ups". They are supposed to be more powerful and more attractive options than simply taking another level of a base class.

Prestige classes aimed at spellcasters that don't offer full caster progression break this basic contract. Therefore, they are deservedly hated.

No prestige classes are necessary from a roleplaying perspective. You can take the same sorts of skills, feats, magical items, spells, and so forth - and just roleplay that you're actually (eg) an Adept of the Skin or a Blood Magus. The only point in creating these as a prestige class is to grant abilities that you couldn't get otherwise - and if you have to give up more than you would gain, it's just not worth it.

Virtually every non-spellcasting prestige class offers qualitatively better abilities than what the character gives up to enter the prestige class. It is not unreasonable or "munchkinny" to expect - nay, demand - that spellcasting prestige classes do the same.

If you think that spellcasters are too powerful, then that's an argument I personally would agree with - but it hasn't nothing to do with prestige classes or major/great scion abilities per se.

If non-spellcasters don't have to give up very much to take scion levels, then the argument is that spellcasters shouldn't either. At its core, this is a pretty compelling argument; the problem is the same as it is with prestige classes. Spellcasting classes have very few class features other than spellcasting (druids are the exception; sorcerers are the extreme case, with nothing other than a familiar). You've got to trade something.


I agree here too. Man, ya'all really are much better at expressing my feelings on the issue ;)

[gazza666]

The powergamer thing may make it worse with powergamers, but I don't consider myself a powergamer, and I don't like it because these levels have nothing to offer some character progressions. They are empty placeholders, and add (very) little color in the form of a couple non-optimal skills, but (with rare exceptions of coincidence) nothing that makes the character a better Regent, which IS the goal of most characters, IC, regardless if there's a powergamer or not behind them.

I don't really understand this objection. If you're "not a power gamer" and you're OK being Gandalf in a group of dwarfs and hobbits, then why not just split the difference and say that you're a couple of levels higher than the rest of the party? Use those extra levels to buy the scion levels, and you're all set.

If balance is not a concern, then relative levels are not a concern. If balance is a concern, then the entire D&D3e is based around the idea that more powerful races have level adjustments. A scion is, in effect, a racial variant - that's where the original idea for the template based scions came from. In effect, the scion levels idea is just a Savage Species style "gradually get the new powers" concept - they are like "monster levels", except with the latter, you are forced to take them in preference to anything else; you have the option of taking scion levels.

The rules presented for scions are absolutely faithful to D&D3e. They are much more balanced than they were in 2nd edition. The issue with spellcasters is a glitch present (as Duane pointed out) with many prestige classes as well - there's no easy solution, as spellcasters have little to give up other than spellcasting. Fighters give up a feat, rogues give up skill points (or maybe a d6 of sneak attack); if you give the scion classes full spellcasting progression, sorcerers would lose... a couple of levels of familiar advancement. ;)

If your problem stems from the idea that you think scions should be more powerful without having to sacrifice anything, then presumably the same logic would state that a PC who comes to the table saying his fighter Wolverine is "the best at what he does" would mean that you're OK with him starting at a level 2 or 3 higher than the rest of the party. And though it may seem as if I'm ridiculing that idea, I'm absolutely not - that's perfectly OK. Start your scions a couple of levels higher and give them the scion levels. In a mature group that doesn't have a problem with disparate power levels, that's not going to make the sky fall down.

But it's really pretty much unnecessary to balance things for you guys. It's powergamers like me that need things to be balanced.

[Sigmund]

I don't really understand this objection. If you're "not a power gamer" and you're OK being Gandalf in a group of dwarfs and hobbits, then why not just split the difference and say that you're a couple of levels higher than the rest of the party? Use those extra levels to buy the scion levels, and you're all set.

If balance is not a concern, then relative levels are not a concern. If balance is a concern, then the entire D&D3e is based around the idea that more powerful races have level adjustments. A scion is, in effect, a racial variant - that's where the original idea for the template based scions came from. In effect, the scion levels idea is just a Savage Species style "gradually get the new powers" concept - they are like "monster levels", except with the latter, you are forced to take them in preference to anything else; you have the option of taking scion levels.

The rules presented for scions are absolutely faithful to D&D3e. They are much more balanced than they were in 2nd edition. The issue with spellcasters is a glitch present (as Duane pointed out) with many prestige classes as well - there's no easy solution, as spellcasters have little to give up other than spellcasting. Fighters give up a feat, rogues give up skill points (or maybe a d6 of sneak attack); if you give the scion classes full spellcasting progression, sorcerers would lose... a couple of levels of familiar advancement. ;)

If your problem stems from the idea that you think scions should be more powerful without having to sacrifice anything, then presumably the same logic would state that a PC who comes to the table saying his fighter Wolverine is "the best at what he does" would mean that you're OK with him starting at a level 2 or 3 higher than the rest of the party. And though it may seem as if I'm ridiculing that idea, I'm absolutely not - that's perfectly OK. Start your scions a couple of levels higher and give them the scion levels. In a mature group that doesn't have a problem with disparate power levels, that's not going to make the sky fall down.

But it's really pretty much unnecessary to balance things for you guys. It's powergamers like me that need things to be balanced.


This I can't agree with. If, as I have said before, I am not concerned with balance... why would I even use that added complication of scion class levels at all? I could just grant PCs blood strength, derivation, level, and powers and be done with it. The reason I'm using feats is that, although I'm not AS concerned with balance, I still don't want to just give the feature away.

[irdeggman]

I will point towards the frequently asked questions thread and this link to re-emphasize the design philosophy of the BRCS.

http://www.birthright.net/showthread.php?t=2189

IMO I have been pretty darn consistent with that. I have offered up "suggestions" for how people can handle things that are outside of this philosophy but as far as teh BRCS goes I will stick to my guns and keep to this philosophy as close as I can.

If I can't be consistent and try to maintain consistency in the BRCS then what is the point? It will merely be rewritten every few months.

I have updated the links on that thread so they can be sued for reference now and I encourage people to look them over to see the "history" of how things got to where they are presently.

[geeman]

At 04:04 PM 9/11/2006, Cuchulainshound wrote:

>1) ...becoming a Scion is the same as gaining a "prestige class"
>(it`s not anything like),

If I were going to compare the current system of bloodline using
character class it`s more like the racial class system that (I think
it was) Monte Cook put out a while back, or the information on
levelling up into the CR of all kinds of monsters that were presented
in Savage Species than a prestige class. Either of those are really
good systems and present some fun idea... but that doesn`t mean the
character class system is right for BR.

>Scions are closer to Gandalf in the LotR than "Prestige
>Classes". Gandalf was not human, he was not balanced with the rest
>of the party. When he met Saruman etc, then he was balanced with
>them- and that`s the story, and the concept as written.

If your basic premise here is that scions should be out of balance
with the rest of the 3e system, then I don`t agree. Scions should be
balanced somehow for a whole bunch of reasons. It`s the "somehow"
that is the issue. I`ve never thought the character class idea made
a lot of sense. It strikes me as too much of a departure from the BR
themes, and a somewhat odd extrapolation of 3e`s mechanics. I _had_
been balancing bloodline by assuming it was part of the character`s
inventory and assigning a gp value to it, the way a character might
have permanent magical spells cast on his person for a cost or use a
magic item that permanently increased an ability score, for
example. That is the most direct comparison to what bloodline is IMO.

However, this idea of simple 5-20% XP penalty strikes me as being the
best idea presented so far for a couple of reasons.

1. It`s so god#@^^& simple. It`s so simple that it makes me wonder
why its never really been presented before. It would take all of a
paragraph to put into a document and addresses the issue at least as
well as character class without all the stuff that bugs people
(myself, at least) about a character having to take levels, gain a
HD, spend skill points, etc. just because he wants access to his
minor blood ability.

2. It actually does balance in the same way that using inventory
does--but within even more careful articulation. Using inventory you
have to average the character`s actual level with that of a character
who has the gp value of that character`s inventory. That is, a 2nd
level character with the gp value of a 4th level character`s
inventory is, effectively, 3rd level for the purpose of determining
CR, EL, etc. However, a simple percentage does really the same thing
but in 5% increments which is better than doing all the funky math
and before doing the CR award calculations. As a simple percentage
the XP award portion of the game goes as is, with one stop before
adding new XP to the character sheet.

3. It`s more in keeping with that most fundamental of BR
concepts--that it`s a low-level setting. What better way to express
that theme than by putting an XP penalty on scions? The character
class system is very counter-intuitive in this way because characters
have to gain levels to fully employ their god given powers. In
effect, the 5-20% penalty isn`t all that drastic, really, but it
amounts to a similar concept.

4. It front-loads the bloodline system. Now, I know some folks will
think of this as a bad thing, but I really see it as a plus. Blood
abilities are _supposed_ to be available at the _beginning_ of play,
not after some sort of adventuring process. That`s how they were
written and thematically that`s what makes the most sense. Using a
percentage penalty still makes them pay for it in a way that is
effectively a hit on their level, but doesn`t take away their actual
abilities at low levels. Rather, it makes the system on-going, which
I think is how it should be.

To me the argument that blood abilities will be less useful at higher
levels is, I think, based on the same kind of comparison that
suggests one shouldn`t use character class to reflect bloodline
because it takes away high end powers from wizards. There`s been a
very strenuous argument against that interpretation, and for the most
part I think it`s not a fair comparison as I`ve noted because there
really isn`t anything one could take at low levels that compare to
the powers/abilities available to characters as their approach 20th
level. It`s weird that a different shade of that same argument came
back in response to a 5-20% penalty rather than character levels for scions.

Gary

[ploesch]

Rather than going through the same tired arguments, let's look at what you get for taking a level of scion.

* Skills that are forever considered class skills. One or two that are of your own choice.
* HP, not just from the class, but bonus HP = to the lower of 1/2 Bloodscore OR RP collected per season, adjusted seasonally.
* Depending on derivation, Saving throws and BAB.
* Depending on class and derivation, acess to weapons and armor you would normally have to spend a feat to get.
* Higher levels of Blood Abilities depending on Blood Strength and Score.
* An Heirloom(useful non-charged magic item) or 2500G.
* All the Mundane items you want and a mount to carry them.

Those are some significant advantages, significant enough to delay your spell progression one or two levels, IMO.

Everyone that gives up levels gives up something. Warriors may not be able to take a crucial feat till later. Rogues delay their acquisition of Backstab dice, and special abilities. Paladins and bards delay the acquisition of special class features. And the list goes on.

You can make an argument that Wizards delay the most, but they also gain the most, since in general they will be gaining the most equivalent levels of HP, and BAB. In my game at least, I don't limit the party to one encounter a day, so Wizards are always trying to maximize their HP, and love the scion level. Yep, nearly every human wizard in my games take the toughness feat.

[DanMcSorley]

On 9/11/06, gazza666 <brnetboard@birthright.net> wrote:
> Prestige classes are supposed to be "power ups". They are supposed to be
> more powerful and more attractive options than simply taking another level of a
> base class.

No, they`re not. They`re supposed to be different. Not strictly better.

This is beside the point- scion isn`t a prestige class. It`s a
separate class, like a racial class, as an alternative to having a
template-type Level Adjustment for scions. Blood abilities are
special abilities. If you took the class, got the blood abilities,
and gave up nothing, scion would be strictly better than a regular
class. It should never be revised to be this way, no matter how many
people whine about it. Game balance per level is a worthwhile goal,
and one the BRCS has tried to achieve.
--
Daniel McSorley

[gazza666]

Those are some significant advantages, significant enough to delay your spell progression one or two levels, IMO.
In my opinion, none of that comes close to being worth that tradeoff.


Everyone that gives up levels gives up something. Warriors may not be able to take a crucial feat till later. Rogues delay their acquisition of Backstab dice, and special abilities. Paladins and bards delay the acquisition of special class features. And the list goes on.
Absolutely. But feats are linear, backstab dice are linear, paladin and bard abilities are linear. Spell casting progression is not linear. Being able to cast 2nd level spells when your buddy can only cast 1st level spells is a tremendous advantage that only gets better at higher levels - and at higher levels, bloodline powers are no more potent than they were at lower levels.


You can make an argument that Wizards delay the most, but they also gain the most, since in general they will be gaining the most equivalent levels of HP, and BAB.
Wizards don't care very much about HP or BAB, though. If you offered the player of a wizard an extra spellcasting level in exchange for 2 points of BAB, most would jump at it. Lower their hp to only 2d4 every 3 levels in exchange for fasting spellcasting progression? Still a good deal. Offer them +2BAB and +20hp in exchange for being a whole spell level behind?

Err, no thanks. In a normal game, how many wizards take a couple of levels of fighter just to boost their hit points and BAB? (Although if Toughness really is a popular feat in your game, I'm wondering if you're going to answer "most of them" here... :) ).

[Sigmund]

Rather than going through the same tired arguments, let's look at what you get for taking a level of scion.

* Skills that are forever considered class skills. One or two that are of your own choice.
* HP, not just from the class, but bonus HP = to the lower of 1/2 Bloodscore OR RP collected per season, adjusted seasonally.
* Depending on derivation, Saving throws and BAB.
* Depending on class and derivation, acess to weapons and armor you would normally have to spend a feat to get.
* Higher levels of Blood Abilities depending on Blood Strength and Score.
* An Heirloom(useful non-charged magic item) or 2500G.
* All the Mundane items you want and a mount to carry them.

Those are some significant advantages, significant enough to delay your spell progression one or two levels, IMO.

Everyone that gives up levels gives up something. Warriors may not be able to take a crucial feat till later. Rogues delay their acquisition of Backstab dice, and special abilities. Paladins and bards delay the acquisition of special class features. And the list goes on.

You can make an argument that Wizards delay the most, but they also gain the most, since in general they will be gaining the most equivalent levels of HP, and BAB. In my game at least, I don't limit the party to one encounter a day, so Wizards are always trying to maximize their HP, and love the scion level. Yep, nearly every human wizard in my games take the toughness feat.


Your arguement is not without merit, but my experience is different. In my game a couple weeks have been known to go by without an actual fight, but plenty of research, espionage/intrigue, and/or social contention. Then, when they do fight, it can often be quite difficult and I've had wizards in my campaign completely exhaust their spells in an encounter or two and that's with full progression. Even with the extra BAB and hps, a wizard that tries to melee will probably die. Heck, unless the scion is also a regent, some of the benefits for the scion class will just be lost. I'm still unconvinced, for my game, that scion levels are the best way to go so I'm still planning on sticking to my feat system until either I see a better system arise, or the feats completely fail to do the job.

[DanMcSorley]

On 9/11/06, Gary <geeman@softhome.net> wrote:
> 1. It`s so god#@^^& simple. It`s so simple that it makes me wonder
> why its never really been presented before.

It was, way back when people started working on this. Or the inverse,
that non-scions in a scion-based game get a bonus to XP, since that`s
the way it worked in second edition. It wasn`t used because that was
a kludge in 2e, and 3e offered a built-in way to handle it, LA and
racial/class levels.

--
Daniel McSorley

[Sigmund]

On 9/11/06, gazza666 <brnetboard@birthright.net> wrote:
> Prestige classes are supposed to be "power ups". They are supposed to be
> more powerful and more attractive options than simply taking another level of a
> base class.

No, they`re not. They`re supposed to be different. Not strictly better.

This is beside the point- scion isn`t a prestige class. It`s a
separate class, like a racial class, as an alternative to having a
template-type Level Adjustment for scions. Blood abilities are
special abilities. If you took the class, got the blood abilities,
and gave up nothing, scion would be strictly better than a regular
class. It should never be revised to be this way, no matter how many
people whine about it. Game balance per level is a worthwhile goal,
and one the BRCS has tried to achieve.
--
Daniel McSorley


This is one of the reasons I don't like the class system for granting bloodline abilities. Characters either give up too much, or not enough.

Yes, striving for game balance is a worthwhile goal.

Also, I really haven't seen anyone "whining" about this issue. It's probably one of, if not the most important issue concerning this specific setting. It's one of the central features that define the setting. If I don't feel it's working for my campaign in the raw, I'm going to sign on to the message board created to discuss this issue and hash it out with the designers of the raw and the other players of the setting. I thought that's what we are supposed to be doing here. I understand that the method outlined in the raw was designed that way for a reason, and that it serves a purpose the way it is... that's all well and good. It just doesn't work for me. Now if it were my players on here I might feel differently, but I'm going to be DMing the BR campaign. I'm advocating for my players, while trying to develop a system that will serve to keep the game from becoming derailed and simultaneously preserve the BR "feel" I'm aiming for. Please, if everyone is tired of discussing this and all I'm doing is kicking a dead horse please tell me, but I feel I've gotten some great ideas/suggestions so far out of this thread.

[RaspK_FOG]

OK, time to let irdeggman breather for a while...

For one thing, how does one lose "one's most important assets" (not those, dammit! :p) simply by taking scion levels: it is apparent that whatever class feature defines a class is an important asset lost in the process of gaining scion levels...

First of all, we have the fighter; many a person will argue that this class is the one that loses the least, but I'll beg to differ: a fighter generally won't benefit in the area of skill points (only scions of Brenna get 4 + Int skill points per level), while they may benefit mildly from some new class skills that will generally have very little skill points invested on them... Only scions of Anduiras remain as competent as they begun with in the first place, and only scions of Basaïa and Masela get really good saves for a fighter, but at least one of his secondary saving throws (either Reflex or Will) will be penalised. People also forget that the acquisition of even 1 level in any scion class will deprive a fighter of his most prized possession, which are his bonus feats (1 in this particular case, which is still valuable).

Now, on to the other example, the rogue; being much straighter with this one, he generally loses either 6 or 12 skill points that would be better invested on a multitude of skills at the rate of 1 rank per skill point as a rogue, also loses +1d6 points of sneak attack simply and also loses 1 special ability; his only great difference is that he has to take 2 scion levels to lose these latter, but even the halt in these progressions, according to earlier claims, is important.

Now, in the case of spellcasters:
Clerics lose one 8th-level and one 9th-level spell out of 4, +1 domain spell each for 1 scion level, or an additional 9th-level spell for 2 scion levels. As far as I can tell, that's not the worst possible detriment imaginable... Can I hear someone spelling: "BATTLE/REALM MAGIC?"
Likewise, wizards lose the exact same amount of spells, while a sorcerer loses some known spells (now, here's something tricky, as he does not receive one 9th-/one 8th- and two 9th-level spells), but the detriment to how many spells he can cast is nearly unimportant...

Now, why are percentage XP penalties so characteristic, geeman, that you seemed to forget their most apparent application: multiclassing penalties... Each character with "too broad a focus" suffers a 20% penalty on any and all XP he gets; a little math shows that this actually affects higher levels, not only making this an awful CR manager, it also fails to deal with one important aspect of the game: scions will begin play much stronger at low levels and suddenly grow less strong than the other did.

As far as I can tell, we are simply being argumentative; if everyone of us, however, can't just think for a while and realise that this is not made to be tailored for each and every one of us but for the whole, this whole project will never accomplish anything.

[Sigmund]

As far as I can tell, we are simply being argumentative; if everyone of us, however, can't just think for a while and realise that this is not made to be tailored for each and every one of us but for the whole, this whole project will never accomplish anything.

I'd like to say that being arguementative is not my goal, and if I'm coming across that way I apologise. As I have said before, I am not now, nor have I ever been advocating for changing the raw. I'm just appealing to wiser and more experienced DMs/game designers than I for help in creating a house rule that will work for my campaign. As I think I've got it for now, I guess I'll let this horse RIP :)

[RaspK_FOG]

I'd like to say that being arguementative is not my goal, and if I'm coming across that way I apologise. As I have said before, I am not now, nor have I ever been advocating for changing the raw. I'm just appealing to wiser and more experienced DMs/game designers than I for help in creating a house rule that will work for my campaign. As I think I've got it for now, I guess I'll let this horse RIP :)
I can understand the discussion regarding a house rule, and I am glad you got a viable solution; at that, it pretty much is (though I abhour feats when it comes to lineage, yet accept them as a canonical use of a mechanic in the case of traits; I prefer using UA traits and templates or monster classes rather than resort to the use of feats, most of the time).

I would suggest, however, that we follow standard bulletin board protocol and move discussions outside of a heated topic if they even start being a little irrelevant; in this case, while your inquiry in regard to your house rule was relevant, it still was irrelevant to the argument as it has developed.

[epicsoul]

Hmmm...

Never expected my little question to become this broad of a topic on the nature of the Scion class in general...

Impressive.

[geeman]

At 06:45 PM 9/11/2006, Daniel McSorley wrote:

>>1. It`s so god#@^^& simple. It`s so simple that it makes me wonder
>>why its never really been presented before.
>
>It was, way back when people started working on this. Or the inverse,
>that non-scions in a scion-based game get a bonus to XP, since that`s
>the way it worked in second edition. It wasn`t used because that was
>a kludge in 2e, and 3e offered a built-in way to handle it, LA and
>racial/class levels.

Well, this is the first I`ve heard of it.

I would also suggest that the description of 3e having a "built in"
way of handling bloodlines is something of a
mischaracterization. The character class system isn`t meant to
describe bloodlines or any other similar concept in any 3e reference
I recall reading. There are parallels to the racial class level
system, but that`s mostly the process of interpreting bloodline as a
character class rather than some inherit aspect of 3e.

Gary

[geeman]

At 07:13 PM 9/11/2006, RaspK_FOG wrote:

>As far as I can tell, we are simply being argumentative; if everyone
>of us, however, can`t just think for a while and realise that this
>is not made to be tailored for each and every one of us but for the
>whole, this whole project will never accomplish anything.

I certainly appreciate the call for civility, and fully support the
idea that the BRCS should be geared towards the majority of BR
players. At the same time, I would like to remind folks that there`s
nothing personal in these ideas and everybody should shoot for a
little objectivity and dispassionate appraisal of the ideas
presented--whether they are their own ideas or not. This idea of an
XP penalty to balance bloodline, for instance, is not originally
mine, but it does strike me as being a simpler and in several ways
more BR-oriented way of handling the issue.

>Now, why are percentage XP penalties so characteristic, geeman, that
>you seemed to forget their most apparent application: multiclassing
>penalties... Each character with "too broad a focus" suffers a 20%
>penalty on any and all XP he gets; a little math shows that this
>actually affects higher levels, not only making this an awful CR
>manager, it also fails to deal with one important aspect of the
>game: scions will begin play much stronger at low levels and
>suddenly grow less strong than the other did.

Could you clarify a bit here? What does the application of XP
penalties for multi-classing have to do with the issue? Yes, 3e does
use XP penalties for that purpose, but doesn`t that provide:

A. A simple system.
B. At least as much justification as using character class as a
rationale for a BR dynamic.

Also, what do you mean by "making this an awful CR manager"? I`m not
clear on what you mean by that or what math supports that suggestion?

As for scions beginning play stronger than other characters I think
that`s basically true. The idea isn`t perfect. I don`t necessarily
agree, however, that this is a deal breaker for the idea, nor do I
think they necessarily begin "much" more powerful. That completely
depends on the bloodline. Most scions will begin play with a power
or three beyond that of normal PCs. That`s not necessarily enough to
account for a level or two. However, on the whole I suspect the idea
will do a better job than bloodline as character class, so I`m going
to continue experimenting with the idea.

Gary

[BiggDawg]

Im new to the boards but I have GM'd several Birthright campaigns. It seems to me that people are coming at this with different agendas. Some are trying to create a game balance mechanic that would exist outside the presence of any GM. Using the Scion class is the fairest (to blooded and non blooded) balancing mechanism available in D&D 3.5e, however I know my players prefer the LA templates because of low level progression issues. Others are coming at this from their own personal GM style. Using a feat tree is a good idea as is using an experience penalty. All are valid points, but they are really different discussions (static rules v personal flavor)

Personally I don't understand running Brithright and not having all the characters blooded, kinda defeats the purpose of the setting. May as well play Midnight without a Hero Template or Dark Sun without being psionic. Bloodlines is what makes Birthright a great setting, and I don't see why anyone would want to play an unblooded character (you can do that in any setting). Even when I ran a campaign when Birthright first came out I had all the characters be blooded. The problem is that according to the mythology blooded characters are superior to non blooded characters. I dont recall in any of the novels or stories associated with Birthright any characters that werent blooded that were of equal importance. The easiest way to balance Birthright is to just have everyone be blooded. If most of the characters don't want to be blooded you may be better off with a different setting.

To those that say Birthright is a low level setting I disagree since the advent of 3e. Characters level so much quicker then they used to it is absurd. The levels of regents are much to low for a 3e or 3.5e setting. To say that a level 1 character can rule just as affectively as a level 20 character is to take them out of context. Sure if you were just playing the Domain Turns as a game independent of the roleplaying game there might not be much difference, but in the game what is the level 1 ruler going to do when the level 20 ruler single handedly storms their castle and kills everyone. Birthright has to be rebalanced level wise to take into account the rapid leveling of characters, otherwise the PCs will quickly become far more powerful then any of the stated domain rulers. Rulers have to be powerful enough to have the PCs respect them and that means either they or their guardians need to be higher level.

Ultimately, as with all roleplaying games, game balance is the job of the GM. There never will be perfect balance in any game system, especially D&D. You cannot script game balance. Whenever you make static rules their will exist the possibility of exploitation. All the developers here can do is create a system that is as fair as possible, the rest is up to the individual GM to work out and balance to their own personal flavor and the desires of their players.

[gazza666]

The XP penalty is an interesting idea, and certainly simple, but I wonder if it is really the silver bullet. Assuming a 20% XP penalty:

At first level, there is no disadvantage to being a scion at all.

At 10000XP, a scion is 4th level and a non-scion is 5th.
At 20000XP, a scion is 6th level and so is a non-scion.
At 30000XP, a scion is 7th level and a non-scion is 8th.
At 40000XP, a scion is 8th level and a non-scion is 9th.

And if I'm correctly divining the "proper" way to play Birthright, that's about as high as it's expected to get. So in general, there is no disadvantage at very low levels and at high levels you're a level behind.

In actuality it is probably not even that bad for a scion; he's a lower level, which means he's going to be getting more XP. He will probably rarely be a level behind, and even when he is it's unlikely to be for 2 adventures in a row.

The problem is that at low levels you're almost certainly much more relatively powerful than you are at high levels. Has the option in Unearthed Arcana of simply buying off a level adjustment been considered? That way he'd be stuck with a level adjustment at low level, but could buy it off and gradually catch up at higher levels (which is an accurate reflection of the diminishing relative power he will have).

[irdeggman]

At 06:45 PM 9/11/2006, Daniel McSorley wrote:

>>1. It`s so god#@^^& simple. It`s so simple that it makes me wonder
>>why its never really been presented before.
>
>It was, way back when people started working on this. Or the inverse,
>that non-scions in a scion-based game get a bonus to XP, since that`s
>the way it worked in second edition. It wasn`t used because that was
>a kludge in 2e, and 3e offered a built-in way to handle it, LA and
>racial/class levels.

Well, this is the first I`ve heard of it.

Actually IIRC this specific issue was talked about waay back on the boards. The time was before the present system so I can't do a search for it but it was back when everyone seemed to be writing their own 3.0 version and I know for a fact that you very active in most ongoing discussion on the boards at the time (if not this one specifically).

Doom's version came out from those discussions and his gaming group's work and pretty much became the "standard" at the time - which is where the LA scion templates came from in the playtest version.

At the time of the discussion there were parallel discussions on giving humans ability score adjustments like they had in 2nd ed too - just to give you a time reference for those discussions.


I would also suggest that the description of 3e having a "built in"
way of handling bloodlines is something of a
mischaracterization. The character class system isn`t meant to
describe bloodlines or any other similar concept in any 3e reference
I recall reading. There are parallels to the racial class level
system, but that`s mostly the process of interpreting bloodline as a
character class rather than some inherit aspect of 3e.

Gary

I will again reference the savage progressions articles on the wizard site.

Using class levels has become the "standard" for using LA templates and races in low level games. That is it provides a useable game mechanic for allowing players to run LA races and templates at 1st level.

That is the real basis for using the scion class level instead of LA templates.

The other major benefit includes an easily portable way to handle EL for a party (so that appropriate CR can be determined without excessive DM eyeballing).

[irdeggman]

Welcome.



Im new to the boards but I have GM'd several Birthright campaigns. It seems to me that people are coming at this with different agendas. Some are trying to create a game balance mechanic that would exist outside the presence of any GM. Using the Scion class is the fairest (to blooded and non blooded) balancing mechanism available in D&D 3.5e, however I know my players prefer the LA templates because of low level progression issues. Others are coming at this from their own personal GM style. Using a feat tree is a good idea as is using an experience penalty. All are valid points, but they are really different discussions (static rules v personal flavor)

Personally I don't understand running Brithright and not having all the characters blooded, kinda defeats the purpose of the setting. May as well play Midnight without a Hero Template or Dark Sun without being psionic. Bloodlines is what makes Birthright a great setting, and I don't see why anyone would want to play an unblooded character (you can do that in any setting). Even when I ran a campaign when Birthright first came out I had all the characters be blooded. The problem is that according to the mythology blooded characters are superior to non blooded characters. I dont recall in any of the novels or stories associated with Birthright any characters that werent blooded that were of equal importance. The easiest way to balance Birthright is to just have everyone be blooded. If most of the characters don't want to be blooded you may be better off with a different setting.

I believe that if your players look more closely at how LA templates actually work they will find that they "lose" more by using them rather than a class structure.

ECL only adds to xp needed to advance and the amount of starting funds a PC gets. It does not count for max skill ranks nor for character level feats nor anything else that is HD (i.e., "level") specific. Pretty much LA gives penalties but no tangeable benefits. This is even more pronounced in a low-level game.

ECL = LA + bonus HD + class levels

from the SRD:

Level Adjustment and Effective Character Level: To determine the effective character level (ECL) of a monster character, add its level adjustment to its racial Hit Dice and character class levels.

Use ECL instead of character levelto determine how many experience points a monster character needs to reach its next level. Also use ECL to determine starting wealth for a monster character.

Monster characters treat skills mentioned in their monster entry as class skills.

If a monster has 1 Hit Die or less, or if it is a template creature, it must start the game with one or more class levels, like a regular character. If a monster has 2 or more Hit Dice, it can start with no class levels (though it can gain them later).

Even if the creature is of a kind that normally advances by Hit Dice rather than class levels a PC can gain class levels rather than Hit Dice.




Ultimately, as with all roleplaying games, game balance is the job of the GM. There never will be perfect balance in any game system, especially D&D. You cannot script game balance. Whenever you make static rules their will exist the possibility of exploitation. All the developers here can do is create a system that is as fair as possible, the rest is up to the individual GM to work out and balance to their own personal flavor and the desires of their players.

Quoted for truth.

[RaspK_FOG]

At 07:13 PM 9/11/2006, RaspK_FOG wrote:

>As far as I can tell, we are simply being argumentative; if everyone
>of us, however, can`t just think for a while and realise that this
>is not made to be tailored for each and every one of us but for the
>whole, this whole project will never accomplish anything.

I certainly appreciate the call for civility, and fully support the
idea that the BRCS should be geared towards the majority of BR
players. At the same time, I would like to remind folks that there`s
nothing personal in these ideas and everybody should shoot for a
little objectivity and dispassionate appraisal of the ideas
presented--whether they are their own ideas or not. This idea of an
XP penalty to balance bloodline, for instance, is not originally
mine, but it does strike me as being a simpler and in several ways
more BR-oriented way of handling the issue.

I don't consider the originality or origin of the mechanic as long as it has these most important of features: It fits in with the campaign material as much as possible. It works consistently with itself.
In this regard, one has to agree that the acquisition of class levels fails to capture how blood abilities may be acquired spontaneously. However, you assume that this mechanic is more BR-oriented, where I can easily disprove this as a generic 2e mechanic: characters with good ability scores got additional XP, demihumans had to get twice or thrice the XP to advance in any class after one level or another in any class, etc.


>Now, why are percentage XP penalties so characteristic, geeman, that
>you seemed to forget their most apparent application: multiclassing
>penalties... Each character with "too broad a focus" suffers a 20%
>penalty on any and all XP he gets; a little math shows that this
>actually affects higher levels, not only making this an awful CR
>manager, it also fails to deal with one important aspect of the
>game: scions will begin play much stronger at low levels and
>suddenly grow less strong than the other did.

Could you clarify a bit here? What does the application of XP
penalties for multi-classing have to do with the issue? Yes, 3e does
use XP penalties for that purpose, but doesn`t that provide:

A. A simple system.
B. At least as much justification as using character class as a
rationale for a BR dynamic.

Also, what do you mean by "making this an awful CR manager"? I`m not
clear on what you mean by that or what math supports that suggestion?

As for scions beginning play stronger than other characters I think
that`s basically true. The idea isn`t perfect. I don`t necessarily
agree, however, that this is a deal breaker for the idea, nor do I
think they necessarily begin "much" more powerful. That completely
depends on the bloodline. Most scions will begin play with a power
or three beyond that of normal PCs. That`s not necessarily enough to
account for a level or two. However, on the whole I suspect the idea
will do a better job than bloodline as character class, so I`m going
to continue experimenting with the idea.

Gary
The reasons this system fails to provide any real logic behind it goes as follows: an %XP penalty signifies a percentile reduction of all experience acquired due to a very broad set of skills without maintaining some balance between those professions you are good at; what does a scion have that can even come close to logic? If it just had to be a reduction of given XP, then you are going the wrong way: that's what a Level Adjustment is for.

The problem that arises from this method when it comes to blood abilities is one of simple algebraic reasoning: a percentage is a function of f(x) = a * x, meaning that, the greater the x, the greater the impact on f; in our case, the greater the XP you would have gotten, the more XP you won't get.

Supposing all characters acquire an equal amount of XP throughout their career, a scion with a great bloodline will have only 800 XP when his comrades have reached 2nd level (1K XP), or 8.000 XP when his comrades have reached 5th level (10K XP), but, if we are to consider the possibility of characters reaching higher levels, when his comrades would have reached their 10th level (45K XP), he would have a mere 36K XP, meaning he would finally remain a level behind at 9th level; the gap further expands as his comrades finally reach their 20th level (190K XP), because he is down at 152 XP himself, which equals 17th level; granted, he is down 2 levels, meaning that this mechanic provides a smoother progression, which would otherwise have been perfect, if not for this issue: it's not higher levels that our major problems crop up: on the contrary, our problem is mostly about low levels, when a scion absolutely outshines his comrades for a couple levels under this mechanic, beating challenges to a pulp if balanced for his comrades, or facing challenge single-handedly, since balanced encounters for him (including peaceful ones) are outside of the other characters' league.

[gazza666]

I would go further and explicitly point out that the XP reduction isn't balanced at any level. At low levels it fails to punish at all; at high levels it punishes too harshly.

However, in the interests of fairness, it should be pointed out that there is a built-in "catchup" mechanic that RaspK fails to note; a lower level character receives more XP for the same challenges as a higher level one. In practice this rarely serves to catch up completely, but I suspect it would be probable that a scion was never more than 1.5 levels behind.

[RaspK_FOG]

I would go further and explicitly point out that the XP reduction isn't balanced at any level. At low levels it fails to punish at all; at high levels it punishes too harshly.

However, in the interests of fairness, it should be pointed out that there is a built-in "catchup" mechanic that RaspK fails to note; a lower level character receives more XP for the same challenges as a higher level one. In practice this rarely serves to catch up completely, but I suspect it would be probable that a scion was never more than 1.5 levels behind.
Actually, you mentioned that earlier, so I didn't bother mentioning it; on the other hand, let us look at this aspect of the game for a while...

In all honesty, all characters generally get an equal amount of XP should they all participate in the same encounter; however, a lower-level character gets more XP from the same encounter, meaning that he increases the party's total XP (for dropping the average level of the party, especially if half the party is comprised of scions) as well as getting more XP in individual encounters. His greatest benefit, though, is that, while the DMG suggests an amount of wealth per level, he will be more prone to exceed for participating in encounters that will award more treasure/[other rewards]. In effect, he gets fewer XP compared to someone of his level, but he will tend to get an extra couple XPs every now and then, which gets even more dramatic at mid-low levels, when a sudden pump at his XP can actually raise his level. *POOF* Instant chaos.

Furthermore, let us consider the most apparent magic item creators, clerics and wizards: if there is one class that loses the most from a loss of XP, that's someone who makes magic items. In effect, you are further postponing their already slow progress, making them less viable...

[DanMcSorley]

On 9/12/06, Gary <geeman@softhome.net> wrote:
> >It was, way back when people started working on this. Or the inverse,
> >that non-scions in a scion-based game get a bonus to XP, since that`s
> >the way it worked in second edition. It wasn`t used because that was
> >a kludge in 2e, and 3e offered a built-in way to handle it, LA and
> >racial/class levels.
>
> Well, this is the first I`ve heard of it.

It`s been, what, 6 years? I could be misremembering, but I`m pretty sure.

> I would also suggest that the description of 3e having a "built in"
> way of handling bloodlines is something of a
> mischaracterization.

Not that it has a built-in way of handling bloodlines. 3e has a
built-in way to handle characters which are inherently more powerful
than others, and balance them with baseline characters.

--
Daniel McSorley

[irdeggman]

I'm going to close this thread for the following reasons.

1. It has strayed way off topic of what the OP had posted.

2. It has gotten extremely long in so doing.

If people want to continue this discusssion then start another post and try to keep it more specific.