Blood Abilities: Domain Level

[aluman]

These are the ones from 2e that leapt out as mostly domain (I haven't gone to the storage facility and dragged out my old blood enemies supplement yet).
Battlewise
Blood History (more because its non-combative than anything)
Bloodmark (as above, grants a minor bonus to diplomacy probably).
Character Reading - Has limited combative ability, large social.
Direction Sense - Really less combative than non-adventuring.
Travel - This could be retooled into 1/encounter teleportation affects as well (though it loses flavor).

[AndrewTall]

2e, and to a degree 3e, both focused the bloodlines on adventure level play.

I'd look to create bloodline abilities that affect realm level play more. This does potentially cause a balance issue, but only if blood abilities add to adventure play rather than replacing an existing feature (ffat, skill, power) of it.

I would for example welcome bloodline abilities such as:

1. Weather ward. The regent can avert natural disasters such as storms, floods, blizzards, etc.

2. Sense province. The regent can sense the mood of the province allowing them to frame actions in ways that are readily accepted (bonus to actions?)

3. Land's blessing. The province responds to the presence of the regent producing a bounteous harvest while the regent is present - increasing the maximum level of the province, or its income if the population is low.

4. Pride of the people. Those loyal to the scion are healthier in the scion's presence, army units heal quickly, others gain a morale bonus of some sort.

5. Intercession. The scion has a priestly ability to intercede in a followers fate and request that the gods look more favourably on the scion's follower. This would probably pick up one of the priestly powers and really be there to add to the flavour of scions as touched by the gods.

etc.

[aluman]

I'm ok with creating more blood abilities as well, just those from the base book won't affect an adventuring party much, but could come into play on domain level.

[AndrewTall]

Well, the big question is should blood abilities affect adventure play at all.

Abilities which affect realm play only are the easiest to balance out in a group of regents and non-regents since adventure level abilities either makes the scion 'better' or need some balancing system (i.e. the 3e level adjustment) built in.

I like the idea of players having multiple options - so generating ability trees for each type of scion and saying that they can take one of those abilities instead of a class ability seems like a fair way of doing the bloodlines, similarly scion-only feats could be bought instead of the regular feats.

That then leaves the 'real' bloodline work that needs doing on the 4e conversion restricted purely to domain level play - which we can handle easily.

[Thelandrin]

We definitely need to "balance" the abilities so they at least have either a realm effect or adventure effect depending on the scenario, otherwise people will either have lots of power at one end and little at the other.

[bbeau22]

It might be too big of a change to remove blood abilities from adventure play. I am for one trying to keep the world as close as possible to the original. I think there are ways to make blood abilities balance into adventure play.

- Feats for blood powers.
- Seperate paragon paths for each derivation.

What we need to do ... and I don't have the books some others might have to help me.

Make people use their starting feat to denote if they are blooded or not. That will give them the option to use feats to gain some blood powers. This should also give them access to abilities (Paragon Path) for each seperate derivation.

Now the feats and path abilities will have pre-reqs to keep people from getting certain powers too quickly.

Not sure if this makes sense for 4th edition.

-BB

[aluman]

Feats for nonfighters are no longer just fluff is the problem with that approach, its not for rounding out a character or giving them a little umph All classes get a feat about every other level (you wind up with 18 feats by level 30),

However
There are elemental styling feats that boost damages for a wizard
There are bolstering feats for leaders to boost various buffs and healing they give
There are divine feats that allow clerics and paladins to channel their god
There are pact feats that allow the warlock to perform more ably
There are still generic feats (including one to get trained in a skill you weren't) that are useful to everyone

In addition to the weapon feats

And then there is Racial feats.

If we tie Blood entirely into feats/paragon paths We either have everyone being blooded or no one depending on how its balanced.

If we divorce blood from character sheet by having 'domain level' blood affects and 'adventure level' blood affects and make the second feats/paths then its back to a better feel of if it fits the character or not.

[aluman]

We definitely need to "balance" the abilities so they at least have either a realm effect or adventure effect depending on the scenario, otherwise people will either have lots of power at one end and little at the other.
Yeah, I wanted to get a list of blood abilities for now that should be retoole to the domain level, as I think that step will be easier then sorting out how to apporach making blood abilities in the adventure useful while not being 'absolutely nessarcy'

[bbeau22]

We are going to have to come up with rules for both. But we can keep them wholely seperate so if someone wants to not include adventure level blood abilities they can.

Ultimately we need to find a way to balance blood powers with character building. Keeping the system seperate leads to an unbalance of people with blood powers and people without. I might be ok with that because the setting could dictated some individuals being better than others.

Now tying in blood powers with feats and paths is an easy way to balance out the powers. If we keep them balanced with other abilities they can get then they will have important decisions to make. Grow their domain level powers or class level powers. I think many campaigns ... like the one I run .... has both.

I can see a situation where a powerful blooded individuals would focus on blood power training than their standard class. This leaves them open to being killed more easily one on one ... but a force to reckoned with on a domain level.

Personally I feel we should tie them into feats and paths. With the amount they get of each .... makes the most sense.

[AndrewTall]

To me the easiest route is to list out feats and abilities for each bloodline. A blooded character can choose an ability / feat from the bloodline list instead of their usual class feat / ability when they level up.

That way you:
a) always have balance - the scion has the same number of feats and abilities as anyone else (1 per level from what I can see).
b) can retain the low magic feel by restricting the highly magical abilities / feats to scion paths.
c) get an adventure level feel to bloodline without having to make major changes to the existing system.

To differentiate bloodlines you could restrict a tainted bloodline to abilities of level 1-5, minor of level 6-10, etc in the bloodline list or some such.

I'd then treat the rest of bloodline and domain rule entirely separately to the adventure level rules. Awnshegh would probably need a third system still.

[bbeau22]

AndrewTall,

I agree with you. To take it a step further you can have Paragon path Options for the more powerful or consistant blood powers .... but have feats back them up. Example would be ...

Animal Affinity

Paragon Path - Scion gains Empathic Communication with a Totem Animal. Species of that animal will never attack the Scion and gains wild empathy with that animal.

Feat

-Expert Animal Affinity (horrible name I know)
-Pre-Req - Animal Affinity
-Scion gains the ability to speak with totem animal and animal will listen to reasonable requests.

Feat

Advanced Animal Affinity (I know)
- Pre-Req - Animal Affinity/Expert Animal Affinity
- Scion can Detect totem Animal, has enhanced communication with totem animal and gains shape change into totem animal 1/day

This might be the ideal way to go.

[Sorontar]

Could Animal Affinity also have a Domain level?

e.g.
Domain Level

Paragon Animal Affinity- No units of the totem animal can attack the province in which the Scion is located, without his/her approval.
Expert Animal Affinity - The totem animal can be used to help Espionage actions (and give some bonus for using non-humanoid espionage).
Advanced Animal Ability - War units of the totem animal can be called up to serve as a military force within their home province. These units will only listen to commands given by the Scion. The Scion does not have to have any holdings in the province.


So Paragon would counter Advanced, but in both cases, the Scions would have to be in the province. If wolves were the Totem Animal, then goblin wolfriders would be affected by the Paragon level. The Spider would have Advanced level and be able to call up forces of Spiders to protect the Spiderfell.

These might have to be limited to 1/year, but they already have a lot of restrictions in the definitions.

Sorontar.

[bbeau22]

Sorontar,

Yeah we could seperate it like that. I like that idea. We could include your option in with the other Animal Affinity paths so they have an adventure componant and realm componant. Many abilities could have both.

Now on to my silliness. Mind you I haven't read 4th edition so what I am about to post is completely too early and uses many 3.5 terms and rules. It is to mostly show you what I am thinking. I wanted to use the Paragon Path set up with blood abilities. Below is an example of one bloodline.

Now I didn't look into balance, many abilities make no sense in 4th edition, but with this set up it will work with the regular class build. If the character is blooded with Anduiras then they will have access to this path. There will be feats to back up some of these abilities and in some cases expanding them like my Animal Affinity listed above.

Anduiras Path

Levels 1-10

Animal Affinity
Bloodmark
Minor Courage
Minor Healing
Heightened Ability – Charisma/Strength
Iron Will
Minor Long Life
Minor Resistance – Charm


Animal Affinity
Pre-Req: Anduiras
The Scion gains Empathic Communication with Totem animal within 60 feet. Members of that species will never attack the scion. Also the scion gains empathic ability like a druid or ranger with their totem animal.

Bloodmark
Pre-Req: None
Scion bears a visible sign of his special heritage. He gains a bonus to Charisma based skills.

Courage, Minor
Pre-Req: Anduiras
Scion is immune to all fear effects

Healing
Pre-Req: Anduiras
Scion gains an additional healing surge per day. (not sure if this is correct 4th edition)

Heightened Ability Charisma/Strength
Pre-Req: Andurias
Scion gains a +2 to either Charisma or Strength. Can only be taken once.

Iron Will
Pre-Req: Anduiras bloodline
Scion gains an additional 1 hp per character level, gains the Toughness feat (3.5 edition) and a +1 to Will defense and Fortitude defense (all or some of this might work … depending on balance.)

Long Life
Pre-Req: Anduiras bloodline
Scion only ages 1 year for every 5 years that pass.
Resistance - Charm
Pre-Req: Anduiras
Scion gains a +4 Will defense against spells from the charm school or any spell that attacks the mind.





Levels 11-20 (Major Bloodline is needed)

Battlewise
Courage
Divine Aura
Enhanced Sense
Major Healing
Major Long Life
Protection from Evil
Unreadable Thoughts


Battlewise
Pre-Req: Anduiras
Scion gains a +2 to their effective EL on the battlefield.

Courage, Major
Pre-Req: Anduiras, Minor Courage
Scion’s immunity to fear spreads to effect those in a 10 foot radius.

Divine Aura
Pre-Req: Anduiras
Scion receives a +2 to all charisma based skills. They can also Enthrall any non-blooded people once per day.

Enhanced Sense
Pre-Req: Anduiras
Scion can detect evil once per encounter.

Healing, Major
Pre-Req: Anduiras, Healing
Scion can cure disease, paralysis, blindness/defness, restoration once per day. They can also give their bonus healing surge from Healing to someone else in their party.

Long Life, Major
Pre-Req: Anduiras bloodline, Long Life
Scion only ages 1 year for every 25 years that pass.
Protection from Evil
Pre-Req: Anduiras Bloodline
Scion is warded with a protection from evil at all times

Unreadable Thoughts
Pre-Req: Anduiras
Scion is immune to any spell or ability that can read his mind.




Levels 21-30 (Great Bloodline needed)

Great Courage
Great Divine Aura
Divine Wrath
Elemental Control
Great Enhanced Sense
Great Healing
Great Long Life
Resistance – Magic
Great Protection from Evil


Courage, Great
Pre-Req: Anduiras, Major Courage
A military unit that includes the scion automaticly make all moral checks.

Divine Aura
Pre-Req: Anduiras
Scion receives a +2 to all charisma based skills. They can also Enthrall any non-blooded people once per day.

Divine Wrath
Pre-Req: Anduiras
Scion gains a Barbarian like rage, damage reduction and a fear gaze.

Elemental Control
Pre-Req: Anduiras
Scion can summon an elemental once per week and can control winds once per day.

Enchanced Sense, Great
Pre-Req: Anduiras, Enhanced Sense
Scion can detect evil at will.


Healing, Great
Pre-Req: Anduiras, Healing major
Scion can use their bonus healing surge as a fast action.

Long Life, Great
Pre-Req: Anduiras Bloodline, Long Life Major
Scion only ages 1 year for every 100 years that pass.

Resistance – Magic
Pre-Req: Anduiras
The Scion has improved defense vs. Spells

Protection from Evil, Great
Pre-Req: Anduiras Bloodline, Protection from Evil
Scion’s Protection from Evil ward extends 10 feet.

[Lawgiver]

I'm still not thrilled with bloodlines being tied to level. It doesn't make sense in concept. They are innate and passed on via birth, not experience. Teenagers can manifest bloodpowers that would hardly fit for a level 11+ character. Putting bloodlines into the feat system not only ruins that but it will produce PCs that are deficient when compared to others in terms of combat effectiveness.

[bbeau22]

Lawgiver,

I understand your issues with it ... and certain it changes something core to the game. On the flip side of your issue with having character weaker than they should be for combat .... playing a adventure campaign might have to deal with over-powered characters at level one if they don't find a way to balance. Having a level 1 character being able to summon a large elemental or being able to confuse every non-blooded person around them will ruin many encounters.

What is the answer I don't know. How powerful their bloodline is isn't attached to their level and shouldn't be ... I was listing blood powers to be tied to level a bit more. It creates a balanced campaign for either adventure or rulership. If a character wants to spend their abilities and feats on improving and gaining new blood powers they can ... but that also means they haven't been focusing on class abilities and could be weaker ... which in the end was their own choice and must suffer the consequences of their choices. Their blood score will remain the same. I was thinking that bloodscore would be a basis for WHICH blood powers they had access too, but not have automaticly if they don't pay attention to that side of their being.

I could envision a character that is using his blood powers as a crutch and hasn't refined his skill with a sword because of it. I could very realisticly seeing something like that happen.

Worst case senario, as someone else mentioned, we could have all the blood powers listed the same but two different system for getting them depending on the type of campaign. I don't love this idea but would support it if everyone was for it.

-BB

[Vicente]

I'm still not thrilled with bloodlines being tied to level. It doesn't make sense in concept. They are innate and passed on via birth, not experience. Teenagers can manifest bloodpowers that would hardly fit for a level 11+ character. Putting bloodlines into the feat system not only ruins that but it will produce PCs that are deficient when compared to others in terms of combat effectiveness.

They will be only deficient if the powers are useless. The other way around is equally possible.

[aluman]

I dislike the idea of specified bloodline paths tied to derviation. The reason I do is simple, by tying derviation and certain adventure level powers to a single bloodline you pigeonhole that derviation. While in 2e, much of Vorynn's abilities were tied to magic, and much of Andurais was tied into fighting, neither one wasn't beneficial for it.

On the adventuring side of the bloodline abilities, we are basically replacing other powers with the blood abilities. By giving the same feel, fighters will not want to be of Vorynn's line. This to me is Bad. that said, because this is a communal work, I will make suggestions on your listings.


Anduiras Path

Levels 1-10

Animal Affinity
Bloodmark
Minor Courage
Minor Healing
Heightened Ability – Charisma/Strength
Iron Will
Minor Long Life
Minor Resistance – Charm


Animal Affinity
Pre-Req: Anduiras
The Scion gains Empathic Communication with Totem animal within 60 feet. Members of that species will never attack the scion. Also the scion gains empathic ability like a druid or ranger with their totem animal.

#1 no druids, and rangers are no longer nature tied. In general animal companion type things are disliked in 4e due to conservation of actions (That is, do not let the palyers get 8+ actions a round through various animals and summonings).

#2 Empathic Communication also hasn't been established

#3 Animal Affinity used to be with all blood lines so I think you mean Animal Affinity (Lions), but I could be wrong?

#4 I cannot see any class being willing to give up one of their combat related powers/feats to pick this up.

If we go this way, Perhaps change Animal Affinity (lion) to:
Heart of the Lion
Daily Power Close Burst 2 (Basically a 5x5 square with the caster in the center)
Target: Allies in Burst
Effect: All allies gain a +Cha modifer bonus to their AC until the end of encounter.
Special: This power replaces one of the daily class powers you recieve.



Bloodmark
Pre-Req: None
Scion bears a visible sign of his special heritage. He gains a bonus to Charisma based skills.

4E skills requiring Charisma
Bluff
Intimidate
Diplomacy
Streetwise

4/17 ~ 25% of skills, one of them (intimidate) needs errata'd bad (right now, if you make a Intimidate check above the will defense of an bloodied opponent they surrender instantly, and can be applied to an entire battlefield at once).
Once it gets erratted I would suggest either a static bonus (+3ish) or a tier based bonus (+2/4/6) for the adventuring component, and even then isn't likely to be highly desired for a power swap, but Mark of Andurias could be a decent feat.


Courage, Minor
Pre-Req: Anduiras
Scion is immune to all fear effects

Fear is now a descriptor on some powers that deal damage. I think a better wording is that they are immune to ongoing affects from fear descriptor powers.


Healing
Pre-Req: Anduiras
Scion gains an additional healing surge per day. (not sure if this is correct 4th edition)

There is already a feat for that. My general idea is: Either A). May use Second Wind 2/day instead of 1/day or: May use a healing surge to heal a ompanion 1+Wis modifer times a day (this basically is lay on hands by a Paladin though).


Heightened Ability Charisma/Strength
Pre-Req: Andurias
Scion gains a +2 to either Charisma or Strength. Can only be taken once.

No. The reality is, Ability bonuses are close to impossible to come by. this feat becomes critical to anyone using Charisma/Strength based powers (Fighter, Warlords, Paladins, Clerics, Warlocks). The way belts are worded now is "Gains +X to ability checks (not attack or damage rolls)" for that attribute.

Sooo:
"Gains a +2 modifer to any ability or Skill check (not including attack or damage rolls) for Strength or Charisma"


Iron Will
Pre-Req: Anduiras bloodline
Scion gains an additional 1 hp per character level, gains the Toughness feat (3.5 edition) and a +1 to Will defense and Fortitude defense (all or some of this might work … depending on balance.)

Toughness is refueled. Over all, this isn't actually that far off, but 1hp isn't that great. +1 to will/fort defenses might balance it. The only issue is some builds of rangers (Two weapon) get toughness as bonus feat, and toughness is no longer multiply selectedable, but scales with tier. I would suggest just dropping the toughness feat, and make it +1 hp/level per tier (meaning that at paragon level 11, they get +11 hp)


Long Life
Pre-Req: Anduiras bloodline
Scion only ages 1 year for every 5 years that pass.

This to me is nice, but not power replacing nice. Really Long Life doesn't affect combat, and rarely truly affects game play. (Few Campaigns last for centuries)


Resistance - Charm
Pre-Req: Anduiras
Scion gains a +4 Will defense against spells from the charm school or any spell that attacks the mind.

charm is mostly gone, and is now a descriptor for powers. drop the charm, up it to +5 (Eladrin race gets that much, its a good starting point)




Levels 11-20 (Major Bloodline is needed)

Battlewise
Courage
Divine Aura
Enhanced Sense
Major Healing
Major Long Life
Protection from Evil
Unreadable Thoughts



Battlewise
Pre-Req: Anduiras
Scion gains a +2 to their effective EL on the battlefield.

Battlefield needs to be specified for specifically mass combat.


Courage, Major
Pre-Req: Anduiras, Minor Courage
Scion’s immunity to fear spreads to effect those in a 10 foot radius.
See above for rewording of this affect, change 10ft radius to 1 square close burst (Everyone within 5ft) or 2 square close burst (10ft).

Probably should be limited to 1/encounter and have it last until next turn with a sustain of minor action.


Divine Aura
Pre-Req: Anduiras
Scion receives a +2 to all charisma based skills. They can also Enthrall any non-blooded people once per day.

+2 to charisma skills even unnamed isn't that great at level 11. (you already have +10 from level)

Enthrall is no longer a term. Give them a dominate either 1/day or 1/encounter power. (I could work out the wording, would have to look up a few monsters to make sure I don't make it overly powerful)


Enhanced Sense
Pre-Req: Anduiras
Scion can detect evil once per encounter.

Detect Evil doesn't exist. Also, detecting evil is apprachoing useless in a standard encoutner. This is an extremely minor benfit to a lvl 11+ character, would never be selected.


Healing, Major
Pre-Req: Anduiras, Healing
Scion can cure disease, paralysis, blindness/defness, restoration once per day. They can also give their bonus healing surge from Healing to someone else in their party.

Diseases are ongoing damage, grant a +X (possible charsima) to the save. Paralysis is now immbolized, also save power. Same with Blindness/deafness. No ability damage, restoration not needed.

See above about the last. Maybe grant +1d6hp to the healing surge.


Long Life, Major
Pre-Req: Anduiras bloodline, Long Life
Scion only ages 1 year for every 25 years that pass.

See above about my quibble with Long Life period.


Protection from Evil
Pre-Req: Anduiras Bloodline
Scion is warded with a protection from evil at all times

Protection from Evil doesn't exsist, grant Resist Necrotic of Charisma, and a +1 to all defenses until the end of encounter (as a suggestion)


Unreadable Thoughts
Pre-Req: Anduiras
Scion is immune to any spell or ability that can read his mind.

No ability as of yet does so. As the Orginal Cerillia was no psionic, I don't think it will ever happen.


I didn't do epic as I ran out words.

[kgauck]

I dislike the idea of specified bloodline paths tied to derviation. The reason I do is simple, by tying derviation and certain adventure level powers to a single bloodline you pigeonhole that derviation.

That's the point. The old gods had specializations and that influences the scions. This is setting again, its really not negotiable.


While in 2e, much of Vorynn's abilities were tied to magic, and much of Andurais was tied into fighting, neither one wasn't beneficial for it.

The last clause in this statement doesn't make sense. Please rephrase.


On the adventuring side of the bloodline abilities, we are basically replacing other powers with the blood abilities. By giving the same feel, fighters will not want to be of Vorynn's line. This to me is Bad.

I don't see the problem here. If Vorynn is a sub-optimal mix with fighter, and a player doesn't want it for story reasons, why pick it? Select Anduiras or something else.


#1 no druids, and rangers are no longer nature tied. In general animal companion type things are disliked in 4e due to conservation of actions.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Both druids and pet masters will come in time, they're supposed to follow in later books. Second both are social roles as much as they are classes, and its perfectly reasonable to have the social role without the class. Given the god of Erik, and the social order of the Rjuirk people, I think we'll always have druids and rangers who are tied to Erik/nature. If you want to use the ranger class to describe an Anuirean robin hood, that's fine. I think we'll see all of what bbeau22 is describing in the 1st year of the game.

[Vicente]

There are examples in the Players Handbook about feats tied to specific things, like the Divine Changelling feats tied to the god the cleric worships. I don't see why tying blood feats/powers to derivations would be a problem (given that a player can choose his derivation).

About druids, they aren't going to have companions and summonings, Wizards has already posted about that. Druids are going to be an Hybrid class and it will play around form transformations.

I think we aren't going to see classes with pets any time soon (at least from Wizards). With no paladin mounts, wizard familiars, ranger companions, and druids are announced to not have companions either, I think they have made their point pretty clear.

[bbeau22]

Thanks for looking at my list. Certainly it isn't perfect using old rules and not being totally complete. Yes Animal Affinity is for every derivation as our other blood powers ... I just didn't feel the need to list them all out at the time ... got lazy with my typing.

It was more of an outline of how I envision blood powers working in a 4th edition setting. There will also be feats that give others powers directly tied into the abilities above.

In the Saga edition rules for Jedi, if you were force sesitive you could take a feat that would give you additional force powers instead of a typical class feat. This might work well with Blood powers. In Star Wars the feat would allow you to choose a number of force powers that is equal to your intellegence modifier (I think.) Many of the per day abilities or per encounter abilities could fall into this cataglory.

It would really depend on how powerful we make the per day and encounter blood ablities. If they are powerful than a single feat could get you one. If we make them a little weaker then something like the above could be a good choice.

-BB

[Rowan]

Okay, I haven't read all of these yet and I don't yet have my 4e books (though I've followed much of the development online).

It seems to me, though, that there is some mixed discussion of adventure-oriented powers in this thread. In the other bloodlines thread, I think we agreed that adventure-oriented powers (the majority of current 2e and 3e bloodline powers) would be tied to character level and be added to the list of class abilities or feats that a character could take (or maybe characters will even get additional feats or powers just so that they can buy a few of these on top of normal class abilities, I don't know yet).

If this thread is focused on realm-level domain powers, then we should keep the discussion to those things, like what Sorontar had proposed. Realm-level powers (per the other thread) will remain completely separate from class and level. Essentially, they will use a system very similar to the 2e/3e one.

I suggest moving away from a table that you have to reference to know how many realm-level powers you get, though. Perhaps each derivation still has its limitations on realm powers available, and these still fit into Minor, Major, and Great categories, but the number available could be tied to blood score in a different fashion. If we could assign each power a point value based on our estimation of its relative strength (which could then easily be tweaked by the community or each DM if they wish), then each scion would get a number of points to "purchase" blood abilities equal to their bloodline score.

So, a Major bloodline of 23 might be able to purchase 3 minor power costing 3, 4, and 6, and one major power costing 10, while a Major bloodline of 45 might also be able to purchase two more major powers at costs 10 and 12. If that's too complicated, it could be streamlined so that minor powers all cost 5, major 10, and great 15.

As for what realm level powers should be, I suggest thinking up things that modify the game like so:
Allow an additional Court action of a certain type
Allow a standard action of a certain type to be conducted as a Court action
Modify any of the various combat variables (unit statistics, terrain or weather effects, hero units, etc.)
Mimic, in a unique and probably limited fashion, a realm spell
Alter holding statistics in some fashion (gaining an extra bonus to assisting an action like Espionage or gaining extra GB or RP income from one holding)
Aid in the resolution of a random event
Cause a random event

As for frequency, most powers should only be usable once per domain turn. Stronger bloodlines or weaker powers might be usable once per month. I also could see where some powers might require a little RP or GB to activate.

In the coming week I'll start posting some of my ideas for possible realm powers, though a number of good ones have already been listed here.

[bbeau22]

Rowan,

Many of your realm blood powers sound good. Start up a new thread with proposed realm blood powers and we can go from there. Then everyone can post ideas and critisims.

-BB

[aluman]

That's the point. The old gods had specializations and that influences the scions. This is setting again, its really not negotiable.

The issue is, hertiage. You inherit the bloodline, but it shouldn't pigeonhole you into being a wizard with Vorynn's blood (infact there is a vos paladin in the core setting that has Vorynn's blood) 2E made it where Vorynn's ability weren't exclusivly benefical to Wizards. The way classes work now, it will be hard to set something that doesn't.



The last clause in this statement doesn't make sense. Please rephrase.

What I mean is: Although courage (as an example) is something that best benefits the warriors (defenders in 4e terms), it has a utility to non warriors as well.



I don't see the problem here. If Vorynn is a sub-optimal mix with fighter, and a player doesn't want it for story reasons, why pick it? Select Anduiras or something else.

The problem is, we end up punishing players for story reasons.



Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Both druids and pet masters will come in time, they're supposed to follow in later books. Second both are social roles as much as they are classes, and its perfectly reasonable to have the social role without the class. Given the god of Erik, and the social order of the Rjuirk people, I think we'll always have druids and rangers who are tied to Erik/nature. If you want to use the ranger class to describe an Anuirean robin hood, that's fine. I think we'll see all of what bbeau22 is describing in the 1st year of the game.
Actually Rangers are now more hard hitting warriors then they are nature bound, a Ranger is either tied to the bow or twin weapons. Either way they deal damage primarily.

Druids are coming when they release Primal, which may be PHB2 or 3 (2 or 3 years down the road), by not focusing on what May or May not be a druidc power and may or may not be given deffination as such (animal empathy) and instead finding a way to word it where it doesn't rely on primal sources having empathy with animals, we would do better.

Pet/Master will be 1 creature, which is already crippling Greater Animal Affinity. That or will violate the economy of actions which is why summoning isn't allowed yet. The cleric who does have some 'summon' abilities all use the cleric actions in place of their own, it stands to reason that when a summoner class does appear its more likely to be a leader type who does the same.

Next, from the looks of the powers, he was focusing on adventure level ones. If adventure level powers are to be worth it they must be on par power wise as current adventure powers and feats, if they fail there (like having empathy with a single type of animals who may or may not be present in an adventure) then they fail to be worthwhile.

[irdeggman]

The issue is, hertiage. You inherit the bloodline, but it shouldn't pigeonhole you into being a wizard with Vorynn's blood (infact there is a vos paladin in the core setting that has Vorynn's blood) 2E made it where Vorynn's ability weren't exclusivly benefical to Wizards. The way classes work now, it will be hard to set something that doesn't.

Not really.

Vorynn's blood made it a better fit for a wizard.

Using the 4th ed system (like in races) Vorynn's blood could give a "boost" to wizard powers - very 4th ed and also BR.

It was also noted that the Vos paladin was totally out of place.

There was also a paladin with Azrai blood and it painted that he was in constant struggle with his blood line derivation and the pull of Azrai.



The problem is, we end up punishing players for story reasons.

Punish is a hard word. A player chose a difficult path - make it one and not just merely a "background" issue with no mechanical challenges.

What you have to watch for are players who see "choices" as nothing more than mechanical advantages and not role-playing tools (this is an inherent problem with 4th ed as I see it, since it is much more PC game-esqu and less role-playing emphasis. Alignment has pretty much been "neutered" in 4th ed).

[aluman]

Not really.

Vorynn's blood made it a better fit for a wizard.

Using the 4th ed system (like in races) Vorynn's blood could give a "boost" to wizard powers - very 4th ed and also BR.

I would rather see Vorynn's powers boost things that directly tie into the majority of wizard's abilities, but strictly speaking just wizards.
Like say, granting bonuses to hit against will defenses and such.


It was also noted that the Vos paladin was totally out of place.

More for being vos paladin then for his bloodline/class combination.


There was also a paladin with Azrai blood and it painted that he was in constant struggle with his blood line derivation and the pull of Azrai.

I remember the manticore was also a paladin at one point, but his blood was tainted to Azari, and Azari has always been a special case. The others wether good or mildly evil didn't carry the tain. There are evil people with Anduris blood in them, after all.



Punish is a hard word. A player chose a difficult path - make it one and not just merely a "background" issue with no mechanical challenges.

Punish is the right word, other scions get special abilities that directly boost their classes, because someone else chose a diffrent path they have no way to directly benifit from it (at least the way the blood abilities seem to be headed) why then bother to be off classed with the blood? The system shouldn't encourage, but neither should it go out of its way to cripple people who want to be 'oddities'.


What you have to watch for are players who see "choices" as nothing more than mechanical advantages and not role-playing tools (this is an inherent problem with 4th ed as I see it, since it is much more PC game-esqu and less role-playing emphasis. Alignment has pretty much been "neutered" in 4th ed).
Actually, overall Evil is easier to play in game now then it was. with the loss of the instant detect evil abilities, there is less concern. They did simplfy the alignment, but as I largely ignored alignment in all verisions of DnD (and all other roleplaying games) it hardly matters to me.

[Autarkis]

I guess I will just pipe in on two points.

The first is that of Derivation. The player can choose his or her class and his or her derivation. If she chooses Vornyn Fighter, then she will of course not be as optimized as an Aduiras Fighter. I think taking away the uniqueness of each bloodline dilutes what makes Birthright, well, Birthright.

As to tying Bloodpowers to level, again I lean towards 2E. Blood powers separates those with the blood of gods int heir veins from those without. If two equally skilled fighters faced each other, the one with a Bloodline would have an advantage. Again, I come back to the title of the setting "Birthright." It is about the actual manifestation of the divine right to rule.

Just my two cents.

[bbeau22]

I guess I will just pipe in on two points.

The first is that of Derivation. The player can choose his or her class and his or her derivation. If she chooses Vornyn Fighter, then she will of course not be as optimized as an Aduiras Fighter. I think taking away the uniqueness of each bloodline dilutes what makes Birthright, well, Birthright.

As to tying Bloodpowers to level, again I lean towards 2E. Blood powers separates those with the blood of gods int heir veins from those without. If two equally skilled fighters faced each other, the one with a Bloodline would have an advantage. Again, I come back to the title of the setting "Birthright." It is about the actual manifestation of the divine right to rule.

Just my two cents.


I don't think anyone wants to lose that side of Birthright. The Divine Power does flow through them and they are the only ones that can be true rulers of the land, the only ones that can cast true magic. Just a slightly more balanced verison. With blood powers that fighter will get access to abilities that another fighter couldn't think of having.

[Sorontar]

For most minor NPCs, their culture will chose their bloodline. Most of the blooded Rjurik will have Reynir's bloodline. How they then progress in life is up to them. If the blood abilities don't really start revealing themselves until they are in their teens, then it could be thought that this would steer them towards a career that makes the most of their new skills. However, this isn't so. People don't always act like that. There are often over-riding reasons to take alternative paths, e.g. family traditions, community and personal needs. Therefore, I feel that no connection should be forced in BRCS 4e (or any other edition) between class and bloodline.

When we are talking about PCs, the heroes of the future, whose players tend to chose their bloodlines, I feel that if a player wants to optimise their PC's class, they should just pick an optimal bloodline for that class. This should be a choice of the player, not a requirement in the rules.

If the bloodline chosen is not optimal, then the player is going to have fun playing with what blood "cards" they have been dealt (or chosen). I chose Reynir for my druid, but the dice chose Long Life, Resistance and Detect Lie. The last two have been great to play adventures with. The Detect Lie even helped me design the PC's attitude to the world. The Long Life has been fairly useless to me, but for the fact that my character looks like a 15 year old when he is actually over 20. However, it would have helped other party members who had years taken off their lives by undead. Only the Detect Lie could be thought to be helpful specifically to a druid in their advisor role within Rjurik communities. However, my druid is an adventurer so that cultural role rarely appears. Instead he uses it for other interactions with NPCs (and party members :^) ).

So what bloodline is optimal for what PC depends on how you play them. It shouldn't be linked to specific classes.

Sorontar

[kgauck]

The problem is, we end up punishing players for story reasons.

We do that all the time. When we require a wizard to be blooded; when we don't allow a party with human, elf, lizardman, and gnome; when we reshuffle allies and enemies because of political changes above the level of the PC; any time we impose consequences because of player actions. Selecting a bloodline is a player action that has a consequence no less than selecting a class does.

[irdeggman]

For most minor NPCs, their culture will chose their bloodline. Most of the blooded Rjurik will have Reynir's bloodline. How they then progress in life is up to them. If the blood abilities don't really start revealing themselves until they are in their teens, then it could be thought that this would steer them towards a career that makes the most of their new skills. However, this isn't so. People don't always act like that. There are often over-riding reasons to take alternative paths, e.g. family traditions, community and personal needs. Therefore, I feel that no connection should be forced in BRCS 4e (or any other edition) between class and bloodline.

Sorontar


The real key is that in 4th ed there is no "punishing" there is "rewarding".

No penalties for low ability scores, no racial ability score minuses.

There are only "bonuses".

This fits extremely well with the concept of bloodline derivation - some derivations "reward" certain classes and types of behavior.

IMO it helps if one thinks of derviation like being a specialty cleric in 2nd ed. A deity gave certain "abilities" and spells to his followers and expected a certain behaviour in response (alignment, philosophy, etc). This was a "direction" that they were to follow.

Blood lines were a direct result of the death of the deity - so they should have a much greater impact an a scion's life.

They were never intended to be a mere "add on" to an existing game, they were always supposed to reflect the very nature of the setting itself.

The draw of the blood is a very real thing and should be reflected. While only Azrai is detailed (although I think that this draw is also touched on in the BoR and some of the new blood abilities added in there) it is a very tangeable thing.

I have always hated when players shose Azrai as their blood line derivation because it had the best abilities but then wanted to ignore the draw to chaotic and evil behavior (and the potential for eventually becomng an "awnie"). This is the type of behavior that should never, IMO, be "rewarded".

A player designs his character with a "philosophy" and innate natural behavior - part of that process should involve looking for a bloodline derivation that "matches" that behavior and not one that grants abilites that they like.

[kgauck]

A player designs his character with a "philosophy" and innate natural behavior - part of that process should involve looking for a bloodline derivation that "matches" that behavior and not one that grants abilites that they like.

Absolutly!

[Vicente]

While I agree players should choose derivations that fit in their player concepts and ideas, the problem with derivations is the same as with the 2e Paladin: they are related to a "behavior" (aligment).

If a player wants to play a sneaky type, that loves secrets, silent, lonely but willing to help others, she will probably see that a Rogue fits (mechanically) much better my idea than a Fighter. And maybe Azrai will fit her idea (mechanically too) better than Anduiras (just an example, I don't remember the blood powers of each). I don't see any problem thinking in that way, the player choosed things that worked well with her idea.

But if you tie derivations with aligments like some classes did you start entering a world full of strange things and situations. And more if there's no mechanic behind it but rather some blurred explanations that 100 people will understand in 100 different ways...

Either way, if a player chooses the derivation and she knows what are the advantages for choosing it, and she chooses willingly one that doesn't help her, well, her call. It's like if the same player builds a Str 8 Fighter because it fits better her idea of her character. I don't see problems with that.

[kgauck]

If a player wants to play a sneaky type, that loves secrets, silent, lonely but willing to help others, she will probably see that a Rogue fits (mechanically) much better my idea than a Fighter. And maybe Azrai will fit her idea (mechanically too) better than Anduiras (just an example, I don't remember the blood powers of each). I don't see any problem thinking in that way, the player choosed things that worked well with her idea.

There are three categories, good, indifferent, and bad. Vorynn was a god of secrets, and Azrai was a god of deception. Brenna is a patron of lots of roguish things. Those would all be good matches. Anduiras and Basaia are advocates of law and truth. So unless your rogue is sneaking for those kinds of causes (plausible but narrow), they might be bad matches. The other derivations, Reynir and Masela, are indifferent, neither helping nor conflicting with the character concept.

I wonder why someone would want to play a scoundrel but picks Anduiras for a derivation. Do they worship Haelyn too? Do they go about swearing oaths to behave chivalrously too? When does the player start making choices based on their character concept?


If there's no mechanic behind it but rather some blurred explanations that 100 people will understand in 100 different ways...

Welcome to role playing.

[Vicente]

There are three categories, good, indifferent, and bad. Vorynn was a god of secrets, and Azrai was a god of deception. Brenna is a patron of lots of roguish things. Those would all be good matches.

Not if you want to create a player with a really good heart. For that kind of "behavior" they range from "normal but not really fitting" (Vorynn and Brenna) to "not fitting at all" (Azrai).


Welcome to role playing.

That's a really weak argument to defend a badly designed thing sorry.

[kgauck]

Not if you want to create a player with a really good heart. For that kind of "behavior" they range from "normal but not really fitting" (Vorynn and Brenna) to "not fitting at all" (Azrai).

Lets look as Scions of Brenna, which you reject.
Marlae Roesone
Erik Danig
James Ardannt
Antia Maricoere

Two of these are regents of temples of Haelyn. Marlae Roesone is clearly supposed to be a good guy, and I think Erik Danig as well. If these guys don't have good enough hearts, I'm not sure what kind of sneaky rogue you're thinking of. Sure there are a lot of guilders and other kinds of rogues, so I'm not sure why this isn't actually a perfect fit.


That's a really weak argument to defend a badly designed thing sorry.

Actually its not poorly designed, its the heart and soul of role playing. You pick a set of behavioral characteristics and then you act them out (that is role play them). I'm not sure what role playing is, if its not about staking out a character concept and then bringing that to life at the gaming table.

[irdeggman]

While I agree players should choose derivations that fit in their player concepts and ideas, the problem with derivations is the same as with the 2e Paladin: they are related to a "behavior" (aligment).

Unfortuneately that is the very core of bloodline derivations ans laid out in the original material.



But if you tie derivations with aligments like some classes did you start entering a world full of strange things and situations. And more if there's no mechanic behind it but rather some blurred explanations that 100 people will understand in 100 different ways...

Who said they were "tied" to classes. I repeatedly said they were tied to behavior and that some classes made a better fit - not that any would not be possible (or allowed).


I also pointed out that 4th ed doesn't contain any "penalties" everything is in terms of bonuses.

So a certain derivation gives "bonuses" to certain behaviour types (which will probably correspond to certain classes).

If a player chooses to go a different route then he doesn't get the bonuses but likewise doesn't have any penalties.

For example the tiefling race gives bonuses to things that relate to being a warlock. This doesn't mean that a tiefling fighter is not allowed - only that the combination is not an optimal match.

I think that the 4th ed mechanics match very well with this concept for bloodline derivation.

[Vicente]

Probably I explained myself pretty badly. I agree with derivation powers been more related to several classes as some races are more suited to several classes too. But not on the alignment thing (I think I said the word enough times in my previous posts as to make it clear :( ).

One example:

- take 100 people who know the game. Give them an attack modifer, give them an AC, and ask them the number needed to hit. All 100 will come to the same number. That's a well designed rule.

- take 100 people who know the game. Tell them a situation and an action taken by a paladin and ask them if the action was good or evil. Probably the 100 people won't agree unless it's a very extreme situation. Forcing alignment and acts by a class is not good design and pretty useless too. Same applies to relating derivations with aligments. Taking that rule out doesn't hurt interpretation (as if you needed rules for that...).

Another thing:

I haven't found anywhere Brenna alignment, but Sera is Chaotic Neutral, so as the closer (or one of the closers) follower of Brenna I will suppose their alignments where equal.

While irrdeggman seems to support that derivation and alignments are somewhat tied (although I'm not sure, if that's not what you said, forget about the following), kgauck is nice enough to post regents with Brenna bloodline that are regents of temples of a LG god (I don't have RoE to check their actual alignments, I bet most of them aren't CN).

While it's true that some people with Azrai derivations become Awnsheghlien or derivate towards evil acts, not all of them suffer this fate and no where the books say they can't be as happy and behave equally as an Anduiras scion. If that's possible, trying to tie the derivation and the alignment is again a bad call.

kgauck says it quite well later on: "you pick a set of behavioral characteristics". That's very different than "you are enforced into a set of behavioral characteristics". A player should design his character freely and as he likes the most. If he wants to pick a specific derivation to support his background story, perfect. If he wants to pick a derivation because he likes the powers more, perfect too. Saying that one way is how it should be done is simply not true, it's a matter of personal taste.

But well, to try to not lose the post in off-topic ramblings. I think is a good idea to have some derivations fit better in some classes as some races do, as irdeggman posted in his Tiefling example.

[Rowan]

Gods are inherently tied to a specific archetype of behavior and often an alignment. Having a bloodline empowered with the god's essence should have some ramifications, whether the person ends up fighting those inclinations or embraces them.

Some of the original gods can be said to be associated with an alignment in particular and probably fosters tendencies of the same; they and the rest can also be associated with specific traits. I don't think we should divorce the derivations from these traits, though again, as I've said above, characters can choose to embrace them or deny them.

I would propose:
Anduiras: lawful good, honor, justice, nobility, war, law, wind/air
Basaia: good, reason, enlightenment, fire, sun
Brenna: unaligned, trickery, traveling, luck, selfishness
Masela: unaligned, the sea, water, weather, nurturing
Reynir: unaligned, the wilds, earth, balance, nature, rage, survival, self-sufficiency
Vorynn: unaligned, mystery, magic, the moon, night, secrets, rage, power/ambition
Azrai: evil

[bbeau22]

I see what you guys are saying. I never really DM'd in the idea that certain derivations pulled people to a certain alignment, but on the other hand certain derivations lend itself to certain classes .... which many NPC naturally followed into those classes because it fit them.

The only exception to this was Azari which did pull people towards evil acts.

I think it is a great DMing tool when creating personalities for many of the NPC's that they take the old derivations as a tool, but I wouldn't write any of that into offical rules.

-BB

[irdeggman]

Book of Regency (pgs 16+)



The blood of Cerilia affects the scion as well.


Regents, especially, find themselves manipulated by their bloodlines. Few scions of Anduiras can resist the call to battle; those of Reynir’s blood hearken to the trees and animals of the forest.


And of course, Azrai’s evil taint compels the unwary and unfortunate, corrupting their hearts and minds against the good of the people Cerilia.





Finally, it explains long-range effects bloodlines can have on their




scions—especially scions of Azrai.





As a result of possessing a signature ability, a scion may feel certain "pulls" toward or away f rom actions of a particular nature. Sometimes, these mystic tugs steer the scion into situations where he might use the ability in a manner that seems fitting to the old god from whom it is derived. In more general cases, the pull simply guides the character toward actions that would seem consistent with the old god’s nature.


This tendency can often cause problems for characters whose personal missions, alignments, or character classes do not harmonize perfectly with the bloodline they possess. For example , a dwarf scion might have the bloodline of Masela and the sea song blood ability. Although Cerilian dwarves do not have a fondness for water, this particular dwarf might "hear" the call of a babbling brook or the crash of waves on a shore when his bloodline wants him to get close to the water—an uncomfortable situation for the dwarf.



I think these qotes help to emphasize where I am getting my basis for how bloodline derivations tend to govern (or draw) a scion to a certain behavior. I knew I didn't make it up on my own.

[irdeggman]

And even more from the same source




Good role-players whose characters possess bloodlines probably already attempt to work with any dichotomy in their natures. Warriors with
Vorynn’s bloodline could develop an interest in the workings of magic, or in the strategic application of spells on the battlefield. Rogues possessing the Anduiras bloodline derivation might decide to become "honorable" thieves, stealing from only the evil or "those who can afford the loss."

The pull of a signature blood ability can be used to emphasize this possible contradiction. The player might choose to use his signature ability (or abilities) only when he thinks it should be used—in a role-playing, rather than practical, sense.





DMs should not be shy about suggesting uses of signature blood abilities that support the nature of the god who supplied the bloodline in the first
place. They needn’t force players to go along with these suggestions, but might indicate when something "feels" right or wrong to the characters.

However, DMs should never allow the bloodline to take the place of problem - solving or moral debates. Players should come to realize that the bloodline is not a cognizant entity within them, but rather a part of their own natures. And it might not always encourage PCs to act in their best interests .

[kgauck]

If he wants to pick a specific derivation to support his background story, perfect. If he wants to pick a derivation because he likes the powers more, perfect too. Saying that one way is how it should be done is simply not true, it's a matter of personal taste.

But there is good taste and bad taste. As Edmund Burke in his work, On Taste tells use taste is a product of experience.

In one case, a player picks a derivation to support a backstory (I would prefer to say a character concept, because it goes forward as well as backward). In the other case a player picks a set of powers and doesn't want to be bothered with where these come from or how else they might influence the character.


take 100 people who know the game. Give them an attack modifer, give them an AC, and ask them the number needed to hit. All 100 will come to the same number. That's a well designed rule.

The difference between mechanics and constructing a culture is that mechanics are clear. But role playing is impossible without a culture as a medium in which to interact. Checkers has game mechanics. But its not normally thought of as a role playing environment. Role playing on the other hand, needs a set of expectations about how people act, so that my kind act to the begger in Haes has meaning. Culture is not clear and obvious, or mechanical. So cultural aspects have to be adjudicated by each DM in his own way, based on their own theories of society and their theory of the society created in the game. How strict is chivalry in this place? In that place? Before this audience or that?

So much of role playing is not mechanical (indeed you can construct a perfectly fine RPG with no mechanics). So the fact that what it means to be a scion of Anduiras is going to get different answers depending on who you ask is simply a feature of what role playing is. The interpretation of the norms of dead gods, living gods, cultural expectations, occupational experience. Hence: "Welcome to role playing."

[geeman]

At 06:49 PM 6/11/2008, irdeggman wrote:

>I think these qotes help to emphasize where I am getting my basis
>for how bloodline derivations tend to govern (or draw) a scion to a
>certain behavior. I knew I didn`t make it up on my own.

If you (and by "you" I mean anyone who might want to venture an
opinion) were to quantify the affect of this influence on behavior
from derivation, how might you characterize it? That is, I`d suggest
that if you had a list of 10 general, wide-ranging characteristics to
describe a person, derivation might account for 2-4 of them. A scion
of Azrai might get 4-6 of his characteristics from his derivation,
and maybe more as he levelled up and his bloodline began to take him
over. How do other folks see this?

G

[kgauck]

I think that things like culture, religion, derivation, and other markers about who you are (social class -royal, noble, merchant &c, game class, fighter, cleric, wizard, &c) interact. Some characters will line these things up and they will reinforce. The Brecht guilder who worships Sera and has a Brenna bloodline, for instance.

If a character is all over the place, like the Rjurik wizard who worships Haelyn and has a derivation of Maseala, each of these components is arguing for something different. Sometimes one wins and then another has to lose. Just being a wizard says that some Rjurik sensibility was overcome. Sometimes influences will cancel one another out and you have a blank slate to work with. Such characters will be pretty eccentric.

So like influences reinforce, and conflicting influences both conflict and cancel one another. A character who has reinforcing influences, except for their derivation will be generally able to resist that influence by relying on their other influences, at least to a point.

As for Azrai, I don't think its more powerful in its influence, but rather more seductive. It does this in part by pretending to be other influences. It used things we might call Freudian defense mechanisms to trick the character into thinking he acted on his religious sensibility or his cultural inheritance, when in fact the blood of Azrai was misrepresenting itself about its own influence. It doesn't tell you want it wants to tell you, it tells you what you want to hear.

[Vicente]

Everybody plays D&D to have fun, but different people get their enjoyment from different aspects of the game. If you’re preparing and running a game for a group of players, understanding player motivations—what they enjoy about the game and what makes them happiest when they play—helps you build a harmonious group of players and a fun game for all.

Player Motivations

Most players enjoy many aspects of the game at different times. For convenience, we define the primary player motivations as types of players: actors, explorers, instigators, power gamers, slayers, storytellers, thinkers, and watchers.


You can read the descriptions of the types of players, nowhere you will find that someone has worst or better taste, plays the game worst or better or anything related to that way of thinking. It's a game, there are lots of ways of playing it and all of them are equal (common sense). You may like some of them more than others, that's natural, but saying they are the way the game is supposed to be played is simply not truth.

And before someone says something like setting wins over common sense or things like that and also answering to The Book of Regency quotes: there's a more important word that should be bolded that appears on the first page of that book, Accessory. There's a reason why Heavens of the Great Bay is a Campaign Expansion and The Book of Regency is an Accessory.

[kgauck]

Since I don't confine my reading to the 4e DMG, I don't regard all playing styles as equal, nor do I regard that as sensible, though it may be common. Nor do I regard Superman comics to have the same value as Aeschylus, though both influence RPG's. But to observe that some things are better than others is not the same thing as saying that the game is supposed to be morally, spiritually, aesthetically uplifting or strive to be better. Some people play for simple amusement, others attach a deeper level of interest in the game. Both are good, but the one is not as good as the other. To argue otherwise is to suspend judgment.

This is a game that presumes people get better (advance in level), but that doesn't apparently apply to the players.

No one is telling anyone how to play the game. That's a false argument. But to claim that the game is as good with only part of the materials as it is with all the materials is just silly. You can play a good game never leaving Roesone. More is better. Even bad products like the Sword of Roele offer something (good maps of the river valley between Coeranys and Baruk-Azhik, descriptions of the Three Brothers Mages) that adds to the game.

[Vicente]

The 4e DMG was an example that as there are people who think like you, there are people who don't think like you. I won't be bothered to check all the PHs/DMGs I have around, but sure they tell the same more or less: play the game the way you have more fun. You can think one way of playing is better or worse than other, good for you, but if you fail to see that a big part of the world will disagree with that you have a problem. And saying a set of things are equal is judging them as much as saying they aren't equal.

And about the materials thing, I think you are mistaken: AD&D 2e is a perfect example that trying to use all the materials published was a horrible mess. Saying something with an accessory has to be better than the same thing alone has no logic base and has lots of examples that show you wrong. And more horrible if it's a game with lots of accessories that will end contradicting themselves in multiple places, let it be rules, history, etc etc.

But the funny thing is I never claimed it was silly, I claimed The Book of Regency was accessory (as the book itself says!): something you pick if you want or you don't pick if you don't want, you can use some parts (as you say with the Sword of Roele) and trash others. You can trash the full Book of Regency and the setting is as Birthright as not trashing it.

Either way, I'm out of this talk, it doesn't help moving forward a 4e conversion and it's as useless as talking about politics, religion or other personal visions about whatever topic.

[kgauck]

The 4e DMG was an example that as there are people who think like you, there are people who don't think like you. I won't be bothered to check all the PHs/DMGs I have around, but sure they tell the same more or less: play the game the way you have more fun.

Well you've established that businesses don't like to judge why their consumers buy their product: they want everyone to buy. On the other hand you could check out settings designed to brand for a niche market.

Pretending that there is no such thing as a good game and a better game makes sense for a marketing department. Its a particularly bad trait in a conversion project. Any choice is not as good as any other choice.

[irdeggman]

And before someone says something like setting wins over common sense or things like that and also answering to The Book of Regency quotes: there's a more important word that should be bolded that appears on the first page of that book, Accessory. There's a reason why Heavens of the Great Bay is a Campaign Expansion and The Book of Regency is an Accessory.

Being an Accessory does not make it any less "official".

It makes it another source for reference to use to determine what the intent of the designers was.

That is where those of us who have insisted that bloodline derivation has a lot to do with behavior and thus "alignment" comes from.

So merely state that there is no connection becomes merely an opinion when there is evidence that there is indeed one (whether or not that evidence is used or not).

Blood Enemies is also an Accessory

So is the Sea Battle rules (the separate product version not the ones contained in Cities of the Sun).

And all of the Player's Secrets

I am also pretty sure that Blood Spawn was classified as an "Accessory" too.


What is really the difference between and expansion and an accessory in 2nd ed? I do not believe those terms have been used in 3.5 (and most likely won't be used in 4th ed either) - either something is in the core rules books (PHB, MM and DMG) or it is in an "optional" book. But everything WotC publishes is considered "official".

Both were entirely "optional" and both were equally "offical".

I think you are just looking for a reason to dismiss and "official" source because in your game you didn't play things that way. That is entirely allowed and understandable - a DM has always been able to "tailor" his/her game the way he/she saw fit.

But when it comes down to hard facts and quotes it comes down to whether somethig is "house-rules" or "official cannon".

I have provided the "official" quotes.

[Vicente]

I think you are just looking for a reason to dismiss and "official" source because in your game you didn't play things that way.

I didn't want to answer, but I think it's better to clear future problems: this is not true, point.

As I posted in another thread I only play Birthright on the domain level and my game is so tweaked by house rules that is completely different than 2e or the 3e conversion (I posted some on the old BR-list long time ago, I will maybe upload it to the wiki someday). I have no intention or desire to try make 4e conversion feel like my own house rules, so don't worry, when I post something is for what I feel will be the best for the conversion, not to suit my own needs. I'll be right or wrong, but my intention is the same as the rest of the people around: to have the best possible 4e Conversion for Birthright we can come up.

So end point: please do not think I post because I want BR to feel like my own creations, it's not based on any logical argument and more importantly, it's not true.

P.D.: about the accesory, supplement and other keywords, please check any 3e product cover... You also know what the word "accessory" means.

[Autarkis]

irdeggman point still stands.

Book of Regency and City of Suns are at the same level as far as flavor and how 'official' it outlines the world and flavor of the game.

For me, the Player's Handbooks, the additional region settings, adventure sets, novels, and additional rule books all add flavor to the game and consistency (I know, ironically using that word when speaking of Birthright which is known for its inconsistencies.) Any of these can be 'trashed.'

Regardless, back to the discussion, I feel that watering down the uniqueness of the blood abilities and how they separate a blooded individual from a non-blooded individual goes against the spirit and original purpose of the setting. Not all things need to be equal and sometimes attempting to ensure balance of everything leads to derailing the setting.

[Vicente]

Sigh...

First, the "bloodlines should be tied to an alignment" thing is not something that would be needed to be converted from 2e to 4e. It's rules-invariant so I don't see why it should appear in a conversion as nothing needs to be converted. So no matter who is right or wrong here, it won't be a problem for the conversion.

Second, Cities of the Sun is a Campaign Expansion (official and cannon) and The Book of Regency is an accessory (official and as cannon as you want it to be). It's not the same.

But better see one example of this "accessory (flavor) = cannon" behavior: The Book of Magecraft and the BRCS 3e Conversion :)

There's some cool flavor text on The Book of Magecraft about caerbhaighlien. I suppose it has to be really important because if you check the BRCS 3e Conversion you can find it in chapter 7. It's puzzling why flavor text should be converted, but it's more puzzling why someone invented a rule for it in the conversion process: caerbhaighlien sources aren't counted in the sources levels for the province. I have no idea why this was added but there it is.

Now let's advance a little more in The Book of Magecraft. You will find an action called Ley Link who allows people to share sources and ley lines. It's a very simple action so I suppose it's official and cannon too. Let's go to the BRCS 3e Conversion: you won't find it in the actions (chapter 5). Let's check chapter 7: here comes the big WTF.



Ley lines are a non-transferable domain asset. When a regent dies, her ley network is destroyed. Ley lines cannot be used or invested to another caster. The only exception to this rule is the use of the ley lines by the regent's lieutenant as part of a lieutenant domain action.


I could have understood (to some degree) not translating the action as it's pretty simple. But contradicting it? There's no ground on the Campaign Setting or The Book of Magecraft for that. Also I haven't found the level 7+ source equals a level 0 guild holding to create trade routes is on the conversion (I haven't searched much, could be somewhere).

So much for accessory = cannon...

And no, this is not an attack to the impressive work done in the BRCS 3e Conversion. It's just an example that the "accessory = cannon" thing has not been followed on previous work, so do not try to sell it now.

[Thelandrin]

The word is "canon" and the adjective is "canonical". All rules produced for the Birthright setting are canon, regardless of how mixed up or consistent they are. In cases where these clash, either the prime source (usually Ruins of Empire) takes precedence or you go with either common sense or personal preference.

The novels are not canonical, with regards to the rules, but provide some interesting back story.

[AndrewTall]

Caerbhaighlien sources are not controllable, therefore they either replace usable source holdings with unusable ones or effectively reduce the source potential of a province. The BoM deigned to mention which interpretation was correct. The BRCS team appear to have figured that something described as rare and wonderful should be positive, figured that a plot device McGuffin (we need to access the ancient caerbhaighlien to have the power to defend our province) was better than a sore point (ok GM, how do I get rid of the Caerbagh crap polluting my source?) and so decided that the Caerbhaighlien sources would be additional to the normal sources of the province, not instead of them.

Leylink has similar issues; it was out of sync with the treatment of other domain types and also become obsolete with the concept of control by a council of scions rather than a single scion - the BRCS therefore removed the existing 2e anomaly and fixed it with a more versatile generic mechanic.

Part of the 2e to 3e conversion was to remove randomness from holding income thus technically all the old income rules were ignored... The 'high level sources act as virtual guild rule' was retained as an optional rule in BRCS and is used in some PBEMs.


In general the BRCS appears to have tried to follow comments in all products as far as possible, I have to admit I've not been aware of anyone splitting the 'accessory' and 'expansion' concept in the way you have, to me the terms are interchangeable, but everyone will rank products in terms of importance based on a number of factors, this can put RoE on top (prime source) or the bottom (first attempt corrected in later books) dependig on point of view. Personally I go for whatever works best and is most consistent in my campaign.

My understanding is that flavour text will convert either to explain issues which came up in play with more clarity, reflect the fact that the typist gets bored just copying, or be an attempt to avoid copyright issues. Rules issues will tend to change to improve consistency across the ruleset, fit with the 3e philosophy better (i.e. the change from random income to fixed), update earlier 'canon' for later 'canon', or because the players on the forum at the time simply preferred the new rule in gameplay.

Alignment as a ruleset has changed frequently from system to system and that does need to be reflected in the conversion; to be honest though alignment is so poor a system given modern personality tools that I find it meaningless - I've had characters described as CE by half the group and LG by the other half based on their interpretations of the characters actions - the 4e version which assumes that chaos is bad and law good is even more broken than the 2 and 3e 'balance' alignments imho. This is one sacred cow which should have been slaughtered early in the 4e process...

Part of the 4e conversion will be not only considering the relative importance of sources, but also identifying 'canon' that is inconsistent with 4e philosophy. My current worry is that BR was aimed at the gamers who wanted the 'outside combat' stuff and 'role not roll' play, whereas the 4e conversion seems to have dumped any consideration of either game style. I have no problem with a game that consists wholly of PC creation, shopping, and random acts of violence, but I want more from BR and a conversion may wind up having to ignore significant chunks of 4e design philosophy.

[kgauck]

It is a vast mistake to confuse behavior and alignment. Bloodline draws one towards the values and behaviors associated with the god of its derivation, not necessarily anything at all to do with alignment.

I would be perfectly happy to abandon alignment of any kind (2e, 3e, 4e) in favor of descriptions of the gods and their ethical views on things. A Vorynnian worldview is something that is fundamental to the game. Its manifest in bloodlines, in the temples and teachings of Ruornil, the life ways of the old Vos, in the use of sources, the casting of spells, and all sorts of secret lore.

But apparently upholding the ways of Vorynn and Ruornil are too limiting, even though you get to choose of Vorynn is your guy, or not, or match him with a current god for a little hybid philosophy? Still to limiting?

Inside the game, sure derivations are proscriptive, they proscribe behavior.

But as a player, you picked this derivation, you described it as a way you wanted to act. It doesn't control action any more than any other decision. You can't be armored and unarmored at the same time, but you do get pick which one you want. Even derivations can change if the DM is willing to throw the right scion in your path.

But all of these concerns about things impinging on the character seem very un-Brithright to me. Birthright is about obligations and looking out for those who have sworn obedience to you. Its about embracing the super-ego, not the id.

[Rey]

In cases where these clash, either the prime source (usually Ruins of Empire) takes precedence or you go with either common sense or personal preference.
Actually, you are wrong. The first published books serve as a starting point. As other books get published, they take the precedence because they are newer and possibly better worked out, revised and expanded.

You'd compare, for example, one tribe in Rjurik Highlands campaing expansion with the same one in, let's say, Player's secrets of Stjordvik and see that if it holds no other entry than "As described in Rjurik Highlands CE", you'd go for that book as reference. Otherwise, you'd stick to the new one, if it suits you. That's your first line of common sense.

Why would anyone want to use the scarce info in RoE for Tuarhievel when they have a whole PS on it where the prince "left ages ago" to have a cup of tea with the G.?

[AndrewTall]

Why would anyone want to use the scarce info in RoE for Tuarhievel when they have a whole PS on it where the prince "left ages ago" to have a cup of tea with the G.?

Because the RoE was written by the setting designer whereas PSoT was written by a hackjob author who had no input on anything before or since and made glaring setting errors? If the gheallie sidhe wouldn't tolerate Ibelcoris as queen for being to friendly with humans just how long would Savane last on the throne? Not to mention the bizarrity of Fhileraene, an independent sidhe of a powerful elven realm meekly walking off to Kal Saitharak because the Gorgon demanded his attendance...

[irdeggman]

It is a vast mistake to confuse behavior and alignment. Bloodline draws one towards the values and behaviors associated with the god of its derivation, not necessarily anything at all to do with alignment.

I would be perfectly happy to abandon alignment of any kind (2e, 3e, 4e) in favor of descriptions of the gods and their ethical views on things. A Vorynnian worldview is something that is fundamental to the game. Its manifest in bloodlines, in the temples and teachings of Ruornil, the life ways of the old Vos, in the use of sources, the casting of spells, and all sorts of secret lore.

But apparently upholding the ways of Vorynn and Ruornil are too limiting, even though you get to choose of Vorynn is your guy, or not, or match him with a current god for a little hybid philosophy? Still to limiting?

Inside the game, sure derivations are proscriptive, they proscribe behavior.

But as a player, you picked this derivation, you described it as a way you wanted to act. It doesn't control action any more than any other decision. You can't be armored and unarmored at the same time, but you do get pick which one you want. Even derivations can change if the DM is willing to throw the right scion in your path.

But all of these concerns about things impinging on the character seem very un-Brithright to me. Birthright is about obligations and looking out for those who have sworn obedience to you. Its about embracing the super-ego, not the id.


Here is one of the few times where Kenneth and I agree almost completely.

Vicente,


First, the "bloodlines should be tied to an alignment" thing. . .

I never said that bloodline derivation was tied to alignment only that they drew a scion to a certain behaviour - which is in BoR. Azrai is the one exception because behaviour is equated to alignment there. Pretty much in 2nd ed alignment was connected to behavior, also it was in 3.5, in 4th ed the connection is lessoned but the abstractions are still there.

It is possible for a scion to go against his nature, but it is supposed to be difficult. There are plenty of written examples of this in the Br 2nd ed literature.

[irdeggman]

Sigh...

First, the "bloodlines should be tied to an alignment" thing is not something that would be needed to be converted from 2e to 4e. It's rules-invariant so I don't see why it should appear in a conversion as nothing needs to be converted. So no matter who is right or wrong here, it won't be a problem for the conversion.

Second, Cities of the Sun is a Campaign Expansion (official and cannon) and The Book of Regency is an accessory (official and as cannon as you want it to be). It's not the same.

But better see one example of this "accessory (flavor) = cannon" behavior: The Book of Magecraft and the BRCS 3e Conversion :)

There's some cool flavor text on The Book of Magecraft about caerbhaighlien. I suppose it has to be really important because if you check the BRCS 3e Conversion you can find it in chapter 7. It's puzzling why flavor text should be converted, but it's more puzzling why someone invented a rule for it in the conversion process: caerbhaighlien sources aren't counted in the sources levels for the province. I have no idea why this was added but there it is.

Now let's advance a little more in The Book of Magecraft. You will find an action called Ley Link who allows people to share sources and ley lines. It's a very simple action so I suppose it's official and cannon too. Let's go to the BRCS 3e Conversion: you won't find it in the actions (chapter 5). Let's check chapter 7: here comes the big WTF.



I could have understood (to some degree) not translating the action as it's pretty simple. But contradicting it? There's no ground on the Campaign Setting or The Book of Magecraft for that. Also I haven't found the level 7+ source equals a level 0 guild holding to create trade routes is on the conversion (I haven't searched much, could be somewhere).

So much for accessory = cannon...

And no, this is not an attack to the impressive work done in the BRCS 3e Conversion. It's just an example that the "accessory = cannon" thing has not been followed on previous work, so do not try to sell it now.


Bad example.

This is one of the places where it has been pointed out before that there were "errors" in the BRCS. Another one was the number of trade routes that a port can have (Havens of the Great Bay pointed out that they get twice as many as normal, although the increase is for sea trade routes alone) while the BRCS says they count towards to total (which is clearly in error).

So do not assume this was an intentional interpretation of how to combine "canon" material there are quite a few "accidents" in the BRCs that need to be corrected and then try to use them as basis for a point to be made is a discussion.

[Vicente]

irdeggman, your explanation and AndrewTall explanation about the points I remarked from the BRCS 3e Conversion clash completely. And I think his post explains much better what happened on those three examples (adding/explaining a rule, going against a rule and making a rule optional). Maybe the three of them were mistakes as you say, feel free to post links who talk about that subject and support the mistake argument.

[AndrewTall]

Well irdeggman was around at the time I wasn't so I may be being panglossian, the difference of opinion (my fix is your bug) is probably why only chapters 1 and 2 were ever agreed...

[irdeggman]

irdeggman, your explanation and AndrewTall explanation about the points I remarked from the BRCS 3e Conversion clash completely. And I think his post explains much better what happened on those three examples (adding/explaining a rule, going against a rule and making a rule optional). Maybe the three of them were mistakes as you say, feel free to post links who talk about that subject and support the mistake argument.


When the BRCS finally got finished only Travis (Doom) and I were left.

He did most of the work, except for Chapter 2 and 8 and was "rushed" by pressures of the general site fans. He left active status on the site shortly afterwards (something about his wife giving birth to his son and he wanted to be a good Dad - how dare he let his personal life get in the way ; ) )

There was quite a lot of pseudo-name calling going about and acusations of "secrecy" and the like.

A simple "search" will show quite a lot fo the subsequent discussions - with may pertaining to "suggested errata" and question.

I don't have the time to go through the search process - you will have to trust me on that since I participated in most of those discussions.

There are quite a number of different old threads on the subjects of things missing and things that conflicted with the 2nd ed material.

[Vicente]

Then I stand corrected on this subject. While I find surprising you planned to add the virtual guild thing I'll take your word for it ;)