BR D20 Design Philosophy

Dungeons & Dragons BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
1

Hi

My main problem with the BRCS is the lack of a single guiding principle
behind the conversion (as far as I can tell). Not only does it deprive
the BRCS from a sense of consistency and innovation, but presents us,
the members of the BR-L list, with an insurmountable obstacle when
trying to discuss various conversions.

Take the monk thread for example; has all the monk posts really done
much that can be added to a BRCS revision. No, it hasn’t, and it never
will.

All the different views are quite acceptable; add the class, remove it,
or change it. We’ll never reach any sort of agreement, and polls are
just stupid (by virtue of NOT contributing much to a unified direction
for the BRCS…). So we can debate endlessly, without producing much (very
similar to the situation before the D20 team; which I suspect were part
of the reason they didn’t include the community in the writing process –
VERY clever choice).

I strongly suggest that the D20 team show a little responsibility and
give the discussions a little direction. What IS the overall philosophy
behind the conversion (if there is one?).

  1. Adapting BR AD&D to 3E (Example: Adding the sorcerer, not coming up
    with alternate magic item creation rules etc.)

OR

  1. Adapting 3E to BR AD&D (Example: Booting the monk, non-standard
    humans etc.)

OR

  1. Some sort of bastardization (Example: The 7th ability score, which
    hails from neither)

So if we had some sort of principle we could then decide:

  1.  the monk stays

  2.  The monk goes

  3.  The monk gets converted

Which at least takes us one (giant) leap forward…

Cheers
Bjørn

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

2

Well, Green Knight, I’m having a little difficulty deciding. there are pros and cons to all alternatives.

Lets take nr. 3 first, as it seems easiest. This is a BAD idea. Look at the Bloodline system. It worked (reasonably) well under AD&D. Why change it to a 7th ability socre, then add a lot of weird rules to make it work. No, bastardization is not the way to go.

What about number 1 then? Well, it has a lot of good points, the main one being that 3E is so much better a system than AD&D ever was. That means a lot, so I’m leaning toward this option.

Number 2 then? Surley, number 2 would prove the optimal solution? You loved BR under AD&D, didn’t you? Yeah, and adding things that goes against the flavor of BR isn’t good, so there must be some compromise.

Well, that leads us exactly nowhere…

Not exactly. I think we should try as best we can to convert BR to 3E, and then add rules for:

  1. Things that aren’t covererd by 3E rules (bloodlines)
  2. Things that don’t fit (monk), or fit but weren’t included (gnome PC race)

Well Green Knight, than you for the talk.

You’re welcome :slight_smile:

Cheers
Bjørn

3

>>>> My main problem with the BRCS is the lack of a single guiding principle behind the conversion What IS the overall philosophy behind the conversion (if there is one?).

<<<<SNIP>>>>>

>>> 1. Adapting BR AD&D to 3E (Example: Adding the sorcerer, not coming up with alternate magic item creation rules etc.)

> OR

> 2. Adapting 3E to BR AD&D (Example: Booting the monk, non-standard humans etc.)

> OR

> 3. Some sort of bastardization (Example: The 7th ability score, which hails from neither)

While your tone is likely to provoke rather than interest (I have that problem also). I think the suggestion could end some of the rankling in the list.

Many of the difficulties come from mis-perception of what the book should be. Some of those mis-perception could be mine for all that I know. I am strongly in the camp of “build a d20 game for the world of Birthright” but it seems that others are equally strongly infavor of the Forgotten Realms of Cerilia?

Those issues aside - the parts of the game that make it Birthright were done very well (but still need a little work). Character creation will always be an individual thing. Monster use will vary by individual campaign. Magic prevelance will be different. The Mhor taking his skilled Guardians to defend against the hoardes of Markazor or Guilder Kalien`s manipulation of trade routes is the heart of the game (for me).

Secondary to the political game/war game comes the Bloodlines. I could do with or without bloodlines but they constitute a large part of the game for some and have the ability to radically change the way the game is played and can interfer with even the loosest character creation guidlines.

Preserving the integrity of the setting trumps all other things for me. I come from an attiude of “Bend and break d20 to fit Cerilia.” It is little wonder that what I find important to include or exclude from the d20 book is in exact opposition to some like Mourn and Lord Shade. Right now, the problem is that both side think that they have the correct path - maybe we should adopt that dreaded coproate idea of a MISSION STATEMENT? I hate the things myself, especially when some moron quotes them to you.

Finally (maybe), most of us have generated our own rules since the dawn of time. We need to respect that this will be no different. No RPG document is going to please all the people who like an individual setting. Some people play 2E, 3E, Hero, or d20 - all of us need to appreciate the effort and ground work that has been accomplished, while at the same time it should not bug anyone to say “This is the way I do it.” It would be really nice to see several websites spring up to provide “alternate visions.” BR has a fairly poor web presence - despite being popular in PbeM/PbP arena? I guess what I am saying is rather than cast stones - step up to the plate and take the heat. To avoid being a hypocrite - I will put up what I can of my home rules in the next week or so.(some of my rules are not OCG/OGL - primarily from WoT & SW but a good deal of stuff from Green Ronin).

Eosin

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

4

I am strongly in the camp of “build a d20 game for the world of
Birthright” but it seems that others are equally strongly infavor of the
Forgotten Realms of Cerilia?
>

I absolutely despise the idea of a Forgotten Realms of Cerilia. I almost
felt sick when I read an email from a different thread about a mechanical
beholder wielding 10 wands.

>Preserving the integrity of the setting trumps all other things for me. I
come from an attiude of “Bend and break d20 to fit Cerilia.” It is little
wonder that what I find important to include or exclude from the d20 book
is in exact opposition to some like Mourn and Lord Shade.

???

I`ve actually found myself agreeing a lot with you (Eosin) and Michael
Romes. :slight_smile:

That probably just goes to show that no two people think 100% alike.

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

5

> I`ve actually found myself agreeing a lot with you (Eosin) and Michael Romes. :slight_smile:

Whoops - I was running from memory - can`t look at older e-mails from work.

PS - I have not posted but I frequently review the min-max boards.

Eosin.

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

6

All right since Doom was induced into self-retirement (for awhile) it falls to me to post what the goals of the development team were. I searched for the correct words used during our discussions and found the following, which pretty much sums up the goals of the development team:

-It needs to be elegant - we use existing 3e mechanics where we can, rather than introducing new ones.
-It needs to be balanced - nothing out of whack with standard 3e.
-It needs to be consistent - we should use proper terminology, be clear and concise, and never contradict ourselves. Formatting should be standardized and accessible.
-It needs to be compatible - not too different from 2e that it will be unrecognizable, but we should change things to fit the other goals.
-It needs to preserve the flavor of Cerilia. 'nuff said.
-It needs to be simple - no need for undue complexity.
-Where the rules of 2e contradict with those of 3e, 3e takes precedence.

I think that about sums up the direction the team was taking.
:slight_smile:

7

irdeggman wrote:
> All right since Doom was induced into self-retirement (for awhile) it
falls to me to post what the goals of the development team were. I
searched for the correct words used during our discussions and found the
following, which pretty much sums up the goals of the development team:

>-It needs to be elegant - we use existing 3e mechanics where we can,
rather than introducing new ones.
-It needs to be balanced - nothing out of whack with standard 3e.
-It needs to be consistent - we should use proper terminology, be clear
and concise, and never contradict ourselves. Formatting should be
standardized and accessible.
-It needs to be compatible - not too different from 2e that it will be
unrecognizable, but we should change things to fit the other goals.
-It needs to preserve the flavor of Cerilia. `nuff said.
-It needs to be simple - no need for undue complexity.
-Where the rules of 2e contradict with those of 3e, 3e takes precedence.

>I think that about sums up the direction the team was taking.
:slight_smile:

This is exactly what I wanted to know.

For instance, no. 1 goes a long way towards explaining why the 7th
ability score was chosen.

Now, if only this could be turned into a spell of mega-agreement :slight_smile:

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

8

On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Bjørn Eian Sørgjerd wrote:

> irdeggman wrote:
> > It needs to be elegant - we use existing 3e mechanics where we can,
> > rather than introducing new ones.
>
> For instance, no. 1 goes a long way towards explaining why the 7th
> ability score was chosen.

Really? As I see it, the 7th ability score is distinctly inelegant, since
shoehorning bloodline into the generic 3-18 +1/4 levels mold is a
decidedly Procrustean maneuver. Bloodline = RP collection is the most
elegant mechanic possible, and also clearly already exists.

Ryan Caveney

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

9

Okay, let me try and sum this up - the problem that existed in 2e was that you measured the relative strength of a bloodline along two different scales. You had the scion status, which, mechanically, didn’t really mean anything, and then there was the bloodline score.

Now, in 3e, capturing scion status is pretty simple through a template. Simply using bloodline score as it was doesn’t really work in 3e, though - because you’d generate it independently of most other factors, and thus, you could get either seriously screwed or insanely lucky - there’s the law of averages, of course, but most players don’t tend to go through 50 characters in a year (I’ve played in one campaign where a player actually managed to do that, though - not the most serious of campaigns, of course), and thus, there’s no real balancing factor to it.

Bloodline score is useful for BR specific purposes only - bloodtheft, RP collection, and blood abilities.

I could easily see number of blood abilities simply tied to a template, but that leaves the other two issues. Tying bloodline strength to ability scores is simply a mechanic that is used to “balance” it against something.

Think of it in terms of hit points - in previous editions, you could screwed or lucky at 1st level. 3e has mostly solved that issue by giving maximum hp at 1st level, introducing feats that increase hp, and having optional rules that give (less than) average hp. Hit points clearly weren’t balanced between characters, if one fighter rolled a 1 and another a 10 at first level. Having a bloodline score be generated randomly independently of all other factors would introduce a potential intra-character imbalance.

The real question is what we can do to replace the bloodtheft and RP mechanic? There’s some different solutions I can think of:
-Simply use flat scores, by template - i.e. Minor - 10, Major - 20, Great - 30, with feats to increase the score, or possibly a dice roll to introduce some diversity without creating too large a gap between characters.
-Use some different mechanics altogether, dump RP and bloodtheft as they stand, and try to emulate these things through other means. A “prestige score” might replace RP and also be influenced by other mechanics. If everyone gets a score like that, but scions get a big boost, then you have an “RP collection” mechanic of a different type. It is also very house-rulish, but could be elegant.
-The bloodline ability mechanic as it stands.
-Using the old system as it were.

I’m sure I had more variants for it, but they basically revolve around the same concepts tied together in various ways.

One problem with the initial draft is that in trying to preserve the original version as much as possible, we might not have gone far enough in the end product in terms of 3e-ization. But I guess that’s old news.

10

On Tue, 2003-03-18 at 10:17, irdeggman wrote:

This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
 You can view the entire thread at:  [http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1431](http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1431)

 irdeggman wrote:
 All right since Doom was induced into self-retirement (for awhile) it falls to me to post what the goals of the development team were. I searched for the correct words used during our discussions and found the following, which pretty much sums up the goals of the development team:


-It needs to be elegant - we use existing 3e mechanics where we can, rather than introducing new ones.
-It needs to be balanced - nothing out of whack with standard 3e.
-It needs to be consistent - we should use proper terminology, be clear and concise, and never contradict ourselves. Formatting should be standardized and accessible.
-It needs to be compatible - not too different from 2e that it will be unrecognizable, but we should change things to fit the other goals.
-It needs to preserve the flavor of Cerilia. `nuff said.
-It needs to be simple - no need for undue complexity.
-Where the rules of 2e contradict with those of 3e, 3e takes precedence.

I think that about sums up the direction the team was taking.
:)

So how do you think you went?

(be honest - especially with yourself)

What do you think a poll would show? (if you were graded on the criteria
– never mind whether we think you`ve done a good job or whether we want
not to dump on you) What if it were an anonymous poll?

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

11

On Tue, 2003-03-18 at 11:05, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:

On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Bjørn Eian Sørgjerd wrote:

&gt;  irdeggman wrote:
&gt; &gt; It needs to be elegant - we use existing 3e mechanics where we can,
&gt; &gt; rather than introducing new ones.
&gt;
&gt; For instance, no. 1 goes a long way towards explaining why the 7th
&gt; ability score was chosen.

Really?  As I see it, the 7th ability score is distinctly inelegant, since
shoehorning bloodline into the generic 3-18 +1/4 levels mold is a
decidedly Procrustean maneuver.  Bloodline = RP collection is the most
elegant mechanic possible, and also clearly already exists.

Yeah, I have to agree. It`s a particularly inelegant choice.

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

12

> On Tue, 2003-03-18 at 11:05, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Bjørn Eian Sørgjerd wrote:
>
> > irdeggman wrote:
> > > It needs to be elegant - we use existing 3e mechanics where we can,
> > > rather than introducing new ones.
> >
> > For instance, no. 1 goes a long way towards explaining why the 7th
> > ability score was chosen.
>
> Really? As I see it, the 7th ability score is distinctly inelegant, since
> shoehorning bloodline into the generic 3-18 +1/4 levels mold is a
> decidedly Procrustean maneuver. Bloodline = RP collection is the most
> elegant mechanic possible, and also clearly already exists.
>
>
>
> Yeah, I have to agree. It`s a particularly inelegant choice.
>
>
I personally hate the 7th ability score, but seen from a 3E perspective it isnt inelegant. The particulars of gaining and using Rp ARE inelegant. however. Besides, my main point was that it used an existing 3E mechanic, which it does…did I mention that I loathe the 7th ability score?

Cheers
Bjørn

WebMail fra Tele2 http://www.tele2.no

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

13

From: “Peter Lubke” <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>

> What do you think a poll would show? (if you were graded on the criteria

The one thing I missed on your current polls is a “I dont care" entry. I guess many people will vote with the current proposal, simply because they do not want to rock the boat. With an "I dont care” alternative, people can
show which issues they have an opinion on, and which issues they just want
solved any which way.

At least, this is how I felt. It made me abstain from voting on certain
issues, but that, too, skewers the result.

/Carl

Gå före i kön och få din sajt värderad på nolltid med Yahoo! Express
Se mer på: http://se.docs.yahoo.com/info/express/help/index.html

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

14

Here is some more on the “design” philosophy of the dd20 development team.

Why were blood abilities made spell-like abilities?

The reasoning behind this decision was all of the following:

(1) To have a single mechanic to apply to their use. (For simplicity)

(2) To avoid the probably near endless debate that would arise when trying to determine which ones are spell-like abilities, which are extraordinary abilities and which are supernatural abilities. (For time spent in the discussion phase)

(3) So that using a blood ability generates an attack of opportunity. Supernatural abilities don’t generate attacks of opportunity while spell-like ones do. A character using the healing ability could take a 5 foot step (no attack of opportunity) and “lay on hands” to an injured ally who had just fallen and not generate an attack of opportunity if it was a supernatural ability, while the act of activating the healing ability would generate an attack of opportunity if it was treated as a spell-like ability. The same logic applies when a scion uses divine aura while surrounded by a horde of goblins, no attack of opportunity for supernatural and an attack of opportunity for spell-like. (For game mechanics and balance)

Why were the DCs chosen the way they were for blood abilities?

There was much discussion about using a “sliding scale” similar to DC for monsters based on ½ their hit dice. It was decided to present the current system for the following reasons:

(1) The DCs chosen would put the abilities at a power level higher than the equivalent spell that they are patterned after. This would reflect the divine sacrifice nature of their source. By adding the blood ability modifier this reflects the normal system for calculating the DC of a spell. The blood ability score could (and probably would) increase as a scion gains levels so that this DC could gradually scale up. It should be noted that spell DCs are not reflective of the level of the caster except for the potential to use his ability score increase to increase the prime ability and hence its modifier – although this is a very slow process and generally would not have a significant effect. Blood ability scores could be increased through wise rule as well as by using the every 4th level ability score increase, so while again not a very quick method of increasing the DC of blood abilities it is still quicker than that of the standard spells.

(2) Using a sliding scale based on hit dice would require a constant adjustment and a higher degree of complexity. On of the assumptions for using the ½ hit dice for monsters is that the monster doesn’t increase its hit dice. It is the same, hence the CR that doesn’t change.

Now seeing that the use of the 7th ability score for bloodline score is looking like it will be abandoned, or at least severely changed in its nature, this system will require retooling once the final system for capturing bloodline scores has been determined.

The Behind the Curtain: Blood Abilities write up on page 41 of the current version of the BRCS lays out the criteria that was used to classify (or reclassify) blood abilities into minor, major and great levels. This was only a guide since there are always exceptions and it would be impossible to come up with a standard that applied to all cases. This system was set up to give a rough idea of where the blood ability should fall and what should be added or taken away in order to reach some type of overall balance – that is all minor abilities are in roughly the same range of power, etc. In general the thought was that a blood ability should be more powerful than an obvious equivalent in the standard rules.
:slight_smile:

15

irdeggman wrote:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1431
>irdeggman wrote:
>Why were blood abilities made spell-like abilities?
>The reasoning behind this decision was all of the following:
>(1) To have a single mechanic to apply to their use. (For simplicity)
>(2) To avoid the probably near endless debate that would arise when trying to determine which ones are spell-like abilities, which are extraordinary abilities and which are supernatural abilities. (For time spent in the discussion phase)
>(3) So that using a blood ability generates an attack of opportunity. Supernatural abilities don`t generate attacks of opportunity while spell-like ones do. A character using the healing ability could take a 5 foot step (no attack of opportunity) and “lay on hands” to an injured ally who had just fallen and not generate an attack of opportunity if it was a supernatural ability, while the act of activating the healing ability would generate an attack of opportunity if it was treated as a spell-like ability. The same logic applies when a scion uses divine aura while surrounded by a horde of goblins, no attack of opportunity for supernatural and an attack of opportunity for spell-like. (For game mechanics and balance)
>
Isn´t that purpose already contradicted by the very first blood ability
“Alertness”? A spell-like ability requires concentration and provokes
attacks of opportunity and can be disrupted - all of which do not apply
to Alertness.

>The Behind the Curtain: Blood Abilities write up on page 41 of the current version of the BRCS lays out the criteria that was used to classify (or reclassify) blood abilities into minor, major and great levels. This was only a guide since there are always exceptions and it would be impossible to come up with a standard that applied to all cases. This system was set up to give a rough idea of where the blood ability should fall and what should be added or taken away in order to reach some type of overall balance - that is all minor abilities are in roughly the same range of power, etc. In general the thought was that a blood ability should be more powerful than an obvious equivalent in the standard rules.
>:slight_smile:
>
Thankyou for this explanation. It helps understand why and how you came
to the stuff in the book :slight_smile:
bye
Michael Romes

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

16

[b]Originally posted by ConjurerDragon

>(3) So that using a blood ability generates an attack of opportunity. Supernatural abilities don`t generate attacks of opportunity while spell-like ones do. A character using the healing ability could take a 5 foot step (no attack of opportunity) and “lay on hands” to an injured ally who had just fallen and not generate an attack of opportunity if it was a supernatural ability, while the act of activating the healing ability would generate an attack of opportunity if it was treated as a spell-like ability. The same logic applies when a scion uses divine aura while surrounded by a horde of goblins, no attack of opportunity for supernatural and an attack of opportunity for spell-like. (For game mechanics and balance)
>
Isn´t that purpose already contradicted by the very first blood ability
“Alertness”? A spell-like ability requires concentration and provokes
attacks of opportunity and can be disrupted - all of which do not apply
to Alertness.
Michael Romes
[/b]

Actually it doesn’t. If a scion is using the alertness blood ability in melee then he would generate an attack of opportunity. It is not the same as having the alertness feat. The write up included a caveat that if the scion had this blood ability he was considered to have the alertness feat for anything that required it as a prerequisite. See the core rules (actually in the expansion books) discussions of virtual feats, that is the comparison trying to be made. Also blood abilities provide a no-name bonus (similar to those in the Epic Level Handbook) which stack with all other bonuses so the blood ability’s effects would stack with those of the alertness feat.:slight_smile:

17

From: “irdeggman” <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>

>If a scion is using the alertness blood ability in melee then he would
generate
> an attack of opportunity. It is not the same as having the alertness feat.
>

Eh? You have no control over when you are forced to make a Spot roll. This
means that it is possible to create AoO opportunities against a scion merely
by trying to hide in his vicinity. Even if it is basically impossible to
succeed, like in plain sight, it still requires a Spot roll, and thus the
use of a spell-like ability. Since Hide is used as a part of movement, and
not as an action, every character in the vicinity could expend a move action
to give everyone engaged to the scion an AoO. This is just too stupid.

Actually, this cannot be how it works, as using a spell-like ability is a
standard action, and making a Spot roll is a free action.

So, back to the drawing board on this.

/Carl

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

18

----- Original Message -----
From: “Stephen Starfox” <stephen_starfox@YAHOO.SE>
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 1:29 AM

> Eh? You have no control over when you are forced to make a Spot roll. This
> means that it is possible to create AoO opportunities against a scion
merely
> by trying to hide in his vicinity.

Well, it is possible to make a spot check without the benifit of your
Alertness Blood Power bonus, so the choice is an unmodified spot check with
no AoO or a modified check with an AoO. But, yeah I agree that this is a
little too complicted. IMO, bloodpowers should be supernatural. I have no
problem with never creating AoO. If we are assigning ECL`s to balance these
powers, we could just be stricter with the value of powers.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

19

Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: “Stephen Starfox” <stephen_starfox@YAHOO.SE>
>Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 1:29 AM
>
>>Eh? You have no control over when you are forced to make a Spot roll. This
>>means that it is possible to create AoO opportunities against a scion
>>
>merely
>
>>by trying to hide in his vicinity.
>>
>
>Well, it is possible to make a spot check without the benifit of your
>Alertness Blood Power bonus, so the choice is an unmodified spot check with
>no AoO or a modified check with an AoO. But, yeah I agree that this is a
>little too complicted. IMO, bloodpowers should be supernatural. I have no
>problem with never creating AoO. If we are assigning ECL`s to balance these
>powers, we could just be stricter with the value of powers.
>Kenneth Gauck
>kgauck@mchsi.com
>
I agree in that point. If scions are penalized by an ECL, then the
powers they gain should be more than worth it.
And I can´t imagine that e.g. Rhobher Nicholair provokes an AoO when he
uses his “Divine Aura” or similar abilitys.
bye
Michael Romes

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

20

Also in order to make an attack of opportunity a character needs to be aware of the target creature. Hence invisible creatures don’t normally generate AoO unless they do something to cause the creature that is threatening the square the invisible creature is hiding in to be aware of him.

Listening will generate an AoO, IMO so would performing a Spot check in a threatened square. Now why a DM would require a character that is in a threatened square (and not undetectable) to make a Spot check is a whole other issue. Hence IMO the mechanic still holds up.