Chap 2 Sanctioning Vote

Dungeons & Dragons BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
1

Alright, as I promised it is time to vote on santioning Chapter 2 of the BRCS, Blood and Regency.

Only the blood abilities bloodform and bloodtrait will be changed after this ‘sanctioning’ due to the fact that we still need to hammer out how to handle awn/ersh.

This poll will remain open for approximately 2 weeks. Let’s shoot for closing of the poll 3/26-3/27/04.

You will have to access the poll via the website and not the mail serv. Sorry, but I can’t count votes any other way :smiley:

The goal is to have approximately twice as many “for” votes as “against”.

Here is the zipped Word version.

2

Here is the pdf version. Sorry it took me so long to post, but my converter was disabled and it took me a while to find how to re-enable it.

3

Time is running out on this poll. Currently the votes are 10 for sanctioning and 3 against with no abstaining votes.

4

I would have voted not to sanction Chapter 2 but wanted to see how others had voted. Which made my vote a null vote, which is basically an abstention, right?

5

Polls are held for you to vote! Please, do us a favour and choose, not ask us to choose for you: if you find the revised 2nd Chapter to be to your liking (which you apparently don’t), vote for it, otherwise, against it; if you don’t know, abstention is the way…

6

:angry:

I don’t know why, but I found your “Please, do us a favour and choose, not ask us to choose for you” statement really rude.

I am not asking anyone to choose for me, and in the future I will not Null Vote. I was just making my situation known and asking a question. If you couldn’t answer it civilly (which you obviously couldn’t), then you shouldn’t have answered it at all.

7

I don’t know…

I think I like the Scion classes even less than the 7th ability score. Maybe I’m old and grey, but I’d still greately favor a system for bloodlines that were more like the 2E one.

I also think that the Highlander-style elements should go dig a hole, hid in it and never show its ugly head again.

No, this is changing from one bad system to another.

B

8

I’m another no vote.

This system does not improve on the old one, and more importantly, all the inline variants make it damn near impossible to read.

CM.

9

At 12:21 AM 3/25/2004 +0100, Green Knight wrote:

>I think I like the Scion classes even less than the 7th ability score.

>Maybe Im old and grey, but Id still greately favor a system for

>bloodlines that were more like the 2E one.

When it comes to portraying bloodline I`ve come to the conclusion that most

of the actual mathematical values should just remain what they were to

begin with. Certain things need to be updated or revised (a couple tables,

for example, and the blood abilities themselves cry out for revision) but

there`s really no need to portray bloodline as a character class (a la

Savage Species) in order to do so.

>I also think that the Highlander-style elements should go dig a hole, hid

>in it and never show its ugly head again.

Well, I wouldnt stick em in a hole, but I don`t care for the exploding

scion system either. It`s too weird, too different from the original ideas

presented in the BR system and just seems like something that is

unnecessary. Coming up with a method to portray being stabbed in the heart

is difficult in D&D, but having scions blow up and disperse their bloodline

in a blast radius isn`t the way to go.

Gary

10

[b]>I think I like the Scion classes even less than the 7th ability score.
>Maybe Im old and grey, but Id still greately favor a system for
>bloodlines that were more like the 2E one.

When it comes to portraying bloodline Ive come to the conclusion that most of the actual mathematical values should just remain what they were to begin with. Certain things need to be updated or revised (a couple tables, for example, and the blood abilities themselves cry out for revision) but theres really no need to portray bloodline as a character class (a la
Savage Species) in order to do so.[/b]

I guess you didn’t really pay attention to that link I supplied at the WotC’ site or how UA is written. Sorry for sounding obnoxious and condescending here, no offense is intended. Really I mean I don’t want to sound that way but its hard to get around people not quite seeing the ‘obvious’ trend at WotC. But the new “official” WotC standard for expressing level adjustments is to use a class based system. Now, if people don’t think that there should be level adjustments involved with bloodlines that is an entirely new arguement - especialy since in the past most people were in favor of some kind of level adjustment (people just couldn’t agree on the type).

The other reason that a scion class level system works is that it makes things easier to port into an adventure-based or domain based campaign system, where the things that ‘contibute’ to a level adjustment don’t all come into consideration.

[b]>I also think that the Highlander-style elements should go dig a hole, hid
>in it and never show its ugly head again.

Well, I wouldnt stick em in a hole, but I dont care for the exploding scion system either. Its too weird, too different from the original ideas
presented in the BR system and just seems like something that is
unnecessary. Coming up with a method to portray being stabbed in the heart
is difficult in D&D, but having scions blow up and disperse their bloodline
in a blast radius isn`t the way to go.

Gary[/b]

Actually the scion doesn’t “explode”, that was never written in any version of Chap 2 nor in the Book of Doom , which had the concept first presented. What happens is that his regency or divine essence is released. One thing I found good about this system was that it reproduced in a minor way what happened at Deismaar. I’m surprised you hadn’t recognized the similarities.

11

Well, they didn’t “explode” in the literal sense of the word in Highlander either, but there was a discharge of energy…

Besides, I do see the link to Deismaar, and I don’t like it one bit. Gods were destroyed, their essence imbued men, beasts and objects. It was a one-time affair (or at least a very rare affair). There is no (or at least VERY little) support for the Highlander-style approach anywhere…stick with piercing through the heart.

12

[b]
I guess you didn’t really pay attention to that link I supplied at the WotC’ site or how UA is written. Sorry for sounding obnoxious and condescending here, no offense is intended. Really I mean I don’t want to sound that way but its hard to get around people not quite seeing the ‘obvious’ trend at WotC. But the new “official” WotC standard for expressing level adjustments is to use a class based system. Now, if people don’t think that there should be level adjustments involved with bloodlines that is an entirely new arguement - especialy since in the past most people were in favor of some kind of level adjustment (people just couldn’t agree on the type).

The other reason that a scion class level system works is that it makes things easier to port into an adventure-based or domain based campaign system, where the things that ‘contibute’ to a level adjustment don’t all come into consideration.[/b]

I REALLY don’t care what Wizards is up to. And whatever the game-design trend is right now, it doesn’t make a bad system any better. So I paid attention, but it just don’t have any impact on my views.

My honest opinion is that the BRCS would benefit the most from sticking as closely as possible to the old 2E system. Neither the class apprach, the 7th ability score, UA Bloodline or anything else presented, really ADDS to the playability, uniqueness and fun of the original system. So I remain unconvinced.

Since I think bloodlines should be powerful, and also find ECLs and such to be useful tools, I’d go with giving out Level Adjustments for bloodlines. If this means makin an appendix of scion classes for those who like that stuff - fine. However, this should not be the default option, because a lot of people just want to keep the system but not use Level Adjustments (even if it means "unbalancing PCs).

Back to the drawing board, old chap, and don’t feel to bad about it…

13

Originally posted by Ming I@Mar 24 2004, 11:42 PM
I would have voted not to sanction Chapter 2 but wanted to see how others had voted. Which made my vote a null vote, which is basically an abstention, right?

A null vote is not an abstention. It’s just bypassing the vote in order to see the votes so far. Select the abstention option if you want to abstain.

14


I would have voted not to sanction Chapter 2 but wanted to see how others had voted. Which made my vote a null vote, which is basically an abstention, right?

Now you’ve had the chance to see. Please do vote, if only to abstain.

B

15

Originally posted by Green Knight
Now you’ve had the chance to see. Please do vote, if only to abstain.

That’s kinda my problem and the reason that I won’t null vote. Now that I’ve null voted the poll won’t give me the opportunity to “vote” again.

16

My honest opinion is that the BRCS would benefit the most from sticking as closely as possible to the old 2E system. Neither the class apprach, the 7th ability score, UA Bloodline or anything else presented, really ADDS to the playability, uniqueness and fun of the original system. So I remain unconvinced.

Having playtested the BRCS level adjustment template, and recently integrated the scion class levels as an adaptation, I can tell you that I and my players can all vouch for the fact that the new system for scion levels and small differences based on derivation is certainly a marked improvement over flat ECL adjustments. With the scion levels, I feel there is a flavor element added, AND there is a much cleaner sense of blooded scions not being at a marked disadvantage the way they were with the BRCS system. Because you get HD, skill points, a Leadership bonus, saves and BAB, there is actually a closer approximation to the old 2e system in feel than there was with the BRCS ECL adjustment.

But then again, I suppose this would require one’s acceptance of 3.0/3.5 in general…which I’m sensing a great reluctance to accept in the first place, no?

So all in all, I really liked the scion class level system - in fact, I felt it was the single best improvement to the Chapter 2 material, with the marked exception of Scions of Vorynn (for which I already proposed a different system).

To add bloodlines without any ECL adjustment really just flies in the face of the standing 3.x system altogether - the core philosophy of that system being that no significant power is “free” in terms of XP and levels. So I’d rather have the scion levels, which actually serve to recreate a setting where blooded characters have some distinct advantages, at the price of class specialization (which isn’t all that different from the bonus 10% XP for non-scions in the 2e system…though perhaps some people never accepted this rule, either, so perhpas they don’t like any conversions of it?).

In general, if you like the 2e system better, I have to ask: are you really interested in a 3.x D&D conversion in the first place? Or is it more the matter of it being an “official” Birthright publication, and thus concerned for how it reflects on the original 2e setting? I guess what I’m trying to figure out is whether or not the “Nay” votes would sanction any conversion to 3.x D&D, or whether some of them represent unilateral opposition to the project itself?

As for the Highlander system…I found I generally liked it, with a single exception: it makes unblooded characters far too likely to become blooded. I’d say it should be limited to pure bloodtheft (a blow through the heart) to allow any chance of an unblooded person becoming blooded. One of the cool things about the divine energy effect is that it made for some dramatic death scenes - 2 now in my game, 1 of which had a slain Great scion obliterating the 2 undead legions that trampled him as his powerful bloodline was released in a divine blast! An example of how this system certainly CAN add flavor and color to a campaign - IF one is willing for things to not be a pure carbon copy of the 2e system.

17

I would prefer a system closer to the old one as well. I am not a big fan of the templetes and really dislike the you need a greater bloodline to get a greater ability. If templetes were to be included I would rather there was more work done to them. I liked the brcs playtest a lot it had its problems but mostly it was very good I just don’t see the need to make so meny changes or give so meny options you will never satisfy every one settle on a system and let people make up house rules if they want.

18

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, irdeggman wrote:

> Time is running out on this poll. Currently the votes are 10 for

> sanctioning and 3 against with no abstaining votes.

How many registered users does the site have, and how many people are on

the mailing list?

Ryan Caveney

19

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Green Knight wrote:

> I REALLY don`t care what Wizards is up to. And whatever the

game-design trend is right now, it doesn`t make a bad system any

> better. So I paid attention, but it just don`t have any impact on my

views.

My honest opinion is that the BRCS would benefit the most from

sticking as closely as possible to the old 2E system. Neither the

class apprach, the 7th ability score, UA Bloodline or anything else

presented, really ADDS to the playability, uniqueness and fun of the

original system. So I remain unconvinced.

Hallelujah! My sentiments exactly.

Since I think bloodlines should be powerful, and also find ECLs and

such to be useful tools, I`d go with giving out Level Adjustments for

> bloodlines.

I think ECLs are far too heavy-handed an approach for almost everything.

The only balancing suggestion I`ve seen that struck me as even vaguely

reasonable was the idea that individual blood abilities be treated as

separate magic items, and a small one-time XP cost (tens to a couple

hundred) be paid for each of them. But again, I feel that in most cases

thats really trying much too hard: if youre going to try to balance

things as small as a minor blood abilities against all the other ways

character can have power, then you really need to consider all the other

effects of a similar order, like having better ability scores or more

money. I am content to say it`s just not worth trying very hard at this.

Ryan Caveney

20

At 06:32 PM 3/25/2004 -0500, Ryan Caveney wrote:

>I think ECLs are far too heavy-handed an approach for almost everything.

>The only balancing suggestion I`ve seen that struck me as even vaguely

reasonable was the idea that individual blood abilities be treated as

separate magic items, and a small one-time XP cost (tens to a couple

hundred) be paid for each of them. But again, I feel that in most cases

thats really trying much too hard: if youre going to try to balance

things as small as a minor blood abilities against all the other ways

character can have power, then you really need to consider all the other

effects of a similar order, like having better ability scores or more

money. I am content to say it`s just not worth trying very hard at this.

XP costs are more attractive for “accounting” for blood abilities in that

they at least are more easily articulated than ECL. Equating a blood

ability to a whole character level is a bit of a dicey proposition, and in

the long run the scaling effect of character levels doesn`t equate very

well to the flat value of blood abilities which remain pretty static.

In the long run, however, I`m still thinking that accounting for bloodline

by assigning blood abilities and the bloodline itself a gp value and

equating it to inventory is the easiest way to go. It`s got more in common

with the reality of bloodline–it`s something extraneous to character

class, race and levels, it can be improved upon, decrease or disappear

entirely, etc. It just seems to be more workable.

ECL (and class levels a la SS) do work well for most things that equate to

a template, but bloodline itself as a template doesn`t work and for the

pretty much the same reasons bloodline as class levels don`t make any more

sense. Bloodline as class levels is really just an extension of bloodline

as a template. It`s Rule X vs. Rule X.1. Not enough difference to really

merit any substantially new arguments.

Gary