OK, I got my copy of 315 today and here`s my take:
First, it`s awful thin. Just three pages. Yikes. The whole thing is
maybe a thousand words or so, including “The Creation of Birthright”
background insert. Other articles in the issue are similarly brief–though
I think only the Dragonlance article is shorter–and the authors certainly
have to be given some credit for trying to express some pretty extensive
concepts with such brevity, but it`s simply not enough to portray things
very well. As a couple of people have noted we only have six blood ability
“feats” in the article (along with two feats that grant bloodline itself
and increase bloodline score) and they aren`t really the more useful ones
that would give us an idea of how the other blood abilities might be
presented, nor are they the “sexier” ones–the choice to include the
Direction Sense blood ability, for instance, strikes me as
ill-considered. The article is so short it makes me question the size of
the font for the title, and the layout of the only graphic…
Second, I feel pretty comfortable saying that any of the existing
interpretations of bloodline for 3.5 suggested by various people in the BR
community are as viable as the one presented in the article. “Rule X” in
this article is that blood abilities should be represented by feats, which
is all well and good, but the idea doesn`t particularly lend itself to game
balance, accuracy, theme or relevance any more than several other
suggestions for bloodlines do. There is, for instance, no ECL information
in this article for all that a character could gain blood abilities that
could have to add up to ECL +1 easily if we use any of the articles on ECL
as a guide. A character class, templates, skills, etc. are all just as
apt, and I think in several cases probably more so than feats alone,
particularly since the interaction in this case with the bloodline score as
presented in the article is more than a little hazy.
Some specifics:
"Any creature with Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores of 3 or more
can be invested with a bloodline."
That does seem to exclude the genesis of a couple of the existing major
awnsheghlien. The Hydra and the Wolf, for instance, are based on animals
that have intelligence scores that are 1 or 2 respectively in 3.5 and
crocodiles have charisma scores of 2, meaning the Hydra is doubly
excluded. Of course, we can hypothesize that they were originally smarter
and/or more charismatic than typical animals, but in general it seems like
an unnecessary ruling, and I don`t know what it is based on other, perhaps,
a desire to keep bloodlines out of constructs–which also appears to happen
in the original BR materials, so the rule is problematic…
"While a scion of Azrai (the evil god) might be looked on with suspicion,
he is no more or less predisposed to evil than a half-orc."
I`m not sure who should be insulted there… scions of Azrai or
half-orcs? Aside from it being a theme of the setting that Azrai`s
bloodline actually is both physically and morally corrupting–at least,
more than I`ve heard orcish blood to be–it just seems like a banal
comparison and one that, like the ability score requirements, is unneeded
for a 3.5 update.
The language is also a bit weird. As has been noted the terms bloodline
strength and bloodline score arent very clearly defined (they werent in
the original materials either, but in a 3.5 update it seems like an effort
should be made to clarify them since one of the strengths of the 3e/3.5
materials is their careful use of vocabulary) plus we get a new term
“Active Range” which would appear to be the range of bloodline scores that
determine bloodline strength.
The rules on increasing bloodline strength have similar vagaries. As has
already been discussed, the issue of slaying dragons is mentioned and is
quite wishy-washy. The only thing that is clear is that "defeating a more
powerful blooded character or monster (blooded monsters are known as
“abominations”) is always worth a bloodline point. Of course, it doesn`t
say what “defeating” or “more powerful” means, nor is the definition of
“abominations” really correct. If we try to use that standard as the basis
for determining what other types of heroic actions might warrant a
bloodline score point the difference between defeating a dragon and
defeating a dragon to save a town from destruction seems similarly
feeble. In general, the whole issue of increasing bloodline score from
heroic deeds alone needs to be either given more treatment or eliminated,
and Im favoring elimination not just because its too abstract but also
because it contradicts the original setting`s method of increasing
bloodline score.
The bloodline score increase of bloodtheft, as has also been mentioned, is
handled poorly, or–to be fair–it is handled with no more aplomb than it
was originally. I think I missed something in that section, however, in
that it says bloodline is increased in “one of thre ways” but appears to
listly only two… Unless Mr. Stark also meant the acquisition of a new
blood ability from the victim of bloodtheft. That is, BTW, a bad idea for
three reasons. First, it is in no way accounted for by ECL. Second, it
contradicts the existing concept of feats from what I can tell, since one
doesn`t just gain bonus feats in any similar manner in any of the D&D/D20
products Ive seen. (I could be wrong about that, since Ive not read
everything out there, but it seems like a bad way to go
mechanically.) Third, it doesn`t conform to the original BR materials in
any way.
The acquisition of blood abilities themselves by spending a feat is OK, I
guess, though equating bloodline strength (minor, major, great) with the
power of the blood ability doesn`t necessarily make much sense and grants
significant shifts in power. Since it was specifically mentioned that
taking the increased power of the scion into consideration at the beginning
of the article it seems like a very weird way of going about implementing
blood abilities since it doesn`t appear to be accounted for in any way.
In conclusion it is nice to see some sort of attention paid to the BR
setting, but I don`t think this article is going to resolve anything for
anyone. It might attract a very small number of people to the setting–but
I doubt it since it wasn`t particularly well written or exciting, and the
game mechanics presented were pretty underwelming. I haven`t fully
digested the whole issue yet, but as has also been noted some mention of
the fan sites for BR and the other campaign settings would have been
extraordinarily useful to people interested in obtaining more information
on them. Just a link to the WotC website that has links to the OOP
campaign settings would have been good.
Personally, I think a better strategy would have been to have an issue
dedicated to each of the settings… They are, apparently, going to do
just that for Dark Sun next year. I don`t know what their thinking is for
the other settings.
Gary
And what they have to say after it. 