i completely agree with your post Osprey. An important note though, in 3.5e the cost of magical skill bonuses have been significantly increase. a +10 item now costs 10,000 gp. The rule is, the bonus squared X 100 gp.
i completely agree with your post Osprey. An important note though, in 3.5e the cost of magical skill bonuses have been significantly increase. a +10 item now costs 10,000 gp. The rule is, the bonus squared X 100 gp.
Well, thanks be for that! That definitely helps to mitigate this particular imbalnce. Glad to hear they’ve improved on that issue.
----- Original Message -----
From: “Osprey” <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2003 9:06 AM
> Skills, on the other hand, may reach epic (superhuman)
> proportions very early in the game, and that`s OK.
Skills operate on a scale that is flexible. Since the DM assigns DC`s what
constitutes superhuman is totally within his power to set. DC 40 jump could
mean an olyimpic jump to one DM and leaping tall buildings in a single bound
to another. Those DMs who allow Players to start all their PC`s with
rogue, and have increased all the 2 skill ranks classes to 4 will probably
find my DC`s ridiculously low.
> In Birthright, however, we cannot directly translate D&D and still
> keep things balanced on the political level. Social interactions are a
> key aspect of politics, and skills in general are of primary importance.
> Imagine the modest 5th level general who acquires a 2000gp Crown
> of Command (a minor item in D&D terms) that adds +10 to his
> Warcraft checks. Suddenly hes one of Anuires greatest field
> commanders
Part of this is the design flaw of Warcraft as a skill. Part of this is a
too generous approach of large skill bonuses which operate permenantly. I
prefer a good military commander to have to operate with four skills, not
one. Can you imagine a guilder getting away with guildcraft which allowed
him to use one skill for all activities? The more skills are required, the
more players have to choose what to be good at because they can`t be good at
everything. Even with a Crown of Command.
Skills are extremely important in Birthright, and in order to keep
balance I believe a reorganization of rule priorities, and especially
these magically enhanced bonuses, must be taken into account to
keep the Birthright world balanced.
I would prefer to see permenant magical items get re-adjusted as you
describe. I am less disturbed by one-shot items, since I think they have
their own built in limits. If a game required frequent skill checks in
compitition with other players then even a small bonus becomes a serious
advantage. The less often you check skills the larger a bonus has to be to
be meaningful. A +10 bonus makes sense if you roll a warcraft check once
per battle, and then get down to the real business of fighting. A +2/+2
bonus (like a feat granting +2 to tactics and +2 to command skills) when
those skills have to be used every time a captain makes a decision in battle
is just as valuable because its a constant application of advantage. I`d
rather see the +2/+2 Crown of Command for my own games than I would the +10
Crown.
Kenneth Gauck
Considering the situation that is Birthright (low-magic campaign setting), it would be easy to further “increase” the cost of magic items.
That means that we could use the standards presented in DMG 3.5e (just check the prices; they are easy to figure out, but let me remind some of them:
Bonus on Skill checks: squared, by 100 gp (+5, +10, +15)
Bonus to Ability Score: squared, by 1.000 gp (+2, +4, +6)
Armour Enhancement: squared, by 1.000 gp (+1 to +5, virtual up to +10)
Bonus to Armour Class: squared, by 1.000 (bracers)/2.000 (ring) gp
Weapon Enhancement: squared, by 2.000 gp (+1 to +5, virtual up to +10)),
but we could be even dirtier ( 
) by using higher powers:
Instead of just squaring, then multiplying by 2.000 gp, we could assign a “square and multiply by 5.000 gp”, or “cube and mutliply by 1.000 gp”…
Ive been somewhat slow to respond to this one, so I beg everyones kind
indulgence.
At 12:18 AM 10/9/2003 +0200, RaspK_FOG wrote:
>I agree with your point of this thread being in need of a specification
>for what flavour is in contrast to campaign material. However, I have to
>disagree with your notion that the two are separate; in fact, campaign
>material encompasses both flavour and game-mechanics!
I would differentiate between these terms a bit. Flavour text conveys
information about the personality, biases, culture, idiosyncrasies, etc. of
a situation in a way that is not directly related to game
mechanics. "Dervishes of the Hackenslash Wastes wield cruel, black weapons
with serrated blades" is flavour text that tells us these are not so nice
guys–or that they are regional sales representatives for the Ginsu
Corporation.
(What most people seem to mean by flavour text I usually call "colour
commentary" but I think there is even a smidge of a difference between
those two. Flavour text has more of a general, campaign meaning IMO, while
colour commentary is more directly related to individual characters. The
text at the beginning of each awnsheghlien description in BE:AoC is colour
commentary, while the Atlas of Cerilia would be better described as flavour
text. It`s not really a big difference–particular vs. general–but as
long as Im being anal about defining terms Id best point out the
distinction.)
Campaign material is information that conveys thematic material that has a
game mechanical effect. "Hackenslash dervishes wield scimitars, while
knights of the Bigbadguy Order wield longswords" is campaign material
because it tells us specific differences between humans of that type and of
another in the campaign.
Game mechanics are the actual gaming effects and stats. "Both scimitars
and longswords do 1d8 damage." There`s very little role-playing aspect of
that information.
From a game mechanical standpoint, there`s no reason to state that
characters wield scimitars or longswords. (In fact, since both do the same
damage in D&D there`s not all that much of a distinction anyway.) All we
really need know is that they do 1d8 damage. Usually games assign a damage
value to specific types of weapons, but several rules sets use an
abstracted damage system that doesn`t account for the types of weapons a
character might wield. It`s a game mechanical decision based on how the
designers want the rules to interact.
There are crossover elements to the concepts, of course. Certain aspects
of each term bleed into one another, but by and large there is a difference
between the three terms and how they might be employed. One major aspect
of flavour text or colour commentary is that they are usually wrong, or at
least they convey more information about personality, culture, attitude,
etc. than they convey about actual game mechanics. “Bob hates Joe” is
colour commentary. When it turns into “gnomes hate giants” it becomes
campaign material because it also accompanies a game mechanical
interpretation "and they gain a +2 on there attack rolls as a result of
this antipathy." “Joe is angry” vs “Joe can Rage.”
If I were to boil this relationship down I suggest that colour commentary
is to role-playing what campaign material is to the game mechanics. It
gives us an indication of how we might play a character of a particular
race, culture, etc. while campaign material gives us an indication how
those things are going to be presented in the rules.
How does all this relate to BR? Well, if one can differentiate between
flavour and campaign material one can decide which need to be reflected in
game mechanics and which don`t. The most recent discussion that inspired
this definition of terms (whether dwarven roads are above ground or
subterranean) is IMO campaign material not flavour text and, therefore, we
need some sort of game mechanical way of reflecting that. Their roads
should cost more, take longer to build, should automatically be fortified,
etc. By defining it as colour commentary one assumes not only that it
needs no game mechanical presentation, but that it was intentionally
incorrect when written by the folks who put together the setting. It seems
pretty clearly not to be the latter, and because it is campaign material
rather than colour commentary it can have a more direct influence on the
rules, which is why it is important to make the distinction.
Gary
All in all, Gary, that’s what I meant with the overlapping state of Campaign Material: it has both Flavour (that distinct feeling of realism that lends verissimilititude to a Campaign Setting) and Game Mechanics integrated into it, making the important leap from the former to the latter. The problem is defining what is Flavour, and should be kept for the sake of touch and style and what should be changed, since the team followed the path to d20 (a move I appreciate).
One of the things I would comment is the Dwarven Traits: I find that giving a dwarf damage reduction which can be bypassed only by bludgeoning weapons is a good idea, but I have a variant to propose, that of giving them a small amount of Natural Armour Bonus. While this is compatible with the flavour of Cerilian Dwarves, it is very different from the way things are handled in the BRCS now; still, I see no disruption in the way it would affect campaign material. (Not a lot, to be exact, since there is difference!)
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, RaspK_FOG wrote:
> One of the things I would comment is the Dwarven Traits: I find that
> giving a dwarf damage reduction which can be bypassed only by
> bludgeoning weapons is a good idea, but I have a variant to propose,
> that of giving them a small amount of Natural Armour Bonus. While this
> is compatible with the flavour of Cerilian Dwarves, it is very different
> from the way things are handled in the BRCS now; still, I see no
> disruption in the way it would affect campaign material. (Not a lot, to
> be exact, since there is difference!)
This is a less-than-pointful variant. For one, the dwarves have
DR/slashing & piercing, it can be bypassed by those two types, not by
bludgeoning; this recreates the original 2nd edition rule of "dwarves take
half damage from blunt weapons" from the boxed set. Natural AC is both a
stronger ability (since most weapons are already sharp ones, DR versus
blunt aint that great), and doesnt recreate the original intent of the
rule, which was that dwarves are physically dense, and blunt things hurt
them less.
–
Daniel McSorley
OK, Daniel, it was a mistake of mine (wrote “bypassed” when I meant to write “applied to”). Anyway, the idea for the variant lies in the fact that density would also affect slashing weapons as much as bludgeoning, and piercing - only a little - as well. Natural armour is not really that great as the character advances in levels (see Savage Species for a synopsis on that). Now, to support my idea, I would like to ask you one thing: why would muscle then provide a natural armour bonus? Surely becasue of its density! Now, if you would prefer to keep it to half damage, I would say it should apply to both bludgeoning and slashing (slashing weapons deal damage mainly by slicing or hacking through things, and density effectively reduces both such actions). Basing anything on the line of thought of: “It said so in AD&D 2e.” is not much of a thing that should convince me.
At 11:02 PM 10/20/2003 +0200, RaspK_FOG wrote:
>The problem is defining what is Flavour, and should be kept for the sake
>of touch and style and what should be changed, since the team followed the
>path to d20 (a move I appreciate).
Do you mean what the term “flavour” means, or which parts of the original
materials is flavourful?
While it can be sometimes arguable which aspects of the original materials
are flavour and which are campaign material, more often than not flavour
text is off-set in the texts in quotes, italics, etc. so usually one can
decipher which is which without too much difficulty. Unfortunately, the
original BR materials weren`t terribly carefully edited and the
writing/compilation methods were sometimes intentionally (sometimes
accidentally) blurred. I can think of a few things that read like campaign
material, but were really flavour that have caused some trouble in the past
(“there are no more than six or seven score true mages”) but generally if
one wants to stay true to the original materials recognizing which is which.
Gary
I see no need to tone the blood abilitys down, on the other hand, I think the blood migth sometimes show more power then I have seen in the discriptions.
I would like see something thet can corupt the purest of harts. and something so limber thet the regent migth liquify unwillingly.
As I see it, the human is of subtype Blodded, and blodded humans can have spell like abiletys just like LYCANTHROPES
where the bace animal type would be replaced with the type of blood you have.
then as with templets, you increas the Challenge Rating, and then there is the Level Adjustment, there you see, blodded characters have lower character level then others with the same Xp.
[I started this post to say: No need to incorperate anything, But ended at describing the blood ability as a Templet]
If blodd will be unformal Templet, then we can see blodded animals, monsters, and thus.
damage reduction 5/pierching or slasing
Natural armor +1
but why would a dwarf have a wrhammer if hi is almost imune to bludgening damage
yesthis is how the new 3,5 damage reduction is handeld.
so if you have a magical Bludgeon weapon, is will not penetrade the damage reduction, but its only -5 per hit.
Originally posted by teloft@Oct 21 2003, 04:21 AM
but why would a dwarf have a wrhammer if hi is almost imune to bludgening damage
Because Dwarven Warhammers are meant to bash other races, usually Orogs, not Dwarves. They are a very orderly, highly lawful species, and it is one of the basic tenets of their religion that Dwarves not hurt each other.
well, thay cant. or 2 dwarfs figting, it would be a long battle.
Originally posted by kari@Oct 21 2003, 05:45 AM
well, thay cant. or 2 dwarfs figting, it would be a long battle.
Why is this a bad thing? A dwaven brawl that goes on until one of those involved keels over from exhaustion doesn’t seem unreasonable and it adds a great deal of color. In 2nd ed ition dwarves ony suffered half damage from blunt weapons so a fight betweendwarves using warhammers would likewise goon for a very long time.
so it dosent mater what cind of magic you have on your warhammer (blunt), no mater how much masterwork is put into it, or whether it has been blessed, cursed or something of the like.
-5 on any blut damage.
then I can see a major feat of blood when the characteristics of the race are increased. so the dwarf would get -10 damage reduction if hit by a blunt weapon, (appled only on any blunt damage) this would include falling damage wount it?
then I can see a major feat of blood when the characteristics of the race are increased. so the dwarf would get -10 damage reduction if hit by a blunt weapon, (appled only on any blunt damage) this would include falling damage wount it?
I would definitely apply it to falling damage; yet another reason why dwarves are such superior mountaineers! Soaking up damage from things like fists, slams (including bull rushes and shield bashes), and falling is exactly the sort of dwarven toughness I can envision. I think the DR 5/blunt is a great addition as a racial trait.
That’s still better than half damage from bludgeoning (too good in my opinion). Anyway, I think it would be DR 5/non-bludgeoning, as the after-slash content is what bypasses the damage reduction.
Anyway, I think it would be DR 5/non-bludgeoning, as the after-slash content is what bypasses the damage reduction.
Oops, my bad. You know, I’ve noticed that this gets confused alot in the 3.5 published books, which doesn’t really help me to keep it straight. [sigh]
Originally posted by teloft@Oct 21 2003, 05:37 PM
[b] so it dosent mater what cind of magic you have on your warhammer (blunt), no mater how much masterwork is put into it, or whether it has been blessed, cursed or something of the like.
-5 on any blut damage.
then I can see a major feat of blood when the characteristics of the race are increased. so the dwarf would get -10 damage reduction if hit by a blunt weapon, (appled only on any blunt damage) this would include falling damage
Since Ian brought it up the specific change to Cerilian dwaves we are batting about is
Racial Abilities: Cerilian dwarves have the following racial traits:
• +2 Constitution, -2 Dexterity.
• Medium-size (4’ to 4’6” tall); base speed of 20 feet. However, dwarves can move this speed even when wearing medium or heavy armor or when carrying a medium or heavy load.
• Darkvision: Dwaves can see in the dark up to 60 feet. Although they can function without light, Cerilian dwarves prefer illumination, and require it to perform most fine tasks.
• Stonecunning: +2 racial bonus to notice unusual stonework; automatically attempt to search when within 10 feet of unusual stonework, trapfinding (as rogue) for stonework traps only. A dwarf can also sense their approximate depth underground.
• Stability: Dwarves gains a +4 bonus on ability checks to resist bull rush and trip when standing on firm ground.
• +2 racial bonus on saves vs. poison, spells, and spell-like effects.
• +2 dodge bonus to AC against orogs and ogres.
• +2 racial bonus to appraise and craft checks related to stone and metal objects.
• Increased Density: A dwarf’s dense body provides DR 3/slashing or piercing. Dwaves suffer a -4 penalty to swim and tumble checks.
• Automatic Language: Karamhul. Bonus Languages: Sidhelien, Orog, Ogrish, or any regional human dialect (Anuirean, Basarji, Low Brecht, High Brecht, Rjuven, or Vos).
• Favored Class: Fighter.
Now as far as whether or not this DR justifies an ECL or not. Originally the team proposed to make it a DR 1, but that seemed kind of pointless and not anything near the flavor of the the 2nd ed dwarves. In 3.5 the DR ranges start at 5 and generally go up to 15, so making it a 3 seemed to fit the bill pretty nicely and then adding in the penalties to swim and tumble seemed to be a good balance as well as fitting the typical impression of cerilian dwarves (they always were more dense than the standard dwarves).
As far as how DR works in 3.5
Per the MM pg 307 “A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks. Wounds heal immediately, or the weapon bounces off harmlessely (in either cast the opponent knows the attack was ineffective). The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even non magical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities.”
Basically DR doesn’t apply to falls and other incidental things, only to attacks and not to magic ones. As far as magic weapons, simply having an enhancement bonus no longer bypasses DR (as was done in 3.0) unless it is specifically listed as a property that bypasses the DR and then it is listed as magic which means that any enhancement would bypass it not +2 or some other level of enhancement.
Even skeletons in 3.5 no longer get the half damage from s/p weapons they used to (even n 3.0) the now get DR 5/ blugeoning.
dont go sideways in to 3.5 I vote for ‘DR 5/slashin or piershing’ for the dwarfs. ofcours it is not so potent and powerfull, almost averyone thet have Blunt weapon are capable of doing other types of damages as well, ot at least to bring such weapon for the dwarf sloter. Im not wery keen on seing something else then thees 3 types: DR 5, DR 10, DR 15 … / something common.
or just skipp the howl thing, and give them Natural armor..
:ph34r: