While many feats do simulate training, there are many feats that do not. Many feats simulate a character’s natural aptitudes manifesting themselves.
The oncept that leveling implies (or requires) training many not be a part of WotC philosophy, but the implication is there none the less. When my character’s skills with weapons, his ability to defend himself, and his level of proficiency at bluffing, riding a horse, and weaving baskets all increase, it indicates to me at least a small amount of practice and discovery has taken place. To say otherwise would be a serious blow to suspension of disbelief IMO.
It seems to me that published adventures do not require time to gain benefits of leveling for two reasons. The first is for simplicity’s sake. The second is because a quantity of practice and self-training is assumed to be occuring during the glossed-over free times of the character each day. I point to the rational behind the wizard’s gaining of two spells each level to support my view.
I am not that familiar with Age of Worms, but the name sounds as if dragons are involved, and since dragons are seriously scary for PCs and fun for DMs I suspect you might be right.
DMG pgs 197+ talks about options for how PCs improves, inlcuding how to learn (and improve) skills, class abilities, and feats.
There is no prequisite for having to train to level up and the very first thing that is done when leveling up is to choose a class. Although the character level benefits are gained in parallel.
It seems to me that published adventures do not require time to gain benefits of leveling for two reasons. The first is for simplicity’s sake. The second is because a quantity of practice and self-training is assumed to be occuring during the glossed-over free times of the character each day. I point to the rational behind the wizard’s gaining of two spells each level to support my view.
My point was that they re-enforce the WotC default stand that it takes no time or training to gain benefits a character gets when leveling up.
I am not that familiar with Age of Worms, but the name sounds as if dragons are involved, and since dragons are seriously scary for PCs and fun for DMs I suspect you might be right.
This the recently completed Adventure Path in Dungeon/Dragon magazine. Adventure Paths are actually entire campaigns that run PCs from 1st to 20th level though a series of approximately 12 published adventures.
It actually has nothing to do with dragons whatsoever.
It does, however have to do with raising a “dead” evil god. . . .
And I didn’t say there was a prerequisite for having to train to level up. What I said was the training is assumed to have occured during the day-to-day activities of the character throughout the previous level. It’s just a half-hearted attempt to maintain suspension of disbelief yet introduce simplicity and expediency to the leveling process IMO.
My point was that they re-enforce the WotC default stand that it takes no time or training to gain benefits a character gets when leveling up.
And my point was that the system doesn’t say it takes no time or training to gain benefits when leveling up. Quite the contrary actually. What is says is that the time and training required to level up don’t need to be RPed or accounted for.
Pg. 58 of the PHB, Experience and Levels section, Training and Practice subsection
“Characters spend time between adventures training, studying, or otherwise practicing their skills. This work consolidates what they learn on adventures and keeps them in top form. If, for some reason, a character can’t practice or train for an extended time, the DM may reduce XP awards or even cause the character to lose experience points.”
This the recently completed Adventure Path in Dungeon/Dragon magazine. Adventure Paths are actually entire campaigns that run PCs from 1st to 20th level though a series of approximately 12 published adventures.
It actually has nothing to do with dragons whatsoever.
It does, however have to do with raising a “dead” evil god. . . .
Bummer, although dead evil gods are cool too I suppose. I like dragons better I did very much like the Shackled City adventure path.
Edit: Forgot to include my point about feats. I concede that most feats do seem to simulate training, especially the ones that are arranged in “trees”. My only defense is that, although they are really crappy comparisons, the skill bonus feats simulate potential natural aptitudes a character might have, thereby demonstrating that not all feats are meant to simulate training (and also keep in mind I’m just looking in the PHB for the examples because there are just too many damn feats to sort through otherwise ).
On 9/14/06, gazza666 <brnetboard@birthright.net> wrote:
> gazza666 wrote:
> I acknowledge everything in that list, ploesch - but it`s not enough to make me want to
take scion levels as a wizard, sorcerer, druid, or cleric. If you removed all of that list
except blood ability access, lowered the BAB progression to +1/2, made it d4 hp (with no
bonus), and only good Will saves, but you added full spellcasting progression - then I`d
> take it as a wizard or sorcerer, sure.
Of course you would. Full spellcasting progression, normal hit
points, BAB, and saves for a wizard, PLUS special abilities? It`s
strictly better than either base class.
It`s not supposed to be. Classes are supposed to be roughly
equivalent with each other, in terms of utility. So it should have at
least one skipped level of spellcasting progression, in exchange for
the extras it grants.
Spellcasters arent forced to take it if they dont want to. And the
munchkins won`t.
Now that’s a cool concept. As soon as I read the text concerning the Cold Rider, I immediately thought, “So Azrai didn’t die…” I’m 99.9% sure that in my campaign, whether I end up making him the Cold Rider, or having the Cold Rider just be his main flunky, Azrai will have survived Deismar by retreating to the Shadow World and using it to slowly regain his strength until he’s ready to reassert himself (Sauron anyone?). I’d be very surprised if I was the only one doing this The reason I haven’t looked into Age of Worms and won’t is because one of my players has had a subscription to Dragon for years, so he’s already looked through the adventure paths (he also DMs).
It occurs to me that several people, especially those fairly new to the boards/mailserv, who might not know some of the effort the community has gone through to get where the BRCS is at the present.
The “project” was started sometime in 2001 with an initial group assembled based on their postings and other non-tangibles.
IIRC there were about 10 or so people in this initial group. Most got involved in other things, like real life, and dropped out. More were added later on. 2 of the final 3 that ended up actually putting together the BRCS-playtest were in the additions (me and Mark_Aurel). Doom was the primary editor at that time and the main driver for keeping the project running. Eternal thanks go to the man for that.
It took between 18 months and 2 years before the BRCS-playtest was posted. There were a lot of rather pointed and accusatory posts just before then accusing the “team” of not being responsive to posts.
The BRCS-playtest was posted in Feb 2003. IIRC the actual date was Feb 5th, but I say it was the 4th (just because that is my birthday).
Around March of 2003 I started postings to work on revising Chap 2 since 3.5 was getting ready to be issued and people were hearing about it from WotC and Dragon magazine previews.
This discussion and revision of Chapter 2 took about a year. There were many, many polls and accompanying discussions. The “final” product was the result of these discussions and polls. I don’t want anyone thinking it was something I did all on my own and tried to force down everyone’s throat.
I was criticized several times for using such a methodical approach that took so long. My stance was that it was more important to get something that the majority could use than it was to just get something out – which is pretty much what would happen without interaction with the group at large.
IIRC Chap 2 was “sanctioned” in March of 2004.
Then work went on for Chap 1 following the same formula. IIRC it didn’t take as long for discussion but some of the “concepts” were fairly drastic and required some serious re-writing – like the noble and magician classes and the variant paladin classes.
Chap 1 was “sanctioned” in Feb 2005.
As a reminder – people can use the Search feature on the top of the boards to help locate “old” discussion topics. There were some in the BRCS-discussion and the Royal Library threads that might prove useful that I did not provide links to.
One of my several problems with the scion class system to try to balance the setting is that I can’t understand why BAB, skills, or any of the other class-related features should be tied to bloodline. It seems to me that default assumption is that all scions are going to automatically also be regents, or at least major aristocracy. I find fault with this because the setting itself states that most scions are not regents, and describes many blooded families that have fallen on hard times, and blooded scions manifesting among the basest of commoners for various reasons. Then there’s the Vos.
I read the earlier thread, but I haven’t seen why just a simply LA based on the bloodline strength/level can’t be used. As I’ve already described, the scion class actually does little to prevent front-loading, which seems to be the main (and maybe only) downside to LA for scions. The LA would improve the concept by using a system already in place in 3.5 for the very purpose of balancing characters with powerful abilities, and would separate the class features from bloodline since the two are not related in any way outside of balance issues. Maybe this is what the template from Savage Species does, but I do not have, nor will I be getting Savage Species, so I’m not very familiar with the mechanic. In the DMG on page 172 in the Monsters as Races section, a LA system is described that seems to be designed just for this purpose. Although the section talks about and was originally designed for playing monsters as PCs, the purpose of the system is actually just to balance the superior natural abilities of monsters to the PC races from the PHB to prevent the monster PC from overshadowing the other PCs during play. This is exactly what is needed for blooded PCs as well.
As one of the people irrdeggman referred to in the above post that is new here I’d just like to say that I appreciate all the effort that has gone before, and I regret not being here to contribute to the discussions on it’s development. I sincerely hope that the present discussion is not completely irritating you all, as that is certainly not my intent, although after all the work you have put into this project I would most certainly understand if it is. I would also understand if you locked this thread and topic down as unproductive to an issue that’s already been decided. I would just like to say, though, that I’m thoroughly enjoying the discussion, am finding it very useful in refining, and perhaps even completely changing, how I view and intend to approach the issue in my own game… even if it’s by just house-ruling. If you would be willing to indulge any “johnny-come-latelys” like me I would, and do, appreciate it very much.
LA templates are the worse solution. They have all the downsides of the Scion Classes and none of the advantages. You are still considered levels higher, you still effectively lose levels, so the caster issues persist, the slower leveling in primary class persists. The only positive thing about LA templates is that they feel more like a divine spark than a commodity. Everyone still effectively loses levels, and in this case they really lose them since they do not gain HP, BAB or skills from the template.
I’m not a powergamer, but Blooded abilities and the scion bonuses alone do not make up for the loss of one or two levels. Which is exactly what happens with LA templates.
Whether it’s a “20 wizard/2 Scion” or “20 wizard with +2 LA template” it takes the same ammount of XP to get there. That fact has been the largest part of our discussion, and peoples issue with the class.
It seems to me the main difference in the LA and the class would be, at 1st level, a scion and a commoner would both still have a base class. For example. A 1st level commoner fighter would be a 1st level fighter. A 1st level blooded fighter would still be a 1st level fighter. The only difference would be in how many XPs it would take for each character to go from 1st level to 2nd level. The commoner could gain a 2nd level of fighter after acquiring 1000 XP. The blooded character would not be able to gain another level until acquiring, for example, 3000 XP if his/her LA was +2. The point is they would both increase all the features of their class solely through gaining levels in their chosen class(es), it would just take the blooded character more XP to do it which would simulate the scion having an easier time of acquiring the XP due to the blood powers the character can bring to bear on overcoming obstacles.
Also, I know for sure this specific arguement has been pursued in the older threads because I remember reading it, so if the LA out of the DMG is essentially the same as the SS templates we can probably just read the older threads and let this issue go in the present, which I’m perfectly willing to do. I was just asking because I wasn’t completely sure if the LA and the templates were the same thing.
Edit: After thinking a bit more about it, I do understand what you’re saying about progression now. Whether through multi-classing with scion, or delayed advancment due to LA, the spellcaster is still going to be behind his/her commoner associates in development. That is a good point, although I still like that LA uncouples class feature progression from bloodline, especially from the POV of npcs, it wouldn’t be helpful from a major or great blooded PC’s point of view
The various BAB, saving throw progressions, skills and abilites were chosen (after much on-line discussion) for each derivation based on the things that “define” it. Each derivation has certain aspects that are associated with it due to the deity from which they were derived - the class features were an attempt to capture this. They were not chosen randomly.
The assumption that all scions are of nobility is not there. That is the purpose of the noble class. The assumption that a scion has certain aspects that set him apart from commoners is an assumption. There are certain things that are common to all bloodlines and reflect a certain aspect gained from the spark of divinity. Pluses to Leadership score is one.
I read the earlier thread, but I haven’t seen why just a simply LA based on the bloodline strength/level can’t be used. As I’ve already described, the scion class actually does little to prevent front-loading, which seems to be the main (and maybe only) downside to LA for scions. The LA would improve the concept by using a system already in place in 3.5 for the very purpose of balancing characters with powerful abilities, and would separate the class features from bloodline since the two are not related in any way outside of balance issues. Maybe this is what the template from Savage Species does, but I do not have, nor will I be getting Savage Species, so I’m not very familiar with the mechanic. In the DMG on page 172 in the Monsters as Races section, a LA system is described that seems to be designed just for this purpose. Although the section talks about and was originally designed for playing monsters as PCs, the purpose of the system is actually just to balance the superior natural abilities of monsters to the PC races from the PHB to prevent the monster PC from overshadowing the other PCs during play. This is exactly what is needed for blooded PCs as well.
Try this link (from a recently closed thread).
I included 2 articles for the WotC on Savage Progressions. Basically it outlines why and how to use LA races and templates as classes. Mostly to account for not suddenly gaining a LA while other PCs remain lower level. It also provides a means for allowing use of a LA race at 1st level - something that normally can’t be done. This process is also becoming the “standard” in WotC products now so the scion “class” system is consistent with it.
…And this addresses my points as to how the scion classes could be better balanced for spellcasters (and then for other classes again) with the addition of 'Increases exisiting spellcasting level +1 or bonus feat" or the thematic concerns I addressed how?
A 6th level being who’s done nothing in their life except focus on their blood abilities, rather then trying to focus other aspects of their life, which actually favors classes that recieve bonus feats over those that don’t.
I keep rewriting this post as I think about what I’m trying to say.
Everytime it comes down to one thing. To create balance, you should have to give up something, or delay progression of class abilities to gain the additional power Blood Powers give.
If you don’t agree with that statement, then you don’t care about balance. I believe the community, for the most part, wants some type of balance. The official rules should seek to have balance.
Why?
Because the PC’s should be balanced against eachother, not just for unblooded versus blooded but minor versus Major versus great, and the PC’s should be balanced against the environment, if for no other reason than to ease the Game Masters job some. BRCS taxes Game Masters more than other settings as it is.
So, if you don’t care about balance, throw out the Scion Levels in your game, and do what you want. Leave them or another balancing mechanic in the Official rules.
This thread should be about mechanics that can be offered as a better alternative to balance classes, but it’s not shaping up that way. I’ve said my peace, as I’ve thought about it, the Scion levels seem to be the best way to do this.
The thing about the LA solution is that everyone suffers equally. Look at it from the powergaming perspective (the correct perspective when analysing mechanics): a fighter will take Scion of Anduiras, and end up losing (on average) 2 hp and 1 feat. A rogue will take Scion of Brenna and end up losing 8 skill points and 1d6 of Sneak Attack, but will come out 2hp better off. A wizard who takes any of the classes ends up with (probably) a better BAB and a few extra hit points, which does not in any way compensate for 2 lost levels of spellcasting.
(I’m assuming for the moment here that the scions aren’t regents, but the point remains the same in any case - all that changes is a linear addition of hit points).
So effectively, for those other than spellcasters, they either don’t suffer very much (fighters) or gain something useful in exchange (rogues - hp for a rogue are not irrelevant, since rogues are likely to be in melee), in addition to whatever powers they get from their blood. Spellcasters gain something of little value to them in exchange for what they lose (as I’ve pointed out - the proof is in the pudding, as any spellcasting scion would gladly trade the BAB and hit points for full spellcasting progression).
If you make it a LA+1 or LA+2 (major and great), which was the Playtest version, then every class loses 2 levels of class features. You cannot argue that this isn’t absolutely fair. It is true that it still impacts spellcasters worse, but then you’re just into the fact that spellcasting class feature progression (ie higher level spells) is just flat out better than non-spellcasting class feature progression - which is something that D&D has always had.
In summary: one of the main arguments against scion levels is that they provide benefits useful to nonspellcasters but not spellcasters. This argument does not apply to a LA template, as level adjustments do not apply benefits to anyone regardless of class.
As an added bonus: there is an existing mechanic in Unearthed Arcana for “buying off” level adjustments as you rise in level, so you don’t suffer as much at higher levels when the blood powers are merely cute rather than useful.
Indeed, in many ways I think that scion class levels are the worst of both worlds, as they stick you with the non-spellcasting levels and at the same time boost the non-spellcasters more than the spellcasters. But the reality of the situation is that it is hard to conceive of a balanced way to make scion powers (major+) attractive to spellcasters, and if accept this as the case, you might as well make them attractive to nonspellcasters.
I appreciate the link, and I like the system it presents. The problem that keeps coming to mind to me in this BR application though is both the little it actually seems to do to balance, as well as the BAB and such. A ranger gaining 2 levels of wereboar would be an appropriate situation in which to apply increases in BAB and other class type features, as becoming a wereboar I could easily see making one a much more powerful combatant and tougher individual all around. Gaining a bloodline, however, seems to me to not really have anything to do with such mundane things. A straight LA would not seem to require time, and wouldn’t directly add class features that seem inappropriate to a character’s chosen profession. Also, I agree with gazza666 about all classes losing and gaining equally with the LA, but not the class. Also, attractive or not, arcane casters are stuck with being blooded. Whether PCs or NPCs, some of them are bound to come from great bloodlines. Since wizards with great bloodlines are supposed to be powerful, I can’t see hampering them with levels of a class that does nothing for their profession when a better way to simulate their innate powers can be found.
There’s another way to look at my objections. To me, a class implies a job. So having to take 2 levels of scion to get a great bloodline seems to me like asking the character to work as a scion for two levels worth of XP just to gain access to their “natural” powers. On top of that, it’s asking the aspiring arcane caster to work as a scion before becoming an arcane caster, all the while learning skills and developing abilities that have very little to do with being an arcane caster, simply because they come from or have inherited a great bloodline… something a character with a minor bloodline wouldn’t even have to do. It just seems like a punishment.
To be fair, there’s nothing at all forcing someone with a major or great bloodline taking major or great powers. You can always substitute minor abilities instead.
Some interesting insights and comments on this subject, and after
reviewing them I think Im back to my original way of balancing bloodline. I had liked the idea of a percentage penalty because in the long run the criticisms of that idea are the same ones that are used for LA, a character class or a set of feats. That is, all those ideas (including the XP penalty) have more to do with the character expending or foregoing the XP he gains in order to "justify" his bloodline when that bloodline isnt really there to be “justified” in
that sense. It should be balanced in some way with game mechanics
for several reasons. DMs need to adjudicate adventures fairly,
giving out an appropriate CR award, adventures need to be designed
logically, which needs a way of accounting for bloodline,
etc. However, all the methods suggested turn bloodline into either
an adjunct of the class system, meaning the character must expend his
class features or even class levels in order to gain access to what
is originally supposed to be an inherit power (hence the word “birth”
in the term “birthright”) or in the case of the XP penalty accept a
slower than normal class progression. These are all really just
slightly different shades of the same process. None of them
accurately portray the concept as originally presented in which a 1st
level character had the powers of his bloodline from the get
go. That was and is the point.
This discussion has been useful, however, since its articulated most of the issues having to do with the problem, and thats put me back
to the way I had set up accounting for bloodine in the first place:
as a factor in the inventory of the character. Giving a character a
bloodline is like giving him a magic item that is inappropriate for
his level per the table in the DMG that lists the gp value of
characters by their level. The difference between giving a PC a
permanent spell on his person and a minor bloodline is
negligible. Other blood abilities scale up in power from those
typically made permanent, but the idea remains the same. They should
be accounted for in a way comparable to magic item since that is how
they are employed.
So, the long and short of this is that I think bloodline should be
assigned a gp value and factored into a scion`s inventory. His
effective character levels are the average of this actual character
levels and that of a character whose inventory his actual inventory
is equal to. This addresses all of the issues having to do with
character class and losing class abilities because the character will
lose none. He will gain less XP at lower levels than he might
normally, but when his character levels do increase the value of his
assumed inventory will as well, meaning that at the upper levels a
scion with even a very powerful bloodline will not be penalized
(unless he also has a lot of magic items in his inventory.)
Or the racial paragon class levels of Unearthed Arcana?
Sorry the argument just doesn’t quite work.
Classes were chosen instead of LA templates in order to capture the LA (which people thought was appropriate to have for bloodlines pretty overwhelmingly by the way) in amnner that allows for PCs to play at the same time.
For example (and I have brought this one up several times in the past) if one PC starts with the a LA bloodline and another does not then the two are not balanced unless their relative ECL is used as the starting point.
And if yuo start at a 1st level game then a 1st level PC with a +1 LA is not a 1st level PC he is a 2nd level one by the definition of ECL.
The reason that hitpoints, BAB, etc. were added to the scion classes was
to make them a more palatable choice than say the no hit dice class levels of several of the template class levels. While this makes them more powerful in comparison to the savage progression class levels it was more easily ported into a BR setting and was generally perceived as the “best” option available.
It appears that at least some people believe this is an opportunity to rewrite what was already “sanctioned”. They are not about performing “minor” tweaks either - they revolve around complete restructuring.
It is not, the matter is closed. I have laid out the process and evolution that went into getting to where the chapter is now and that was extremely detailed, lengthy and democratic process.
I will lay down my editorial foot here.
Discussion of how someone can handle things differently in their own game is a different matter and that is pretty much what the boards and community was all about from the beginning - how are people doing things and what can they “steal” from each other to make their game a more enjoyable one.
The BRCs contains quite a lot of information and suggestions as to how things can be modified to cpature different “feels” and different “styles” of gameplay. There has been a lot of criticizm in the past for having too many variants, sidebars and background disccusions in the BRCS as it is not.
I did very much like the Shackled City adventure path.
The reason I haven’t looked into Age of Worms and won’t is because one of my players has had a subscription to Dragon for years, so he’s already looked through the adventure paths (he also DMs).