Refocusing the bloodline discussion

Dungeons & Dragons BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
1

Ok, I think we`ve gotten a bit off-track with our discussions of the
bloodline system. A lot of options have been put forward, such as ECL for
bloodlines, a scion class, a scion template, and a bloodline “race”
progression ala Savage Species.

I think, however, in debating the merits and flaws of these various
approaches, we`ve lost sight of the original reason(s) behind revising the
2e system. If we can come to a clear agreement on the WHY, we should be
able to easily come up with the HOW.

To begin: What is wrong with the 2e system of bloodlines? WHY do we want to
change it?

The 2e system is completely independent of “2e mechanics”; that is, it
doesnt depend on input from your race, class, etc to work. You simply take a d100, and consult the charts in the book, rolling dice where it tells you. In theory you could take the bloodline generation system and apply it to any RPG; the only thing youd have to change is the effects of the blood
powers to sync with the new system (a +1 to hit in 2e would become a +1 to
potence or whatever in Vampire.. but the generation would be the same, a
Tremere vampire still rolls d100 to determine his bloodline strength, then
rolls for derivation and score). I personally like the system, but my
understanding is that there are 2 major problems:

  1. Randomness. A lot of DMs and players don`t like the fact that a single
    d100 roll can make or break your character. A player that rolls a 96 is
    going to have a huge advantage over his guilder rival who rolled a 07.

In my experience the randomness issue is easily dealt with. I simply use DM
fiat to help out players who got bad rolls; but I understand that this is
not a method we can use as a standard. However, a point-buy of some sort is
the best way to approach the problem of randomness. I believe this is where
the “bloodline as a 7th ability score” concept came from.

In the end I dont think randomness is a big problem; well be able to
develop some sort of system that works without randomness, and publish that
along with a random system for those that like it. Kind of like how the 3e
PHB says you can roll 4d6 6 for stats OR use a point buy. We can continue
to debate the mechanics, but conceptually, this is not an issue.

  1. Balance. This is the kicker that a lot of people have problems with, and
    the reason is because there are at least 2 major philosophical viewpoints
    here. One is that scions are inherently stronger than commoners, and that
    is the entire premise of the BR setting, and that the rules should reflect
    this (this is the viewpoint to which I subscribe). The other major
    viewpoint is that players should have the choice to be a scion or a
    commoner and not be penalized for either choice. That is, scions and
    commoners should be relatively equal.

The problem lies in that the 2e rules were not clear about which path the
developers favored. Commoners did get SOMETHING, namely a 10% xp bonus.
However those in favor of the first viewpoint will argue (as I have) that a
10% xp bonus doesn`t even come close to the benefits of a bloodline.

The issue of balance lies at the heart of the debate about ECLs and
classes. Until we as a group can decide which approach to take, we will not
make a lot of constructive progress on the issue.

At this point I`d like to go on and add my thoughts about the system, as it
works now.

I believe that the 7th “ability score” for bloodline is simply bizarre,
mainly because of semantics. D&D is full of “scores”; your HP, AC, movement
rate and saving throws are all represented by numbers. What is the
difference between a normal “score” and an “ability score”, like the
bloodline? When I think ability score, I think of Str, Dex, etc. Can a
bloodline be improved by +1 every 4 levels? If no, then a bloodline is NOT,
strictly speaking, an ability score.

The reason for the “7th ability score” comes from the point buy system,
where the BRCS team wanted you to sacrifice points on strength, dex, etc,
to have a strong bloodline (I think).

I think, with all due respect to the BRCS team, this is a very bad way to
handle it. IMO bloodline should be a score, just like it was in 2e,
completely independent of the core of your character. If you want to use a
point buy for it, fine; use a 32 point buy (or whatever) to determine
ability scores, and use a separate point buy for bloodline (we would make a
new system of tables with costs of abilities and the like; the DM would
choose the number of points blooded PCs would have to use within the
system). This way bloodline is not an “ability score”; it is a separate
score all on its own like movement rate or gold pieces.

Now on to balance.

There are 2 issues of balance to consider: the balance of scions vs
commoners, and the balance of bloodlines factoring into CRs.

  1. I dont think that scions and commoners need to be balanced. They werent balanced in 2e and IMO don`t need to be in BR3e, because scions
    (again IMO) are the focus of the setting. That said, commoners should get
    something for not being blooded, OR scions should lose something. ECL is
    one way to do it; bloodline as a 7th ability score is another way,
    requiring you to sacrifice Str/Dex/etc for a bloodline. A feat/skill system
    where you have to spend your levelgain feats is a third way; a scion PrC is
    a fourth.

I like none of these methods. I feel the cost to be blooded is too high
with all of the aforementioned approaches. I think the best approach here
is to compare each blood ability to an approximate magical item, and derive
the XP cost from that. In order to use the blood ability you have to pay
the XP cost (one-time only) first. That way a scion will be slightly behind
a commoner in experience, just like in 2nd edition.

  1. The issue of bloodlines vs CRs in Cerilia also needs to consider the
    following fact: your average level when considering Challenge Ratings also
    includes the amount of magical items a character of your level is expected
    to have in a default setting. Are any of us seriously advocating that BR
    characters should have as much treasure as the DMG recommends? I certainly
    am not. Because of the scarcity of magic items, the CR system is already
    going to be out of whack in Cerilia. We`re not seriously considering ECL
    reductions because of a lack of magic items; why should we consider
    increases because of bloodlines? To some extent the addition of bloodlines
    will mitigate the impact of a lack of magical items.

I`d prefer to just call them even, and leave the CR system unchanged. An
intelligent DM (and almost all DMs are intelligent) will be able to make
adjustments on the fly, based on his knowledge and common sense.

Ive attempted to summarize the current debate regarding bloodlines. I dont think I`ve left anything out, but if I have, my apologies.

So, thoughts?

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

At 05:23 PM 3/15/2003 -0600, Lord Shade wrote:

>To begin: What is wrong with the 2e system of bloodlines? WHY do we want to
>change it?

I think there are really only two general reasons.

First, some things have to change in a conversion. Many of the blood
abilities are based on spells, spell-like abilities or character class
abilities that have changed from 2e to D20, so the descriptions of those
things need to be changed. There`s a skill system that many blood
abilities might take advantage of, a system of feats that could be
incorporated, prestige classes, etc. Many of the game mechanics have
progressed and several aspects of the concept of bloodline need to move
along with it.

Second, because some of the original rules were broken or not particularly
well defined. Where possible those things should be fixed in the same way
that various character classes changed from 2e to 3e.

  1. Balance. This is the kicker that a lot of people have problems with, and
    the reason is because there are at least 2 major philosophical viewpoints
    here. One is that scions are inherently stronger than commoners, and that
    is the entire premise of the BR setting, and that the rules should reflect
    this (this is the viewpoint to which I subscribe). The other major
    viewpoint is that players should have the choice to be a scion or a
    commoner and not be penalized for either choice. That is, scions and
    commoners should be relatively equal.

If I might qualify that a bit… I don`t think anyone is saying that scions
and commoners should be relatively equal. They are saying (or, at least, I
am) that given equal character levels commoners and scions should be
equal. The ECL for a scion should be equal to character levels, just as
the ECL for templates or other character features are (supposed) to be. A
10th level fighter should be equal in power to a 8th level fighter with a
+2 ECL from bloodline.

Making scion features more powerful than character levels and then not
assigning an ECL is counterintuitive to a D20 conversion. Aside from
issues of individual character balance, it throws off things like the way
the DM designs encounters per the DMG`s guidelines, and the bonuses from CR
awards since characters with powers that are unaccounted for by ECL will
gain the same XP as characters who lack those features, but will presumably
not expend the same amount of resources.

There are other things thrown out of whack by not accounting for the powers
gained along with a bloodline using ECL. Things like the gp value of his
inventory. Not counting ECL effects also doesnt always work in favor of the character either. Lets say, for example, that one was playing a 5th
level character who had enough effects from bloodline to count as +2
ECL. If one accounts for those modifiers then his leadership score for the
purpose of the leadership feat would be 7 + his charisma modifier rather
than 5 + charisma modifier. Also, his cohorts can be 6th level rather than
4th. For the purpose of actually describing the leadership qualities of a
blooded character–pretty important to such a character–ECL is as
important as actual character levels.

I believe that the 7th “ability score” for bloodline is simply bizarre,
mainly because of semantics. [Snip the semantics]
I think, with all due respect to the BRCS team, this is a very bad way to
handle it.

I agree with you on that one. I dont like bloodline as an ability score much at all. It has, however, been the most common one since 3e came out and it appeared in Dooms original conversion, so I think a lot of people
have gotten used to it. When it gets right down to it, I suppose, any
alternative system really needs to be written up in at least as complete a
format in order to be legitimately presented as another option… Ive posted two variants that I think make at least as much or more sense than bloodline as an ability score (bloodline as a character class and a bloodline system that is essentially an upgrade of the 2e system) but those are, after all, only posts not a complete system, and because they are incomplete its difficult for people to get a complete handle on them.

>IMO bloodline should be a score, just like it was in 2e, completely
>independent of the core of your character. If you want to use a point buy
>for it, fine; use a 32 point buy (or whatever) to determine ability
>scores, and use a separate point buy for bloodline (we would make a new
>system of tables with costs of abilities and the like; the DM would choose
>the number of points blooded PCs would have to use within the system).
>This way bloodline is not an “ability score”; it is a separate score all
>on its own like movement rate or gold pieces.

Have you seen the stuff I posted about “2e bloodline in 3e style”?

Gary

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.

3

Wow. This is amazing.

For the first time since coming on this board, I agree with EVERYTHING you said in your post, geeman.

The simple fact of the matter is that bloodline needs to be incorporated in a way that it feels like a part of the d20 System, not a separate system that gets tacked on. And the easiest way for it to do that is to mesh in with the existing tools in the system, namely skills, feats, and spells.

To balance with the system as it is built, bloodline should not just grant scions special powers with no kind of trade-off for commoners. It should, however, open up many more OPTIONS to the scions.

For example, certain spells could be “Wiz/Sor 3, Bloodline (Masela)” which only a scion of Masela could have… or just “Wiz/Sor 3, Bloodline” for any scion of the appropriate class to be able to attain.

But, as I was saying, I agree fully with geeman. The big changes in the system from 2nd Edition to 3rd Edition call for big changes in the Bloodline system, since it was built on 2nd Edition mechanics.

One example I want to note is from the Forgotten Realms. In 2nd Edition, noble-born drow gained extra special abilities for free, and in 3rd Edition, those abilities must be purchased with feats. I’m not saying this is the exact method that should be used, but it gives you an idea of how the official designers took a look at a 2nd Edition mechanic and made it work (and well) in 3rd Edition.

4

On Sat, 15 Mar 2003, Lord Shade wrote:

> To begin: What is wrong with the 2e system of bloodlines?
> WHY do we want to change it?

Yes, this is exactly the way the discussion should be approached.

> In theory you could take the bloodline generation system and apply it
> to any RPG; the only thing you`d have to change is the effects of the

blood powers to sync with the new system (a +1 to hit in 2e would
become a +1 to potence or whatever in Vampire.. but the generation
would be the same, a Tremere vampire still rolls d100 to determine his
bloodline strength, then rolls for derivation and score).

Again, exactly right. For example, Alertness`s “surprised only on a roll
of 1” no longer has a precise meaning in 3e mechanics, so it would have to
be changed to some set of skill bonuses.

> 1. Randomness. A lot of DMs and players don`t like the fact that a single

d100 roll can make or break your character. A player that rolls a 96 is
going to have a huge advantage over his guilder rival who rolled a 07.

This is still my only problem with it.

However, a point-buy of some sort is the best way to approach the
problem of randomness. I believe this is where the “bloodline as a 7th
ability score” concept came from.

Yes. But exactly what else to put in the pool with the bloodline score is
unclear. Even if bloodline score is to be balanced only against the six
abilities, I still see no need to rescale the numbers to fit the same 3-18
standard scale as the others. Keep the score meaning exactly as-is, but
say “one stat point buys six points of bloodline” or whatever.

I believe that the 7th “ability score” for bloodline is simply
bizarre, mainly because of semantics. D&D is full of “scores”; your
HP, AC, movement rate and saving throws are all represented by
numbers. [snip] This way bloodline is not an “ability score”; it is a
separate score all on its own like movement rate or gold pieces.

Yes, exactly. Bloodline has its own inherent scale, which should not be
changed. To return to your earlier example, your Vampire character still
has all its other scores in the 1-5 White Wolf System, but a BR bloodline
of Brenna, Major, 47 – because that is the kind of score which is
necessary to interact with the domain system.

I like none of these methods. I feel the cost to be blooded is too
high with all of the aforementioned approaches.

Again, you speak my mind word for word.

I think the best approach here is to compare each blood ability to an
approximate magical item, and derive the XP cost from that. In order
to use the blood ability you have to pay the XP cost (one-time only)
first. That way a scion will be slightly behind a commoner in
experience, just like in 2nd edition.

This is certainly a less bad approach than any of the others, even if you
double the cost for the “doesn`t take up a slot” power.

> Because of the scarcity of magic items, the CR system is already going
> to be out of whack in Cerilia.

Agreed.

> We`re not seriously considering ECL reductions because of a lack of

magic items;

Except that some of us are, as with Falcon`s averaging suggestion which
Gary just mentioned again.

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.

5

On Sat, 15 Mar 2003, Gary wrote:
> >I believe that the 7th “ability score” for bloodline is simply bizarre,
> >mainly because of semantics. [Snip the semantics]
> >I think, with all due respect to the BRCS team, this is a very bad way to
> >handle it.
>
> I agree with you on that one. I don`t like bloodline as an ability score

much at all. It has, however, been the most common one since 3e came out
and it appeared in Doom`s original conversion, so I think a lot of people
> have gotten used to it.

I very much doubt it. It has been the most loudly and shamelessly
self-promoted, and it was maneuvered into the BRCS doc the same way, but I
bet a lot of people just used the old tack-on system on top of 3e
characters. I actually very much dislike that the 7 ability score
system got shoved in just because it was in PDF when the rest of us were
publishing conversion stuff in html and email.

Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

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

On Sat, 15 Mar 2003, Gary wrote:

> Second, because some of the original rules were broken or not
> particularly well defined.

To speak only about second edition in its own terms, exactly which ones do
you have in mind, and how would you suggest they be repaired or redefined
within the context of second edition only? This is much more important to
me than converting to 3e or any other RPG system.

> The ECL for a scion should be equal to character levels, just as the
> ECL for templates or other character features are (supposed) to be.
> A 10th level fighter should be equal in power to a 8th level fighter
> with a +2 ECL from bloodline.

Only if you first include ability scores and actual magic item inventories
first. Ftr 8 w/ Str and Con 18 vs. Ftr 10 w/ Str and Con 12 is a much
bigger power difference than Ftr 8 with Blood History, Detect Lie and
Persuasion vs. a Ftr 10. Until youve corrected balance for standard ability scores, I dont think there`s much point in trying to balance
blood powers.

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.

7

From: “Ryan B. Caveney” <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>

> Even if bloodline score is to be balanced only against the six
> abilities, I still see no need to rescale the numbers to fit the same 3-18
> standard scale as the others. Keep the score meaning exactly as-is, but
> say “one stat point buys six points of bloodline” or whatever.
>

This is the way I`ve been playing it for years - one character generation
point gives you 2.5 points of bloodline strength. People started in the
15-50 range. Yes, I gave them a LOT of points.

This has worked extremely well. As I`ve said before, my only issue is that
certain blood abilities (those that grant special powers rather than buff
some other skill/attribute), should have scaled more over levels.

/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.

8

At 01:14 AM 3/16/2003 -0500, Ryan Caveney wrote:

> > Second, because some of the original rules were broken or not
> > particularly well defined.
>
>To speak only about second edition in its own terms, exactly which ones do
>you have in mind, and how would you suggest they be repaired or redefined
>within the context of second edition only? This is much more important to
>me than converting to 3e or any other RPG system.

Hm. I dont know if I had any particular ones in mind.... Since bloodline was the topic that inspired this thread, though, I think thatd probably be
the one that is the most obvious. Particularly things like Table 12: Blood
Ability Acquisition on p22 of the RB. That structure and progression of
that table has always mystified me. Many of the issues regarding blood
abilities were addressed in the BR playtest draft, so I wont recount them all, but in several cases blood abilities have strangely nebulous effects with no real game mechanical description, when the could be used to express a very wide range of things. Im thinking in particular of Blood History,
which from I can tell could give the effects of a vast number of intellect
based skill ranks. Character Reading also is a rather vaguely written and
poorly implemented 2e blood ability.

Other issues include things like bloodtheft. In all honesty, Ive been reading posts on the subject for years and I have yet to find a system of doing bloodtheft that I thought really worked. Its a great concept, but
very difficult to do in D&D terms. It may not be possible to come up with
a system that is really going to satisfy everyone on this one, so it may
not really qualify as a 2e to 3e issue, but it is something that I`d love
to see handled in a 3e conversion no matter how unreasonable that
expectation is, and no matter how miraculous that treatment might have to
be…

Another issue that Id like to see better developed is the monetary system at the domain level. I know, I know, this is another highly discussed topic, and positions seem to vary pretty widely, but 4GB=8,000gp=1 unit of elite infantry and the 80GB castle(10) just dont add up well without some
pretty funky rationalization. 8,000 gp is less than the inventory of a
standard D&D 5th level PC.

Large scale combat is probably something that could also be endlessly
refined, and Id like to see a substantially more developed system. By and large the D20 BR text does expand very well on the warcard (pthoo!) system, but they retained a few things that I dont much care for–like the 3x5
battlefield map.

I`m sure there are other things that would qualify as issues that could be
clarified or fixed in the original 2e materials.

> > The ECL for a scion should be equal to character levels, just as the
> > ECL for templates or other character features are (supposed) to be.
> > A 10th level fighter should be equal in power to a 8th level fighter
> > with a +2 ECL from bloodline.
>
>Only if you first include ability scores and actual magic item inventories
>first. Ftr 8 w/ Str and Con 18 vs. Ftr 10 w/ Str and Con 12 is a much
>bigger power difference than Ftr 8 with Blood History, Detect Lie and
>Persuasion vs. a Ftr 10. Until you`ve corrected balance for standard

ability scores, I dont think theres much point in trying to balance
>blood powers.

OK, sure. “All other things being equal” characters with equal character
levels should also be equal in power.

Gary

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

----- Original Message -----
From: “Ryan B. Caveney” <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 12:14 AM

> Ftr 8 w/ Str and Con 18 vs. Ftr 10 w/ Str and Con 12 is a much
> bigger power difference than Ftr 8 with Blood History, Detect Lie and
> Persuasion vs. a Ftr 10.

It really depends on who that F8 with Detect Lie is, or what his Blood
History is telling him. I have found that rulers with Detect Lie have a
huge advantage, because there is such an incentive to lie to them, either
for self-advantage, malice, or actual treason. A ruler with Detect Lie who
knows how to ask questions knows the worth of all of his courtiers,
lieutenants, cohorts, vassals, and the various vistors and envoys to his
court. As for Blood History, when a ruler sits on the same throne as his
ancestors, their experience can add to his wisdom in matters of state.

> Until youve corrected balance for standard ability scores, I dont
> think there`s much point in trying to balance blood powers.

Using a point buy system fixes that. Everyone gets the same number of
points and spends them in the way they think they`ll get the greatest
utility from them.

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.

10

On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> I have found that rulers with Detect Lie have a huge advantage,
> because there is such an incentive to lie to them, either for
> self-advantage, malice, or actual treason.

Well, sure. But then, being able to discern falsehoods in the speech of
one person per day for only ten minutes at a time is casting a net with
extremely large holes. The mere threat of its use will keep people on
their toes, but many gambles to avoid it will succeed. Then there are
magic items: it`s completely defeated by a Ring of Mind Shielding, which
in vanilla 3e could be standard equipment for every courtier of 5th level
or above – or a Philter of Glibness, 500 gp for one hour-long meeting
with the regent in which you know no one can spot you lie. Blood
abilities are no more useful than magic items, so they should have costs
appropriate to magic items – in other words, much much less than an ECL.
Even seemingly gross powers like Major Resistance to Nonmagical Attacks,
Great (from Blood Enemies) are revealed as not all that interesting when
you realize that Protection from Arrows is now just a 2nd-level spell.

Yes, in a world where magic items are very rare, blood abilities are
better than no magic at all, but wherever magic items and actual spells
exist they are generally more powerful than the equivalent blood
abilities, often simply because they are more readily accessible (e.g.,
several times per day vs. once per week). Even Elemental Control, Touch
of Decay and Travel, though very powerful at low levels, should stop
giving any ECL modifier at all once characters reach about 9th-11th level.

As for Blood History, when a ruler sits on the same throne as his
ancestors, their experience can add to his wisdom in matters of state.

Yes indeed. But its of little use in melee combat with a creature never seen in this area before. To my mind, any use of the ECL modifier has to be totally situational: if the power doesnt ever come into use in an
encounter, then it shouldn`t have any effect on determining the XP awards
from that encounter. It means that a particular mix of blood abilities
should really say something like “+2 ECL for negotiation only” or “+1 ECL
for wilderness survival and +3 for personal combat”. No single number can
express the true effective challenge of different types of encounters to
characters with very different design styles and specializations.

> Using a point buy system fixes that. Everyone gets the same number of
> points and spends them in the way they think they`ll get the greatest

utility from them.

But this fairness breaks down as soon as you start calculating ECLs. If
one player buys Str, Dex and Con while another buys bloodline, and you
only assign an ECL to the second one, thats completely unfair and really nothing more than an admission that the point values in the buying system are wrong and you dont feel like correcting them.

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.

11

On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, Gary wrote:

> Particularly things like Table 12: Blood Ability Acquisition on p22 of
> the RB. That structure and progression of that table has always
> mystified me.

Its a terrible table, I agree. Easily solved by Starfoxs method:
“A character gets one point of bloodline abilities for every full five
points of bloodline strength. Minor abilities cost one such point, major
abilities cost two, and great abilities cost four points.” This tends to
give slightly more BAs than rolling on that table, but that doesn`t bother
me at all, and anyway it can be easily tuned to taste by changing the
conversion number (one point per seven or ten or three or…) and perhaps
refined by making some majors better than others, etc.

thinking in particular of Blood History, which from I can tell could
give the effects of a vast number of intellect based skill ranks.

Yes, and not just Int – read loosely, Blood History could allow you to
use every single skill and feat in the game at a decent rank, plus Bardic
Knowledge. It needs to be limited somehow, perhaps with a BardKnow-like
DC to test how likely it is that you can remember anything relevant to the
immediate situation in a short time.

Character Reading also is a rather vaguely written and
poorly implemented 2e blood ability.

In 3e it`s really easy: +10 to Sense Motive. That is one positive change
in going to 3e mechanics, I agree. The skill system is better.

> Other issues include things like bloodtheft. In all honesty, I`ve

been reading posts on the subject for years and I have yet to find a
system of doing bloodtheft that I thought really worked.

Mine is really simple: “piercing through the heart” is purely a poetic
phrase. Any killing of a scion where there is physical contact, including
strangling them, clubbing them over the head or slaying them with a touch
spell, permits bloodtheft. Touch spells delivered by Spectral Hand work
too, since the hand is manifested from the casters own life force. Ranged attacks will generally cause return of the bloodline to the land, but if there is someone else in physical contact with the scion when they die, that third party is likely to gain the benefits of bloodtheft. If a whole group of people simultaneously kill a scion (e.g., the murder of Julius Caesar), each of them will get some blood benefit. Certain special situations have special rules: for example, the Disintegrate spell destroys the bloodline utterly, not allowing bloodtheft but also preventing transfer of stored RP to the heir; and killing a scion while in control of another persons body by Magic Jar will cause the possessed
body, not the possessing mind, to gain from the bloodtheft.

Another issue that I`d like to see better developed is the monetary
> system at the domain level.

OK, this is no longer about bloodlines. At present, I am content to say
“the GB is whatever unit it needs to be to let the domain level work
unchanged.” I periodically change my mind about how best to connect it to
the adventure level monetary system, but I don`t worry about it too much.

Large scale combat is probably something that could also be endlessly
refined, and I`d like to see a substantially more developed system.

Now we`re really far afield. =)

but they retained a few things that I don`t much care for–like the
> 3x5 battlefield map.

Agreed. By far the biggest problem with the warcards is that stupid map.
I am actually perfectly happy to use the warcards, just so long as they
are spread out on a nice, big hex map with no stacking allowed. (I
actually use 1/2" square cardboard counters on the map, with the warcards
off to the side for reference, so that the battle can easily fit on a
small table.) I still fiddle with a wide variety of alternate systems,
but that one change removes most of my objection to the warcards.

> OK, sure. “All other things being equal” characters with equal
> character levels should also be equal in power.

Right. Im just saying that if youre gonna bother to count the effect of
blood abilities, which are generally on the minor magic item scale, you
really need to count up the equality of all the other things before it
starts to matter. Consider, for example, Heightened Ability: it should
not induce any ECL at all unless just one single point of ability score
difference due to any other reason also induces an ECL.

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.

12

I am 100% with Shade on this one. I am basically satisfied with the “old box” bloodline system. At least, it is far better than the 7th ability score rules.

I am not at all concerned about game balance. I don’t need ECLs, CRs, or whatever to figure out how to DM a campaign that is challenging and exciting to my players.

On the other hand, it is a convension in D&D to game balance everything. So, ECL adjustments might be the way to go. However, I do hope such game balancing rules will be highly contained and easily ignorable by those of us who don’t like (or need) them.

Just my thoughts…

13

> “A character gets one point of bloodline abilities for every full five
> points of bloodline strength. Minor abilities cost one such point, major
> abilities cost two, and great abilities cost four points.”

Well, if we are going to have a new bloodline system, I’ll probably vote for this one. It’s simple, consistent, to the point, and it allows plenty of room for the individual DM to adjust it as he sees fit.

14

mhelles 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=1439
>mhelles wrote:
> I am 100% with Shade on this one. I am basically satisfied with the “old box” bloodline system. At least, it is far better than the 7th ability score rules.
>I am not at all concerned about game balance. I don`t need ECLs, CRs, or whatever to figure out how to DM a campaign that is challenging and exciting to my players.

On the other hand, it is a convension in D&D to game balance everything. So, ECL adjustments might be the way to go. However, I do hope such game balancing rules will be highly contained and easily ignorable by those of us who don`t like (or need) them.
>Just my thoughts…
>
The ECL´s for major or great scions do bother me.

Not only do non-blooded characters LOSE their bonus to XP, now blooded
characters get a penalty instead.

While formerly Birthright characters had something in addition to the
core rules, now the special bloodlines will replace the advantage of
having one or more levels of classes which you will not have, because
you have a bloodline.

This disadvantage is not justified. The XP a scion loses over his career
adds up to large amounts of XP while the powers scions gain do not add
up to reflect this loss.

When we need to balance characters then the XP loss of scions should
reflect the gain.

And the best for this, when the gained ability is static, is to pay a
static amount of XP.

In Tome&Blood are several Prestige Classes who receive a “virtual” brew
potion feat to store spells in their blood (Blood Magus) or Sword (Spell
Sword).

A scion could during creation or when gaining a bloodline through
bloodtheft or investiture simply gain a “virutal” magic item creation
feat=Bloodline, which allows him to create magic items=blood abilitys
for which he pays the XP and perhaps the gp (ritual cost?) from the DMG
for the approbiate magical item.

IF the XP losses and costs for magical items in 3E are balanced to
reflect the posession of magical items vs. having more XP, then this
will balance scions with bloodabilites against those without.
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.

15

>The simple fact of the matter is that bloodline needs to be incorporated
in a way that it feels like a part of the d20 System, not a separate system
that gets tacked on. And the easiest way for it to do that is to mesh in
with the existing tools in the system, namely skills, feats, and spells.

Simple fact according to who? That`s your opinion, not a fact. I disagree;
I think the bloodline system can and maybe should be modular, something you
can tack on to the existing system.

To balance with the system as it is built, bloodline should not just grant
scions special powers with no kind of trade-off for commoners. It should,
however, open up many more OPTIONS to the scions.

I agree here. There should be a trade-off. But where we are in disagreement
is the size of the tradeoff. I think it should be small; you think it
should be large.

But, as I was saying, I agree fully with geeman. The big changes in the
system from 2nd Edition to 3rd Edition call for big changes in the
Bloodline system, since it was built on 2nd Edition mechanics.

The only thing that depended on 2e mechanics were the effects of individual
blood abilities. Those are easily changed (50% MR changed to 25 SR or
whatever).

One example I want to note is from the Forgotten Realms. In 2nd Edition,
noble-born drow gained extra special abilities for free, and in 3rd
Edition, those abilities must be purchased with feats. I`m not saying this
is the exact method that should be used, but it gives you an idea of how
the official designers took a look at a 2nd Edition mechanic and made it
work (and well) in 3rd Edition.

Not a bad idea, IF you buy into the need to integrate bloodlines with 3e
rules. I don`t.

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

>Have you seen the stuff I posted about “2e bloodline in 3e style”?
>
>Gary

I have. I really like your ideas. 2e bloodline in 3e style would be a great
way to handle bloodline generation. My only concern is that the relative
frequency of bloodlines is off. Under the system as it stands, you only
need to roll a 14 (-2) to get a Great bloodline. Under the old rules, it
was only a 5% chance.

True should be taken off as a possibility, and great should be increased to
15 or 16. Major should be like 12-15, and the other 2 should be increased
accordingly. IMO of course.

I think overall your 2e bloodline in 3e style works much better than the
scion class idea, which is not intuitive at all and rather clunky.

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.

17

Originally posted by Shade
Simple fact according to who? That`s your opinion, not a fact. I disagree;
I think the bloodline system can and maybe should be modular, something you
can tack on to the existing system.

But it can’t be completely modular. If the system from 2nd Edition was dropped into 3rd Edition, it would not work. Why? Because that system is built on 2nd Edition mechanics, which are vastly different from 3rd Edition mechanics. Thus, it needs to be rewritten to work with the d20 System.

If you dropped it into any other game, like Vampire, it wouldn’t work either. For one, the traits range from 1-5 or 1-10… with your Bloodline 60 or something for the Gorgon, it would break the system.

And there’s no need to make it modular, because this isn’t about a Birthright conversion for the Storyteller System or for GURPs of the free WINDOW engine. This is for the d20 System conversion of Birthright, and it should be written for the d20 System. Simple as that.

I agree here. There should be a trade-off. But where we are in disagreement
is the size of the tradeoff. I think it should be small; you think it
should be large.

Not necessarily. If the scion’s benefit is a large benefit, then yes, there should be a large tradeoff. If the scions’ benefit is small, such as a +2 bonus to a skill, then the tradeoff should be small.

My argument with the way the system worked in the document went both ways. According to it, a “powerful” scion could have less power than a weaker scion, but still be a higher ECL. That doesn’t make sense. I am merely pushing for a cohesive system that makes use of the new d20 System mechanics, as opposed to making it a completely seperate system that isn’t connected to the mechanics.

The only thing that depended on 2e mechanics were the effects of individual
blood abilities. Those are easily changed (50% MR changed to 25 SR or
whatever).

Actually, technically, the whole system was built on 2nd Edition mechanics because of the fact that 2nd Edition had NO core resolution system. It was a hodgepodge of various “simulators” that were hobbled together. Bloodline, in 2nd Edition, was tacked on, just like most of the other rules released by TSR. Bloodline, in 3rd Edition, should mesh with system and give the whole thing a feeling of consistency.

And what about new mechanics that 2nd Edition never had? New rules and ideas that would benefit the conversion, but wouldn’t be used because “there’s no reason to make it work with the d20 System.”

And what about those blood abilities that were given vague descriptions in 2nd Edition? Some of them are given vague descriptions in 3rd Edition.

Not a bad idea, IF you buy into the need to integrate bloodlines with 3e
rules. I don`t.

If we’re playing 3rd Edition, then mechanics should mesh with 3rd Edition.

18

At 02:31 PM 3/16/2003 -0600, Shade wrote:

>My only concern is that the relative frequency of bloodlines is off. Under
>the system as it stands, you only need to roll a 14 (-2) to get a Great
>bloodline. Under the old rules, it was only a 5% chance.
>
>True should be taken off as a possibility, and great should be increased
>to 15 or 16. Major should be like 12-15, and the other 2 should be
>increased accordingly. IMO of course.

The way I explained this to my players is that the background feat that
would give the +2 on the bloodline strength score would only be available
if the DM wanted to make the possibility of players having true bloodlines
available. One of the things I`m sure a lot of BR fans have considered is
the idea of running a “return of the emperor” campaign in which the
bloodline of Roele returns somehow with the character in question being the
stereotypical “boy who must become a man/man who will become king” so
popular in fantasy fiction.

The actual descriptors for the bloodline strength, of course, don`t
actually mean much unless one adds some sort of number to them in order to
have a modifier for the purpose of DCs… This might be a better table:

Score Strength Modifier
1+ Tainted +0
4+ Minor +1
10+ Major +2
14+ Great +3
20+ True +4

The modifiers could be flipped around a bit…

There is no way to get over 16 on the above table during character
generation using the standard ability score generation (3-18 -2)
suggested. At least, not without some sort of bonuses. On a table like
the one above the background feat I was thinking would add +2 to the
bloodline strength score check could be upgraded to +4, but I think a
better solution might be that the character might have to dedicate both his
feats (as a 1st level human) to get up to 20.

Ive always thought there should be at least one, probably two more bloodline strength categories. "Touched" which would represent a scion with the barest minimum of bloodline score (not more than 2d6 in the 2e-->3e system) and "lesser" between Minor and Major. While thats
certainly not BR canon it would allow for a slightly different table with
higher modifiers, and there`d be no need to require the optional bonus to
bloodline strength feat to be taken twice, unless one wanted to just make
it that difficult in which case it could still be 20+ on the table below:

Score Strength Modifier
1+ Touched +0
3+ Tainted +1
6+ Minor +2
9+ Lesser +3
12+ Major +4
15+ Great +5
18+ True +6

Just out of curiosity… how many true bloodlines are out there? Anyone
have any thoughts on this?

I think overall your 2e bloodline in 3e style works much better than the
scion class idea, which is not intuitive at all and rather clunky.

So far 2e → 3e is my favorite too, though I haven`t actually had the
opportunity to playtest it yet. I want to give the bloodline as an ability
score method a little more time.

Gary

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

From: “Ryan B. Caveney” <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
>
> But this fairness breaks down as soon as you start calculating ECLs. If
> one player buys Str, Dex and Con while another buys bloodline, and you
> only assign an ECL to the second one, that`s completely unfair and really

nothing more than an admission that the point values in the buying system
are wrong and you don`t feel like correcting them.
>

I say a general ECL system works fine with character point generation
methods. As long as the players had some idea what the campaign was going to
be about, and spent their character points building characters geared for
such situations, it doesn`t matter too much if that is combat, intrigue,
investigation or whatever. Naturally, a party geared for intrigue will be
worse at dungeoneering than a party geared for that, but that is always the
kind of balance the Dm has to handle.

/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.

20

[b]Originally posted by ConjurerDragon

The ECL´s for major or great scions do bother me.

Not only do non-blooded characters LOSE their bonus to XP, now blooded
characters get a penalty instead.

While formerly Birthright characters had something in addition to the
core rules, now the special bloodlines will replace the advantage of
having one or more levels of classes which you will not have, because
you have a bloodline.

[/b]

I need to address this common misconception.

non-Blooded characters w/ 10% bonus to XP + Blooded characters at normal XP

EQUALS

non-Blooded characters at normal XP + Blooded characters with ECL XP penalty

There is still an XP gap there between both parties. All that has happened is that one group is receiving a penalty instead of the other group receiving a bonus.

Let’s look at an XP progression with ECL, shall we?

To achieve a 5th (class) Level character – unblooded characters require 10,000 XP total (1,000+2,000+3,000+4,000 XP). Blooded characters with an ECL of +1 require 14,000 XP total (2,000+3,000+4,000+5,000 XP), but they are considered a 6th level character for purposes of determining CR and encounter strength.

That’s a 4,000 XP gap. A bit bigger than under 2nd Ed, but then again, you can’treally equate 2nd Ed XP with 3rd Ed. Vastly different animals those two.

-Mike