Birthright Conversion WIP

[Jessica]

To be honest, I would probably start with "create characters per the 5e rules", providing a stable foundation; not worrying too much how this lets in Tiefling Rogues or Dragonborn Paladins into Cerilia. Basically, the play groups that enjoy a "pure" experience will only choose the races and classes they associate with the campaign world anyway.

I can see where you are coming from here, but I don't think all classes/races(or combinations thereof) necessarily fit all campaign worlds(and this is from someone who LOVES Tieflings). I want to try and work backwards from "purity" and add what classes/races seem logical in the fluff. I could see some Sorcerer subclasses (primarily Favored Soul) working for instance since all blooded characters are descended from one of the old deities who died at Mount Deismaar. I don't see dragon type Sorcerers working because there are all like 12 dragons in the campaign world and from what I understand they don't go around boinking humanoids.

Then I'd ask myself: what sets Birthright apart from "vanilla D&D" as expressed by 5th edition?

Immediately, I'd respond:
- bloodlines, but to be brutally honest: isn't a player character with class and levels already a unique snowflake compared to the general rabble? I mean, bloodlines as a means to be even more OMGWTFBBQ superior than the rest of the population isn't actually adding anything.

So I would ask myself: can't you simply say that any classed and levelled character radiates Regency?

I think taking out bloodlines would subtract a lot of the mechanical basis for things in the world. I mean without mechanical benefits from bloodlines you'd really have no basis for bloodtheft which is what caused some of the answhegh iirc.

- Monster rulers
I'd say 5th edition is a pretty good fit for Birthright's world. Monsters as unique figures of legend are just that: legendary but not super-godly like high-level figures tended to become in previous editions. You aren't a godly super-being all by yourself, you need armies. Bounded accuracy to the rescue! The game already have legendary actions. The next step is domain actions.

Completely 100% agreed. Bounded accuracy is what made me want to try this with 5th edition over say 13th Age for instance.

- domain rules
Here I would want an updated ruleset that actually makes sense. I always had that nagging feeling the original AD&D domain rules was good for dicking around in the world, but not good for actual use. A curiosity. A toy. I would put domains version 2 highest on my list, apart from a campaign guide to reintroduce today's gamers to the world, of course.

I need more experience with actually playing the Domain rules to do that. From going back and re-reading them for the first time in like 14 years, they seem like they'd work but clarity is the problem with a lot of the rules imo.

 

[Jessica]

I don't know that any of the restrictions were there simply because it was Birthright, but rather they were simply the wonky way 2nd edition tried to balance things.

I'm not sure. Which parts are caused BY the wonky parts of 2e and which parts are there DESPITE 2e. I mean I think we could probably assume Gnomes flat out aren't a thing for Birthright since Gnomes were core 2e and then taken out for Birthright, but would they have had Dwarves still restricted from spellcasting even if 2e didn't explicitly restrict it? I want to start from "purity" and work backwards.

I don't see anything about the setting falling apart simply because there would be Elven or Dwarven orders of holy warriors that are basically "Paladins" of sorts. I don't think it was any sort of unbreakable central theme that there couldn't be any such thing as a Rogue/Cleric-- especially since Rogues are conceptually a considerably larger category than "Thieves" ever were.
And certainly it is not a central pillar of the setting that Halflings can not imaginably use magic and if any Halfling learned to be a Wizard, the whole setting would fall to pieces.

You're probably right. I want to go back and comb the fluff and if there are any examples of magic using Halflings even among NPCs then I'll probably remove that restriction. I'll cross reference different people who have worked on 5e conversions for Birthright(which I have started doing already) and if even the people who lean towards "purity" seem to think Dwarves are fine for Paladins then I'll probably add that. Most of those seem to be early in 5e and some of them seem to be more focused on fitting 5e's gaming philosophy or whatever.

They weren't restriction that were necessary for the setting or concept to function, they were restriction that were there because they were the ones that the people who wrote 2nd edition arbitrarily decided to hold over from 1st edition and very, very few of the restrictions were ever justified. (Honestly, the Bard, Paladin and Ranger being human & half-elf only had a lot more to do with them being super classes that were just flat out better than all others-- which is no longer true in later editions.)

I agree. I already changed Bards and Druids to being Elf accessible. I'll probably at least change Paladins to be Half Elf accessible.

Honestly, the thing to get across with Birthright would be the domain management aspects of it. And, really, even then since a few things have been better developed in later editions, I could certainly imagine these concepts going deeper. For instance, if I were developing them now I am pretty sure I would include rules for "orc", "goblinoid" and "draconic" domains with their own alterations to the basic rules and own troop sorts since at least the first two were things that really should have existed in that setting and the third would be quite popular. Even if they were primarily meant to be run by the DM, it would give the world more depth if the villain forces had specific rules they were playing by and you could chart their activities on your game map and disrupt them or engage them just like other domains.

I completely 100% agree with adding extra rules for monster domains. Even the base Birthright rulebook has Elf domains/armies functioning different iirc.

Beyond that... Bloodline would more or less replace background I would have to imagine.

I was planning on using bloodlines almost as is with the exception of updating spells/effects to their 5e equivalents. Non-blooded characters get that 10% xp boost, but I might just grant them an extra feat or something. Or!!! Maybe being blooded replaces your feat? Wait, that would only work for Humans. :/

 

[CapnZapp]

I can see where you are coming from here, but I don't think all classes/races(or combinations thereof) necessarily fit all campaign worlds

Yeah, well, that ship sailed some time ago.

Meaning: telling the fans you can't play X in Y doesn't fly any longer.

That stuff is best left up to each DM. And to be honest, it's only the old guard that will even care. And any new product isn't targeted at them/us.

It's targeted at the same "everyone" as every other 5th ed supplement; meaning all PHB combos WILL be legal.

At most you could hope any smattering of new stuff will have a restriction recommendation, like dwarf battleragers.

It's just not worth spending time on, I'd say: too few fans will care. Better start with something that ACTUALLY prevents us from gaming in Cerilia. (Hint: knowing which classes and races aren't kosher is not what prevents us from gaming in Cerilia)

 

[GreenTengu]

I'm not sure. Which parts are caused BY the wonky parts of 2e and which parts are there DESPITE 2e. I mean I think we could probably assume Gnomes flat out aren't a thing for Birthright since Gnomes were core 2e and then taken out for Birthright, but would they have had Dwarves still restricted from spellcasting even if 2e didn't explicitly restrict it? I want to start from "purity" and work backwards.

You're probably right. I want to go back and comb the fluff and if there are any examples of magic using Halflings even among NPCs then I'll probably remove that restriction. I'll cross reference different people who have worked on 5e conversions for Birthright(which I have started doing already) and if even the people who lean towards "purity" seem to think Dwarves are fine for Paladins then I'll probably add that. Most of those seem to be early in 5e and some of them seem to be more focused on fitting 5e's gaming philosophy or whatever.

I agree. I already changed Bards and Druids to being Elf accessible. I'll probably at least change Paladins to be Half Elf accessible.



I completely 100% agree with adding extra rules for monster domains. Even the base Birthright rulebook has Elf domains/armies functioning different iirc.

Well, I would suggest that if there are going to be class restrictions at all, it needs to come from "what makes sense". There aren't going to be examples of magic-casting Halflings because they were unwilling to challenge the model. It is one thing to remove a race from the world, another entirely to say that the weird racial restrictions get waived.

So if there are going to be racial restrictions, they should make at least a bit of sense.

First, Monks as expressed in the core rulebook just aren't going to exist at all I believe. I don't recall the concept being used in any of the little Birthright material that was printed. So you could exclude that class in its entirety from the world. And while Sorcerer and Warlock didn't exist at the time either, they also didn't exist as classes and it would be easy to imagine how their concepts would have fit under the umbrella of "magic-user" back then. In fact, the whole Bloodlines thing makes Sorcerer a class that fits all too perfectly within the setting.

As for other
Humans - None

Dwarfs - Druids, Rangers, Sorcerers, Warlocks and Wizards - the Dwarven concept is one that is pretty cut off from living nature and wild animals and back in 2nd edition they had an anti-magic aura that pretty much prevented them from using arcane magic. You might want to alter the Dwarven racial block to give them advantage on rolls against magic if you are going to restrict them in this way. Dwarven Warlocks could be a nasty evil NPC concept though.

Elves - Barbarian, Bards, Warlocks (except fae pact) - All Elves in Birthright are reclusive sorts that live in their hidden kingdom shards deep in the woods. They are centralized around courts and they are cool, calculating and collective. Both the battle rager and the traveling minstrels make no sense for them. Swordmage and Bladesingers subclasses would be available though.

Half-Elf - Like human, I don't see any particular restrictions being applicable here.

Halflings - Barbarian, Druids, Paladins, Warlocks - The concept of Halfling are simple people, basically universally commoners from tiny hamlets. That being said, a lot of classes they were restricted from just don't have a whole lot of good reason. They could easily become clerics or henge wizards, Bard would be a perfect fit for any that was actually inclined to go adventuring in the first place, and even Ranger is perfectly conceivable without breaking their concept.

Beyond this?
Well, technically the answer to Gnomes exists. The Forest Gnome version works as a minor people from the Shadow World. But that obviously also means they aren't a power of any sort, but a few lost and scattered wanderers.

A closer look reveals Orcs don't exist within the world as previously presented. The closest you get are Orog. Although the Hobgoblin of this world are more like Orcs than what any other setting would call Hobgoblins at this point-- they are tribal barbarians. This means you could have Half-Orcs in your setting, they would just be called Half-Hobgoblins or even Half-Bugbears instead, but otherwise would be conceptually identical. In which case I would exclude them having access to Bard, Druid, Paladin or Wizard classes.

I don't think the setting had a unique enough twist on celestials or demons to preclude Aasimar or Tieflings, but they would be exceptionally rare things.

Beyond that, the world is very much human vs. human so a lot of these non-human races are intended to have a very marginal role within the world at all.

 

[Jessica]

Well, I would suggest that if there are going to be class restrictions at all, it needs to come from "what makes sense". There aren't going to be examples of magic-casting Halflings because they were unwilling to challenge the model. It is one thing to remove a race from the world, another entirely to say that the weird racial restrictions get waived.

So if there are going to be racial restrictions, they should make at least a bit of sense.

Agreed.

First, Monks as expressed in the core rulebook just aren't going to exist at all I believe. I don't recall the concept being used in any of the little Birthright material that was printed. So you could exclude that class in its entirety from the world. And while Sorcerer and Warlock didn't exist at the time either, they also didn't exist as classes and it would be easy to imagine how their concepts would have fit under the umbrella of "magic-user" back then. In fact, the whole Bloodlines thing makes Sorcerer a class that fits all too perfectly within the setting.

I agree that I don't see Monks happening. Warlock, for me, is in this weird place. There are plenty of examples where reasonable examples of patrons exist within the world. The problem seems to me that unlike regular D&D worlds, these patrons are much more likely to be a day's travel away rather than in some other plane of existence. It strikes me that the stakes and risks are higher with a Warlock in this regards in Birthright, so I'm not sure if I should have Warlock as a class since even if it could reasonably exist would it exist outside of maybe a game where PCs were in opposing domains/realms or maybe where Warlocks were very 70's Hammer horror movie-esque in their dealings. Finally, I'm not entirely sure what I would do for Sorcerers. Like I can't imagine that a world that has 12 dragons in it, that many of them are off shtupping Humans in their free time. I can really really see Favored Souls working though. Basically it would be restricted to blooded non-Dwarves and your domain would be restricted based on which dead deity's bloodline you inherited. It feels weird having a class with only one subclass though, but I don't know if the basis exists for Wild/Storm Sorcerers in Birthright.

As for other
Humans - None

Dwarfs - Druids, Rangers, Sorcerers, Warlocks and Wizards - the Dwarven concept is one that is pretty cut off from living nature and wild animals and back in 2nd edition they had an anti-magic aura that pretty much prevented them from using arcane magic. You might want to alter the Dwarven racial block to give them advantage on rolls against magic if you are going to restrict them in this way. Dwarven Warlocks could be a nasty evil NPC concept though.

I agree on Humans for sure. With Dwarves, I could see both their heavy restrictions on classes and their inherent anti-magic nature as good reasons to maybe give them the Gnome's anti-magic schtick. I'd probably cut Bards off from Dwarves as well. I don't think 5e lists them officially as arcane(at the very least I couldn't find the word "arcane" under their spellcasting section like I could with Wizards, Warlocks, and Sorcerers) but they don't seem like they would fit in with Dwarves.

Elves - Barbarian, Bards, Warlocks (except fae pact) - All Elves in Birthright are reclusive sorts that live in their hidden kingdom shards deep in the woods. They are centralized around courts and they are cool, calculating and collective. Both the battle rager and the traveling minstrels make no sense for them. Swordmage and Bladesingers subclasses would be available though.

I'd give them the ability to be Bards. IIRC the BR rulebook allowed them to be Bards despite not normally being allowed in 2e. I think that has to do with Bardic magic being elven spellsong or something.

Half-Elf - Like human, I don't see any particular restrictions being applicable here.

Halflings - Barbarian, Druids, Paladins, Warlocks - The concept of Halfling are simple people, basically universally commoners from tiny hamlets. That being said, a lot of classes they were restricted from just don't have a whole lot of good reason. They could easily become clerics or henge wizards, Bard would be a perfect fit for any that was actually inclined to go adventuring in the first place, and even Ranger is perfectly conceivable without breaking their concept.

I can see that. Halflings don't have the universal anti-magic thing going on that Dwarves do. I could very well see them being many of the other classes that are currently restricted to them.

Beyond this?
Well, technically the answer to Gnomes exists. The Forest Gnome version works as a minor people from the Shadow World. But that obviously also means they aren't a power of any sort, but a few lost and scattered wanderers.

A closer look reveals Orcs don't exist within the world as previously presented. The closest you get are Orog. Although the Hobgoblin of this world are more like Orcs than what any other setting would call Hobgoblins at this point-- they are tribal barbarians. This means you could have Half-Orcs in your setting, they would just be called Half-Hobgoblins or even Half-Bugbears instead, but otherwise would be conceptually identical. In which case I would exclude them having access to Bard, Druid, Paladin or Wizard classes.

I don't think the setting had a unique enough twist on celestials or demons to preclude Aasimar or Tieflings, but they would be exceptionally rare things.

Beyond that, the world is very much human vs. human so a lot of these non-human races are intended to have a very marginal role within the world at all.

That last sentence there is the thing. The world is so human-centric that even if there was possible grounds for having a Tiefling race or a Half-Hobgoblin race, that there would be little fluff space for them in most actual games that they might even stick out like a sore thumb. I was thinking "what if Tieflings were one of the ways that Azrai manifested bloodmarks in his scions?" and then I thought that would be hard to have it be like that and then still have them be out there as a race right next to Humans and Elves.

One thing that I need to review by opening up races to more classes, is what to do about multiclassing. Since all it takes is a single level in a class to get Regency Points as if you were a member of that class, then I think for the domain side of things that I should keep PCs/NPCs restricted hardcore to two classes at most. At the very least, some restrictions on multiclassing need to be put into play so a hardcore regent doesn't end up a level 4 Fighter/Cleric/Rogue/Wizard with a single level in each.

 

[Jessica]

Yeah, well, that ship sailed some time ago.

Meaning: telling the fans you can't play X in Y doesn't fly any longer.

That stuff is best left up to each DM. And to be honest, it's only the old guard that will even care. And any new product isn't targeted at them/us.

It's targeted at the same "everyone" as every other 5th ed supplement; meaning all PHB combos WILL be legal.

At most you could hope any smattering of new stuff will have a restriction recommendation, like dwarf battleragers.

It's just not worth spending time on, I'd say: too few fans will care. Better start with something that ACTUALLY prevents us from gaming in Cerilia. (Hint: knowing which classes and races aren't kosher is not what prevents us from gaming in Cerilia)

What's the big thing that prevents us? Is it lack of access to the domain rules? Those seemed pretty system agnostic. I started work on translating a lot of the bloodlines, but some of the translations are very flawed in that they are still 2e-ey in feel or are trying to find ways to shoehorn parts of the 2e power into the 5e version with awkwardness being the result. I mean check out that hawt algebra going on with the Berserker's Blood power since 5e doesn't have negative hit points any more.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/18CbM9LUR8Ml5tZ8BaF6jbo9WFMX52171FoXLeI4CqrU/edit?usp=sharing

 

[Delazar]

I recently DMed a 5e Birthright campaign, the rules conversion I made was a WIP lasting one year, more or less. Maybe you can find something interesting for you.

http://birthright02.blogspot.be/2014/07/house-rules.html

Things I'd like to work on before my next Birthright campaign:

* Bloodlines and Bloodpowers. I would treat these as a Prestige Class (from UA) and a Faction (from the DMG). Basically, you can access the Scion PC if you have a bloodline score, and can only get more levels in it (and more blood abilities) when your Bloodline score raises.

* Domain and Mass Battles. I recently bought a game called Reign Enchiridion, I would completely scrap the Birthright rules, and try to adapt the Reign rules to my game.

 

[Jessica]

I recently DMed a 5e Birthright campaign, the rules conversion I made was a WIP lasting one year, more or less. Maybe you can find something interesting for you.

http://birthright02.blogspot.be/2014/07/house-rules.html

Things I'd like to work on before my next Birthright campaign:

* Bloodlines and Bloodpowers. I would treat these as a Prestige Class (from UA) and a Faction (from the DMG). Basically, you can access the Scion PC if you have a bloodline score, and can only get more levels in it (and more blood abilities) when your Bloodline score raises.

* Domain and Mass Battles. I recently bought a game called Reign Enchiridion, I would completely scrap the Birthright rules, and try to adapt the Reign rules to my game.

Thank you. I'll have to check those out.

 

[Jessica]

Oh by the way, I had a question about the three major arcane classes. Is there a good fluff basis for including wild magic type Sorcerers? I was planning on having the only subclass of Sorcerers be the Favored Souls from UA(due to the bloodlines and all) but if the fluff allowed for wild magic then I'd probably add in those as well. Also, I was considering playing up the patron-type nature of Warlocks so they were more Cleric-ish in a way. I was going to make it where being a Warlock was one of the few paths to arcane power for a non-blooded character and that the promise of power for the ambitious members of the aggrieved lower classes to possibly take revenge might provide a fifth column for the evil forces present in the universe. Of course I was considering denying them access to realm magic just to rub it in their face more that they weren't blooded. Do you see any major issues with that?

Also from my brief time spent on Birthright.net, I heard there is a problem where warrior type classes tend to dominate a lot of realm management type things to a crazy point? Is that due to domain design rules where warrior type classes get half-off on their population purchasing? Would it hurt things if you double law holdings from 1 DP to 2 DP and give warrior types half-off on law holdings instead of population? Or is it really not as big of a deal as I've read?

 

[Delazar]

Regarding Wild Magic, I suppose that, if you have magic, you can always go "wild" with it. I mean, it doesn't strike me as something that is completely out of character in a Birthright game. Maybe when the previous gods "exploded" some of their stressed out essence created a wild magic sorcerous bloodline. I was once toying with the idea of a Scion bloodline for sorcerers. I mean, bot hsorcerers and scions get their powers from their blood, right?

for example:

New Sorcerous Origin: Blessed Scion

1st - whenever you roll on the Blood Abilities table to gain a new power, roll twice and choose the result you prefer

1st - whenever your bloodline score increases (due to bloodtheft, successfully ruling a domain, etc.) you earn an additional point of bloodline.

6th - you gain a Minor ability

14th - you gain a Major ability

18th - you gain a Great ability

Regarding warrior types dominating the ruling game, I have never encountered that. In most of the games I played, for some reason Rogues were always those with more political power. And by that I mean MONEY...