Talk:Fantasy Genetics (3.5e Variant Rule)

From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


RatedOppose.png Qwertyu63 opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
Far more complex than it needs to be, far too confusing to actually use and has too much Lamarckian genetics.
RatedDislike.png Foxwarrior dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.
Interacts very poorly with ability score distributions, which is unfortunate given that it almost exclusively interacts with ability score distributions.

I would not recommend this in a campaign, whether or not it was about Hero Breeding.

I am not sure what your point is. Would it help if I replaced step 2b with averaging the mother's adjusted score, the father's adjusted score, and the result of rolling d216 on the table below?

Table: Inherited Ability Scores Random Element Table

Die Roll Result
1-27 3
27-52 4
53-73 5
74-88 6
89-98 7
99-104 8
105-107 9
108 10
109 11
110-112 12
113-118 13
119-128 14
129-143 15
144-164 16
165-189 17
190-216 18

That reminds me: the page text says "If either parent lacks the relevant score, treat it as 0 for averaging" but averaging doesn't seem to be involved.
If I was going to run a campaign about Hero Breeding (and I do think that could be fun), I'd want to have a bunch of cool and interesting genes with mendelian crosses, possibly with unexpected protein interactions and even maybe a touch of Lamarckianism.
If I wasn't, then all this does is make it difficult to play with point buy, and make it universally terrible for Wizards to mate with non-Wizards. --Foxwarrior (talk) 04:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Edit: Your new averaging method makes it terrible for Wizards to mate with non-Wizards. The previous method made it obligatory for Wizards to mate with Barbarians or Rogues and have enough children to get at least one uberchild. --Foxwarrior (talk) 04:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be assuming either that players will care deeply about NPC ability scores or that PCs will be marrying specifically to have adventurer-children. Whatever your assumptions, I am not seeing what they are based on.
The "treat it as a 0 for averaging" is a 'son of the bird' from before I removed the above table.--Ideasmith (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
If the players aren't supposed to use or abuse these rules in some way, what are they here for? --Foxwarrior (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The party has arranged a marriage alliance, and their enemies are attempting to sabotage it by killing the children of that marriage.
  • One or more party members are ruling (a) kingdom(s), and the advantages of having an heir have been pointed out.
  • A party member has just married for love, and children seem the next step.--Ideasmith (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from ""