Tripp Elliott
08-11-1997, 09:49 PM
The following is my response to Caryl Takvorian's questions concerning
the rules I am using for my campaign which I will post in another
message, so that nobody is totally clueless about what is being
discussed.
Comments and suggestions are both desired and requested.
Tripp
Caryl Takvorian wrote:
>
> I hadn't come accross something like that before, but I would have thought
> it should be *more* difficult to
> self-train as you go higher and higher in levels, not the opposite. You can
> however keep track of all failed
> attempts to gain a level and give bonus for next time you try. This way a
> level 20 (If anybody really manages
> to bring a character that high) will still, eventually manage to get to
> level 21, even if there are no other NPC of
> this level anywhere in the world.
You hit on part of the idea here. At higher levels it is very difficult
to find even higher level NPC's to train with. Self-Training takes just
as long as normal training, it is just done alone. The idea behind it
becoming easier as you go, is that a 1st level person is pretty inept,
and has no clue which end is up. By say 5th level, you are starting to
have your profession figured out, and you have a good idea what a 6th
level guy does(or is expected to do). The character has seen more, and
is more knowledgable about the profession and thus it is easier.
> IMHO the double specialisation is way too powerful. Also, I have always
> thought that a character could only
> speciailise in 1 weapon: His weapon of choice. Only in very rare
> circumstances he would consider not to use
> this weapon, yet alone spend time in training in another one. That's my
> understanding of the small paragraph
> about weapon specialisation in the PHB.
I have a Player using the "Swashbuckler" Kit. Her Character has a
strength of 11, or so. Anyways, she gets no strength bonuses for melee.
With double specialization in his(the character is male) weapon of
choice(sabre) he has gained only +3/+3, the same as one could get for
18/00 strength(I think that's the right strength). Well, this character
gets those bonuses for skill, not strength. Pluses are great, but they
won't ruin the game. As an aside, I personally feel the +3/+3 option to
be superior to the +2/+4 option. The reason for this being, I'd rather
hit 5% more often than do an extra point of damage myself, but each
person can choose.
As for the ability to specialize in multiple weapons, I figure, sure, why
not. The most useful way to do this would be to specialize in aranged,
and a melee weapon, but that is gonna take 5 slots. Heck, that leaves
you non-proficient in lots of weapons. If all of your characters take
specialization in the LongSword(the preferred melee weapon for
min/maxers) then make sure that the magical weapons found are short
swords, or cutlasses, or hammers. I warned my characters that they won't
find a magical "sword" and get to declare it's type themselves, so they
are taking proficiencies in multiple weapons. For that Swashbuckler, she
spent 1400 of her optional XP to get a +3 Saber. Truly a powerful weapon
when combined with his specialization, but you know, when it comes to
range combat, he is forced to step aside and let others handle things. I
think it's good, her character is truly a "specialist" and fits the
Swashbuckler real well(you should read his physical description).
Additionally, I encourage folks to use a weapon proficiency for other
stuff like, fisticuffs, the fighting styles in the Fighter's book,
ambidextriousness etc. so nobody has yet to specialize in two weapons,
but I'll allow it.
> > Spells:
> >
> > Spell abilities will be done using a points system.
> >
> > Spellcasters can cast spells up to their level.
>
> Hang on, do you mean that a 6th level mage would be able to cast a 6th
> level spell?
That is precisely what I mean. Of course, finding spellbooks of that
level can be difficult. One of my players runs a Dwarven Fighter who
burns scrolls and such("stupid magic stuff", he says), so even if I throw
one in the game, it's 50-50 who will find it anyways.
> > Magic users will have at a minimum: spell points equal to the total level
> strength the character could cast under the >normal spell rules.
>
> ? ?? I don't get it.
> A level 3 mage would have normally 2 1st level spells and 1 2nd level (I'm
> not sure, but let's pretend its true).
> With your system, will he get 2 points (maximum spell he can cast) or 3
> points (2+1) ??
Close 2(1) + 1(2) = 4 spell points, plus for each level he gets an
additon 0-3 (1d4 -1) points figured at the time the level raises. For a
grand total of between 4 and 13 spell points for your 3rd level mage.
This represents the obvious fact that not all 3rd level mages should be
equally powerful.
> >Additionally, as a character goes up in level, he/she will gain d4 -1
> additional spell points.
> So he can loose spell points ? Mana Burn?
No not lose them, d4-1 gives (0-3) as stated above. Man burn huh?
Somebody has been playing too much Magic.
> Anyway, your spell points system has the benefit of being a lot simpler
> than some I've seen.
It works ok. I also considered having MU's regain points based on
intelligence, or something, but I chose against it.
the rules I am using for my campaign which I will post in another
message, so that nobody is totally clueless about what is being
discussed.
Comments and suggestions are both desired and requested.
Tripp
Caryl Takvorian wrote:
>
> I hadn't come accross something like that before, but I would have thought
> it should be *more* difficult to
> self-train as you go higher and higher in levels, not the opposite. You can
> however keep track of all failed
> attempts to gain a level and give bonus for next time you try. This way a
> level 20 (If anybody really manages
> to bring a character that high) will still, eventually manage to get to
> level 21, even if there are no other NPC of
> this level anywhere in the world.
You hit on part of the idea here. At higher levels it is very difficult
to find even higher level NPC's to train with. Self-Training takes just
as long as normal training, it is just done alone. The idea behind it
becoming easier as you go, is that a 1st level person is pretty inept,
and has no clue which end is up. By say 5th level, you are starting to
have your profession figured out, and you have a good idea what a 6th
level guy does(or is expected to do). The character has seen more, and
is more knowledgable about the profession and thus it is easier.
> IMHO the double specialisation is way too powerful. Also, I have always
> thought that a character could only
> speciailise in 1 weapon: His weapon of choice. Only in very rare
> circumstances he would consider not to use
> this weapon, yet alone spend time in training in another one. That's my
> understanding of the small paragraph
> about weapon specialisation in the PHB.
I have a Player using the "Swashbuckler" Kit. Her Character has a
strength of 11, or so. Anyways, she gets no strength bonuses for melee.
With double specialization in his(the character is male) weapon of
choice(sabre) he has gained only +3/+3, the same as one could get for
18/00 strength(I think that's the right strength). Well, this character
gets those bonuses for skill, not strength. Pluses are great, but they
won't ruin the game. As an aside, I personally feel the +3/+3 option to
be superior to the +2/+4 option. The reason for this being, I'd rather
hit 5% more often than do an extra point of damage myself, but each
person can choose.
As for the ability to specialize in multiple weapons, I figure, sure, why
not. The most useful way to do this would be to specialize in aranged,
and a melee weapon, but that is gonna take 5 slots. Heck, that leaves
you non-proficient in lots of weapons. If all of your characters take
specialization in the LongSword(the preferred melee weapon for
min/maxers) then make sure that the magical weapons found are short
swords, or cutlasses, or hammers. I warned my characters that they won't
find a magical "sword" and get to declare it's type themselves, so they
are taking proficiencies in multiple weapons. For that Swashbuckler, she
spent 1400 of her optional XP to get a +3 Saber. Truly a powerful weapon
when combined with his specialization, but you know, when it comes to
range combat, he is forced to step aside and let others handle things. I
think it's good, her character is truly a "specialist" and fits the
Swashbuckler real well(you should read his physical description).
Additionally, I encourage folks to use a weapon proficiency for other
stuff like, fisticuffs, the fighting styles in the Fighter's book,
ambidextriousness etc. so nobody has yet to specialize in two weapons,
but I'll allow it.
> > Spells:
> >
> > Spell abilities will be done using a points system.
> >
> > Spellcasters can cast spells up to their level.
>
> Hang on, do you mean that a 6th level mage would be able to cast a 6th
> level spell?
That is precisely what I mean. Of course, finding spellbooks of that
level can be difficult. One of my players runs a Dwarven Fighter who
burns scrolls and such("stupid magic stuff", he says), so even if I throw
one in the game, it's 50-50 who will find it anyways.
> > Magic users will have at a minimum: spell points equal to the total level
> strength the character could cast under the >normal spell rules.
>
> ? ?? I don't get it.
> A level 3 mage would have normally 2 1st level spells and 1 2nd level (I'm
> not sure, but let's pretend its true).
> With your system, will he get 2 points (maximum spell he can cast) or 3
> points (2+1) ??
Close 2(1) + 1(2) = 4 spell points, plus for each level he gets an
additon 0-3 (1d4 -1) points figured at the time the level raises. For a
grand total of between 4 and 13 spell points for your 3rd level mage.
This represents the obvious fact that not all 3rd level mages should be
equally powerful.
> >Additionally, as a character goes up in level, he/she will gain d4 -1
> additional spell points.
> So he can loose spell points ? Mana Burn?
No not lose them, d4-1 gives (0-3) as stated above. Man burn huh?
Somebody has been playing too much Magic.
> Anyway, your spell points system has the benefit of being a lot simpler
> than some I've seen.
It works ok. I also considered having MU's regain points based on
intelligence, or something, but I chose against it.