Training action.

[Gary V. Foss]

Howdy folks,

According to the BR domain rules, it is possible for a regent to spend
an action training to gain a single hp. This is a scarcely used option
in my experience, as most domain rulers seem to have plenty of things to
spend their time on rather than adding a single hp, but it occurs to me
that what's good for the regent is good for the gander. That is, there
is no reason why a non-regent could not do the exact same thing. Or is
there? Can anybody come up with a reason why this should not be allowed
for non-regents?

Gary

[Alaric]

Gary V. Foss wrote:

> Howdy folks,
>
> According to the BR domain rules, it is possible for a regent to spend
> an action training to gain a single hp. This is a scarcely used option
> in my experience, as most domain rulers seem to have plenty of things to
> spend their time on rather than adding a single hp, but it occurs to me
> that what's good for the regent is good for the gander. That is, there
> is no reason why a non-regent could not do the exact same thing. Or is
> there? Can anybody come up with a reason why this should not be allowed
> for non-regents?
>
> Gary

My reasoning is that regents have access to facilities and trainers that
nonregents just do not. Lieutenants and nobles, I'd say, can train (in fact,
this is exactly what I have done IMC). However, the average, ordinary
adventurer can't just swing his sword in the woods to gain hit points. Also, I
use a similar system for additional skills. I always felt that the AD&D system
doesn't allow for enough NWP slots, but never really did anything about it. I
do allow regents to train for additional slots at the rate of one per two
months (I don't use training in my campaign for level gain or anything else,
really). While it isn't used all that often (who has two months to spare), it
does give the opportunity for the mage to learn that signature spell or the
priest to learn to ride the griffon he just captured (two in campaign
examples). Anyone else allow for additional NWP's to be learned? Oh, I also
allow for this system to be used to gain new WP's, but only proficiency can be
learned, no higher levels of skill..
- --Alaric

[Olesens]

Gary V. Foss wrote:

> Howdy folks,
>
> According to the BR domain rules, it is possible for a regent to spend
> an action training to gain a single hp. This is a scarcely used option
> in my experience, as most domain rulers seem to have plenty of things to
> spend their time on rather than adding a single hp, but it occurs to me
> that what's good for the regent is good for the gander. That is, there
> is no reason why a non-regent could not do the exact same thing. Or is
> there? Can anybody come up with a reason why this should not be allowed
> for non-regents?

Well strictly by the rules, a non-regent may take charachter actions just like
a regent and may take free actions but they take up a whole month. The DM is
allowed/suggested to ban some free actions from non-regent use.

- -Andrew

[Gary V. Foss]

Olesens wrote:

> > According to the BR domain rules, it is possible for a regent to spend
> > an action training to gain a single hp. This is a scarcely used option
> > in my experience, as most domain rulers seem to have plenty of things to
> > spend their time on rather than adding a single hp, but it occurs to me
> > that what's good for the regent is good for the gander. That is, there
> > is no reason why a non-regent could not do the exact same thing. Or is
> > there? Can anybody come up with a reason why this should not be allowed
> > for non-regents?
>
> Well strictly by the rules, a non-regent may take charachter actions just like
> a regent and may take free actions but they take up a whole month. The DM is
> allowed/suggested to ban some free actions from non-regent use.

The reason I asked about this is because I'm thinking about going to an "average"
hp/level system to avoid dice in determining hp. Fighters will get 6hp/level,
priests 5hp/level, rogues 4hp/level and mages 3hp/level. PCs can add to that if
they spend a month Training to do so. I'm also thinking of simplifying the
training to gain an experience level to just make it a month with automatic
success.

As unD&Dish as this might be I'm also thinking of going to a standard number of
points to be distributed among ability scores for starting PCs. Say... 80.
Players will earn an additional point per level (or highest level attained for
mult- or dual-classed characters) to add to any ability score up to racial
maximums. I haven't quite figured out how to deal with exceptional strength
scores yet.... Anyone have any ideas?

Gary

[Gary V. Foss]

Alaric wrote:

> My reasoning is that regents have access to facilities and trainers that
> nonregents just do not. Lieutenants and nobles, I'd say, can train (in fact,
> this is exactly what I have done IMC). However, the average, ordinary
> adventurer can't just swing his sword in the woods to gain hit points. Also, I
> use a similar system for additional skills. I always felt that the AD&D system
> doesn't allow for enough NWP slots, but never really did anything about it. I
> do allow regents to train for additional slots at the rate of one per two
> months (I don't use training in my campaign for level gain or anything else,
> really). While it isn't used all that often (who has two months to spare), it
> does give the opportunity for the mage to learn that signature spell or the
> priest to learn to ride the griffon he just captured (two in campaign
> examples). Anyone else allow for additional NWP's to be learned? Oh, I also
> allow for this system to be used to gain new WP's, but only proficiency can be
> learned, no higher levels of skill..
> --Alaric

Hmmmm. I don't know. I mean, what do you really get from all the facilities and
trainers that a leveled character couldn't just do on his/her own? In the RW
there are a lot of scam artists ::cough:: I mean, "fitness professionals", out
there trying to convince people that you have to have a weight bench or Nautilus
equipment to get pectorals rather than just doing push ups....

Regarding NWPs I quite agree with you. Skills in AD&D are handled particularly
badly. Learning a new skill is a function of training (self or with an
instructor) not experience, as it is handled in AD&D. Getting more skillful is a
function of experience, yet that is ignored in the level system as it relates to
NWPs. Oh, well. Maybe we should write something up along these lines for
the much anticipated 3rd edition, eh?

Gary

[Bob Cauthron]

> As unD&Dish as this might be I'm also thinking of going to a standard
number of
> points to be distributed among ability scores for starting PCs. Say...
80.
> Players will earn an additional point per level (or highest level attained
for
> mult- or dual-classed characters) to add to any ability score up to racial
> maximums. I haven't quite figured out how to deal with exceptional
strength
> scores yet.... Anyone have any ideas?
>
> Gary

I may be misunderstanding you here, but I am going to assume you mean
how to deal with them in an increase basis. I have two suggestions: 1) go by
exceptional strength category (i.e., treat each category as a point, so
18/51 to 18/75 would be one, for eample), or 2) treat each 10% of
exceptional strength as a point. Either works, although personal preference
factors in heavily here.
If I am misinterpreting your words, then please correct me (as I would
like my foolishness to be brief for some strange reason.

Bob

[Gary V. Foss]

Bob Cauthron wrote:

> I may be misunderstanding you here, but I am going to assume you mean
> how to deal with them in an increase basis. I have two suggestions: 1) go by
> exceptional strength category (i.e., treat each category as a point, so
> 18/51 to 18/75 would be one, for eample), or 2) treat each 10% of
> exceptional strength as a point. Either works, although personal preference
> factors in heavily here.
> If I am misinterpreting your words, then please correct me (as I would
> like my foolishness to be brief for some strange reason.

Nope, you got it. Sorry, I guess I wasn't being terribly clear.

I'm thinking I'm going to go with your first suggestion, though having
exceptional strength at all does kind of penalize the fighter class using the
method I'm suggesting. I mean, they have all these extra categories of strength
that they pump points into rather than "ancillary" ones like constitution and
dexterity. I'm going to have to think about how I want to do this....

Laters,
Gary

[Alaric]

Gary V. Foss wrote:

> I'm thinking I'm going to go with your first suggestion, though having
> exceptional strength at all does kind of penalize the fighter class using the
> method I'm suggesting. I mean, they have all these extra categories of strength
> that they pump points into rather than "ancillary" ones like constitution and
> dexterity. I'm going to have to think about how I want to do this....
>
> Laters,
> Gary

I think that there shouldn't be any problem working it as you did earlier...after
all the opportunity to raise hit and damage beyond +1/+2, possible only to the
Warrior class and races with higher strengths, is just as good as additional hit
points, dex bonuses, or anything else. The one restriction I would make is to not
let naturally strong races gain above an 18 strength without going through the
steps, even if not a fighter (that is, a Vos wizard would have to put several points
to raise his 18/-- strength to a 19, even without gaining anything for it.
Otherwise, you would be penalizing fighters.
Thx,
--Alaric

[Bob Cauthron]

> Bob Cauthron wrote:
>
> > I may be misunderstanding you here, but I am going to assume you
mean
> > how to deal with them in an increase basis. I have two suggestions: 1)
go by
> > exceptional strength category (i.e., treat each category as a point, so
> > 18/51 to 18/75 would be one, for eample), or 2) treat each 10% of
> > exceptional strength as a point. Either works, although personal
preference
> > factors in heavily here.
> > If I am misinterpreting your words, then please correct me (as I
would
> > like my foolishness to be brief for some strange reason.
>
> Nope, you got it. Sorry, I guess I wasn't being terribly clear.
>
> I'm thinking I'm going to go with your first suggestion, though having
> exceptional strength at all does kind of penalize the fighter class using
the
> method I'm suggesting. I mean, they have all these extra categories of
strength
> that they pump points into rather than "ancillary" ones like constitution
and
> dexterity. I'm going to have to think about how I want to do this....
>
> Laters,
> Gary

I do not know how you feel about the rules of adnd, nor what you think
of how much effort should be put into modifying rules to fit what you plan,
if at all. I encountered a similar problem with strength years ago, and
became a frustrating matter for me. So what I did was change the exceptional
strength table, in essence getting rid of it. All sttrength scores are now
whole scores, with no percentiles involved. Perhaps you might want to
consider something of that nature (or less so, of course).
I am not trying to start a debate here, or say that my way is the right
way. I did this in response to many of my players overusing the benefits of
high (exceptional) strength and ignoring the other abilities. My rules
alteration has actually worked (which surprised me), and still does. Now the
emphasis is more diverse, which is what I wanted as a gm.

Bob
the gm who may have misunderstood Mr. Foss's point, and perhaps rambled
too long, but thinks it was cool to remember a success story for once

[WILLELA@aol.co]

Giving the player a set number of points for PC stats is clearly the way to
go for AD&D 3. There is no reason to rely on the luck of the dice to get a
PC you want. Nor do we need to suffer dice cheats (obviously the other guy.
You & I would never do such a thing, tho if a die is "cocked"...) But then
we have to handle exceptional strength (unless we get rid of it).
The proposed 1 (2 may be better) point per category is distinctly
superior to 1 point per 10%. When 10% is used, you end up with a large
number at 18.01, a few at 18.00, and almost nobody in between. It is also
impossible to have a strength of 18.95 so an entire category is missed. We
clearly prefer that other choice be reasonable.
1 point per category means the PC gain +1 per hit or damage for each
extra stat point added, just as was gained going to 16, 17, & 18. (Since
going from 18.95 to 18.00 gains +1 to hit & damage, the cost of that gain
should be double.) The result is that the intermediate choices become more
reasonable.
Even so, the temptation to mini-max is pretty strong, and you may want a
higher cost, say, increasing the cost of each category by 1 cumulative, so
that 18.00 costs 18+1+2+3+4+12 = 40. That should make super high strenght as
rare as it is supposed to be.
Yours for deeper dungeons
David Argall

[DKEvermore@aol.co]

In a message dated 4/14/99 8:44:58 PM Central Daylight Time,
GeeMan@linkline.com writes:

> According to the BR domain rules, it is possible for a regent to spend
> an action training to gain a single hp. This is a scarcely used option
> in my experience, as most domain rulers seem to have plenty of things to
> spend their time on rather than adding a single hp, but it occurs to me
> that what's good for the regent is good for the gander. That is, there
> is no reason why a non-regent could not do the exact same thing. Or is
> there? Can anybody come up with a reason why this should not be allowed
> for non-regents?
>
> Gary
>
I allowed it when I was using AD&D. It allows the regents PC bodyguard
captains and lietenants to "beef up" and arguably be able to do their job
better. Besides, what else have they to do besides lift weights and train...

- -DKE

[Bob Cauthron]

> Even so, the temptation to mini-max is pretty strong, and you may
want a
> higher cost, say, increasing the cost of each category by 1 cumulative, so
> that 18.00 costs 18+1+2+3+4+12 = 40. That should make super high strenght
as
> rare as it is supposed to be.
> Yours for deeper dungeons
> David Argall

Given the parameters, this is something worth considering. I happen to
think most players do the min/max thing, which is not bad. It only becomes
so when it is the driving force of character creation, if you see what I
mean. Your suggestions on the "points scale" are well-spoken, and is a
thought I had not considered before in that light.

Bob

[Mathieu Roy]

Gary V. Foss wrote:

> The reason I asked about this is because I'm thinking about going to an "average"
> hp/level system to avoid dice in determining hp. Fighters will get 6hp/level,
> priests 5hp/level, rogues 4hp/level and mages 3hp/level. PCs can add to that if
> they spend a month Training to do so. I'm also thinking of simplifying the
> training to gain an experience level to just make it a month with automatic
> success.

That's a very good idea, but rounding up favors mages and rogues, who have smaller
Hit Dice. If that bothers you, I would suggest adding these points on odd levels, and
one less on even levels (ie at 1st level a warrior would have 6 points, on second
level +5 for a total of 11, on third +6 for a total of 17). That'll give you the
exact average and balance the same as rolling dice.

> As unD&Dish as this might be I'm also thinking of going to a standard number of
> points to be distributed among ability scores for starting PCs. Say... 80.
> Players will earn an additional point per level (or highest level attained for
> mult- or dual-classed characters) to add to any ability score up to racial
> maximums. I haven't quite figured out how to deal with exceptional strength
> scores yet.... Anyone have any ideas?

I've been doing this for years. I abhor random character generation in any form, at
any level. (I tend to use around 90 points though, but that is a matter of personal
preference). If you're going to work on a system, though, I would suggest that
instead of a set number of attribute points (which will lead to people buying up 18),
you look into using a set of purchase points and assign costs to various attribute
scores, in a system similar to Earthdawn. So to go from 17 to 18 would cost more than
to go from 12 to 13. I have even seen such a system where the costs were different
for each characterstic (Charisma was cheaper than Strength).

Personally, I tend to treat exceptional strength score "notches" as whole points. I
remember (I don't have it) that there is a Strength table in Dark Sun without
percentile scores you might want to look at.

Mathieu

[Kenneth Gauck]

- -----Original Message-----
From: Gary V. Foss
Date: Thursday, April 15, 1999 3:37 PM
>
>The reason I asked about this is because I'm thinking about going to an
"average"
>hp/level system to avoid dice in determining hp. Fighters will get
6hp/level,
>priests 5hp/level, rogues 4hp/level and mages 3hp/level.

What I do, which is similar is to roll all dice as normal for hp's but
assume a minimum of 5 for a fighter, 4 for a priest, 3 for rogues and 2 for
mages. This raises the average hp from dice to 6.5. For me, it maintains
the heirarchy of hit points as well as prevents rolling a very low number.
I can never explain how Valmont the Victorious, who has just waged an
excellent adventure in support of his party can roll a 2 when he levels.
Still there is some randomness which creates a sense of difference between
characters.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net

[the Falcon]

> That's a very good idea, but rounding up favors mages and rogues, who have smaller
> Hit Dice. If that bothers you, I would suggest adding these points on odd levels, and
> one less on even levels (ie at 1st level a warrior would have 6 points, on second
> level +5 for a total of 11, on third +6 for a total of 17). That'll give you the
> exact average and balance the same as rolling dice.

Or you can just give out half hit points. This works best if you keep
track of lost hit points instead of remaining hit points. I don't use
this IMC, but we do use half Character Coints. You can't do anything with
them, but two half Character Points do make a whole one. Convenient for
givin multi-classed PCs CPs on level advancement.

> I've been doing this for years. I abhor random character generation in any form, at
> any level. (I tend to use around 90 points though, but that is a matter of personal
> preference). If you're going to work on a system, though, I would suggest that
> instead of a set number of attribute points (which will lead to people buying up 18),
> you look into using a set of purchase points and assign costs to various attribute
> scores, in a system similar to Earthdawn. So to go from 17 to 18 would cost more than
> to go from 12 to 13. I have even seen such a system where the costs were different
> for each characterstic (Charisma was cheaper than Strength).

IMC you get to divide 75 points, unless you only take stats of 16 or less,
in which case you got to divide 78 points instead.

> Personally, I tend to treat exceptional strength score "notches" as whole points. I
> remember (I don't have it) that there is a Strength table in Dark Sun without
> percentile scores you might want to look at.

Exceptional Str is still determined randomly IMC. Maybe I'll change that
some time. I've also been thinkin about lettin characters increase their
stats as they advance in level, but I haven't done anything with it yet.
Who knows...

- the Falcon

[the Falcon]

> What I do, which is similar is to roll all dice as normal for hp's but
> assume a minimum of 5 for a fighter, 4 for a priest, 3 for rogues and 2 for
> mages. This raises the average hp from dice to 6.5. For me, it maintains
> the heirarchy of hit points as well as prevents rolling a very low number.
> I can never explain how Valmont the Victorious, who has just waged an
> excellent adventure in support of his party can roll a 2 when he levels.
> Still there is some randomness which creates a sense of difference between
> characters.

Here's a thought. Give characters maximum hp at 1st level. Then each
time she levels, do not roll an additional hit die, but instead roll ALL
the hit dice the character has. If the result is greater than the
original hp total, keep it. Otherwise, the character remains at the same
number of hit points. This way, characters low on hit points in the
relative sense will get more of them when they level than those who
already have a lot of them. That way, no one will have an exceptionally
low number of hit points and in the relative sense, no PC will be able to
have a lot more hp than the other members of the party for long.
For dual class characters, the character's new class' hit dice gradually
replace his old ones, again rerolling each time a new level is reached.
That way, mage who started out as fighter won't have an unfair hit point
advantage over a fighter who started out as mage.
What do you folks think? It's not a complicated rule and doesn't slow
game play or anything - after all, you only roll for hit points once a
level...

- the Falcon

[Jeff Dunnett]

That all depends on the preference of the player I personally like an
18 con +4 HP that and 18 strength, +1 to hit, +2 damage.

Jeff

- --- "Gary V. Foss" wrote:
> Bob Cauthron wrote:
>
> > I may be misunderstanding you here, but I am
> going to assume you mean
> > how to deal with them in an increase basis. I have
> two suggestions: 1) go by
> > exceptional strength category (i.e., treat each
> category as a point, so
> > 18/51 to 18/75 would be one, for eample), or 2)
> treat each 10% of
> > exceptional strength as a point. Either works,
> although personal preference
> > factors in heavily here.
> > If I am misinterpreting your words, then
> please correct me (as I would
> > like my foolishness to be brief for some strange
> reason.
>
> Nope, you got it. Sorry, I guess I wasn't being
> terribly clear.
>
> I'm thinking I'm going to go with your first
> suggestion, though having
> exceptional strength at all does kind of penalize
> the fighter class using the
> method I'm suggesting. I mean, they have all these
> extra categories of strength
> that they pump points into rather than "ancillary"
> ones like constitution and
> dexterity. I'm going to have to think about how I
> want to do this....
>
> Laters,
> Gary
>
>> To unsubscribe from this list send mail to
> majordomo@mpgn.com with the line
> 'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
>

__________________________________________________ _______
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

[the Falcon]

> That all depends on the preference of the player I personally like an
> 18 con +4 HP that and 18 strength, +1 to hit, +2 damage.

Well, it can get kinda borin, especially if you have more than one fighter
like that in the campaign, like I had at first. Now, with the new party,
the players have chosen to be a bit more creative in their stats, but I
already see some disturbing things. First of all, min-maxers seem to have
an unfair disadvantage. Let me give an example. Two fighters. One is
your general high-physique/low-psyche mobile tank, while the other is a
more creative, stylish figure. Both created with a point system,
but this could also very well happen with random rice rolls. Suppose
they go on adventure together. Since the superman smashes off a lot more
Hit Dice and monster than the swashbuckler type fighter, he tends to get a
lot more XP as well. This mean he advances more swiftly in level. So not
only does he start out better, he also has the tendency to get better a
lot faster. This does not seem right. It gets even worse if mister
all-mighty has a strength of 16 or better, while his companion does not,
cause then the superhero gets the 10% bonus in addition as well, while his
friend does not. Definitely not right. Come to that, I've always find
that 10% bonus a bit odd. I mean, isn't it logical the low-strength
fighter would learn _faster_, because it's more dificult to him and thus
he gets more practice? Besides, the high-strength fighter already gets
more XP because he bests more monster, so why give him a 10% bonus as
well? It's just not possible in AD&D to create an efficient fighter who
prefers brains over brawn. Now the fighter is the most obvious example,
but in the end all classes suffer from the problem that characters with
high stats, and high prime requisites in particular, just have an unfair
and unreasonable disadvantage over those who have not. There's definitely
something wrong there...

- the Falcon

[WILLELA@aol.co]

The falcon [m.m.richert@twi.tubelft.nl(the falcon)] has a point in
feeling the mini-maxers get too much advantage. This is game flaw, and AD&D3
should try to correct that, not mouth some pious nonsense about how the
player shouldn't really do that.
Elimination of the bonus for high stats is one place to start in getting
things in balance. We also need to put greater costs on gaining the high
stats. We are just going to have to suffer mini-max if we allow the player
the opportunity and the motive. So it is best to weaken that motive.
Yours for deeper dungeons.
David Argall

[the Falcon]

> Your problems is partly based on the conception that a character should
> earn more xp, because he bashed more opponents. As far as I know this is
> not the case. Every member of a party gets an equal share of the xp of
> slain monsters as long as the characters were there and saw it all. It
> does not matter in my opinion if the mage did not do a thing, he would
> still learn from it. Only when a fighter singlehandly and on his own
> defeats a monster, then I will give a character class bonus. This tends
> to happen only against monsters with which the less strong has not got
> much problems with also. Then I also grant the xp of a defeated monster,
> that is chased away, avoided the combat all together or capture the
> creature. For a character with a high charisma it should be easier to
> talk himself out of combat (as on of my players is finding out with his
> warrior with a charisma of 6). Thirdly roleplaying and problem solving
> earns a lot more xp in my campaigns then those 1 or 2 fights in a
> session (if any at all), meaning that in the end stats hardly matters
> for the amount earned.

Well, may I remind you of the individual XP bonuses from the DMG?
Fighter's get 10 XP/HD for monsters they defeat. Also, the XP values
mentioned in the DMG for good roleplaying and the like hardly make a
difference at higher levels.

> As for that bonus, it is based on the fact that certain persons have got
> a knack for certain skills. This most of the time comes from high
> "scores", not from low scores. Strong fighter just learn easier, then
> weak fighters. So I have no problems with it, besides the differences in
> amounts of xp in my campaign comes from roleplaying skill, not dice
> rolls. As my players could assure you. In my campaign the thief tends to
> have the most xp, while she hardly ever defeats monsters. She just
> happens to be the best roleplayer of the group with the brightest idea's
> (yes, the thief has got an int of 15).

Strong fighters just learn easier than weak fighters? What about the slim
but skillfil swordsman, then? I don't think so.

> Use attribute checks of all kinds more often. In my campaign players do
> not favor one characteristic or an other. If anything it certainly is
> not strength, but dexterity.

Well, the minimax combat machines of old usually have Str/Dex/Con
18/18/18, so no need to worry there.

My point here is that with fighters, for example, Strength is everything.
There's no better fighter than the high-Strength fighter. Yeah, well
maybe the high-Strength-high-Dexterity-high-Constitution fighter, huh?
But the thing is that in AD&D there's no way to make a good
brain-over-brawn or slim-but-skilled fighter. All the good AD&D fighters
look like bodybuilders and weightlifters. Having a knack for being a good
swordsman should not necessarily mean you also bulge out in hulk-like
propertions, if you catch my drift.
It's not just a problem of XP anymore...

- the Falcon

[JulesMrshn@aol.co]

In a message dated 4/23/99 3:30:42 AM Central Daylight Time,
m.m.richert@twi.tudelft.nl writes:

>

There is your problem. The group should get experience equally if they take
part in the combat. Reason: Numbers keeps you from getting rushed and
overwhelmed.

[JulesMrshn@aol.co]

In a message dated 4/23/99 3:30:42 AM Central Daylight Time,
m.m.richert@twi.tudelft.nl writes:

[Craig Dalrymple]

- -----Original Message-----
From: the Falcon
To: birthright@mpgn.com
Date: Friday, April 23, 1999 7:33 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Training action.


>Well, the minimax combat machines of old usually have Str/Dex/Con
>18/18/18, so no need to worry there.
>
>My point here is that with fighters, for example, Strength is everything.
>There's no better fighter than the high-Strength fighter. Yeah, well
>maybe the high-Strength-high-Dexterity-high-Constitution fighter, huh?
>But the thing is that in AD&D there's no way to make a good
>brain-over-brawn or slim-but-skilled fighter. All the good AD&D fighters
>look like bodybuilders and weightlifters. Having a knack for being a good
>swordsman should not necessarily mean you also bulge out in hulk-like
>propertions, if you catch my drift.
>It's not just a problem of XP anymore...
>
> - the Falcon
>

Ok, I actually have the solution to this, and it is presented in an offiical
product from TSR that works! (can you belive it?)


If you look at some of the optional rules in the Combat & Tactics expansion
book, there are a few reasonable and logical tweaks you can make to the
game that can really change the situation where fighters are concerned. I
really like it as it is a blanancing act for fighter types and lightly
armored
fighters with fast weapons become formidable.

Heres a synopsis:

The initative system has been changed such that actions take place
in one of five phases that represent the relative speed of the participant.
In general, the smaller, lighter, and unencumbered combatant will always
act before a large, heavy, encumbered combatant. There are going to
be some exceptions/modifications needed to make all D&D creatures
fit into this as some of the big ones might actually be quick, but this
is trivial.

This initative system is the most important thing there. It really does not
make combat any more toilsome, especially if you already use weapon
speeds. If you add in the rules for fatigue and encumbrance and such
a fighter in full plate with a two handed sword fighting a unarmored
fighter with a rapier is in trouble. Why? Well, for starters the
fighter-lite
warrior is going to be highly maneuverable, which makes him hard to hit.
He can change points of attack. The tank warrior can't. Big swords and
armor are hard to get around in.

When I explained this to some friends I put it this way, The lightly armored
fighter will hit first, and wont' get tired as quick; but when the heavy one
gets to swing it's going to hurt.

This system allows the combat to almost be realistic. A lightly armored
warrior with qucik weapons will be like a quisinart and will have his
blades dancing like Do'Urden (sorry fr haters), while the tank will
just watch the rain of blows bounce off his armor and then wack the
annoying bug really good. This might sound like the tank still has an
advantage, but I think hitting LAST in combat is a really bad thing.
It's hard to do more than react when you move and attack last
in the round. The fighter-lite has more options and therefore a better
chance of survival IMHO.


I think there is a lot in that book that can make BR something really
fine. I just gotta train all my players in it's finer points. ;)

Craig

[JNeighb934@aol.co]

In a message dated 04/23/99 5:43:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
m.m.richert@twi.tudelft.nl writes:

[Tod Hurlbert]

the Falcon wrote:

> Now the fighter is the most obvious example,
> but in the end all classes suffer from the problem that characters with
> high stats, and high prime requisites in particular, just have an unfair
> and unreasonable disadvantage over those who have not. There's definitely
> something wrong there...
>
>

Wrong? Seems right on to me; as in realistic. Had Einstein chosen to be a
professional boxer rather than a physicist do you think anyone would remember
his name? And for that matter, how far would you think Mike Tyson would go as a
scientist? No, it's not fair, but what has fairness to do with anything?

Tod

[the Falcon]

> I've always assumed that in D&D, skill with a weapon directly correlates with
> character level. The higher level a character is, the more skilled a
> swordsman he is (as long as he is proficient with a sword). And a 12th lvl
> fighter of slim build and average strength could easily defeat a 3rd lvl
> heavily-muscled gargantuan Conan-type of warrior. But with character level
> being equal, meaning weapon skill is approximately the same, the
> exceptionally strong warrior will usually win out, which I think is realistic.
> But also a fighter with a high DEX could hold his own with a fighter with
> high STR. An exceptionally dexterous warrior fits the bill of a slim,
> average-built but highly skilled swordsman. His skill lies not so much in
> offense, but in defense because he is so hard to hit. So he would stand a
> good chance of beating a better muscled, but slower fighter.

Sadly, high strength does not rule out high dexterity. So what you get is
that player who wants to an play average-built but highly skilled
swordsmen takes high Dex and high Con, but the player who wants to play
the wanna-be half-ogre, takes those as well, in addition to a high Str.
And that's the problem...

- the Falcon

[Pieter Sleijpen]

the Falcon wrote:

> Well, it can get kinda borin, especially if you have more than one
> fighter like that in the campaign, like I had at first. Now, with the
> new party, the players have chosen to be a bit more creative in their
> stats, but I already see some disturbing things. First of all,
> min-maxers seem to have an unfair disadvantage. Let me give an
> example. Two fighters. One is your general high-physique/low-psyche
> mobile tank, while the other is a more creative, stylish figure. Both
> created with a point system, but this could also very well happen with
> Random rice rolls. Suppose they go on adventure together. Since the
> superman smashes off a lot more Hit Dice and monster than the
> swashbuckler type fighter, he tends to get a lot more XP as well.
> This mean he advances more swiftly in level. So not only does he
> start out better, he also has the tendency to get better a lot faster.
> This does not seem right. It gets even worse if mister all-mighty has
> a strength of 16 or better, while his companion does not, cause then
> the superhero gets the 10% bonus in addition as well, while his friend
> does not. Definitely not right. Come to that, I've always find that
> 10% bonus a bit odd. I mean, isn't it logical the low-strength
> fighter would learn _faster_, because it's more dificult to him and
> thus he gets more practice? Besides, the high-strength fighter
> already gets more XP because he bests more monster, so why give him a
> 10% bonus as well? It's just not possible in AD&D to create an
> efficient fighter who prefers brains over brawn. Now the fighter is
> the most obvious example, but in the end all classes suffer from the
> problem that characters with high stats, and high prime requisites in
> particular, just have an unfair and unreasonable disadvantage over
> those who have not. There's definitely something wrong there...
>
> - the Falcon

Your problems is partly based on the conception that a character should
earn more xp, because he bashed more opponents. As far as I know this is
not the case. Every member of a party gets an equal share of the xp of
slain monsters as long as the characters were there and saw it all. It
does not matter in my opinion if the mage did not do a thing, he would
still learn from it. Only when a fighter singlehandly and on his own
defeats a monster, then I will give a character class bonus. This tends
to happen only against monsters with which the less strong has not got
much problems with also. Then I also grant the xp of a defeated monster,
that is chased away, avoided the combat all together or capture the
creature. For a character with a high charisma it should be easier to
talk himself out of combat (as on of my players is finding out with his
warrior with a charisma of 6). Thirdly roleplaying and problem solving
earns a lot more xp in my campaigns then those 1 or 2 fights in a
session (if any at all), meaning that in the end stats hardly matters
for the amount earned.

As for that bonus, it is based on the fact that certain persons have got
a knack for certain skills. This most of the time comes from high
"scores", not from low scores. Strong fighter just learn easier, then
weak fighters. So I have no problems with it, besides the differences in
amounts of xp in my campaign comes from roleplaying skill, not dice
rolls. As my players could assure you. In my campaign the thief tends to
have the most xp, while she hardly ever defeats monsters. She just
happens to be the best roleplayer of the group with the brightest idea's
(yes, the thief has got an int of 15).

Use attribute checks of all kinds more often. In my campaign players do
not favor one characteristic or an other. If anything it certainly is
not strength, but dexterity.

Pieter Sleijpen

[Pieter Sleijpen]

the Falcon wrote:



> My point here is that with fighters, for example, Strength is everything.
> There's no better fighter than the high-Strength fighter. Yeah, well
> maybe the high-Strength-high-Dexterity-high-Constitution fighter, huh?
> But the thing is that in AD&D there's no way to make a good
> brain-over-brawn or slim-but-skilled fighter. All the good AD&D fighters
> look like bodybuilders and weightlifters. Having a knack for being a good
> swordsman should not necessarily mean you also bulge out in hulk-like
> propertions, if you catch my drift.
> It's not just a problem of XP anymore...
>
> - the Falcon
>

For some reason I do not have that problem, if you bring the other three
characteristics to the front, they will also chose those three to be
high. Take it from me, whenever a score is below average my player is
going to find out what that means :-)

I even have a fighter who is somewhat afraid of blood and tries to avoid
combat like hell. So it might be my players, who try to get something
out of their character. The problem is by the way worst with other
character classes, a fighter can life with a low strength. A thief,
wizard and priest will be penalized a lot more then on just a little
damage.