Results 1 to 10 of 30
Thread: Proficiencies - the hidden (?)
-
03-26-1998, 09:42 PM #1James RuhlandGuest
Proficiencies - the hidden (?)
Well, considering the vast (and ever growing) list of "must have"
proficiencies, IMO this isn't a bad interpretation. IMO, actually, if the
long & growing list of proficiencies *keeps* getting longer, then players
(and their NPC opponents) need to be able to recieve even more non-weapon
proficiencies.
I actually like proficiencies, and think they can add a lot to a game; but
with an ever growing list, the % a PC can have shrinks all the time. I like
to have proficiencies (like Dancing, Cooking, Ettiquete) that may not have
much obvious game-related effects (at least not in the same sense as Blind
Fighting, Spellcraft, Endurance and the like), but add a touch to the
character. However, I get torn because it seems every other month a new set
of "oh, you need these, too" proficiencies comes out (BR added a whole
bunch of cool Profs. that any self-respecting Regent ought to learn, for
example). But the # that you can learn at any given level hasn't changed
since the Proficiency system was 1st created (back in Unearthed Arcana, if
I recall correctly; it could've been before that. One of thouse
Wilderness/Dongen books, I can't remember what came out 1st.)
Anyhow, the point of my long response is I think it's swell if players
have a lot of proficiencies. There's a lot of neat ones to have. 8-)
>
> I don't want this to be something that could ruin your fun in your
> campaign by players going wild, but you could say "Okay, everyone gets
those
> slots allotted to them; however, X amount of points must be spent on
[this]."
> What do y'all [you all] think?
>
> Take care,
> KirbyRanma
>> To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the
line
> 'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
-
03-26-1998, 10:06 PM #2veryfastperson@juno.comGuest
Proficiencies - the hidden (?)
okay, maybe i can help,
from my experience, i have taken this to mean that a character
would have to spend these EXTRA proficiency slots towards whatever
language they want to learn. so with a 16 intellegence, a character has
the capability to learn 5 languages (giving him/her a bonus 5 proficiency
slots). he/she can spend these however they like, taking another language
is optional (or 5 times optional, in this case:). i have never really
liked this rule, but thats the way my DM always rules it:)
hope this helps :)
erik
Veryfastperson@juno.com
On Thu, 26 Mar 1998 16:34:45 EST KirbyRanma writes:
> Okay, here's a whammy that I just reread a couple of nights ago
>and would
>like to know what everyone thinks about this. It's not campaign
>specific, but
>it has the potential to add to both the heroes and the villains and
>those that
>fall in-between.
>
> On page 16 of the Player's Handbook (2nd Ed), in reference to
>Intelligence, under the catagory "Number of Languages," (from pg. 15)
>on the
>right hand side in the blue box it states:
>
>If the DM allows characters to have proficiencies, this column also
>indicates
>the number of extra proficiency slots the character gains due to his
>Intelligence. These extra proficiency slots can be used however the
>player
>desires. The character never needs to spend any proficiency slots to
>speak
>his native language.
>
> The way I reread this, is that if a character has a 16
>Intelligence, he
>or she is normally allowed to learn 5 additional languages, AND has 5
>proficincy slots open to learn more languages, or weapon styles or
>non-weapon
>proficiencies. I've never seen this done in a game I've been in, nor
>have I
>myself done it in a game I've run, but I didn't look at it closely
>enough. I
>would like for y'all (yes, I'm in TEXAS :-) to reread that closely,
>stressing
>the words/ phrases that stood out to me "...column ALSO indicates..."
>along
>with "...EXTRA proficiency slots..." (that's in there twice) and
>"...CHARACTER
>gains due to his Intelligence."
>
> I don't want this to be something that could ruin your fun in
>your
>campaign by players going wild, but you could say "Okay, everyone gets
>those
>slots allotted to them; however, X amount of points must be spent on
>[this]."
>What do y'all [you all] think?
>
>Take care,
>KirbyRanma
>************************************************* **************************
>To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the
>line
>'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
>
__________________________________________________ ___________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
-
03-26-1998, 10:24 PM #3David Sean BrownGuest
Proficiencies - the hidden (?)
> The way I reread this, is that if a character has a 16 Intelligence, he
> or she is normally allowed to learn 5 additional languages, AND has 5
> proficincy slots open to learn more languages, or weapon styles or non-weapon
> proficiencies. I've never seen this done in a game I've been in, nor have I
> myself done it in a game I've run, but I didn't look at it closely enough. I
> would like for y'all (yes, I'm in TEXAS :-) to reread that closely, stressing
> the words/ phrases that stood out to me "...column ALSO indicates..." along
> with "...EXTRA proficiency slots..." (that's in there twice) and "...CHARACTER
> gains due to his Intelligence."
What you say is true, however, you have to remember somethign else..under
the proficiency rules (should you choose to use them), learning a language
takes a proficiency slot. The number means different things should you
choose to use the proficiency rules or not. You cannot simply learn a
language by having a high intelligence if you are using the proficiency
rules, you have to use up a slot just like any other thing you might
learn (swimming..always know how to swim :) ). If proficiencies aren't
used the number represents the number of languages you know, haveing
assumed you spent the time to learn them.
Sean
-
03-26-1998, 10:26 PM #4TriztGuest
Proficiencies - the hidden (?)
On 26-Mar-98, KirbyRanma (KirbyRanma@aol.com) wrote about [BIRTHRIGHT] -
Proficiencies - the hidden (?) extras:
- -> The way I reread this, is that if a character has a 16 Intelligence, he
- ->or she is normally allowed to learn 5 additional languages, AND has 5
- ->proficincy slots open to learn more languages, or weapon styles or
non-weapon
- ->proficiencies. I've never seen this done in a game I've been in, nor have I
- ->myself done it in a game I've run, but I didn't look at it closely enough.
I
- ->would like for y'all (yes, I'm in TEXAS :-) to reread that closely,
stressing
- ->the words/ phrases that stood out to me "...column ALSO indicates..." along
- ->with "...EXTRA proficiency slots..." (that's in there twice) and
"...CHARACTER
- ->gains due to his Intelligence."
Me and my players has always said that the high intelligence limits the number
of languages you can speak. The profs. points which are given for high
intelligence can be used to either buy those extra languages (over the native
languages you get, half-elves and other demihumans get's two languages for
free) or none weapon profs. So the character with intelligence of 16 would be
able to have 5 extra languages or 5 extra none weapon profs (fighters may use
thise points for weapon profs) or anything between. So they will NOT first get
5 free language and then 5 extra points.
//Trizt of Ward^RITE
--------------------
E-Mail: trizt@iname.com URL: http://www.ukko.dyn.ml.org/~trizt/
Nick : Trizt IRC: irc.kuai.se:5278 Channel: #Opers
MUD: callandor.imaginary.com 5317
--------------------
-
03-26-1998, 11:15 PM #5woozGuest
Proficiencies - the hidden (?)
The way that I have always interpreted this, is that each character has x
number of non-weapon prof slots open to them. (In your example, you give an
Int of 16 and slots of 5.) I then use that number of extra languages to
represent the grand total of languages that the character can learn in
their lifetime. They don't get all 5 languages at creation, unless they
wish to forgo all other nonweapon profs. What are other peoples opinions on
my take on this?
Wooz
"quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/3292/ wooz@rli-net.net
-
03-27-1998, 12:13 AM #6Brian StonerGuest
Proficiencies - the hidden (?)
When I first started playing AD&D, which was only a few years ago, I initially
interpreted it as "you get both x number of languages AND x number of bonus
proficiency slots". Upon further reflection, however, I realized that it allowed
players to start out with an awful lot of languages. I also noticed that Modern
Language (and Ancient Lanugage) was a proficiency like any of the others. This
re-examination has led me to believe that it should be interpreted as "you get x
bonus proficiency slots, and x is the maximum language proficiencies the character
can learn." Sometimes I do find the number of proficiency slots a little limiting,
however.
Brian
-
03-27-1998, 02:22 AM #7simong@mech.uwa.edu.auGuest
Proficiencies - the hidden (?)
> On page 16 of the Player's Handbook (2nd Ed), in reference to
>Intelligence, under the catagory "Number of Languages," (from pg. 15) on the
>right hand side in the blue box it states:
>
>If the DM allows characters to have proficiencies, this column also indicates
>the number of extra proficiency slots the character gains due to his
>Intelligence. These extra proficiency slots can be used however the player
>desires. The character never needs to spend any proficiency slots to speak
>his native language.
This is very interesting. I haven't got the book on me, so I am going to
assume this quote from the PHB is correct.
I like the proficiency rules, and so I have always 'imposed' them as follows:
Each character gets the number of proficiency slot they are allowed for
their class (eg. warrior 4 weap, 4 non-weap; wizard 1 weap, 6 non-weap)
just as normal.
Then, in ADDITION to this, each character gets a number of proficiency
slots equal to the # of languages attribute (from their intelligence). BUT,
and this is where my interpretation differs from the quote above, I only
allow players to take these as NON-weapon proficiencies. However, as the
DM, I am flexible in this and will allow characters to use a few of these
extra slots for weapon proficiencies. This differs between classes, so I am
generally much more prepared to award warriors weapon proficiencies than a
wizard, for example. I also require the players to give me a reason (ie.
background material) why they should be allowed to spend these extra
proficiency slots on weapon, and not non-weapon, proficiencies.
Now for the admission - I don't like this system, and must admit that the
proficiency thing seems to have gotten out of control. I have tinkered with
the above quite a lot, due to some of the many minor gripes I have in the
system. As someone else said, the number of 'required/must-have'
proficiencies seems to increase hugely with every extra book. I also think
the Complete Fighter's Handbook increased the number of proficiency slots
which need to be spent on weapon proficiencies, IMO.
I believe that the initial starting number of proficiencies (given in the
PHB) are totally inadequate. Furthermore, I also believe that some classes
(priests & thieves in particular) are hugely disadvantaged in this area.
Warriors, on the other hand, seem to get a hell of a lot of proficiencies
compared to the other classes. I think these numbers should be changed, and
maybe increased a little, to reflect better the class differences and also
the number of new proficiencies introduced in all the various sourcebooks.
My new proficiency table is as folows. The classes are listed in order of
fighting ability (how I see it, anyway):
Class W/P # lvl N-W/P # lvl
Warrior 6 2 3 4
Thief 4 3 5 3
Priest 2 4 6 3
Wizard 1 5 8 2
I feel thieves get ripped off in the area of proficiencies. IMO, they
should be more evenly spread (like the warrior originally is) - they should
be able to get more weapon proficiencies. I feel Priests generally have
weapon restrictions anyway, so they shouldn't have that much access to
training (of course, some of the dieties - Cuiracaen, for instance - would
warrant changing this). Wizards tend to get a lot of extra non-weapon
proficiencies anyway due to high intelligence stats, which makes them very
useful in non-combat, intellectual-type situations (I picture wizards as
the 'brains' of a group). I like the speacialisation rules (for weapon
proficiencies), so I let all warriors specialise (non-fighers can only do
this once, where fighters can do it as often as they want). I also feel
specialisation in a certain weapon (I try and discourage choosing the
good-ol'-munchkin longsword) adds something to a character.
Well, there ya go - my 2 gold coronas, as well as a [rather long-winded]
answer to the question. Let me know what you all think of this. Hope it
helps somoene :-)
Simon
-
03-27-1998, 03:56 AM #8LordSchmitGuest
Proficiencies - the hidden (?)
>The way I reread this, is that if a character has a 16 Intelligence, he
>or she is normally allowed to learn 5 additional languages, AND has 5
>proficincy slots open to learn more languages, or weapon styles or non-weapon
>proficiencies. I've never seen this done in a game I've been in, nor have I
>myself done it in a game I've run, but I didn't look at it closely enough. I
>would like for y'all (yes, I'm in TEXAS :-) to reread that closely, stressing
>the words/ phrases that stood out to me "...column ALSO indicates..." along
>with "...EXTRA proficiency slots..." (that's in there twice) and
"...CHARACTER
>gains due to his Intelligence."
The idea of using the "# of languages" slots for proficiency slots has long
been a popular option among many players. And it makes sense (how many people
speak 5 extra languages, anyway?). I've always used that option.
-
03-27-1998, 05:04 AM #9James RuhlandGuest
Proficiencies - the hidden (?)
>S. Graindorge wrote:
>
> Then, in ADDITION to this, each character gets a number of proficiency
> slots equal to the # of languages attribute (from their intelligence).
BUT,
> and this is where my interpretation differs from the quote above, I only
> allow players to take these as NON-weapon proficiencies.
>
Oh, I've always assumed that the int./lang bonus proficiencies were for
non-weapon proficiencys only, as well (though there are "grey area"
proficiencies, like the fighting style (I.E. single weapon, two weapon,
etc) proficiencies that I usually allow to fall into this category.
Also, I liked your system as you described it below. Certainly some steps
in the right direction. Another question re. Proficiencies is that perhaps
they are too tied in with stats (I.E. have a high stat, and you're
automatically a virtuoso), however the attempt to rectify this that TSR
made in Skills & Powers was, IMO, 1) too cumbersome in many respects and 2)
resulted in having either too low a chance to succeed to make it
worthwhile, in many cases, or spending all your proficiency points on few
proficiencies, leading to the problem we've already discussed. Anyone have
a workable variant system?
>
> I believe that the initial starting number of proficiencies (given in the
> PHB) are totally inadequate. Furthermore, I also believe that some
classes
> (priests & thieves in particular) are hugely disadvantaged in this area.
> Warriors, on the other hand, seem to get a hell of a lot of proficiencies
> compared to the other classes. I think these numbers should be changed,
and
> maybe increased a little, to reflect better the class differences and
also
> the number of new proficiencies introduced in all the various
sourcebooks.
> My new proficiency table is as folows. The classes are listed in order of
> fighting ability (how I see it, anyway):
>
> Class W/P # lvl N-W/P # lvl
> Warrior 6 2 3 4
> Thief 4 3 5 3
> Priest 2 4 6 3
> Wizard 1 5 8 2
>
> I feel thieves get ripped off in the area of proficiencies. IMO, they
> should be more evenly spread (like the warrior originally is) - they
should
> be able to get more weapon proficiencies. I feel Priests generally have
> weapon restrictions anyway, so they shouldn't have that much access to
> training (of course, some of the dieties - Cuiracaen, for instance -
would
> warrant changing this). Wizards tend to get a lot of extra non-weapon
> proficiencies anyway due to high intelligence stats, which makes them
very
> useful in non-combat, intellectual-type situations (I picture wizards as
> the 'brains' of a group). I like the speacialisation rules (for weapon
> proficiencies), so I let all warriors specialise (non-fighers can only do
> this once, where fighters can do it as often as they want). I also feel
> specialisation in a certain weapon (I try and discourage choosing the
> good-ol'-munchkin longsword) adds something to a character.
>
> Well, there ya go - my 2 gold coronas, as well as a [rather long-winded]
> answer to the question. Let me know what you all think of this. Hope it
> helps somoene :-)
>
> Simon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the
line
> 'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
-
03-27-1998, 06:32 AM #10simong@mech.uwa.edu.auGuest
Proficiencies - the hidden (?)
>Also, I liked your system as you described it below. Certainly some steps
>in the right direction. Another question re. Proficiencies is that perhaps
>they are too tied in with stats (I.E. have a high stat, and you're
>automatically a virtuoso), however the attempt to rectify this that TSR
>made in Skills & Powers was, IMO, 1) too cumbersome in many respects and 2)
>resulted in having either too low a chance to succeed to make it
>worthwhile, in many cases, or spending all your proficiency points on few
>proficiencies, leading to the problem we've already discussed. Anyone have
>a workable variant system?
Well, I have been toying with a certain idea - the proficiency system of
AD&D is one of my pet projects :-). I haven't seen the S&P book, so I don't
know what it says there. What I was looking at was the following. I've
never actually written this one up, so I am making this up as I go along.
Each proficiency would have a 'basic chance of success'. There would be two
ways of doing this. Firstly, you could (for the sake of simplicity) say
that everything has a base difiiculty of, say, 13 (on d20). Or choose
another number. Alternatively, you could choose a different base number,
depending on how difficult (or easy) the skill is. This could be based on
the 'modifier' which is listed with each ability. You could also combine
the two ideas, use the base chance, and then apply the modifier to find the
'final base chance' for that skill. You could also use a kind of category
type system, as follows for example:
Category Base Chance (on d20)
Routine 17
Easy 14
Normal 12
Hard 9
V. Hard 5
Impossible 3
This table would then determine the base chance of success for a particular
skill. Each skill is then modified by the particular ability associated
with it (as described with the proficiency). Again, you could use a tabular
form to make things easy, like the following:
Ability Score Modifier
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Similar Threads
-
The Hidden Grove
By Sorontar in forum MainReplies: 0Last Post: 01-20-2009, 04:26 AM -
Hidden archive top
By Arjan in forum TemplateReplies: 0Last Post: 11-23-2008, 09:27 PM -
Old Nonweapon Proficiencies
By ConjurerDragon in forum The Royal LibraryReplies: 4Last Post: 10-03-2002, 12:07 AM -
Weapon Proficiencies
By Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel in forum The Royal LibraryReplies: 18Last Post: 09-05-2002, 05:17 PM -
Proficiencies - the hidden (?) extr
By KirbyRanma in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999Replies: 0Last Post: 03-26-1998, 09:34 PM
Bookmarks