Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28
  1. #1
    Gary V. Foss
    Guest

    Training action.

    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

  2. #2

    Training action.

    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

  3. #3
    Olesens
    Guest

    Training action.

    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

  4. #4
    Gary V. Foss
    Guest

    Training action.

    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

  5. #5
    Gary V. Foss
    Guest

    Training action.

    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

  6. #6
    Bob Cauthron
    Guest

    Training action.

    > 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

  7. #7
    Gary V. Foss
    Guest

    Training action.

    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

  8. #8

    Training action.

    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

  9. #9
    Bob Cauthron
    Guest

    Training action.

    > 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

  10. #10
    WILLELA@aol.co
    Guest

    Training action.

    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

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Training action
    By Sorontar in forum Main
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-19-2011, 12:02 AM
  2. Training
    By BRadmin in forum Main
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-09-2009, 11:39 AM
  3. Cultural Rogue Training
    By Sorontar in forum Main
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-15-2008, 06:21 AM
  4. training...
    By epicsoul in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-19-2004, 09:08 AM
  5. Training Domain Action
    By Arlen Blaede in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 03-08-2002, 12:36 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.