Results 1 to 10 of 28
Thread: Training action.
-
04-15-1999, 01:42 AM #1Gary V. FossGuest
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
-
04-15-1999, 03:16 AM #2
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- Posts
- 64
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
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
-
04-15-1999, 07:59 PM #3OlesensGuest
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
-
04-15-1999, 08:23 PM #4Gary V. FossGuest
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
-
04-15-1999, 08:34 PM #5Gary V. FossGuest
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
-
04-15-1999, 08:42 PM #6Bob CauthronGuest
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
-
04-15-1999, 10:11 PM #7Gary V. FossGuest
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
-
04-15-1999, 10:37 PM #8
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- Posts
- 64
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
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
-
04-16-1999, 06:06 AM #9Bob CauthronGuest
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
-
04-16-1999, 08:05 AM #10WILLELA@aol.coGuest
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
-
Training action
By Sorontar in forum MainReplies: 0Last Post: 01-19-2011, 12:02 AM -
Training
By BRadmin in forum MainReplies: 0Last Post: 08-09-2009, 11:39 AM -
Cultural Rogue Training
By Sorontar in forum MainReplies: 0Last Post: 07-15-2008, 06:21 AM -
training...
By epicsoul in forum The Royal LibraryReplies: 3Last Post: 07-19-2004, 09:08 AM -
Training Domain Action
By Arlen Blaede in forum The Royal LibraryReplies: 31Last Post: 03-08-2002, 12:36 AM
Bookmarks