Training action.

[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