Grim Tales Questions

[Fenris]

As I set up my Grim Tales campaign, I had a few questionsas well, mostly clarifications but some theory as well.

When using the variant "Fewer Dead Heroes" is all the damage, or just the lethal damage considered when determining if the Massive Damage Threshhold has been reached?

As I add Feats and Talents specific to my world, I want to be consistent. Talents are more rare than Feats, and should "do" a little more, right? Is it inappropriate to have a feat be a prerequisite for a Talent or a talent be a prerequistite for a Feat? What about placing a RP requirement on an advanced Talent (ie membership in an organization)?

Dang, I seem to have forgotten the others, but those were the biggies for now.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Don't have my book in front of me, but as a GTSAEIT (Grim Tales Self-Appointed Evangelist in Training), I'll give it a shot.

I would calculate MDT based on hit point damage, not non-lethal. Since you by definition are hoping for "Fewer Dead Heroes", and non-lethal damage is supposed to be non-lethal, I wouldn't count what the armor absorbed. It would also depend to some extent on what skull-rating of MDT you were using. The point of "Fewer Dead Heroes" is to have the person beaten down and knocked unconscious before they die, suggesting a more forgiving MDT.

I would keep feats and talents seperated. They are equally rare, but talents are more closely tied to classes than feats are. Making a talent (an advanced one, anyway) a pre-req for a feat is basically the same as requiring X levels in a class, which is considered bad form for feat design. Uusually you should base feat requirements on something that can be acheived in different ways (eg. cast 3rd level arcane spells vs. be a 5th level wizard).

Making a feat a pre-req for a talent is probably a little easier to get away with, so long as it followed the same general guidelines of being obtainable in different ways (eg no class-specific feats). But I really wouldn't recommend it -- the whole point of the GT feat/talent/skills system is to allow more fleixble character creation. Plus, talent chains tend to involve their own pre-reqs.

I would think it ok for some RP pre-reqs in specialized settings, especially for magic. Making the character be a member of the Cthulu Worshippers Local 667 in order to take spellcasting feats would make some sense.

Did you have a specific example in mind?

 

[Fenris]

Don't have my book in front of me, but as a GTSAEIT (Grim Tales Self-Appointed Evangelist in Training), I'll give it a shot.

I would calculate MDT based on hit point damage, not non-lethal. Since you by definition are hoping for "Fewer Dead Heroes", and non-lethal damage is supposed to be non-lethal, I wouldn't count what the armor absorbed. It would also depend to some extent on what skull-rating of MDT you were using. The point of "Fewer Dead Heroes" is to have the person beaten down and knocked unconscious before they die, suggesting a more forgiving MDT.

I would keep feats and talents seperated. They are equally rare, but talents are more closely tied to classes than feats are. Making a talent (an advanced one, anyway) a pre-req for a feat is basically the same as requiring X levels in a class, which is considered bad form for feat design. Uusually you should base feat requirements on something that can be acheived in different ways (eg. cast 3rd level arcane spells vs. be a 5th level wizard).

Making a feat a pre-req for a talent is probably a little easier to get away with, so long as it followed the same general guidelines of being obtainable in different ways (eg no class-specific feats). But I really wouldn't recommend it -- the whole point of the GT feat/talent/skills system is to allow more fleixble character creation. Plus, talent chains tend to involve their own pre-reqs.

I would think it ok for some RP pre-reqs in specialized settings, especially for magic. Making the character be a member of the Cthulu Worshippers Local 667 in order to take spellcasting feats would make some sense.

Did you have a specific example in mind?

Ok Rodrigo, you can be the Grim Tales Evangelist, I will be the deacon, the Grim Deacon

Your logic behind using only lethal damge for FDH and MDT makes good sense, I think that works well.
As for X levels required being bad feat design, isn't that what BAB requirements do?

But let me put this into context. I want to have dueling schools. Each one will focus on a different style. So a member (RP requirement) with sufficient training (pre-reqs) can learn a feat or talent (I will limit it to very few) that only they can learn. Now each school can emphasize different things (ie strength, speed etc) So talents can work there as easily as feats. But as this is an extension of a rigorous training program I want there to be a certain minimum ability first, and that minimum should be standardized (ie a pre-req). Does that help you see where I am coming from and what I want to do?

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Ok Rodrigo, you can be the Grim Tales Evangelist, I will be the deacon, the Grim Deacon

Amen, Brother Fenris.

As for X levels required being bad feat design, isn't that what BAB requirements do?

No -- actually, using +BAB is a way to make sure that anyone can qualify at some point (unless it's so high that it requires iterative attacks that some classes can't hit). A BAB of +6 can be hit by taking 6 tough levels, 8 fast levels, etc. So there is a requirement, and certain classes can fulfill it more easily, but it isn't so explicit that players can't get a little creative with how they get there.

But let me put this into context. I want to have dueling schools. Each one will focus on a different style. So a member (RP requirement) with sufficient training (pre-reqs) can learn a feat or talent (I will limit it to very few) that only they can learn. Now each school can emphasize different things (ie strength, speed etc) So talents can work there as easily as feats. But as this is an extension of a rigorous training program I want there to be a certain minimum ability first, and that minimum should be standardized (ie a pre-req). Does that help you see where I am coming from and what I want to do?

Stat pre-reqs bother me to a certain extent. Why shouldn't a 10 STR 12 Dex warrior be able to take Weapon finesse? He's still not going to benefit as much as a 16 Dex person.

If you want the schools to be as open as possible, I'd make them feat chains with a core feat and a BAB as a pre-req, I think.

Eg. The Parisian school of fencing, where unlike the Florentine school, the fencer perfects the art of holding a glass of wine in the off hand while fighting.

FEAT: Parisian Fencing
Pre req: Bab +1, Weapon Finesse, Frequent Patron of The Boar's Head Tavern
Benefit: The character may fight with a finessable weapon in his primary hand while carrying a drink in his off hand. The character may wave the drink about as a swift action, giving him a +2 bonus on any feint checks.
Normal: The character would likely spill his drink.

FEAT: Improved Parisian Fencing
Pre Req: BAB +6, Parisian Fencing
Benefit: After a successful feint, the character may fling the contents of the drink into the eyes of his opponent. The victim must make a reflex save (DC 15) or be blinded by the wine for 1d4 rounds. This may only be done once in any given encounter. If used against the same opponent later, the opponent receives a +4 circumstance bonus on his Reflex save.

FEAT: Greater Parisian Fencing
Pre Req: BAB +10, Improved Parisian Fencing, 10 Ranks of Bluff
Benefit: As a swift action, the character may attempt to bluff his opponent, tricking him in to exchanging his weapon for the drink held in the characters off hand. If the opponent fails an opposed Sense Motive roll, he reflexively drops his weapon to take the glass. If the bluff check succeeds by more than 10, the character may instead swap the drink for the weapon, in which case he ends up holding it in his off hand.

 

[sinmissing]

Rodrigo, those feats are brilliant!

 

[Fenris]

OK, GEGTSAEIT (Grand Exalted Grim Tales Self-Appointed Evangelist in Training)

Beautiful feats, I anxiously await the rest Exaltly what I meant. But imagine them now as Talents. They do become "tied" to a heroic attribute. But I think that yes as a feat they are more inclusive. Of course it isn't just an Inn patronage I was considering but academy training, which might justify a Talent. So Parisian Fencing would fall under the Moxie school of Fencing and would become advanced (or at least the last two) talents for a Charismatic Hero. Now, yes that restricts the style (or at least the mastery of the style) to those persons who have levels in Charismatic. And that is restictive. But if another school has another set of talents, and these talents are only available to Smart Heroes, and each school teaches a style whose mastery is only truly achieved by persons with certain qualities, then a hero chooses the school that best suits their own abilities and capabilities. See what I mean. Now that makes it hard (but not impossible) to master several styles, but I see these schools as advasarial anyway. Making them advanced Talents negates the need for many requirements (well BAB, I would keep the skill requirements) as the third in the talent chain could come at 7th level at the earliest. So I will think on whether inclusive feats or exclusive talents best represent what I want. In the meantime Evangelist Rodrigo I will await the rest of your feats

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Rodrigo, those feats are brilliant!

Thanks. They go back many years to a swashbuckling campaign I was in. I made the DM snort soda through his nose when I explained it. Figured it was about time they got updated to 3.x.

(stuff)

At a certain point, it becomes more a matter of flavor than mechanics, how you view the GT classes, and how you see multi-classing fitting in.

With the dueling techniques as talents, you've sort of created virtual prestige classes and the talents are the class abilities. This recreates a more traditional, D&D-type game (not that there's anything wrong with that).

With the techniques as feats (and presumably more multi-classing), it's more along the lines of 'When I was in the Velhon March fighting the barbarians, I picked up some of the native fighting techniques.' This edges towards a more 'build your own' or skills-based character system.

Both are equally valid. I would suggest that GT is leans towards the latter, but the elegance of GT lies in the rather remarkable way it can morph into whatever you want. You could even play more or less stock D&D with your dueling schools as PrCs, and appropriate MDT and 'Fewer Dead Heroes' if you wanted to up the magic level.

The only real disadvantage I see to making them talents is that it will create some inherent disparity in combat ability, in that the 'school' that belongs to the 'Tough' class might be better than the one for the 'Fast' class because of differences in saves, BAB, etc.

 

[Fenris]

Rodrigo,
See this is why you are the Evangelist and I am but a lowly deacon. Always look to the Book! From the Book of Wulf, chapter four (Talents), verses 1-2 (well, I would cite chapter and verse but don't want to get on Wulf's bad side). I will cite the first phrase "Talents are special abilities or qualities" That right there set me straight. Feats it is! That also reduced the need for so many different schools ( I would feel obligated to have at least 6, one for each stat). With Feats, I have no limitations like that.

Now how about those other fencing feats

Fenris

 

[Fenris]

OK, new questions: Does Improved Precise Shot negate Elusive Target? It would seem to but I want to check.

Can Charm be taken twice, once for each gender?

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

OK, new questions: Does Improved Precise Shot negate Elusive Target? It would seem to but I want to check.

As written, no, but I think it was probably the intent. Elusive Target increases the penalty for firing into melee from -4 to -8. Precise shot reduces that to -4 (instead of 0). Improved Precise Shot isn't mentioned in Elusive Target, and IPS only lists modifiers for cover, concealment, for determining who is affected during a grapple. Being in melee isn't considered 'cover' despite the modifier.

Can Charm be taken twice, once for each gender?

Again, as written, no. If you could take it multiple times, it would say 'Charm could be taken multipe times. Each time you select a gender that is affected.' That said, I don't think there would be any great harm in it.