Heroic potential and magical talent

[kaomera]

So, I'm a big fan of "less is more"... I've been contemplating two concepts regarding this idea in respect to my next campaign (based on DCC 35, and in part these thoughts where inspired by the way the 0-level PC rules work in that product), and how (or if) I should work them into the house-rules I'll be using.

Heroic Potential: The PCs are meant to be the heroes of the campaign; it's their story, and no NPC gets the kind of screen-time that they do. PCs are assumed to be "elite", and have access to PC classes normally, however NPCs should not be made elite lightly, and non-elite NPCs should only have NPC class levels. I might possibly make an exception for a race's preferred class (so that there can be hordes of Orc Berzerkers, for instance; OTOHoV not allowing this would make the Orc Warlord with Barbarian levels that much more special). Even elite NPCs should not have PC class levels unless they are actually important to the campaign as a whole. For example: an NPC Lord who participated in an important battle years ago might have one or two Fighter levels to reflect that fact, but if he's not been doing anything much exciting since then the rest of his levels should be Noble, or perhaps Warrior or Expert. If he later becomes a major contact of the PCs he could then gain more PC class levels, if appropriate. (I would also have to work up an arcane version of the Adept, I think...)

Magical Talent: Currently it is (more or less) assumed by 3.x rules that just about anyone can become a spellcaster, by taking the appropriate class levels. In some (much?) fantasy literature, it is assumed that a person would need some sort of innate "magical talent" in order to learn to use magic at all. This could very easily be just a flavor consideration, but I'm fairly certain that it would then just be mostly ignored. I'm contemplating making "Magical Talent" a feat (which must be taken at first {or zero...} level), without which a character cannot gain magical abilities (obviously, I would need to specify exactly where I would be drawing the line, but I don't think I'm quite to that point yet). If I do go the feat-cost route, I would also grant an additional feat at first (or zero...) level (in addition to most likely using a "feat per level" rule). On the one hand, I'm a bit worried that this would be interpreted as penalizing spell-casting characters; on the other I'm concerned that it might actually not go far enough, given what I'm expecting the consequences of these ideas might be...

Consequences: I am expecting that these two ideas would make PCs, and especially spell-casting PCs much more important in the game-world. In a setting where there are few actual Wizards, and even Adepts are uncommon, an up-and-coming Mage might start being courted by political or mercantile powers, local Lords, etc. at third or fourth levels. There would probably be fewer magic items floating around (although I expect the impact on the PCs to be much less than for NPCs; long-lost swords, mysterious rings from forgotten ages, etc being still available as part of a treasure horde), and many of those would have to be manufactured by Adepts. Item-creation feats would likely be more valuable, and non-spellcasters would likely have slightly fewer magic items (although making those they do acquire slightly more potent would be an easy way to compensate). Use Magic Device and the Rogue's Trapfinding ability would likely have be limited to those characters with Magical Talent, but there are other useful skills that a Rogue could put his points into, and there would be far fewer magical traps to contend with. Actually, I can see allowing Trapfinding and having it work off of the Spellcraft skill (I already have a house-rule allowing ranks in cross-class skills to be purchased up to their normal {lower than a class skill} max ranks at 1:1, I would probably rule Spellcraft to be a class skill for any character with Magical Talent, cross-class otherwise); I can envision a rogue stooping low over a chest, holding a pendulum above it while sprinkling iron filings about and interpreting the patterns produced to determine not only the presence or absence of magic, but also how strong, what school, and possibly information on how to best bypass it.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I think these are fantastic ideas.

IMC, I do a very similar thing for magical talent -- except that rather than requiring a feat, I just say that any PC that wants The Gift just happens to have it.
Why? Because otherwise the world would be swimming in magic. Magic is SO powerful that any capable ruler would have set up schools to teach wizards and seminaries to teach clerics. Since my world ISN'T swimming in magic, there must be some reason that this approach doesn't work -- the will of the gods, I suppose. The Gift is rare, and not evenly distributed; a small and otherwise weak kindgom might have 20 wizards while a large one might only have 5 or 6.

I like the Heroic Potential house-rule. Giving mooks the standard array (10s and 11s) makes them much easier to stat out.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Heroic Potential: I completely agree. Heroes, and hero-quality characters, should be rare. Whether that means that very few characters have PC levels or that very few characters have Hero Points or something else entirely, the thing that makes heroes more than ordinary people should be rare.

Magical Talent: I could go either way.
On the one hand, it is a common literary trope that a person either has magical talent or does not. I will point out that the 3.X rules do give this a tip of the hat by requiring certain minimum ability scores to cast a given class of spells; it's far from the same thing but it is definitely a nod in that direction.
On the other hand, it is an equally common trope that a character suddenly finds themselves unlocking previously unsuspected mystical abilities at a point near the middle of their career.
Which one you prefer is simply a matter of taste, though ideally both can exist at the same time.

Unsolicited Advice: Make sure that you don't fall into the trap of "he's the only one that can do it, therefore he's as powerful as everyone else." Unique abilities are not necessarily powerful abilities. As such, unique abilities should be balanced in the same way as non-unique abilities.

 

[Aaron L]

I don't like this approach. It's a personal preference, I know, but it seems way to cliche to me for the PCs to be chosen, special people that stand out from the crowd just because theyre PCs. It's my only real problem with Eberron.

I like the PCs to stand out, but by virtue of level and higher ability scores. I want theyre to be others out there equal and greater to them, for them to have superiors and peers. Not to be "chosen by destiny" to break the rules.


Maybe I've just been in way too many campaigns where the PCs were the chosen special saviors of the world. It gets real old.

 

[kaomera]

I don't like this approach. It's a personal preference, I know, but it seems way to cliche to me for the PCs to be chosen, special people that stand out from the crowd just because theyre PCs. It's my only real problem with Eberron.

Well, on the one hand, I'm not really trying to make the PCs "chosen, special people" in the way that I think you mean. PCs have an advantage in their importance to the game, because they're basically what the game is about. That doesn't have to mean that they get to "break the rules", or at least not as compared to important PCs. The average peasant, yeah, but I want to put the PCs (eventually, at least) on the same level as at least some of the "big time" NPCs (in terms of overall impact on the setting), instead of every merchant who hires them having a dozen+ levels of Rogue (or Cleric, or whatever).

I like the PCs to stand out, but by virtue of level and higher ability scores. I want theyre to be others out there equal and greater to them, for them to have superiors and peers. Not to be "chosen by destiny" to break the rules.

Again, I'm not suggesting that there won't be NPCs who will be equal or greater than the PCs. However, when it comes time for the PCs to, let's say, go slay an Ogre, I'd expect that there's a reason that they are the ones who do so, as opposed to local Lords, etc. The PCs being nutjobs who do this sort of stuff for a living is the usual reason I've encountered, not that they're somehow fated to do so. IMHO, if the local Lord has say a level or two of Fighter and ten levels of Noble, rather than just ten levels of Fighter, then that supports this idea. Either way the Lord could most likely just waltz in and slaughter the monster, but with the NPC levels he has better things to do with his time.

Does that make sense, or am I missing something? I think where I may have screwed this up is in describing the importance of NPCs (or their ability to take PC levels, at least) in terms of being "on-screen". I'm really just looking for an excuse to use the NPC classes more, as opposed to every character having PC classes, no matter how much or little sense it makes. Maybe that's not very widespread and I've just played in some odd games, in any case it's something I try to do anyway, but I've never really set out to put it in words before. And I do think that it will lead to more NPCs who don't have any PC class levels. I'm pretty happy if it ends up without a dozen or so other adventuring parties running around parallel to the PCs, but that's just my preference.

 

[pawsplay]

Magical talent is signified by taking a level in a spellcasting class, just as fighting talent is signifed by taking a level in a full BAB class. Your primary casting ability score is a measure of how much talent you have, along with your advancement, feat choices, and so forth.

 

[kaomera]

Magical talent is signified by taking a level in a spellcasting class, just as fighting talent is signifed by taking a level in a full BAB class. Your primary casting ability score is a measure of how much talent you have, along with your advancement, feat choices, and so forth.

I had meant "talent" in terms of potential. It is assumed in at least some fantasy literature that magical abilities are something that you have to be born to, and that is what I'm trying to model here. I would say that your ability scores do measure how potentially good at spellcasting you will be, and if you actually have spellcasting abilities, then your character level, feats, etc. will determine just how powerful that ability is, but I'm specifically interested in whether or not a given character has that "switch" flipped or not, that's what I was trying to convey with the term "Magical Talent".

My POV: In standard 3.x, every character has, basically, an unlimited potential for achievement in any base-class, at least as far as level goes. It's true that ability scores will determine how powerful the character will actually be (and this is magnified, since many feats have ability prereqs), but it's technically legal for a character with an 8 Charisma to take 20 levels of Sorcerer (AFAIK).

I could (probably) achieve what I want without any actual house-rules, simply making "Magical Talent" (or whatever else I could call it that might be clearer) an aspect of character concept. I'm torn between wanting to avoid unneeded house-rules and the being worried by the tendency for players to either forget or outright ignore such things under certain circumstances, if there aren't any actual rules attached.

 

[Particle_Man]

re: Characters are a rare breed of PCs - I like the idea! It seems to me that I rarely run into people that are NPC classed.

I would say that orc barbarians could be rare - nothing wrong with orc warriors! Maybe make all NPC classes favoured classes, to mellow the harsh?

re: Magical talent - I don't think you need to go the "special feat" route - just say "If you ever want kewl Magic Powerz, you have to take the relevant spell-casting class at 1st level" (maybe make an exception for Mystic Theurge wannabee types, say that the 1st 2 levels have to be, for example, cleric and wizard, and then they can go on that route). That could stop the "Lidda looks over Mialee's shoulder at level 5 and take a Wizard level at level 6" syndrome.

But aside from NPC "people", how are you running monsters? Will most spell-casting Dragons have access to only the Adept spell list instead of Cleric and Sorceror? What about monsters that cast spells as a X level (druid, cleric, wizard, etc.)?

What happens when a character takes Leadership? Are they stuck with an NPC class cohort and/or followers?

Incidentally, I sometimes tell myself I will run a "PHB II classes and the 5 NPC classes only" campaign. It would be gritty, but interesting.

 

[kaomera]

re: Characters are a rare breed of PCs - I like the idea! It seems to me that I rarely run into people that are NPC classed.

I would say that orc barbarians could be rare - nothing wrong with orc warriors! Maybe make all NPC classes favoured classes, to mellow the harsh?

That's a good idea. Actually, I'm thinking of removing all multi-classing XP penalties and requiring DM permission to multiclass... Same dilemma as with Magical Talent, without the XP penalties; I have one player in particular who is going to be much more likely to randomly decide to multi. Of course, I can say "no.", but I don't really like doing that, having to put my foot down == stress. (I just don't have the heart to let him go hog-wild and create a 1/1/1/1 that will be nearly-useless. He's done it once before and he really seemed to feel like his character's failure to measure up to the other PCs was more a result of the way I was running the game than a bad build. Unfortunately it seems like my players who are the most concerned with having powerful characters are also the least able to actually accomplish it.)

re: Magical talent - I don't think you need to go the "special feat" route - just say "If you ever want kewl Magic Powerz, you have to take the relevant spell-casting class at 1st level" (maybe make an exception for Mystic Theurge wannabee types, say that the 1st 2 levels have to be, for example, cleric and wizard, and then they can go on that route). That could stop the "Lidda looks over Mialee's shoulder at level 5 and take a Wizard level at level 6" syndrome.

That seems overly restrictive of some otherwise cool character concepts. I want characters to be possible to possess Magical Talent without actually putting it to use immediately. Part of the problem is that I'm trying to create a set-up that will benefit all of my players, and they all want different things and approach character creation in different ways.

But aside from NPC "people", how are you running monsters? Will most spell-casting Dragons have access to only the Adept spell list instead of Cleric and Sorceror? What about monsters that cast spells as a X level (druid, cleric, wizard, etc.)?

Mostly, limit their appearance a bit. Not every dungeon needs a Dragon lying around, waiting for the PCs to kill it. Especially if it's an Orc stronghold, for instance... Most monsters have SLAs, which I'm not as worried about in terms of PC / NPC class; they get what they get and that's what they're limited to. I would make them take Magical Talent as a feat (if that's the route I end up going)...

What happens when a character takes Leadership? Are they stuck with an NPC class cohort and/or followers?

I actually hadn't thought about that, I've never seen a PC actually take Leadership. I suppose they would be limited to NPC classes before actually becoming a cohort, unless the PCs went out of their way to find someone with more potential. With fewer NPC Wizards running around, I can see the PCs trying to make friends with one, doing errands, etc. for her in return for the possibility of hiring out her services for spellcasting, etc. at later levels. A 6th level character could then pick up one of her apprentices (say a Wiz3 or 4) that they've met and have been dealing with upon acquiring the Leadership feat. Same thing with a local Lord and one of his lesser Knights, etc.

Incidentally, I sometimes tell myself I will run a "PHB II classes and the 5 NPC classes only" campaign. It would be gritty, but interesting.

I'd like to play in a game like that, but I don't think the majority of my players would go for it. I think part of the problem I'm having here may be that I'm trying to limit the game to make it more what I want to run, but at the same time I'd like to avoid limiting the players to only playing characters that I'd enjoy playing. That wouldn't be fair, IMHO. (And maybe I'm just over-thinking things right now...)

 

[Particle_Man]

That's a good idea. Actually, I'm thinking of removing all multi-classing XP penalties and requiring DM permission to multiclass...

If you do that, throw the humans and half-elves a bone to compensate for the loss of a racial ability.

That seems overly restrictive of some otherwise cool character concepts. I want characters to be possible to possess Magical Talent without actually putting it to use immediately.

Combine the two ideas? Either you take Wizard at 1st level, or you have to pay a feat to be able to take Wizard later on?

I think part of the problem I'm having here may be that I'm trying to limit the game to make it more what I want to run, but at the same time I'd like to avoid limiting the players to only playing characters that I'd enjoy playing. That wouldn't be fair, IMHO. (And maybe I'm just over-thinking things right now...)

Here's a way to limit things and yet not harsh your players' mellow. Have them say what classes they want to play in advance. Then design your world such that only those PC classes, and the Fab 5 NPC classes, exist. No restriction on the players as such, but a very different world, nonetheless. Mind you, those restrictions remain in place when new players join or old players make new characters, but if you tell people that in advance that should be ok.

[edit: for added fun, you can do something similar with races - let the players choose, then say "only those races exist, except for ones I specifically have for specific purposes". So if no one chooses dwarf, there may be no dwarves in your world.]