Heroic potential and magical talent

[Endur]

With regards to heroic potential and magical talent, remember that you will need somebody for the PCs to learn from/train from. In a world with only one wizard, that wizard will have trouble buying scrolls and copying spells from other spellbooks.

 

[EricNoah]

It would be neat if the rules supported something like a division between a "science-like" approach to magic (anyone can learn it though it requires knowledge and there's a chance of blowing it) vs. a spiritual approach to magic (a "talent" that you either have or don't have, and can then develop further if desired). Each type of magic should have certain things it can/can't accomplish.

 

[Piratecat]

Speaking only for myself, I know that I would have missed out of some wonderful city-based gameplay in my campaign if I had instituted the Heroic Potential rule.

I think it's fine if you run a campaign where the heroes fight mostly monsters and/or don't top mid-levels, but I think this rule will really stifle you when the PCs hit higher levels and you want them to have human foes who are both wily political foes and reasonable combat challenges. I sympathize with the feel you're trying to achieve, but I suspect you'll regret it later on - or, worse, be forced to change things mid-campaign.

 

[Aaron L]

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).

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.

OK, I think we're passing each others points by, here, and we're not really far from each other at all. I'm not saying that every merchant out there should be an 8th level Rogue, or that every lord of every manner out there should be a 10th level Fighter. Thats what NPC classes are for. And I'm guessing that you arent saying to take the Eberron approach that says the PCs are going to be among the dozen or so PC classed individuals and the highest level people in the world, either.


I like NPC classes, and I like leveled NPCs. I want the town smith to be a 7th level expert. He knows what he's doing and he's good at his job. I dont want everyone in the world but the PCs to be an incompetent boob. I want the local lord to be a 10th level Aristocrat who is busy running his domain and has to hire the PCs because they are tougher because theyve trained hard and have the elite skills needed to go adventuring, not because theyre notjubs (well, usually, anyway! ), but not because theyre fated to slay the ogre, either.
Now, the king, he might be an 8th level Fighter/10th level Aristocrat, and his Court Mage an 18th level Wizard, but thats the King and his Court, after all!

(I like to go a step beyond, myself, and have the Great Emperor of the East be a 22nd level Sorcerer/8th level Aristocrat and such, but I understand everyone doesn like to go that far.)

So, I guess I see the difference between most NPCs and adventurers as motivation. Between NPC and PC adventurers, the only difference I see is that the players control the PCs. I like my PCs as the Indiana Jonses and Batmans of the world, and not the Harry Potters (usually, mind you.) They are in the positions they are in because they have the daring and drive and training to go out and slay monsters and save damsels. Not because they are fated to be heroes. Usually. A fated champion every now and then isnt bad at all. But all the time...

Not to say that I dont think you should tailor the game to the PCs to a large extant. This is for fun, after all. I just hate it when the PCs are always the most important people in the world, fated to overcome all challenges they meet and so fourth. (I've been in too many games set up like that.)

So, what I'm saying is that I think were both on the same page, actually I like to use the NPC classes as much as I can! Most NPCs are commoners and experts. Most spellcasters are Adepts. Most soldiers are Warriors. But I like to give them levels, too. That farmer in his 50s you meet in the tavern could easily be a 9th level Commoner, and have stories to tell you about the blizzard that destroyed his farm and made him have to rebuild, about the orc invasion he fought against as a conscript, and about the lean years of drought where he had to scrape by and barely kept his family alive. Same with everyone, they all have levels. I like to assume just about every NPC is fairly good at what they do and has some levels under thier belt. But PC classes arent all that extremely uncommon that they are automatically legendary. PCs are special people; in their motivation. But so is anyone else with the wherewithal to take levels in a PC class. I think we're both after the exact same thing, I just misread your intent.

Sorry 'bout misunderstanding

 

[gizmo33]

Why not just make magic users and magic items rare in the campaign? What benefits are there to adding rules for the players? No one IMC has ever asked why someone would choose to be a Commoner, or why anyone in their right mind would choose to become a 2nd level Commoner.

I guess from a flavor perspective, you could create a "human" and "human+" race. Human+s could be susceptible to certain spells and diseases and such, as well as having spell-casting capability.

 

[pawsplay]

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.

Do you think every person is born with the potential to rage? Or that a paladin's divine grace can be earned by anyone? That with the right training, anyone could dodge fireballs, backflip over drow, and stab hill giants in their femoral artery? Is there such a thing as "druidic talent," or can anyone with the conviction to do so learn to pass without trace and turn into a dire ape?

 

[ValhallaGH]

Do you think every person is born with the potential to rage? Or that a paladin's divine grace can be earned by anyone? That with the right training, anyone could dodge fireballs, backflip over drow, and stab hill giants in their femoral artery? Is there such a thing as "druidic talent," or can anyone with the conviction to do so learn to pass without trace and turn into a dire ape?

I think that this brings up a good point.

The heroes are special. Each and every one of them. That's all the innate magical talent they should need.

BAM!

Have PC levels?
Yes. You have innate magical talent. You may never use it but it's there.
No. You better have been training for your entire life to overcome your lack of magical talent, otherwise it's already too late.

 

[kaomera]

Why not just make magic users and magic items rare in the campaign? What benefits are there to adding rules for the players?

Well, for one thing, the reason I posted this idea (and the reason I didn't put it up in House Rules) is that I'm not 100% sure I do want to add a house-rule for this (I think I'm currently leaning against). The reason I would want to make it an actual house-rule would be to provide my players with more structure in terms of what exactly they are and are not allowed to do. Unfortunately, anything I make "at GM's approval" ends up being biased twords those among my players who are better at coming up with stuff I think is cool and/or explaining to me why they think their idea is cool. My players are fun to DM for, but some of them will, given the chance, come up with characters that make absolutely no sense to me. If the character works out, that's fine; I don't have to play the character, so it doesn't really no reason I need to be super-excited by the concept and/or build. It does make it very hard for me to "shine the spotlight" on that character, however, and if the character does not perform well things get even worse...

No one IMC has ever asked why someone would choose to be a Commoner, or why anyone in their right mind would choose to become a 2nd level Commoner.

IMC, it has been brought up. More aggravating to me was the time that one of my players convinced over half the party to "dip" rather unexpectedly and against several character concepts (at least as stated to me). I swayed several players away from the idea (ironically including the guy who had started the idea), but the Fighter (Human) and Rogue (1/2 Elf) each picked up a level of Cleric so they could use wands and such, and the Druid (Elf) picked up a level of Wizard for the same reason. It wasn't against the rules, and it wasn't broken (in fact it proved pretty useless), but it was annoying. Much, much worse was the Paladin of Freedom (1/2 Orc) picking up a level of Barbarian. I told him that he wouldn't be able to take another level of PoF, and I made him give me a reply ("Sure, whatever!"), and I probably should have refused to let him do it anyway. I'm 90% sure that he wasn't paying any real attention to what I was saying and just gave me a response to shut me up, he certainly seemed genuinely surprised when he found out (several sessions later) he couldn't ever get that 8th level of PoF... It pretty much ruined the character for him, I offered to let him drop the level of Barbarian (losing a level in the process), but he felt I was unfairly punishing him because the guy who had come up with the idea had "screwed him". It's really easy for me to say that this was the player's fault, and it's fairly easy to see this as "self-correcting", but it still ruined several sessions worth of fun for me, and I don't like that (and sometimes I doubt the ability of some of my players to learn from their mistakes).

Eh, sorry 'bout the rant there...

Do you think every person is born with the potential to rage? Or that a paladin's divine grace can be earned by anyone? That with the right training, anyone could dodge fireballs, backflip over drow, and stab hill giants in their femoral artery? Is there such a thing as "druidic talent," or can anyone with the conviction to do so learn to pass without trace and turn into a dire ape?

I think that by 3.x RAW, yes, this is the case. By 3.x RAW you don't even really need any training, just the desire of an outside influence (the player) that you develop in that direction (gain a level in that class). And I don't think it makes any sense. If I could I'd love to make a nice big "Make Reasonable Characters" a house-rule, except that there's no viable standard by which to judge if a character is reasonable or not. I make unreasonable characters (as NPCs and PCs too when I'm not DMing), I don't think I can very well expect my players not to, but I can set up rules (or at least guidelines) that limit the kinds of things that are likely to really bug me.

 

[Particle_Man]

Well, let's turn this around.

You don't like "dips" into levels. Is it that any multi-class is ok, so long as it is more than a dip? If some multi-classes are not ok, which ones are not ok? You might be able to simply say something like "Only the following multi-classes exist in my world..." to your players.

 

[solkan_uk]

As a note, generally I take 1 of 2 options when I GM, the PC's are either part of an elite 10% (or similar percentage) of elite people. There are others like them on the planet, but most people just don't have the capability for PC classes.

The other option is everyone has the capability and its a matter of experience. Generally PC classes are generated via either Training (which may cost significant money) or danger (when your farm is overrun by orcs and you have to sneak away to escape you can justify getting rogue levels etc).
Transferring this idea to PC's you can switch class if you either spend money and time in training (averaging 1000gp & 3 months training, dependant on levels and ability of the trainer) or utilising the classes strengths before being in the class - so a wizard who fights off an equivalent CR creature with strength of arms alone gain Fighter levels, a Fighter who sneaks into a fortress can gain rogue levels and a character who can overcome an obstacle by magical might alone (spellcasting classes work out hardest and usually need some magical items etc to allow magic ability) can gain levels in mage... They don't have to, but gain the option.