Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bendris Noulg" data-source="post: 1541984" data-attributes="member: 6398">Nah, you didn't.  Sometimes my bluntness comes across that way, which, of course, is not my intent either. (And I will admit that, sometimes, my bluntness causes people to reply in ways that do piss me off, but that's another topic entirely... <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid    :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" /> ) Might I suggest Power Components.  My own take is along the lines of: -Magic Item requires the finger bone of a CR5 monster.-PC finds and slays monster, acquiring the finger bone.-Finger bone absorbs part or all of the XP cost, equivelant to a CR5 creature.-Balance Tip: Don't have the component have a value that exceed the XP cost. This doesn't often eliminate the XP cost, but it can be used to reduce it and it provides plenty of adventuring and RP hooks.  By scaling the value of the component to the CR of the creature, you ensure that the boon is equivelant to the risk involved in obtaining it. Don't forget that sometimes the "Adventure CR" is more suitable.  For instance, if you need the pollen from a particularly rare flower (CR0, heh) but reaching the flower requires getting past or defeating a CR20 Dragon, than the flower's pollen should be considered a CR20 Power Component. My own system (for Wizards) is 12 years - (PC's Int modifier + tutor's Cha modifier).  Sorcerers cut that in half. Now this is the opposite to my own, being that it is, in my opinion, far too long.  For instance, having BAB and good Fort already, all the level of Fighter would bring is a Feat.  Generally, I have (non-Item Creation/Metamagic) Feats going at 2 Weeks + 1 Week per Prereq Feat + 1 Week per Skill requirement (not Ranks, just individual Skills).  Having a Tutor can reduce this (-1 Week x Charisma modifier).  And, of course, my times assume 4 Hours per day.  Learning on the road (2 Hours per day) or focusing on this exclusively during down-time (8 hours per day) can effect the time involved.  And, of course, other factors may apply, but those are usually a case-by-case basis. Which, to a degree, is the sort of "reality" I'm attempting to add to the situation.  However, this isn't always possible.  For instance, you're going to gain the Level of Manager by managing.  On the other hand, a Barbarian isn't gaining a Level of Wizard by casting spells.  Thus, it becomes a balancing act: If the PC can attempt to do something prior to Level gain, then he's invited to do so, but if he can't, he should be provided some degree of opportunity to pursue it after gaining a Level.  The quest for plausibility is to find suitable means of opportunity that make sense within the context of the role-playing environment; it shouldn't form the basis of un-movable roadblocks that a PC can never hope to overcome, although it may cause a delay (measured in game time and, sometimes, Character Levels). Agreed.  However, when the power gamer isn't an issue (i.e., I don't have any in my group), but it penalizes someone for making sensible choices (e.g., taking a Level in Ranger after a long wilderness trek), then it's true worth needs to be re-evaluated.  And, having evaluated it, I've found it more of a deterant to reasonable choices than anything else. Now, see, you've done something similar.  Granted, it's not how I would have done it, but is that such a big deal?  What works at one table isn't going to automatically work at another table.  If that wasn't the case, then the Core Rules would work right for everyone and no one would need house rules. Now this, this isn't so important to me.  At the same time, I've run groups with 3 PCs where everyone was a Fighter.  I've run a game we called the "Mage's Group", consisting of 2 Wizards and a Bard.  I've played in a game called "Rogue's Group" where the PCs were a Rogue, a Rogue/Fighter, and a Bard/Fighter. I guess I see classes as a means of defining abilities, with Class Level scaling those abilities, and Character Level scaling how many abilities are available.  None of this, however, defines a character's "role" within a group; Rather, the specific choices themselves, including how those abilities are used, do that.  For instance, someone with high Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, and Sense Motive isn't necessarily a diplomat and a con-artist, he's just good at those Skills.  How he's played determines if he's one, the other, or possibly both. Then you are mis-using the Diplomacy Skill.  Diplomacy is intended to shift NPC attitudes, not ensure successful negotiating.  Also, the skill itself does not take the individual prejudices and preferences of the NPC into account; for instance, a high ranking member of a Mage's Guild may not have any respect for the UR/R and is only willing to negotiate with the Wizard (as he sees the Wizard as the only PC worth respecting). There's a thread on General about this.  Very informative.  I'll dig up the link later unless someone else beats me to it. At the same time, there's no reason to assume that the party will always be together.  I've found that side-treks, solo-quests, split parties, and the like, suffer from the assumption that they will always be together to synergize from one another. Oh, I agree.  But again, this mechanic is designed to be balanced with the concept of adventuring.  If your game is strictly adventure->adventure->adventure, then the mechanic is fine.  However, the more relevant non-adventure gaming becomes (i.e., social lives, raising families, owning/managing businesses and empires, etc.), the less effective the system becomes. One thing you may consider is reading the difference between Kick-in-the-Door and Deep Immersive in the DMG (loaned mine out last night, so I can't quote it specifically, but it's in the first chapter).  The closer a game is to Kick-in-the-Door, the more unbalanced my rules would be.  I admit this completely.  However, the closer to Deep Immersive a game is, the more my rules become an effective means of increasing a PCs viability outside of the dungeon without sacrificing the character's ability within it. (As a point of reference, if you view KitD and DI in the form of a gas guage, you'd find my game about half-way between "the middle" and Deep Immersion; not quite free-form, but definately balanced differently.) Actually, there is no reduction in effectiveness.  Attacks don't drop; penalties don't increase.  It does slow down advancement, which may or may not be a problem to the individual group. Also note: I do not support the idea of purchasing Feats because Feats are more closely tied to character potency.  Feats are also, to use the general description given to them, "neat ways to break the rules" (although I think a closer definition is to "change the rules in certain situations"). Well, keeping this conversation in the realm of Skill Points, which is the only thing I'd allow being purchased outside of Item Creation and casting spells, I partially agree.  That is, the Class Level mechanic, Skill Points, Max Rank, etc., are all tied to adhering to a balance meant to keep min/max and powergaming under some degree of control (that it fails, as seen on the WotC Min/Max Board, is besides the point).  However, this same mechanic gets in the way of other considerations.  Like my example earlier, how does getting a few ranks in Craft: Siege Engine adversely effect balance within an adventuring scenario?  Fact is, it doesn't.  However, it does allow the PC to perform particular actions that are more based on his "role" in the world, and it does so without increasing or decreasing his potency as an adventuring PC, which, to me, is the ideal result. A bit, yes, so allow me to clarify my own to a degree.  See, "back in the day", Non-Weapon Proficiencies had a number of drawbacks.  First, the number PCs got was attrociously low.  Second, the method of improving a NWP was horrid (sacrifice one of your precious NWP slots for a meager +1).  As such, I had devised a means of permitting gains (bonus NWPs, improving NPWs) within the context of the game (i.e., derived from in-game events).  Even if the player just says, "I'm practicing this 2 hours every evening", it was enough (i.e., so long as I knew when you where doing it, I knew what your PC was doing if something happened during that time).  After a suitable amount of time (varied by goal), I would inform the player that his PC gains whatever would be suitable. d20, by far, does a much better job with Skills then 1E or 2E ever did.  However, the safe-guards against over-zealous power-boosting of PCs and monsters, especially the low number of Skill Points gained by most Classes followed by the high price of Cross-Class Skills, cuts into other elements of the game that the game's default balance doesn't presume to be occuring.  This is not to say that the game prevents these elements from being in place, it's just that for the Core Rules to presume both opens the game up to abuse by those that only focus on one (regardless of which one that happens to be).  This was, by and far, the biggest problem with 2E's Kits; RP-based hindrances were only suitable hindrances if the hindrance actually effected gameplay.  If it didn't, you ended up with an over-powered PC. By that standard, I know what will work in my group, in a game GM'd by me, with the game focused on both of these elements.  I also know that these same rules, adopted by a group that would only use it to increase character power, would result in a sudden power gain that would effect balance (whether that is good or bad would be based on the GM's ability to account for it in his scenario/encounter design).  So, all I can really do is indicate what I do or suggest what I would do in a given situation; it's for the individual GM to determine if my post is one that would work well or not with his group, not comparisons to the Core Game itself.</blockquote>

Verification