Runelords style endowments; how would you handle them?

[ergeheilalt]

According to the fourth and final runelord's book, a man with the metabolism of 5 men could run 25 miles per hour IIRC. Now as for balancing, I would require that the Runelord in question make a fortitude save every time a physical attribute was lost or suffer a horrible side effect (loss of the all endowments) I'd say DC: 25 + 5 per person vectored.

By vectored, in the books - if Bobby the Runelord got branded with a rune of strength, he could go off adventuring. Sometime later, he comes up with a buncha cash - sends it home and has an endowment vectored. So, the old vector is given the strength of another dedicate and transfers the ability to Bobby.

If a mental stat (glamor, wit or will (revealed in the final book)) is lost, the runelord is forced to make a will save or go temporarily (maybe permanently) insane.

As for "sensory" skills (voice, hearing, sight, scent), if the runelord looses one of those he would make a fort save again or loose the ability temporarily.

While, the side effects are not seen in the books, I think the ones I have listed might be a good start on balancing this mechanic.

Erge

 

[Negative Zero]

i asked a similar question here. the general consensus seemes to be that it's too powerful and unbalancing for DnD. that said, this is how i would attempt it:

the application of runes and resultant transfer of power should only be administered by a capable practitioner. whether someone becomes a practitioner via a feat, or series of feats, i'm not sure, but i feel it should require a (new) skill use in order to mimic the effec in the books. a more highly skilled practitioner is able to drain more of an attribute ... without killing the dedicate.

a DC should be set, for the amount of an attribute taken ... or more specifically, for a percentage of the attribute. at the same time, a concentration check should probably be made to ensure that too much isn't taken. modified of course, for higher percentages.

careful attention should be paid to the materials needed and the cost of them (exorbitant to say the least). in addition, this should be something carefully guarded by the nobility. also, care of the dedicates cannot be overlooked. there are many downsides to taking endowments, and all should be enforced.

in my opinion, the downsides are so severe, that i doubt that there would be many random adventurers with endowments. the care for dedicates alone is staggering. not to mention the danger.

it's a difficult system to work out, but if you do manage to, please let me know.

~NegZ

 

[Glyfair]

If I were going to use the concept in a D&D game, I would set it up so there were major diminishing returns. Even then, it would be a powerful ability & I would have steep requirements to even do so.

I think I would start with each stat increase needing a number transferred equal to the amount of increase. For example, increasing strength by 1 would require an ability point endowed. To increase strength by another point would cost 2 points (for a total of 3).

It would look like this:

Increase/Cost
+1/1 pt.
+2/3 pts.
+3/6 pts.
+4/10 pts.
+5/15 pts.
+6/21 pts.

Indeed, looking at it now, I would probably make it an even steeper climb.

 

[Negative Zero]

i agree with Glyfair. an alternate sysem would value the diminishing returns based on the number of endowments already taken as opposed to the amount taken from the dedicate ... or even both.

~NegZ