07-09-2018, 05:48 PM | #91 |
President and EIC
Join Date: Jul 2004
|
Re: New Skills
Starting a separate thread for Unarmed Combat.
|
07-09-2018, 06:52 PM | #92 |
President and EIC
Join Date: Jul 2004
|
Re: New Skills
I don't know. 32/2 = 16, and giving 16 spells to every starting wizard seems as though it breaks one of the big tradeoffs of Wizard.
I know! We could roll two 8-sided dice . . . No, just kidding, put away that glaive-guisarme. |
07-09-2018, 07:20 PM | #93 | |
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Alsea, OR
|
Re: New Skills
Quote:
They represent a group of tangible qualities that generate genuine loyalty, but are otherwise each too subtle for a talent. Likewise, they should benefit with any other hirelings, too. It's the difference between the master baker, beloved of the community, and the beloved master who has apprentices who will willingly risk life and limb for him. It DOES have a basis in reality... just not a straightforwardly obvious one. At 2 slots, tho', it's a bit expensive. On languages... I think a base should be IQ/5 native (if local area has only 1, then an archaic related or religious, or a jargon by profession for the extra... but prootwaddles only speak one... )... and each additional slot should be no less than 1. How much more should be a GM decision... if the GM wants polyglot supreme, set it to 5 per, if the GM has only a half dozen languages, 1 per slot, with a default of 2 per slot. If keeping the maximum atts idea, allowing extra slots of mIQ should increase the point total for XP purposes... but should be allowed to double, as an optional rule. That gives a lot of flex room. |
|
07-09-2018, 10:08 PM | #94 |
Join Date: Jul 2018
|
Re: New Skills
I have used the Followers talents, and have some sympathy for ak_aramis's position. I would not object to moving them to some later product, though, preferably one that dealt in more detail with monsters.
|
07-09-2018, 10:30 PM | #95 |
Join Date: Jul 2018
|
Re: New Skills
I agree with Steve here, but this highlights what for me is the problem with using IQ as a point pool to buy talents/spells with: a system that works quite well for wizards leaves heroes with cramped development. One spell per IQ point gives wizards a fair amount of options while also forcing choices and ensuring that not all wizards will look alike. Heroes must often spend multiple IQ points to get a talent and must build up other attributes to be eligible for some talents; as a result, certain types of specialist heroes end up all looking very alike.
|
07-09-2018, 10:57 PM | #96 |
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
|
Re: New Skills
John brings up a really good point here. I wonder if there isn't a more elegant solution to determining how much in the way of skills and spells can be learned out there somewhere...
Maybe skills use the 32/2 = 16 paradigm, but IQ remains a rigid limit to the number of SPELLS you can learn as part of that "16" number... (E.g., if my character has ST 12, DX 12, IQ 8, then he can learn up to 16 "points" of skills and spells, but since his IQ is only 8, then only 8 of those slots can be taken up with Spells (which means, if he's a Wizard, he gets 8 Spells; and if he's a Warrior he only gets 2 spells and has to raise his IQ by one to learn another one.) |
07-09-2018, 11:09 PM | #97 | ||
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: New Skills
Quote:
* Taken literally, it says you can roll 4/IQ to commandeer any same-race NPC. GM either has to allow that or defy/rewrite that. And GM needs to catch & fix that before players invest/design a character thinking they're going to be able to go around enthralling NPCs the way it says. * It's too simplistic and feels wrong the way it works, not taking anything into account but PC IQ and race. * The whole "the player runs the NPC as another NPC" thing is under-explained/under-developed - what are the limits, etc. We preferred to have NPC followers/allies still remain NPCs even if PCs were allowed to guide and move them - that was usually/mainly a representation of the PC's leadership. * Implies maybe you can't have followers without this talent, which requires Charisma, which is designed as charming, etc... * Ends up needing a bunch of "memory" points from a PC... * The Monster Followers version seems even more weird. i.e. Our PCs had piles of NPC allies & followers, but we didn't require talents for it but instead used roleplaying & GM discretion. Quote:
|
||
07-10-2018, 12:42 AM | #98 |
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Alsea, OR
|
Re: New Skills
The new followers and monster followers do need a limit... as written, it doesn't seem an unlimited... First, it requires a successful 3/IQ to 5/IQ roll for Charisma, followed by a successful 4/IQ to 6/IQ roll...
even for IQ 16, that's 212/216 (98.148%) * 986/1296 (76.080%) ... 209032/279936 (74%) - for a totally best case situation. And only 8 total allowed. And both new followers and monster followers share the limit. Add a requirement for some time for indoctrination, and it's the cult leader talent set. Perhaps it's a minor psi talent. It could use a 1d higher run... which would push the best case to just a hair under 31%. See, it's not like hirelings. These are nutty level followers. Cultists. (And cultists who may wind up with other cultists under them...) |
07-10-2018, 12:50 AM | #99 |
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Coquitlam B.C.
|
New Followers / Monster Followers.
Hi all,
These talents (New Followers, Monster Followers i and ii) never really worked until I wrote a two page essay giving more rules for them. I wouldn't mind if these talents went away, perhaps to be expanded with more rules in some later supplement. Warm regards, Rick. Last edited by Rick_Smith; 07-11-2018 at 06:58 AM. |
07-10-2018, 02:39 AM | #100 | ||
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Coquitlam B.C.
|
Relative utility of talents to spells.
Quote:
Quote:
Guy, congrats on the new job! Best of luck. Re: half points. You could say that the memory IQ is equal to 2 x IQ. But that is a funny rule people have to remember. Some talents that cost 1/2 a memory (mIQ) seems the lesser sin to me. Further, you would also have to double the cost of all spells for reasons discussed below. But the problem with saying that mIQ = 2xIQ (or your idea that mIQ = [ST + DX + IQ]/2 ), is that both of these double the memory for EVERYTHING. Spells AND talents. We DO NOT need to double the space for spells, as Steve points out above. The wizards get a decent amount of spells because every single spell costs one memory. An IQ 12 wizard can have 12+ spells (3 Hex Fire INCLUDES 1 Hex Fire). Whereas, an IQ 12 hero might get only 5 or 6 talents because most of the useful talents cost 2 or more memory. Now if I understand what you were saying, UC i thru UC v would all fit into one slot. Thief and Master Thief would fit into one slot. The price to buy expansive talents is 2 or 3 times what it takes to buy a spell (we want wizards to rock compared to heroes after all). This helps but... This helps ONLY if you are buying chains of talents. But if you want to get Boating, Seamanship, Climbing, Thief, Running, etc. (My Thief / Pirate duel class character discussed above), then this idea does not help because the variety of talents defeats you. Look at my Caravan Master / Adventurer character. Instead of needing 21 mIQ, he would just need 20 mIQ (presumably Recognize Value and Assess Value would both fit in one slot). Your idea, Guy, does not really help. *** The fundamental problem is that talents cost too much relative to spells. With spells, a character can get a decent number when mIQ = IQ. With talents, some pretty basic characters are just impossible. This is why I keep coming back to my point that talents are over priced. Warm regards, Rick. |
||
|
|