Necropus speculation

[hcobb]

When we finally see the Necropus in an adventure she will be revealed as:

• An IQ 19 Octopus with a fascinating backstory of where she got the 130 million XPs.
• The IQ 19 Octopus, but the writer didn't do the math.
• A Halfling using 10 ST boosting wishes and a shapeshift.
• An IQ 10 Octopus using a nifty animate skeleton item.
• An IQ 10 Octopus acting as a front for the real necromancers.
• An illusion of an Octopus cast by the real necromancer.
• Something else?

[Skarg]

I'm hoping for:

* Explanation of how non-humans have at least slightly different mechanics for using XP to adjust their attributes, rather than basing everything on the same human-oriented experience table.

The new rules have clear issues with all the characters who don't start at 32 points and who don't max out about 40 points, as well as having information gaps and causing logical inconsistencies for NPCs, gargoyles, dragons, etc.

It seems to me the needed thing is to make corrections, not to apply the letter of the rules and suffer the weird consequences.

[hcobb]

How to get 130 million XP:

Have a complete gaming session each weeknight where you earn 100 XPs.

Meet 250 times a year for 25k XPs a year.

In your day job start construction of Stonehenge and you'll have the 130 million XPs now.

[larsdangly]

I very much like how the new XP rules work for humans, but agree the broader implications for other beings either hasn't been thought through or hasn't been explained. A related issue is the difference between PC's and NPCs from exotic races (e.g., reptile men) - it just isn't clear why it exists or how PC's are supposed to evolve to be like their NPC counterparts.

[hcobb]

I have a house rule that works for this case:

The 54 point Octopus is then only 108,000 XPs over a 45 point Octopus. If we add 500 XPs for at least one spell and say 38 mana the total is 116,100 XPs which is only 194 years at 600 XPs per year. Round up to an even two centuries with a handful of additional high level spells.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by hcobb

I have a house rule that works for this case:

The 54 point Octopus is then only 108,000 XPs over a 45 point Octopus. If we add 500 XPs for at least one spell and say 38 mana the total is 116,100 XPs which is only 194 years at 600 XPs per year. Round up to an even two centuries with a handful of additional high level spells.

It seems to me that the issue, however, is that some races have different proportions of ST to DX to IQ, so using a table that only takes into account attribute total is weirdly charging astronomical XP to increase any attribute based on how amazing a human would be if they had developed super-human abilities. But superhuman ST (for example) is just average for an octopus, giant, reptile man or gargoyle, so unless a race is supposed to have a hard time developing other attributes (e.g. giants, gargoyles), the high-for-humans-but-normal-for-other-races attribute totals shouldn't be making them pay many times more XP to develop themselves.

It seems to me that non-human races with non-32-point-starting-PC's and non-base-8 attributes and/or maximum attributes should have adjustments to the XP needed to improve their attributes, proportional to those values.

[hcobb]

But it ought to be hard for a giant or gargoyle to increase IQ, because otherwise IQ 10 would be common for both.

On the other end of things, what's the max ST for Halfings and how do you make it difficult to get there?

Finally, are Dragons all on the exact same growth schedule of fixed attributes for a given age?

[larsdangly]

There is a good system to be crafted somewhere in there; it shouldn't be hard to engineer something that respects the rights of normal giants to be gigantic, and allows for increases of 8-10 stat points over a normal adventuring life. A simple rule would be to read the XP table as being costs for ADDING stat points equal to the listed thresholds - 32, so everyone is getting better at basically the same rate. And then you sometimes impose some racial maxima (like IQ for ogres and giants). The end result might be unfair to the poor humans (boo hoo!), but life isn't fair.

[hcobb]

The way I house rule it is that giants and dragons simply add ST as they grow up.

[RobW]

What if attribute costs were not based on total sum of attributes, but the current attribute value, and whether that attribute is favored (1/2 XP cost), disfavored (double XP cost) or neutral for that species/individual? So for example, reptilemen could gain ST easily but IQ slowly; hobbits gain DX easily but ST slowly, etc.

To illustrate the idea, on the current rules, the following 40pt PCs cost more or less the same (8300XP for humans, 8500XP for hobbits)
ST14 DX14 IQ12 human -- balanced human
ST10 DX18 IQ12 human -- superhuman DX human
ST10 DX18 IQ12 halfling -- quick hobbit
ST14 DX14 IQ12 halfling -- muscle hobbit

Under the proposed system, a 10/18/12 human costs more XP than a "balanced" 14/14/12 human (the DX is 10 points rather than 6 above baseline). Because hobbits get DX at 1/2 cost and ST at 2x, a hobbit with high DX is cheaper than one with high ST, and cheaper than a human with the same high DX.

The XP table on p45 would have to be changed to reflect attribute difference from a baseline. Haven't thought that through yet.