|
Post by Lord Inar on Jul 17, 2012 12:23:55 GMT -5
i took me a couple of minutes but i think i figured out your Generalist and Generalist skill concept. if i'm correct, you and i had very different ideas about the 'general skills'. i hope the previous paragraph gives an adequate illustration of what i had in mind. Yes, to me, skills are simply "not spells." If you are a Hero and buy one level of Generalist, you can purchase up to two spells at Mage price. If you are a Mage and buy one level of Generalist, you can purchase up to two skills at Hero price. I don't make any further distinction than that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2012 12:49:18 GMT -5
i think i understand but i can't see any advantage to that over simply saying 'heroes purchase spells at 20 XP and skills at 10 XP. a mage purchases spells at 10 XP and skills at 20 XP'
|
|
|
Post by Lord Inar on Jul 17, 2012 13:02:44 GMT -5
Roughly 30 points for 2 skills/spells vs. 40 normally, that's all. Also the generalist would have more RP opportunities (a Mage who learns a skill is still a Mage, while a Generalist is more likely to have broader "world" knowledge)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2012 13:10:27 GMT -5
all you've done is changed the 10/20 equation to 10/15...why not just say 10/15? am i missing something?
|
|
|
Post by Lord Inar on Jul 17, 2012 13:24:40 GMT -5
Not really.
An easy way to get the same thing is to say the first "cross-class" skill or spell costs double and from then on they cost 1.5 times.
It allows you do things like have races that can take Generalist cheaper, or start of with it (e.g. elves) or have races that can't take it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2012 13:38:38 GMT -5
OH! ok. i didn't realize the Generalist 'skill' was a one time purchase. i thought it was something you had to 'buy' each time you 'purchased' outside of your class...but i'm still not a fan :/ it still seems like your just changing the 10/20 formula to a 10/15 formula.
i don't see an advantage regarding races either. you can simply say 'elves start with skills x,y, and z. after creation, they purchase skills according to their class.'
|
|
|
Post by klingor on Aug 27, 2012 14:17:58 GMT -5
Hi, The way I like to think of it is this:- Before a player's character became an adventurer, he was a child, then an adolescent, then finally an adventurer. During each of these stages, he would be exposed to different experiences and different skills depending on what location and environment his player chose for him. When he grew to maturity ie started adventuring, he would first of all have an appropriate set of learned skills from that upbringing, but secondly have a propensity to learn similar skills more easily - if you were brought up in the mountains, Climbing would be second nature to you, and learning Acrobat would then be easier as you possessed physical self-awareness and coordination. Similarly with weapon skills or other physically based skills. Learning a new language, however, would be much more challenging. Likewise, a character raised from childhood in an area where the study and use of magic or language was commonplace would develop an affinity for those particular areas, but at the expense of acquiring different skillsets so easily eg weapon skills. In game terms, it would mean that the cost in XP to acquire a skill would differ from character to character, even though that level of skill would be the same. It would be the player's choice of that particular character's upbringing that determines the relative ease/difficulty of him acquiring new talents. The point would be that different characters from different backgrounds would have different sets of XP costs to acquire a level in particular skills. A Weapon skill might cost 10 XP to a pure warrior, but a language skill or a spell cost 20 XP A spell might cost 10 XP to someone from a magical/scholarly upbringing, but physical skills eg Climbing, Swimming, Acrobat cost 20 XP and weapon skills cost even more at 30 XP a pop. Players can then pic'n'mix from the relative costs of skillsets for their characters, but the bottom line would be that every up-side has a down-side. For every character class that the GM defines, although the skills/abilities/talents/spells available are the same for every class, the cost varies according to the character's class. A character should never be given special abilities by being a member of a particular class, merely allowed to acquire a generally-available ability at a lesser cost, at the price of paying a higher cost for other abilities. Cheers, Colin PS Sorry if this was a bit turgid and dense to read through, but I don't like the idea of having different classes for the sake of having different classes a la D&D - I prefer a common body of knowledge available to all, then allowing a difference in cost to acquire different portions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2012 14:29:34 GMT -5
klingor, i'm not sure if you were replying to me or Lord Inar. the words of your PS statement are in agreement with my proposal and my own sentiments. i wonder if we have a misunderstanding...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2012 16:25:30 GMT -5
my thoughts and feelings on this subject have evolved a lot. my intention has always been that anyone can learn any skill. i did not intend to 'force' a class on anyone but it does seem that way as it was worded. my last proposal was simply a suggested re-wording of the rules to help newcomers (from a mostly class-based world of rpg) get a grip on things. it is not for my own personal benefit since i understand the differences between 'Mage' and 'Other' now. here is a revised version of my last proposal (revised for clarity).
my utmost desire is to replace the 'Mage/magic user' wording in the paragraphs about magic with 'characters'. it was this 'mage/magic user' wording that had be really confused in the beginning. i thought 'magic user' was a left-over term from previous rule-versions that really meant 'Mage' because in some places 'Mage' was used instead of 'magic user'. the different wordings in different parts of the rules seemed contradictory to me. i wasn't sure if anyone besides a 'Mage' could use spells.
...and here are the notes from that last proposal...
|
|