{kjd-sys} Races, classes, and advancement

On Mar 17, 6:09 am, Rast <ra....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 05:59:27 -0000,
>
> Rick Pikul (rwpi...@sympatico.ca) wrote:
> > On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 16:46:53 -0500, Erol K. Bayburt wrote:
>
> > > I don't want to get rid of ability score boosts entirely, mostly
> > > because I want to see them used to boost a character's low scores (as
> > > inhttp://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0058.html). The problem is one
> > > of putting limits on using them to boost already-high scores without
> > > being too ham-fisted about it.
>
> > Well, a thought might be to have the boosting item not boost the score
> > directly, but boost it by a number of point-buy points.
>
> I've always thought this is how levelup stat increases should work.
>

You'd have to give them more frequently to keep up to the same level.
1 every level I think would work out o.k. I've thought about doing
that for both level increases and items.

It would be a major pain for temporary buffs though, I wouldn't want
to use it for Bull's strength etc.

- Justisaur
 >> Stay informed about: {kjd-sys} Races, classes, and advancement 

On Mar 17, 1:25 pm, Keith Davies <keith.dav... DeleteThis @kjdavies.org> wrote:
> Erol K Bayburt <Ero... DeleteThis @comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I don't want to get rid of ability score boosts entirely, mostly
> > because I want to see them used to boost a character's low scores (as
> > inhttp://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0058.html). The problem is one
> > of putting limits on using them to boost already-high scores without
> > being too ham-fisted about it.
>
> It came to me this morning -- one way to handle this exact situation is
> to have, instead of a flat bonus, a replacement? Your base score gets
> replaced with that of the item, while worn. Cost might be equal to
> modifer squared * 4000, so:
>
> Str 12 item: 4k
> Str 14 item: 16k
> Str 16 item: 36k
> Str 18 item: 64k
> Str 20 item: 100k

continued:
Str 22 item: 144k
Str 24 item: 196k

> If you're already strong, these items would have no effect. Someone
> weaker would get some benefit, but these items are presumably there for
> someone who doesn't *need* the scores.

LOL. I believe I've been harping on this for about the last 6 months,
to much ridicule. It's also what 1 & 2e did.

> Hrm. This suggests they may be too expensive.

That does seem exceptionally expensive. AD&D 18:00 str was pretty
cheap in the ogre str. Ability scores are far more valuable in 3.x
than they were in AD&D

Just for some values from 1e:

18:00 (+3 to hit +6 damage)- 15k
19-24 - 2,500

Um. O.k. that's not very useful. And It's insane. No one would ever
make the gauntlets of ogre power. Well other than the fact ogres are
easier to harvest than giants. Sheesh, every time I crack the 1e dmg
I find something to go WFT over.

> They also don't allow
> for anything lower than 12. Maybe make it 'modifier+3 squared*1k?'

> Str 8 item: 1k
> Str 10 item: 9k
> Str 12 item: 16k
> Str 14 item: 25k
> Str 16 item: 36k
> Str 18 item: 49k
> Str 20 item: 64k
> Str 22 item: 81k
> Str 24 item: 100k
>
> That doesn't strike me as being too disgusting, considering I expect to
> dump enhancement bonuses. They are more expensive than RAW would be
> (Cha 18 + cockring +6 Cha = Cha 24, for 36k), but I think they put the
> emphasis where I'd want it to be. Especially if level-based bumps
> happen *after* this. You could still get to Int 29, but without racial
> bonuses it might cost 100k + five bumps.

That looks pretty good. I don't like the formula from an elegance
standpoint but the numbers look good.

what if you just took the first one and made it 2k instead of 4k

Str 12 item: 2k
Str 14 item: 4k
Str 16 item: 16k
Str 18 item: 36k
Str 20 item: 50k
Str 22 item: 72k
Str 24 item: 98k

That seems fairly reasonable to me, although pretty cheap to overcome
a a really bad score. I can see a bunch of people getting 12 Cha or
Wis items for 2k, or wizards getting 12 str items to overcome their
weak str, or con items. One could just limit it to 18-24

The next question is what do bull's strength etc. grant? 14? 16? or
do they just stay at +4? They are at the 16k equivilent, as that's
what a +4 item currently costs. So they'd be 16 on the chart I just
made, 14 on your first chart, or 12 on your 2nd chart. That tells me
your 2nd chart is too expensive at the low end... And that the chart
I just made +2 which is the current lowest would be equal to 14, so
that should be the lowest, which works out o.k...

- Justisaur
 >> Stay informed about: {kjd-sys} Races, classes, and advancement 

On Mar 17, 1:10 pm, Keith Davies <keith.dav....DeleteThis@kjdavies.org> wrote:
> Hadsil <forum....DeleteThis@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > DAD - dual ability dependent. That works fine. More than that the
> > character is stretched too thin. Personal mileage bias - CON is
> > always important because hit points are too important as is the nature
> > of the game. A DAD class not involving CON becomes a MAD class in my
> > eye, but I don't hold it against the class and will regard it as a DAD
> > class for discussion. I like having a 14 CON in my characters. If I
> > can get that 14 CON in a DAD non-CON class I'm playing, great, but if
> > not then it's because it's not a dedicated warrior.
>
> If at all possible, I'd like to find a way to reduce the dependency on
> Con. Keep it for the combat types, but wizards shouldn't *need* (or at
> least, shouldn't 'need') high Con.
>
> Actually, I wonder if they really do. The times I've played a wizard
> I've usually avoided death by not being where it's going to happen --
> you don't need lots of hit points if you don't stand where you're going
> to get nailed. Of course, if you *do* get nailed, that means you were
> standing in the wrong place... which is fine by me.
>

AD&D they were limited to +2 hp per level from Con.

> I think this is more a perception issue than a real problem.

I like the idea of Con in HP at 1st level, then nothing. If your con
goes up you get a HP. It could easily substitute for 4e's extra 2 HD
at 1st level. I haven't tried it though, so no idea. I don't really
like the idea of going off of the score instead of bonus, but that's
just from a sense of elegance again.

- Justisaur
 >> Stay informed about: {kjd-sys} Races, classes, and advancement 

Erol K. Bayburt wrote:

> I'm not bothered if a character can manage to get a 20 or 22. What
> bothers me are when scores get significantly above that: E.g. when a
> CHA 20 sorcerer picks up a +6 cockring of charsima and goes to CHA 26

I'm sure that *that* item only improves charisma in *certain circumstances*.



And what do you do if your players want to commission a +6CHA item? Or make
it themselves?

Personally, I have no problem with it. Bring it on. It's fun. This is a
game. It's supposed to be fun. All is working as it should. Relax.
Enjoy it. It's funny. And fun. What more do you want? A realistic
simulation of the world? Sorry, I already have one of those, and THAT has
some depressing aspects. This is a distraction, a diversion.
Verisimilitude is maintained when magic makes heroes into superheroes.
Moreso, in my mind, when it's magic than using your +1 every 4th level to
get to 26 - which is also possible, e.g., INT18, +2 for sun elf (FR), +2
for 3rd-level elf paragon (Unearthed Arcana), 16th level = INT26 (our
party's wizard is on his way...)
 >> Stay informed about: {kjd-sys} Races, classes, and advancement 

On Mar 17, 4:10 pm, Keith Davies <keith.dav... RemoveThis @kjdavies.org> wrote:

>
> If at all possible, I'd like to find a way to reduce the dependency on
> Con.  Keep it for the combat types, but wizards shouldn't *need* (or at
> least, shouldn't 'need') high Con.
>
> Actually, I wonder if they really do.  The times I've played a wizard
> I've usually avoided death by not being where it's going to happen --
> you don't need lots of hit points if you don't stand where you're going
> to get nailed.  Of course, if you *do* get nailed, that means you were
> standing in the wrong place... which is fine by me.
>
> I think this is more a perception issue than a real problem.
>
> Keith
> --

In actual game play I have found spellcasters get into melee whether
they want to or not. Spellcasters have means to avoid the situation,
but it's not an unlimited supply of resources to do it. In addition,
spellcasters are vulnerable to direct damage spells. A rogue and monk
evade Fireball. The dedicated warriors grin and bear it. Wizards and
sorcerers fry up, even saving for half. There are defenses against
them as well but also not an unlimited resource.

They're only getting d4 hit points so they are vulnerable anyway, but
one more round conscious for a bit more hit points because of CON is
one more round to defeat the enemy, become resistant/immune to the
attack, or run away.

Of course, actual game play also doesn't have it so morbid for arcane
casters as I'm making it out to be. A lot of times the big lug
dedicated warriors do take the heat off them well enough.

Gerald Katz
 >> Stay informed about: {kjd-sys} Races, classes, and advancement 

On Mar 17, 4:12 pm, Keith Davies <keith.dav....TakeThisOut@kjdavies.org> wrote:

> Two 18s do indeed go a long way.
>
> 27-25-23 means you can have one 18 without a penalty (if you're going
> random; if you're picking your scores you will have a penalty; the extra
> control over this has a small cost).  Having two, in a DAD system, means
> you can get a *lot* of joy.  Paying for the privilege with at least -2
> worth of penalties (one 7 or two 9s) doesn't offend me at all -- and I
> speak as a player here, not as a DM.
>
> Keith
>



I've had my my fun playing low scores.

1) Cleric with 8 Dex. I was always going last in initiative. At
first it was annoying, but I learned the value of it. Already knowing
what everyone else did in the round allowed me an easier time to
decide what spell to case or if I even had to cast at all. Funnest
moment: After everyone roled initiative, the DM called out numbers to
get palying order. "Who has over 20? ... Over 15? ... Over 10? ...
Over 5? Ok, let's start." I interrupt. "You forgot me." "Sorry,
when do you go." I sheepishly say "0." I rolled a 1 on initiative.
Everyone, even me,. cracked up.

1a) Dex is always my dump stat for clerics. Last campaign I only had
a 10 Dex and also often went last in initiative but played well
accordingly. Then, for one particular combat, I rolled a natural 20
for initiative and everyone else, including the DM for the bad guys,
rolled low. For the first time that campaign I went first in
initiative. For a brief moment I hadn't the foggiest idea what I was
going to do.

2) I had a fighter/cleric once with 7 Charisma. I knew I was never
turning undead. As a multiclass, preDivine Feats even existing, I
wasn't going to be doing anything with it anyway. I played the 7
Charisma as a guy who tends to TALK LOUDLY unintentionally and often
says the wrong thing at the wrong time. Funnest moment: We were
helping the half-orc barbarian's orc tribe against a rival tribe. The
chief is the half-orc's father. Orcs in the camp who didn't know us
yet asked what we were doing there. I said: "We're here to rescue
you."

Gerald Katz
 >> Stay informed about: {kjd-sys} Races, classes, and advancement 

Hadsil <forumite RemoveThis @netzero.com> wrote:
>
> DAD - dual ability dependent. That works fine. More than that the
> character is stretched too thin. Personal mileage bias - CON is
> always important because hit points are too important as is the nature
> of the game. A DAD class not involving CON becomes a MAD class in my
> eye, but I don't hold it against the class and will regard it as a DAD
> class for discussion. I like having a 14 CON in my characters. If I
> can get that 14 CON in a DAD non-CON class I'm playing, great, but if
> not then it's because it's not a dedicated warrior.

If at all possible, I'd like to find a way to reduce the dependency on
Con. Keep it for the combat types, but wizards shouldn't *need* (or at
least, shouldn't 'need') high Con.

Actually, I wonder if they really do. The times I've played a wizard
I've usually avoided death by not being where it's going to happen --
you don't need lots of hit points if you don't stand where you're going
to get nailed. Of course, if you *do* get nailed, that means you were
standing in the wrong place... which is fine by me.

I think this is more a perception issue than a real problem.


Keith
--
Keith Davies I married the moonshiner's daughter
keith.davies RemoveThis @kjdavies.org How could I go wrong?
keith.davies RemoveThis @gmail.com The moonshiner's daughter
http://www.kjdavies.org/ Put some corn in the water
And makes me liquor all night long
-- Hayseed Dixie, _Moonshiner's Daughter_
 >> Stay informed about: {kjd-sys} Races, classes, and advancement 

Hadsil <forumite DeleteThis @netzero.com> wrote:
> On Mar 14, 11:45 pm, Keith Davies <keith.dav... DeleteThis @kjdavies.org> wrote:
>>
>> I've never been afraid of an 18. Too many of them looks wrong, but
>> one? No worries. 27-25-23 doesn't even *require* that you have one
>> to have an 18. On 27, roll an 18 or a 9 and put the +2 on the lower
>> value, or roll a 16 or an 11, and put it on the higher one. You end
>> up with an 18/11 pair. If you get another 18 on the 25, then you're
>> going to have a penalty.
>
> Of course, the +2. I see that. Ok.
>
> If one is lucky enough to get two 18s, then the negative modifier is
> mathematically forced, but I'm not really bothered by that. Two 18s
> does go a long way. In my 2E days I once had a character with three
> 18s rolling 4d6 drop lowest. I was that lucky once again for a
> preSAGA Star Wars game - two 18s and two 17s.

Two 18s do indeed go a long way.

27-25-23 means you can have one 18 without a penalty (if you're going
random; if you're picking your scores you will have a penalty; the extra
control over this has a small cost). Having two, in a DAD system, means
you can get a *lot* of joy. Paying for the privilege with at least -2
worth of penalties (one 7 or two 9s) doesn't offend me at all -- and I
speak as a player here, not as a DM.


Keith
--
Keith Davies I married the moonshiner's daughter
keith.davies DeleteThis @kjdavies.org How could I go wrong?
keith.davies DeleteThis @gmail.com The moonshiner's daughter
http://www.kjdavies.org/ Put some corn in the water
And makes me liquor all night long
-- Hayseed Dixie, _Moonshiner's Daughter_
 >> Stay informed about: {kjd-sys} Races, classes, and advancement 

Erol K Bayburt <ErolB1 RemoveThis @comcast.net> wrote:
>
> I don't want to get rid of ability score boosts entirely, mostly
> because I want to see them used to boost a character's low scores (as
> in http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0058.html ). The problem is one
> of putting limits on using them to boost already-high scores without
> being too ham-fisted about it.

It came to me this morning -- one way to handle this exact situation is
to have, instead of a flat bonus, a replacement? Your base score gets
replaced with that of the item, while worn. Cost might be equal to
modifer squared * 4000, so:

Str 12 item: 4k
Str 14 item: 16k
Str 16 item: 36k
Str 18 item: 64k
Str 20 item: 100k

If you're already strong, these items would have no effect. Someone
weaker would get some benefit, but these items are presumably there for
someone who doesn't *need* the scores.

Hrm. This suggests they may be too expensive. They also don't allow
for anything lower than 12. Maybe make it 'modifier+3 squared*1k?'

Str 8 item: 1k
Str 10 item: 9k
Str 12 item: 16k
Str 14 item: 25k
Str 16 item: 36k
Str 18 item: 49k
Str 20 item: 64k
Str 22 item: 81k
Str 24 item: 100k

That doesn't strike me as being too disgusting, considering I expect to
dump enhancement bonuses. They are more expensive than RAW would be
(Cha 18 + cockring +6 Cha = Cha 24, for 36k), but I think they put the
emphasis where I'd want it to be. Especially if level-based bumps
happen *after* this. You could still get to Int 29, but without racial
bonuses it might cost 100k + five bumps.

It encourages use of these items to shore up weaknesses, without making
them low-cost must-haves for the good scores. It does mean the Wizard
is unlikely to want the headband of somewhat-smarter, but will want the
headband of much-smarter fairly desperately. Yeah, the fighter might
want the headband too, but not nearly as much as the gauntlets of
really-strong and maybe the belt of enlargement (which doesn't bump Str
directly, but does give damage and Fort bonuses... and size penalties,
mind).


Keith
--
Keith Davies I married the moonshiner's daughter
keith.davies RemoveThis @kjdavies.org How could I go wrong?
keith.davies RemoveThis @gmail.com The moonshiner's daughter
http://www.kjdavies.org/ Put some corn in the water
And makes me liquor all night long
-- Hayseed Dixie, _Moonshiner's Daughter_
 >> Stay informed about: {kjd-sys} Races, classes, and advancement 

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:09:56 -0500, Rast <rast2 DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 05:59:27 -0000,
>Rick Pikul (rwpikul@sympatico.ca) wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 16:46:53 -0500, Erol K. Bayburt wrote:
>>
>> > I don't want to get rid of ability score boosts entirely, mostly
>> > because I want to see them used to boost a character's low scores (as
>> > in http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0058.html ). The problem is one
>> > of putting limits on using them to boost already-high scores without
>> > being too ham-fisted about it.
>>
>> Well, a thought might be to have the boosting item not boost the score
>> directly, but boost it by a number of point-buy points.
>
>I've always thought this is how levelup stat increases should work.

I'm glad that levelup stat increases don't work that way. It makes the
point-buy costs properly optional - and I'm determined *not* to ever
use them.

"I'm not using that" was my first thought when I saw the RAW point buy
system. Also my second and third thoughts. No Sir, I Do Not Like It.

I've decided that what I am going to do is simply double the costs for
increasing ability scores over 20. It's simple, it does what I want,
and it doesn't require jiggering other parts of the system to overcome
the side effects.
Erol K. Bayburt
ErolB1 DeleteThis @comcast.net
 >> Stay informed about: {kjd-sys} Races, classes, and advancement 

On Mar 11, 9:38 pm, Keith Davies <keith.dav... DeleteThis @kjdavies.org> wrote:

> If I did, it'd be +2/-2.  The idea doesn't offend me.  Though now we're
> reaching territory where I wonder why anyone would be anything but
> human... racial skill bonuses can be handled by feats (which I expect to
> do anyway), vision-related things might be feats (or at least paid for
> with them; it might be harder for humans to get these), and so on.  Most
> racial abilities I can think of off the top of my head are reasonably
> modeled using existing feats (halflings get a +1 luck bonus to all
> saves; isn't there a feat called 'Lucky' that does just this?)... if
> humans get free choice over everything, and can pick up the other racial
> abilities and modifiers the same way, why would anyone be anything *but*
> human?

For any racial bonus that EVERYONE in a race should have you price the
racial bonus as if it were a feat and take that cost out of the pool
of available level 1 racial feats. But then either don't allow other
races to take it as a racial feat or allow the races that get it as
part of their starting ability to take the feat again with the effects
stacking.

i.e. if "Low Light Vision" is a feat then an elf can take the feat
again and get x4 range (or x3 if the normal D&D multiplication rule
applies) while a human can take it and get x2 range. But Elves have
already spent one of their racial feats on low light vision.

Meanwhile a Dwarf gets two less racial feats but does get Darkvision
60', and the elf and human can't get that at all.

+2/+2 racial bonuses to skills stack with the +2/+2 feats (as now),
and cost one of your level 1 racial feats each.

Similarly I consider most +2/-2 racial adjustment pairs to be a net
gain for the character (point buy the -2 typically costs 2 build
points and the +2 is typically worth 6 or so build points for
example), so I'd also price ability adjustments as feats. [Actually my
method would be to price everything as ability purchase points on a
modified purchase scale, and then simply have race modify the range of
allowable abilities rather than modifying the final ability, but that
doesn't seem to be your approach and point buy isn't OGL.]

DougL
 >> Stay informed about: {kjd-sys} Races, classes, and advancement 

Keith Davies wrote:

> Actually, I wonder if they really do. The times I've played a wizard
> I've usually avoided death by not being where it's going to happen --
> you don't need lots of hit points if you don't stand where you're going
> to get nailed. Of course, if you *do* get nailed, that means you were
> standing in the wrong place... which is fine by me.
>
> I think this is more a perception issue than a real problem.

Never been surprised by a dragon I take it.

On a dark night a Dragon can see and hear you from farther away than
you can POSSIBLY detect it baring scrying. It can move farther than
your maximum detection range in a single move equivalent action. And
it has both a ranged strike and flyby attack. (At least if I built it
it has flyby attack.) And it's smart enough to spot and kill the
wizard FIRST. It's also smart enough and has enough spellcraft that if
you do get a defensive spell up it will recognize the spell and know
the approximate duration it needs to wait prior to coming back for the
second round.

SPLAT. No more wizard.

As someone else mentioned the enemy monks and wizards with fireballs
also want to have a short talk with any low con wizards you have
wandering around.

Wizards need Con MORE than any other class because proportionately Con
granted HP are a larger fraction of their total HP.

DougL
 >> Stay informed about: {kjd-sys} Races, classes, and advancement 

On Mar 15, 1:24 pm, Keith Davies <keith.dav....DeleteThis@kjdavies.org> wrote:
> Del Rio <del....DeleteThis@panix.com> wrote:
> > In article <d9573fca-758c-4d9b-a4e5-a8374e56c....DeleteThis@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> > Hadsil  <forum....DeleteThis@netzero.com> wrote:
> >>Sorry, I'm misunderstanding "27-25-23".   That's not RAW point buy, is
> >>it?
>
> > My first thought on seeing that was of those models who got banned
> > from the Paris fashion show for being underweight....  
>
> Wouldn't happen.
>
> If they could get sticks to walk and have smooth skin, they'd do it.
> 'Fashion' ruins formerly attractive women.

It did happen, but in Spain not Paris and in response to government
pressure rather than being something the fashion industry wanted. See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5341202.stm

DougL
 >> Stay informed about: {kjd-sys} Races, classes, and advancement