Hi!
On Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 12:55 PM, Roderick and Ellen Robertson wrote:
> > I agree here but would be more likely to suggest to the player to
> > take "Fly" as an ability in character creation since there are
> Orlanthi
> > who can fly naturally.
>
> What!?! And use up three words of my 100 description? You, sir, are
> Mad -
> Mad, I tell you!
Not mad, just "special".
On Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 03:59 PM, Jane Williams wrote:
> --- Jeff <jakyer_at_...> wrote: >
>
> > However, several non-magical augments are
> > perfectly okay to have.
>
> BTW, how do auto-augments work out in the new system?
> The last I heard was that you got +1 for every 10,
> rounding *up*. If that's true, any ability at the
> default 6 gets you a +1. And if you can have as many
> non-magical augments as you like.... do I need to go
> on?
I know this has been touched on but to make sure it's clear:
Augments of any kind can only be taken from an ability on your character sheet. That default 6 is for when you don't otherwise have an appropriate ability. You can augment that 6 but chances are anything you could augment it with would be appropriate enough that you'd be better off using the augmenting skill with an improv penalty instead.
On Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 06:36 PM, Alex Ferguson wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 12:38:42PM -0400, Dave Camoirano wrote:
> > I agree here but would be more likely to suggest to the player to
> > take "Fly" as an ability in character creation since there are
> Orlanthi
> > who can fly naturally.
>
> Certainly true, but it'd seem a little odd to have to make _every_
> Vanganthi PC (he says, as if the cupboards are stuffed with 'em)
> take an 'outside' ability just to be any fun to play. And if you
> allow non-Vanganthi to do so, it rather undercuts the special nature
> of the cult, right? The suggestion of making it a 'bundled' ability
> makes a certain amount of sense, though it still seem a little awkward
> to rationalise.
As narrator, you're certainly allowed to add "Fly" to Vanganth's keyword (I have to say I'd probably do that). I was just trying to give an answer within the rules. Obviously, narrators can fudge anything they want.
> Is HQ going to clarify the status of such magics at all? It doesn't
> seem as if people who can 'naturally' fly, or shapechange into alynxes
> (as with a PC in the previous game I ran) do so with Common Magic, on
> the basis of the filtered descriptions of same I've seen; presumably
> they're still 'stand-alone feats' (etc), if one cares to ratioanlise
> them at all.
You're correct, it would not come under CM. It would be, as previous, a magical ability with which they were born (or whatever).
On Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 07:55 PM, Jane Williams wrote:
> --- Jeff <jakyer_at_...> wrote:
>
> > Close combat has been banned as well. All combat
> > abilities must be
> > raised separately (personally, I prefer to take an
> > improv penalty).
>
> Ow!
>
> I suppose it does make sense. But can't you even raise
> the whole thing for 3 HP, like an Affinity?
Not exactly, but there are options for broadly defined abilities, including treating them similarly to keywords.
On Thursday, May 8, 2003, at 06:48 AM, Tim Ellis wrote:
> >I know that I have mixed feelings about the new follower rules. They
> >make for much more flexible and _interesting_ folks. But they are
> >strictly tied to numbers now, not the hero's abilities. It removes
> >the uberfollower but followers become increaseingly fragile as the
> >game progresses (unless you want to upgrade your sidekicks with
> >precious, precious HP).
>
> Bug or Feature? The people whose abilities are rising with those of
> your Hero are probably his companions who are best represented by the
> other PC's in a majority of cases. The followers who he had at the
> start of his career have probably been replaced by the time he is 2-3
> masteries in. (eg Gunda the Guilty or Beat Pot Aelwrin are
> probably "Other PC's" , the "Followers" are assorted Wolf Pirate
> Captains, Lunar Commanders etc. They are important/famous only
> because of their association with Harrek or Jar Eel, otherwise they
> wouldn't stand out from their fellows).
Also keep in mind that when a sidekick is replaced at the ability levels he had when lost if replaced immediately so HP spent in that way aren't necessarily wasted.
On Thursday, May 8, 2003, at 07:06 AM, Graham, Andrew wrote:
> From what I have heard so far only the sidekick [are you limited to
one
> sidekick?] can be improved.
You can only *start* with one sidekick. You can certainly obtain others through play.
> As normal Followers only have a single keyword as an ability they
cannot
> be improved by the player.
> Only be the narrator, is this correct ?
This is correct. You can, however "buy up" a retainer to sidekick.
On Thursday, May 8, 2003, at 08:15 AM, Julian Lord wrote:
> But my basic assumption is that I'd probably let Heroes use
> Common Magic abilities as straight abilities, and let Initiates
> do the same. Of course, I'd want such ability use to be justified.
Common magic abilities can be used as abilities if you concentrate in CM.
> Jeff :
>
> > Close combat has been banned as well. All combat abilities must be
> > raised separately (personally, I prefer to take an improv penalty).
>
> Hmmmm ... let's shift into powergaming gear for a minute ...
>
> Let's say I take "Sword Fighting" and "Shield Fighting" ..
> and then fight with both Sword and Shield, and consistently
> spend HPs on both.
>
> Are you saying I could be a Sword Fighter with a handy
> auto-augment from my Shield Fighting ability ?
Well, technically yes but you'd also take an improvisational penalty for using a shield with your "sword fighting" ability (as compared to "sword and shield fighting"). The penalty and augment would pretty much cancel each other out.
Camo
Powered by hypermail