Be careful -- you are taking that remark out of context - it says 'Narrators running high powered series may allow multiple Occupation or Magic keywords at the start of play.'
And, other than letting players who want multiple iniitation, I'm thinking that multiple occupations were not the norm (though Jane might find that passage useful for her group...)
I realize we were discussing MinMaxing but most narrators do not regaard what they are running as high-power -- though of course, that's not the point for the Munchkin player.
> Actually, I probably wouldn't have allowed that Harrek as written
> either, and I might reduce the starting target number of any
keywords
> that were essentially split (i.e. two occupations or two magics).
Mmmm. I would probably allow one but might, if the player was
insistent on the other occupation, give them some of the abilities
at
the basic 13 level.
> For example, I would make his Wolf Pirates a relationship, not a
> keyword -- he never spent enough time with the Wolf Pirates to
learn
> all about sailing etc.
Sounds about right. I
> > I think I would not allow any addtional cultural or occupation
> > keywords to be added... you only really have one. A person who
was
> > born in one and raised in another might gain some of the other
> > cultural keyword's abilities by using up a few of their words or
list
> > space, however.
>
> I think it's plausible to have multiple occupations (indeed, I
think
> this is implicit in the Grazer keywords).
>
That is true. And would probably be implied in things like the
Yelmic
progression -- but then, that IS what the progression is for the
Grazers, albeit on horseback.
Praxian keywords would do the same.
But I would point out that Clan Ring or *any* advanced keyword would imply a previous occupation keyword.
Jeff
Powered by hypermail