_fichiers/nav_m.gif)
Call of the Horn | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Logged in as: Zinuk ( Log Out ) | My Controls · 0 New Messages · View New Posts · My Assistant |
Pages: (4) 1 2 [3] 4 ( Go to first unread post ) | ![]() ![]() ![]() |
MagusRogue |
Posted: Jun 23 2004, 04:17
PM
|
![]() Village fool. Paid well. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 745 Member No.: 26 Joined: 16-January 04 ![]() |
Glad i could help, Sharn. LOL Arguing does bring out
the best in me. Bonuses for male channelers... Hrm.... A bonus to their skill checks works well enough. But does the book out and out say that males are better channelers than females? Another solution, and this one might be a bit drastic but i know you like to throw balance out the window for book accuracy, but +1 to all saving throws versus male channeling? -------------------- Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand this rant's
done. Magus the Extreme. Your wonderfully-ghoulish partner GM of Patterns of the Weave. Be fearful, indeed. |
MagusRogue |
Posted: Jun 23 2004, 04:21
PM
|
![]() Village fool. Paid well. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 745 Member No.: 26 Joined: 16-January 04 ![]() |
got another question for you, Sharn. What about
channelers who've been taught by more than one tradition. Examples: Egwene
being taught as an Aes Sedai, Damane, AND Wise One, or Nynaeve being both
a Wilder and an Aes Sedai? -------------------- Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand this rant's
done. Magus the Extreme. Your wonderfully-ghoulish partner GM of Patterns of the Weave. Be fearful, indeed. |
Aleshandre |
Posted: Jun 23 2004, 04:38
PM
|
![]() Elder Scholar ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Moderators Posts: 148 Member No.: 18 Joined: 15-January 04 ![]() |
The Powerful Channeler feat can represent either
skill with the weaves or power. The difference is purely in the
RP. Magus, I think in the case of multiple traditions, it would simply result in having a different set of weaves being learned. The best way to represent that is probably by letting the channeler take other Talents as class skills. -------------------- |
Zinuk |
Posted: Jun 23 2004, 06:02
PM
| ||||
![]() Learned Master ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 12 Member No.: 166 Joined: 21-June 04 ![]() |
It does. Here is what the BBoBA says:
Now there would be 2 solutions:
| ||||
Entropic_existence |
Posted: Jun 23 2004, 06:56
PM
|
Breaker-of-horses-and-men ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 134 Member No.: 22 Joined: 15-January 04 ![]() |
If you are going to give men and women a bonus to the
same thing, with it being the same bonus (essentially) then why bother
giving a bonus at all. Their bonuses should be distinct enough to warrant
giving them a bonus yet still maintain balance and flavour.
-------------------- What is dead can never
die. |
Zinuk |
Posted: Jun 23 2004, 07:15
PM
| ||
![]() Learned Master ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 12 Member No.: 166 Joined: 21-June 04 ![]() |
You are quite right on this. Although I think Aleshandre's feat is meant to simulate the fact that the channeler is above average, so has a bonus compared to an average channeler. If we see things like that, it is not as stupid, athough I agree with you that it would be better if the bonus were different. | ||
Aleshandre |
Posted: Jun 23 2004, 07:39
PM
|
![]() Elder Scholar ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Moderators Posts: 148 Member No.: 18 Joined: 15-January 04 ![]() |
Zinuk has the point that I was making correct. The
feat is designed to identify the channeler as a particularly skilled or
particularly powerful channeler, rather than defining all of both genders
as being powerful or skilled. Obviously, characters that are more skilled
can outstrip a powerful channeler, who isn't trained (Moiraine in TGH vs
Rand in TGH; Rand far more powerful, but untrained, while Moiraine Highly
trained, but not as powerful. Moiraine could have easily beaten Rand if
she desired to, but if Rand had the opening, he could have done a
significant amount of damage with a single weave). As the saying goes,
Knowledge is Power. -------------------- |
Sharn Penndroen |
Posted: Jun 23 2004, 07:48
PM
|
![]() Lemming Extraordinare ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 261 Member No.: 15 Joined: 15-January 04 ![]() |
To answer the question of the multiple Tradition
training, The Tradition Ability is in part a representation of what style
they have gained before the "game starts." Therefore their Tradition
ability is that Tradition that they began play with. We see evidence of this in the books. Many Aes Sedai says, "Once a Wilder always a Wilder." Or something to that effect. They always talk about how Wilders have certain preset dispositions and styles that they never change. Even Egwene didn't change much in her channeling style while with the Wise Ones. So whatever you start out as determines your Tradition ability. -------------------- I like swords. |
MagusRogue |
Posted: Jun 24 2004, 12:52
AM
|
![]() Village fool. Paid well. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 745 Member No.: 26 Joined: 16-January 04 ![]() |
I would say that you could gain another Tradition's
benefits with, say, a feat, perhaps, and rp experience. As for strength vs dexterity. Dexterity would be the skill roll, strength would be the final result. Perhaps there's a cap on what you can do, based on level. A compromise could be that women get bonuses on skill rolls, while men have a higher cap? -------------------- Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand this rant's
done. Magus the Extreme. Your wonderfully-ghoulish partner GM of Patterns of the Weave. Be fearful, indeed. |
Entropic_existence |
Posted: Jun 24 2004, 01:56
AM
|
Breaker-of-horses-and-men ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 134 Member No.: 22 Joined: 15-January 04 ![]() |
Yes my comment wasn't to the Feat (which I think is a
good idea) but the response when I mentioned if we were to give all male
channelers a bonus for being more powerful, women should have a bonus for
being more dexterous. And someoen suggessted a bonus to weave checks.
Which was the same bonus that was going to be given to MC's. Sorry for the
confusion ![]() Yes I like Aleshandre's idea of the Powerful channeler feat. I believe the reason why men are given the extra weaves in the game is not only to represent their greater on average power with the OP, but as a balancing effect for the Taint. -------------------- What is dead can never
die. |
Zinuk |
Posted: Jun 24 2004, 09:14
AM
| ||
![]() Learned Master ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 12 Member No.: 166 Joined: 21-June 04 ![]() |
That's also what I think. And we now know it was a mistake as, after the cleansing, males don't have this disadvantage anymore, but still get the extra weaves. We should not repeat this error in this system: male and female channelers should both have an advantage (a different one) so that they are balanced, even in the Age of Legends. | ||
Sharn Penndroen |
Posted: Jun 24 2004, 03:58
PM
|
![]() Lemming Extraordinare ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 261 Member No.: 15 Joined: 15-January 04 ![]() |
I tend to disagree. Women already have a major
advantage in their ability to Link with up to 12 other women. This is very
powerful. I don't think that the bonus weaves were intended so much as to
offset the Taint as this. Besides that, it makes sense from the books. When has Rand or another powerful male channeler ever feared a single woman channeler. Rarely, only if she is wicked tough like Lanfear or other Forsaken. When do they fear women? When there are more than one. Why? Because they can Link and overcome the male channeler. He is stronger than them individually, but together they can overcome him. A group of Asha'man cannot do this. They could never link together. This is a major advantage that woman have and is represented in the RPG. The books describe men as generally stronger, and I'd like to give them something to represent that. I feel that woman being able to Link is a sufficient bonus for them. I plan to use Aleshandre's Powerful Channeler Feat and give this feat to men for free at character creation. I think if you compare Linking and the Powerful Channeler Feat you will find this sufficiently balanced. If anything, it may still be tilted in Women Favor since they can also spend a Feat to take the Powerful Channeler Feat and a man can never be able to Link without a woman. I think that one of the reason that woman can Link so much better than men is because of their better Dexterity with the One Power. These are the two choices that I've narrowed down to give Men: 1) Powerful Channeler Feat for free at character creation. 2) Increased Healing Rate from subdual damage due to Weave Cost. Comments on which of these would be better? -------------------- I like swords. |
Zinuk |
Posted: Jun 24 2004, 04:50
PM
| ||
![]() Learned Master ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 12 Member No.: 166 Joined: 21-June 04 ![]() |
Men do have their role to play in linking: they allow a circle to grow larger. This more or less makes the linking rules balanced between male and female. This is why I think females should have a dexterity bonus. The problem if you take the option of a faster healing rate is that anyone (male or female) powerful enough should have the same sort of bonus: being more powerful is not an inherent bonus of males; it is just a consequence of them being, on average, stronger. So a powerful female channeler would have the same advantage. Perhaps the best solution would be to lower the cost of weaves depending on how powerful you are (high main channeling stat: Int, Wis, Pow, whatever): the more powerful, the less the cost. Then give men a bonus to their power, so that it translates also as a bonus to the cost. Let me expand on this idea. Maybe the cost could something like: cost of the weave = base cost - mod associated to your main channeling stat. For example, if you have 18 (mod: +4) in your main channeling stat, a weave costing 10 subdual HP would in fact only cost 6. The minimal cost would always be at least 1 subdual HP. Men could have a gender bonus of +2 to their main channeling stat (for purposes of channeling; that is, if you use Int, males would only get their +2 bonus to Int when they use it for channeling, not for anything else) and women could get a bonus on their Talent skills checks. This way, males are, on average, stronger than females, but don't have an advantage poweful females can't have. | ||
Sharn Penndroen |
Posted: Jun 24 2004, 05:42
PM
|
![]() Lemming Extraordinare ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 261 Member No.: 15 Joined: 15-January 04 ![]() |
Yes men do play a role in Linking, but woman are
infintely better at it. Up to 12 women can link without a man. Even if a
man does Link at least half of the circle has to be women. You can't deny
that when it comes to Linking, women have an advantage. Think about the
way the characters in the books feel about it. What is Rand's reaction to
being around too many women channelers at once? Is he intimidated by being
around only one? Take it from someone who has played a party with only
male channelers in it. There are times when you really wish that you could
Link. If I used the Powerful Channeler Feat to give to men for free at character creation, they would not have an advantage that a woman could not eventually reach. Heck if she wished she could use her level 1 feat and take it right off. I agree with what you said and that is why I'm leaning toward that. I do not want to decrease the Weave Cost for high stats. Abilities are already taken into account because it affects Weave Checks. If you beat the DC by high enough you lower the Weave Cost. The method you described for using Abilities to decrease the Weave Cost has a couple of problems. Combined with other things already in place, it would make a lot of mid level weave free. As of right now, the min is 0 not 1. Some stuff should be free if you can make the DC. Second, there is no real "primary channeling stat." Wis, Int, and Cha are equally important in this system. So like the armsman who needs to worry about his Str, Dex, and Con, so the channeler needs to concern himself with all three of these. Of course if you have more focus on a given Talent that stat will become more important to you. Third, it just complicates matters further, I'd rather keep it as clean as possible. Basically, I don't think bonuses to Weave checks represents a woman's "increased dexterity." It simply results in her being able to make more powerful weaves. I think that her increased dexterity shows through in things like her Linking ability. This is why I do not plan to give the women another bonus. I think that I've decided to give the men the Powerful Channeler feat for free at character creation. This fulfills your criteria of something that any woman could reach and even surpass, but makes men more powerful on average. Seems fair enough for me. Unless someone can convince me otherwise, that is what I plan to do. This evening I plan to edit the .rtf and the original post by adding this tid-bit about Male Channelers and adding a section to describe how Linking will work. I will also add a New Feats section to include the Powerful Channeler, plus a couple of things that I've worked out. Thanks, Zinuk, your comments have helped guide me in making my decision on Male Channelers' bonus. -------------------- I like swords. |
MagusRogue |
Posted: Jun 24 2004, 06:37
PM
|
![]() Village fool. Paid well. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 745 Member No.: 26 Joined: 16-January 04 ![]() |
I had a thought, sharn. instead of reducing the hp
costs for a really good channeling effect (aka a Weave check higher than
the dc), why not just have it that if they score higher, they can use the
higher result, as if they aimed for a higher dc. Say, for instance, Fireball. In this system, if you wanna do 2d6 damage with your fireball (Casting level 2, DC 14, 4 subdual damage), and you rolled a 16 on your check, it would instead be cast at level 4, doing 4d6 damage and with a burst radues of 20 ft. As a side note, you might wanna limit their casting level. Even a 1st level channeler can cast a 5th-level weave (dc 20). Say, a 1st level power channeler, with 4 ranks in Elementalism and an intelligence of 14 would have a +6 on the roll, which means he can channel 5th level weaves with only a 14 or higher needed. if he had skill emphasis in Elementalism, he'd only need an 11 instead. sure, the weave'll either kill him/her or severely damage (10 damage, 8 for an asha'man or damane. An average power channeler with a con of, say, 12, would only have 7 hit points, which would render him unconscious just by casting and inflict 3 points of real damage, or 1 if you're an asha'man or damane), but still.... you might only need that one weave, which makes this system severely favor channelers, wrecking balance. A good limit would being unable to cast weaves with a casting level greater than their channeling level. men, instead of getting Powerful Channeler, would instead raise this cap by 1, to represent the raw amount of one power they can channel. This post has been edited by MagusRogue on Jun 24 2004, 06:38 PM -------------------- Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand this rant's
done. Magus the Extreme. Your wonderfully-ghoulish partner GM of Patterns of the Weave. Be fearful, indeed. |
Aleshandre |
Posted: Jun 24 2004, 07:15
PM
|
![]() Elder Scholar ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Moderators Posts: 148 Member No.: 18 Joined: 15-January 04 ![]() |
I like that suggestion; The channeler may
choose to do more damage, but they may also choose to do less
damage or to do the same, indicating a finnesse that could come from luck.
-------------------- |
Sharn Penndroen |
Posted: Jun 24 2004, 09:07
PM
|
![]() Lemming Extraordinare ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 261 Member No.: 15 Joined: 15-January 04 ![]() |
Yes, but my goal with that is to demostrate
Overchanneling, i.e. a higher effect at a lower cost. Also the channeler
may not want the higher DC. One of the problems that I have with the level cap is that in this system I no longer have weave levels to go by to set limits. Of course if you are low level you can go for it and just try to roll for the high DC, but you have to remember that besides just giving up the subdual damage and passing out, you run the risk of failing the DC by more than 5. And if you fail that Fort Save you run the risk of some seriously nasty things happening to you. That will be enough to deter most folks from trying to stretch their abilities too far. Example: Level 1 White Tower Accepted (Skilled Channeler), tries to Bond a Warder. Bond Warder DC 20, Weave Cost 10. She has a 16 Cha and max ranks in Conjunction Talent, total bonus +7. First of all, she is going to pass out from doing this, second of all she is going to have to roll atleast a 13. Not bad one might think, but if she rolls an 8 or lower, she has to make a Fort Save DC 20. She might have a +4 to her Fort at level 1. So she has to roll atleast a 16. Depending on how bad she fails, she may burn out or some such mess. My Solution: Anyway, my solution if we want to eliminate this possibility would be to say that a channeler can not form a weave with a Weave Cost higher than his max HP. He can still knock himself out by channeling weaves within his limit. Note that I said higher than his max HP, not his current HP. I like this better than keeping up with caps in other ways. This would simple represent how adjusted the channeler's body is to handling large amounts of the One Power. This post has been edited by Sharn Penndroen on Jun 24 2004, 09:08 PM -------------------- I like swords. |
MagusRogue |
Posted: Jun 24 2004, 09:27
PM
|
![]() Village fool. Paid well. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 745 Member No.: 26 Joined: 16-January 04 ![]() |
I'd keep the casting levels, Sharn. Casting Level
also determines the Save DC of the weave. And as Aleshandre said, you may
choose to do the lower dc (and thus lower cost), but if you do lucky you
can do more. i dunno, it's a suggestion. Keep the Casting Levels though.
or else you won't have anything to base Save DC's on. as for the other part about channeling more, it's too easy to get too powerful. a 0-level weave is a dc 10, which means even untrained and without any abilities over 11, you just need to roll a 10 to succeed, and won't need to worry about backlash effects unless you roll a 5 or under, which is very hard. If anything, i'd raise the dc to 15 + (2 x casting level). thus, a level 1 character with a 14 in the needed ability and max ranks would be able to cast a 0 level weave (dc 15) on a roll of 9 or better, and would only suffer backlash if she rolled a 4. heck, she'd only need to roll a 13 to succeed on a cross-talent with 0 ranks. a 1 level weave would succeed on a roll of 11 or better, while a 5th level weave would succed only on a 19 or better, keeping the power very well in line, especially with the book. It also discourages channeling as much until you get higher level. a 20th level channeler with a 20 in the needed ability and max ranks would have a +29 on their rolls, meaning she wouldn't even have to roll for any weaves under 7th level, and those above wouldn't be too difficult at all. to cast a maxed-out balefire (13th level) would be a dc of 36, which she'd pass on a 7 or better. You realize how abusive it would be to have the dc only be 10 + (2 x)? at 20th level, you could cast even a maxed out balefire without worry at all, and could cast... oh.... 100 of them a day? -------------------- Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand this rant's
done. Magus the Extreme. Your wonderfully-ghoulish partner GM of Patterns of the Weave. Be fearful, indeed. |
Aleshandre |
Posted: Jun 24 2004, 10:48
PM
|
![]() Elder Scholar ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Moderators Posts: 148 Member No.: 18 Joined: 15-January 04 ![]() |
I think that it is fairly well set down in a way that
can be approved by the most people. I would even say that it is about
ready for a solid publishing run. -------------------- |
Sharn Penndroen |
Posted: Jun 24 2004, 10:51
PM
|
![]() Lemming Extraordinare ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 261 Member No.: 15 Joined: 15-January 04 ![]() |
There is a 25% chance of rolling 5 or lower. I think
that is quite significant given the reprecussions of what can happen to
you by failing a Fort Save afterwards. With a Fort save of +4, the
character you describe has a 7.5% chance of failing the weave check by
more than five and failing the fort save afterwards. And that is just for
a Level 0 weave. His chancing rapidly climb for trying to form higher
level weaves. I don't like to talk in terms of characters with 20s for
Stats and stuff. 16 is a little more realistic, so here are your chances
of being able to successfully make a weave of a given level at level 1
with max ranks and with a +3 modifier. Fort Saves assume 14 Con. Weave
Save assume 16 Int/Wis/orCha. weave level ----- %Success ------ %failed fort save 0 --------------------- 85 ------------------ 0 1 --------------------- 75 ------------------ 0 2 --------------------- 65 ------------------ 5 3 --------------------- 55 ------------------ 12 4 --------------------- 45 ------------------ 21 5 --------------------- 35 ------------------ 32 6 --------------------- 25 ------------------ 45 7 --------------------- 15 ------------------ 60 8 --------------------- 5 ------------------ 70 9 --------------------- 0 ------------------ 80 hmm.... you can see that it soon gets more risky to make a weave than it is worth, but maybe you are right. Maybe these numbers are still to easy considering this is a level one character. I guess that just depends on your thoughts on the matter. For arguments sake, let's try your DC 15 + 2x the weave level idea. weave level ----- %Success ------ %failed fort save 0 --------------------- 60 ------------------ 8.25 1 --------------------- 50 ------------------ 16.25 2 --------------------- 40 ------------------ 26.25 3 --------------------- 30 ------------------ 38.25 4 --------------------- 20 ------------------ 46.75 5 --------------------- 10 ------------------ 65 6 --------------------- 0 ------------------ 75 7 --------------------- 0 ------------------ 85 8 --------------------- 0 ------------------ 95 9 --------------------- 0 ------------------ 100 Okay this seems a little tough on those level one characters. They aren't going to be very successful at forming even simple weaves and run a pretty high risk of failing a fort save. I don't think that I like these numbers. What if the DC were 5 + 3xWeave level: weave level ----- %Success ------ %failed fort save 0 --------------------- 100 ----------------- 0 1 --------------------- 95 ------------------ 0 2 --------------------- 80 ------------------ 0 3 --------------------- 65 ------------------ 5 4 --------------------- 50 ------------------ 16.25 5 --------------------- 35 ------------------ 32 6 --------------------- 20 ------------------ 61.75 7 --------------------- 5 ------------------ 70 8 --------------------- 0 ------------------ 100 9 --------------------- 0 ------------------ 100 I might have a number or two out of place, but you'll forgive me. I did crunch a lot on numbers right there. No excel on this work computer to help me out. ![]() In case you are wondering, assuming that you keep max ranks in this Talent, the precentages improve by 5% every level. Assuming max ranks. In other words, 1 rank equates to 5%. I don't know, as of now, I'll leave the DCs how they are. But you have made me think about it, and I will do that. I think that the best way to limit low level channelers from forming weaves that are too high would be to simple make the rule that you can not form a weave if the resulting Weave Cost would be higher than your Maximum HP. Of course if you have a Warrior channeler with a decent Con, then even your level one guy could potentially channel a level 5 weave, but he would be almost as likely to fail the weave and fort save as he would be to succeed at the weave. As far as the weave levels and Save DCs go, I had intended on using the DC of the Weave to be the Save DC as well. It is simple, but undeniably increases high level weaves Save DCs. It is my intention to remove the notion of weave levels and weaves per day. You can tell I'm going to great length to do this. Oh my. I've let open a can of worms. -------------------- I like swords. |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |