Author
|
Topic: Which is more
important.. balance or accuracy? |
Duloth
Member Member # 34440
|
posted February 19, 2003 09:20 PM
Theres the
question. To be perfectly honest, the Wheel of Time is not a
balanced world. The average Aiel warrior, at start, would be a
3rd or 4th level character, as would, quite likely, the
Seanchan. While, of course, or wonderful normal folk would be
normally at 1st level. And, unlike the Aes Sedai, male
channelers in general, whether Ashaman or not, seem to be just
as good in the melee, or better, than our Armsmen friends.
Especially while 'embracing' the power. (You'd think
'clutching' would be a better term for Saidin)
Would
you prefer to play in a game where things were done by the
book, or by balance? Many successful games have ignored
balance in favor of setting/flavor, including Rifts for one of
the less popular but still mildly successfull
examples.
*And, wildly off-topic... I developed a
skill-based magic approach for d20 a while back. It seems that
Wheel of Time, more than any other setting, would truly fit
with such a system.. or is the existing system a better
way?*
-------------------- -D Nyarlathotep! Not
just for breakfast anymore.
Let Necromancers make
Undead Armies foundation, member 000 (Thats right, Not even
I'm a member)
From:
Louisiana | Registered: Jul 2001 |
IP: Logged
| |
Elsbon
Member Member # 25397
|
posted February 19, 2003 09:47 PM
Balance or
accurary?
Hmm...if you can make it work, then being
accurate is certainly best. For example, I don't have a
problem giving Aiel/Seanchan soldiers a few levels on average,
since they're generally better trained (in the books).
I do get annoyed when something just doesn't represent
my interpretation of what happens in the books. I try to play
things in line with how they appear in the source (or get
house rules to help with it).
When you get into
balance issues with PC's (i.e., channelers vs non-channelers),
I think you need to be more careful. It also depends on your
group.
In general, I like things more balanced myself,
but having a...um, "Gandalf" like character can be cool as
well (by this, I mean a very powerful PC that can't normally
use this power for various reasons, but gets to break it out
once, surprising the party, in a very cool scene).
I
know very little and have never played it, but I seem to
recall that Ars Magica may be similar, with the PC power
differential. If the setting was neat enough, that could
interesting.
I'm curious as to your skill based system.
That would seem to handle the raw strength or potential vs.
skill tension better than the current system (only represented
in the rules by ability stats). However, despite the apparent
flaws in the system, I feel that it works rather well (playing
in our 2nd campaign now). It has some quirks, but just does
the job. I certainly like it better than Dnd (granted, that
doesn't say much...).
From:
Ann Arbor, MI USA | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
| |
JosephKell
Member Member # 99447
|
posted February 19, 2003 09:56 PM
This is a
good question. And it all depends on the playing group. Both
have merits and flaws:
Accuracy before
Balance: ---Pros: It can let players get into the series,
which is why they picked up the setting! ---Cons: The
character path favored by putting balanace after accuracy will
be used by the more powergaming players.
Balance before
Accuracy: ---Pros: Different paths are usable without being
overshadowed. ---Cons: Character types from the series may
seem underpowered and others
overpowered.
Both: ---Pros: Roleplaying is less
limited by system, rules are more for combat
situations. ---Cons: Diplomacy and Bluff skills... This is
a sad truth. Without these skills veterns would be able to
talk down trollocs at level 1...
Note about Asha'man:
We have seen Asha'man fight with swords twice, both in
Winter's Heart. And both of those times it was between
Asha'man and Rand and/or Lan. Rand and Lan are above average
swordsmen, so saying men that lost to them are also above
average isn't a true or false statement. Asha'man have not had
any examples of being above average in general. And actually
in a sword (only) match between a man that devoted his life to
the sword against a man that devoted his life to channeling,
my silver and gold is on the man devoted to the sword! Most
Armsman in the novels are levels 1-3.
Additional note
about levels: Nothing in the rules says you can't start NPC's
at levels over 1. Also most people in the Westland armies
aren't Armsman, they are Warriors. Seachan and Aiel have
armies entirely composed of "elite" NPCs, those with PC levels
rather than NPC levels.
[ February 19, 2003,
09:59 PM: Message edited by: JosephKell
]
-------------------- Instant Message me @
JonERPG on the AIMer
Visit AielManSpear
-If you cast Meteor
Swarm to avoid wasting your REALLY good spells... -If your
character sheet is longer than the Player's Handbook... -If
you have a magic item that can destroy the world...with four
charges left... -If the God of Destiny asks you what will
have next... ...you might be a Munchkin.
From:
California | Registered: Aug 2002 |
IP: Logged
| |
Snow Crash
Member Member # 85099
|
posted February 20, 2003 05:23 AM
It entirely
depends on the group you are playing with. If you have a bunch
of munchkin powergamers then unfortunately you have to stick
with the balance. If however you a lucky enough to be playing
with a group of mature people who enjoy the ROLEplaying side
of it more than becoming superhuman then I would definitely go
with the realism side.
From:
Australia | Registered: May 2002 |
IP: Logged
| |
Duloth
Member Member # 34440
|
posted February 20, 2003 09:54 AM
Well, Rand
was a good example. You have to admit, Dragon Reborn, taveren,
or otherwise, Rand is channeler all the way, with at most one
level of Armsman, from the breif time he spent training under
that warder. And what happened when he got into a duel with a
guy who was a master swordsman, who had been training with
blades all his life? He won, though he ended up having to
embrace the power and use the resulting improved focus to do
so. By or d20 system, this would be a 10th-12th level
Channeler/1st level armsman(or warrior) fighting against a
9th-10th level armsman in the melee.
Basically, in
Wheel of Time, how good you are at combat is completely
independant of 'class', but more dependant on your training
and natural ability. After all... if a Channeler spends all of
his time training with just one weapon, a sword, and getting
better at it, and an Armsman trains with a wide variety of
weapons, getting better in all of them, then even if the
Channeler spends more time on channeling than weapons, he'll
have trained more with a sword than the armsman. Though, the
Armsman might be similarly focused and actually be better..
but then he wouldn't be any good with a bow, crossbow, or
etc.
(The skill system I put at www.geocities.com/kyne2/mod20ruleset.rtf and
the Magic part starts pretty far down. I designed it for a
campaign, and a D&D one, but it could be pretty easily
customized to Wheel of
Time.)
-------------------- -D Nyarlathotep! Not
just for breakfast anymore.
Let Necromancers make
Undead Armies foundation, member 000 (Thats right, Not even
I'm a member)
From:
Louisiana | Registered: Jul 2001 |
IP: Logged
| |
JosephKell
Member Member # 99447
|
posted February 20, 2003 11:34 AM
Rand is a
bad example. Rand is an outlier, a statistical improbability!
There is a reason why in statistics they use the Median and
not the average. I am sure Asha'man (those with 1 level or
more in the PrC, making them level 6 or more) can go toe to
toe with a level 3 Armsman and have a long fight just just a
sword, both have +3 BAB or more, 5d4+1d6+6*con modifier HP
verses 3d10+3*con modifie HP.
But that is a level 6
character using its last resort against another character's
first resort. Rand said to Taim, "Maybe if you knew how to use
a sword, you wouldn't have been captured after you were
shielded." Their swords are a last resort.
Believe it
or not, but the most Powerful Power Gamers can roleplay with
the best of them, and it is possible to make a character that
doesn't need to ever draw its weapon (unless some newbie
shoots his/her mouth off and gets everyone in
trouble).
[ February 20, 2003, 11:38 AM: Message
edited by: JosephKell
]
-------------------- Instant Message me @
JonERPG on the AIMer
Visit AielManSpear
-If you cast Meteor
Swarm to avoid wasting your REALLY good spells... -If your
character sheet is longer than the Player's Handbook... -If
you have a magic item that can destroy the world...with four
charges left... -If the God of Destiny asks you what will
have next... ...you might be a Munchkin.
From:
California | Registered: Aug 2002 |
IP: Logged
| |
Vardelith
Member Member # 123267
|
posted February 20, 2003 11:50 AM
I have to
agree, that it all depends on what type of group you want to
run. Personally I feel that Channelers are a LOT more powerful
then regular non channeling folk, but that is tempered by the
fact that once they exaust themselves they can be pretty weak!
But in a lot of cases throuout the book, the channelers
practice a use in moderation. They tend to use their power
when they have or need to, but will do without using it if not
needed!
One example of an issue that should never
occur if people would play for realism, is the classic oft
debated, harden air tie off let die bit. Unless the Aes Sedai
was particularly evil they would not do this kind of thing!
Things like this should be discussed with the group you are
playing with beforehand to decide if that's how you want to
play your campaign or not!
Personally in my campaigns
I punish munchkin players. (this is a personal preference) I
want my players to enjoy the story, to feel like things COULD
go wrong for them, to be able to just squeek by! Roleplay is
important and in many cases the better way for a group to gain
experience when I GM. Hack and slash players tend to die and
not advance as well! For me, I'll give a player something that is
compleatly unbalancing as long as they use it to bring realism
to the story, they missuse or abuse an item/ power / ability
that does this and it goes away!
I guess I'm saying I
like realism or accuracy best! The rules put down work great
in most cases, but I personally feel they could be improved in
some areas. Don't we all! ![[Smile]](Wizards_Com Boards Which is more important__ balance or accuracy_fichiers/smile.gif)
[ February 20, 2003, 11:51 AM: Message
edited by: Vardelith ]
From:
Medicine Hat, Alberta | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
| |
Duloth
Member Member # 34440
|
posted February 20, 2003 01:16 PM
Okay, so it
seems most of you think this:
In Munchkin or Powergamer
games you need balance.
In Roleplayer games, you want
accuracy, but balance will do.
So, that warrants the
question... casting balance aside, what changes would you make
to make the rules
accurate?
-------------------- -D Nyarlathotep!
Not just for breakfast anymore.
Let Necromancers make
Undead Armies foundation, member 000 (Thats right, Not even
I'm a member)
From:
Louisiana | Registered: Jul 2001 |
IP: Logged
| |
Dave Shramek
Member Member # 107902
|
posted February 20, 2003 01:35 PM
I honestly
think this is perhaps the best book adaptation to a game I've
ever seen. I think it all works really well. The only thing
I'd do is favor XP bonuses to people who played in character
for the setting.
You can't really base the game
mechanics on the main characters of the books. They are all
special cases from being ta'veren or surrounded by ta'veren.
So, assuming everyone else in the books (all the minor
characters and background characters) are realistically
rendered then the game mechanics, if they accurately reflect a
model of the real world (i.e. skill checks to level of
ability) then I'd say don't bother changing the rules. If
channelers are over balanced, they are limited by the fact
that many players would want to put them in one of the Towers
to get some more training, or learn a Lost Talent discovered
by one of the fiction
characters.
-------------------- As always, I cower
in ignorance, awaiting a response.
From:
Austin | Registered: Oct 2002 | IP:
Logged
| |
Duloth
Member Member # 34440
|
posted February 20, 2003 11:06 PM
Can't base
it on the main characters of the books? I don't see why not.
In general, in a campaign, the main characters are
unimportant, and the PCs ARE the main characters. YOUR party
is the one that can shake the world, given time. Thats the
whole point of an RPG, after all, to make the PCs the center
of the
action.
-------------------- -D Nyarlathotep! Not
just for breakfast anymore.
Let Necromancers make
Undead Armies foundation, member 000 (Thats right, Not even
I'm a member)
From:
Louisiana | Registered: Jul 2001 |
IP: Logged
| |
Lord Schpungus
Member Member # 111502
|
posted February 21, 2003 07:54 AM
What he's
saying is that the main characters in WoT are extra special
cases, mainly because they're ta'veren or hang around ta'veren
a lot. But take, for example, Gareth Bryne, or the Band of the
Red Hand, or any Aiel warrior society. They are important,
yes, and pretty skilled, but they don't shape world events
simply by being in the room. Your PCs shouldn't, either.
From:
The Global Community | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
| |
The Great Gray
Skwid Member Member
# 34606
|
posted February 21, 2003 08:57 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Duloth: Can't base it
on the main characters of the books? I don't see why not. In
general, in a campaign, the main characters are unimportant,
and the PCs ARE the main characters. YOUR party is the one
that can shake the world, given time. Thats the whole point
of an RPG, after all, to make the PCs the center of the
action.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
This
is like saying "Awww, why can't I be the Messiah" in your
"Career Development" course in Junior High.
If you
can't have fun without believing you are the only thing
between the world and destruction...then that's just pretty
sad.
-------------------- Evan "Skwid"
Langlinais The Humblest Mollusk on the Net http://www.thehumblest.net/ Ask me for
information about the Texas Darkfriends!
From:
The Big D | Registered: Jul 2001 |
IP: Logged
| |
Ringmasta
Member Member # 66182
|
posted February 21, 2003 12:25 PM
quote:
If you
can't have fun without believing you are the only thing
between the world and destruction...then that's just pretty
sad.
I'd agree with this, but I'd also add to it
with:
If you can't have fun while believing you are the
only thing between the world and destruction...then that's
just pretty sad.
![[Big Grin]](Wizards_Com Boards Which is more important__ balance or accuracy_fichiers/biggrin.gif)
-------------------- Mortality.net
-- A Dungeon Master's Resource Site Staff
Registered:
Feb 2002 | IP: Logged
| |
Dave Shramek
Member Member # 107902
|
posted February 21, 2003 03:05 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Ringmasta: I'd agree
with this, but I'd also add to it with:
If you can't
have fun while believing you are the only thing between the
world and destruction...then that's just pretty sad.
Awww, Rand is pretty sad, then.... ![[Frown]](Wizards_Com Boards Which is more important__ balance or accuracy_fichiers/frown.gif)
-------------------- As always, I cower in
ignorance, awaiting a response.
From:
Austin | Registered: Oct 2002 | IP:
Logged
| |
JosephKell
Member Member # 99447
|
posted February 21, 2003 03:12 PM
The best
way to deal with characters like Rand and Moridin would be to
let them do practically anything they want. They are NPC's
they are just another world changer for the GM to use. It is
fine to give ultimate power to an NPC as long as the PC's
can't tell him/her what to do!
(I have a GM character,
he looks like a 8 year old boy in a white t-shirt, blue jeans,
a red baseball cap, and he is always chewing bubble gum. Being
above the Gods, he is a GM made flesh, he can do whatever he
wants... I only whip him out to screw with the players' heads
once in a while... "The door they spent hours opening the GM
Kid walks through." very funny and frustrating for
them.)
-------------------- Instant Message me @
JonERPG on the AIMer
Visit AielManSpear
-If you cast Meteor
Swarm to avoid wasting your REALLY good spells... -If your
character sheet is longer than the Player's Handbook... -If
you have a magic item that can destroy the world...with four
charges left... -If the God of Destiny asks you what will
have next... ...you might be a Munchkin.
From:
California | Registered: Aug 2002 |
IP: Logged
| |
Duloth
Member Member # 34440
|
posted February 21, 2003 08:35 PM
Well, I did
have a thought... Channeler ability seems to be independant of
physical or mental stats, independant of level of experience.
Every few pages you'll see another Aes Sedai or Ashaman
mentioned who grew 'incredibly powerful in a short amount of
time, even exceding *insert other characters name here*'. In
Wheel of Time, this occurence is pretty rare, yes.. but not
really any more rare than the PCs are.
Which calls to
my mind, at least, a possibility. Don't make channeling based
on the class. Make it a seperate thing. Let people who want to
become channelers roll a 'Power' stat, and create the skills
'Power-Weaving' and 'Embrace/Grasp'. The Power-Weaving skill
would set the highest level of weaves they could cast (Max at
Power Stat-10) and the Embrace/Grasp skill would set what
level they counted as, and thus, how many spell slots they had
to use.
Yes, I know its unbalanced, and it makes
Channeling something that every power-gamer would want, since
it'd offer no real disadvantages aside from lost skills, and
in the case of the Males, madness. But yet, it would be a good
tool to use if you had PCs who were role-players rather than
power-gamers. And even if almost everyone wants to be a
channeler... the males will go mad. The women.. how many main
female characters in the book can't channel? And how many
can?
Now.. I know this isn't balanced. Its not supposed
to be. But.. opinions?
Note: One limit might be this..
if a player wants to become a channeler, and rolls under 10..
they have no power to draw on. Perhaps you could even roll for
all of the PCs in secret, and have the power manifest itself,
uncontrolled, in the game, until the players find out which of
them can controll it. Great role-playing potential, in that
case.
-------------------- -D Nyarlathotep! Not
just for breakfast anymore.
Let Necromancers make
Undead Armies foundation, member 000 (Thats right, Not even
I'm a member)
From:
Louisiana | Registered: Jul 2001 |
IP: Logged
| |
JosephKell
Member Member # 99447
|
posted February 21, 2003 09:33 PM
You are
right, channeling ability isn't based on attributes. And it
isn't based on class.
It is based on both. A person
excelling passed someone else can be an indicator of leveling,
or learning more weaves--especially learning weaves that take
advantage of overchanneling or new weave slots.
d20
might not be perfect, but it is damn easy to learn. Anyone
that has played the West End Games version of Star Wars will
agree that it was way harder to follow than d20 Star
Wars.
Wheel of Time has 3 balances in it: 1. Early
levels: Channelers are sad, non-channelers hold up the
party. 2. Non-channelers are balanced with other
non-channelers. 3. Channelers are balanced with other
channelers.
-------------------- Instant Message me
@ JonERPG on the AIMer
Visit AielManSpear
-If you cast Meteor
Swarm to avoid wasting your REALLY good spells... -If your
character sheet is longer than the Player's Handbook... -If
you have a magic item that can destroy the world...with four
charges left... -If the God of Destiny asks you what will
have next... ...you might be a Munchkin.
From:
California | Registered: Aug 2002 |
IP: Logged
| |
finnmckool
Member Member # 112643
|
posted February 25, 2003 02:58 PM
The rules
need to be balanced so you can break them for accuracy. It all
depends on your campaign. For instance, my Star Wars game is
REALLY big (6-8 characters with NPC's). Most of us aren't RPG
fanatics, it's just something we do. Ergo, to keep the more
munchkinizing amongst us from running amok and ruining the
game it needs to be balanced.
However, my WoT game is a
little smaller, a little calmer and we think things through
more. So accuracy is more important because it's more about
the characters and what they do then how many people we can
kill at once.
See?
Registered:
Nov 2002 | IP: Logged
| |
Matwin Luthair
Al'Ra Member Member
# 121887
|
posted February 26, 2003 10:15 AM
I'll have
to reply here. I feel that, in the books, the ability to
channel is certainly in a class of its own. How many times did
we see a character using the one power in a way previously
unthought of? Alot, numerous times throughout the novel there
are characters using "lost weaves" or "lost talents" remember
when nynaeve "healed what could not be healed"? what level do
you think she had achieved by this time in the novel? 3? 4?
It's apparent that the ability to use a certain weave
generally manifests itself in the user, and more rare where
the user can "teach" him/herself how to use a new weave,
unless being tought by someone else. What Im saying here is
that at the GM's discretion, a character can learn and use a
high level weave but still be a relatively low level PC. If I
was the GM we would, for the most part, go by the level
descriptions, but IF NEEDED I would give weaves to the
channeler PC's.
-------------------- Be the change
you wish to see in this world. - Mahatma Gandhi
From:
Lubbock | Registered: Jan 2003 | IP:
Logged
| |
JosephKell
Member Member # 99447
|
posted February 26, 2003 12:05 PM
GM's can
throw balance to the wind, but rules in print need to be
balanced, that includes what is here.
And Nynaeve was
level 14 at the end of book 6 and wasn't Logain restored after
book 6?
The fact that he was restored entirely makes me
think that restoring the opposite gender has a -6 weave level.
But I don't know.
-------------------- Instant
Message me @ JonERPG on the AIMer
Visit AielManSpear
-If you cast Meteor
Swarm to avoid wasting your REALLY good spells... -If your
character sheet is longer than the Player's Handbook... -If
you have a magic item that can destroy the world...with four
charges left... -If the God of Destiny asks you what will
have next... ...you might be a Munchkin.
From:
California | Registered: Aug 2002 |
IP: Logged
| |
Elsbon
Member Member # 25397
|
posted February 26, 2003 10:47 PM
Well, I
decided to look it up before opening my mouth - and apparently
Nynaeve did heal Logain (and Siuan and Leane) in book 6, later
than I was initially thinking. But, I'll have to agree with
Matwin here - I like the idea that if it seems to fit, and
makes the story neat for you, then it's fine for a character
to have something strange happen, like creating a new effect,
or doing something more powerful than they should be able to.
Strong emotion can go a long way in a story.
And there was an interesting comment or two
in the middle about how important the characters should be. I
can see two interpretations here:
a) The main
characters in the book are doing wild, cool things. Hence,
since the PC's become the main characters, it makes sense for
the fate of the world to rest on them.
b) The main
characters in the book do wild, cool things, surpassing
everyone else. Since the PC's aren't the main characters, you
don't get to do crazy, wild, world-shaping things.
And
of course there's a mix in between. Myself, I lean towards the
first (at least eventually - you can start small), as I like
the characters in an rpg to be special. But that's just me.
From:
Ann Arbor, MI USA | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
| |
Eagle Prince
Member Member # 67693
|
posted February 27, 2003 02:03 AM
If by
"accuracy" you mean channelers and aiel should be demigods and
anything else save maybe blademaster-level Warders a 1st level
commoner--gah, I've roleplayed WoT too many times with people
who seem to think wierd stuff like this. Or that Randlanders
have never heard of armor before, and so it has no place in
the game. Or this or that, it gets really annoying.
If
you are going to give aiel super-beefy stats, then they'll
need a fair level adjustment to balance it out. Otherwise, you
are just cheating imo. You'll get someone who loves channelers
and think they are godlike, and then complain how the game is
so unrealistic because a Fade can still take him down. First,
I don't think they're anywhere near this powerful in the
novels, but more importantly, people like this also want the
extra power they think channelers have with no side effects.
Like a higher ECL for example. This goes something along the
effect of his 10th level channeler should supposedly be able
to wipe out eight fists of trollocs and where a BM would fall
to 2 fades no matter the circumstances. Sorry, if you can bat
down 50 trollocs in the blink of an eye, you shouldn't get a
single point of XP for it.
I think you get my point
here. Even if you are some nut who thinks channelers are
virtual gods, then you're no longer going to get any XP for
killing of a dozen trollocs. You'll have to go up against a
channeler as strong as yourself to get enough challege to earn
XP... win enough of these life-threatening duals, and you
might survive long enough to earn another
level.
Anyway, balance vs accuracy... there are ways to
balance pretty much anything, let alone something with rigid
guidelines to work off like WoT novels. Saying you need to
choose one over the other... well, I don't understand it. I
think 99% of the people who would "unbalance their game for
accuracy" are the real munchins, not some guy who's played his
nonwarder swordsman for 2 years and still gets shot down
because he feels by now he's earned the right to claim enough
still to at least kill your average aiel warrior. ![[Cthulhu]](Wizards_Com Boards Which is more important__ balance or accuracy_fichiers/cthulhu_green.gif)
-------------------- I am the Immortal
One hidden from the dawn, I am the Emperor-King after day has
gone.
From:
Utah | Registered: Feb 2002 | IP: Logged
| |
galadgawyn
Member Member # 126713
|
posted March 02, 2003 11:44 AM
Which way
to go I think depends on why you are playing the game. If you
are (like me) a huge fan of the series and you are playing
because you want to develop/be immersed in this setting then
realism is number one. If you just want to kill stuff or do
cool things or whatever then you might prefer balance. However
if you do a really good job at realism (assuming its based on
well written books) I think it tends to sort out some of the
balance issues.
For example with channelers vs.
non-channelers, while in general channelers are much more
powerful there are a lot of things to temper
that:
channelers take longer to level up/become
powerful (look at Mat and Perrin vs. Egwene and Nynevae in bk
1-3)
channelers (especially males) tend to draw strong
opposition and even hatred i.e. whitecloaks always wanting to
kill them, everyone wanting to gentle males, etc... (I think
in the books fame, reputation and alignment play a very strong
part and can be emphasized with good roleplaying, like gaining
alliances and such)
they also have restrictions like
the Three Oaths or the codes of honor for other
groups
if they try to destroy a couple fists of
trollocs there is the risk of burnout or even physical
exhaustion to the point of death - while the main characters
could easily do this it is clear they are the exceptions.
Moraine was considered one of the strongest Aes Sedai and it
would be difficult for her to do that. As far as the power
of the PC's goes, if you set it in the time of the books there
is no way for them to be world shaking and maintain realism.
Everything revolves around Rand and co. and he is the most
powerful. Its a big world though and you can still have the
characters be significant with the fate of a nation (Murandy)
or group (Brown Ajah) be dependent on the PCs. If you want
them to be the main power center then set it in some other
time like the Trolloc Wars.
Also the fact that almost
all Aes Sedai have warders should point out that they are not
all powerful. For instance if a warder kills a Fade thats it
but, if the Aes Sedai does, channeling can be detected and
that might bring more Fades, shadowspawn, or Black
Ajah/dreadlords down on top of them.
quote:
So, that
warrants the question... casting balance aside, what changes
would you make to make the rules accurate?
While the channeling system may work in a game, imo
it's severely lacking in trying to portray channeling in the
books. An example would be the character write-ups of main
characters in the back of the sourcebook. They don't come
close. Because of this my friend and I have only used
non-channelers in our campaigns so far. We are working on
revamping the whole system.
Some of the problems: not
differentiating between skill, power, and
potential
characters not being able to do what they
could do in the books (Moraine and Nynavae channeling
balefire, Rand channeling a dozen weaves at once)
don't
like the system for slicing weaves
invert should be a
feat not a skill (it seems its something you can do or you
can't not something you practice and get better at)
not
allowing enough specialization - some channelers are much
better at healing than others (Nynavae, Flinn, etc.), or the
Wise Woman who had developed shielding almost to a talent in
book 7
there are many weaves which are somewhat off and
others which are just left out (I don't have the book with me
right now so I can't say which)
the idea that in order
for Nynavae to be a powerful wilder (which she was) she has to
have a high charisma score (which she shouldn't- she was
stubborn and irritating and made people mad)
Some of
the things we are planning on doing is adding a seventh
channeling potential stat (which was mentioned elsewhere).
This would be an indication of a channeler's raw power; Rand
would be a 20, Nynavae a 16, Moraine a 12, Morgase a 1, etc.
You would still need to take levels in a channeling class; any
character who wants to become better has to spend time
training in those skills. Also while your potential may be a
12, your actual starts at 1 and increases until you hit your
max. Another thing would be the possibility for wilders to
randomly channel things they don't know or shouldn't be able
to channel. Like in book 3 when Nynavae under stress channels
balefire at the Myddraal. Or when Rand shields Egwene and
Elayne in book 4. They didn't remember how to do that stuff
after it was over but other times they did so we would give
them a certain percentage at learning it.
We are
thinking of allowing characters to put skill points into
specific weaves. Also being able to take an affinity twice (to
show special ability in earth, wind, etc.) or adding more than
one level in a Talent. Also adding a couple channeling skills
like Finesse to show ability at channeling with precision.
This is just a start. We are working on other stuff.
If you have any feedback on whether I'm off basis or any
suggestions to make on what to change or improve that would be
appreciated.
I realize that this tends to be more
difficult and time consuming and thats why some people may
simply go for balance but, for me the realism is worth the
effort.
Registered:
Feb 2003 | IP: Logged
| | |