Board index » Across the Megaverse® » Guild of Magic & Psionics

 


Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Magic Proficiencies
Unread postPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2014 7:57 pm
  

User avatar
Palladin

Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 7:39 am
Posts: 9303
13eowulf wrote:
Nightmask wrote:
13eowulf wrote:
Nightmask wrote:
I've read the book and there's nothing wrong in my assessment of things. The limitations AREN'T required, the limitations CAN be eliminated BY THE BOOK by spending a skill to eliminate it, and the text makes it clear that the limitations DON'T have to be used because you can pay to eliminate them.


Well, clearly you havent read it in a while, because that isnt what the text indicates at all, as shown above. You can state otherwise all you want, but that wont change the actual printed words, nor their definitions.


I read it last night, which is why I know based on what's actually written you are in error and limitations aren't required and in fact shouldn't be imposed if you are purchasing a sorcerous proficiency with a skill. Limitations and Sorcerous Proficiencies only go together if you're using the one to pay off the other rather than expend a skill to do so, otherwise no.


Well then, it wont be too much trouble for you to quote the exact text then, will it? Cause what you keep repeating, it does not match the text.


I'm not requoting the entire book material on Sorcerous Proficiencies and Limitations because you have to look at all the material instead of cherry picking to get the result you want, particularly when you've failed to disprove anything I've said (since you can't). Going by all the material it boils down to this:

You can spend a skill to acquire a sorcerous proficiency without a limitation.

You don't spend a skill but acquire a limitation to pay for the sorcerous proficiency (which seems to be how you're favored to go).

You acquire a limitation and instead use it to get another skill instead.

You decide to spend a skill to pay off an existing limitation and by extension you're paying for whatever you bought with it as a result. This can mean that you've either simply paid for the skill you earlier took the penalty to pay for or it means you now have a sorcerous proficiency without a limitation.

Since the book makes it clear you can eliminate a limitation at a cost of a skill then sorcerous proficiencies DON'T have to have limitations, provided you pay a skill to eliminate it.

Seriously, how stupid would you have to be to pay a skill to acquire both a sorcerous proficiency and a limitation (that the book doesn't say you have) then pay ANOTHER skill down the line to eliminate it when you can do all that at the cost of just ONE skill instead of two?

By everything, particularly the material under limitations, it's quite clear that no you do not pay skills to get both a bonus and penalty (proficiency/limitation) you pay a skill for a bonus (proficiency) and if you aren't willing to pay the skill THEN you get stuck with both. Because as much as you refuse to acknowledge it the book makes it clear that you don't have to have a limitation if you've got a sorcerous proficiency if you're willing to pay the skill to eliminate it.

_________________
Fair warning: I consider being called a munchkin a highly offensive slur and do report people when they err in doing so.

'Reality is very disappointing.' - Jonathan Switcher from Mannequin

It's 'canon', not 'cannon'. A cannon is a big gun like on pirate ships, canon is what you mean when referring to something as being contained within one of the books such as how many dice to roll for a stat.


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: Magic Proficiencies
Unread postPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2014 8:04 pm
  

User avatar
Megaversal® Ambassador

Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 6:15 pm
Posts: 1358
Location: Ontario, Canada
Nightmask wrote:
13eowulf wrote:
Nightmask wrote:
13eowulf wrote:
Nightmask wrote:
I've read the book and there's nothing wrong in my assessment of things. The limitations AREN'T required, the limitations CAN be eliminated BY THE BOOK by spending a skill to eliminate it, and the text makes it clear that the limitations DON'T have to be used because you can pay to eliminate them.


Well, clearly you havent read it in a while, because that isnt what the text indicates at all, as shown above. You can state otherwise all you want, but that wont change the actual printed words, nor their definitions.


I read it last night, which is why I know based on what's actually written you are in error and limitations aren't required and in fact shouldn't be imposed if you are purchasing a sorcerous proficiency with a skill. Limitations and Sorcerous Proficiencies only go together if you're using the one to pay off the other rather than expend a skill to do so, otherwise no.


Well then, it wont be too much trouble for you to quote the exact text then, will it? Cause what you keep repeating, it does not match the text.


I'm not requoting the entire book material on Sorcerous Proficiencies and Limitations because you have to look at all the material instead of cherry picking to get the result you want, particularly when you've failed to disprove anything I've said (since you can't). Going by all the material it boils down to this:

You can spend a skill to acquire a sorcerous proficiency without a limitation.

You don't spend a skill but acquire a limitation to pay for the sorcerous proficiency (which seems to be how you're favored to go).

You acquire a limitation and instead use it to get another skill instead.

You decide to spend a skill to pay off an existing limitation and by extension you're paying for whatever you bought with it as a result. This can mean that you've either simply paid for the skill you earlier took the penalty to pay for or it means you now have a sorcerous proficiency without a limitation.

Since the book makes it clear you can eliminate a limitation at a cost of a skill then sorcerous proficiencies DON'T have to have limitations, provided you pay a skill to eliminate it.

Seriously, how stupid would you have to be to pay a skill to acquire both a sorcerous proficiency and a limitation (that the book doesn't say you have) then pay ANOTHER skill down the line to eliminate it when you can do all that at the cost of just ONE skill instead of two?

By everything, particularly the material under limitations, it's quite clear that no you do not pay skills to get both a bonus and penalty (proficiency/limitation) you pay a skill for a bonus (proficiency) and if you aren't willing to pay the skill THEN you get stuck with both. Because as much as you refuse to acknowledge it the book makes it clear that you don't have to have a limitation if you've got a sorcerous proficiency if you're willing to pay the skill to eliminate it.


I accept your admission that the text does not match your position. :)

_________________
Oderint Dum Metuant.

Huntmaster


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: Magic Proficiencies
Unread postPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2014 8:12 pm
  

User avatar
Palladin

Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 7:39 am
Posts: 9303
13eowulf wrote:
Nightmask wrote:
13eowulf wrote:
Nightmask wrote:
I read it last night, which is why I know based on what's actually written you are in error and limitations aren't required and in fact shouldn't be imposed if you are purchasing a sorcerous proficiency with a skill. Limitations and Sorcerous Proficiencies only go together if you're using the one to pay off the other rather than expend a skill to do so, otherwise no.


Well then, it wont be too much trouble for you to quote the exact text then, will it? Cause what you keep repeating, it does not match the text.


I'm not requoting the entire book material on Sorcerous Proficiencies and Limitations because you have to look at all the material instead of cherry picking to get the result you want, particularly when you've failed to disprove anything I've said (since you can't). Going by all the material it boils down to this:

You can spend a skill to acquire a sorcerous proficiency without a limitation.

You don't spend a skill but acquire a limitation to pay for the sorcerous proficiency (which seems to be how you're favored to go).

You acquire a limitation and instead use it to get another skill instead.

You decide to spend a skill to pay off an existing limitation and by extension you're paying for whatever you bought with it as a result. This can mean that you've either simply paid for the skill you earlier took the penalty to pay for or it means you now have a sorcerous proficiency without a limitation.

Since the book makes it clear you can eliminate a limitation at a cost of a skill then sorcerous proficiencies DON'T have to have limitations, provided you pay a skill to eliminate it.

Seriously, how stupid would you have to be to pay a skill to acquire both a sorcerous proficiency and a limitation (that the book doesn't say you have) then pay ANOTHER skill down the line to eliminate it when you can do all that at the cost of just ONE skill instead of two?

By everything, particularly the material under limitations, it's quite clear that no you do not pay skills to get both a bonus and penalty (proficiency/limitation) you pay a skill for a bonus (proficiency) and if you aren't willing to pay the skill THEN you get stuck with both. Because as much as you refuse to acknowledge it the book makes it clear that you don't have to have a limitation if you've got a sorcerous proficiency if you're willing to pay the skill to eliminate it.


I accept your admission that the text does not match your position. :)


*laughs* Not even remotely what I said and if you actually got that from what I posted you REALLY need to brush up on your reading.

Seriously, does or does not the book say that you can pay a skill to remove a limitation?

Does or does not that mean that you now have a sorcerous proficiency without a limitation?

Does or does not the book say by acquiring a limitation it means you can acquire a sorcerous proficiency at the same time without spending a skill?

Does or does not this mean that by spending a skill you can acquire a sorcerous proficiency without a limitation?

If you think any of those are 'not' then point to the actual text that supports it.

Warning: Keep your commentary about the post rather than the poster.

_________________
Fair warning: I consider being called a munchkin a highly offensive slur and do report people when they err in doing so.

'Reality is very disappointing.' - Jonathan Switcher from Mannequin

It's 'canon', not 'cannon'. A cannon is a big gun like on pirate ships, canon is what you mean when referring to something as being contained within one of the books such as how many dice to roll for a stat.


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: Magic Proficiencies
Unread postPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2014 9:54 pm
  

User avatar
Champion

Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Posts: 2513
Location: Boise, ID (US)
Greetings and Salutations. As for the "should" debate, I realized something as I went to reread it. I was wrong. I said it wasn't listed as Optional, and in fact it is. Before Sorcerous Proficiencies begins the section is listed as "Optional." This is agian mentioned in the heading for the Limitations. So the Proficiencies and Limitations are officially "Optional" rules. I guess I was so busy reading the bulk text that I missed the heading.

Optional rules (more so than standard rules) are designed as recommendations. As such, I'd say "should" makes even more sense (this is how you should run it, but as it's optional it's really the G.M.'s call). However, if discussing how the Optional rules work, then following its recommendations makes the most sense. Not using an Optional rule is fine, that's why they're optional, but all this arguing that the wording of the Optional rule makes it Optional just seems ridiculous.

With that said, I'll address a few specific points (1 from drewkitty and 1 from Nightmask).

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
Suggests Prysus reread the TtGD text, and look for where it talks about the reasons between choosing prof. vs the random roll for one.

Reread it (more than once), now what? Random rolls would still be referring to the random roll table that follows. If you feel there's some indication that it means random roll for number (which it doesn't state from what I can read), tell me which sentence you think gives that impression and where the table to roll on is included. If you feel it means something else (and I've again missed what you meant), then break it down for me. I'm not opposed to being wrong, I just don't think I am in this case. But if you can make a convincing case (and I have yet to see it), I can deal with it. That's how we learn. From the evidence supported so far, I think you've made your case (imo).

Nightmask wrote:
Particularly since if you look under the Limitations section it says you get a sorcerous proficiency automatically if you take a limitation. So if taking a limitation gives you a free sorcerous proficiency at the same time then why would spending a skill slot on a proficiency ALSO stick you with a limitation? It's established under Limitations that there's no cost to getting a sorcerous proficiency if you take a limitation at the same time, so if you're spending a skill to purchase the sorcerous proficiency then logically you shouldn't be getting anything except the sorcerous proficiency as the skill you're spending is to pay off that limitation so it never manifests.

First, it doesn't say you automatically get a Sorcerous Proficiency. You can select between a Proficiency or a skill. You mention this in a later post, so I won't dwell on that one (but I do think it's important).

Second, the topic of taking a Limitation to gain a Skill/Profifciency is optional (as in, characters don't have to do it, even if they're using the Limtiation rules) and can only be done after the character levels. Also keep in mind as characters level they gain additional skills and abilities, even outside of this. In various games (I don't know Nightbane well enough to give a setting specific example) you'll see things similar to: Seven additional skills, two which must be from the Communications category" (in relation to O.C.C. Related skills). So sometimes, a certain O.C.C. will force you to take certain types of skills (usually not as you level, admittedly).

Third, this is the last paragraph. This comes after they discuss you should have one limitation for each proficiency, and after they discuss spending skills to remove Limitations. This coming last makes no sense if this is the only purpose of this entire section. This paragraph even starts off saying: "Likewise, with experience [snip], the unfortunate may lose his/her grip on reality still further." That implies selecting Limitations in this way adds more Limitations, not the only way they're obtained. In order to "further" an effect, there must first be an effect (in this case, Limitations).

Let's look at this a different way. Taking a Limitation grants you a Secondary Skill. A Secondary Skill grants you a Sorcerous Proficiency. What is the end result? For the cost of a Secondary Skill, you have a Sorcerous Proficiency and a Sorcerous Limitation. Yes, I'm presenting the information in a different way than the book states it, but the result is the same.

To quote something you said to someone else: "I have to wonder why you think that somehow the rules don't work in both directions ..." So let's look at it BOTH ways. I'll show the way I'm suggesting first, and then I'll show your way and we'll see which one works in both directions.

My way:
Skill = Proficiency + Limitation.
Limitation + Proficiency = Skill.

Your way:
Skill = Proficiency.
Limitation + Proficiency = Skill.

Which of those two scenarios looks like they work BOTH ways? Note: That's not the best mathematical formula to represent the equation (as it gets far more complicated), but it was the best visual.

Anyways, that's all for now. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

_________________
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: Magic Proficiencies
Unread postPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2014 11:01 pm
  

User avatar
Palladin

Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 7:39 am
Posts: 9303
Prysus wrote:
Greetings and Salutations. As for the "should" debate, I realized something as I went to reread it. I was wrong. I said it wasn't listed as Optional, and in fact it is. Before Sorcerous Proficiencies begins the section is listed as "Optional." This is agian mentioned in the heading for the Limitations. So the Proficiencies and Limitations are officially "Optional" rules. I guess I was so busy reading the bulk text that I missed the heading.

Optional rules (more so than standard rules) are designed as recommendations. As such, I'd say "should" makes even more sense (this is how you should run it, but as it's optional it's really the G.M.'s call). However, if discussing how the Optional rules work, then following its recommendations makes the most sense. Not using an Optional rule is fine, that's why they're optional, but all this arguing that the wording of the Optional rule makes it Optional just seems ridiculous.

With that said, I'll address a few specific points (1 from drewkitty and 1 from Nightmask).

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
Suggests Prysus reread the TtGD text, and look for where it talks about the reasons between choosing prof. vs the random roll for one.

Reread it (more than once), now what? Random rolls would still be referring to the random roll table that follows. If you feel there's some indication that it means random roll for number (which it doesn't state from what I can read), tell me which sentence you think gives that impression and where the table to roll on is included. If you feel it means something else (and I've again missed what you meant), then break it down for me. I'm not opposed to being wrong, I just don't think I am in this case. But if you can make a convincing case (and I have yet to see it), I can deal with it. That's how we learn. From the evidence supported so far, I think you've made your case (imo).

Nightmask wrote:
Particularly since if you look under the Limitations section it says you get a sorcerous proficiency automatically if you take a limitation. So if taking a limitation gives you a free sorcerous proficiency at the same time then why would spending a skill slot on a proficiency ALSO stick you with a limitation? It's established under Limitations that there's no cost to getting a sorcerous proficiency if you take a limitation at the same time, so if you're spending a skill to purchase the sorcerous proficiency then logically you shouldn't be getting anything except the sorcerous proficiency as the skill you're spending is to pay off that limitation so it never manifests.

First, it doesn't say you automatically get a Sorcerous Proficiency. You can select between a Proficiency or a skill. You mention this in a later post, so I won't dwell on that one (but I do think it's important).

Second, the topic of taking a Limitation to gain a Skill/Profifciency is optional (as in, characters don't have to do it, even if they're using the Limtiation rules) and can only be done after the character levels. Also keep in mind as characters level they gain additional skills and abilities, even outside of this. In various games (I don't know Nightbane well enough to give a setting specific example) you'll see things similar to: Seven additional skills, two which must be from the Communications category" (in relation to O.C.C. Related skills). So sometimes, a certain O.C.C. will force you to take certain types of skills (usually not as you level, admittedly).

Third, this is the last paragraph. This comes after they discuss you should have one limitation for each proficiency, and after they discuss spending skills to remove Limitations. This coming last makes no sense if this is the only purpose of this entire section. This paragraph even starts off saying: "Likewise, with experience [snip], the unfortunate may lose his/her grip on reality still further." That implies selecting Limitations in this way adds more Limitations, not the only way they're obtained. In order to "further" an effect, there must first be an effect (in this case, Limitations).

Let's look at this a different way. Taking a Limitation grants you a Secondary Skill. A Secondary Skill grants you a Sorcerous Proficiency. What is the end result? For the cost of a Secondary Skill, you have a Sorcerous Proficiency and a Sorcerous Limitation. Yes, I'm presenting the information in a different way than the book states it, but the result is the same.

To quote something you said to someone else: "I have to wonder why you think that somehow the rules don't work in both directions ..." So let's look at it BOTH ways. I'll show the way I'm suggesting first, and then I'll show your way and we'll see which one works in both directions.

My way:
Skill = Proficiency + Limitation.
Limitation + Proficiency = Skill.

Your way:
Skill = Proficiency.
Limitation + Proficiency = Skill.

Which of those two scenarios looks like they work BOTH ways? Note: That's not the best mathematical formula to represent the equation (as it gets far more complicated), but it was the best visual.

Anyways, that's all for now. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.


Well the problem with your way is that that's not how it actually works or is actually written. Your not correctly representing my way either.

It goes more like:
No Skill=Proficiency+Limitation
Skill=Proficiency (limitation bought off)
Limitation+Proficiency=No Skill (since you don't get both a skill and a proficiency only one or the other).

Now I will concede that when it says you can automatically start with a proficiency since it's automatic and not paid for with a skill one can say you should have the limitation too, however if you choose to give up a skill then you shouldn't have a limitation because you paid it off at the time.

Later in the game however the way things are written you most definitely shouldn't be paying a skill and getting stuck with both a proficiency and a limitation and should only have the proficiency, since if you can pick a limitation and get a proficiency to go along with it and later on pay a skill to remove the limitation you definitely shouldn't be paying a skill for a proficiency and STILL having a limitation imposed upon you and require another skill be spent to remove it. One way you spend one skill and end up with one proficiency without a limitation the other way you end up spending two skills, which makes the latter path wrong because both should net cost you one skill to end up with one limitation-free proficiency.

_________________
Fair warning: I consider being called a munchkin a highly offensive slur and do report people when they err in doing so.

'Reality is very disappointing.' - Jonathan Switcher from Mannequin

It's 'canon', not 'cannon'. A cannon is a big gun like on pirate ships, canon is what you mean when referring to something as being contained within one of the books such as how many dice to roll for a stat.


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: Magic Proficiencies
Unread postPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2014 11:19 pm
  

User avatar
Palladin

Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:40 pm
Posts: 9481
Comment: Palladium Books Canon is set solely by Kevin Siembieda, either in person, or by his approval of published material.
Why not?
Look at it this way
when you start you can trade 1 skill for 1 proficiency and one limit. The and is because the starting portion clearly says that you should have one limit for each proficiency.
When you level up you can take another limit. If you do so you can also take either one skill or one proficiency.
When you level up you can trade one skill to buy off one limit.

The two level ups (gaining limits, and gaining secondary skills) are different. You gain BOTH on level up at the appropriate tiers.

_________________
The rules are not a bludgeon with which to hammer a character into a game. They are a guide to how a group of friends can get together to weave a collective story that entertains everyone involved. We forget that at our peril.

Edmund Burke wrote:
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: Magic Proficiencies
Unread postPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2014 11:23 pm
  

User avatar
Monk

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Posts: 15090
Location: Eastvale, calif
When the TtGD text talks about selecting a ML it is in reference to a strong character concept. And that if there is no strong char concept that the random roll should be used.

That is IT. I don't see why me mentioning what is in the text is getting people's hackles up.

Selecting ML's
In the ML section: 1st sentence of the 3rd paragraph "If the player has a strong central concept...."

In the ML section: 2nd paragraph "If the player has a strong central concept...."
:roll: :roll: :roll:
----------------
At char creation one MP takes place one secondary skill (one ML may be added, though not it is not a necessity, there should be one).

_________________
Q's on this board need canon answers first for the question that was asked. Then you can post your own opinions or house rules, they need to be listed/declareds as your own opinions or house rules.


My Artwork


Last edited by drewkitty ~..~ on Sat Apr 12, 2014 11:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: Magic Proficiencies
Unread postPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2014 11:37 pm
  

User avatar
Palladin

Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:40 pm
Posts: 9481
Comment: Palladium Books Canon is set solely by Kevin Siembieda, either in person, or by his approval of published material.
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
When the TtGD text talks about selecting a ML it is in reference to a strong character concept. And that if there is no strong char concept that the random roll should be used.

That is IT. I don't see why me mentioning what is in the text is getting people's hackles up.

Selecting ML's
In the ML section: 1st sentance of the 3rd paragraph "If the player has a strong central concept...."

In the ML section: 2nd paragraph "If the player has a strong central concept...."
:roll: :roll: :roll:

Because you were saying that it said something it didn't?
Or as you are fond of saying, you used the wrong words, so you conveyed the wrong message.
when you say
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
Then it also discusses that if there is no strong char concept that a random die roll could be used to assign what number of ML's that are used.

you imply that the number of proficiencies and limitations is random, when in fact the book says no such thing. The people are just reacting to what you conveyed is all.

_________________
The rules are not a bludgeon with which to hammer a character into a game. They are a guide to how a group of friends can get together to weave a collective story that entertains everyone involved. We forget that at our peril.

Edmund Burke wrote:
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: Magic Proficiencies
Unread postPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2014 11:44 pm
  

User avatar
Monk

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Posts: 15090
Location: Eastvale, calif
I was not Immplying anything.

If you took WHAT I SAID!!!! in the context of what I WAS TALKING ABOUT, then you would of reconized I was saying EXACTLY what the book says. :crane: :crane: :crane: :crane: :crane: :crane: :crane: :crane: :crane: :crane: :crane: :crane: :crane: :crane:

_________________
Q's on this board need canon answers first for the question that was asked. Then you can post your own opinions or house rules, they need to be listed/declareds as your own opinions or house rules.


My Artwork


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: Magic Proficiencies
Unread postPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2014 11:45 pm
  

User avatar
Palladin

Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 7:39 am
Posts: 9303
eliakon wrote:
Why not?
Look at it this way
when you start you can trade 1 skill for 1 proficiency and one limit. The and is because the starting portion clearly says that you should have one limit for each proficiency.
When you level up you can take another limit. If you do so you can also take either one skill or one proficiency.
When you level up you can trade one skill to buy off one limit.

The two level ups (gaining limits, and gaining secondary skills) are different. You gain BOTH on level up at the appropriate tiers.


Except that when you read through the proficiencies nowhere does it say anything about spend skill get proficiency AND limitation, it says spend skill and acquire a proficiency. It also refers to spending OCC-related skills to acquire them and makes it clear that sorcerous proficiencies are like weapon proficiencies more than they are skills.

Later over in the limitations section it suggests that you should have a limitation for every sorcerous proficiency then contradicts that by saying that humans in general should have no more than 1d4 limitations and nightbane magicians should only have one. It's also made clear in that section that while you're spending OCC skills to acquire proficiencies and pay off limitations the limitations only provide you either a secondary skill to compensate for it or a sorcerous proficiency.

In the end you'll run it how you want but the book doesn't say that you spend a skill and get a proficiency and a limitation, only that you gain a proficiency. If later you want another proficiency and don't want to spend a skill you can take a limitation to pay for it instead and later on pay off the limitation with a skill to remove it, BUT by the book clearly you don't have a situation where a proficiency must have an associated limitation because limitations can be bought off with skills. So while some situations have it where you have both a proficiency and a limitation that doesn't hold for all situations such as those where you're spending OCC-related skill to buy them. The limitation is a product of 'can't have something for nothing', either you take a limitation or spend a skill not to have a limitation.

_________________
Fair warning: I consider being called a munchkin a highly offensive slur and do report people when they err in doing so.

'Reality is very disappointing.' - Jonathan Switcher from Mannequin

It's 'canon', not 'cannon'. A cannon is a big gun like on pirate ships, canon is what you mean when referring to something as being contained within one of the books such as how many dice to roll for a stat.


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: Magic Proficiencies
Unread postPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 10:35 am
  

User avatar
Champion

Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Posts: 2513
Location: Boise, ID (US)
Nightmask wrote:
Well the problem with your way is that that's not how it actually works or is actually written.

Greetings and Salutations. This has been discussed, repeatedly. But I'll repeat, again. For simplicity, let's call Sorcerous Proficiencies "Optional Rule #1." We'll call Sorcerous Limitations & Weaknesses "Optional Rule #2."

In Optional Rule #1 it tells us we need to spend a skill to obtain a Proficiency. This is the only way provided in the write-up (and no other way has yet to be proven or even attempted to be proven). Optional Rule #1 only discusses Optional Rule #1 and nothing else.

In Optional Rule #2, it tells if we use Optional Rule #1 we should use Optional Rule #2. Proficiencies and Limitations "should"* be taken 1 for 1.

* You can go back to arguing the "should" factor, but all that really comes down to is: "'Should' means it's optional. Therefore Optional Rule #2 is optional and not required." So please, if you're going to argue that, try to come up with something other than proving an Optional Rule is optional.

Nightmask wrote:
Your not correctly representing my way either.

It goes more like:
No Skill=Proficiency+Limitation
Skill=Proficiency (limitation bought off)
Limitation+Proficiency=No Skill (since you don't get both a skill and a proficiency only one or the other).

There's a problem with the way you represent your way. First, the top equation isn't an option in TtGD. Second, you're ignoring part of the last option. I agree with the note, you do NOT get both a skill and a proficiency. However, that same logic holds true above as well. In Optional Rule #1, you do NOT get a skill and a proficiency. You have to give up one to have the other. In Optional Rule #1 you can give up a skill to get a Proficiency. So you have one, but not the other. In Optional Rule #2 (the last paragraph in current discussion), you can give up a skill to get a Proficiency.

Also, it ignores the other way I mentioned. You can take the Skill, then use the Skill to purchase a Proficiency. All the option to take a Proficiency or a Skill does is eliminate the unnecessary middle man if you go with the Proficiency. This is why I pointed out last time that you can't ignore the Skill option involved, because it's part of the equation. You can try to argue you never have the skill, but the same argument is also true for Optional Rule #1. Instead of taking the skill, you took the Proficiency. So you never had it. You don't select a skill, and then it magically vanishes off your character sheet and erased from the character's mind to transform into a Sorcerous Proficiency, you do not select a skill (give it up) to select a Proficiency instead (same as in Optional Rule #2).

Nightmask wrote:
Now I will concede that when it says you can automatically start with a proficiency since it's automatic and not paid for with a skill one can say you should have the limitation too ...

The problem is that there are no automatic proficiencies in TtGD. The closest we have is the last paragraph of Optional Rule #2, which "further" limits the character.

Note: The closest we have to automatic is that it says you do not need to roll % to succeed, as they're used automatically. Using something automatically and gaining something automatically are not the same things though.

I didn't respond to the rest because mostly it's just repeating what's already been said, and the echoing in this thread is boring. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

_________________
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: Magic Proficiencies
Unread postPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 11:00 am
  

User avatar
Champion

Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Posts: 2513
Location: Boise, ID (US)
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
When the TtGD text talks about selecting a ML it is in reference to a strong character concept. And that if there is no strong char concept that the random roll should be used.

That is IT. I don't see why me mentioning what is in the text is getting people's hackles up.

Selecting ML's
In the ML section: 1st sentence of the 3rd paragraph "If the player has a strong central concept...."

In the ML section: 2nd paragraph "If the player has a strong central concept...."
:roll: :roll: :roll:

Greetings and Salutations. If that's directed at me, no hackles up. I'm just figuring you're 1: reading something wrong, 2: seeing something I can't see and asking you to elaborate (which you've refused so far), or 3: bringing up something that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

At first I thought it was #1, but maybe it's #3. I'll tell you what I see it's saying (to me, and probably to most other people reading it), and I'll only use Proficiencies (to keep it simple and avoid secondary arguments).

A: Player has a strong character concept, a character able to detect evil. As such, the character pays the skill and selects "Sensitive to the Supernatural."

B: No strong concept, and randomly rolls. The characters pays the skill and rolls %, resulting in 27. That's "Ritual Magic."

This is again repeated in Limitations. So we'll use the same two players.

A: The concepts continues into a servant of God sent to hunt down the supernatural. As such, "Granted Powers" is now selected.

B: Still without a strong concept, randomly rolls again. This time coming up with 04%, resulting in "Night Powers." So now the character performs Ritual Magic and night. Great for a secret cult type.

So again, this has nothing to do with the cost of skills. Not sure why it's being brought up.

If this is an attempt to say if you randomly roll then you don't need to spend a skill, at no point can I find the book saying this. If you find a section that DOES have this written, I'll be happy to check it out. I'm waiting for you to support that claim. I have no hackles up, I requested you to support your claim, to which thus far has been evaded. If you feel that it's there, then please try to form a coherent argument and explain it in more detail (or provide a specific quote that says this avoids the expenditure of skills). Just saying it's there, but refusing to back it up, or trying to fault others, instead of backing it up, resolves nothing.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
At char creation one MP takes place one secondary skill (one ML may be added, though not it is not a necessity, there should be one).

Okay, so it sounds like we're almost on the same page here. The main difference is that you've come to the conclusion that Optional Rule #2 is optional and therefore not necessary when discussiong the Optional Rule #2, because optional rules have no bearing when discussing an Optional Rule.

I can, almost, agree with that. Though I'll make the argument simpler for you: Optional Rule #2 is "Optional," therefore not a necessity. It really IS that simple. However, the best way to handle the argument then, is just not to bring up Optional Rule #2 and ask how it would work. That's just my advice for the future.

Farewell and safe journeys to all. :ok:

_________________
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: Magic Proficiencies
Unread postPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 11:13 am
  

User avatar
Champion

Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Posts: 2513
Location: Boise, ID (US)
Greetings and Salutations. To expand on my last post, drewkitty, if you do feel it's randomly rolling for a number, I am curious what table you believe they're supposed to roll on. If you feel it's the 1D4 mentioned above, let me clarify what it actually says:

Page 24: "no more than a maximum of four (1D4?)"
Page 27: ""no more than 1D4 limitations"

So we see the term "no more" and "maximum" used for those figures. Let's try a different example.

I'm going to design a house. I'm not sure how large I want the garage, but it should fit no more than 1D4 cars. Does that mean someone will get those cars for free?

The garage can fit a maximum of 1D4 cars. Will that number of cars appear in the garage for free?

The wording discusses the maximum amount a character can have, not an amount obtained freely. That's what the words actually say. Anyways, I'm off again. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

_________________
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: Magic Proficiencies
Unread postPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 12:29 pm
  

User avatar
Monk

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Posts: 15090
Location: Eastvale, calif
I have not been talking about numbers of MP's and/or ML's.

What I infer from the 1d4's mentioned is that like with MP's, the ML's can not number more then four, at least at char creation. However there is not the limitation of 'how many' that there are on the MP's for the varying char types. __ Or that if MPs are used at all the character is stuck with one to four ML's. (This is why I have a Love/Hate feelings towards PB game books at times, over the ambiguity.)

But it does bring to mind that it can be used as a mechanic to create a cursed or victomiazed char that has a number of limitations to start with but w/o any corresponding MP.

_________________
Q's on this board need canon answers first for the question that was asked. Then you can post your own opinions or house rules, they need to be listed/declareds as your own opinions or house rules.


My Artwork


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: Magic Proficiencies
Unread postPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 12:55 pm
  

User avatar
Palladin

Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 7:39 am
Posts: 9303
Prysus wrote:
Nightmask wrote:
Well the problem with your way is that that's not how it actually works or is actually written.

Greetings and Salutations. This has been discussed, repeatedly. But I'll repeat, again. For simplicity, let's call Sorcerous Proficiencies "Optional Rule #1." We'll call Sorcerous Limitations & Weaknesses "Optional Rule #2."

In Optional Rule #1 it tells us we need to spend a skill to obtain a Proficiency. This is the only way provided in the write-up (and no other way has yet to be proven or even attempted to be proven). Optional Rule #1 only discusses Optional Rule #1 and nothing else.

In Optional Rule #2, it tells if we use Optional Rule #1 we should use Optional Rule #2. Proficiencies and Limitations "should"* be taken 1 for 1.

* You can go back to arguing the "should" factor, but all that really comes down to is: "'Should' means it's optional. Therefore Optional Rule #2 is optional and not required." So please, if you're going to argue that, try to come up with something other than proving an Optional Rule is optional.

Nightmask wrote:
Your not correctly representing my way either.

It goes more like:
No Skill=Proficiency+Limitation
Skill=Proficiency (limitation bought off)
Limitation+Proficiency=No Skill (since you don't get both a skill and a proficiency only one or the other).

There's a problem with the way you represent your way. First, the top equation isn't an option in TtGD. Second, you're ignoring part of the last option. I agree with the note, you do NOT get both a skill and a proficiency. However, that same logic holds true above as well. In Optional Rule #1, you do NOT get a skill and a proficiency. You have to give up one to have the other. In Optional Rule #1 you can give up a skill to get a Proficiency. So you have one, but not the other. In Optional Rule #2 (the last paragraph in current discussion), you can give up a skill to get a Proficiency.

Also, it ignores the other way I mentioned. You can take the Skill, then use the Skill to purchase a Proficiency. All the option to take a Proficiency or a Skill does is eliminate the unnecessary middle man if you go with the Proficiency. This is why I pointed out last time that you can't ignore the Skill option involved, because it's part of the equation. You can try to argue you never have the skill, but the same argument is also true for Optional Rule #1. Instead of taking the skill, you took the Proficiency. So you never had it. You don't select a skill, and then it magically vanishes off your character sheet and erased from the character's mind to transform into a Sorcerous Proficiency, you do not select a skill (give it up) to select a Proficiency instead (same as in Optional Rule #2).

Nightmask wrote:
Now I will concede that when it says you can automatically start with a proficiency since it's automatic and not paid for with a skill one can say you should have the limitation too ...

The problem is that there are no automatic proficiencies in TtGD. The closest we have is the last paragraph of Optional Rule #2, which "further" limits the character.

Note: The closest we have to automatic is that it says you do not need to roll % to succeed, as they're used automatically. Using something automatically and gaining something automatically are not the same things though.

I didn't respond to the rest because mostly it's just repeating what's already been said, and the echoing in this thread is boring. Farewell and safe journeys for now.


I guess I'll give this one last try as I'm a glutton for punishment it seems.

The section for sorcerous proficiencies simply says 'spend one skill get one proficiency', it does NOT say 'spend one skill get both one proficiency and one limitation'. The text under limitations doesn't say that either. It recommends if you're going to use one (proficiencies) you should also use the other (limitations) rather than only making proficiencies available. It also recommends having a limitation for each proficiency (in spite of also saying right after that basically you shouldn't) but by no means does it say that you should be out a skill to get the one and get saddled with the other. The rules for later acquisition of proficiencies and limitations supports that since you can either take a limitation to cover paying for the proficiency and later spend a skill to remove the limitation or purchase it outright without a limitation.

Frankly all the effort to insist that the character should be out two skills if they want a limitation-free Proficiency contrary to what the book actually says just sounds like an effort to screw over the player by charging him twice for what he should only be paying once for, in a pretty lethal game setting and when at least some of those proficiencies (like Incantation Specialist) already have significant penalties added into them. If you want to double-charge that's your choice but that's not how the book is actually written and the proficiencies themselves aren't even remotely game-breaking or bending to warrant such expense.

_________________
Fair warning: I consider being called a munchkin a highly offensive slur and do report people when they err in doing so.

'Reality is very disappointing.' - Jonathan Switcher from Mannequin

It's 'canon', not 'cannon'. A cannon is a big gun like on pirate ships, canon is what you mean when referring to something as being contained within one of the books such as how many dice to roll for a stat.


          Top  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Magic Proficiencies
Unread postPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 1:34 pm
  

User avatar
Palladin

Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 2:37 pm
Posts: 7019
Location: Pyramid
Comment: If you have something to say, back it up with thoughts and reasons. Simply posting to agree or disagree tends to be a waste.
To spin this off into a discussion closer to canon than how to interpret a Rifter entry...

For multiple-OCC characters, are proficiencies specific to the OCC that selects them, or universal to all the classes?

Like for example, if someone selects a 'ritual casting' as a Fleshsculptor, would this give them ritual casting if they changed to become a Mirror Mage? Or would they have to re-select the proficiency?

Some of the abilities (sensing magic/supernatural, being artistic) seem pretty universal 'one time only' stuff, but others seem like they're tied to your OCC's magic powers and would be distinct to them.

I think the same applies to the limitations. Being a blood-caster or a ritual-only guy for fleshsculpting wouldn't mean you'd suffer those limitations if you changed to mirror magery. But obviously stuff like taking extra damage from attacks or wizard eyes would remain no matter what you're currently doing.

_________________
"1st edition? 2nd edition? It doesnt matter! Let's just talk" -Forums of the Megaverse


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: Magic Proficiencies
Unread postPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 1:59 pm
  

User avatar
Champion

Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Posts: 2513
Location: Boise, ID (US)
Greetings and Salutations. Okay drewkitty, I think I finally understand what you're trying to say. If so, I think I can agree to that one. I'm not going to make sure we're on the same page, because I'd rather agree and just hope we are at this point. :)

Nightmask wrote:
I guess I'll give this one last try as I'm a glutton for punishment it seems.

Yeah, I know that feeling. I think both sides tend to feel that way.

Nightmask wrote:
The section for sorcerous proficiencies simply says 'spend one skill get one proficiency', it does NOT say 'spend one skill get both one proficiency and one limitation'.

Agreed.

Nightmask wrote:
It recommends if you're going to use one (proficiencies) you should also use the other (limitations) rather than only making proficiencies available.

Agreed.

Nightmask wrote:
It also recommends having a limitation for each proficiency

Agreed.

Nightmask wrote:
but by no means does it say that you should be out a skill to get the one and get saddled with the other.

This appears to be the focus of our disagreement. Sorcerous Proficiencies tell us they cost a skill. Sorcerous Limitations say if you use Proficiencies you should use Limitations. Sorcerous Limitations also tells us for every Proficiency you should have a Limitation.

We seem to agree on that much, but I don't see any text that says: "If you use a Limitation, the Proficiency no longer costs a skill" (or anything akin to that statement). You seem to feel it does, though it's not written. Since one rule replacing another isn't written, we must accept all those statements and not cherry pick.

Note: If you want to argue that you roll 1D4 to determine maximum numbers, I can agree with that. Though that doesn't change that you must spend a skill for the Proficiency, and then still gain (at least) one Limitation (possibly more if you roll high on that D4). So, in theory, you might select only 1 Proficiency (for the cost of 1 skill) but get 4 Limitations (rolling a 4 on the D4), or you might get 4 Proficiencies (if you rolled a 4 and at the cost of 4 skills) and only 1 Limitation (rolling a 1 on the D4). That's a gamble though.

Nightmask wrote:
The rules for later acquisition of proficiencies and limitations supports that since you can either take a limitation to cover paying for the proficiency and later spend a skill to remove the limitation or purchase it outright without a limitation.

The last two paragraphs of Limitations (what's being discussed in the above quote) discusses removing or adding "further" Limitations at higher levels. In order to remove a Limitation at Level 3, you already had to have one. In order to "further" add Limitations at Level 3, you already had to have one. As such, in order to have one, you'd have to have it at character creation. The only way to gain a Sorcerous Proficiency (as written) at Level 1 is by spending a skill.

If you find a way (by the text written) to have a Sorcerous Proficiency at Level 1 without spending a skill, quote it. If you find a way to have a Limitation (as written) at Level 1 without first having a Sorcerous Proficiency, then quote it. However, despite reading it many times (almost every time before I've posted, as well as a few more in between), the only way to obtain Proficiencies at Character Creation is by spending a skill. The book is also written with Limitations existing at character creation. As such, the only way for this to work, is that by spending a skill you get both.

Nightmask wrote:
Frankly all the effort to insist that the character should be out two skills if they want a limitation-free Proficiency contrary to what the book actually says just sounds like an effort to screw over the player by charging him twice for what he should only be paying once for, in a pretty lethal game setting and when at least some of those proficiencies (like Incantation Specialist) already have significant penalties added into them. If you want to double-charge that's your choice but that's not how the book is actually written and the proficiencies themselves aren't even remotely game-breaking or bending to warrant such expense.

Actually, I don't like how costly they are. As a player, I've never used them for this reason. As a G.M., no player has ever asked, but I'd be willing to house rule it the way you're suggesting. However, my personal feelings have no bearing on what's written. Farewell and safe journeys to all.

_________________
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: Magic Proficiencies
Unread postPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 9:59 pm
  

User avatar
Palladin

Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 7:39 am
Posts: 9303
Prysus wrote:
Nightmask wrote:
but by no means does it say that you should be out a skill to get the one and get saddled with the other.


This appears to be the focus of our disagreement. Sorcerous Proficiencies tell us they cost a skill. Sorcerous Limitations say if you use Proficiencies you should use Limitations. Sorcerous Limitations also tells us for every Proficiency you should have a Limitation.

We seem to agree on that much, but I don't see any text that says: "If you use a Limitation, the Proficiency no longer costs a skill" (or anything akin to that statement). You seem to feel it does, though it's not written. Since one rule replacing another isn't written, we must accept all those statements and not cherry pick.

Note: If you want to argue that you roll 1D4 to determine maximum numbers, I can agree with that. Though that doesn't change that you must spend a skill for the Proficiency, and then still gain (at least) one Limitation (possibly more if you roll high on that D4). So, in theory, you might select only 1 Proficiency (for the cost of 1 skill) but get 4 Limitations (rolling a 4 on the D4), or you might get 4 Proficiencies (if you rolled a 4 and at the cost of 4 skills) and only 1 Limitation (rolling a 1 on the D4). That's a gamble though.


Taking a limitation constitutes giving you either a proficiency or a skill at the same time, from that one can derive that taking a limitation means NOT spending a skill on a proficiency since obviously the limitation is what you acquired to pay for the proficiency. Also note that 'have no more than X' means you can have ZERO since zero is less than X, nor does that passage mean everyone has a limitation only that if one does have a limitation they shouldn't suffer from more than X number of limitations. Nor do you roll for how many proficiencies you have at start (and as an aside it also says 'should' rather than a concrete 'must have no more than' with regards to the most proficiencies one can have), we're already told how many you have at start is based on how many you're willing to spend skills to purchase.

Prysus wrote:
Nightmask wrote:
The rules for later acquisition of proficiencies and limitations supports that since you can either take a limitation to cover paying for the proficiency and later spend a skill to remove the limitation or purchase it outright without a limitation.


The last two paragraphs of Limitations (what's being discussed in the above quote) discusses removing or adding "further" Limitations at higher levels. In order to remove a Limitation at Level 3, you already had to have one. In order to "further" add Limitations at Level 3, you already had to have one. As such, in order to have one, you'd have to have it at character creation. The only way to gain a Sorcerous Proficiency (as written) at Level 1 is by spending a skill.

If you find a way (by the text written) to have a Sorcerous Proficiency at Level 1 without spending a skill, quote it. If you find a way to have a Limitation (as written) at Level 1 without first having a Sorcerous Proficiency, then quote it. However, despite reading it many times (almost every time before I've posted, as well as a few more in between), the only way to obtain Proficiencies at Character Creation is by spending a skill. The book is also written with Limitations existing at character creation. As such, the only way for this to work, is that by spending a skill you get both.


Unfortunately again that's NOT what the text says. The very first line says 'The following limitations MAY be selected', it doesn't say 'One of the following limitations MUST be selected'. We also see the use of 'should' rather than 'required', and under the actual section on proficiencies it only says that at the cost of a skill you can get a sorcerous proficiency it doesn't say you must also take a limitation and the limitations section doesn't either. Given his 'Frankly if...' passage clearly the limitation isn't a required thing as you wouldn't use that kind of wording if it was required you use that when you clearly DON'T require it.

I'm also wondering what printing you've got of the book at this point (I've a first printing) since nowhere does it use things like 'further limitations' nor is it written with limitations as something you're required to have at start in my copy of the book. It carefully refers to someone as they level up either being able to remove a limitation they may have as they gain a new skill or slipping and being able at certain levels and acquiring a new limitation and a corresponding option to acquire a sorcerous proficiency or skill at the same time.

I suppose some of the issue might be the wording on that third paragraph, it assumes the GM is forcing limitations on characters and ignoring how in the rest of the text particularly under Sorcerous Proficiencies that it never says you must have a limitation at level one he only says he feels like you should (and ignores or forgets how he's already charging them a skill which should mean no limitation).

Prysus wrote:
Nightmask wrote:
Frankly all the effort to insist that the character should be out two skills if they want a limitation-free Proficiency contrary to what the book actually says just sounds like an effort to screw over the player by charging him twice for what he should only be paying once for, in a pretty lethal game setting and when at least some of those proficiencies (like Incantation Specialist) already have significant penalties added into them. If you want to double-charge that's your choice but that's not how the book is actually written and the proficiencies themselves aren't even remotely game-breaking or bending to warrant such expense.


Actually, I don't like how costly they are. As a player, I've never used them for this reason. As a G.M., no player has ever asked, but I'd be willing to house rule it the way you're suggesting. However, my personal feelings have no bearing on what's written. Farewell and safe journeys to all.[/justify]


Well rest assured that the actual text doesn't require imposing a limitation at start and the actual cost for a proficiency is just one skill without a corresponding limitation OR no skill spent but taking a limitation to pay for it instead.

The confusion rests in the writer having conflicting views when writing things, he TRIED writing them from a neutral stance but then switches to a negative stance where under Proficiencies he simply refers to purchasing them for skills but later under Limitations behaves as if they really shouldn't get those proficiencies without a penalty (even though at least some of the proficiencies include penalties) when previously he made no mention of them being required and if they were shouldn't be charging a skill as well when in the Limitations section we see as one levels one should be able to get them in pairs with the Limitation paying for the Proficiency.

So what we have is text that's sure that get a limitation means getting a proficiency that it paid for, text that says you can spend a skill to remove that limitation, and therefor makes it pretty clear that then if you spend a skill outright you should get the proficiency sans limitation not get both and be out a skill and have to pay a second skill to remove the limitation later. If he really wanted limitations to be required he would have been more consistent in things but he wasn't because he has them not required but only 'frankly' thinks limitations should also be paired with proficiencies (even though again that's simply not true because he gives you the means to remove limitations leaving you with only proficiencies and no limitations).

_________________
Fair warning: I consider being called a munchkin a highly offensive slur and do report people when they err in doing so.

'Reality is very disappointing.' - Jonathan Switcher from Mannequin

It's 'canon', not 'cannon'. A cannon is a big gun like on pirate ships, canon is what you mean when referring to something as being contained within one of the books such as how many dice to roll for a stat.


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: Magic Proficiencies
Unread postPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:26 am
  

User avatar
Champion

Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Posts: 2513
Location: Boise, ID (US)
Nightmask wrote:
Unfortunately again that's NOT what the text says. The very first line says 'The following limitations MAY be selected', it doesn't say 'One of the following limitations MUST be selected'. We also see the use of 'should' rather than 'required', and under the actual section on proficiencies it only says that at the cost of a skill you can get a sorcerous proficiency it doesn't say you must also take a limitation and the limitations section doesn't either. Given his 'Frankly if...' passage clearly the limitation isn't a required thing as you wouldn't use that kind of wording if it was required you use that when you clearly DON'T require it.

Greetings and Salutations. That, unfortunately, goes back to the argument that it's an Optional Rule so therefore it's optional. It's true, it's an "Optional" rule (listed as such), as are Sorcerous Proficiencies. However, since we're discussing both optional rules, arguing how they're optional and not required ends up not saying anything of value. I think everyone here agrees that the rule is optional, but since we're discussing it's application focusing on the optional aspect serves no useful purpose.

Nightmask wrote:
I'm also wondering what printing you've got of the book at this point (I've a first printing) since nowhere does it use things like 'further limitations' nor is it written with limitations as something you're required to have at start in my copy of the book. It carefully refers to someone as they level up either being able to remove a limitation they may have as they gain a new skill or slipping and being able at certain levels and acquiring a new limitation and a corresponding option to acquire a sorcerous proficiency or skill at the same time.

It doesn't state "further limitations" which is why I only put "further" in quotation marks. What it actually says (in paragraph 4) is that as you gain in experience you can lose your "grip on reality still further." This is the explanation behind gaining Limitations as you level. In the context, losing your grip on reality is gaining a new Limitation (bad/traumatic experiences causing you to lose your grip on reality and gain more Limitations). To "lose" it "still further" means it had to be lost (Limitations) in the first place. Note: I only posted at all because I felt the need to explain this paragraph in particular. The rest of this post is just because I was posting anyways. :P

Also, yes, a character can remove Limitations per Paragraph 3. However, since they can be removed as early as Level 3, and you cannot take Limitations as mentioned in Paragraph 4 until Level 3, therefore you'd have to be able to have Limitations at Level 1/Character Creation (because there are no options for gaining Limitations at Level 2 either).

As such we have the section in the first paragraph (the part of the "Optional" rule that's written like an optional rule), the third paragraph (which lets us remove Limtations starting at Level 3, which means we'd have to have Limitations before then), and the fourth paragraph which discuss "still further" in regards to gaining Limitations (which means you'd have to be able to have some before level 3). That's 3 of the 4 paragraphs (and Paragraph 2 doesn't add anything useful to the topic one way or the other).

Nightmask wrote:
I suppose some of the issue might be the wording on that third paragraph, it assumes the GM is forcing limitations on characters ...
[snip]
The confusion rests in the writer having conflicting views when writing things

Actually, I suspect the real confusion comes from a result of mixing ideas from Kevin Hassall and Kevin Siembieda. The section is listed as being written by both, but I suspect more likely Hassall submitted the manuscript and Siembieda rewrote some of the text and added some of his own ideas.

Nightmask wrote:
ignoring how in the rest of the text particularly under Sorcerous Proficiencies that it never says you must have a limitation at level one

Agreed, Sorcerous Proficiencies section never mentions requiring a Limitation. Of course they are two separate Optional Rules, hence why I labeled them earlier as Optional Rule #1 and Optional Rule #2. You can use #1 without #2, but you cannot use #2 without #1. While you don't have to use #2, it does reference #1 and once you include #2 it has an impact on the first. Writing Optional Rule #1 the way they did is good from a game design stand point, because it lets you use it while making it easy to use it with or without Optional Rule #2.

All right, I think that's all for now. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

_________________
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: Magic Proficiencies
Unread postPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 4:13 pm
  

User avatar
Palladin

Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 7:39 am
Posts: 9303
Prysus wrote:
Nightmask wrote:
Unfortunately again that's NOT what the text says. The very first line says 'The following limitations MAY be selected', it doesn't say 'One of the following limitations MUST be selected'. We also see the use of 'should' rather than 'required', and under the actual section on proficiencies it only says that at the cost of a skill you can get a sorcerous proficiency it doesn't say you must also take a limitation and the limitations section doesn't either. Given his 'Frankly if...' passage clearly the limitation isn't a required thing as you wouldn't use that kind of wording if it was required you use that when you clearly DON'T require it.


Greetings and Salutations. That, unfortunately, goes back to the argument that it's an Optional Rule so therefore it's optional. It's true, it's an "Optional" rule (listed as such), as are Sorcerous Proficiencies. However, since we're discussing both optional rules, arguing how they're optional and not required ends up not saying anything of value. I think everyone here agrees that the rule is optional, but since we're discussing it's application focusing on the optional aspect serves no useful purpose.


Optional has different contexts depending on where it's used. When I say 'optional' in that case I'm saying 'no they aren't required they're optional because the rules don't require you to impose a limitation simultaneously with a sorcerous proficiency'. Just because you include both sections doesn't mean that one section is always going to be seen doing something just because you're using stuff seen in another section. Which is why even including the limitations you don't have to actually USE the limitations if the player is paying not to have the limitation (particularly since the limitations aren't mandatory).

Prysus wrote:
Nightmask wrote:
I'm also wondering what printing you've got of the book at this point (I've a first printing) since nowhere does it use things like 'further limitations' nor is it written with limitations as something you're required to have at start in my copy of the book. It carefully refers to someone as they level up either being able to remove a limitation they may have as they gain a new skill or slipping and being able at certain levels and acquiring a new limitation and a corresponding option to acquire a sorcerous proficiency or skill at the same time.


It doesn't state "further limitations" which is why I only put "further" in quotation marks. What it actually says (in paragraph 4) is that as you gain in experience you can lose your "grip on reality still further." This is the explanation behind gaining Limitations as you level. In the context, losing your grip on reality is gaining a new Limitation (bad/traumatic experiences causing you to lose your grip on reality and gain more Limitations). To "lose" it "still further" means it had to be lost (Limitations) in the first place. Note: I only posted at all because I felt the need to explain this paragraph in particular. The rest of this post is just because I was posting anyways. :P

Also, yes, a character can remove Limitations per Paragraph 3. However, since they can be removed as early as Level 3, and you cannot take Limitations as mentioned in Paragraph 4 until Level 3, therefore you'd have to be able to have Limitations at Level 1/Character Creation (because there are no options for gaining Limitations at Level 2 either).

As such we have the section in the first paragraph (the part of the "Optional" rule that's written like an optional rule), the third paragraph (which lets us remove Limtations starting at Level 3, which means we'd have to have Limitations before then), and the fourth paragraph which discuss "still further" in regards to gaining Limitations (which means you'd have to be able to have some before level 3). That's 3 of the 4 paragraphs (and Paragraph 2 doesn't add anything useful to the topic one way or the other).


I shouldn't have to note that people don't have a perfect grasp on reality as it is and that referring to possibly growing less in touch with reality as you level can't be taken to mean that you start with a reduced grasp on reality expressed as a sorcerous limitation. As I also pointed out while the author says you don't have to have those limitations in other places he writes as if they were mandatory so he contradicts himself.

Prysus wrote:
Nightmask wrote:
I suppose some of the issue might be the wording on that third paragraph, it assumes the GM is forcing limitations on characters ...
[snip]
The confusion rests in the writer having conflicting views when writing things

Actually, I suspect the real confusion comes from a result of mixing ideas from Kevin Hassall and Kevin Siembieda. The section is listed as being written by both, but I suspect more likely Hassall submitted the manuscript and Siembieda rewrote some of the text and added some of his own ideas.


A likely possibility, either way it clearly says that limitations aren't required yet elsewhere assumes that they are. Two different people writing that could explain it.

Prysus wrote:
Nightmask wrote:
ignoring how in the rest of the text particularly under Sorcerous Proficiencies that it never says you must have a limitation at level one


Agreed, Sorcerous Proficiencies section never mentions requiring a Limitation. Of course they are two separate Optional Rules, hence why I labeled them earlier as Optional Rule #1 and Optional Rule #2. You can use #1 without #2, but you cannot use #2 without #1. While you don't have to use #2, it does reference #1 and once you include #2 it has an impact on the first. Writing Optional Rule #1 the way they did is good from a game design stand point, because it lets you use it while making it easy to use it with or without Optional Rule #2.

All right, I think that's all for now. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.


Okay, why do you think Limitations can't be used without Sorcerous Proficiencies? It doesn't actually say that. Since it has a passage that refers to just humans and the most limitations one should have it seems fairly obvious that you can have someone who's say a beat cop whose experiences with supernatural things have caused his sanity to slip and leave him suffering from one of those limitations even though he's got zero magical ability and is even a victim of the Masquerade due to the cover-ups. That's likely why taking a limitation grants a sorcerous proficiency OR a secondary skill, the secondary skill is likely there for the normal humans and non-mage types to represent their own sanity slippage due to the supernatural horrors you have to deal with in Nightbane.

_________________
Fair warning: I consider being called a munchkin a highly offensive slur and do report people when they err in doing so.

'Reality is very disappointing.' - Jonathan Switcher from Mannequin

It's 'canon', not 'cannon'. A cannon is a big gun like on pirate ships, canon is what you mean when referring to something as being contained within one of the books such as how many dice to roll for a stat.


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: Magic Proficiencies
Unread postPosted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 9:20 am
  

Knight

Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 2:01 am
Posts: 4268
Location: Québec
Well any ideas for Sorcerous proficiencies and limiteds?

I have a Wizard who is Strong on attack but weak on defence,the Pee cost on attack spells is lower by 1 but defence spells cost add 1 more then common.


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: Magic Proficiencies
Unread postPosted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 6:03 pm
  

User avatar
Priest

Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:19 pm
Posts: 43190
Location: Somewhere between Heaven, Hell, and New England
a) Brush up your people skills and surround yourself with an ablative meat shield made up of other characters(a high MA stat should help you out there, provided it wasn't your dump-stat).

b) Pump up your Speed stat with some physical exercise. Practice the "Warp Speed Retreat Dash". Technically you only have to be faster than the slowest person in your party, but every bit counts and you can never be TOO fast.

c) Brush up on your defensive spells. Leave enough PPE in reserve for a 'Teleport' spell you tell nobody else you have.

d) Dial-a-Prayer. "All I ask of my god is unconditional love and close air support on demand."

_________________
-------------
"Trouble rather the Tiger in his Lair,
Than the Sage among his Books,
For all the Empires and Kingdoms,
The Armies and Works that you hold Dear,
Are to him but the Playthings of the Moment,
To be turned over with the Flick of a Finger,
And the Turning of a Page"

--------Rudyard Kipling
------------


          Top  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Magic Proficiencies
Unread postPosted: Mon Nov 17, 2014 3:24 pm
  

User avatar
Palladin

Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 2:37 pm
Posts: 7019
Location: Pyramid
Comment: If you have something to say, back it up with thoughts and reasons. Simply posting to agree or disagree tends to be a waste.
Prysus wrote:
The last two paragraphs of Limitations (what's being discussed in the above quote) discusses removing or adding "further" Limitations at higher levels. In order to remove a Limitation at Level 3, you already had to have one. In order to "further" add Limitations at Level 3, you already had to have one. As such, in order to have one, you'd have to have it at character creation. The only way to gain a Sorcerous Proficiency (as written) at Level 1 is by spending a skill.

If you find a way (by the text written) to have a Sorcerous Proficiency at Level 1 without spending a skill, quote it. If you find a way to have a Limitation (as written) at Level 1 without first having a Sorcerous Proficiency, then quote it.


I don't think you have to have a Proficiency to have a Limitation. TTGDp27 says the Limitations:
Quote:
may also be selected or randomly rolled by players when selecting their own characters

The numerical restrictions (like 4 or 2 or 1 with the Proficiencies) actually put on how many Limitations a player may roll or select is independent from the number of Proficiencies. You are not required, as a Nightbane Sorcerer, to select a Proficiency to select a Limitation. You can select only a Limitation if you want.

The Proficiencies-match-Limitations recommendation sounds like it is only 1-way, that you should get Limited if you get Proficientm but not vice versa. It doesn't say under Proficiencies "you ought to use these if you use Limits" for example.

People are free to ignore the Proficiencies altogether and simply start off with Limits because they are cool.

You can also start with 0 proficiencies, 0 limits, and then gain Limits as you level-up to earn secondary skills.

Razorwing wrote:
the only way for this to work, is that by spending a skill you get both.
No, you can also get Limitations for free (max 1 for banes, max 4 for humans) without spending any skills. But unlike Limitations-per-level you don't get any skills or Proficiencies for taking the hit, so there isn't much incentive besides RP to do so (Ritual Dependence being a possible exception due to duration/range boost, but if you're going for that you may as well spend a skill and get the Ritual Magic proficiency to further-boost it).

Although... if you planned to get Incantation Specialist later on, buying Ritual-Proficient would basically be a waste, so someone could start off with Ritual-Depend and later ditch it and buy Incantation Spec, in which case opting for a different proficiency (perhaps Group-Cast) would be a better idea.

Nightmask wrote:
Frankly all the effort to insist that the character should be out two skills if they want a limitation-free Proficiency contrary to what the book actually says just sounds like an effort to screw over the player by charging him twice for what he should only be paying once for

A less obvious expense. It's not like players have to be screwed-over as you put it. We're simply told we 'should' use limitations too. GMs can opt to not mandate limitations and simply give 4 Proficiencies to a Sorcerer with no hidden-cost Limitations built-in, perhaps only having them as a level-up "problem" which they can suffer in exchange for free skills or Proficiencies.

In fact, by spending your OCC related skills AND acquiring Limitations, this roughly doubles the rate at which you acquire Proficiencies...

If there are any OCCs which gain both related/secondary over levels they could even spend Secondary skills getting rid of limitations. Though I don't recall any specifically which gain Secondaries as they level.

Razorwing wrote:
when at least some of those proficiencies (like Incantation Specialist) already have significant penalties added into them.

Psh, a minor save penalty vs rituals and inability to do rituals is not that rough.

I mean heck, Channelers already can't cast rituals so it's just a save penalty for them.

Razorwing wrote:
If you want to double-charge that's your choice but that's not how the book is actually written

Actually the double-charge IS written, but since it is a "should" statement you are not required to use it.

Razorwing wrote:
the proficiencies themselves aren't even remotely game-breaking or bending to warrant such expense.
I dunno about that, doubled-up Incantation Specialists have wicked spell strength, a bigger repertoire of starting magic, and are great at figuring out existing magic on top of that, which can be built even further with Mystical Lineage. This is a huge deal in a world that isn't as stock-full of accessible "learn magic here" guilds like PF/Rifts are.

Magic Resistance is also a huge survival benefit, especially if doubled-up, especially if it's a Nightbane Sorcerer who gets it. If you can micro-manage your own coven and teach them this proficiency, Group Casting is also amazing.

Razorwing wrote:
I don't like how costly they are. As a player, I've never used them for this reason.

Psh, secondary skills, what are you missing out on, buying WPs or physical skills? Due to bonus-lack people only tend to use them for categories which would not get a bonus anyway or for skills that can't be bought as Secondary, not sure if that's even a restriction in Nightbane like it is in HU/Rifts.

Nightmask wrote:
Taking a limitation constitutes giving you either a proficiency or a skill at the same time

No, that's just the deal when you level up.

Limitations do not give you anything if you select them at first level. We are simply recommended to apply them if someone is starting with Proficiencies, and given a cap for the number you can start with.

(am presuming here that the 4-max for Prof/Lim is only a 1st level cap, if it was 4-forever then that would mean to get all 4 3-6-9-12 limits that you could not start with any, or that a Nightbane starting with 1 could not get the 3-6-9-12 ones since he would start at his max.

Nightmask wrote:
from that one can derive that taking a limitation means NOT spending a skill on a proficiency since obviously the limitation is what you acquired to pay for the proficiency.

No, a Limitation only gives you a free Proficiency during level-ups, during initial character creation you have to pay for them regardless of whether or not you take accompanying Limitations (which is optional, it just says 'should')

Kind of like 'you should select skills besides physical skills to round out your character', it's a recommendation, not a mandate.

Nightmask wrote:
if one does have a limitation they shouldn't suffer from more than X number of limitations
\
At first level, anyway. I believe you can get 8 limitations if you start with 4 and then opt to gain a new one at every 3rd level.

One might also interpret that any time one buys a new Proficiency (which costs OCC Related skills as you level, instead of Secondary skills during initial creation) one should select a new limitation too, in which case that could get you around 12 Limitations, if you wanted.

Plus since Multiple Personalities is just some insanity, you could gain that through other means like someone importing MOM-tech or Crazy Heroes to Nightbane.

Nightmask wrote:
I'm also wondering what printing you've got of the book at this point (I've a first printing) since nowhere does it use things like 'further limitations'

I have a first printing. It has the phrase "the unfortunate may lose his/her grip on reality still further"

This 'further' implies that someone already has lost some grip on reality, which would refer to level 1 Limitations (1-4, optionally matching Proficiencies bought, but not required, does not offset Proficiency purchase cost though)

Nightmask wrote:
I suppose some of the issue might be the wording on that third paragraph, it assumes the GM is forcing limitations on characters and ignoring how in the rest of the text particularly under Sorcerous Proficiencies that it never says you must have a limitation at level one he only says he feels like you should (and ignores or forgets how he's already charging them a skill which should mean no limitation).


I don't think the third paragraph implies anything like this. The context is "the unfortunate" so the non-unfortunate (fortunate?) would not be modified by this.

At most we can take this to mean that you can't gain limitations as you level up if you don't have at least 1 to start... if we take the 'still further' phrase to mean that you have to be reality-slipping from the get-go to further-slip.

Nightmask wrote:
the actual cost for a proficiency is just one skill without a corresponding limitation
OR no skill spent but taking a limitation to pay for it instead.

The first line is correct, the second is false. Limitations can only pay for later-gained Proficiencies, they can not pay for level 1 proficiencies, you do not gain a skill or a proficiency for any Limitations you select at first level. However you may have to take that zero-benefit Proficiency at level 1 if you want to be able to develope additional Limitations at higher levels to be able to cash in on those.

Nightmask wrote:
he simply refers to purchasing them for skills
later under Limitations behaves as if they really shouldn't get those proficiencies without a penalty
(even though at least some of the proficiencies include penalties)
previously he made no mention of them being required

That's because they are not required, just suggested. We should do it, but we don't have to. He's nudging players/GMs into self-policing by voluntarily taking on the penalties, not railroading them.

The proficiencies which include penalties are offset by being generally better. Something like Keen Eye does not have penalties because it's balanced by basically sucking compared to the other abilities.

Nightmask wrote:
in the Limitations section we see as one levels one should be able to get them in pairs with the Limitation paying for the Proficiency.
As one levels, sure, just not with your initial batch of 1-4 Proficiencies, you gotta pay for those, at least. If you miss the secondary skills you ditched at level 1 then you can always gain secondaries back at later levels by taking Limitations WITHOUT new Proficiencies.

Nightmask wrote:
So what we have is text that's sure that get a limitation means getting a proficiency that it paid for

As one levels, but you would be wrong to think this applies to the initial batch.

Nightmask wrote:
text that says you can spend a skill to remove that limitation

Only at later levels. One could not, for example, spend one of your initial (level 1) OCC related skills to remove a Limitation. That can only be done with the ones gained at higher levels.

Nightmask wrote:
makes it pretty clear that then if you spend a skill outright you should get the proficiency sans limitation

Wrong. You have to spend a secondary skill no matter what to get Proficiencies at level 1. Free-with-Limitation is only upon levelling up. However, if you don't want Limitations at level 1, you don't have to take them. So you can just spend the skill and get the Proficiency, since the Limitations are only things you 'should' couple with the secondary-bought Proficiencies.

Nightmask wrote:
not get both and be out a skill and have to pay a second skill to remove the limitation later.

That is indeed the case if are forced to start off with an equal number of Limits.

Nightmask wrote:
If he really wanted limitations to be required he would have been more consistent in things

They aren't required, just recommended. The recommendation is that they just get tacked-on though. There is not any benefit in terms of gaining skills or proficiencies from 1st-level Limits.

Prysus wrote:
I labeled them earlier as Optional Rule #1 and Optional Rule #2.
You can use #1 without #2
you cannot use #2 without #1

I am not understanding why you think 2 can not be used without 1.

There is nothing stopping me from making an Acolyte with 4 Limitations and 0 Proficiencies at level 1. Although selecting something like Ritual Dependence would not exactly hurt him much :) I think any Acolyte worth his salt would start off with that so that they can gain new Limits as they level (Blood magic, KAY, not like he can cast magic anyway, LOL) to gain free skills or Proficiencies.

Spending secondary skills for Proficiencies at level 1 may not be attractive to Acolytes since they may want to spend those skills learning Master or Mind Bleeder or Astral Lord or Dream Maker psionic powers (says ANY, so much better than Channelers).

taalismn wrote:
a) Brush up your people skills and surround yourself with an ablative meat shield made up of other characters(a high MA stat should help you out there, provided it wasn't your dump-stat).

Dump-stats only exist for those who are allowed to choose where to put their 3d6 results.

Regarding this tactic, start out as Artistic for MA-PB and group Casting. Later double-up on Artistic to become MORE beautiful. Then double-up on Group-casting to double the size you can group-cast with (or whatever else someone thinks this would do)

_________________
"1st edition? 2nd edition? It doesnt matter! Let's just talk" -Forums of the Megaverse


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: Magic Proficiencies
Unread postPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2014 1:50 pm
  

Knight

Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 2:01 am
Posts: 4268
Location: Québec
I see magic Limitions as a test to overcome,you losse it after geting to a specific level.
Ther could be a number of reasons why thers a limitions on some ones magic,like all the Ones learn magic using from a just a book get a limit,It can be a cruse,you just need a reason why.

I make Proficiencies into a reward to geting a specific level.


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: Magic Proficiencies
Unread postPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 2:55 pm
  

Knight

Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 2:01 am
Posts: 4268
Location: Québec
Having Magic limitions in the Beyond the Supernatural,s setting make sense,it a low magic world.
Magic users need to overcome them will be part of the Campaigns for the Player character or a weakness the players can use on a Npc,s bad guy.

People just need to wokr ther Brain.


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: Magic Proficiencies
Unread postPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 1:24 am
  

User avatar
Palladin

Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 7:39 am
Posts: 9303
gaby wrote:
Having Magic limitions in the Beyond the Supernatural,s setting make sense,it a low magic world.
Magic users need to overcome them will be part of the Campaigns for the Player character or a weakness the players can use on a Npc,s bad guy.

People just need to wokr ther Brain.


Now see to me that would be the opposite, the setting already carries so much of a penalty for mages that it's insult to injury to tack on limitations as well.

_________________
Fair warning: I consider being called a munchkin a highly offensive slur and do report people when they err in doing so.

'Reality is very disappointing.' - Jonathan Switcher from Mannequin

It's 'canon', not 'cannon'. A cannon is a big gun like on pirate ships, canon is what you mean when referring to something as being contained within one of the books such as how many dice to roll for a stat.


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: Magic Proficiencies
Unread postPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2019 10:21 am
  

Knight

Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 2:01 am
Posts: 4268
Location: Québec
I used Magic Proficiencies and limits in PFrpg too. It,s a Great way to make Characters with the same Magic,s O.C.C different from each other.

What the Number of them in NB:Ttgd and Rifter 27?

Do you want to see more?


          Top  
 
 
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum


cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group