Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Skills

Expand Messages
  • Warren Simkins
    I am curious as to whether acquiring new skills (and feats as well) takes up TU s. The reason I ask is that first I cannot see any ruling apart from what s in
    Message 1 of 13 , Mar 5, 2001
      I am curious as to whether acquiring new skills (and feats
      as well) takes up TU's.

      The reason I ask is that first I cannot see any ruling
      apart from what's in the rulebook and that acquiring new
      skills is an optional part of the rules (I may be mistaken
      I am doing this off the top of my head).

      It would make sense for skills etc to take time as you
      cannot instantaeneosly learn new skills. Obviously this
      takes part inbetween adventures and we are assuming that
      finding a trainer is not a problem and that there are no
      skills banned anywhere.

      If anyone can enlighten me that would be great.

      Thanks

      Warren






      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
      http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
    • yodaid764@aol.com
      No, it doesnot take up TUs to learn new skills or feats. Player characters are assumed to spend time in between adventuring learning bits and pieces of new
      Message 2 of 13 , Mar 5, 2001
        No, it doesnot take up TUs to learn new skills or feats. Player characters are assumed to spend time in between adventuring learning bits and pieces of new traits. When they level up, it is assumed that they have become proficient enough to use these new skills to the best of their ability (and training). Consider this too: if you play a LG mod that takes a whole TU (one week) but only actually lasts 2 days, what is your character doing those other days? Hopefully not sitting around drinking in every tavern in the city. Or worse yet, nothing at all! Assume your character is working on some skills that you as a player want him to pick up at his/her next level. For example, in one of our home campaigns, i have a socerer who i wanted to class over as a rogue and eventually into a shadowdancer. Before i actually multiclassed into a rouge, i told the GM my character was watching what the other rogue or two in the party doing. I even had my character try to mimic thier snea!
        king skills etc. I went so far
        as to role play having my pc ask the rogue pc for tips on how to be stealthy, open locks, hide better etc.
        Try not to look too much at the mechanics of the game and look at the development of the character from his/her point of view. What does the pc want to accomplish? How have they decided to approach these goals? Remember that you are helping to tell a story! I just got back from Branscon and was delighted to find out that my character is somewhat known by people i have never met, and remembered by people i played with 6 months ago at a previous con. Some people saw posts regarding my character on this or other lists. Some have heard about her simply by word of mouth. Why? Because she is fairly unique and stands out! I made the character distinct. Anybody can make a stereotypical halfling rogue that tries to prolifer everything in sight, even if it IS nailed down. So what?? We have seen that a million times before. Make your character have some quality that allows them to stand out for who they are.
        I hope this helps somewhat.
        TOm
        VP Omaha Cavaliers
      • hustonj@home.com
        ... In addition to all of the wonderful advice TOm had for you, remember, the cost of living paid by your LG character covers all training costs. The
        Message 3 of 13 , Mar 5, 2001
          --- In livingworld@y..., yodaid764@a... wrote:
          > No, it doesnot take up TUs to learn new skills or feats.

          In addition to all of the wonderful advice TOm had for you,
          remember, the cost of living paid by your LG character covers all
          training costs. The "overhead" time in each module is supposed to add
          up to covering the time used in training, too.

          In other words, there have been mechanics added into how LG works,
          so that you don't HAVE to go through all the details about what you've
          done between adventures, and how long it took you to do it.

          And you wondered why the destitute have a cost of living . . ..
        • Christopher Beilby
          ... think ... should ... Mark, I think you ve got a great idea. I ve been playing D&D in one form or another for nearly 20 years, and I ve yet to ever play in
          Message 4 of 13 , Mar 5, 2001
            > Although I don't care to hear this suggestion myself all the time... I
            think
            > that all the Psionics fans should develop their own campaign. Not just you
            > alone Tom, but if there really are lots diehard fans then that group
            should
            > be able to get an RPGA campaign going on their own. Look at what LJ and LD
            > have done with a pretty small fan base (200-400 players each depending on
            > how you count). David Wise has said they are developing a way for more
            > people to develop their own specialty campaign.
            >
            > I like psionics, I just think we don't need that complexity in LG or LC. I
            > would play in a Psionics focused/included campaign, but I don't have the
            > time or motivation to help get one started :-).

            Mark, I think you've got a great idea. I've been playing D&D in one form or
            another for nearly 20 years, and I've yet to ever play in a campaign that
            used Psionics (The 1ed rules were unbalanced, and the 2ed Psi rules seemed
            really kludgy to me.)

            The fact is that I am a fan of Psionics. The new rules look very well
            written and balanced to me. I agree that it's not appropriate to try to
            shoehorn the rules into the existing campaigns. But the idea of starting a
            new Living campaign to take advantage of them is more than reasonable. And
            there are two campaign settings available which not only are tailor made for
            them, but were also relatively popular under second edition. Living
            Planescape or Living Athas, anyone?

            Personally, I would probably opt for a Living Planescape campaign, since it
            makes the Psionics rules optional, based on the preferences of the players.
            After all, in Dark Sun, everyone had Psi as at least a wild talent. In
            addition, Planescape seems to me (admittedly a non Planescape player) to be
            one of the most intriguing settings ever created. That's not to say that a
            Living Athas campaign wouldn't be a good idea. While I never played it (as
            I said, I felt that the 2ed Psi rules were extremely kludgy,) I had the
            boxed set, and I liked the idea of the setting.

            The main problem with either of these settings is that neither one is
            supported any longer by WoTC, nor have they been since the buyout. However,
            with the level of fan support that they seem to have, I think this could be
            surmounted...
          • dcargall@att.net
            I ll put in a pro-psionics vote, or rather may do so in a year when we have had time to evaluate the current set of rules. Past experience definitely demands
            Message 5 of 13 , Mar 6, 2001
              I'll put in a pro-psionics vote, or rather may do so
              in a year when we have had time to evaluate the current
              set of rules. Past experience definitely demands
              caution in this area, and it is a lot easier to keep
              something out than to take it out.
              But Greyhawk did have a lot of psionic monsters and
              if we accept our goal as being true to the original, we
              can't have a blanket rejection of psionics.

              --
              Yours for deeper dungeons
            • dchrist@performix-tech.com
              ... But there is a blanket rejection of psionics. They will not be used in LG. There is no vote. They have decided not to use them. For now end of story. Dave
              Message 6 of 13 , Mar 6, 2001
                --- In livingworld@y..., dcargall@a... wrote:
                > I'll put in a pro-psionics vote, or rather may do so
                > in a year when we have had time to evaluate the current
                > set of rules. Past experience definitely demands
                > caution in this area, and it is a lot easier to keep
                > something out than to take it out.
                > But Greyhawk did have a lot of psionic monsters and
                > if we accept our goal as being true to the original, we
                > can't have a blanket rejection of psionics.
                >
                > --
                > Yours for deeper dungeons


                But there is a blanket rejection of psionics. They will not be used
                in LG. There is no vote. They have decided not to use them. For now
                end of story.

                Dave
              • Keith Palm
                Perhaps they could consider making a couple psionics oriented mods, featuring some psionic creatures and NPC s only. Maybe the mods could be a special event at
                Message 7 of 13 , Mar 6, 2001
                  Perhaps they could consider making a couple psionics oriented mods,
                  featuring some psionic creatures and NPC's only. Maybe the mods could
                  be a special event at some of the big cons. If a DM is not willing to
                  run it then they don't have to. It could give people a real taste of
                  its possible effect on the campaign and therefore make a sound
                  decision.
                  The rules appear well balanced from my initial read, not unlike a
                  very flexible sorcerer. I tend to agree with some of the earlier
                  sentiment, let's not rule it out until we at least try it. Some of my
                  favorite 1E monsters featured psionics.
                  Keith a.k.a. that Wastri guy from Geoff

                  --- In livingworld@y..., dchrist@p... wrote:
                  > --- In livingworld@y..., dcargall@a... wrote:
                  > > I'll put in a pro-psionics vote, or rather may do so
                  > > in a year when we have had time to evaluate the current
                  > > set of rules. Past experience definitely demands
                  > > caution in this area, and it is a lot easier to keep
                  > > something out than to take it out.
                  > > But Greyhawk did have a lot of psionic monsters and
                  > > if we accept our goal as being true to the original, we
                  > > can't have a blanket rejection of psionics.
                  > >
                  > > --
                  > > Yours for deeper dungeons
                  >
                  >
                  > But there is a blanket rejection of psionics. They will not be used
                  > in LG. There is no vote. They have decided not to use them. For
                  now
                  > end of story.
                  >
                  > Dave
                • Richard Kohl
                  I ll have to second this vote. I understand the Co6 not wanting to have every DM to learn the Psi rules in order to play, but I ve always feel that something
                  Message 8 of 13 , Mar 6, 2001
                    I'll have to second this vote. I understand the Co6 not wanting to have
                    every DM to learn the Psi rules in order to play, but I've always feel that
                    something would be missing if Psionics wasn't allowed. I could understand
                    limiting it to a few, because Psionics have historically always been rare.
                    In fact in 1st Ed it was something like 1% of the population had a chance to
                    be psionic, and out of that 1% there was a 1% chance of actually having them.

                    Here's an idea we could throw out to the players. Have a contest. Something
                    like create a training grounds for psionics. Be monastery or secret cult.
                    Give a short history on the group, and tell how they find others worthy of
                    training. List a couple of NPCs with some info on them as well. Then we
                    pick a winner ad give them something nifty. Also we let the entries for the
                    "Ten Best" (Or 1 or 2 best from each region) win the honor of "Playtesting" a
                    Psionic PC for a year. This way all the triads would be able to get some
                    feed back from the players and judges on how they work. If there are major
                    problems, then we could let the players have at it.

                    As I was a playtester for this, I noticed they fixed a few of the problems
                    saw. I think the campaign as a whole would be missing out on something
                    special if this isn't at least tried.

                    Rich K
                    CoU POC SA KoS

                    dcargall@... wrote:

                    > I'll put in a pro-psionics vote, or rather may do so
                    > in a year when we have had time to evaluate the current
                    > set of rules. Past experience definitely demands
                    > caution in this area, and it is a lot easier to keep
                    > something out than to take it out.
                    > But Greyhawk did have a lot of psionic monsters and
                    > if we accept our goal as being true to the original, we
                    > can't have a blanket rejection of psionics.
                    >
                    > --
                    > Yours for deeper dungeons
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.