Level, Skills, Feats, and Summary Tab
- This is semi-related to the summary window, and partly a general comment.
I've noticed that adding multiple levels before selecting skills and feats
can end up allowing illegal choices to be made. For example, if you level a
fighter straight to 10th, you could choose every feat as one that is not
allowed at 1st level. (Say, Giant's Toughness from Masters of the Wild.)
There's not a good way to make sure that your progression of feats is
actually legal for a given level. Likewise, if you are a multiclassed
character, there's no tracking of at which level each class was taken. So,
if you make a 10 intelligence half-elf fighter 1/ rogue 4 (5 class levels
overall), then you could put all 8 of the fighter's first level skill points
into something like Ride. This isn't allowed if you spend the points at
This is most likely a known issue, but the summary page would make it more
prone to happen, I suppose. You'd have to police the skill point and feat
manually to make sure they're legal. I don't know if anyone here's seen the
Excel character generator HeroForge (
http://www.lorekeeper.com/html/heroforgeinfo.html ), but it does a decent
job of handling this situation. (It's also pretty much final and
non-updated, which is why I use PCGen.) It has a list of pickboxes, one per
level, for class selection. Then, in the skills section, you spend the
points for each level. It makes it clear in what order the levels were
taken, and how the skill points are used. I don't think the feats are by
level, but I'm just using this as an example.
Ug. I'm probably discussing nothing new, but I haven't heard it mentioned
recently. Sorry for the length.
- I will say this again...and this is the last time.
I was merely pointing out that the rules in the book, as they apply
to the way PCGen implements them, are very clear. Thus, the debate
that was being made, on this PCGen oriented board which deals with
the way PCGen implements rules from sourcebooks, was pointless.
Hopefully this clears up any misconceptions about my opinions on
debates. Debates about relevant topics are good...I enjoy a good
Ah well, clear as mud, right?
and, the obligatory quote from Forrest Gump, "That's all I have to
say about that."
"Life's a hench." <HEE HAW> - Nodwick coffee mug
--- In pcgen@y..., Mynex <mynex3@c...> wrote:
> Haffhand, the very same question could be asked of you for this
> Regardless, debates on this group happen quite often, and many, MANY
> people play devil's advocate. Many people on this group are more
> willing to look at issues multiple times from different directions
> a consensus is reached on how to handle something. And sometimes
> have to repeat their arguments as the original message has been
> the shuffle or misunderstood through various replies. This is
> new here, and won't change, nor do we want it to change.
> As for 'traits' to be inferred, I _could_ make many of them from
> question, as I've seen many "questions" like this at the WotC
> but we're generally a bit more friendly here.
> - #1 Evil Assistant to the PCGen Code Monkeys
> - List files & Documentation Silverback
> - RPG Reviews Editor & Reviewer
> -----Original Message-----
> From: haffhand [mailto:bacchus@m...]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 11:02 PM
> To: pcgen@y...
> Subject: [pcgen] Re: Level, Skills, Feats, and Summary Tab
> --- In pcgen@y..., "arknathd" <gemguard@h...> wrote:
> > --- In pcgen@y..., Scott Ellsworth <scott@a...> wrote:
> > >
> But I still say the debate is pointless.
> This is twice now you've engaged in a debate you believe to be
> pointless. Same debate, but done twice. What traits of you is one
> supposed to infer from that?