--- Rodger Thorm <
rodger_thorm@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The Experience Multipliers may or may not be a fair
> balancing measure, but I'm quite sure that the game
> designers included them because they felt that they
> provided balance. In my own campaign I use the 2nd
> edition Experience Multipliers, and I have found
> them
> reasonable, but that is a personal observation only.
>
> YMMV
Now that is a civilized, intelligent counter-argument.
No snide remarks in this response. Bruce, ya watching?
> There is, of course, more than just eyesight in the
> advantages given to non-human characters. We could
> debate endlessly over whether or not elf-sight and
> the
> ability to raise the dead were equal and fair
> trade-offs, but that's getting petty and missing the
> larger issue.
Correct, but please be fair and recollect that I based
my response on this statement:
"The race multiplier is a balancing measure to make up
for the bonuses that non-human characters receive.
Otherwise, why would anyone play a human character,
when an elf, dwarf, or halfling all have some form of
extended vision ability?". Your words, sir.
> Dwarves, elves, halflings, and shape-changers all
> have experience point bonuses as part of the racial
> description (e.g. "If a halfling takes the thief
> skill, he expends one-half the Experience Points to
> progress Ranks."), and there is no offsetting
> penalty to any skill in any of these cases.
Sure, but doesn't the fact that: 1) a player has to
roll rather low percentage dice, 2) He has only three
chances at it, and 3) He may only try for each race
once account for anything? Maybe a little?
> The argument that "illusion that humans are somehow
> smarter and therefore train much faster and learn
> skills and spells faster than any other race" is
> missing the point, however. There is no
> modification
> of the time necessary for any character to learn a
> skill, spell or other ability (except orcs, of
> course). The implication in the rules is that
> various
> non-humans need a bit more experience to learn many
> things, but a lot less to learn a couple.
I guess we must agree to disagree. You left two key
words out of the quote from me: "on average". For
simplification, I will use the 2nd Edition XPMs. Now,
suppose a dwarf, elf, and human mercenary character
all decided to get the Stealth skill at Rank 1
following the same adventure and same award of XPs.
The human would pay 500 xps, the dwarf would pay 550,
and the elf would pay 600. Granted, at this stage,
they can all afford it, and they all train to the same
Rank at the same time. Let us further suppose,
however, that the three decide to train in the Stealth
skill in as parallel a manner as possible. Going from
Rank 5 to 6, for example, the human would pay 2500,
the dwarf 2750, and the elf 3000. Even if the trio
were all Adventurers (2400 xp for a successful game),
you can see that the three have at least somewhat
unequal chances have getting the skill at the same
time, and therefore, eventually, time DOES play a
factor (outside the rules for training time). Frankly,
I didn't think I needed to spell this out.
My argument: Varying cost for the same skill based on
character race is at least an implication that, since
all characters receive the same BASE award for a(n)
(un)successful game, non-human characters will have to
spend more experience for the same skill, and, in
having to pay more, not all characters can pay for the
same skill with the same amount of awarded experience
available, and therefore it takes more TIME because
non-humans wishing to progress in the same skill must,
at some point, depend on future adventures and awarded
XPs in order to advance.
> I do agree with you that it is a simpler matter to
> divide the base experience award by the racial
> modifier for non-human characters, and then use the
> experience point costs without the need for
> additional calculation. The non-human player
> characters in my
> present campaign do that already, and I certainly
> endorse that as a positive measure to make things
> easier for anyone else who hasn't adopted that
> already.
Good to read. Hope your campaign and its participants
are the better for it.
> If part of rule 6.3 doesn't make sense for your
> campaign setting, don't use it. For my part, the
> Experience Cost Multipliers are reasonable, but I
> have
> never made a player roll in order to play a
> particular
> race. It sounds as though you have adopted the
> reverse in your campaign.
>
> --Rodger Thorm
As I've stated, I DON't use it. Many folks here have
stated that they have simply done away with rolling
dice to select a character race, and that is fine.
However, I do not see why I should be taken to task
and raked over the coals of debate for my choice to
ignore one part of [6.3] when the same thing isn't
happening to others for ignoring another part of
[6.3].
You folks don't restrict players by insisting they
roll for race.I don't restrict players by insisting
they use XPMs.
And that's all it should have come down to. I've been
told my players are power-hungry opportunists seeking
the fastest way to the top for their characters simply
because we don't use XPMs. What a joke that statement
was. I've also been openly insulted and called someone
who is slow on the uptake simply because I choose to
spell out which rule I have ethical trouble with
following. That is no joke, that is a damnable insult.
No one should ever suffer humiliation in a public
forum simply because of a difference of opinion.
Perhaps Mr. Probst would take this into account.
Pat Hough
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com