1. Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us.

Dragon's Egg - Rules Questions and Discussion

Discussion in 'Dragon's Egg RPG' started by Steerpike, Mar 14, 2013.

  1. Ravana

    Ravana Istar

    2,011
    329
    83
    In hindsight, the penalty probably ought to have been -4 to hit, since this is similar in nature to a called shot (explained below), and I probably should have only added STR to damage once–so 11 HP rather than 14. I'm confident Steerpike will adjudicate on it however he feels appropriate. And I'm quite aware of the normal modifiers for attacking with two weapons, thank you.

    Here's the reason I was looking at it as a single attack: Algernon is no more "doing two things" than Baldhart is when she swings her two-handed sword. He is using both hands together, bringing them down in a single action, the heads of the hammers and the knuckles of his fingers flush together–as if he were swinging a single larger hammer. I might have had him take both handles in both hands, for that matter: it would have been a somewhat awkward grip, but his hands are more than large enough to manage it… what penalty would you have considered appropriate for that? Surely not as severe as -4… -2, perhaps? Or -1?

    Normally, a round of combat represents more than a single action: there are multiple strikes, blocks, parries, dodges, feints, positioning, etc. going on all at once. It would be pointless to even attempt to model this accurately, so games use abstractions when characters attack. This is just as true when attacking with two weapons as when attacking with one: each hand, and the item in it, is doing more than one thing during those six seconds (in this game). This is why they make the penalties for fighting with two weapons so severe. (Though logically there are three other things I can think of off the top of my head which ought to be changed if they're going to make them that steep–or to have the penalty at all. In all likelihood, I could come up with more, if I bothered putting thought into it. But that's a different discussion.)

    In this case, Algernon is not doing that. He's staking everything on a single attempt… which is why the "called shot" penalty seems appropriate: rather than taking what opportunities fortune affords him, he's going for one specific attack, whether the opening is there or not. But this is also why the two-weapon attack penalty does not seem appropriate: he isn't attacking with both weapons in the normal way. (He isn't actually making a called shot to the harpy's wing, by the way: that's just color text. Though given the way he's attacking, the only things he's likely to hit are her head, her shoulder area, or the floor.)

    Given the above logic, however, he should only do his STR damage bonus once, since he'd get the same STR bonus when using an actual two-handed weapon in two hands. (Which also doesn't make a whole lot of sense, having the same STR bonus for one- and two-handed weapons. Some versions of D&D do give you an extra HP of damage for using a weapon in two hands. But, again, whatever.)

    Even with the milder -2 penalty, he still had a 65% chance of doing zero damage, by the way… a reasonably strong disincentive for doing such things on a regular basis. I wouldn't have tried it at all if I hadn't had the +2 for charging. (Which I still think belongs on damage, but that's the way we're playing it, so I used it.) If he'd had his normal warhammer, it would never have occurred to him–or to me, for that matter–to use his two throwing hammers as a single weapon. (Also, he normally uses a shield, so wouldn't have a hand free anyway.) Unfortunately, no one bothered to pick it up when grabbing everybody else's weapons.

    His original intention had been to throw one hammer, then switch the other from off-hand to main hand for melee. He didn't want to take the friendly fire risk in this case… and didn't want to stand there doing nothing, waiting to see if anything else dove at us or either of the harpies got back into the air. Which may turn out to be a poor decision, if it turns out either of those does happen: he won't have a readied attack waiting.

    As for "everybody doing it": sure, go for it. As long as you're wielding weapons that can be laid alongside one another and still be equally effective… which pretty much requires blunt mass weapons with square heads which can be placed flush together. In other words, throwing hammers. And nothing much else. In fact, nothing else that I see on the weapons list, or that I can think of which isn't on the list–other than perhaps warhammers. Blades won't work: the angle and surface area of impact are too important for them. Piercing weapons won't work: at best, they'd count as a trident… which is no better than a spear. No other blunt weapon will work, as they all have rounded heads, thus presenting difficulties similar to those for blades, if possibly slightly less severe ones. But, hey, if people would rather be making a 2d4 attack all the time than whatever it is they're doing now–and surrendering whatever it is they normally do with their other hand–that's their business. If STR gets counted twice rather than once, then, yeah, someone with an 18 STR would come out ahead here; someone with a 16 or 17 might consider it a viable possibility.

    Assuming, of course, that they'd also rather accept the hit penalty, however great or small it is, than do, oh, say, 2d6+STR, with no penalty to hit, with a greatsword. Given that someone with an 18 STR would, on average, do a whopping 1 HP more with twinned throwing hammers and double STR bonuses than with a greatsword, but would be at a minimum of 10% less likely to hit.…

    …I'm thinking there aren't going to be all that many takers on that one. :p
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 11, 2017
  2. Legendary Sidekick

    Legendary Sidekick The HAM'ster Moderator

    9,825
    2,954
    413
    A creative argument, but…

    (1) I don't think saying this-is-the-same-as-that is a reason to ignore a rule that was established up-front. If we can describe our way around the two-weapon rule, we can around most rules: "I attack and 'evade' in the same move. Leaving my sword pointed at a single enemy after a swing is no different than having my guard up like when I'm in evade stance." Then when a player tells me how unfair that is, I argue that it's okay for my character, because only a two-handed sword has the sharp tip, sharp edges and length to deter an opponent from attacking, which is like being in evade stance… if not more effective.

    (2) It's overpowered! Think of how damaging Baldy and Algy—both of whom already enjoy a huge advantage in hit and damage—would be using two weapons at once minus the -3/-6/two-rolls. Baldhart with twin bastards: 8-26 damage and still has equal or greater chance to hit compared to every non-barbarian in the game with the -2 penalty. Or she could take an additional -2 penalty (as ruled by Steerpike in battle #1) and carry two two-handers for 10-30 damage. Algy with two hammers: 12-26 damage. And yes, even just for the two little hammers, it's still overpowered: 12-18 damage? That's better than Algy with the 60g hammer which does 7-18 in his mighty hands! I really think you need to roll twice and risk missing with the second hammer like every other dual wielder.

    (3) Why do I care? I am rooting for Algy to get that 14 damage, but here's why I think it needs to be done right: It sets a precedent, and enemies can do the same. Do I want enemies swinging double digits on average when every non-barbarian player has 10 HP or less? No! Even when we all have 20+ HP I don't want damage that high!





    To clarify: I'm against any rule that can be reversed against us, to the point that I'll support a call that negates my own flawed attempt.

    A recent example: When Baldy jumped in the water, I had a plan for her to charge out and impale an enemy. He'd be her arrow-catcher—awesome plan. BUT… when it came time to roll, I thought, wait… I can't charge out of water. I'm too slow. Okay, fine but then I shouldn't have rolled the STR check either since I didn't risk taking a hit from the -4 AC for charging. Steerpike ignored my impale attempt and Baldy got shot with an arrow since she had no impaled lizard to catch it.

    Good call on Steerpike's part. I agree with this call.

    Because if Baldhart can use a STR check with any attack, so can any enemy. That should be something you do after a charge and at no other time (risk/reward), so when an enemy copies Baldhart's charge, Rydh heals the poor sap while the rest of us (or the rest of you, assuming Baldy's the target) beat the snot out of the big guy while his AC is lowered!
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2013
  3. Steerpike

    Steerpike Felis amatus Moderator

    11,336
    3,761
    413
    Here's what I'm thinking on Algernon.

    1) It's not really a two weapon attack, for reasons that will be clear below, but kind of holding the two hammers together to form a single weapon. So the -2 situational modifier Ravana used will be fine, and in this case it is canceled out by the charge.

    2) Because it is not a two-weapon attack, you don't get full damage of each hammer. If we did that, it would be a two-weapon attack in effect, even though it is described differently. So what damage do we use? The light (throwing) hammer weights 2 lbs and does 1d4 damage. The warhammer weighs 8 lbs and does 1d8 damage. Two light hammers together weigh 4 pounds, so it seems reasonable to give the combination 1d6 damage. To reflect two-handed use of weapons whose normal damage reflects one-hand, what STR bonus do we use. I don't mind using the regular d20 rules of 1 1/2 times STR. In C&C, for weapons that are contemplated as two-handers, that's already figured in to the base damage, but if you guys prefer the normal d20 rule I don't mind using it (but monsters get it). In this case, with a STR 18 being the lower end of the +3 bonus, we round down (STR 19 would round up in the same situation).

    So in the end we arrive at 1d6+4 damage for the combination. It's not overpowered, it reflects a STR adjustment for using both hands, and it reflects the added weight behind the weapon given that two are used together. Thoughts?
     
    Legendary Sidekick likes this.
  4. Nihal

    Nihal Vala

    3,030
    471
    83
    Thought: What will happen if you miss this swing?
     
  5. Legendary Sidekick

    Legendary Sidekick The HAM'ster Moderator

    9,825
    2,954
    413
    If just for Algy's two little hammers and he can't go and do this with 1d8 hammers, 1d6+4 seems fair, but I think you should ADD damage: boon of Thor!

    This^ I actually DON'T like. It means Baldy should have been adding 4 STR the whole time, and even though I have the only character with a two-handed weapon and would benefit most (even getting 5 STR with a +1 item!), the precedent is that normal STR is used. It seems late in the game to change this.

    I brought up the point about Algy's attack because it was a fairness issue, so even a rule change that benefits me isn't something I want.
     
  6. Steerpike

    Steerpike Felis amatus Moderator

    11,336
    3,761
    413
    C&C does a lot of things because it is the way AD&D did it. Even though the game has evolved, it purposefully holds to its old-school roots. That was a big part of the impetus in making the game. So the STR bonus is what it is, and it doesn't got up with two hand use.

    In 3.0, they changed it to 1 1/2 times STR bonus if you're using two hands, because they figured that was more realistic.

    I don't care which we use, so long as we're consistent. I don't mind making a rule change mid-stream if it makes everyone happy. One thing to keep in mind, however, is that even though it seems like a good deal for the players at lower level, as you progress there are a lot of monsters that it may favor disproportionately. Getting your STR past 18 isn't likely to happen in the normal course of play. Higher-level monsters may have a STR well above that, so they're really getting extra damage at a level players aren't going to achieve. That is different from 3.0, where the 1 1/2 times STR rules was added and where getting ability scores above 18 was just an assumed part of the progression.
     
  7. Nihal

    Nihal Vala

    3,030
    471
    83
    A single harpy attack could make Mauve's HP go below 0. I don't feel comfortable thinking in what high level monsters on steroids would be able to do with this bonus, hah.
     
    Legendary Sidekick likes this.
  8. Legendary Sidekick

    Legendary Sidekick The HAM'ster Moderator

    9,825
    2,954
    413
    If changed, it's a rule that benefits me all the time and some rare monsters. For selfish reasons, I'm fine if I get out-voted. But my vote is for fairness, so I say leave it the same. Why I call this fair is because Baldhart is already most likely to hit with melee, and she's our heaviest hitter unless Algy gets that 60g hammer. She doesn't really need a rule change that widens the gap in her favor.

    I actually agree that the rule makes sense (including for weak characters having a higher penalty for two-handers), and would be more supportive of it if it also applies to d8/d10 weapons held in both hands (like now, while Rydh only has his sword but no shield). But eve then, poor Cadell! So, nah… my vote is stick to pure C&C. Two-handers hurt! As well they should… but I don't think we need to make them hurt more or hit more often.
     
  9. Ravana

    Ravana Istar

    2,011
    329
    83
    A reasonable compromise… though you forgot that Algernon also gets +2 damage for a Thor-worshipper using a hammer. I would have added that in, and not the "extra" STR bonus… net of one more HP damage. Not worth changing, unless that 1 HP brings the harpy down… which I somehow doubt. And, yes, since he's swinging a "single" hammer, the +2 should only be added once, not once per hammer. Though once those adjustments are made, the difference between 1d6+5 and 2d4+5 become fairly trivial–even if applying the full normal damage from both hammers, he'd still only net an extra 1.5 HP on average… and would net an insignificant 0.5 HP on average above using his warhammer in one hand and not facing the hit penalty.

    I certainly have no objection to getting the additional STR bonus for using a one-handed weapon in two hands… in this case, I'm not sure it ought to apply. Had he put both hands on a single hammer and used it, it would be more appropriate… but he didn't: he's using two one-handed weapons in both hands, roughly equivalent to using a two-handed weapon in both hands.

    Upshot: I would have been inclined to have both hammers do full normal damage, with a single (normal) bonus for STR and from his deity. Compared to using a warhammer properly in one hand, it's far from unbalanced–it is in fact trivial; compared to using a warhammer in two hands, if we allow the STR bonus for putting two hands on a single one-handed weapon, we'd have 2d4+5 vs. 1d8+6, averages 10 vs. 10.5, giving the warhammer the edge (if we don't give the STR bonus for using a one-handed weapon in two hands, it's 10 vs. 9.5); and compared to using a two-handed weapon, it's actually a disadvantage.

    In this case: assuming each hammer did 2 HP (my initial damage roll was 4 for 2d4), adding the +5 for STR/deity, and subtracting the +1 for "two-handed wielding," Algernon's net damage in this case would have been 9 HP. After adjusting Steerpike's compromise by adding in the deity bonus, and keeping the extra point for STR, Algernon's damage would be 8 HP.

    By only applying the STR and deity bonus once to the attack (which I agree is appropriate–I suggested it first, after all), it is no longer a "two-weapon attack in effect," since Algernon is surrendering a potential of 5 HP additional damage from two separate attacks to get a maximum of 4 HP additional damage from the second hammer to his single attack (and an average of 2.5 HP, since this is a variable, whereas the 5 HP from his bonuses is a constant)… a net loss. Which is offset by, and offsets, not facing as steep a penalty to that one attack.

    Not arguing the final decision, just laying out the math on the alternatives.

    If I'm lucky, I hit nothing. If I'm not lucky, I hit myself in the knee. And it'll really hurt. :p

    A Lucerne hammer is not a "hammer": it's a polearm. Polearms are wielded completely differently than the one-handed weapons they're derived from. True, it has a hammer-like head… plus a back spike and a spear point. It would be no more appropriate in my mind to give the bonus for being a Thor-worshipper to that than it would be to give a bonus for a deity who favors axes to someone wielding a halberd… if no less appropriate, either. This is all the more true since there already are two-handed versions of axes and hammers (the quick-start rules don't list "maul," but it's in the full rule set).

    In any case, Algernon prefers to carry a shield and be harder to hit. He only tried this maneuver because he lacked his usual gear and it looked like a cool stunt at the time. Since it didn't work out quite as well as he he hoped, he's not likely to try it again. He may be slow, but he can learn.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 11, 2017
  10. Legendary Sidekick

    Legendary Sidekick The HAM'ster Moderator

    9,825
    2,954
    413
    This^ is why I object to a rule that benefits me. Baldhart just got clobbered and I'm not sweating (yet), where if I played a wizard or rogue, that 7 damage would be scary.

    Now what if an orc comes along with a 19 in STR and a two-handed sword? He can be Baldhart's equal (3 STR), or Super Baldhart (4 STR) can suddenly swing extra hard and look cool until the orc comes along and hits harder and hardly misses (5 STR). Now he's swinging 7-17 with a two-hander, and there's a 1/6 change full health Mauve is killed instantly. Without changing the rules, it's 1/36 the damage is instantly fatal, and the orc's 10% more likely to miss. With 5 HP, she falls on the first hit no matter what.

    My point is that two-handers hurt and it's scary to not play a barbarian with an 18 in CON when you take damage. This rule-change benefits two barbarians–mostly ME–but it screws players who aren't barbarians with 18s in STR and CON. They take more damage from enemies and can't benefit from this rule-change if STR is 9, 10 or 13. (x1.5 rounds down to the +0 or +1 they already have.)

    I hope it's clear that I'm considering all players with this response. If I was just thinking of myself, I'd have said, "I swing +4? YES!"
     
    Nihal likes this.
  11. Ireth

    Ireth Myth Weaver

    11,095
    1,563
    313
    Glad to know you're thinking of the rest of us, LS. ^^
     
  12. Nihal

    Nihal Vala

    3,030
    471
    83
    Exactly what LS said.

    The two-handed weapons rule was written the way it was to keep a minimum equilibrium in the game. If you change it in a way you banalize what otherwise would be a feat, you break it. I'm sorry if I'm sounding selfish, but I can't see how I'll be able to keep playing any low hit-dice class under the threat of an instant-kill due something that isn't vanilla. I wouldn't even bother to reroll to another low dice class, because I would be screwed anyway.

    All this nice calculation sounds utterly wrong to me since it assumes that either every character is ambidextrous, hence, no off-handed penalty incurs or that swinging two weapons with both hands, with a killing intent, is as easy as clapping your hands. It makes me wonder why would you get -3 for the main hand and -6 for the off-hand by the vanilla rules—which are ambiguous and never state that the attacks aren't simultaneous, it says actually "The character is allowed to swing both weapons".

    Of course we must consider that Steerpike won't make every enemy use it, yet not only he might still use it with an enemy there and here but something else just occurred to me: PvP is possible, already occurred and probably will happen again in the future.
     
  13. Ravana

    Ravana Istar

    2,011
    329
    83
    I've wondered that myself, but probably for different reasons, and with the emphasis placed in a different location than you're likely imagining.

    In D&D1e, the penalties were -2/-4, but were adjusted by Dexterity modifier, which could bring them down as low as 0/-1 for an 18 DEX. (The bonus could not take these numbers into positive territory, no matter how high it is: the DEX modifier isn't applied to the attack roll itself, only to reducing or eliminating the penalty for using two weapons.) In D&D3e, they start at a whopping (and ludicrous) -6/-10, but by choosing the Ambidexterity and Two-Weapon Fighting Feats, and using a light weapon in the off-hand, this could be reduced to as little as -2/-2.

    C&C doesn't use Feats, nor does it adjust the penalty for DEX. Nor does it provide for any other mechanism for reducing these penalties in their Players' Handbook; no idea if it puts one in the KCG (their version of the DMG), since I don't have that. If not, the penalties are permanently -3/-6. Having been mauled by any number of two-weapon fighters before in real life, I can assure you that this is too high. Though since I also almost never create characters who use weapons in both hands, it doesn't really matter to me what the penalty is.

    What ought to be different is the ability of such a character–or a character using a two-handed weapon–to defend himself. Which is vastly different… in reality. Decent two-weapon fighters can often tear up people with poor reaction times (like me), but against equally competent sword-and-shield fighters, they're rarely victorious. (Note that even that was only "often": I never considered myself at a disadvantage facing one compared to facing someone using weapon and shield; I just had to watch out for attacks coming from certain angles they otherwise less frequently came from.) And someone using a two-handed weapon against a fighter with something in each hand, whether two weapons or weapon and shield, generally needs to be both incredibly good and incredibly lucky on his first shot… or he's just plain dead. End of story.

    Which is one hell of a good way to balance the "advantage" of being able to make more attacks, or doing more damage with the one you can make. Unfortunately, D&D's creators designed a combat system that did not reflect this, and neither it nor its successors have ever seen fit to correct this properly. I suspect Baldhart would be far less fond of her two-handed sword if she faced a -4 AC penalty every round… or else had to accept a penalty to her attack roll to reflect using her sword to defend herself at the same time. But for better or worse, that's not the way the game's written.

    From C&C Players' Handbook, 4th printing. Which of course most of us don't have access to. Though a similar, if truncated, version can be found on p. 17 of the Quick Start Rules, in the first paragraph under "Melee," which we do all have access to. So, no, it isn't all that ambiguous, really.

    Though it doesn't matter in this instance, since I did not say the attacks were "simultaneous": I said, and Steerpike correctly read, that it was a single attack. I'm not entirely clear why this is proving to be such a difficulty for everyone else to understand. I was not swinging both hammers inward from opposite directions at the same time, nor was I even bringing both straight forward off my shoulders at the same time… both of which would have been two identical, simultaneous motions, but would have placed their points of impact a couple feet apart, and thus would unquestionably have called for two attack rolls. They were being swung together, as if they were a single, two-handed weapon, from a single starting point, to a single impact point… and if they'd missed, they'd've both missed together. This was no more two separate, "simultaneous" attacks than it is when Baldhart "simultaneously" uses both hands on her greatsword; not only does she not have to make a separate roll for each of her hands–which would be absurd–she doesn't even take a penalty to her hit roll, because she's using something designed to be used that way. Algernon wasn't, so he did. And, as I said in the time between posting the attack and the time the GM ruled on it, that penalty arguably should have been greater, even if I also provided a rationale for why it might not be.

    If Algernon had been using anything other than the weapons he was using, he wouldn't have been able to do it at all (or in any event, I wouldn't allow it–as mentioned, it wouldn't have even occurred to me to try it, so well do I know it wouldn't work in reality): the same maneuver would not have worked with two swords, two axes, or even two maces or baseball bats… and in all cases, this would be true regardless of the size of the weapons. At best, the penalty to hit would be considerably higher, and the damage for both weapons would be drastically reduced. If it worked otherwise, the world would be full of swords with two parallel blades an inch apart. Guess what? Not only would that not double your damage, it would cause less damage than you'd do with a single blade… which is why there aren't any such weapons outside of bad, deservedly-forgotten fantasy movies.

    Though, really, anyone attempting such a maneuver against a wary opponent would be an idiot (which is why I figured it was okay for Algernon… :p –well, that, plus he was attacking from a flank against an opponent he was hoping wasn't sufficiently wary of him), since doing so surrenders all of the attacker's ability to actively protect himself… all those "parries and thrusts… attack and defensive maneuvers" mentioned by the rules above. Doing what Algernon did leaves the attacker completely exposed: I'd call it, oh, another -4 to AC, in addition to the penalty for charging, which arises from similar considerations. (Maybe only a total of -6, since they do arise from similar considerations: you can only give up protecting yourself so much before you've given it up completely.) But the game doesn't take this minor factor into account. Which leaves us in the position of finding creative ways to work with what it does give us, or abandoning creativity altogether and saying that you can only do what it says you can do.

    -

    As for applying two-handed strength to an attack with a single one-handed weapon held in both hands, I have no strong opinions either way. If anything, I might be more inclined to allow a bonus to hit rather than to damage here, since the increased control you'll have in most cases will be far greater than the amount of additional strength you'll be able to put into the blow. (Plus there's that whole "punching through armor" notion. To the extent that that's rational, at least. :rolleyes: )
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 11, 2017
  14. Nihal

    Nihal Vala

    3,030
    471
    83
    C&C doesn't provide a way to lower those penalties, nor it's prepared to support the lowering of these penalties, at least not in the way you did. In those other games it takes a character built specifically to dual wielding...

    ... what you didn't. So why should any ordinary character be able to realize what otherwise would be a feat with almost the ease of characters who were devised specifically for this purpose? If you wished to dual wield from start, you could had talked with the GM, so you wouldn't banalize the feat down the road.

    It's a game breaker, you're providing an additional way to get lower hit-dice characters killed and I'm tired of arguing about it.

    You know what? Go ahead, do whatever you wish, have your fun.
     
  15. Legendary Sidekick

    Legendary Sidekick The HAM'ster Moderator

    9,825
    2,954
    413
    Whatever happens to the harpy kid happens, but I think Steerpike needs to judge whether or not the wolf can use a staff to backflip to a ledge 30 feet up. Granted, I'm among those guilty of assuming results of a successful check, but I try to bear in mind that for some feats even a natural 20 is a failure. Like flapping your arms to fly, for example, would fail regardless of the roll. I don't know if a back-flipping dog is any more likely to go thirty feet up than an arm-flapping person.

    But... not my call. Just saying, get the GM confirmation before you roll wolf-bites, please. It's easy to post Batos with sad puppy eyes as he slides down the unscalable* wall. It's messier to ret-con a little harpy girl getting ripped to shreds by a wolf and the consequences that follow, only to find that none of that happened because the wolf attempted the impossible.


    *(Confirmed via GM PM that the wall has no footing, making the barbarian Scale skill worthless, hence the need for a rope.)
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2013
    Nihal likes this.
  16. Keitsumah

    Keitsumah Inkling

    596
    40
    28
    ah... well ill go edit for chance of him failing.
     
  17. Legendary Sidekick

    Legendary Sidekick The HAM'ster Moderator

    9,825
    2,954
    413
    Combat Sense

    +2 to Surprise Checks is part of that skill, but I'm not sure I understand what that means.

    Would that mean, for example, if we walk into an ambush and a barbarian is up-front, there's an initiative roll? (d10 in rule book, I think, but I think we used a d20 the one time we had an initiative roll. Players won, so I didn't bother asking about this skill.) And would that be a GM roll, or would I roll a d10/d20 and add 2 (and level?), and if my roll beats the opposing roll, my barbarian is NOT surprised?
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2013
  18. Nihal

    Nihal Vala

    3,030
    471
    83
    Oh, feline overlord, I have some questions for you!


    1. What is the penalty for casters using enchantments of different types? Is the penalty for casting life magic any different from the one of other types (E.g. Illusion magic for a wizard)?

    2. What would be the average time a mage would take to learn a new spell from a written source? And a spell outside their expertise?

    3. Upon leveling up, how is the mana progression for casters?
     
  19. Steerpike

    Steerpike Felis amatus Moderator

    11,336
    3,761
    413
    1. Unless you're a trained healer or an elf, you can't use life magic. The penalty to casting spells not on your class spell list is -4.

    2. It takes 2 hours per level of the spell to learn a new spell. It's the same for spells outside their expertise, there's just a penalty when working with them, as noted above.

    3. You start with 6 + Ability Mod in Mana. It goes up to 7 + Mod at level 2; 9+ Mod at level 3; 11 + Mod at level 4; 15+ Mod at level 5.
     
    Nihal likes this.
  20. Nihal

    Nihal Vala

    3,030
    471
    83
    I am confused about the point 1.

    Should it mean "healers" so...? But then there wouldn't be a "non-caster classes" right after it.
     
Loading...

Share This Page