Well, considering the vast (and ever growing) list of “must have”
proficiencies, IMO this isn’t a bad interpretation. IMO, actually, if the
long & growing list of proficiencies keeps getting longer, then players
(and their NPC opponents) need to be able to recieve even more non-weapon
proficiencies.
I actually like proficiencies, and think they can add a lot to a game; but
with an ever growing list, the % a PC can have shrinks all the time. I like
to have proficiencies (like Dancing, Cooking, Ettiquete) that may not have
much obvious game-related effects (at least not in the same sense as Blind
Fighting, Spellcraft, Endurance and the like), but add a touch to the
character. However, I get torn because it seems every other month a new set
of “oh, you need these, too” proficiencies comes out (BR added a whole
bunch of cool Profs. that any self-respecting Regent ought to learn, for
example). But the # that you can learn at any given level hasn’t changed
since the Proficiency system was 1st created (back in Unearthed Arcana, if
I recall correctly; it could’ve been before that. One of thouse
Wilderness/Dongen books, I can’t remember what came out 1st.)
Anyhow, the point of my long response is I think it’s swell if players
have a lot of proficiencies. There’s a lot of neat ones to have. 
>
> I don’t want this to be something that could ruin your fun in your
> campaign by players going wild, but you could say “Okay, everyone gets
those
> slots allotted to them; however, X amount of points must be spent on
[this].”
> What do y’all [you all] think?
>
> Take care,
> KirbyRanma
>> To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the
line
> ‘unsubscribe birthright’ as the body of the message.
okay, maybe i can help,
from my experience, i have taken this to mean that a character
would have to spend these EXTRA proficiency slots towards whatever
language they want to learn. so with a 16 intellegence, a character has
the capability to learn 5 languages (giving him/her a bonus 5 proficiency
slots). he/she can spend these however they like, taking another language
is optional (or 5 times optional, in this case:). i have never really
liked this rule, but thats the way my DM always rules it:)
hope this helps :)
On Thu, 26 Mar 1998 16:34:45 EST KirbyRanma writes:
> Okay, here’s a whammy that I just reread a couple of nights ago
>and would
>like to know what everyone thinks about this. It’s not campaign
>specific, but
>it has the potential to add to both the heroes and the villains and
>those that
>fall in-between.
>
> On page 16 of the Player’s Handbook (2nd Ed), in reference to
>Intelligence, under the catagory “Number of Languages,” (from pg. 15)
>on the
>right hand side in the blue box it states:
>
>If the DM allows characters to have proficiencies, this column also
>indicates
>the number of extra proficiency slots the character gains due to his
>Intelligence. These extra proficiency slots can be used however the
>player
>desires. The character never needs to spend any proficiency slots to
>speak
>his native language.
>
> The way I reread this, is that if a character has a 16
>Intelligence, he
>or she is normally allowed to learn 5 additional languages, AND has 5
>proficincy slots open to learn more languages, or weapon styles or
>non-weapon
>proficiencies. I’ve never seen this done in a game I’ve been in, nor
>have I
>myself done it in a game I’ve run, but I didn’t look at it closely
>enough. I
>would like for y’all (yes, I’m in TEXAS 
to reread that closely,
>stressing
>the words/ phrases that stood out to me “…column ALSO indicates…”
>along
>with “…EXTRA proficiency slots…” (that’s in there twice) and
>“…CHARACTER
>gains due to his Intelligence.”
>
> I don’t want this to be something that could ruin your fun in
>your
>campaign by players going wild, but you could say “Okay, everyone gets
>those
>slots allotted to them; however, X amount of points must be spent on
>[this].”
>What do y’all [you all] think?
>
>Take care,
>KirbyRanma
>***************************************************************************
>To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the
>line
>‘unsubscribe birthright’ as the body of the message.
>
You don’t need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
> The way I reread this, is that if a character has a 16 Intelligence, he
> or she is normally allowed to learn 5 additional languages, AND has 5
> proficincy slots open to learn more languages, or weapon styles or non-weapon
> proficiencies. I’ve never seen this done in a game I’ve been in, nor have I
> myself done it in a game I’ve run, but I didn’t look at it closely enough. I
> would like for y’all (yes, I’m in TEXAS to reread that closely, stressing
> the words/ phrases that stood out to me “…column ALSO indicates…” along
> with “…EXTRA proficiency slots…” (that’s in there twice) and “…CHARACTER
> gains due to his Intelligence.”
What you say is true, however, you have to remember somethign else..under
the proficiency rules (should you choose to use them), learning a language
takes a proficiency slot. The number means different things should you
choose to use the proficiency rules or not. You cannot simply learn a
language by having a high intelligence if you are using the proficiency
rules, you have to use up a slot just like any other thing you might
learn (swimming..always know how to swim ). If proficiencies aren’t
used the number represents the number of languages you know, haveing
assumed you spent the time to learn them.
Sean
On 26-Mar-98, KirbyRanma (KirbyRanma@aol.com) wrote about [BIRTHRIGHT] -
Proficiencies - the hidden (?) extras:
- -> The way I reread this, is that if a character has a 16 Intelligence, he
- ->or she is normally allowed to learn 5 additional languages, AND has 5
- ->proficincy slots open to learn more languages, or weapon styles or
non-weapon - ->proficiencies. I’ve never seen this done in a game I’ve been in, nor have I
- ->myself done it in a game I’ve run, but I didn’t look at it closely enough.
I - ->would like for y’all (yes, I’m in TEXAS to reread that closely,
stressing - ->the words/ phrases that stood out to me “…column ALSO indicates…” along
- ->with “…EXTRA proficiency slots…” (that’s in there twice) and
"…CHARACTER - ->gains due to his Intelligence."
Me and my players has always said that the high intelligence limits the number
of languages you can speak. The profs. points which are given for high
intelligence can be used to either buy those extra languages (over the native
languages you get, half-elves and other demihumans get’s two languages for
free) or none weapon profs. So the character with intelligence of 16 would be
able to have 5 extra languages or 5 extra none weapon profs (fighters may use
thise points for weapon profs) or anything between. So they will NOT first get
5 free language and then 5 extra points.
//Trizt of Ward^RITE
E-Mail: trizt@iname.com URL: http://www.ukko.dyn.ml.org/~trizt/
Nick : Trizt IRC: irc.kuai.se:5278 Channel: #Opers
MUD: callandor.imaginary.com 5317
The way that I have always interpreted this, is that each character has x
number of non-weapon prof slots open to them. (In your example, you give an
Int of 16 and slots of 5.) I then use that number of extra languages to
represent the grand total of languages that the character can learn in
their lifetime. They don’t get all 5 languages at creation, unless they
wish to forgo all other nonweapon profs. What are other peoples opinions on
my take on this?
Wooz
"quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/3292/ wooz@rli-net.net
When I first started playing AD&D, which was only a few years ago, I initially
interpreted it as “you get both x number of languages AND x number of bonus
proficiency slots”. Upon further reflection, however, I realized that it allowed
players to start out with an awful lot of languages. I also noticed that Modern
Language (and Ancient Lanugage) was a proficiency like any of the others. This
re-examination has led me to believe that it should be interpreted as “you get x
bonus proficiency slots, and x is the maximum language proficiencies the character
can learn.” Sometimes I do find the number of proficiency slots a little limiting,
however.
Brian
> The way I reread this, is that if a character has a 16 Intelligence,
he
> or she is normally allowed to learn 5 additional languages, AND has 5
> proficincy slots open to learn more languages, or weapon styles or
non-weapon
> proficiencies.
The character CAN learn up to 5 languages and has 5 bonus proficiency stots
which he can spend in languages or nonweapon proficiencies.
>I’ve never seen this done in a game I’ve been in, nor have I
> myself done it in a game I’ve run, but I didn’t look at it closely
enough. I
> would like for y’all (yes, I’m in TEXAS to reread that closely,
stressing
> the words/ phrases that stood out to me “…column ALSO indicates…”
along
> with “…EXTRA proficiency slots…” (that’s in there twice) and
“…CHARACTER
> gains due to his Intelligence.”
>
> I don’t want this to be something that could ruin your fun in your
> KirbyRanma
Thats how I see it.
MANTA
>> To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the
line
> ‘unsubscribe birthright’ as the body of the message.
> On page 16 of the Player’s Handbook (2nd Ed), in reference to
>Intelligence, under the catagory “Number of Languages,” (from pg. 15) on the
>right hand side in the blue box it states:
>
>If the DM allows characters to have proficiencies, this column also indicates
>the number of extra proficiency slots the character gains due to his
>Intelligence. These extra proficiency slots can be used however the player
>desires. The character never needs to spend any proficiency slots to speak
>his native language.
This is very interesting. I haven’t got the book on me, so I am going to
assume this quote from the PHB is correct.
I like the proficiency rules, and so I have always ‘imposed’ them as follows:
Each character gets the number of proficiency slot they are allowed for
their class (eg. warrior 4 weap, 4 non-weap; wizard 1 weap, 6 non-weap)
just as normal.
Then, in ADDITION to this, each character gets a number of proficiency
slots equal to the # of languages attribute (from their intelligence). BUT,
and this is where my interpretation differs from the quote above, I only
allow players to take these as NON-weapon proficiencies. However, as the
DM, I am flexible in this and will allow characters to use a few of these
extra slots for weapon proficiencies. This differs between classes, so I am
generally much more prepared to award warriors weapon proficiencies than a
wizard, for example. I also require the players to give me a reason (ie.
background material) why they should be allowed to spend these extra
proficiency slots on weapon, and not non-weapon, proficiencies.
Now for the admission - I don’t like this system, and must admit that the
proficiency thing seems to have gotten out of control. I have tinkered with
the above quite a lot, due to some of the many minor gripes I have in the
system. As someone else said, the number of ‘required/must-have’
proficiencies seems to increase hugely with every extra book. I also think
the Complete Fighter’s Handbook increased the number of proficiency slots
which need to be spent on weapon proficiencies, IMO.
I believe that the initial starting number of proficiencies (given in the
PHB) are totally inadequate. Furthermore, I also believe that some classes
(priests & thieves in particular) are hugely disadvantaged in this area.
Warriors, on the other hand, seem to get a hell of a lot of proficiencies
compared to the other classes. I think these numbers should be changed, and
maybe increased a little, to reflect better the class differences and also
the number of new proficiencies introduced in all the various sourcebooks.
My new proficiency table is as folows. The classes are listed in order of
fighting ability (how I see it, anyway):
Class W/P # lvl N-W/P # lvl
Warrior 6 2 3 4
Thief 4 3 5 3
Priest 2 4 6 3
Wizard 1 5 8 2
I feel thieves get ripped off in the area of proficiencies. IMO, they
should be more evenly spread (like the warrior originally is) - they should
be able to get more weapon proficiencies. I feel Priests generally have
weapon restrictions anyway, so they shouldn’t have that much access to
training (of course, some of the dieties - Cuiracaen, for instance - would
warrant changing this). Wizards tend to get a lot of extra non-weapon
proficiencies anyway due to high intelligence stats, which makes them very
useful in non-combat, intellectual-type situations (I picture wizards as
the ‘brains’ of a group). I like the speacialisation rules (for weapon
proficiencies), so I let all warriors specialise (non-fighers can only do
this once, where fighters can do it as often as they want). I also feel
specialisation in a certain weapon (I try and discourage choosing the
good-ol’-munchkin longsword) adds something to a character.
Well, there ya go - my 2 gold coronas, as well as a [rather long-winded]
answer to the question. Let me know what you all think of this. Hope it
helps somoene
Simon
>The way I reread this, is that if a character has a 16 Intelligence, he
>or she is normally allowed to learn 5 additional languages, AND has 5
>proficincy slots open to learn more languages, or weapon styles or non-weapon
>proficiencies. I’ve never seen this done in a game I’ve been in, nor have I
>myself done it in a game I’ve run, but I didn’t look at it closely enough. I
>would like for y’all (yes, I’m in TEXAS to reread that closely, stressing
>the words/ phrases that stood out to me “…column ALSO indicates…” along
>with “…EXTRA proficiency slots…” (that’s in there twice) and
“…CHARACTER
>gains due to his Intelligence.”
The idea of using the “# of languages” slots for proficiency slots has long
been a popular option among many players. And it makes sense (how many people
speak 5 extra languages, anyway?). I’ve always used that option.
>S. Graindorge wrote:
>
> Then, in ADDITION to this, each character gets a number of proficiency
> slots equal to the # of languages attribute (from their intelligence).
BUT,
> and this is where my interpretation differs from the quote above, I only
> allow players to take these as NON-weapon proficiencies.
>
Oh, I’ve always assumed that the int./lang bonus proficiencies were for
non-weapon proficiencys only, as well (though there are “grey area”
proficiencies, like the fighting style (I.E. single weapon, two weapon,
etc) proficiencies that I usually allow to fall into this category.
Also, I liked your system as you described it below. Certainly some steps
in the right direction. Another question re. Proficiencies is that perhaps
they are too tied in with stats (I.E. have a high stat, and you’re
automatically a virtuoso), however the attempt to rectify this that TSR
made in Skills & Powers was, IMO, 1) too cumbersome in many respects and 2)
resulted in having either too low a chance to succeed to make it
worthwhile, in many cases, or spending all your proficiency points on few
proficiencies, leading to the problem we’ve already discussed. Anyone have
a workable variant system?
>
> I believe that the initial starting number of proficiencies (given in the
> PHB) are totally inadequate. Furthermore, I also believe that some
classes
> (priests & thieves in particular) are hugely disadvantaged in this area.
> Warriors, on the other hand, seem to get a hell of a lot of proficiencies
> compared to the other classes. I think these numbers should be changed,
and
> maybe increased a little, to reflect better the class differences and
also
> the number of new proficiencies introduced in all the various
sourcebooks.
> My new proficiency table is as folows. The classes are listed in order of
> fighting ability (how I see it, anyway):
>
> Class W/P # lvl N-W/P # lvl
> Warrior 6 2 3 4
> Thief 4 3 5 3
> Priest 2 4 6 3
> Wizard 1 5 8 2
>
> I feel thieves get ripped off in the area of proficiencies. IMO, they
> should be more evenly spread (like the warrior originally is) - they
should
> be able to get more weapon proficiencies. I feel Priests generally have
> weapon restrictions anyway, so they shouldn’t have that much access to
> training (of course, some of the dieties - Cuiracaen, for instance -
would
> warrant changing this). Wizards tend to get a lot of extra non-weapon
> proficiencies anyway due to high intelligence stats, which makes them
very
> useful in non-combat, intellectual-type situations (I picture wizards as
> the ‘brains’ of a group). I like the speacialisation rules (for weapon
> proficiencies), so I let all warriors specialise (non-fighers can only do
> this once, where fighters can do it as often as they want). I also feel
> specialisation in a certain weapon (I try and discourage choosing the
> good-ol’-munchkin longsword) adds something to a character.
>
> Well, there ya go - my 2 gold coronas, as well as a [rather long-winded]
> answer to the question. Let me know what you all think of this. Hope it
> helps somoene
>
> Simon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the
line
> ‘unsubscribe birthright’ as the body of the message.
>Also, I liked your system as you described it below. Certainly some steps
>in the right direction. Another question re. Proficiencies is that perhaps
>they are too tied in with stats (I.E. have a high stat, and you’re
>automatically a virtuoso), however the attempt to rectify this that TSR
>made in Skills & Powers was, IMO, 1) too cumbersome in many respects and 2)
>resulted in having either too low a chance to succeed to make it
>worthwhile, in many cases, or spending all your proficiency points on few
>proficiencies, leading to the problem we’ve already discussed. Anyone have
>a workable variant system?
Well, I have been toying with a certain idea - the proficiency system of
AD&D is one of my pet projects :-). I haven’t seen the S&P book, so I don’t
know what it says there. What I was looking at was the following. I’ve
never actually written this one up, so I am making this up as I go along.
Each proficiency would have a ‘basic chance of success’. There would be two
ways of doing this. Firstly, you could (for the sake of simplicity) say
that everything has a base difiiculty of, say, 13 (on d20). Or choose
another number. Alternatively, you could choose a different base number,
depending on how difficult (or easy) the skill is. This could be based on
the ‘modifier’ which is listed with each ability. You could also combine
the two ideas, use the base chance, and then apply the modifier to find the
‘final base chance’ for that skill. You could also use a kind of category
type system, as follows for example:
Category Base Chance (on d20)
Routine 17
Easy 14
Normal 12
Hard 9
V. Hard 5
Impossible 3
This table would then determine the base chance of success for a particular
skill. Each skill is then modified by the particular ability associated
with it (as described with the proficiency). Again, you could use a tabular
form to make things easy, like the following:
Ability Score Modifier
I think that useing the languge profs. as bonus profs. is a good idea.
And some of the charts posted are a good start. Anyone who uses them
should report back on how they worked out game balance wise.
As for the S&P book I bought it at the urgering of power mad FR players
and was thourghly dissappionted in what it could do if left unchecked.
Just as an aside I am an avid Hero System player and have been since its
inseption so a point based system is not my problem with The S&P book.
It seemed unballanced to me, but I was also really burnt out on my game
at the time and that might have colored my view so anyone else who has
thoughts on it I’dd like to hear them and maybe I’ll take a fresh look
at the book.
Kyle
“I drank WHAT?”- Socrates
The Skills & Powers proficiency system is based on the character’s ability to learn
and improve their proficiency as they increase in levels. For this reason, the
basic stats start out low, and are modified by the relevent ability (or
subability). Then, as the character increases in levels, he is able to apply the
character points the DM grants him to the proficiendies and raise them.
In general, Skills and Powers (and all the Players’ Options books) has some nice
ideas, even if they are unbalanced. A DM should always take care to watch the
players and make rulings if using the PO books. The next issue of Dragon is
supposed to have Skills and Powers stuff for Birthright and I look forward to
reading it–even if I never use them.
Brian
I think that the proficiency situation is an interesting problem.
When I create a character I want to give him or her some personality, a
background, and abilities to back that up. There just usualy aren’t
enough proficiency slots. It seems however that giving players a bunch of
extra proficiency slot isn’t the answer. Instead I suggest making
background proficiencies (Those that have little effect on the game in
areas other then role-playing) cheaper (ie. two for one sale on background
proficienies in aisle three).
Another way you might handle this problem is to make proficiency
groups. The rules in the CFHB introduce weapon proficiency groups,
perhaps a similar system could be fashioned for non-weapon proficiencies
with groups like athletics (swimming, endurance, mountaineering) and
wilderness (hunting, foraging, survival). Anyway it’s something to think
about. I invite anyone to respond to my ideas
I really like the idea of Backround proficiency Groups, bought for cheaper that
each one would be alone. These groups would be based on the type of cultural
upbringing that the character had, and what type of environment the character
was raised in. I also think that it would also be possible to add an
additional proficiency for other high atributes (your strength is over 13, you
get an extra strength based proficiency or some such…
Lolly Eggers wrote:
> I think that the proficiency situation is an interesting problem.
> When I create a character I want to give him or her some personality, a
> background, and abilities to back that up. There just usualy aren’t
> enough proficiency slots. It seems however that giving players a bunch of
> extra proficiency slot isn’t the answer. Instead I suggest making
> background proficiencies (Those that have little effect on the game in
> areas other then role-playing) cheaper (ie. two for one sale on background
> proficienies in aisle three).
> Another way you might handle this problem is to make proficiency
> groups. The rules in the CFHB introduce weapon proficiency groups,
> perhaps a similar system could be fashioned for non-weapon proficiencies
> with groups like athletics (swimming, endurance, mountaineering) and
> wilderness (hunting, foraging, survival). Anyway it’s something to think
> about. I invite anyone to respond to my ideas
>
> ***************************************************************************
> >
Don’t shoot my Sunday joyride down.
- -Wesley Willis
> In general, Skills and Powers (and all the Player’s Options books) has some nice
> ideas, even if they are unbalanced. A DM should always take care to watch the
> players and make rulings if using the PO books. The next issue of Dragon is
> supposed to have Skills and Powers stuff for Birthright and I look forward to
> reading it–even if I never use them.
>
> Brian
I have always been amazed at the various reactions to Skills & Powers…
When it first came out, there were a lot of comments about it being a system that could
(and would) be exploited and abused by players to make ALL POWERFUL characters…
I even fell for this line of thinking and avoided incorporating it into my game…
However one of my players suggested giving it a try… and I did..
We found it a good addition to our game.. we play Skills & Powers characters exclusively
now… We had no incidence of abuse… Which says to me that no matter what system you
use… no matter what rules you include/exclude… ultimately it’s the quality and
integrity of the people in your group that makes the difference…
I consider myself lucky… and also look forward to the S&P kits for BirthRight!
> Another way you might handle this problem is to make proficiency
>groups. The rules in the CFHB introduce weapon proficiency groups,
>perhaps a similar system could be fashioned for non-weapon proficiencies
>with groups like athletics (swimming, endurance, mountaineering) and
>wilderness (hunting, foraging, survival). Anyway it’s something to think
>about. I invite anyone to respond to my ideas
I like this idea. To my knowledge, nobody has thought of this before. Has
anyone
tried out a system like this, and how much success did you have?
I also liked Simon’s difficulty-level system. I think a mix of these two ideas
could give us exactly what we want.
Lolly Eggers wrote:
> Another way you might handle this problem is to make proficiency
> groups. The rules in the CFHB introduce weapon proficiency groups,
> perhaps a similar system could be fashioned for non-weapon proficiencies
> with groups like athletics (swimming, endurance, mountaineering) and
> wilderness (hunting, foraging, survival). Anyway it’s something to think
> about. I invite anyone to respond to my ideas
This is a really good idea. I like it a lot. Here’s a couple of ideas that it
sparked regarding groups for non-weapon proficiencies:
Racial Groups: Some races should have groups of proficiencies that they could
have. Dwarves could have a group that included things like blacksmithing,
mining, mountaineering and Read/Write-Dwarven, for instance. Elves could have
dancing, etiquette, a musical instrument or singing and Read/Write Elven. This
list of skills should be tweaked for whatever campaign world/subrace was
involved, and I’m sure there are other proficiencies that should be included.
Culture Groups: Humans and non-humans should have culture groups which would
include things like Reading/Writing and Local History. Depending on the
culture these groups could include things like swimming (for a seaside culture)
Riding, horse (for a culture that emphasized horsemanship) etc.
Professional Groups: There could be groups that would parallel the character
kits. A smith group that has blacksmithing, weaponsmithing and armorer in it;
a scholar group that has Reading/Writing, History, etc. in it. Character kits
already get proficiencies at a bonus, but if a player wanted to have another
option, this might be a way to go.
What do you folks think?
- -Gary
- ----Original Message Follows----
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 13:12:49 -0800
From: “Gary V. Foss”
To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Proficiencies - the hidden (?) extras
Reply-To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Lolly Eggers wrote:
> Another way you might handle this problem is to make
proficiency
> groups. The rules in the CFHB introduce weapon proficiency groups,
> perhaps a similar system could be fashioned for non-weapon
proficiencies
> with groups like athletics (swimming, endurance, mountaineering) and
> wilderness (hunting, foraging, survival). Anyway it’s something to
think
> about. I invite anyone to respond to my ideas
This is a really good idea. I like it a lot. Here’s a couple of ideas
that it
sparked regarding groups for non-weapon proficiencies:
Racial Groups: Some races should have groups of proficiencies that they
could
have. Dwarves could have a group that included things like
blacksmithing,
mining, mountaineering and Read/Write-Dwarven, for instance. Elves
could have
dancing, etiquette, a musical instrument or singing and Read/Write
Elven. This
list of skills should be tweaked for whatever campaign world/subrace was
involved, and I’m sure there are other proficiencies that should be
included.
Culture Groups: Humans and non-humans should have culture groups which
would
include things like Reading/Writing and Local History. Depending on the
culture these groups could include things like swimming (for a seaside
culture)
Riding, horse (for a culture that emphasized horsemanship) etc.
Professional Groups: There could be groups that would parallel the
character
kits. A smith group that has blacksmithing, weaponsmithing and armorer
in it;
a scholar group that has Reading/Writing, History, etc. in it.
Character kits
already get proficiencies at a bonus, but if a player wanted to have
another
option, this might be a way to go.
What do you folks think?
- -Gary
Great ideas Gary. This helps me alot. Maybe I’ll write a system up for
the list and submit it to a Darksun page. I also see campaign specific
groups and faction ones for Planescape.
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the
line
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
At 01:12 PM 3/28/98 -0800, you wrote:
>Lolly Eggers wrote:
>
>> Another way you might handle this problem is to make proficiency
>> groups. The rules in the CFHB introduce weapon proficiency groups,
>> perhaps a similar system could be fashioned for non-weapon proficiencies
>> with groups like athletics (swimming, endurance, mountaineering) and
>> wilderness (hunting, foraging, survival). Anyway it’s something to think
>> about. I invite anyone to respond to my ideas
>
>This is a really good idea. I like it a lot. Here’s a couple of ideas
that it
>sparked regarding groups for non-weapon proficiencies:
>
>Racial Groups: Some races should have groups of proficiencies that they could
>have. Dwarves could have a group that included things like blacksmithing,
>mining, mountaineering and Read/Write-Dwarven, for instance. Elves could
have
>dancing, etiquette, a musical instrument or singing and Read/Write Elven.
This
>list of skills should be tweaked for whatever campaign world/subrace was
>involved, and I’m sure there are other proficiencies that should be included.
>
>Culture Groups: Humans and non-humans should have culture groups which would
>include things like Reading/Writing and Local History. Depending on the
>culture these groups could include things like swimming (for a seaside
culture)
>Riding, horse (for a culture that emphasized horsemanship) etc.
>
>Professional Groups: There could be groups that would parallel the character
>kits. A smith group that has blacksmithing, weaponsmithing and armorer in
it;
>a scholar group that has Reading/Writing, History, etc. in it. Character
kits
>already get proficiencies at a bonus, but if a player wanted to have another
>option, this might be a way to go.
>
>What do you folks think?
For the professional skills, I think the secondary skills list from the
player’s handbook might work nicely. Perhaps two NP slots to acquire a
secondary skill, with all the associated proficiencies?