Topic: Insight Points and Bonus Priorities
Started by: turgon
Started on: 5/31/2002
Board: The Riddle of Steel
On 5/31/2002 at 4:19am, turgon wrote:
Insight Points and Bonus Priorities
From the rules, it says that "Higher Insight grants bonus Priorities" (pg. 68). If taken litterally, this would indicate that you gain additional Priorities. So if you had 76 Insight Points you would have A,A,B,C,C,D,E, and F priorities. I have assumed that the litteral interpretation is wrong and that the "bonus" Priorities are, in fact Priority Upgrades, so in the same situation I would receive A,A,B,C,C, and D priorities. Which interpretation is the REAL correct answer?
On 5/31/2002 at 4:28am, Jake Norwood wrote:
RE: Insight Points and Bonus Priorities
tugon-
Glad to see you putting the forum to good use. I use the "Upgrade" option in our games, although either one would work just fine, depending on what you wanted to do with it.
Jake
On 5/31/2002 at 6:16am, Wolfen wrote:
RE: Insight Points and Bonus Priorities
I, personally, would go with the former (A,A,B,C,C,D,E and F). What if I wanted my next character to start out as a slave? I could keep the F priority for that, and ditch the D and E priorities.
On 5/31/2002 at 6:28am, turgon wrote:
RE: Insight Points and Bonus Priorities
But you are still limited to 6 priorities per character. Right? I mean you could not put two As into Proficiencies and have 28 points, for example.
On 5/31/2002 at 6:49am, Wolfen wrote:
RE: Insight Points and Bonus Priorities
When this topic was brought up before, I believe Jake's answer was something along the lines of "that's how I'd do it (only 6 priorities), but hey, it's your game".
Stacking priorities seems like a particularly bad idea to allow, to me.
On 5/31/2002 at 1:41pm, Jake Norwood wrote:
RE: Insight Points and Bonus Priorities
But you are still limited to 6 priorities per character. Right? I mean you could not put two As into Proficiencies and have 28 points, for example
Yikes! it depends on the flavor of your game, I think, but a character with that many proficiencies (or wow, apply that to attributes!) would be a GOD.
Jake
On 5/31/2002 at 4:02pm, Jaif wrote:
RE: Insight Points and Bonus Priorities
Is there a max weapon proficiency? A 28 in sword & shield would be rather excessive. I'd just run around picking the red die every time and do simultaneous blocks and strikes. :-)
However, if the points were distributed the character wouldn't be hugely overpowered. I mean it's nice and all to have be able to pick up every weapon and wield it like a master, but when you're actually using your favored quarterstaff, those points in sword & shield don't do you diddly.
Not that I'd ever allow a beginning character to toss two priorities into one category to begin with.
-Jeff
On 5/31/2002 at 4:19pm, Lyrax wrote:
RE: Insight Points and Bonus Priorities
You're limited to 8 points per proficiency in the beginning anyways...
On 5/31/2002 at 5:31pm, Ashren Va'Hale wrote:
RE: Insight Points and Bonus Priorities
Actually... How would you stack double priorities in race: "My character is a human halfling dwarf fey" ????
The only possible way that I came up with was to use this type of stacking for the evil anime campaign---- Think Ranma 1/2
"Your character botched his agility roll and has fallen into one of the many pools dotting the land. Your yonish guide frowns and says to the rest of the party with great pitty, 'oh no! your friend has fallen into cursed jensenkyo pool of drowned dwarf, there is tragic story of poor dwarf who drown there many ages ago!!!' upon standing up your character feels different and notices that everything seems taller...."
Think of the evil possibilities....
On 6/1/2002 at 11:36pm, Brian Leybourne wrote:
RE: Insight Points and Bonus Priorities
As long as you remember that you only get 6 of the things, it makes no difference if I use AAABCCDEF as AAABCC - the player can choose to use the F to make himself a slave, or whatever, but he's not getting any MORE than he would otherwise. Using the F would mean he ends up using AAABCF, worse than he could otherwise have used, so the distinction is meaningless.