Forgotten Kingdoms Forums

Originally this idea in my head started as one to only give spell casters a boost to spell regen rates when in a group. with the rate increasing more with a cap of up to 4 members. However, I realise that currently in the game there is no assist mechanic where one character can recieve help with a skill from another, or a bunch of others.

So, I wanted to start this topic of conversation as to see what group based benefits and actions other than mine other people had.

So far, mine has two distinct types. passive group benefits like increased spell regen rates depending how many people in your group are in the same room as you with a cap of 4 members.

And what for now I'll call the assist command. Basically a form of temporarily increasing someone's skill proficiency if you're in the same group as them. Though this latter one would only be open to someone who knew the skill he or she was helping you with with an increased bonus the higher the helper's own proficiency and we'll say a maximum of 2 - 3 people helping you with the skill at a time and the bonus lasting perhaps 3 secons. Enough time to type and use the command once.

This latter has myriad applications as well as what I'll discover are skills where it simply isn't applicable as with sneak and hide. Though to give an idea what I saw assist being used for most are craft skills, Brewing, scribing, weapons / armor crafting. As well as a way to boost the first few rounds of combat. Assist with fourth or fith attacks, assist with rescue so the front row member can more likely rescue the spellcaster out of dragon claws, things like that.

If then the assist mechanic seems stable and doesn't provide many to any unforseen issues I'd like to open it up to spellcasting as well. It would be grand for a master wizard to assist his apprentice with casting spells as an addition to that relationship. Or a Battle mage recieving arcane assistance from 2 - 3 other wizards to open the first round of combat with something truly devastating.

I think that it is a good idea but for the sake of balance, I would restrict it to making life more convenient, but not making characters more powerful.

Faster meditation, less components used in crafting/brewing, faster crafting, bonus to skills like listen, spot, tracking, pathfinding...

Vibius wrote:I think that it is a good idea but for the sake of balance, I would restrict it to making life more convenient, but not making characters more powerful.

Faster meditation, less components used in crafting/brewing, faster crafting, bonus to skills like listen, spot, tracking, pathfinding...

Would these all be passive benefits you're suggesting? Also... what do you mean when you refer to path finding?

Sorry, perhaps I haven't been very clear, I meant skills/spells/whatever that you would use directly in a fight, on the other hand anything that saves you time or coin it should be fine.

Pathfinding is a ranger/druid skill that allows a group led by a ranger/druid to move more easily through wilderness terrain rooms, meaning less drain on their stamina. It's difficult to train up and is affected by the type of armor you wear.

I think it would be nice if there were assist benefits for groups, but I feel like it would need to be regulated a lot. Not necessarily capped to a certain number of people, but definitely based on situation. If you're all trying to climb out of the fresh grave in Zhentil Keep's graveyard, I could see having a group boost to the climb skill.

Not sure meditation/regen should have an increase, it's difficult to justify that having four other people in the room with you is going to help you meditate better - Just look at the note on the meditation help file about meditating in the market square or the middle of combat.

I think a cool idea would be a feat for fighters to work better as a team, applying a static 'tactical' bonus to their party for 'to hit' rolls. Make the requirement CHA 12 for first feat, CHA 15 for second, and CHA 18 for third. It could open up more leadership style RP to fighters with a coded benefit to grouping with other PCs. Maybe base it off the pathfinding skill idea where the fighter needs to be the actual group leader code wise too.

Beskytter wrote:Pathfinding is a ranger/druid skill that allows a group led by a ranger/druid to move more easily through wilderness terrain rooms, meaning less drain on their stamina. It's difficult to train up and is affected by the type of armor you wear.

I think it would be nice if there were assist benefits for groups, but I feel like it would need to be regulated a lot. Not necessarily capped to a certain number of people, but definitely based on situation. If you're all trying to climb out of the fresh grave in Zhentil Keep's graveyard, I could see having a group boost to the climb skill.

Not sure meditation/regen should have an increase, it's difficult to justify that having four other people in the room with you is going to help you meditate better - Just look at the note on the meditation help file about meditating in the market square or the middle of combat.

I think a cool idea would be a feat for fighters to work better as a team, applying a static 'tactical' bonus to their party for 'to hit' rolls. Make the requirement CHA 12 for first feat, CHA 15 for second, and CHA 18 for third. It could open up more leadership style RP to fighters with a coded benefit to grouping with other PCs. Maybe base it off the pathfinding skill idea where the fighter needs to be the actual group leader code wise too.

Hmm, I believe some skills ought be impossible to help with. And I felt that alone should've been a good control measure as to keep things realistic and balanced. The kinds of increases I was thinking weren't life saving, but simply a nice bonus to give people mechanical insentive to group more and add a new angle to the game that doesn't exist currently.

As for meditate..., I feel bad for mentioning this, but this is the #1 reason I don't like Mystra. Whenever anything magic related in the realms Doesn't really make much sense, it can usually be traced to *because Mystra said so* which I understand works for a lot of people at large..., except me.
If you want a few plausible justifications, you could cook up a myriad of reasons:
The psychological; people at heart do not want to be alone and for the most part will seke out companionship, this puts them in a better frame of mood which lets them concentrate better and so regain faster.

The magical: Every wizard who uses magic enough, eventually has a small portion of the weave within them. it is why wizards during the spell plague went mad or got sick and died even when they didn't get hit with falling strands of the weave. By setting yourself in a ritualistic formation whilst resting with other living beings, you increase the flow of spellfire,, the raw stuff of magic in your locale which re-energizes your mind faster.
NOTE: that I didn't actually mean meditate specifically the skill. I was aiming for spell regain in general since you currently do so while fighting, standing, resting or meditating.
But anyway, the explanations go on and on considering how free WOTC is with saying because reasons where magic is involved.

I like the charisma Idea. But one major reason I dislike statistic based ability changes in general is that unless you want to throw away years of breathing life into a character you like, or for some a decade or more. They will never directly benefit from the changes. By that I mean, currently the game doesn't t have those insentives feat wise, so the person who would've liked to have built a high char warrior 2 out of 3 times will not.

I feel that if a character knows enough about a certain skill, like teaching, he should be able to help another with it. Unlike teaching even if an orc with an 8 in all mental stats demos a series of attacks to show how to best swing a great axe to gain the fourth attack, or demos good footwork as to how to rescue a certain party member, then it should be counted as temporary help.

Spells might not be palletable for some with this mechanic. But I'm more concerned about seeing it on mundaine skills.

Just from personal IRL experience I have to say that meditation just is off the list for this concept. However, for spell regen itself... I suppose you could say that a wizard has less to worry about and is able to concentrate better on preparing his spells over again. In this I might agree to a small bonus to regen based on the number of people in the room that are grouped with you.

Stat based feats are a necessary evil and yes, unfortunately some characters won't be able to benefit from newer feats that are added if they don't meet the right stats for it or other prereqs. However, if you planned to play a leadership role in battle then at some point you should have taken time to work on your CHA stat anyways. RPing an ability without actually having that ability isn't good RP. Now, I might suggest something along the lines of making certain feats like a leadership tree of feats available only by completing certain quests to prove your worth for the feat and having the quest giver reward the feat point without using up a point for the character.
This gives older PCs the opportunity to benefit from new feats when they themselves don't get any more and it gives young PCs the chance to earn something while still being able to hold onto feat points as they grow their character.

In practice, it's a lot harder for someone to tell you to watch them and then just go for it afterwards. You'll most likely see them spend half their time looking back at the person with a question on their face of: "Like this?"

Beskytter wrote:Just from personal IRL experience I have to say that meditation just is off the list for this concept. However, for spell regen itself... I suppose you could say that a wizard has less to worry about and is able to concentrate better on preparing his spells over again. In this I might agree to a small bonus to regen based on the number of people in the room that are grouped with you.

Stat based feats are a necessary evil and yes, unfortunately some characters won't be able to benefit from newer feats that are added if they don't meet the right stats for it or other prereqs. However, if you planned to play a leadership role in battle then at some point you should have taken time to work on your CHA stat anyways. RPing an ability without actually having that ability isn't good RP. Now, I might suggest something along the lines of making certain feats like a leadership tree of feats available only by completing certain quests to prove your worth for the feat and having the quest giver reward the feat point without using up a point for the character.
This gives older PCs the opportunity to benefit from new feats when they themselves don't get any more and it gives young PCs the chance to earn something while still being able to hold onto feat points as they grow their character.

In practice, it's a lot harder for someone to tell you to watch them and then just go for it afterwards. You'll most likely see them spend half their time looking back at the person with a question on their face of: "Like this?"

Fair point on the meditation. I would like passive benefits not to involve specific skills but mechanics in general, so I think we're in agreement there.

As for leadership and charisma. I would argue that there are many types of leaders, and each type calls to a certain type of person. Thats why you can have leaders that get to where they are based on pretty words and playing the crowd and showmanship. Being able to pick words to inflame and dampen emotions. Thats usually what I think of charisma and there have been many of them in the past and nowadays.

Then there are leaders who gain their position on intelligence or wisdom. Or Simply being able to brute force their way there as in orc society and here is where I feel the dnd reliance on charisma for the broad array of leadership rolls falls apart. I feel it only applies to a very narrow type of personality in human or very human-like societies.

With that said, I recognize this is in large dnd based. But if anything, this dependance on charisma for this kind of role would be one of the things I'd be happy to see we differ in somewhat. I feel a leadership role would be better represented by roleplay quality. Both from the leader and the people he or she is trying to influence.

As for my example. Perhaps watching someone perform a skill was a bad cenario. The books on the DC10 to add +2 to assist weren't too clear in the past but here is roughly what the 5e player's handbook says on the help action.

Can take the help action for the recipient to gain an advantage. In large this action is up to DM interpretationb ut it would be reasonable for a wizard to for example, help another wizard memorize a spell from a spell scroll or another wizard's spellbook if the helper already knows the spell. By pointing out nuonces in the gestures and words required, or by simply holding the light steady so the wizard attempting to learn could see better. This, in transferrance would relate to the spellcraft skill here.

The six statistics are based on generalized qualities of ability in life, and this is where I typically begin to defend charisma as the leadership role requirement stat when such debates start.

As is typical, Strength refers to physical ability. Dexterity is nimbleness, speed, agility, and so on. Constitution is heartiness, endurance, stamina, etc. We're likely all in agreement and understanding of these. It's the mental three stats that most people differ in opinion on.

Intelligence is typically just associated with mental acuity, but I see it as one's ability to understand what they're seeing. In your orcs examples, they aren't particularly bright and it isn't typically easy for dull-minded characters to understand what they're being told, even if shown.
Wisdom is where most people go when thinking of understanding, insight, and forethought... but in play it acts more as will power than anything else.
Charisma is the hardest for people to pin down, and I'll admit that I'm not entirely sure even my own interpretation is complete for it. However, it's the essence of being around others. Not just oratorical prowess but influence in all manners of speaking. You use orcs again as the example for brute strength forcing others to their will, but I counter that their physical prowess means nothing if they don't have the charisma to dominate the will of the other orcs. Orc brutes are dime a dozen, they're bred for it, but to lead someone you have to have a certain quality about you that makes others defer to your power.

So yes, DnD is heavy handed on Charisma as the leadership stat and I fully support that. Just being strong isn't enough, that makes you a good soldier, but that strength of character is what dominates the lesser wills of those around you. That draws them to you like moths to flame or forces them to bend to your desires when they otherwise wouldn't look at you with any sort of recognition. Long explanation longer, think of Charisma as that innate ability to make others notice your other qualities entirely.

My counter to your wizard helping a wizard example is to posit this thought: Magic requires concentration, concentration that must not be broken, so the 'helpful' acts of another wizard would likely interrupt you when you're trying to copy a spell or prepare one. Sure it says the other could hold the light so concentration is easier, but that's stretching so that no one feels left out. That rule sounds and feels to me like the DM is holding the player's hand and saying, "It's okay, you can have the advantage because light-handed reasons so that your feelings aren't hurt when you fail your rolls."
I like the notion of having expanded grouping benefits, but I fell like they should lie in the tactical side of things vs. the magical side. Mundanes already lag behind magics once the magical start to get into higher circles of spells... and allowing the magical to benefit even more seems to make mundane classes less appealing. Why be a fighter? When a group of mages can knock out dragon armies left and right since their group benefits mean they never run out of spells and learning combat tactics is as easy as being 'shown' the proper footing once or twice it really takes away from the meat shield demand.

We'll have to agree to disagree where charisma is concerned. I just feel it's such a loose stat and anyone with a high charisma can say, ohlook I have a high charisma without actually having the skill irl to back it up. It sounds kind of harsh perhaps, but my experience is that people have their like sand dislikes when choosing what kind of character to play and this tends to coincide with what they're good at. On a table where you can just make a check for the 3 big social skills and you've built to be good at them, that can be glossed over, but on a MUD, there has and for some parts of the game are some quality control measures where charisma based characters are concerned. bards, paladins and knights. Even with these, i still feel that charisma doesn't transfer well from certain societies to another. Even among Irl human civilizations. Also, one facet of dnd that at least hasn't changed from 3rd edition since that is where I began and have never played anything earlier is skill points, synergies, or proficiencies, depending on the version. You might have a good charisma. But the skills necessary to be a good leader are what will keep you there, afterall, even with a +5 charisma, by even level 5 in most of these games, your skill points are making a bigger difference than your base charisma. Add onto the fact that there are feats like intimidating prowessf.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-fe ... at---final
And that in the same game, there are traits to base skills like bluff on intelligence rather than charisma and charisma becomes even less well defined. Path finder isn't dnd, but it was written in large by a lot of the same people and is designed welle enough for many of it's mechanics to be easily interchangeable I would go further and say the cannon charisma based skills aren't even clear enough to designate leadership.3.5 leadership is seperated into a feat
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Leadership
This tells me that it takes more than charisma to be a leader since apparently, unless you home rule it, the game is saying that leadership takes something other than charisma and that the PCs cannot gain *perminant* followers without a feat. further down it even states that you face a disadvantage based on a difference in alignment, so on and so forth.

Also, I have said above that it is mor important to me that the assist skill be implemented for mundaine skills than for spells. In the logn run of things, I don't mind much if it is implemented for spells or not. But I do feel that spellcraft should be one of those skills. It isn't a skill that is going to help anyone kill things quicker around here directly. And as for the indirect factor of helping lower levle characters learn certain spells quicker. What I have noticed is that the current environment here currently means that scrolls will be scribed over and over until they learn it anyway. If this is felt to be a detractor from the game to a high enough degree I would relent that spellcraft not be on the assist list. I'm more keen to see them on the craft / rescue / doorbash side of things.

Also, as for spell regen rates, Why don't we say optimum regen is attained when there are different classes in the party. For every wizard/cleric/bard/ranger/paladin in the group, there has to be a PC of another class for the increased rate to engage? In large this idea came about during yesterday's Silverymoon event and events like it where in the past, where PCs have been restored to full stats and spells to move things along but you can understand why even on events ran without IM's or on the normal adventure I'd like this. I enjoy grouping. I rarely go anywhere newish without at least 1 other PC, anymore even if OOCly a year ago I soloed the area. And even with what seems to be my gung-ho attitude of moving on even when I have only 2/3ds of my battle related spells ready, I'd like to see people gaining some standardized benefits from grouping. At the moment, the benefits discounting interraction are that you r have an ally who brings his or her own abilities to the table and increased xp. The Xp no longer becomes a benefit after level 50 as even when your raised and you lose a bunch, you can go solo somewhere to get it back within a couple of hours or less. Which in my opinion for now isn't a bad thing. some prefer to play with less interraction, or sometimes there simply isn't anyone to group with, so these things should still be possible. It means that any improvement has to go the other way when they are considered.

So, to summarise. I'd like the amount of time any spellcaster needs to regain spells slightly but noticeably reduced to reduce the amount of time spent meditating. the most ideal situation is where a group doesn't spend more time meditating than they do fighting, moving and looking around the area to help everyone involved have the irl time to enjoy the game more. If the PC want's to solo an area, it is currently possible to do so and they're on their own time to burn with everything that entails.

The burden of meditation in large groups has a lot to do with how large groups (or most groups) are comprised.

An often proportionally large amount of spellcasters will enhance the warriors and make up for the generally absent rogues. Everyone will fly or magically be translated to the objective; everyone will be healed upon losing even only 5% of their total HP; everyone will be swaddled in layers of magical protection (often long before arriving at the objective thus requiring the spells to be refreshed again at least one more time).

There are benefits to this and there are also problems. I don't want to get into the specific merits of your idea because I don't play spellcasters and never have; I don't have a dog in the fight. My suggestion is just that, meanwhile, spellcasting discipline and group composition could ameliorate this problem to a degree.

We will have to agree to disagree on the charisma thing. I take my understanding of Gary's view on charisma direct from the Gygax himself so I have a stronger pull towards just stats than fluffy skills lists or feat trees.

However, I do agree with Harroghty (whose name I've been misspelling for years now by adding a u) on the fact that most of us are wholesomely addicted to the magical swaddling of dragonskin, stoneskin, heroism, and so on. In large groups like what we had when the first attack on the orcs at Silverymoon occured, it was a glowlight party of fighters and clerics dj'd by mages. Most mages rely on the length of their spells lasting but the almighty stoneskin fades after it has absorbed enough damage. So big meat shields typically need it three dozen times or more in such big combats.

Composition of the group and spellcasting discipline, like Harroghty stated would alleviate a lot of what we've seen that you're discussing when it comes to spell regen rates. When it comes to skill assists, I fully believe that it should depend on the situation at hand rather than be a static guarantee to all skills. I refer to my example with climbing out of a grave, if one person is better at climbing than another it is fathomable that they could make it out and help the other person scramble up. It isn't fathomable that a skilled fighter who took years IC to master his sword craft can adequately show someone in the middle of combat how to better improve their swing or footwork to make them better at fighting.

Beskytter wrote:We will have to agree to disagree on the charisma thing. I take my understanding of Gary's view on charisma direct from the Gygax himself so I have a stronger pull towards just stats than fluffy skills lists or feat trees.

However, I do agree with Harroghty (whose name I've been misspelling for years now by adding a u) on the fact that most of us are wholesomely addicted to the magical swaddling of dragonskin, stoneskin, heroism, and so on. In large groups like what we had when the first attack on the orcs at Silverymoon occured, it was a glowlight party of fighters and clerics dj'd by mages. Most mages rely on the length of their spells lasting but the almighty stoneskin fades after it has absorbed enough damage. So big meat shields typically need it three dozen times or more in such big combats.

Composition of the group and spellcasting discipline, like Harroghty stated would alleviate a lot of what we've seen that you're discussing when it comes to spell regen rates. When it comes to skill assists, I fully believe that it should depend on the situation at hand rather than be a static guarantee to all skills. I refer to my example with climbing out of a grave, if one person is better at climbing than another it is fathomable that they could make it out and help the other person scramble up. It isn't fathomable that a skilled fighter who took years IC to master his sword craft can adequately show someone in the middle of combat how to better improve their swing or footwork to make them better at fighting.

What if instead of thinking of an assist as representation of showing someone, it's thought off as simply assisting. As if shield bashing a foe to line him up better for a shot. Or distracting him so the fourth and fifth attacks hit? Or well in the case of rescue, the assister literally just shoves the person infront of the person needing rescue. I feel I've outlined my idea a little badly so my apologies for that. I see though that there will likely be some disagreement from different people what can and cannot be helped with. To me, listen, spot, concentration, sneak and hide are all skills that I can't fathem how an assist would work. But landing a kic, / punch, an attack, rescuing, door bashing and of course crafting, brewing and scribing would be applicable.

The point about better discipline is valid. However, although I've witnessed what Harroghty outlined. (I spell it with a u almost everytime still and then have to correct). It isn't really a matter of degrees, but absolutes. Eventually on any decently long adventure rest will be needed. And depending on the various skill and control of the spellcaster PCs involved the rest period can easily outshine the time spent adventuring. Especially if something crops up which was not prepared for. That's been my experience so far at any rate. I would say better discipline would make a noticeable difference in the overall experience but so far I have not seen it happen enough to have any confidence that it will occur more frequently in the future. Not enough people genuinely play their casters like that. So in reality there is a large gap between, it is possible and it actually happens. One then has to consider, at which point is the decision made to shift the game to suit the majority of players, or is this a matter of implementing something else,, not necessarily code based but perhaps something player initiated and ran, to encourage the behaviour we want to see of spellcasters in general. Something that is currently not happening.

Beskytter wrote:However, I do agree with Harroghty (whose name I've been misspelling for years now by adding a u) on the fact that most of us are wholesomely addicted to the magical swaddling of dragonskin, stoneskin, heroism, and so on. In large groups like what we had when the first attack on the orcs at Silverymoon occured, it was a glowlight party of fighters and clerics dj'd by mages. Most mages rely on the length of their spells lasting but the almighty stoneskin fades after it has absorbed enough damage. So big meat shields typically need it three dozen times or more in such big combats.

Composition of the group and spellcasting discipline, like Harroghty stated would alleviate a lot of what we've seen that you're discussing when it comes to spell regen rates. When it comes to skill assists, I fully believe that it should depend on the situation at hand rather than be a static guarantee to all skills. I refer to my example with climbing out of a grave, if one person is better at climbing than another it is fathomable that they could make it out and help the other person scramble up. It isn't fathomable that a skilled fighter who took years IC to master his sword craft can adequately show someone in the middle of combat how to better improve their swing or footwork to make them better at fighting.

+1

@Yemin -- I agree that good tactics could mean the difference in combat through leadership characters helping make sure other group members line up the enemy so that shots, strikes, stabs, and spells score direct hits. But that's where I stated feats for leadership PCs who have the charisma to lead would be good to help with this, and from whence we digressed into our agreed upon disagreement about the role of charisma on leadership in d&d.

Good soldiers know how to fight well, good leaders know how to set up good soldiers to fight great. The unfortunate disadvantage we have on MUDs in general is a lack of control governing tactics in combat. The code handles everything directly and leaves us to spamming certain buttons, aliases, and the return key. If we wanted to apply /more/ tactical control we'd have to redesign the combat engine for the game to allow this and I don't want to ask Mask to even think about that, let alone ask for it to be done. Our best bet would be feat points that apply a constant bonus to grouped PCs for their 'to hit', damage, and luck rolls.

As for mages -- I agree that spell casters aren't all RP'd correctly when it comes to spell discipline. I think Mers is fairly good about handing out spell trainer locations, despite Athyros' ugh in his direction for it, and that goes a long way to keeping young wizards from just waltzing across Faerun gobbling up spells left and right. I think the need to regenerate spells is a deterrent in some ways, so my only suggestion on that would be similar to the crafting process where being offline still regenerates spell power as though they were off preparing their spells. On the same token I also think more RP in game would be good and thus I feel like meditation is sort of a boring take on spell regen. If we had a cooking style system where it emotes the various processes by which a wizard prepares a spell, that would somewhat cool. Party members could RP with and about the things they witness when the wizard is preparing spells.

I still agree that what Yemin is suggesting is something to consider for FK, I just feel that there's a lot more to iron out before we start the process of suggesting it for development.

Very good then. Setting aside spell regen for now, as I feel that is a direction this could go in though not the one I now feel is as well defined. How else would the general assist mechanic be translated for Fk.

To reclarify after all the digressions and for people who don't play the tabletop. In dnd there is a mechanic by which certain skills can be assisted with at the DM's disgression and in the majority of situations there are some skills that can and cannot be assisted with to that point that unless you wish to do something incredibly unorthadox with the skill 99 percent of dungeon masters will allow it.

How this works on the table is that the initial person attempting the skill willd eclare his intention. For example, take the climbing attempt that was mentioned earlier in this topic The player declares his attempt to climb and whomever want's to help him declares their aid. When the initial person rolls their check, for every person helping who rolls a 10 or above the initial score is raised by 2. So an initial check of 12 with 2 successful helping hands will become a 16 instead. However, other skills such as sneak or hide and spot
could never be assisted as this is breaking the realms of plausability. At best the DM may allow you to roll a bluff check to cause a distraction but the logic becomes thinner and thinner the more you allow different skills from party members to aid in the initial one.

What I propose isn't strictly leadership because it allows anyone grouped with you to give you a helping hand, we'll say up to a max of 2 if they already know the climb skill. They would input something like, assist bob climb and depending on your own skill at climbing, bob would get a noticeable but not life saving bonus to his next climb attempt. Or the bonus would last for 2 - 3 seconds, enough time for bob to attempt climbing once. the same mechanic can be applied to the craft skills. This would be seperate from any passive benefits. It would need active input from the players grouped with you.

And where we don't agree on charisma, I can see your point on leadership and can agree that someone with the requisit feats or quest granted ability leading a group would impart bonuses to say, hit, luck and rescue? anything that involved leading a group in or through hostile situations as if I'm not mistaken that's the type of leadership your talking about. Though instead of a straight charisma requirement for feats. I would jump for leadership to be it's own skill that is unlocked via quest like the trade skills but the quest itself has what i would see as a more reasonable charisma requirement, something like 10 or 12 rather than 18. however your nat charisma controlled the cap of your ability in it. I.e., 12 charisma allows you to train it up to novice, but an 18 would allow you to train it up to grand master. This would have the benefit of giving you a variable set of represented military ranks. As in theory a brigadeer general has more leadership ability than say a lance corporal. Though I'm sure our folks here who have served may or may not agree. I'll be honest and say I'd like this to be opened up to Clerics of certain faiths, and bards as well as all warrior classes of course, not just fighter and paladin. An argument could be made for wizards... but to put it frankly, I'm not feeling it lol. Certain spells already grant them massive leadership type benefits with hopefully more on the way.


So, I would like to seperate the ideas about leadership and ideas about general assist from now on if everyone is agreed? What do you think so far?`

I'm certainly on board with the idea that other members of the group can use a command to apply a momentary bonus based on their own skill rank. I'd suggest sticking with the tabletop mechanic of +2 on a successful dc10 for each person who inputs the command. My cap wouldn't be the number of people, it would be the number of times a person can input the command.

I've been told in the past that we get the most bang for our buck with feats, that's entirely why I stick to suggesting them. Now, I feel they should be received via quests both in knowledge regarding the feat's topic and actual mechanical requirements such as a stat. I'm for having three levels of this feat tree, so that there could be a variety of ranks involved in the military structures of each country. I can also agree that perhaps each feat applies to only certain skills in combat, thus making the most leader-like in my system the one that can truly influence the field.

Switching back to just skill assists, for crafting, it does make sense that someone more well versed and experienced in that craft could help. I would say that for alchemy, brewing, and scribing it's a little more unusual, as those need extra concentration. My suggestion for crafting assists would be the ability to aid someone in the construction process. You could start the project and someone can assist you in making it, so if it requires a log out you both much log out in the same room in order for it to progress. This builds RP, which is good. For your magical crafts, I'd be okay with capping it to 1 (one) person that assists you via the above mentioned command. So at best the idea would be a mentor wizard who is able to guide you a little so you have a better chance at success. Perhaps the teacher feat could be updated to allow wizards to improve the bonus they provide depending on their skill rank. So a teacher feated wizard with a skill rank of 25 in brewing could apply a +5, while a similar wizard without the feat isn't exactly the /most/ helpful and still provides just a +2.

I hope this is separated enough, I'm fully okay with keeping each of them separate. Still like the idea and I think we're getting somewhere with it. As for the classes that can become leadership roles, I'm open to having it be any class but I think it should be written for each individually. Quest wise that is, each class should have its own quests related to how that class fits as a leader. (sorry, thoughts are written stream of consciousness so please excuse jumping)

Beskytter wrote:I'm certainly on board with the idea that other members of the group can use a command to apply a momentary bonus based on their own skill rank. I'd suggest sticking with the tabletop mechanic of +2 on a successful dc10 for each person who inputs the command. My cap wouldn't be the number of people, it would be the number of times a person can input the command.

I've been told in the past that we get the most bang for our buck with feats, that's entirely why I stick to suggesting them. Now, I feel they should be received via quests both in knowledge regarding the feat's topic and actual mechanical requirements such as a stat. I'm for having three levels of this feat tree, so that there could be a variety of ranks involved in the military structures of each country. I can also agree that perhaps each feat applies to only certain skills in combat, thus making the most leader-like in my system the one that can truly influence the field.

Switching back to just skill assists, for crafting, it does make sense that someone more well versed and experienced in that craft could help. I would say that for alchemy, brewing, and scribing it's a little more unusual, as those need extra concentration. My suggestion for crafting assists would be the ability to aid someone in the construction process. You could start the project and someone can assist you in making it, so if it requires a log out you both much log out in the same room in order for it to progress. This builds RP, which is good. For your magical crafts, I'd be okay with capping it to 1 (one) person that assists you via the above mentioned command. So at best the idea would be a mentor wizard who is able to guide you a little so you have a better chance at success. Perhaps the teacher feat could be updated to allow wizards to improve the bonus they provide depending on their skill rank. So a teacher feated wizard with a skill rank of 25 in brewing could apply a +5, while a similar wizard without the feat isn't exactly the /most/ helpful and still provides just a +2.

I hope this is separated enough, I'm fully okay with keeping each of them separate. Still like the idea and I think we're getting somewhere with it. As for the classes that can become leadership roles, I'm open to having it be any class but I think it should be written for each individually. Quest wise that is, each class should have its own quests related to how that class fits as a leader. (sorry, thoughts are written stream of consciousness so please excuse jumping)

Looking a bit better formed of an idea so far. What do you mean by capping general assists by how many times someone could input it? Do you mean limiting how many times it can be inputted per say, 5 seconds by which time the bonus on the person should've faded?

Also, could you clarify what you mean by feats give you the most bang for your buck? In 3.5 with its hundreds of feats, traits, soul melds and so on, there are genuine waste of time feats. Thankfully here we have less and while there aren't any waste of time feats that I've noticed. I'd argue that some aren't worth it unless your optimising a very specific build.

I have agreement with assistance as far as general craft goes. I think the problem with brew and scribe is that there really isn't as much detail to their process as I'd like, it stems from the inherant lack of solid facts and structure about magic in the FR universe in general so it then becomes how to imagine how one could help with it. The only solid idea of it I can come up with right now is someone using a firetender to regulate proper levels of heat in the fire and match it to whatever you're brewing. Perhaps dragonskin requires a higher temperature than heroism for whatever reason? I would be reluctant to tie in a skillb onus on assist for brew and scribe to the teacher feats for the simple reason that it ignores the point that an expert brewer is no better help than a novice. It would be the difference between a 12 year old apprenticed to a blacksmith helping, and a 25 year old journeyman who's been practicing for 5 years and does good work.

The reasoning for the teacher feats as I understood it for FK is that it takes a good helping of all 3 mental stats to be a proficient teacher. By that same reasoning, A journeyman blacksmith should only need the know how and strength to help in the trade, str/int, and a wizard / cleric brewing should only need the know how and perceptiveness to help with brewing wis/int or perhaps the coordination and know how, dex/int? It ought be based on these stats if there's going to be any assisted skill bonus higher than +2.

Besides, as a feat it would be a straight bonus without any chance of failure or variation like teaching which goes against the dnd spirit, but as a skill it gets a fair roll.

Yes, the limitation would be that a player cannot spam the bonus command so that they pump someone up above 25 in a skill even if for a short time. Perhaps the command gives a bonus to the target player and sets the aiding player to 'no act', giving them the "You can't do that while assisting." echo if they try any other command at all. It's already the limitation in table top but this would translate it to FK.

Years ago I offered up the idea of new 'prestige' classes to the game and was told that going with feat trees here on the game itself is the best option. Likely due to how they're added in vs a full new class. Since then I've only ever truly focused on trying to add in feats that will help a character while maintaining a balancing act so no one becomes /too/ powerful. It's more about programming power than 3.5e's written mechanics, we're loosely based on the table top game rather than strictly adherent.

With the teacher feat, it would still be based off a successful dc10 but it improves the bonus because a character who takes that feat has to be really very smart, really very insightful, and really very good at talking to people in a way they can understand. Brewing in d&d works by infusing the energy of the spell into a tincture of components. The tincture absorbs the energy and becomes spell like, giving the power on consumption. On FK we skip the need to create the tincture and focus directly on infusing the spell's power into a liquid. That's why the need to cast the spell three times instead of once, it's like laundry detergent in that it's highly concentrated [cleaning] power now in liquid form.
Scribing is much of the same thing, you use exotic inks made from rare components to outline the symbols and words needed to cast the spell. Then you infuse the energy of that spell into the inks so that when anyone recites the words and touches the scroll the magic erupts, eats the inks and paper, and then does what it's supposed to.

Back to teacher feat, I'm not suggesting that the feat be an automatic +5. It's based on your skill rank with the skill in question, so a grandmaster brewer who is able to teacher others /should/ be better help than a journeyman brewer who isn't able to teach others. A master smith who cannot teach others might be able to /show/ you something, but a journeyman smith who's able to teach can help you understand what you're doing to a certain point. It isn't a hard and fast system like most feats in 3.5e, but you'd get more bang for your buck by utilizing the feat to help provide an RPable improvement to one's knowledge of their trade.

Beskytter wrote:Yes, the limitation would be that a player cannot spam the bonus command so that they pump someone up above 25 in a skill even if for a short time. Perhaps the command gives a bonus to the target player and sets the aiding player to 'no act', giving them the "You can't do that while assisting." echo if they try any other command at all. It's already the limitation in table top but this would translate it to FK.

Years ago I offered up the idea of new 'prestige' classes to the game and was told that going with feat trees here on the game itself is the best option. Likely due to how they're added in vs a full new class. Since then I've only ever truly focused on trying to add in feats that will help a character while maintaining a balancing act so no one becomes /too/ powerful. It's more about programming power than 3.5e's written mechanics, we're loosely based on the table top game rather than strictly adherent.

With the teacher feat, it would still be based off a successful dc10 but it improves the bonus because a character who takes that feat has to be really very smart, really very insightful, and really very good at talking to people in a way they can understand. Brewing in d&d works by infusing the energy of the spell into a tincture of components. The tincture absorbs the energy and becomes spell like, giving the power on consumption. On FK we skip the need to create the tincture and focus directly on infusing the spell's power into a liquid. That's why the need to cast the spell three times instead of once, it's like laundry detergent in that it's highly concentrated [cleaning] power now in liquid form.
Scribing is much of the same thing, you use exotic inks made from rare components to outline the symbols and words needed to cast the spell. Then you infuse the energy of that spell into the inks so that when anyone recites the words and touches the scroll the magic erupts, eats the inks and paper, and then does what it's supposed to.

Back to teacher feat, I'm not suggesting that the feat be an automatic +5. It's based on your skill rank with the skill in question, so a grandmaster brewer who is able to teacher others /should/ be better help than a journeyman brewer who isn't able to teach others. A master smith who cannot teach others might be able to /show/ you something, but a journeyman smith who's able to teach can help you understand what you're doing to a certain point. It isn't a hard and fast system like most feats in 3.5e, but you'd get more bang for your buck by utilizing the feat to help provide an RPable improvement to one's knowledge of their trade.

Oh I see. Personally I see teaching and assisting as two different things entirely. your master smith capable of teaching might in conversation give you a few pointers but in large he isnt there to teach you anything, he's there to pump the bellows in a a better more steady rythm that his 50 years in the business has taught him works best with whatever you're doing.
Whereas if he was there to teach, you'd be the one pumping the bellows whilst listening to precise explanations of why this and why that. In the same vane, being charismatic isn't going to help you pump the bellows more readily and in the reverse, being strong and beefy isn't going to help you assist someone's diplomatic efforts.... unless it's korgoth.

Seeing that the teacher feats gain some benefits for what is quite a heavy investment is probably a good thing though I'd be against it purely because of my bias against that facet of the game at the moment.

I'm a bit of a relentless snob when it comes to magic but the explanation you referenced from dnd is more than good enough to help cement some roleplayable scenes in my head, thanks.

So far then, we've come to where we're agreed general assist is a good idea, with an activity block on whomever uses the skill similar to the current brewing process where you can't do very much of anything for an appropriate amount of time. In this case perhaps some 5 seconds?