|
Post by Michael Hutton on Jun 17, 2008 8:10:40 GMT
I'm planning on wearing a sailor's coat over my leather!
|
|
|
Post by Michael of Eshnar on Jun 17, 2008 8:22:39 GMT
I eouldn't get up hung up on the name, Al. Just call it Craft (Weapons) and be done with it.
|
|
|
Post by Altor "Al" Cloudscraper on Jun 17, 2008 10:47:43 GMT
the rules list different types of weaponmaking, including bowcrafting and weaponsmithing as separate craft skills
|
|
|
Post by Michael of Eshnar on Jun 18, 2008 0:56:56 GMT
The rules list lots of things - they also list leatherworking and armourer separately too, begging the question which skill you need for leather armour. I prefer to keep things simple - if it's a weapon, use Weapons; if it's armour, use Armour.
|
|
|
Post by Dirac Sil on Jun 21, 2008 11:20:34 GMT
Oops, forgot there wasa sticky (spot who was dipping i to the old dD&D 3ed rules today)
I noticed a comment that the intelligence bonus of your previous level was used to calculate you skill points for the new level - was this carried on in other versions? Do GMs usually just let you use the current intelligence bonus you possess (if you get a shiny new one at 4th, 8th, 12th etc)?
|
|
|
Post by Michael of Eshnar on Jun 21, 2008 12:14:48 GMT
I certainly do. If your Intelligence goes up at 4th or what-have-you, you certainly deserve to gain the benefits from it at that level.
|
|
|
Post by Dirac Sil on Jun 21, 2008 12:40:29 GMT
I guess the idea is you gained those previous skill points while you were more stupid
|
|
|
Post by Altor "Al" Cloudscraper on Jun 21, 2008 13:01:12 GMT
I agree with Mr Malingus (sounds like a kids show from the Darklands... "hey all you Giak girls and boys, put down your human femurs and skulls, its the Mr Malignus hour!"), otherwise you are getting into a very interesting discussion on what happens between levels and so forth.
|
|
|
Post by Maerin on Jun 21, 2008 15:42:54 GMT
I have never heard of that rule in any sort of official capacity (feel free, however, to let me know if someone did put it in print), and suspect it might be someone's house rule who has lost sight of the different between "intelligence" and "education/learning". After all, if one accepted the logic of that, one would further have to accept the logic that all bonuses used are the one's from the previous level, because of the rather dubious "you have to spend a level growing into and/or getting used to your new abilities". Needless to say, I do not accept that as a logical arguement in the context of how things are presented in this game system.
|
|
|
Post by Michael of Eshnar on Jun 21, 2008 23:03:43 GMT
"It's the Mr Malignus hour!" That, sir, is Made of Win!
|
|
|
Post by Dirac Sil on Jun 21, 2008 23:23:26 GMT
Page 145 of the 3E D&D PHB. FYI Actually, I know that I don't like the 'yeah, this ability came from nowhere' of levelling, and would be prepared, when good role playing or good dice scores suggested it, start applying bonuses and skills earlier (perhaps in an unreliable way) for . A BCS mage has a very high DC to try and cast his next spell until he levels, but can try it out, a Kai develops the echoes of his next tier of abilities, and a fighter might get a +1 to his attack rolls for good combat until his BCS kicks in.... plus perhaps a teporary skill point as long as it's understood he must solidify that when he picks his skill points rank Anyway, in that vien I understand that your skill points don't come fully formed from nowhere - you don't go off for three months to learn three skill points worht of things. The skill points represent what you leared in the adventure, and manage to solidify afterwards. Hence, I can understand if you learned it under your old intelligence, you had less capacity. The hole in that logic is that surely your intelligence did not sudden;y get better, and the potential extra ability point was also floating around in he ether keeping your potential skill points company and eating popcorn while watching you going 'this is all rather good, isn't it - watch out for the giak!'
|
|
|
Post by Dirac Sil on Jun 22, 2008 7:37:22 GMT
Oh, where did Maerin's reply go? I did see it (up late) just the internet went weird again
Anyway, the above question wasn't intended dto be a bit of rules lawyer-ness or anything, just was facinated to see that wrinkle and wondered the implications and if people ignored it, if the LW RPG ignored it (since they dseemed to have tweaked more than I thought as I get deeper to certain aspects) and if people could see the logic in it
I don't have a problem with skill points, and dmore than a passing obsession - it's the feel of combat now that gets me, I find it hard to RP through it and do anything more than take a step back and treat it as a tabletop wargame for a second. Except the cyclic initiative split is the most logical and straightforward way to deal with combat.
Anyway, not what this topic is about!
|
|
|
Post by Maerin on Jun 22, 2008 15:24:58 GMT
Maerin's reply got self-moderated.
|
|
|
Post by Maerin on Jun 22, 2008 21:17:24 GMT
Well, I am back home and went through all the relevant sections of the 3.5 Player's Handbook I could think might apply. I find no evidence of that official rule there. Certainly there is nothing relevant on page 145.
If you are citing 3.0, then you are citing a rules system that hasn't been "official" for nearly five years now, and that includes the timeframe in which the LWRPG was published. So it is hardly surprising that no one might use it any more, irrespective of whether they ever did in the first place.
That rule does strike me as the sort of rule that definitely would have been fixed in the 3.5 edition. But if you happen to find it still official in the 3.5 edition or, more particularly, in the LWRPG, let me know and I will house rule it away in my game here, accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by Dirac Sil on Jun 22, 2008 21:22:06 GMT
Not seen it so far in a trawl of the LW RPG. It probably caused more confusion than it's worth!
|
|