RE: Re: [Adonthell-general] Items

[Benjamin Walther-Franks]

> I have written a few more texts (mostly brainstorming). I 
> thought I just relerase them now (as early as possible) to 
> get the discussion going....
> 
> What do you guy think? shower me with comments!

Here we go: (Thunderclap) Schrcshshhchshshsh...

>- actually we could call the 'enhanchements' forging (forge weapons, forge
armour) (and make one entry out of them?)

Good idea with the names, but I'd rather keep them as two entries. We have
three entries on songs and even four on spells, so it doesn't harm to keep
two different forging abilities. Think of the diferent abilkities as a focus
on certain disciplines: Similiar as earth magic will heal and fire magic
will destroy, forge weapons can be used for offensive ends and forge armour
to defensive. 


> - all in all I think the whole system is a little too complicated. As far
as I understand it learning all these talents can only be learned by 'making
friends' with the teachers (and no advancement points are needed). I think
that is definately a good idea (especially in 0.4, which will not be that
complex all in all, and which should be fairly accessable for new players).
What I do not understand is why we need the availability (that long table).
I propose that we can just have the faction alignment handle all that (I
think faction alignment can be quite a powerful tool!). And in some cases
the characters can just tell the character that she can not learn something
(at least for 0.4 this should make sense). So If Marcela helps the Green
sisters, she might actually learn a few songs, but then the dwarves might
decide that she is just not technically minded enough to advance to the
higher ranks of mechanics...


Just to clarify: Talents can be learned from teachers, items (spellbook,
runestone, construction plan etc.), and other situations I hinted at.
Experience in the form of advancement points is NOT needed.

So far, abilities MUST be learned from a teacher, and they will cost
advancement points; If the player does not have sufficient supply of these,
the teacher will make an appropriate reply and deny teaching him. I think
for initially learning abilities (e.g. gaining the first rank) it should
stay this way, but we might add further possibilities to gaining ranks in
abilities already learnt (e.g. at least one rank), such as when completing a
quest in a certain way, or some heroic deed, the player would be granted a
raise in abilities (still requiring his advancement points). We could even
go as far as to say that once a player has one rank in an ability, he can
freely buy ranks with advancement points.

As to the availability table: Even though the table seems quite complex, the
player will never see anything of this, in fact, he will see even less than
before, since he doesn't see which abilities are available to him, but
discovers them as he goes along. It's more for implementational uses like.

Nevertheless I like your proposal on letting the faction alignment handle
this, and I'll give this some thought. I guess we need some good faction
alignement rules first before deciding on that, so that's to do next then.
We'll definately keep that in mind though.

The more I think about it the better it sounds. Yeah, faction alignment is
definately the way to go!


>In 0.4 the monks could teach you some fighting feats, the smith would be
able to teach you some mechanics, the rangers some other fighting feats
(mostly ranged combat) ect. 


See above. I just think it's important that these ideas fit into a general
rule system, and are not just standalone rules for v0.4


>We should also add effects and devide these into temporary and permanent
effects). Permanent effects last until they are removed (for example a curse
that can only be healed by a specific person), while temporary effects only
last for a (relativly small) amount of time (these include spells).


Yeah we need to get into more detail on that sooner or later. How about you
give it a go? :)


>All the rules can be roughly devided into 3 categories:

>roleplaying: these are the skills, factions, background ect. 

>combat: these include the attributes, as well as level, experience and all
the other stats

>inventory: this also includes the talents and abilities Ben mentioned (they
govern which items a character can use)


True, although the latter also really falls under combat, since most items
and basically every talent will be used to those ends.


<skills>

I like the part you added on advancing in skills. As to the implementation
part, your suggestions sound sensible, but I'm the wrong person to talk
to...


<items>

All sounds very sensible, and doesn't really stand in conflict with anything
I wrote. So if you and the others are okay with it I'll incorporate all of
that (including your writing on skills) into the existing rules. I'll also
start a new document that has all the items and talents ideas we have come
up with so far. This can then be added to the doc-cvs and anyone can add to
it anytime.


BEN