Since 2e still uses the different requirements for different classes, my suggestion would be to have all characters begin with a set experience point amount -- whatever you decide to set it at.
I've set it at
3000 (updated in the Character Creation thread).
dmw71 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2024 6:35 pm
It really doesn't matter to me whether proficiencies are used or not. The only detail that's important for me to understand is how non-combat tasks will be resolved.
Can characters just automatically do anything they attempt? If not, how will that determination be made?
Rex wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 11:08 am
I don't care about Kits, some are good, some useless, and a few over powered.
Non-weapon proficiency, I don't care for them, agree with Dave we just need to know how non-combat will be resolved. Worst thing from 2e.
Weapon proficiency, Not a big fan, prefer to not use them but if we do 2e gets the groups right at least, much better than individual weapons. I don't care for the styles and specializations as I think it gets over powered but if you want to boost fighters at little they are OK if you just allow weapons and no stacking for straight Fighters only.
I'll start by saying, I like weapon and non-weapon proficiencies; they help to flesh out a character. No two characters are alike and the NWP help differentiate between them. Not everyone is adept at lip reading, for example. Or has carpentry skills. Or knows how to cook, swim, etc. As adventurers, especially as seasoned adventurers, you may know how to do basic things: start a fire, cook, fish, swim, ride a horse, climb, tie a knot, etc. But, it is not a guarantee.
I really like the secondary skills too. This may have been the job your character had (or would have had) before becoming an adventurer. Another way to give detail to your character. So, I want you to pick one or roll one > your choice.
As for NWP, what if we do this:
Everyone has
10 NWP. Yes, 10. Six of those are in the General area; four in your specific character choice. Some obviously compliment each other. If your character grew up on a farm, they would know about agriculture, animal handling, cooking, fire-building, riding, rope use, etc. Or their parents may have been weavers > this would entail artistic ability, leatherworking, weaving, rope use, etc, etc. Make sense?
As for Weapon Proficiencies, I like the group options. I can see where specializing in a weapon makes sense, but I can also see where training in a group of weapons makes sense...for some characters and races. Dwarves would find it very difficult to wield a two-handed sword due to its size, but could wield most other swords. A Halfling could not use a Long Bow, but rather a short bow, or a short sword instead of a long sword. Wizards are very focused on their magic and don't spend a great deal of time in weapons training (unless they multi-class). So, using a dagger/knife or a staff makes sense; and I'm good with them being proficient in both!
The DMG on page 30 talks in detail about the differences in attacking with a long sword vs. a short sword, making an argument against broad group specialization. Likewise, on pages 30-31, the DMG talks about the advantages of NWP for character development.
So, I'm torn about weapons. Edeldhur posted the tables in For Gold and Glory, but I'm not going to use those. Sorry.
I like the idea of characters having more WP to start with > say, everyone is proficient in 3 weapons, but 1 of those is your favored weapon, and for that weapon, you get a +1 to attack; the other 2 weapons have normal attack bonuses based on strength or dexterity. For example, if your favored weapon was a longbow, you'd get +1 to attack (along with any other bonuses), while you wouldn't get that bonus with your longsword or dagger. So, it's kinda like every character can "specialize" in their favored weapon. Does this make sense, or am I just muddying the water further?
And both Rex and Dave want to know about non-combat tasks. Like jumping over a crevice in the dungeon? If it's only a foot or two wide, should be easy for most. If its 3-5 foot wide, may need to make a DEX check. Can your character ride a griffon? Likely not...although, with some training, probably. Throw a rock and hit someone in the head (like Robert Wallace)? Ranged attack. Are you proficient in throwing rocks?
Some of these decisions will ultimately be made by me. Some will be common sense. Others you may or may not agree with.
Kits? No kits...for now. The water is muddy enough!
What else am I forgetting?
