POW gain rules

[ragr]

Hi all.

I have a question regarding interpretation of the POW gain rules on pg 186 of the BGB.

The rules for Humans are very clear but if I have an Elven character, starting POW score 2d6+6, how do I calculate the minimum and maximum POW.

Is it 8+18 = 26, or count the +6 as an additional die meaning 3+18 = 21 which is the same as human. My initial thoughts are the former but a friend of mine remembers the RQ system having it as the latter (the BGB mentions counting +6 as one die but in the context of "other character creation systems").

This makes a considerable difference to the chances of gaining POW;

an Elf with 10 POW under the first system has an 80% chance of an increase but only 55% under the second.

I'm still thinking the first as Elves are highly magical beings but I'd like to hear what others think.

[Greville]

It really depends on how elves work in your world. On reading the BGB I'd say it's the second option. However maximum power doesn't indicate how magical a culture is, it only shows how powerful the top percentiles are. I think it's the average and more importantly the minimum power that show how accessible magic will be for a race or culture.

As written in the BGB Elves have a minimum power of 8, an average power of 13 and the same maximum power of 21 (your second example. This would suggest that Elves are a highly magical race because both the minimum power and the average power are considerably higher than humans in general. An average Human has a power of 11 (10.5 rounded up), whereas an Elf with 11 power would be considered to have very poor magical ability.

That being said, it's your game-world and you can tweak Elves however you like.

[Arcturus]

Hi all.

I have a question regarding interpretation of the POW gain rules on pg 186 of the BGB.

The rules for Humans are very clear but if I have an Elven character, starting POW score 2d6+6, how do I calculate the minimum and maximum POW.

Is it 8+18 = 26, or count the +6 as an additional die meaning 3+18 = 21 which is the same as human. My initial thoughts are the former but a friend of mine remembers the RQ system having it as the latter (the BGB mentions counting +6 as one die but in the context of "other character creation systems").

As DM I would rule the former (8+18 = 26). Otherwise their would be no benefit to having a high minimum POW.

Using 8+18 = 26 seems like rules as intended and rules as makes sense.

[icebrand]

As DM I would rule the former (8+18 = 26). Otherwise their would be no benefit to having a high minimum POW.

Using 8+18 = 26 seems like rules as intended and rules as makes sense.

As a GM i would use 21. Published rules in different products for maximum stats are:

Max Rolled + Min possible

Max Rolled + Min possible counting up to +6 as 1 die

Max Rolled +3

I generally used "+3" or +min counting fixed bonuses as +1. Otherwise on a game where magic is being used (and possibly POW sacrificed for) an elf would have an unfair advantage.

At the moment, we train stats almost as normal (STR or CON up to SIZ or max roll, DEX and APP +50% or max roll), and beyond that and up to racial max (max roll + number of dice, a +something counts as 1) you roll over STATx5% (96-00 always a success).

That includes POW (so is harder to gain than RAW) but then again, you only sacrifice POW for very specific things (gaining a familiar/allied spirit, that kind of stuff)

[PhilHibbs]

As a GM i would use 21. Published rules in different products for maximum stats are:

Max Rolled + Min possible

Max Rolled + Min possible counting up to +6 as 1 die

Max Rolled +3

I've never come across the latter two in a published BRP-based rule set, and the first one is only used for POW in RQ3.

[ragr]

Thanks for the replies, guys. It didn't stir up much response so I'm guessing that whichever option I go for won't result in "breaking" anything later on.

I'm going with the first of the two options as it suits the campaign better.

For now anyway.

[icebrand]

I've never come across the latter two in a published BRP-based rule set, and the first one is only used for POW in RQ3.

FIXED! RetroQuest is published

Also, the rule comes from GORE

[Agentorange]

I must admit I'd go for the higher of the two options ie 26, does this give elves an unfair advantage POW wise ? maybe, but perhaps they're just naturally more POWerful, them's the breaks

[icebrand]

I must admit I'd go for the higher of the two options ie 26, does this give elves an unfair advantage POW wise ? maybe, but perhaps they're just naturally more POWerful, them's the breaks

I guess its gets balanced when they get hit by iron and die.

[ragr]

I must admit I'd go for the higher of the two options ie 26, does this give elves an unfair advantage POW wise ? maybe, but perhaps they're just naturally more POWerful, them's the breaks

My thoughts exactly; this rule would also apply to beings with high POW such as Dragons etc.

I'm running a Greyhawk campaign so being hit by iron won't be an issue as a counterbalance. However, I've always run the Elves (or Olve to give them their proper name) as haughty in the extreme and they are universally disliked by pcs who, of course, have to swallow all that antagonism and endure the attitude when forced into co-operating with the pointy eared buggers.

If pc runs an Elf they get all that bad feeling back at them whilst trying to convince everyone that "I'm a nice guy, really".

[icebrand]

My thoughts exactly; this rule would also apply to beings with high POW such as Dragons etc.

I'm running a Greyhawk campaign so being hit by iron won't be an issue as a counterbalance. However, I've always run the Elves (or Olve to give them their proper name) as haughty in the extreme and they are universally disliked by pcs who, of course, have to swallow all that antagonism and endure the attitude when forced into co-operating with the pointy eared buggers.

If pc runs an Elf they get all that bad feeling back at them whilst trying to convince everyone that "I'm a nice guy, really".

On a RuneQuest-like set of rules, when POW is probably the most important stat on a character besides combat skills, giving a PC +25% gain roll is something i wouldn't enjoy at all as a gm, and would probably make me assassinate the elf on their-- oh, wait, they probably don't need to sleep either, so maybe fight? or do they come with 100 yrs of previous experience?

IMHO 2D6+6 makes them already more powerful, a 26 species max is completely unfair.

[rodney418]

Not if you give them less CON

[PhilHibbs]

Not if you give them less CON

I'm not aware of any elven races that are sickly or unhealthy. Usually they have very high resilience and resistance to diseases and poisons. No, elves are just better than humans at nearly everything (except breeding and abusing the natural environment), so trying to "balance" them is futile. They are unbalanced. Live with it. Tolkien never worried about his races being balanced, why should a roleplaying game?

[rust]

In my experience, as long as each character has his niche where he can shine and get the

spotlight and the characters work as a team instead of against each other, it is unnecessary

to balance the characters. I do not remember a single case where the players complained

that one of the characters was too powerful, they did always welcome a little additional po-

wer for the group.

[dragonewt]

Not if you give them less CON

Always reflecting on the PROs and CONs...

[ragr]

I agree with the comments on balance. One of the (many) reasons I switched from 3.5 to BRP was because I was fed up with the arbitrary attempts to ensure everybody was having a good time by giving every character a bit of something.

Elves IMC will be a lot better than your standard Human in statistical terms but this will be offset by the roleplaying hindrances that come with playing a character with such a different world view; they are not universally loved or respected and the campaign will feature such issues as racial dislike, intolerance and jealousy. Yes, it's a very dark Greyhawk.

BTW, kudos to dragonewt for the worst pun in a long time.