Magic Proficiencies

[drewkitty ~..~]

Magic Proficiencies from TtGD & R27.

If you do not use randomly gained Magic Proficiencies, and use the puchessing meathod using a secondary skill slot to purchace the Magic Proficiency. Would, in your opinion, you avoid having to get a Magic Limitation also?

[wyrmraker]

Tricky. I'd never seen these before, but I do like the idea of mystical proficiencies. Areas of specialty and the like. And if a mage is a specialist, there should be a bonus and related penalty.

[eliakon]

The TtGD book seems to be pretty clear that proficiencies are BOTH bought, and come with limits. I would allow you to pay a second skill slot to buy it off (in some cases)

[Prysus]

Magic Proficiencies from TtGD & R27.

If you do not use randomly gained Magic Proficiencies, and use the puchessing meathod using a secondary skill slot to purchace the Magic Proficiency.

Greetings and Salutations. So to state your question a different way: "Ignore Rifter 27 and just use the rules from Through the Glass Darkly." Got it.

Note: For those that don't follow, Rifter 27 includes optional rules which allow people to randomly roll for Proficiencies/Limitations and don't use skills. These optional rules only exist within Rifter 27. Through the Glass Darkly only mentions spending skills. So if you want an answer to only spending skills, then just look at Through the Glass Darkly for your answer. Simple as that.

Would, in your opinion, you avoid having to get a Magic Limitation also?

Through the Glass Darkly, page 27: "Frankly, if the Sorcerous Proficiencies are used, so should Limitations & Weaknesses. For every Sorcerous Proficiency, the character should have a Sorcerous Limitation or Weakness."

So yes, if you're using Sorcerous Proficiencies, you use Sorcerous Limitations or Weaknesses, as per the book's instructions. If you're not playing by the book, then it's G.M.'s call. Of course, if it's G.M.'s call, not much point to ask here.

Note: The book says "should" because G.M. can house rule it away, as well as a built-in mechanic for removing the limitations (spending Secondary Skills). So while it "should" be 1 for 1, there are ways to circumvent this (as previously noted).

Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[13eowulf]

If using skills then, to me, you are buying one proficiency AND one limitation. As a GM I insist on limitations being random rolled.

I had a GM that would random roll them for you, and not necessarily tell you right away, you got to 'discover' them... particularly weaknesses to one thing or another....

[Nightmask]

If using skills then, to me, you are buying one proficiency AND one limitation. As a GM I insist on limitations being random rolled.

I had a GM that would random roll them for you, and not necessarily tell you right away, you got to 'discover' them... particularly weaknesses to one thing or another....

The book itself however doesn't have it as 'get one proficiency must take a limitation too', you can 'buy' that proficiency without having to take any limitations and you can 'pay off' a limitation to remove it. Given there's a limit on how many proficiencies you can have and when you can buy them it shouldn't be much of a problem overall, even the proficiencies that have good benefits tend to have other concerns without an actual limitation given. Proficiency in ritual magic for example requires considerably more effort to work those rituals for that half-price on the PPE. Limitations also should be picked rather than random since they should fit into the nature of the flavor of magic the character has rather than being tacked on and likely even end up being quite unsuited to the magic style of the PC.

[gaby]

I say to get a Proficiencies you need a Limitions so things are fair.

[Glistam]

Magic Proficiencies from TtGD & R27.

If you do not use randomly gained Magic Proficiencies, and use the puchessing meathod using a secondary skill slot to purchace the Magic Proficiency. Would, in your opinion, you avoid having to get a Magic Limitation also?

Through the Glass Darkly is pretty clear in this regard: No. If your GM is allowing Sorcerous Proficiencies, then each proficiency is taken in place of a secondary skill. Under the Sorcerous Limitations section that follows the book further clarifies that for every Sorcerous Proficiency the character should have a Sorcerous Limitation or Weakness.

Yes, it only says should, so the GM can decide to ignore that if they so wish. But the intent is clear.

Also, the proficiencies and limitations, in all situations, are selected when the player has a strong central concept for his or her sorcerer, and only randomly rolled for otherwise.

HOWEVER, with all that being said, a character is allowed to use a skill slot to "overcome" a limitation. The text says this can happen when new skills are gained by experience, but with the GM's approval you may be able to convince them to let you immediately buy off a limitation at character creation. This effectively answers your question as "Yes," but only if you spend TWO skills per proficiency - one skill to acquire both the proficiency and the limitation, and a second skill to work off the limitation.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Yes, I reread the TtGD text about MP's and the only one here saying what the text says is Prysus

The text does not say Both have to be taken. Only that the ML's that are used should fit the character concept. Then it also discusses that if there is no strong char concept that a random die roll could be used to assign what number of ML's that are used.

It might be that the text is written in assumption that if one was taken, the one of the other was also taken, and that assumption was transmitted, somehow, by the writing without actually saying so.

[Nightmask]

I say to get a Proficiencies you need a Limitions so things are fair.

Why exactly is that fair? Because that hardly sounds fair; if you take Sculpting do you get stuck with a penalty on Electrical Engineering to be 'fair'? If you take a physical skill do you get stuck with an IQ penalty to be 'fair'? Then why would being stuck with a limitation for picking a sorcerous proficiency be anything but UNfair? Who's it even supposed to be 'fair' to? Not fair to the player whose character is getting a limitation tacked on 'just because', or the other players since what one player has for his character hasn't anything to do with anyone else's character.

[gaby]

Ok so that they do not make Mary sue,s character.
That they have a challenged to Overcome.

[Nightmask]

Ok so that they do not make Mary sue,s character.
That they have a challenged to Overcome.

You should look up what constitutes a Mary Sue character, a character having a sorcerous proficiency without a limitation isn't a Mary Sue and tacking on limitations doesn't necessarily make something not a Mary Sue. It also won't make it a twinked out or munchkin character either, just a character that traded off on a skill (since you have to buy the sorcerous proficiency giving up the skill you could have had for it) for a minor bonus to their magic in some fashion. The limitation is already inherent in the purchase, you sold the skill slot for the sorcerous proficiency.

[eliakon]

Ok so that they do not make Mary sue,s character.
That they have a challenged to Overcome.

You should look up what constitutes a Mary Sue character, a character having a sorcerous proficiency without a limitation isn't a Mary Sue and tacking on limitations doesn't necessarily make something not a Mary Sue. It also won't make it a twinked out or munchkin character either, just a character that traded off on a skill (since you have to buy the sorcerous proficiency giving up the skill you could have had for it) for a minor bonus to their magic in some fashion. The limitation is already inherent in the purchase, you sold the skill slot for the sorcerous proficiency.

And in the basic rules you use the skill to get a different training or such in magic, and that comes with an upside (positive proficiency) and a down side (negative limitation). You can train more to buy off the weakness if you like. If you don't want your character to have a weakness that's fine, don't buy the magic proficiency. But if you DO choose to buy something, then don't be surprised when your asked to pay the full price. Or put another way, the Magic proficiencies are more like Sharpshooting, or Anticipation.....they cost TWO skills each, their is just an alternate payment plan available (1 skill slot, one weakness).

[drewkitty ~..~]

Except that the the text does not support the having to have a ML if a MP is gotten, eli. So getting, as in training for it, a MP would still only cost one skill slot.

If there is no Skill Slot Cost, then I support the having to get a ML along with a MP, because it is due to random occurances within being trained as a mage.

[eliakon]

Except that the the text does not support the having to have a ML if a MP is gotten, eli. So getting, as in training for it, a MP would still only cost one skill slot.

If there is no Skill Slot Cost, then I support the having to get a ML along with a MP, because it is due to random occurances within being trained as a mage.

That's where we will have to disagree I guess.
I feel that the line that says "for every Sorcerous Proficiency, the character should have a Sorcerous Limitation or Weakness" means that.....if you take a proficiency, you get a Weakness.
if you don't want a weakness don't take the proficiency. Not all characters have them after all. Some people have 'vanilla' training with no quirks....and some have special training in the other 38 flavors.

In the book as written you pay a skill slot and get BOTH. Like I said its more or less that a MP costs two slots, you can either pay that with one skill and one ML or two skills.

[Nightmask]

Ok so that they do not make Mary sue,s character.
That they have a challenged to Overcome.

You should look up what constitutes a Mary Sue character, a character having a sorcerous proficiency without a limitation isn't a Mary Sue and tacking on limitations doesn't necessarily make something not a Mary Sue. It also won't make it a twinked out or munchkin character either, just a character that traded off on a skill (since you have to buy the sorcerous proficiency giving up the skill you could have had for it) for a minor bonus to their magic in some fashion. The limitation is already inherent in the purchase, you sold the skill slot for the sorcerous proficiency.

And in the basic rules you use the skill to get a different training or such in magic, and that comes with an upside (positive proficiency) and a down side (negative limitation). You can train more to buy off the weakness if you like. If you don't want your character to have a weakness that's fine, don't buy the magic proficiency. But if you DO choose to buy something, then don't be surprised when your asked to pay the full price. Or put another way, the Magic proficiencies are more like Sharpshooting, or Anticipation.....they cost TWO skills each, their is just an alternate payment plan available (1 skill slot, one weakness).

The limitation isn't part of the price, should does not mean required. If you're going to require the limitation then the proficiency itself shouldn't cost anything because you're already charging the price of requiring a limitation to acquire it. The only thing required is to spend the skill slot to acquire the sorcerous proficiency. The proficiencies themselves certainly aren't game-changing and most like Ritual Magic have limited usefulness and the Sense Supernatural and Sense Magic proficiencies aren't that effectively unless you double-up on them and only human sorcerers can have more than two and the limitations are far more penalizing than the proficiencies are beneficial.

So no the Sorcerous Proficiencies aren't like Sharp-shooting or Anticipation (whatever that is), they're what they are, a minor perk to round out a character by giving them a minor benefit in some area with the OPTION of also taking a limitation. Given the rules regarding gaining new Sorcerous Proficiencies (which for the various OCC in the game only allows for 5 opportunities at best by 15th level), how few you can actually have, and paying off a limitation during game play there is ZERO need to be forcing limitations onto anyone especially in a lethal setting like Nightspawn/bane where even a powerful Nightbane Sorcerer can get chewed up really quick given the odds against them.

[Nightmask]

Except that the the text does not support the having to have a ML if a MP is gotten, eli. So getting, as in training for it, a MP would still only cost one skill slot.

If there is no Skill Slot Cost, then I support the having to get a ML along with a MP, because it is due to random occurances within being trained as a mage.

That's where we will have to disagree I guess.
I feel that the line that says "for every Sorcerous Proficiency, the character should have a Sorcerous Limitation or Weakness" means that.....if you take a proficiency, you get a Weakness.
if you don't want a weakness don't take the proficiency. Not all characters have them after all. Some people have 'vanilla' training with no quirks....and some have special training in the other 38 flavors.

In the book as written you pay a skill slot and get BOTH. Like I said its more or less that a MP costs two slots, you can either pay that with one skill and one ML or two skills.

That's not how the book is written, that's how you choose to play it by replacing 'should' with 'required'. The book itself clearly doesn't require it and if you were required to take a limitation along with the proficiency then it shouldn't cost you anything because you're already being penalized and it's adding insult to injury to charge them to buy the limitation on top of that.

[eliakon]

Except that the the text does not support the having to have a ML if a MP is gotten, eli. So getting, as in training for it, a MP would still only cost one skill slot.

If there is no Skill Slot Cost, then I support the having to get a ML along with a MP, because it is due to random occurances within being trained as a mage.

That's where we will have to disagree I guess.
I feel that the line that says "for every Sorcerous Proficiency, the character should have a Sorcerous Limitation or Weakness" means that.....if you take a proficiency, you get a Weakness.
if you don't want a weakness don't take the proficiency. Not all characters have them after all. Some people have 'vanilla' training with no quirks....and some have special training in the other 38 flavors.

In the book as written you pay a skill slot and get BOTH. Like I said its more or less that a MP costs two slots, you can either pay that with one skill and one ML or two skills.

That's not how the book is written, that's how you choose to play it by replacing 'should' with 'required'. The book itself clearly doesn't require it and if you were required to take a limitation along with the proficiency then it shouldn't cost you anything because you're already being penalized and it's adding insult to injury to charge them to buy the limitation on top of that.

That's your view sure. I look at the 'if proficiencies are used then so should limitations' as saying just that. If you use the optional Proficienceis, then the Optional Limits are added
Then I look at the next part of the SAME paragraph that says 'should have a limit' as meaning....you should have a limit, as in an imperative. There is NOTHING that says 'if a limit is taken then the proficiency is free'....just that each proficiency should also have a limit, this combined with the fact that the proficiency clearly states that they cost skills leads me to the conclusion
1 skill = 1 proficiency, 1 limit
as the RAW intended way. A GM is of course free to change things as they see fit.

[drewkitty ~..~]

The word "should" is not a synonym of "required."

Thus what Eli is stating is his house rule. Which puts him in good company with 13owulf as for house rules go. Thank you for stating your Opinions.

[eliakon]

The word "should" is not a synonym of "required."

Thus what Eli is stating is his house rule. Which puts him in good company with 13owulf as for house rules go. Thank you for stating your Opinions.

actually I would thank you not to put words into my mouth. YOU can view it as a house rule. The way I read it, that is an imperative clause that makes non-compliance optional on the part of the GM. So yah, I view it as the RAW/Canon is that you take the limit. You are free to disagree of course.

[Nightmask]

Except that the the text does not support the having to have a ML if a MP is gotten, eli. So getting, as in training for it, a MP would still only cost one skill slot.

If there is no Skill Slot Cost, then I support the having to get a ML along with a MP, because it is due to random occurances within being trained as a mage.

That's where we will have to disagree I guess.
I feel that the line that says "for every Sorcerous Proficiency, the character should have a Sorcerous Limitation or Weakness" means that.....if you take a proficiency, you get a Weakness.
if you don't want a weakness don't take the proficiency. Not all characters have them after all. Some people have 'vanilla' training with no quirks....and some have special training in the other 38 flavors.

In the book as written you pay a skill slot and get BOTH. Like I said its more or less that a MP costs two slots, you can either pay that with one skill and one ML or two skills.

That's not how the book is written, that's how you choose to play it by replacing 'should' with 'required'. The book itself clearly doesn't require it and if you were required to take a limitation along with the proficiency then it shouldn't cost you anything because you're already being penalized and it's adding insult to injury to charge them to buy the limitation on top of that.

That's your view sure. I look at the 'if proficiencies are used then so should limitations' as saying just that. If you use the optional Proficienceis, then the Optional Limits are added
Then I look at the next part of the SAME paragraph that says 'should have a limit' as meaning....you should have a limit, as in an imperative. There is NOTHING that says 'if a limit is taken then the proficiency is free'....just that each proficiency should also have a limit, this combined with the fact that the proficiency clearly states that they cost skills leads me to the conclusion
1 skill = 1 proficiency, 1 limit
as the RAW intended way. A GM is of course free to change things as they see fit.

No, that's your opinion as to how you want to play it, because again 'should' doesn't mean 'required'. That's not my opinion or my view that's the definitions of the actual words. Also that wording doesn't mean that you're required to deal with a limitation if you take a sorcerous proficiency only that limitations should also be available. Indeed you could have characters that had just a limitation but no sorcerous proficiency since they aren't required to be taken together.

Do reread that text again very carefully, ALL the text. It doesn't say that take one sorcerous proficiency and you must take one limitation along with it, it says that if you're going to use the optional sorcerous proficiencies then you should be including the optional limitations as well NOT that you take one of each. What you take for that spent skill is one Sorcerous Proficiency nothing else, you do not take a limitation as well.

[Nightmask]

The word "should" is not a synonym of "required."

Thus what Eli is stating is his house rule. Which puts him in good company with 13owulf as for house rules go. Thank you for stating your Opinions.

actually I would thank you not to put words into my mouth. YOU can view it as a house rule. The way I read it, that is an imperative clause that makes non-compliance optional on the part of the GM. So yah, I view it as the RAW/Canon is that you take the limit. You are free to disagree of course.

Which makes it a house rule, since it's not a requirement as the rules are actually written. Since you're among other things replacing 'should' with 'required' that makes it a house rule since they aren't interchangeable.

[eliakon]

The word "should" is not a synonym of "required."

Thus what Eli is stating is his house rule. Which puts him in good company with 13owulf as for house rules go. Thank you for stating your Opinions.

actually I would thank you not to put words into my mouth. YOU can view it as a house rule. The way I read it, that is an imperative clause that makes non-compliance optional on the part of the GM. So yah, I view it as the RAW/Canon is that you take the limit. You are free to disagree of course.

Which makes it a house rule, since it's not a requirement as the rules are actually written. Since you're among other things replacing 'should' with 'required' that makes it a house rule since they aren't interchangeable.

Should can very well mean 'required unless the GM says otherwise'
But the simple fact is that, if the Optional Proficiencies are used, then the RAW is that each comes with a Limit. There is NOTHING ANYWHERE to suggest that the limit makes it free, though if you have any text to back that contention up I would be happy to hear it.
As it stands
1 skill gets on proficiency. Check we all agree there
then the book suggests that as an ADDITIONAL cost their is ALSO a limitation. Yes the limitation is not required, the GM has to choose if he is using that optional rule, just like the GM has to choose if they are using the optional rule for proficiencies. If the GM chooses to use the limits rules, then the suggestion for applying those rules is 1 for 1. Again the GM can change this to fit his personal game.
Should though is a fairly strong imperitive. If it was totally optional then I would expect to see a word like 'could'. Also if the limits were the price instead of skills I would expect to see something like "The mage can opt to take a limit instead of paying a skill for their proficiency."
Now if you can find me any part of the Rules As Written that says that the Limit covers the purchase price of a proficiency I will be willing to reconsider.

[eliakon]

Except that the the text does not support the having to have a ML if a MP is gotten, eli. So getting, as in training for it, a MP would still only cost one skill slot.

If there is no Skill Slot Cost, then I support the having to get a ML along with a MP, because it is due to random occurances within being trained as a mage.

That's where we will have to disagree I guess.
I feel that the line that says "for every Sorcerous Proficiency, the character should have a Sorcerous Limitation or Weakness" means that.....if you take a proficiency, you get a Weakness.
if you don't want a weakness don't take the proficiency. Not all characters have them after all. Some people have 'vanilla' training with no quirks....and some have special training in the other 38 flavors.

In the book as written you pay a skill slot and get BOTH. Like I said its more or less that a MP costs two slots, you can either pay that with one skill and one ML or two skills.

That's not how the book is written, that's how you choose to play it by replacing 'should' with 'required'. The book itself clearly doesn't require it and if you were required to take a limitation along with the proficiency then it shouldn't cost you anything because you're already being penalized and it's adding insult to injury to charge them to buy the limitation on top of that.

That's your view sure. I look at the 'if proficiencies are used then so should limitations' as saying just that. If you use the optional Proficienceis, then the Optional Limits are added
Then I look at the next part of the SAME paragraph that says 'should have a limit' as meaning....you should have a limit, as in an imperative. There is NOTHING that says 'if a limit is taken then the proficiency is free'....just that each proficiency should also have a limit, this combined with the fact that the proficiency clearly states that they cost skills leads me to the conclusion
1 skill = 1 proficiency, 1 limit
as the RAW intended way. A GM is of course free to change things as they see fit.

No, that's your opinion as to how you want to play it, because again 'should' doesn't mean 'required'. That's not my opinion or my view that's the definitions of the actual words. Also that wording doesn't mean that you're required to deal with a limitation if you take a sorcerous proficiency only that limitations should also be available. Indeed you could have characters that had just a limitation but no sorcerous proficiency since they aren't required to be taken together.

Do reread that text again very carefully, ALL the text. It doesn't say that take one sorcerous proficiency and you must take one limitation along with it, it says that if you're going to use the optional sorcerous proficiencies then you should be including the optional limitations as well NOT that you take one of each. What you take for that spent skill is one Sorcerous Proficiency nothing else, you do not take a limitation as well.

Note the text in red? That's the part that I think says that you take a limit for each proficiency. You can choose to interpret should to mean 'if you feel like it, but don't really have to' I interpret it as 'unless the GM says otherwise Thou Shalt"

[13eowulf]

Hey, where did the poll go?

Why did it go?

Wasnt the Poll what started this thread?

[drewkitty ~..~]

Sorry Eli but I didn't put any word into your mouth. I just pointed out that that the words you said do not say the ideas that the book (TtGD) says.

Thank you for your Opinions.
-------------
During the discussion it became evident that the poll became irrelevant. As to not sidetrack the discussion about what people's house rules on this subject, I deleted it.

[Glistam]

The only logical answer here is to just ban the use of the optional proficiencies and limitations altogether. Problem solved.

[Tor]

Why exactly is that fair? Because that hardly sounds fair; if you take Sculpting do you get stuck with a penalty on Electrical Engineering to be 'fair'? If you take a physical skill do you get stuck with an IQ penalty to be 'fair'? Then why would being stuck with a limitation for picking a sorcerous proficiency be anything but UNfair?

Because magic is unfair, so even its fairness is unfair.

[Svartalf]

Excuse me, but where are these magic proficiencies and limitations from already (book and section/pages please)...

[Prysus]

Excuse me, but where are these magic proficiencies and limitations from already (book and section/pages please)...

Greetings and Salutations. While some of this info was given earlier ...

Nightbane World Book 3: Through the Glass Darkly
-Sorcerous Proficiencies; page 24
-Sorcerous Limitations or Weaknesses; page 27

Rifter #27
-The Pros & Cons of Studying Magic; page 57

Note: Rifter #27 is of course a Rifter article (thereby unofficial material), and written by a different author (so not even the original author's intent). This by no way makes it bad, merely to put things in perspective.

Hope that helps. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[Svartalf]

Thanks, that way I won't have to go through the whole of NB and TtGD... I unfortunately don't have that Rifter

[Prysus]

Thanks, that way I won't have to go through the whole of NB and TtGD... I unfortunately don't have that Rifter

Greetings and Salutations. No worries, if you're curious about the original question, Rifter #27 is useless. It provides additional Proficiencies/Limitations and an alternate system for obtaining them. Purchasing them with skills is not discussed, and therefore of no use to the topic at hand. If you want to use them in your games and look for additional/alternate options, then something you might want to look into. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[Prysus]

Greetings and Salutations. Since I made a post though ... Edit: Spoiler tag has since been resolved (I suggest skipping over it).

Spoiler:

Yes, I reread the TtGD text about MP's and the only one here saying what the text says is Damian Magecraft.

Damian Magecraft hasn't posted in this thread, so not sure why you're claiming he did. Edit: This has since been edited/corrected. The name apparently intended was mine and now reads: "Yes, I reread the TtGD text about MP's and the only one here saying what the text says is Prysus" I don't try to delete things I've typed on these boards though, but I put it in a Spoiler tag as it's now irrelevant.

Then it also discusses that if there is no strong char concept that a random die roll could be used to assign what number of MP's or ML's that are used.

Through the Glass Darkly doesn't says this, and just something you've made up. It says you shouldn't have more than "four (1D4?)." This is for determining a "maximum" and NOT for determining how many. You could opt to use this to roll to determine how many you start with, but as you're fond of pointing out it doesn't say this and it would be a house rule.

What the book actually says is:

"If the player has a strong central concept [snip] then the player should select the limitations and conditions below.If the player doesn't have such a strong characterization [snip] then roll these randomly"

For those who've read and looked at the book, Sorcerouss Proficiencies (and Limitations) have a random roll table. There's no table for rolling a random number and getting these for free. There are three different places that mentions spending skills for these in Sorcerous Proficiences, and the last two paragraphs of Sorcerous Limitations or Weaknesses further makes the connection between Proficiences/Limitations and skills.

Now, in the interest of honesty, only by having a strong central concept and selecting does it mention "limitations." As such, it could be argued that if you randomly roll (using the random table), then you could avoid limitations, but I definitely don't think that's in the spirit.

It might be that the text is written in assumption that if one was taken, the one of the other was also taken, and that assumption was transmitted, somehow, by the writing without actually saying so.

Well, what the writing says is "For every Sorcerous Proficiency, the character should have a Sorcerous Limitation or Weakness." The 'assumption' is written right there. The last two paragraphs further highlight the connection between Skills, Proficiencies, and Limitations (this is why you can, at certain levels, select a Limitation and gain an extra Skill or Proficiency as a result).

Stating it says "should" could be argued that it's not required has some validity. After all no one is going to come to your house and put a gun to your head for not using it. You should run the combat system as presented in the main book, but again you're not required. l'll admit the Limitations are written more like an optional rule (though not declared as such, all the "should" statements present it as such). However, since the original question involves said optional rule, arguing that it's optional so therefore you don't have to use the optional rule when using the optional rule is silly.

Of course I also think it's silly to make a poll, and once the results disagree with you remove the poll to cover up the results. Personally ignoring the results is one thing, deleting unfavorable results is just dishonest (imo).

For the record: I don't personally care for the thought of having to spend a skill and gain a Limitation. I think that's way too costly, and that's why I've never used them personally. I think the cross between the Rifter #27 rules (where it's all randomly determined and no skill expenditure) vs. the skill/ability (no Limitation) is a better house rule.

That's all for now. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[Nightmask]

It might be that the text is written in assumption that if one was taken, the one of the other was also taken, and that assumption was transmitted, somehow, by the writing without actually saying so.

Well, what the writing says is "For every Sorcerous Proficiency, the character should have a Sorcerous Limitation or Weakness." The 'assumption' is written right there. The last two paragraphs further highlight the connection between Skills, Proficiencies, and Limitations (this is why you can, at certain levels, select a Limitation and gain an extra Skill or Proficiency as a result).

Stating it says "should" could be argued that it's not required has some validity. After all no one is going to come to your house and put a gun to your head for not using it. You should run the combat system as presented in the main book, but again you're not required. l'll admit the Limitations are written more like an optional rule (though not declared as such, all the "should" statements present it as such). However, since the original question involves said optional rule, arguing that it's optional so therefore you don't have to use the optional rule when using the optional rule is silly.

Of course I also think it's silly to make a poll, and once the results disagree with you remove the poll to cover up the results. Personally ignoring the results is one thing, deleting unfavorable results is just dishonest (imo).

For the record: I don't personally care for the thought of having to spend a skill and gain a Limitation. I think that's way too costly, and that's why I've never used them personally. I think the cross between the Rifter #27 rules (where it's all randomly determined and no skill expenditure) vs. the skill/ability (no Limitation) is a better house rule.

Particularly since if you look under the Limitations section it says you get a sorcerous proficiency automatically if you take a limitation. So if taking a limitation gives you a free sorcerous proficiency at the same time then why would spending a skill slot on a proficiency ALSO stick you with a limitation? It's established under Limitations that there's no cost to getting a sorcerous proficiency if you take a limitation at the same time, so if you're spending a skill to purchase the sorcerous proficiency then logically you shouldn't be getting anything except the sorcerous proficiency as the skill you're spending is to pay off that limitation so it never manifests.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Suggests Prysus reread the TtGD text, and look for where it talks about the reasons between choosing prof. vs the random roll for one.


'Should' is not 'have to'.

[eliakon]

Suggests Prysus reread the TtGD text, and look for where it talks about choosing prof. vs the random roll for one.


'Should' is not 'have to'.

There is not 'have to' in the book, that's a false and artificial distinction.

[Nightmask]

Suggests Prysus reread the TtGD text, and look for where it talks about choosing prof. vs the random roll for one.


'Should' is not 'have to'.

There is not 'have to' in the book, that's a false and artificial distinction.

Except when someone says they consider 'should' to MEAN 'have to', which isn't what 'should' means. At best it qualifies as 'strongly recommend' but not the 'have to' that it's being replaced with.

[13eowulf]

Suggests Prysus reread the TtGD text, and look for where it talks about choosing prof. vs the random roll for one.


'Should' is not 'have to'.

There is not 'have to' in the book, that's a false and artificial distinction.

Except when someone says they consider 'should' to MEAN 'have to', which isn't what 'should' means. At best it qualifies as 'strongly recommend' but not the 'have to' that it's being replaced with.

If you want to invoke word meanings/definitions, then we can do that. The primary definition of the verb 'Should' is "Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness", and another definition "indicating a desirable or expected state", which seems most applicable in how the word is used in this context.
These makes it closer in accuracy to the 'have to' than your proposed 'strongly recommended'.

[eliakon]

Suggests Prysus reread the TtGD text, and look for where it talks about choosing prof. vs the random roll for one.


'Should' is not 'have to'.

There is not 'have to' in the book, that's a false and artificial distinction.

Except when someone says they consider 'should' to MEAN 'have to', which isn't what 'should' means. At best it qualifies as 'strongly recommend' but not the 'have to' that it's being replaced with.

If you want to invoke word meanings/definitions, then we can do that. The primary definition of the verb 'Should' is "Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness", and another definition "indicating a desirable or expected state", which seems most applicable in how the word is used in this context.
These makes it closer in accuracy to the 'have to' than your proposed 'strongly recommended'.

So, there is an Obligation to take a limit, you don't HAVE to, but it would be correct to. Hrm....sort of like you don't have to roll up stats, you can just pick numbers, but you should roll....

[Nightmask]

Suggests Prysus reread the TtGD text, and look for where it talks about choosing prof. vs the random roll for one.


'Should' is not 'have to'.

There is not 'have to' in the book, that's a false and artificial distinction.

Except when someone says they consider 'should' to MEAN 'have to', which isn't what 'should' means. At best it qualifies as 'strongly recommend' but not the 'have to' that it's being replaced with.

If you want to invoke word meanings/definitions, then we can do that. The primary definition of the verb 'Should' is "Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness".
This makes it closer in accuracy to the 'have to' than your proposed 'strongly recommended'.

The only way you make it to 'have to' is if you're selecting a limitation FIRST at which point you automatically get a sorcerous proficiency at the same time, but if you're PURCHASING a Sorcerous Proficiency then there should be no corresponding limitation because you purchased it instead of receiving it free as part of the package in getting a limitation. You can't both have it cost you a slot and stick you with a limitation and NOT cost you a slot and have a limitation.

The way the rules are written you can spend a skill to acquire a sorcerous proficiency, it does NOT say that you must take a limitation at the same time.

The rules note that if you take a limitation you also get a sorcerous proficiency at the same time.

The rules also note that if you spend a skill when it comes available you can eliminate a limitation.

Going by all the rules if you're spending a skill to purchase a sorcerous proficiency then you don't also suffer from a limitation, you paid off the limitation at the time of purchase. You only suffer from a limitation if you acquire a limitation in order to use it to pay for getting a sorcerous proficiency at the same time rather than spend a skill to acquire it.

[13eowulf]

Suggests Prysus reread the TtGD text, and look for where it talks about choosing prof. vs the random roll for one.


'Should' is not 'have to'.

There is not 'have to' in the book, that's a false and artificial distinction.

Except when someone says they consider 'should' to MEAN 'have to', which isn't what 'should' means. At best it qualifies as 'strongly recommend' but not the 'have to' that it's being replaced with.

If you want to invoke word meanings/definitions, then we can do that. The primary definition of the verb 'Should' is "Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness".
This makes it closer in accuracy to the 'have to' than your proposed 'strongly recommended'.

The only way you make it to 'have to' is if you're selecting a limitation FIRST at which point you automatically get a sorcerous proficiency at the same time, but if you're PURCHASING a Sorcerous Proficiency then there should be no corresponding limitation because you purchased it instead of receiving it free as part of the package in getting a limitation. You can't both have it cost you a slot and stick you with a limitation and NOT cost you a slot and have a limitation.

The way the rules are written you can spend a skill to acquire a sorcerous proficiency, it does NOT say that you must take a limitation at the same time.

The rules note that if you take a limitation you also get a sorcerous proficiency at the same time.

The rules also note that if you spend a skill when it comes available you can eliminate a limitation.

Going by all the rules if you're spending a skill to purchase a sorcerous proficiency then you don't also suffer from a limitation, you paid off the limitation at the time of purchase. You only suffer from a limitation if you acquire a limitation in order to use it to pay for getting a sorcerous proficiency at the same time rather than spend a skill to acquire it.

Except that if you go back to the original text, and use proper definitions, both of which have been provided prior in this thread if you dont feel like going into the book, you are wrong. Just plain wrong. And it makes me smile that you are putting so much effort into doing away with the limitations when the text clearly indicates they are supposed to be used. Some might call that munchkinism. Not me of course, that would be crass, and is beneath me.

Warning: Some would say that invoking an unnamed proxy to refer to use a term that against poster has indicated they personally consider a flame in their signature is a form trolling. Those people would be the moderators.

[13eowulf]

Suggests Prysus reread the TtGD text, and look for where it talks about choosing prof. vs the random roll for one.


'Should' is not 'have to'.

There is not 'have to' in the book, that's a false and artificial distinction.

Except when someone says they consider 'should' to MEAN 'have to', which isn't what 'should' means. At best it qualifies as 'strongly recommend' but not the 'have to' that it's being replaced with.

If you want to invoke word meanings/definitions, then we can do that. The primary definition of the verb 'Should' is "Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness", and another definition "indicating a desirable or expected state", which seems most applicable in how the word is used in this context.
These makes it closer in accuracy to the 'have to' than your proposed 'strongly recommended'.

So, there is an Obligation to take a limit, you don't HAVE to, but it would be correct to. Hrm....sort of like you don't have to roll up stats, you can just pick numbers, but you should roll....

That is an excellent analogy!

[eliakon]

Suggests Prysus reread the TtGD text, and look for where it talks about choosing prof. vs the random roll for one.


'Should' is not 'have to'.

There is not 'have to' in the book, that's a false and artificial distinction.

Except when someone says they consider 'should' to MEAN 'have to', which isn't what 'should' means. At best it qualifies as 'strongly recommend' but not the 'have to' that it's being replaced with.

If you want to invoke word meanings/definitions, then we can do that. The primary definition of the verb 'Should' is "Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness".
This makes it closer in accuracy to the 'have to' than your proposed 'strongly recommended'.

The only way you make it to 'have to' is if you're selecting a limitation FIRST at which point you automatically get a sorcerous proficiency at the same time, but if you're PURCHASING a Sorcerous Proficiency then there should be no corresponding limitation because you purchased it instead of receiving it free as part of the package in getting a limitation. You can't both have it cost you a slot and stick you with a limitation and NOT cost you a slot and have a limitation.

The way the rules are written you can spend a skill to acquire a sorcerous proficiency, it does NOT say that you must take a limitation at the same time.

The rules note that if you take a limitation you also get a sorcerous proficiency at the same time.

Errr, not in my copy. Where exactly do you see that?

The rules also note that if you spend a skill when it comes available you can eliminate a limitation.

Going by all the rules if you're spending a skill to purchase a sorcerous proficiency then you don't also suffer from a limitation, you paid off the limitation at the time of purchase. You only suffer from a limitation if you acquire a limitation in order to use it to pay for getting a sorcerous proficiency at the same time rather than spend a skill to acquire it.

Going by the rules
you can spend a skill to by a proficiency
"Each Proficiency may be taken in place of a Secondary Skill during character creation."
if you use the Proficiencies the recommended rule is you also use the limits
Frankly if the Sorcerous Proficiencies are used, so should Limitations & Weaknesses. For every Sorcerous Proficiency, the character should have a Sorcerous Limitation or Weakness.
as a BONUS
at levels 3,6,9,12 the character may select a new limitation, also gaining a new secondary skill or Proficiency at the same time.
Note that the ADDED limitations are in their own section, talking about a level up ability, NOT in the main section that talks about normal costs.

[Nightmask]

Except when someone says they consider 'should' to MEAN 'have to', which isn't what 'should' means. At best it qualifies as 'strongly recommend' but not the 'have to' that it's being replaced with.

If you want to invoke word meanings/definitions, then we can do that. The primary definition of the verb 'Should' is "Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness".
This makes it closer in accuracy to the 'have to' than your proposed 'strongly recommended'.

The only way you make it to 'have to' is if you're selecting a limitation FIRST at which point you automatically get a sorcerous proficiency at the same time, but if you're PURCHASING a Sorcerous Proficiency then there should be no corresponding limitation because you purchased it instead of receiving it free as part of the package in getting a limitation. You can't both have it cost you a slot and stick you with a limitation and NOT cost you a slot and have a limitation.

The way the rules are written you can spend a skill to acquire a sorcerous proficiency, it does NOT say that you must take a limitation at the same time.

The rules note that if you take a limitation you also get a sorcerous proficiency at the same time.

The rules also note that if you spend a skill when it comes available you can eliminate a limitation.

Going by all the rules if you're spending a skill to purchase a sorcerous proficiency then you don't also suffer from a limitation, you paid off the limitation at the time of purchase. You only suffer from a limitation if you acquire a limitation in order to use it to pay for getting a sorcerous proficiency at the same time rather than spend a skill to acquire it.

Except that if you go back to the original text, and use proper definitions, both of which have been provided prior in this thread if you dont feel like going into the book, you are wrong. Just plain wrong. And it makes me smile that you are putting so much effort into doing away with the limitations when the text clearly indicates they are supposed to be used. Some might call that munchkinism. Not me of course, that would be crass, and is beneath me.

I've read the book and there's nothing wrong in my assessment of things. The limitations AREN'T required, the limitations CAN be eliminated BY THE BOOK by spending a skill to eliminate it, and the text makes it clear that the limitations DON'T have to be used because you can pay to eliminate them.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Suggests Prysus reread the TtGD text, and look for where it talks about the reasons between choosing prof. vs the random roll for one.
...snip

This, about having a strong char concept & selecting or random limitations, is also discussed in both the Proficiencies and the Limitations text.

[Nightmask]

Except when someone says they consider 'should' to MEAN 'have to', which isn't what 'should' means. At best it qualifies as 'strongly recommend' but not the 'have to' that it's being replaced with.

If you want to invoke word meanings/definitions, then we can do that. The primary definition of the verb 'Should' is "Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness".
This makes it closer in accuracy to the 'have to' than your proposed 'strongly recommended'.

The only way you make it to 'have to' is if you're selecting a limitation FIRST at which point you automatically get a sorcerous proficiency at the same time, but if you're PURCHASING a Sorcerous Proficiency then there should be no corresponding limitation because you purchased it instead of receiving it free as part of the package in getting a limitation. You can't both have it cost you a slot and stick you with a limitation and NOT cost you a slot and have a limitation.

The way the rules are written you can spend a skill to acquire a sorcerous proficiency, it does NOT say that you must take a limitation at the same time.

The rules note that if you take a limitation you also get a sorcerous proficiency at the same time.

Errr, not in my copy. Where exactly do you see that?

The rules also note that if you spend a skill when it comes available you can eliminate a limitation.

Going by all the rules if you're spending a skill to purchase a sorcerous proficiency then you don't also suffer from a limitation, you paid off the limitation at the time of purchase. You only suffer from a limitation if you acquire a limitation in order to use it to pay for getting a sorcerous proficiency at the same time rather than spend a skill to acquire it.

Going by the rules
you can spend a skill to by a proficiency
"Each Proficiency may be taken in place of a Secondary Skill during character creation."
if you use the Proficiencies the recommended rule is you also use the limits
Frankly if the Sorcerous Proficiencies are used, so should Limitations & Weaknesses. For every Sorcerous Proficiency, the character should have a Sorcerous Limitation or Weakness.
as a BONUS
at levels 3,6,9,12 the character may select a new limitation, also gaining a new secondary skill or Proficiency at the same time.
Note that the ADDED limitations are in their own section, talking about a level up ability, NOT in the main section that talks about normal costs.

I have to wonder why you think that somehow the rules don't work in both directions since if they don't then you have what's in one section contradicting what's in the other.

The proficiencies section only says you can select a proficiency starting out, it doesn't say 'take a proficiency and limitation'. Yes there's mention made later in the section that there's a preference that one have a corresponding limitation for each proficiency but that's not required else you wouldn't have text saying you can later spend a skill to eliminate a limitation which would mean you now have a sorcerous proficiency without a limitation. So limitations aren't required if you pay them off.

Going by the limitations section in selecting a limitation you get a free slot to get a corresponding sorcerous proficiency (since for the purposes of this thread you expect them to get the sorcerous proficiency rather than the secondary skill). Which means the limitation paid for the sorcerous proficiency, it cost you no skills. You suffer a skill cost if you also then pay off the limitation to leave you with just the sorcerous proficiency. Net Result: you've spent one skill slot for a sorcerous proficiency and no limitation. So why then would you have to pay TWO skills in one location to get a Sorcerous proficiency sans limitation but ONE skill in the other? Answer: you don't, you pay one skill and get one sorcerous proficiency sans limitation or pay no skills and gain one of each.

[13eowulf]

Except when someone says they consider 'should' to MEAN 'have to', which isn't what 'should' means. At best it qualifies as 'strongly recommend' but not the 'have to' that it's being replaced with.

If you want to invoke word meanings/definitions, then we can do that. The primary definition of the verb 'Should' is "Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness".
This makes it closer in accuracy to the 'have to' than your proposed 'strongly recommended'.

The only way you make it to 'have to' is if you're selecting a limitation FIRST at which point you automatically get a sorcerous proficiency at the same time, but if you're PURCHASING a Sorcerous Proficiency then there should be no corresponding limitation because you purchased it instead of receiving it free as part of the package in getting a limitation. You can't both have it cost you a slot and stick you with a limitation and NOT cost you a slot and have a limitation.

The way the rules are written you can spend a skill to acquire a sorcerous proficiency, it does NOT say that you must take a limitation at the same time.

The rules note that if you take a limitation you also get a sorcerous proficiency at the same time.

The rules also note that if you spend a skill when it comes available you can eliminate a limitation.

Going by all the rules if you're spending a skill to purchase a sorcerous proficiency then you don't also suffer from a limitation, you paid off the limitation at the time of purchase. You only suffer from a limitation if you acquire a limitation in order to use it to pay for getting a sorcerous proficiency at the same time rather than spend a skill to acquire it.

Except that if you go back to the original text, and use proper definitions, both of which have been provided prior in this thread if you dont feel like going into the book, you are wrong. Just plain wrong. And it makes me smile that you are putting so much effort into doing away with the limitations when the text clearly indicates they are supposed to be used. Some might call that munchkinism. Not me of course, that would be crass, and is beneath me.

I've read the book and there's nothing wrong in my assessment of things. The limitations AREN'T required, the limitations CAN be eliminated BY THE BOOK by spending a skill to eliminate it, and the text makes it clear that the limitations DON'T have to be used because you can pay to eliminate them.

Well, clearly you havent read it in a while, because that isnt what the text indicates at all, as shown above. You can state otherwise all you want, but that wont change the actual printed words, nor their definitions.

[Nightmask]

The only way you make it to 'have to' is if you're selecting a limitation FIRST at which point you automatically get a sorcerous proficiency at the same time, but if you're PURCHASING a Sorcerous Proficiency then there should be no corresponding limitation because you purchased it instead of receiving it free as part of the package in getting a limitation. You can't both have it cost you a slot and stick you with a limitation and NOT cost you a slot and have a limitation.

The way the rules are written you can spend a skill to acquire a sorcerous proficiency, it does NOT say that you must take a limitation at the same time.

The rules note that if you take a limitation you also get a sorcerous proficiency at the same time.

The rules also note that if you spend a skill when it comes available you can eliminate a limitation.

Going by all the rules if you're spending a skill to purchase a sorcerous proficiency then you don't also suffer from a limitation, you paid off the limitation at the time of purchase. You only suffer from a limitation if you acquire a limitation in order to use it to pay for getting a sorcerous proficiency at the same time rather than spend a skill to acquire it.

Except that if you go back to the original text, and use proper definitions, both of which have been provided prior in this thread if you dont feel like going into the book, you are wrong. Just plain wrong. And it makes me smile that you are putting so much effort into doing away with the limitations when the text clearly indicates they are supposed to be used. Some might call that munchkinism. Not me of course, that would be crass, and is beneath me.

I've read the book and there's nothing wrong in my assessment of things. The limitations AREN'T required, the limitations CAN be eliminated BY THE BOOK by spending a skill to eliminate it, and the text makes it clear that the limitations DON'T have to be used because you can pay to eliminate them.

Well, clearly you havent read it in a while, because that isnt what the text indicates at all, as shown above. You can state otherwise all you want, but that wont change the actual printed words, nor their definitions.

I read it last night, which is why I know based on what's actually written you are in error and limitations aren't required and in fact shouldn't be imposed if you are purchasing a sorcerous proficiency with a skill. Limitations and Sorcerous Proficiencies only go together if you're using the one to pay off the other rather than expend a skill to do so, otherwise no.

[13eowulf]

The only way you make it to 'have to' is if you're selecting a limitation FIRST at which point you automatically get a sorcerous proficiency at the same time, but if you're PURCHASING a Sorcerous Proficiency then there should be no corresponding limitation because you purchased it instead of receiving it free as part of the package in getting a limitation. You can't both have it cost you a slot and stick you with a limitation and NOT cost you a slot and have a limitation.

The way the rules are written you can spend a skill to acquire a sorcerous proficiency, it does NOT say that you must take a limitation at the same time.

The rules note that if you take a limitation you also get a sorcerous proficiency at the same time.

The rules also note that if you spend a skill when it comes available you can eliminate a limitation.

Going by all the rules if you're spending a skill to purchase a sorcerous proficiency then you don't also suffer from a limitation, you paid off the limitation at the time of purchase. You only suffer from a limitation if you acquire a limitation in order to use it to pay for getting a sorcerous proficiency at the same time rather than spend a skill to acquire it.

Except that if you go back to the original text, and use proper definitions, both of which have been provided prior in this thread if you dont feel like going into the book, you are wrong. Just plain wrong. And it makes me smile that you are putting so much effort into doing away with the limitations when the text clearly indicates they are supposed to be used. Some might call that munchkinism. Not me of course, that would be crass, and is beneath me.

I've read the book and there's nothing wrong in my assessment of things. The limitations AREN'T required, the limitations CAN be eliminated BY THE BOOK by spending a skill to eliminate it, and the text makes it clear that the limitations DON'T have to be used because you can pay to eliminate them.

Well, clearly you havent read it in a while, because that isnt what the text indicates at all, as shown above. You can state otherwise all you want, but that wont change the actual printed words, nor their definitions.

I read it last night, which is why I know based on what's actually written you are in error and limitations aren't required and in fact shouldn't be imposed if you are purchasing a sorcerous proficiency with a skill. Limitations and Sorcerous Proficiencies only go together if you're using the one to pay off the other rather than expend a skill to do so, otherwise no.

Well then, it wont be too much trouble for you to quote the exact text then, will it? Cause what you keep repeating, it does not match the text.

[flatline]

If only Palladium authors followed RFC 2119.

RFC 2119 is my favorite RFC because it helps make all other RFCs unambiguous.

3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

--flatline