Players are probably going to want grogs to come with them on adventures, especially the less martially minded ones. You'll either have to make and run the grogs yourself, or the players will do it when it comes up. You could have the grogs all from the parent covenant, and not travel when they move to Tolouse. another possibility is give each character their own shield grog, and have a different player make that grog for them, if you want to give the players the Grog experience.
But these are all just ideas - you don't need to take them, you know your players better than anyone.
Thanks Ken and raccoonmask!
I had a question from a player which I'd like guidance on. She asked if we could house rule it so that House bonus virtues do not prevent you from taking other virtues. For example, Puissant Ignem doesn't stop you from taking two other Puissancies, and Minor Focus: Certamen doesn't stop you from taking another Minor or Major Focus.
I want to say yes, because I like to say yes to player input. Will I break anything, or set myself up for some mechanical problems later on, if I do?
The Minor Focus Certamen is a pet bugbear of mine. I'd allow a swap out.
I am less keen on three Puisannces, but I've not looked at the numbers. Why not just a Major Affinity?
Thanks Timothy! You guessed perfectly what motivated this.
In your experience, what are some good things to replace it with? I want to preserve the feel of unity and discipline among the Tremere while also allowing them to be a community of mutually supporting specialists.
EDIT: What's a Major Affinity? Am I being stupid?
You aren't being stupid, I'm being old fashioned.
I mean what's now called a Major Magical Focus. We used to call them Major Magical Affinities, in previous editions, and in my group we got sick of such a long name and the "Magical" just sort of fell out, because there's no Major Infernal/Divine/Faerie Affinity.
My point is that having three Pussiants seems to create a character which lacks focus a bit (presumeing you didn't mean you wanted to stack them?). Particularly if your group is going to play their magi all the time: you don't want a series of generalists walking all over each other to cast the same spells, you need them to have strengths and weaknesses, just so that people have different ways of dealing with the same obstacles. The morte everyone is playing a magus, the less generalised you want the magi, IMO.
IMC, I just let people playing Tremere swap the house virtue for something else, and then rework the House to make that choice make sense. So, it's not a free choice like the Jerbitons: it's a choice that typifies a section of their House. Generally IMC, they seem to revolve around the roles the house has given out, so there have been an illusionist who is comes from a long line of combat scouts, a necromancer who is desended from the Dacian necromancers who followed Tremere, a Terram specialist who is from a tradition that can make battlefield alterations quickly (trenches, walls) that sort of thing.
I think the Tremere Focus on Certamen is the only 'house rule' I've seen nearly everyone agree on - there are numerous reasons. My favorite reason is that the Tremere Certamen focus literally works differently than every other focus - only applies in Certamen, needs a special ruling to work, doesn't involve lab totals nor casting totals. My favorite story/RP/flavor reason is because it puts a Tremere Necromancer at a disadvantage to a Jerbiton Necromancer. Though I don't have the game experience or knowledge of some here, my brief time as a GM has proven that magical foci are the simplest way to give a character flavor and variety, and the Tremere are hindered in that. Hey, maybe the lack of Focus is why they're such a heirarchical and uniform house?
Because I'm a fan of semantics, I would not allow a Tremere to take a second Focus, but I would house rule their house virtue is sufficiently different enough that it shouldn't be counted as a Focus, and let them take their first. Regarding three Puissances, I would not by default allow it, because I can't see a strong argument as to why I would. I am not firm on this, however, and a player could easily convince me otherwise.
Hi,
You will break nothing with this.
Even if you let them take ten Puissant Arts, as long as they are different Arts, you will break nothing. Though this isn't that optimal.
You will also break nothing if you allow anyone to take multiple Magic Foci, as long as you rule that you can't benefit from more than one at a time.
There are ways to break things, but these are not they.
Anyway,
Ken
Hi,
The strongest argument I can see for allowing it is that the player wants it, and it is harmless to allow it.
The strongest argument I can see for not allowing it is that the player can usually do a better job optimizing without it.
Since happy (but hungry?) players are better players...
Unless they're so hungry that they're too busy eating pizza and cheetos to play.
Anyway,
Ken
Hi,
This.
Being a generalist in AM is a kind of specialization. There are ways to do it, and each creates a rather distinct kind of casting style, with sacrifices made elsewhere, so it works. The game design discourages generalization in general, however, which is a good thing, because if everyone is a wizard, then you need to have different kinds of wizard.
Three Puissants are not in themselves a problem at all. A magus who, say, is expert at human-animal transformations is definitely focused!
He might have:
Minor Focus
Puissant+Affinity with Mu, Co, An
That's 7 virtue points right there. The 3 Puissant Arts make a kind of sense.
Commander and Destroyer of Eldritch Entities? That's Pe, Re and Vi. Unless he just wants to control things and wants to get Mentem ghosties too (Re,Me,Vi). Or a controller of people and animals (Re,Me,An).
There's a good case for Cr,Re,Au, given how some of those spells work. Still pretty focused.
None of these are necessarily optimal, but they are neither too good nor too general.
Anyway,
Ken
I corresponded with my Tremere player and she agreed that switching her Minor Magical Focus to something else would make her happy (probably something necromantic.) Thanks so much for the advice, everyone.
Our first session is tomorrow! I'm planning a very simple kickoff adventure: a Redcap has gone missing whilst escorting a Gifted child, and the group of new magi, just past their Gauntlet, are sent to investigate. They'll discover that the child is safe nearby in the care of a village priest. The Redcap was killed by a faerie huntsman who haunts the local moors. The faerie was sent by a local Magus who wanted to steal the Gifted child as an apprentice; he didn't intend for it to escalate to violence and will be very eager to avoid getting hauled before a Tribunal for what happened.
I thought this would be fun because it highlights the following aspects of the game:
- Redcaps are useful, and are protected by other magi
- The Gift changes how you interact with villagers
- Faerie and Dominion auras affect your magic in different ways
- Gifted children are a sought-after commodity
- Most problems can be solved without violence
- Faeries are weird but internally self-consistent, and can be dangerous
- Magi solve their differences at Tribunal wherever possible
Have I missed anything important? I'm intentionally not tying into PC story flaws yet.
Hi,
This sounds exactly what your players want, based on your earlier comments.
I think you are perhaps missing only one thing: Temptation for the players to start saying "I want my character to go for X or do Y." That might be premature, though, and it can wait.
Still, it's not enough for the players to get what they want. You should also get some of what you want, which iirc was player-driven events.
Nevertheless, this looks great, and I'm pretty sure you're about to start a fantastic campaign.
Anyway,
Ken