If your PC Changes magic OCCs....

[Goliath Strongarm]

OK, I wanted other GM opinions on this.

Bob the Wizard has been trained to gain 3d6 PPE per level. It's how his Master taught him to focus and blah blah blah. Later in life, he chooses to change his OCC, and becomes a diabolist.

Now, a diabolist only gets 2d6 per level. However, Bob has been taught secrets that allow him to channel and focus differently. He knows how to gain 3d6 per level.

Would you, as a GM, allow him to continue to gain 3d6 per level? Or would you require him to drop down to 2d6 per level?

I mean, if he switched from diabolist to wizard, he would go up to 3d6, because he learned a new way to focus, and has learned a better way to gain PPE.

[Neorealist]

No I would not, primarily because combining the best aspects of one class with another class (especially in order to bypass a given restriction of that class as in this case with the diabolists 2d6 PPE growth) can lead to unfortunately powerful PCs relative to what they should ordinarily be based on that selection.

The diabolist has the PPE growth it does as a facet of what it offers a PC, as does the wizard. There isn't a compelling reason to allow a player to select from the most advantageous rules when multi-classing rather than accepting the restrictions as well as the advantages.

In your example, the PPE 'focusing' learned as a diabolist is different from that learned as a wizard. They are not modular or discrete skills and cannot be swapped from one to the other and vice versa. What you ask is akin to continuing to grant a wizards' full spell learning and progression (or any other class-specific skill or ability) to a PC which multi-classed into diabolist. After all, it's how they previously 'learned' how to acquire spells is it not?

[Goliath Strongarm]

No I would not, primarily because combining the best aspects of one class with another class (especially in order to bypass a given restriction of that class as in this case with the diabolists 2d6 PPE growth) can lead to unfortunately powerful PCs relative to what they should ordinarily be based on that selection.

The diabolist has the PPE growth it does as a facet of what it offers a PC, as does the wizard. There isn't a compelling reason to allow a player to select from the most advantageous rules when multi-classing rather than accepting the restrictions as well as the advantages.

In your example, the PPE 'focusing' learned as a diabolist is different from that learned as a wizard. They are not modular or discrete skills and cannot be swapped from one to the other and vice versa. What you ask is akin to continuing to grant a wizards' full spell learning and progression (or any other class-specific skill or ability) to a PC which multi-classed into diabolist. After all, it's how they previously 'learned' how to acquire spells is it not?

OK, but, as a counter- say, I'm the student. I don't need to be taught to gain/hold PPE (which is why I don't get the base PPE of the diabolist on top of the wizard PPE I already have). I don't need to be taught how to gain new PPE per level- I already know how! In fact, I know how BETTER than how you would teach me!!

I'm not trying to make a munchkin argument- in fact, several years ago, when I was a player, I had a GM throw this at me suddenly as I was getting ready to roll my 2d6 PPE (and I was caught like a deer in the headlights). The argument, from a game perspective- not a rules perspective, but a GAME perspective- makes complete sense.

[Prysus]

Greetings and Salutations. I can see both sides (logically & from a game mechanics point of view).

1: You already have the Wizard training, so logically you know some advanced techniques which you're using to get better. From a game mechanics perspective, since you don't get the base P.P.E. from the Diabolist there's no reason you should be stuck with the Diabolist advancement rate.

2: Yes you have Wizard training, so what?! It's like having a job where you're lifting 50 pounds all day. Each month you're getting stronger and can lift 3 more pounds than last month. You change jobs and are now lifting only 40 pounds per day (different work environement). Now that you're lifting less weight you can only lift an extra 2 pounds per month. If the worker complains that he knows how to lift more, so he should still be lifting 3 pounds more a month ... so what?! He's a freaking idiot for not realizing there's a difference. The same applies to P.P.E. advancement. You're not practicing to be a Wizard anymore, you're studying Diabolism. That involves using different ... um ... magic muscles? It's like working on a farm and knowing how to pick up bales of hay. If you start hammering in posts to build fences, I don't care if you can lift bales of hay because it's different muscles and you won't advance the same. From a game mechanic's point of view, it's just the way it's written.

3: As a G.M., probably depends on my mood and the type of game/setting/power level. More than likely though I'm leaning towards #2.

Anyways, I know I didn't answer much, but I really wanted to defend #2 some. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[Goliath Strongarm]

2: Yes you have Wizard training, so what?! It's like having a job where you're lifting 50 pounds all day. Each month you're getting stronger and can lift 3 more pounds than last month. You change jobs and are now lifting only 40 pounds per day (different work environement). Now that you're lifting less weight you can only lift an extra 2 pounds per month. If the worker complains that he knows how to lift more, so he should still be lifting 3 pounds more a month ... so what?! He's a freaking idiot for not realizing there's a difference. The same applies to P.P.E. advancement. You're not practicing to be a Wizard anymore, you're studying Diabolism. That involves using different ... um ... magic muscles? It's like working on a farm and knowing how to pick up bales of hay. If you start hammering in posts to build fences, I don't care if you can lift bales of hay because it's different muscles and you won't advance the same. From a game mechanic's point of view, it's just the way it's written.

3: As a G.M., probably depends on my mood and the type of game/setting/power level. More than likely though I'm leaning towards #2.

Anyways, I know I didn't answer much, but I really wanted to defend #2 some. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.[/justify]

But you made a counter argument that makes sense from a game perspective, and not just a rules perspective, and that's what I wanted!

[Zamion138]

Honestly the diffrence in power in not so great as to form any idea of munchcanism or what not. If its going to become an argument I as gm would let you take the 3d6. If the 3 more ppe per level is going to change the balance of the game its an incredibly tightly focused game.
I can see the lifting argument and see some merit to it. But not if the newly minted diabolist is slinging spells at regula
r intervals still.

Its beyond trivial but by the same token as a player you should accept the fact your gm probaly is already looking at you like your asking for an extra rune sword and complaining its not a saber and only a short sword.

[Goliath Strongarm]

Honestly the diffrence in power in not so great as to form any idea of munchcanism or what not. If its going to become an argument I as gm would let you take the 3d6. If the 3 more ppe per level is going to change the balance of the game its an incredibly tightly focused game.
I can see the lifting argument and see some merit to it. But not if the newly minted diabolist is slinging spells at regula
r intervals still.

Its beyond trivial but by the same token as a player you should accept the fact your gm probaly is already looking at you like your asking for an extra rune sword and complaining its not a saber and only a short sword.

Well, as I said- originally, I came across this when I was a PLAYER, and I had a GM throw it at me, catching me completely off guard. Since then, as a GM, I've had campaigns I've used it in, and ones I haven't used it in. It honestly doesn't make a huge difference.

I also like to put various house rules out there, and see reactions to them. Especially the initial knee-jerk reaction, and if people JUSTIFY their reaction- like Prysus did. Now you see a bit of why he and I get along so well, and I consider him more of a cousin than just another board member- and no Prysus, that doesn't mean you can borrow my car.

[The Dark Elf]

I would rule 2D6 but I totally see the reasons why it could be 3D6. GMs call as always.

[Dog_O_War]

OK, I wanted other GM opinions on this.

Bob the Wizard has been trained to gain 3d6 PPE per level. It's how his Master taught him to focus and blah blah blah.

This is an opinion, not a fact.

Now, a diabolist only gets 2d6 per level. However, Bob has been taught secrets that allow him to channel and focus differently. He knows how to gain 3d6 per level.

This is an opinion, not a fact.

Would you, as a GM, allow him to continue to gain 3d6 per level? Or would you require him to drop down to 2d6 per level?

I mean, if he switched from diabolist to wizard, he would go up to 3d6, because he learned a new way to focus, and has learned a better way to gain PPE.

Given that you're justifying a mechanic via an opinion, the hard answer is 'no'.

The fact is that PPE growth generally has nothing to do with how Bob's master taught him how to focus. Bob's master does not teach a bob how to grow any more than gardener teaches a plant to grow.

Growth is determined by environment and stimulus. If being a wizard offers a more stimulating and nurturing path than being a diabolist (ie: 3d6 PPE per level), then his PPE will grow better than the path of the diabolist (ie: 2d6 PPE per level).

At least, that's how I see it in both a mechanical and real-world view.

What this boils down to is that some things just are.

[Nightmask]

OK, I wanted other GM opinions on this.

Bob the Wizard has been trained to gain 3d6 PPE per level. It's how his Master taught him to focus and blah blah blah.

This is an opinion, not a fact.

Now, a diabolist only gets 2d6 per level. However, Bob has been taught secrets that allow him to channel and focus differently. He knows how to gain 3d6 per level.

This is an opinion, not a fact.

Would you, as a GM, allow him to continue to gain 3d6 per level? Or would you require him to drop down to 2d6 per level?

I mean, if he switched from diabolist to wizard, he would go up to 3d6, because he learned a new way to focus, and has learned a better way to gain PPE.

Given that you're justifying a mechanic via an opinion, the hard answer is 'no'.

The fact is that PPE growth generally has nothing to do with how Bob's master taught him how to focus. Bob's master does not teach a bob how to grow any more than gardener teaches a plant to grow.

Growth is determined by environment and stimulus. If being a wizard offers a more stimulating and nurturing path than being a diabolist (ie: 3d6 PPE per level), then his PPE will grow better than the path of the diabolist (ie: 2d6 PPE per level).

At least, that's how I see it in both a mechanical and real-world view.

What this boils down to is that some things just are.

I'm not seeing how you arrive at this conclusion, plus you're presenting your own opinion as if it were a fact.

We're presented with the fact that as a Wizard you're increasing your permanent PPE base by 3d6 as you level up, irrespective of whether you're a human, elf, orc, etc. By the same token we know the fact is that Diabolists increase their permanent PPE base by 2d6 as they level up, again irrespective of the race. So SOMETHING about the Wizard class is making it such that practitioners of Wizardry develop more PPE as they level up than Diabolists do. You must be learning or doing SOMETHING different as a Wizard compared to a Diabolist. It could be that the demand for learning and casting spells develops those 'magic muscles' better than the demands of a Diabolist, it could be some special techniques you learn and practice so that as you grow in experience the Wizard does better than the Diabolist, it's impossible to set anything as a fact without Palladium itself saying why one gets 3d6 and the other 2d6.

End result: there's nothing to really bias against the belief that Wizards somehow learn some kinds of techniques that let them over time develop more PPE than Diabolists do, rather than 'it just is' (which really isn't an answer, it's like saying 'the sun just shines' but ignoring why it does). I would probably lean towards it more being a result of being an active spell-caster better works those 'magic muscles' than it does for a Diabolist myself, but others do have a valid point that maybe it's just special techniques the Wizard knows that they routinely practice and eventually (i.e. when they level up) provides for more permanent PPE than the Diabolist manages.

[Dog_O_War]

OK, I wanted other GM opinions on this.

Bob the Wizard has been trained to gain 3d6 PPE per level. It's how his Master taught him to focus and blah blah blah.

This is an opinion, not a fact.

Now, a diabolist only gets 2d6 per level. However, Bob has been taught secrets that allow him to channel and focus differently. He knows how to gain 3d6 per level.

This is an opinion, not a fact.

Would you, as a GM, allow him to continue to gain 3d6 per level? Or would you require him to drop down to 2d6 per level?

I mean, if he switched from diabolist to wizard, he would go up to 3d6, because he learned a new way to focus, and has learned a better way to gain PPE.

Given that you're justifying a mechanic via an opinion, the hard answer is 'no'.

The fact is that PPE growth generally has nothing to do with how Bob's master taught him how to focus. Bob's master does not teach a bob how to grow any more than gardener teaches a plant to grow.

Growth is determined by environment and stimulus. If being a wizard offers a more stimulating and nurturing path than being a diabolist (ie: 3d6 PPE per level), then his PPE will grow better than the path of the diabolist (ie: 2d6 PPE per level).

At least, that's how I see it in both a mechanical and real-world view.

What this boils down to is that some things just are.

I'm not seeing how you arrive at this conclusion, plus you're presenting your own opinion as if it were a fact.

Actually, I was stating my viewpoint; it is still a fact that the master does not instruct a pupil how to grow, the same as a gardener does not instruct the plant how to grow.
And you may call this an opinion, but then I would ask for the book and page number where it states how a teacher, ANY teacher, for ANY OCC does in-fact tell a pupil how to grow.

What I did say (and this is a fact) is that the amount of PPE you gain is growth.

We're presented with the fact that as a Wizard you're increasing your permanent PPE base by 3d6 as you level up, irrespective of whether you're a human, elf, orc, etc. By the same token we know the fact is that Diabolists increase their permanent PPE base by 2d6 as they level up, again irrespective of the race.

I know; I stated as much, and you quoted me saying such.

So SOMETHING about the Wizard class is making it such that practitioners of Wizardry develop more PPE as they level up than Diabolists do.

Correct. I said that growth is stimulated by environment (this is a fact), and that therefore, if the growth of the wizard is greater than the diabolist, then the environment of the wizard is more stimulating (as far as PPE is concerned).

You must be learning or doing SOMETHING different as a Wizard compared to a Diabolist.

No.
A man can draw breath just about anywhere on earth, but depending on the environment, that will determine how much oxygen he gets.
I'm saying that the wizard is effectively an PPE-rich environment.

It could be that the demand for learning and casting spells develops those 'magic muscles' better than the demands of a Diabolist, it could be some special techniques you learn and practice so that as you grow in experience the Wizard does better than the Diabolist, it's impossible to set anything as a fact without Palladium itself saying why one gets 3d6 and the other 2d6.

Except for the case of environment.
All I did was state that the reasons behind why the wizard get more is not hard evidence and that stating that they develop "magic-muscles" better is an opinion, not a fact.
That said, the wizard environment seen as a whole is clearly more stimulating in regards to PPE growth. As there is not a single shred of hard evidence saying that PPE growth is learned, then there is no case for it to carry over to other classes the character may obtain.

End result: there's nothing to really bias against the belief that Wizards somehow learn some kinds of techniques that let them over time develop more PPE than Diabolists do,

Except the lack of evidence. I mean really, it doesn't say that wizards simply eat more cheesecake than diabolists, which is where they gain their extra dice of PPE per level from. And that example has as much supporting evidence as "wizards somehow learn some kinds of techniques".

rather than 'it just is' (which really isn't an answer, it's like saying 'the sun just shines' but ignoring why it does).

I assumed to much of you fellow posters. I assumed you would glean the unwritten subtext of that message; given that I was talking about growth via environment, I figured I wouldn't need to finish my sentence,"What this boils down to is that some things just are."
But if I must, "What this boils down to is that some things just are. products of their environment."

Do you understand now?

I would probably lean towards it more being a result of being an active spell-caster better works those 'magic muscles' than it does for a Diabolist myself, but others do have a valid point that maybe it's just special techniques the Wizard knows that they routinely practice and eventually (i.e. when they level up) provides for more permanent PPE than the Diabolist manages.

See, it's the validity of those points that I question; they offered no (as in zero) actual evidence as to why. for example,

1: You already have the Wizard training, so logically you know some advanced techniques which you're using to get better.

What logic? Where does it state that "Wizard training is more advanced than Diabolist training"?
It doesn't. ANYWHERE. So logically, wizard training is no more or less advanced than diabolist training. Taking the rest of that paragraph into account is where the inferred comparison to the Diabolist comes into play.

Goliaths' points I have already addressed.

[Goliath Strongarm]

Oy let's keep this all nice and friendly or I will ask for this to get locked. I'm 100% for debate, and for reasoned debate- Dog and Night are both having valid points on this. Although, on Dogs side, I would argue against environmental effect because otherwise wouldn't diabolists be affected same as the wizards? But there are plenty of other things that could cause the extra D6. I concede that. But let's keep rhis nice and friendly. Sorry for runon, I'm on phone.

[Dog_O_War]

Oy let's keep this all nice and friendly or I will ask for this to get locked. I'm 100% for debate, and for reasoned debate- Dog and Night are both having valid points on this. Although, on Dogs side, I would argue against environmental effect because otherwise wouldn't diabolists be affected same as the wizards? But there are plenty of other things that could cause the extra D6. I concede that. But let's keep rhis nice and friendly. Sorry for runon, I'm on phone.

"Environment" is more of a meta-statement. It doesn't exactly pertain to the direct surroundings of the wizard or the diabolist, but rather alludes to something in or around them that causes greater PPE growth.

Like maybe they both pull power from ley-lines, sure. But wizard magic pulls from a wider spectrum of spell-magic, therefore the wizards' body itself is open to and absorbing more magic compared to the diabolist, whose magical focus is more restricted.

Or maybe just having twice as many syllables in their name is stunting the diabolists' PPE growth.

We can't say for sure what it is exactly, all we can say is that the environment that is the wizard offers a greater PPE growth compared to that of the diabolist.


And as a canon example of environment; there is an adventure in the book Mercenary Adventures called Boot Camp. Completing Boot Camp can net a player more PPE. Because the environment that is boot camp is more .....something. Rigorous; stimulating; versatile; take your pick. Either way, we know that experience and training offer growth (eg: when you gain a level, you gain PPE).

And in order to gain experience and training, your environment needs to stimulate you. The more stimulating the environment, the faster the growth.

Environment = growth.

[Nightmask]

Oy let's keep this all nice and friendly or I will ask for this to get locked. I'm 100% for debate, and for reasoned debate- Dog and Night are both having valid points on this. Although, on Dogs side, I would argue against environmental effect because otherwise wouldn't diabolists be affected same as the wizards? But there are plenty of other things that could cause the extra D6. I concede that. But let's keep rhis nice and friendly. Sorry for runon, I'm on phone.

"Environment" is more of a meta-statement. It doesn't exactly pertain to the direct surroundings of the wizard or the diabolist, but rather alludes to something in or around them that causes greater PPE growth.

Like maybe they both pull power from ley-lines, sure. But wizard magic pulls from a wider spectrum of spell-magic, therefore the wizards' body itself is open to and absorbing more magic compared to the diabolist, whose magical focus is more restricted.

Or maybe just having twice as many syllables in their name is stunting the diabolists' PPE growth.

We can't say for sure what it is exactly, all we can say is that the environment that is the wizard offers a greater PPE growth compared to that of the diabolist.


And as a canon example of environment; there is an adventure in the book Mercenary Adventures called Boot Camp. Completing Boot Camp can net a player more PPE. Because the environment that is boot camp is more .....something. Rigorous; stimulating; versatile; take your pick. Either way, we know that experience and training offer growth (eg: when you gain a level, you gain PPE).

And in order to gain experience and training, your environment needs to stimulate you. The more stimulating the environment, the faster the growth.

Environment = growth.

Environment really doesn't equal growth, environment AFFECTS growth in things that the environment applies to (sunlight or lack thereof doesn't have any particular effect on how much physical activity improves your muscles, unlike gravity being higher or lower in a particular location). You also seem to be trying to define the Wizard and Diabolist themselves as environments when they aren't, even if you do a valid part of their environment is that the Wizard's training causes them to develop more PPE over time, since we can take two otherwise identical people, one with Wizard training the other with Diabolist training, put them in the same area, and the Wizard develops more PPE as he levels up over time so the actual external environment is irrelevant it must be something related to their different OCC.

So looking at the actual Wizard and the actual Diabolist one valid position is that Wizards have training related to being wizards that lets them build up their PPE better over time compared to the Diabolist, something that would still apply even when switching to a class that provides for less PPE development over time like the Diabolist. It's just as likely as there being something else about being a Wizard that lets PPE develop better that doesn't transfer over, but there is nothing in the material that can tip the scale in favor of either.

[pblackcrow]

I agree NightMask. And had this same argument come up as player and as GM. We put it to a vote. Basically, the final decision was always that the greater one wins out.

[Dog_O_War]

Environment really doesn't equal growth, environment AFFECTS growth in things that the environment applies to (sunlight or lack thereof doesn't have any particular effect on how much physical activity improves your muscles, unlike gravity being higher or lower in a particular location).

Semantics.

You also seem to be trying to define the Wizard and Diabolist themselves as environments when they aren't,

They are concerning PPE growth; it's the OCC itself that states the rate of growth of PPE, therefore the OCC (and thus 'wizard' and 'diabolist') is an environment for the PPE to grow.

even if you do a valid part of their environment is that the Wizard's training causes them to develop more PPE over time, since we can take two otherwise identical people, one with Wizard training the other with Diabolist training, put them in the same area, and the Wizard develops more PPE as he levels up over time so the actual external environment is irrelevant it must be something related to their different OCC.

You're on the right track; training would be part of their environment. This is all I am getting at; we do not know what the environment that is the wizard or the diabolist is comprised of, so we must leave it to a general inference.

I mean, I whole-heartedly agree with you that training likely plays a part, but I cannot say for certain that it is a fact that training does [play a part]. So I don't say it as a certainly, I just stick to what can be proven.

So looking at the actual Wizard and the actual Diabolist one valid position is that Wizards have training related to being wizards that lets them build up their PPE better over time compared to the Diabolist,

This is where we cross wires. As it cannot be a certainty, then it cannot be a valid position. For all we know, the Diabolist trains twice as hard as the Wizard, but instead of rewarded with more PPE, they are punished. But we don't know - all we know is that training plays a part because training is a part of their environment.

Does that make sense?

something that would still apply even when switching to a class that provides for less PPE development over time like the Diabolist. It's just as likely as there being something else about being a Wizard that lets PPE develop better that doesn't transfer over, but there is nothing in the material that can tip the scale in favor of either.

In essence; the facts (referencing the bolded portion).

That has been my argument from the beginning; there is no evidence to any one thing being the cause of the additional PPE growth, save for which OCC it belongs to. Therefore, it stands as non-transferable because it cannot be attributed to anything specifically.

[Goliath Strongarm]

So the basic arguments seem to be that the PPE difference is either
A) training, in which case the keeping the 3d6 could be justified
B) magical muscle, based on the spellcaster using more ppe more often, which justifies the drop to 2d6.
C) there is some other factor at work that explains why some get more than others, but leaves no in game justification for the change in PPE gain.

-GS

[Nightmask]

Environment really doesn't equal growth, environment AFFECTS growth in things that the environment applies to (sunlight or lack thereof doesn't have any particular effect on how much physical activity improves your muscles, unlike gravity being higher or lower in a particular location).

Semantics.

No, that's not semantics.

You also seem to be trying to define the Wizard and Diabolist themselves as environments when they aren't,

They are concerning PPE growth; it's the OCC itself that states the rate of growth of PPE, therefore the OCC (and thus 'wizard' and 'diabolist') is an environment for the PPE to grow.

No, they really aren't. PPE is an aspect of the Wizard and Diabolist, they aren't environments like a corn field where you 'grow' PPE. If anything PPE is a 'muscle' that one is exercising in hopes of developing more over time.

even if you do a valid part of their environment is that the Wizard's training causes them to develop more PPE over time, since we can take two otherwise identical people, one with Wizard training the other with Diabolist training, put them in the same area, and the Wizard develops more PPE as he levels up over time so the actual external environment is irrelevant it must be something related to their different OCC.

You're on the right track; training would be part of their environment. This is all I am getting at; we do not know what the environment that is the wizard or the diabolist is comprised of, so we must leave it to a general inference.
I mean, I whole-heartedly agree with you that training likely plays a part, but I cannot say for certain that it is a fact that training does [play a part]. So I don't say it as a certainly, I just stick to what can be proven.

You seem to be really misusing the term 'environment'. They aren't environments they're educational packages and no more environments than being trained to be an engineer makes you an environment.

It's also quite evident that the training/education to become a wizard and being a practicing wizard DOES play a part because we can say with certainty that even with all else being equal the Wizard on average is going to be developing more PPE than the Diabolist and given the only difference is the class between the two people then it's a certainty that why the one develops more than the other is a result of something related to that class.

So looking at the actual Wizard and the actual Diabolist one valid position is that Wizards have training related to being wizards that lets them build up their PPE better over time compared to the Diabolist,

This is where we cross wires. As it cannot be a certainty, then it cannot be a valid position. For all we know, the Diabolist trains twice as hard as the Wizard, but instead of rewarded with more PPE, they are punished. But we don't know - all we know is that training plays a part because training is a part of their environment.

Does that make sense?

Your argument doesn't make sense since it ignores what I actually said. It goes off on some unrelated tangent. It's clearly a certainty that something about Wizard training or being a wizard encourages one to develop more PPE than the Diabolist over time. You also keep tossing out Environment when again it simply is not defined how you're trying to define it. Because by the book if you have everything else equal (race, life experiences, age, etc.) with the only difference being whether or not one is a Wizard or Diabolist then the Wizard develops an extra 1d6 in PPE as he levels compared to the Diabolist, so logically the ONLY thing we can look at for causing this is being a wizard and whether it's a result of something they're taught as wizards or something about actively being a wizard that causes it. There aren't any other options that can fit the situation.

something that would still apply even when switching to a class that provides for less PPE development over time like the Diabolist. It's just as likely as there being something else about being a Wizard that lets PPE develop better that doesn't transfer over, but there is nothing in the material that can tip the scale in favor of either.

In essence; the facts (referencing the bolded portion).

That has been my argument from the beginning; there is no evidence to any one thing being the cause of the additional PPE growth, save for which OCC it belongs to. Therefore, it stands as non-transferable because it cannot be attributed to anything specifically.

Except that you're presenting your opinion as if it were the most likely or only conclusion one can reach which isn't the case, it doesn't stand that the boost is non-transferable because it's as likely that the things the wizard learns that give him the extra dice of PPE as he levels do transfer as don't. It's equally likely and so completely up to the GM whether or not he's willing to allow for a Wizard turned Diabolist continuing to get the extra d6 as he levels as a Diabolist, there's nothing in the books that would give weight to the idea that it doesn't transfer.

[Nightmask]

So the basic arguments seem to be that the PPE difference is either
A) training, in which case the keeping the 3d6 could be justified
B) magical muscle, based on the spellcaster using more ppe more often, which justifies the drop to 2d6.
C) there is some other factor at work that explains why some get more than others, but leaves no in game justification for the change in PPE gain.

-GS

Basically, it's purely up to whether or not the GM wants to allow for it as the books really don't give you an idea how to go either way.

[Goliath Strongarm]

So the basic arguments seem to be that the PPE difference is either
A) training, in which case the keeping the 3d6 could be justified
B) magical muscle, based on the spellcaster using more ppe more often, which justifies the drop to 2d6.
C) there is some other factor at work that explains why some get more than others, but leaves no in game justification for the change in PPE gain.

-GS

Basically, it's purely up to whether or not the GM wants to allow for it as the books really don't give you an idea how to go either way.

Well, it SHOULD become the 2D6. And honestly, I'm bringing up a potential house rule that doesn't have a huge affect in game- but I wanted to see people's justifications, no matter which side you take.

Now, step back, look at your justification, and ask yourself- do I do things based only on rules, or because they make sense inside the game world?

[Nightmask]

So the basic arguments seem to be that the PPE difference is either
A) training, in which case the keeping the 3d6 could be justified
B) magical muscle, based on the spellcaster using more ppe more often, which justifies the drop to 2d6.
C) there is some other factor at work that explains why some get more than others, but leaves no in game justification for the change in PPE gain.

-GS

Basically, it's purely up to whether or not the GM wants to allow for it as the books really don't give you an idea how to go either way.

Well, it SHOULD become the 2D6. And honestly, I'm bringing up a potential house rule that doesn't have a huge affect in game- but I wanted to see people's justifications, no matter which side you take.

Now, step back, look at your justification, and ask yourself- do I do things based only on rules, or because they make sense inside the game world?

There's no particular reason why it SHOULD become 2d6, and I do things as a mix of the rules and what makes sense. If the rule doesn't make sense the rule generally loses.

[Prysus]

1: You already have the Wizard training, so logically you know some advanced techniques which you're using to get better.

What logic? Where does it state that "Wizard training is more advanced than Diabolist training"?
It doesn't. ANYWHERE. So logically, wizard training is no more or less advanced than diabolist training. Taking the rest of that paragraph into account is where the inferred comparison to the Diabolist comes into play.

Greetings and Salutations. *Sigh.* Since I'm being called out specifically, I'll answer the question.

1: If you paid attention at all, you'd notice that was a response to the original post of this thread. This is stated in the original post. To help contribute to the thread, I used the base logic for simplicity. I didn't just go "Well, the book doesn't say that, so even though you're probably right I'm going to argue against it and say you shouldn't have said that." I, personally, don't tend to find that productive, but to each their own.

2: It's easy to make excuses why the multi-classed character should still gain 3D6 per level. I could come up with quite a few theories, but it's not really an argument that needs help. If you noticed, I put very little effort into it. Want to see another theory about gaining P.P.E.? Look here (also by me):

viewtopic.php?f=39&t=133518&p=2660207&#p2660207

Want another one? Wizards train with ley lines (their special abilities help show this). During this training they've opened themselves up to the mystical energies, and some of that energy has seeped into their very being and remained with them. That's why they have a higher starting base and advance faster.

I could continue, however, providing a different theory why the original poster's post was right doesn't really accomplish anything (to me). I honestly just view it as a waste of time.

3: Just because something is based on logic doesn't mean it's automatically right, nor does it mean it's necessarily wrong. Scientists base theories off of logical conclusions. Sometimes those theories are proven right, sometimes they're proven wrong. Just because a theory is proven wrong doesn't mean it wasn't based on logic. The books don't explicitly say, and since it's a made-up world we can't test any of the theories. That doesn't mean the theories are necessarily illogical. It just means there's logic there, but we can't prove it. I didn't state it as imperical fact or canon, I stated it as logical. There's a difference. If you need to, please look up the words.

4: If you read my second post, you'd even see that the theory for the second counter argument was different to it (because it compares it more to exercise than just knowledge). To quote you: "I assumed too much of you fellow posters. I assumed you would glean the unwritten subtext of that message." In this case, that there are two different theories, I'm not saying both are fact as written in the book.
But if I must, "What this boils down to is that if the I'm posting two different theories in the same post, that I'm not saying either one is fact, canon, official, or whatever other word you'd like to use, but two different possibilities ... which is why they were listed differently and not the same."

5: We do know that practioners of magic need to learn how to use their P.P.E. (this is mentioned in PF2). We also know that practioners of magic are "taught" how to "build" their P.P.E. (found in Mysteries of Magic). There's no mention of different environments, just because, a magical faerie who comes in the night and secretly gives them extra P.P.E., or any other theories, just that they're "taught" (trained). I find it more logical to go off the information we have, instead of thinking the information provided is misleading and there's just some secret that the writer's don't want to share with us.

6: As you advance in levels, you continue to "build" or "grow" your P.P.E. Since we already know that practioners of magic are "taught" how to increase their P.P.E., it stands to reason that this training plays a role, as opposed to some unmentioned MacGuffin.

Does it mean it's guaranteed to be right? No. Does it mean it's more likely to be right? Yes. That's how logic works. Logic isn't based off of making up some random crap and saying it makes as much sense as information provided in the book (though both could be potentially just as wrong). Now if you have some actual basis behind your cheesecake theory based on information in the book, then I'm glad to hear it. However, no one here has claimed that anything we've said is canon/official, that's only in your head.

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

[Goliath Strongarm]

OK, if I can see Prysus getting snippity, things have gone too far. His patience limit is near saintly. I mean there have been times I've been trying to not reach through my monitor, and he's not even phased- to see him ruffled at all is something amazing.

While some good things were brought up, I think this discussion needs to end. I'm going to have to request a lock before things get REALLY ugly.

Thanks for the talk, and I hope that everyone gained something to think about- and NOT argue about...

By the way, the point of this was that sometimes, we have things that can come up that either players (or in this case, a GM) think of that make sense from an IN GAME perspective, even if not from a strict rules perspective.

If they don't really break the game (the extra 1d6 per level really isn't THAT powerful), then how are you going to react when it's brought up? If a player makes a valid IN GAME case, are you going rules lawyer against it? Many of us don't like when players rules lawyer us, so why should we rules lawyer them? Or make valid IN GAME arguments, as we would prefer them to do?

Once again, Mods/admins, I'm asking for a lock, before this gets worse, and goes too far out of hand...

[Prysus]

OK, if I can see Prysus getting snippity, things have gone too far. His patience limit is near saintly. I mean there have been times I've been trying to not reach through my monitor, and he's not even phased- to see him ruffled at all is something amazing.

While some good things were brought up, I think this discussion needs to end. I'm going to have to request a lock before things get REALLY ugly.

Thanks for the talk, and I hope that everyone gained something to think about- and NOT argue about...

By the way, the point of this was that sometimes, we have things that can come up that either players (or in this case, a GM) think of that make sense from an IN GAME perspective, even if not from a strict rules perspective.

If they don't really break the game (the extra 1d6 per level really isn't THAT powerful), then how are you going to react when it's brought up? If a player makes a valid IN GAME case, are you going rules lawyer against it? Many of us don't like when players rules lawyer us, so why should we rules lawyer them? Or make valid IN GAME arguments, as we would prefer them to do?

Once again, Mods/admins, I'm asking for a lock, before this gets worse, and goes too far out of hand...

Greetings and Salutations. I'm not as bad as you might think. Last day or two I just been tired and haven't filtered myself as much as I normally do. But seriously, not that bad. Besides, if you're that worried, I'll avoid posting again. Feel free to discuss away. Thanks for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys to all.

[Goliath Strongarm]

OK, if I can see Prysus getting snippity, things have gone too far. His patience limit is near saintly. I mean there have been times I've been trying to not reach through my monitor, and he's not even phased- to see him ruffled at all is something amazing.

While some good things were brought up, I think this discussion needs to end. I'm going to have to request a lock before things get REALLY ugly.

Thanks for the talk, and I hope that everyone gained something to think about- and NOT argue about...

By the way, the point of this was that sometimes, we have things that can come up that either players (or in this case, a GM) think of that make sense from an IN GAME perspective, even if not from a strict rules perspective.

If they don't really break the game (the extra 1d6 per level really isn't THAT powerful), then how are you going to react when it's brought up? If a player makes a valid IN GAME case, are you going rules lawyer against it? Many of us don't like when players rules lawyer us, so why should we rules lawyer them? Or make valid IN GAME arguments, as we would prefer them to do?

Once again, Mods/admins, I'm asking for a lock, before this gets worse, and goes too far out of hand...

Greetings and Salutations. I'm not as bad as you might think. Last day or two I just been tired and haven't filtered myself as much as I normally do. But seriously, not that bad. Besides, if you're that worried, I'll avoid posting again. Feel free to discuss away. Thanks for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys to all.

It's easier to lock it. Because my own filter isn't working well. The half-pint has turned into a professional cage fighter, minus the cage. Her way of waking me in the morning involves fists and feet. Also, I think all of the PRODUCTIVE comments have been made, and from this point on, it's going to devolve. The warning signs are there. Safer than sorry.

[Dog_O_War]

Environment really doesn't equal growth, environment AFFECTS growth in things that the environment applies to (sunlight or lack thereof doesn't have any particular effect on how much physical activity improves your muscles, unlike gravity being higher or lower in a particular location).

Semantics.

No, that's not semantics.

When a poster such as yourself gets obstinate, I have to break out the http://dictionary.reference.com/.
So having a look-see, I note that Semantics is defined as the following:

se·man·tics [si-man-tiks]
noun ( used with a singular verb )
1. Linguistics.
a.the study of meaning.
b. the study of linguistic development by classifying and examining changes in meaning and form.
2. Also called significs. the branch of semiotics dealing with the relations between signs and what they denote.
3. the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.: Let's not argue about semantics.
4. general semantics.

So let's see here; Semantics is the study of meaning, and means the interpretation of a word, sign, etc.

I said,"Environment = growth", to which you, Nightmask replied, "no it doesn't, it affects growth".
I then said that that is semantics, to which you, Nightmask replied (and quoted above) "no, that's not semantics".

Well let's take a look at an example, a math one.

I am saying that "1 + 1 = 2"

When in reality, the formula is written different. It is actually written like this:
"1 + (0.01+0.01+0.01+0.01+0.01+0.01+0.01+0.01+0.01+0.01+0.9) = 2"
The end result of both formulas is the same and you must first deal with the brackets; the above formula ends up as "1 + 1" once you deal with the brackets.

And you are effectively saying that "1 + (0.01+0.01+0.01+0.01+0.01+0.01+0.01+0.01+0.01+0.01+0.9) =/= 2 because it's not exactly the same as 1 + 1 = 2".

When in reality, you aren't realizing that environment is defined as such,
[quote=dictionary.com]en·vi·ron·ment [en-vahy-ruhn-muhnt, -vahy-ern-]
noun
1. the aggregate of surrounding things, conditions, or influences; surroundings; milieu.
2. Ecology. the air, water, minerals, organisms, and all other external factors surrounding and affecting a given organism at any time.
3. the social and cultural forces that shape the life of a person or a population.
4. Computers. the hardware or software configuration, or the mode of operation, of a computer system: In a time-sharing environment, transactions are processed as they occur.
5. an indoor or outdoor setting that is characterized by the presence of environmental art that is itself designed to be site-specific.[/quote]
So looking at environment here, I'm noticing that environment is the aggregate of surrounding things, conditions, or influences.

Effectively, everything must have an environment; ie: it must exist in order to be a thing.

And how nurturing or harsh that environment is determines the rate of growth or decay.

So when I say, "environment = growth", it really does not matter if you say, "no it doesn't, it only affects growth!" because that is semantics. In essence, you did not grasp the meaning of environment.

You also seem to be trying to define the Wizard and Diabolist themselves as environments when they aren't,

They are concerning PPE growth; it's the OCC itself that states the rate of growth of PPE, therefore the OCC (and thus 'wizard' and 'diabolist') is an environment for the PPE to grow.

No, they really aren't. PPE is an aspect of the Wizard and Diabolist, they aren't environments like a corn field where you 'grow' PPE. If anything PPE is a 'muscle' that one is exercising in hopes of developing more over time.

I never said they are like corn fields, but now that you mention it;

Those OCCs gain PPE over time. That is, when they gain experience, it occurs over time, and when they level they gain PPE. But in addition, if they use all their PPE, they recover that PPE over time (ie: gain PPE over time"

Like a corn field, corn grows over time there; the size of the corn field determines how much corn it will yield (size equaling experience level). You can harvest that corn from the field, and amazingly, you can harvest PPE from those OCCs! And, just like corn, as long as you don't kill the OCC (or field of corn), the PPE (and corn) will come back over time!

The other part of your paragraph though, "PPE is more like a muscle", just isn't true. Sure, muscles grow, etc. But the thing of it is that muscles also decay through lack of use. PPE does not. PPE is not on a "use it or lose it" system.

All that said, it really does not matter what PPE growth within those OCCs is more like; both muscles and corn require environments to grow in, and depending on how nurturing the environment is will determine if they will grow or die.

Just like PPE inside those OCCs.

You seem to be really misusing the term 'environment'. They aren't environments they're educational packages and no more environments than being trained to be an engineer makes you an environment.

You seem to really be unable to understand the term 'environment'.
Additionally, that engineer is an environment of solutions pertaining to his field, grown in an environment of knowledge, which is the aggregate of ideas over time. And those ideas? Grown in the environment known as the mind.

It's also quite evident that the training/education to become a wizard and being a practicing wizard DOES play a part because we can say with certainty that even with all else being equal

So all things being equal, neither class use or do anything to do with magic for the rest of their lives; neither casts a spell, has their PPE drained, meditate, etc. and simply defeat minor challenges by punching them, all the way to 15th level.

Did their magical training or education play a part in their PPE growth here? No. Which is how we can say that, with certainty, we do not know what their education added in terms of PPE growth.
Really, given the above example, it looks like their training/education to become a wizard and being a practicing does not affect their PPE growth in the slightest.

the Wizard on average is going to be developing more PPE than the Diabolist and given the only difference is the class between the two people then it's a certainty that why the one develops more than the other is a result of something related to that class.

Ya don't say?

Your argument doesn't make sense since it ignores what I actually said.

Oh really? It seems to me that you actually said this:

one valid position is that Wizards have training related to being wizards that lets them build up their PPE better over time compared to the Diabolist

To which I replied that a position can only be valid if it can be said with certainty. My above-example takes a dump all over the certainty that "wizards have training related to being wizards that lets them build up their PPE better".

Given that it is not well-founded that wizard training has directly or indirectly affected PPE growth (ie: you have no evidence nor reference stating that it does), then it cannot be a valid position. It's just speculation that their training has affected PPE growth. And speculation is not fact.

It goes off on some unrelated tangent.

Just because you do not understand does not mean that it is an "unrelated tangent".

It's clearly a certainty that something about Wizard training

No.

or being a wizard encourages one to develop more PPE than the Diabolist over time.

Yes. Do you see the primary difference between these two things I've quoted you on?

It is not a certainty that wizard training actually adds to PPE growth; it is possible it does, and even likely, but it is still not a certainty just because it's "possible and likely".
Meanwhile, it is a certainty that being a wizard fosters PPE growth better than the diabolist.

You also keep tossing out Environment when again it simply is not defined how you're trying to define it.

I didn't "try" to define it, I took the meaning of its definition and applied it skillfully to the topic.

Because by the book if you have everything else equal (race, life experiences, age, etc.) with the only difference being whether or not one is a Wizard or Diabolist then the Wizard develops an extra 1d6 in PPE as he levels compared to the Diabolist, so logically the ONLY thing we can look at for causing this is being a wizard

This statement is completely correct, if you had just stopped there. But you didn't

and whether it's a result of something they're taught as wizards or something about actively being a wizard that causes it. There aren't any other options that can fit the situation.

See, there are other situations; one does not need to "actively be a wizard" to get 3d6 PPE growth per level. Simply put, the wizard is not the only one to gain 3d6 PPE per level. 3d6 PPE growth is not inherent to "wizard training", as other OCCs and I'd bet some RCCs also net this.

How? it's a facet or the class that otherwise fosters that kind of growth. We just don't know what one or ones it is.

That has been my argument from the beginning; there is no evidence to any one thing being the cause of the additional PPE growth, save for which OCC it belongs to. Therefore, it stands as non-transferable because it cannot be attributed to anything specifically.

Except that you're presenting your opinion as if it were the most likely or only conclusion one can reach which isn't the case, it doesn't stand that the boost is non-transferable because it's as likely that the things the wizard learns that give him the extra dice of PPE

Please present the book and page number where it says that the things a wizard learns is what nets him a 3d6 PPE growth. Otherwise your statement is unfounded and thus in-valid.

It's equally likely

I am saying that there is no evidence; unless you present some, then it cannot be equally likely.

and so completely up to the GM whether or not he's willing to allow for a Wizard turned Diabolist continuing to get the extra d6 as he levels as a Diabolist, there's nothing in the books that would give weight to the idea that it doesn't transfer.

Yeah, there is. The multiclass rules and the rules for switching OCCs. They do not say you do, therefore, you do not.

[Dog_O_War]

[justify]

1: You already have the Wizard training, so logically you know some advanced techniques which you're using to get better.

What logic? Where does it state that "Wizard training is more advanced than Diabolist training"?
It doesn't. ANYWHERE. So logically, wizard training is no more or less advanced than diabolist training. Taking the rest of that paragraph into account is where the inferred comparison to the Diabolist comes into play.

Greetings and Salutations. *Sigh.* Since I'm being called out specifically, I'll answer the question.

1: If you paid attention at all, you'd notice that was a response to the original post of this thread. This is stated in the original post. To help contribute to the thread, I used the base logic for simplicity. I didn't just go "Well, the book doesn't say that, so even though you're probably right I'm going to argue against it and say you shouldn't have said that." I, personally, don't tend to find that productive, but to each their own.

If I paid any attention at all? I did and I was arguing that the premise for the OP's example was wrong. It wasn't thought out. I quoted you because you were the only one to actually offer an idea. However, the logic was fundamentally flawed from the beginning; how do we know Bob's master wasn't a Diabolist to begin with?

3: Just because something is based on logic doesn't mean it's automatically right, nor does it mean it's necessarily wrong. Scientists base theories off of logical conclusions. Sometimes those theories are proven right, sometimes they're proven wrong. Just because a theory is proven wrong doesn't mean it wasn't based on logic. The books don't explicitly say, and since it's a made-up world we can't test any of the theories. That doesn't mean the theories are necessarily illogical. It just means there's logic there, but we can't prove it. I didn't state it as imperical fact or canon, I stated it as logical. There's a difference. If you need to, please look up the words.

See, it's that portion I've bolded there; the logic you stated was flawed due to a lack of... I dunno. I don't know what part you missed; but you missed it and it was readily and immediately apparent to me that the "logic" you presented was wrong.

4: If you read my second post, you'd even see that the theory for the second counter argument was different to it (because it compares it more to exercise than just knowledge). To quote you: "I assumed too much of you fellow posters. I assumed you would glean the unwritten subtext of that message." In this case, that there are two different theories, I'm not saying both are fact as written in the book.
But if I must, "What this boils down to is that if the I'm posting two different theories in the same post, that I'm not saying either one is fact, canon, official, or whatever other word you'd like to use, but two different possibilities ... which is why they were listed differently and not the same."

Yeah that's great. I'm saying your theories were based on your own misunderstanding, making them wrong and not to be listened to. But in a nice way. Or rather I was, but you failed to glean that my own post quoting you was not calling you out, but rather disproving any claims that Nightmask made that "others do have a valid point". Seriously, up until that point in the thread, yours was the only actual point, which is why you were "called out specifically" - it's because there was no one else.
Which now means that I should be exceptionally critical of you.
But I'm not going to. Not any more so than anyone else.

5: We do know that practioners of magic need to learn how to use their P.P.E. (this is mentioned in PF2). We also know that practioners of magic are "taught" how to "build" their P.P.E. (found in Mysteries of Magic).

See, this is something that a theory could be based upon.

There's no mention of different environments

Everything is an environment for something.

just because, a magical faerie who comes in the night and secretly gives them extra P.P.E., or any other theories, just that they're "taught" (trained).

This is also an instance where the fluff (again) does not match the mechanics. But I didn't really see anyone consider that in their posts.

I find it more logical to go off the information we have, instead of thinking the information provided is misleading and there's just some secret that the writer's don't want to share with us.

But you, like the many posters before you didn't use that logic. I'll note that in your "game mechanics perspective" example (under your first point in the previous post), it appears that you didn't consider all the mechanics.

6: As you advance in levels, you continue to "build" or "grow" your P.P.E. Since we already know that practioners of magic are "taught" how to increase their P.P.E., it stands to reason that this training plays a role, as opposed to some unmentioned MacGuffin.

Again, the mechanics get in the way. They do not support the "taught" line of thinking. And, since this is about GMing, the mechanics need to be considered, as it is the GM who says what stays and what goes.

Logic isn't based off of making up some random crap and saying it makes as much sense as information provided in the book (though both could be potentially just as wrong).

Correct and incorrect.
When the information in the book says one thing (fluff) and then does another (mechanics), it would stand to say the book itself has offered an illogical premise, making "some random crap" hold as much sense and plausibility as the information provided. Either way, with both pieces of information in-hand (fluff and crap), we must still follow the other (mechanics).

Which means that while logic is/is not based off of random crap, we must (apparently) still follow it.

Now if you have some actual basis behind your cheesecake theory based on information in the book, then I'm glad to hear it.

Sure.
PPE growth is governed by the mechanics of the game. The fluff does not match these mechanics, so I figured that the extra PPE growth the wizards were experiencing that their masters said they "taught" them was a load of sh!t. But the board doesn't exactly like that word, so I called it cheesecake, of which wizards have clearly been fed a lot of.

However, no one here has claimed that anything we've said is canon/official, that's only in your head.

All I asked was a reference as to anything, ANYTHING that would lead a person to believe that PPE gains by level was taught, and up until now (thanks to your book references) I had not received anything.

[Dog_O_War]

OK, if I can see Prysus getting snippity, things have gone too far. His patience limit is near saintly. I mean there have been times I've been trying to not reach through my monitor, and he's not even phased- to see him ruffled at all is something amazing.

I know, I actually feel kinda bad for doing that.
I'd still fight him though.

By the way, the point of this was that sometimes, we have things that can come up that either players (or in this case, a GM) think of that make sense from an IN GAME perspective, even if not from a strict rules perspective.

That's fine, but your in-game perspectives can still be shattered by in-game proof.

I read about a doctor that cracked the knuckles on one hand every day for something like 60 years, all the while NOT cracking the knuckles on his other hand. Simply to prove to his mother that she was full of it when she said that 'cracking your knuckles gives you arthritis'. I'm just saying, I would totally shatter the in-game perspective by making a wizard and then never touching my PPE, gain a level (and thus the PPE), and say that my masters were full of cheesecake (even if that drew down the wrath of the GM).

If they don't really break the game (the extra 1d6 per level really isn't THAT powerful), then how are you going to react when it's brought up? If a player makes a valid IN GAME case, are you going rules lawyer against it? Many of us don't like when players rules lawyer us, so why should we rules lawyer them? Or make valid IN GAME arguments, as we would prefer them to do?

See, if a player had said to me, "my Wizard-turned Diabolist isn't gaining as much PPE as I did before, even though I'm doing everything my master taught me" I'd tell them that perhaps there is an aspect of the magic he's using that is diabolically syphoning a portion of it away".

[Subjugator]

I'd say it matches whatever class you advanced in. You were developing other skills more strongly during that period.

*shrug*

[NMI]

Locked per topic starter request.