I feel automatic successes make things too easy for a master, to the point of making skill checks potentially boring. Lowering TN should still be a thing exclusively reserved for advantages/disadvantages (in contrast to Korbel's SA handling, which I don't feel comfortable with). This makes them easy to apply. If they stack with other effects, calculation becomes more and more complicated.dra wrote:Masteries mentioned before solve it. Skills are better because true master has automatic successess/lowers TN.
Your attribute scale inherits the problems why Agamemnon bothered to extend the range of attributes and skills in the first place: It is too low to differentiate between novice and master to make training to mastery worthwile.Korbel wrote:If you use 0-4 for Attributes and 0-8 for Skills, big pools are not really an issue anymore (average pool is the same as currently, maximum possible pool - only 1 dice bigger).
Nice idea actually, but I feel that having two pools of different dice and juggling with them at the table may result in felt clunkyness.Marras wrote:1) As attributes seem to be too powerful when compared to skills if you go with X+Y system, why not use different dice for skills and attributes? Say, d6 and d10.
That lessens the dead level problem in a way. I think the main challenge for the designers is to fill the blanks and keep it balanced.thirtythr33 wrote:Instead of calculating Brawn/3 = AV etc which has all of the benefits stacked at ranks 1, 4 and 7 you instead use a table that spreads the bonuses out: [...]
But you have to agree that at some point, when altering the points you get for a given priority, the skills become the better choice (let's say: 60 skill points versus 10 attribute points, to exaggerate a bit). It's definitely not always in the favor of attributes. In reverse this means, that there must be an optimum, where you have to think twice - based on your character concept - what is the best pick for you.[color=#00FF00]Agamemnon[/color] wrote:[...] Even if you lower the number of attribute points you can spend overall, you're still going to be better off investing in more attributes than less at character creation.EinBein wrote:This is where I don't agree. Though attributes and skills are picked during character creation, they get different value from the amount of points you get from a specific priority.
This positively feels like a concession. I like the idea of being able to combine basically everything. I can't say whether RP-whoring would really be problematic, but dead levels indeed become more of an issue. Even though I feel that it is now more evenly spread and not anymore concentrated on several "strategic" attributes. The following proposal 2a may feel like a cheap workaround, but with your proposed scale table...[color=#00FF00]Agamemnon[/color] wrote:Proposal 2
...I feel that the bonus steps should be shifted by one upwards:Scale for Brawn from [color=#00FF00]Agamemnon[/color] wrote:The scale, again, using Brawn as an illustration:
1. Small animals.
2. Children, the disabled.
3. Sedentary office workers
4. Average, active people. Farmers, laborers
5-6. Professional athletes.
7-8 Professional Strongman types. The height of what normal people can actually achieve.
9-10. Genetic freaks. Tier 5 material. Andrey the Giant. Hafthor Bjornson.
With that change, I may even feel ready to accept the dead levels, as they fit to the narrative behind the scale. With the original table you'd get a +1 as "sedentary office worker" (3) and as a "professional athlete" (5). This feels kind of wrong. Same would apply to any /3 derived stat, like Body.Scale for attribute/skill boni from EinBein wrote:useless for 0-3, +1 for 4-6, +2 for 7-9, +3 for 10
I think we can all see that you are committed to push this change, and I can understand that any alternative feels inferior in this stage of the rewrite. Anyways, many fellow forum posters opposing the change have explained their worries and some may actually have a point. But in order to break the stallmate, I at least have come to the point where I can accept the above proposal 2 with the suggested change to the bonus table and am ready to just give it a try. If said worries prove to destroy the gameplay, I'm sure we'll meet again on these exact forums and complain about it