Zornhau Forums

Korbel wrote:

Agamemnon wrote: Assuming average stats:
The difference between the highest possible mastery character and an absolute novice before was 5 dice.
The difference between the highest possible mastery character and an absolute novice on a 1-10 scale is 8-9 dice.
SAs are worth up to 5.

Cool, I like this balance.
Now my only objection is the fact of halving the scores of Attributes, I hate that just like nemedeus
So, I would probably leave Attributes on 1-5 scale, and make skills 0-10 (but we have already discussed this very solution: http://www.grandheresyforums.com/viewto ... 5&start=30).

Are you adding the skill and attribute pool together? That means skill pools are 2-15 normally, but attribute checks are on 2-10.. which places skills and attributes on different difficulty scales. Someone with average attributes has 6 dice ob3 attribute check. Someone with an average attribute and an average skill would have 8 dice vs an ob3 skill check.

Now we've retained the flexibility and have more granularity for skills.. but now we're asymmetrical, need to adjust the difficulty on obs across the board for skills (but not attributes), using skills in attribute checks has to be dropped (we're not substituting Larcerny 9 into a perception roll), and the total amount of dice being rolled at any one time has gone up.

Agamemnon wrote:but now we're asymmetrical

My favourite solution for that was:

"Feat of Strength = 2 x Strength + 1 x Stamina
(...)"

Korbel wrote:

Agamemnon wrote:but now we're asymmetrical

My favourite solution for that was:

"Feat of Strength = 2 x Strength + 1 x Stamina
(...)"

My chief misgiving is how playable that becomes calling that at the table. Now as the GM I might need to decide not only which two attributes are used, but also which is dominant. Then the player has to go "okay, my pool is.. X. times 2.. plus Y.. plus my SA.." it also bumps our average die pools up from 6 to 9 across the board, which is a nontrivial amount of dice for someone to be chucking at a time on a physical table. The maximum end also goes from 6+6+1+5 (18) on a skill roll to 6+10+5 (21) or 6+6+6+5 (23) on an attribute roll.

Now I'm going to say something stupid. Bare with me.

What if rolls become Roll and Keep?

Attributes: Primary+Secondary (or skill in place of secondary) Keep Primary. Highest possible kept 9. (Atr6+SA3)
Skills: Attribute+Skill Keep Attribute Skill+Expertise. Highest possible kept 10. (Skill6+Expert+SA3)
Expertise: doesn't add to dice, it increases Keep by 1, period. Ofc that ditches my previous suggestion.
SAs: They increase Keep value on a 1:1 ratio and cap at 3.
Pools greater than 10 grant auto successes (11=1, etc...) like they already do. Only very exceptional situations grant these. At most 5 auto successes when you have Attribute6 Skill6, synergy from other high skill, and others assisting. No rules infront of me but I think that's right.

Proficiencies in combat stay as they are. (?)

Ofc that needs different OBs.

I don't want to be rude, but i feel like i'm being a little bit ignored here.
Do i need to write more bitesized to get a response to any of my suggestions?

Agamemnon wrote: Now as the GM I might need to decide not only which two attributes are used, but also which is dominant.

No, why? The derivatives would be set in stone just like they are currently. No decisions, total value written on paper.

Agamemnon wrote:it also bumps our average die pools up from 6 to 9 across the board, which is a nontrivial amount of dice for someone to be chucking at a time on a physical table.

I don't know how to fix that. But I'd rather roll bigger pools than halve the scores

nemedeus wrote:I don't want to be rude, but i feel like i'm being a little bit ignored here.
Do i need to write more bitesized to get a response to any of my suggestions?

Sorry about that. But I believe "my" part of the topic ends here (every possible argument already stated), so I think I'll keep my mouth shut

Korbel wrote:

nemedeus wrote:I don't want to be rude, but i feel like i'm being a little bit ignored here.
Do i need to write more bitesized to get a response to any of my suggestions?

Sorry about that. But I believe "my" part of the topic ends here (every possible argument already stated), so I think I'll keep my mouth shut

Woah there, shutting anyone up is not what i intended.

I mean, i can understand if discussions happen beside me, because i tend to make these super long posts, and i also play a fast and loose game with my tinkerings and stuff... cause, i'm a tinker even above being a player.
I'd just, you know, like to know what people think.

nemedeus wrote:I don't want to be rude, but i feel like i'm being a little bit ignored here.
Do i need to write more bitesized to get a response to any of my suggestions?

The majority of the time I quote and respond to something is to argue about it or answer a question. If I don't respond to something directly it usually means I'm chewing on it as a possibility. What we wind up doing with social combat or battlefield whatever will wind up depending on how we end up with skills set up.

Korbel wrote:

Agamemnon wrote: Now as the GM I might need to decide not only which two attributes are used, but also which is dominant.

No, why? The derivatives would be set in stone just like they are currently. No decisions, total value written on paper.

The rules as written now don't pretend to cover every combination of attributes you might need, we just have the ones codified that you will most likely need.

Korbel wrote:

Agamemnon wrote:it also bumps our average die pools up from 6 to 9 across the board, which is a nontrivial amount of dice for someone to be chucking at a time on a physical table.

I don't know how to fix that. But I'd rather roll bigger pools than halve the scores

Multiplying Ax2+B eight times seems like a mess to go through in order to avoid division. I'd have to think on the dice bloat issue. The higher the ob range is the more arbitrary the choice becomes on any one ob you call and it completely breaks relatively elegant systems like surgery using the wound's level as an ob.

Agamemnon wrote:

nemedeus wrote:I don't want to be rude, but i feel like i'm being a little bit ignored here.
Do i need to write more bitesized to get a response to any of my suggestions?

The majority of the time I quote and respond to something is to argue about it or answer a question. If I don't respond to something directly it usually means I'm chewing on it as a possibility. What we wind up doing with social combat or battlefield whatever will wind up depending on how we end up with skills set up.

Fair enough. I guess we'll see.

In the meantime, i'll hack my own Band of Bastards, with blackjack, d6, stunts & powers, magic items, and hookers.

nemedeus wrote:

Agamemnon wrote:

nemedeus wrote:I don't want to be rude, but i feel like i'm being a little bit ignored here.
Do i need to write more bitesized to get a response to any of my suggestions?

The majority of the time I quote and respond to something is to argue about it or answer a question. If I don't respond to something directly it usually means I'm chewing on it as a possibility. What we wind up doing with social combat or battlefield whatever will wind up depending on how we end up with skills set up.

Fair enough. I guess we'll see.

In the meantime, i'll hack my own Band of Bastards, with blackjack, d6, stunts & powers, magic items, and hookers.

I'm 80% certain we're switching to a d6 on this draft. There are quite a few advantages to it, in addition to being easier to purchase them in bulk.

Agamemnon wrote: I'm 80% certain we're switching to a d6 on this draft. There are quite a few advantages to it, in addition to being easier to purchase them in bulk.

No way, are you serious? Okay, wow. I'm not, like, overjoyed or anything, really, i'm not. But... it comes as a huge surprise.

In other news, i notice now that i just missed a huge opportunity for a pun:

what nemedeus should have wrote: In the meantime, i'll hack my own Brand of Bastards, with blackjack, d6, stunts & powers, magic items, and hookers.

Question: how would combat pools be calculated under the new 1-10 scale system. Agility+Cunning+Proficiency, with correspondingly larger pools, or eliminate one of Agility or Cunning to keep pools the same size.

taelor wrote:Question: how would combat pools be calculated under the new 1-10 scale system. Agility+Cunning+Proficiency, with correspondingly larger pools, or eliminate one of Agility or Cunning to keep pools the same size.

My best bet would be (AG+CU)/2 + PROF, but I'm only guessing here.

Benedict wrote:

taelor wrote:Question: how would combat pools be calculated under the new 1-10 scale system. Agility+Cunning+Proficiency, with correspondingly larger pools, or eliminate one of Agility or Cunning to keep pools the same size.

My best bet would be (AG+CU)/2 + PROF, but I'm only guessing here.

Bingo.

nemedeus wrote: 1. Stats

I think, keep them as they are now.

Why? Tying Stamina and Strength together actually maks a surprising amount of sense. As it stands, you can have someone with Strength 1 and Stamina 6, or vice versa - something that is basically physically impossible in real life due to how tied together these things are. As I mentioned before, there is a reason why people who run long distance in the Olympics lift weights as part of their training. Hell, I would be tempted to shift Speed into what is currently considered Brawn rather than Agility, and call the stat Conditioning instead - these three aspects are rarely different enough from each other to justify even a single point of difference on even a 1-10 score.