Zornhau Forums

You could add an option to add enemies to already existing Traits as price lowering options. That way, they don't take up the entire trait and if they are killed the "main" trait is still functional. This is kind of already done in Claim (by adding extra claimants) but here are some more examples:

You have a Romantic Relationship with Gwen and then you add a jealous ex-lover to reduce the price of the romance.
You are in a Thieves Guild Faction and then you add a Special Investigator.
You have a Reputation as the "The Incorruptible" then you add an assassin the thieves guild sent after you.
You have Character Trait Outlaw and add a bounty hunter coming after you for his payday.

Additionally if it's like one of those examples like an Investigator or a Bounty Hunter, even if you do kill them don't be surprised when someone else comes to replace them.

These examples are kind of really specific though which is a problem. Generalized might look something like this:
-1pt An enemy with minor resources seeks to destroy one of your Relationships/Factions/Reputations etc
-2pt An organisation with major resources seeks to destroy one of your ....

Also, having "I always/never" and "gut feeling" in Special Traits would be neat. Especially always/never because it is really open ended.

When re-modelling Gregor, I had the following observations/questions:

1. When I had skills priority 3 before, now 2 or even 1 suffices, even when I adjust the values to the new scale. I took 2 in order to push some skills further. This seems due to the fact, that some skills aren't available anymore (Steel and Athletics were two of Gregor's highest skills). Any plans what Steel is now? Gregor had a very low Willpower, but high Steel (battle). I took again a low Willpower, and hope to be allowed to tap his background trait "German Landsknecht" in battle situations...

2. Attributes remain quite low even with Priority 4. Intended?

3. No Outsider trait. I boosted his background trait "German Landsknecht" to 3d and would use it equivalent to Outsider in the context of the post-Italian Wars Italy. Does that work as intended?

4. No Blood Debt as "bad Patron" anymore. I took d2 Patron for Giovanni Pico. Any plans to add something like "-1 pt the Patron has power over the character due to some kind of blood debt"?

5. No Asset to buy the Flamberge again. Maybe 33 grants it as part of the Patronage, but officially it just offers "bare minimum tools to perform their duties".

I'll upload him tomorrow.

I want to ask about Attributes too. Page 18 says Attributes need at least 2 points in them. Do you have to pay for this minimum with your Attribute priority points? T1 Attributes gives 15 points. If you have to buy the minimums, then you really have only 5 points. I think this is misleading and stupid. If you have to have a minimum in your Attributes, then the points you purchase should not account for those. A more honest table would list your Attribute points as 5 / 7 / 9 / 11 / 14. Please clarify if you do have to spend your priority points on minimums for Attributes. If you do, the table should be changed, and it should be said that you start with the minimums in each one.

myanbar wrote:I want to ask about Attributes too. Page 18 says Attributes need at least 2 points in them. Do you have to pay for this minimum with your Attribute priority points? T1 Attributes gives 15 points. If you have to buy the minimums, then you really have only 5 points. I think this is misleading and stupid. If you have to have a minimum in your Attributes, then the points you purchase should not account for those. A more honest table would list your Attribute points as 5 / 7 / 9 / 11 / 14. Please clarify if you do have to spend your priority points on minimums for Attributes. If you do, the table should be changed, and it should be said that you start with the minimums in each one.

Yes. You must invest at least two points in each. If you look at the chart that tells you what the stats mean, that's the base attributes of a human child. Why you want to have the Brawn of a housecat, I do not know.

Changing how the chart is presented just makes it more complicated to do the math. If I have 21 points to spend, I can just add them together. "I put A4, B4, C5, P3, W5. Okay, that's 21 total." If I lose count, I can just add the ones I've spent to get my total. By your suggestion, I now have to go "I have two in each and 11 to spend. I'll put two into A to bring it to 4. Two into B, three into C. One into P. Uh. Wait. how many do I have left? 4+4+5+3 is 16 total. -8 For base cost for four attribues. So I've spent 8 out of 11, so that's 3, so I guess that gives me 3+2...W5"

We're gaining nothing, and making the whole thing needlessly more complicated. Worse, by your logic, just requiring one point in each category would be "misleading" -- presumably because someone was really excited to have a few zeros in their attributes to play that sweet paraplegic vegetable concept they've been dreaming up. Would we need to go back and change the way priority points are spent as well so people aren't mislead by the necessity of putting a point in each priority?

Agamemnon wrote:Why you want to have the Brawn of a housecat, I do not know.

Because you want to play an invalid or a retard who doesn't/can't spend on Traits.

p37 - Skills are sorted alphabetically in general, but Politics is sorted after Seamanship and Stewardship.

Tapping p10 reads "When one of these apply, a character may tap it and add the tap value of that
ability to the die pool. Certain traits will have die values attached as well, and
can be treated in the same way."

This appears to allow Tapping into Combat Pools.

Agamemnon wrote:

myanbar wrote:I want to ask about Attributes too. Page 18 says Attributes need at least 2 points in them. Do you have to pay for this minimum with your Attribute priority points? T1 Attributes gives 15 points. If you have to buy the minimums, then you really have only 5 points. I think this is misleading and stupid. If you have to have a minimum in your Attributes, then the points you purchase should not account for those. A more honest table would list your Attribute points as 5 / 7 / 9 / 11 / 14. Please clarify if you do have to spend your priority points on minimums for Attributes. If you do, the table should be changed, and it should be said that you start with the minimums in each one.

Yes. You must invest at least two points in each. If you look at the chart that tells you what the stats mean, that's the base attributes of a human child. Why you want to have the Brawn of a housecat, I do not know.

Changing how the chart is presented just makes it more complicated to do the math. If I have 21 points to spend, I can just add them together. "I put A4, B4, C5, P3, W5. Okay, that's 21 total." If I lose count, I can just add the ones I've spent to get my total. By your suggestion, I now have to go "I have two in each and 11 to spend. I'll put two into A to bring it to 4. Two into B, three into C. One into P. Uh. Wait. how many do I have left? 4+4+5+3 is 16 total. -8 For base cost for four attribues. So I've spent 8 out of 11, so that's 3, so I guess that gives me 3+2...W5"

We're gaining nothing, and making the whole thing needlessly more complicated. Worse, by your logic, just requiring one point in each category would be "misleading" -- presumably because someone was really excited to have a few zeros in their attributes to play that sweet paraplegic vegetable concept they've been dreaming up. Would we need to go back and change the way priority points are spent as well so people aren't mislead by the necessity of putting a point in each priority?

I completely don't agree. However, it's clear you have no intention of changing it.

myanbar wrote:I completely don't agree. However, it's clear you have no intention of changing it.

Mh. This is I think just a matter of taste and maybe the differences in math. Some popular RPG's do it the same way as SaS, like Shadowrun. I wouldn't say that I'd prefer the one over the other and wouldn't call the descision important either. Definitely no deal breaker to me.

You start with a 0d free character trait for free.
You can upgrade character traits by paying the difference.
No trait can ever cost less than 1.

Can you "side-grade" and take a 1dT free character trait for 0pts?

thirtythr33 wrote:Can you "side-grade" and take a 1dT free character trait for 0pts?

Good question. Cause if you can't I must tweak again.

me too I saw it at Meinrad and thought it a good idea to apply it in the next revision of The Boy for Drunkard...

I can understand that Traits must cost a min of 1 in the sense that you won't be getting infinite 0dT Traits to milk Drive points. Still, wouldn't it better if there was a max number of Traits per Tier instead, like there's max rank per Tier for Atrib/Skill?Prof?

A 0d trait still costs a minimum of 1pt.

higgins wrote:A 0d trait still costs a minimum of 1pt.

I am talking about a 0dT Trait. Can you get them for 1-1=0pt?

Still the real question is this. You get a free 1d Background and a 0d Trait for free regardless of Tier chosen.

Can you make that free 0d Trait a 1dT Trait for a net cost of free+1-1=free?

Another example of a zero point Trait:

Relationship
Character has some minor amount of power (1pt)
Has significant leverage over the PC (-1pt)
Is an immediate blood relative (-2pt)
Relationship : will try to help at best of ability if no immediate danger... 2d (2pt)
Net result 0pts

Is this viable?