| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tupteq
Commander
Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 285
Location: Rzeszów, Poland
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2016 8:02 am Post subject: Yet another character creation system |
 |
|
I recently created and tested new approach to character creation that I want to share with RancorPit!
It differs significantly from original one, but surprisingly, yields in similar character statistics created. My goal was to eliminate min-maxing, keep balance between PCs and discourage purely munchkin choices (e.g. species that has 13D in attributes). My players are a bit of munchkin type ant no matter what I wasn't able to cure them from this disease, so instead, I decided to enforce balanced characters by rules.
First, I did research, I analyzed stats of templates and some example beginning characters from books. Then I came up with formulas and adjusted pools (see below) to give desired results. I bet someone could create similar system before, but I didn't find it (didn't search much though).
Enough of this intro, here it is:
Pool based character creation system
Step 1 - Attributes
Each character begins with 1D on each attribute, then has 60 points (let's call them Attribute Points or APs) to improve them. Improvement costs are number in front of D before raise (identical to skill improvement using CPs). Improvement has to be done pip by pip.
Example: To have STR of 3D+2 one needs to pay 15 APs (1+1+1+2+2+2+3+3).
Notes:
Species minimum/maximum still apply.
Every species has the same pool (Attribute Dice value is ignored, at least for Player Characters).
All possible APs have to be used, but it may be a situation that one or two APs can't be assigned, then they are converted to CPs (ordinary Character Points) 1AP=8CPs. I initially used 1/10 exchange rate, but after experimenting 1/8 gave better results.
There's a Force attribute, first 1D costs 5APs and is equivalent of Force Sensitive. Further improvement uses general rules (1AP -> 1D+1, etc.). Generally this attribute max is 2D, but certain species or very talented individuals may have it on higher value.
Step 2 - Advantages/Disadvantages
Player chooses advantages and disadvantages for the character, he has 2 ranks in advantages (ARs) which can be increased by taking disadvantages. I'm using D6 Space (Open D6) advantage/disadvantage system.
Notes:
Being a most widely tolerated species in the galaxy (human) is an rank 2 advantage, so humans (and many near-humans) have initially empty pool for advantages.
Player may end this step with non-zero balance, final result is changed to CPs: 1 rank = 5CPs.
Species advantages/distavantages have to be taken (and paid for), but in this case APs may (and should after initial 2ARs are depleted) be changed to CPs then back to ARs to pay for these advantages.
Step 3 - Skills
Player has 70 CPs (normal character points) to improve skills. This pool should be adjusted by CPs saved (or borrowed) in Step 1 and 2. CPs are used normally as during character advancement, skills have to be improved pip-by-pip, and there's attr+2D skill value cap.
Force skills start from Force attribute value but their cost is doubled (e.g. 4CPs to raise from 2D to 2D+1).
In this step player may also buy APs (and ARs), but it's good idea to spend most of CPs on skills.
That's it!
Steps are not fixed, player may back to Step 2 to add some disadvantage to get mor points or even to Step 1 to raise attribute paying CPs, but keeping general flow: attributes -> adv/dis (at least species-specific) -> skills, works best.
I playtested these rules with my players and here are conclusions:
Players don't min/max, because it's too costly (e.g. raising TECH from 1D to 2D costs 3APs, raising STR from 4D to 5D costs 12APs).
Players take more skills at lower levels, so characters are more flexible (about 15 skills raised above attribute).
When player invests lot of APs in attribute, then skills under this attribute are expensive and players don't max them (no more DEX 4D blaster 6D dodge 6D).
Force attribute guarantees that Jedi characters aren't crippled and doubled cost of raising Force Skills keeps their skills matching the rest of PCs (I like balance in game, my players also don't like "star and the background" type of play).
Characters created this method averaged with about 18D (with one attr at 4D) in attributes and 9D in skills (with no skill maxed, many raised from low attributes like 2D to 3D). With one skills max and 2-3 raised by 1D, number of skill dice drops to about 7D.
Number juggling is somehow slow and quite error-prone, creating a character takes longer and requires double checking.
I'll provide complete character creation example later (hopefully today). |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14033
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2016 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So using that, i could spend the 60cp thusly
1+1+1+2+2+2 = 9 on all 6 attributes giving me 3d in all. BUT i have 6 left over, so i could have two attributes at 3d+1. That is a little more than core as 3dx6-18d..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tupteq
Commander
Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 285
Location: Rzeszów, Poland
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2016 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | So using that, i could spend the 60cp thusly
1+1+1+2+2+2 = 9 on all 6 attributes giving me 3d in all. BUT i have 6 left over, so i could have two attributes at 3d+1. That is a little more than core as 3dx6-18d.. |
Right. If you make everything average, then you may have over 18D in attributes.
But then you are just... average and players always want to boost something and end up with 18D (or even less). Moreover, Force attribute is quite cheap, so you can create very balanced (3D in almost every attribute) and with Force 2D. So Jedi characters aren't crippled (as I wrote before, I'm balancing this better start by doubling cost of learning force skills).
I calculated AP sums of some templates and characters from books and it mostly is very close to 60. For example: Arrogant Noble (59APs), Bounty Hunter (59APs), Gambler (59APs), Outlaw (58APs), Obi-Wan (57APs), Iskalloni (58APs). It wasn't as good with Wedge Antilles (56APs - all stats around 3D) and Chewbacca (64APs - very high STR). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14033
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tupteq wrote: | | garhkal wrote: | So using that, i could spend the 60cp thusly
1+1+1+2+2+2 = 9 on all 6 attributes giving me 3d in all. BUT i have 6 left over, so i could have two attributes at 3d+1. That is a little more than core as 3dx6-18d.. |
Right. If you make everything average, then you may have over 18D in attributes.
But then you are just... average and players always want to boost something and end up with 18D (or even less). Moreover, Force attribute is quite cheap, so you can create very balanced (3D in almost every attribute) and with Force 2D. So Jedi characters aren't crippled (as I wrote before, I'm balancing this better start by doubling cost of learning force skills).
I calculated AP sums of some templates and characters from books and it mostly is very close to 60. For example: Arrogant Noble (59APs), Bounty Hunter (59APs), Gambler (59APs), Outlaw (58APs), Obi-Wan (57APs), Iskalloni (58APs). It wasn't as good with Wedge Antilles (56APs - all stats around 3D) and Chewbacca (64APs - very high STR). |
So here is an example..
Dex 1+1+1+2+2+2 =3d (9 spent)
Know 1+1+1+2+2 =2d+2 (7 more spent, 16 running total)
Mech 1+1+1+2 = 2d+1 (5 more spent, 21 running total)
Per 1+1+1+2+2+2+3 = 3d+1 (12 more spent, 33 running total)
Str 1+1+1+2+2 = 2d+2 (7 more spent, 40 running total)
Tech 1+1+1+2+2 = 2d+2 (7 more spent, 47 total for attributes)
Force attribute Control +5 for 1d, +1+1+1 giving me 2d for that. 55 total.
Force attribute Sense +5 for 1d. All 60 points spent.
So i have 3d Dex, 2d+2 Know, 2d+1 mech, 3d+1 Per, 2d+2 Str and Tech, and 2d Control and 1D sense. That is 19d+2 in effective attributes, compared to the 18d a standard BTB "minor Jedi" gets...
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shootingwomprats
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Sep 2013
Posts: 2686
Location: Online
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
He did say alternate character generation and not [i]rehash of old system[i]. Keeping that in mind it doesn't have to emulate the old system.
_________________
Don Diestler
Host, Shooting Womp Rats
The D6 Podcast
http://d6holocron.com/shootingwomprats
@swd6podcast, Twitter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tupteq
Commander
Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 285
Location: Rzeszów, Poland
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: |
So here is an example..
Dex 1+1+1+2+2+2 =3d (9 spent)
Know 1+1+1+2+2 =2d+2 (7 more spent, 16 running total)
Mech 1+1+1+2 = 2d+1 (5 more spent, 21 running total)
Per 1+1+1+2+2+2+3 = 3d+1 (12 more spent, 33 running total)
Str 1+1+1+2+2 = 2d+2 (7 more spent, 40 running total)
Tech 1+1+1+2+2 = 2d+2 (7 more spent, 47 total for attributes)
Force attribute Control +5 for 1d, +1+1+1 giving me 2d for that. 55 total.
Force attribute Sense +5 for 1d. All 60 points spent.
So i have 3d Dex, 2d+2 Know, 2d+1 mech, 3d+1 Per, 2d+2 Str and Tech, and 2d Control and 1D sense. That is 19d+2 in effective attributes, compared to the 18d a standard BTB "minor Jedi" gets... |
It's even better because I use single Force attribute (which is the base for Force skills like any other attribute). So in your example it would be Force 2D ( 8 ) and 5 points left for attributes: PER 3D+2 (3) and KNO 3D (2) - sum 19D+1.
You may think it's overpowered, but from my experience things that unbalance game aren't average values, but extreme ones. I think this system is much more balanced than counting dice. You can't create indestructible wookiee with STR 6D, because it'll cost you 45APs, so technically, you can, but you'll be very handicapped. Let's say you created such wookiee - STR 6D and spend rest 15 points equally (making all the rest 2D). Only 16D in attrs, nothing but muscle. And then if you wanted to raise STR skills further you pay 6CP for each pip and maxing let's say brawling to 8D costs you 39CPs (leaving 31CPs for all other skills). You can do it, but such character would be barely playable (and that was my point).
There's one more balancing mechanism I forgot to mention - Force attribute doesn't provide you any Force powers (you are just Force Sensitive), you need to raise skills to learn powers (each pip gives you one power related to this aspect, multi-aspect powers need raise of multiple skills). So if you create a strong in the force character (Force 2D - very cheap, only 8APs) you will have problems with buying any initial powers - you need 4CPs (doubled cost, as I mentioned before) to raise one skill by one pip, so for example to have C/S/A = 3D/2D+2/2D+1 you have to pay whooping 24CPs! My players bought Force attribute at 1D+2 and then raised Force skills to 2D/2D+1/2D+2 and have ~4 Force powers (two multi-aspect).
With so low Force skills they are regularly failing Force use attempts and it won't change anytime soon. Because of that I don't think it's overpowered at all, Jedi have good start, but later they have to split CPs between (expensive) Force skills and regular skills and their power level never exceeds power of non-Jedi characters. I playtested this x2 force skill cost for couple years and this combination (good start then slow growth) worked best for me.
Also, this approach is for me closer to movie reality, compared to RAW Young Jedi (adult) with only 1D in one Force skill and only one Force power (is that all he learned during all these years of study?). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14033
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What i am not getting though, is how this is going to be any less min/maxing/munchkining, since they can effectively create a character with more attribute starting dice than normal pcs ever get in the main book, unless they pick certain broken as heck races...
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tupteq
Commander
Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 285
Location: Rzeszów, Poland
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | What i am not getting though, is how this is going to be any less min/maxing/munchkining, since they can effectively create a character with more attribute starting dice than normal pcs ever get in the main book, unless they pick certain broken as heck races... |
You answered yourself (partially). Min/maxing is not about having more dice but about maximizing some skills/attributes at cost of other. Example of min/maxing is a starting wookiee character with STR 6D and brawling 8D. According to R&E page 207 one in 100,000,000 people has training at this level. Not bad for a beginning character.
In my solution it would be possible, but very costly (45APs = 75% of APs + 39CPs = 56% of CPs), but in RAW cost during character creation is linear (33% of attribute dice + 29% of skill dice), so why not to do it? Especially that raising skills (and attributes) later is not linear anymore, so it's a sin to not get advantage of linearity during character creation. And that is min/maxing.
Also, what's wrong in character with 19D in attributes if the highest one is at 3D+1? It's a well-rounded character not talented in any particular subject. And believe me, no player creates character like that, there's always some preferred attribute (or two) that is (almost) maxed and then this 19D quickly drops to 18D.
The other thing are Jedi, they may want to be average to save points for Force attribute. And again, it fits very well archetype of well-rounded Jedi. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14033
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Unless everyne is getting that 19d, there is an imbalance between the characters, plus normally jedi PC's start out (like mages do in adnd) weak by having 2-3 less attribute dice than everyone else to make up for those force skill d they start with, where this system seems to make them on par with everyone else starting off..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tupteq
Commander
Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 285
Location: Rzeszów, Poland
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | Unless everyne is getting that 19d, there is an imbalance between the characters |
I disagree. As I said, in my opinion number of dice isn't very good estimation of power level of character. That's why I don't care much of sum of dice - 16D character may be as powerful as 19D. The only reason to defend magical 18D is that WEG said so. Do you really think this (18D+2) character is overpowered?
DEX 3D+2
KNO 3D
MECH 3D
PER 3D
STR 3D
TECH 3D
| garhkal wrote: | | , plus normally jedi PC's start out (like mages do in adnd) weak by having 2-3 less attribute dice than everyone else to make up for those force skill d they start with, where this system seems to make them on par with everyone else starting off.. |
I have a different opinion in this matter too. With RAW having 2-3 less attribute dice is IMO very crippling for character and creates a character with below-average abilities (movies don't confirm that Jedi tend to be handicapped, maybe except of Kylo  ). Then later during the game, with cheap improvement (not doubled costs of force skill improvement), such character becomes more and more powerful and at certain moment non-Jedi characters in group start to be useless (Jedi can handle everything). I had experiences like this in the past and I read in RP forum that other people had the same problem too.
And point based character creation system (along with doubled cost of force skills) solved this problem.
It's not something I just invented, I did the math and playtested it many variants - first variant was that 1D of attribute could be exchanged for 3D in Force skills and double costs of advancement. It worked well too, but it didn't solve the problem of immune-to-blaster STR D6 wookiee (or hawkeye-since-birth DEX 6D meri). To solve this problem I used point-based system.
If you want to keep Jedi characters crippled as in RAW and still use point-based system, you can remove Force attribute and require buying each Force skill separately (using Attribute Points), no problem, but then you'll face all the problems noted above. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10297
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tupteq wrote: | | The only reason to defend magical 18D is that WEG said so. |
I appreciate that most of your statements come across as subjective based on your experience, except this one. I disagree that the only reason to use a fixed attribute dice total for PCs is just because RAW said so. Some of us actually feel that is game balanced. I'm not saying your system is wrong, and I full heartedly support you doing whatever works for you. And thank you for sharing and discussing your system with us. But I just take issue with the sentiment that everyone else but you does it the way we do it only because we are all sheep blindly following RAW just because we always have done it that way, as if you are the only enlightened GM on the planet that has actually realized the "correct" way to do it. Respectfully, some of us have thought about it and just came to a different conclusion than you.
As far as specifically 18D in total attribute dice, there is really no special magic for that. In our way of doing it, it would still be game balanced if all PCs had 15D. Or 20D. There is nothing special about specifically that die value except that is what the WEG published adventures and such are based on.
Also, 18D is not actually set in stone in RAW anyway. Technically, according to RAW a PC gets the standard/average/typical number of attribute dice, plus 6D. Since most species including humans stats have 12D in attributes, it just works out that most (but not all) PCs have 18D in RAW. In my game, I even did away with that variable and made it a hard 18D in attributes for all PCs regardless of species. The species are not game balanced to each other (not all species evolve equally), but the PCs in my game are game balanced against each other. If I had a small number of players for the campaign I would consider giving them more than 18D, but they would all have the same total whatever die value I decided on.
And just to be boldly clear, I am not presenting any counter-argument whatsoever for why you should do it the way I do it. You should do it the way you think is best for your game. We're all just sharing here.
| Tupteq wrote: | | garhkal wrote: | | , plus normally jedi PC's start out (like mages do in adnd) weak by having 2-3 less attribute dice than everyone else to make up for those force skill d they start with, where this system seems to make them on par with everyone else starting off.. |
I have a different opinion in this matter too. With RAW having 2-3 less attribute dice is IMO very crippling for character and creates a character with below-average abilities (movies don't confirm that Jedi tend to be handicapped |
A lot of Star Wars gamers feel that the game has to perfectly emulate what we see in the films, and I have always disagreed with that. I feel the purpose of the game is to create new stories with original characters that seem like they could take place in the same reality as the films. If the players aren't playing the film characters themselves, then you don't have to make the game be a perfect simulation of the film stories. Close is good enough.
Also, there is nothing that says film character NPCs must be statted to conform to PC character creation rules. NPCs can have much less or much more that 18D in attributes, with Force skills on top at any level. As published, total skill dice values for film character NPCs didn't follow any formula whatsoever. However they did tend to conform to PC-level attribute dice, which in my opinion was a serious flaw. Not only did that under-power some character stats, but that grossly overpowered some characters. I would give Han Solo at least 4D in Mechanical, but not subtract from his other attributes and probably increase some others too. And sorry, but Greedo is not some 18D badass with a PC Bounty Hunter template. Greedo is a mook! So unfortunately, as published, the stats provided for film characters did suggest that film characters are mostly PC-level NPCs as far as attribute dice go, when there actually is no rule or guideline dictating that.
| Tupteq wrote: | With RAW having 2-3 less attribute dice is IMO very crippling for character and creates a character with below-average abilities... Then later during the game, with cheap improvement (not doubled costs of force skill improvement), such character becomes more and more powerful and at certain moment non-Jedi characters in group start to be useless (Jedi can handle everything). I had experiences like this in the past and I read in RP forum that other people had the same problem too.
And point based character creation system (along with doubled cost of force skills) solved this problem.
It's not something I just invented, I did the math and playtested it many variants - first variant was that 1D of attribute could be exchanged for 3D in Force skills and double costs of advancement. It worked well too |
I think you bring up a very good point about Force PC starting off too weak and then later eventually overpowering the rest of the group. I admit my efforts to achieve PC game balance are most effective without any Force PCs in the group. I already wanted to make The Force an attribute that non-Force-sensitive PCs had 0D in. If Force characters have 1D in The Force attribute and the same three Force skills at 1D each (then double the cost of the Force skill advancements), that would conform to the formula you mentioned was your first variant. I like that and think I will try that. Thank you!
| Tupteq wrote: | | It worked well too, but it didn't solve the problem of immune-to-blaster STR D6 wookiee (or hawkeye-since-birth DEX 6D meri). To solve this problem I used point-based system. |
Even though I don't totally agree, I can see what your system is trying to do and I do appreciate your efforts. Some of us GMs that stick with a flat attribute totals for PCs still address some of those concerns like min-maxing in other ways. In addition to normal species attribute mins and maxes, I enforce the following rules on PC character creation in my game:
* No PC of any species can have any (non-Force) attribute below 2D. In effect this does mean that I don't allow any fully primitive PCs because primitive characters shouldn't really have even 2D ("average") in Technical or Knowledge. I allow PCs like Ewoks as long as their background includes that they have been off their homeworld for at least a few years so they have had time to become better acclimated to galactic civilization by the start of the campaign. (And even then they would probably not start play with any Technical skills and few if any Knowledge skills.)
* No PC of any species can have more than one attribute above 3D+2.
* No PC of any species can have that one (4D or higher) attribute be above 5D. It doesn't matter if the species attribute max is 6D for an attribute - Only NPCs would have the attribute that high in my game. No blaster-proof Wookiee PC in my game.
* PC attributes cannot be raised after character creation.
What this works out to for my game is that any PC will have at least five normal attributes in the range of 2D - 3D+2, with the sixth normal attribute possibly as high as 5D depending on species, but all 6 attributes still totaling to 18D. This works for me, and no players have ever complained that another player's non-Force PC is unbalanced or overshadowing the other PCs.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14033
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tupteq wrote: | That's why I don't care much of sum of dice - 16D character may be as powerful as 19D.
I have a different opinion in this matter too. With RAW having 2-3 less attribute dice is IMO very crippling for character |
Doesn't that first line kind of contradict the 2nd? if someone having 16 or so d, is just as powerful as someone at 18d, then how is someone with 2d or so less attributes cause they have them in force powers, crippled??
| Tupteq wrote: | | Then later during the game, with cheap improvement (not doubled costs of force skill improvement), such character becomes more and more powerful and at certain moment non-Jedi characters in group start to be useless (Jedi can handle everything). I had experiences like this in the past and I read in RP forum that other people had the same problem too. |
Its only 'cheap' improvement if you as the DM let it be so. No master, they are paying double + paying for learning force powers as well. And since in RAW they spend TIME learning, that is going to take a while to get boosted..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tupteq
Commander
Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 285
Location: Rzeszów, Poland
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
@Whill: I didn't tell that my system is best and the only correct way, I only disagreed with statement that unequal number of attribute dice is an imbalance and I provided counter-arguments to support my thesis.
About 18D and that it's set stone only because WEG said so - I was exaggerating, to provoke discussion, and it looks like I achieved my goal
But, of course 18D is a measure of character power, not a bad one, but in my opinion (I also emphasized that it's my opinion in original post) attribute points do it better (and also I provided my arguments). Also, as I mentioned - I needed to HR the rule of 18D because of specifics of my powerplay/munchkin type players.
| Whill wrote: | | Also, 18D is not actually set in stone in RAW anyway. Technically, according to RAW a PC gets the standard/average/typical number of attribute dice, plus 6D. Since most species including humans stats have 12D in attributes, it just works out that most (but not all) PCs have 18D in RAW. In my game, I even did away with that variable and made it a hard 18D in attributes for all PCs regardless of species. The species are not game balanced to each other (not all species evolve equally), but the PCs in my game are game balanced against each other. If I had a small number of players for the campaign I would consider giving them more than 18D, but they would all have the same total whatever die value I decided on. |
Yeh, using 18D for all species makes sense (for PCs as you said). I'd also take into account advantages/disadvantages that various species born with.
| Whill wrote: | Even though I don't totally agree, I can see what your system is trying to do and I do appreciate your efforts. Some of us GMs that stick with a flat attribute totals for PCs still address some of those concerns like min-maxing in other ways. In addition to normal species attribute mins and maxes, I enforce the following rules on PC character creation in my game:
* No PC of any species can have any (non-Force) attribute below 2D. In effect this does mean that I don't allow any fully primitive PCs because primitive characters shouldn't really have even 2D ("average") in Technical or Knowledge. I allow PCs like Ewoks as long as their background includes that they have been off their homeworld for at least a few years so they have had time to become better acclimated to galactic civilization by the start of the campaign. (And even then they would probably not start play with any Technical skills and few if any Knowledge skills.)
* No PC of any species can have more than one attribute above 3D+2.
* No PC of any species can have that one (4D or higher) attribute be above 5D. It doesn't matter if the species attribute max is 6D for an attribute - Only NPCs would have the attribute that high in my game. No blaster-proof Wookiee PC in my game.
* PC attributes cannot be raised after character creation.
What this works out to for my game is that any PC will have at least five normal attributes in the range of 2D - 3D+2, with the sixth normal attribute possibly as high as 5D depending on species, but all 6 attributes still totaling to 18D. This works for me, and no players have ever complained that another player's non-Force PC is unbalanced or overshadowing the other PCs. |
Your rules are brilliant! You achieve very similar effect to my point system, but in much simpler way (and without breaking 18D taboo ). I also like this rule about 2D minimum, what it effectively does is consuming 12D leaving only 6D for maxing (which is limited further by "one attr > 3D+2" rule).
What I would change is to allow PCs to raise attributes after character creation. It's rarely practiced anyways (I think it happened about twice during my 15 years with SWD6).
There are few differences. One is related to exceeding 3D+2 - in point-based system a character could have 2 attributes at 4D but at quite high cost (total attr dice count reduced to 17D+1). Other is that my system doesn't have "min 2D", but because raising attr to 2D is so cheap (only 3APs) all players do that.
| garhkal wrote: | | Tupteq wrote: | That's why I don't care much of sum of dice - 16D character may be as powerful as 19D.
I have a different opinion in this matter too. With RAW having 2-3 less attribute dice is IMO very crippling for character |
Doesn't that first line kind of contradict the 2nd? if someone having 16 or so d, is just as powerful as someone at 18d, then how is someone with 2d or so less attributes cause they have them in force powers, crippled?? |
When I wrote this I knew you'll find it, but I left it as is checking your alertness
My answer here is that I exaggerated (again) and generalized too much, the balance is a matter of details.
With point based system you may have non-Jedi with max 18D+2 (no attr above 3D+2), but if you go for attr at 6D you end with 16D total (all 2D, one attr 6D), which is still a playable character. Jedi can have Force attr at 1D+1 and 3D in all normal attributes (18D total), which may look overpowered but IMO isn't because character is just average in everything. Moreover, players don't want to have average character and always raise some attr higher, which decreases total attr dice. For example raising one attr to 4D requires 9APs, so it's 5 pips less in other attrs, which effects in stats like: 4D/3D/3D/3D/2D+1/2D and Force at 1D+2 (one extra pip from normal attrs). It gives 17D+1 total in normal attrs.
| garhkal wrote: | | Tupteq wrote: | | Then later during the game, with cheap improvement (not doubled costs of force skill improvement), such character becomes more and more powerful and at certain moment non-Jedi characters in group start to be useless (Jedi can handle everything). I had experiences like this in the past and I read in RP forum that other people had the same problem too. |
Its only 'cheap' improvement if you as the DM let it be so. No master, they are paying double + paying for learning force powers as well. And since in RAW they spend TIME learning, that is going to take a while to get boosted.. |
Right, I used rules you mentioned as a base of my further house-ruling. Although I never asked players to pay for force powers because I prefer avoiding "wasting" of CPs (spend them in suboptimal way). For the same reason I don't allow to shorten training time using CPs. This makes training time requirement (as in RAW 2 days per CP or 1 day per CP with a teacher) a good moderating factor.
But, there's a downside of enforcing training time requirements, players don't want to upgrade their hyperdrive to have more time for training
BTW - I figured out one more con of my point based system - it's often hard to value some advantages/disadvantages of some species. D6 Space and REUP don't cover all possibilities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14033
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
True, how does one compare some racial advantages to others.
Is say a Pho-phin-ean gaining 1 automatic 'secondary action' at no MAPs due to 4 arms, equal to say a Torgorian gaining Str+2d bite damage and Str+1d claw damage?
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JironGhrad
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 20 Jan 2016
Posts: 152
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've been following this topic with great interest, mostly for the varied insight it provides. To share a little of my own:
Tupteq mentioned that he's rarely seen players use the attribute increase option; I find that rather odd given that it's a frequent (and perhaps necessary) part of my games. Players that don't take advantage of it are missing out on the trickle value:
I've always seen it done (and correct me if I'm wrong as far as RAW) that stats value is applied to skill value to generate total dice (eg. 2D+2 Dex adds to 3D+1 blaster = effective 6D blaster). In maintaining the master character sheets, we've always stored the values in the "increased value" format I provided in my example so that when a player raises the attribute score, the DM can easily adjust the skill increases for all skills.
It's a bit harder to grow attributes and that's why players often shy away from it, but the return on spending those extra points is often huge. Also, I think people often forget or don't realize that all skill values increase with attribute growth.
I was actually getting ready to create another topic about the above in regards to the Darkstryder/Far Orbit campaigns, because I often like to use the "normal character" stats discussed in one of the books, where you use the species racial die codes only (so that humans only start at 12D, etc.) I don't think that the "normal character mode" is right for every game, but it makes things a lot more interesting and realistic in campaigns where each player is playing more than a single character. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
