| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 2:59 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Yeah, BTB you don't get any discount for bringing the base skill up to the specialty. Nor should you. The player paid for the ability to raise the specialty above his base skill for a discounted cost. So for all that time he had heavy blaster or whatever at a much higher level faster and cheaper than he otherwise could have. Now, by raising the base skill, he is getting the increased utility of the other uses of the skill. So why should he get a discount?
Now that said, I tend to use the specialization rules from D6 Herc & Xena instead of the ones from D6 Star Wars. In that system you buy specialties as a separate skill (Like Heavy Blaster +1D), like an advanced skill, but at normal cost, which then gets added to the base skill. This means that the specialty will automatically go up when the main skill improves.
Also, just because I wanted to avoid adding up pips all the time, I rules that specialties only apply in full dice. That is a +1 or +2 pips in a specialty doesn't get any bonus, and is just a tool for experience purposes.
In my experience the H&X method works, but it does make it easier for characters to improve their skills and results in a bit of a skill escalation in the game, since an extra +1D or 2D is fairly cheap. I might consider going with the x2 cost. It still make it cheaper to buy a die or two, but would keep specialties below half the base skill (So I don't wind up with people who are expert snipers with one type of blaster but can't hit the broad side of a Sandcrawler with any other type of blaster). |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14032
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 3:08 pm Post subject: Re: Bringing general skills up to specializations. |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: |
This is one of those scenarios where I think the game is being taken too seriously. On one hand, the specialization rules are meant to be a trade-off. On the other hand, if a player makes a choice that he cannot foresee will be a "poor" choice (but the GM knows, because of the campaign setting and GM's style, etc), then I find it somewhat "totalitarian" to deny the player the opportunity to re-tool his character, if that will make the game more fun for him (since the point of playing a game is to have fun). |
True, but the dm did explain what sort of missions/game play we were going to do, and the guy (more a kid, 15 yrs old) still went with that choice anyway.. So why should the DM have 'caved in' to let him retool his PC after it was HIS mess up in the first place??
| Naaman wrote: |
In all honesty, I think that the specialization rules are broken to begin with because they are not consistent from one skill to another. For example, the "blaster" skill covers all blaster weapons: rifles, pistols, E-Web, etc. If you want to specialize, you just pick a type (such as "pistol" or "repeater" or what have you) and you then are specialized in ALL models that fit that category. So you could use your rifle specialization to fire an imperial blaster rifle, or a sporting blaster rifle, etc.
But with space craft, each "type" requires its own skill, and if you want to specialize, you have to select a specific model (such as X-Wing or TIE fighter, etc). |
I will give you that. Not all 'specializations' are anywhere equal to others.. Some such as Cultures-Bureaucracy-Law, all have very similar specializations, while others such as the various weaponry ones (Personal combat) are more 'open'. Which is why i liked how iirc 1e did it where your spec was in a specific TYPE of weapon, not just sub grouping.. Such as han solo had DL-44 specialization, NOT just pistols..
| Naaman wrote: | | And then there are those "stupid" specializations... such as with dodge... "Oh, I can get out of the way of a blaster bolt, but I cannot dodge a projectile to save my life... literally." Makes no sense. |
I have been in plenty of groups where the dm did NOT let you spec in Dodge - energy. Just dodge -direct vs indirect..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matthias777
Commodore
Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Posts: 1835
Location: North Carolina, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MrNexx wrote: | | Matthias777 wrote: | | I'm late to the party, but my solution has always been to say that specializations always stay at least one pip above the skill. Say they have Blaster: Blaster Pistols 4D+1, and eventually raise their base Blaster skill to 4D+1 as well. The Blaster: Blaster Pistols specialization gets bumped up to 4D+2 at no cost. This lets the player feel like they didn't completely waste their CPs, but you're not doing anything drastic like refunding CPs or changing the cost in their favor on a large scale. That character will always just be a tiny bit better with that specialization they took way back when. |
That's a very good solution, though I'm already flooded with ways to abuse it... like, taking several specializations in a skill at low cost, then just continually improving the main skill. "Yeah, I'm specialized in Blaster Pistol and Blaster Rifle. Now, I'm improving just my blaster skill, and keeping that 1 point lead." |
I've done the math on it, and to me, the capacity for abuse isn't enough to bother me as a GM. Let's do two examples. The first will be an inexperienced player or someone who is not trying to abuse the system from the get-go; in other words, they aren't creating their character with the intention of saving CP by taking advantage of the rule. The second will be your experienced player who creates their character with the maximum potential within the rules, which may be seen as abuse, depending on the situation.
First Example - Inexperienced Player/Unintentional "Abuse"
Say you've got a character with 3D in Dexterity. Say they spend 2 CP to get Blaster: Blaster Pistols at 4D, and another 2 CP to get Blaster: Blaster Rifles at 4D. If you let them get their base Blaster skill all the way up to 9D+2 (putting their Blaster Pistols/Blaster Rifles) specialization at 10D due to my house rule, they will have spent 121 CP in that endeavor. Meanwhile, if a character with 3D in Dexterity spent his CP on just raising the base Blaster skill (never taking any specializations), it would require 126 CP to get the base skill up to 10D. I'm OK with the "abusive" player saving a paltry 5 Character Points on the road to 10D.
Second Example - Experienced Player/Intentional "Abuse"
This character starts out by putting 4D in Dexterity, then raising the base Blaster skill by the maximum 2D, bringing it to 6D. He then takes Blaster: Blaster Pistols and Blaster: Blaster Rifles, putting both of those at 7D. This character would spend 81 CP to raise his base Blaster skill from 7D to 9D+2, boosting his specializations to 10D under my rule. If he had just taken Blaster at 6D and not added specializations, it would take him 90 CP to rase that base skill to 10D. So the "abusive" player saves 9 CP on the road to 10D. I'm OK with that, I suppose, but you might not be.
_________________
Arek | Kage
Last edited by Matthias777 on Thu Mar 31, 2016 9:18 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dredwulf60
Line Captain
Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Posts: 910
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Matthias777 wrote: | | MrNexx wrote: | | Matthias777 wrote: | | I'm late to the party, but my solution has always been to say that specializations always stay at least one pip above the skill. Say they have Blaster: Blaster Pistols 4D+1, and eventually raise their base Blaster skill to 4D+1 as well. The Blaster: Blaster Pistols specialization gets bumped up to 4D+2 at no cost. This lets the player feel like they didn't completely waste their CPs, but you're not doing anything drastic like refunding CPs or changing the cost in their favor on a large scale. That character will always just be a tiny bit better with that specialization they took way back when. |
That's a very good solution, though I'm already flooded with ways to abuse it... like, taking several specializations in a skill at low cost, then just continually improving the main skill. "Yeah, I'm specialized in Blaster Pistol and Blaster Rifle. Now, I'm improving just my blaster skill, and keeping that 1 point lead." |
I've done the math on it, and to me, the capacity for abuse isn't enough to bother me as a GM. Let's do two examples. The first will be an inexperienced player or someone who is not trying to abuse the system from the get-go; in other words, they aren't creating their character with the intention of saving CP by taking advantage of the rule. The second will be your experienced player who creates their character with the maximum potential within the rules, which may be seen as abuse, depending on the situation.
First Example - Inexperienced Player/Unintentional "Abuse"
Say you've got a character with 3D in Dexterity. Say they spend 2 CP to get Blaster: Blaster Pistols at 4D, and another 2 CP to get Blaster: Blaster Rifles at 4D. If you let them get their base Blaster skill all the way up to 9D+2 (putting their Blaster Pistols/Blaster Rifles) specialization at 10D due to my house rule, they will have spent 121 CP in that endeavor. Meanwhile, if a character with 3D in Dexterity spent his CP on just raising the base Blaster skill (never taking any specializations), it would require 126 CP to get the base skill up to 10D. I'm OK with the "abusive" player saving a paltry 5 Character Points on the road to 10D.
Second Example - Experienced Player/Intentional "Abuse"
This character starts out by putting 4D in Dexterity, then raising the base Blaster skill by the maximum 2D, bringing it to 6D. He then takes Blaster: Blaster Pistols and Blaster: Blaster Rifles, putting both of those at 7D. This character would spend 81 CP to raise his base Blaster skill from 7D to 9D+2, boosting his specializations to 10D under my rule. If he had just taken Blaster at 6D and not added specializations, it would take him 90 CP to rase that base skill to 10D. So the "abusive" player saves 9 CP on the road to 10D. I'm OK with that, I suppose, but you might not be.[/u] |
Of course...the counterpoint is...if there isn't that much difference...why give in to a complaining player?
| Quote: | | This lets the player feel like they didn't completely waste their CPs, but you're not doing anything drastic like refunding CPs or changing the cost in their favor on a large scale. That character will always just be a tiny bit better with that specialization they took way back when. |
My personal philosophy is: you want it? you pay for it.
My players know that about me, but it doesn't stop them from trying to slip things by me from time to time. 
But if it keeps your game running smoothly, then all the power to you brother! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14032
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2016 1:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dredwulf60 wrote: |
Of course...the counterpoint is...if there isn't that much difference...why give in to a complaining player? |
Additionally, if you give now, and don't punish the abusive player cause it 'doesn't seem like much to make you worry', what then DO you see as being worrying enough to punish them over??
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2016 2:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | Yeah, BTB you don't get any discount for bringing the base skill up to the specialty. Nor should you. The player paid for the ability to raise the specialty above his base skill for a discounted cost. So for all that time he had heavy blaster or whatever at a much higher level faster and cheaper than he otherwise could have. Now, by raising the base skill, he is getting the increased utility of the other uses of the skill. So why should he get a discount?
Now that said, I tend to use the specialization rules from D6 Herc & Xena instead of the ones from D6 Star Wars. In that system you buy specialties as a separate skill (Like Heavy Blaster +1D), like an advanced skill, but at normal cost, which then gets added to the base skill. This means that the specialty will automatically go up when the main skill improves.
Also, just because I wanted to avoid adding up pips all the time, I rules that specialties only apply in full dice. That is a +1 or +2 pips in a specialty doesn't get any bonus, and is just a tool for experience purposes.
In my experience the H&X method works, but it does make it easier for characters to improve their skills and results in a bit of a skill escalation in the game, since an extra +1D or 2D is fairly cheap. I might consider going with the x2 cost. It still make it cheaper to buy a die or two, but would keep specialties below half the base skill (So I don't wind up with people who are expert snipers with one type of blaster but can't hit the broad side of a Sandcrawler with any other type of blaster). |
Yeah, I don't even convert pips to full dice. When two different things are added together, the pips just add up as a plus on the roll. So 3D+2 plus 2D+2 is 5D+4 in my system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matthias777
Commodore
Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Posts: 1835
Location: North Carolina, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2016 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dredwulf60 wrote: | | Of course...the counterpoint is...if there isn't that much difference...why give in to a complaining player? |
| garhkal wrote: | | Additionally, if you give now, and don't punish the abusive player cause it 'doesn't seem like much to make you worry', what then DO you see as being worrying enough to punish them over?? |
Just to clarify, this is a rule I came up with my own volition because I thought that once you specialize in something, you should always be a hair better at that thing. I have never had a problem with a player complaining to me about any of this stuff, so I haven't caved on anything. I don't recommend humoring complaining players. I was just offering up my own house rule so that you guys could use it if it tickled your fancy. In short, use this rule if you like it, but not solely because a player is complaining. That reinforces negative behavior.
_________________
Arek | Kage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2016 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I rather think it is a great rule, especially since the blaste skill includes the specialization. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2016 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: |
Yeah, I don't even convert pips to full dice. When two different things are added together, the pips just add up as a plus on the roll. So 3D+2 plus 2D+2 is 5D+4 in my system. |
I think there is another RPG, which similar to D6, EABA that that does just that. It really helps to speed things along.
The reason why I didn't go that route was because of some of my players. They can get bogged down adding up dice and pips. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2016 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| My group has foumd it easiest to group the dice into 10s, and then add just add the leftovers when they run out of combinations that make 10. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14032
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | Naaman wrote: |
Yeah, I don't even convert pips to full dice. When two different things are added together, the pips just add up as a plus on the roll. So 3D+2 plus 2D+2 is 5D+4 in my system. |
I think there is another RPG, which similar to D6, EABA that that does just that. It really helps to speed things along.
The reason why I didn't go that route was because of some of my players. They can get bogged down adding up dice and pips. |
Personally i feel that say 3d+2 str, with say 2d+1 armor should equal 6d, not 5d+3 but that's me..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| 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: Fri Apr 01, 2016 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | Naaman wrote: | | Yeah, I don't even convert pips to full dice. When two different things are added together, the pips just add up as a plus on the roll. So 3D+2 plus 2D+2 is 5D+4 in my system. |
Personally i feel that say 3d+2 str, with say 2d+1 armor should equal 6d, not 5d+3 but that's me.. |
I'm with Naaman. And it was clarified in the Adventure Journal that officially, pips don't convert to dice when performing arithmetic operations with die code values. You only "convert" when advancing a skill ending in +2 to the next highest die.
_________________
*
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: 14032
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2016 2:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Perhaps we should make that a poll thread.. See which people use/prefer?
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matthias777
Commodore
Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Posts: 1835
Location: North Carolina, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2016 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | garhkal wrote: | | Naaman wrote: | | Yeah, I don't even convert pips to full dice. When two different things are added together, the pips just add up as a plus on the roll. So 3D+2 plus 2D+2 is 5D+4 in my system. |
Personally i feel that say 3d+2 str, with say 2d+1 armor should equal 6d, not 5d+3 but that's me.. |
I'm with Naaman. And it was clarified in the Adventure Journal that officially, pips don't convert to dice when performing arithmetic operations with die code values. You only "convert" when advancing a skill ending in +2 to the next highest die. |
I was not aware of this. Do you recall which Adventure Journal this was in, and what page?
_________________
Arek | Kage |
|
| 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: Fri Apr 01, 2016 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Matthias777 wrote: | | I was not aware of this. Do you recall which Adventure Journal this was in, and what page? |
My books are on a different level of my home than I am at the moment, so I lazily performed a search of this forum and found a 2014 thread where this was discussed. I quote myself...
| Whill wrote: | | This is addressed in the ISB Intercepts column of SWAJ#15 (p. 80). The question was, does 4D+2 + 3D+1 = 8D or 7D+3 ? Eric S. Trautmann answered 7D+3. For what it's worth, this is considered a clarification of what was already RAW. It was stated back in the 1E era, but the 2E books just didn't have any definitive examples demonstrating this. |
The last published issue of AJ. Better late than never!
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
