| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10512
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 11:59 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Tupteq wrote: | | 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). |
| JironGhrad wrote: | 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 save every PC as first created and then track the every single CP awarded and spent, so the bookkeeping wouldn't be an issue for me either, if I did allow improving attributes.
The first reason I don't is because the system in R&E for raising attributes is severely broken in two ways. First, since raising an attribute raises all the skills under it, each attribute would be differently valued based on the number of skills, but the CP costs do not change depending on which attribute you are raising. And some attributes have more intangible benefits like Strength to resist damage, so how does that even change the value? Second is the random factor. Two PCs with the same value in the same attribute want to make the same improvement at the same time, but one of them makes the roll and the other doesn't, so one PCs attribute is raised while the other one's isn't yet he still loses some of the CPs? So say next time he saves up the CPs, tries again and makes it, but that same increase cost him more than the other PC. You call that game balance? Random CP costs and differently valued attributes having the same cost make the rules for improving attributes spit in the very face of game balance.
The other consideration for me is, is a mechanic for improving attributes really necessary? PCs improve skills with experience. That always worked fine before R&E came along so I just never saw a need for improving an entire attribute. So even if one of the crunch-loving D6ers revamped the system to remove random costs and scientifically determined an appropriate cost for each attribute, I would very likely still not want to bother with it. 18D in attributes is an adequate basis for a PC. If a player wants to improve an attribute, just improve all the skills (or better yet, only the skills you really want) under that attribute one skill-pip at a time, the normal way. I'd rather a player just choose a template they like or allocate attributes as they see fit and make that the basis of their character. Choose wisely.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10512
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2016 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tupteq wrote: | | Whill wrote: | 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  ). |
And here I was just going for 'less crunchy alternative'. But I'll take brilliant! Thanks.
| Tupteq wrote: | 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).
...my system doesn't have "min 2D", but because raising attr to 2D is so cheap (only 3APs) all players do that. |
Your "cheap" is my given.
| Tupteq wrote: | | 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). |
I understand how you're weighting it, but I just don't see a need for any PC to have two attributes at 4D (or more). If a player in my game wants to be really good at two attributes, one of them can't be more than 3D+2. That's pretty good. I've never had a problem with players trying to severely min-max, but my outlook is to just have fairly well-rounded PCs. My player groups tend to be on the smaller side, and even when they don't start out small, there's inevitable player attrition over longer campaigns where a fewer PCs have to cover the party's skill-set. I don't feel I over-homogenize the PC group because skills still individualize PC abilities.
| Tupteq wrote: | 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...
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. |
| garhkal wrote: | 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? |
The other thing I like about a flat total attribute dice value is that you don't have to evaluate attribute dice compared to any other entity. The point-build system of D6 Space breaks down at the attribute level because attribute dice don't really equate to skills, and again, each attribute should have a different value in points if you tried.
As far as special abilities, advantages and disadvantages, since a lot of them provide a bonus or penalty to skill attempts, I equate them all to skill dice, not attribute dice. Each PC-playable species in my game has a special abilities package roughly equivalent to +4D in skills. Species without that much advantage get bonus skill dice (often focused on skills based on fluff text) to round out the package. Species with more than that much in advantageous abilities get some disadvantages to bring it down to a 4D value. Granted, it is not always an exact science, and some species get some minor freebies like infravision not really part of the math. But an effort is made to balance PCs of different species to each other. Again, there is no effort made to equalize species as a whole or NPCs to each other. For simplicity's sake, a lot of my species ability packages also apply to all NPCs of the species, excluding the bonus skill dice because NPCs can have any level of skill application with no system governing that (just like NPCs can have any attribute values within the species' ranges).
_________________
*
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: 14341
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2016 2:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JironGhrad wrote: | 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.
|
In home games, i rarely saw pcs use the option of attribute increase, cause it was rare they had 20+CP saved up. BUT in the convention group i am with, its very common. Heck my current PC has (since his inception), raised Knowledge from 2d to 4d (yes i have spent 20+20+20+30+30+30cp!! on just that one stat!), and both Strength and Perception from 3d to 4d each (so another 90cp on each attribute) over the many years i have played him..
Personally when i DO do attribute increases (with the exception of Strength), i like to try and wait till its more cost competitive to raise the attribute rather than each skill under it once..
| Whill wrote: | | Second is the random factor. Two PCs with the same value in the same attribute want to make the same improvement at the same time, but one of them makes the roll and the other doesn't, so one PCs attribute is raised while the other one's isn't yet he still loses some of the CPs? |
I have always understood it that you only Roll for whether that attribute goes up or not, once you hit your racial max and are trying to go beyond it.. Not every time.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tupteq
Commander
Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 285
Location: Rzeszów, Poland
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2016 7:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
@Whill: All your HRs do generally the same what my point-based system, but in slightly more subtle way. In places where I use math to achieve effect, you are using some simple rule (min 2D, advantages to skill dice etc.). And effects seem to be quite similar
Now I'd like to add some note about attribute raising.
In my games no CP is ever lost. When you want to raise an attribute and you can't do it because you reached a limit, then you get all CPs back. Also, I made attribute raise slightly cheaper 8x number of dice (instead of 10x).
"No CP lost" rule works also for skills and specializations. Again, at cost of additional calculations, I achieved the effect that it doesn't matter if you raise 10 skills then raise attribute or start from attribute, then raise skills.
Here's the rule - whenever attribute is raised, for each raised skill you convert them to CPs before raise and re-assign these CPs again after raise. There may be some points left, these points may be subtracted from attribute raise total cost (simpler) or player may note these CPs next to skill and next raising this skill will be cheaper by number of these "assigned" points.
Example: Character stats are DEX 3D and blaster 5D, dodge 3D+2. Raising DEX to 3D+1 costs 24CPs and now skills need to be recalculated: blaster raise cost was 3+3+3+4+4+4=21CPs, now these CPs re-allocated after attr increase: 3+3+4+4+4=18CPs to raise from 3D+1 to 5D and 3CPs left, so blaster stays at 5D, but raising it to 5D+1 will cost only 2 additional CPs. Now dodge: 3+3=6CPs (3D->3D+2) were allocated and reallocating them after attribute raise is 3+3=6CPs to raise from 3D+1 to 4D. So, dodge new value is 4D without any additional costs.
I use the same rule to specializations - if player raises main skill, specializations' costs are recalculated and reassigned to it again after skill raise.
Example: Character with survival 4D and survival: arctic 7D+1 raises survival to 4D+1. First - change specialization cost to CPs - 2+2+2+3+3+3+3+3+3+4=28CPs, then re-assign: 2+2+3+3+3+3+3+3+4=26CPs and 2CPs extra. Survival:arctic stays at 7D+1, but raising it to 7D+2 will be 2CPs cheaper.
It may look complex (lot of calculations), but there's a very simple formula that doesn't require changing all to CPs. When base value is raised, then number of extra CPs for each skill/spec. affected equals the cost of raising this skill/spec. by one pip from base value before raise. Example will explain everything:
DEX is raised from 2D+1 to 2D+2, skills: melee weapons 5D+1, dodge 2D+2, blaster: pistol 4D+1. Melee weapons stays at 5D+1 and has extra 2CPs (cost of raising it form 2D+1 to 2D+2), dodge bumps to 3D because extra 2CPs (cost of raise 2D+1 -> 2D+2) is enough to raise it from current 2D+2 to 3D, blaster:pistol specialization stays at 4D+1 with extra 1CP (cost of raising spec. from 2D+1 to 2D+2).
All this requires some extra bookkeeping (especially extra CPs), but guarantees that CP costs don't depend on order of raising. And works very well with with my point-based system (where everything is evaluated in the same CPs too). So, my point-based system, instead of constant 18D/7D system relies on constant CP value. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10512
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2016 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | BUT in the convention group i am with, its very common. Heck my current PC has (since his inception), raised Knowledge from 2d to 4d (yes i have spent 20+20+20+30+30+30cp!! on just that one stat!), and both Strength and Perception from 3d to 4d each (so another 90cp on each attribute) over the many years i have played him..
Personally when i DO do attribute increases (with the exception of Strength), i like to try and wait till its more cost competitive to raise the attribute rather than each skill under it once. |
And that is one reason why it's broken. Its a shortcut.
| garhkal wrote: | | I have always understood it that you only Roll for whether that attribute goes up or not, once you hit your racial max and are trying to go beyond it.. Not every time. |
That is implied by the examples, but the rules don't actually come out say that. Since I can't get past invariable cost regardless of attribute and have never allowed improving attributes, it never mattered to me when you started rolling anyway.
| Tupteq wrote: | @Whill: All your HRs do generally the same what my point-based system, but in slightly more subtle way. In places where I use math to achieve effect, you are using some simple rule (min 2D, advantages to skill dice etc.). And effects seem to be quite similar
Now I'd like to add some note about attribute raising.
In my games no CP is ever lost. When you want to raise an attribute and you can't do it because you reached a limit, then you get all CPs back. Also, I made attribute raise slightly cheaper 8x number of dice (instead of 10x).
"No CP lost" rule works also for skills and specializations. Again, at cost of additional calculations, I achieved the effect that it doesn't matter if you raise 10 skills then raise attribute or start from attribute, then raise skills.
Here's the rule - whenever attribute is raised, for each raised skill you convert them to CPs before raise and re-assign these CPs again after raise. There may be some points left, these points may be subtracted from attribute raise total cost (simpler) or player may note these CPs next to skill and next raising this skill will be cheaper by number of these "assigned" points...
I use the same rule to specializations - if player raises main skill, specializations' costs are recalculated and reassigned to it again after skill raise...
It may look complex (lot of calculations), but there's a very simple formula that doesn't require changing all to CPs. When base value is raised, then number of extra CPs for each skill/spec. affected equals the cost of raising this skill/spec. by one pip from base value before raise. |
I can appreciate the purpose of No CP Lost, and I may even consider that for raising base skills with specializations. But then again, skill specializations not being raised when improving base skills serves a deterrent to overspecialization.
As far as instituting CP conservation for raised skills when improving attributes, that only addresses the raised skills. There is still the variable number of unraised skills per attribute and overall variable attribute value. Honestly, I'm surprised that someone who has such a crunchy attribute point build system can be so nonchalant about the invariable cost to raise attributes. Not all attributes were created equally. But hey, whatever works for you.
| Tupteq wrote: | | All this requires some extra bookkeeping (especially extra CPs), but guarantees that CP costs don't depend on order of raising. And works very well with with my point-based system (where everything is evaluated in the same CPs too). So, my point-based system, instead of constant 18D/7D system relies on constant CP value. |
I have a 3-fold stat I use for PCs and NPCs called "Caliber". Example:
Caliber: 18D/12D/5
Attribute Dice/Skill Dice/Skill Points. The first two are the total numbers of those dice the character was built with, so they never change. Bonus skill dice and Special Abilities that provide bonuses to skill rolls are a part of the second number. Skill Points are the base award from adventuring and can only be used to raise skills as in 1e (CPs are bonus awards from adventuring that work like in 2e, able to be burned in play or used to improve things on the character). So the third number is the running total of skill points and CPs that are spent to improve the character. This stat gives me a quick glance at the overall "caliber" of the character, and the third number specifically represents the exact level of experience from adventuring used to improve the character.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3190
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2016 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hey Whill, tell me if you would allow my character:
4D Dex
2D Know
2D Mech
3D Per
4D Str
2D Tech
1D Control
The character is a gold-medal caliber athlete (the ACTUAL intent is that the character is a genetic anomoly and represents the absolute apex of human physiology... in otjer words, the 100th percentile of human physicality).
The character's background is well developed and detailed, with histories and backgrouds for both her parents and those of her arch nemisis. And she of course has her own details, as well.
So, she violates your limit of one attribute over 3D+2... how do you rule? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10512
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2016 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | Hey Whill, tell me if you would allow my character:
4D Dex
2D Know
2D Mech
3D Per
4D Str
2D Tech
1D Control
The character is a gold-medal caliber athlete (the ACTUAL intent is that the character is a genetic anomoly and represents the absolute apex of human physiology... in otjer words, the 100th percentile of human physicality).
The character's background is well developed and detailed, with histories and backgrouds for both her parents and those of her arch nemisis. And she of course has her own details, as well.
So, she violates your limit of one attribute over 3D+2... how do you rule? |
I should mention that I do have some PC templates that slightly violate the two high stats rule to best honor the character capsule, so my rule against that is for players allocating the attributes themselves. The attribute combinations that exceed the rule in a few cases are Mechanical and Technical, Knowledge and Perception, and Knowledge and Technical. But I do not have any apex physique athlete templates, so this would fall under the category of a player creating his own template.
First of all Naaman, thank you for coming up with character background supportive of the attribute allocation you are submitting.
I assume your character is Human. In RAW, the average Human is 2D is all attributes and alien species stats are based on that standard. But in accordance with all the fluff text describing Humans in the Star Wars galaxy as superior to average to justify their galactic dominance, I have kept the 'all 2D' standard as a general galactic average for all sentient species, but restatted Humans in accordance to the fluff that makes them so great. So in my game, average Humans have 14D total in attributes with average attributes being 2D+1, and I have also raised the Human maximum attribute to 4D+1. That still doesn't totally do all the fluff justice, but it's closer (and as far as I'm willing to go). And since 2D is my general PC attribute minimum, it allows for human PCs with slightly below average abilities, like the Tongue-Tied Engineer having only 2D in Dexterity and Perception to better match the fluff stating they are clumsy and socially awkward. The human attribute scale shift helps a lot of templates because 2D+1 is now average, so these templates that really don't justify a character having slightly above average in some attribute now only have average.
So with your character, you could actually have 4D+1 in Strength or Dexterity in my game.
But I also consider that regardless of background, the stats are what your character has at the start of the campaign now with you PC's new occupation as galactic adventurer. Which means 4D in both Strength and Dexterity, and all the skills under them that default to the attribute are 4D. If I was going to consider allowing an exception to my rule of not having two attributes at 4D or more, 4D in Strength and Dexterity is probably the worst combination. And she's Force-sensitive. So in effect her dump stats are Knowledge, Technical and Mechanical. This PC is a power gamer's dream, don't you think? Even if she has no experience with blaster and dodge, she starts with 4D in those on top of being able to take damage. I do not have any templates of any species that have 4D or more in both Strength and Dexterity, so I wouldn't feel at all hypocritical in rejecting this template exactly as-is.
Based on what you have submitted, I would counter propose this:
3D+2 Dex
2D Know
2D Mech
3D Per
4D+1 Str
2D Tech
1D Control
I chose Str over Dex as the high stat because the default skills in Strength would more likely come from being an apex of physical condition in my mind, and from what kind of Force powers come from having the Control skill. (I would think you'd also allocate 2D in skill dice to stamina in any case). If you were really set on her background include being an apex in both Str and Dex, then I would suggest that perhaps some "accident" occurred that she never fully recovered from. Perhaps she was in some galactic olympics and the Empire (or someone else) had some reason for a competitor to win so went Toyna Harding on her and took her out of the competition while she was recovering. And maybe by the time she did, she had missed some window to continue being involved in the athletic competition. And her Dexterity just never got quite back to her prior level of ability. So technically we could think of your character has having once been an 18D+2 (or more) attribute character before the injury, and now she's an 18D. We don't need game mechanics to govern anything that happened in the background. The background just needs to makes sense for leading to the PC at the start of the campaign where the game mechanics come in.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage
Last edited by Whill on Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:14 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tupteq
Commander
Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 285
Location: Rzeszów, Poland
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | As far as instituting CP conservation for raised skills when improving attributes, that only addresses the raised skills. There is still the variable number of unraised skills per attribute and overall variable attribute value. Honestly, I'm surprised that someone who has such a crunchy attribute point build system can be so nonchalant about the invariable cost to raise attributes. Not all attributes were created equally. But hey, whatever works for you. |
All unraised skills are taken into account. When you raise attribute they raise too for free - DEX 3D blaster 3D, DEX raised to 3D+1, blaster cost is 0CP (3D->3D) and reapplying 0CP after raise effects in blaster at 3D+1 (at cost 0CP). No CP is lost here
About invariable cost of attributes - I think attributes are pretty well balanced in SWD6, four of them have many skills (DEX, KNO, MECH, TECH) and two other (STR, PER) have fewer skills, but they have special effects - STR is used to do and soak damage, PER is used for initiative and when defending from Force attacks.
I also modified skill list slightly to balance attributes even further, so I don't think I'm too nonchalant in that matter
Of course TECH and KNO is sacrificed by many players and DEX has probably highest average among characters, but I don't think it's a problem that needs to be fixed (by differentiating attribute cost), it's a characteristic (one could say cosmological constant) of adventurous individuals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10512
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2016 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tupteq wrote: | | Whill wrote: | | As far as instituting CP conservation for raised skills when improving attributes, that only addresses the raised skills. There is still the variable number of unraised skills per attribute and overall variable attribute value. Honestly, I'm surprised that someone who has such a crunchy attribute point build system can be so nonchalant about the invariable cost to raise attributes. Not all attributes were created equally. But hey, whatever works for you. |
All unraised skills are taken into account. When you raise attribute they raise too for free - DEX 3D blaster 3D, DEX raised to 3D+1, blaster cost is 0CP (3D->3D) and reapplying 0CP after raise effects in blaster at 3D+1 (at cost 0CP). No CP is lost here |
The "for free" part is what I was referring to, that unraised skills are raised for free. There is no additional CP cost for the raising of unraised skills when raising the whole attribute. I'm not talking about a net change - I'm referring the gross change. That's only paid for as part of the bulk purchase for raising the attribute...
| Tupteq wrote: | About invariable cost of attributes - I think attributes are pretty well balanced in SWD6, four of them have many skills (DEX, KNO, MECH, TECH) and two other (STR, PER) have fewer skills, but they have special effects - STR is used to do and soak damage, PER is used for initiative and when defending from Force attacks.
I also modified skill list slightly to balance attributes even further, so I don't think I'm too nonchalant in that matter |
We'll just have to agree to disagree as far as how balanced the attributes are. But you've modified the skill list and put a lot of thought into this whole system, so I'm sorry for saying you were being nonchalant.
I've moved skills around too and combined some skills, but there are always more uncommon skills, and the complexity of taking everything into account is just too crunchy for me so it is easier for me to not have raising attributes. I bet no one would say that it is an absolute necessity and the game can't be played without it. Then again, my formative years on this system were 88-92, before they even added raising attributes to the game. When I read it in 2e I just said no thanks and continued without it. But again, to each his own.
| Tupteq wrote: | | Of course TECH and KNO is sacrificed by many players and DEX has probably highest average among characters... it's a characteristic (one could say cosmological constant) of adventurous individuals. |
True.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3190
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2016 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I tend to think that SW and particarly D6 places a premium on Dexterity, for sure; but in my experience, Mechanical is just as "exploitable," if we want to even use such a term.
Depending on the campaign style, I find that Perception often beats out Strength.
With regrd to power gaming, I've long since abandoned the idea that PCs should be anything other than what their (mature) player envisions. For young players who think table top is meant to be like Diablo, I definitely see value in reigning in the hack and slash.
But for veteran players, I let them have more or less free reign to try out whatever concept they can come up with. Its usually great fun for all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14341
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2016 2:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
For me, when i go to max out an attribute based on boosting it, i go most often in
Per
Dex
Str
Know
Mech then
Tech order.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
