Quote:
Originally Posted by dataweaver
So just from Attributes and Skills, saying that a 3e 100-point character is comparable to a 4e 150-point character is a conservative estimate; it’s probably closer to 200 points.
|
It varies from character to character. A high DX, high IQ will be relatively more expensive in 4e as a result of a deliberate design decision. If merely high DX or high IQ it's a bit closer to a 3:2 ratio and the occasional high ST character could be cheaper in relative terms.
Eyeballing the original 3e sample characters:
(Remember in 4e Literacy is free and Illiterate is -3 Disadvantage.)
Dai Blackthorn comes in at 153 (assumes he ups his half point skills to one point.) He spent a net 55 more points on Attributes, 1 more point on skills and got 3 points back for being Illiterate.
Robyn of the Meadows is about 161 (assuming she took 9 levels of Night Vision.) She spent 65 more points on Attributes, got 1 point back on Night Vision and and got 3 points back for being Illiterate.
Katrina comes in at 129 (assumes she keeps Bow at 14 and the GM lets her take +1 DR (Tough Skin) to replace Toughness. She spent 50 more points on Attributes but saved 7 points on Toughness, 10 points on Literacy and 4 points on Bow skill.
Corwin Bearclaw comes in at a bargain basement 118 points. He spent 30 more points on Attributes but saved 19 on Toughness and picked up another -3 on Illiteracy. To keep his Naturalist skill the same he needed to spent 10 more points but still he's a lot cheaper in relative terms.
Note that these could be tweaked further - Robyn and Katrina might pick up 5 points dropping Speed to 6.0, Dai might consider +0.25 Speed and -1 Move and Corwin might benefit from a Talent if it was a more cost effective version of Outdoorsman. And there was considerable savings from changes to Literacy and Toughness. But on the whole, a 3:2 ratio sounds right.