Min/Max of Attributes

[PPoS]

Hey, I'm going to run a couple of scenarios in a "high fantasy" setting where the PC's will have characters built on around 200-300 points.

I'm wondering if attribute scores of 15+ are going to be very unbalanced when applied to DX, IQ and HT. I've put the cap on a maximum of 16 in ST for ordinary humans. The PC's will be heroic types and the setting will most definately be cinematic; but IMO an DX score of 16 seems way off.

Are there any suggestions on other things the character should have instead of a HT score of 16 ? Like; HtK, HtS or similar.

To put it simply; how much is too much ?

[weby]

Depends on the feel you want, in my games I have limited all attributes to 15.

In most cases a character with a fairly high attribute and suitable talents is way more "believable" than someone with very high attribute.

So the tech in the group is fairly high IQ, but has tech talents. The pilot is fairly high DX, but has piloting talents and so on. (I also allow buying talent levels in game, putting 1 point toward the talent next level each time you use two skills of the talent in one session)

The current game is at 240-250 points right now and the high scores are currently at 14.

As for high HT: I suggest, normal Hight HT with fit/very fit and maybe couple of levels of hard to kill/subdue. Again I allow buying hard to kill/subdue at 1 point put towards them every session where you have to roll, to a max of +3

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by PPoS

I've put the cap on a maximum of 16 in ST for ordinary humans.

Why would you want to do that?

Based on lifting capability and such, ST for humans goes higher than 16. As a matter of fact, I think ST 18+ is far less remarkable than DX, IQ or HT of 15+.

In a realistic setting, I limit Attributes to 15 or lower, except for ST, which tops out at 20.

[PPoS]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Why would you want to do that?

Based on lifting capability and such, ST for humans goes higher than 16. As a matter of fact, I think ST 18+ is far less remarkable than DX, IQ or HT of 15+.

In a realistic setting, I limit Attributes to 15 or lower, except for ST, which tops out at 20.

Hmm... Interesting. However this is where I wonder; why should one be able to have such a high score in ST while it would be unappropriate to have it in the other Attributes ?

[RedMattis]

Originally Posted by PPoS

Hmm... Interesting. However this is where I wonder; why should one be able to have such a high score in ST while it would be unappropriate to have it in the other Attributes ?

Strength scales differently than the others attributes.

[PPoS]

I see. Would it then be just as unappropriate to give a completely unhuman race (say a monster) a HT score of 16+ ?

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by PPoS

I see. Would it then be just as unappropriate to give a completely unhuman race (say a monster) a HT score of 16+ ?

In my experience, the single most important issue about HT is the use of the HT roll to find out if a foe loses consciousness/dies. With HT 10, on the average you have two rolls before they fails; with 12, four rolls; with 14, ten rolls; with 16, fifty-four rolls. So an HT 10 foe will likely lose consciousness after a couple of good solid blows; an HT 12 one will likely hang on until you inflict enough added injury to make a survival roll necessary; an HT 16 one will keep fighting till you physically beat them to death. Think about which effect you want. Tenacity of life has a big impact on the dramatic flow of combat.

Bill Stoddard

[Maz]

Originally Posted by PPoS

I see. Would it then be just as unappropriate to give a completely unhuman race (say a monster) a HT score of 16+ ?

Don't know about unapropriate, but not nessecary.
If they live longer give them unaging. If they are resistance to poison and desease give them resistances.
HT:16 means that they are unstobably. Ie. you have to kill them before they go down, they will almost never fail a concious check fail pretty much never gets stunned or knocked out. They will also be veyr resilient to all spells and aflictions targeting HT.

Remember that if the race has HT:16 then an individual of the race, in a good shape and health would likey have Very fit and HT:19 or 20. Giving them rolls of 22 or less on many things. I would never give a racial template more than HT:+2. Instead give them other advantages to represent health, toughness or resilience.


---

The stats in GURPS are not qeual... which is why they are not even priced the same.

High IQ and high DX can become very unbalacing as almost al lskilsl are based on them.
High HT can become very unbalacning as it makes people unstobably.

High ST is not really a problem, melee damage is not that great in any case, so the benchmark to look for is not the ST-number but the BL-number.

[PPoS]

OK thanks. I got some good guidelines now.

[Captain Joy]

Originally Posted by Icelander

In a realistic setting, I limit Attributes to 15 or lower, except for ST, which tops out at 20.

Icelander, is this still your contention? (If you've changed your mind, my guess is you've gone to a lower max HT.) I ask because I'm wanting to set limits for humans in my Star Trek game; and by comparison, all the other species. I.e. if I gave a species a +1 racial bonus to ST, then their max ST will cap at +1 compared to the Human max.

EDIT: actually, I think I'll set max's at 2x species average for ST, and 1.5x species average for DX, IQ, and HT.