Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcanjo7Sagi
(Post 2495606)
You're just inflating the starting points. Personally, I think it's a bad solution. The problem for you seems to be when IQ starts to get too high.
|
It's not even "too high". I've seen this in "low" (100) point games with IQs that were 10 and 14. It's when one PC's IQ exceeds another's by 3 or more, and the lower IQ PC is supposed to be "broadly skilled".
The problem is defaults and exacerbated by the way skills cost more than Attributes which favors
just buying up an Attribute. It invalidates an entire Character Concept, one which maybe only my group loves. The "bungling but highly competent" individual.
Quote:
Charging 60 (or more!!) per level will penalize not only the IQ 18 character, but the IQ 12 character as well. And raising the points to compensate doesn't seem productive to me.
|
Because you're only looking at the problem from one angle. Giving more points means lower Attribute PCs can buy up skills to higher levels, levels the high Attribute PC can easily afford for less points.
Quote:
If the problem is when IQ starts to get too high, then maybe it's better to put a level cap and charge Unusual Background on top of that per level. In practice, it's as if the attribute becomes more expensive only after a certain level (let's say 15 or 16). That way you wouldn't be punishing the player who just wants to have an attribute 11 or 12.
|
That's how it worked in 3e, and I'll admit, that does seem to another solution. Ever increasing Attribute costs.
Quote:
Just imagine, a Dungeon Fantasy game...
|
Uses Templates which solves all the problems you've just mentioned.
However, escalated Attribute costs becomes a "raising them later will be harder" problem. I'll have to think on that as well.
Quote:
Take and look at the Dungeon Fantasy templates, for example. Or the ones from Action. Maybe even Monster Hunters (which is bigger). I don't see the problem you mentioned occurring.
|
Look at the Human Knight who wants to "Face" vs a High Elf Wizard who just defaults their social skills. It happens right out the door at chargen. I know, I've accidentally done that to the human Knight who wanted to be a face and discovered my High Elf Wizard's defaults were better than his bought skills (in this case, Knight really shouldn't try to be a Face, Face Character need a decent IQ, not the Knight's 10). I wasn't even tryign to step on his "secondary role" he just, as many here would say "chose poorly".
(And honestly he did build poorly. He was allowed to go off-template and buy Charisma
and Wealth, so he did perform better in Reaction Rolls andat selling loot. But pure diplomancy? Rolling dice for skills? My Wizard was far, far better. We worked it out, he played off as the good looking shining Knight that everyone immediately loves, but who under all the initial bling was a dull boor, and I played the shrewd talking, but dour looking aloof @$$. However it was good no one was stepping on his primary role of damage dealing melee nightmare.)
Quote:
I know it can happen at some tables, with some players, depending on the sheet, but it doesn't seem common when each character has their niche.
|
Apparently it happens way more often in games I run or am in than it probably should.
Quote:
But I can't say in other words, if 3 out of 4 tables don't have this issue in play, then maybe it's a question of how you guys are managing these things.
|
No, it's just I'm not satisfied with "just cap the problem Attribute". I've down it, it doesn't completely work (see above IQ 10 vs 14), it's just a bandaid, and doesn't allow for high IQ PCs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JulianLW
(Post 2495608)
I think the game-mechanical solution to the OPs character concept problem of a "low IQ skill monkey" vs. high IQ is a universal talent - call it "broad competence" or whatever. I started a thread about it here:
|
I've looked at that, but... it sadly makes using other Talents less attractive. But it is a nice solution to the problem, just not really for me.
[EDIT]
Also, just to note, I really enjoyed that thread. The discussion over "what is a skill and what is an attribute and what is a talent" really drilled into areas I've been thinking about for decades. Thanks for starting it.
[/EDIT]