Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl
When considering Talents, it is not really that unbalanced to have Talents that focus on one combat skill (...) What do you think? Do you think that it would be balanced? Would you allow such Talents into your games?
|
I think it would be OK, considering there are other talents which help you with magic (AFAIK).
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl
I do not know if I would allow that version of Knight (...) I think a more interesting version would give a skill bonus Lance, Leadership, Riding (Horse), Shield, and Tactics (...)
|
I thought it was not allowed buying talents for combat skills. Or was this always possible?
Quote:
Originally Posted by evileeyore
Why do people refer to things that divert Players from just bumping up Attributes as a "point crock"? It ain't a point crock, it's a strategy.
|
I agree with eevee.
On the other hand, I think it is better having PCs buy up to 4 levels of (say) a 5 point talent, than having them buy attributes. For example, while the approach of boosting many skills trough DX is nice, this often leads to a team of generalists (in my groups).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donny Brook
A point crock is a strategy. It's a point crock because you are buying skill levels for [1] instead of [4].
|
But strategies needn't be a point crock. On the other hand, character design wise, buying DX to improve lots of (unrelated) skills/defaults is less enticing than a talent which focuses on the characters' role.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Azagthoth
I use the half-stat rule from Pyramid, and skills cost 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (1, 3, 6, 10, 15) per level but kept the point value for talents the same. But the players can only buy a talent at character creation.
|
What's the pyramid #?