House Rule: Fixing 'High' Attributes?

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Talents would still let character exceed those caps, in the way you've outlined.

Yes, by design. In my last 4 campaigns (all 4e) I've never once seen anyone take a Talent that wasn't part of template or lens, and the PCs that were made free-form never had Talents. Talents aren't as economical as just raising base attributes.

Originally Posted by malloyd

Not really, it just changes the maximum value everybody buys their attribute up to, and 16 is still quite high.

I'd still expect to see ST and HT go above 16. Not in my next campaign (which will feature everyone starting as Human), but I could envision it (okay, maybe not ST, not with Lifting and Striking ST being cheaper to buy up together).

HT will still be important for all it's general rolls, and someone always wants to go crazy buying up HT. I never have an issue with that.

A slightly different game design could've called each non-overlapping Talent an attribute, so have you done anything but move the problem from the attributes to those Talents?

I'm trying to encourage Talents, so... yes. The shift is by design.

Originally Posted by ArchonShiva

A rule I once used was that you can't have a skill above 10+(cp spent on it). This seriously limits sprinkling 1 point on every skill under the sun and maxing IQ for profit.

You rule of 16 does sound like a good idea, though.

There was a rule (Pyramid?) that suggested Attribute/2 for defaults, making it far more expensive to raise those.

That's kinda what sparked this idea. Kinda. A little.

But I found that rule to be a bit too "fiddly". I may end up going with it, however it also does not encourage Talents, so, it's maybe not the best?

If Talents were counted after the Attribute division... hmmm. That might make Talents too good though.

Originally Posted by johndallman

What do you feel would still make higher attributes worthwhile?

ST still increases damage and encumbrance, HT is every HT roll you make for damage, toxin resistance, etc. Both still increment FP and HP.

For DX? The PCs will probably grab skills (Acrobatics) or advantages (Perfect Balance) to replace or bolster 'generic' DX rolls. For IQ? Ehhhh... I got nothin. But I rarely find myself penalizing raw IQ rolls that much.

I've already split out PER and WILL, and both still have great value above 16.


This question is one of the things niggling at me about implementing this house rule, it sorely devalues DX and IQ above 16...

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

The proposed house rule simply creates a situation where there is no advantage to raising stats above 16.

So you've never had a PC buy ST or HT above 16? For great damage or higher HP/FP?

I can agree on IQ and DX.





Thinking about it... I've almost never seen anyone buy up ST or HT for the purpose of skills.

I wonder how much stats should cost if skills were divorced from them entirely?

[Tyneras]

My solution was to combine Half-Stat defaulting (Pyramid #3/65) with the Rule of 20. You gains from raw stats stop at 20, and you only get half that stat for skill gains anyway, effectively capping stat gain at +10 to skill investment.

An alternative I toyed with was removing skill bonuses from high stats completely, and instead making it so that you maximum ability with a skill after all bonus were calculated was your controlling stat, or possibly stat+X.

Both of these are intended to kill the impulse to improve your skills by buying stats, and instead ensure that characters actually invest points in their skills. Otherwise having levels of skill is pointless, just make each skill a binary yes/no for 1 point and roll against the related stat.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

There's already the rule of 20. Lowering it to the still obscenely high 16 shouldn't break anything, in my opinion.

That rule only stops the defaulting, not the purchasing of skills from extraordinarily high attributes... though I've only ever seen ST and HT go above 20, due to "can't buy stats higher then 10 more than racial start".

And I've never seen ST or HT abused like IQ (and to s slightly lesser degree) DX get 'abused'.

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Or you could just not let people buy attributes (except ST) higher than 16.

That also (kinda) works. And then I have grumpy players that kvetch at every opportunity.


Granted I put this rule into place and I know I'll hear plenty of grumblings from the primary pair of munchkins. And whining that the guy who likes to play 'barbarians' can still buy up ST and HT.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

And I've never seen ST or HT abused like IQ (and to s slightly lesser degree) DX get 'abused'.

That's because the abuse is of a different form - HT isn't subject to the 'free skills and derived stats' abuse that DX and IQ are. Instead, it's about becoming next to 'unkillable' and nearly immune to stunning and knockdown, and loss of conciousness from hit point loss. Also, HT doesn't need to be as high to do horrible things because of Fit/Very Fit and Hard to Kill/Subdue. Very fit, Hard to Kill 2, and Hard to Subude 2, for a total of 23 points buys +4 to all rolls to avoid death, major wound effects, and loss of conciousness. HT 'only' needs to be 12 to make unpenalised rolls only fail on 17+ (e.g. death checks). HT 16 means all conciousness check for negative HP are at 16-. HT 17 means the various hit locations with -5 to major wound checks are also at 16-. Only the -10 checks for major skull (brain) wounds require serious HT abuse and creativity to strongly mitigate.

In my (now very high point value) Traveller game, I see a lot of HT13-16, plus Fit/Very Fit, and 1-2 levels of "Hard to...". The 'soft' PCs have a base of 16- for these sorts of rolls, the tough guys 20-. This isn't actually much of an issue - getting through combat armour (to create a credible threat) with attacks that don't also puree the wearer can be a problem, so tough PCs actually make my life easier (it's also why I introduced blaster small arms to the game).

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Anthony

That's because nonlinear pricing should apply to attributes as well, with no cap. If it was 10 for an 11, 20 for a 12, 40 for 13, 80 for a 14, 160 for a 15, etc, most people would stop at 12-14/

That would have only slowed down my mages in 3e. They still would have hit IQ 15.

And eventually if the game went long enough... maybe even 16. There are an awful lot of spells.

Originally Posted by Rupert

In my (now very high point value) Traveller game, I see a lot of HT13-16, plus Fit/Very Fit, and 1-2 levels of "Hard to...". The 'soft' PCs have a base of 16- for these sorts of rolls, the tough guys 20-. This isn't actually much of an issue - getting through combat armour (to create a credible threat) with attacks that don't also puree the wearer can be a problem, so tough PCs actually make my life easier (it's also why I introduced blaster small arms to the game).

That's also why I don't mind HT 16+. And ST 16+ in games where dealing damage with simple levers is the optimal choice.

Even hitting ST 20 is still no where as broken as IQ (or DX) 20.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Your opinions? Will this break things? Will it solve my issue or am I missing something fundamental?

It sounds as if you're contemplating a world simulation change, as opposed to imposing limits specifically on what the players may do during character creation.

But if you're doing that, why not also cap DX, IQ and HT at 16, in the sense that "no Human can be higher than that, without the intervention of futuristic technology or powerful magic"?

Or actually, impose the cap (world-wide) instead of the rule-of-16. Because then you're still able to simulate the fact that certain non-Human species can be superior to Humans in that they may have a cap of 17 or even 18 for DX or IQ (or HT), sometimes in exchange for a lower cap on something else.

Talents would still let character exceed those caps, in the way you've outlined.

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

It sounds as if you're contemplating a world simulation change, as opposed to imposing limits specifically on what the players may do during character creation.

But if you're doing that, why not also cap DX, IQ and HT at 16, in the sense that "no Human can be higher than that, without the intervention of futuristic technology or powerful magic"?

Or actually, impose the cap (world-wide) instead of the rule-of-16. Because then you're still able to simulate the fact that certain non-Human species can be superior to Humans in that they may have a cap of 17 or even 18 for DX or IQ (or HT), sometimes in exchange for a lower cap on something else.

Talents would still let character exceed those caps, in the way you've outlined.

I fully do agree. GURPS is designed to build realistic characters as well as unrealistic ones. You can have an ordinary man, from our real world, or an anime genius who knows everything about everything without having to really learn it... With exactly the same rules!

That is why, in my humble opinion, things are how they are.

So, there is no way to fix this problem because it is not really a problem. If you try to do so, you will loose the realistic side of GURPS, or its cinematic-heroic one.

The drawback of this great feature of GURPS (it is really an amazing one) is that talking with the GM when designing your character becomes a mandatory. You have to respect the genre (harshly realistic, realistic, heroic, superheroic) as well as the universe. Which supposes GM decision.

Exactly as machine guns and spaceships are forbidden in a D&D like campaign, attribute scores above 14 to 16 (choose which level you prefer) may be forbidden in a realistic world.

[Randyman]

Originally Posted by Gollum

The drawback of this great feature of GURPS (it is really an amazing one) is that talking with the GM when designing your character becomes a mandatory. You have to respect the genre (harshly realistic, realistic, heroic, superheroic) as well as the universe. Which supposes GM decision.

<IMO> This is a feature, not a bug. Character creation *should* require that conversation, and should ultimately be a group conversation as well. </IMO>

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by Randyman

<IMO> This is a feature, not a bug. Character creation *should* require that conversation, and should ultimately be a group conversation as well. </IMO>

I fully do agree. To me, this "drawback" is not at all a bug. Each true quality has its little drawback. And this GURPS feature is a very high-quality.

[David L Pulver]

Attributes having a strong influence is, however, important for some genres, and avoids the annoyance of trying to create someone who has a lot of obscure non-combat skills in various fields that rarely come up in play without them being massacred in terms of point expenditure compared to someone who put them mostly in a few combat skills.

Also lets you do the standard story trope of "starting farmboy / high school kid. whatever" who knows very little, but is a "natural" and becomes an ace pilot or whatever fast (DX 16 or something), rather than requiring years of training.