Re-calibrating Attribute Costs

[Arcanjo7Sagi]

Originally Posted by Mr_Sandman

I think you have to look at caps and costs on attributes and skills together. If outright capping attributes is not what you want to do, consider a 'soft cap' beyond which an unusual background is required. Perhaps an increasing UB for each level past the cap, to make high attributes work more like 3rd edition.

I mentioned exactly this in an answer of mine, in the other thread. I think it's a reasonable solution, which doesn't punish characters with stats 11 to 13 (or below cap).

Originally Posted by Mr_Sandman

What is the story of a character that has a level of 33 in ax? How did that happen? Is it possible or even meaningful?

This part was a mathematical exercise of mine, to illustrate how changing the cost of attributes can impact character planning, system balance, etc. Of course, in practice it will depend on the narrator's approval, but that's not the point. My point is that attributes costing too much can create other potential problems.

That's why I think Power-Ups 9, Alternate Attributes, is worth a read. For there are sessions that deal precisely with these questions. From what I remember and understand, it suggests different costs with different objectives, possible impacts, etc. It could be that the GM wants to raise DX or IQ prices to encourage PCs to buy skills, for example. Or make WildCard Skills more attractive. It depends on the objective. But even so, it implies that there are reasonable values and values where they are probably too high.

Originally Posted by Power-Ups 9, Alternate Attributes, pg. 12

Keeping Skills Relevant

After the campaign begins, players might improve DX or IQ not because it fits character concepts but because it’s the cheapest way to raise a bunch of skills. That suggests another reason to make attributes more expensive: To encourage players to spend points earned in play on skills used in play. The ideal markup is a question of GM fiat, not math, but don’t go too far (“You all have at least 20 IQ-based skills, so I’m making IQ cost 80 points/level!”) – realistically, someone who exercises a wide range of skills probably would build up the underlying qualities they share.

So, the book recognizes that there is this issue (that for certain characters with many skills) players can evolve DX or IQ instead of evolving those skills. Yes, it can happen. And there are arguments for charging more in games where this occurs or could occur. However, it is necessary to think a lot about it, so as not to charge values beyond the reasonable amount. In the quoted passage, 80 per level would be way past that point, but perhaps something between 40 and 50 might be acceptable - again, depending on the type of game.

It's just good to remember that not always the characters will fall into this situation. In many games I actually see PCs evolve one or another skill as a primary, like the main combat skill, and the rest evolve punctually. Wizard characters aside, I tend to see more specialist characters than generalist characters.

Using Dungeon Fantasy templates as an example, perhaps the mage and martial artist will want to invest in IQ and DX throughout the game. The others will likely focos their XP on one or two thematic skills they tend to specialize in, and maybe and maybe occasionally evolve something secondary.