Like Mike. The other Mike.
No, the stat math actually is tricky. If all stat values were equally weighted, then yes, 'rollers' on average do 2.5 points better than 'choosers'. (Because 5d4 should average 12.5, which times five is 62.5, vs choosers 60 points.) But stat values aren't equally weighted, because a 15 costs more than 14+1, and the rollers have stat values Gaussian weighted around a 12.5 mean and somewhat narrow sd. In the limit, choosers have exactly a 0% chance of having three 20s, while rollers do not. But yeah, they also have a nonzero chance of all 5s, which choosers do not either. Eh, whatever, just leave it at 35 points. That one extra point is sort of retarded.
If you want to avoid the 5-5 IQ-CHA fighter, make IQ and CHA mundane skills more attractive. CHA skills are plenty attractive, actually. Intimidate is sweet for any priest. IQ is fine for tracking and knowledge skills. Besides, fighters get hit in the face for their job. Low IQ and CHA... Mike Tyson is a 5-5, baby. Maybe 4-4.
...
Casting time and metamagic. I think you're taking the backwards approach. Something is awkward in system, so you try to fix it with another system mechanic? Wasting a spell just to cast a spell faster? Ugh. That's inelegant. I don't like motivating a complicated system mechanic just to make wizards waste more spells.
Okay, named spells fits with the Spellcraft skill. That works for me. "Liking something as players" doesn't work for me; because the system is only half for players. PCs outnumber the GM, but it's the GM who'll be making the damn world. So GM's vote counts more than any one player's, in terms of what's good in a system. I'm obviously not talking specifically about me vs you for voting, I mean in general, GM vs PC.
Do different weapons 'swing' at different rates? Do crossbows take time to reload? An axe or TH sword is more unwieldly, slower than a rapier. If you're putting in casting time, what about weapon time?
Make spells better. Mundanes are much better than wizards in my limited char design to date. Of course, the spellcraft skill is just another way that wizards are punished.
Honestly though, I suggest some GMing experience with the system. I'm not talking about playing Chickens (i.e. making some guys and having them fight), but actually making a set of characters and taking them through a world to see if skill advancement works and if archetypes are balanced. Otherwise we'll never know. Also, it'll give you players a wider perspective on system design.
If you want to avoid the 5-5 IQ-CHA fighter, make IQ and CHA mundane skills more attractive. CHA skills are plenty attractive, actually. Intimidate is sweet for any priest. IQ is fine for tracking and knowledge skills. Besides, fighters get hit in the face for their job. Low IQ and CHA... Mike Tyson is a 5-5, baby. Maybe 4-4.
...
Casting time and metamagic. I think you're taking the backwards approach. Something is awkward in system, so you try to fix it with another system mechanic? Wasting a spell just to cast a spell faster? Ugh. That's inelegant. I don't like motivating a complicated system mechanic just to make wizards waste more spells.
Okay, named spells fits with the Spellcraft skill. That works for me. "Liking something as players" doesn't work for me; because the system is only half for players. PCs outnumber the GM, but it's the GM who'll be making the damn world. So GM's vote counts more than any one player's, in terms of what's good in a system. I'm obviously not talking specifically about me vs you for voting, I mean in general, GM vs PC.
Do different weapons 'swing' at different rates? Do crossbows take time to reload? An axe or TH sword is more unwieldly, slower than a rapier. If you're putting in casting time, what about weapon time?
Make spells better. Mundanes are much better than wizards in my limited char design to date. Of course, the spellcraft skill is just another way that wizards are punished.
Honestly though, I suggest some GMing experience with the system. I'm not talking about playing Chickens (i.e. making some guys and having them fight), but actually making a set of characters and taking them through a world to see if skill advancement works and if archetypes are balanced. Otherwise we'll never know. Also, it'll give you players a wider perspective on system design.
posted by Rob @ 12:32 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home